NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => General => Topic started by: dsiemer on Nov 10, 2009, 10:34
-
I stumbled onto this forumn by GOOGLING ft st Vrain.
In your description of that reactor it's stated that the Thorium was converted to 235U - not true it was converted to an even better fissile material, 233U.
-
And? It's no longer an operating plant. So what's the diff?
-
Wow, what an answer!
Physical facts (i.e., breeding thorium produces 233U, not 235U) do count - even in something as highly politicized as the nuclear power business.
If nuclear power ever does have a renaissance in this county it'll be because somebody important screws up enough courage to challenge the "industry's" business model; i.e., that nuclear power must be implemented with LWRs fueled with LEU.
-
"Physical facts (i.e., breeding thorium produces 233U, not 235U) do count "
Then take the time to post this in the correct Forum thread...
-
Man, I need to get that nuke wiki up and running...
-
I stumbled onto this forumn by GOOGLING ft st Vrain.
In your description of that reactor it's stated that the Thorium was converted to 235U - not true it was converted to an even better fissile material, 233U.
How did you jump to that conclusion? My "CWFalternative.." paper certainly does not say that the Ft St Vrain reactor was either a "breeder" or that it somehow turned 232Th into 235U. It is true (though not mentioned in my article) that its fuel contained some thorium which indeed generated some fissile as does 238U in a LWR, but that's not the point: the point is that DOE's AFCI/GEN IV experts are still trying to "sell" the same HTGR that they were trying to sell 40 years ago.
Please read it again.
-
How did you jump to that conclusion? My "CWFalternative.." paper certainly does not say that the Ft St Vrain reactor was either a "breeder" or that it somehow turned 232Th into 235U. It is true (though not mentioned in my article) that its fuel contained some thorium which indeed generated some fissile as does 238U in a LWR, but that's not the point: the point is that DOE's AFCI/GEN IV experts are still trying to "sell" the same HTGR that they were trying to sell 40 years ago.
Please read it again.
You have draft/official correspondence to/from the DOE all over the Internet. So, after spending too much time on this issue...mostly for curiosity, I'm no closer to understanding what academic/political gain you have by rallying the troops here at Nukeworker.com. However, I'll bite.
As an academic, I'd like for you to argue the other side of the fence. I'm not used to this much emotion in a truly technical argument. In fact, your postings are laden with frustration that is (in my humble opinion) going to soon have you competing with a NYC street corner minister. If you can't argue both sides of the debate, than honestly, I don't think you understand the issues yourself.
Our country is currently working on:
1. Extending the life of current nuclear platforms. This is an effort to ensure we gain the most power out of our CURRENT infrastructure. (New plants are very expensive).
2. AP1000: Innovation to Mainstream. This is it. I don't believe "Nuclear Renaissance" is in the hands of DOE R&D managers. Georgia and China are going live with this new design. It's happening.
3. Nuclear Support. New Uranium mines, new enrichment programs (e.g., USEC centrifuge, GE laser enrichment, etc). There are many businesses not just spitballing ideas, but actually are groundbreaking facilities. Money is being spent to bring new ideas to the table. There's a very large industrial base currently in place to support uranium fission. I don't think we can just tear those buildings down tomorrow and "start over".
4. Human Resources. The effort to retain qualified/experienced people and move forward with Commercial Nuclear power is understated in this Forum. As we banter here, the first AP1000 class of operators and future instructors just passed their NRC GFES exam. Should we put the class on hold?
5. Green Energy. Harness the wind...if you want a "windmill farm" in your backyard. Similar to the nuclear waste issue, everyone is FOR a given solution as long as they don't have to have it in their backyard.
6. DOE Fusion. The amount of money being spent here (to what gain has yet to be seen) is nothing short of incredible.
Oh, I almost forgot about those little portable reactors. Then we have the low-power reactors being considered (what...200-500MW range). The list goes on...uranium fission.
How much of the recent Stimulus package did our DOE Labs receive? Is there not enough money to start looking into the Thorium ideas? (Assuming they have merit, which apparently some very smart, senior, experienced R&D people somewhere don't seem to believe)
So, Professor...what else would you have our tax money going towards? Should we just flush the AP1000 design and construction efforts and listen to Thorium lectures? If I were to go talk to the head of DOE R&D, what are his top 5 complaints, issues, roadblocks with your idea? Let's just get to the point and understand BOTH sides of the issue. That's what technical professionals do, sir.
Don't tell me to "go read" something, because frankly I don't have the time. Why don't you explain to us why all your efforts in the last 2+ years have you coming back to Nukeworker after being rejected by the DOE?
-
Are you arguing with yourself?!?!?!?
I think that I was - sorry.
-
Are you arguing with yourself?!?!?!?
I was walking down the street the other day... no, wait, that wasn't me.
- Steven Wright