Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 19, 2017 10:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Kirk on the internet
PostPosted: Sep 10, 2016 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
Not sure if this is already posted but here is another article about Kirk and LFTRs
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/10/could ... clear-age/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kirk on the internet
PostPosted: Sep 11, 2016 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
Excellent post, rc1111. This is great news and an important Daily Caller post by Andrew Follett, Energy and Science Reporter. Congrats, Kirk!
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
“The salt mixtures that we consider are not chemically reactive with air or water and chemically trap fission products in non-releasable forms.”
Compare to a LWR loss-of-coolant meltdown and explosion and the ejection of a cloud of highly radioactive fission products.
Quote:
Sorensen’s reactors are intended to generate 450 megawatts of electricity.
The October 2015 EPRI report has 250 MW(e).
Quote:
Molten salt or liquid fluoride thorium nuclear reactors could potentially be much cheaper as well, generating electricity for less than one-third the cost of current nuclear technology because it wouldn’t require expensive high-pressure containment vessels to hold potential releases.
Today we remember 9-11. A FE LFTR installation would require an impact-resistant reactor building to satisfy a likely licensing requirement, yes?
Quote:
New innovative nuclear designs could cause a nuclear renaissance, despite a recent downturn in the U.S. nuclear industry. Of the 59 new nuclear reactors under construction worldwide, only four of them are being built in the U.S., just enough to compensate for older reactors that are shutting down. The average American nuclear reactor is 35 years old, nearly obsolete by modern design standards and near the end of its operating license. Within the past two years, six states have shut down nuclear plants and many other reactors are risking premature retirement.
I belong to a group of many advocates of your technology, Kirk. If they're like me, I believe the first TRL 8 of 9 demonstration reactor will be so obviously the highest performing nuclear reactor for domestic energy that questions will begin to arise in the public as to the many decades of inadvertent but nonetheless unjustifiable delays. Your company will then represent something bigger than energy technology maker. At some point the FE LFTR must get a serious boost to move it ahead of schedule. Advocates hope articles like this get noticed by US leadership and positively regarded for a new push to give FE and other machines a chance to perform—frankly outperform the current fleet.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kirk on the internet
PostPosted: Sep 11, 2016 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Florida
Andrew Follett links to:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive applications in the next several years for design certifications and combined licenses for construction and operation of the first-of-class plants. They are targeted for operation by 2025.
I bet, not being an expert in US nuclear law, that the language of 42 U.S.C. and the 10 CFR are such that the NRC cannot process a molten salt reactor design such as the Flibe Energy LFTR.

Those in the dark in the nuclear industries (folks like me) who get a zero result in searching the NEI website for "molten salt" or "MSR" are left to believe the Nuclear Energy Institute has nothing for the fluid fuel reactor. That just shows how entrenched and probably captured are the US nuclear businesses. At some point very soon, leadership must acknowledge the severe nuclear energy rules deficiency in the U.S.C. that authorizes the 10 CFR.

If the US is serious about its claims to greatness, let actions speak louder than words! Someone who has clout can nominate Flibe Energy for a DoE contract for the LFTR engineering data to write those sections of the U.S.C. that get defined in 10 CFR. Until that gets accomplished, the NRC appears to be hamstrung for such a reactor design.

Whatever the composition of the US legislative and executive by February 2017, the FE LFTR represents a disruptive technology for the better. I'm still looking for an established and visible energy technology media entity to characterize my assumptions if they are in fact true.
Quote:
MSRs produce no carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and could be directly integrated into the existing power grid.

But Obama administration policies supporting wind and solar power are huge obstacles to integrating new nuclear reactors into the electric grid, according to Sorensen.

“Government favoritism towards wind and solar are derailing the plans for all baseload forms of power,” Sorensen said. “A combination of ‘grid priority’ and ‘renewable’ tax credits are generating artificial negative prices, which profoundly disincentivize any steady producer of energy.”

Environmental regulations require that solar and wind power always be used if they are avalaible [sic] and give substantial financial incentives to encourage green energy use. These regulations compromise the reliability of the entire power grid. The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating how green energy undermines the reliability of the electrical grid.

FERC believes there is a “significant risk” of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided.”
One member here noted about $35 billion in the past five years in support of wind and solar? The US power brokers (government and industry) are not evaluating the potential of the Flibe Energy nuclear technology and at least one other fluid reactor design (Transatomic Power, Cambridge, MA). Wind and solar are very serious technology losers given the proven fact that a single thorium/uranium 233 charge has at least a million-to-one energy density advantage and probably more always-on 24/7/365. But when the established nuclear industries effectively suppress the fluid design advantages, Flibe Energy is faced with a double unfair impediment—misinformation and government inaction.

Still, the exact language of the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between ORNL and the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) for Chinese development of their MSRs ought to be posted in full here in the EFT for all to see. Is DoE effectively using China for US fluid fueled reactor technology development with some sharing agreement? I bet with a full-on US directive, DoE could get this done at home. Dr. Weinberg directed ORNL and began the MSBR program in 1970. He was pushed out by 1973 and the MSR development shut down. Six years later was Three Mile Island and the LMFBR was not proving viable for the long term (probably as Dr. Weinberg had surmised would happen). This situation is just plain bad. Whatever happened to "Made in the USA"?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kirk on the internet
PostPosted: Sep 11, 2016 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
It is the main heading in nuclear Town Hall too. I wish it could be something that can be built early.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group