Get rid of transuranians in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kiskrof
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Liquid
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the potential of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) to eliminate transuranian waste from traditional nuclear technology. LFTRs are proposed to operate with approximately two kilograms of Thorium daily, potentially consuming transuranics at a rate of 200 grams per day. However, the feasibility of this process is questioned, particularly regarding the economic viability of reprocessing and the challenges associated with managing radioactive materials. The conversation highlights both the advantages and disadvantages of LFTRs, emphasizing the need for further research into their operational efficiency and waste management capabilities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology
  • Familiarity with nuclear waste management and transuranic elements
  • Knowledge of molten salt reactor (MSR) designs and their operational principles
  • Awareness of nuclear fuel reprocessing techniques and their economic implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the operational principles of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)
  • Study the economic aspects of nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies
  • Explore the challenges of managing transuranic waste in nuclear reactors
  • Investigate advancements in molten salt reactor (MSR) designs and their safety features
USEFUL FOR

Nuclear engineers, energy policy makers, environmental scientists, and anyone interested in the future of sustainable nuclear energy and waste management solutions.

  • #61
Astronuc said:
Atmospheric pressure at the top of the highest point in the primary system, but going down to the bottom of the core under a few meters of the liquid fuel, the pressure will be greater by ρgh, so the bottom of the core will be several atmospheres. I imagine there will be some kind of containment to collect the radioactive gases and volatiles in the event of the break in the primary system, and particularly where the steam generator is located, since the steam pressure is likely to be on the order of 900 to 1000 psi. A steam-fluorine reaction would be problematic with respect to HF gas.

Note that a commercial scale has not yet been constructed let alone designed. As far as I know, none of the promoters/advocates in the US have designed or constructed any type of nuclear plant.

The pgh at the bottom of a salt tank would be on a liquid, which if exposed via a leak would have no phase change flash. A secondary salt loop is usually considered, so that if a Rankine cycle is used eventually involving steam there is no radioactivity involved . Given the high temperatures afforded by a lftr core, a Brayton cycle seems likely. In any case, containment would not have the problem of dealing with high pressure (300atm) gases.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
78K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
10K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
19K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K