Hi Erik. I don't think you posts are too long. They need to cover a lot on a very, very narrow thread. So, I was part of the early "Thorium Bros" you talk about, which to names names (besides myself) are Kirk Sorenson, Charles Barton (whose dad worked at ORNL on the Manhattan Project), and others. All the myths you noted originated with us and, more. I'm still a fan of the MSR Th reactors (LFTR...we came up with that meme) and prefer the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (no sodium just table salt). But that is definitely another thread.
But I'll address another "myth" of sorts which caused me to break with the "Thorium Bros" that you also promulgate: that one can "mass produce" MSRs and thus they would be cheaper. First few components (which is what we are talking about) in any nuclear reactor...or any power generation system at all are truly "mass produced". When YOU mention "assembly line" you may not really know that this means. Producing any SMR/MSR in a "line" you are really talking about something closer to the construction of a passenger airliner than a toaster (the image Charles Barton liked to use). Most components over 100lbs are built "to order" and hand assembled by skilled craftsmen on a bench or work stand. It doesn't move "down a line". ALL 4160v pumps, for example, built at GE are built this way. All their motors for the pumps are built with machine but only really the windings which are spun along the rotor of the motor: the magnets and cases are all hand inserted and assembled. Stuff is brought *to the pump* to assemble, they don't travel on a conveyor belt. Only automobiles, based on the truly massive number of them, are built this way. This is why we find SMRs generally MORE expensive now that larger >1000MW reactors.
Secondly, size. I was and still are an advocate of larger, not smaller reactor sets. There is a huge place for SMRs because the "market" for these is quite different in many but not all respects. For example all the feed in detectors for pressure, heat, radioactive, voltage, amperage etc, etc. etc. on a large reactor are generally the same as for smaller reactors. Of a 900MW reactor vs 6 160MW SMR/MSRs the cost for these components are higher then for the single large reactor. There is savings of course for smaller reactors but they are not as obvious as they seems, much is the exact coast and thus a larger reactor could cost less when viewed this way.
I worked in thermal power plant for over 20 years which is where I gained this experience. I'm for 1800MW MSRs as much as I am for 60MW MSRs.
Erik points out accurately here that prosperity is fueled by energy, and the national discourse does not address the link. Man's ability to harness energy to manipulate objects and digital content to improve the standard of living is central to our improvement in living conditions globally. This flattening of energy consumption per capita is misinterpreted by many environmentalists as a desirable outcome only because we have not innovated in our energy production. He does an excellent job explaining here why "had we funded the TS-MSBR and stayed the course, by 1985 we’d have had a whole new kind of nuclear energy that could have changed the course of human history and avoided much of the economic pain the world has experienced in the 21st century due to the ever-increasing cost of fossil fuel energy, which is now literally twice as expensive as it was when I was a kid, even after adjusting for inflation."
Thanks Erik great post also looking forward to number 2
I am looking forward to part II and III
Hi Erik. I don't think you posts are too long. They need to cover a lot on a very, very narrow thread. So, I was part of the early "Thorium Bros" you talk about, which to names names (besides myself) are Kirk Sorenson, Charles Barton (whose dad worked at ORNL on the Manhattan Project), and others. All the myths you noted originated with us and, more. I'm still a fan of the MSR Th reactors (LFTR...we came up with that meme) and prefer the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (no sodium just table salt). But that is definitely another thread.
But I'll address another "myth" of sorts which caused me to break with the "Thorium Bros" that you also promulgate: that one can "mass produce" MSRs and thus they would be cheaper. First few components (which is what we are talking about) in any nuclear reactor...or any power generation system at all are truly "mass produced". When YOU mention "assembly line" you may not really know that this means. Producing any SMR/MSR in a "line" you are really talking about something closer to the construction of a passenger airliner than a toaster (the image Charles Barton liked to use). Most components over 100lbs are built "to order" and hand assembled by skilled craftsmen on a bench or work stand. It doesn't move "down a line". ALL 4160v pumps, for example, built at GE are built this way. All their motors for the pumps are built with machine but only really the windings which are spun along the rotor of the motor: the magnets and cases are all hand inserted and assembled. Stuff is brought *to the pump* to assemble, they don't travel on a conveyor belt. Only automobiles, based on the truly massive number of them, are built this way. This is why we find SMRs generally MORE expensive now that larger >1000MW reactors.
Secondly, size. I was and still are an advocate of larger, not smaller reactor sets. There is a huge place for SMRs because the "market" for these is quite different in many but not all respects. For example all the feed in detectors for pressure, heat, radioactive, voltage, amperage etc, etc. etc. on a large reactor are generally the same as for smaller reactors. Of a 900MW reactor vs 6 160MW SMR/MSRs the cost for these components are higher then for the single large reactor. There is savings of course for smaller reactors but they are not as obvious as they seems, much is the exact coast and thus a larger reactor could cost less when viewed this way.
I worked in thermal power plant for over 20 years which is where I gained this experience. I'm for 1800MW MSRs as much as I am for 60MW MSRs.
David
Erik points out accurately here that prosperity is fueled by energy, and the national discourse does not address the link. Man's ability to harness energy to manipulate objects and digital content to improve the standard of living is central to our improvement in living conditions globally. This flattening of energy consumption per capita is misinterpreted by many environmentalists as a desirable outcome only because we have not innovated in our energy production. He does an excellent job explaining here why "had we funded the TS-MSBR and stayed the course, by 1985 we’d have had a whole new kind of nuclear energy that could have changed the course of human history and avoided much of the economic pain the world has experienced in the 21st century due to the ever-increasing cost of fossil fuel energy, which is now literally twice as expensive as it was when I was a kid, even after adjusting for inflation."
Thank you Erik for elevating this conversation.
Reads like a thriller!