[geeks] electric power [was: [rescue] Need Build Help]

[Sandwich Maker]

" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 19:22:30 -0400
" From: Nick B <nick at pelagiris.org>
" 
" Yes, we need breeders.  And yes, we need non-first gen designs.  Sadly our
" current administration has made it pretty plain that we will get nothing,
" and we will like it.

i'm not sure we could manage even improved designs with adequate
safety, though.  but i'd like to see them reopen hanford and prove me
wrong.

" We also shut down our only long term waste site
" (Yucca Mountain) in a move that was at best questionable.  The interesting
" bit about that is the US Government is legally required to, and paid to,
" have a long term waste site.

yes, that is rather ummm political, but one of the justifications for
yucca mtn's safety is evidence for a natural reactor in the congo, in
an area around uranium mines.  the difference is that yucca mtn is
today; the congo reactor was 1.7 billion years ago.  yeah, it's safe
-now-...

" On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Sandwich Maker <adh at an.bradford.ma.us>
" wrote:
" 
" > " Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:25:47 -0400
" > " From: Nick B <nick at pelagiris.org>
" > "
" > " That is very interesting.
" > "
" > " I can't wait for the US to re-embrace real clean power - nuclear.  We
" > need
" > " to start building new nuke plants *today*, the longer we wait the worse
" > it
" > " will get.  I'm worried that one of the plants we've kept running for 3x
" > " it's lifespan will finally have an accident, which I've got to assume is
" > " the current goal for those blocking new nuke plants.
" >
" > real clean except for high-level radioactive nuclear waste.  where
" > should we store it, for ever and ever?  nowhere is safe enough.
" >
" > i have a love/hate relationship with nukes.
" >
" > hate - the waste, as mentioned.  a byproduct of appalling efficiency -
" > american nukes convert only a few percent of their fissionable load to
" > power.[1]  this is like filling your gas tank, driving -3- miles, having
" > it pumped out [and paying hazardous-waste disposal costs], then
" > filling up again.  what would that do to your cost-per-mile?
" >
" > our plants are fundamentally 1st-generation designs with safety
" > features added, like a curved-dash oldsmobile[2] with emission
" > controls, abs, and airbags.  would you want one?  and they've become
" > so expensive that nobody risks an unproven design no matter how good
" > it looks on paper.
" >
" > the people who operate our plants don't seem to be our best and
" > brightest, either.  i worry their heads are still stuck in fossil-fuel
" > management and that, despite three mile island, they don't really
" > appreciate the risks of what they're responsible for.
" >
" > love - the technical potential.  as far back as the '70s,
" > theoreticians were desigining 3rd-gen plants inherently more efficient
" > and with safety baked in.  one was actually built at hanford before it
" > was closed by clinton.  my favorite was the liquid-fueled slow breeder,
" > which integrated fuel reprocessing into the reactor so that the
" > fissionable material never left the plant, only lead, hot by
" > association but not inherently radioactive.  not only that, but after
" > 'lighting off' it could run on thorium as well as uranium.
" >
" > theoretical designs are up to 5th gen now.  i believe they are all
" > slow breeders of one sort or another.  you have to breed u238 up to
" > pu239 to make use of it; the trick is to do so only as fast as the pu
" > decays, so you don't build a bomb.  you also get rid of the battlefield
" > scourge which is du.
" >
" > india is concentrating on thorium-fuelled designs; they're sitting on
" > the bulk of the world's -known- th deposits, currently estimated to be
" > 2-3x as abundant as u.  these designs work by breeding th232 up to u233.
" >
" > the slow breeder neatly solves the problem of nuclear waste, which has
" > always offended the engineer in me - all is consumed, none is produced.
" >
" > i've also heard the gee-whiz stat that with efficient nukes we could
" > power the entire grid for the next 5 centuries on uranium this country
" > has already refined - and that was taking growth into account.  i
" > don't know what basis the statement was made on.
" > --
" > [1] natural uranium is only 0.72% u235, which is what our nukes run
" > on, and it has to be enriched up to ~3% to fuel our ractors.  not even
" > all of that u235 is used before the fuel is too weak to sustain
" > reaction.  du, the enrichment byproduct, still has ~0.35% u235.
" >
" > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Curved_Dash
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh at an.bradford.ma.us                       and think what none thought