Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 21 2021, @10:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the nuclear-proliferation? dept.

Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel

Copenhagen startup Seaborg Technologies has raised an eight-figure sum of Euros to start building a fascinating new type of cheap, portable, flexible and super-safe nuclear reactor. The size of a shipping container, these Compact Molten Salt Reactors will be rapidly mass-manufactured in their thousands, then placed on floating barges to be deployed worldwide – on timelines that will smash paradigms in the energy industry.

[...] [Perhaps] the most impactful change to the business model is Seaborg's proposal to install these reactors on barges, and float them offshore rather than buying up land to develop nuclear power plants. There are several advantages here. For starters, you can manufacture them in bulk at a single facility. Seaborg is looking at Korean shipyards, which are already closely and efficiently connected to supply chains with enormous production capacity.

"If you want us to build not one reactor to start with, but a thousand, we could start by building a thousand," Schönefeldt told Radio Spectrum. "That will take, like, three or four years on these shipyards. So it's basically unroofed in how fast you can scale it."

These barges can be moved just about anywhere on the planet, either moored offshore or on large or small rivers, depending on how big a reactor it is. There's virtually no site preparation required; it's fully self-contained and very easy to connect to a power grid. Seaborg estimates it can service 95 percent of the world's population this way, putting basically no land requirements on a baseload or load-following power station up to a healthy 600 MW, which could supply nearly 100,000 homes.

Some imagineering required.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @11:26AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @11:26AM (#1147637)

    Worse things happen at sea ?

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 21 2021, @12:35PM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday June 21 2021, @12:35PM (#1147646) Homepage
      Yup, but this reactor operates at basically atmospheric pressure, unlike the pressurised bombs of early, and recent, nuclear failures.
      However, I agree that there's very little need to have these bobbing around off the coast - if they're safe on a barge, they're safe on a geological faultline too.
      And putting nuclear power stations on a barge isn't a new twist either, it's been done before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @03:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @03:27AM (#1147920)
        Should give sea-going pirates something new to pirate. Somalia could go from a failed nation state and become an energy exporter. Refueling costs? Just steal another one.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by c0lo on Monday June 21 2021, @11:48AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @11:48AM (#1147638) Journal

    Just place a dozen of them on Fukushima beaches, don't worry, it's safe.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @12:15PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @12:15PM (#1147641)

    It's just a splash down!

    Tsunami forcing these barges onto roofs of nearby Fukushima prefecture? Nah, nothing like that ever happened in the last 10 years.

    Startup, check. Nuclear plant, check. Mass produced, check. I think that's bingo for What Could Potentially Go Wrong With That?

    And remediation of these reactors? Just tow them to see and bury them in the Great Pacific Plastic Patch?

    Even in the worst-case scenario of a terrorist bombing, molten salt nuclear fuel simply hardens into rock, vastly reducing the consequences of an accident while making these next-gen reactors cheap, effective and small enough to put on floating barges

    They have such a rock already in Chernobyl. It says to be only mildly radioactive and that giant-ass roof on top now built by EU funds was just an exercise in bureaucracy!

    • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 21 2021, @05:19PM

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday June 21 2021, @05:19PM (#1147727)

      Your ignorance is painful.

      I would suggest that you actually learn about the MSR design and how it differs from the LWTR design in both safety and efficiency before posting on the subject again.

      I'd add links but I need to go take an analgesic to mitigate the severe headache you have caused me.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:49PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:49PM (#1147746)

      MSR designs are usually considered better than heavy-water designs like Chernobyl and Fukushima because they can be made fail-safe. If there's a core breach, the salt just cools and seals itself inside the reactor.

      They can often also use thorium fuel, and produce less waste and less dangerous waste than uranium reactors.

      I really recommend learning about these designs, they're pretty cool.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday June 22 2021, @02:38AM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday June 22 2021, @02:38AM (#1147905)

        Yes indeed...and I would have no problem with a MSR operating just outside of town in a small underground vault (the usual design) to protect against airplane crashes, terrorist attacks, and other such willful catastrophes (The big domes around nuclear reactors are there primarily to defend against such things). Because even without a meltdown, anything that causes a reactor breach can cause severe environmental contamination. Especially if a fire is involved. And many MSR designs use salts that react violently with water.

        On the ocean though? Where a severe storm can capsize it or be beach it at a bizarre angle that renders all those gravity-powered safety measures useless? No thanks. And that's before you consider that it has essentially no defense against terrorist attacks, and that large-scale environmental contamination is practically guaranteed if there's a reactor breach at sea.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @12:15PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @12:15PM (#1147642)

    Neat that they can build a thousand of these in, like, three or four years... I guess that's without any pesky regulatory approval.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 21 2021, @12:25PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @12:25PM (#1147643) Journal

      Those pesky regulatory approvals are meant for those to operate the reactors, not for the builders.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @01:04PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @01:04PM (#1147648)

      Both St. Greta and Elon Musk give it their seal of approval. What more could you want?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @05:39PM (#1147741)

        Weird creeps off of SN? A pipe dream I know!

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday June 21 2021, @06:53PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday June 21 2021, @06:53PM (#1147778)

      Who needs regulatory approval - put it in extranational waters and run a cable over to the shoreline (22 km)...

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 21 2021, @12:26PM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @12:26PM (#1147644) Journal

    If you float these things in deep water, they're probably OK. Put them in shallow water, a tsunami destroys them. How much you want to bet that everyone who buys one wants to put it close to shore, in fifty feet of water, to save on transmission line costs? Or, they put them out in a harbor that channels tsunami and storm water, making the rise and fall of the barge more severe.

    Detailed description of the results of anchoring in shallow waters here:
    http://www.drgeorgepc.com/LossUSSMemphis.html [drgeorgepc.com]

    More general background of the ship, and (probably) less accurate details of the incident here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_(ACR-10) [wikipedia.org]

    As an aside, note how the ship's crew describe a 70 ft wave, but the history revising son of the ship's captain later claims that it was a 100 ft wave.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @03:57PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @03:57PM (#1147695)

      If you put them in deep water you have to worry about collisions. I have an old study of a proposed floating nuclear plant that specified it had to be protected from a carrier going full tilt.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 21 2021, @04:17PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @04:17PM (#1147704) Journal

        I think that I can say, with some confidence, that aircraft carriers won't be speeding at full tilt in 200 to 500 ft deep water.

        Of course, something that weighs between 50,000 and 100,000 tons doesn't have to be moving very fast to destroy a little barge. It would be interesting to see how they proposed to "protect" this floating reactor.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MIRV888 on Monday June 21 2021, @12:29PM (10 children)

    by MIRV888 (11376) on Monday June 21 2021, @12:29PM (#1147645)

    "We’re not reducing the likelihood of an accident to zero, there will be accidents. We should avoid them as much as we can, but there will be accidents."

    Wow. That's crazy honest. Even with 4 levels of redundancy they openly admit there will be accidents.
    That's the kind of truth that makes people's heads asplode.
    Seems like a doable decent design to me.
    Lord knows we need base load power.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 21 2021, @01:11PM (8 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @01:11PM (#1147651) Journal

      I'm not at all sure about operating these things on small rivers. I expect they use the water for cooling, and that could raise the temperature of the river substantially.

      OTOH, these are a lot smaller than current plants, so maybe it would be ok.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @01:26PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @01:26PM (#1147652)

        So you're saying they should try it and see if it breaks anything? How millennial!

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 21 2021, @01:54PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday June 21 2021, @01:54PM (#1147658) Homepage
        They're smaller than current "power station" plants. But SMRs are not a new concept at all, there are loads of different designs of various sizes, this is about middling, some are 1/10th of the size. There was a boom in the popularity of the idea a few decades ago, but that's all become a bit stagnated recently as people have buried their head in the shale to try and make the finite fossil fuels problem go away, and almost none of them have turned into a reality. I prefer the tech in this design to many of the others, including the staffing requiements, there are fewer cogs of all types to fail, so I suspect this could be the solution we need.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 21 2021, @02:55PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @02:55PM (#1147679) Journal

        Not sure what you mean by "small rivers". As sort of a starting point, let's remember that these things are on barges, put into place by tugboats. So, you're restricted to "navigable waters". We might expect to find one in Little Rock, because the Arkansas River is regularly navigated. We won't expect to find any in Texarkana, because the Red River isn't navigable. (The Red River probably could be made navigable at great expense, not likely to happen.)

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/329.4 [cornell.edu]

        § 329.4 General definition.
        Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday June 21 2021, @07:45PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @07:45PM (#1147794) Journal

          "Small river" is relative to rate of water flow and sensitivity to temperature change. So "navigable" probably isn't sufficient if the water flow is slow, but might well be if it's faster.

          It's my expectation that this design uses the water that it floats in as a replacement for the "cooling ponds" that some other designs use. It might be better to scoop out a "man made lake", which could get a lot hotter without causing problems.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by turgid on Monday June 21 2021, @06:46PM (2 children)

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @06:46PM (#1147773) Journal

        I expect they use the water for cooling, and that could raise the temperature of the river substantially.

        A long time ago I worked at a nuclear power station. It was about 25% thermally efficient (25% of the heat generated went out as electricity). It was on a river estuary. It raised the temperature of the water by 9C. It was very popular with fish and shellfish.

        The station could generate an extra 2MW electrical in winter when the sea water was colder. Cooling water temperature makes a big difference. In summer, electrical output was down since the cooling water was much warmer.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Monday June 21 2021, @06:54PM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday June 21 2021, @06:54PM (#1147779)

          The sealife follows the warm water. The fishermen follow the sealife. Plays havoc with your safety case...

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday June 21 2021, @07:48PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @07:48PM (#1147796) Journal

          Try "it was popular with SOME fish and shellfish". Warmer waters hold less oxygen, and some species don't like that at all. Others don't have much problem until it gets considerably warmer...how much warmer depends on the species.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sourcery42 on Monday June 21 2021, @04:47PM

      by Sourcery42 (6400) on Monday June 21 2021, @04:47PM (#1147711)

      You're right. I'm surprised a statement like that got past lawyers and PR people. It certainly wouldn't have from a US based company. Language like that will scare the herd, but humans are notoriously bad at assessing risks.

      I've seen enough layers of protection analyses and qualitative risk assessment to know there is no such thing as zero risk. You can make processes where the risk of a catastrophic event is exceedingly low in the life of the facility. Without changing the process, you do that by adding layers of protection, and every additional layer tends to be substantially more complicated (both difficult to maintain and interact with) and expensive than the one that came before it. You can also develop processes that are interlocked six ways from Sunday and regulated to death such that they're very difficult to operate as well as terrible to maintain, aka the US nuclear industry.

      I like their approach a lot. They've focused on developing technology to support an inherently safer process, as opposed to trying to engineering risk out of an inherently higher risk technology. Their consequence of failure is a radioactive rock to remediate. Still sucks, but its just a clicking hot rock. Contrast that with a traditional reactor that can spew a radioactive plume over a huge area or meltdown Fukushima style and leak its radioactive water; either is a much more negative and widespread consequence of failure.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @02:28PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @02:28PM (#1147668)

    thousands of nuclear reactors dotting the coastlines of the world? Are you trying to make X-Men a reality? I'm all for nuclear power; but, could we maybe take these things off the fucking barges and secure them a bit?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22 2021, @12:16AM (#1147880)

      The whole world was covered in nuclear reactors for clean power and a cascade failure caused a deadly radiation wave to wipe out life across the planet. Turns out 'livable zones' survived and eventually the high tech 'space station people' return to find the planet run by tribal 'low tech' people with mysticism caused by one of the high techies bringing them a piece of biotech that allows the memories of past leaders to be passed on to the current one. Long story short those reactors eventually fire off for a second time killing off most of the remaining humans and leaving only a few hundred left, who eventually atrophy even further before a deus ex machina superior alien race elevates most of them to join them as 'light beings'. Really dumb show/book series in the end, so I'm glad I wasn't heavily invested in it.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by oumuamua on Monday June 21 2021, @02:30PM (5 children)

    by oumuamua (8401) on Monday June 21 2021, @02:30PM (#1147669)

    Anti-vaxers fear the vaccine more than the virus.
    Anti-nukers fear the nukes more than the climate crisis.
    If Seaborg's solution is cost competitive, it should be embraced as helping solve the climate crisis. Every other article is about how dire the climate crisis is but apparently not dire enough to embrace this form of clean energy. You really need to start considering that the climate crisis might destroy the world, the whole world, not some localized nuclear accident.

    • (Score: -1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @03:34PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @03:34PM (#1147689)

      Anti-nukers fear the nukes more than the climate crisis.

      Then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and move, you and your entire family (if you have any), to the Chernobyl exclusion zone ? I hear the real-estate is really cheap there.

      this form of clean energy.

      Oh cut the bullshit gaslighting, it makes you sound like fucking Trump and his "clean coal". If nuclear is such a "clean" energy, then why don't you offer your own backyard to store the nuclear waste ? According to you, there's not supposed to be any, right ?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 21 2021, @04:30PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @04:30PM (#1147708) Journal

        Then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and move

        I'd be more afraid of the fascist Ukies in Ukraine, than the radiation throughout most of the exclusion zone.

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/what-s-going-on-in-chernobyl-today/ [weforum.org]

        Obviously, I don't want to live inside the hangar, and I'll want to carry a geiger counter around before deciding that some specific place is "livable".

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @07:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @07:33PM (#1147791)

          Careful there Runaway, your Ruskie roots are showing. You sound a bit like Putin calling the Ukrainians "fascists".

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @08:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @08:15PM (#1147802)

        Well well well... It looks like we have a few butthurt trumptards with mod points on this site. There was nothing "trollish" or "flamebaity" about my post, but you had to mod me down because I was badmouthing your beloved orange psychopath.

        And to those who modded "insighfull" the poster I was replying to: You too put your money where your mouth is and offer your backyards to store the nuclear waste of your fucking "clean nuclear".

        I have no doubt this post is also going to be downmodded to hell, but hey, getting a bunch of pathetic losers to waste their mod points is never a bad thing.

        Mod me down all you want if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, you'll still all be irrelevant pathetic losers with worthless lives. And hypocritical ones at that.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Monday June 21 2021, @05:14PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 21 2021, @05:14PM (#1147724)

      Anti-nukers fear the nukes more than the climate crisis.

      For the record: I'm one of the people included in this (but not afraid of the vaccines...) and it's not so much that I fear the nukes themselves, I fear the dumbshits with a profit-motive running those nukes and cutting corners to save a buck. Look up the methane leak Porter Ranch some time. I was close enough to the area at the time to get the local news alerts about it and even after it was clear the company involved was completely at fault (negligent with maintenance if I recall) they STILL fought over things like paying the hotel costs for the people couldn't actually live in their homes because the methane concentration was enough to cause things like bloody noses.

      I have difficulty picturing that situation being any better if that methane were replaced with radiation.

      Oh and a little bit of disclosure: I know nothing about molten-salt reactors and don't mean to imply they're unsafe. If there's something about their design that makes them moronic-management proof I'd love to hear about it. Again my distrust is solely with the meatbags running it not the technology.

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Monday June 21 2021, @02:44PM (4 children)

    by looorg (578) on Monday June 21 2021, @02:44PM (#1147673)

    Anyone with plans for a molten salt bom... device ... Also can I get a small one that will just power my compound? It might not be entirely legal tho. But asking for a ehhh ... friend ... right ... yes ...

    But one a more serious note. How small can they be? Could you get personal power plants? Or at least plants so small it could say be put into a house or a car or things like that.

    • (Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Monday June 21 2021, @05:00PM (1 child)

      by Sourcery42 (6400) on Monday June 21 2021, @05:00PM (#1147718)

      Found the Texan ;)

      Seriously though, it is a good question. Transmission losses are huge. There is a lot of efficiency to be gained in making the power close to where it gets used. Your evil lair...err compound would be much better off that way.

      I'm still waiting for Foundation Series technology where everything is powered by a miniaturized fusion reactor. I won't hold my breath.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 21 2021, @06:24PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday June 21 2021, @06:24PM (#1147761)

        IIRCC the small reactors in the Foundation series were Fission, not fusion. If your thinking about the bracelet sized shield generator that is.

        You can build incredible small fission reactors if you pick the right fuel. The trick is getting the super heavy elements (atomic numbers >110) with long enough half-lives to be useful. No one has managed it yet but some of the predictions put the size of a critical mass at just a few tens of grams (U-235 needs about 1kg ). With that you could have a reactor, or low yield bomb, the size of a cigarette lighter, getting it to produce electricity at that size however is another matter entirely.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 21 2021, @05:49PM

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday June 21 2021, @05:49PM (#1147745)

      House yes, car no. (the reactor would be too big for it, but you could charge your electric car while it's at home.)

      You could build a self sustaining reactor core with only a few kilos of fissionable fuel. A MSR big enough to power your home wold be about size of a large refrigerator or small car and would probably not need to be refueled for a decade or more if you picked the core was large enough and used the right fuel chain. I'd recommend Thorium, it is cheap, abundant, doesn't produce much waste, wouldn't need refueling for potentially decades and is less regulated than Uranium so it would be easier to get.

      The only real technical problem you would need to deal with would be cooling, not the reactor itself but the steam that drives the turbine /generators. If you have a place you can dump the waste heat and re condense your working fluid your all set. A large pond would be perfect, you could even raise Tilapia [wikipedia.org] in it since they love warm water.

      MSRs [wikipedia.org] have some wonderful passive safety features that make them a great choice for home power plants.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Monday June 21 2021, @07:36PM

      by anotherblackhat (4722) on Monday June 21 2021, @07:36PM (#1147793)

      can I get a small one that will just power my compound?

      Not really. You might consider an RTG [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:06PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @04:06PM (#1147698)

    well, in a sane world we'd have no wars and a working world do council with teeth:

    nuclear stuff would go (binding) something like this:
    you can build/develop nuclear power if you have a population over 160 million.
    you have all raw material and tech yourself.
    you don't locate them nearer then 20 km to any border (still debating!)
    you cannot locate them next to rivers that cross into other countries dowstream -aka- you own the river from pollu.. err cooling water draw-in site all the way to ocean.
    ...
    some footnotes about max. radiation venting when "opening the can for refuelling" and overpressure from cheaply made fuelrods ... errr... normal wear and tear (which everybody likes to pooh pooh about at session).

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 21 2021, @08:56PM

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday June 21 2021, @08:56PM (#1147819)

      a few FYIs:

      some footnotes about max. radiation venting when "opening the can for refuelling"

      MSR reactors are under zero pressure when inactive, and even when running the pressure isn't that much higher than ambient. The normal operating pressure of the your car's radiator is higher.

      "... and overpressure from cheaply made fuelrods ..."

      MSRs don't use fuel rods, thats what makes them so safe. The fuel salts,usually a metal Fluoride, are liquid at very high temperatures and if there is a leak the fual will harden and seal the leak instead of causing a massive lose of coolant. Also, in order to maintain critical mass needed for the self sustaining nuclear fission you have to keep all the "active" fuel in a container that is the right shape, short and fat, so the neutrons generated have a good chance of triggering another fission event before escaping the core. So if you were to drain the fuel into a couple of tall thin tanks the reactions shut down, same thing if core was cracked open somehow and all the fuel poured out, it would spread out until the reactions heating it stopped, then it would solidify into a mass of non fissioning, easy (comparativly) to clean up solids. One of the most common saftey features of an MSR core is a drain port at the bottom of the core and "freeze plug" made of constantly cooled fuel salts. The plug needs to be activly cooled to prevent it from melting letting the rest of the fuel drain out. So, if the core does manage to over heat or the cooling system loses power the fan keeping the freeze plug stops working and the core ends up draining into a set of tanks that are the wrong shap to sustain the reactions. The core shuts down. On the MSR test reactors at Oakridge the operators would shut down reactors by just turning off the coolant to the freeze plug and letting it melt. Then the core drain into the holding tanks before the staff went home home for the week ends.

      What made the accidents at the solid fuel Light Water Thermal Reactors like Fukushima and Chernobyl so disastrous was that when there was a loss of coolant the solid fuel rods melted and turned into mass of STILL fissioning solid fuel that is much more radioactive than the core mass of a inactive MSR. Another danger of the LWTR design is that the coolant water has to be kept under about 70-100PSI (car radiator is at ~15PSI) to keep it from boiling at he temperatures the core is operating at. So when there is even a small leak the water goes instantly to steam and the core loses it's coolant. Like taking the radiator cap off an over heated engine. That doesn't happen with MSRs.

      There are several other reactor designs that have similar passive safety features, like the CANDU and Helium cooled Pebble Bed reactors, in both of them the coolant is also the moderator that allows for self sustaining fission. If they lose coolant the core passively shuts down.

      Your probably asking your self "if MSRs are so good why aren't we using them already?"

      Lots of reasons, a big one being that the US Navy spent the time and money to develop the LWTR design for their submarines and ships. For those application the LWTR is an acceptable choice. When the commercial interests wanted to develop nuclear energy for power plants they just scaled up the Navy's design instead of spending the time and money to develop one of the safer reactor design options. And then the US/Europe implemented regulations and restrictions that pretty much locked out any reactor design EXCEPT the LWTR. The rest of the world followed suit simply because it was the cheaper path to nuclear power. Thankfully some of those restrictions have been revised.removed in the USA and MSR concepts are now being developed and invested in. It should be noted that China is currently leading development of the MSR concept [nextbigfuture.com].

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @07:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21 2021, @07:23PM (#1147789)

    "...to be deployed worldwide – on timelines that will smash paradigms in the energy industry."

(1)