Your thoughts on molten salt nuclear fission reactors - yea or nay or I dont know

[uihawk82]

You may have never heard of them. They were actually the first reactors built in the late 1940's thru mid 1950's. Two of these working reactors were built and ran a long time. Very safe designs. They can use existing spent nuclear waste as fuel. A lot of people like James Hansen of NOAA and from Iowa say these types of reactors need to be used to create most of the energy we use and to replace carbon fuels.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukashima are liquid water reactors LWRs, like all the other commercial and military reactors in the world, that boil steam to get extreme temps and extreme pressures inside the reactor. Lose your electricity and you are unable to cool the reactor, hydrogen gas is created at high temps and pressures, and WHAM explosion inside the containment dome.

Many countries are working on what are called 3rd and 4th generation which use the old technology of molten salts etc to carry the fuel, carry away heat to boil water in another building with the generator, the the salt is also the coolant.

Molten salt reactors operate at high temperatures but the molten salts are liquids at basically atmospheric temperatures.

A "molten salt reactor" search in Wikipedia is a great read if you are interested and describes most of the current 21st Century projects in various countries. I believe China and Russia are just getting ready to bring a few of them online (of course those countries do not have the permitting and design regulations the US and other countries have).

PBS Nova "The Nuclear Option" is a very good 1 hour episode if you can access it on the history of molten salt reactors, how they work, and why they are safer.

 

[uihawk82]

Oh, check out the molten salt nuclear ship "Thor" at https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ulstein-touts-nuclear-concept-for-decarbonising-cr

And the company Ulstein.

 

[uihawk82]

Why did we end up building and using less safe and much costlier liquid water reactors? Well remember Admiral Hyman Rickover, the chief proponent and father of the nuclear navy? Well he pushed for the LWR on subs and other ships. GE, Westinghouse, and other big companies got the contracts to build them. Then those companies just steamrolled their way to building LWRs as commercial reactors, which were and are a gold mine for the companies because you have to keep buying their fuel rod assemblies, carbon rod moderators, and other components, for the life of the reactor.

 

[Grady]

My perspective on nuclear reactors for decades has been as follows:
1) if it's cost effective; and
2) IF you can get it insured in the U.S. by a private insurance company;
I'm on board. I'm 64 yrs old and no nuclear plant of ANY type has been able to even come close to meeting criteria #2. No insurance company can afford or is willing to cover any potential nuclear accident, period, end of story. For good reason.
I'll have to learn more about molten salt reactors, but if they can't meet the two simple criteria above, count me out. And with so many renewable alternatives, why not spend the same money doing R&R to lower the cost even further of truly waste-free alternatives?
Note: the state of California -- which if a country would have the 5th largest GDP in the world -- had a period last week where they fueled the entire state's electricity usage with renewables, primarily from giant solar arrays. It was only for a short time, but showed in practical terms what the future can look like.

 

[uihawk82]

My perspective on nuclear reactors for decades has been as follows:
1) if it's cost effective; and
2) IF you can get it insured in the U.S. by a private insurance company;
I'm on board. I'm 64 yrs old and no nuclear plant of ANY type has been able to even come close to meeting criteria #2. No insurance company can afford or is willing to cover any potential nuclear accident, period, end of story. For good reason.
I'll have to learn more about molten salt reactors, but if they can't meet the two simple criteria above, count me out. And with so many renewable alternatives, why not spend the same money doing R&R to lower the cost even further of truly waste-free alternatives?
Note: the state of California -- which if a country would have the 5th largest GDP in the world -- had a period last week where they fueled the entire state's electricity usage with renewables, primarily from giant solar arrays. It was only for a short time, but showed in practical terms what the future can look like.

Very good thougths. Nice reply. And I heard about the carbon free electricity period in Cali which is very cool.

Maybe these molten salt reactors can get some type of insurance or some liability item as many of these reactor designs have proven to be very safe, much safer for two reasons.

The molten salt has to reach a certain hot temperature range for fission to be at a high enough level.

First, uranium or thorium can be in the molten, circulating salt. If a reactor loses all electrical power, even backups, and the reaction heats up the molten salt expands to the point where the atoms are too far apart for the neutrons to reach them and keep the fission process going. This has been proven as some of the early molten salt reactors were put in a Scram situation on purpose and after heating up the system just slowly would cool down as reactions stopped.

The other fail safe is a design element. Under the 'pool' of circulating molten salt is a drain going down in a pipe. In the pipe is an electrical cooling element that freezes the salt into a solid 'plug'. If the electricity goes out, the plug melts, and all the molten salt then flows through the pipe into containment areas where the salt cools to a low enough temperature where fission is very low.

Fukashima and Chernobyl could not handle the loss of electricity makes it so that the carbon moderator rods cannot be moved to shut down the reactions. Then the water can't be circulated by pumps and YIKES, super hot, steam and hydrogen gas accumulate. and boom.

 

[HawkGold]

Don't those reactors make more material that can go boom?

 

[uihawk82]

Don't those reactors make more material that can go boom?
View attachment 8996

Actually, many of these molten salt reactor designs use up older nuclear wastes as fuel helping to eliminate those nuclear waste stockpiles. One of the most common types is the Lithium-Fluorine as the main salt and used uranium-fluoride salts mixed into the main salt. And as the uranium is used up you dont have to shut down the reactor but just add more uranium-fluorine salts to the mix.

Man, burning coal has and will continue to spew radioactive molecules as well as carcinogens right into the air we breathe.

I wonder how many energy workers in non-nuclear jobs are electrocuted, die of poisoning, badly hurt or killed in on the jobs accidents each year. Nothing is safe proof.

I understand how people can be afraid of nuclear reactors but that is why the nuclear energy industry is really focusing on these molten salt designs that are safer and can use nuclear wastes as fuel.

Another big fuel for molten salt reactors is Thorium which when hit with a neutron changes into Uranium-233 which is then hit with a neutron to produce energy and iirc two non-radioactive elements therefore no radioactive waste.

Anyway, James Hansen is one of the top climate scientists and he is smart enough to know that at least over the next 30-40 years these types of safer reactors can help bridge the time to fusion and more wind and solar or other green electricity, while at the same very much lowering the use of carbon fuels.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

You may have never heard of them. They were actually the first reactors built in the late 1940's thru mid 1950's. Two of these working reactors were built and ran a long time. Very safe designs. They can use existing spent nuclear waste as fuel. A lot of people like James Hansen of NOAA and from Iowa say these types of reactors need to be used to create most of the energy we use and to replace carbon fuels.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukashima are liquid water reactors LWRs, like all the other commercial and military reactors in the world, that boil steam to get extreme temps and extreme pressures inside the reactor. Lose your electricity and you are unable to cool the reactor, hydrogen gas is created at high temps and pressures, and WHAM explosion inside the containment dome.

Many countries are working on what are called 3rd and 4th generation which use the old technology of molten salts etc to carry the fuel, carry away heat to boil water in another building with the generator, the the salt is also the coolant.

Molten salt reactors operate at high temperatures but the molten salts are liquids at basically atmospheric temperatures.

A "molten salt reactor" search in Wikipedia is a great read if you are interested and describes most of the current 21st Century projects in various countries. I believe China and Russia are just getting ready to bring a few of them online (of course those countries do not have the permitting and design regulations the US and other countries have).

PBS Nova "The Nuclear Option" is a very good 1 hour episode if you can access it on the history of molten salt reactors, how they work, and why they are safer.

Funny you mention the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. I just watched that 4 part series on Netflix last night. That happened in March 1979 so I was 8 yrs old and remember that happening.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

My perspective on nuclear reactors for decades has been as follows:
1) if it's cost effective; and
2) IF you can get it insured in the U.S. by a private insurance company;
I'm on board. I'm 64 yrs old and no nuclear plant of ANY type has been able to even come close to meeting criteria #2. No insurance company can afford or is willing to cover any potential nuclear accident, period, end of story. For good reason.
I'll have to learn more about molten salt reactors, but if they can't meet the two simple criteria above, count me out. And with so many renewable alternatives, why not spend the same money doing R&R to lower the cost even further of truly waste-free alternatives?
Note: the state of California -- which if a country would have the 5th largest GDP in the world -- had a period last week where they fueled the entire state's electricity usage with renewables, primarily from giant solar arrays. It was only for a short time, but showed in practical terms what the future can look like.

Many of our nuclear plants in the US are getting pretty long in the tooth which can be be quite dangerous for a disaster and/or a maintenance problem. This is an issue. I know the plant at Palo near Cedar Rapids close to where I live was shuttered a few years ago.

 

[HawkGold]

Actually, many of these molten salt reactor designs use up older nuclear wastes as fuel helping to eliminate those nuclear waste stockpiles. One of the most common types is the Lithium-Fluorine as the main salt and used uranium-fluoride salts mixed into the main salt. And as the uranium is used up you dont have to shut down the reactor but just add more uranium-fluorine salts to the mix.

Man, burning coal has and will continue to spew radioactive molecules as well as carcinogens right into the air we breathe.

I wonder how many energy workers in non-nuclear jobs are electrocuted, die of poisoning, badly hurt or killed in on the jobs accidents each year. Nothing is safe proof.

I understand how people can be afraid of nuclear reactors but that is why the nuclear energy industry is really focusing on these molten salt designs that are safer and can use nuclear wastes as fuel.

Another big fuel for molten salt reactors is Thorium which when hit with a neutron changes into Uranium-233 which is then hit with a neutron to produce energy and iirc two non-radioactive elements therefore no radioactive waste.

Anyway, James Hansen is one of the top climate scientists and he is smart enough to know that at least over the next 30-40 years these types of safer reactors can help bridge the time to fusion and more wind and solar or other green electricity, while at the same very much lowering the use of carbon fuels.

I wouldn't think there would be many electrocutions in the generation of electricity. Mostly would come from distribution and consumption.

In the US most breathing contamination likely comes from household burning, automobiles, and agricultural purposes... I would think.

Don't think you answered my main question though. I do remember a small university reactor releasing radioactive gas where I went to school.

3 Mile Island could have been a lot worse.

Recently was looking into moving to Nevada and studied radioactive fallout in the US. Years ago I was considering a move to Ukraine for an agricultural business. My neighbor who worked at a local reactor came over with maps and discussed the impact on my kids. I didn't go.

I do believe based on my anecdotal observation that the impact of Chernobyl was a lot worse than reported and Ukraine didn't get the worst of it.

I also am aware of what recently happened at Chernobyl with Russian troops and what was a possible disaster in the making at Zaporhyzia.

What is interesting is that Diablo isn't considered the reactor most at risk from earthquakes. Disasters do happen. Back in the 1970 or early 80s was it lake Rathbun than had something like three of five hundred-year rain storms in 2 years? With storm intensities increasing it was interesting to see the Missouri flooding the area of the Nebraska plant.

What I find interesting is that it used to be Democrats that didn't trust business and Govt.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Actually, many of these molten salt reactor designs use up older nuclear wastes as fuel helping to eliminate those nuclear waste stockpiles. One of the most common types is the Lithium-Fluorine as the main salt and used uranium-fluoride salts mixed into the main salt. And as the uranium is used up you dont have to shut down the reactor but just add more uranium-fluorine salts to the mix.

Man, burning coal has and will continue to spew radioactive molecules as well as carcinogens right into the air we breathe.

I wonder how many energy workers in non-nuclear jobs are electrocuted, die of poisoning, badly hurt or killed in on the jobs accidents each year. Nothing is safe proof.

I understand how people can be afraid of nuclear reactors but that is why the nuclear energy industry is really focusing on these molten salt designs that are safer and can use nuclear wastes as fuel.

Another big fuel for molten salt reactors is Thorium which when hit with a neutron changes into Uranium-233 which is then hit with a neutron to produce energy and iirc two non-radioactive elements therefore no radioactive waste.

Anyway, James Hansen is one of the top climate scientists and he is smart enough to know that at least over the next 30-40 years these types of safer reactors can help bridge the time to fusion and more wind and solar or other green electricity, while at the same very much lowering the use of carbon fuels.

Just curious, why are you asking about energy workers deaths or injuries in non-nuclear jobs only? How come you are not asking about accidents or deaths in nuclear facilities?

 

[Grady]

While there are many concerns about nuclear power plants, one of the biggest concerns has emerged in just the last 10 yrs. The Ukraine/Russia war has demonstrated the vulnerability/danger of nuke plants during times of conflict, but even nuclear plants in the U.S. are vulnerable to an individual terrorist attack by drone. Can you imagine the scene if a drone dropped a bomb on a nuclear plant in the U.S.? I can. In fact, if I wanted to truly wreak havoc in the U.S. -- other than a cyberattack on our power grid -- simply having a drone drop a bomb on a nuclear power plant would be at the top of my list.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

While there are many concerns about nuclear power plants, one of the biggest concerns has emerged in just the last 10 yrs. The Ukraine/Russia war has demonstrated the vulnerability/danger of nuke plants during times of conflict, but even nuclear plants in the U.S. are vulnerable to an individual terrorist attack by drone. Can you imagine the scene if a drone dropped a bomb on a nuclear plant in the U.S.? I can. In fact, if I wanted to truly wreak havoc in the U.S. -- other than a cyberattack on our power grid -- simply having a drone drop a bomb on a nuclear power plant would be at the top of my list.

I would be more concerned with a cyberattack of the system than a drone attack. I mean, can't one presume there is a no-fly zone or a drone would be taken out quickly if attempted to get close?

 

[Grady]

I would be more concerned with a cyberattack of the system than a drone attack. I mean, can't one presume there is a no-fly zone or a drone would be taken out quickly if attempted to get close?

Well, you would think so, but timely security in the air space above nuclear plants isn't what you might think. It's not like they have anti-aircraft weapons sitting outside at the properties, and by the time the local national guard aircraft would scramble and get to the scene...well, the dirty deed would already be done.

 

[HawkGold]

While there are many concerns about nuclear power plants, one of the biggest concerns has emerged in just the last 10 yrs. The Ukraine/Russia war has demonstrated the vulnerability/danger of nuke plants during times of conflict, but even nuclear plants in the U.S. are vulnerable to an individual terrorist attack by drone. Can you imagine the scene if a drone dropped a bomb on a nuclear plant in the U.S.? I can. In fact, if I wanted to truly wreak havoc in the U.S. -- other than a cyberattack on our power grid -- simply having a drone drop a bomb on a nuclear power plant would be at the top of my list.

I have my FAA part 107 drone license. If anything having the license makes me realize how vulnerable we are. In the drone world, next year all drones will have remote ID which many scream about. I'm sure there will be some built somewhere to get around that. The Ukraine War has really brought out what drone pilots are capable of on a small scale.

 

[racerhawk]

My perspective on nuclear reactors for decades has been as follows:
1) if it's cost effective; and
2) IF you can get it insured in the U.S. by a private insurance company;
I'm on board. I'm 64 yrs old and no nuclear plant of ANY type has been able to even come close to meeting criteria #2. No insurance company can afford or is willing to cover any potential nuclear accident, period, end of story. For good reason.
I'll have to learn more about molten salt reactors, but if they can't meet the two simple criteria above, count me out. And with so many renewable alternatives, why not spend the same money doing R&R to lower the cost even further of truly waste-free alternatives?
Note: the state of California -- which if a country would have the 5th largest GDP in the world -- had a period last week where they fueled the entire state's electricity usage with renewables, primarily from giant solar arrays. It was only for a short time, but showed in practical terms what the future can look like.

Great post. BTW, I just moved to Southern California and I did see that for a brief period on a weekend, California got all of it's energy from renewables. It's a start. It's also not trivial. There are more people in my county than Iowa and Wisconsin combined.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Well, you would think so, but timely security in the air space above nuclear plants isn't what you might think. It's not like they have anti-aircraft weapons sitting outside at the properties, and by the time the local national guard aircraft would scramble and get to the scene...well, the dirty deed would already be done.

I suppose. I was kind of thinking that as well.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Great post. BTW, I just moved to Southern California and I did see that for a brief period on a weekend, California got all of it's energy from renewables. It's a start. It's also not trivial. There are more people in my county than Iowa and Wisconsin combined.

Don't they also have planned blackouts out there? You two are kind of making it sound like the grid is always full and/or there is an excess. Maybe we just aren't in the dead heat of summer yet.

Then add into that the drought and water issues. Yikes.

 

[racerhawk]

Don't they also have planned blackouts out there? You two are kind of making it sound like the grid is always full and/or there is an excess. Maybe we just aren't in the dead heat of summer yet.

Then add into that the drought and water issues. Yikes.

There are huge problems, exacerbated by climate change and a large population, that are problematic.

Water is a massive problem in the entire West. In the south, a few degrees average temp increase seems minor, but it won't be!

Climate change is a massive problem for all of us. Bigger storms, bigger droughts, more extremes. It's really sad.

 

[okeefe4prez]

There are huge problems, exacerbated by climate change and a large population, that are problematic.

Water is a massive problem in the entire West. In the south, a few degrees average temp increase seems minor, but it won't be!

Climate change is a massive problem for all of us. Bigger storms, bigger droughts, more extremes. It's really sad.

SoCal should only have maybe a million people tops. It ain't climate change's fault there's a water problem. There are plenty of water rich pockets in the state, but SoCal is a desert. Same with Arizona. Phoenix should be a sleepy town of 100,000, not the fifth largest city in the country.