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: moltensalt; moltensaltreactor; nuclear; thorium
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 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]

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

A liquid sodium reactor is a whole different kettle of fish than a molten salt reactor.

Regards,

21 posted on 06/29/2014 8:14:10 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Temperatures are up to 800°C, so significantly hotter than LWRs

That's HOT! 1,472 degrees Fahrenheit. Are there known materials that can maintain their integrity while being constantly exposed to that kind of heat for the expected lifespan of the reactor?

22 posted on 06/29/2014 8:15:32 AM PDT by infool7 (The ugly truth is just a big lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Reality is difficult a concept for the anti-nuke, anti-power, population control, crowd to combat in open debate.

That is why they try to silence debate about AGW, with lies about “scientific consensus”.

That is why they shut down the Keystone Pipeline, and obstruct all meaningful methods of energy development.

They are so conflicted that after decades of promoting solar and wind power, they invent dumb excuses to stop solar farm development in the desert, when they find multi-megawatts of power will actually be generated.


23 posted on 06/29/2014 8:20:54 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 13 | View Replies]

To: infool7

That new material OBAMIUM (an amalgam of bull shit, highly concentrated hydrochloric acid and bile) is capable of ignoring that sort of “heat” for decades.


24 posted on 06/29/2014 8:22:56 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (Ignorance is NOT BLISS. It is the ROAD TO SERFDOM! We're on a ROAD TRIP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

The 747 went from concept to first flight in 28 months. How long did the Dreamliner take? YEARS. It isn’t just the government. We have forgotten how to “make” things.


25 posted on 06/29/2014 8:27:16 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: infool7
Are there known materials....

The expected lifespan of such reactors is quite short, due to the problem of containing extremely corrosive materials at very high temperatures.

This is the kind of problem that Engineers love and solve in the normal course of their profession. Turn them loose on it and they will come up with solutions.

A world without OPEC or any similar cartel is possible and could be made real in an astonishingly short time frame.

26 posted on 06/29/2014 8:29:55 AM PDT by flamberge (What next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
I recall that the US Navy equipped a submarine with an experimental liquid sodium reactor back in the 1950s.
USS Seawolf (SSN-575)

Seawolf was the same basic "double hull" twin-screw submarine design as her predecessor (USS NAUTILUS/SSN-571), but her propulsion system was much more technologically advanced. Carrying a liquid sodium, epithermal, superheated, more powerful, reactor and steam powerplant, rather than an alternative [light water reactor/saturated steam plant], reduced the size of the machinery in the engineering spaces nearly 40%. Her liquid-sodium cooled epithermal reactor was more efficient than a "light water"-cooled thermal system, quieter, and presumably better system, but posed, presumably and arguably, several safety hazards for the ship and crew.

Primary system pressure was 15 psig and the only moving part in the primary system was the liquid sodium which was magnetically pumped by electromagnets external to primary piping. The phrase "Blue Haze" was often associated with the boat, which was Cherenkov radiation, visible on a dark night, in the sea water surrounding the hull, outboard of the reactor compartment, during the decay of radioactive 24Na in the primary system over essentially the first half life (15 hrs).

There was only one coolant leak ever noted, and that was during fitting out in the yards. However the super-heaters suffered from tube sheet welding cracks which allowed high pressure steam to leak into the low pressure primary system and react with the sodium to form sodium hydroxide and H2. Sodium also has a small fission capture cross section which formed 3H as a free gas in the primary system. This complicated system operation since 3H is radioactive, would mix with the H2 from Na-H2O reaction and had to be contained.

The Atomic Energy Commission historians' account of the sodium-cooled reactor experience was:

Although makeshift repairs permitted the Seawolf to complete her initial sea trials on reduced power in February 1957, Rickover had already decided to abandon the sodium-cooled reactor. Early in November 1956, he informed the Commission that he would take steps toward replacing the reactor in the Seawolf with a water-cooled plant similar to that in the Nautilus. The leaks in the Seawolf steam plant were an important factor in the decision but even more persuasive were the inherent limitations in sodium-cooled systems. In Rickover's words they were "expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolong shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair."

Gut the Gibesmedat Gang ☭
I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /.
Mash Dobbshead® for HTML, bop Hello_Cthlhu for XAMPP

27 posted on 06/29/2014 8:30:30 AM PDT by Mycroft Holmes (The fool is always greater than the proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

OK, extract it.

Give us an update when you or anyone else have a viable pilot project running.


28 posted on 06/29/2014 8:32:11 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Brit article, pffft. The Chicoms and Indians have gobbled up all the ORNL Thorium Salt Reactor info they can find and are running with it. That little island is far too egocentric to advance much.

Long overdue technology though. As some have pointed out, it has been done and the reactor at Oak Ridge ran well for quite some time. The problem, as I understand it, is building a continuous process that will remove contaminants of spent fuel and recharge the salt with new fuel instead of the batch process used in the ORNL reactor. This is a very difficult chemical process to crack.

If I were king for a day LiFTR is a technology I would fund in an effort similar to the moon launch program.

Isn’t in ludicrous for them to suggest this is a “bridge technology” to Fusion that “will be available in 2050”? If we were very lucky and very good and very industrious LiFTR might be available by 2050. Fusion is still further away in all probability.


29 posted on 06/29/2014 8:39:55 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
That new material OBAMIUM (an amalgam of bull shit, highly concentrated hydrochloric acid and bile) is capable of ignoring that sort of “heat” for decades.

I don't care who you are that's funny right there!

I heard that the scientists wanted to use Unobtainium but apparently they couldn't get their hands on any to even test with.

30 posted on 06/29/2014 8:49:39 AM PDT by infool7 (The ugly truth is just a big lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

While the 747 was designed and built in 28 months, it took another five years for the plane to finally mature to decent reliability with the 747-200B models powered by better high-bypass engines (later Pratt & Whitney JT9D models, General Electric CF6-50/80 models and Rolls-Royce RB.211-524 models).


31 posted on 06/29/2014 8:50:34 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
"The downside is that it would put the current 'green' energy projects in jeopardy, and risk the fortunes of the corrupt ruling elite.

I looked around for cons and there are real cons but you are mostly correct, the greens hate the idea. The problems with this reactor type appears to mostly be what to do with the by products of the reaction. And how to prevent leaks. Costly to build and perhaps a shorter life time then current LW/HW designs. Basically engineering problems. Serious engineering problems for sure but likely solvable.

We should not take a pass on this technology lots of good work was done here in the 60's, lets see if we can build another one and try to work out the bugs.

32 posted on 06/29/2014 8:53:41 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: flamberge
The expected lifespan of such reactors is quite short, due to the problem of containing extremely corrosive materials at very high temperatures.

I'm going to guess the inner container will be some form of ceramic. Synthetic sapphire, for example, has a melting point of over 2,000 degrees C, is very hard, and very corrosion-resistant. Apple is investing in using it for their iPhone screens.

33 posted on 06/29/2014 9:07:35 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: flamberge
This is the kind of problem that Engineers love and solve in the normal course of their profession. Turn them loose on it and they will come up with solutions.

I am all for turning engineers loose on the technology however not at the expense of helpless taxpayers as has been done with wind, solar and other so called renewable energy schemes.

If there are no companies presently willing to invest in the R&D to produce a commercially viable reactor, we have to ask ourselves why should the taxpayer (or powerless unwilling government subject in China's case) bear the burden of such an exotic misadventure that has already been found to be prohibitively problematic.

34 posted on 06/29/2014 9:08:09 AM PDT by infool7 (The ugly truth is just a big lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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

I was sold too, until I Googled the downsides, and they are not trivial.

35 posted on 06/29/2014 9:43:44 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

True, but it still has the best passenger liner safety record around. Mostly the problems were the P&W engines.


36 posted on 06/29/2014 10:00:07 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You got ta figger in union costs, strikes, slow downs, cost overruns, etc..


37 posted on 06/29/2014 10:37:35 AM PDT by SgtHooper (This is not my tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: infool7

Why thank you sir! But yours was, in fact, funnier.


38 posted on 06/29/2014 11:22:45 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (Ignorance is NOT BLISS. It is the ROAD TO SERFDOM! We're on a ROAD TRIP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2; All

Actually, the company I work for (CSW at the time) built a molten salt reactor in the mid-’60s. It was called SEFOR, and was just outside Winslow, AR.


39 posted on 06/29/2014 11:46:21 AM PDT by mozarky2 (Ya never stand so tall as when ya stoop to stomp a statist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Brit article, pffft. The Chicoms and Indians have gobbled up all the ORNL Thorium Salt Reactor info they can find and are running with it.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Agree on the chinese. My impression with the Indians is that they’re just incorporating thorium into their light water reactors rather than developing molten salt designs.

Long overdue technology though. As some have pointed out, it has been done and the reactor at Oak Ridge ran well for quite some time. The problem, as I understand it, is building a continuous process that will remove contaminants of spent fuel and recharge the salt with new fuel instead of the batch process used in the ORNL reactor. This is a very difficult chemical process to crack.
................
thanks for this bit of info. You generally hear that there are still problems with the lftr design but no one seems to elaborate. You’re the first I’ve heard get specific. This does seem to be a problem that could overcome with a bit of time money and attention.

If I were king for a day LiFTR is a technology I would fund in an effort similar to the moon launch program.
....................
Agree the promise is so stunningly fabulous ie dirt cheap and cheaper unlimited safe energy that will last hundreds of years and scale...that its gobsmacking that people don’t instantly push this tech.

Isn’t in ludicrous for them to suggest this is a “bridge technology” to Fusion that “will be available in 2050”? If we were very lucky and very good and very industrious LiFTR might be available by 2050. Fusion is still further away in all probability.
.................
Disagree on this. Prototypes in any case will be developed in under 10 years. The Chinese have moved up their prototype due date to under 10 years. I’ve heard Gates’s team push forward their prototype date to before 2020. (admittedly their tech isn’t lftr but their tech is more unproved than lftr) imho sometime in the next year or three some ambitious individual or team will announce their plan to prototype in 18 months or so. imho there will wind up being a very public race to get the first reactor in operation.


40 posted on 06/29/2014 1:53:40 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

We should not take a pass on this technology lots of good work was done here in the 60’s, lets see if we can build another one and try to work out the bugs.
..................
agree. We’ve basically in the middle of Gas station wars since 1973. Kill the price of electricity and problems from the middle east and russia will basically go away because they won’t have so much walking around money. (Or in the case of the middle east, they won’t have extra money for madrases which form the mouth of the funnel for jihadists.)


41 posted on 06/29/2014 2:04:28 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mozarky2

Actually, the company I work for (CSW at the time) built a molten salt reactor in the mid-’60s. It was called SEFOR, and was just outside Winslow, AR.
...............
Cool beans. Too bad they can’t get the old MSR’s back into operation again.


42 posted on 06/29/2014 2:05:49 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

I was sold too, until I Googled the downsides, and they are not trivial.
..........
the problems are all addressable. Two test MSR were developed in the late 1960’s. The chinese currently have the biggest research program going.

Dr. Jiang Mianheng, son of China’s former leader Jiang Zemin, led a thorium delegation in non-disclosure talks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, and by late 2013 China had officially partnered with Oak Ridge to aid China in its own development.[37][38] The World Nuclear Association notes that the China Academy of Sciences in January 2011 announced its R&D program, “claiming to have the world’s largest national effort on it, hoping to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology.”[18] According to Martin, “China has made clear its intention to go it alone,” adding that China already has a monopoly over most of the world’s rare earth minerals.[16]:157[20]

In March 2014, with their reliance on coal-fired power having become a major cause of their current “smog crisis,” they reduced their original goal of creating a working reactor from 25 years down to 10. “In the past, the government was interested in nuclear power because of the energy shortage. Now they are more interested because of smog,” said Professor Li Zhong, a scientist working on the project. “This is definitely a race,” he added.[39]

In early 2012, it was reported that China, using components produced by the West and Russia, planned to build two prototype thorium molten salt reactors by 2015, and had budgeted the project at $400 million and requiring 400 workers.”[16]:157 China also finalized an agreement with a Canadian nuclear technology company to develop improved CANDU reactors using thorium and uranium as a fuel.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power


43 posted on 06/29/2014 2:12:45 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I drove last the FFTF for years and just shook my head everyday. Another of the peanut farmer’s failed policy decisions was to terminate that program which produced not only power but medical isotopes. Let’s not forget he cancelled among other things the neutron bomb program and other military weapons programs while he loaned the USSR a Cray super computer to “modernize their automobile” industry which they immediately put to use in their weapons programs

Sorry I got a bit off topic.


44 posted on 06/29/2014 2:18:22 PM PDT by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.; beebuster2000; Fightin Whitey; Sgt_Schultze; CharlesWayneCT; G Larry; UCANSEE2; jpsb; ...

China

At the 2011 annual conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences it was announced that “China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology.”[36] In addition, Dr. Jiang Mianheng, son of China’s former leader Jiang Zemin, led a thorium delegation in non-disclosure talks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, and by late 2013 China had officially partnered with Oak Ridge to aid China in its own development.[37][38] The World Nuclear Association notes that the China Academy of Sciences in January 2011 announced its R&D program, “claiming to have the world’s largest national effort on it, hoping to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology.”[18] According to Martin, “China has made clear its intention to go it alone,” adding that China already has a monopoly over most of the world’s rare earth minerals.[16]:157[20]

In March 2014, with their reliance on coal-fired power having become a major cause of their current “smog crisis,” they reduced their original goal of creating a working reactor from 25 years down to 10. “In the past, the government was interested in nuclear power because of the energy shortage. Now they are more interested because of smog,” said Professor Li Zhong, a scientist working on the project. “This is definitely a race,” he added.[39]

In early 2012, it was reported that China, using components produced by the West and Russia, planned to build two prototype thorium molten salt reactors by 2015, and had budgeted the project at $400 million and requiring 400 workers.”[16]:157 China also finalized an agreement with a Canadian nuclear technology company to develop improved CANDU reactors using thorium and uranium as a fuel.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power


45 posted on 06/29/2014 2:24:26 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.; beebuster2000; Fightin Whitey; Sgt_Schultze; CharlesWayneCT; G Larry; UCANSEE2; jpsb; ...

The other great benefit of the molten salt designs is that they can also use spent fuel from nuclear reactors. These reactors only burn about 5% of the nuclear fuel. So rather than store these nuclear fuels in yucca mountain, lftr reactors will burn them. These nuclear wastes represent 100’s of years of free energy.

Two companies are working on this angle. The first is Transatomic power mentioned in the article above which uses molten salt designs. the second is bill gates Terrapower which uses a different technology to burn nuclear wastes.


46 posted on 06/29/2014 2:35:01 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.; beebuster2000; Fightin Whitey; Sgt_Schultze; CharlesWayneCT; G Larry; UCANSEE2; jpsb

From Wikipedia:

Summarizing, Martin writes, “Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to process.[16]:13

From an economics viewpoint, U.K. business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes that “Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium,” suggesting a “new Manhattan Project,” and adding, “If it works, Manhattan II could restore American optimism and strategic leadership at a stroke …”[25] Moir and Teller estimated in 2004 that the cost for their recommended prototype would be “well under $1 billion with operation costs likely on the order of $100 million per year,” and as a result a “large-scale nuclear power plan” usable by many countries could be set up within a decade.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power


47 posted on 06/29/2014 2:45:51 PM PDT by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Absolutely correct.


48 posted on 06/29/2014 3:36:32 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Is that because one is SEA SALT?

(Yuk-yuk)


49 posted on 06/29/2014 4:18:21 PM PDT by Wildbill22 (They have us surrounded again, the poor bastards- Gen Creighton Williams Abrams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Thanks for the info & links.


50 posted on 06/29/2014 5:18:36 PM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 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