On 2 July 2014 04:17, John Clark <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
