Dr. Joe Bonometti at TEAC3

Joe Bonometti and I have been colleagues and friends for a long time. At NASA we were the program manager and chief engineer for the MXER Tether technology program from 2003-2007 and we learned a lot about the dos and don’t of technology development.

Now Joe is working on a very large and excited technology development program and his understandings of tech development have grown immensely. Joe also did one of the very first “Tech-Talks” at Google on the subject of LFTR technology. I still remember how excited he was after he gave the talk and he called me and said “you’ve got to get out here!”

Many thanks to Gordon McDowell for editing this video!

Comments

comments


5 Replies to "Dr. Joe Bonometti at TEAC3"

  • JDM
    December 27, 2011 (12:53 pm)
    Reply

    I'd like to take a crack at editing the raw video footage for this and a number of the videos I see here into educational materials. Is there place I can download?

  • Robert Hargraves
    December 27, 2011 (3:21 pm)
    Reply

    This is a great talk for those of us who might not appreciate the overall system development environment. And it's even better than the live talk in DC, because the slide projector didn't work there.

  • Roy Harvie
    January 1, 2012 (9:03 am)
    Reply

    What do you guys think of the variation of LFTR technology?
    http://web.mit.edu/nse/news/2011/advanced-reactor

    "The Fluoride-salt High-Temperature Reactor [FHR] is a new reactor concept—about a decade old. It combines high-temperature graphite-matrix coated particle fuel developed for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (fuel failure temperature > 1600°C), liquid salt developed for the molten salt reactors (boiling point > 1400°C), and safety systems originate from sodium fast reactors."

  • Friakel Wippans
    January 3, 2012 (2:34 pm)
    Reply

    @Roy

    There was a presentation of the project at TEAC3 by a PhD student in nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATd6MbiPtCI

    It looks interesting and may have some benefits : flexible fuel zoning, probably easier licensing (less spooky and alien than LFTR for the $273.00/hour NRC weenies), solid fuel hence easier on current radioprotection requirements, etc. Probably significantly better than its PBR cousin.

    But it also lacks some of the LFTR most important features, fully on-line breeding, refueling and PF removal, very simple core, ultra-high safety thanks to dump tanks (and even splatter-it-around safety, courtesy of fluoride salts' inertness, as Takashi Kamei pointed at TEAC3), etc.

  • Larry Kwiat
    January 14, 2012 (8:00 pm)
    Reply

    Quite a few years ago, I was doing a bit of math modeling (re: behavior of electrons in crystalline substances in irradiated environments) with a few friends near Pickering. We got into a discussion about LFTR, it was very interesting at the time. The one thing that seemed to be the difficult part was not the fissiles but the container – and we were discussing various ceramics that looked interesting at the time. Have you looked into ceramics? With the low pressures, they would seem to be a good direction.


Leave a Reply