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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
)… 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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
