Experiments Start on a Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactor

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/535021/experiments-start-on-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Experiments Start on a Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactor[/font]

[font size=4]Transatomic Power has begun tests on a very cheap and compact molten-salt reactor.[/font]

By Kevin Bullis on February 10, 2015

[font size=3]Transatomic Power, a startup that’s developing a novel type of nuclear reactor, has begun a series of experiments that will either verify its design or send it back to the drawing board. The experiments were made possible by $2.5 million in new investments from Founders Fund, the venture capital firm cofounded by Peter Thiel, and two family funds.

The reactor would be smaller and safer than a conventional nuclear unit, potentially making it far cheaper. It would use molten salt as its coolant, making it meltdown-proof and thus requiring fewer costly safety systems. Transatomic’s design could also consume nuclear waste, and it could use nuclear material that couldn’t easily be used to make a weapon.

A few other companies, as well as a large project in China, are pushing forward their own molten-salt reactors (see “Resurrecting a Meltdown-Proof Reactor Design”). But Transatomic’s is more compact and potentially cheaper (see “Safer Nuclear Power at Half the Price” and “TR35: Leslie Dewan”).

Transatomic’s design is based on a reactor developed and tested in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. If a conventional reactor is damaged and its water pumps fail, as happened at Fukushima, the water coolant can evaporate, leading to a meltdown resulting in explosions and the release of radiation. Molten salt evaporates at a far higher temperature—even if a reactor is damaged and pumps fail, it won’t evaporate and will continue to cool the fuel, preventing the release of radiation. Transatomic’s design also introduces new materials that could make for an even cheaper and more compact nuclear reactor.

…[/font][/font]

[jwirr]

1. IF it works and is built in a safe earthquake free area that is good BUT has anyone come up with a

solution to storing the waste?

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. We have solutions for storing waste—you and I just don’t like them.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Appendices/Radioactive-Waste-Management-Appendix-2--Storage-and-Disposal-Options/

[jwirr]

3. Ah, okay. I guess that is true. My point of course is that we need to work on the problems before

we go ahead and build more plants.

[FBaggins]

6. In many ways this would BE the solution to storing the waste

It burns the spent fuel from other reactors.

You don't even have to worry about "earthquake-free" (etc)... because the individual units would be far less prone to damage from such events, would cause far less risk to neighboring communities, and would be so much cheaper than traditional reactors (certainly on a unit-cost basis if not a per-kwh basis) that losing one wouldn't have the economic impact of losing a plant with many billions of dollars of sunk costs.

[jwirr]

7. Thank you.

[bananas]

16. Slow turn: tracking the Molten Salt Reactor

http://knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/2013/12/01/slow-turn-tracking-molten-salt-reactor/

Slow turn: tracking the Molten Salt Reactor

The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment has been shut down since the 1960s, but it’s going to be decades still before the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reactor goes away. The fissile uranium was extracted from the fuel tanks a few years back, as part of a problem-plagued, technically complex project, but the high-rad fuel salts are still there and will be for the foreseeable future.

<snip>

“We continue to perform routine surveillance and maintenance activities at the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, and have recently successfully completed a pump down on the two fuel drain tanks and one fuel flush tank,” Mike Koentop, a spokesman for the Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Office, said via email. “(In December) we will weigh the two sodium fluoride traps, which is an activity we conduct biannually, to determine the amount of uranium that was captured during the pump down.”

<snip>

According to TDEC spokeswoman Kelly Brockman, “The construction start milestone for removal of the fuel salts is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2032. A Remediation Action Report detailing the fuel salts disposition is scheduled for FY2038. The facility will be safely maintained until that time.”

John Owsley of TDEC’s Oak Ridge Oversight Office said the potential for a critical accident was removed by extracting the fissile uranium, so the main concern now is the potential for environmental releases of the “extremely radioactive” materials that remain inside the old facility.

<snip>

This entry was posted in Cleanup, nuclear, ORNL, ORO on December 1, 2013 by Frank Munger.

[FBaggins]

17. Can you expand on why you thought that was relevant?

It can't just be that both have "molten salt" in the name, can it?

The reason that you make experimental reactors is so that you can identify potential issues that need to be accounted for in final designs. It isn't reasonable to point back to those issues as though they represent exsting problems with current designs.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Re: It can't just be that both have "molten salt" in the name, can it?

Now, you know that’s not true.

(As stated in the OP) this design is based on the earlier design.

[TimeToEvolve]

4. if that is a "meltdown proof" reactor

then the titanic was an "unsinkable ship"
color me skeptical, i have no faith in nuclear.

[Fumesucker]

5. I was wondering if it was code named "Titanic" around the shop...

There's no such thing as a foolproof anything because fools are so ingenious.

[LouisvilleDem]

8. It doesn't have to be foolproof

All it has to be is better than all the current alternative sources of electricity, which it is. The insistence that nuclear power, and only nuclear power, should be held to a standard of absolute perfection is what made coal the largest source of electricity in the US.

[Fumesucker]

9. Safer than hydroelectric or solar?

I find that difficult to believe and more than likely impossible to prove.

[LouisvilleDem]

10. More people died...

...in a single hydroelectric dam failure in China than have died in all nuclear accidents combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#1975_flood

[Fumesucker]

11. OK, they can build the "meltdown proof" reactor next to your house..

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Given the choice, I would prefer the power company build a solar farm or wind turbine

However, I would rather have one of these reactors next to my house than a coal or natural gas plant.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php
http://transatomicpower.com/white_papers/TAP_White_Paper.pdf

[Fumesucker]

15. In a world not utterly ruled by the profit motive I wouldn't mind nuclear so much

It's not that I think nuclear is evil or anything like that, I have a decent grasp of the potential hazards, I've lived and worked near chemical plants potentially as hazardous as Bhopal and wouldn't willingly or knowingly do so again.

It'll be the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico all over again, now with added radionuclides. Back before I knew any better I worked for some companies that looking back did some horrendously negative things for the environment, some of which I sad to say participated in for pay.

The Navy for instance seems to have done a fairly good job on keeping nuclear power in hand, the war room brass are arguably kept more in check than the boardroom suits.

The Air Force on the other hand hasn't done that great a job on dealing with their nukes of a somewhat different sort.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Russian dam disaster kills 10, scores missing

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/17/idUSLH339111._CH_.2400

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Russian dam disaster kills 10, scores missing[/font]

Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:10pm EDT

* Turbine room floods at Russia's largest hydro-power plant

* No threat of dam bursting -- emergencies minister

* Aluminium and steel plants switch to alternative supplies

* PM Putin suggests revising power prices in response

(Updates number missing, damage, adds Putin response, quotes)

By Ilya Naymushin

[font size=3]CHERYOMUSHKI, Russia, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Ten people were killed on Monday and up to 72 were missing after a turbine room flooded at Russia's largest hydro-power station, forcing steel and aluminium plants in Siberia to turn to emergency power. RusHydro (HYDR.MM), owner of the Sayano-Shushenskaya plant, said the damage would run into "billions of roubles" and take several months to repair. The company's shares were suspended in Russia and fell more than 15 percent in London.

Panicked residents in the shadow of the Soviet-era dam fled their homes when news of the accident spread at 8:15 a.m. (0015 GMT). Calm returned after Emergencies Minister Sergei Shoigu said there was no danger of damage to the structure of the dam and no danger that it would burst.

Officials said water flooded a turbine room at the dam, which is more than 3,000 km (1,900 miles) east of Moscow. An investigation was under way to determine the cause.

RusHydro officials said 10 people had been killed and 11 injured in the disaster, but there were varying claims of how many were still missing. In a live video conference with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the chief engineer of the station said that 72 were unaccounted for after the flood.

…[/font][/font]

(Eventually, the death toll was raised to 75.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_power_station_accident

Solar seems pretty safe.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Just curious…

Have you read anything about the reactor?

I can have a knee-jerk anti-nuclear bias. I remember Three Mile Island.

This plant really is fundamentally different. In short, it cannot melt down, because the fuel is already a liquid. In the case of a Fukishima-like power failure, the fuel actually solidifies.

Take a few minutes. Watch the video here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112780813#post13

[hunter]

19. It's an interesting machine. It can "burn" spent nuclear fuel from present day nuclear power plants.

Last edited Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

From the white paper:

The existing 64,000 tons of SNF (Spent Nuclear Fuel) contain an enormous amount of energy. If all U.S. light-water plants were replaced tomorrow by TAP reactors, it would still take 350 years to consume all of the existing SNF. Even if we expand the role of nuclear by also converting all coal plants to TAP reactors, we could still run for 150 years.

http://transatomicpower.com/white_papers/TAP_White_Paper.pdf , March 2014, page 22.

Imagine your electric car recharged by one of these power plants... your car might literally be powered by nuclear waste.

These reactors would also be an excellent tool for the disposal of existing nuclear weapons.

Anyways, there's nuclear technology like this, there's solar, there's wind, and then my favorite, simply winding down our high energy society. But the stumbling block is the fossil fuel industry. They have huge amounts of money, they own our political system, and they will not go away.

[Nihil]

20. Now *that* would make some heads explode ...

> Imagine your electric car recharged by one of these power plants...
> your car might literally be powered by nuclear waste.



Me? I think it is a brilliant "two birds with one stone" approach but I can just
picture some people struggling with the dilemma!