Yes, for the near future. Utilizing thorium required HALEU (5-20% enriched uranium) fuel to compensate for neutrons absorbed by thorium. The only commercial, affordable HALEU source is Russia, so we revised the design. Circulating fuel salt uranium is well under 5% enrichment. Makeup uranium fuel salt is 5% enriched, readily available.
It would be better if MOX fuel was readily available. There are vast quantities of it stored in Spent Fuel casks, waiting for reprocessing plants to be built. And molten salt reprocessing would be a good way to do it. Or pyroprocessing.
There is enough plutonium/U-235 in spent nuclear fuel to produce ~7000 GWe-yrs of HALEU equivalent startup fuel for thorium MSRs. ~2500 GWe-yrs of HALEU equivalent for Fast Reactors. It all can be extracted by molten salt reprocessing, which is very compatible with MSR startup fuel requirements. And is proliferation resistant since the fuel is already contaminated with isotopes that are incompatible with weapons.
That's enough startup fuel for 800-1300 1GWe thorium MSRs, according to Grok, about 1/3 the number req'd to supply 100% of the World's electricity supply. Or 400-650 1GWe FBRs. Presumably after the initial fuel loading the MSRs would run on added thorium. And the FBRs would run on added plutonium or thorium. With the ability to breed additional fuel for LWRs, PHWRs or more startup fuel for FBRs and MSRs.
Is it true Thorcon is switching to 100% uranium fuel rather than a thorium/uranium mix? What enrichment level is the uranium fuel? What is the burnup GWd/tonne?
Robert: Interesting article. But if they are still using Uranium (dissolved as opposed to pellets) how are they lowering costs. Intuitively, I would think that fuel preparation would increase costs. Why is the liquid fuel cheaper?
The Decouple articles discuss cost of future fuel forms. All enriched uranium is produced as UF6. It is converted chemically to UO2 for solid fuel reactors, and to UF4 for MSRs.
What do you think of Copenhagen Atomics using heavy water as moderator rather than graphite in their version of an MSR? I'm not sure what enrichment they are using in their startup fuel but they are using a thorium salt blanket to generate some of their fuel salt.
Godspeed to them. Clever ideas do not always work out. Terrapower's initial fast reactor was the "burning cigar" model. It changed to the ideas of the prototyped EBR-2 SCFR.
Pretty cool what they are doing, they call it the Onion core. So one layer of the onion is the heavy water moderator which they keep at low pressure and below boiling temp. The molten fuel salt supplies high temp (I believe ~600degC) through a secondary salt loop to whatever the customer wants to use the heat for, including steam generation.
Yes, for the near future. Utilizing thorium required HALEU (5-20% enriched uranium) fuel to compensate for neutrons absorbed by thorium. The only commercial, affordable HALEU source is Russia, so we revised the design. Circulating fuel salt uranium is well under 5% enrichment. Makeup uranium fuel salt is 5% enriched, readily available.
It would be better if MOX fuel was readily available. There are vast quantities of it stored in Spent Fuel casks, waiting for reprocessing plants to be built. And molten salt reprocessing would be a good way to do it. Or pyroprocessing.
The US is just now restarting its down blending factory to convert excess weapons Pu to MOX.
There is enough plutonium/U-235 in spent nuclear fuel to produce ~7000 GWe-yrs of HALEU equivalent startup fuel for thorium MSRs. ~2500 GWe-yrs of HALEU equivalent for Fast Reactors. It all can be extracted by molten salt reprocessing, which is very compatible with MSR startup fuel requirements. And is proliferation resistant since the fuel is already contaminated with isotopes that are incompatible with weapons.
That's enough startup fuel for 800-1300 1GWe thorium MSRs, according to Grok, about 1/3 the number req'd to supply 100% of the World's electricity supply. Or 400-650 1GWe FBRs. Presumably after the initial fuel loading the MSRs would run on added thorium. And the FBRs would run on added plutonium or thorium. With the ability to breed additional fuel for LWRs, PHWRs or more startup fuel for FBRs and MSRs.
Is it true Thorcon is switching to 100% uranium fuel rather than a thorium/uranium mix? What enrichment level is the uranium fuel? What is the burnup GWd/tonne?
Robert: Interesting article. But if they are still using Uranium (dissolved as opposed to pellets) how are they lowering costs. Intuitively, I would think that fuel preparation would increase costs. Why is the liquid fuel cheaper?
The Decouple articles discuss cost of future fuel forms. All enriched uranium is produced as UF6. It is converted chemically to UO2 for solid fuel reactors, and to UF4 for MSRs.
Thanks
What do you think of Copenhagen Atomics using heavy water as moderator rather than graphite in their version of an MSR? I'm not sure what enrichment they are using in their startup fuel but they are using a thorium salt blanket to generate some of their fuel salt.
Godspeed to them. Clever ideas do not always work out. Terrapower's initial fast reactor was the "burning cigar" model. It changed to the ideas of the prototyped EBR-2 SCFR.
Wouldn't using heavy water as the moderator either limit their steam temperature, or require very high pressure vessel to contain it?
Pretty cool what they are doing, they call it the Onion core. So one layer of the onion is the heavy water moderator which they keep at low pressure and below boiling temp. The molten fuel salt supplies high temp (I believe ~600degC) through a secondary salt loop to whatever the customer wants to use the heat for, including steam generation.