3 ms·
I hope we manage to improve the design over the 1960s version MSRE which cost $130m to clean up due to unforeseen problems including a near-criticality incident
by pnw 4y ago
I hope we manage to improve the design over the 1960s version MSRE which cost $130m to clean up due to unforeseen problems including a near-criticality incident. Certainly there is a lot of research to be done.
- PaulHoule 4y agoThe cause of the criticality accident was that they did not remove the uranium when they were done with it. This is straightforward to do, you pump F2 gas into the salt and this gas is produced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride which can be stored in tanks. Instead of removing it they let the salt sit, and radioactive decay led to F2 gas being produced by the salt, which caused UF6 to be produced slowly and then migrate. This mistake won't happen again.
- panick21_ 4y agoEven with that issue, it was still a project that was amazing, they did incredible work, and the cost was very small. Almost hilariously so compared to other nuclear reactor projects. Had that same team received the funding for a next large commercial prototype, the world would be different now. But sadly Nixon preferred to spend money for nuclear research in California, Tennessee not exactly a priority. Alvin M. Weinberg also didn't make himself any friends with government higher ups when he criticized PWR programs for civilian nuclear.