Posted on 09/11/2015 9:48:35 AM PDT by thackney
American Nuclear Society
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_3281
The cost of electricity is estimated for a molten salt reactor based on evaluations at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and compared to the ORNL pressurized water reactor and coal plant estimates of the same pre-1980 vintage plants. The results were 3.8, 4.1, and 4.2 ¢/kWh for the molten salt reactor, pressurized water reactor, and coal. Surprisingly, such cost estimates have never before been published for the molten salt reactor.
..............
These were the early estimates.
Why Molton Salt Reactors will Probably Cost a lot Less
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-molton-sakt-reactors-will-robably_18.html
Cost to produce power:
Someone once told me that the loan payment on a coal-fired or nuclear plant was greater than the payments for the fuel.
Thanks for the info
From that article:
It estimates that it can build a plant based on such a reactor for $1.7 billion, roughly half the cost per megawatt of current plants.
Half the price of a “traditional” Nuclear Plant, construction, not operating cost. Not the comparison to power for a fraction of the cost of lowest cost coal.
April 2002, Yeah early estimates.
So by a fraction of the cost, you meant 9/10th?
Not a comparison to power cost. Just a discussion why the plant construction might be cheaper than a “traditional” nuclear plant.
Still, I appreciate the links.
the cost estimates I’ve seen have been all over the place.
But the high concept is pretty clear. The thorium reactors don’t need all the protection that the light water reactors require.
Further, there’s lots of waste thorium being stored in various places which can be burned. As well some designs like Transatomic will burn waste uranium.
Finally, the designs are modular. They can be created on a factory floor and shipped off. This naturally makes their cost curves bend down as they scale up production.
I agree they have lots of expected potential and likely cheaper than traditional nukes. But that is a different comparison...
95% of all reactor grade fuel energy content ever produced is resting in storage awaiting reprocessing. Chemical processing can separate the fissionable component from contaminates. A MSR is vastly more effective at total fuel burn. Breeder versions of salt reactors should be reserved for second generation MSR development.
Doesn’t require a 400 ton forged pressure vessel courtesy of Korean steel fabricators.
Breeder reaction:
Thorium + neutron -—> Protactinium isotope + decay = Uranium 233 !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.