LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,890
- Likes
- 48,605
Iyengar was one of the key figures in the Operation Smiling Buddha—the first peaceful nuclear explosion at Pokhran on May 18, 1974—as second-in-command of operation leader Raja Ramanna.
One of high points in his career came when he successfully led a team to indigenously develop a reactor called 'PURNIMA - 1' which was commissioned in 1972.
No one is going for LFTR yet. There are reports that China has started research on it. The only reactor based on a Liquid fluoride concept was the one at Oak Ridge in US which was decommissioned within a year of going critical. So essentially the LFTR (and all its benefits) are still on paper and have not been demonstrably provenI'm sure someone has gone through this before, but why are we not pursuing a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor as opposed to the solid fuel Compact High temperature Reactor and Indian High Temperature Reactor?
What is the advantage of the LFTR over other types of molten salt thorium reacotrs such as the ones we are pursuing?
It seems the rest of the world is going the LFTR way, but for what reason?
Furthermore, is it not possible to skip a stage in the 3 stage nuclear programme? It is taking far too long to realise Homi Bhabas vision
My understanding is that the three stage programme requires firstly Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors to produce plutonium for the second stage, where plutonium is needed in fast reactors to produce U233, which is them needed in solid fuel thorium reactors continuously as long as the reactors run.No one is going for LFTR yet. There are reports that China has started research on it. The only reactor based on a Liquid fluoride concept was the one at Oak Ridge in US which was decommissioned within a year of going critical. So essentially the LFTR (and all its benefits) are still on paper and have not been demonstrably proven
From India's perspective, we have invested significantly in thorium research but on solid fuelled reactors. We do not have the financial muscle to start parallel research on LFTR's. We have already experimentally proven the viability of our three stage process. Within the decade we will have thorium reactors making power. If we, instead, switch to LFTR's, expect 15 years of research and prototypes followed by another decade of commericial implementation - Just does not make sense., It is better that we carry on with our plans and watch what happens with LFTR's If the technology is proven, which is a minimum of a decade away from now, we can choose to buy the technology or fund research based on open source information available then.
All said and done BARC acknowledges that LFTR's on paper look promising. But so do ADR's, Thermal reactors etc.
There are many paths to a successful Thorium reactor. We just have to start.
My understanding is that the three stage programme requires firstly Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors to produce plutonium for the second stage, where plutonium is needed in fast reactors to produce U233, which is them needed in solid fuel thorium reactors continuously as long as the reactors run.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in a LFTR only a small amount of plutonium would be required as a "seed" material before the entire reactor could be entirely powered forever on purely thorium alone, available abundantly in India in its raw form without any further processing or transmutation in other types of reactors required..
Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke | Magazine
In this regard the second stage of the programme could be skipped entirely and we could move right now to the third stage fully using almost completely fail safe, highly efficient , high temperature LFTR reactors for hydrogen,urea, desalination purposes etc right now if we pursued the LFTR technology now.
Why do we persist in a painfully slow rollout of fast reactors requiring US uranium in the first stage when we could move much faster to an entriely secure indigenously fuelled thorium future with LFTR?
Green Car Congress: Indias BARC Developing Two Nuclear Reactor Designs for Hydrogen ProductionRead my post again, LFTR exists only on paper. Solid fuel reactors exist in the real world. If you have about 10 billion USD to lend BARC, they would be more than happy to start a 25 year cycle of design, prototype and commercialization.
Secondly, India does not have enough uranium and thereby plutonium to start large scale implementation of LFTR's even if it wants to. Plutonium does not come out of thin air. It is a byproduct of uranium reactors. Since you know so much already you must also be aware that only less than 1% of natural uranium is reactor grade. By introducing a breeder reactor into the cycle, we multiply the amount of reactor grade plutonium output by 100 times. Which is what will be used as seed fuel.
Further, the small amount of seed fuel you mention is a few tonnes, not a few grams.
If LFTR's are meant to be, they will. The onus is not on India to drive this research. Its on the richer countries. The three stage program is perfect for us as of now because we know it works.
Also, please post an intro.
What I meant was both IHTR and LFTR are molten salt reactors both requiring a similar level of investment required to bring them into fruition.If $10 billion can be afforded for IHTR and is being spent on IHTR why was this reactor design chosen instead of LFTR or some other molten salt type?The IHTR is not the LFTR. It is nothing but a solid fuel reactor that generates hydrogen whcih can possibly replace oil in the future as transportation fuel. The IHTR is small budget research. The only difference between a regular AHWR and IHTR is that AHWR heat transfer is directed to steam turbines generating electricity while IHTR heat is directed to a mechanism that breaks water into Hydrogen and oxygen.
This wont be going into serial production anytime soon. The only thorium reactor that has a go ahead for commercial implemetation is the AHWR.
You speak of nuclear reactors as though they were toys you can buy off the shelf. A new nuclear reactor from conceptualization to design to prototypes to safety features to commercial implementation is a 20 -30 year cycle.
Post an intro in the Intro Forum is what I meant. Anyway welcome.
Listen chief, little knowledge is a bad thing. PLease read up, this is the last spoon Im going to feed you. The IHTR is a solid fuel reactor. The coolants will be molten salt or molten metal. The LFTR is a liquid fuelled, liquid cooled reactor. The fuel will be Liquid Thorium Fluoride, which will be both fuel and coolant.What I meant was both IHTR and LFTR are molten salt reactors both requiring a similar level of investment required to bring them into fruition.If $10 billion can be afforded for IHTR and is being spent on IHTR why was this reactor design chosen instead of LFTR or some other molten salt type?
Is there some advantage in heat transfer efficiency? Possibly there is a proliferation advantage? Is it fair to suggest that removal of protactinium and even U233 from the Liquid Fluoride Thorium mixture is easier than with an IHTR solid fuel but liquid cooled reactor?
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=9&osti_id=4093364
Does anyone know what small budget the IHTR actually has in total till completion?