Nuclear's next generation
economist.com
Nuclear's next generation
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#2Another newer technology to keep an eye on: plasma gasification (http://www.slate.com/id/2181083/).
Although it produces paltry amounts of energy compared to nuclear facilities, it's a neat solution to the problem of waste management, capable of handling low-grade nuclear waste.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#3One form of very high temperature reactor, the pebble bed reactor, was theorized in the 1950s and has been under development at various locations for more than a decade -- China begins commercial construction this year.
PBRs are one of several inherently safe designs wherein shutoff of circulating coolant raises core temperature and natural processes serve to choke criticality.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#4I like the sodium fast reactor: low pressure, moderate temperature, sodium is dirt cheap, high burn-up of non-uranium/plutonium products ("waste"), and plutonium need never be separated from other reaction products.
The article doesn't say, but because molten salt reactors use liquid fuel, they release the radioactive xenon gas produced by uranium fission. (In fact this is sold as a benefit, since xenon absorbs neutrons better used for the chain reaction.) Xenon is a noble gas and therefore volatile, so the reactor will need strenuous containment measures. Loss of the gas seal would result in significant radioactivity release.
Helium-cooled reactors may be constrained by shortages of helium, which is rather rare and difficult to extract on Earth. You'd hope that government program managers would have worked out the logistics of this, but they tend to not see things that would get their funding cut. (Argon is plentiful but might not be a substitute because it reacts with neutrons a lot more than helium does.)
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#5I'm a fan of liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR). The prevalence of Thorium is a big positive and the ability to process out existing nuclear waste is a tremendous boon.
We're not that far away from commercializing LFTR. It's a shame we can't find more research funds.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#6I like the idea, as long as it's very far away away from my house.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#7I like the idea, as long as it's very far away away from my house.
I don't mind at all having a nuclear power plant upriver not particularly far from my home. It makes the electricity rates here noticeably less expensive than in many other parts of the country. That plant has been operating harmlessly for about four decades now.
After edit: indeed, I prefer having a nuclear power plant (somewhat) nearby to having a coal-burning power plant equally upstream and nearby, and prefer both to living without inexpensive electricity.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#8I like the idea, as long as it's very far away away from my house.
As the other poster said, it's better than living next to a coal burning plant. The coal burning plant would actually release more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear power plant would.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#9I like the sodium fast reactor: low pressure, moderate temperature, sodium is dirt cheap, high burn-up of non-uranium/plutonium products ("waste"), and plutonium need never be separated from other reaction products. The article doesn't say, but because molten salt reactors use liquid fuel, they release the radioactive xenon gas produced by uranium fission. (In fact this is sold as a benefit, since xenon absorbs neutr…
> Xenon is a noble gas and therefore volatile
This must be some definition of "volatile" I'm not familiar with.
Re: Nuclear's next generation
#10I like the idea, as long as it's very far away away from my house.
At least with nuclear power the byproducts are stored in nearly-indestructible containers. Where are the byproducts of coal-fired generation stored?