3 ms·

I don't know much about the current nuclear reactors, but reading the wikipedia article about Integral fast reactors[0] paints them in a very positive light. Ma

by a_imho 10y ago

I don't know much about the current nuclear reactors, but reading the wikipedia article about Integral fast reactors[0] paints them in a very positive light. Maybe there are better designs already, but why don't we have more of these? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

f_allwein 10y ago
That' a completely different thing, as it is based on nuclear fission ('normal' nuclear power), whereas the technology metnioned here is nuclear fusion ('what happens in the sun'). According to the German Wikipedia, Integral fast reactors (or breeders) have specific risks, e.g. they use a large amount of plutonium: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegenma.C3.9Fnahmen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegen... This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean, safe, limitless energy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60-years-is-nuclear-fusion-finally-poised-to-deliver https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60... ). It has been researched for ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it would be a big thing.
- a_imho 10y ago
  Well, the article says hybrid fusion/fission but maybe it is still a big leap forward. Point is, according to my reading the IFR promised clean energy which is much safer than light water reactors in 1994 not X years into the future.
Beltiras 10y ago
Politics. Effing politics.
DennisP 10y ago
We don't have them because the Clinton administration cancelled the program shortly before completion, and because the NRC makes life extremely difficult for anything besides conventional light-water reactors.
- a_imho 10y ago
  it was ultimately canceled in 1994 by S.Amdt. 2127 to H.R. 4506, at greater cost than finishing it. I suppose the article is written from a pro IFR pov, but assuming lobby powers at play I'm sure it could have been worked around for everyone to benefit from a cleaner energy source.

by a_imho 10y ago

f_allwein 10y ago

That' a completely different thing, as it is based on nuclear fission ('normal' nuclear power), whereas the technology metnioned here is nuclear fusion ('what happens in the sun'). According to the German Wikipedia, Integral fast reactors (or breeders) have specific risks, e.g. they use a large amount of plutonium: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegenma.C3.9Fnahmen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegen... This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean, safe, limitless energy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60-years-is-nuclear-fusion-finally-poised-to-deliver https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60... ). It has been researched for ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it would be a big thing.

a_imho 10y ago
Well, the article says hybrid fusion/fission but maybe it is still a big leap forward. Point is, according to my reading the IFR promised clean energy which is much safer than light water reactors in 1994 not X years into the future.

Beltiras 10y ago

Politics. Effing politics.

DennisP 10y ago

We don't have them because the Clinton administration cancelled the program shortly before completion, and because the NRC makes life extremely difficult for anything besides conventional light-water reactors.

a_imho 10y ago
it was ultimately canceled in 1994 by S.Amdt. 2127 to H.R. 4506, at greater cost than finishing it. I suppose the article is written from a pro IFR pov, but assuming lobby powers at play I'm sure it could have been worked around for everyone to benefit from a cleaner energy source.