Liquid fluoride thorium reactor

"LFTR" redirects here. For the American indie rock band "LFTR PLLR", see Lifter Puller.
Liquid FLiBe salt

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (acronym LFTR; pronounced lifter) is a type of molten salt reactor. LFTRs use the thorium fuel cycle with a fluoride-based, molten, liquid salt for fuel.

Molten-salt-fueled reactors (MSRs) supply the nuclear fuel in the form of a molten salt mixture. They should not be confused with molten salt-cooled high temperature reactors (fluoride high-temperature reactors, FHRs) that use a solid fuel.[1] Molten salt reactors, as a class, include both burners and breeders in fast or thermal spectra, using fluoride or chloride salt-based fuels and a range of fissile or fertile consumables. LFTRs are defined by the use of fluoride fuel salts and the breeding of thorium into uranium-233 in the thermal spectrum.

In a LFTR, thorium and uranium-233 are dissolved in carrier salts, forming a liquid fuel. In a typical operation, the liquid is pumped between a critical core and an external heat exchanger where the heat is transferred to a nonradioactive secondary salt. The secondary salt then transfers its heat to a steam turbine or closed-cycle gas turbine.[2] This technology was first investigated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment in the 1960s. It has recently been the subject of a renewed interest worldwide.[3] Japan, China, the UK and private US, Czech, Canadian[4] and Australian companies have expressed intent to develop and commercialize the technology. LFTRs differ from other power reactors in almost every aspect: they use thorium rather than uranium, operate at low pressure, receive fuel by pumping without shutdown, entail no risk of nuclear meltdown, use a salt coolant and produce higher operating temperatures.[5] These distinctive characteristics give rise to many potential advantages, as well as design challenges.

Background

Tiny crystals of thorite, a thorium mineral, under magnification.
Molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge

By 1946, eight years after the discovery of nuclear fission, three fissile isotopes had been publicly identified for use as nuclear fuel:[6][7]

Th-232, U-235 and U-238 are primordial nuclides, having existed in their current form for over 4.5 billion years, predating the formation of the Earth; they were forged in the cores of dying stars through the r-process and scattered across the galaxy by supernovas.[9] Their radioactive decay produces about half of the earth's internal heat.[10]

For technical and historical[11] reasons, the three are each associated with different reactor types. U-235 is the world's primary nuclear fuel and is usually used in light water reactors. U-238/Pu-239 has found the most use in liquid sodium fast breeder reactors and CANDU Reactors. Th-232/U-233 is best suited to molten salt reactors (MSR).[12]

Alvin M. Weinberg pioneered the use of the MSR at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. At ORNL, two prototype molten salt reactors were successfully designed, constructed and operated. These were the Aircraft Reactor Experiment in 1954 and Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment from 1965 to 1969. Both test reactors used liquid fluoride fuel salts. The MSRE notably demonstrated fueling with U-233 and U-235 during separate test runs.[13](pix) Weinberg was removed from his post and the MSR program closed down in the early 1970s,[14] after which research stagnated in the United States.[15][16] Today, the ARE and the MSRE remain the only molten salt reactors ever operated.

Breeding basics

In a nuclear power reactor, there are two types of fuel. The first is fissile material, which splits when hit by neutrons, releasing a large amount of energy and also releasing two or three new neutrons. These can split more fissile material, resulting in a continued chain reaction. Examples of fissile fuels are U-233, U-235 and Pu-239. The second type of fuel is called fertile. Examples of fertile fuel are Th-232 (mined thorium) and U-238 (mined uranium). Often the amount of fertile fuel in the reactor is far greater than the amount of fissile, but it cannot be fissioned directly. It must first absorb one of the 2 or 3 neutrons produced in the fission process, which is called neutron capture, then it becomes a fissile isotope by radioactive decay. This process is called breeding.[5]

All reactors breed some fuel this way,[17] but today's solid fueled thermal reactors don't breed enough new fuel from the fertile to make up for the amount of fissile they consume. This is because today's reactors use the mined uranium-plutonium cycle in a moderated neutron spectrum. Such a fuel cycle, using slowed down neutrons, gives back less than 2 new neutrons from fissioning the bred plutonium. Since 1 neutron is required to sustain the fission reaction, this leaves a budget of less than 1 neutron per fission to breed new fuel. In addition, the materials in the core such as metals, moderators and fission products absorb some neutrons, leaving too few neutrons to breed enough fuel to continue operating the reactor. As a consequence they must add new fissile fuel periodically and swap out some of the old fuel to make room for the new fuel.

In a reactor that breeds at least as much new fuel as it consumes, it is not necessary to add new fissile fuel. Only new fertile fuel is added, which breeds to fissile inside the reactor. In addition the fission products need to be removed. This type of reactor is called a breeder reactor. If it breeds just as much new fissile from fertile to keep operating indefinitely, it is called a break-even breeder or isobreeder. A LFTR is usually designed as a breeder reactor: thorium goes in, fission products come out.

Reactors that use the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle require fast reactors to sustain breeding, because only with fast moving neutrons does the fission process provide more than 2 neutrons per fission. With thorium, it is possible to breed using a thermal reactor. This was proven to work in the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, whose final fuel load bred slightly more fissile from thorium than it consumed, despite being a fairly standard light water reactor. Thermal reactors require less of the expensive fissile fuel to start.

There are two ways to configure a breeder reactor to do the required breeding. One can place the fertile and fissile fuel together, so breeding and splitting occurs in the same place. Alternatively, fissile and fertile can be separated. The latter is known as core-and-blanket, because a fissile core produces the heat and neutrons while a separate blanket does all the breeding.

Reactor primary system design variations

Oak Ridge investigated both ways to make a breeder for their molten salt breeder reactor. Because the fuel is liquid, they are called the "single fluid" and "two fluid" thorium thermal breeder molten salt reactors.

Single fluid reactor

Simplified schematic of a single fluid reactor.

The one-fluid design includes a large reactor vessel filled with fluoride salt containing thorium and uranium. Graphite rods immersed in the salt function as a moderator and to guide the flow of salt. In the ORNL MSBR design[18] a reduced amount of graphite near the edge of the reactor core would make the outer region under-moderated, and increased the capture of neutrons there by the thorium. With this arrangement, most of the neutrons were generated at some distance from the reactor boundary, and reduced the neutron leakage to an acceptable level.[19] Still, a single fluid design needs a considerable size to permit breeding.[20]

In a breeder configuration, extensive fuel processing was specified to remove fission products from the fuel salt.[13](p181) In a converter configuration fuel processing requirement was simplified to reduce plant cost.[19] The trade-off was the requirement of periodic uranium refueling.

The MSRE was a core region only prototype reactor.[21] The MSRE provided valuable long-term operating experience. According to estimates of Japanese scientists, a single fluid LFTR program could be achieved through a relatively modest investment of roughly 300-400 million dollars over 5–10 years to fund research to fill minor technical gaps and build a small reactor prototype comparable to the MSRE.[22]

Two fluid reactor

The two-fluid design is mechanically more complicated compared to the "single fluid" reactor design. The "two fluid" reactor has a high-neutron-density core that burns uranium-233 from the thorium fuel cycle. A separate blanket of thorium salt absorbs the neutrons and its thorium is converted to protactinium-233. Protactinium-233 can be left in the blanket region where neutron flux is lower, so that it slowly decays to U-233 fissile fuel,[23] rather than capture neutrons. This bred fissile U-233 can be recovered by simple fluorination, and placed in the core to fission. The core's salt is also purified, first by fluorination to remove uranium, then vacuum distillation to remove and reuse the carrier salts. The still bottoms left after the distillation are the fission products waste of a LFTR.

The advantages of separating the core and blanket fluid include:

  1. Simplified fuel processing. Thorium is chemically similar to several fission products, called lanthanides. With thorium in a separate blanket, thorium is kept isolated from the lanthanides. Without thorium in the core fluid, removal of lanthanide fission products is simplified.
  2. Low fissile inventory. Because the fissile fuel is concentrated in a small core fluid, the actual reactor core is more compact. There is no fissile material in the outer blanket that contains the fertile fuel for breeding. Because of this, the 1968 ORNL design required just 315 kilograms of fissile materials to start up a 250 MW(e) two fluid MSBR reactor.[24](p35) This reduces the cost of the initial fissile startup charge, and allows more reactors to be started up on any given amount of fissile material.
  3. More efficient breeding. The thorium blanket can effectively capture leaked neutrons from the core region. There is nearly zero fission occurring in the blanket, so the blanket itself does not leak significant numbers of neutrons. This results in a high efficiency of neutron use (neutron economy), and a higher breeding ratio, especially with small reactors.

One design weakness of the two-fluid design was the necessity for a barrier wall between the core and the blanket region, a wall that would have to be replaced periodically because of fast neutron damage.[25](p29) Graphite was the material chosen by ORNL because of its low neutron absorption, compatibility with the molten salts, high temperature resistance, and sufficient strength and integrity to separate the fuel and blanket salts. The effect of neutron radiation on graphite is to slowly shrink and then swell the graphite to cause an increase in porosity and a deterioration in physical properties.[24](p13) Graphite pipes would change length, and may crack and leak. ORNL chose not to pursue the two-fluid design, and no examples of the two-fluid reactor were ever constructed.

One additional design weakness of the two-fluid design was its complex plumbing. ORNL thought it necessary to use complex interleaving of the core and blanket piping in order to get a high reactor power level with acceptably low power density.[24](p4) More recent research has put into question the need for complex interleaving graphite tubing, suggesting a simple elongated tube-in-shell reactor would allow high total reactor power without complex tubing.[2](p6)

The recovery of high-purity uranium-233 has been raised as a potential nuclear proliferation concern.[26](p99) A design with no protactinium separation would ensure that any U-233 is contaminated with U-232 whose decay chain emits 2 MeV gamma rays too hazardous for weapons workers.

Hybrid "one and a half fluid" reactor

A two fluid reactor that has thorium in the fuel salt is sometimes called a "one and a half fluid" reactor, or 1.5 fluid reactor.[27] This is a hybrid, with some of the advantages and disadvantages of both 1 fluid and 2 fluid reactors. Like the 1 fluid reactor, it has thorium in the fuel salt, which complicates the fuel processing. And yet, like the 2 fluid reactor, it can use a highly effective separate blanket to absorb neutrons that leak from the core. The added disadvantage of keeping the fluids separate using a barrier remains, but with thorium present in the fuel salt there are fewer neutrons that must pass through this barrier into the blanket fluid. This results in less damage to the barrier. Any leak in the barrier would also be of lower consequence, as the processing system must already deal with thorium in the core.

The main design question when deciding between a one and a half or two fluid LFTR is whether a more complicated reprocessing or a more demanding structural barrier will be easier to solve.

Calculated nuclear performance of 1000-MW(e) MSBR design concepts[25](p29)
Design concept Breeding ratio Fissile inventory
Single-fluid, 30 year graphite life, fuel processing 1.06 2300 kg
Single-fluid, 4 year graphite life, fuel processing 1.06 1500 kg
1.5 fluid, replaceable core, fuel processing 1.07 900 kg
Two-fluid, replaceable core, fuel processing 1.07 700 kg

Power generation

The LFTR with a high operating temperature of 700 degrees Celsius can operate at a thermal efficiency to electrical of 45%.[23] This is higher than today's light water reactors (LWRs) that are at 32-36% thermal to electrical efficiency.

Rankine cycle

Rankine steam cycle
Main article: Rankine cycle

The Rankine cycle is the most basic thermodynamic power cycle. The simplest cycle consists of a steam generator, a turbine, a condenser, and a pump. The working fluid is usually water. A Rankine power conversion system coupled to a LFTR could take advantage of increased steam temperature to improve its thermal efficiency.[28] The subcritical Rankine steam cycle is currently used in commercial power plants, with the newest plants utilizing the higher temperature, higher pressure, supercritical Rankine steam cycles. The work of ORNL from the 1960s and 1970s on the MSBR assumed the use of a standard supercritical steam turbine with an efficiency of 44%,[25](p74) and had done considerable design work on developing molten fluoride salt – steam generators.[29]

Brayton cycle

Main article: Brayton cycle

The working gas of a Brayton cycle can be helium, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide. The high-pressure working gas is expanded in a turbine to produce power. The low-pressure warm gas is cooled in an ambient cooler. The low-pressure cold gas is compressed to the high-pressure of the system. Often the turbine and the compressor are mechanically connected through a single shaft.[30] High pressure Brayton cycles are expected to have a smaller generator footprint compared to lower pressure Rankine cycles. A Brayton cycle heat engine can operate at lower pressure with wider diameter piping.[30] The world's first commercial Brayton cycle solar power module (100 kW) was built and demonstrated in Israel's Arava Desert in 2009.[31]

Other applications

In addition to electricity generation, concentrated thermal energy from LFTR can enable other applications:

Removal of fission products

The LFTR, like all breeder reactors, needs a mechanism to remove the fission products from the fuel. Fission products left in the reactor absorb neutrons and thus reduce the production of new fissile fuel. This is especially important in the thorium fuel cycle with few spare neutrons and a thermal neutron spectrum, where absorption is strong. The minimum requirement is to recover the valuable fissile material from used fuel.

Removal of fission products is similar to reprocessing of solid fuel elements - by chemical or physical means the highly valuable fissile fuel is separated from the waste fission products. Ideally the fertile fuel (thorium or U-238) and other fuel components (e.g. carrier salt or fuel cladding in solid fuels) can also be reused for new fuel. However for economic reasons they may also end up in the waste.

As the fuel of a LFTR is a molten salt mixture, it is attractive to use pyroprocessing, high temperature methods working directly from the hot molten salt. Pyroprocessing does not use radiation sensitive solvents and is not easily disturbed by decay heat. It can be used on the highly radioactive fuel directly from the reactor.[34] Having the chemical separation on site, close to the reactor avoids transport and keeps the total inventory of the fuel cycle low. Ideally everything except new fuel (thorium) and waste (fission products) stays inside the plant.

On site processing is planned to work continuously, cleaning a small fraction of the salt every day and sending it back to the reactor. There is no need to make the fuel salt very clean; the purpose is to keep the concentration of fission products and other impurities (e.g. oxygen) low enough. Especially the concentrations of some of the rare earth elements need to be kept low, as they have a large cross section for neutron capture. Some other elements with a small cross section like Cs or Zr may accumulate over years of operation before they are removed.

The more noble metals (Pd, Ru, Ag, Mo, Nb, Sb, Tc) do not form fluorides in the normal salt, but form fine metallic particles in the salt. They can plate out at metal surfaces like the heat exchanger or some kinds of high surface area filters that are easier to remove. Still there is some uncertainty where these noble elements end up, as the MSRE only provided a relatively short operating experience and independent laboratory experiments are difficult.[35]

Some elements like Xe and Kr come out easily as gas, assisted by a sparge of helium. In addition a part of the "noble" metals are removed together with the gas as a fine mist. Especially the fast removal of Xe-135 is important, as this is a very strong neutron poison and makes reactor control more difficult if left in the reactor. Removal of Xe also improves neutron economy. The gas (mainly He, Xe and Kr) is held up for about 2 days until a large fraction of the Xe-135 and other short lived isotopes have decayed. Most of the gas can then be recycled. After an additional hold up of several months, radioactivity is low enough to separate the gas at low temperatures into helium (for reuse), xenon (for sale) and krypton. The krypton needs storage (e.g. in compressed form) for an extended time (several decades) to wait for the decay of Kr-85.[18](p274)

For cleaning the salt mixture several methods of chemical separation were proposed.[36] Compared to classical PUREX reprocessing, pyroprocessing can be more compact and produce less secondary waste. The pyroprocesses of the LFTR salt already starts with a suitable liquid form, so it may be less expensive than using solid oxide fuels. However, because no complete molten salt reprocessing plant has been built, all testing has been limited to the laboratory, and with only a few elements. There is still more research and development needed to improve separation and make reprocessing more economically viable.

Uranium and some other elements can be removed from the salt by a process called fluorine volatility: A sparge of fluorine removes volatile high-valence fluorides as a gas. This is mainly uranium hexafluoride, containing the uranium-233 fuel, but also neptunium hexafluoride, technetium hexafluoride and selenium hexafluoride, as well as fluorides of some other fission products (e.g. iodine , molybdenum and tellurium). The volatile fluorides can be further separated by adsorption and distillation. Handling uranium hexafluoride is well established in enrichment. The higher valence fluorides are quite corrosive at high temperatures and require more resistant materials than Hastelloy. One suggestion in the MSBR program at ORNL was using solidified salt as a protective layer. At the MSRE reactor fluorine volatility was used to remove uranium from the fuel salt. Also for use with solid fuel elements fluorine volatility is quite well developed and tested.[34]

Another simple method, tested during the MSRE program, is high temperature vacuum distillation. The lower boiling point fluorides like uranium tetrafluoride and the LiF and BeF carrier salt can be removed by distillation. Under vacuum the temperature can be lower than the ambient pressure boiling point. So a temperature of about 1000 °C is sufficient to recover most of the FLiBe carrier salt.[37] However, while possible in principle, separation of thorium fluoride from the even higher boiling point lanthanide fluorides would require very high temperatures and new materials. The chemical separation for the 2-fluid designs, using uranium as a fissile fuel can work with these two relatively simple processes:[38] Uranium from the blanket salt can be removed by fluorine volatility, and transferred to the core salt. To remove the fissile products from the core salt, first the uranium is removed via fluorine volatility. Then the carrier salt can be recovered by high temperature distillation. The fluorides with a high boiling point, including the lanthanides stay behind as waste.

The early Oak Ridge's chemistry designs were not concerned with proliferation and aimed for fast breeding. They planned to separate and store protactinium-233, so it could decay to uranium-233 without being destroyed by neutron capture in the reactor. With a half-life of 27 days, 2 months of storage would assure that 75% of the 233Pa decays to 233U fuel. The protactinium removal step is not required per se for a LFTR. Alternate solutions are operating at a lower power density and thus a larger fissile inventory (for 1 or 1.5 fluid) or a larger blanket (for 2 fluid). Also a harder neutron spectrum helps to achieve acceptable breeding without protactinium isolation.[2]

If Pa separation is specified, this must be done quite often (for example, every 10 days) to be effective. For a 1 GW, 1-fluid plant this means about 10% of the fuel or about 15 t of fuel salt need to go through reprocessing every day. This is only feasible if the costs are much lower than current costs for reprocessing solid fuel.

Newer designs usually avoid the Pa removal[2] and send less salt to reprocessing, which reduces the required size and costs for the chemical separation. It also avoids proliferation concerns due to high purity U-233 that might be available from the decay of the chemical separated Pa.

Separation is more difficult if the fission products are mixed with thorium, because thorium, plutonium and the lanthanides (rare earth elements) are chemically similar. One process suggested for both separation of protactinium and the removal of the lanthanides is the contact with molten bismuth. In a redox-reaction some metals can be transferred to the bismuth melt in exchange for lithium added to the bismuth melt. At low lithium concentrations U, Pu and Pa move to the bismuth melt. At more reducing conditions (more lithium in the bismuth melt) the lanthanides and thorium transfer to the bismuth melt too. The fission products are then removed from the bismuth alloy in a separate step, e.g. by contact to a LiCl melt.[39] However this method is far less developed. A similar method may also be possible with other liquid metals like aluminum.[40]

Advantages

Thorium-fueled molten salt reactors offer many potential advantages compared to conventional solid uranium fueled light water reactors:[8][20][41][42][43][44]

Safety

Economy and efficiency

Comparison of annual fuel requirements and waste products of a 1 GW uranium-fueled LWR and 1 GW thorium-fueled LFTR power plant.[60]

Disadvantages

LFTRs are quite unlike today's operating commercial power reactors. These differences create design difficulties and trade-offs:

Recent developments

The Fuji MSR

The FUJI MSR was a design for a 100 to 200 MWe molten-salt-fueled thorium fuel cycle thermal breeder reactor, using technology similar to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reactor Experiment. It was being developed by a consortium including members from Japan, the United States, and Russia. As a breeder reactor, it converts thorium into nuclear fuels.[99] An industry group presented updated plans about FUJI MSR in July 2010.[100] The projected cost is 2.85 cents per kilowatt hour.[101]

Chinese thorium MSR project

The People's Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology.[102] It was formally announced at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference in January 2011. Its ultimate target is to investigate and develop a thorium based molten salt nuclear system in about 20 years.[103][104] An expected intermediate outcome of the TMSR research program is to build a 2 MW pebble bed fluoride salt cooled research reactor in 2015, and a 2 MW molten salt fueled research reactor in 2017. This would be followed by a 10 MW demonstrator reactor and a 100 MW pilot reactors.[105][106] The project is spearheaded by Jiang Mianheng, with a start-up budget of $350 million, and has already recruited 140 PhD scientists, working full-time on thorium molten salt reactor research at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics. An expansion to 750 staff is planned by 2015.[107]

Flibe Energy

Main article: Flibe Energy

Kirk Sorensen, former NASA scientist and Chief Nuclear Technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering, has been a long time promoter of thorium fuel cycle and particularly liquid fluoride thorium reactors. He first researched thorium reactors while working at NASA, while evaluating power plant designs suitable for lunar colonies. Material about this fuel cycle was surprisingly hard to find, so in 2006 Sorensen started "energyfromthorium.com", a document repository, forum, and blog to promote this technology. In 2006, Sorensen coined the liquid fluoride thorium reactor and LFTR nomenclature to describe a subset of molten salt reactor designs based on liquid fluoride-salt fuels with breeding of thorium into uranium-233 in the thermal spectrum. In 2011, Sorensen founded Flibe Energy, a company that initially intends to develop 20-50 MW LFTR small modular reactor designs to power military bases. (It is easier to promote novel military designs than civilian power station designs in today's US nuclear regulatory environment).[108][109]

Thorium Energy Generation Pty. Limited (TEG)

Thorium Energy Generation Pty. Limited (TEG) was an Australian research and development company dedicated to the worldwide commercial development of LFTR reactors, as well as thorium accelerator-driven systems. As of June 2015, TEG had ceased operations.

Alvin Weinberg Foundation

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a British charity founded in 2011, dedicated to raising awareness about the potential of thorium energy and LFTR. It was formally launched at the House of Lords on 8 September 2011.[110][111][112] It is named after American nuclear physicist Alvin M. Weinberg, who pioneered the thorium molten salt reactor research.

Thorcon

Main article: Thorcon

Thorcon is a proposed molten salt converter reactor by Martingale, Florida. It features a simplified design with no reprocessing and swappable cans for ease of equipment replacement, in lieu of higher nuclear breeding efficiency.

See also

References

  1. Greene, Sherrel (May 2011). Fluoride Salt-cooled High Temperature Reactors - Technology Status and Development Strategy. ICENES-2011. San Francisco, CA.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LeBlanc, David (2010). "Molten salt reactors: A new beginning for an old idea" (PDF). Nuclear Engineering and Design (Elsevier) 240 (6): 1644. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.12.033.
  3. Stenger, Victor (12 January 2012). "LFTR: A Long-Term Energy Solution?". Huffington Post.
  4. Williams, Stephen (16 January 2015). "Molten Salt Reactors: The Future of Green Energy?". ZME Science. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  5. 1 2 Warmflash, David (16 January 2015). "Thorium Power Is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
  6. UP (29 September 1946). "Atomic Energy 'Secret' Put into Language That Public Can Understand". Pittsburgh Press. Retrieved 18 October 2011.
  7. UP (21 October 1946). "Third Nuclear Source Bared". The Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved 18 October 2011.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hargraves, Robert; Moir, Ralph (July 2010). "Liquid fluoride thorium reactors: an old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined" (PDF). American Scientist 98 (4): 304–313. doi:10.1511/2010.85.304.
  9. Synthesis of heavy elements. Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung. gsi.de
  10. The KamLAND Collaboration; Gando, Y.; Ichimura, K.; Ikeda, H.; Inoue, K.; Kibe, Y.; Kishimoto, Y.; Koga, M.; Minekawa, Y.; et al. (17 July 2011). "Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements". Nature Geoscience 4 (9): 647–651. Bibcode:2011NatGe...4..647T. doi:10.1038/ngeo1205.
  11. "Lab's early submarine reactor program paved the way for modern nuclear power plants". Argonne's Nuclear Science and Technology Legacy. Argonne National Laboratory. 1996.
  12. Sorensen, Kirk (2 July 2009). "Lessons for the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor" (PDF). Mountain View, CA: Google.
  13. 1 2 Rosenthal, M.; Briggs, R.; Haubenreich, P. "Molten-Salt Reactor Program: Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending August 31, 1971" (PDF). ORNL-4728. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  14. MacPherson, H. G. (1 August 1985). "The Molten Salt Reactor Adventure". Nuclear Science and Engineering 90: 374–380.
  15. Weinberg, Alvin (1997). The First Nuclear Era: The Life and Times of a Technological Fixer. Springer. ISBN 978-1-56396-358-2.
  16. "ORNL: The First 50 Years - Chapter 6: Responding to Social Needs". Retrieved 12 November 2011.
  17. "Plutonium". World Nuclear Association. March 2012. Retrieved 28 June 2012. The most common isotope formed in a typical nuclear reactor is the fissile Pu-239 isotope, formed by neutron capture from U-238 (followed by beta decay), and which yields much the same energy as the fission of U-235. Well over half of the plutonium created in the reactor core is consumed in situ and is responsible for about one third of the total heat output of a light water reactor (LWR).(Updated)
  18. 1 2 3 4 Rosenthal; M. W.; et al. (August 1972). "The Development Status of Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors" (PDF). ORNL-4812. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  19. 1 2 3 Rosenthal, M. W.; Kasten, P. R.; Briggs, R. B. (1970). "Molten Salt Reactors - History, Status, and Potential" (PDF). Nuclear Applications and Technology 8.
  20. 1 2 Section 5.3, WASH 1097 "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors", available as a PDF from Liquid-Halide Reactor Documents Accessed 11/23/09
  21. Briggs, R. B. (November 1964). "Molten-Salt Reactor Program Semiannual Progress Report For Period Ending July 31, 1964" (PDF). ORNL-3708. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  22. Furukawa; K. A.; et al. (2008). "A road map for the realization of global-scale Thorium breeding fuel cycle by single molten-fluoride flow". Energy Conversion and Management 49 (7): 1832. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2007.09.027.
  23. 1 2 Hargraves, Robert; Moir, Ralph (January 2011). "Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactors". Forum on Physics & Society (American Physical Society) 41 (1): 6–10.
  24. 1 2 3 Robertson, R. C.; Briggs, R. B.; Smith, O. L.; Bettis, E. S. (1970). "Two-Fluid Molten-Salt Breeder Reactor Design Study (Status as of January 1, 1968)". ORNL-4528. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi:10.2172/4093364.
  25. 1 2 3 Robertson, R. C. (June 1971). "Conceptual Design Study of a Single-Fluid Molten-Salt Breeder Reactor" (PDF). ORNL-4541. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  26. 1 2 3 Engel, J. R.; Grimes, W. R.; Bauman, H. F.; McCoy, H. E.; Dearing, J. F.; Rhoades, W. A. (1980). Conceptual design characteristics of a denatured molten-salt reactor with once-through fueling (PDF). Oak Ridge National Lab, TN. ORNL/TM-7207.
  27. LeBlanc, David (May 2010). "Too Good to Leave on the Shelf". Mechanical Engineering (American Society of Mechanical Engineers).
  28. Hough, Shane (4 July 2009) Supercritical Rankine Cycle. if.uidaho.edu
  29. "Oak Ridge National Laboratory: A New Approach to the Design of Steam Generators for Molten Salt Reactor Power Plants" (PDF). Moltensalt.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  30. 1 2 Sabharwall, Piyush; Kim, Eung S.; McKellar, Michael; Anderson, Nolan (April 2011). Process Heat Exchanger Options for Fluoride Salt High Temperature Reactor (PDF) (Report). Idaho National Laboratory.
  31. ""Flower power" has been inaugurated in Israel" (News). Enel Green Power. 10 July 2009.
  32. "Nuclear Desalination". World Nuclear Association. March 2012.
  33. Hill, Robert; Hodge, C. G.; Gibbs, T. (May 2012). The potential of the molten salt reactor for warship propulsion (PDF). INEC 2012. Edinburgh, UK.
  34. 1 2 "Pyrochemical Separations in Nuclear Applications: A Status Report" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  35. Forsberg, Charles W. (2006). "Molten-Salt-Reactor Technology Gaps" (PDF). Proceedings of the 2006 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP '06) (American Nuclear Society). Retrieved 7 April 2012.
  36. 1 2 3 "LIFE Materials: Molten-Salt Fuels Volume 8" (PDF). E-reports-ext.11nl.gov. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  37. "Low-Pressure Distillation of Molten Fluoride Mixtures: Nonradioactive Tests for the MSRE Distillation Experiment;1971, ORNL-4434" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  38. "Design Studies of 1000-Mw(e) Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors; 1966, ORNL-3996" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  39. "Engineering Tests of the Metal Transfer Process for Extraction of Rare-Earth Fission Products from a Molten-Salt Breeder Reactor Fuel Salt; 1976, ORNL-5176" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  40. Conocar, Olivier; Douyere, Nicolas; Glatz, Jean-Paul; Lacquement, Jérôme; Malmbeck, Rikard and Serp, Jérôme (2006). "Promising pyrochemical actinide/lanthanide separation processes using aluminium". Nuclear Science and Engineering 153 (3): 253–261.
  41. "Molten Salt Reactors: A New Beginning for an Old Idea" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  42. "Potential of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactors" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  43. "6th Int'l Summer Student School on Nuclear Physics Methods and Accelerators in Biology and Medicine (July 2011, JINR Dubna, Russia)" (PDF). Uc2.jinr.ru. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  44. 1 2 Cooper, N.; Minakata, D.; Begovic, M.; Crittenden, J. (2011). "Should We Consider Using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors for Power Generation?". Environmental Science & Technology 45 (15): 6237. doi:10.1021/es2021318.
  45. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mathieu, L.; Heuer, D.; Brissot, R.; Garzenne, C.; Le Brun, C.; Lecarpentier, D.; Liatard, E.; Loiseaux, J.-M.; Méplan, O.; et al. (2006). "The Thorium molten salt reactor: Moving on from the MSBR" (PDF). Progress in Nuclear Energy 48 (7): 664. arXiv:nucl-ex/0506004. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2006.07.005.
  46. 1 2 "Engineering Database of Liquid Salt Thermophysical and Thermochemical Properties" (PDF). Inl.gov. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  47. "Chapter 13: Construction Materials for Molten-Salt Reactors" (PDF). Moltensalt.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  48. "Thermal- and Fast Spectrum Molten Salt Reactors for Actinide Burning and Fuel Production" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  49. 1 2 Devanney, Jack. "Simple Molten Salt Reactors: a time for courageous impatience" (PDF). C4tx.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  50. Moir, R. W. (2008). "Recommendations for a restart of molten salt reactor development" (PDF). Energy Convers. Management 49 (7): 1849–1858. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2007.07.047.
  51. Leblanc, D. (2010). "Molten salt reactors: A new beginning for an old idea". Nuclear Engineering and Design 240 (6): 1644. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.12.033.
  52. "The Influence of Xenon-135 on Reactor Operation" (PDF). C-n-t-a.com. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  53. 1 2 3 "Assessment of Candidate Molten Salt Coolants for the Advanced High-Temperature Reactor (AHTR)- ORNL-TM-2006-12" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  54. "A Modular Radiant Heat-Initiated Passive Decay-Heat-Removal System for Salt-Cooled Reactors" (PDF). Ornl.gov. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  55. Thorium Fuel Cycle, AEC Symposium Series, 12, USAEC, Feb. 1968
  56. "Using LTFR to Minimize Actinide Wastes" (PDF). Thoriumenergyaslliance.com. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  57. Hargraves, Robert and Moir, Ralph (27 July 2011). "Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactors". Aps.org. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
  58. "for nuclear energy looms". Retrieved 26 January 2016.
  59. 1 2 Sylvain, David; et al. (March–April 2007). "Revisiting the Thorium-Uranium nuclear fuel cycle" (PDF). Europhysics News 38 (2): 24–27. Bibcode:2007ENews..38...24D. doi:10.1051/EPN:2007007.
  60. "Image based on" (PDF). Thoriumenergyalliance.com. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  61. Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose (29 August 2010) Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium. Telegraph. Retrieved on 24 April 2013.
  62. 1 2 3 "Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Abstract" (PDF). Energyfromthorium. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  63. "Denatured Molten Salt Reactors" (PDF). Coal2nuclear.com. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  64. "Estimated Cost of Adding a Third Salt-Circulating System for Controlling Tritium Migration in the 1000-Mw(e) MSBR [Disc 5]" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  65. 1 2 3 4 Bonometti, J. "LFTR Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor-What fusion wanted to be!" Presentation available in www.energyfromthorium.com (2011)
  66. "Critical issues of nuclear energy systems employing molten salt fluorides" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  67. Peterson, Per F.; Zhao, H. and Fukuda, G. (5 December 2003). "Comparison of Molten Salt and High-Pressure Helium for the NGNP Intermediate Heat Transfer Fluid" (PDF). U.C. Berkeley Report UCBTH-03-004.
  68. Forsberg, Charles W.; Peterson, Per F; Zhao, Haihua (2007). "High-temperature liquid-fluoride-salt closed-brayton-cycle solar power towers" (PDF). Journal of solar energy engineering 129 (2): 141–146. doi:10.1115/1.2710245.
  69. "Products". Flibe Energy. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  70. Bush, R. P. (1991). "Recovery of Platinum Group Metals from High Level Radioactive Waste" (PDF). Platinum Metals Review 35 (4): 202–208.
  71. "Thorium fuel cycle — Potential benefits and challenges" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  72. Peterson, Per F. and Zhao, Haihua (29 December 2005). "Preliminary Design Description for a First-Generation Liquid-Salt VHTR with Metallic Vessel Internals (AHTR-MI)" (PDF). U.C. Berkeley Report UCBTH-05-005.
  73. 1 2 Fei, Ting; et al. (16 May 2008). "A MODULAR PEBBLE-BED ADVANCE D HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTOR" (PDF). U.C. Berkeley Report UCBTH-08-001. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  74. "The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor: Launching The Thorium Cycle While Closing The Current Fuel Cycle" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  75. "The Aircraft Reactor Experiment-Physics" (PDF). Moltensalt.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  76. 1 2 "Fluorine Production and Recombination in Frozen MSR Salts after Reactor Operation [Disc 5]" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  77. "Costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants" (PDF). Iaea.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  78. "Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Graphite Behaviour and Its Effects on MSBR Performance" (PDF). Moltensalt.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  79. 1 2 "IAEA-TECDOC-1521" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  80. "Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending February 28, 1970" (PDF). ORNL-4548: Molten-Salt Reactor Program. p. 57. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
  81. Rodriguez-Vieitez, E.; Lowenthal, M. D.; Greenspan, E.; Ahn, J. (7 October 2002). Optimization of a Molten-Salt Transmuting Reactor (PDF). PHYSOR 2002. Seoul, Korea.
  82. 1 2 "Nuclear Weapons Archive - Useful Tables". Retrieved 2013-08-31.
  83. "Thorium Fuel Has Risks". Retrieved 16 October 2015.
  84. 1 2 "Neptunium 237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns" (PDF). Isis-online.org. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  85. 1 2 "Distribution and Behavior of Tritium in the Coolant-Salt Technology Facility [Disc 6]" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  86. Manely; W. D.; et al. (1960). "Metallurgical Problems in Molten Fluoride Systems". Progress in Nuclear Energy 2: 164–179.
  87. "Titanium for long-term tritium storage" (PDF). Osti.gov. 31 August 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  88. "CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY OF A SINGLE-FLUID MOLTEN-SALT BREEDER REACTOR" (PDF). Osti.gov. 31 August 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  89. Moir; R. W.; et al. (2002). "Deep-Burn Molten-Salt Reactors" (Application under Solicitation). LAB NE 2002-1. Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.
  90. "Status of materials development for molten salt reactors" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  91. (52 MB) Intergranular Cracking of INOR-8 in the MSRE,
  92. "Potential of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors: Detailed Calculations and Concept Evolutions in View of a Large Nuclear Energy Production" (PDF). Hal.archives-ouvertes.fr. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  93. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes. Molten Salt Panel (1997). Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's alternatives for the removal and disposition of molten salt reactor experiment fluoride salts. National Academies Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-309-05684-5.
  94. Forsberg, C.; Beahm, E.; Rudolph, J. (2 December 1996). Direct Conversion of Halogen-Containing Wastes to Borosilicate Glass (PDF). Symposium II Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX. Boston, Massachusetts: Materials Research Society. pp. 131–137.
  95. Zhao, H. and Peterson, Per F. (25 February 2004). "A Reference 2400 MW(t) Power Conversion System Point Design for Molten-Salt-Cooled Fission and Fusion Energy Systems" (PDF). U.C. Berkeley Report UCBTH-03-002.
  96. Hee Cheon No, Ji Hwan Kim & Hyeun Min Kim (2007). "A review of helium gas turbine technology for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors" (PDF). Nuclear Engineering and Technology 39 (1): 21–30.
  97. "Conceptual Design study of a Single Fluid Molten Salt Breeder Reactor" (PDF). Energyfromthorium.com. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  98. "Heat Transfer Salt for High Temperature Steam Generation [Disc 5]" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  99. Fuji MSR pp. 821-856, Jan 2007 20MB PDF
  100. "IThEO Presents International Thorium Energy & Molten-Salt Technology Inc." (news). International Thorium Energy Organisation. 20 July 2010.
  101. "Chapter X. MSR-FUJI General Information, Technical Features, and Operating Characteristics" (PDF).
  102. Martin, Richard (2011-02-01). "China Takes Lead in Race for Clean Nuclear Power". Wired Science.
  103. "未来核电站 安全"不挑食"". Whb.news365.com.cn. 26 January 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  104. Clark, Duncan (16 February 2011). "China enters race to develop nuclear energy from Thorium". The Guardian (London).
  105. "Kun Chen from Chinese Academy of Sciences on China Thorium Molten Salt Reactor TMSR Program". YouTube. 10 August 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  106. Halper, Mark (30 October 2012). "Completion date slips for China.s thorium molten salt reactor". Weinberg Foundation. Retrieved 17 April 2013.
  107. Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose (6 January 2013). "China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium". The Daily Telegraph.
  108. "Flibe Energy". Flibe Energy. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  109. "New Huntsville company to build Thorium-based nuclear reactors". Huntsvillenewswire.com. 27 September 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  110. Clark, Duncan (9 September 2011). "Thorium advocates launch pressure group". The Guardian (London).
  111. "The Weinberg Foundation - London: Weinberg Foundation to heat up campaign for safe, green,...". Mynewsdesk. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  112. "New NGO to fuel interest in safe thorium nuclear reactors". BusinessGreen. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2012.

Further reading

The Restoration of the Earth, Theodore B. Taylor and Charles C. Humpstone, 166 pages, Harper & Row (1973) isbn: 978-0060142315

Sustainable energy - Without the Hot Air, David J.C. MacKay, 384 pages, UIT Cambridge (2009) isbn: 978-0954452933

2081: A Hopeful Vision of the Human Future, Gerard K. O'Neill, 284 pages, Simon & Schuster (1981) isbn: 978-0671242572

The Second Nuclear Era: A New Start for Nuclear Power, Alvin M. Weinberg et al., 460 pages, Praeger Publishers (1985) ISBN 978-0275901837

Thorium Fuel Cycle - Potential Benefits and Challenges, IAEA, 105 pages (2005) ISBN 978-9201034052

The Nuclear Imperative: A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis (More Physics for Presidents), Jeff Eerkens, 212 pages, Springer (2010) ISBN 978-9048186662

External links

Advocacy

Videos

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Saturday, February 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.