it appears that they are boiling lithium and beryllium
fluoride compounds to turn a turbine. . I understand
this from the iroseland link above. -- j

nope. . I didn't read far enough. . here 'tis:::
======================================
"The coolant salt passes out of the reactor containment region
and heats the gaseous working fluid of a gas-turbine power
conversion system, analogous to the gas turbines used in
today’s jet engines. The hot, high-pressure gas expands in a
turbine, generating shaft work that turns a generator and
produces electricity while also turning a compressor."
============================================
this implies that the heat from reaction of the fuel-
loaded lithium- / beryllium-fluoride is handed off to a
gas which turns the turbine -- an unnamed gas. . they
go past this fact with impunity, as though that gas
was an insignificant choice. . probably not. . it must
take up heat convectively, not being a liquid which
allows conductive heat transfer, and it must turn the
turbine as it expands because of its heat. . then, its
waste heat must be removed. . this part of the design
is inefficient. . very. -- j

p.s. iroseland link::: http://flibe-energy.com/

p.p.s. helium gas is shown in the diagram of the reactor
set-up for test and evaluation, not power generation.
.

How do you get electricity out without steam?

well said.

TFOne, it is uncertain as well as complex. The uncertainty drives research overseas.

@Rob
Is the application process unnecessarily complicated by regulatory requirements?

@Thor
The reason why I have described them as being the safest is because the LFTR technology is at atmospheric pressure compared to the degree of pressurisation of other reactor designs which use EXPLOSIVE steam (the HAZARD if the water is NOT kept COOLED properly).

The big safety mechanism of LFTR is the molten salt is held in place with a refrigerated plug, which if it were to fail the molten salt would just drain into the reservoir where it is allowed to cool and resolidify.

Comparing the fuel production chain, refining and disposal, there is no threat of nuclear weapons materials going missing. The fuel efficiency is quoted in the high 90s(%) versus current nuclear ~0.1(%) but requires reprocessing. LFTR is said to be a great way to dispose of the stockpiles of nuclear waste by burning them down to a more useful element, and the power output associated with this.

They don't support any solution that might actually work.

Once you are a professional activist the last thing you want is for your cause to end.

It looks as if the Chinese plan on having a Thorium reactor running in 2015 and India in 2016. I am waiting to see what will happen in reality.

Jan

That's the kind of thing that makes me nuts. We went from not being sure that a chain reaction was possible to having production reactors and working bombs in four years.

We have gotten used to thinking that we can't do anything anymore, it takes decades. Most of that time is in governmental red tape.

I'm not advocating a Manhattan style investment, but we damned well should be able to improve on technology that was working 50 years ago.

Nuclear MeVs vs chemical eVs? No comparison!

Sounds good. I detest the resistance to all these things we could easily "do". If we were trying to produce the first lead-acid battery today, imagine how hard it would be...lead? sulfuric acid? Oh my god, but they are under the hood of every car, truck, tractor and all over.

Not sure about safest. PWRs are pretty safe and a whole lot more hours on them than this. Not to rain on the parade. Sounds like these have a nice negative reactivity coefficient too.

You say, "we".

Are you set on producing your first prototype in the US? There are several counties in Eastern Europe who have 'single point' atomic energy regulatory committees and where you might get a more favorable reception (to energy independence from Russia, as a random example).

Jan

a billion is certainly a lot of money. but if the long term benefit is so good the long term profit will also be substantial. the problem then becomes what do the energy companies do with the investment that they currently have all over the world? as i see it we the people are not a factor just the lemmings.

With the kind of money we are throwing around to reduce our carbon footprint, a billion dollars isn't a big deal. The problem is that the same people who believe that reducing our carbon footprint is actually important don't like anything nuclear.

You're right in general. There are extensive discussions of the testing we need. No one has figured out how to get past the regulatory hurdle yet. It is not a matter of cost, but of uncertainty.

It isn't grandpa's powerplant.. and the politicians don't know how to get their cut of a small nuclear plant that could pick up and leave.

Because the application process for a new reactor design like LFTR comes with a billion dollar price tab.. before you get to square one.

We've run lftrs for years, but not for 20 years. We need an accelerated lifetime test rig. That will only happen when there is a regulatory way forward. That means the research will probably be conducted overseas rather than in the US.

I used to design large power plants. Hot salt is benign compared to hot water.

This is another place to start, from short to long on LFTRs.
https://slowfacts.wordpress.com/tag/lftr...

Because nuclear is 'bad'.

My understanding is that while the science is understood, the technology and the engineering remain to to be solved. The problem is the use of very high temperature liquids especially molten salt which is highly corrosive. The safe and economic handling of such substances on an industrial scale is a serious challenge. So, very interesting, very great potential, but do not expect it for some decades.
I would be delighted to be wrong on this.

While I like the idea, I would request that instead of posting links to generic websites, you post links to specific articles to call our attention to.

I watched the video in the middle and was thoroughly unimpressed. If you want to tout your solution, you don't need three minutes of scare-tactics. Present your case.

why are the energy companies not investing in this technology versus wind mills? if it is so good?

Thank you iroseland. I do not have the money to invest in this (but if I did, I would). They hint at 5 years in one of the FAQ's but I do wonder what their real run-up time will be. A series of prototypes first (probably about 3), then an offering for an initial production site....

Neat.

Jan

there are now a number of countries are working on this now..

even Norway ( they are sitting on a pile of easily extractable thorium )

http://rose-blogg.blogspot.com/

Japan is working on it.. Even India is messing with the idea..

The patents on the tech that surround the process we dont have figured out yet are going to be a goldmine..
Also, once we are to the point where these are commercialize-able reactors the labor that will be needed to manufacture a planets worth will be a gold mine for some workforce. Pretty much everyone wants that workforce living in their backyard..