Two Fluid Reactor

The "two fluid" reactor has a high-neutron-density core that burns uranium-233 from the thorium fuel cycle. A separate blanket of thorium salt absorbs the neutrons and eventually is transmuted to ²³³U fuel.^[1]The design weakness of the two-fluid design was its complex plumbing. It used brittle graphite pipes to hold the fuel salt, separating it from the breeding salt. However, graphite expands under intense neutron bombardment, causing leaks. More recently, copper-reinforced graphite fiber cloth has been identified as theoretically suitable, but no physical tests have been done. This type of reactor was never constructed.^[2]

Single Fluid Reactor

The "one fluid" reactor was mechanically much simpler. It was prototyped as the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment, mentioned above. It was a large tank with graphite moderator rods immersed in molten salt. By carefully sculpting the moderator rods, and modifying the fuel reprocessing chemistry, thorium and uranium salts could coexist in a simpler, cheaper but efficient "single fluid" reactor.

However, the reprocessing chemistry was much more complex. No simple, proven methods could separate the the nuclear ashes (fission products) from the fuels.

Another issue was that the pipes became brittle due to by radiation and exposure to tellurium, a fission-product. This can be overcome, according to research, by adding a trace amount of titanium or niobium to alloy.^[3]

Safety

• inherently safe design: reactor features passive nuclear safety, strong negative temperature coefficient of reactivity and atmospheric operating pressure. (since the core is not pressurised, it cannot explode)
• Most MSFRs include a freeze plug at the bottom that has to be actively cooled, usually by a small electric fan. If the cooling fails, say because of a power failure, the fan stops, the fuel in the plug melts, and the fuel drains to a subcritical storage facility, totally stopping the reactor.
• Reduced radiotoxicity of reactor wastes. The LFTR uses the Thorium fuel cycle, which transmutes Thorium to U233. U233 has two chances to fission as a thermal reactor bombards it with neutrons (as U233 and U235). The fraction of fuel reaching U236, and transmuting into a transuranic element is less than 0.1%.^[5] The radiotoxicity of the remaining fission products is dominated by Cesium 137 and Strontium 90. The longer half-life is Cesium, at 30.17 years. So, after 300 years, decay reduces the radioactivity of the cesium to only 0.1%. A related advantage is that the U233 is relatively pure, without other isotopes that are not fuels. In contrast, Uranium fuels are between 97% and 80% U238, which reactors normally transmute to Pu239, a toxic transuranic element. When the two features are combined, the effect of a Thorium fuel cycle is to reduce the production of transuranic wastes by more than a thousand-fold compared to a conventional once-through light-water reactor.
• continuous removal of transmutation products insures that only small amount of them is present in an active reactor at any given time, compared to conventional LWR reactors.
• fluoride combines ionically with almost any transmutation product. This is an MSFR's first level of containment. It is especially good at containing biologically active "salt loving" wastes such as Cesium 137.
• given an accident beyond the design basis for the multiple levels of containment, dispersion into a biome is difficult. The salts do not burn, explode or degrade in air or water, and the fluoride salts of the radioactive actinides and fission products are generally not soluble in water or air.
• the reactor is easy to control at all times. Xenon-135, an important neutron absorber — that makes reactors difficult to control is removed at a predictable, containable place, where the fuel is coolest and most dispersed, namely the pump bowl. In solid-fuel reactors, it remains in the fuel and interferes with control.
• the reactor operates at or above 650C, well above the 250C Wigner annealing temperature of graphite. This means that Wigner energy cannot accumulate in the graphite moderator. The continual annealing bleeds it off. So, a sudden release of Wigner energy is not possible, and as such, a Windscale-style graphite-incited fire cannot be caused by the graphite's nonexistent Wigner energy.
• proliferation resistance: LFTR produces only at most 9% more fuel than it burns in each year. Building bombs quickly will take power plants out of operation. Also, an easy variation of the thorium fuel cycle would contaminate the thorium-232 breeding material with chemically inseparable thorium-230. The thorium-230 breeds into uranium-232, which has a powerful gamma-ray emitter in its decay chain (thallium-208) that makes the reactor fuel 233U/232U impractical in a bomb ,^[6] because it complicates bomb manufacture, harms electronics and reveals the bomb location.

Economy and efficiency

• since all natural thorium can be used as a fuel, and the fuel is in the form of a molten salt instead of solid fuel rods, expensive fuel enrichment and solid fuel rods validation procedure and fabricating process is not needed, greatly decreasing LFTR fuel cost
• LFTR uses an abundant world supply of thorium to breed uranium-233 fuel. The Earth's crust contains about three times as much thorium as 238U, or 400 times as much as 235U, which makes it about as abundant as lead. Thorium, a byproduct of rare-earth mining normally discarded as waste currently costs US$ 30/kg, while the price of uranium has risen above $100/kg, not including the cost of enrichment, and fuel element fabrication. When used in a LFTR, there is enough economically recoverable thorium on Earth to satisfy the global energy needs for hundreds of thousands of years.^[7] In addition to thorium, LFTR can also use nuclear waste from traditional nuclear power plants as a fuel
• LFTR would have no refueling power outages due to continual refueling
• the reactor is much cleaner: as a full recycle system, the discharge wastes from the reactor are predominately fission products, most of which have relatively short half lives compared to longer-lived actinide wastes.^[6] This results in a significant reduction in the needed waste containment period in a geologic repository to reach safe radiation levels (300 years vs. tens of thousands of years)
• it can "burn" problematic radioactive waste with transuranic elements from traditional solid-fuel nuclear reactors, thus turning liability into an asset
• it is highly scalable. Small, 2–8 MW(thermal) or 1–3 MW(electric) versions are possible, enabling submarine or aircraft use
• it can react to load changes in less than 60 seconds (unlike "traditional" solid-fuel nuclear power plants), thus it can satisfy both base load and peak load power demands
• with a very high temperature reactor such as LFTR, it is possible to use very efficient Brayton cycle generating turbines.^[1] The thermal efficiency from the high temperature of its operation reduces fuel use, waste emission and the cost of auxiliary equipment (major capital expenses) by 50% or more
• since the core is not pressurised, it does not need the most expensive item in a light water reactor, a high-pressure reactor vessel for the core. Instead, there is a low-pressure vessel and pipes (for molten salt) constructed of relatively thin materials. Although the metal is an exotic nickel alloy that resists heat and corrosion, Hastelloy-N, the amount needed is relatively small and the thin metal is less expensive to form and weld.
• by using liquid salt as the coolant instead of presurised water a containment structure only slightly bigger than the reactor vessel can be used. Light water reactors use pressurised water which flashes to steam and expands a thousand fold in the case of a leak, necessitating a containment building a thousand fold bigger in volume than the reactor vessel. This gives the LFTR a substantial theoretical advantage in terms of lower construction cost.
• it can be air cooled, which is critical for use in many regions where water is scarce
• fission products of a LFTR include stable rare elements such as rhodium, ruthenium, technetium, cesium and xenon, which are relied heavily on in modern electronics and industrial processes. These can be extracted from the waste. Medically valuable isotopes are also among LFTR fission products

Kirk Sorensen expects that with these advantages, LFTR technology will produce energy significantly cheaper than coal; he comments that this would make moot both carbon pricing schemes and more expensive alternative energy solutions^[8] In remarks prepared for the Low-Carbon Energy Summit on 20 October 2011, Sorensen stated that "The most important thing that we can do to fight climate change is to replace coal as our primary source of electricity" and advocated the LFTR as an "even less expensive" replacement.^[9] The ultimate goal is to "provide electricity for less cost than any other competing solution" which Sorensen thinks will "eventually get to 1 cent per kilowatt hour using this technology"^[10][11]

Ease of reprocessing

A molten salt reactor's fuel can be continuously reprocessed with a small adjacent chemical plant. Weinberg's groups at Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that a very small reprocessing facility can service a large 1 GW power plant: All the salt has to be reprocessed, but only every ten days. The reactor's total inventory of expensive, poisonous radioactive materials is therefore much smaller than in a conventional light-water-reactor's fuel cycle, which has to store spent fuel rod assemblies. Also, everything except fuel and waste stays inside the plant. The reprocessing cycle is:

• A sparge of fluorine removes volatile high-valence fluorides as gas, including uranium hexafluoride containing the uranium-233 fuel as well as other isotopes of uranium; neptunium hexafluoride; technetium hexafluoride and selenium hexafluoride containing the long-lived fission products technetium-99 and selenium-79, as well as fluorides of various strongly radioactive short-lived fission products such as iodine-131, molybdenum-99, and tellurium-132. See fluoride volatility for boiling points. The volatile fluorides are condensed from the sparge fluorine, reduced back to less volatile lower-valence fluorides, and returned to the reactor.
• A molten bismuth column separates protactinium from the fuel salt, which is stored to allow protactinium-233 to decay to uranium-233 without being destroyed by neutron capture in the reactor. With a half-life of 27 days, ten months of storage assures that 99.9% of ²³³Pa decays to ²³³U fuel, while any ²³¹Pa remains in the bismuth.
• The remaining fuel salt is then distilled at increased temperature and lowered pressure. The distillate is condensed and returned to the reactor.
  • The light carrier salts beryllium fluoride and lithium fluoride form the bulk of the salt; individually at atmospheric pressure they evaporate at 1169 °C and 1676 °C, while the 2:1 FLiBe mixture with proportions Li₂BeF₄ evaporates at 1430°C. Boiling points under vacuum are lower.
  • Cesium fluoride, containing the most radioactive medium-lived fission product cesium-137, boils at 1251°C under standard conditions, and will evaporate with the carrier salt fluorides.
  • Thorium(IV) fluoride evaporates at temperatures about 1680 °C or less under vacuum.
  • Lanthanide trifluorides and alkaline earth fluorides have boiling points higher than 2200°C under standard conditions, and would remain after thorium fluoride evaporates; the lanthanides include the worst long-term neutron poisons, while strontium fluoride contains the other major medium-lived fission product strontium-90.

The amount of waste involved is about 800 kg per gigawatt-year generated (1.5 grams/minute for a 1 GW reactor), so the equipment is very small. Salts of long-lived transuranic metals go back into the reactor as fuel. With salt distillation, an MSFR can burn plutonium, or even fluorinated nuclear waste from light water reactors.

• Theoretically, a "two-fluid" reactor design could separate the fertile thorium from the fissile fuel salts. This would eliminate the technologically challenging separation of thorium fluoride (boiling point 1680 °C) and lanthanide fission product fluorides via high-temperature distillation, at the cost of a more complex reactor. Oak Ridge researchers abandoned two-fluid designs because no good pipe materials were known to operate in the high-temperature, high-neutron, corrosive environment of a MSR core.^[12]

The Fuji MSR

The FUJI MSR is a 100 to 200 MWe molten-salt-fueled thorium fuel cycle thermal breeder reactor design, using technology similar to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reactor. It is being developed by a consortium including members from Japan, the U.S. and Russia. As a breeder reactor, it converts thorium into nuclear fuels.^[16] As a thermal-spectrum reactor, its neutron regulation is inherently safe. Like all molten salt reactors, its core is chemically inert, under low pressures to prevent explosions and toxic releases.^[17] It would likely take 20 years to develop a full size reactor^[18] but the project seems to lack funding.^[19]

Chinese Thorium MSR project

The People's Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology.^[20] It was formally announced at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference in January 2011. Its ultimate target is to investigate and develop a thorium based molten salt nuclear system in about 20 years.^[21][22][23]

Flibe Energy

Kirk Sorensen, former NASA scientist and Chief Nuclear Technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering, has been a long time promoter of thorium fuel cycle and particularly liquid fluoride thorium reactors. He first researched thorium reactors while working at NASA, while evaluating power plant designs suitable for lunar colonies. Material about this fuel cycle was surprisingly hard to find, so in 2006 Sorensen started "energyfromthorium.com", a document repository, forum, and blog to promote this technology. In 2011, Sorensen founded Flibe Energy, a company aimed to develop 20-50 MW LFTR reactor designs to power military bases. (it is easier to approve novel military designs than civilian power station designs in today's US nuclear regulatory environment).^{[24][25][26][27]}

The Weinberg Foundation

The Weinberg Foundation is a British non-profit organisation founded in 2011 dedicated to promotion and development of a liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It was formally launched at the House of Lords on 8 September 2011.^[31][32][33]