Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
Brent, Fear of a nuclear accident, in the 80's Chernobyl, and in 2011, Fukushima. In Germany, the government shutdown uranium, and bought tons and tons, of cheap US bituminous and anthracite, to burn in their old, power plants. Merkel started last year, to re-light the atom plants once again, after pumping tons of pollutant in the air. I am not opposed to u235 plants or thorium 232-u233 plants, but the rest of the world seems to be. Your rationalism is far better then the feelings of joe six pack, but that is that. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 5, 2015 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/5/2015 2:05 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Really, it's an interesting piece of tech, but it just seems too clumsy and too costly. There are 442 nuclear power reactors in operation. France gets most of it's electrical power from nukes. If nuclear power plants had been discovered first, would anybody even consider building a coal fired plant? Brent -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
Agreed. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 5, 2015 9:37 pm Subject: RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:05 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia Really, it's an interesting piece of tech, but it just seems too clumsy and too costly. Please note that I love this kind of tech, if for no other reason in that the promise of fusion just keeps on receding into the future. We can talk of everything from tokamaks, to inertial confinement, to colliding beam fusion, to muon catalysis, and so forth. With fission, it's the same thing, with gas cooled reactors, betavoltaics, pwr's, bwr's, mini-reactor's, CANDU reactors. Here, also, the proper engineering, costs, and safety, as well as waste disposal just keep fading back into dreamland. I love this stuff, being a nerd, and all, but I can no longer listen to the blissful b.s. proffered by newsies, and academics, alike. What's holding back solar is one great flaw, storage. You cannot run a modern large city on solar during cold nights and cloudy days, so storage has to be demonstrated over solar cell efficiency. Barring the development of solar storage, there's natural gas (methane) and coal. Right now, despite solar enthusiast's claims, gas turbines are beating all other energy sources down. Some are sure that shale gas is just another economic bubble, and it may be, but there is the use of gas hydrates on the horizon, not economically, but in 20 + years, or longer, than yes. This is the future, unless we get some fixes in for fission, fusion, solar, geothermal, or anything else. The rapid spread of all electric vehicles and plugin hybrids is also a build out of a distributed electric energy storage network that will provide significant peak load capacity or the much easier to provision dribbles of energy (relative to peak load demand) that are needed in the middle of the night when the sun isn’t shining (but the wind generally is blowing). The problem is solving itself; it is not insurmountable; spinup reserves of nimble medium scale gas turbines could fill the rare gaps. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 5, 2015 4:39 pm Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/5/2015 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. But the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. So the proliferation resistance is exaggerated. Brent -- 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. -- 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
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: In general you can't assume that it takes one critical mass to make a bomb. You do unless you're very sophisticated, otherwise it will likely take you more than one critical mass to make a bomb, for example the critical mass of U235 is 114 pounds but the Hiroshima bomb had 141 pounds of it. If you can implode the fissile U235 or Plutonium metal and compress it to arbitrary density then you can make the critical mass arbitrarily small, but that takes great sophistication far beyond the reach of a terrorist. And even the most sophisticated bomb makers in the world on both sides of the iron curtain found that making U233 bombs to be so hard it just wasn't worth bothering with. the fissionable material is surrounded by other materials to act as neutron reflectors so the fissionable mass can be considerably smaller that the critical mass. That's the technology that went into the design of nuclear artillery shells. All nuclear bombs use neutron reflectors. What makes nuclear artillery shells unusual is that they used the gun method to achieve criticality and that was only tried twice, the Hiroshima bomb and one test of a nuclear artillery shell in the 1950s. The gun method is simple but is very inefficient and wasteful of super expensive U235. In the Hiroshima bomb only 1.5% of the 141 pounds of U235 actually split, 98.5% was harmlessly blasted away before it could fission because of pre-detonation, modern bombs use up nearly 100% of their U235 or Plutonium. Because of inefficiency the gun method can't achieve high enough temperatures to serve as the ignition for a H-bomb, and because of this pre-detonation problem the gun method won't work at all for Plutonium, much less for U233. All modern nuclear bombs use the implosion method. John K Clark -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On 4/5/2015 9:30 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. I question that figure. Even theoretically the best (or worst depending on how you look at it) a LFTR could do is make 9% more U233 than it burns up, but much more realistically it would be closer to 1%, you try to steal more than that and the reactor grinds to a halt. And the critical mass of U233 is 15 kg so even if that number was correct I don't see how you could make 7 or 8 bombs with just 60 Kg of U233 unless you compressed the metal to more than normal density, and that would take mega sophistication. I didn't do the calculation myself; it came from a friend who worked on nuclear weapons. In general you can't assume that it takes one critical mass to make a bomb. Critical mass is a nominal measure based on the smallest sphere that will go critical by itself. But in bombs the fissionable material is surrounded by other materials to act as neutron reflectors so the fissionable mass can be considerably smaller that the critical mass. That's the technology that went into the design of nuclear artillery shells. Brent -- 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.
RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:40 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/5/2015 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. But the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. So the proliferation resistance is exaggerated. I agree, and have mentioned this in previous threads on this. LFTRs are not proliferation proof, when the Proactinium is chemically removed out of the circulating molten salt fluid, before it becomes transmuted by an extra neutron absorption into the isotope that yields U-232 (it's highly radioactive decay product) Segregating out the Proactinium and letting it decay to the useful U-233 is also important for optimal reactor functioning and so is something that can be expected to occur in regular operating procedures. The issue of proliferation is one that needs a political solution -- ultimately -- technical prevention can only endure for as long as the technology remains out of reach. Increasing numbers of nations are obtaining the required technical, engineering levels of expertise needed. The nuclear cat is out of the bag. The way to reduce the risk of nuclear war is through political means; reducing (and channeling) the completion tensions between the increasing number of polities that have amassed the necessary industrial, technical and scientific knowhow in order to indigenously master these processes. Chris Brent -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. The intense gamma rays given off by U232 is one reason no nation has a U233 bomb in its stockpile but it's not the only reason. Even in its purest most uncontaminated form the free neutron density of U-233 due to spontaneous fissions is 3 times as high as in U235, and it would be far higher than that if it had any U232 contamination. And the higher the neutron density the greater the pre-detonation problem. So if you had enough U235 it would be relatively easy for a shade tree mechanic to cobble something together that would bring 2 sub critical pieces of U235 together fast enough to make a crude bomb, but that would be much too slow to prevent pre-detonation with U233, you'd need a method that was far more sophisticated than that to make a bomb from U233, and that's even assuming your U233 was absolutely pure and uncontaminated with 232. Even the professional bomb makers aren't very good at making U233 bombs, the USA, the USSR and India have all tried it and all found the results to be very disappointing. For example in 1955 the USA exploded a composite Plutonium U233 bomb but the blast was no bigger than if had just the plutonium in it, the U233 ended up doing virtually nothing. In 1998 India made a pure U233 bomb but it was a embarrassing dud with a blast of just 200 tons. Pre-detonation is a serious problem in U233 bombs even if you have the resources of a nation state at your disposal.. And unlike existing Uranium power reactors which constantly increases the amount of Plutonium on the planet a legal LFTR would burn up all of its U233. the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. That's possible but not probable, and certainly a standard LFTR operation would not have the equipment to do that. And although Protactinium is part of the most important chain that leads to U232 there are other pathways that don't involve Protactinium at all so you'd still have some U232 contamination giving off deadly gamma rays and releasing neutrons making pre-detonation more likely. Forget about terrorists, it's too difficult and expensive for even countries to make a U233 bomb; if you want to worry about something worry about the thousands of fully functional H-bombs floating around the world. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. I question that figure. Even theoretically the best (or worst depending on how you look at it) a LFTR could do is make 9% more U233 than it burns up, but much more realistically it would be closer to 1%, you try to steal more than that and the reactor grinds to a halt. And the critical mass of U233 is 15 kg so even if that number was correct I don't see how you could make 7 or 8 bombs with just 60 Kg of U233 unless you compressed the metal to more than normal density, and that would take mega sophistication. John K Clark i -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
Really, it's an interesting piece of tech, but it just seems too clumsy and too costly. Please note that I love this kind of tech, if for no other reason in that the promise of fusion just keeps on receding into the future. We can talk of everything from tokamaks, to inertial confinement, to colliding beam fusion, to muon catalysis, and so forth. With fission, it's the same thing, with gas cooled reactors, betavoltaics, pwr's, bwr's, mini-reactor's, CANDU reactors. Here, also, the proper engineering, costs, and safety, as well as waste disposal just keep fading back into dreamland. I love this stuff, being a nerd, and all, but I can no longer listen to the blissful b.s. proffered by newsies, and academics, alike. What's holding back solar is one great flaw, storage. You cannot run a modern large city on solar during cold nights and cloudy days, so storage has to be demonstrated over solar cell efficiency. Barring the development of solar storage, there's natural gas (methane) and coal. Right now, despite solar enthusiast's claims, gas turbines are beating all other energy sources down. Some are sure that shale gas is just another economic bubble, and it may be, but there is the use of gas hydrates on the horizon, not economically, but in 20 + years, or longer, than yes. This is the future, unless we get some fixes in for fission, fusion, solar, geothermal, or anything else. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 5, 2015 4:39 pm Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/5/2015 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. But the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. So the proliferation resistance is exaggerated. Brent -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On 4/5/2015 2:05 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Really, it's an interesting piece of tech, but it just seems too clumsy and too costly. There are 442 nuclear power reactors in operation. France gets most of it's electrical power from nukes. If nuclear power plants had been discovered first, would anybody even consider building a coal fired plant? Brent -- 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.
RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:05 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia Really, it's an interesting piece of tech, but it just seems too clumsy and too costly. Please note that I love this kind of tech, if for no other reason in that the promise of fusion just keeps on receding into the future. We can talk of everything from tokamaks, to inertial confinement, to colliding beam fusion, to muon catalysis, and so forth. With fission, it's the same thing, with gas cooled reactors, betavoltaics, pwr's, bwr's, mini-reactor's, CANDU reactors. Here, also, the proper engineering, costs, and safety, as well as waste disposal just keep fading back into dreamland. I love this stuff, being a nerd, and all, but I can no longer listen to the blissful b.s. proffered by newsies, and academics, alike. What's holding back solar is one great flaw, storage. You cannot run a modern large city on solar during cold nights and cloudy days, so storage has to be demonstrated over solar cell efficiency. Barring the development of solar storage, there's natural gas (methane) and coal. Right now, despite solar enthusiast's claims, gas turbines are beating all other energy sources down. Some are sure that shale gas is just another economic bubble, and it may be, but there is the use of gas hydrates on the horizon, not economically, but in 20 + years, or longer, than yes. This is the future, unless we get some fixes in for fission, fusion, solar, geothermal, or anything else. The rapid spread of all electric vehicles and plugin hybrids is also a build out of a distributed electric energy storage network that will provide significant peak load capacity or the much easier to provision dribbles of energy (relative to peak load demand) that are needed in the middle of the night when the sun isn’t shining (but the wind generally is blowing). The problem is solving itself; it is not insurmountable; spinup reserves of nimble medium scale gas turbines could fill the rare gaps. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 5, 2015 4:39 pm Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/5/2015 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. But the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. So the proliferation resistance is exaggerated. Brent -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 9:55 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Also, and this is a major point in its favor LFTR reactor types would be walk away safe. Because the U233 fuel plus fertile thorium is solution in the fluoride salt coolant a simple and effective failure plug could be designed in at the low point of the inner core circulating design. If the reactor ever started overheating the plug would be made of a material with a substantially lower melting point than the vessel. In other words it would fail first; guaranteed. And that's not the only inherent safety feature, because the fuel is a liquid, Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salt, if things get too hot the liquid expands and the fuel gets less dense and so the reaction slows down. The operators wouldn't have to do anything, it's just physics. A LFTR is walkaway safe. Yes, that as well. The liquid nature of the fuel/fertile/salt mix of LFTR is superior in this dimension as well vis vis systems that enclose the fuel in rod-shaped encasings and in which the coolant is separate. Being walk-away-safe is a critical advantage over other proposed fast breeder reactors that instead would depend on critical active safety features that if they should fail would lead to catastrophic failure modes. Also, unlike other proposed high temperature coolants (heat transfer fluids) such as sodium, the fluoride slats used in the LFTR design do not react with air or water (sodium is very reactive by comparison). Thus, in the advent of a catastrophic failure that leads to the LFTR circulating fluid becoming exposed to either air or perhaps water (running through a secondary heat exchange loop), the accident will not become compounded by the chemical reactivity of the heat exchange fluid itself. Another advantage of the LFTR design is that they have a broader neutron bandwidth (being able to utilize both fast neutrons as well as slower neutrons). I guess one could say LFTR has a higher neutron efficiency; being able to use them across a broader spectrum of energies. Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. Interesting. I was referring to the ability of the LFTR type breeders to utilize thermal neutrons. U-233 gives off more than two neutrons per absorption at thermal energies, which is more than enough to sustain the fission process, whereas the P-239 produced by plutonium breeders (from the U-238 fertile material) absorb a significant number of neutrons at thermal energy levels, in this manner starving the fission process. In order to keep plutonium breeders going it is necessary to go to fast neutron design which does away with the graphite moderators (used in the thermal neutron design to slow the neutrons down). Fast breeder reactors raise many more safety, economy, and nuclear proliferation challenges than do LFTR variants for this reason. Chris There is a excellent video about LFTR's, it's not short but it's packed with information and well worth your time: /www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4 John K Clark -- 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. -- 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.
RE: [SPAM]Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:59 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: [SPAM]Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/4/2015 7:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Whatever the breeder fuel cycle: LFTR or the (seems like the Russians are going in that direction) plutonium economy; inherent passive safety features are critical. If we learned anything from Fukushima, I would argue that one of the lessons must be that reactors need to be walk away safe, being designed with in-built passive safety designed failure modes. This also argues for smaller scale units than behemoths like the MarkII design. The very big units just generate too much heat all, in a remarkably small place… too much for passive safety to be practical. I think a better reactor scale would be around 200MW, big enough to matter, but small enough to be manageable in failure mode. Most proposed advanced reactors will operate at higher temperatures than the older designs. This both makes them more thermodynamically efficient and it allows them to be air cooled. The safety problem isn't from the high temperature in the design use, it's from the residual radioactive components that continue to decay after the reactor shuts down. There's been assertions about Fukushima's core melt down and escaping the reactor vessel based on muon imaging. But the corium didn't escape the concrete containment under the reactor. It is not so much the operating temperature itself but the continued production of massive amounts of thermal energy (from continued radioactive decay going on inside the core + the SFPs as well) even as the plant is being put into shutdown mode, which is one of the issues with the big PWR type reactors. Even after fission has been halted, it takes weeks for a big PWR to cool down, as the on-going decay produces large amounts of heat. In reference to the recent muon imaging: I don’t think they know that it did not already burn through the outer concrete containment, in fact the muon imaging suggests that it may have in fact already burnt all the way through and be located somewhere in the underlying earth/rock matrix beneath that particular unit. Meltdowns have occurred in units: #1, #2, and #3 – that is three core meltdowns in all. Chris Brent -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Also, and this is a major point in its favor LFTR reactor types would be walk away safe. Because the U233 fuel plus fertile thorium is solution in the fluoride salt coolant a simple and effective failure plug could be designed in at the low point of the inner core circulating design. If the reactor ever started overheating the plug would be made of a material with a substantially lower melting point than the vessel. In other words it would fail first; guaranteed. And that's not the only inherent safety feature, because the fuel is a liquid, Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salt, if things get too hot the liquid expands and the fuel gets less dense and so the reaction slows down. The operators wouldn't have to do anything, it's just physics. A LFTR is walkaway safe. Another advantage of the LFTR design is that they have a broader neutron bandwidth (being able to utilize both fast neutrons as well as slower neutrons). I guess one could say LFTR has a higher neutron efficiency; being able to use them across a broader spectrum of energies. Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. There is a excellent video about LFTR's, it's not short but it's packed with information and well worth your time: /www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4 John K Clark -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On 4/5/2015 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid. The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. But the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. So the proliferation resistance is exaggerated. Brent -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On 4/4/2015 7:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Whatever the breeder fuel cycle: LFTR or the (seems like the Russians are going in that direction) plutonium economy; inherent passive safety features are critical. If we learned anything from Fukushima, I would argue that one of the lessons must be that reactors need to be walk away safe, being designed with in-built passive safety designed failure modes. This also argues for smaller scale units than behemoths like the MarkII design. The very big units just generate too much heat all, in a remarkably small place… too much for passive safety to be practical. I think a better reactor scale would be around 200MW, big enough to matter, but small enough to be manageable in failure mode. Most proposed advanced reactors will operate at higher temperatures than the older designs. This both makes them more thermodynamically efficient and it allows them to be air cooled. The safety problem isn't from the high temperature in the design use, it's from the residual radioactive components that continue to decay after the reactor shuts down. There's been assertions about Fukushima's core melt down and escaping the reactor vessel based on muon imaging. But the corium didn't escape the concrete containment under the reactor. Brent -- 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.
RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:58 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia On 4/4/2015 5:58 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast breeder design is being carried ahead in Russia. It doesn't need high pressure which is good and, if there is a leak the molten lead would soon solidly and self seal which is also good, but the Russians have used this sort of design before in their submarines and that's not exactly a sterling recommendation in my book. And it makes Plutonium from U238 and that's not my favorite element, call me old fashioned but I think the world already has more than enough Plutonium in it. I like the Thorium fuel cycle much more than the Uranium fuel cycle. Also thorium is much more abundant. And it has been demonstrated at Oak Ridge as part of the Air Force's program to build a nuclear powered bomber. I don't think any new reactor technology is likely to get built unless some government gets involved to fund research and to tailor regulations to the new technology. Also, and this is a major point in its favor LFTR reactor types would be walk away safe. Because the U233 fuel plus fertile thorium is solution in the fluoride salt coolant a simple and effective failure plug could be designed in at the low point of the inner core circulating design. If the reactor ever started overheating the plug would be made of a material with a substantially lower melting point than the vessel. In other words it would fail first; guaranteed. In this manner the hot fuel/fertile/salt mix (plus various by products in the mix) would get channeled into a sub catchment chamber made of neutron absorbing materials and with a surface shape that would disperse the hot liquid core circulating fluid over a relatively wide flat area beneath the reactor, and without any intervention the reaction speed would very significantly slow down (free neutron starvation); the hot liquid (also radioactively very hot of course) fluid would cool down and solidify into what can be pictured as a kind of cupcake shaped containment. It would still be a big cleanup, but it would be a manageable one that would in many senses have elf-contained itself. Another advantage of the LFTR design is that they have a broader neutron bandwidth (being able to utilize both fast neutrons as well as slower neutrons). I guess one could say LFTR has a higher neutron efficiency; being able to use them across a broader spectrum of energies. Whatever the breeder fuel cycle: LFTR or the (seems like the Russians are going in that direction) plutonium economy; inherent passive safety features are critical. If we learned anything from Fukushima, I would argue that one of the lessons must be that reactors need to be walk away safe, being designed with in-built passive safety designed failure modes. This also argues for smaller scale units than behemoths like the MarkII design. The very big units just generate too much heat all, in a remarkably small place… too much for passive safety to be practical. I think a better reactor scale would be around 200MW, big enough to matter, but small enough to be manageable in failure mode. Chris Brent -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On 4/4/2015 5:58 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast breeder design is being carried ahead in Russia. It doesn't need high pressure which is good and, if there is a leak the molten lead would soon solidly and self seal which is also good, but the Russians have used this sort of design before in their submarines and that's not exactly a sterling recommendation in my book. And it makes Plutonium from U238 and that's not my favorite element, call me old fashioned but I think the world already has more than enough Plutonium in it. I like the Thorium fuel cycle much more than the Uranium fuel cycle. Also thorium is much more abundant. And it has been demonstrated at Oak Ridge as part of the Air Force's program to build a nuclear powered bomber. I don't think any new reactor technology is likely to get built unless some government gets involved to fund research and to tailor regulations to the new technology. Brent -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast breeder design is being carried ahead in Russia. It doesn't need high pressure which is good and, if there is a leak the molten lead would soon solidly and self seal which is also good, but the Russians have used this sort of design before in their submarines and that's not exactly a sterling recommendation in my book. And it makes Plutonium from U238 and that's not my favorite element, call me old fashioned but I think the world already has more than enough Plutonium in it. I like the Thorium fuel cycle much more than the Uranium fuel cycle. John K Clark -- 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.
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
I have literally monitored developments for years that would return some form of nuclear fission as a safe possibility to be the main power source for the human species. It always sounds interestingly, and innovative, but never takes off to become a reality. Thorium, Molten Salt, Micro, Betavoltaic, subcritical reactors which switch off when a laser or proton beam stop, all the wonderful ideas, and more. But these things never leave the laboratory. I will not argue why this is true, or that its a total shame that it never takes off. I think at this late date, fusion, a different process, will wait till the 22nd century, and for the next 85 years its going to be natural gas (argue about this later) or solar and wind. Electric cars power by solar and wind, factories, homes, and the rest of the slack taken up by natural gas. Tesla and Prius will eventually lead the way in transportation. Yes, this view is disappointing, but true. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 12:26 am Subject: RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast breeder design is being carried ahead in Russia. An experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor will be built at the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC). If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fast_moves_for_nuclear_development_in_Siberia_0410121.html -- 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. -- 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.
RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
I have been following the publicly available information on development of the various GenIV breeder variants. Am curious as to how much actual progress the Russians may have made in pursuing this one particular form – using molten lead as the heat transfer fluid (which is why they have such a high thermal efficiency at 43%). It may surprise some, but I am not opposed to the idea of nuclear power per se; though I do oppose systems that depend on active safety features in order to prevent a core meltdown… and I do have reasonable concerns about how waste products will be contained in sequestered facilities (or for some materials potentially getting re-processed getting burnt up in breeders) The natural gas uptick in availability is a short duration bubble, resulting from highly capital, water and energy intensive production techniques that is squeezing out small marginal pockets of available fossil energy from a containing oil/gas bearing shale rock formation. I would not count on this long term – already there is a massive capital flight from this sector (that preceded the recent collapse in the global spot prices). Solar PV will continue to grow: For example, GlobalData, a well-known sector forecasting company that publishes forecasts on a wide variety of industry sectors and trends, published figures that show a trend line indicating that PV module capacity will grow from the current base of 135.66 GW installed by 2013 to 413.98 GW in 2020, based on a number of factors, including volume trends, average price, and production share. In another forecast, by this same information company, they estimate that investment in the global wind energy sector will rise to above $100 billion, driving up installed wind capacity from the current global figure of 364.9 Gigawatts (GW) in 2014 to 650.8 GW by 2020. This yields, a cumulative installed capacity for solar PV + wind of over a Terawatt by 2020. This does not include figures for CSP (concentrated solar thermal power) either, which is significant in some areas (California, Nevada, Spain)… and may (or may not) grow. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 9:55 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia I have literally monitored developments for years that would return some form of nuclear fission as a safe possibility to be the main power source for the human species. It always sounds interestingly, and innovative, but never takes off to become a reality. Thorium, Molten Salt, Micro, Betavoltaic, subcritical reactors which switch off when a laser or proton beam stop, all the wonderful ideas, and more. But these things never leave the laboratory. I will not argue why this is true, or that its a total shame that it never takes off. I think at this late date, fusion, a different process, will wait till the 22nd century, and for the next 85 years its going to be natural gas (argue about this later) or solar and wind. Electric cars power by solar and wind, factories, homes, and the rest of the slack taken up by natural gas. Tesla and Prius will eventually lead the way in transportation. Yes, this view is disappointing, but true. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 12:26 am Subject: RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast breeder design is being carried ahead in Russia. An experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor will be built at the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC). If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fast_moves_for_nuclear_development_in_Siberia_0410121.html -- 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. -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
The question of reactor safety is an essential one if fission is to move forward. Just by what I have read, in places like Lawrence Berkeley Labs, MIT, Japanese labs, South Korea, etc, the fixes might work, but the cost-price of these fixes tends to kill interest by public and private utilities. I also had followed the Russian work with Lead moderated and lead-bismuth reactors. It may end up being a game changer. I have also pondered why not use atmospheric nitrogen as a moderator-coolant for fission reactors? There were the old Magnox reactors that the UK made in the late 50's and 1960's that occasionally made their presence known in a couple of ancient Dr. Who episodes (Pertwee or Baker) which used CO2 as a coolant moderator. Why not use environmentally, safer, and abundant atmospheric nitrogen instead? I think the toxicity of radio nitrogen lasts under one second, as a feature of physics. Costs, again, are likely the reason. Too costly to develop, I suppose, and low RO!. You could well be right about gas being a bubble (pun?). However, the tricks the petroleum engineers can do seem to be endless. One area of continued troubles for Green-minded is the possibility that in a decade or three, enhanced oil recovery becomes economic (unlikely today) and that methane gas hydrates (which are a phenomenally large resource) comes to the forefront, technically. This is why I am big on spending whatever it takes for storage for solar and wind, which as far as I can see is the only bottleneck in the way of solar and wind becoming the dominant fuel resource. If storage can be improved the forecasts you cited will be conservative in their estimate of progress. I would take natural gas from shale, enhanced recovery, or gas hydrates, only because it may be the only thing available for civilization. It's a very, pessimistic view, but then so is purchasing AAA insurance in case one's car breaks down on the highway. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 3:35 pm Subject: RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia I have been following the publicly available information on development of the various GenIV breeder variants. Am curious as to how much actual progress the Russians may have made in pursuing this one particular form – using molten lead as the heat transfer fluid (which is why they have such a high thermal efficiency at 43%). It may surprise some, but I am not opposed to the idea of nuclear power per se; though I do oppose systems that depend on active safety features in order to prevent a core meltdown… and I do have reasonable concerns about how waste products will be contained in sequestered facilities (or for some materials potentially getting re-processed getting burnt up in breeders) The natural gas uptick in availability is a short duration bubble, resulting from highly capital, water and energy intensive production techniques that is squeezing out small marginal pockets of available fossil energy from a containing oil/gas bearing shale rock formation. I would not count on this long term – already there is a massive capital flight from this sector (that preceded the recent collapse in the global spot prices). Solar PV will continue to grow: For example, GlobalData, a well-known sector forecasting company that publishes forecasts on a wide variety of industry sectors and trends, published figures that show a trend line indicating that PV module capacity will grow from the current base of 135.66 GW installed by 2013 to 413.98 GW in 2020, based on a number of factors, including volume trends, average price, and production share. In another forecast, by this same information company, they estimate that investment in the global wind energy sector will rise to above $100 billion, driving up installed wind capacity from the current global figure of 364.9 Gigawatts (GW) in 2014 to 650.8 GW by 2020. This yields, a cumulative installed capacity for solar PV + wind of over a Terawatt by 2020. This does not include figures for CSP (concentrated solar thermal power) either, which is significant in some areas (California, Nevada, Spain)… and may (or may not) grow. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 9:55 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia I have literally monitored developments for years that would return some form of nuclear fission as a safe possibility to be the main power source for the human species. It always sounds interestingly, and innovative, but never takes off to become a reality. Thorium, Molten Salt, Micro, Betavoltaic, subcritical reactors which switch off when a laser or proton beam stop, all the wonderful ideas
RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia
Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast breeder design is being carried ahead in Russia. An experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor will be built at the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC). If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fast_moves_for_nuclear_development_in_S iberia_0410121.html -- 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.
