The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Close the cycle: an alternative approach for used nuclear fuel > Comments

Close the cycle: an alternative approach for used nuclear fuel : Comments

By Ben Heard, published 1/2/2017

Even calling used nuclear fuel 'waste' is an appalling misnomer. It is more like an ore that requires processing and conditioning.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Has a paper based on your ideas been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal devoted to those ideas?
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 9:25:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@davidf yes, and I have requested the link is added to the article. Free download here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.164/abstract
Posted by Ben Heard, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 9:57:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any use of nuclear fuel will take at least 10 years to get under way. We do not have 10 years to stop mucking about. It' back to coal and the complete destruction of the rent-seeking RET crowd, or nothing.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 10:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree with most of this, I'm not sure we should rule in fast breeder reactors and slow breeder reactors out?

Given cheaper cleaner safer than coal thorium is preferred, consuming waste allows us to power industry for virtually free with a product other folk will pay us billions to store/use!

I prefer the SBR model packed into a space the size of a shipping container. enabling them to replace diesels in trains/shipping/large military industrial complexes?

Even there, there's a capacity to also use plutonium and other nuclear waste in walk away safe thorium molten salt reactors.

And we're not talking about fairy dust. But tried, tested and not found wanting, nuclear technology abandoned in the 70's due to the fact there's no weapons spin off!

Moreover, it's the most energy dense material in the world!

And the very reason, coupled to its widespread abundance, we should opt for it ASAP, without further time wasting prevarication!

I mean, it's child's play to recover and use as is, without any costly enrichment. FFS, it's less radioactive than a banana! [We have around 40% of the world's known reserves!]

Albeit, the waste products we would very safely use up in a FBR or a SBR aren't and adequate radioactive shielding would need to be included! As you would in any Xray department in any hospital and for very obvious reasons!

Meltdowns are virtually impossible in a molten salt reactor, given both the fissile medium and the transferring fertile material are designed to operate in a molten state!

Should there be a power failure for any reason, the only real danger is that the salt could once again crystallize inside the escape tanks designed for just such eventuality.

But never used in the five year long almost nonstop road test very safely concluded at Oak Ridge Tennessee! In that test bed thorium molten salt reactor. And there's been others! (See eminent scientist Kirk Sorensen on google tech talks!)

In conclusion, you'd be exposed to more rads during an international plane ride!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 1 February 2017 10:44:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Alan. B.

Note, our paper presents assessment of an alternate pathway, when I have made clear here and in testimony that we must be open to all the technological routes and the right answer is likely to be a blend, including the technology you speak of.

A liquid fueled burner reactor like the IMSR from Terrestrial, for example, may actually be a cheaper and faster pathway for destruction of existing plutonium and actinides if that is the priority.

The fast breeder reactor however does enable that ultimate efficiency of also using virtually all the u-238 as fuel too. That is a considerable plus.

Overall message I would make is that this paper is not intended to exclude other pathways. Actually, we are looking for more innovation and openness and using this as one assess-able example.

Thanks for leaving a comment, and please check out our site www.brightnewworld.org
Posted by Ben Heard, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 11:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, those who like you speak straight from the shoulder, should try doing it from a little higher up!

Moreover, it might help if you took the time to peruse the useful link Ben has provided!

And while "you" might struggle?

Google tech talks has a number of highly credentialed, highly regarded eminent scientists, one of who is apparently former straight shooter, special forces who'll educate and update you on the subject matter!

Always providing, you have an open mind, as opposed to a vested interest in planet and life destroying coal?

And while we're on that subject, we don't need to completely rule out coal and or NG, but can use the extracted methane in ceramic fuel cells to produce energy, with a World beating 80% energy coefficient!

Moreover, the exhaust product of said fuel cells is mostly pristine water vapor!

We should also be investing in new desalination technology, namely deionization dialysis, which produces 90% potable water for around 25% of current costs using current energy provision! Or 24 cents a kilowatt hour!

Imagine how much lower the cost of providing that (drought proofing) water could be if the energy cost factor could be reduced to just 2-3 cents per KH, with a still handsome profit margin left in!

Lastly, nuclear power makes it possible to extract Co2 directly from seawater, and even at sea, turn it into hydrocarbon based liquid fuel!

And using a catalytic assisted method, extract copious hydrogen from heat decomposed H2o, or convert currently flamed, in millions of tons of annual waste, methane into liquid, petrol replacing, methanol!

Try and remain calm and do a little helpful research.

Moreover, ensure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear!

Confucious say, man who always dive into empty pool without ever looking, risk broken neck, or very hurt head!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 1 February 2017 11:22:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy