- #1
dgjxqz
- 17
- 0
Some polymeric intermetallic pentaflouride have boiling points around 200+°C. Can an LFTR be build like a low pressure BWR while maintaining comparable efficiency under lower operating temperature?
dgjxqz said:Some polymeric intermetallic pentaflouride have boiling points around 200+°C. Can an LFTR be build like a low pressure BWR while maintaining comparable efficiency under lower operating temperature?
dgjxqz said:Well IMHO, focusing on thermal efficiency is more important when fuel cost dominates such as in fossil fuel plants. In nuclear plants, higher temperature often translates to higher corrosion and material cost. Hence I am thinking along the line of lowering startup cost while maintaining acceptable efficiency. But again, I could be wrong ...
dgjxqz said:Hence I am thinking along the line of lowering startup cost while maintaining acceptable efficiency. But again, I could be wrong ...
dgjxqz said:- low boiling point
Were they testing with organic polymers? How about elemental red phosphorous?nikkkom said:Polymers won't survive in radiation levels typical for power reactors. It was already tried.
Not quite. Biphenyl was considered, e.g., in the Piqua reactor. One problem is polymerization, in addition to cracking or decomposition.dgjxqz said:Were they testing with organic polymers? How about elemental red phosphorous?
One of the key points of the molten salt (and: liquid metal) reactors is exactly that there is no pressure and no boiling around the fuel. If you allow boiling, then there is no real point in taking all the trouble with replacing water.dgjxqz said:Some polymeric intermetallic pentaflouride have boiling points around 200+°C. Can an LFTR be build like a low pressure BWR while maintaining comparable efficiency under lower operating temperature?
Rive said:One of the key points of the molten salt (and: liquid metal) reactors is exactly that there is no pressure and no boiling around the fuel. If you allow boiling, then there is no real point in taking all the trouble with replacing water.
That mercury there were never meant to boil. In this context the low boiling point (high vapor pressure) of mercury is actually a serious limit on the maximal temperature of any Clementine-like liquid metal reactor.snorkack said:Mercury boils at 360 Celsius, and Clementine reactor actually was run on mercury.
The low boiling point either means pressurized primer or limited efficiency.snorkack said:NbF5 - melts at 72...73 Celsius, boils at 236 Celsius. Nb cross-section 1,05 barns.
TaF5 - melts at 97 Celsius, boils at 230 Celsius. Ta cross-section 20,5 barns.
Several dollars per gram make that a bit expensive (how much cooling liquid has a typical primary cooling loop?). Oh, and the fact that they will react violently with a large range of chemicals.snorkack said:Rb 39; 688; 0,38 natural; 0,12 enriched
Cs 28; 671; 29 monoisotopic
~700 tonnes/year global market. 30 tonnes if you need In-113.snorkack said:In 156; 2072; 194 natural; 12 enriched
~10 tonnes/year but could be increased.snorkack said:Tl 304; 1473; 3,4 natural; 0,10 enriched
Rb is only slightly more reactive than K, but with better neutron economy. And Na/Rb form a simple eutectic freezing at -4 Celsius.mfb said:Several dollars per gram make that a bit expensive (how much cooling liquid has a typical primary cooling loop?). Oh, and the fact that they will react violently with a large range of chemicals.
Thanks! Good to see that they work to a certain extend. I wonder if fluorocarbons or chlorocarbons can also be used.Astronuc said:Piqua reactor
How about CrF4+CrF5?snorkack said:NbF5 - melts at 72...73 Celsius, boils at 236 Celsius. Nb cross-section 1,05 barns.
TaF5 - melts at 97 Celsius, boils at 230 Celsius. Ta cross-section 20,5 barns.
IMHO high temperature designs have been given their deserved attention, low temperature designs are somewhat overlooked.Rive said:Sodium, as coolant for fast reactors melts at 371K and boils at 1156K: lead is usually used as alloy so the melting point varies, but 500+K will do - with boiling point far over 1000K
Of fluorocarbons, CF4 boils at -128 Celsius. The higher ones are not resilient to radiation damage.dgjxqz said:Thanks! Good to see that they work to a certain extend. I wonder if fluorocarbons or chlorocarbons can also be used.
Neither is good. CrF5 boils at 117 Celsius. CrF4 freezes at 277 Celsius.dgjxqz said:How about CrF4+CrF5?
dgjxqz said:IMHO high temperature designs have been given their deserved attention, low temperature designs are somewhat overlooked.
I think the OP's original question has been adequately answered. Thread closed. If you don't like that, click on my user name and start a conversation giving your reason.dgjxqz said:Well IMHO, focusing on thermal efficiency is more important when fuel cost dominates such as in fossil fuel plants. In nuclear plants, higher temperature often translates to higher corrosion and material cost. Hence I am thinking along the line of lowering startup cost while maintaining acceptable efficiency. But again, I could be wrong ...
A boiling fluoride thorium reactor is a type of nuclear reactor that uses a mixture of liquid fluoride salts as both fuel and coolant. It differs from traditional nuclear reactors, which use solid fuel rods and water as a coolant.
In a boiling fluoride thorium reactor, thorium and uranium are dissolved in a molten fluoride salt, which acts as a fuel. The reactor operates at high temperatures, causing the salt to boil and produce steam that drives turbines to generate electricity.
There are several advantages to using a boiling fluoride thorium reactor. It produces less nuclear waste compared to traditional reactors, has a higher fuel efficiency, and is potentially safer due to its inherent safety features.
One potential drawback is the high initial cost of building a boiling fluoride thorium reactor. The technology is still in its early stages, so there may also be some technical challenges to overcome. Additionally, the disposal of spent fuel from the reactor may still pose a challenge.
While the technology is still in development, many scientists believe that a boiling fluoride thorium reactor has the potential to be a viable alternative to traditional nuclear reactors. It has several advantages, such as producing less waste and being more efficient, but further research and development is needed to fully assess its viability.