FLEX Reactor - the thermal spectrum Stable Salt Reactor

Presentation by Moltex FLEX to the 2022 Progrès Nucléaire webinar

[@jonathanspilhaus3165]

This sounds like a winner; very well thought out

[@WJV9]

I love the simplicity of your cooling system, like the old John Deere 2 cylinder tractors and the Ford Model A car. A thermo-siphon cooling system will always work with no moving parts, never had to replace a water pump on a John Deere 2 cyl. or Model A.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

We need this like yesterday. 🙂 Unfortunately my country (Poland) is moving towards large reactors, but even that is not certain. The changeability of the authorities and concepts has already caused a 15-year delay and no reactor has been built yet. A completely passive Moltex fast reactor with a super simple design sounds like something that would allow us to make up for the time lost by politicians. Good luck Ian.

[@jimskirtt5717]

This is fantastic! I haven't heard anything about this, and only got wind of it through a Tom Nelson podcast (Paul Burgess). This has to be the future.

[@MatthewHolevinski]

Odd feeling being Moltex's design is the one I personally like the least, but objectively is extremely good and I am most excited for.

[@JensHallgren]

Can you explain why you like it the least, and why you are so excited about it? Would be very interesting to know.

[@MatthewHolevinski]

@@JensHallgren I said objectively it is very good, what does my opinion matter.

[@thedave7760]

Would it be too big a claim to say that if we had invested 1/10 or 1/100th of the money into this technology as we have put into fusion the past 3 decades, that this technology could have been powering the world for the past few decades?

[@johnlaurie9518]

It would not.

[@davetupling2678]

What this planet would be like today, maybe we would still find a way to kill ourselves but the planet would be in a lot better place.

[@thedave7760]

@@davetupling2678 The planet will do fine never mind what we do to it

[@kleebgaming5209]

Maybe not literally powering the entire world, but well on the way. It'll take decades to breed enough fissile material to get to that point. If my house is currently on fire, I will choose to use the ugly, heavy fire extinguisher (fission) right now instead of the shiny space-age fire extinguisher (fusion) tomorrow.

[@manatoa1]

If you have load following nuclear, why have renewables at all?

[@nuwave4328]

To cover summer peak loads, it may be cheaper to use solar than build added capacity that goes unused the rest of the year.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

Also (MS) nuclear is a good start for countries/places with no power plants or "renewables".

[@chapter4travels]

No need for renewables, they can only add cost and complexity.

[@abdonecbishop]

ha ha...as a geologist ....that i like.....looks like a scaled down....miniature magma chamber

[@chapter4travels]

Wow, Kirk Sorensen had a comment. I didn't know he was still around, I thought Flibe went belly up.

[@williamolenchenko5772]

Will fission products be removed during operation? What are the fuel tubes made of?

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

Tubes are made of nuclear certified steel with zirconium corrosion protection layer.

[@hernan.guerrero8362]

You can't properly see or read the slides. 👎 You "nuclear guys" should make a little bit of effort presenting your material. It´s more important that you think. Remember you have to convince the general public that nuclear fission it's a necessity as I think it is.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Moltex has no manufacturing nor construction expertise. They have broken no ground, poured no concrete. Moltex has contributed no significant research or advancements to nuclear science, materials engineering, or reactor technology. The company has not published findings in peer-reviewed journals, demonstrated experimental results, or obtained patents that would showcase advances in molten salt reactor design or materials science. For a company with novel reactor claims, contributions to nuclear science are typically essential indicators of viability and innovation, and this lack suggests a critical gap between their aspirations and technical credibility. The only thing that Moltex has managed to produce is a very expensive PowerPoint presentation.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Just getting a big battery EV into every home would be a massive asset to the grid. All vehicles are parked 23hrs a day, 365. 20million vehicles in Australia. 2,000 gWh in storage every day. Massive DISPATCHABLE energy daily. Fossil only 600 gWh daily if you are lucky. All EV can selfpark nuzzle onto the simple power point and trade electric energy and stability for money and profit. Hello hello anyone home hello 👋

[@danansana7411]

geothermal is a better bet it works and can be done in less than a year

[@cah95046]

Then do it.

[@danansana7411]

nuclear aint green when you consider all the concrete also all reactors have two external power supplies usually gas and oil explain that to me

[@MrRolnicek]

Ok ... the PWR's which are the most popular reactor currently do indeed use as much concrete as a large building but it is still more green than any other source of power out there, It ammounts to less CO2 than wind, solar or hydro so it's not green but it's the greenest we have. These PWRs also need backup power generators indeed as you call them external power supplies but these would only run in an emergency. In a complete grid blackout which doesn't happen often. Most power plants will never engage them in their entire lifetime other than for testing to make sure it works (probably, maybe they ensure that anoter way) ... this FLEX reactor wouldn't have those of course because it doesn't require active safety systems, it also wouldn't use much concrete because it's not pressurized. Does that explain things?

[@red-baitingswine8816]

You ain't edjumacated.

[@jimskirtt5717]

Have you seen the concrete used in ONE wind turbine?

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

@@jimskirtt5717 Of course. The foundation for the windmill pole must be concrete.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

This is stupid. Why would you pay for a nuclear grid and also the entire fleet of EV batteries and their massive energy storage. Do the simple mathematics, this bloke is lost in his nuclear technology. His expertise is probably good but everything else to do with national grid energy is pathetic. I am angry because he is confusing people about what is the minimum cost national and world energy crisis. Blah, blah, blah. He agrees with nonproliferation of CO2 but ignores nonproliferation of nuclear industries,

[@chapter4travels]

What is going to charge this fleet of EV batteries? If the grid needs the electrons in your EV, how do you get to work? What if you had a long trip planned and you wake up with a half-depleted battery? Where are all the raw materials coming from for all these EVs and the batteries? EVs require 10x the raw materials as an ICE vehicle. Where is the charging power coming from again?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@chapter4travels you are right if nuclear electricity is not needed, because fossil fuels are cheap. And CO2 is not a problem. Why would you bother?

[@chapter4travels]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 You didn't answer any of my questions.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@chapter4travels Renewables technologies rapidly developing and the EV big batteries usually only do a 7kwh daily drive, normally peoples fuel tank lasts days before refilling. The EV batteries are kept topped up every day. Renewables are used every day. Tell your vehicle how much range it needs for the long drive. And use rapid chargers along the trip. Raw materials for the huge national power grid expansion is a massive amount of materials and CO2 pollution. EVs do need a greater variety of materials but similar CO2 in production. The home robotic vacuum cleaner can teach the selfparking EV to connect to the grid, Hahaha. The avg vehicle is parked 23hrs a day. As I said if you don't believe CO2 is a problem nuclear and Renewables are not needed. We have a massive engineering and energy system that is going to be replaced. And so the full system and costs have to be thought about.

[@chapter4travels]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 First, renewables technologies are not rapidly developing, which would require defying the laws of physics. They have very low energy density and performance is dependent on a 100% backup system, dependent on location, dependent on season, dependent on weather, and dependent on time of day. They require 400% more material resources including land for farming and transmission. There is no place for renewables on a modern grid. You can power a tiny house with solar, (as I do) but forget the grid. EVs will not dominate transportation, it will be gas and diesel for quite some time, shifting to synthetic liquid primarily for diesel and jet fuel. (over the next 75+/- years) CO2 is completely unimportant, what is important is not wasting such a valuable commodity by burning it for heat. Humanity will need hydrocarbons for thousands of non-heat generation applications for the rest of time or until we can fabricate them with technology unknown today. There is also the matter of real pollution from burning coal. There are 3 billion people on this earth that live in energy poverty. These people will power themselves out of poverty with coal and all the pollution it generates unless there is something cheaper that is just as reliable and just as versatile. Only high-temperature nukes like Moltex in this video can do that. The transition away from fossil fuels will take a very long time 100+ years.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Stupid solution to future national electrical needs. 5 times bigger national grid capacity is stupidly expensive. Yep sun never shines and weather never happens every day. Yep no stored electricity in EVs. He might aswell be talking about his brand new shoe laces. Nuclear is an economical dead end.

[@stevefisher3280]

last time i noticed, sun didn't shine at night.... hasnt been that windy lately..... good luck to anybody who thinks thats a good basis for any technologically based society. nuclear MSR technology is perhaps the closest thing we have to an interim solution to our needs.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@stevefisher3280 so no CO2 from fossil fuels can only be done with nuclear? Does the world force the rest of the world to stop using fossil fuels? Is that how we save our climate? Do we ship tonnes of uranium ore to every country's nuclear industries??

[@WJV9]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 - We are shipping billions of tons of coal and crude oil all over the world today and it will take millions of tons less uranium or thorium than fossil fuel since a small chunk the size of a golf ball would supply all the energy a person would use their entire life.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@WJV9 the same amount can be used in nuclear weapons

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@WJV9 my main concern is with centralised power plants. Electricity is expensive because of the transmission costs. 5 times more electricity in a no fossil fueled world means 5 times bigger national power grid. This new 'fatter' national grid is economically stupid in costs. Nuclear promoters talk about renewable energy technologies and this extreme cost to transmit the electricity from these new sources. They say the extreme costs of the new transmission lines is the problem. I say they are right, but what they don't say is that their centralised and concentrated electrical generation has the same problem because they want to build bigger electric generation, 5 times bigger. That means 5 times bigger grid capacity. I really mean all centralised concentrated electric power generation is economically stupid if you have any other way to unload the existing grid and boost local generation, rooftop has brilliant advantages for 10mths a year. Gas back up in emergencies is incredibly low CO2 over a full year. Nobody is talking about this 'elephant in the room'. Grid costs.