Like it or not, the world is fitted with a web of nuclear power infrastructure. And, like it or not, we have inherited the chore of managing nuclear materials and industries from preceding generations. The question that begs to be answered is, how should we go forward with this legacy of nuclear power technology? Do we plod along maintaining the status quo? Do we replace aging nuclear plants with non-nuclear facilities? Or, do we ramp up with more nuclear plants?
On the pro-nuclear side, alternative reactor schemes are surfacing. Reactor designs that have been proposed for years are showing up on the internet and into the daylight.
One intriguing design utilizes a fissile molten salt that is circulated through a moderator assembly and cycled through a heat exchanger. In this scheme, the fuel is also a working heat transfer fluid. It is called a liquid fluoride reactor. Many kinds of molten salt compositions are possible, but one is composed of (72 LiF, 16 BeF2, 12 ThF4, 0.3 UF4). The designs I’ve seen use continuous fuel processing to keep an optimal fuel composition in use. The reactor described in the previous reference has a negative temperature coefficient, meaning that the fuel becomes less reactive as the temperature rises. This is an important safety attribute.
There is no point in a recital of the technical details here. The reader can follow the links if interested.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Gauss –
Doesn’t this topic require a broader perspective. Think of Ken Defeyes and Beyond Oil. Nuclear is one of several options. Imo, it looks pretty good for the near future.
If it will keep me warm in this cold MI winter and not increase the number of asthma attacks, this might be a good thing.
Might, only because as you say we must manage the legacy. It has to be in a responsible way. Not easy. Especially when I look at the continued waste of oil through inefficient vehicles and ignorance. How many people actually believe or recognize there really is a problem here. Use nuclear when you must, as part of the mix of oil, coal, solar, wind and geothermal. Expand conservation efforts.
Isn’t it so that more than global warming, energy and especially oil shortages (and water shortages) should be receiving our focus.
Oops. Too much ranting here. Keep up the good work Gauss.
Hi Bill, There is a lot to be said about this topic, but I don’t feel that I have anything new to say. This liquid fuel design has a few merits, the biggest one being that it uses Thorium. The more I read about Thorium fuel, the more enthusiastic I become about it.
Tritium will be major byproduct from fissioning both isotopes of lithium (thermal neutron 940 barns for Li-6). 92.41 atom-% Li-7 needs fast neutrons and the reaction is endothermic. It’s always good to have a tritium source to keep your thermonuclear warheads topped.
I believe they call for Li-7 in this system. One of the designs disclosed provides for continuous stripping of several volatile nuclides that are reaction poisons. Presumably, tritium would be stripped as well.