Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bearware

(151 posts)
22. I would bet on some form(s) of more primitive molten salt "reusable rockets" before MMNF's
Wed Sep 25, 2019, 08:47 PM
Sep 2019

One limit on current molten salt designs is nuclear qualified piping and other materials are certified for maximum temperatures well below what the reactors could easily reach without turning the salt into vapor. Elysium Industries chose sodium chloride for the low temperature melting point and cost. They are trying to get a factory produced MSFR licensed as soon a possible so they are not trying advanced features such as super-critical CO2 or extensive fuel reprocessing.

The MSFR I mentioned is a fast reactor and does not need the same level of fuel processing that thermal reactors do. Because it is molten salt they can inject new fuel in any desired composition any time. The limited processing they do is documented in the last video below. The initial load of fuel is about 70 tons and they burn about 1 ton/per year. The two videos were made far enough apart in time that one can see how the design is evolving.

Hopefully we will get an administration in 2020 that understands Climate Change mitigation needs a super-Manhattan Project(s) on nuclear power as well as the equivalent in research on the same. Multiple designs are a good thing in the beginning.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Why not nuclear power? [View all] question everything Sep 2019 OP
The biggest problem with it is that it creates a lot of nuclear waste sandensea Sep 2019 #1
Most "nuclear waste" is potential fuel for coming generations of Molten Salt Fast Reactors MSFR's). Bearware Sep 2019 #9
Your words to God's ear sandensea Sep 2019 #10
LOL!!!111 jpak Sep 2019 #31
Nuclear + climate change a bigger mess n/t Lulu KC Sep 2019 #2
There is lots of room for R&D in the energy sector and hopefully these issues can be resolved walkingman Sep 2019 #3
Thorium reactors could be the answer - Th is much more abundant The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2019 #4
Perhaps this is something that the next administration can tackle question everything Sep 2019 #7
Economics - they have gotten very expensive, so expensive that even ones progree Sep 2019 #5
It can be a mistake to assume current costs to make something apply directly to disruptive tech Bearware Sep 2019 #11
So why hasn't any nuclear-capable country built any? progree Sep 2019 #12
I suspect there are a number of advanced prototype molten reactors being built or in operation Bearware Sep 2019 #15
Problems with nuclear plants? Finishline42 Sep 2019 #17
Problems with other energy plants Bearware Sep 2019 #21
Wind and solar have a overwhelming advantage Finishline42 Sep 2019 #28
You do know of utility scale batteries - don't you? jpak Sep 2019 #32
How many GigaWatt-Days or Hours of power are utility scale batteries up to? Bearware Sep 2019 #34
The "reusable rocket" of nuclear power would be molten metal nuclear fuels, not molten salts. hunter Sep 2019 #19
I would bet on some form(s) of more primitive molten salt "reusable rockets" before MMNF's Bearware Sep 2019 #22
I'm rarely patient enough for youtube videos... hunter Sep 2019 #23
Thanks for finding the Powerpoint Bearware Sep 2019 #29
The chemistry seems the more difficult aspect of this design. hunter Sep 2019 #33
Why the massive cooling is needed progree Sep 2019 #13
Sorry, you are correct I poorly stated the reasons for massive containment buildings. Bearware Sep 2019 #16
How long will nuclear power take ? John ONeill Aug 2021 #35
There's no safe storage of nuclear waste. nt in2herbs Sep 2019 #6
There's no safe storage of fossil fuel waste. hunter Sep 2019 #8
My objection applies to nuclear power or any other low-carbon source The_jackalope Sep 2019 #14
The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels. hunter Sep 2019 #20
Newer reactors could produce fuels from the air or water Bearware Sep 2019 #25
Just in: another cost increase for Hinkley Point C in the U.K., now 8,370 $/KW progree Sep 2019 #18
Economic arguments are silly. hunter Sep 2019 #24
True. But unfortunately the deciders have so far decided differently -- look at all the nuke plants progree Sep 2019 #27
Nuclear power must be subjected to the same moral critiques as human-induced climate change -- RockRaven Sep 2019 #26
Newer safer design molten salt fast reactors can burn up existing and future "nuclear waste". Bearware Sep 2019 #30
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Why not nuclear power?»Reply #22