Deza, again, I agree with most of what you write. Keating is simply
making this up...that' why he cant even quote what a breeding ratio is
of a LFTR OR a LWR. Oh well.

Look, when I say the LFTR is the future it is because it is a *better*
future than uranium fueled LWRs, all of which are pressurized AND run
on rankine cycle turbines. LFTRs run at one atmostphere and are much
cheaper (should be) to build, along with their turbines which can be
much smaller because of their Brayton efficiency compared to that of
the Rankine cycle turbine. The waste stream is smaller and more easily
processed. It's only the future because it's better to use this form
of thorium/fluorine(or chloride) than uranium.

 However, I agree, technically we could run on just uranium with
breeders thrown in, I just don't trust fast breeders although I
support the Indian and Russian experiments. We'll see. Just how to do
you CONTROL those suckers!??? Then for a higher cost we can mine coal
ash for the next 400 years and run our economy on that.

David
On Aug 19, 5:23 pm, deza...@usa.net wrote:
> On Aug 19, 4:57 pm, T. Keating  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:02:32 -0700 (PDT), deza...@usa.net wrote:
>
> > FLiBE ... No such compound... doesn't exist in our universe. .
> > Correct designation is  2LiF-BeF2. a mixture of two compounds. it was
> > used as a secondary coolant.
>
> > The ORNL pyrolytic carbon moderated 7.4 MWt reactor was AIR cooled !!!
>
> > The fuel used in MSRE was LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4(*)  (a mixture of 4
> > compounds.)
>
> > (*) U233 isotope was used in UF4 mixture.
> > The breeding blanket of Th232 was omitted in favor of neutron
> > measurements.
>
> Congratulations on finding the wikipedia page.
>
> > Some obvious problems with the design..
>
> > Difficult, if not impossible to scale up GWt output levels.  Large
> > scale heat transfer (required for power generation) has a tendency to
> > separate out mixtures.  This level of cooling often results in uneven
> > mixtures and hot pockets. (Run-away chain reaction is a possibility.)
>
> Do you just make this shit up? This wasn't reported by ORNL. You have
> potential problems of noble metals plating on the heat exchangers, but
> these are fission products and this poses a maintenance problem more
> than anything else. The fissonables are highly soluable in the salt.
> You dont even know what you mean by 'Run away chain reaction is a
> possibility.' Its a meaningless statement. I assume you want to say a
> criticality excursion is a possibility, but thats unsupported by the
> strongly negative temperature and void coefficients of these types of
> reactors.
>
> > Used a Th layered blanket design, which will always have inherently
> > LOW breeding ratio.  Lucky to achieve  0.2 breeding ratio, claims to
> > otherwise not substantiated.
>
> Now I know you dont know what you're talking about. LWRs have breeding
> ratios around .6
>
> > Claim of high burn up, contra indicated by extensive clean up
> > procedures needed to decommission reactor after 40 years.
>
> This has nothing to do with the burn up or even the reactor. Thats
> radiolysis of the frozen salt when left unattended for years.
>
> > While the burn up of U233 is superior to other fuels.. This particular
> > experiment did not solve the U233 production problem.  Where a Pu or
> > HEU core provides the neutron source for breeding, resulting usual
> > amounts of radioactive isotopes.
>
> And thats no worse than today, much better considering you have far
> less transuranics and those that exist can be incinerated in the
> reactor.
>
>
>
> > The final ORNL's MSR design proposed using a fuel mixture
> > LiF-BeF2-ThF4-UF4  and a coolant of NaF-NaBF4,
> > was NEVER BUILT nor tested !!
>
> >http://www.answers.com/topic/molten-salt-reactor
> > "However, to date the molten salt reactor remains a "paper design",
> > that is, no molten salt reactors have been built other than the
> > experimental MSRE."
>
> > ---
>
> > In Summary..
>
> > Only the very FOOLISH propose that  humanity stake it's ENTIRE  future
> > energy supply on a reactor design that's never been built, nor tested.
> > Even if you started today, a commercial design wouldn't be viable for
> > thirty, maybe forty years.
>
> And now we have the strawman...
>
> We dont need LFTR tomarrow or at all. LWRs are more than sufficient
> for several centuries. Perfecting LFTRs would be very desirable
> because it would make nuclear power production cheaper, more
> efficient, and safer, but its certainly not staking the future of
> humanity on a single energy supply.
>
> Now I could make a similar argument:
>
> Only the very FOOLISH propose that  humanity stake it's ENTIRE  future
> energy supply on a renewable energy regime that's never been built,
> nor tested. Even if you started today, a commercial renewable grid
> wouldn't be viable for thirty, maybe forty years.
>
> > Meanwhile ..
> >   Renewables are practical today...
>
> In spite of wind powered Denmark having far higher electricity costs
> than nuclear powered France
>
> >   Pose no special environmental hazard.
>
> Tell that to the victims of banqiao dam.
>
> >   Are subject of a near continuous stream of incremental improvements.
>
> Just like nuclear energy, imagine that.
>
> >   Derives energy from a nearly inexhaustible source,  which will
> > likely outlast mankind and every other species on Earth.  - Hide quoted text -
>
> Where using the 160 trillion tonnes of fissionables would only last
> humanity 16 million years if you burn it at 1000 times our global
> energy consumption....