NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => General => Topic started by: dsiemer 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?
-
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 !
(http://dvdmedia.ign.com/dvd/image/article/659/659754/he-man-the-masters-of-the-universe-season-one-volume-one-20051019030645610-000.jpg)
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 ????
-
"....fuel. How have your efforts gone with ANS and NEI Huh?
They just stonewall me.
-
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.