Stable Salt Reactor Technology Introduction

The Stable Salt Reactor
is a revolutionary clean energy concept but one with unusually low technological hurdles. This simplifies almost everything about the reactor, resulting in power that is cheaper than fossil fuels. This can be done NOW without lengthy research, combining long proven components from conventional nuclear with innovative molten salt technology. All reactors today have their
nuclear fuel contained in small pellets. These pellets are stacked
inside a fuel rod several metres long and a single reactor has thousands of fuel rods. The pellets and rods are sealed and over time they build up
radioactive gases to huge pressures. They have to be kept hot enough
to produce heat for electricity but not too hot otherwise they will melt. This is a real engineering challenge,
and people have succeeded, but when something goes wrong,
it can be catastrophic. The high pressure gases can burst out and be spread for hundreds of miles. In our reactor, we replace the pellets with liquid molten salt which contains the nuclear fuel. This is a stable liquid at atmospheric pressure
which brings numerous advantages. Firstly, the fuel in our reactor is two thirds table salt and one third uranium or plutonium chloride. The uranium can be enriched natural uranium,
U233 bred from thorium, or plutonium reprocessed from spent nuclear fuel. Unlike today’s methods,
our process for recycling spent fuel is simple, cheap and does not leave a waste stream
that is dangerous for thousands of years. The molten salt fuel is contained in fuel tubes
and sits in a large assembly, very similar to assemblies in conventional reactors. Molten salts have excellent heat transfer properties and they are chemically stable and can operate at
high temperatures, still at atmospheric pressure. This means there is no risk of a high pressure explosion
or need for costly pressure domes. Lots of these assemblies fit into our core. The use of molten salts
also means the reactor is self-controlling. This means that if the temperature goes up,
the reactivity will go down making it inherently safe And if the temperature goes down,
the reactivity goes up. This makes it very stable and effective
at load following with intermittent renewables. Now let’s talk about gases and fission products. With the SSR, the hazardous gases that have
released to the atmosphere in accidents in the past – such as caesium and iodine at Chernobyl –
are not in the form of gases. They are stable compounds in the salt,
so this accident can’t happen. Other gases slowly bubble out
of the top of the fuel tube. So what about materials and corrosion? For us, the only component in this
high energy region are the fuel tubes. These are replaced every five years
for fuel efficiency reasons. Other components are far less affected
by the neutron flux because the neutrons are almost all absorbed by the pool of molten salt surrounding the core area. We’ve essentially eliminated corrosion issues by making sure the molten salt mixture
is chemically stable and non corrosive. We’ve applied the old science of galvanising to this modern challenge, using zirconium instead of zinc. So what CAN go wrong? Well, if the heat extraction system fails,
the reactor, like all reactors, will overheat. But we’ve installed entirely passive air cooling ducts
around the outside of the tank, to ensure the system can always be
cooled down without intervention. If the tank gets very hot,
the air in the red ducts starts to heat up and cold air is drawn in via the blue ducts. This is sufficient to keep
any size reactor at safe temperature without ever needing emergency intervention. Without the need for expensive features to contain hazards, cheap clean energy is finally possible. Our costs are also reduced by our modularised design. Each module is transportable by road
along with the entire reactor tank, even for a one gigawatt plant
(enough to power about 2 million homes). This is all designed with the intention of having
a factory line producing many units, meaning large scale roll-out of the SSR is possible, fast enough to have a real impact on global climate change. Our design philosophy from mine to end user is to have
an energy system that has little to no impact on the environment in any setting whether it’s an urban surrounding or a more prominent coastal one. We need to produce cheap clean energy for the world,
as the world needs it now. Thanks for learning about the
Moltex Energy Stable Salt Reactor. If you’d like to find out more,
check out our YouTube channel or our website

, , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

66 thoughts on “Stable Salt Reactor Technology Introduction

  1. This is a great idea! I like the modularity of it, which is great for scaling to the desired capacity. Kudos to the design team!

  2. I was designing a new fuel rod covered in platinum or higher melting point metals then uranium and Plutonium. Therefor containing the melted fuel for enough time to solve the issue this beats my design easily

  3. I don't like fuel rods. In a LFTR the fuel flows around the moderator rods. Also a LFTR has a drain and a sump. If the system were to suffer total power loss and all the people were gone and/or systems breach the fuel would simply drain to the lowest point (the Sump) and cool off.
    A Two-region thorium breeder, solution core homogeneous type reactor are also good for large-scale power production, but can breed U233 from Th232 or convert U235 to U233. It's other byproducts really aren't losses. No rods to be pulled out and stored. It can even eat spent fuel from light water reactors.

  4. Son your design cannot address any aspect IED's, 500 kl bunker busters, MIRV'S, Scud missiles or LACM's. All very real problems that must be safeguarded against. In your design the fuel rods must be pulled. Then what will be done with them? LFTR design provides for extraction of commercial isotopes and re-doping (re-fueling with P233 from the blanket salt or adding spent fuel for digestion) while the reactor is still running. Only around 17% of the so called contaminant will still be "hot" after 10 years and less than 0.01% after 300 years. I like everything about your design except the fuel rods.

  5. LFTR is a safer and more efficient design. This design ends up with entire radioactive cores to dispose of. Its like an inkjet printer but instead of replacing the cartridges you have to replace the core. LFTR does not create all this radioactive waste. LFTR only produces 2% of the waste that conventional reactors produce and are walk away safe.

  6. So you plan on using chloride salts, which will lead to radioactive chlorine isotopes; which is why they went with fluoride salts in the MSR. The second part is you plan on keeping the zirconium tubing and the cooling water. This configuration is even more dangerous than a standard LWR given the Zr will react with Cl molecules at high temperatures and will start to reactor with water if coolant temps are not maintained. Your reactor design is a bad design from the aspect of safety.

  7. For those interested there is more commercial and technical information in this video from the inventor and ex Unilever Chief Scientist, Dr. Ian Scott:

  8. If it is so simple and good , why is it not happening ?, can some body please tell me that
    I have been following MSR for 5years now

  9. The outside jacket design is ok for cooling but another cooling device is heat pipes that could be inserted. These are closed pipes under slight vacuum with a working fluid like water or ammonia. They can convey heat at a rate of 4000 watts per square inch. a great heat flux density. They are used on the Alaskin pipe line to take heat away from the ground to keep the ground frozen.

  10. Moltex is a UK company with some Canadian input.
    The man who rescued Thorium from oblivion, Kirk Sorensen has set up Flibe energy to develop Thorium generation in Huntsville Alabama.
    Another serious player is Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics which has 2 Thorium Molten Salt Reactors in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province.
    They are not big about – 12MWatts but they are expected to come online next year 2020.
    Europe has it's SAMOFAR Thoruim project.
    So all in all, despite the efforts on the existing nuclear lobby (the Uranium mafia), Thorium is coming our way soon.

  11. All this sounds super great except for this part:

    "These are replaced every 5 years for fuel efficiency reasons."

    Soo.. what happens to the spend fuel tubes? Where and how are they stored? How much space will we need for them on an ongoing basis? How corrosive and toxic are their contents? What would the impact be if their contents were to leak out, say, into the ocean or into the ground?

    I really like this idea a lot better than having enormous wind or solar farms or big damed up artificial reservoirs for hydro power, etc., if we have a good enough way of dealing with the "what do we do with the waste" part.

  12. This is a technology that makes sense and would be the proper technology that we should be investigating.

  13. Just a bit of fearmongering here… Gaseous fission products are not a significant concern in any nuclear accident. All of the danger comes from spreading solids like cesium, strontium, and iodine… I don't know where you guys got the idea that cesium and iodine are gases…

  14. In view of the fact that the molten salt chosen is good old sodium chloride, perhaps the reactor should be called: "The Table Salt Reactor".
    That was a pun.

  15. Nobody's talking about Sandia's Z MACHINE in Albuquerque, New Mexico!!! It produces ×50 more electricity than any other known technology. But schhh🤫🤫.

  16. I wish our children, which save the world every Friday, instead of going to school, would watch such a film. Or our Chancellor Merkel, which decided to declare every nuclear energy from hell, should watch this. Every centimeter of our landscape in Germany is already nearly under control of economic interests. We have no virgin forest in Europe anymore except a small one in Poland, which was exploited too; pretext was the bork-beetle (?) until the UNESCO said no! And the rest is plastered with solar panels on fertile soil, the woods are cut for the wind mils for the sake of saving the world. The energy prices in Germany are the highest of Europe (of the world?). But there are technical solutions! Open your eyes: the Molten Salt Reactor is one of them, Hydrogen, LOHC, NanoFlowcell, Fusion-Reactor (not ready yet), synthetic fuel, Power to Gas, these are some promising techniques for the future, which would go ideally together with such a Molten Salt Reactor.

  17. Nuclear power is moot – the tech for the 21st Century is "Liquid Air". That's right air, doesn't have a half-life, air is free and there is no waste. Cost 20 bil v 60 mil for a base load or peak power plant, there is no competition !!!

  18. I still see risks here. The so-called "air-cooling system" would be useless if an earthquake cracked it. A drainage system (without need for any electrical power) to shut down any reaction is still the best option surely?

  19. candu reactors are the safest reactors on the planet but are buried by the big US reactor builders. Just like edison did with tesla

  20. Learn about GenIVa – Liquid Thorium Ion Molten Salt energy sources – safest and cleanest for electric cars and producing JP jet fuel for airlines & airforces world wide as wheel as hydrogen for fuel cells, ammonia for agricultural use and metal recycling..
    These are high temperature ~700C and run at near atmospheric pressure so they ar walk away safe.
    For example, Indonesia has a contract with ThorCon for 7x500MWe modular power plants constructed like the mid- section of an oil tanker in a ship yard to be towed and embedded in an excavated shoreline sites then the twin replaceable nuclear pods or pots are run for 4 years followed by a 4 year cooling period to be then recycled. Life of plant is 80 years. Fuel cost $4/MWh and Capital Cost $500m – $800 per 500MWe unit. Construction 4years.

  21. All cumulative Uranium produced can be storage in a cube of 16*16*16 meter = 9045 m3 * 19 ton (weith of 1 m3 of uranium) = 70000 ton of Uranium produce by the USA until 2013.

  22. Sodium was tried before and failed build it in the UK mate on the tax payers dime 😉 Raise the costs or taxes and bugger off.

  23. Tyler, well game on. Maybe you’ll be right. Or maybe Gates has finally cracked the code. To be continued. Btw, are you a physicist or nuke engineer?

  24. My guess is this technology won't go far.
    Not because it is faulty in any way but because it's hard to make nuclear bombs out of it and it upsets the fossil fuel mafia

  25. This does not address the problem of highly radioactive fisson products in the spent fuel which will have to be stored for hundreds or thousands of years

  26. That venting system would be a stop gap at best. For the amount of heat your talking about in these types of reactors anything less than forced cooling would do very little.

  27. This idea scares me…. the Santa Susana Sodium Reactor back in 1959 had a catastrophic accident. The sodium clogged the pipes and the reactor went into MELTDOWN, melting 13 of 43 nuclear fuel rods. Since it was just a "test" reactor, there was no concrete barrier to contain the radioactive gases. They were just released into the air for anyone to breath in. Just a few miles from Simi Valley and San Fernando Valley.

  28. I miss the details…. too much picture bla bla and a sound in the background to suggest it's a funny thing. This thing seems to be produced for stupids.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *