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?
Quote from: 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?
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.
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.
Quoteretired 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.