[ExI] cost of SBSP and thorium

BillK pharos at gmail.com
Sun Aug 19 15:54:11 UTC 2012


On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Brent Neal wrote:
> This is confusing to me as well. Making fluoride salts of actinides is a well known technology.
> Molten salt reactors have existed, as has been pointed out here, for years. The only thing I can
> figure is that there are some issues with fuel handling and heat management that we were
> cavalier about in the 60s that need to be dealt with now. But that's not a 2-decade problem,
> that's a half-decade problem…
>
>

LFTRs are different in almost every way to existing reactors. There is
a difference between building a small test reactor and building a full
size production reactor. To build a standard nuclear power station
takes 5 to 10 years *after* all the haggling over sites and permits,
planning, design, etc.

For a list of LFTR design problems, see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Design_challenges>

It is no use hand-waving and saying that the Oak Ridge test has
already solved these problems. The Chinese and other researchers won't
believe you. They will have to build their own test plant first.

So, allow 10 years for a test build and problem solving. Then a few
years for designing a full-size power station and getting quotes for
the actual build. Then 5 to 10 years for a production build.

It could easily take 20 years.


BillK




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list