Kirk's entire presentation is steeped in a deep feeling of community, connectedness and pride to be an American. Kirk truly captues the hearts and minds; and his message really resonates with people. And this is coming from a Canadian.
We are all Americans in a sense even as Canadians and I see no shame in that so long as we follow our hearts and minds as good citizens of this continent.
Kirk, been following you 5+ yrs studying yr every vid on utube. You inspired me to start postgrad studies in nuclear science this yr, many decades after graduating in Electrical engineering. Congratulations for a succinct most powerful presentation yet in support of the benefits of Flibe fuel. I’m now focused to publicly advocate in Australia’s Nuclear Energy debate; to turn it onto a rational environmental and economics based discussion, to support Thorium development. I commend yr work for directly influencing new thorium reactor developments worldwide. You have earned well deserved significance for your contributions to this progress and I thank you!
Thank YOU for being another rational voice in the Australian nuclear debate. It's such a monumental task - from Nuclear Generation Ban legislation, to a desperate lack of understanding of how the electricity supply network functions, to a worrying collective scientific illiteracy ... and the habitual politicisation of issues. I can't say I'm an advocate for nuclear power without people immediately assuming I support the LNP or Dutton, which just makes me want to cry. So, thank YOU! And I actually suggested to my local member - who's Liberal Party (which is the conservative party in Australia, for anyone watching) - that the Opposition get Kirk Sorensen to advise it on the nuclear policy it may ultimately release. Haha.
I've inspired by the MSRE since I first read about it a over a decade ago in the ORNL pdf "An Account of Oak Ridge National Lab's 13 Reactors". Following up that read, I discovered Kirk's early video online and I've been sold on it since! Kirk, you've taught me how to speak to this technology with such confidence that my colleagues at my PWR site, think I'm some kind of nuclear genius. Well, I'm no genius, but I am passionate about LFTR and I look forward to helping build and operate one soon! Thank you Kirk for what you're doing!
They (State, Local, Federal Govts) should definitely fund this! It's a Win-Win all around. This will yield more jobs, provide energy , boost high tech education in the region, and boost the economy big time. Captain Kirk needs Dilithium Crystals for the Future!
You are missing something. This can be done easier, & cheaper with a similar Fast Chloride MSR closed fuel cycle using existing SNF and closing the LWR fuel cycle using already mined fuel. A fast spectrum MSR consumes all higher Actinides, whereas LFTR starts further below those, so makes less to start, but once they get up there, they aren't burned in the thermal spectrum, so build up, unlike a fast spectrum. Further the LFTR has marginal neutronics, so needs expensive online radioactively hot reprocessing, and uses 100% weapons grade U233 fuel.
@ 😥😥😥🤦♂️ I’ll take any nuclear reactor / fuel cycle… living here in 🇳🇿 .. a nation of cloud chasers where we’re told that we’re proud to be nuclear free and believe it…, meanwhile were slowly covering this beautiful place in solar panels, wind turbines. Li ion batteries, all to match our f n worm farms…. Next week we’re all wear hemp.😂.. Pretty sure.. that we’re never getting further from the “cave” Meanwhile China n India.., shortly get to visit the 24th century ..
@@EdPheilEd, just curious if you’d be asked to play the devils advocate and pretend you’re Kirk, then what how’d you reply to your own remark? I’m not a nuclear scientist or an engineer, but I am fascinated with both yours and Kirk’s approaches to the MSR tech. I have tremendous respect for both of you! Please advise!
The presentation left out essentially all the negative parts - its sales, not science. Fast reactors are a bit hard to sell, as the sodium cooled fast breeders had quite some failures with accidents and just break downs / cost overruns. The usual thorium design plan for a thermal spectrum because it is better to sell. In many aspects on the positve and negative side they are still the type to compare the MSRs to. Though in the thermal spectrum they have surprisingly similar diffiulties in the reactor design with void coefficients and possibly freezing coolant. For a molten salt reactor the fast spectrum may actually be easier and safer. When going with a fast breeder anyway one could as well continue with uranium, as the fuel costs are than no longer that relevant - even uranium from see water would be feasible and there is plenty of that. No need to go Thorium with the long lifetime Pa233 (some 10 x that of Np239), hard gamma from U232 and more difficult chemical separation.
Glad to see Kirk still pushing the TMSR👍 TH-cam seems to have remove the ability to point to other TH-cam videos, so you can no longer use TH-cam videos to help explain your point, TH-cam seems to be going backwards.
Beautyfull presentation. Very simple and clear but very serious. They missed , though, how funny you can be. Missisippian should not miss this opportunity to improve their lives through cheaper energy, plus the technological new carreers and university research sciences.
Simple and clear, but not serious. Showing only the bright side is just sales - a single point from the dark side can be a show stopper and I an afraid there are plenty.
What does the NRC think of having to remove the Pa-233 from the fuel salt and protection of the reactor vessel itself. In doing this, you're going to end up with a fairly high concentration of a weapon fuel outside the reactor vessel.
I laugh at the reactor barge idea because there's no way the NRC or Homeland Security is going to sign off on a reactor that isn't plane-proof. The current containment buildings keep radioactive materials from getting out but also from outside "energetic events" from getting in.
So, I might be wrong here, but from what I remember of other talks Kirk Sorensen did the isotopes that are being created aren't suitable for nuclear weapons. Pa233 decays rather quickly and U233 is an alpha-emitter. This means that if you make a bomb out of U233 you'll have it go off at some random time because of the alpha radiation (that is absorbed by the salt in the tank), while Pa233 decays too quickly to be kept in a weapon for any amount of time. I can't speak to the potential that Pa233 has as a "dirty bomb" (i.e. a radiation bomb), but U233 has a hald life that's too long for that to be useful in any capacity. I hope that helps in any capacity and I'm happy to hear if I'm wrong.
@koston_varjo3536 U-233 is absolutely a nuclear bomb fuel. It has been used in American, Soviet and Indian weapons designs although US and Soviet designs ended up using Plutonium-239. If you're already working with Uranium 238 and U-235, Pu-239 is a natural byproduct. U-233 doesn't have Pu as a daughter isotope, so a Th232-U233 fuel cycle will never produce any. The reason I voiced questions/concerns is that in separating Pa-233 to decay away into U-233 means you'll have fairly highly concentrated U-233 sitting outside the reactor. Of course, you could simply keep it diluted with fuel salts so the concentration never gets too high, and accept a slight reduction in conversion efficiency to avoid proliferation concerns. I'm also guessing that Flibe Energy and Kirk Sorenson already thought of this.
Don't want Pa absorbing a neutron until it has already turned into U233, because instead it will turn into U234 which will not fission and make us sad.
Right - so Pa233 gets made, but it takes, what, a month to decay into U233? So it gets moved to reduce the chance it grabs a neutron and becomes Pa234, which decays to stable U234? How long does that decay take?
Serious question - what happens if a plane flies into it? It seems to me it'll just stop, with some radioactivity needing some 'tidying' up (probably not our biggest concern at that moment). How long does U233 stay U233 before it fissions? And the reactor would suddenly, instantly stop from said external event, how much U233 would be 'available for sale' on the market?
TMI had a faulty steam relief valve and an indicator that showed it was closed when it wasn't. This coupled with another steam valve that was closed when it should have been open and whole lot of operator actions, created a drain of water, while fuel was solid and so it overheated and melted. It's all been since removed and cleaned out, so the reactor now sits empty. In MSR fuel is not solid, it's mixed in liquid salt, so if it drains, then it all drains together, like a tub, into a tank at the bottom which has a huge radiator on it, so it will never overheat. After a couple days, it will freeze solid into salt rock and stay put. So when it runs, the fission products will periodically get their own treatment in a separate salt vessel and most will be individually electrically "fished out" and sold for medical, space, industry. The ones that nobody wants to buy will go into storage. Maybe later they can find use. Main reason it's looked at as "waste" right now is because the products are all mixed together in solid ceramic and nobody will buy that as is. But separately, they have uses.
As a large LWR enjoyer, I still really want to see MSR and FSR concepts developed. Build lots of LWRs today, build the next generation when they're proven. It's not like we won't need all the clean energy we can get our hands on.
Large, medium, or small all High-pressure/low-temperature reactors are outrageously expensive. Better to build combined cycle gas plants for a fraction of the cost. Low-pressure/high-temperature reactors will be here soon enough.
@@chapter4travels "...will be here soon enough". This has been said for decades now. I'll believe it when I see it, and I want to see it! All you have to do is look at China to see that even the best nation on Earth at building dirt cheap power (coal/PV) still builds large LWRs as fast as they manage. These plants are approved to operate for 80 years in the US, we will probably see 100. After the 30 year loan payback, they produce stupid cheap power. It's a smart long term investment.
@@chapter4travels even if that were true (very debatable), even just 2 years ago it would have been lunacy to suggest a private company would contract to restart the unit at TMI to buy the power. A lot of things can happen very quickly.
One major safety item is frozen salt plug, it melts n salt drains into tank. Isn't there still large heat of decay even though fission stops? this happened at TMI fission stopped but heat of decay melt part of core.
Yes, lots of decay heat. But it is dumped into an enclosure optimized to dissipate the heat. In normal circumstances we want to retain the heat to drive a turbine (via working fluid). I don't know the design specs, but it could be anything from heat-pipes to what sort of heat conductor the drain tank sits on... could by huge and ultimately that also dissipate heat into the rock below... could have passive cooling systems all along whatever solid metal conducts the heat. One (abandoned) concept pursued by another vendor was solid blocks of molten-salt and the energy used to phase change it could soak up some heat.
Could also couple a thermoelectric generator to the drain tank to charge some batteries and power instrumentation after drain. This way the plant could restart without any diesel gennys or offsite power.
It is actually good that the salt stays hot. A problem with the radioactive fuel salt is that if it is left cold for a long time (like a year) the salt decomposes and can release corrosive flourine gas and UF6 to move fuel around the system. This happend after the MSRE shutdown and caused quite some issues for the clean up (still not complete). So there is the challange to cool the holding tank (still difficult at large size), but don't cool it too much. A cold shut down may not be safe. The freeze plug is still problematic, as it is the coldest point in the system, where contaminations like oxides and fission products like molybdenum tend to build up. After a long run the plug may no longer melt as expected.
Question: is there a point at which making U233 as fuel for conventional PWRs could work? From what little I know it's most likely always too expensive, but I might have missed something.
Agree it would be expensive, although the future cost of LEU is murky so it might make sense if U233 can be produced before more enrichment is brought online in friendly nations. But there's also licensing (prerequisite is testing), and whether this makes operation more difficult because burnup rates would be different, and also the waste composition would be different. ANEEL is hoping to use HALEU-Th fuel in heavy water reactors, so that should pave the way for some licensing considerations and see how operators deal with a more challenging used-fuel composition.
OP, do you mean transitioning from U235 (PWRs used U235, right? I'm just wrapping my head around this, sorry.) to U233, or using U233 with U235, simultaneously?
Great presentation, love that you used the word "Inexpensive" and not "cheap", thank you for that. Inexpensive or low cost either one but never the word "Cheap". When I hear cheap I think low quality for some reason. When the guy on the right asked about no environmental issue I wanted to shout at the screen sir this is literally not figuratively but literally Homer Simpson walk away safe. In other words if Homer Simpson him self ran this plant he couldn't hurt anyone or anything because the design is that safe. The other impression I think I get is that these plants need to be built near a source of water and my understanding is that's not the case at all, these things would do great out in the heat of any desert, ie Libya, Egypt, any northern African country or middle east country. Hell have you run this by the Saudi's? or the Emir of Dubai those countries burn oil for energy.
One of the waste products is Tritium (H³), one of the most valuable elements in the world. Needed for Fusion reactors. Spent fuel from current reactors use only about 3% of their fuel rods, but this can be "burnt" by mixing it with the fuel of a Floride Salt reactor, and create additional energy. Any radioactive by-products or waste have very short half lives. Corrosion means exotic metal alloys, but Material Science has advance favorably over the last decades.
Also, the one member of the board was clearly skeptical, but was much more open to the idea once he knew that this system was rejected by the weapons industry.
It was rejected by the weapons industry because you couldn't mass produce thousands of weapons, but it does produce 100% weapons material requiring the same minimal critical mass as Pu239. So, it is great for producing a few weapons/year, but not thousands, so better suited for small rogue countries, or terrorist groups, especially if sold a commercial LFTR.
@@EdPheilEd, just wanted to say a big thank you for your ongoing work on the fast MSR, and your contribution to the nuclear community of your expertise from past naval reactor work. Thank you for jumping on to comment. I think while both fast and thermal systems have their merits and unique characteristics, it's important to work together wherever possible to build the overall political support for MSR technology as a whole. You are 100% right that LFTR will produce HEU233 within the confines of the containment building, however, many analysts also agree that if a nation is firmly determined to get weapons, it will get them by whichever process it can acquire most readily, usually one that is most widely used already. Let's get over the first hump and build multiple designs in USA, and then it can be best determined which should be strictly export restricted and which can be shared with friendly nations.
Like if this reactor was in Ukraine and the Russians took over the plant the operators simply would simply open the dump tank valves and leave. The plant would simply stop working, the fuel would cool on its own and no-one would have to be in the plant. Walk away safe. Also the reactor could also be hit with a bunker busting bombs and the radiation would not spread.
I mean in case of a direct hit like that, there would be some inevitable dust spread, but nowhere near the spread in case of a big steam explosion, such as Chernobyl.
The current german goverment does not like that and tries to proof that we can do everything with wind, sun and batteries. Germany has one of the highes energy costs, german companies have to produce elsewhere because of that, but lets see how long Germany can go this way.
A molten salte reactor on a boat is a really stupid idea: the molten salte is not at all compatible with water. The fuel salt would partially dissolve and depending on the temperature produce highly corrosive and toxic HF and possibly even concentrate the remaining fuel (as oxide forming one at a time from U, Pu, Th). One of the challanges for a molten salt reactor is keeping water out, e.g. with an extra intermediate fluid cycle between the reactor and the turbines. Binging up such obviously stupid ideas damages the credibilty.
Flibe has no manufacturing nor construction expertise. In over 10 years they've broken no ground, poured no steel or concrete, contributed no advancement in metals research. All They've produced is a very expensive PowerPoint presentation. In short, they are a sham.
Are you implying they've gotten funding and permits to construct a reactor, but they're just using that to pay their mortgages? On their second and third mansions?
Kirk did a good job, would love to see his vision built (and soon)
Kirk's entire presentation is steeped in a deep feeling of community, connectedness and pride to be an American.
Kirk truly captues the hearts and minds; and his message really resonates with people.
And this is coming from a Canadian.
We are all Americans in a sense even as Canadians and I see no shame in that so long as we follow our hearts and minds as good citizens of this continent.
Thank you Gordon for letting us hear Kirk is still in action.
Kirk, been following you 5+ yrs studying yr every vid on utube. You inspired me to start postgrad studies in nuclear science this yr, many decades after graduating in Electrical engineering.
Congratulations for a succinct most powerful presentation yet in support of the benefits of Flibe fuel. I’m now focused to publicly advocate in Australia’s Nuclear Energy debate; to turn it onto a rational environmental and economics based discussion, to support Thorium development.
I commend yr work for directly influencing new thorium reactor developments worldwide.
You have earned well deserved significance for your contributions to this progress and I thank you!
Thank YOU for being another rational voice in the Australian nuclear debate. It's such a monumental task - from Nuclear Generation Ban legislation, to a desperate lack of understanding of how the electricity supply network functions, to a worrying collective scientific illiteracy ... and the habitual politicisation of issues. I can't say I'm an advocate for nuclear power without people immediately assuming I support the LNP or Dutton, which just makes me want to cry. So, thank YOU!
And I actually suggested to my local member - who's Liberal Party (which is the conservative party in Australia, for anyone watching) - that the Opposition get Kirk Sorensen to advise it on the nuclear policy it may ultimately release. Haha.
The thorium community has been blessed with quite a few great communicators - but Kirk set the bar.
It's good to hear Kirk is still going out there and presenting.
My heart has bled for realising this tech for a decade
I've inspired by the MSRE since I first read about it a over a decade ago in the ORNL pdf "An Account of Oak Ridge National Lab's 13 Reactors". Following up that read, I discovered Kirk's early video online and I've been sold on it since! Kirk, you've taught me how to speak to this technology with such confidence that my colleagues at my PWR site, think I'm some kind of nuclear genius. Well, I'm no genius, but I am passionate about LFTR and I look forward to helping build and operate one soon! Thank you Kirk for what you're doing!
Great presentation Kirk!
YES!! Go FLiBe. Make a difference Kirk !
They (State, Local, Federal Govts) should definitely fund this! It's a Win-Win all around. This will yield more jobs, provide energy , boost high tech education in the region, and boost the economy big time. Captain Kirk needs Dilithium Crystals for the Future!
Either I’m missing something or this should already be our main global base load fuel source
You are missing something. This can be done easier, & cheaper with a similar Fast Chloride MSR closed fuel cycle using existing SNF and closing the LWR fuel cycle using already mined fuel. A fast spectrum MSR consumes all higher Actinides, whereas LFTR starts further below those, so makes less to start, but once they get up there, they aren't burned in the thermal spectrum, so build up, unlike a fast spectrum. Further the LFTR has marginal neutronics, so needs expensive online radioactively hot reprocessing, and uses 100% weapons grade U233 fuel.
@
😥😥😥🤦♂️ I’ll take any nuclear reactor / fuel cycle… living here in 🇳🇿 .. a nation of cloud chasers where we’re told that we’re proud to be nuclear free and believe it…, meanwhile were slowly covering this beautiful place in solar panels, wind turbines. Li ion batteries, all to match our f n worm farms…. Next week we’re all wear hemp.😂..
Pretty sure.. that we’re never getting further from the “cave”
Meanwhile China n India.., shortly get to visit the 24th century ..
@@EdPheilEd, just curious if you’d be asked to play the devils advocate and pretend you’re Kirk, then what how’d you reply to your own remark?
I’m not a nuclear scientist or an engineer, but I am fascinated with both yours and Kirk’s approaches to the MSR tech. I have tremendous respect for both of you!
Please advise!
The presentation left out essentially all the negative parts - its sales, not science. Fast reactors are a bit hard to sell, as the sodium cooled fast breeders had quite some failures with accidents and just break downs / cost overruns. The usual thorium design plan for a thermal spectrum because it is better to sell. In many aspects on the positve and negative side they are still the type to compare the MSRs to. Though in the thermal spectrum they have surprisingly similar diffiulties in the reactor design with void coefficients and possibly freezing coolant. For a molten salt reactor the fast spectrum may actually be easier and safer.
When going with a fast breeder anyway one could as well continue with uranium, as the fuel costs are than no longer that relevant - even uranium from see water would be feasible and there is plenty of that. No need to go Thorium with the long lifetime Pa233 (some 10 x that of Np239), hard gamma from U232 and more difficult chemical separation.
Fantastic ideas!!!
Flibe's technology has tremendous potential. Please support it in any way you can. Thanks to Kirk for his vision, leadership and dedication!
Glad to see Kirk still pushing the TMSR👍
TH-cam seems to have remove the ability to point to other TH-cam videos, so you can no longer use TH-cam videos to help explain your point, TH-cam seems to be going backwards.
Hey-yo! The dean himself makes an appearance.
Beautyfull presentation. Very simple and clear but very serious. They missed , though, how funny you can be.
Missisippian should not miss this opportunity to improve their lives through cheaper energy, plus the technological new carreers and university research sciences.
Simple and clear, but not serious. Showing only the bright side is just sales - a single point from the dark side can be a show stopper and I an afraid there are plenty.
What does the NRC think of having to remove the Pa-233 from the fuel salt and protection of the reactor vessel itself. In doing this, you're going to end up with a fairly high concentration of a weapon fuel outside the reactor vessel.
Likely containment building will be the boundary with new rules. But yeah, would be interesting to see what they say.
I laugh at the reactor barge idea because there's no way the NRC or Homeland Security is going to sign off on a reactor that isn't plane-proof. The current containment buildings keep radioactive materials from getting out but also from outside "energetic events" from getting in.
So, I might be wrong here, but from what I remember of other talks Kirk Sorensen did the isotopes that are being created aren't suitable for nuclear weapons. Pa233 decays rather quickly and U233 is an alpha-emitter. This means that if you make a bomb out of U233 you'll have it go off at some random time because of the alpha radiation (that is absorbed by the salt in the tank), while Pa233 decays too quickly to be kept in a weapon for any amount of time.
I can't speak to the potential that Pa233 has as a "dirty bomb" (i.e. a radiation bomb), but U233 has a hald life that's too long for that to be useful in any capacity.
I hope that helps in any capacity and I'm happy to hear if I'm wrong.
@koston_varjo3536 U-233 is absolutely a nuclear bomb fuel. It has been used in American, Soviet and Indian weapons designs although US and Soviet designs ended up using Plutonium-239. If you're already working with Uranium 238 and U-235, Pu-239 is a natural byproduct. U-233 doesn't have Pu as a daughter isotope, so a Th232-U233 fuel cycle will never produce any. The reason I voiced questions/concerns is that in separating Pa-233 to decay away into U-233 means you'll have fairly highly concentrated U-233 sitting outside the reactor. Of course, you could simply keep it diluted with fuel salts so the concentration never gets too high, and accept a slight reduction in conversion efficiency to avoid proliferation concerns. I'm also guessing that Flibe Energy and Kirk Sorenson already thought of this.
Let's Do This.
16:00 "...we then put the U233 into the mix...": Why didn't you just leave the Pa in the mix to switch to U233 when it's good and ready?
Don't want Pa absorbing a neutron until it has already turned into U233, because instead it will turn into U234 which will not fission and make us sad.
Right - so Pa233 gets made, but it takes, what, a month to decay into U233? So it gets moved to reduce the chance it grabs a neutron and becomes Pa234, which decays to stable U234? How long does that decay take?
@@ronjon7942 So, you can move these things around and protect them from or get them to entice neurons at the designers will? It's all a soup isn't it?
Serious question - what happens if a plane flies into it?
It seems to me it'll just stop, with some radioactivity needing some 'tidying' up (probably not our biggest concern at that moment).
How long does U233 stay U233 before it fissions? And the reactor would suddenly, instantly stop from said external event, how much U233 would be 'available for sale' on the market?
The drains were the problem at 3 Mile Island, as I recall.
Also, what happens to the Uranium products?
TMI had a faulty steam relief valve and an indicator that showed it was closed when it wasn't. This coupled with another steam valve that was closed when it should have been open and whole lot of operator actions, created a drain of water, while fuel was solid and so it overheated and melted. It's all been since removed and cleaned out, so the reactor now sits empty.
In MSR fuel is not solid, it's mixed in liquid salt, so if it drains, then it all drains together, like a tub, into a tank at the bottom which has a huge radiator on it, so it will never overheat. After a couple days, it will freeze solid into salt rock and stay put.
So when it runs, the fission products will periodically get their own treatment in a separate salt vessel and most will be individually electrically "fished out" and sold for medical, space, industry. The ones that nobody wants to buy will go into storage. Maybe later they can find use.
Main reason it's looked at as "waste" right now is because the products are all mixed together in solid ceramic and nobody will buy that as is. But separately, they have uses.
As a large LWR enjoyer, I still really want to see MSR and FSR concepts developed. Build lots of LWRs today, build the next generation when they're proven. It's not like we won't need all the clean energy we can get our hands on.
Large, medium, or small all High-pressure/low-temperature reactors are outrageously expensive. Better to build combined cycle gas plants for a fraction of the cost. Low-pressure/high-temperature reactors will be here soon enough.
@@chapter4travels "...will be here soon enough". This has been said for decades now. I'll believe it when I see it, and I want to see it! All you have to do is look at China to see that even the best nation on Earth at building dirt cheap power (coal/PV) still builds large LWRs as fast as they manage. These plants are approved to operate for 80 years in the US, we will probably see 100. After the 30 year loan payback, they produce stupid cheap power. It's a smart long term investment.
@@ninefox344 If the NRC stays in its current form, we will never see affordable nuclear of any kind in the US.
@@chapter4travels even if that were true (very debatable), even just 2 years ago it would have been lunacy to suggest a private company would contract to restart the unit at TMI to buy the power. A lot of things can happen very quickly.
One major safety item is frozen salt plug, it melts n salt drains into tank. Isn't there still large heat of decay even though fission stops? this happened at TMI fission stopped but heat of decay melt part of core.
Yes, lots of decay heat. But it is dumped into an enclosure optimized to dissipate the heat. In normal circumstances we want to retain the heat to drive a turbine (via working fluid). I don't know the design specs, but it could be anything from heat-pipes to what sort of heat conductor the drain tank sits on... could by huge and ultimately that also dissipate heat into the rock below... could have passive cooling systems all along whatever solid metal conducts the heat.
One (abandoned) concept pursued by another vendor was solid blocks of molten-salt and the energy used to phase change it could soak up some heat.
@@gordonmcdowell thanks
Could also couple a thermoelectric generator to the drain tank to charge some batteries and power instrumentation after drain. This way the plant could restart without any diesel gennys or offsite power.
It is actually good that the salt stays hot. A problem with the radioactive fuel salt is that if it is left cold for a long time (like a year) the salt decomposes and can release corrosive flourine gas and UF6 to move fuel around the system. This happend after the MSRE shutdown and caused quite some issues for the clean up (still not complete). So there is the challange to cool the holding tank (still difficult at large size), but don't cool it too much. A cold shut down may not be safe.
The freeze plug is still problematic, as it is the coldest point in the system, where contaminations like oxides and fission products like molybdenum tend to build up. After a long run the plug may no longer melt as expected.
Question: is there a point at which making U233 as fuel for conventional PWRs could work? From what little I know it's most likely always too expensive, but I might have missed something.
Agree it would be expensive, although the future cost of LEU is murky so it might make sense if U233 can be produced before more enrichment is brought online in friendly nations. But there's also licensing (prerequisite is testing), and whether this makes operation more difficult because burnup rates would be different, and also the waste composition would be different.
ANEEL is hoping to use HALEU-Th fuel in heavy water reactors, so that should pave the way for some licensing considerations and see how operators deal with a more challenging used-fuel composition.
OP, do you mean transitioning from U235 (PWRs used U235, right? I'm just wrapping my head around this, sorry.) to U233, or using U233 with U235, simultaneously?
Great job as always, Kirk, but THE way to sell this idea to normal people is Dilithium Crystals!!!
Yeah, isn't it funny....they really are dilithium crystals. I guess my mom was ahead of her time with name choices.
@@kirksorensen3923And then Commissioner Carr goes: "So who are your investors?"😅
Great presentation, love that you used the word "Inexpensive" and not "cheap", thank you for that. Inexpensive or low cost either one but never the word "Cheap". When I hear cheap I think low quality for some reason. When the guy on the right asked about no environmental issue I wanted to shout at the screen sir this is literally not figuratively but literally Homer Simpson walk away safe. In other words if Homer Simpson him self ran this plant he couldn't hurt anyone or anything because the design is that safe. The other impression I think I get is that these plants need to be built near a source of water and my understanding is that's not the case at all, these things would do great out in the heat of any desert, ie Libya, Egypt, any northern African country or middle east country. Hell have you run this by the Saudi's? or the Emir of Dubai those countries burn oil for energy.
One of the waste products is Tritium (H³), one of the most valuable elements in the world. Needed for Fusion reactors. Spent fuel from current reactors use only about 3% of their fuel rods, but this can be "burnt" by mixing it with the fuel of a Floride Salt reactor, and create additional energy. Any radioactive by-products or waste have very short half lives. Corrosion means exotic metal alloys, but Material Science has advance favorably over the last decades.
PLEASE IMPLEMENT LIFTR REACTORS
Superb presentation performance. Althou, when you said "cheap energy for everyone" , then certain group sitting on money printer - said - "nope"
Also, the one member of the board was clearly skeptical, but was much more open to the idea once he knew that this system was rejected by the weapons industry.
It was rejected by the weapons industry because you couldn't mass produce thousands of weapons, but it does produce 100% weapons material requiring the same minimal critical mass as Pu239. So, it is great for producing a few weapons/year, but not thousands, so better suited for small rogue countries, or terrorist groups, especially if sold a commercial LFTR.
@@EdPheilEd, just wanted to say a big thank you for your ongoing work on the fast MSR, and your contribution to the nuclear community of your expertise from past naval reactor work. Thank you for jumping on to comment.
I think while both fast and thermal systems have their merits and unique characteristics, it's important to work together wherever possible to build the overall political support for MSR technology as a whole.
You are 100% right that LFTR will produce HEU233 within the confines of the containment building, however, many analysts also agree that if a nation is firmly determined to get weapons, it will get them by whichever process it can acquire most readily, usually one that is most widely used already.
Let's get over the first hump and build multiple designs in USA, and then it can be best determined which should be strictly export restricted and which can be shared with friendly nations.
Like if this reactor was in Ukraine and the Russians took over the plant the operators simply would simply open the dump tank valves and leave. The plant would simply stop working, the fuel would cool on its own and no-one would have to be in the plant. Walk away safe. Also the reactor could also be hit with a bunker busting bombs and the radiation would not spread.
I mean in case of a direct hit like that, there would be some inevitable dust spread, but nowhere near the spread in case of a big steam explosion, such as Chernobyl.
The current german goverment does not like that and tries to proof that we can do everything with wind, sun and batteries.
Germany has one of the highes energy costs, german companies have to produce elsewhere because of that, but lets see how long Germany can go this way.
A molten salte reactor on a boat is a really stupid idea: the molten salte is not at all compatible with water. The fuel salt would partially dissolve and depending on the temperature produce highly corrosive and toxic HF and possibly even concentrate the remaining fuel (as oxide forming one at a time from U, Pu, Th). One of the challanges for a molten salt reactor is keeping water out, e.g. with an extra intermediate fluid cycle between the reactor and the turbines. Binging up such obviously stupid ideas damages the credibilty.
Dont need hundreds of operators doing very little
Flibe has no manufacturing nor construction expertise. In over 10 years they've broken no ground, poured no steel or concrete, contributed no advancement in metals research. All They've produced is a very expensive PowerPoint presentation. In short, they are a sham.
Are you implying they've gotten funding and permits to construct a reactor, but they're just using that to pay their mortgages? On their second and third mansions?
@ronjon7942 Exactly! It's a big con. They're riding the LFTR hype & scamming who ever they can.