HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Brief Comments on the Mol... » Reply #4

Response to John ONeill (Reply #3)

Sat May 26, 2018, 01:37 PM

4. My pleasure John. I spent a little more time looking the Moltex over.

It has certain features that are an improvement of FLIBE type and other salt systems that are FLIBE like, for example, FLINAK.

Nevertheless, I have a number of reservations about this type of reactor, its benefits aside. (Chloride is not an anion I'd chose for a reactor, because I see a necessity for considering isotope separation.).

I'm not sure about the putative ZrCl4 distillation will work. It works in neat solutions, possibly those with enough energy to dissociate the normal hexacoordinate polymer, but it also forms group one hexachlorocomplex ions, particularly with cesium and rubidium, both of which are fission products. I don't know this a problem but I would b

Some hears ago, I was rather enamored of a gas phase separation between plutonium and uranium from fluoride based reactors continuously during operation in a breeder situation only to learn about the interesting stability of cesium and rubidium complexes of the the (V) actinide fluorides. I abandoned this line of thinking not because the problem is necessarily insurmountable, but because I can think of approaches that can be investigated more cheaply experimentally

The temperature of the Moltex is generally too low for use in thermochemical cycles. I regard this technology a key point at phasing out high density fuels based on either dangerous petroleum or dangerous natural gas.

Finally I would be concerned about neutron economy. I believe it is incumbent upon humanity to either eliminate or substantially reduce mining energy materials. We have enough depleted uranium and waste thorium from the wind and electric car industry to fuel humanity - almost all of its energy requirements - for many centuries before we'll even need to consider uranium from seawater. (If however, we choose to process seawater for other purposes, such as desalination, we can collect uranium as a side product; the Indians have such a system already piloted.

I believe that the ultimate reactor to do this will be a "breed and burn" scenario. I've imagined lots of these over the years.

Over the years of considering various breeding ratios of actinides and their compounds, I have found that liquid plutonium is the best such fuel. It produces 1.6 excess neutrons if the literature from the 1960's can be believed.

I have ideas on how to address the tantalum issue that was associated with the LAMPRE, and completely eliminate it.

I've been investigating novel materials that were not even imagined in the 1960s.

Finally, I've convinced myself as well that it is entirely feasible to spontaneously separate the most problematic fission products from the fuel more or less continuously so that they can be put to use to address important environmental and energy uses.

My next dream is to eliminate turbines, but that's far off.






Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
NNadir May 2018 OP
hunter May 2018 #1
NNadir May 2018 #2
John ONeill May 2018 #3
LineLineLineLineNew Reply My pleasure John. I spent a little more time looking the Moltex over.
NNadir May 2018 #4
Please login to view edit histories.