3 ms·

This is a good sign. At one time it was going to burn previously used fuel rods from other reactors (which simultaneously generates power and cuts down on store

This is a good sign. At one time it was going to burn previously used fuel rods from other reactors (which simultaneously generates power and cuts down on stored nuclear waste). Not quite a breeder reactor, it does make fuel as it operates and then burns it. From a whitepaper[1] Bill Gates discussed how the reactor would start with "some" fuel and a bunch of depleted uranium. It would then convert the DU into plutonium (PU) and burn it. Letting it run a very long time without refueling and for lower cost. On their web site they show a two stage heat transfer system (primary sodium loop and secondary loop) that isolates the reactor's loop from the loop used to generate power. And finally the fact that you gravity feed the control rods in and it stops, while running at ambient air pressure means that things like the explosions that popped the top off the Fukishima reactors can't happen. [1] https://heep.hks.harvard.edu/files/heep/files/day_4_sess_1_terrapower_for_lassiter.pdf https://heep.hks.harvard.edu/files/heep/files/day_4_sess_1_t...

trhway 5y ago
>convert the DU into plutonium (PU) one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle. > gravity feed the control rods in and it stops a bit of delay happened in the Chernobyl case, and the rods just couldn't fit into the channels anymore.
- adventured 5y ago
  > one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle. Why would that be an interesting intellectual exercise though? The US has had nukes for 3/4 of a century. What is there to be concerned about in regards to that conversion & the US, so long as it's properly regulated and accounted for. The US has had the trivial capacity to spur mass global proliferation since WW2, it has overwhelmingly chosen not to do that.
danans 5y ago
I wonder what kind of materials they use in the secondary heat exchanger loop piping to keep the molten sodium and steam apart while still allowing heat exchange between the two.
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  That's a good question. The short answer is that the only molten salt reactor in the US used Hastalloy-N (a Ni alloy), and it failed. See also: https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperature%20Materials/45171%20Status%20of%20Metallic%20Structural.pdf https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperat...

trhway 5y ago

>convert the DU into plutonium (PU) one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle. > gravity feed the control rods in and it stops a bit of delay happened in the Chernobyl case, and the rods just couldn't fit into the channels anymore.

adventured 5y ago
> one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle. Why would that be an interesting intellectual exercise though? The US has had nukes for 3/4 of a century. What is there to be concerned about in regards to that conversion & the US, so long as it's properly regulated and accounted for. The US has had the trivial capacity to spur mass global proliferation since WW2, it has overwhelmingly chosen not to do that.

danans 5y ago

I wonder what kind of materials they use in the secondary heat exchanger loop piping to keep the molten sodium and steam apart while still allowing heat exchange between the two.

brandmeyer 5y ago
That's a good question. The short answer is that the only molten salt reactor in the US used Hastalloy-N (a Ni alloy), and it failed. See also: https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperature%20Materials/45171%20Status%20of%20Metallic%20Structural.pdf https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperat...