Hmm... LANL built the world's first experimental fast reactor (Clementine, 1946). Hard to say which was strictly the world's first "commercial" one (Dounreay? Super-Phenix?) but the big problem they've all had is that cost of operation >> price of electricity generated. Which is why after >60 years there's ~5 of them in the world. Five. (see wikipedia for details). In theory, they're the greatest thing since sliced bread (free fuel! How can that be bad?), but in practice... less so.
—R On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Carl Tollander <c...@plektyx.com> wrote: > More here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs-ifr There > appears to be some sentiment that Gate's TWR is not as good as the IFR > designs. I don't know enough to judge. > > Also, Monbiot has a new screed out on GE-Hitachi's proposal for an IFR: > "...last week GE Hitachi (GEH) told the British government that it could > build a fast reactor within five years to use up the waste plutonium at > Sellafield, and if it doesn’t work, the UK won’t have to pay." You can > raise your personal BP by reading about it here: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution > A somewhat more bloodless description of the project is here: > http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Prism_proposed_for_UK_plutonium_disposal-0112114.html > > Now, you may not believe that the design can work, but if it works as they > say, the "getting the uranium out of the ground" part would be marginal. > On the surface, it sounds better than MOX, I suppose, which is what the UK > says they'll do if they don't do this. And "if it doesn't work, the UK > won't have to pay" is not necessarily the same as "free", but it's in the > ballpark. > > As to safer, Gen IV reactors are indeed "safer", but only under current > definitions of "safe". Just about anything is safer than coal, so that's > not saying much. > > > On 12/7/11 9:27 PM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of > getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole > messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption > that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is > therefore free)—R > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote: > > >From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look > interesting: > > http://news.yahoo.com/gates-discussing-nuclear-reactor-china-124722465.html > They run on depleted uranium and apparently are safer. > > Ironically, nukes are apparently the greenest critters around too. > > -- Owen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
