Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jul 20, 2018 1:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Jan 12, 2018 3:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Well Concrete has traditionally be used in power plants because it is very cheap in materials terms, however it now appears that materials costs are not a large fraction of the cost of the plant.
The real costs appear to be in construction step, and concrete is time consuming and expensive to work with, with rebar fabrication, vibration and curing.

It appears likely that cellular steel structures that can be bolted together could replace them, with randomly packed lead shot for gamma shielding, without significantly increasing the materials construction cost.

We could literally make a reactor building roof out of a dozen or more 'slats' for example.
And if we used steel vibration or screw piles we don't even need concrete foundations.
Just a thought


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
You could also use water as a filler and shielding material. Even cheaper than lead, and it could do double duty as emergency heat sink.

Water here, water there, water everywhere... and not a drop to drink!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 18, 2018 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Problem with using water - beyond the bulk - is that you would have to account for what happens if you actually evaporate the water, or it leaks.

In an accident you could be faced with having to abandon parts of the reactor building, even if the fuel hasn't actually failed yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
E Ireland wrote:
Problem with using water - beyond the bulk - is that you would have to account for what happens if you actually evaporate the water, or it leaks.

In an accident you could be faced with having to abandon parts of the reactor building, even if the fuel hasn't actually failed yet.


This would depend on the amount of water; if it is large enough to not boil during the worst accident then it obviously isn't an issue - and would improve safety by having a huge and totally passive heat sink.

Bulk is not of much concern for a stationary powerplant. It is an issue of course with any mobile app.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 27, 2018 9:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 24, 2015 9:43 pm
Posts: 21
Cyril R wrote:
E Ireland wrote:
Bulk is not of much concern for a stationary powerplant. It is an issue of course with any mobile app.

I guess a ship should not go into a harbour with too little water. Do ships count as mobile apps?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2018 6:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sep 10, 2008 7:40 pm
Posts: 299
Here's an animation of a land-based version of ThorCon. The structure is mainly a steel/concrete/steel sandwich. http://thorconpower.com/design/erection


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2018 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
I'd prefer to avoid concrete entirely to be honest.

I am thinking cellular steel for structural rigidity, filled with either boron carbide or lead balls for shielding, using sufficiently conservative estimates that random packing can be used as a packing method.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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