Modular Nuclear Plants
mo at ccr.org
Fri Apr 2 19:43:10 CDT 2010
you want to use the Thorium fuel cycle.
it's remarkably well-behaved (as such things go)
and the reaction productions are *much* less problematic.
more importantly, the Thorium fuel cycle
can burn weapons-grade plutonium to use it up.
btw - everyone was lied to. the fuel cycle in use now
was advertised as being proliferation-resistant because
it didn't breed plutonium. of course it does, but the
assumption was that the military would handle all the
waste processing and would secretly siphon off the
plutonium for their own purposes.
even the casual observer will note that didn't turn
out quite like they expected.
On 4/2/10 2:18 PM, Frank Gentges wrote:
> One of the designs they are looking at now is a variant of the breeder
> reactor. The problem of course, is that it cooks uranium into plutonium.
> We have lots of fuel from the weapons program and don't need to cook
> plutonium. Not a good idea.
> Better is to use modern microprocessors distributed around the reactor.
> This can avoid the past experience with huge bundles of cables to a
> central computer. Each processor can have enough sensors to be able to
> shut the reactor down by the things it has control over.
> Several years ago, we looked at the i386 process at Intel. They had used
> a process that made the chip resistant to radiation. If this were true
> then and is true now, it could simplify the shielding and construction
> of such a reactor.
> Also, one design could be studied and tested to a high level as it would
> be reproduced over and over to spread the development costs.
> So much for my soapbox.
> On 3/17/2010 11:13 PM, andre kesteloot wrote:
>> Tacos mailing list
>> Tacos at amrad.org
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
"Of course it's hard!
If it was easy, we'd be buying it from somebody else!"
More information about the Tacos