Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Apr 22, 2009 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1055
Hydrogen Protects Nuclear Fuel In Final Storage


"The hydrogen effect will prevent the dissolution of nuclear fuel until the fuel's radioactivity is so low that it need no longer be considered a hazard," says Patrik Fors. The amount of iron in the capsules is so great that it would produce sufficient hydrogen to protect the fuel for tens of thousands of years.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 24, 2009 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1055
Nuclear chief says Obama shuns science

Speaking to editors and reporters of The Washington Times, Mr. Fertel said he does not think Mr. Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu even looked at the scientific research before they deemed Yucca unfit to serve as the permanent storage depot for used nuclear fuel, contradicting President Obama's promise to base his administration's decisions on sound science.

"With all due respect to the president and Secretary Chu, I doubt they've looked at the science at all; they've made it a political decision," he said. "I can respect a political decision; it's not a scientific decision."

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 03, 2009 3:38 pm
Posts: 48
ha ha, there's symmetry there. Science was shunned when they forced siting there in the first place.

So politics in, politics out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1938
Location: Montreal
Quote:
"With all due respect to the president and Secretary Chu, I doubt they've looked at the science at all; they've made it a political decision," he said. "I can respect a political decision; it's not a scientific decision."

OK everybody, here's a little challenge: CAN WE TAKE A HINT from this lesson ?

As I alluded to elsewhere,
SOLVING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IS OFTEN EASIER THAN SOLVING POLITICAL ONES.

One other hint: In the early development of MSRs, the expectation of using fissile material (Pu) from spent LWR fuel, for supporting Th conversion to U233, may lead to serious disapointment.
Ditto for the expectation of using LEU different from that currently used in LWRs (i.e. enrichment > 5%).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 2:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1055
jaro wrote:
OK everybody, here's a little challenge: CAN WE TAKE A HINT from this lesson ?

As I alluded to elsewhere,
SOLVING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IS OFTEN EASIER THAN SOLVING POLITICAL ONES.


We here all realize that politics is antithetical to engineering. You don’t have to shout. Politics is like erosion; taking many years of steady and sustained effort to gradually wear away at the rock hard substrate of ignorance, were logic has no place and reason cannot be found, where the ends justify the means and the ends don’t advance the common good rather just the welfare of the few. It takes a special kind of person to be good at politics and that type is rarely found in the midst of dreamers, builders and the makers of things.

Quote:
One other hint: In the early development of MSRs, the expectation of using fissile material (Pu) from spent LWR fuel, for supporting Th conversion to U233, may lead to serious disapointment.

Ditto for the expectation of using LEU different from that currently used in LWRs (i.e. enrichment > 5%).



I understand that lack of high potency fissile material is the basic reason why you favor heavy water so much. In like manor, the hope for a bountiful supply of U233 is at the bottom of my enthusiasm for a fusion breakthrough. It is good to have many possible paths to the same goal.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1938
Location: Montreal
Axil wrote:
In like manor, the hope for a bountiful supply of U233 is at the bottom of my enthusiasm for a fusion breakthrough.

Breakthrough in fusion ?

We already know how to make fusion work -- we could have been producing loads of fissiles using fusion neutrons decades ago.

But again, politics gets in the way....

Image

Image

Image

Other types of fusion techniques are far more diffult -- typically completely impractical.

So why not go with something that works relatively easily, yet doesn't get the politicians all wrapped up around the axle ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 436
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
You have got to be kidding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1938
Location: Montreal
DV82XL wrote:
You have got to be kidding.

Do you think Ralph Moir was kidding ?

Seriously, the only fusion that politicians will let you develop is the kind that doesn't work, or that can not become a practical energy source -- and the kind that the politicians will spend billions of taxpayer's money on.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 436
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jaro wrote:
DV82XL wrote:
You have got to be kidding.

Do you think Ralph Moir was kidding ?


No, I am sure that a PACER reactor is possible. I was reacting to your assumption (made I am sure with tongue planted firmly in cheek ) that this would be politically acceptable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1938
Location: Montreal
DV82XL wrote:
I was reacting to your assumption (made I am sure with tongue planted firmly in cheek ) that this would be politically acceptable.

OK, I see that you mis-read my post: It was all about how perfectly feasible technical solutions are unacceptable politically, and consequently lead to nowhere, just like the PACER concept.
Quote:
So why not go with something that works relatively easily, yet doesn't get the politicians all wrapped up around the axle ?

This was a hint to the effect that MSR develoment can proceed with minimal political interference, if we limit ourselves to concepts that don't rely on using fissile material (Pu) from spent LWR fuel, for supporting Th conversion to U233, or on using LEU different from that currently used in LWRs (i.e. enrichment > 5%).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 436
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
My error thanks for clarifying. But I still think that PASER was a poor example. A better one might be 'Clean Coal,' a concept about as practical as a PASER reactor, but which politicians are in love with because it lets them have their cake and eat it too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 25, 2009 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1938
Location: Montreal
DV82XL wrote:
A better <example> might be 'Clean Coal,' a concept about as practical as a PASER reactor, but which politicians are in love with because it lets them have their cake and eat it too.

....or how about Yucca Mountain -- the subject of this thread ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 30, 2009 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1055
Senate bill would end Nuclear Waste Fund


29 April 2009 — Most of the U.S.'s $30 billion Nuclear Waste Fund could be repaid to consumers under legislation introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R, South Carolina).

Graham introduced the Rebating America's Deposits Act April 23 in response to President Barack Obama's decision to put the Yucca Mountain project on hold. The bill was cosponsored by eight other Republican senators.

If passed, the bill would require the president to either confirm that Yucca Mountain remains the preferred choice for high-level radioactive material disposal or begin to rebate funds in the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund that were set aside to pay for the repository.

Nevada's Yucca Mountain was set to be the disposal site for highly radioactive substances. Companies producing nuclear power paid 0.1 cents per kilowatthour of power generated into the fund beginning in 1982. Since then the total has reached $30 billion.

Obama's February budget ordered the Department of Energy to scale back work at the site to almost nothing while the administration rethinks the country's strategy on nuclear waste disposal.

If the fund was liquidated, some 75 percent of the money would be mandated to go back to customers. The remainder would be allocated to building additional interim used nuclear fuel storage facilities at current nuclear power sites.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 30, 2009 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 03, 2009 3:38 pm
Posts: 48
hey, I was saving that to build a MOSART!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 30, 2009 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3897
Location: Alabama
Axil wrote:
Senate bill would end Nuclear Waste Fund


Oh boy, I just read this--if this were to go through I think it would just about be the kiss of death for the LWR industry. This is like the gov't trying to wash its hands entirely of spent nuclear fuel. What utility would keep operating reactors when they would be generating a substance that would cause unlimited liability on their parts?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group