Both metallic fuel and salt fuel are not suitable for geological repository. Salt fuel may be stored in salt mines, but unproven. More R&D is needed for geological disposal; but, the point in having metallic fuel or salt fuel is the ease of separating fission products and reusing fuel, not geological storage.
Iodine:
Not 50%. It is a probability range. "Thus, of the order of one-fourth to one-third of the iodine has not been adequately accounted for."
RE: "but recognize that it is also a proliferation disadvantage"
MSR without reprocessing:
MSR can be as hardened as anyone wants. Because of liquid fuel-form, MSR can be sealed tamper-proof. Fuel goes in and nothing comes out during operation.
Safeguard scenario in case of maintenance:
By design the fuel will move to drain tank when shutdown for maintenance. IAEA can have the keys for the drain tank. Fuel can't be pumped back without the presence of IAEA inspector. If someone tampers this, license will be cancelled and the country will have no electricity.
MSBR with reprocessing:
How easy separation of fission products from denatured liquid-fuel can be a proliferation disadvantage? It is actually a advantage because fuel always stays inside a tamper-proof system. ORNL attached a "add-on" apparatus for fluoride volatility, and fuel always stayed inside MSRE building. This is actually an advantage.
As material science improves, MSRs last longer and longer without need for maintenance. Safeguards will also become less frequent and less expensive.
I strongly agree that MSR needs a chance. MSR graduated with excellent results with MSRE. MSRE has answered most of the questions and raised very few new questions. MSR should be given a suitable employment like process heat or medical isotope production as soon as possible. We can scale it up for electricity later on.
Iodine: Not 50%. It is a probability range. "Thus, of the order of one-fourth to one-third of the iodine has not been adequately accounted for."
RE: "but recognize that it is also a proliferation disadvantage"
MSR without reprocessing: MSR can be as hardened as anyone wants. Because of liquid fuel-form, MSR can be sealed tamper-proof. Fuel goes in and nothing comes out during operation.
Safeguard scenario in case of maintenance: By design the fuel will move to drain tank when shutdown for maintenance. IAEA can have the keys for the drain tank. Fuel can't be pumped back without the presence of IAEA inspector. If someone tampers this, license will be cancelled and the country will have no electricity.
MSBR with reprocessing: How easy separation of fission products from denatured liquid-fuel can be a proliferation disadvantage? It is actually a advantage because fuel always stays inside a tamper-proof system. ORNL attached a "add-on" apparatus for fluoride volatility, and fuel always stayed inside MSRE building. This is actually an advantage.
As material science improves, MSRs last longer and longer without need for maintenance. Safeguards will also become less frequent and less expensive.
I strongly agree that MSR needs a chance. MSR graduated with excellent results with MSRE. MSRE has answered most of the questions and raised very few new questions. MSR should be given a suitable employment like process heat or medical isotope production as soon as possible. We can scale it up for electricity later on.