Earlier, I wrote: "There is plenty of uranium, so even though we only
'burn' a small fraction of it with today's reactors." It should be noted
that some of the advanced reactors now on the drawing board will burn a
considerably larger fraction of the uranium, even though they are not
breeder reactors in the usual sense.
In other words, even if we do not develop breeder reactors in the next 100
years, we can still improve efficiency, extract more energy from the
uranium, and produce a smaller volume of spent fuel. All to the good.
Some of these reactors also achieve 40% thermal to electricity conversion,
as I mentioned yesterday.
Here is a recent summary of these developments, from the Uranium
Information Centre:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm
This describes advanced reactors that have actually been built recently and
are in operation, and it describes even more advanced designs now on the
drawing board.
QUOTE:
"Third-generation reactors have:
* a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital
cost and reduce construction time,
* a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less
vulnerable to operational upsets,
* higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years,
* reduced possibility of core melt accidents,
* minimal effect on the environment,
* higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste,
* burnable absorbers ("poisons") to extend fuel life."
Notice they say "reduced possibility of core melt accidents." That is a
prudent choice of words. I expect it was vetted by the legal staff to avoid
liability. They do not want to claim a meltdown is impossible, just
unlikely. Unfortunately for them, if a meltdown does occur, people will not
remember this nuanced, guarded statement. When the Titanic sank everyone
claimed the ship builders had called it "unsinkable." They never did. The
shipbuilders and technical journals called it "practically unthinkable,"
and they were right. It took an enormous stroke of bad luck to flood so
many compartments and sink the ship. But the distinction was lost on the
public. If two or three fission reactor cores meltdown catastrophically in
the next 20 years, the nuclear fission industry will also meltdown and
disappear. People who advocate fission energy, such as our friend Standing
Bear, should insist that safety be the Number One Priority, and they should
never make flippant statements or dismissive statements such as:
. . . we might as well build all the nuclear that we need and not worry
that our materials or fuel will be stolen or misappropriated . . .
That is the worst possible way to garner support from the public. It is PR
anti-matter.
Along the same lines, people like me who advocate cold fusion research
should strenuously avoid giving the impression that it is a sure thing --
just give us the money and we will make the breakthrough! -- or that we can
be sure already it will be perfectly safe. The public will only support
cold fusion when it is assured we are serious, we acknowledge that it may
not work despite our best efforts, and if it does work we intend to make
*very certain* it is safe, using extensive testing with radiation
detectors, long-term exposure to laboratory rats and other species,
extensive follow-up and recycling, and so on, and so forth. Many cold
fusion researchers have been flippant about this subject, and many have
unnecessarily expose themselves to possible danger. This is bad PR, and
personally stupid.
The public demands inordinately high levels of assurance and responsibility
from breakthrough technology. New technology is held to a higher standard
than existing technology. That is unfair, but it is a fact of life. For
example, some people are afraid of hybrid engines because they fear that in
an accident the battery pack may electrocute someone. (This is untrue.)
People are afraid of new things. They prefer the devil they know.
- Jed
