achalhp

7 ms·

1.
by achalhp 6y ago
You're correct. The vessel & primary heat exchanger of a MSR which are in contact with liquid-fuel is equivalent to fuel assemblies of many solid-fuel reactors. In solid-fuel reactors the clad which is designed to contain fuel does
2.
by achalhp 6y ago
I agree. But, in a molten-salt reactor, the vessel and heat exchangers are equivalent to fuel assemblies. Dispose the vessel and heat exchangers similar to Zr-clad million dollar fuel assemblies.(PWR/BWR reload costs $60-100 million pe
3.
by achalhp 7y ago
Good points. Primary loop of a MSR is equivalent to a cladding of a solid fuel assembly. You get a REACTOR at the same cost/MWe of solid fuel assembly. Ni alloys are cheaper than Zr alloy. So, early MSR designers will not opt for maint
4.
by achalhp 7y ago
Planets rotate so backup power is needed during nights. Spacecraft has to avoid obstracles and has to move, so backup is needed. During interstallar journey there is time delay in communication, so it may take hours to adjust the power beam
5.
by achalhp 7y ago
You included my sentence: "Efficiency really matters when we have >1000 GW of installed nuclear capacity." I wanted to address that: efficiency matters. Inefficient technologies will hit some constraints if not others. We may r
6.
by achalhp 7y ago
(Molten salt reactor is a fluid fuel reactor. Fluid: liquid, gas and plasma.) Molten salt reactor is a stepping stone for fusion reactors. We need to master liquid and gaseous reactors before going plasma. Our civilization should aim for la
7.
by achalhp 7y ago
Highest temperature fission reactors are the gas core (vapor core) and ion core reactors. They are fluid-fuel reactors, but not demonstrated. Currently solid-fuel reactors hold the record for highest temperatures. Fusion reactor runs hotter
8.
by achalhp 7y ago
>Tritium production: If lithium is used in the salt, tritium will be produced, Not a disadvantage for all MSRs. Both lithium and beryllium can be avoided. FLiBe is required for efficient MSRs and MSBR. >Mobile fission products It is
9.
by achalhp 7y ago
>Complex chemical plant This is not a disadvantage for all MSRs. Only breeders need chemical plant. Not fair to compare a solid-fuel burner to liquid-fuel breeder. Let us compare liquid fuel breeder vs. solid-fuel breeder: Reprocessing s
10.
by achalhp 7y ago
The successor of LWR/HWR should be a fluid-fuel reactor. Once we setup a pebble/advanced fuel making factory, closing it will takes decades (because people may lose jobs) and the new solid-fuel factory will again pause nuclear inn
11.
by achalhp 7y ago
Firstly heat from inefficient low temperature solid-fuel reactors can't be used directly for many applications. So consider electricity. Cars/planes/kitchen-stoves cant use uranium or nuclear heat!! All 4.5 billion tons can&#
12.
by achalhp 7y ago
From the article: >Problems with Molten Salt Reactors... >...but similar problems may show up in long-lived power reactors. Author assumes that MSR components should last as long as vessels and secondary heat exchangers of solid-fuel
13.
by achalhp 7y ago
From the article: >if something goes wrong in a MSR and the temperature starts going up, a freeze plug can melt, A MSR does not need any sort of valve to drain the fuel. ORNL-MSBR was designed to drain the core when pumps stopped working
14.
by achalhp 7y ago
RE: Ah, the good old days! <0.5 rem per quarter (or 5 mSV) is in compliance with today's dose limit. ORNL was a competent American national lab with high standards even back in the 1960s. Another hollow argument from today's in
15.
by achalhp 7y ago
MSRE had a charcoal-bed off-gas system which safely stored all the noble gases. It was cooled and shielded with water, similar to today's PWRs. PWRs also have water chemistry control and resin-bed filters for primary loop which is high
16.
by achalhp 7y ago
RE: Furthermore, they were in the 1960s, before the NRC existed and before we worried about ALARA. "Exposure of personnel to radiation has been held well below permissible limits: the maximum exposure of any individual in any quarter h
17.
by achalhp 7y ago
RE: A line I heard recently regarding MSR maintenance is: "You'll need robots to do the maintenance of your maintenance robots." Another memorable gem is "If you can make robots that can do that, you should just sell the
18.
by achalhp 8y ago
Both metallic fuel and salt fuel are not suitable for geological repository. Salt fuel may be stored in salt mines, but unproven. More R&D is needed for geological disposal; but, the point in having metallic fuel or salt fuel is the eas
19.
by achalhp 8y ago
RE "This kind of reactor needs enrichment once (to start up) and then can just be fed natural, DU, or SNF and it will run on a stream of it happily "forever" (until the vessel life is reached, at which point you transfer the
20.
by achalhp 8y ago
Yeah, I missed it the first time. You commented when I started editing it. I took (N,TOT) this time. Fission product cross sections is still higher. https://imgur.com/a/pjoNv1p CANDU: DUPIC fuel cycle is not demonstrat
21.
by achalhp 8y ago
Fission products have larger cross section than enriched Boron-10. It is all about concentration; that is the number of B-10 atoms per number of atoms of fuel. Here is the cross sections plot I took yesterday: https://imgur.com&#
22.
by achalhp 8y ago
What applies for fission products should also apply for control rods in fast spectrum. If control rods do not absorb fast neutrons, how a fast reactor is controlled? The cross section of fuel in fast spectrum also decreases. Fast reactors h