Re: I'm hearing bad things about breeder reactors
From: Tim Miller (rabbitispoor_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 06/12/04
- Next message: charliew2: "Re: Post-petroleum World?"
- Previous message: Terry Austin: "Re: Post-petroleum World?"
- In reply to: Dez Akin: "Re: I'm hearing bad things about breeder reactors"
- Next in thread: Eunometic: "Re: I'm hearing bad things about breeder reactors"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Jun 2004 18:42:51 -0700
dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:<dd43b4da.0406110034.2d3f2a74@posting.google.com>...
> "Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<ChZxc.1133$sj4.1070@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "brianb" <bri1600bv@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:68a6629.0406090711.701863fd@posting.google.com...
> > > eunometic@yahoo.com.au (Eunometic) wrote in message
> news:<e935396a.0406081726.2b818661@posting.google.com>...
> > > > bri1600bv@hotmail.com (brianb) wrote in message
> news:<68a6629.0406080759.931460d@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > They're saying that they could never work out the kinks and that
> they
> > > > > are incredibly expensive etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are breeder reactors in general more expensive than non
> breeders, if
> > > > > they CAN work out the kinks?
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know what the current status of research and such
> is?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it only breeder reactors that can burn plutonium? Or is the
> idea
> > > > > that by turning U238 into plutonium in a breeder that this
> plutonium
> > > > > can be burned elsewhere? I guess I'm confused about the
> difference
> > > > > between "breeder reactor" and "reprocessing". Anyone know?
> Thanks in
> > > > > advance.
>
> Breeder reactors suck now because uranium is dirt cheap, we have
> working designs for light water reactors that are competitive, and
> designing new reactors carries significant capital risk. The
> opportunity cost is too high given the price of uranium.
>
> > > > All of the breeder programes were cut short of their full
> development
> > > > and test cycle as instigated. The IFR for instance was cut down
> by
> > > > Jimmy Carter of political reasons not technical or economic ones.
>
> Thats not to say technical or economic reasons didnt exist. If they
> did, the market would be running breeders.
>
> > The
> > > > Japanese even offered to continue funding the research. The IFR
> was
> > > > very proliferation resistent becuase the pyro-processing can't
> produce
> > > > pure plutonium and never left the reator building however the fear
> was
> > > > that such reactors would ultimetly spread the abillity of other
> > > > countries to produce bombs.
> > > >
> > > > Yes there concerns relating to corrosion reistence of materials
> but
> > > > saying that there are problems that need to be solved is not the
> same
> > > > as saying that those problems are difficult to solve. For
> instance
> > > > you can't test the corrosion resistence of various alloys and
> > > > materials unless you actualy have a program to test them by
> exposure
> > > > to real conditions.
> > > >
> > > > The IFR (integral Fuel Reactor) was fueled with a mixture of
> > enriched
>
> IFR is integral fast reactor. Its a fast neutron reactor and generally
> fast neutron reactors are an excuse to make Pu239. Whats integral
> about it is that the fuel is reprocessed on site, not in the reactor.
>
> > > > uranium. Over its life the U235 would be fissioned for energy
> while
> > > > the U238 would convert into Plutonium at a rate faster than U235
> was
> > > > used up. The fuel would occaisionaly be partialy removed and
> > > > 'pyro-processed' in the reactor building itself (eliminating a
> > > > security issue) and returned to the reactor. As a result the IFR
> only
> > > > needed one fueling in its entire life. During pyroprocessing the
> > > > 'actinides' were removed and returned to the reactor in a seperate
> > > > part where their decay would provide energy and where high flux
> > > > neutrons would destroy the actinides.
>
> Pyroprocessing isn't about that... its just replacing the aqueous
> reprocessing technique with the molten salt electrorefining. You still
> have security concerns; its not proliferation resistant, you have to
> pull the fuel out of the reactor. Every solid fuel reactor has this
> issue.
Onsite processing eliminates the possibility of diversion during
transport to a remote
facility. Unlike the PUREX process, the IFR process cannot seperate Pu
from the other
actinides. This melange is not very suitable for weapon making.
>
> > > > Becuase the actinieds were destroyed by 'transmutation' the IFR
> did
> > > > not produce long term waste. IE the volume and activity of waste
> is
> > > > drasticaly reduced.
>
> You can do the same thing with aqueous reprocessing... IFR is
> different in that the fuel rods are metallic instead of oxides, and
> molten salt electrorefining is theoretically cheaper. Of course you
> need at least an epithermal neutron spectrum to incinerate actinides,
> which LWR doesnt supply...
>
> > > > Becuase the IFR needed such little fuel and even produced more
> than it
> > > > used the japanese calculated that they could absorb all the
> uranium
> > > > they needed into special polymer membranse suspended in the sea.
> > > > While the Uranium would be expensice the price of electricity
> > would be
>
> Seawater uranium is totally orthoganal to breeder reactors, except
> that if getting U from seawater is inexpensive enough, it makes
> breeding uneconomical for some time.
>
> > > > hardly effected. They calculated that this would given mankind
> > > > millions of years of energy.
> > > >
> > > > The French reactor 'super phenix' had some problems with tube
> welds
> > > > and has only been opperated small amount of time. It was
> restarted
> > > > recently for some transmutation experiments. The IFR can never
> have
> > > > that problem becuase it has the fuel in tubes suspended in to
> molten
> > > > sodium pool rather than the other way around.
>
> Ah, yes... the other problem with the IFR facility... sodium cooling.
> Just what you want, a positive void coefficient with most entirely
> prompt neutrons. I'm afraid if you must have a liquid metal fast
> reactor, the lead-bismuth way is the way to go.
>
>
> > > Thanks for your reply. Did the IFR ever get to a point where it
> could
> > > be made for commercial use? I know they had a plant in Idaho, I
> read
> > > an interview with the guy in charge. I think Clinton finally put
> the
> > > nail in the coffin.
> >
> > I believe it got close. You need to build test plants and after that
> > pilot plants. There are a lot of practical things to learn. The
> > Molten Salt reactor also got close but it had corrosion problems. A
> > lot of the issues relate to the reactors breeding but not breeding
> > enough but overall the consensus is that these reactors are very
> > feasible.
>
> IFR was never 'close' to anything. It was a research testbed for a
> variety of technologies all shoved together into one package. In that
> sense it was very successful.
>
> The MSRE facility was far closer to being a commercial design. The
> corosion problems faced were mostly dealt with with hastelloy and the
> tritium migration issue was also dealt with. Really it won't get close
> for a long time because waste disposal isn't much more than a
> political issue, and uranium is so damn cheap.
>
The Russians have operated the BN-600 since the early 80's with
something
like 85% availablily. A BN-800 is proposed but has been held up by
lack of
funding. The BN-350 operated from 1972 until about 10 years ago in
Khazakstan.
It generated electricity and used waste heat for desalinasation.
> > There are VHTGR (Very Hight Temperature Gas Reactors) that are
> > breeders. One of the more intersting cycles is the molten lead
> > breeder. They can be built up to any size but if kept down to below
> > 200MW they can be be built as a self contained capsule that is sealed
> > at the factory. The complete unit is shipped and then runs for 20
> > year with no intervention completely on passive cooling. It is then
> > switched of for a while and shipped back to the factory for disposal.
> > the Russians have a lead bismuth one. A chap called Greenspan is
> > trying to build one in the USA. Then there are the thermal breeders
> > that don't need fast neutrons. There are neutron beam pumped
> > breeders.
> >
> > There is quite literaly dozens of viable ways of building breeders.
> > almost to many to choose from.
>
> The only one that is close to being economically competitive is a
> molten salt breeder. You need to have online reprocessing to make it
> competitive, and that means fluid fuel. The rest of them are
> interesting research testbeds, and have their niches, but the best way
> for doing breeding is the critical MSBR. Negitive void coefficient,
> mostly delayed neutrons, thermal expansion of the fuel lowers the
> reactivity, inexpensive online reprocessing removes the nastiest of
> the neutron poisons, high core temperatures that yield high
> thermodynamic efficiency, and economic analysis that indicate that its
> about as competitive with coal fired plants today, more competitive
> than LWR's.
>
> The fast neutron reactors have inertia because they were originally
> designed with one purpose in mind: breed Pu239. MSR's (and every
> thermal breeder) aren't good at that.
>
They were also designed to burn Pu239.
> The only reactor technology I like better than MSR's are the
> nonexistant fissioning plasma core reactor ideas... if we could find a
> way to make sure the plasma flourides don't eat away at the reactor
> core vessel. Maybe the fusion plasma physics guys should redirect
> their efforts for a while.
- Next message: charliew2: "Re: Post-petroleum World?"
- Previous message: Terry Austin: "Re: Post-petroleum World?"
- In reply to: Dez Akin: "Re: I'm hearing bad things about breeder reactors"
- Next in thread: Eunometic: "Re: I'm hearing bad things about breeder reactors"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
