stanford94
Mechanical
i don't know where engineering is going but i know where energy SHOULD be going.......
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
where energy SHOULD be going... 5
- Thread starter stanford94
- Start date
- Status
reading Kcapture's posts, it sounds like "just" another fuel rather than the reinvention of the industry that the acticle suggests.
a question to Kcapture, or anyone else, what about the "new" reactor designs. i've read something of the "pebble" reactor, supposed to be cheaper and safer (as it's not pressurised) ?
a question to Kcapture, or anyone else, what about the "new" reactor designs. i've read something of the "pebble" reactor, supposed to be cheaper and safer (as it's not pressurised) ?
Interesting information regarding breeder reactors and reprocessing, thank you for taking the time to put that together. My general takeaway regarding breeders, including the OP thorium design, and reprocessing, is that they follow the standard engineering rules of trade offs for benefits. Superphenix, very interesting. Seems there were problems with containing the liquid sodium. With cursory resarch, this seems like a theme for much too high a proportion of the prototype fast breeder reactors.
The two arguments against nuclear which seeme to stick are waste disposal and cost (not to downplay NIMBY and proliferation, but these are, or should be, beyond the scope of engineering). Clearly, factoring in waste disposal cost has a hugely negative impact on the operating cost of the plants as a whole.
Given this, do you think that any breeder reactor designs can reduce the amount of waste generated without greatly increasing cost or decreasing safety (EPR)? Or should waste reduction not be a significant factor in design?
As an aside, I think it should be a signal of how hysterical the protesters are when they purchase black market rockets from notorious terrorists to attempt to shut down a power facility (Superphenix). Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that this hysteria exists given the relative lack of technical understanding and amount of FUD. Although, I suppose this is understandable considering the relative complexity of the topic.
The two arguments against nuclear which seeme to stick are waste disposal and cost (not to downplay NIMBY and proliferation, but these are, or should be, beyond the scope of engineering). Clearly, factoring in waste disposal cost has a hugely negative impact on the operating cost of the plants as a whole.
Given this, do you think that any breeder reactor designs can reduce the amount of waste generated without greatly increasing cost or decreasing safety (EPR)? Or should waste reduction not be a significant factor in design?
As an aside, I think it should be a signal of how hysterical the protesters are when they purchase black market rockets from notorious terrorists to attempt to shut down a power facility (Superphenix). Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that this hysteria exists given the relative lack of technical understanding and amount of FUD. Although, I suppose this is understandable considering the relative complexity of the topic.
- Thread starter
- #23
stanford94
Mechanical
kcapture,
"....take a look at this report we did at MIT a while ago...."
are you one the of authors (we) here?
"....take a look at this report we did at MIT a while ago...."
are you one the of authors (we) here?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question