The prospect of a nuclear waste burner is absolutely splendid. There are 250000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste Worldwide. Anything that can transmute this waste and render it safe is immensely beneficial. Copenhagen Atomics is doing a great job and is worthy to receive generous funding and investment. Lykke til !
Thanks. Yes we can burn that waste and create roughly 100 times more energy out of it, than when it was burned the first time around. (by adding thorium). This is a new category of nuclear tech.
@@CopenhagenAtomics splendid idea but 'thorium reactors' have been talked about for at least 70 years and so far no one has built such a reactor - despite many announcements. Why? What are the main problems to run the first reactor of this type?
population growth is not the problem. misapplication of available man hours is our true problem. from what you say about thorium energy is not a limiting factor. from what I see of the exponential potential of indoor farming food will not be a problem. finally what private space flight is showing us we will not be limited by room to grow. 7,881,764,621 (est population ) * 40 (hours per week) * 52 (weeks per year) - ( X ) is a hint at the number of manhours available from all humanity. that is true wealth.
The question that some people ask like me, is what is the resistance of all construction and thermal transfer materials to the chemical corrosion of salt at very high temperature (700°) over a very long period of time (7 or 8 years)? Is that not the main difficulty for an operational MSR? Do you have some clues and certainty regarding this major question? Thank you for your answer
@@DKTAz00 Thank you very much for your answer. It means that already exists some metallic alloy or refractory material, which has the capability to withstand such a very high temperature as 700 C° for a very long period of time such as 7 to 8 years. It is good news, in France there are many nuclear specialists who oppose MSR on the ground that there are still numerous unsolved corrosion problems. What are the experimental proofs one can assert in order to offset this argument? Thank you for your help
@@FranceBernardof0609They developed what they call 'Hastelloy-N' for the original MSRE in the 60's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment 'An out-of-pile corrosion test program was carried out for Hastelloy-N,[10] which indicated extremely low corrosion rates at MSRE conditions. Capsules exposed in the Materials Testing Reactor showed that salt fission power densities of more than 200 W/cm3 had no adverse effects on compatibility of fuel salt, Hastelloy-N, and graphite.'
Coming back to this after watching Jiri Krepel's presentation on the potential for burning spent fuel, does Copenhagen Atomics still stand by the use of a moderated system? ua-cam.com/video/vxdqtAcz8hQ/v-deo.html With the excess of neutrons from direct fission of Thorium and from the inherently softer spectrum of fluoride salt systems, it seems to me that the SAMOFAR route of going with LiF and an unmoderated reactor allows the best compromise between burnup of higher actinides and from minimising startup fissile requirements. And possibly reduced shielding requirements, especially for a reactor that aims to fit into a shipping container.
Not true. A fast molten salt reactor require 10 - 30 times more fissile fuel than a thermal reactor. (same energy output). Yes fast reactors give a few % more neutrons, but there is no way they can compete agains a thermal breeder. But to get to a thermal breeder you need very low neutron loss and online removel of fission products. Jiri and co did not simulate this correctly. This is why they did not get the same results as Copenhagen Atomics. What we have developed is in a category of its own. It is a thermal breeder reactor with VERY good neutron economy. This will also beat fusion if they ever get that to work.
The prospect of a nuclear waste burner is absolutely splendid. There are 250000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste Worldwide. Anything that can transmute this waste and render it safe is immensely beneficial. Copenhagen Atomics is doing a great job and is worthy to receive generous funding and investment. Lykke til !
Perhaps dumped 28000 barrels of nuclear waste can be recovered and processes in molten salt reactors: ua-cam.com/video/-ZhPndLmpAQ/v-deo.html ?
Thanks. Yes we can burn that waste and create roughly 100 times more energy out of it, than when it was burned the first time around. (by adding thorium). This is a new category of nuclear tech.
@@CopenhagenAtomics splendid idea but 'thorium reactors' have been talked about for at least 70 years and so far no one has built such a reactor - despite many announcements. Why? What are the main problems to run the first reactor of this type?
Go, Thomas! You will make this reality!
i really hope, this this timeline holds. its a really game changer. keep up the good work.
Uranium 238 may as well be regular meatal shavings since it is naturally inert uranium since it has decayed to stability. Do I get that right?
what do we need to know to adapt this technology to space rated power systems?
We have designed this tech, such that you can put it on the moon soon. But we will not pay for that test.
population growth is not the problem. misapplication of available man hours is our true problem. from what you say about thorium energy is not a limiting factor. from what I see of the exponential potential of indoor farming food will not be a problem. finally what private space flight is showing us we will not be limited by room to grow. 7,881,764,621 (est population ) * 40 (hours per week) * 52 (weeks per year) - ( X ) is a hint at the number of manhours available from all humanity. that is true wealth.
The question that some people ask like me, is what is the resistance of all construction and thermal transfer materials to the chemical corrosion of salt at very high temperature (700°) over a very long period of time (7 or 8 years)? Is that not the main difficulty for an operational MSR? Do you have some clues and certainty regarding this major question? Thank you for your answer
Short answer, corrosion is not a problem if you can keep your salt clean and free of water.
@@DKTAz00 Thank you very much for your answer. It means that already exists some metallic alloy or refractory material, which has the capability to withstand such a very high temperature as 700 C° for a very long period of time such as 7 to 8 years. It is good news, in France there are many nuclear specialists who oppose MSR on the ground that there are still numerous unsolved corrosion problems. What are the experimental proofs one can assert in order to offset this argument? Thank you for your help
@@FranceBernardof0609They developed what they call 'Hastelloy-N' for the original MSRE in the 60's
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
'An out-of-pile corrosion test program was carried out for Hastelloy-N,[10] which indicated extremely low corrosion rates at MSRE conditions. Capsules exposed in the Materials Testing Reactor showed that salt fission power densities of more than 200 W/cm3 had no adverse effects on compatibility of fuel salt, Hastelloy-N, and graphite.'
@@FranceBernardof0609 Also this timestamp : ua-cam.com/video/ENH-jd6NhRc/v-deo.html
Hastelalloy N with added niobium apparently does relatively well.
Coming back to this after watching Jiri Krepel's presentation on the potential for burning spent fuel, does Copenhagen Atomics still stand by the use of a moderated system?
ua-cam.com/video/vxdqtAcz8hQ/v-deo.html
With the excess of neutrons from direct fission of Thorium and from the inherently softer spectrum of fluoride salt systems, it seems to me that the SAMOFAR route of going with LiF and an unmoderated reactor allows the best compromise between burnup of higher actinides and from minimising startup fissile requirements. And possibly reduced shielding requirements, especially for a reactor that aims to fit into a shipping container.
Not true. A fast molten salt reactor require 10 - 30 times more fissile fuel than a thermal reactor. (same energy output). Yes fast reactors give a few % more neutrons, but there is no way they can compete agains a thermal breeder. But to get to a thermal breeder you need very low neutron loss and online removel of fission products. Jiri and co did not simulate this correctly. This is why they did not get the same results as Copenhagen Atomics. What we have developed is in a category of its own. It is a thermal breeder reactor with VERY good neutron economy. This will also beat fusion if they ever get that to work.
Could it even burn up old fuel rods from Fukushima?
Yes. but it is not going to be low cost. I doubt that Japan will pay for this any time soon. We prefer to start elsewhere first.