Post by David B. Benson on Sept 6, 2013 11:19:58 GMT 9.5
Russia's fast reactor program is devoted to meeting the Russian obligation under a treaty to destroy excess bomb plutonium. Russia is currently constructing a second fast reactor, about twice the size of the first and is in a planning phase for one which is almost twice the size of the second.
There is a lot of fissile material round the globe fissilematerials.org/ More can be had by enrichment to 20% or by reprocessing used fuel. Pyro-processing or a combination like Fluorex are also possible. We have barely kindled the nuclear energy. It is time to use this material to move on to Fast reactors. Asians (plus Russia and minus temporarily Japan) are already on the job. There is still variety in the choice of processing system and reactor design. Different countries can try out different designs and the best or the most convenient (like the PWR in thermal reactors) shall prevail.
Post by Roger Clifton on Sept 11, 2013 12:54:42 GMT 9.5
Jagdish, the people who wrote your link use a wilfully muddled concept of "fissile material", as comprising highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, mainly civilian. That would require that Pu240 is "fissile", but not U238.
IPFM is funded by the anti-proliferation "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation of Chicago".
If such good-hearted people moved their righteous zeal from prohibition to regulation, the carbon-to-nuclear revolution could get under way, at least in the USA.
You could take the facts and figures from nuclear detractors and ignore their opinion, as I do. If the holders of reprocessed plutonium, led by the UK and of various others of other surplus fissile, could use it for the best possible purpose, the production of power, the world's energy crunch could be eased. They could use it best in fast rectors to ensure maximum conversion, so that fissile acts as a catalyst and more is produced as it burns. It could also be used in existing reactors with thorium for somewhat lower conversion to fissile. dae.nic.in/writereaddata/.pdf_38 The best design, in my humble opinion, would be a fast molten salt reactor using the stocks of depleted uranium and recovered uranium from reprocessing.
None of the ideas floated here of complicated underground tunnels and using it to make all sorts of goodie attack the crux of the matter. Why do we need so much power? Simply taper the population off gradualy and reduce it to managable numbers and we will not need Nuke power .
Post by Roger Clifton on Oct 26, 2014 16:00:27 GMT 9.5
@sodslaw suggests that we can avoid the drastic step of installing nuclear energy with its solid wastes, if only they (not identified) would "simply taper the population off gradually and reduce it to manageable numbers "…
I think you have put in a nutshell what would be implied by any serious attempt to save the greenhouse by energy conservation. It takes only a little thought to realise that – such a solution would not be "simply" executed; any concept of "gradually" would not be fast enough; a "manageable" rate of emissions could only be zero, and the world's population may not be all that willing to "taper off". Well, not that fast, and not to zero. This would be way more drastic any nuclear-prohibitionists' fantasm.
Plus there is that uncomfortable problem of who is going to make it all happen. I know it ain't gunna be me, and I'm darned if it's gunna be you. Heck, if you sit down and think about it, maybe nuclear electricity is the less drastic solution.