4 ms·
> "Over 40% of [fission products] leave core [in offgas]" "Large fraction of cesium, strontium, and iodine end up in offgas" That could, in theory at least, be
by jabl 4y ago
> "Over 40% of [fission products] leave core [in offgas]"
"Large fraction of cesium, strontium, and iodine end up in offgas"
That could, in theory at least, be an advantage if you have a good process for capturing and storing that offgas (reacting it with something to make it solid and then glassifying it, for instance).
In a traditional fission reactor, gaseous fission products cause swelling and cracking of fuel pellets, and builds up pressure in the fuel tubes, which is one of the factors limiting fuel burnup.
- pfdietz 4y agoIt means the offgas storage system has to be designed for a large heat load, even in accident scenarios. It also means the common MSR talking point that the FPs stay in the salt is not correct.
- jabl 4y ago> common MSR talking point Well, a lot of 'common MSR talking points' are overblown, firmly detached from reality. Or at least conveniently ignoring all the significant challenges remaining in industrializing MSR technology. MSR fanboys are the most tedious of the pro-nuclear side of the energy debate, perhaps beaten only by the "this entirely unproven aneutronic fusion concept will imminently solve all our energy woes" crowd. :)
- pfdietz 4y agoThis is why I refer to Helion as the "least dubious" fusion concept. :)
- panick21_ 4y agoMoltex Energy talks a lot about that. It is actually pretty nice, some things stay in the salt, some leave it. The most dangerous stuff that shows up in the news a big scary cloud coming over from Japan to the US would still be in the salt. Some other things that you really don't in your fuel, like Xenon and Krypton will bubble out. So I think overall it is an advantage.
- pfdietz 4y agoMoltex's design keeps the relevant isotopes of Xe/Kr in the fuel tubes long enough for them to (mostly) decay, so the Cs and Sr produced from the decay (mostly) stays in the fuel salt.