Nuclear power's "technical issues"

[dsiemer]

The long term future of nuclear power here  in the USA will depend upon whether of not that industry's leadership &  advocates become willing to promote/accept genuine change - not just "growing the status quo".

It's now pretty clear that the folks leading the charge for a  US "nuclear renaissance", DOE's NE R&D managers,  haven't  done a very good job of convincing their new political masters that it can be done in  a way that is simultaneously affordable, safe, and sustainable.   The fundamental reason for this is they insist upon pushing on the same old strings (arguments & technologies ) which have consistently failed with their  previous masters. 

The reason for this institutional "conservatism" is that  the DOE Complex'  R&D managers consistently act in ways that discourages innovation  ---any questioning of the assumptions underlying current (and often past) paradigms is considered to be disloyalty  (& therefore not a good career move) .

Anyway, here's a link to a discussion going on at another nuclear blog*...

http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2520&p=34698#p34698

( my Nov30 posting)

...that expands upon this.  The paper that you can download there ("CWF......") identifies one of the "technical issues" (reprocessing radwaste management)  that's holding us back  & outlines a practical solution to one of the problems posed by the current IFR implementation scenario.

Please read the paper (don't forget the footnotes) & offer your comments/opinions. If you wish you can email me directly.

Thanks.

*I don't see any way to directly ATTACH that paper to this post.  Is there a way?

[HydroDave63]

The long term future of nuclear power here  in the USA will depend upon whether of not that industry's leadership &  advocates become willing to promote/accept genuine change - not just "growing the status quo".

It's now pretty clear that the folks leading the charge for a  US "nuclear renaissance", DOE's NE R&D managers,  haven't  done a very good job of convincing their new political masters that it can be done in  a way that is simultaneously affordable, safe, and sustainable.   The fundamental reason for this is they insist upon pushing on the same old strings (arguments & technologies ) which have consistently failed with their  previous masters. 

The reason for this institutional "conservatism" is that  the DOE Complex'  R&D managers consistently act in ways that discourages innovation  ---any questioning of the assumptions underlying current (and often past) paradigms is considered to be disloyalty  (& therefore not a good career move) .

Anyway, here's a link to a discussion going on at another nuclear blog*...

http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2520&p=34698#p34698

( my Nov30 posting)

...that expands upon this.  The paper that you can download there ("CWF......") identifies one of the "technical issues" (reprocessing radwaste management)  that's holding us back  & outlines a practical solution to one of the problems posed by the current IFR implementation scenario.

Please read the paper (don't forget the footnotes) & offer your comments/opinions. If you wish you can email me directly.

Thanks.

*I don't see any way to directly ATTACH that paper to this post.  Is there a way?

There will be no questioning!  Masters..... I'm betting on Skeletor For The Win !



On-topic: I doubt that a bunch of us here Nukeworkers in scrubs can successfully lobby for a switch to thorium fuel. How have your efforts gone with ANS and NEI ?

[dsiemer]

"....fuel. How have your efforts gone with ANS and NEI Huh?

They just stonewall me. 

[Roll Tide]

Their "technological fix" invoked a worldwide nuclear renaissance implemented with thousands of large breeder reactors. Breeders would be necessary because the light water reactors (LWRs) currently dominating the civilian reactor market are fueled with   235U , not "uranium."  Since 235U comprises only about 0.2% of the world's potential nuclear fuel supply and is both expensive and politically problematic , it is too costly to represent a truly sustainable fuel source for everyone.   

retired INL "Consulting Scientist" (chemist),

Having read your paper, and seeing that you are qualified to deal with the issues, let me let a little air out of your balloon:
We can't "give away" BLEU (Blended Enriched Uranium) because the current sources of mining / enrichment are too cheap to justify the expense / risk.

Just my $.02 on the response to the "problem" caused by low U-235 concentration.