yes , any argument in favour of a practical , cost efficient , problem free and durable system almost self defeats itself.
I think a lot of people just dont realise how much endurance the fuel source has.
Yes
No
The tech on small reactors is pretty much all owned by the Military so they would have no interest in letting the world know how this is done - also, with it being so controversial to put in 1 reactor, how would you go suggesting dozens or hundreds of them being dotted around the place?
If you need to contact me please email homestarrunnerau@gmail.com - thanks - Gav.
yes , any argument in favour of a practical , cost efficient , problem free and durable system almost self defeats itself.
I think a lot of people just dont realise how much endurance the fuel source has.
Not only is the tech on small reactors mostly owned by the military, but unless I am mistaken, they depend on the use of more highly enriched uranium, production of which implies nuclear weapons capability! (The enrichment needed is not to weapons grade, but .......)
Natural uranium is 99% U-238, less than 1% U-235. U-238 is not in itself suitable as a nuclear fuel (but can be converted to U-239, or plutonium, which are, in some reactors), so that the key requirement for a nuclear fuel is to increase the proportion of U-235. Most reactors require 3-5% U-235, nuclear weapons, >20%, in practice 50-90%. Submarine reactors are typically >50%. The prototype "small" reactor used 26.5%.
The problem is that any country using a significant number of "small" reactors will necessarily have access to the ability to produce, quite rapidly, a lot of nuclear weapons. This is in many circles considered an undesirable situation, and the International Atomic Energy Agency will want to know exactly what you are doing and why.
(The most economically practical method used for enrichment is to use a large number of centrifuges to separate uranium hexaflouride into a stream with less and more U-235. While the the equipment is basically simple, you need a lot of it, and uranium hexaflouride is really nasty stuff to handle. And it uses a lot of power.)
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
mmm ok, so I'll get down off my camel and resort to blowing , shining and flowing....it's so crazy....this stuff was proposed over 40yrs ago and we really havent made that big an advance. Except in the manufacturing which has a massive footprint.
And possibly the best alternative being nuclear is around 75yrs old without major basic design advances either except for weapons.
Now if we can make hydrogen easily , then we can make water easily to cool our reactors and boilers.
Water is the issue. Water has always been the issue and water will always be the issue. Not cooling water, but drinking water. Centralisation of population is always around a clean drinkable water source. The power just naturally follows as "civilisation" gets built where people can survive, but as we've shown there's no trickery to transporting power long distances.
Hit the nail on the Head Brad. Desalination plants use signification amounts of power. Nuclear is already flagged as essential to desalination in many countries. The new small reactors are not water hogs at all happily.
Other big news in Nuclear is The very anti nuclear Germans have "allegedly" just decided to hold off shutting the last 3 operating Nuclear energy plants in Germany. They were schedule to shut them off in December.
Lasers could cut lifespan of nuclear waste from “a million years to 30 minutes,” says Nobel laureate
Excuse me if I shared this before. The "SILEX’ laser isotope separation technology in Sydney during the 1990’s" is a area I watch and play with a bit- NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE
It is a interesting time in the entire nuclear cycle.
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Want some new try technology- TRISO nuclear fuel. (TRi-structural ISOtropic particle fuel)
TRISO particles cannot melt in a reactor and can withstand extreme temperatures well beyond the threshold of current nuclear fuels. Feel the buzz yet? Link
They are not NEW yet these technologies are going to completely change the way the word with see and use nuclear power
Even the Germans are flipping
Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
---|
|
|
Bookmarks