Why Is Research on Liquid Fuels for Nuclear Power Limited?

  • Thread starter koab1mjr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Solid
In summary, the author suggests that liquid nuclear fueled plants would be more practical than solid fuel plants, but the NRC stifles innovation. He also mentions that the space shuttle was not 100% solid fuel, and that there are some logistical issues with implementing a liquid nuclear powered plant.
  • #1
koab1mjr
107
0
I know there companies modifying shape size and working fluids and that the NRC really stifles innovation in this industry. Why isn't more research being done liquid fuels


We are studying PLant design now and I really like the idea of a liquid metal fuel mixture in the hot leg and then one or two cold legs to drive the turbine. With the liquid mixture you could actively sift out your xenon and whatever and that way you can achieve much higher burnups.

Outside of a proliferation issue of syphoning off fissle urainium 235 why is this avenue not being explored much.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Cost? Safety? Weight?

I don't believe the space shuttle was 100% solid fuel anyway.

I'm no rocket science, but where's the "turbine" on a rocket?
 
  • #3
koab1mjr said:
I know there companies modifying shape size and working fluids and that the NRC really stifles innovation in this industry. Why isn't more research being done liquid fuels


We are studying PLant design now and I really like the idea of a liquid metal fuel mixture in the hot leg and then one or two cold legs to drive the turbine. With the liquid mixture you could actively sift out your xenon and whatever and that way you can achieve much higher burnups.

Outside of a proliferation issue of syphoning off fissle urainium 235 why is this avenue not being explored much.
Generally, solid fuel is preferred in order to retain fission products in a readily removable form, which helps keep fission products from migrating to the environment. Liquid nuclear fueled plants would be impractical for commercial operation. The processing plant (to remove the fission products) represents a significant capital cost and potential liability.

Separating Xe (and Kr), and the elements such as Te, I, Cs, Ba and Se, Br, Rb, Sr, then requires some storage system to allow them to decay.

There is also the matter of core homogeneity.

It's not clear that higher burnup can be necessarily achieved.

I don't believe that the NRC stifles innovation. The NRC sets standards for safey and protection. Those are necessary contraints! Within those constaints, there is plenty of room for innovation. Developers of nuclear technology are more constrained by the cost of designing and proving technology, which is why the government(s) has played the major role in financially supporting the development of nuclear technology.
 
  • #4
jarednjames said:
Cost? Safety? Weight?

I don't believe the space shuttle was 100% solid fuel anyway.

I'm no rocket science, but where's the "turbine" on a rocket?
Liquid rockets use turbo pumps, and rocket motors have 'preburners' to provide power to turbines, or bleed off lines to divert some of the exhaust to turbines.

http://www.enginehistory.org/SSME/SSME1.pdf

See - SSME Powerhead.

Interesting read - http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/phdTheses/StGermainB-Thesis.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5


I understand the appeal of using liquid fuels for nuclear power generation. They offer potential advantages such as higher burnups and the ability to actively remove xenon and other byproducts. However, there are several reasons why solid fuels continue to be the predominant choice in the nuclear industry.

Firstly, solid fuels have a long history of successful use in nuclear reactors. They have been extensively studied and their behavior is well understood, making them a reliable and safe choice for power generation. On the other hand, liquid fuels are still a relatively new concept and require further research and development to ensure their safe and efficient use.

Additionally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has strict regulations in place for the use of nuclear fuels, including fuels in liquid form. These regulations are in place to ensure the safety and security of nuclear facilities and to prevent any potential proliferation issues. While these regulations may seem stifling to innovation, they are necessary to ensure the responsible use of nuclear materials.

Furthermore, the use of liquid fuels may also present technical challenges and require significant modifications to existing nuclear reactor designs. This can be costly and time-consuming, making it less attractive for companies to invest in this avenue of research.

In conclusion, while the use of liquid fuels in nuclear power generation may offer potential benefits, it is important to carefully consider the technical, regulatory, and safety aspects before pursuing this avenue further. Solid fuels have a proven track record and continue to be the most viable option for nuclear power generation at this time. However, ongoing research and development in the field may lead to advancements in liquid fuels that could potentially be incorporated into future nuclear reactors.
 

FAQ: Why Is Research on Liquid Fuels for Nuclear Power Limited?

Why are solid fuels still used despite the development of other energy sources?

Solid fuels, such as coal and wood, have been used for centuries as a reliable source of energy. Although other energy sources have been developed, solid fuels continue to be used for several reasons. Firstly, they are often more affordable and accessible in certain regions. Additionally, solid fuels can also be stored and used as needed, making them a reliable backup source of energy. Finally, the infrastructure and technology for using solid fuels is well-established, making it more convenient for some communities to continue using them.

How do solid fuels impact the environment?

Solid fuels, particularly coal, have a significant impact on the environment. When burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. Solid fuels can also produce air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, which can have harmful effects on human health. Additionally, extracting and transporting solid fuels can also have negative impacts on the environment, such as deforestation and air and water pollution.

Can solid fuels be considered a renewable energy source?

No, solid fuels are not considered a renewable energy source. Unlike renewable sources like solar or wind energy, which can be replenished naturally, solid fuels are finite resources. Once they are burned, they cannot be replaced. Additionally, the process of extracting and using solid fuels can have detrimental effects on the environment, making them unsustainable in the long run.

Are there any benefits to using solid fuels?

Despite their negative impacts on the environment, there are still some benefits to using solid fuels in certain situations. For example, in developing countries, where access to other energy sources may be limited, solid fuels can provide a reliable source of energy for cooking and heating. They also have a high energy density, meaning they can produce a significant amount of energy from a small amount of fuel.

Is there ongoing research and development for cleaner and more efficient use of solid fuels?

Yes, there is ongoing research and development in the use of solid fuels to make them cleaner and more efficient. Technologies such as carbon capture and storage are being developed to reduce the emissions from burning solid fuels. Additionally, there is a focus on developing more efficient and cleaner burning stoves and boilers to reduce air pollution. However, the use of solid fuels will eventually need to be phased out in favor of more sustainable and renewable energy sources.

Similar threads

Oxygen Enriched Internal Steam Compression Ignition Engine (OEISCIE)
Replies
14
Views
4K
Is the Future of Space Exploration Dependent on Nuclear Thermal Rockets?
Replies
2
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top