Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Molten Salt Reactors enjoy 15 minutes of fame
neimagazine ^ | 11 June 2014

Posted on 06/29/2014 7:17:33 AM PDT by ckilmer

Molten Salt Reactors enjoy 15 minutes of fame

11 June 2014

 

Print Email

 

A next-generation fast breeder reactor design is gaining popularity in research circles.

On 6 June, UK researchers Jasper Tomlinson and Trevor Griffiths won £75,000 in Technology Strategy Board funding (including £20,000 of contributions-in-kind) to carry out an eight-month feasibility study.

The project, which will be managed by mechanical engineer Rory O'Sullivan, aims to develop a ranking of alternatives and configurations of a liquid-fuelled molten-salt reactor, including costs, regulatory, public acceptance and site issues for building and licensing a pilot-scale demonstration reactor in the UK. It would aim to prepare the ground for a full engineering design for the chosen option, to present to potential investors.

"There isn't an MSR currently operating anywhere. If people could look at one, their conception of nuclear power would entirely alter. They are nothing like the present PWR setup. They are so extraordinarily different. That is what we are trying to do," says Jasper Tomlinson, whose small business Energy Process Developments will be carrying out the work starting in September at the earliest, subject to signing a contract.

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a London-based charity advocating for Gen IV reactors and thorium fuel, lists seven current international MSR projects: Ian Scott's Moltex project in the UK, Elsa Merle-Lecotte's EVOL project in France, the US Transatomic Power project, David LeBlanc's Terrestrial Energy project in Canada, Kirk Sorensen's Flibe Energy project in the USA, Motoyasu Kinoshita's Fuji Reactor project in Japan, and Hongjie Xu's MSR Project in China.

On 19 May Atkins nuclear technical director, Paul Littler, and consultant Barry Snelson gave a lecture in Warrington entitled, 'Fission's future: Molten Salt Reactors - can they be the answer?'

In the talk, Littler said that there are some 18 different varieties of MSR. All use fuel in molten form; the salt consists of a chemical solution mixture of actinides, thorium, plutonium and uranium as halides. Temperatures are up to 800°C, so significantly hotter than LWRs, but because salts' boiling points are almost double that (1400°C) a pressurised primary system is not required.

According to the Weinberg foundation, MSRs have several benefits over current LWRs: molten fuel allows 30 times greater burnup than solid fuel, eliminates the risk of LOCAs since the coolant is also the fuel, and the molten salt fuel is not chemically reactive, so the fuel simply solidifies if it leaks out.

Littler of Atkins said that the reactor also allows the breeding of uranium from fertile thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium in the earth, and in terms of fuel-grade deposits is perhaps 100 times more abundant.

Littler said that MSRs could fill the gap between the end of the current generation of nuclear reactors and the development of commercial fusion power, and start up about 2050.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: breederreactor; china; energyprocess; epd; fission; jaspertomlinson; moltensalt; moltensaltreactor; msr; nuclear; osullivan; prc; processdevelopments; reactor; roryosullivan; salt; thorium
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2014 7:17:33 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
I believe it's pronounced "Morton Salt"


2 posted on 06/29/2014 7:21:52 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

molten salt reactors would cut the cost of electricity to 1/4-1/10 the current lowest cost coal produced electricity . This would make electricity for electric cars cheap but it would also make it cheap to do in situ mining for oil shale in the green river basin and thereby take the cost of oil shale production from the $80@ barrel range to the $40@ barrel range.


3 posted on 06/29/2014 7:22:35 AM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

whats the “15 minutes of fame” all about?

that implies the idea came and went in short order. i don’t think thats what the article meant to say. the idea is still viable?


4 posted on 06/29/2014 7:25:56 AM PDT by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.
Special people deserve special things.


5 posted on 06/29/2014 7:27:01 AM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Further http://youtu.be/4HFpcoWb2GE
6 posted on 06/29/2014 7:29:58 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
What the heck? Try this. http://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY
7 posted on 06/29/2014 7:32:40 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

We are so burdened with regulation, second-guessing, and government interference.

Why should it take 35 YEARS to develop this technology. We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years. We developed a nuclear bomb in half that. 35 years we went from the first personal computer to computers in every last thing on the planet.

But it will take 35 years to develop something based on well-understood physics?

They were talking about this 2 years ago. Why don’t we have a test bed running today? Or do we?


8 posted on 06/29/2014 7:41:21 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

They should repair the FFTF and crank that baby up again.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Flux_Test_Facility<


9 posted on 06/29/2014 7:42:44 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beebuster2000

I think what the author meant to convey was that Thorium Reactors are currently in the ‘limelight’.

Since it is the UK, maybe that would be ‘limeylight’.

“: )


10 posted on 06/29/2014 7:49:45 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Or do we?

Or did we?

(answer is yes, per above post)

11 posted on 06/29/2014 7:53:25 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I’m sold, the passive shutdown sold me the rest is just gravy. I will however google to see if there is a downside.


12 posted on 06/29/2014 7:53:53 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
The testing showed it to be SAFER, CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT than any other nuclear power reactors so.... our government drilled a hole in the bottom, drained it and shut it down.

Makes sense.

13 posted on 06/29/2014 7:56:34 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

That’s funny and true.


14 posted on 06/29/2014 7:58:45 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
I will however google to see if there is a downside.

I'll save you the time.

The downside is that it would put the current 'green' energy projects in jeopardy, and risk the fortunes of the corrupt ruling elite.

That is why it was shut down the first time it was tried.

15 posted on 06/29/2014 8:00:15 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Why should it take 35 YEARS to develop this technology.

(don't tell anybody but it was started 35 years ago)

16 posted on 06/29/2014 8:02:08 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
oil shale in the green river basin

...and according to the USGS weighs in at 3 Trillion Barrels.

17 posted on 06/29/2014 8:03:41 AM PDT by spokeshave (OMG.......Schadenfreude overload is not covered under Obamacare :-()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

I recall that the US Navy equipped a submarine with an experimental liquid sodium reactor back in the 1950s.


18 posted on 06/29/2014 8:06:20 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
The testing showed it to be SAFER, CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT than any other nuclear power reactors so.... our government drilled a hole in the bottom, drained it and shut it down.

Actually because it creates no plutonium byproducts, and the military dominated the decision-making process at that time.

19 posted on 06/29/2014 8:08:33 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL-GALT-DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Bump for later.


20 posted on 06/29/2014 8:13:19 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson