Molten Salt Nuclear Meltdown-Proof Reactors- WTH Is Taking T

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 1:52:10 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
International Energy Agency, the United Nations,
the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate
scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power
if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change.
Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps
MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most
everyone can embrace."

What about R&D funded in the EU? Maybe France? China?


--
Thanks,
- Win

"The new investment will allow Seaborg’s team to increase its staff to 16 employees, making it the largest reactor development start-up in Europe."

Are you kidding me, 16 employees is the largest startup in Europe???

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/seaborg-technologies-molten-salt/

And they're using all the R&D money to develop regulation compliant analysis software for their process!

You would think the bureaucracy would accommodate an intrinsically safe reactor technology, but they won't. The U.S. has to be the most unmovable process in the world. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), puts all applications for construction permits on 5-year schedule, and ultimately wants a detailed engineering blueprint of every little aspect of the plan before the permit is granted. The application process alone can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. You're never going to get anything done with that kind of overhead, it's a major impediment to progress.

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

People seem to put a lot of emphasis on preventing a meltdown from the primary reaction. I don't think we've ever seen that anywhere other than Chernobyl perhaps. The other accidents at civilian reactors has been from the residual heat from the fission products. The only way to deal with this is to cool the reactor. Loose your cooling and it will melt down even if the moderator is removed and the control rods are inserted.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 1:52:10 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
International Energy Agency, the United Nations,
the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate
scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power
if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change.
Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps
MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most
everyone can embrace."

What about R&D funded in the EU? Maybe France? China?


--
Thanks,
- Win

"The new investment will allow Seaborg’s team to increase its staff to 16 employees, making it the largest reactor development start-up in Europe."

Are you kidding me, 16 employees is the largest startup in Europe???

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/seaborg-technologies-molten-salt/

And they're using all the R&D money to develop regulation compliant analysis software for their process!

You would think the bureaucracy would accommodate an intrinsically safe reactor technology, but they won't. The U.S. has to be the most unmovable process in the world. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), puts all applications for construction permits on 5-year schedule, and ultimately wants a detailed engineering blueprint of every little aspect of the plan before the permit is granted. The application process alone can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. You're never going to get anything done with that kind of overhead, it's a major impediment to progress.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

> Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense. One can test any technology in small pieces, before asssembling the whole.
The first A-bomb went pop on schedule, after lots of listening to clicks, watching
things glow, and feeding measurements through computation (the 'computers' were
Army enlistees with good arithmetic skills). The second wasn't even the same design,
and it went bang as predicted, too. The

Technology testing doesn't only happen with full-scale working models, it just turns out to be
easier that way sometimes.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense. One can test any technology in small pieces, before asssembling the whole.
The first A-bomb went pop on schedule, after lots of listening to clicks, watching
things glow, and feeding measurements through computation (the 'computers' were
Army enlistees with good arithmetic skills). The second wasn't even the same design,
and it went bang as predicted, too. The

Technology testing doesn't only happen with full-scale working models, it just turns out to be
easier that way sometimes.

Great speech. But that level of testing has not been done either. There are no "intrinsically safe" nuclear reactors or reactor designs.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense. One can test any technology in small pieces...
Technology testing doesn't only happen with full-scale working models, it just turns out to be
easier that way sometimes.

Great speech. But that level of testing has not been done either. There are no "intrinsically safe" nuclear reactors or reactor designs.

There's no 'intrinsically safe' room or room design except a padded cell, by some reckoning.

Safety is important, but the 'intrinsically safe' label only applies to one particular kind of
safety solution, it's NOT a requirement (nor panacea). A variety of disaster scenarios
can be minimized or eliminated, so why have we virtually frozen designs at
half-a-century-ago level of development? I see fear, uncertainty, doubt,
hear loud irrational voices, but no other cause to cease nuclear engineering progress.

 

[Martin Riddle]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change. Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most everyone can embrace."

And this technology can "load follow" which will avoid failures in the renewable generation as recently occurred in Texas.

That Transatomic they mention has since gone bust. After admitting they made several errors in estimating nuclear waste reuse, seems they lost financial backing.


https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

My guess is that Cold start issue.

Cheers

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 5:59:08 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense. One can test any technology in small pieces...
Technology testing doesn't only happen with full-scale working models, it just turns out to be
easier that way sometimes.

Great speech. But that level of testing has not been done either. There are no "intrinsically safe" nuclear reactors or reactor designs.

There's no 'intrinsically safe' room or room design except a padded cell, by some reckoning.

Safety is important, but the 'intrinsically safe' label only applies to one particular kind of
safety solution, it's NOT a requirement (nor panacea). A variety of disaster scenarios
can be minimized or eliminated, so why have we virtually frozen designs at
half-a-century-ago level of development? I see fear, uncertainty, doubt,
hear loud irrational voices, but no other cause to cease nuclear engineering progress.

No, the issues are all cost. It simply costs too much to develop new technologies to use nuclear energy with adequate safety.

You seem to want to claim the safety measures are excessive. Many will point out the problems with earlier facilities that resulted in the accidents we have had. Accidents that we were lucky were not more frequent and more severe. Then you are suggesting we are doing too much for nuclear safety.

When people try to equate nuclear safety to other industries, they forget the enormously high impact a worst case nuclear accident can half on an area.. If your home were in the are of a nuclear disaster, it would be much like your home burning to the ground. Your life will never be the same again. You will never recover financially. The difference is when your home burns, often your neighbors will help you out, at least in the beginning when things are the hardest. If your home is impacted by a nuclear accident, your neighbors will be in the same boat. Hundreds or even thousands of families will never recover financially.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 5:59:08 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense. One can test any technology in small pieces...
Technology testing doesn't only happen with full-scale working models, it just turns out to be
easier that way sometimes.

There are no "intrinsically safe" nuclear reactors or reactor designs.

There's no 'intrinsically safe' room or room design except a padded cell, by some reckoning.

Safety is important, but the 'intrinsically safe' label only applies to one particular kind of
safety solution...
...why have we virtually frozen designs at
half-a-century-ago level of development? I see fear, uncertainty, doubt,
hear loud irrational voices, but no other cause to cease nuclear engineering progress.

No, the issues are all cost. It simply costs too much to develop new technologies to use nuclear energy with adequate safety.

How can you know that? Have you done such development? It seems not to be happening,
as far as I can tell (money-starvation is visible, but NOT money-at-work). A common
opinion of 'costs too much' does rather impede investment; engineering schools close
programs and experts retire in genteel poverty.

> You seem to want to claim the safety measures are excessive

No, what I want to claim is that spent-fuel 'safe storage' is an unnecessarily high-cost, low-safety
option, and either reprocessing or some variant on burial (both of which have been
ruled out 'at this time'... for decades) must be reconsidered.

>Many will point out the problems with earlier facilities that resulted in the accidents we have had. Accidents that we were lucky were not more frequent and more severe. Then you are suggesting we are doing too much for nuclear safety.

The TMi accident wasn't 'lucky', it was not injurious to the neighbors because of robust safe design.
Why would one call it luck? What 'problems' can you be referring to?
Rather than talking about luck, reassess probability estimates. Worst-case analysis
over-predicts problem likelihood and magnitudes.

What ARE we 'doing... for nuclear safety' when above-ground repositories, like at Fukushima, must
be actively managed?

> When people try to equate nuclear safety to other industries, they forget the enormously high impact a worst case nuclear accident can half on an area...

That sounds like someone reading out of the old Rasmussen report. Quotable, yes; accurate,
no.

There's nothing prudent about shopping for over-optimistic scenarios, NOR about shopping for
over-pessimistic ones. Try for accuracy.

 

[Phil Allison]

whitless junior the 3rd wrote:

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe???
Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that
has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense.

One can test any technology in small pieces, before asssembling the whole.
The first A-bomb went pop on schedule, after lots of listening to clicks,
watching things glow, and feeding measurements through computation

** Plus a nice full scale trial in New Mexico - the "Trinity" test.

The second wasn't even the same design,
and it went bang as predicted, too.

** The second nuke dropped was a Plutonium implosion device - same as the one dropped on Nagasaki - and its exact twin was the one tested in full scale.

Tests are normally required to prove any new design.

The engineers working on the Manhattan project would have like to do more tests but there was neither time nor opportunity. Such isolated examples CANNOT be used to prove anything.

Massive fallacy.


..... Phil

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 3:33:03 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 5:59:08 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense. One can test any technology in small pieces...
Technology testing doesn't only happen with full-scale working models, it just turns out to be
easier that way sometimes.

There are no "intrinsically safe" nuclear reactors or reactor designs.

There's no 'intrinsically safe' room or room design except a padded cell, by some reckoning.

Safety is important, but the 'intrinsically safe' label only applies to one particular kind of
safety solution...
...why have we virtually frozen designs at
half-a-century-ago level of development? I see fear, uncertainty, doubt,
hear loud irrational voices, but no other cause to cease nuclear engineering progress.

No, the issues are all cost. It simply costs too much to develop new technologies to use nuclear energy with adequate safety.

How can you know that? Have you done such development? It seems not to be happening,
as far as I can tell (money-starvation is visible, but NOT money-at-work)..

Not sure what you just said, but sounds like you are agreeing with me. Yes, investment in new nuclear reactor technologies is not happening. At least not to enough degree that it is happening in a meaningful way. The Chinese say they are making investments, but elsewhere not so much.

A common
opinion of 'costs too much' does rather impede investment; engineering schools close
programs and experts retire in genteel poverty.

You seem to want to claim the safety measures are excessive

No, what I want to claim is that spent-fuel 'safe storage' is an unnecessarily high-cost, low-safety
option, and either reprocessing or some variant on burial (both of which have been
ruled out 'at this time'... for decades) must be reconsidered.

Yes, various methods of disposing of nuclear fuel have been "ruled out" at this time. So far this seems mostly reasonable and is an indicator of unknown risk and expense. Even if we pick a disposal method and use it, how are we going to make the utilities pay for it for the next 10,000 years? Who can accurately forecast the costs well enough to allow the utilities to set enough reserve to make sure it never runs out of money when problems happen?

Many will point out the problems with earlier facilities that resulted in the accidents we have had. Accidents that we were lucky were not more frequent and more severe. Then you are suggesting we are doing too much for nuclear safety.

The TMi accident wasn't 'lucky', it was not injurious to the neighbors because of robust safe design.

Lol! I like that. You should try to deliver that with a straight face though. I suppose the accident also was the result of a robust, safe design? Give it an honest read sometime. The accident happened because in many ways, the power plant was an accident waiting to happen. There were numerous problems in the design and procedures that allowed a relatively minor issue to cause the reactor core to melt. That's not a "robust, safe design".

You can't improve until you admit you have a problem.

With the earthquake at the North Anna reactors more of the curtain was pulled aside. Any number of safety problems were uncovered as well as construction issues that prevented proper data collection and analysis to get to the root causes.

I would go through the list again, but I've posted here about this several times already.

So from 1979 to 2011 and we are still learning how to make these things safe.

Why would one call it luck? What 'problems' can you be referring to?
Rather than talking about luck, reassess probability estimates. Worst-case analysis
over-predicts problem likelihood and magnitudes.

The nuclear industry can't seem to do that, why would you expect me to? North Anna was designed to withstand stronger shaking than any anticipated earthquake in the area. When an actual earthquake hit the impact was twice the design limit. There are any number of design and operational failures over the history of the nuclear industry.

I did an analysis of risk from earthquake here once. I believe the starting point was a US figure of 1:74,176 risk of core damage releasing radiation per reactor per year. Do the math of 100 reactors (in the US) over a 40 year operating life (even though many have been extended to another 30 years) and you get something worse than 1:20 overall!!! Is that an acceptable risk? Factor in a 70 year lifespan and it reaches 1:10.

I guess because TMI happened you could argue we've had our one accident for the next 100 years.

Here's some more info...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_damage_frequency

Actual historical world data shows 1 in every 1,309 reactor years. Why is this so much worse than expected??? Sounds to me like the risk is being "under-estimated" rather than "over-estimated".

What ARE we 'doing... for nuclear safety' when above-ground repositories, like at Fukushima, must
be actively managed?

Not sure what you are asking here.

When people try to equate nuclear safety to other industries, they forget the enormously high impact a worst case nuclear accident can half on an area...

That sounds like someone reading out of the old Rasmussen report. Quotable, yes; accurate,
no.

Not accurate? What isn't accurate?

There's nothing prudent about shopping for over-optimistic scenarios, NOR about shopping for
over-pessimistic ones. Try for accuracy.

You mean like Chernobyl or Fukushima? What are you talking about?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 5:09:53 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

whitless junior the 3rd wrote:




Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe???
Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that
has not been tested in any significant way.

Nonsense.

One can test any technology in small pieces, before asssembling the whole.
The first A-bomb went pop on schedule, after lots of listening to clicks,
watching things glow, and feeding measurements through computation


** Plus a nice full scale trial in New Mexico - the "Trinity" test.


The second wasn't even the same design,
and it went bang as predicted, too.


** The second nuke dropped was a Plutonium implosion device - same as the one dropped on Nagasaki - and its exact twin was the one tested in full scale.

Tests are normally required to prove any new design.

The engineers working on the Manhattan project would have like to do more tests but there was neither time nor opportunity. Such isolated examples CANNOT be used to prove anything.

Mostly there wasn't enough material. While they were making Plutonium in (barely) adequate amounts, it was very hard to separate the U235 in adequate amounts and they would not have had enough for another bomb for weeks. So the little boy dropped on Hiroshima was the first test of such a weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:43:13 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 3:33:03 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 5:59:08 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:14:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

<snip>

> I guess because TMI happened you could argue we've had our one accident for the next 100 years.

Only if you haven't got a clue how probability works.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 10:28:20 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 1:52:10 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
International Energy Agency, the United Nations,
the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate
scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power
if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change.
Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps
MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most
everyone can embrace."

What about R&D funded in the EU? Maybe France? China?


--
Thanks,
- Win

"The new investment will allow Seaborg’s team to increase its staff to 16 employees, making it the largest reactor development start-up in Europe."

Are you kidding me, 16 employees is the largest startup in Europe???

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/seaborg-technologies-molten-salt/

And they're using all the R&D money to develop regulation compliant analysis software for their process!

You would think the bureaucracy would accommodate an intrinsically safe reactor technology, but they won't. The U.S. has to be the most unmovable process in the world. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), puts all applications for construction permits on 5-year schedule, and ultimately wants a detailed engineering blueprint of every little aspect of the plan before the permit is granted. The application process alone can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. You're never going to get anything done with that kind of overhead, it's a major impediment to progress.

Which nuclear reactor technology is intrinsically safe??? Certainly no one can say this about a new technology that has not been tested in any significant way.

People seem to put a lot of emphasis on preventing a meltdown from the primary reaction. I don't think we've ever seen that anywhere other than Chernobyl perhaps. The other accidents at civilian reactors has been from the residual heat from the fission products. The only way to deal with this is to cool the reactor. Loose your cooling and it will melt down even if the moderator is removed and the control rods are inserted.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Catastrophic meltdown is not a danger with this technology, the reaction self-extinguishes if for some reason it can no longer be contained. And runaway prevention is totally passive in that it does not require manual intervention. A temperature sensitive plug melts and dumps the molten salt into holding tanks using gravity. The reaction chamber operates at atmospheric pressure so that all the headache with developing a super unbreachbable containment system is eliminated. There is absolutely no possibility of venting a high pressure super radioactive iodine gas cloud or some such the hysterics are always complaining about...The technology is intrinsically safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Advantages

 

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-4, Martin Riddle wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change. Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most everyone can embrace."

And this technology can "load follow" which will avoid failures in the renewable generation as recently occurred in Texas.

That Transatomic they mention has since gone bust. After admitting they made several errors in estimating nuclear waste reuse, seems they lost financial backing.


https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

My guess is that Cold start issue.

Cheers

I don't see any mention of a "cold start" hurdle. The number one issue will be regulatory changes required to accommodate a radically new technology- AS USUAL.

The design requires a different repertoire of materials and tolerances. Apparently the high neutron flux density present in MSR causes damage to things like nickle and iron alloys commonly used in reactor piping. A major consideration is the reactor can be used to produce weapons grade material. And then there is the not inconsiderable requirement for an onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.

The individuals going for the gold are confident they have the engineering/ scientific hurdles beat. This is a different era and we have the tools to solve these kinds of problems quickly.

Background plus reading list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Disadvantages

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 3:06:17 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-4, Martin Riddle wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change. Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most everyone can embrace."

And this technology can "load follow" which will avoid failures in the renewable generation as recently occurred in Texas.

That Transatomic they mention has since gone bust. After admitting they made several errors in estimating nuclear waste reuse, seems they lost financial backing.


https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

My guess is that Cold start issue.

Cheers

I don't see any mention of a "cold start" hurdle. The number one issue will be regulatory changes required to accommodate a radically new technology- AS USUAL.

By regulatory changes, you mean proving it is safe before being unleashed on the public??? Yes, that is what will happen and that is what is best.

Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?


> The design requires a different repertoire of materials and tolerances. Apparently the high neutron flux density present in MSR causes damage to things like nickle and iron alloys commonly used in reactor piping. A major consideration is the reactor can be used to produce weapons grade material. And then there is the not inconsiderable requirement for an onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.

I've never heard that it can be used to produce weapon grade material, in fact the opposite. Even the waste is hard to use for dirty bombs because it is too dangerous to handle casually. That may be only for a thorium reactor since that was the topic where I have seen MSR discussed.


> The individuals going for the gold are confident they have the engineering/ scientific hurdles beat. This is a different era and we have the tools to solve these kinds of problems quickly.

That statement is what they call "hubris" I believe. "Nemesis is the goddess who enacts retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods)"

Background plus reading list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Disadvantages

Here you contradict yourself by giving us the problem areas that have not been worked out yet and so we can't have complete confidence there will be easy solutions.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 20/08/2019 05:49, Rick C wrote:

<snip>

> Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?

Isn't that what always happens?

Cheers
--
Clive

 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:49:26 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 3:06:17 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-4, Martin Riddle wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change. Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most everyone can embrace."

And this technology can "load follow" which will avoid failures in the renewable generation as recently occurred in Texas.

That Transatomic they mention has since gone bust. After admitting they made several errors in estimating nuclear waste reuse, seems they lost financial backing.


https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

My guess is that Cold start issue.

Cheers

I don't see any mention of a "cold start" hurdle. The number one issue will be regulatory changes required to accommodate a radically new technology- AS USUAL.

By regulatory changes, you mean proving it is safe before being unleashed on the public??? Yes, that is what will happen and that is what is best.

Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?


The design requires a different repertoire of materials and tolerances. Apparently the high neutron flux density present in MSR causes damage to things like nickle and iron alloys commonly used in reactor piping. A major consideration is the reactor can be used to produce weapons grade material. And then there is the not inconsiderable requirement for an onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.

I've never heard that it can be used to produce weapon grade material, in fact the opposite. Even the waste is hard to use for dirty bombs because it is too dangerous to handle casually. That may be only for a thorium reactor since that was the topic where I have seen MSR discussed.


The individuals going for the gold are confident they have the engineering/ scientific hurdles beat. This is a different era and we have the tools to solve these kinds of problems quickly.

That statement is what they call "hubris" I believe. "Nemesis is the goddess who enacts retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods)"


Background plus reading list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Disadvantages

Here you contradict yourself by giving us the problem areas that have not been worked out yet and so we can't have complete confidence there will be easy solutions.

No, that's not what that means. The statement refers to the necessity of changes to boiler plate subsystems of conventional water based reactor design..
I would suggest remedial reading comprehension class, but even that won't help you.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 7:21:55 AM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 20/08/2019 05:49, Rick C wrote:

snip

Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?

Isn't that what always happens?

Only when the stupid and emotional are involved in making the decisions.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:49:26 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 3:06:17 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-4, Martin Riddle wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change. Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most everyone can embrace."

And this technology can "load follow" which will avoid failures in the renewable generation as recently occurred in Texas.

That Transatomic they mention has since gone bust. After admitting they made several errors in estimating nuclear waste reuse, seems they lost financial backing.


https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

My guess is that Cold start issue.

Cheers

I don't see any mention of a "cold start" hurdle. The number one issue will be regulatory changes required to accommodate a radically new technology- AS USUAL.

By regulatory changes, you mean proving it is safe before being unleashed on the public??? Yes, that is what will happen and that is what is best..

Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?


The design requires a different repertoire of materials and tolerances. Apparently the high neutron flux density present in MSR causes damage to things like nickle and iron alloys commonly used in reactor piping. A major consideration is the reactor can be used to produce weapons grade material. And then there is the not inconsiderable requirement for an onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.

I've never heard that it can be used to produce weapon grade material, in fact the opposite. Even the waste is hard to use for dirty bombs because it is too dangerous to handle casually. That may be only for a thorium reactor since that was the topic where I have seen MSR discussed.


The individuals going for the gold are confident they have the engineering/ scientific hurdles beat. This is a different era and we have the tools to solve these kinds of problems quickly.

That statement is what they call "hubris" I believe. "Nemesis is the goddess who enacts retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods)"


Background plus reading list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Disadvantages

Here you contradict yourself by giving us the problem areas that have not been worked out yet and so we can't have complete confidence there will be easy solutions.

No, that's not what that means. The statement refers to the necessity of changes to boiler plate subsystems of conventional water based reactor design.

You say you disagree with me, then you again say what I am saying. These reactors have design requirements that need to be studied and resolved without rushing into solutions that are only half thought out.

"Boiler plate" refers to design aspects that have been resolved and can be implemented without study or significant risk. "Changes to boiler plate" means exactly what I am saying, there may be solutions or these solutions may end up being difficult.

"Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products"

No reactor has been designed like this before, so it is entirely new territory and needs to be researched.

"Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features"

That means we don't know enough about these reactors to know exactly how to regulate them, so further study into how to keep them safe.


> I would suggest remedial reading comprehension class, but even that won't help you."

No, but perhaps it will help you if you try reading about these systems.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:49:26 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 3:06:17 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:41:50 PM UTC-4, Martin Riddle wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and even over 70% of climate scientists agree that we must ramp up nuclear power if we are going succeed in dealing with climate change. Because of its exceptional safety and low cost, perhaps MSR technology is a nuclear technology that most everyone can embrace."

And this technology can "load follow" which will avoid failures in the renewable generation as recently occurred in Texas.

That Transatomic they mention has since gone bust. After admitting they made several errors in estimating nuclear waste reuse, seems they lost financial backing.


https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

My guess is that Cold start issue.

Cheers

I don't see any mention of a "cold start" hurdle. The number one issue will be regulatory changes required to accommodate a radically new technology- AS USUAL.

By regulatory changes, you mean proving it is safe before being unleashed on the public??? Yes, that is what will happen and that is what is best.

Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?


The design requires a different repertoire of materials and tolerances. Apparently the high neutron flux density present in MSR causes damage to things like nickle and iron alloys commonly used in reactor piping. A major consideration is the reactor can be used to produce weapons grade material. And then there is the not inconsiderable requirement for an onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.

I've never heard that it can be used to produce weapon grade material, in fact the opposite. Even the waste is hard to use for dirty bombs because it is too dangerous to handle casually. That may be only for a thorium reactor since that was the topic where I have seen MSR discussed.


The individuals going for the gold are confident they have the engineering/ scientific hurdles beat. This is a different era and we have the tools to solve these kinds of problems quickly.

That statement is what they call "hubris" I believe. "Nemesis is the goddess who enacts retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods)"


Background plus reading list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Disadvantages

Here you contradict yourself by giving us the problem areas that have not been worked out yet and so we can't have complete confidence there will be easy solutions.

No, that's not what that means. The statement refers to the necessity of changes to boiler plate subsystems of conventional water based reactor design.

You say you disagree with me, then you again say what I am saying. These reactors have design requirements that need to be studied and resolved without rushing into solutions that are only half thought out.

"Boiler plate" refers to design aspects that have been resolved and can be implemented without study or significant risk. "Changes to boiler plate" means exactly what I am saying, there may be solutions or these solutions may end up being difficult.

"Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products"

No reactor has been designed like this before, so it is entirely new territory and needs to be researched.

"Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features"

That means we don't know enough about these reactors to know exactly how to regulate them, so further study into how to keep them safe.

Isn't it time for you to join the little old ladies at the book club meeting?

Prototypes of this reactor have been built and are in the process of being built. The people working these solutions know this reactor technology very well. There's no need for a bunch of mindless discussion of generic topics by non-experts.

I would suggest remedial reading comprehension class, but even that won't help you."

No, but perhaps it will help you if you try reading about these systems.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209