LFTR - What Fusion Wanted to Be

[Maslo55]

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

[MachineMuse]

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

I think it's about the same as far as fuel efficiency. So from that perspective, LFTR is probably more economical, at least in terms of initial investment. It might be cheaper in the long run if an accelerator requires less processing of the fuel to get it into usable form. But that's not too important.

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

[Maslo55]

MachineMuse

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

But the same is true for the LFTR. It can fission current nuclear waste just like accelerator driven reactor.

[MachineMuse]

Maslo55

MachineMuse

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

But the same is true for the LFTR. It can fission current nuclear waste just like accelerator driven reactor.

Oh! I missed that.

How does that work? Do you just stir in a drop of molten plutonium with the LFT fuel?

[Maslo55]

MachineMuse

Maslo55

MachineMuse

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

But the same is true for the LFTR. It can fission current nuclear waste just like accelerator driven reactor.

Oh! I missed that.

How does that work? Do you just stir in a drop of molten plutonium with the LFT fuel?

Essentially yes. Here is what Wiki says about it:

Quote:

LFTRs can use existing transuranic wastes for their initial fissile startup charge better than any solid fueled reactor for various technical and physical reasons.[46] Because the fuel is a liquid homogeneous solution, it is always perfectly mixed, impervious to radiation damage and can accept any composition of plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium up to the solubility limit. Solid fueled reactors, such as solid fueled fast reactors, while theoretically outperforming the LFTR in burning of these higher actinides, can only accept limited amounts of these higher actinides (neptunium, americium and curium are often called minor actinides). This is because the fuel is not perfectly mixed, as it is confined in solid fuel elements, and also because the coolant void coefficient (coolant overheating) can become positive for too high levels of minor actinides.[60] In addition, manufacturing solid fuels with high amounts of americium and curium is also difficult due to decay heat generation and helium production rates.[46] As a result, solid fueled reactors usually only use reprocessed plutonium but do not use the americium and curium, which constitute a large portion of the radiotoxicity of the long lived waste.[61]

Wikipedia: Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Advantages

[Suicidesoldier#1]

MachineMuse

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

I think it's about the same as far as fuel efficiency. So from that perspective, LFTR is probably more economical, at least in terms of initial investment. It might be cheaper in the long run if an accelerator requires less processing of the fuel to get it into usable form. But that's not too important.

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

Actually it can have a 200 to 1 efficiency in terms of power generation. O_o

Even assuming 10 times efficiency holy crap. O_o

[Suicidesoldier#1]

3-4 Times the amount of fuel in the world is theoretically 1/4th the cost of Uranium, right?

Mixed with decreased safety protocols and the potential to be closer to cities, along with no need for a centrifuge, cheaper nuclear clean up, and the fact that uranium is 25% cheaper than coal anyways, and that's about 10 times cheaper than current electricity cost, methinks, right?

[MachineMuse]

Suicidesoldier#1

MachineMuse

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

I think it's about the same as far as fuel efficiency. So from that perspective, LFTR is probably more economical, at least in terms of initial investment. It might be cheaper in the long run if an accelerator requires less processing of the fuel to get it into usable form. But that's not too important.

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

Actually it can have a 200 to 1 efficiency in terms of power generation. O_o

Even assuming 10 times efficiency holy crap. O_o

LFTR is also 200 to 1 (250:1 actually) compared to uranium reactors. Don't make the same mistake I did. Read the OP!

[Suicidesoldier#1]

MachineMuse

Suicidesoldier#1

MachineMuse

Maslo55

How Carlo Rubbia's accelerator driven power plant economically compares to LFTR? Because I think LFTR would be cheaper - it does not need any costly accelerator. Yes, the reaction is critical, but criticality is not a safety problem even in modern LWR plants, much less in passively safe LFTR. The real threat in nuclear safety (as shown in Fukushima) is decay heat (which would be present even in accelerator driven power plant).

I think it's about the same as far as fuel efficiency. So from that perspective, LFTR is probably more economical, at least in terms of initial investment. It might be cheaper in the long run if an accelerator requires less processing of the fuel to get it into usable form. But that's not too important.

From my understanding, the advantage of an accelerator-amplifier would be that it can be used to safely fission existing products like plutonium and generate useful energy from them.

Actually it can have a 200 to 1 efficiency in terms of power generation. O_o

Even assuming 10 times efficiency holy crap. O_o

LFTR is also 200 to 1 (250:1 actually) compared to uranium reactors. Don't make the same mistake I did. Read the OP!

Oh.

Really? O_o

[MachineMuse]

Suicidesoldier#1

Oh.

Really? O_o

Yes. Thorium fissions more nicely than uranium is the main reason why both of these techniques (liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy-amplification) are so much more fuel-efficient than uranium, I guess.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

MachineMuse

Suicidesoldier#1

Oh.

Really? O_o

Yes. Thorium fissions more nicely than uranium is the main reason why both of these techniques (liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy-amplification) are so much more fuel-efficient than uranium, I guess.

I always thought it was possible but do you have a link for it? O_o

Since Liquid fluoride techniques aren't really advanced at the moment I've always assumed that it's only slightly more powerful. xp

[MachineMuse]

Suicidesoldier#1

MachineMuse

Suicidesoldier#1

Oh.

Really? O_o

Yes. Thorium fissions more nicely than uranium is the main reason why both of these techniques (liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy-amplification) are so much more fuel-efficient than uranium, I guess.

I always thought it was possible but do you have a link for it? O_o

Since Liquid fluoride techniques aren't really advanced at the moment I've always assumed that it's only slightly more powerful. xp

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/science-and-technology/lftr-what-fusion-wanted-to-be/t.82575391_1/

[Suicidesoldier#1]

MachineMuse

Suicidesoldier#1

MachineMuse

Suicidesoldier#1

Oh.

Really? O_o

Yes. Thorium fissions more nicely than uranium is the main reason why both of these techniques (liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy-amplification) are so much more fuel-efficient than uranium, I guess.

I always thought it was possible but do you have a link for it? O_o

Since Liquid fluoride techniques aren't really advanced at the moment I've always assumed that it's only slightly more powerful. xp

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/science-and-technology/lftr-what-fusion-wanted-to-be/t.82575391_1/

Oh, well, it's saying 250 tons to start off with, but most of that is like, U-238, so when comparing U-235 energies we don't really see a difference, but in terms of size and time I suppose it will produce more power. xp

I guess a notable advantage is that since less fuel is wasted, in the breeding process, which some is inevitably thrown away, but since there is no breeding process for Thorium, it will be more fuel efficient in that regard.

[Maslo55]

The high fuel efficiency of a LFTR comes from three main sources:
1. LFTR can fission 100% of natural thorium. Current LWRs fission only U235 isotope in the natural uranium (which makes cca 0,7%), the U238 isotope which makes up over 99% is wasted. Imagine buying a gas, burning 1% and throwing out 99%. Thats basically what current reactors do with uranium (and what LFTR would not do with thorium).

2. Neutron poisons accumulate in the solid fuel rods in traditional LWRs and poison the reaction until efficient fission is no longer possible and the rods need to be replaced (even though there is still U235). These poisons are continually removed from the liquid LFTR fuel salt. That means it can fission virtually 100% of the fissionable isotopes, and not just how many the accumulation of neutron poisons allows.

3. High working temperature means you can use Brayton cycle turbines instead of Rankine cycle turbines used in traditional nuclear power plants. Braytons have a greater efficiency (50% vs 33%). That means more electricity for the equivalent amount of heat energy released (and fuel burned).

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Maslo55

The high fuel efficiency of a LFTR comes from three main sources:
1. LFTR can fission 100% of natural thorium. Current LWRs fission only U235 isotope in the natural uranium (which makes cca 0,7%), the U238 isotope which makes up over 99% is wasted. Imagine buying a gas, burning 1% and throwing out 99%. Thats basically what current reactors do with uranium (and what LFTR would not do with thorium).

2. Neutron poisons accumulate in the solid fuel rods in traditional LWRs and poison the reaction until efficient fission is no longer possible and the rods need to be replaced (even though there is still U235). These poisons are continually removed from the liquid LFTR fuel salt. That means it can fission virtually 100% of the fissionable isotopes, and not just how many the accumulation of neutron poisons allows.

3. High working temperature means you can use Brayton cycle turbines instead of Rankine cycle turbines used in traditional nuclear power plants. Braytons have a greater efficiency (50% vs 33%). That means more electricity for the equivalent amount of heat energy released (and fuel burned).

Herm... but that's still like 2-3 times better than uranium; great, no doubt, but definitely not 200. xp