Thorium salt reactors in emergencies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_In_Plano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Salt
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the performance of thorium fluoride reactors in cooling incidents, highlighting their potential advantages. Continuous reprocessing of the salt in these reactors may reduce lag during cooling issues. The thorium fuel cycle is noted for its inability to experience a meltdown due to its low nuclear cross-section, requiring a neutron source like uranium or plutonium to sustain reactions. The design includes a meltable plug that drains molten fuel if temperatures rise too high, preventing further reactions. Overall, thorium reactors present a safer alternative in managing heat and cooling challenges.
Mike_In_Plano
Messages
700
Reaction score
35
Now that we've had another cooling incident / incidents, I'm curious how the Thorium fluoride reactor would have faired. I've read that continuous reprocessing of the salt would likely be part of the process. Does this imply that there would be less lag in the system should cooling become an issue?

- Mike
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
IIRC the thorium fuel cycle cannot "meltdown". Could be wrong though.
 
My understanding of the molten salt reactor is that there is a meltable plug that melts if the temperature gets too high, so that all the molten fuel material then drains out of the reactor core through that plug. This then averts any further reaction or heat buildup.

Thorium itself cannot sustain any runaway reaction, because its nuclear cross-section is too low. It has to be exposed to a more potent neutron source, such as uranium or plutonium.
 
sanman said:
Thorium itself cannot sustain any runaway reaction, because its nuclear cross-section is too low. It has to be exposed to a more potent neutron source, such as uranium or plutonium.

Well, what they're really talking about is a 232Th --> 233U fuel cycle.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Back
Top