Recommendations for a restart of molten salt reactor development

Abstract The concept of the molten salt reactor (MSR) refuses to go away. The Generation-IV process lists the MSR as one of the six concepts to be considered for extending fuel resources. Good fuel utilization and good economics are required to meet the often-cited goal of 10 TWe globally and 1 TWe for the US by non-carbon energy sources in this century by nuclear fission. Strong incentives for the molten salt reactor design are its good fuel utilization, good economics, amazing fuel flexibility and promised large benefits. It can: • use thorium or uranium; • be designed with lots of graphite to have a fairly thermal neutron spectrum or without graphite moderator to have an epithermal neutron spectrum; • fission uranium isotopes and plutonium isotopes; • produces less long-lived wastes than today’s reactors by a factor of 10–100; • operate with non-weapon grade fissile fuel, or in suitable sites it can operate with enrichment between reactor-grade and weapon grade fissile fuel; • be a breeder or near breeder; • operate at temperature >1100 °C if carbon composites are successfully developed. Enhancing 232U content in the uranium to over 500 ppm makes the fuel undesirable for weapons, but it should not detract from its economic use in liquid fuel reactors: a big advantage in nonproliferation. Economics of the MSR are enhanced by operating at low pressure and high temperature and may even lead to the preferred route to hydrogen production. The cost of the electricity produced from low enriched fuel averaged over the life of the entire process, has been predicted to be about 10% lower than that from LWRs, and 20% lower for high-enriched fuel, with uncertainties of about 10%. The development cost has been estimated at about 1 B$ (e.g., a 100 M$/year base program for 10 years) not including construction of a series of reactors leading up to the deployment of multiple commercial units at an assumed cost of 9 B$ (450 M$/year over 20 years). A benefit of liquid fuel is that smaller power reactors can faithfully test features of larger reactors, thereby reducing the number of steps to commercial deployment. Assuming electricity is worth $ 50 per MWe h, then 50 years of 10 TWe power level would be worth 200 trillion dollars. If the MSR could be developed and proven for 10 B$ and would save 10% over its alternative, the total savings over 50 years would be 20 trillion dollars: a good return on investment even considering discounted future savings. The incentives for the molten salt reactor are so strong and its relevance to our energy policy and national security are so compelling that one asks, “Why has the reactor not already been developed?”