3 ms·

So we'd essentially need a very tightly controlled fast breeder reactor or 20 that handle the world's less pleasant nuclear byproducts? It seems that if the bre

by ericd 14y ago

So we'd essentially need a very tightly controlled fast breeder reactor or 20 that handle the world's less pleasant nuclear byproducts? It seems that if the breeder reactor is cohabitated with the reprocessing facility, most of the danger would be nullified (I imagine that transport is the riskiest part). Or perhaps people simply don't want those things to exist in concentrated form, ever, to eliminate the risk of someone getting their hands on it.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
How many nuclear power plants of any sort has the US build in the last 4 decades? That's the reason why it's hard to get the concept of reprocessing nuclear fuel off the ground.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Agreed, I've always wondered how it would fair from a regulatory perspective if such a thing was positioned as a 'nuclear waste disposal system', probably not much better.
  - DanielBMarkham 14y ago
    What I'd like to know is how come so many informed people, from all political sides, understand and want nuclear power, yet still we seem unable to endorse it? This is simple math. Worried about energy? For the price of the stimulus you could give nuclear energy production a huge kick in the ass, make electricity cheaper for electric cars, and still get the stimulus you wanted. Politics. Meh.
    - ars 14y ago
      > yet still we seem unable to endorse it? It's mostly financial. It's more expensive than alternatives. So unless you have someone "pushing" it, no one will install any.
      - ericd 14y ago
        I think reprocessing specifically is illegal, which means there's a pretty huge volume of high-grade waste to dispose of by sealing it in future-proof (expensive/limited) containment. If we repealed that ban and educated people about the realistic relative benefits of nuclear, I think it'd be a lot easier to sell the idea of a scale-up. I'm not really sure how we could educate everyone on the subject, though, without it getting drowned in noise.
DennisP 14y ago
Argonne National Laboratory tested a cohabited breeder called the Integral Fast Reactor. The reprocessing would happen on-site, using a process similar to electrolysis which never separates plutonium from the other transuranics. The material would never be in a form usable for bombs, and making it bomb-ready would be more difficult than just enriching uranium. But the fast neutrons in the reactor would easily burn up those transuranics. What's more, they had very good passive safety. Fukushima had problems because it lost external power. Argonne shut off the power to their test reactor, and it just quietly shut down with no damage, simply due to the physics of the fuel and coolant. They had it just shy of production ready when Clinton shut it down in 1994. But GE-Hitachi has a design derived from it, called the PRISM. The NRC has approved it for a demonstration reactor, and they're currently trying to sell it to the U.K. to destroy their plutonium stockpile. Since the reactor can use U238, it's about a hundred times as efficient with uranium. Combining that with seawater extraction gives us fuel for a very long time: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/ A pretty good book on all this was just put online for free, here: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet.html http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet... There's also a new book by two lead researchers from the Argonne project, called Plentiful Energy, by Till and Chang. That one goes into quite a bit more technical detail. Another good online source is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/ http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear...
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  Steve Kirsch has a rather breathless but nonetheless informative summary here: http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm Personally, I incline to the view that until we have a viable fusion option, it's worth building some IFRs.
- ericd 14y ago
  Oh nice, thanks for all the info. Most of mine on the subject comes from the book form of this: http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ I was thinking that the bigger problem that would be bandied about about reprocessing would be with having the middle-lifetime contaminant isotopes concentrated in one place, for convenient pilfering and then manufacturing of a dirty bomb. Plutonium is obviously a worry as well, though. Would it make sense to build those in conjunction with every nuclear reactor? (Would one reactor create enough waste for that other reactor to be worth building vs. dealing with shipping to a central location)

by ericd 14y ago

InclinedPlane 14y ago

How many nuclear power plants of any sort has the US build in the last 4 decades? That's the reason why it's hard to get the concept of reprocessing nuclear fuel off the ground.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Agreed, I've always wondered how it would fair from a regulatory perspective if such a thing was positioned as a 'nuclear waste disposal system', probably not much better.
- DanielBMarkham 14y ago
  What I'd like to know is how come so many informed people, from all political sides, understand and want nuclear power, yet still we seem unable to endorse it? This is simple math. Worried about energy? For the price of the stimulus you could give nuclear energy production a huge kick in the ass, make electricity cheaper for electric cars, and still get the stimulus you wanted. Politics. Meh.
  - ars 14y ago
    > yet still we seem unable to endorse it? It's mostly financial. It's more expensive than alternatives. So unless you have someone "pushing" it, no one will install any.
    - ericd 14y ago
      I think reprocessing specifically is illegal, which means there's a pretty huge volume of high-grade waste to dispose of by sealing it in future-proof (expensive/limited) containment. If we repealed that ban and educated people about the realistic relative benefits of nuclear, I think it'd be a lot easier to sell the idea of a scale-up. I'm not really sure how we could educate everyone on the subject, though, without it getting drowned in noise.

DennisP 14y ago

Argonne National Laboratory tested a cohabited breeder called the Integral Fast Reactor. The reprocessing would happen on-site, using a process similar to electrolysis which never separates plutonium from the other transuranics. The material would never be in a form usable for bombs, and making it bomb-ready would be more difficult than just enriching uranium. But the fast neutrons in the reactor would easily burn up those transuranics. What's more, they had very good passive safety. Fukushima had problems because it lost external power. Argonne shut off the power to their test reactor, and it just quietly shut down with no damage, simply due to the physics of the fuel and coolant. They had it just shy of production ready when Clinton shut it down in 1994. But GE-Hitachi has a design derived from it, called the PRISM. The NRC has approved it for a demonstration reactor, and they're currently trying to sell it to the U.K. to destroy their plutonium stockpile. Since the reactor can use U238, it's about a hundred times as efficient with uranium. Combining that with seawater extraction gives us fuel for a very long time: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/ A pretty good book on all this was just put online for free, here: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet.html http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet... There's also a new book by two lead researchers from the Argonne project, called Plentiful Energy, by Till and Chang. That one goes into quite a bit more technical detail. Another good online source is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/ http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear...

ScottBurson 14y ago
Steve Kirsch has a rather breathless but nonetheless informative summary here: http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm Personally, I incline to the view that until we have a viable fusion option, it's worth building some IFRs.
ericd 14y ago
Oh nice, thanks for all the info. Most of mine on the subject comes from the book form of this: http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ I was thinking that the bigger problem that would be bandied about about reprocessing would be with having the middle-lifetime contaminant isotopes concentrated in one place, for convenient pilfering and then manufacturing of a dirty bomb. Plutonium is obviously a worry as well, though. Would it make sense to build those in conjunction with every nuclear reactor? (Would one reactor create enough waste for that other reactor to be worth building vs. dealing with shipping to a central location)