Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 23, 2018 6:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 19, 2010 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jun 24, 2007 10:43 am
Posts: 253
Location: Dallas, TX
George Stanford, a retired Argonne National Lab reactor scientist, has a new post on Barry Brook's Brave New Climate.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/18/ifr-fad-7/
Stanford, in effect, equates light water reactors and thermal reactors, even though, I am sure, he knows better. He makes statements like,
Quote:
In a thermal neutron spectrum, many of the fission products and actinide isotopes absorb neutrons readily without undergoing fission (they have a high “capture cross section”), and the chain reaction is “poisoned” if too much of such material is present. Thus a thermal reactor cannot be a net burner of transuranic actinides. The main starting fuel for thermal reactors is a mixture of the fissile isotope U-235 (Pu- 239 can also be used), along with the fertile isotope U-238.

And,
Quote:
A breeder is a reactor that is configured so as to produce more fissile material than it consumes. A fast reactor can be designed and operated to be either a net breeder or a net burner. A thermal reactor is a net burner of nuclear fuel, but—and this is very important—all thermal reactors are prolific breeders of plutonium.

Stanford knows that not all thermal reactors are Light Water Reactors,
Quote:
Almost exclusively, current reactors are of the thermal variety: their chain reaction relies on thermal (slow) neutrons. In most of the thermal-spectrum reactors, the neutrons are moderated (slowed) by light water. Such reactors are called LWRs.
Thus logically not all thermal reactors are Light Water Reactors. Yet Stanford claims,
Quote:
a thermal reactor cannot be a net burner of transuranic actinides.

i have already protested several of Stanford's statements in BNC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2011 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
Stanford appears to be oblivious of element 90 & 91. Fairly bizarre for a reactor scientist.

Stanford suggests that LFTRs are a proliferation hazard. Yet he suggests high breeding ratio U-Pu fast reactors, which by definition make high purity pu239 and process it many times, is not a proliferation hazard.

But he's pushing his own solution, the U-Pu sodium cooled fast reactor, so he can't flinch the trust by being comprehensive. Confusion and lack of trust were important elements in the demise of government support for the IFR.

I wonder if these high breeding ratios are achievable. This seems to require a thick blanket of U238 rods around the core and a very big fast reactor (1500 MWe). Is this even safe in terms of coefficients? What happens if you void the core and the blanket gets flashed with neutrons? Fast fission causing a reactivity excursion?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2011 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jun 24, 2007 10:43 am
Posts: 253
Location: Dallas, TX
Cyril R wrote:
Stanford appears to be oblivious of element 90 & 91. Fairly bizarre for a reactor scientist.

Stanford suggests that LFTRs are a proliferation hazard. Yet he suggests high breeding ratio U-Pu fast reactors, which by definition make high purity pu239 and process it many times, is not a proliferation hazard.

But he's pushing his own solution, the U-Pu sodium cooled fast reactor, so he can't flinch the trust by being comprehensive. Confusion and lack of trust were important elements in the demise of government support for the IFR.

I wonder if these high breeding ratios are achievable. This seems to require a thick blanket of U238 rods around the core and a very big fast reactor (1500 MWe). Is this even safe in terms of coefficients? What happens if you void the core and the blanket gets flashed with neutrons? Fast fission causing a reactivity excursion?

Cyril, this is a different George, George Stanford goes by the ID of George S. The other george is an ignorant and silly anti-nuk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2011 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
Thanks for clearing that up Charles, the GeorgeS on BNC is clearly a very reasonable person. Sorry for the confusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

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