3 ms·

> Shipyard-constructed nukes on floating platforms, tugged to locations for power and tugged back to port for maintenance. What’s your opinion on Thorcon? Als

by erentz 7y ago

> Shipyard-constructed nukes on floating platforms, tugged to locations for power and tugged back to port for maintenance. What’s your opinion on Thorcon? Also I’m wondering if you have some thoughts on this: I’ve been wondering what holds us back from taking a scale out approach rather than a scale up approach we have now (e.g. with EPR design now producing 1.6GW). Instead couldn’t we pump out naval sized nuclear plants in mass production style since we can apparently still build those and my limited understanding is their smaller size and output makes them safer (less decay heat etc). Ship those around as needed for refueling. And just have a couple dozen on each site to produce the equivalent power. It would combine a national strategic need that we have to do anyway (naval nuclear power), with another need that we seem to be failing to do (getting back on the horse with producing reliable clean power).

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Thorcon is awesome. I love their style and logic. They're pretty open-door, they have the boldest low-ball cost estimate I've ever seen, and they have a solid set of reasoning for why it's going to be that cheap (e.g. The Tale of Two Ships [1]). I don't really like that it's fluid fuel though. As I said in another comment, the unknown remote maintenance implications of that are very far from hashed out, and will very likely be terribly expensive for a fairly long shakedown/learning period. Fluid fuel is a good end goal. But don't get me talking about fluid fuel in a near-term first-of-a-kind plant with a low-ball operation/maintenance cost estimate. I also don't like that if they succeed, they have a very large waste stream of super radioactive large-scale components (that get swapped out ever ~5 years and put... where? That's gonna be a problem). Also, working primarily with a country with inexperienced/non-existant nuclear institutions for a very advanced reactor (Indoensia) is probably not going to work. I get the logic though, bootstrap a new nuclear regime without the old regulations. Problem is, fluid fuel reactors have a variety of postulated novel ways to increase source term. That will take work to license. A lot of work. Experimental work, in neutron irradiation. I just wish they'd try a small light-water reactor with their shipyard construction experience first and take it from there. I also freaking love that they use LaTeX. [1] http://thorconpower.com/docs/two_ships.pdf http://thorconpower.com/docs/two_ships.pdf
- jabl 7y ago
  > e.g. The Tale of Two Ships [1] Thanks, that's quite a story! > I don't really like that it's fluid fuel though. I have some misgivings about this as well. A water-soluble fuel salt in a thin-skinned (compared to a high pressure LWR) vessel on a ship, what could possibly go wrong? (I'm a fan of MSR's and I'd love to see them deployed, but I'd prefer them on dry land thank-you-very-much) > As I said in another comment, the unknown remote maintenance implications of that are very far from hashed out, and will very likely be terribly expensive for a fairly long shakedown/learning period. Fluid fuel is a good end goal. But don't get me talking about fluid fuel in a near-term first-of-a-kind plant with a low-ball operation/maintenance cost estimate. Agreed, but IIUC Thorcon, similarly to Terrestrial, are planning to replace the entire reactor vessel with the primary circuit every few years (5/7/?). So AFAIK the plan is not to do any maintenance of the reactor vessel. Guess you have to hope one of the primary pumps doesn't need a new bearing 1 month after commissioning, then, eh? > I just wish they'd try a small light-water reactor with their shipyard construction experience first and take it from there. Yes, though it seems passively safe LWR's are quite massive. Nuscale reactor vessel is a frickin' 700 tons for a paltry 60 MWe. Thorcon reactor is 250 MWe (or is it 500, their materials are somewhat confusing?). Would a passively safe 250 MWe LWR fit on a ship, along with a pressure dome to handle a LOCA?

by erentz 7y ago

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Thorcon is awesome. I love their style and logic. They're pretty open-door, they have the boldest low-ball cost estimate I've ever seen, and they have a solid set of reasoning for why it's going to be that cheap (e.g. The Tale of Two Ships [1]). I don't really like that it's fluid fuel though. As I said in another comment, the unknown remote maintenance implications of that are very far from hashed out, and will very likely be terribly expensive for a fairly long shakedown/learning period. Fluid fuel is a good end goal. But don't get me talking about fluid fuel in a near-term first-of-a-kind plant with a low-ball operation/maintenance cost estimate. I also don't like that if they succeed, they have a very large waste stream of super radioactive large-scale components (that get swapped out ever ~5 years and put... where? That's gonna be a problem). Also, working primarily with a country with inexperienced/non-existant nuclear institutions for a very advanced reactor (Indoensia) is probably not going to work. I get the logic though, bootstrap a new nuclear regime without the old regulations. Problem is, fluid fuel reactors have a variety of postulated novel ways to increase source term. That will take work to license. A lot of work. Experimental work, in neutron irradiation. I just wish they'd try a small light-water reactor with their shipyard construction experience first and take it from there. I also freaking love that they use LaTeX. [1] http://thorconpower.com/docs/two_ships.pdf http://thorconpower.com/docs/two_ships.pdf

jabl 7y ago
> e.g. The Tale of Two Ships [1] Thanks, that's quite a story! > I don't really like that it's fluid fuel though. I have some misgivings about this as well. A water-soluble fuel salt in a thin-skinned (compared to a high pressure LWR) vessel on a ship, what could possibly go wrong? (I'm a fan of MSR's and I'd love to see them deployed, but I'd prefer them on dry land thank-you-very-much) > As I said in another comment, the unknown remote maintenance implications of that are very far from hashed out, and will very likely be terribly expensive for a fairly long shakedown/learning period. Fluid fuel is a good end goal. But don't get me talking about fluid fuel in a near-term first-of-a-kind plant with a low-ball operation/maintenance cost estimate. Agreed, but IIUC Thorcon, similarly to Terrestrial, are planning to replace the entire reactor vessel with the primary circuit every few years (5/7/?). So AFAIK the plan is not to do any maintenance of the reactor vessel. Guess you have to hope one of the primary pumps doesn't need a new bearing 1 month after commissioning, then, eh? > I just wish they'd try a small light-water reactor with their shipyard construction experience first and take it from there. Yes, though it seems passively safe LWR's are quite massive. Nuscale reactor vessel is a frickin' 700 tons for a paltry 60 MWe. Thorcon reactor is 250 MWe (or is it 500, their materials are somewhat confusing?). Would a passively safe 250 MWe LWR fit on a ship, along with a pressure dome to handle a LOCA?