On 2 July 2014 04:17, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Why has the nuclear sector stayed away from LFTR and favored the >>> current type of reactor design? >> >> >> >> > One word - bombs. >> > > That's one of the reasons but there are others. Companies like GE and > Westinghouse have no reason to be interested in a LFTR, they don't make > reactors anymore (few people do) they make their money by fabricating the > fuel rods that go into reactors made many decades ago; but a LFTR needs no > fuel fabrication, it's fuel is a liquid. Another reason is that people just > don't like change especially if it has anything to do with the > unmentionable nu**ear word, and a LFTR is radically different from existing > reactors; not only does it use a different element as fuel and its a liquid > not a solid but to design one chemists would be at least as important as > physicists and probably more so. >
OK, I will amend my answer in the light of new evidence, In the spirit of Ford Prefect's amendment to the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy's entry on Earth, I will amend it from "Bombs" to Mostly Bombs. No, actually, it looks like the correct answer is "Bombs plus laziness and inertia and short-sightedness and not wanting to rock the boat". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
