5 ms·
This boldly claims that molten salt reactors are safe, but my understanding is that these systems require carefully engineered coatings to function and that in
by m0llusk 5y ago
This boldly claims that molten salt reactors are safe, but my understanding is that these systems require carefully engineered coatings to function and that in practice every such system has leaked liquid sodium. The statement may be essentially true kind of like saying elevators are safe, but there is still room for risk analysis and expectation of occasional failures.
- abracadaniel 5y agoStoring and piping molten salt proved too unreliable for the Crescent Dunes solar collector. Swapping out the simple and free heat source with a much more complex nuclear reactor doesn’t seem like a good idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Pr...
- mlyle 5y agoMostly because of problems with foundations and the power-tower architecture. And note that other molten salt concentrated solar plants have done just fine, and that nuclear power is much more highly regulated and requires a higher degree of engineering analysis than a concentrated solar plant (that's why it's so expensive, in large part!)
- Stevvo 5y agoThere are multiple other solar plants operating with molten salts without issue, including the biggest in Morocco.
- ortusdux 5y agoI've been working on molten salt reactor claddings for a few years now. MSRs are very safe. First, there are two main groups of molten salt systems. One group uses generic salt to transport heat. This usually provides efficiency gains over water based systems. These are the systems that might leak sodium and it's no big deal. The 2nd kind of system uses a salt with the fissile material dissolved in it. This is what the article is about. Leaks in these systems are not an option. The molten salt in this case slowly attacks any metal it comes in contact with. The tanks, tubes, etc. are designed with a large safety margin and constantly monitored. The salt chemistry is also monitored for signs of the materials the storage vessel is made of.
- ncmncm 5y agoIf you find "materials the storage vessel is made of" in the salt, do you shut it down and abandon it? Alternative would be to drain it into a holding tank and, what, send somebody in to fix it? Who?
- mlyle 5y ago> If you find "materials the storage vessel is made of" in the salt, do you shut it down and abandon it? You identify the operational error in salt chemistry that has lead to losing some of the storage vessel material, and then you perform engineering analysis on the new resultant factor of safety. If necessary, next fueling cycle you shut down the reactor and perform remediation actions.
- ncmncm 5y agoAssume you need "remediation actions", and that would have to mean sending somebody to climb inside and weld something. Do you shut it down and abandon it, instead? Who goes in?
- jabl 5y agoYou seem to be desperately angling for somebody to say that the evil reactor management orders one of the workers to be sacrificed by going into the highly radioactive reactor vessel. Why?
- jeffbee 5y agoI don't know if they are safe or not but one thing that disturbs me about neo-fission propaganda is how they so nonchalantly dismiss what seem to me to be threats worth discussing. For example, MSR fans will say that they operate at standard pressure, and therefore can't rupture. Also, gaseous fission products are removed continuously. OK but what about the gaseous fission products if the removal system ceases to function? Then what about the pressure? Same question about water. MSRs are safer because they contain no water, which can't flash to steam and explode. OK, but what about water intrusion on the surprisingly wet planet Earth? What if the reactor is flooded? Would a flooded reactor stop the passive safety plug from melting? I always had the same suspicions about the pebble bed reactor boosters. That was a design that was always sold as being inherently safe and self-moderating, with the huge, huge asterisk that if any oxygen or water ever gets anywhere near the fuel the whole thing will explode and then catch on fire, which seems like a pretty severe drawback. Any time you see a claim that a reactor vessel "does not contain" either water or oxygen, just mentally translate that to "is not designed to contain" or "does not initially contain" before reading further.
- jabl 5y ago> in practice every such system has leaked liquid sodium Just to clarify, reactors cooled by liquid sodium are not molten salt reactors but rather belong to the class of reactors often called "metal-cooled" (sodium is a metal, not a salt, see).