Liquid-fuel molten salt reactor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter signerror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reactor Salt
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and design of a liquid-fuel molten salt reactor, specifically a thermal-spectrum thorium breeder reactor utilizing molten fluoride salts. Participants explore its potential advantages over traditional fast reactors, including fuel efficiency and reduced production of transuranic actinides, while also addressing challenges related to reprocessing and operational complexity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe the molten salt reactor as a viable alternative to fast reactors, citing its efficient thorium fuel cycle and lower transuranic actinide production.
  • Others express skepticism about the claims of superior reprocessing efficiency compared to solid-fuel fast reactors, referencing the Integral Fast Reactor's use of metal fuel and simpler reprocessing techniques.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the operational complexity of molten salt reactors, particularly the need for an integrated chemical processing facility, which may deter utility companies.
  • A participant mentions their experience in a nuclear design class at Ohio State University, noting challenges with online processing and startup requirements for the reactor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility or soundness of the fluoride reactor design. Multiple competing views are presented regarding its advantages and challenges, particularly in comparison to other reactor types.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to operational complexity and the need for substantial initial fuel, as well as the historical context of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) and its outcomes.

signerror
Messages
175
Reaction score
3
I've run into a some advocates (assorted nuclear engineers and grad students it seems) for an unusual nuclear reactor design. It is a thermal-spectrum thorium breeder reactor. The fuel is liquid - it is a molten salt, containing the fluorides of both U-233 fuel and thorium, as well as lithium and beryllium as moderators. (As well as graphite? I'm not sure)http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2006/04/brief-history-of-liquid-fluoride.htmlThe proponents claim it is a viable alternative to fast reactors, in that the fuel cycle efficiently burns all thorium fuel, and relatively little transuranic actinides are produced. They suggest fluoride salts are convenient for reprocessing based on fluoride volatility, that the closed fuel cycle would be cheaper than that of solid-fuel fast reactors (because there are fewer chemical conversions, so less reprocessing waste would be created). They claim the hot, molten fluoride salts will not corrode away the whole reactor. And they say the idea is an offshoot of a 60-year old experiment in Oak Ridge, which tested molten U-235 fluoride fuel for a reactor designed for powering nuclear bombers (airplanes).

The chief exponent is Kirk Sorensen, who is an NE grad student at UT-Knoxville.

I am not a nuclear engineer, and I have no ability to evaluate any of this. But I am intrigued by this novel-sounding idea. So, experts: is this idea interesting, or even feasible?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
signerror said:
The proponents claim it is a viable alternative to fast reactors, in that the fuel cycle efficiently burns all thorium fuel, and relatively little transuranic actinides are produced. They suggest fluoride salts are convenient for reprocessing based on fluoride volatility, that the closed fuel cycle would be cheaper than that of solid-fuel fast reactors (because there are fewer chemical conversions, so less reprocessing waste would be created). They claim the hot, molten fluoride salts will not corrode away the whole reactor. And they say the idea is an offshoot of a 60-year old experiment in Oak Ridge, which tested molten U-235 fluoride fuel for a reactor designed for powering nuclear bombers (airplanes).
signerror,

I don't know about powering airplanes - but the reactor described above sounds like an experimental
reactor studied / built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory called the MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

[ The MSRE was housed in a building that was once used for aircraft reactor research ]

I'm dubious of the claim that the cycle would be superior to the solid-fuel fast reactor reprocessing because
of fewer chemical reactions. The Integral Fast Reactor [ IFR ] developed by Argonne National Laboratory
in the '80s-90s employed a metal fuel. Metal fuel can be reprocessed by a metallurgical technique of
electrorefining without a lot of chemical conversions. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
Morbius said:
signerror,

I don't know about powering airplanes - but the reactor described above sounds like an experimental
reactor studied / built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory called the MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

[ The MSRE was housed in a building that was once used for aircraft reactor research ]

Yes, as I understand the MSRE was based on work done at the Aircraft Reactor Experiment - the wikipedia page mentions this.

I'm dubious of the claim that the cycle would be superior to the solid-fuel fast reactor reprocessing becauseof fewer chemical reactions. The Integral Fast Reactor [ IFR ] developed by Argonne National Laboratory in the '80s-90s employed a metal fuel. Metal fuel can be reprocessed by a metallurgical technique of electrorefining without a lot of chemical conversions. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

I see - so IFR is fuelled by metallic U/Pu, and so there is no oxide reduction step, as there would be for MOX fuel, or TRISO pebbles? (pardon my ignorance)

Is the fluoride reactor design sound, or is this an obvious flaw, a reason why nothing ever came out of the MSRE?
 
signerror said:
Is the fluoride reactor design sound, or is this an obvious flaw, a reason why nothing ever came out of the MSRE?
signerror,

The molten salt reactor is a nice design. As I understand it; one of the major drawbacks is that the
reactor operator [ the electric utility company that would employ such a reactor ] would have to
operate the molten salt reactor's chemical processing facility. That is; a facility to continually
reprocess the reactor's molten fuel is an integral part of the operation of such a reactor.

Thus the operation of a molten salt reactor is more complex than even operating a commercial
light water reactor. This was more complexity than most electric utility companies at the time
wanted to undertake - they were in the business of generating power, not operating a chemical
processing plant.

The IFR concept also includes an on-site reprocessing facility - but a facility based on electrorefining
would be simpler to operate than a chemical processing plant.

For both concepts; it is a matter of how much complexity the reactor owner wants to manage.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Here at Ohio State University, my class in nuclear design (a team based approach) investigated the LFR. It is a research based class, and each year, the class builds upon the previous year's work. It was started (I believe) here at OSU in 2004 or 2005).

The reactor does indeed use a FLiBe salt using thorium, with a blanket surrounding it as a breeder material. There were some promising results, but yes, the online processing turned out to be one of the major challenges, as well as initial startup. It required a substantial amount of U-233 to start, but eventually enough U-233 was bred so that it could supply startup uranium for additional reactors. I went through the class Fall 2007, so I don't know what advances (if any) were made this past quarter.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
78K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K