Why Is Research on Liquid Fuels for Nuclear Power Limited?

  • Thread starter Thread starter koab1mjr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solid
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the limited research into liquid fuels for nuclear power, exploring various factors such as design considerations, safety, regulatory constraints, and potential advantages of liquid metal fuel mixtures. Participants examine the implications of using liquid fuels in nuclear reactors compared to traditional solid fuels.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the NRC stifles innovation in the nuclear industry, questioning why more research into liquid fuels is not being pursued.
  • One participant proposes the idea of using a liquid metal fuel mixture in reactor design to achieve higher burnups by actively sifting out fission products like xenon.
  • Concerns are raised about the practicality of liquid nuclear fuels for commercial operation, citing significant capital costs and potential liabilities associated with processing plants for fission product removal.
  • Another participant argues that solid fuels are preferred for their ability to retain fission products in a removable form, which helps prevent environmental contamination.
  • There is uncertainty expressed regarding whether higher burnup can necessarily be achieved with liquid fuels.
  • Some participants challenge the notion that the NRC stifles innovation, asserting that safety standards are necessary constraints that allow for innovation within defined limits.
  • Questions are raised about the relevance of rocket propulsion systems to the discussion, with a participant noting that liquid rockets utilize turbo pumps and preburners to power turbines.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of the NRC in innovation, the feasibility of liquid fuels in commercial applications, and the potential advantages of liquid metal fuel mixtures. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of fuel types, unresolved questions about the economic viability of liquid fuels, and the complexity of regulatory frameworks affecting research and development in nuclear technology.

koab1mjr
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
I know there companies modifying shape size and working fluids and that the NRC really stifles innovation in this industry. Why isn't more research being done liquid fuels


We are studying PLant design now and I really like the idea of a liquid metal fuel mixture in the hot leg and then one or two cold legs to drive the turbine. With the liquid mixture you could actively sift out your xenon and whatever and that way you can achieve much higher burnups.

Outside of a proliferation issue of syphoning off fissle urainium 235 why is this avenue not being explored much.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Cost? Safety? Weight?

I don't believe the space shuttle was 100% solid fuel anyway.

I'm no rocket science, but where's the "turbine" on a rocket?
 
koab1mjr said:
I know there companies modifying shape size and working fluids and that the NRC really stifles innovation in this industry. Why isn't more research being done liquid fuels


We are studying PLant design now and I really like the idea of a liquid metal fuel mixture in the hot leg and then one or two cold legs to drive the turbine. With the liquid mixture you could actively sift out your xenon and whatever and that way you can achieve much higher burnups.

Outside of a proliferation issue of syphoning off fissle urainium 235 why is this avenue not being explored much.
Generally, solid fuel is preferred in order to retain fission products in a readily removable form, which helps keep fission products from migrating to the environment. Liquid nuclear fueled plants would be impractical for commercial operation. The processing plant (to remove the fission products) represents a significant capital cost and potential liability.

Separating Xe (and Kr), and the elements such as Te, I, Cs, Ba and Se, Br, Rb, Sr, then requires some storage system to allow them to decay.

There is also the matter of core homogeneity.

It's not clear that higher burnup can be necessarily achieved.

I don't believe that the NRC stifles innovation. The NRC sets standards for safey and protection. Those are necessary contraints! Within those constaints, there is plenty of room for innovation. Developers of nuclear technology are more constrained by the cost of designing and proving technology, which is why the government(s) has played the major role in financially supporting the development of nuclear technology.
 
jarednjames said:
Cost? Safety? Weight?

I don't believe the space shuttle was 100% solid fuel anyway.

I'm no rocket science, but where's the "turbine" on a rocket?
Liquid rockets use turbo pumps, and rocket motors have 'preburners' to provide power to turbines, or bleed off lines to divert some of the exhaust to turbines.

http://www.enginehistory.org/SSME/SSME1.pdf

See - SSME Powerhead.

Interesting read - http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/phdTheses/StGermainB-Thesis.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Synhelion -- Using solar heliostat farms to create liquid fuels from Water Vapor and CO2
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Oxygen Enriched Internal Steam Compression Ignition Engine (OEISCIE)
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Is the Future of Space Exploration Dependent on Nuclear Thermal Rockets?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K