Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Nuclear power's "technical issues"

Author Topic: Nuclear power's "technical issues"  (Read 4226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dsiemer

Nuclear power's "technical issues"
« on: Dec 01, 2010, 08:12 »
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?

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Nuclear power's "technical issues"
« Reply #1 on: Dec 01, 2010, 08:46 »
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 ????

Offline dsiemer

Re: Nuclear power's "technical issues"
« Reply #2 on: Dec 01, 2010, 11:46 »
"....fuel. How have your efforts gone with ANS and NEI Huh?

They just stonewall me. 

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: Nuclear power's "technical issues"
« Reply #3 on: Dec 02, 2010, 12:13 »
Quote
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.   

Quote
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?