DFR: the Dual-Fluid Reactor - Jan-Christian Lewitz @ ThEC2018

Why is the DFR not an MSR?
DFR is two-fluid while most MSR single fluid.
DFR has heterogeneous core vs MSR homogeneous core.
DFR removed heat with second fluid while MSR uses salt.
DFR fuel liquid less constrained while MSR fuel limited to salt.
The double function of fuel providing and heat removal in the MSR limits its power density. This limitation is not present at the DFR.
DFR Control:
- Highly negative temperature coefficient due to thermal expansion of the liquid fuel. Temperature rises → Fission rate and heat production drop. Temperature drops → Fission rate and heat production rise.
- temperature is held homeostatic at 1000 °C→ no material stress on power change.
- power is fully regulated by heat extraction→ Load-following operation in the grid.
- qualified for rapidly changing power demand in chemical plants (process heat).
- No mechanical regulation equipment needed
- DFR can be on "stand by" in a critical state at zero power output → Safe operation mode.
Problem → Solution:
- Risk of leakages → No overpressure, survey and containment without much effort.
- More volatile activity due to high operating temperature and liquid fuel → Will be extracted/absorbed in the online fuel processing, containment.
- Raised proliferation risk due to online fuel processing → Fixed piping, encapsulation and monitoring is easier to accomplish due to compact size.
Nuclear reactor including a primary duct for continuous insertion and discharge of liquid fuel into and out of a core vessel wherein the fuel duct is lead through the core vessel, characterized by
a secondary duct for a liquid coolant wherein the coolant enters the aforementioned core vessel via an inlet, passing and bathing the primary duct and leaving the core vessel via an outlet.
Learn more at: dual-fluid-rea...
This talk was captured at Thorium Energy Conference 2018 (ThEC2018) in Brussels, Belgium. The footage may be recycled by ThoriumRemix.com/ for narrative purposes. Thorium Energy (World) conferences can be found here: www.thoriumener...
ThEC2018 videos are collected in this ThEC2018 Playlist: • ThEC2018 in Brussels

[@NomenNescio99]

Just got back home after the evening walk with my dog, and the summer weather was absolutely fantastic even here in Sweden - and then a new MSR video pops up in my youtube feed. Combine with a cup of coffee while I watch it and then I must reward this Thursday evening at least 4/5 working day shovels.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Sounds like good German precision engineering and very effective output in proportion to the inputs.

[@excitedbox5705]

A big part of the efficiency in these systems also comes from using the huge stockpiles of nuclear waste we have now. If we were allowed to build these kinds of plants we wouldn´t really need to mine much uranium for the next 40-50 years or so while we finish developing the fusion reactors that will truly be clean nuclear power. Solid reactors are just so inefficient because they only use 5-10% of the fuel.

[@darthvader5300]

@@excitedbox5705 kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKqZq3adm9mJhrs It is a good new reactor design but it uses active pumps, I rather prefer that they redesign it to use the same design but in a highly modified way to use the passive self-cooling convection principle. Our military reactors, the new ones, uses an all out passive design and using an all analog controls, monitors, sensors, feedback systems, indicators, etc. It is used in our high-temperature pressurized argon gas-cooled reactors modified to use the passive self-cooling convection principle combined with heat conduction, heat absorption, heat dissipation, heat sink effect.

[@CUBETechie]

So how big is the whole powerplant? And how small can it be build? So you use a volume of about 27m3 and get 3Gigawatt ? This is definitely amazing. So the technology is there but the only problem is money a freedom for Tests?

[@r0cketplumber]

At 18:08 it takes a brave and crazy man to propose widespread use of hydrazine fuels.

[@gaussmanv2]

I mean if you have a burning need, its great.

[@uproar8745]

I've got a strange love for hydrazine but actually using the stuff is nuts.

[@Nphen]

@@uproar8745 In the chart, the hydrazine is mentioned to be turned into Benzine. This reactor can desalinate, make synthetic petrochem, hydrogen, and electricity. 1% of the Pentagon budget ($7B/year) could develop DFR & MSR. Prototypes by 2025. Factories producing 25 GW per year of modular reactors by 2030. Ship-based reactors for cruise & cargo ships that clean the ocean. Most importantly, a new generation of nuclear physicists & scientists to pursue & perfect fusion energy.

[@uproar8745]

@@Nphen Thanks for clearing it up abit, I haven't got the chance to fully watch the video yet.

[@BTheHeretic]

@@Nphen Benzine just means gasoline. The slide is comparing the predicted hydrazine fuel prices to the current fuel prices. His proposal is based on the claim, that hydrazine is no more dangerous than gasoline. Somehow that sounds wrong, but I'm no expert on the matter.

[@hootis8]

His design seems like it adds a lot more complexity compared too a dual loop chloride molten salt fast reactor with the benefit of having more power density and a smaller startup fuel requirement? I don't think the mentioned the fuel purity or amounts required for startup.

[@dualfluid7778]

Mehr zu Dual Fluid bei KZbin: kzbin.info/door/Q6pViEfd3OWXJg4_Ie3JLw

[@hiroobidoo]

This is a real scientist. Not a good talker but he knows sh**t 😄👍

[@thehatebringer8005]

honestly i enjoyed his lecture he had this very matter of fact demeanor while speaking yes he struggled with the language but hey he speaks better English then i speak German so i cant complain.

[@daedalus71]

From the slides it appears that the thermal power aimed at is 3 Megawatts. This is about the same thermal power as a regular Pressurized Water Reactor today. In Germany, we will have a couple of decomissioned PWR in the next years. Would it be possible to replace a PWR with a DFR ? The whole infrastructure is already available, even a containment buidling designed for a PWR. It would instantly have access to the grid, Turbines, Generators, Transformers etc. Maybe you could even recycle some parts from the steam generators, provided they can withstand the hydrostatic pressure from liquid lead, which is considerably higher than from water. Spent nuclear fuel is also available. It would just take some guts to make that decision and defend it in public. Ithe reactor would offer passive safety, burn nuclear waste and safe billions of euros of investments and costs for disassembly of the PWR plant. Would that not be worth a thought ?

[@OpenGL4ever]

As long as the majority of the population do vote for CDU, SPD, Die Grüne, Die Linke and FDP there will be no near future for a commercial DFR in Germany.

[@hooplehead1019]

You commit the same mistake as all people who confuse theoretical proof-of-concept with commercially established technology. There are several stages and decades between them. The DFR main concepts have been shown to work theoretically in two dissertations (!) only some years ago. Even members of the DFR group admit - like in the very video youre commenting to - that "lab experiments" still have to be done. So ETA for a commercially available DFR GOING ONLINE mayyyybe will be by 2040. This is all fine and we should be open to all kinds of nuclear fission and fusion that achieve Gen 4 like properties. But in the meantime, we have to act NOW. Not 2040, not 2035, not 2030 - NOW. And this means scaling up low CO2 technology already running like renewables, gas (at least instead of coal), importation of low CO2 energy, energy efficiency.

[@OpenGL4ever]

​@@hooplehead1019 You're panicking because of CO2. And you're watching to much cared TV. We won't die because of CO2 in the near future and we are thousands of years away from such a scenario. Btw China is building 1000 coal power plans at the moment and the situation is not different to India. The true reason about all that CO2 gaga is, that you were intentionally misinformed to make it more acceptable, that you will pay more tax.

[@hooplehead1019]

@@OpenGL4ever facepalm - no I dont watch TV and blogs by lobby institues - I read the scientific literature. And it doesnt say "we die" - it will just be much cheaper to mitigate climate change - simple as that.

[@OpenGL4ever]

@@hooplehead1019 Read what i said before. China is building > 1000 coal power plants. You can't stop climate change, the only thing that will happen is the de-industrialization of Germany. And in the long run you will loose your job, because ultimately it depends on the industry. And you will have the de-industrialization because the industry depends on cheap energy. If local energy prices rise, because of CO2 politics, the goods will become much more expensive. When they get more expensive than the same goods from other countries you will loose. It's a simple calculation and it requires only maths and a brain.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

So how does the DFR compare to Moltex's SSR?

[@MonMalthias]

More complex, higher temperatures, higher efficiency, but likely more expensive due to the use of refractory materials.

[@mrvaticanrag3946]

Are you sure that silicon carbide will endure the expected plant life? And what about the Helium grain boundary problems on the fuel lines?

[@leerman22]

Using sCO2 as the core coolant and any hole in the fuel containment would just push it into the fuel's dump tank, that is going to be a lot of lead to pump around.

[@raisinbartholamew5864]

A transient liquid Lead as the moderator and cooling loop?

[@Piccodon]

This is a fast spectrum reactor, the lead coolant works supposedly not as a moderator but as a neutron reflector. There is going to be some hard core engineering and science to get that salt at 1000 C to not eat the metals.

[@BMC_self-invent]

Is this a fast or thermal reactor

[@gordonmcdowell]

cullis102 Fast. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_fluid_reactor

[@steveq34]

awesome stuff

[@kuljim2602]

Who is manufacturing a compact DFR? How does one invest in companies that produce reactors or will soon?

[@BlackSharkfr]

Nobody is building this. It is not even a paper reactor. There needs to be a tremendous amount of studies before anything can be built. They haven't tested any of the materials he's proposing. He's just pitching an idea.

[@blackmephistopheles2273]

Call it "pyro-purifying," and you won't have to change the initials.

[@paulwinters4727]

love it, german humor and all. i still think salt liquid has greater sability, efficiency.

[@williamwaugh8670]

Efficiency is not a matter of opinion.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

Yes he didn't compare dual fluid with other MSRs much.

[@thesilentgod7863]

don't think this will be available any time soon, if ever, but it just tells me we have yet to make full use of fission energy

[@Piccodon]

"...a passing and bathing the primary duct..." If this is supposed to be English, is not "duct" something used in connection with air, gases etc, not liquids? Does he mean "pipe"? "...bathing...."? Does he mean Immersing? "... the fuel duct is lead through the core vessel..." When lead and lead(Pb) is used in the same context there is a chance for mixup. Is this snipped from a patent application? A change of wording to clarify would help.

[@gordonmcdowell]

Looks like you posted this comment many times by accident I deleted the copies. I don't know answer to questions.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

Suggestion - get the lead out - LOL

[@thebeautifulones5436]

Fosile . Sounds like really bad stuff

[@kimweaver3323]

You need a better presenter for we English speakers. I couldn't follow this guy for more than five minutes and bailed out.

[@MrOperettalover]

Are you sure you're an English speaker?

[@sunroad7228]

"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal law applies to the sun, nuclear fission power plants, nuclear fusion, solar, wind, hydro - and you name it. Energy, like time, only flows from past to future" (The Fifth Law).

[@bocckoka]

yes, so?

[@sunroad7228]

@@bocckoka Energy expended in construction must be calculated on the basis of what colossal solar, chemical and geological energies nature has put into fossil fuels since the distant past, what has been expended in building the industrial base that has extracted the fossil fuels, the fossil fuels that have been required to construct and activate the industrial base that has utilised to construct the DFR reactors, including all what has sustained all people involved. This is safely to be considered 100000+ times the energy put into constructing the new system - conservative! Wear and tear will shred the reactor to pieces well before it generates and pays off a fraction of that total energy. The DFR reactor, like any energy producing system today, is no more than another fossil fuels-derivative! "No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal law applies to the sun, nuclear fission power plants, nuclear fusion, solar, wind, hydro - and you name it. Energy, like time, only flows from past to future" (The Fifth Law).

[@bocckoka]

@@sunroad7228 aha. you are completely wrong here. if someone pulled up a piano on a rope, you stand below it with a knife, cut the rope, you get g*height*piano mass energy on your head for an almost zero energy investment (given the knife is sharp). same thing with nuclear. that heavy lifting has been done, and if you don't limit yourself to the whole universe as your 'system', you can simply extract it for net energy gains here on Earth. the energy of the whole universe remains the same, of course. I will mourn that in my free time.

[@sunroad7228]

@@bocckoka DFR Reactors, Physics and the World are in safe hands!

[@bocckoka]

@@sunroad7228 good argument.

[@bocckoka]

from what I've heard, EROEI is correlated to societal complexity, so we should really pursue the higher eroei means of production.

[@SumiTasmin-y7p]

Wilson Christopher Jones Christopher Martin Kimberly

[@huskymusher1223]

Kirk Sorensen!

[@wolfgangbreitenseher358]

Gernany will use wood.