Posted by Mark Halper

Written by guest blogger Dr. Stephen Boyd

losalamosday LANL

Los Molten Salt? Los Alamos National Laboratories, the anchor of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, to   this day has plenty of nuclear expertise. Some researchers would like to see it add molten salt development.


Stephen Boyd PhD spent a week recently touring New Mexico, where he visited the famed Los Alamos laboratory and spoke at a space energy conference in nearby Albuquerque. He’s still buzzing with observations on unwise reactor designs, heroic scientists, flimsy U.S. energy policy, the enormous potential of molten salt and on how things aren’t always as they appear. He treated us to this trip report…

Appearances are quite often deceiving.  My recent participation in a leading space technologies conference in Albuquerque, and my subsequent meetings with fellow researchers at the nearby Los Alamos National Laboratories affirmed this observation over and over again.  Let me explain…

My colleagues and I have written a paper questioning the use of silicon carbide as a material in fluoride molten salt reactors (MSRs) and in other high temperature reactors.  Many space experts have a keen interest in MSRs, which could potentially power spacecraft and provide energy on “off-earth” places such as Mars and the Moon. I was thus pleased when our paper earned me an invitation to speak at the recent Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS) conference, which tackled the challenges of energy in space head on. The paper is up for peer review in the NETS conference publication.

A quick review for those of you new to the subject: It’s not just the space community that is interested in MSRs. Chemists, physicists and engineers in the U.S. and around the globe have a rekindled interest in them as a safe, efficient, environmentally friendly, CO2-free power source. This type of nuclear reactor, studied extensively (and nearly exclusively) in the U.S. from the 1950s-1970s, differs dramatically from conventional, solid-fuel nuclear reactors.  In a molten salt reactor the nuclear fuel is the salt; the salt is molten (due to the high heat) and used as the working fluid, so the fuel acts as its own coolant.  The fluid design provides safety and operational advantages of conventional solid fuel reactors.

China and India are conducting considerable research and development into liquid-fueled MSRs. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Energy is only timidly pursuing the concept. It has helped to fund a handful of projects at universities, and these projects are not exploring full-on molten-fueled reactors. Rather, they are examining molten salts as coolants, while keeping the fuel in a solid form.


Across the world, government and private initiatives are considering using silicon carbide (SiC) as a structural material for pipes that contain the molten, circulating salts.  Others are proposing it as cladding to coat specialized solid-fuel pellets commonly referred to as “pebbles” in proposed “pebble bed reactors” that would use solid pebble-shaped fuel cooled by molten salt.

Our contention is that SiC is a poor material. In our paper we cite experimental evidence collected over the decades that, we assert, demonstrate this point.  Normally, SiC is an excellent refractory material (a material that retains its structural strength even at high temperatures).

At issue here is the combination of high heat and aggressive molten fluorinating salts. SiC, and silicon-based compounds in general do not perform well at all even at room temperature with fluoride-based compounds. They tend to dissolve, much like salt in water.  At a macroscopic level, some reports have demonstrated no effect.  But remember – appearances are sometimes very deceiving. We assert and cite evidence that if you look at the microscopic level, you will see substantive dissolution of the SiC, reflected in both the disappearance of the SiC, as well as the appearance silicon-based residues in post-facto studies.

Anyone who heard me speak in Albuquerque will hopefully now understand the considerable risks of SiC in an MSR, and will hopefully care enough to act on what may, indeed, prove to be a major design flaw of an all-important reactor.

Certainly, there were plenty of impassioned people gathered at NETS  who could make a difference in pushing forward a clean and sustainable energy future with innovative MSRs playing a big role.


But to the casual onlooker, the fervent nature of these individuals might not have been obvious. These avid believers were, after all scientists. For any of you who have attended such a conference, the scene was typical: attendees milling about with staid tones and conversations.

There’s that deception again.  I had a chance to sit in on many of the talks, where one could not help but conclude: Scientists must be some of the most passionate people on the planet (myself included).  We investigate the fundamentals of matter and energy and we use the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and applications thereof to do so. We explored NETS’ bold theme of conceiving novel forms of energy production for extended human off-world occupation.


Mile high meeting of the minds. Greetings from Albuquerque, 5,312 feet above sea level, where scientists from across disciplines gathered with great verve to sort out the future of energy in space.

Talk after talk thrust robust skill sets to the fore: intense chemistry, nuclear physics, engineering and materials science that could deal with the extremes of space, lunar or Martian environments. We debated how to handle unfamiliar pressures, temperatures, and the prolonged absence of maintenance and how to deploy technologies with as few moving parts as possible and build clever nuclear batteries and propulsion.

My three-day stop at NETS at the end of February was just the first half of a trip that was populated all along the way by ardent big thinkers.

I remain grateful and honored to have been invited by an excellent staff scientist at the nearby Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) to give a talk and meet with scientists there.  This was truly a dream come true. I was humbled to be there at LANL, where I was standing on the shoulders of true giants: Feynman, Born, Dirac, Oppenheimer, Teller, Seaborg – to name just a few.

My host (a density-functional theorist by training) was the consummate docent.  He arranged meetings for me with a slew of world-class researchers in my fields of interest: materials science, nuclear power-plant design, metallurgy, crystallography, synthetic chemistry.

You see, several goals motivate me.  As an entrepreneur, I remain keen on building an energy company focused on making molten salt nuclear reactors a reality – be they terrestrial or off-world.  I would prefer using thorium as my fuel, However, I am fine with an “interim” fuel such as low-enriched uranium-235, which is available on the world market and well-known as far as its nuclear chemistry and physics profiles are concerned.


I have free-market concepts in mind, but as a researcher, some experiments with “hot” materials like uranium-235 are simply not feasible in my start-up laboratory – it costs millions of dollars for a combination of reasons including licensing and waste disposal. I was hopeful that LANL – a U.S. Department of Energy lab – might be able to play a role. They have world-class scientists who specialize in a range of materials and coatings that could be safely used within the brutal environment of a molten salt system. Unfortunately, in my discussions with representative from the LANL Technology Transfer Division, I was told that no federal funding at all is available.

I was frustrated, but I quickly realized that I wasn’t the only one.

On my trip to New Mexico, scientists’ consternation with the illusion of Washington’s energy commitment was palpable. On more than a few instances they voiced their frustration with funding limitations, inconsistent rhetoric and a lack of vision on the part of the U.S. Department of Energy and Congress.

Several scientists were stunned at the comparative advances many nations are making in molten-salt reactor research and development.  Canada, Russia, China, the Czech Republic, Australia and India are conclusively ahead of the U.S. and pull further ahead with every Congressional slash, every DoE diversion.

So, what have I gleaned by my interactions with LANL and NETS scientists?  Where are we, as a nation, as Americans, relative to the world? Scientists possess some of the greatest ideas, creativity and sheer gumption with respect to emerging technologies and cutting-edge innovation, as well as what they believe should be studied: sexy science and math problems which simply are not being funded, and for vague and nebulous reasons. Those seemingly staid individuals have the passion, really to save the planet.

Ironically, however, the politicians in Washington who are given to more flamboyance, and to loud “rescue the planet” proclamations, are not as interested. If they were, they would be paying more attention to possibilities of nuclear research and development such as molten salt reactors. That is the flip side of the deceiving appearance: just like those who seem uninspired are full of zeal, those in Washington who appear rhetorically impassioned are actually less interested.


I remain optimistic – bolstered by the enthusiasm of the world-class researchers who welcomed me, my ideas, and my chemistry. I remain cautiously confident that the right mix of American entrepreneurial spirit, investment capital, and collaboration with LANL and other government laboratories and maybe even international efforts will foment the momentum so desperately needed to bring humanity’s energy needs (both on this planet and off-world) into the 21st Century and beyond.  I am truly hoping that appearances really are deceiving, as many chemists and physicists view Washington with such abject disappointment.

I truly hope we are wrong about Washington and that the ostensible apathy and lack of direction are, in fact, false, and that the U.S. (with its 22 national laboratories leading the way), again demonstrates the practices that once placed us at the forefront of the world for cutting-edge research.

And, of course, I hope my optimism is not deceiving me.

Photos: Los Alamos National Laboratory from LANL. Albuquerque from

Dr. Stephen Boyd is CEO of Havelide Systems Inc. and CTO of Aufbau Laboratories, LLC, both energy IP companies in Blue Point, Long Island, New York. He is also a post-doctoral fellow in the Physics/Astronomy Department of Hunter College in New York City, focusing on chemical energy retrieval and storage. Dr. Body is developing technologies to advance molten salt reactors. He has a PhD in solid state chemistry/chemical physics and degrees in international finance and political science. You can reach him at or


  1. John Laurie says:

    Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the politicians for a moment. They’ve seen a lot of fission reactor concepts come and go, and a lot of money wasted. They’re not going to listen until we can prove that liquid fission is CHEAP. Where are all the economists?

  2. stephen B., Ph.D. says:

    Greetings, John –

    Please see the copious information that had been produced by the research done at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Also, please see the many, careful economic analyses done on the prospect of an MSR, which I am happy to provide you with. At less than $0.02c/kwh (in other words a lot of economic analysis has already been done), MSRs are quite superior to other forms of baseload power.

  3. Jaro says:

    Good article.

    I would only argue with this comment:
    “Several scientists were stunned at the comparative advances many nations are making in molten-salt reactor research and development. Canada, Russia, China, the Czech Republic, Australia and India are conclusively ahead of the U.S. and pull further ahead with every Congressional slash, every DoE diversion.”

    I am not aware of any labs running real hardware tests in Australia, Canada or India, related to molten-salt reactor research and development.
    I wouldn’t count setting up a web site, writing a study or two, or even applying for patents, as “advances in molten-salt reactor research and development.”
    Even Russia & China are at the baby steps stage, not much beyond the “paper reactors” point.
    Not sure why the author neglects to mention the French MSFR effort, based in Grenoble.

    The US does have some ongoing projects in fuel reprocessing involving halide salts – technology that is closely related to MSRs, and which includes some lab hardware, as in the Czech Republic.

    • Stephen Boyd says:

      Dear Jaro –

      I alert you to the following: Dr. Jan Uhlir is spending a considerable amount of CZ government money (and has been for the past three years). He is head of the PRI (Prague Research Institute); He’s up to (IIRC) about $9m. His efforts are being collaboratively supported by investors from Australia, to the best of my knowledge, as I have spoken with them directly. As of the large Conference in India just held in February, the country of India has 25(!!!) molten-salt loops in operation at premier universities around their country. The Germans have an excellent effort underway, partially occurring at KIT (Karlsruhe), with some outstanding fluorine chemists from CZ in an international (EU) collaborative push – I know, I met them and they are top-notch researchers.

      Upon publication, I am very happy to furnish you a copy of our peer-reviewed paper (to which I refer in my blog), which cites academic efforts around the globe regarding molten-salt research – yes, including the U.S; the Univ. of Wisconsin (Madison) has a 1m loop in intermittent operation.

      China not serious about molten salts? Please read the 1.26.11 announcement by Tsing-Hua News where the Chinese committed $5b to their molten salt research.

      I can continue, but the other significant events which have occurred are private, for-profit entities (Canada, Russia, UK).

      Dr. Uhlir purchased over 3000kg of 4.5 nines pure 7Li (of course) FLiBe from Oak Ridge National Labs, the transfer having occurred about last August. This MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) took about two years to craft, for which ORNL gets nothing intellectually.

      Personally, I don’t consider these and other events as insignificant.

  4. praos says:

    Is there a MSR lobby as there are coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, biomass (you name it) competitive lobbies, to make contributions to party funds? And there lies the problem.

  5. Stephen Boyd says:

    Greetings, Jaro –

    Unfortunately, no. That costs enormous amounts of money (yes, I have the explicit dollar figures needed) and grass-roots campaigns like this simply don’t have the requisite funding to be a player at the table.

    Existing industries have the financial infrastructure to do so. I cite the last two decades as an excellent example: only now are substantive changes being made to U.S. Native American societies and that was utterly unachievable, were it not for the $100m+ dollars spent by them to effect the legislative changes (through lobbying, etc.) needed.

  6. Canon Bryan says:

    Nice article, Stephen. I would like a copy of your peer-reviewed paper as well upon publication. I probably won’t understand a word of it, but I would love to read it all the same.

    As I have unabashedly said to many of my American colleagues, the mission to make MSR a reality within the USA’s defunct legislative and regulatory environment was, is and always will be a non-starter. It is a waste of time, money, energy and human spirit. Hop in your car, drive about 150 miles north, and you will be welcomed with open arms by your friendly neighbours to the north and the CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission).

    You are one of the most indefatigable scientists I have ever known, but jousting with the US government will hollow out your soul and scorch the earth right underneath your feet. Please take my advice and move to Canada as soon as you possibly can. That goes for all respectable and energetic scientists working on MSR development in the USA. Don’t waste another minute of your time.

    • Stephen Boyd says:

      Dear Canon –

      Thanks so much for the words of encouragement and real estate advice. The moment we get TE on firm capital footing, I will start packing my bags.

      I have yet another provocative piece of information I received on the topic of MSR funding. I again will need your ear when I sit down with JHK, David, et al. at the TEAC-5. My sincere regrets that you are unable to attend.

  7. Stephen Boyd says:

    Hi, Canon –

    I just sent the draft to your thorium1 email address. I look forward to your comments, as always!


    SAB, PhD

  8. Nick Chiara says:

    Great post. I’d love a link (or copy) of the Journal article when available. Looks like the bureaucratic challenges may outweigh the scientific ones.

  9. Stephen Boyd says:

    Hi, Nick –

    I can send it to you right now. Please just keep it confidential until it is published. Thanks for the interest! Please email me using your email address (my email addresses are above).


    SAB, PhD

  10. A. DeVolpi, PhD says:

    Impressed by your presentation the other day at TEAC5, as well as your peripatetic wanderings. I too would like to get a pre-publication copy of your forthcoming article.

    –Alex DeVolpi

    • Stephen Boyd says:

      Dear Dr. DeVolpi –

      I am honored by your compliment. I found your talk a real confidence builder, because I had the same ideas about generating the capital needed to move the business model forward. I will gladly send you a pre-press copy of our paper.

  11. Maxwell says:

    Excellent post! We are linking to this particularly great article on our site.
    Keep up the good writing.

    my page: essay writing services

  12. guy7887 says:

    MSRs never got off the ground due to the weapons program that was in place at the time of its conception. Its seems many people gloss over this fact. Energy was a byproduct of early nuclear technology.

    • Stephen Boyd says:

      Greetings, guy –

      You are 100% correct. This is, in my personal opinion, the reason why Admiral Rickover came “over the top” on the MSR program and ended up publicly humiliating Weinberg. After all, an MSR is pretty much useless for producing 239Pu, etc.

  13. Insaf Jaleel says:

    Hi Stephen,

    What about RA333 (High Chromium Nickel Based Alloy)? Can it be used in a Molten Salt Reactor?

    Thank you,
    Insaf Jaleel

Leave a Reply

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

I warmly welcome the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s evidence-based approach to the energy debate, and enthusiastically support its mission to raise awareness of next-generation nuclear energy amongst NGOs and the general public.

— Mark Lynas


NIA's SMR conference on Monday was an excellent discussion - but it is clear we now need action on new nuclear....
- Friday Mar 3 - 2:21pm

Our Director @STindale making the case for #nuclear as part of a diverse, clean energy mix.
- Friday Mar 3 - 1:39pm


  • Economics (90)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (13)
  • Proliferation (34)
  • Regulation (10)
  • Safety (65)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (52)
  • Waste (54)
  • © 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