Re: Breeder reactor: And the winner is... metallic fuel
From: Eunometic (eunometic_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Anyone know something about this problem?"
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Dez Akin: "Re: Breeder reactor: And the winner is... metallic fuel"
- Next in thread: Tim Miller: "Re: Breeder reactor: And the winner is... metallic fuel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Nov 2004 16:00:48 -0800
dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:<dd43b4da.0411172157.764d443a@posting.google.com>...
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message news:<301e5rF2qnm07U4@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > > Dez Akin wrote:
> > >
> > >>usenet@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<pQM0f64mRjD0@nX400N2RqUabqr>...
> > >>
> > >>>Breeder reactor: And the winner is... metallic fuel
> > >>>
> > >>>Unlike oxide fuel, metallic fuel with its higher breeding
> > >>>ratio and shorter doubling time will be able to produce
> > >>>more plutonium to help commission many more nuclear power
> > >>>reactors.
> > >>
> > >>Which is wonderful for advancing a nuclear weapons program, less
> > >>wonderful for civiliant nuclear power. If you're gonna breed for
> > >>civilian power, use the molten salt reactor. Much less costly fuel
> > >>cycle, and much safer to operate.
> > >
> > >
> > > What the average spewing moron does not consider is the density of
> > > metallic or oxide fuels. U, Th, and Pu metal allotropes and oxides
> > > are incredibly dense, gm/cm^3. Fission products and derivatives are
> > > not especially dense. All solid fuel forms build pressure and swell
> > > as they are fissioned, plus alpha-emission to add helium implantation
> > > then bubbles (thermally hot, right? diffusion) at truly extraordinary
> > > pressures. You hardly get a few percent burn until the fuel element
> > > swells so much it cannot be safely removed from the reactor. You also
> > > get rupture of fuel channels and primary coolant contamination.
> > >
> > > High burn reactors require non-solid fuel elements.
> > >
> > > If you want to make some money, add uranium nitride fuel elements and
> > > recover N-14(n,p)C-14 during reprocessing. C-14 is worth some bucks.
> > > For graphite-moderated designs (Chernobyl), a few decades of running
> > > does boost the core C-13 content and that is marginally worth
> > > recovering.
> >
> > China is going for pebble bed reactors.
> > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
>
> And Iran is going for uranium enrichment. Non-sequiter.
>
> PBMR's have a place to be sure, but breeding and waste incineration
> isn't among them.
That is not quite correct. While the standard HTGR can not breed
greater than unit the GCFR (Gas cooled fast reactor) which is based on
similar technology can both breed and burn up waste. The problem with
these reactors in breeding is their low breeding ratio which limits
the rate of nuclear expansion.
http://www.nuclear.gov/nerac/antt14Jan_03.pdf
PBMR's are a German technolgy of the early 70s. Like so many good
ideas in the West they died in infancy strangelled as much by
economics as the wifull ignoranace of certain green groups. It will
be left to China and India.
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Anyone know something about this problem?"
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Dez Akin: "Re: Breeder reactor: And the winner is... metallic fuel"
- Next in thread: Tim Miller: "Re: Breeder reactor: And the winner is... metallic fuel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|