India: A hotbed of molten salt

January 18th, 2013

Posted by Mark Halper

Written by guest blogger David LeBlanc

The Gateway of India, in Mumbai. The country could become a gateway to energy’s future, given its impressive work in molten salt reactors.


Please welcome our first guest blogger, Canadian molten salt reactor expert David LeBlanc. Dr. LeBlanc has just returned from India, where that country’s MSRs initiatives impressed him, to say the least. We asked him to say a lot more than that, and we’re glad we did…

The world is full of surprises isn’t it?  Well, I’ve just experienced quite a big one. I’ve just returned from the most amazing meeting of the minds in Mumbai – the Conference on Molten Salts in Nuclear Technology hosted at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

BARC is the sprawling campus – more akin to a small city – where a majority of India’s research into nuclear power takes place, on the outskirts of the heaving metropolis. It is a true microcosm of India really: a mix of impressive modern buildings and ranging down to what Western eyes, at least, might call slums. Through it all, no one can dispute the impressive work that has taken place here over the decades.

A little background first. India has been heavily involved in nuclear power research since the 1960s – much of the time on its own, since the world discovered to its disappointment that the country was also working towards nuclear weapons. With its testing of a warhead in 1974, India became a sort of pariah, with most other countries cutting off all nuclear ties – including civilian nuclear power.  This has been changing significantly over the past several years.

But since its very early days when led by BARC’s namesake, Homi Bhabha (the so-called “father of India’s nuclear programme”) India has had a very ambitious civilian nuclear power development vision.

Given India’s lack of easy to obtain uranium and its abundance of thorium, the long term plan has been to start first with uranium in heavy water reactors and then put those reactors’ plutonium along with thorium into a subsequent small fleet of sodium cooled fast breeder reactors. These fast reactors would produce U233. This U233 would then be used to start a large fleet of a more advanced breed of heavy water reactors that would operate a closed, self-sustaining cycle of thorium and U233, a very tough job as the solid fuel would need to be processed frequently.


The country’s steadfast commitment to this 3-stage, heavy water, to sodium cooled, to advanced heavy water evolution has been challenging, to say the least. India has built few reactors totaling only 4.8 GWe and nuclear power is unfortunately only a small fraction of India’s power production  – the majority comes from coal.

Because of this seemingly engrained roadmap, many of us molten salt  advocates – and yes, I am one – didn’t expect to convince India of the merits of molten salt reactors even though MSRs are well known for their ability to breed fuel using thorium, or in even simpler forms, for their ability to use uranium many times more efficiently than do water cooled reactors.

And now, for the surprise, which has come to me in waves over the last few months, starting last summer when the conference organizers asked me to give a plenary talk. I was more surprised several weeks ago when the list of scheduled talks surfaced with 11 of the 25 presentations by Indian researchers. And then, the best surprise of all: after three great days of talks, I am truly impressed with the quantity and quantity of Indian work on the subject.

I left Mumbai with a conference proceedings of over 50 papers, two thirds of them by Indian authors. There were a couple dozen of us contributors from outside India including Europe, the U.S., Canada and Japan. A representative from the Chinese Academy of Science’s MSR program, Zhimin Dai, was to present but visa issues held him up.

Speaking of which, at first glance someone might speculate that India’s new involvement in MSR research might be reactionary to China’s recent major foray into the field. Whether that was the spark or not, it was very evident that a great pent up interest has been released in India.

I have quite literally never seen such a large gathering of engineers and scientists with such an interest and more importantly, knowledge of molten salt technology.


This interest goes back to the 1970s when they directly contributed to Oak Ridge’s MSBR (molten salt breeder reactor) programme and we got to hear from many of those who contributed. From these Indian “old boys” I heard the same lament one hears from Oak Ridge’s “old boys” of what a shame it is this technology was left behind. I also heard the same enthusiasm for its current renaissance.

Indian researchers presented a variety of work on fluid fueled molten salt reactors but also on the idea of using similar molten salts as coolants – but not fuels –in what are known as FHRs (fluoride salt cooled high temperature reactors).

The FHR concept originated in the U.S. some ten years ago and is also a big part of China’s program.  Some MSR advocates might malign this “salt cooled” work as some sort of half measure in comparison to “salt fueled” MSRs.

While FHRs lack the extensive list of potential benefits that MSRs can claim, some researchers view FHR as a simpler first step. I see the merit of FHR design and have ideas in that regard myself but view it as a parallel path with MSRs, certainly not FHR first, true MSRs later.

As the audience was fully aware of MSR’s background and promise in terms of safety, cost, resource sustainability and long lived waste reduction I was able to focus on MSR reactor design. I presented on choices including my work on the “tube within tube two fluid MSR” which looks to solve the “plumbing problems” that led ORNL to abandon the promising two fluid approach in 1968. I also provided a few hints towards a new design concept I hope has much potential, and for which I have filed patents.


Much of my presentation, though, focused on a simpler route forward through an MSR design which is known as a converter reactor and in particular a form of converter known as a denatured molten salt reactor (DMSR, with “denatured” meaning that any uranium employed is useless for weapons fabrication).

This approach uses both mined uranium and thorium together, or simply uranium alone. It is not a breeder like many MSR concepts but results in a much simpler reactor with far less R&D especially since it skips any sort of fuel processing.

The minor drawback is that it requires small amounts of annual uranium in order to top up the fuel cycle. But the amount is just a fraction of what conventional reactors require. A DMSR operator would only need to spend about 0.05 cents per kwh on uranium, and would not be adversely affected by any rising uranium prices either – not even by, say, a ten-fold increase over today’s low price level.

The message: MSRs are not just the best “thorium” reactor, they are also the best “uranium” reactor. It really is the engine, not the fuel that is the story. Come for the thorium, stay for the reactor as my tag line of late has been.

I’m back in Canada now, with Mumbai and my gracious hosts at BARC and the constant din of car horns still very much on my mind. And I can’t help but feel the world is a lot closer than it was before this conference to a future with a sustainable and affordable source of energy. It’s a good feeling, a good feeling indeed.

Photo: Rhaessner via Wikimedia

Dr. David LeBlanc is President and CTO of Terrestrial Energy Inc., an Ottawa company committed to the commercial development of MSR technology. For many years Dr. LeBlanc has been heavily involved in the design and advocacy of molten salt reactors and has authored numerous scientific and general media publications. He was the founder of MSR pioneer Ottawa Valley Research Associates. His design philosophy has been to simplify systems as much as possible while retaining the many strong advantages of MSRs. Dr. LeBlanc holds a Phd in Physics from the University of Ottawa.


  1. Martin Kral says:

    While the science is moving forward so is the overall image of nuclear power. This week-end is the debute of Pandora’s Promise documentary by Robert Stone and it is addressing the fears and misconceptions of nuclear power. Read the Director’s Notes to get an understanding of why he is now on a different path for world energy.

    • Martin Kral says:

      I forgot to mention that this screening is at the Sundance Film Festival. Does Robert Redford ring a bell? If more celebraties can get involved, the better.

    • Syaiful says:

      That is true. The last big one on the NMF was in the 1830s?But reactors can be built to wianttshd such quakes. I think Japan proves this. And…the smaller the reactor, the stronger it can be built.I wouldn’t propose, however, LFTR siting in the smaller designated NMF zone which overlaps Tenn. and Missouri along the Big Muddy from the maps. Outside the zone of course.

  2. Nick says:

    David LeBlanc is on the right track. Get MSRs up and running, with whatever fuel; thorium breeders can come later. The most important thing is to prove the safety and benefits of MSR technology. Once past that tipping point, the momentum towards cheap, clean, safe, sustainable, CO2-free nuclear energy will be unstoppable, IMHO.

  3. John A says:

    I am deeply frightened by the proliferation potential of the MSBR. Optimized for breeding, a two fluid design can probably hit a breeding ratio as high as 1.15, maybe more. Add a flourine sparge – bismuth extract – flourine resparge plant to the blanket circuit, and…. Weapon grade U233 gets produced.

    Sure, the designs can be run at breeding ratios of 1.0, or as “burners” with less than 1.0 conversion.

    But, if 20 or 30 small nations have these reactors, how long will it be before somebody’s “Colonel Thugg” just kicks out the regulators and reworks one or more of these small, simple devices to produce weapons?

    What, kick out the regulators? Well, India did just that, and got away with it.

    • dove says:

      Racist arrogance like this will naturally force more nations to seek nuclear power as hedge against self-proclaimed owners of the world.

  4. John A says:

    I might add that, for a seriously proliferation resistant thorium cycle, one really should stick to a solid fueled heterogeneous core reactor, preferably without an online refueling capability. Here, the production of U232 cannot be avoided, no matter what, so the irradiated fuel will be all but worthless for bomb making. Making a breeder out of this design could require heavy water moderating – as the Indians, and perhaps the Chinese, are already doing.

    To be honest, the proliferation problem would appear to be an Achilles heel of any type of molten salt reactor, where online fission products/protactinium extraction could be carried out. The original ORNL staff realized this – and maybe this is one of the big reasons that this type of reactor was not pursued.

    A liquid bismuth extractor would not be “easy” to scale up from the ORNL subpilot scale, but nothing about reactor design is ever easy. The pertinent question is: would this process be easier than a Purex extraction of bred material from solid core? Probably, yes. Would it be easier than getting one’s bomb fuel from a uranium enrichment centrifuge cascade? Almost certainly.

    To “proliferation proof” a reactor design, one really just has to make it harder to get bomb fuel from the reactor than from centrifuge enrichment of natural uranium, since the latter will always be an option, although an extremely difficult one. A thorium breeder from which U232 absolutely cannot be removed would be, by this definition, a truly proliferation proof design.


  5. Sri K. says:

    “What, kick out the regulators? Well, India did just that, and got away with it.”

    When did India do this? I am suspect this claim cannot be backed with an actual news link because it is a false claim. The Indo-US nuclear deal, which India has also signed with France and Russia, allows India to separate civilian and military nuclear facilities, in exchange for sourcing Uranium from the market, and in turn allows IAEA inspections on ALL civilian nuclear facilities to ensure there is no “leakage” of fuel to military facilities. Hence, India does not have to submit its military facilities to international oversight but must submit its civilian programs to such oversight.

    In other words, India’s military program can only depend on locally mined Uranium. All of these claims of “proliferation” being an issue seem with India’s civilian program seem to based on ignorance of the details of that program.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

I am delighted to support the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s crucial mission of researching the potential of new nuclear technology and raising awareness amongst the public and civil society.

— Professor Jim al-Khalili OBE


Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need...
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive


  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation