ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Molten Salt Reactor Fundamentals
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2024
- National and international efforts to develop new sources of carbon-free energy are exploring a nuclear power concept first introduced in the 1950s and 1960s: the Molten Salt Reactor. This design is vastly different from our current light water nuclear power plant and is inspiring a fresh look at the technology.
Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are working on many solutions necessary for the design, construction, and operation of a full-scale molten salt reactor. We have expertise in radiochemistry and real-time online monitoring, as well as materials design and performance testing.
Going to study chemical & nuclear engineering to help out in the MSR race
Yup...but im gonna study on my own...and learn to build one...
Me too. Just applied to go back to school.
The problem with comment sections like this one, is that you have to do a lot of homework on your own so as to not sound like an idiot when commenting.
@renegade_ace True, nuclear research got defunded after Fukushima but what we don't understand is that Fukushima used very old technology and they were reluctant to upgrade after many employees told them to. Nuclear energy causes the least environmental and health issues per MW generated, Angela Merkel needs to understand that the Sun which powers the entire solar system is nuclear energy too and one day it will turn into a red giant to engulf Mercury, Venus and Us.
@@eliassipunga1367 yes and only France knows that
A couple of months ago I stumbled on a video explaining molten salt nuclear reactors, and became really inspired by it. I really think they will be vital to a carbon free energy future. Keep spreading the word and keep up the good work. Just work faster :)
Carbon free?
@@quietackshon I think he means in the air
@@AWES0MEDEFENDER
Like carbon particles?
@@quietackshon what are you doing?
@@booates
What's your problem?
Very good overview that seems to hit pretty much all the basic points in a precise manner. I've seen so many videos that state gross generalizations as hard fact that it is refreshing to see a good one. Keep up the good work.
The Thorium vs Uranium scarcity thing is kind of a non-starter. Molten Salt Reactors will quite happily run on waste fuels from light water reactors. In fact, I'd argue that any future reactor we're looking at deploying, should be set up to use waste fuel, rather than new Thorium.
And Thorium fuel cycles aren't the only ones whose waste products decay to background in hundreds of years, vs. tens of thousands. Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycles will allow much shorter storage requirements as well.
That long storage requirement isn't because of the fuel we use. It's because of the fuel we don't use. Specifically, our light water reactors aren't very efficient, relatively speaking (no, not a relativistic pun) and leave incredible amounts of energy in the fuel. That's the benefit to fast breeders and molten salt reactors. They are more efficient, and can reuse spent fuel after reprocessing, thus eliminating the need for long term storage.
Fast breeders work by allowing you to fission isotopes that aren't fissile in the thermal neutron spectrum. The nasty actinides like Neptunium, Americium, Plutonium etc. are the ones that create this need to have long term geologic repositories in the first place.
Molten salt reactors work by attempting to limit the formation of these nasty actinides within the reactor, and by using up much more of the fuel and eliminating waste products.
If we didn't waste so much good, useful fuel, we wouldn't have such a 'waste' problem to begin with.
Mike McKeen wasting fuel is what humans do best im afraid 😔. But valid point none the less.
@Raghu Reddy Exactly! The problem is caused by using solid fuel design.
Molten Salt Design opens a whole new world in nuclear fuel processing ( re-processing as well) which is much cheaper.
Thorium has advantages with MSRs. But uranium is good, too.
@Raghu Reddy not with liquid fuel it’s not
We don’t make anymore radioactive stuff than there is to start with it’s just concentrated if we could dissolve it and spread it back out it would not be a problem but even then governments would not let you put it back in the ground. If a mining company digs up 1 ton of thorium they can’t just put it back even if it’s no more concentrated because the government says so. That’s why we have a rare earth problem. China doesn’t because they know thorium is so low radioactive in its natural state its safe and just ignore it
Thank you for posting. I really wish there was more research work being done on MSRs, & nuclear energy in general, like using thorium & finding away to get rid of spent rods/ not use rods anymore
Being able to eliminate the spent rods would be a great way to bring nuclear back to the table as a reliable and safe power resource.
Safe and efficient is the way to go. There's great benefit to getting a bunch of gen IV reactor construction in the pipeline fast. Reduction of dependence on fossil fuels is huge, but pollution reduction is, also.
great! make nuclear great (and safe) for decades
More like Make Nuclear Great Again.
Nuclear is already safe
Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is the only type with high fuel efficiency, no danger of explosion, and does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. The fissile uranium-233 produced by the MSR is difficult to use for weapons because of the presence of highly radioactive uranium-232. While other Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can serve as a short-term solution, MSRs are considered a more promising mid-term solution due to their potential to address these issues more comprehensively. Hopefully, we will have fusion by the time we run out of uranium and thorium. The global thorium reserve of 6 million tons will be exhausted in 800 years at an annual consumption of 7500 tons.
The differences between Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are significant in fuel utilization and waste production. LWRs use approximately 0.5-1% of uranium fuel, leading to the generation of long-lived radioactive waste due to inefficient energy conversion and the use of enriched uranium. In contrast, TMSRs can achieve fuel efficiency of up to 98%. This is achieved by converting fertile thorium-232 into fissile uranium-233, substantially reducing waste production and more manageable radioactive waste. Uranium Molten Salt Reactors (UMSR) will produce more plutonium but are just as effective as TMSRs.
800 kg of natural thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can generate 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for one year. In comparison, generating the same amount of energy in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) would require mining 200 tons of uranium. In an MSR, the storage requirement for 83 percent of the spent fuel is 10 years, and 300 years for the remaining 17 percent, whereas in an LWR, 28 tons of spent fuel need reprocessing and storage for 200,000 years. MSRs can utilize the spent fuel from LWRs. A coal power station will need to burn 3.5 million tons of coal and emit 10 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy for one year. That amount of coal contains 3 to 14 tons of uranium, 3 to 14 tons of thorium, and an average of 84 tons of arsenic.
MSRs can adjust power output to match electricity demand, thanks to the inherent and automatic load-following capability provided by the fluid nature of the molten salt coolant. A key safety feature of MSR is that it automatically adjusts to prevent overheating. This is achieved through a "negative thermal reactivity coefficient," which means that as the temperature rises, the reactor's reactivity decreases, preventing a runaway chain reaction. Additionally, the MSR has a "negative void reactivity coefficient," ensuring that the reactivity decreases if there is a loss of coolant or boiling, preventing potential overheating. These safety measures help keep the reactor stable and safe under various conditions.
Looking ahead to 2040, China plans to deploy Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) for desalination of seawater, district heating or cooling, hydrogen production, powering of ships equipped with Thermoacoustic Stirling Generators, and power plants with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Turbines within its borders and globally. In the Earth's crust, thorium is nearly four times more abundant than uranium. Every atom of natural thorium can be harnessed, unlike natural uranium, where only 1 out of every 139 atoms can be used. China produces thorium as a byproduct of its rare earth processing.
Similar to the trends observed with solar and wind technologies, MSR costs are anticipated to decrease with the scaling up of production and the development of robust supply chains.
I suspect we in the US will be buying Chinese MSR's long before we quit tripping over our own shoe laces.
Actually that's probably a good thing for the enviroment but it will mean that the US will be a third rate power by then.
In a role reversal we'll let them invest the huge sums of money to develop the technology and then we'll either move forward ourselves for less once it's proven or steal the technology through reverse engineering the way they do it.
The US has been using and operating them for almost a century... Why would we suddenly not do so?
Do you think we are on the verge of losing our domestic nuclear industry to capitalism the same we lost our manufacturing?
@@BeKindToBirds We already have - Westinghouse was our go to reactor builder but it was a Japanese firm last I saw. And MSR's? Our regulatory people can't stop tripping over their own feet. That's why China will penetrate and then capture that market despite it being 1950-60 US technology financed by US taxpayers.
@@elsiegel84 Westinghouse is just one of many manufacturers that produce naval reactors for the us Navy and they are a US company.
Being bought out by Toshiba after several years of them owning a partial stake in the company isn't because Japan had some secret nuclear juice that magically gave the US Navy more experience running nuclear reactors than any other organization or nation.
It's because they needed better money management. Different issue altogether from the actual work.
The laws around this kind of work are insane, especially for foreign owned companies. SpaceX had and has had trouble for it's entire life, trouble that has almost sunk the company on multiple occasions *because the CEO is a foreign citizen*
Trust and believe that the US is going to let go of nuclear and air dominance last of last of last things it allows to fall to rot. We aren't there yet.
Thinking China's one nuclear shipyard with it's illustrious history is going to overtake us is at this point, fear mongering.
0:24 so cute seeing all those veteran cars!
this would be a great solution for reactor powered desalination plants.
for producing green hydrogen too
I never knew salt could be so hardcore
Great video :)
I am trying to encourage Australia to build a prototype thorium molten salt burner at their Australian Nuclear Science and Technology facility.
How's that going for you?
Australia has enourmous uranium resources, so why do the more difficult Th/U233 & & fluoride salt?
Turn the playback speed up to x1.25
You're welcome.
More than a good idea
It may not be a clarification of what Singularity-point positioning Conception Perspective is, or how projection-drawing of holographic Superspin in rotational cross-sectional composition condensed matter in the Universal 2-ness picture-plane containment in log-antilog i-reflection, but the orientation to frequency density-intensity analysis in the context of "Comb" relative-timing ratio-rates of Spectroscopic reciprocation-recirculation potential positioning is ready for Math-Physics to advance knowledge of conductors, corrosion and crystallisation of materials.., "obviously".
Good info! Came here after reading how China are testing MSR's
Excellent video
The arguement for fuel heating up squeezing fuel out of the core only works for HEU or Fast Chloride-MSRs, not for thermal MSRs with HALEU & LALEU because you squeeze out more non-fissile neutron absorbers, like 80-95+% U238 vs fissile 3-20% U235, or 2-12% U233.
remember its not thorium that makes waste that decays in 300 years its just the molten salt part. if you used uranium in a molten salt reactor you could keep burning till the long lived stuff has gone
Yeah but you have to create the fissionable material then. With Thorium you just have to dig it out of the ground.
@@ValeriePallaoro uranium is just dug out of the ground. Same as thorium there is no difference lol
Actually, u233 produces more or less the same quantities of long lived fission products as commercial reactors. Long term disposal solutions will still be require
That guy looking at the 6000 operating hours designed both the light water and molten salt reactors. He died in 2017, I think. That was on the MSRE that Oak Ridge did, 6000 operational hours!
lol why do i click this video. i’m a bio student
I think the CEO of Moltex energy was a bio student too.
Bio students are terrified SHITLESS of any kind of mathematical or physics equations or logical/analytical problem solving. Go to med school, mindlessly memorize phonebooks of information, spit out the answers on multiple choice tests, and then get your MD and make $230K a year. Enjoy.
Haha I'm a composer and musician
hey! for anyone wondering some of the companies in this, alphatech is one! im not positive but i believe it was the first.
This and fusion are a must going forward. Its time to redirect all those fossil fuel funds into these sustainable and efficient industries.
No, it's time to direct all the nuclear industry life-support subsidies to clean renewables like solar, geothermal, and wind. Without massive taxpayer subsidies, the entire US nuclear industry is bankrupt in a year. Let's pull the plug on this undead zombie industry and its failed economics.
Look no further,
Ed Pheil of Elysium Industries has the most elegant design MSR by far imo.
What happens is the adopter must be made ,too plug into output
Freeze plugs very difficult to qualify for power producing reactors, hard to guarantee they melt in time, and to allow full flow rate.
If you're near the testing phase you should team up with Ukraine. They have prior nuclear experience. Plus they have experience with what happens when things go wrong. Not to mention you might be able to get permission to do your test a lot easier then you can get them scheduled in the US. This could save you years.
Wonderful tech. I wish you the best.
"Precious Tritium!"
power of the sun in the palm of my hands
would MSRs profit in safety-margins and el_grid_load following capability, when augmented with proton-beam spallation neutrons? especially in the case of fast_MSRs
Basically, no.
This is the future of new life of the nuclear power industry. Get rid of uranium and say hello to thorium
@Anthony MacIntyre use both they are both safer and fine the trick is liquid fuel not solid any more
When reactors use thorium it's to make Uranium-233 for fission. MSRs will use most of the energy of the Uranium so very little waste is produced.
hello wonderful person!
Must be true because my t-shirt says so!!
For a couple of years now i have been spouting off after a few pints about how molten salt was the future and have been very keen to see its development i heard about a year ago the Chinese were building one and nothing since and im glad that America has started taking another look.
I have a question though over here in England we have Sellafield and its old where these old objects are stored in tanks, could these things be used to power the molten salt process to get rid of them and the molten salt plant could be built in the existing infrastructure its something ive wondered about for ages if anyone could answer i would love to know
Generally speaking yes the left over waste could be used in this type of fast breeder but lets walk before we can run.
So if this has been in the making since the 60s, how close is this technology to a full scale rollout?
It's important to note that most people have a nauseating fear of nuclear technology, and governments have hampered its development for decades, while also subsidising inferior technologies on ideological grounds. That's why it takes so long.
It has not been in the making since the 60s. The original experiment was shut down for no good reason (budget priorities), and people just took up the technology again recently - about a decade ago.
@@Novarcharesk So how do the citizens get around the politicians that think they either know everything or only have half the story??
... and then the piping ruptured, and molten salt poured out all OVER the place. But then it solidified as it cooled, which is good right? Except that then, it rained. And salt DISSOLVES in water. So all that radioactive salt, is now in your groundwater table. For the next 20,000 years. Wow MSR is SO much safer, huh?
Isn't it amusing how msr enthusiasts don't want to think about hot, corrosive radioactive salts circulating through 100s of meters of pipes, valves, joints, & plumbing might not be the best engineering solution?
@@rhynosouris710 It makes them feel smart to say "MSR" though. That's the main thing. You can't expect actual understanding.
@@rhynosouris710 What about stable salt reactor, which eliminates the whole "radioactive" bit in circulation and leaves us with no worse than what we work with on concentrated solar plants?
I found this extremely interesting and exciting. One thought that comes to mind is; If I were to build a skyscraper on a remote uninhabited island, would I be able to build a Molten Salt Reactor in or close by that would generate all the electricity, heating, pumping and waste treatment systems totally diverse from any conventional city type of infrastructure?
My thoughts that the answer would be yes, but with the cost potentially too high on such a small scale.
Private companies are putting us into space; so not as cost problematic as you would think.
Good vid
This is the future and can’t come soon enough!
Wyoming is building a moderate sized plant starting in 2022.
thanks so much it would have taken me weeks to learn what I did today
It should take you weeks, if you verify with objective sources and publications. Propaganda like this video makes the industry-paid bullshit go down easy, so a lot of people love it, just cause it's so low-effort compared to real learning.
as of this last summer i have took a interest in nuclear technology and i have even made my own theory of relativity and a scientific time machine using black holes and dark matter to go forward and backwards through time
I have wondered, which fission products are most problematic to deal with in an MSR. Yes, the gases bubble out, but I have heard that some product metals can plate out within the reactor. Surly they are not all easily captured and dissolved within the salt, or are they? Can they significantly affect flow rates, thermodynamics and neutronics, along with the longevity of it's operation time?
Yes Nolan, depending on how the chemistry in the salt is maintained, some fission products are more likely to plate out than others. The prime ones likely to plate out include elements which are both on the same row as and near palladium, rhodium, and silver, i.e., those called by some "noble metals". Flow rates? No. The amount that plates out will be small. Thermodynamics? No, since the plateout layer is small, the salt should be around the same temperature as without plated out fission products. As for neutronics, other fission products which stay dissolved in the salt will matter much more simply because they are more abundant: samarium is a big one.
In terms of stuff like that, something that will matter a good bit is chromium thermal transport. On the hot end and before the heat exchanger, chromium will tend to dissolve from the tubes' walls, while on the cold end and beyond, it will tend to deposit. This will possibly foul heat exchangers to some extent and accelerate corrosion.
Thanks for the answer. I'm sure all these issues and the changes in the salt chemistry are all likely still being researched and modeled. Lets hope they run into very few hiccups and get these things developed.
The most common MSR proposed by US companies are Fast Chloride-MSRs.
Interesting, when do you think we might see a small scale fast chloride MSR protype built and operated ?
The only thing missing, or rather not missing, is the use of steam. H2O is not the best secondary medium as I understand it, and a move to other materials, such as Helium, are in future design ideas.
CO2 as a super critical fluid as well
So safe they waive Price-Anderson?
That type of system sounds better, but the companies working with this type of reactor still have to deal with the dangers involved with them.
Care to identify what those specific "dangers" are?
Cabon is evolved
Great video! But...I think a disservice to both the public and other professionals when the selling point was made about long half-lives vs. short half-lives. Do you mind also explaining that those billions of year half-life isotopes are already in the ground around us all over and the short half-lives are the real issue because a short half-life isotope releases its energy more quickly and thus results in more radiation dose. So according to this selling point, Cs-137 and Sr/Y-90 are not as harmful and are easier to manage than U-235/238. Also, does this mean that ALL of the fertile Th-232 is burnt up? Fantastic video aside from this one disappointing comment.
00:01 PUBLIC CHANNEL* Educate on Money * Credit * Debt & Politics * Keep it Simple ! Ham Radio Operator VK3GFS is following this Overdue Debate ! 73s Frank 04:07
What about the interface with water in the Steam Generators? Isn't that the reason liquid sodium was not used on the Navy subs due to the interface using water on the secondary side? While working at Enrico Fermi II, we were provided a demonstration of the sodium/water interface by an instructor throwing a piece of sodium into the cooling pond, which resulted in an explosion of impressive features. Is it possible to replace water and the cooling medium on the secondary side to avoid this? Should the Steam Generator integrity be lost, this would not be a "good" event!
Salts are completely inert to water or air, an interaction with steam may be energetic (like any hot/cold fluids contact) but not explosive
@@Alessandro-1977 sir, I beg to differ? While working at Enrico Fermi as a member of the Fire Brigade we were provided a demonstration of sodium/water interaction & it was explosive! Not a mild interface as you prescribe? While in the Navy, I had an opportunity to work on the Triton reactor which had been designed as a sodium cooled reactor but was abandoned after some dangerous outcomes due to Steam Generator leaks?
@@xnavyro Absolutely, but I meant salts not sodium. Fluorides or chlorides are salts (inert), sodium is a metal (potentially reactive to air/water). I hope this clarify that out
@@Alessandro-1977 how about low sodium spam? how would that react in a molten salt reactor?
@@roywhiteo5 I don' t really understand your question, there is no pure free sodium in a molten salt reactor, maybe you mean free sodium produced by sodium chloride dissociation for, say, mechanisms like radiolysis or similar ? It couldn't happen in ionic bounds like those of fluorides or chlorides, the rate of ions reconstruction is 4 or 5 order of magnitude (~ 10k or 100k times) than ions dissociation. I hope I answered that (not an expert, though)
If the moderator in the MSR is solid graphite and the fuel is liquid, we can NOT consider the MSR an homogenous reactor, can we? Because I knew that by homogeneous we meant a reactor where both the fuel and the moderator were liquid
A fast MSR could probably be called a homogeneous reactor. Some of those use neutron reflectors though. Not sure if that would invalidate the label.
I like the Idea of these salt reactors I'm just not so sure about thorium it self. If lets say the world were to jump into it today and build all kinds of thorium reactors could we keep up the thorium mining to meet demand? The video said thorium is 3x more abundant but what it didn't tell you it isn't in concentrated areas like other things we mine. Could uranium be used as well as thorium?
Indeed. MSRE worked on uranium salts, so MSRs can run on uranium with no problems.
@@caav56 They work better, cheaper, and easier with uranium. Also, uranium is just as abundant as thorium, if not more so.
@@chapter4travels Not in India.
Is it not called Thorium molten salt reactor?
As(if) i understand (correctly) there already is few alloys that can be used that survive the corrosive enviroment.
Is there any timeline ?
The Chinese must've figured it out; cause theirs goes on line in August this year 2021.
@@ValeriePallaoro
I know there is a Sweedish company constructing but none online yet.
Do you know is the Chineese one now operational as it's september?
Uranium extraction from seawater makes uranium availability much higher & more economical than thorium!
Gas (Oil) is cheaper and more economical than Hydrogen fuel. Doesn't make it better.
Gorge Lucas brought me here
Can someone explain to me how the expansion of the working fluid during temperature increase in a closed vessel is supposed to decrease density?
I'd imagine there would be some air in the vessel, and air is compressable. Also pressure will cause the vessel itself to expand somewhat.
as shown in the video, there are outflow pipes. Some 'give' in the container design with in the parameters of the temp increase would help too.
When will we get power for are homes from this?
I'm glad PNW is in this fight!
As long as oil companies have so much power over governments we will never see this implemented unles somebody like Elon Musk would put some money behind this.
As soon as the tech is feasible, the cost of generating electricity will be orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels and it will scale better.
The future world leader will be determined by who has the most scalable energy generation.
Western problems; Chinas is up and running now (they started their build in 2011) so ... it's a thing.
@@ValeriePallaoro Yes, with stolen technology.
I need a 500 word reason why Molten salt is to cool down a reactor?
Do molten salt reactors explode?
No, bc the coolant doesn't need to be pressurized.
No pressure, no explosion.
If the enemy missile hits the power plant and explodes the vessel of liquid salt the salt as an expanding cloud would very rapidly coalesce to small solid granule. Robotic vacuuming end of shift. Cheap electricity defines world peace.
No. It's roughly like turning on a gas oven; since you're already cooking something on the stove, burnng gas, you can't have a gas buildup.
@@TheInsaiyan the coolant will be used to make steam, which will be pressurized. The possibility of a steam explosion, while pretty small, is not zero.
@@rhynosouris710 The coolant (molten salts) does not explode and has overflow pipes into safety containers. The steam is used in another area. Yes, that could explode, however the key point is that the water used as coolant heated to steam level is what has caused all the explosions in Uranium reactors, putting fissionable material in the air. Explosion of the steam as you predict is just water in the air. So, not zero proposition, but not problematic either.
U-233?
@ryan collyer uranium233 instead of U235 or U239(which with a neutron hit into it will decay to plutonium)
Hmm, no shutdown time.😊
Liquid salt reactor
A bi product of this type of reaction, still leads to nuclear waste, so I don't see this as an alternative, to the current fission reactors we currently use, I still believe Hydro thermal is the way to go, there are hundreds of Hydro thermal location around the US, and possibly thousands around the world. If Iceland can go it, so can the rest of the world. It's clean, and there are no toxic bi products.
Finally a voice of sanity in this industry-paid shill section.
Nuclear waste is not now or ever been a problem, in fact, it's a very valuable asset. Different versions of MSR's will consume it as their fuel.
MSR's are very different than the old light water reactors in several ways. The biggest advantage is the high output temperatures, more than double LWRs. This means they have hundreds of other industrial uses besides making electricity. They also don't need water cooling, you can put them anywhere. They are safer and cheaper to build because they are not under pressure like LWRs.
@@chapter4travels Who says so? Sounds like the same industry lies and propaganda we've heard for all previous reactor designs.
@@Rep0007 What previous reactor designs? Be specific.
Shouldn't the neutrons be blue, and protons red?
exactly
I'm sorry but doesn't sodium combust when exposed to air , water. So a pin hole leak and then a massive boom right?
U mean when exposed to water
@@miguelchacon2717 yes! Question though if there was enough moisture/humidity in the atmosphere isn't there the potential for reactivity as well.
The results in the 60s showed their coolant showed no violent reaction when exposed to air, water etc.
But they used an lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride mixture, idk
pure sodium does explode, but they're using salts, not pure sodium. Table salt, which is sodium cloride, does not explode when in contact with air or water, despite the fact that it is 50% made of pure sodium.
Sorry if this is a stupid question/has incorrect terminology, but how does the molten salt expanding shut down the reaction? Is it because the moderators get pushed apart which means the neutrons aren't slowed to being thermal, slowing down fission?
I think it has to do with thermal expansion; this results in lower density and thus a negative reactivity coefficient with rising temperature.
I hope we can get this into use ASAP. China is getting ahead of us as we argue and complain.
yeah...PNNL...i want you to bid me a price for 10kW mini reactor so i can charge my Tesla without the utility getting involved. Do you ship fedex?
exploring? USA did it perfect in the 70's but was swept a side...
making atomic bombs was a priority, not safety and efficiency
Yeah, it's the best nuclear fuel source we had. Unfortunate you couldn't incinerate cities with it
They did it good but still had a way to go
@@xfg007 Fossil fuel owners.
They are going to build one of these in Wyoming! Get rid of those coal plants!!!
Good video.
It's interesting that your "challenges" do NOT include obtaining Lithium-7 of 99.995% purity for the fuel salt.
Isn't that a rather important oversight ?
Or does PNNL actually have a way of solving that issue ?
There's no need to have high purity lithium-7. There are both salt compositions that don't contain lithium at all, and designs that do easily remove tritium as hydrogen gas from the system as it is fissioned from lithium-6.
The fast reactor molten salt designs actually use a chloride salt, which requires no lithium. And because it's simply ordinary table salt (of a very high purity) as the fuel/coolant salt, you don't really have need of exotic materials. Stainless steels currently on the market today are more than adequate for construction of reactor vessels and systems. You also have the benefit of easy cleanup and storage should you ever have a leak. Sodium Chloride isn't really reactive with anything as long as you keep it away from water. It's very stable.
We can replace shitty lithium with fairy abundant and good sodium.
Ver first MRS was using sodium&zirconium salt.
04:20 "Development of reliable and efficient chemical separations including tritium."
They mention tritium.
Lithium-7 supply chain is in existence. PWRs use Lithium-7 Hydroxide for pH control. But, MSRs need tons of Lithium salts, this is similar in magnitude to that of enriched uranium requirement of LWRs or heavy water requirements of CANDUs.
I don't know about Li7 enrichment process. Is lithium enrichment different/difficult than uranium enrichment for LWR or deuterium enrichment for a CANDU?
@Achal H P there are other options to. But lithium 7 would be best in what he discussed it’s the byproduct of lithium7 that is a problem lithium6 used in bombs and highly controlled
China has been building a thorium based nuclear reactor which is coming operational soon.
Soooooon... ;-)
In the mean time China has built a thorium nuclear reactor in the gobi desert. So, it is not soooon but got it already. 🤣🤣🤣
@@philiptan2051
Welcome, time traveler from the future! The TMSR-LF1 is not operational yet.
why only salt not Metal ?
Metal*
Better chemical properties and very stable.
You can use lead and sodium both have there own issues
not me just out here trying to figure out how to build a micro reactor to power a car...
The Chinese are building, we are not doing much. I hope we have good spies.
They never seem to say how they are going to 'melt salt' in the first place....
@MrBest Hot things melt other things.
Seems to promote the fast breeder and fails to mention the thermal spectrum- I guess another lab has that job.
@_ROTE_ simplemachines he mentions thermal first the one with moderator
not really clear to me the real time waste processing..
@Andrea Pandinelli because it’s dissolved in a liquid you can treat it with other chemicals and extract easily the chemicals you want out. That’s the simple version. Check out gordonmacdowell channel many videos
Where's George Lucas?
Corrosion could probably be prevented by coating the inside of the fuel tank and fuel pipes with graphene material.
Mmmmh cheese reactor
Anyone here because of George Lucas?
so sad big oil fight this kind of stuff !
So does the climate industrial complex.
Jesus Loves You
And what happens when sodium comes into contact with water? 💥
It’s added complexity and risk for no benefit. I’d stick with a steam turbine
George Lucas is the key to all of this
Still just a steam engine 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Didn’t they just they just build one in China and are running it?
China alrdy build this in a better version
@OsJ China are trying to build not already at this time 2020
Graphite rods, a definitely bad idea...
Graphite or graphene? Graphene is 200x stronger than steel.
graphite however is in pencils lol.
@@waffleboomerang6643 graphite not graphene. graphene is far too expensive, while graphite is a perfect moderator. yes, its stronger than the graphite in pencils lol.
"Graphite Control rods"
Me: *Chernobyl flashbacks intensify*
And yes im aware RBMK reactors are way different, this is a joke.
😅
great idea. let's can the war stuff and use thorium. now about that need to war in the first place ...
George Lucas brought me here