4 ms·
> 2. It's a fast reactor so lots of high energy neutrons that will cause faster material degradation, higher maintenance cost, more downtime - the economics for
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
> 2. It's a fast reactor so lots of high energy neutrons that will cause faster material degradation, higher maintenance cost, more downtime - the economics for fast reactors have never worked (not even in Russia or China), and this is probably why fusion reactors will never be economical (32x greater neutronicity).
Commonwealth Fusion Systems's ARC has an interesting approach to handling this -- using a liquid blanket which can be circulated. Of course, ARC isn't built yet! But if that approach is workable, perhaps it can be applied more generally?
- gloriana 5y agoI believe it has to be replaced every 4 years of operation as intermediate level radioactive waste.
- irq 5y agoDoes it produce less waste than a fast reactor without the liquid blanket?
- petre 5y agoThe replaced blanket itself is waste, so I'd venture to say no?
- lambdatronics 5y agoCFS claims that it's manageable, although I don't know enough to evaluate that claim. It's also not clear from this quote if the once/twice per year is referring to full replacement of the vacuum vessel, or maybe just to inspection or replacement of a subset of components. "Bob Mumgaard, CEO of Commomwealth Fusion Systems, regards neutron flux as part of a fusion power plant’s wear-and-tear—a routine aspect of its servicing cycle, happening perhaps once or twice a year. “We can simplify the internal components, develop maintenance scenarios,” he says. “We have such a scheme substantially in place.”" https://nautil.us/issue/86/energy/the-road-less-traveled-to-fusion-energy https://nautil.us/issue/86/energy/the-road-less-traveled-to-...