It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Molten salt nuclear reactor that eats radioactive waste gets funded

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   


Nuclear power was the resurgent darling of the energy industry just a few years ago as concerns over global warming mounted. Then there was the disastrous meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in central Japan, which will continue to affect residents for years to come. In the wake of this event, nuclear plants in Japan and Germany were completely shut off and plans to expand nuclear power around the world were shelved. few companies have continued pushing safer forms of nuclear power in a smaller form, and now one of them is getting the finding to make its plans a reality. Transatomic Power has just picked up $2 million from Founders Fund to develop a custom molten salt reactor that can eat nuclear waste.

Molten salt nuclear reactor that eats radioactive waste gets funded




This type of reactor technology looks promising considering the implications regarding radioactive waste and our inability to manage such waste. Also looks to be a whole lot safer regarding run away melt down situations considering if power is lost the reaction will eventually stop on its own. What do you think ATS is this the future of our reactor technology?




posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
If it is safer than current nuclear power plants, then I would like to see it used on a large scale to replace those nasty coal plants.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Outside of the obvious 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and recently Fukushima disasters my only other concern about Nuclear energy was the waste factor.

Considering all the pros and cons I'm not sure we can afford to continue to play with this Fission crap until we learn all the ins and outs.


edit on 16-8-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
anyone looking into and comparing the different types will pick the safer one but it's the war mongers that will pick the dangerous ones .



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
From the quote in the OP:

(quote)"Then there was the disastrous meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in central Japan, which will continue to affect residents for years to come."(unquote)


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Yeah, "residents" of planet Earth.

This is obfuscation and dis-information.

Fukushima is a GLOBAL disaster, not a LOCAL one.

TPTB wish to trivialize FUKUSHIMA and will do so in every conceivable way and at every opportunity.




edit on -05:0007148492014-08-16T09:49:07-05:00 by Psynic because: (no reason given)

edit on -05:0026148502014-08-16T09:50:26-05:00 by Psynic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Seems like the people in charge want big impressive super power generation facilities instead of small local ones. It is easier to control society if you control necessities like this. I'm surprised that solar panels are even available to the general public. Same with windmills, although both these products are regulated, if they shut the power off these are automatically disconnected from the power lines by law. I know it is for safety, but it could have duel purpose.

I'm going to try to put in a totally isolated emergency system some day, about three hundred watt unit with batteries. Multi-sourced input. Separate wiring for twelve volt lights around the house and a separate box to plug the freezers into if necessary.

Be nice if I could somehow get a well pump to work in line with my big pump. I'll have to talk to the well guy about this.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I would much rather see money spent developing solar power.
Nuclear power has the potential to destroy the entire planet, and for mankind to think they have the ability to control it safely isn't sound thinking-it's profit motivated.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Not much choice till we manage to build a working Tokamak that gives more than it gets. Is really just down to materials now and stronger magnetic confinement i imagine. Fusion is obviously the future regarding our energy requirements.

edit on 16-8-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Thats all very elaborate.

Hopefully this will work and waste will be a thing of the past. Looks very promising.

techcrunch.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This could be a good way to start cleaning the planet. I'm glad it at least got the funding to investigate.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I'm glad it at least got the funding to investigate.


2 million dollars?

Not going to pay for much.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Thorium was the original and safest idea for nuclear energy, plutonium was the most stable and destructive for a bomb

Personally let's push on with solar roads IMO



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

Fair point 2 million is not going to get them very far but its a start and the technology shows real potential over our current fissionable reactors. Maybe they should put it on Kickstarter?



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I think this is a step in the right direction but we should proceed with extreme caution and NOT build anymore on or near Fault lines.

Bad Ju-Ju
edit on 16-8-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

My own opinion would be to build any reactors well away from our population centres, citys, agricultural land and fisheries. But the water that there cooling demands require and also for steam generation has to come from somewhere.

I always thought it makes sense to build these reactors underground, in stable rock formations, well away from our water table but I imagine cost is placed above safety concerns with regards to their locations.
edit on 16-8-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: andy06shake

I think this is a step in the right direction but we should proceed with extreme caution and NOT build anymore on or near Fault lines.

Bad Ju-Ju

If this is a Thorium reactor then they are "safe". They shut down when power is lost and the reaction is not self sustaining, they can't melt down.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
This is an awesome idea. I would say though that nuclear power gets a very bad rep considering how safe it actually is. A lot of people who hate it really don't actually know that much about it. Also thorium reactor is a good idea. We've had molten salt reactors before. They have their own issues. Honestly I think pwr for the short term at least is the way to go. Less power generation, but inherently much safer.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

It is less susceptible to one major failure mode of a PWR nuclear plant.

But it is more suspceptible to other failure modes: there is a massively radioactive LIQUID flowing in the system! The radioactive fuel and waste is already pre melted-down, by design! All sorts of ways this can be dangerous compared to a PWR which has its fuel and waste very tightly sealed in zirconium-steel solid pellets.

A wall breach and flood would be stupendously dangerous as the molten salt is water soluble. Instead of having most of the waste stay in place and need some other malevolent influence, like a fire in Chernobyl or Fukishima, just the water itself is good enough to dissolve away the entire core & all its waste.



Even in Fukushima most of the core is still there and not in the environment.

And oh yeah, if it catches on fire, you can't put it out with water, obviously!

I'm very much in favor of nukes and waste processing for actinide burnup. I just don't think any reactor with high-level waste intentionally in a liquid form is a good idea.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


1. What water is in the system?

2. In what situation is water required?

3. FLiBe is not water soluble, some components of the waste are.

4. The idea is that continuous reprocessing removes waste products from the fuel, rather than let it accumulate. In addition, the fissile inventory is fairly low.

5. The final form of the waste is probably not going to be a liquid.

6. The melting point of the fuel is over 450 C.

7. A melt-down in a conventional reactor is dangerous for completely different reasons than for this. In a PWR, if the core looses cooling for an extended period of time, hydrogen is produced when fuel cladding reacts with water in an exothermic reaction. This makes the core hotter and creates hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas can explode and destroy the containment (newer plants are designed to mitigate this). If cooling is re-established with containment breached, the cooling water will leak everywhere and spread contaminants to the environment. And (regardless of a hydrogen explosion) if cooling still isn't provided then pressure can build till containment fails, at which point the reduced pressure allows the water to boil (and escape into the environment taking the fission products with it) then the core will melt onto or through the floor.

In a Molten Salt Reactor none of those can happen. The boiling point of the fuel/coolant is extremely high, it's not likely going to become a gas. As far as I know no there are no explosive materials. In an emergency, all that is needed is to drain the core onto a plate with reasonably large surface area and leave it there.

They probably have there own safety issues, but you didn't mention them. Run a search. The core probably has graphite in it which can burn, though not vigorously. iirc, some dangerous chemicals are used, and using a molten salt has its own issues since the high melting point is hard to deal with.
edit on 24/8/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
There are parts to using liquid graphite and liquid sodium that make the core inherently more unstable. Pwr plants are generally more well self sustaining and in the event of an emergency h2 buildup should not be an issue and pressure can most certainly be relieved if it gets too high. There are safety features required which make it so that things like Fukushima don't happen. They just took poor care of their plant and that was the main cause of their catastrophe.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join