Solving the Energy Crisis: Thorium

Molten Salt Reactors

Kyra Lawson
Intern/Mentor GT
Dr. Melissa Kiehl
Dr. Mohammad Modarres
April 27, 2018
 Abstract

Energy demand is expected to increase dramatically during the following decades. The

source of this energy is important when considering the environment, human safety, and

reliability. Nuclear energy can produce large amounts of electricity in small periods of time

without emitting carbon dioxide. Although uranium has been the major nuclear fuel, thorium is a

much safer, cleaner, and more efficient option. Along with the utilization of a new GEN IV

reactor design, thorium may power the world and solve the energy crisis.

The purpose of this research is to discuss the safety, efficiency, and cost aspects of the

thorium molten salt reactor (MSR). The various designs created around the world were analyzed

and used to determine which specific features improve the reactor’s overall performance. The

data will be presented in papers and reports; an example is the summary written for the American

Nuclear Society meeting. The advantages of generating power through the thorium MSR are

contrasted with the flaws of fossil fuels. More research is required to fully understand and

support the thorium MSR.

 Introduction

The energy crisis is a critical issue in the present and future world. As the population

grows, energy demand is projected to double by 2050 (Nuttin et al., 2005). Fossil fuels destroy

the environment, and renewable energy sources cannot keep up with demand. The only realistic

source of energy that can provide substantial amounts of power with no adverse climate effect is

nuclear energy. However, nuclear technology has not been majorly innovated since the 1970s;

most reactors in use today are in forms of those created in the 1950s (“Nuclear power reactors,”

2017). The nuclear industry is slowly changing with future, so called GEN IV, nuclear power

plants that have many predicted advancements and advantages. The GEN IV molten salt reactor

(MSR) is one of the safest and most feasible of the newer designs. The utilization of thorium,

rather than uranium, fuel further increases the benefits of the MSR. The purpose of this paper is

to compare the MSR’s safety features to those of the conventional light water reactor (LWR),

analyze its efficiency and cost attributes, describe the MSR’s long-term qualities and

contributions, and define areas that lack sufficient research. The thorium molten salt reactor has

the potential to provide significant power in the future and possibly solve the energy crisis

because of its important safety, efficiency, and cost features.

Review of Literature

Background

Although this paper will focus on thorium as the main nuclear fuel, it is important to note

the differences between thorium and uranium. Although thorium is more abundant than uranium,

as seen in Chart 1, most reactors around the world utilize uranium. Only one natural isotope of

thorium exists. Because uranium is found in multiple isotopic forms, uranium requires much
more enrichment and processing than thorium. Uranium has been used instead of thorium for

many political reasons. Nuclear energy was first used for weapons, not for electricity generation.

Uranium is a great fissile material for weapons whereas thorium is only fertile. Research and

focus initially were placed on uranium because of these qualities. However, emerging evidence

supports that thorium may have a few advantages over uranium, such as its abundance and

proliferative resistance.

Chart 1: Comparison of uranium and thorium

Uranium Thorium

Estimated natural 5.72 6.55

reserve amount (“Supply of uranium,” 2016) (IAEA, 2013)
(million metric
tonnes)

Top reserve location Australia, 1,664,100 India, 845,500

and resource amount (“Supply of uranium,” 2016) (IAEA, 2013)
(metric tonnes)
238​ 232​
Natural isotopes U Th
235​
U
233​
U

The MSR is a design from the 1950s that operated first at the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory during the 1960s. Originally the design was ignored because of the more competitive

light water reactor. The LWR was cheaper and more efficient in the past compared to the MSR,

and it has remained the most commonly used nuclear reactor in the world. However, this

technology has not been updated for decades. The MSR is becoming more appealing as current

reactors reach decommission. LWRs run on solid uranium fuel, are water-cooled, and operate at

high pressures. The MSR is a small modular reactor, can be salt-cooled and/or salt-fueled,
operate at low pressures, and can reach very high operating temperatures. The variations between

the two designs highlight the advantages the MSR has over the LWR.

The following describes the operation of an MSR that is both fueled and cooled by salt.

Fuel-- in this case thorium-- is dissolved in the molten salt, fissions inside the reactor core, and

creates copious amounts of heat. This heat travels through the primary loop (see Figure 1) and

then is transferred to the secondary loop through the heat exchanger. The gas or liquid, typically

water, inside the secondary loop is heated and turns a turbine that generates electricity. At the

bottom of the reactor, beneath the primary loop, a containment vessel is plugged with solid salt,

called the freeze valve. If the reactor were to overheat, the heat would spread throughout the

entire primary loop, causing the salt in the freeze valve to melt. All radioactive material would

drain by the force of gravity through the plug and into the dump tank, stopping fission. Control

rods and a graphite moderator may be placed in the reactor system to control the neutron flux.

There are many variations among MSR designs. First, the salt composition may vary from

lithium fluoride salts to chloride salts. The fuel can be thorium, uranium, spent fuel, radioactive

waste, or leftover nuclear weapons material. The fuel cycle may be open or closed, thus

reprocessing fuel is optional. An online and off-site reprocessing are possible; however, these

facilities are not available in the United States.

Figure 1: Simplified diagram of an MSR

Schematic of Transatomic Power’s waste annihilating molten salt reactor (WAMSR) [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://millicentmedia.com/2013/05/28/thorium-nuclear-power-forever-the-bridesmaid/
 Although the original MSR technology is relatively old and outdated, the design has been

rediscovered. Multiple companies have made attempts in improving the reactor design:

MOSART, Flibe Energy, Thorcon, and Terrestrial Energy are some examples. The MSR was

named a GEN IV reactor in 2002 because of its “sustainability, economics, safety, reliability and

proliferation-resistance” (“Generation IV nuclear reactors,” 2017).

Cleanliness and Safety

The thorium MSR may be the safest and cleanest reactor yet. Its inherent safety features

allow the reactor to be virtually meltdown-proof (Kamei, 2012). The dump tanks as described in

Background, automatically stop fission (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1969), so the fuel will

not produce any new heat after being drained. This automatic and passive cooling system

prevents a meltdown from occurring. Other than functioning as safety precautions for emergency

shutdowns and overheating, the dump tanks may also serve as storage for extra salt (Siemer,

2015). As temperatures increase, the volume of the salts expands. Expansion in salts may result
in a lower neutron flux, thus stopping the fission chain reaction and energy production. It is

important that this extra salt can be stored somewhere out of the way of the core and loops.

Another inherent safety feature of the MSR is its negative reactivity (Mathieu et al., 2006). The

salt introduces a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity: as temperature increases in the

reactor, the fuel salt expands and slows the rate of fission reactions. The reactor naturally cools

itself when the temperature becomes too hot. Passive cooling is further enforced with gravity and

natural air flow (Serp et al., 2014). As stated in the Background section, the operating pressures

of MSRs are much lower than those of conventional reactors; in fact, the MSR’s pressure is

about equal to that of a garden hose (TEDx Talks, 2016): 4.93 atm (Greaves, 2012). LWRs

operate at around 150 atm (“Nuclear power reactors,” 2018). Salts have much higher boiling

points than water, so less pressure is required to keep the salt in a safe liquid state (Xu, 2017).

However, some added pressure is required to circulate the fuel salt (Greaves et al., 2012).

Operating at high pressures is dangerous because if there were to be a breech in the reactor’s

outer containment structure, the pressure would force radiotoxic material out into the

surrounding environment. Lastly, the spent fuel of thorium MSRs is relatively safer and less

radioactive than conventionally (uranium) fueled LWRs. Thorium rarely produces long-lived

actinides (Katusa, 2012), whereas the fuel used in conventional reactors results in radioactive

waste with half-lives up to hundreds of thousands of years (see Table 1). This waste cannot be

safely stored for this extended period of time; however, the waste from thorium MSRs, which

has half-lives of around 300 years, can be easily stored until the radioactivity becomes low

enough not to be harmful. The waste is also smaller in volume due to the potential unlimited

burnup (Ignatiev, 2016). Because the fuel is in a liquid state rather than solid, the fuel may
remain in the reactor for as long as needed. A longer time in the reactor means more extraction

of energy. Thus, the energy, also known as radioactivity, in the spent fuel is greatly reduced. The

thorium MSR has many characteristics that contribute to its safety and cleanliness, which in turn

improve the reactor’s efficiency.

Efficiency

The thorium MSR is a very efficient source of energy. Often, the reasons for the MSR’s

safety and cleanliness are also the reasons for its excellent efficiency. The potentially unlimited

burnup mentioned in the Safety portion also allows for improved utilization of fuel. Most liquid

fuel reactors have at least a 90% burnup rate (Energy Process Developments Ltd et al., 2015).

Rather than only using 5% of the fuel, for example, that is extracted in LWRs (Modarres, 2018),

the MSR could potentially use 100% and thus waste no valuable resources. Because of this

burnup rate, the thorium MSR can potentially have a closed fuel cycle. This means that the fuel

continues to cycle through the reactor and reprocessing systems instead of just running once

through and then being stored underground. The MSR’s efficiency is further improved by the

high operating temperatures. Because salt is the coolant, this particular reactor can reach

temperatures up to 800℃ (Ignatiev & Feynberg, 2012). In comparison, LWRs may reach up to

325℃ (“Nuclear power reactors,” 2018). Higher temperatures yield higher fuel efficiency

because more heat is used in energy conversion; the water or gas in the secondary loop heats up

quicker and turns the turbine more times per unit of volume of fuel, producing more electricity

(“LFTR overview,” n.d.). Plus, the MSR can run off many different fuels: thorium, uranium,

transuranic wastes, actinides, weapon stockpiles, and spent fuel (Ignatiev & Feynberg, 2012).

Thus, the reactor may use whichever fuel is more efficient, depending on the market, cost, and
 ​ U from natural thorium also increases the efficiency of the reactor by
technology. Breeding 233​

creating more fuel. Lastly, the MSR has multiple purposes other than producing energy. The

reactor may also serve as a heat source for industries not limited to cement, steel, oil, and coal

gasification (Serp et al., 2014), hydrogen production (Hylko, 2008), and fissile material

production. Therefore, the thorium MSR uses fuel very efficiently, decreasing the overall cost of

producing energy.

Cost

The thorium MSR may be the least expensive option in nuclear reactors today and may

even be competitive with fossil fuels in the future. One of the few disadvantages of current

nuclear reactors is the upfront cost. In 2009, one nuclear power plant needed on average $9

billion to complete construction (“Nuclear power cost,” n.d.). Because the MSR is a small

modular reactor, individual reactor parts may be mass-produced in the future. In current reactor

manufacturing, each individual part is built and assembled on or near the reactor site. The MSR

may change this time-consuming and expensive process completely since its parts can be

produced anywhere and then transported to the desired location (TEDx Talks, 2016). Not only

does the reactor have smaller parts, it has fewer parts as well. The low operating pressures

require fewer containment structures than reactors that operate with high pressures (Siemer,

2015). Also, as described in Efficiency, the MSR is very flexible in the type of fuel it burns. The

stress of cost of the MSR is reduced since the reactor can potentially run on whatever fuel is

cheapest at that time. Plus, most conventional reactors are cooled by water, so they must be

located near bodies of water. This problem is not encountered with the MSR; it can virtually be

placed anywhere, relieving the costs of competitive land space. Compared to current LWRs, the
MSR is comparably inexpensive mostly due to the reduction in structural materials. Because of

these cost, efficiency, and safety attributes, the thorium MSR has great potential for future

energy production.

Potential for Future

The thorium MSR has immense potential of producing large amounts of clean energy in

the future. Currently, it would be very difficult for nuclear power production to exceed that of

fossil fuels because of the differences in costs and technology. However, fossil fuels and carbon

emissions are expected to increase in price due to the lack of resources and excessive harm to the

environment (Modarres, 2018). Thorium on the other hand is currently cheap and widely

available because there is no market for it (TEDx Talks, 2016). Many thorium reserves are

located in developing countries (see Table 1). India has approximately 846,500 tonnes of

thorium, which would produce enormous amounts of energy if the technology existed (IAEA,

2013). Having access to these resources makes nuclear energy much cheaper and feasible. The

unique ability of the MSR to run off multiple types of fuels allows it to be more versatile and

competitive with fossil fuels. Currently there are tons of nuclear weapon stockpiles around the

world, all of which are unused and will most likely remain unused for decades. Instead of letting

these materials radioactively decay underground or in storage facilities, they could be used to

fuel MSRs. Because of the lack of necessity of this material, the cost for this type of fuel might

be extremely competitive with fossil fuels. MSRs are also cheap enough to be used by

developing countries. Other than the fuel, the actual structure of the reactor is also relatively

inexpensive (see Cost section). China, a developing country, is currently in the process of

designing these reactors. If the country with the largest human population utilizes the thorium
MSR in place of fossil fuels, the environment and air quality may rapidly improve all over the

world.

Research Methods and Data Collection

The question that was to be answered is: is the thorium MSR a feasible design, and to

what extent do the safety, efficiency, and cost features compete with current energy sources? It

was hypothesized that thorium-fueled MSRs have many safety and economic risks due to the

lack of research and experimentation. However, as technology advances and more models are

created, the MSR will be proven exceptionally safe and will provide commercial power in a few

years. Thorium may also become a valuable fuel source because of its availability and resistance

to proliferation. The research question and hypothesis are addressed in this paper by first

addressing the individual safety, efficiency, and economic features of the MSR, then considering

other fuel sources, and then noting the areas in need of more research.

An evaluation design model was used to gather and present original data. This type of

data collection is qualitative and quantitative. Numerical and descriptive information was

examined, compared, and then used to conclude which reactor design is, overall, the most safe,

efficient, and economical. To support the hypothesis, an analysis of multiple MSR designs lists

and compares the features of different MSR designs. Such qualities were examined to determine

the most feasible, safe, and efficient design. Because building/testing a nuclear reactor is not

probable and experiments/tests on reactor designs already exist, a meta-analysis is the best data

collection method. Through data collection, new comparisons and conclusions have been made,

contributing to the overall collection of information about nuclear energy. Hopefully, the data
will help improve public opinion of nuclear reactors and perhaps push for more research in this

field.

Results and Data Analysis

Each of the designs compared (see Appendix A), except the MSRE, is a proposed design

based solely on research rather than direct experimentation. Therefore, some data may be

missing or inaccurate. Flibe Energy (not compared in chart) is another prominent nuclear

company that closely follows ORNL’s design and plans on utilizing a breeder reactor fueled by

thorium. Transatomic Power is another company that focuses on improving fuel utilization and

burnup to reduce nuclear waste output. The MSRE operated on highly enriched uranium that is

not legal for use today. The MSBR appears to be a promising design as multiple companies have

referred to and adjusted this design.

ThorCon seems to be the cheapest option above. Its parts are not designed to withstand

decades of neutron bombardment, so they are expected to be replaced every few years, causing

the price of these materials and parts to decline. Also, the company boasts of how no new

research is required to build and operate their reactor successfully. This reassurance reduces the

cost of research and allows for a quicker construction process. It is so inexpensive that ThorCon

expects to have an operating reactor by the early 2020s. Lastly, fuel is not typically a major cost

factor in the nuclear power industry; the overnight cost of the power plant itself usually

determines most of the budget. By comparing the salts of each of the reactors, it is evident that

ThorCon is the only reactor that does not utilize lithium in its salts. The elimination of usage of

lithium is cost-effective because enrichment of lithium-7 is quite expensive and difficult.

Therefore, ThorCon currently is the most feasible molten salt reactor (MSR) design.
 MOSART is a very flexible design in which it can breed or burn fuel. One potential issue,

however, is the operation on the fast neutron spectrum. While all other reactors are in the thermal

spectrum, the MOSART attempts higher burnup by using the fast spectrum. Compared the the

thermal spectrum, fast reactors are more difficult to control and prevent accidents. Therefore,

MOSART may obtain a high burnup, but this will be at the cost of safety. Seaborg’s

Wasteburner may be the most efficient design of the five. The reactor burns more nuclear waste

than it creates, increasing its overall efficiency. This reactor also operates at the highest

temperatures seen in the chart. Higher operating temperatures yield more efficient energy

extraction. Plus, the multiple fuels utilized, as seen in the fuel salt section of the chart, allow

flexibility in the reactor. Seaborg has proposed an onsite and online salt processing system that

may be resistant to proliferation.

Overall, all five designs have at least one aspect of inherent safety that will put these

reactors above conventional designs. Like any other nuclear power plant, however, these MSRs

will be expensive and require further research. The common graphite moderator places a limit on

the lifetime of the reactor cores because of its susceptibility to damage. While other parts of the

reactor remain intact, the graphite moderator becomes damage and must be replaced. Salts are

also known to corrode metals. However, the MSRE’s results showed that the hastelloy-N proved

to be resistant to corrosion at high temperatures; this is why multiple designs chose hastelloy-N

as the piping/container material. Fuel salt processing is also an issue because the United States

does not reprocess fuel due to proliferative risks. Many designs plan on having an onsite and

online processing system in order to improve efficiency and burnup. A combination of the
positive attributes of each reactor along with change in regulations would result in the safest

reactor design.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although there are many appealing features of the thorium MSR, more research and

development are needed until the reactor may be implemented securely on a commercial level.

​ U. This isotope of
First, using thorium as a breeder fuel leads to proliferative issues with 233​

uranium is a preferred nuclear weapon material because of its weak radioactivity (Greaves et al.,

​ Th and decay to 233​

2012). In between the neutron capture of 232​ ​ U, 233​
​ Pa is created. This isotope is

​ Pa
a neutron poison; it captures neutrons and slows the fission reaction rate (Xu et al., 2014). 233​

has a half-life of 27 days. Removing the isotope for such a brief period of time may seem

arbitrary, but the isotope also decreases the reactor’s efficiency. There are also proliferation risks

associated with online reprocessing. It is possible to operate an MSR without utilizing online

reprocessing; however, fuel efficiency and cost are greatly improved with this on-site process.

Currently, online reprocessing is complex and opens more opportunities for proliferation

(Mathieu et al., 2006). Reprocessing nuclear fuel overlaps with reprocessing of weapons

materials (Bean, 2018). Nuclear weapons cannot be created without reprocessing the fuel.

Therefore, there will always be the threat of proliferation with reprocessing; this is why the U.S.

does not utilize these systems (Modarres, 2018). The design of the MSR-- no matter the fuel--

faces the obstacle of corrosion. Using salt as the coolant and/or fuel is problematic when flowing

through hot metal pipes. New materials will be the answer to this problem. Hastelloy-N was used

in the original MSR at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, but it can only function in

temperatures up to 704℃ (Muransky, 2016). Some other proposed materials are the ceramics,
Ni-SiC and NiMo-SiC. These materials are resistant to radiation and corrosion and are stable at

high temperatures. However, ceramics have rarely been used in these types of applications. Also,

lithium is used in many fuel and coolant salts for the purpose of decreasing the overall melting

point. For these salts to be utilized safely, the lithium must be enriched to at least 99.99% 7​​ Li (Xu

et al., 2014). The alternate isotope, 6​​ Li, will cause neutron loss. Another potential issue is tritium

production. Tritium is harmful to the reactor because it too eventually causes neutron loss when

it decays into 3​​ He (Forsberg et al., 2016). Overcoming these problems as well as political

challenges will allow for safer energy production.

Overall, increased funding, research, and development of the MSR is a very important

step in improving the most feasible and safe nuclear reactor design. New and better materials

need to be created in order to maximize efficiency in heat transfer and decrease corrosion. Fossil

fuels are not going to be able to keep up with energy demand without causing serious harm to the

environment and human health. Renewable energy will not be able to produce the necessary

amounts of electricity in short periods of time. As time goes on, new energy sources will be

in-demand. Hopefully, the MSR will be refined by then.

 References

Bean, R. (2018, January 17). [Telephone interview by the author].

Energy Process Developments Ltd, Griffiths, T., Tomlinson, J., & O’Sullivan, R. (2015, July).

MSR review; Feasibility of developing a pilot scale molten salt reactor in the UK

[Review [Title of Reviewed Work]]. Retrieved February 3, 2018, from Energy Process

Developments website: http://www.energyprocessdevelopments.com/ uploads/

EPD%20MSR%20Review%20Feasibility%20Study%20July%202015%201.02.pdf

Forsberg, C., Lam, S., Carpenter, D., Whyte, D., Scarlat, R., Contescu, C., & Wei, L. (2016,

March). ​Tritium control and capture in salt-cooled fission and fusion reactors: Status,

challenges, and path forward​.

Generation IV nuclear reactors. (2017, December). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from World

Nuclear Association website: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/

nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx

Greaves, E., Furukawa, K., Sajo-Bohus,, L., & Barros, H. (2012). The case for the thorium

molten salt reactor. ​AIP Conference Proceedings​, 453-460.

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3688845

Hylko, J. M. (2008, April 15). Developing the next generation of reactors. ​Power Magazine​.

IAEA. (2013). World thorium deposits and resources. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from IAEA

website: https://infcis.iaea.org/thdepo/about.cshtml#

Ignatiev, V., & Feynberg, O. (2012). Molten salt reactor: Overview and perspectives. ​Actinide

and Fission Product Partitioning and Transmutation​.

Ignatiev, V. (2016, April 11). ​GIF reactor system development status: Molten salt reactor

[Speech transcript]. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from

https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2016/2016-04-11-04-12-IN

PRO/017_Molten_Salt_Reactor_%5BCompatibility_Mode%5D.pdf

Kamei, T. (2012). Recent research of thorium molten-salt reactor from a sustainability

viewpoint. ​Sustainability​, 2399-2418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4102399

Katusa, M. (2012, February 16). The thing about thorium: Why the better nuclear fuel may not

get a chance. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from Forbes website:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the

-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/#3da41f731d80

LFTR overview. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2017, from Energy From Thorium website:

http://energyfromthorium.com/lftr-overview/

Mathieu, L., Heuer, D., Brissot, R., Garzenne, C., Le Brun, C., Lecarpentier, D., . . . Wilson, J.

(2006). The thorium molten salt reactor: Moving on from the MSBR. ​Progress in

Nuclear Energy​, ​48​(7), 664-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2006.07.005

Modarres, M. (2018, January 18). [Telephone interview by the author].

Muránsky, O. (2016, November). Thorium molten salt reactors (TMSR) development in China.

In ​Technical meeting on the status of molten salt reactor technology​. Symposium

conducted at IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from

https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2016/2016-10-31-11-03-NP

TDS/11_Ondrej_Muransky.pdf
Nuclear power cost. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2018, from Union of Concerned Scientists

website: https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.Wp2h8OjwY2w

Nuclear power reactors. (2018, January). Retrieved March 13, 2018, from World Nuclear

Association Website: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-

cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Nuttin, A., Heuer, D., Billebaud, A., Brissot, R., Le Brun, C., Liatard, E., . . . Merle-Lucotte, E.

(2005). Potential of thorium molten salt reactors : detailed calculations and concept

evolution with a view to large scale energy production. ​Progress in Nuclear Energy​,

77-99.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Producer). (1969). ​The molten-salt reactor experiment​ [Motion

picture]. United States.

Serp, J., Allibert, M., Benes, O., Delpech, S., Feynberg, O., Ghetta, V., . . . Zhimin, D. (2014).

The molten salt reactor (MSR) in generation IV: Overview and perspectives. ​Progress in

Nuclear Energy​. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.02.014

Siemer, D. (2015). Why the molten salt fast reactor (MSFR) is the “best” Gen IV reactor. ​Energy

Science and Engineering​. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.59

Supply of uranium. (2016, December). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from World Nuclear

Association website: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/

nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

TEDx Talks. (2016, November 15). ​Making safe nuclear power from thorium: Thomas Jam

Pedersen: TEDxCopenhagen​ [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHO1ebNxhVI
Xu, H., Dai, Z., & Cai, X. (2014). Some physical issues of the thorium molten salt reactor

nuclear energy system. ​Nuclear Physics News​, ​24​, 23-30.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10619127.2014.910434

Xu, H. (2017, January 24). ​Status and perspective of TMSR in China​ [Speech transcript].

Retrieved December 15, 2017, from

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-05/03_hongjie_xu_china.pd

f
 Appendix A

Molten Salt Molten Salt Thorcon Molten Salt Molten Salt

Reactor Breeder Advanced Thermal
Experiment Reactor Reactor Wasteburner
(MSRE) (MSBR) Transmuter by Seaborg
(MOSART)
Coolant 7​
Li​2​BeF​4​ 1​ NaBF​4​-NaF 3​ BeF​2​, NaF 4​ LiF-BeF​2​ 7​ LiF-NaF-KF 9​
Fuel 233​
​ U,
U, 235​ Fuel salt: 233​
​ U in
U, 235​ Fuel salt: Spent nuclear
239​ 235​
Pu in salt LiF-BeF​2​-​ U salt LiF-BeF​2​ + fuel (​235​U,
7​
LiF-BeF​2​- F​4 NaF-BeF​2​-Th TRUF​3 236​
​ U,
U, 238​
ZrF​4​-UF​4​ 1​ F​4​-UF​4​ 5​ 238​
​ Pu,
Pu, 239​
Blanket salt: Blanket salt: 240​
​ Pu,
Pu, 241​
242​
LiF-ThF​4​-BeF LiF-BeF​2​ + Pu) and
2​ ​ ThF​4​ + UF​4​ 7​ LiF-ThF​4​ 9​
3

Melting point 448.9 2​ 385 3​ 566 7​ 568 9​

of salts (℃)
Breeding ratio NA 1.06 3​ NA NA
Operating 650 1​ 537.8-704.4 3​ 704 6​ 627-727 7​ 700-900 9​
Temperature
(℃)
Operating 1 2​ 3.4 3​ 5.45 4​ 0.790 8​ ​
0.987 10
Pressure (atm)
Neutron Thermal 1​ Thermal 3​ Thermal 4​ Fast 7​ Thermal 9​
Spectrum
Moderator Graphite 1​ Graphite 3​ Graphite 4​ No 7​ Graphite 9​
Container/ Hastelloy-N 1​ Hastelloy-N Stainless steel Ni-based alloy Hastelloy-N 9​
8
Piping with added and boron
Material titanium 3​ carbide ​ 6

Burnup 256 4​ ​
250 10
(GWd/ton)
Fuel Salt Very basic, Onsite and Offsite. After Onsite and Onsite and
Processing onsite, and during 8 years in during during
during operation 3​ reactor and 4 operation 7​ operation 9​
operation 1​ years of decay
cooling 4​
Electrical 250 4​ ​
270 10
Capacity
(MWe)
Thermal 556 3​ 557 4​
Capacity
(MWth)
Core power 20 3​ 16 5​ ​
12 10
density
(kW/L)
Net Thermal 44.9 3​ 45 4​ ​
42.5 10
Efficiency
(%)
Core Lifetime 8.6 3​ 4 6​ ​
7 10
(years)
Core Volume 29.5 3​ 34.9 4​ 17.2 7​ 18.1 9​
(m​3​)
Generation 140*​3 0.024 4​
cost ($/kW(e))
Overnight $140.9*​3 $643.2 6​
cost (millions)
Other Processing Based on Oak Simple reactor Has flexibility No refueling.
system is Ridge meant to be to be burner Produces less
needed for National deployed as or breeder -- waste than it
breeding with Laboratory’s soon as affects consumes.​9
single-fluid (ORNL) possible 6​ whether one Decommissio
reactor 1​ previous stream or two ning is
experiments. stream.​8 cheaper than
This project conventional
never received way. 7​​ Li is
funding nor expensive.
passed the
design phase.
Remaining “salt Graphite Parts are Graphite
issues chemistry, needs to be replaced limits core’s
fission replaced more often. 6​ lifetime 9​
product often than any
chemistry, other part of
materials and core ->
corrosion shortens
 chemistry, lifetime. “The
radiation off-gas, fuel
chemistry, processing,
analytical afterheat
chemistry, removal, and
and fuel maintenance
processing.”​1 systems
needed further
Investigation.
”
PWR requires
less
maintenance 3​
*in the value of the 1968 dollar
**missing data is due to either the lack of resources or lack of research done by the company.

See Appendix B for references specific to this data.

 Appendix B

Data Collection (See Appendix A) References

1. US Department of Energy. (2017, April). ​Technology and applied R&D needs for molten salt
chemistry​. Retrieved from
https://www.ornl.gov/sites/default/files/Molten%20Salt%20Workshop_Final_092917.pdf
2. ​Cabage, B. (2015, October 15). MSRE's 50th. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from Oak Ridge
National Laboratory website: https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th
3. ​Robertson, R., Smith, O., Briggs, R., & Bettis, E. (1970, August). ​Two-fluid molten-salt
breeder reactor design study​. Retrieved from Oak Ridge National Laboratory website:
http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-4528.pdf
4. ​IAEA. (2016, June). ​Status report - ThorCon​. Retrieved from
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/ARISThorCon9.pdf
5. ThorCon can. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2017, from ThorCon Power website:
http://thorconpower.com/design/thorcon-can
6. ​Devanney, J. (2015, January). ​ThorCon the do-able molten salt reactor executive summary​.
Retrieved from Martingale website: http://thorconpower.com/docs/exec_summary.pdf
7. ​Ignatiev, V., Feynberg, O., Gnidoi, I., Konakov, S., Kormilitsyn, M., Merzliakov, A., . . .
Zagnitko, A. (2015). MARS: Story on molten salt actinide recycler and transmuter
development by Rosatom in co-operation with Euratom. ​Actinide and Fission Product
Partitioning and Transmutation​, 92-103. Retrieved from
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/47/093/47093722.pdf?r
=1
8. ​Ignatiev, V. (2016). ​Developing the next generation of molten salt reactor systems in Russian
Federation​ [PowerPoint]. Retrieved from
https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2016/2016-10-31-11-03-NP
TDS/06_Victor_Ignatiev.pdf
9. Seaborg Technologies. (2015, March). ​Seaborg Wasteburner: Molten salt reactor​. Retrieved
from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58d50329414fb50a6b4dd036/t/58d57182f7e0ab027
afccc9a/1490383258434/Seaborg-whitepaper-2015.pdf
10. ​IAEA. (2016, June). ​Status report - MSTW​. Retrieved from
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/MSTW.pdf