Smaller Reactors

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
It's not on the same scale as reactors meant for space, but the electricity generation industry is starting to think smaller as well. I work for an energy company and recently heard someone pretty influential talk about the need to size things smaller in order to make nuclear more accessible. At present these things take so long to build, are so huge in capital costs, and carry such a big safety risk, that companies are really reluctant to build them. Even in an era when many states are forbidding new coal and gas plants (leaving nukes as the only proven and available option), you just don't see that many nukes being contemplated.

Here's hoping that an industry push toward smaller, more modular nuke plants helps the space industry as well.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
tampaDreamer":3hu9sbz4 said:
It's not on the same scale as reactors meant for space, but the electricity generation industry is starting to think smaller as well. I work for an energy company and recently heard someone pretty influential talk about the need to size things smaller in order to make nuclear more accessible. At present these things take so long to build, are so huge in capital costs, and carry such a big safety risk, that companies are really reluctant to build them. Even in an era when many states are forbidding new coal and gas plants (leaving nukes as the only proven and available option), you just don't see that many nukes being contemplated.

Here's hoping that an industry push toward smaller, more modular nuke plants helps the space industry as well.
Yep many companies are trying to come up with small cheap reactor designs that can just be burried or put in place and in 10 to 20 yrs when they run out just be replaced with another. I know of a japanese company that is going that way. Also there is thorium which doesnt require the huge plants and saftey checks of a nuke plant. Then theres pebble becd reactors etc.

The problem is for so many years the word Nuclear has been assosiated with bombs and chernoble 5 mile island.

And 5 mile island wasnt as bad as say many coal fired power plants. Coal releases more radiation than our current civilian or military reactors.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Already being done, it's called Hyperion:
Hyperion Power Generation Inc. is a privately held company formed to commercialize a small modular nuclear reactor designed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”) scientists leveraging forty years of technological advancement. The reactor, known as the Hyperion Power Module (“HPM”), designed to fill a previously unmet need for a transportable power source that is safe, clean, sustainable, and cost-efficient.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
It uses uranium nitride...
 
F

Floridian

Guest
Why would they build more plants when they get to enjoy extremely high energy prices. The same goes with the national government. More energy would be to the current regime's detriment. You don't want your surfs having an abundance of energy, that would allow cheaper prices and even more growth. You want to keep them hanging by a thread and desperate. You want them eating out of your hand - you - the almighty (rich and powerful) provider. Besides if we were properly using nuclear power there wouldn't be a "crisis" which they could manipulate to their advantage and give out billions in government pork to themselves and their buddies including those in the "clean energy" sector. To put it simply crisis lets them seize more and more power, which is exactly what they want, power consolidated in a rich and powerful elite.

Sadly extreme regulation and anti-nuclear propaganda makes it difficult for companies. Companies themselves are not evil but if empowered by the government they can be. I.E - bailing out unproductive or immoral companies. Giving bloated contracts to unsupervised inefficient defense contractors.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Floridian":5qgw0unx said:
Why would they build more plants when they get to enjoy extremely high energy prices. The same goes with the national government. More energy would be to the current regime's detriment. You don't want your surfs having an abundance of energy, that would allow cheaper prices and even more growth. You want to keep them hanging by a thread and desperate. You want them eating out of your hand - you - the almighty (rich and powerful) provider. Besides if we were properly using nuclear power there wouldn't be a "crisis" which they could manipulate to their advantage and give out billions in government pork to themselves and their buddies including those in the "clean energy" sector. To put it simply crisis lets them seize more and more power, which is exactly what they want, power consolidated in a rich and powerful elite.

Sadly extreme regulation and anti-nuclear propaganda makes it difficult for companies. Companies themselves are not evil but if empowered by the government they can be. I.E - bailing out unproductive or immoral companies. Giving bloated contracts to unsupervised inefficient defense contractors.
The real tragedy of the need for power (whether electrical or oil) is we do it to ourselves. It really doesn't matter how much we generate, we will demand more (and population increasing aggrevates it). Industry feeds the demand too, all the little gadgets we take for granted, from televisions, stereos, and cell phones to air conditioning - in fact let's take that as an example. 60 years ago, AC was a luxury, and state of the art for the lower to middle class was a "swamp cooler" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler )if even that . How many people over the majority of the US (especially in the South and West) could even conceive of doing without it now. In Texas, if your AC goes out, it's an emergency, because we have become acclimated to it. But do you think for a minute AC was invented in the Neolithic period? How about brown outs that shut the internet or cable down? How many people tolerate that well?

The power and oil companies are just the suppliers of our drug of choice as a society. The only way to reduce that is doing with less than we are accustomed to, or population reduction (ZPG was tried by China, where they can enforce such things - it hasn't worked too well). But imagine for a second if somehow the global population was rolled back to say 1960's levels. No power crunch despite the tech, no oil crises, and a lack of many other shortages as well. It's really something to think about.
Bottom line is, we are addicted to power usage, like it or not.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
A mass producible small reactor, hundreds, even thousands of feet underground, expand, mine, the facility as needed. The initial reactor would serve as seed for reprocessing, also done hundreds of feet underground, An initial bore, followed by a second, third or however many are needed, by the area being served.

Drill a conventional hole a thousand feet and use it as a guide for a Chunnel type auger, at depth shift heads to lateral and off you go. Fuel and water and pretty much everything else comes in too, as well as people, to expand the facilities. Everything but fuel comes out.

Easy expansion as needed. Sited along existing Interstate highways their right of ways would allow easy power access to customers. A main distribution Center directly over the main shaft and service to hundreds of miles with connection to nearest existing utilities.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Small reactors, let say from submarines, for 100-1000 people, with a little help by distributed generation, that would be like Internet for power ..

Thorium is kinda nice name, easy to remember too ..
 
R

rockett

Guest
EarthlingX":39kauz59 said:
Small reactors, let say from submarines, for 100-1000 people, with a little help by distributed generation, that would be like Internet for power ..

Thorium is kinda nice name, easy to remember too ..
OH NO! THORIUM! :lol:

Only problems I see with distributed nuke power is maintenance and cleanup. That would be a whole new industry by itself, and might even wind up being so expensive (to hire and train so many specialized workers) that the savings would be negligible.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
rockett":3sderio8 said:
OH NO! THORIUM! :lol[/quote]

Thorium would lessen proliferation of dangerous products and waste. Products could be used in second phase reactors to produce even more energy, or could be weaponized if uncontained. Thorium reactors could have been used all along but the Government insisted on fission reactors to assure weapons needs.

Either way do it hundreds of feet, or more underground and build increasingly faster reactors, feed by the initial units. All in one, sealable location.
 
D

docm

Guest
Hyperion Power Generation is on a runup to produce 25-27 MWe reactors for distributed or remote power generation. Self-regulating, tiny etc.

The Hyperion Power Module has received the 2010 Award of Excellence in Technology Transfer from the Federal Laboratory Consortium. History is that it was developed at LANL.

Nuclear Street...

The annual awards recognize successful efforts by federal laboratory employees to transfer government-developed technology to commercial industry. A panel of experts from industry, state and local government, academia, and the federal laboratory system judge the nominations.
>
Conceived at LANL, the Hyperion Power Module (HPM) was licensed exclusively to Hyperion Power Generation Inc. in 2008. The HPM, developed by Otis Peterson, Turner Trapp, and Patrick McClure, uses the energy of low-enriched uranium fuel and meets all the non-proliferation criteria of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
>
Each unit will produce 70 megawatts or 27 megawatts electric—enough to provide electricity for 20,000 average American-sized homes or the industrial equivalent. Approximately 1.5 meters (slightly less than 6 feet) wide by 2 meters tall (slightly over 6 feet), the units can be transported by ship, rail, or truck to produce power for five to seven years depending on usage.
>
Hitachi is also working on micro-reactor project.
 
R

rockett

Guest
docm":1thvqenh said:
Hyperion Power Generation is on a runup to produce 25-27 MWe reactors for distributed or remote power generation. Self-regulating, tiny etc.

The Hyperion Power Module has received the 2010 Award of Excellence in Technology Transfer from the Federal Laboratory Consortium. History is that it was developed at LANL.

Nuclear Street...

The annual awards recognize successful efforts by federal laboratory employees to transfer government-developed technology to commercial industry. A panel of experts from industry, state and local government, academia, and the federal laboratory system judge the nominations.
>
Conceived at LANL, the Hyperion Power Module (HPM) was licensed exclusively to Hyperion Power Generation Inc. in 2008. The HPM, developed by Otis Peterson, Turner Trapp, and Patrick McClure, uses the energy of low-enriched uranium fuel and meets all the non-proliferation criteria of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
>
Each unit will produce 70 megawatts or 27 megawatts electric—enough to provide electricity for 20,000 average American-sized homes or the industrial equivalent. Approximately 1.5 meters (slightly less than 6 feet) wide by 2 meters tall (slightly over 6 feet), the units can be transported by ship, rail, or truck to produce power for five to seven years depending on usage.
>
Hitachi is also working on micro-reactor project.
Thanks for the update on Hyperion, good info! I mentioned it earlier but for some reason everybody is throwing out more radical solutions (like submarine reactors :D ) and ignoring the obvious...
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
http://www.physorg.com : How a smart, decentralized Energy Web is essential for managing renewable energy sources
July 6, 2010

By Lisa Zyga


The Energy Web is a power distribution system designed for managing a large-scale, widely distributed network of renewable energy sources. The figure shows the interaction of the different parts of the Energy Web, which includes incentives for "prosumers" (producers and consumers of energy) and allows autonomous self-organization of agents due to evolutionary processes. Image credit: Carreras, et al. ©2010 IEEE.

(PhysOrg.com) -- A decade ago, Gnutella, Kazaa and other early peer-to-peer (P2P) systems showed that a decentralized approach to managing large-scale, widely distributed systems could offer many essential advantages compared to the traditional centralized approach. Since then, researchers have taken the decentralized design method far beyond music sharing, applying it to areas as diverse as database distribution and analysis of biological systems.

In a new study, a team of researchers from the Italian research center CREATE-NET has outlined the ways in which decentralized, bottom-up design approaches could play a critical role in managing the complex, massive-scale networks that are becoming more and more widespread. Systems such as the Internet and ubiquitous computing (in which computing extends beyond the desktop computer to become integrated into everyday objects) are two examples of these kinds of large-scale, dynamic systems that operate in open environments with many autonomous users and are constantly evolving.

In their study, the Italian team has discussed the essential features that a decentralized design approach needs in order to support these large-scale networks and provide the necessary degrees of reliability and dependability. As a case in point, they showed how these concepts could be applied to the management of the future generation of Smart Grids, characterized by the inclusion of a large number of distributed and/or renewable energy sources. They call the resulting system the Energy Web, which, as coauthor Daniele Miorandi explains, depicts a future in which bidirectional flows of energy will resemble the way information and data is nowadays exchanged on the Web.
More information: Iacopo Carreras, Daniele Miorandi, Regis Saint-Paul, and Imrich Chlamtac. “Bottom-Up Design Patterns and the Energy Web.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans. DOI:10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2048025
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
I wouldn't really want distributed nuclear reactors, because with fission, a meltdown is always a possibility, however remote, and keeping them centralized and isolated makes them safer.

What we do need to distribute is safe energy such as wind and solar. Every home should have solar on the roof. Your electric car could be charged overnight with power you stored during the day. Hawaii already requires every home to have solar water heating, I don't know why they didn't require new homes to have solar power.

The main reason we need small nuclear reactors is so they will fit on a small commercial rocket.

But like I said, the ultimate evolution would be a reactor that is made in space in the first place.

--Brian
 
V

Valcan

Guest
neutrino78x":2mq834at said:
I wouldn't really want distributed nuclear reactors, because with fission, a meltdown is always a possibility, however remote, and keeping them centralized and isolated makes them safer.


--Brian
The problem with that idea neutrino is well ok its not just one problem it never is.
First off to put the solar panels on the roof means you need to have the house checked out to see if the roof is strong enough to bear the extra weight of the solar pannels and there supports

Then there is the cost of the solar panels basicaly your saying every home now needs to have extra wiring extra supports extra places to store the energy. This all makes new homes more expensive in a down housing slump. This also begs the question do we make it a law? not gonna happen.
I do support the idea of people using solar and wind when and where they can afford it and where it would be wise.
And as for the melt down worries it all depends. Think about it this way if a meltdown accours what happens? It gets capped and remove for one of the hyperions atleast. For a pebblbed reactor its impossible i believe.
And anyways a you'll find more radiation coming from a coal plant than a nuke plant add to that the "big deal" after 5 mile island was contaminated milk. Heck you get as much radiation from a bananna as from that milk.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Valcan":57g30n90 said:
neutrino78x":57g30n90 said:
I wouldn't really want distributed nuclear reactors, because with fission, a meltdown is always a possibility, however remote, and keeping them centralized and isolated makes them safer.


--Brian
The problem with that idea neutrino is well ok its not just one problem it never is.
First off to put the solar panels on the roof means you need to have the house checked out to see if the roof is strong enough to bear the extra weight of the solar pannels and there supports

Then there is the cost of the solar panels basicaly your saying every home now needs to have extra wiring extra supports extra places to store the energy. This all makes new homes more expensive in a down housing slump. This also begs the question do we make it a law? not gonna happen.
I do support the idea of people using solar and wind when and where they can afford it and where it would be wise.
And as for the melt down worries it all depends. Think about it this way if a meltdown accours what happens? It gets capped and remove for one of the hyperions atleast. For a pebblbed reactor its impossible i believe.
And anyways a you'll find more radiation coming from a coal plant than a nuke plant add to that the "big deal" after 5 mile island was contaminated milk. Heck you get as much radiation from a bananna as from that milk.
--bravo--
Absolutely right Valcan..
 
Z

ZiraldoAerospace

Guest
I really believe that pebble bed reactors are the way to go, as I believe that it cannot melt down (or maybe it is just really really hard too). Either way, they are very safe and research into them will yield benefits for the space community, as well as other areas. Transport and storage would be more simple too since the fuel is encased already.
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
Valcan":1vmecbjm said:
First off to put the solar panels on the roof means you need to have the house checked out to see if the roof is strong enough to bear the extra weight of the solar pannels and there supports
When was the last time you heard of a roof in a modern home that wouldn't support solar panels? They aren't that heavy and they get lighter every year. Nanosolar ones are printed on thin metal strips. Very, very light.

Then there is the cost of the solar panels basicaly your saying every home now needs to have extra wiring extra supports extra places to store the energy. This all makes new homes more expensive in a down housing slump. This also begs the question do we make it a law? not gonna happen.
It could easily happen in California. We were one of the first, if not the first, state to ban incandescent light bulbs (over time). I would vote for such a law.

I think the law should be that all new houses have to have some form of clean energy installed, be it wind, solar, whichever, sufficient to entirely power the home, given that the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing, and this should be phased in over time.

Also, all states should allow net metering, the practice of selling excess energy from the solar panel on your roof back to the grid.

And as for the melt down worries it all depends. Think about it this way if a meltdown accours what happens?
Potentially, there's a large release of radiation, and if the reactor is near a highly populated area, people could die. That's what happens.

It gets capped and remove for one of the hyperions atleast.
Oh yeah, they are really going to replace Chernobyl with another reactor. btw the hyperion reactor is not fully portable. Only the vessel is portable. You have to run water lines into and out of it, to cool it. There would be non-buried infrastructure you have to build.

And anyways a you'll find more radiation coming from a coal plant than a nuke plant add to that the "big deal" after 5 mile island was contaminated milk. Heck you get as much radiation from a bananna as from that milk.
I am a nuclear submarine veteran. If I were a Greenpeace type, I picked the wrong job at that time. :roll: And yes, after you volunteer for the Navy, you have to volunteer for submarines separately; the Navy can't assign you to one against your will. Nuclear power, when done correctly, is fine, but there are real dangers and they really have to be mitigated. It isn't a joke.

It is still debatable, of course, but in my opinion, hundreds of nuclear reactors around the country is a terrible idea. We should use them, to help power industry (residential users don't need them in most places), but that doesn't mean they should be near highly populated areas. Do it safely and sanely.

Solar, on the other hand, is perfectly safe. A modern 5 bedroom home can easily be powered by PV panels on the roof given adequate sunshine. No meltdown, no radiation, no danger.

--Brian
 
S

scottb50

Guest
neutrino78x":1l0ocr33 said:
It is still debatable, of course, but in my opinion, hundreds of nuclear reactors around the country is a terrible idea. We should use them, to help power industry (residential users don't need them in most places), but that doesn't mean they should be near highly populated areas. Do it safely and sanely. Brian
It would be a terrible idea if it was built on the surface. Built hundreds of feet underground and expanded as time goes by it could be pretty reasonable. One thing I heard recently was we could build ten Nuclear plants a year and would still not have the capability to meet projected needs in 50 years. Every year we do nothing, except add to population, more users, that number falls, in five years it could be 40 years. We may already be so far behind the ball we are looking at societal collapse.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
Yes i know the sub service is all volunteer. Btw i hope it was awesome did you serve on a boomer or a attack sub?

But you didnt say how we were supposed to pay for it and dont say taxes. ATM increaseing taxes (or as Obama plans to do just letting the bush tax cuts pass out) will affect negatively job growth and the economy in general.

And giveing California as a example when there how many billion or so in debt now?

The point is if done right you dont have to worry a whole lot about meltdowns and such.

Thorium isnt gonna be going chyrnoble on us or is a pebblbed reator. BTW the reason the reactor, to those of you who dont know, spiked at chernoble was because some dumb-bass disabled all the locks to run a experiment.

The point is making a change like your talking about would cost hundreds of billions of dollars NO ONE HAS. That is just in infestructure thats not including all the money nessesary to pay the beurocrats and lawsuits such a move would create.
As i said im all for getting off foreign an eventually domestic oil for industrial and commerical and residental energy the problem is in the details.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Reason for distributed production is heterogeneous network, which allows new routes to be established when one segment falls down, similar to IP routing.

I doubt there will be soon nuclear reactors appropriate for family house use, unless your are Bill Gates, but small communities might feel better, if they had close by their own independent energy source. Same goes for production facilities, university campuses, hospitals, commercial centres, hotels, etc. That assumes a bit more informed public and safer reactors.

When a big provider goes down, there would be a lot of dark, but not complete, as it happens now - there would be light patches, which could reconnect and organize into the grid, or at least locally provide energy for communications or other basics like medical equipment. No need for street lightning in such cases.

Smaller reactors would also allow finer scaling to energy needs and relatively fast response when needs grow. I doubt they would bring a lot of overhead, because of automation and telepresence.

This is a bit related to distributed energy generation :

www.technologyreview.com : Europe's Renewables Unfazed by Recession
Monday, July 12, 2010

By Peter Fairley

The financial crisis in Europe is unlikely to derail Brussels' clean power vision.


Big wind: An installation ship jacked-up over the water’s surface constructs three-megawatt wind turbines off the coast of the United Kingdom. The 100-turbine wind farm was completed in June.
Credit: Vattenfall
European renewable energy installations hit record levels last year and are likely to grow strongly over the next decade, despite European governments' budget woes. That's the view of a report released last week by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre in Brussels. The report suggests that the growth won't be slowed by the German parliament's approval on Friday of a reduction in price supports for solar power, or by a similar reduction in solar incentives by Spain last year.
The European Commission review estimates that European utilities and developers installed 10.2 gigawatts of new wind farms and 5.8 gigawatts of photovoltaic panels and solar thermal power in 2009, with such renewable power installations accounting for 62 percent of all new electricity generation capacity. And plans submitted to Brussels last month by European Union member states affirm their intention to install plenty more to meet targets set last year under the E.U.'s Renewable Energy Directive, which would boost Europe's use of renewables from 8.5 percent of total energy consumption to 20 percent by 2020.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
EarthlingX said:
Reason for distributed production is heterogeneous network, which allows new routes to be established when one segment falls down, similar to IP routing.
.

This is a bit related to distributed energy generation :

http://www.technologyreview.com : Europe's Renewables Unfazed by Recession
Monday, July 12, 2010

Wouldnt they have to build turbines litteraly around the entire british isles to get the amount of power they want?
Wind energy to me seems to be the worst one of the lot. Unrelable, and there are a ton of secondary effects that we know of that hurt animals and the enviroment. As well as being ugly as sin. Nuclear-thorium, Hydro, Solar (This includes both solar panels and thermals solar power), then wind if you cant find anything better.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Valcan":1o0lq3zz said:
EarthlingX":1o0lq3zz said:
Reason for distributed production is heterogeneous network, which allows new routes to be established when one segment falls down, similar to IP routing.
.

This is a bit related to distributed energy generation :

http://www.technologyreview.com : Europe's Renewables Unfazed by Recession
Wouldnt they have to build turbines litteraly around the entire british isles to get the amount of power they want?
Wind energy to me seems to be the worst one of the lot. Unrelable, and there are a ton of secondary effects that we know of that hurt animals and the enviroment. As well as being ugly as sin. Nuclear-thorium, Hydro, Solar (This includes both solar panels and thermals solar power), then wind if you cant find anything better.
No. Much less would be enough, and wind is only one of the energy sources. If wind farms are dispersed over big enough territory, then wind is always blowing on a part of it, and energy storage has also come a long way, with more improvements around the corner.
I would also prefer a wind farm to a coal plant next door any day. Protecting wildlife can be done in a manner similar to airport protection, but robotics and unmanned vehicles can also play a role.

Thorium reactor is another matter, but if i understand correctly, it's not here yet, and is still rather scary for most of the people, because it's nuclear. Reactor is also possible to adapt with neutron capture to produce uranium and plutonium, which might cause a security and political problems, at least on the ground. This might explain reluctance with acceptance.

All alternatives have issues, but in general get every year less damaging.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
EarthlingX said:
Thorium reactor is another matter, but if i understand correctly, it's not here yet, and is still rather scary for most of the people, because it's nuclear. Reactor is also possible to adapt with neutron capture to produce uranium and plutonium, which might cause a security and political problems, at least on the ground. This might explain reluctance with acceptance.
Thorium fuels have been demonstrated in several different reactor types, including light water reactors, heavy water reactors, high temperature gas reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactors, and molten salt reactors.

List of thorium-fueled reactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
 
V

Valcan

Guest
EarthlingX":nqrnirvv said:
Valcan":nqrnirvv said:
EarthlingX":nqrnirvv said:
Reason for distributed production is heterogeneous network, which allows new routes to be established when one segment falls down, similar to IP routing.
.

This is a bit related to distributed energy generation :

http://www.technologyreview.com : Europe's Renewables Unfazed by Recession
Wouldnt they have to build turbines litteraly around the entire british isles to get the amount of power they want?
Wind energy to me seems to be the worst one of the lot. Unrelable, and there are a ton of secondary effects that we know of that hurt animals and the enviroment. As well as being ugly as sin. Nuclear-thorium, Hydro, Solar (This includes both solar panels and thermals solar power), then wind if you cant find anything better.
No. Much less would be enough, and wind is only one of the energy sources. If wind farms are dispersed over big enough territory, then wind is always blowing on a part of it, and energy storage has also come a long way, with more improvements around the corner.
I would also prefer a wind farm to a coal plant next door any day. Protecting wildlife can be done in a manner similar to airport protection, but robotics and unmanned vehicles can also play a role.

Thorium reactor is another matter, but if i understand correctly, it's not here yet, and is still rather scary for most of the people, because it's nuclear. Reactor is also possible to adapt with neutron capture to produce uranium and plutonium, which might cause a security and political problems, at least on the ground. This might explain reluctance with acceptance.

All alternatives have issues, but in general get every year less damaging.
Accually the thorium reactor was around as long as the late 50's to 60s i believe. however they decided to go with nuclear reactors sense we were at war with communist russia and its buddies. Nuke reactors could produce weapons grade plutonium you see. So we invested in Nukes instead.
 
D

docm

Guest
1960's at Oak Ridge using a molten salt design. Cut for lack of funds ~1975-1976 IRRC. Thorium cycle makes a lot of sense because a) there is more of it than Uranium, b) the proliferation issue is vastly reduced, c) there are fewer long-lived transuranic isotopes produced and d) it has superior properties as a fuel. There are downsides, but it being more common and the < proliferation & transuranic properties are pretty big advantages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts