Idaho Lab Produces World's First Molten Salt Fuel for Nuclear Reactors (energy.gov)
- Reference: 0180325623
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/12/07/2231215/idaho-lab-produces-worlds-first-molten-salt-fuel-for-nuclear-reactors
- Source link: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/idaho-national-lab-creates-first-batch-fuel-worlds-first-fast-spectrum-molten-salt
> Unlike traditional reactors that use solid fuel rods and water as a coolant, most molten salt reactors rely on liquid fuel — a mixture of salts containing fissile material. This design allows for higher operating temperatures, better fuel efficiency, and enhanced safety. It also opens the door to new applications, including compact nuclear systems for ships and remote installations.
>
> "The Molten Chloride Fast Reactor represents a paradigm shift in the nuclear fuel cycle, and the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment (MCRE) will directly inform the commercialization of that reactor," said Jeff Latkowski, senior vice president of TerraPower and program director for the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor. "Working with world-leading organizations such as INL to successfully synthesize this unique new fuel demonstrates how real progress in Gen IV nuclear is being made together."
>
> "The implications for the maritime industry are significant," said Don Wood, senior technical advisor for MCRE. "Molten salt reactors could provide ships with highly efficient, low-maintenance nuclear power, reducing emissions and enabling long-range, uninterrupted travel. The technology could spark the rise of a new nuclear sector — one that is mobile, scalable and globally transformative.
More details [2]from America's Energy Department :
> MCRE will require a total of 72 to 75 batches of fuel salt to go critical, making it the largest fuel production effort at INL since the operations of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II more than 30 years ago. The full-scale demonstration of the new fuel salt synthesis line for MCRE was made possible by a breakthrough in 2024. After years of testing, the team [3]found the right recipe to convert 95 percent of uranium metal feedstock into 18 kilograms of uranium chloride fuel salt in only a few hours — a process that previously took more than a week to complete...
>
> After delivering the first batch of fuel salt this fall, the team anticipates delivering four additional batches by March of 2026. MCRE is anticipated to run in 2028 for approximately six months at INL in the Laboratory for Operation and Testing (LOTUS) in the United States test bed.
"With the first batch of fuel salt successfully created at INL, researchers will now conduct testing to better understand the physics of the process, with a goal of moving the process to a commercial scale over the next decade," [4]says Cowboy State Daily .
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader [5]schwit1 for sharing the article.
[1] https://inl.gov/feature-story/idaho-lab-produces-first-ever-fuel-for-fast-molten-salt-reactor-experiment-opening-door-to-maritime-commercial-reactor-deployment/
[2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/idaho-national-lab-creates-first-batch-fuel-worlds-first-fast-spectrum-molten-salt
[3] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/idaho-national-laboratory-cracks-code-molten-salt-fuel-production
[4] https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/12/05/breakthrough-idaho-lab-produces-worlds-first-molten-salt-fuel-for-nuclear-reactors/
[5] https://www.slashdot.org/~schwit1
Incorrect headline (Score:5, Informative)
The thing that would be World First is not molten salt fuel in general, but the specific type of chloride-uranium salt that would be used for the not-yet-built "Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment".
Corroding Mess, 1st Reactor Not Decommissioned (Score:3)
Apparently, they still had problems with the Hastalloy-M corroding, because molten salt at 1900f is pretty tough on metal. The freeze-seals still managed to leak fuel. All the work needs to be remotely because these reactors are the very definition of a hot mess. I think that the first test reactor was never taken apart, because it's a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
As is typical of all these supposed breakthroughs. We have this incredible world changing technology! The problem is the material needed to make it work doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The nuclear industry is famous for its bombastic empty promises. And the morons believing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, these things breed plutonium, as in, white flash in your city when terrorists get a hold of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Also, these things breed plutonium, as in, white flash in your city when terrorists get a hold of it.
If terrorists wanted to wreak havoc with plutonium, it would be extremely difficult for them to build a bomb with it. They'd find it much easier just to sprinkle it into the water supply. Plutonium is highly toxic.
Inconceivable (Score:5, Informative)
I do not think the authors of this article understand the point of this reactor design since they mention an application without mentioning why this particular design would be a good fit. The whole point of these reactors is 1) they would be manufactured as an operational engine. 2) they would run for 30 years without need for refueling.
The downside is that they slowly produce Plutonium and that their intended lifetime is the engineering lifetime of the machine materials -- with catastrophic failure when someone decides to save a little money on maintenance or run the "engine" longer than initially agreed to. The very idea of these things becoming available to an American corporation is a bit terrifying. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that we cannot trust the organizations that these reactors would be marketed to.
Upvote parent! (Score:2)
Thank you for pointing out these "minor details" of this "nuclear-fission-including-all-of-its-problems on steoroids".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see plutonium production as a downside. I see it as cause for strict regulation, but otherwise it just sounds like icing on a cake.
I also don't understand why you're terrified by the idea of a corporation having access to nuclear reactors, as if they didn't already. I mean, you do know that our nuclear power plants are privately owned already, right?
How... (Score:2)
are they going to keep it molten while they are waiting for the reactor to be built?
Re: (Score:2)
> are they going to keep it molten while they are waiting for the reactor to be built?
Yes, but they're still trying to agree on a schedule for tending the fire.
Build that reactor (Score:2)
And then run it without incident and good uptimes for at the very least 5 years. At that time I will start listening.
Before? The whole thing is just fantasies and hopes and dreams, no substance.
Two questions come to mind (Score:2)
1) What are the maintenance requirements for this and are they competitive with the shipping industry's goal of employing the cheapest 3rd world labour they can get their hands on?
2) Are there negative implications to these reactors becoming one of the 20-40 ships per year that end up on the bottom of the ocean?
Re: (Score:2)
> Are there negative implications to these reactors becoming one of the 20-40 ships per year that end up on the bottom of the ocean?
That was the first question that came to mind.
Break Out the Champagne at under $100/MWh (Score:2)
$100/MWh isn't remotely competitive any more, mostly, but because of the "base-load" need, you might get that much. If it can't produce power cheaper than that, though, it won't fly.
Nuclear dreams are now in a race with batteries, basically - if batteries get down to $20/kWh as the CAPEX, keeping around enough batteries for a dunkelflaute every few years, starts to compete with $100/MWh of baseload.
And then there's geothermal, just a big question mark right now, but the chancers doing pilot plants are de
Read this as Morton Salt (Score:3)
When it rains, it pours
Waste (Score:2)
> Molten salt reactors could provide ships with highly efficient, low-maintenance nuclear power
And when it's spent, we'll just dunp it in the ocean. Because it's just salt! /s