tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post3369145680843160773..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: IFR and LFTR Safety on the internetCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-81882878588195531242008-11-03T18:27:00.000-06:002008-11-03T18:27:00.000-06:00Ray, I still believe that there are serious issues...Ray, I still believe that there are serious issueswith the IFR. To much ismade of its inherent safety features, while too little is made of of other safety issues. There are problems with the Uranium fuel cycle, that are have not been addressed. I think not enough attention has been paid. The IRF requires fuel reprocessing, and the reprocessing system is far from proven. The IFR is in my estimation not ready for prime time.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-80824872308539169632008-11-03T07:56:00.000-06:002008-11-03T07:56:00.000-06:00Hi CharlesI think you have just crossed the line a...Hi Charles<BR/><BR/>I think you have just crossed the line and started to spread FUD on the IFR design. <BR/><BR/>I am no nuclear scientist, but the fast reactor design has a significant following across the globe in several countries. India and Russia have an advanced fast reactor program. All these designs are converging on something like the IFR. Even though the LFTR design seems to have a good fan following on the web, the IFR is doing quite well in peer reviewed nuclear conferences and journals. <BR/><BR/>The IFR project itself has indeed been a great success, the decision to end the project was purely a political decision. Every single step in the reactor design is understood and tested. We even have commercial designs (such as the GE's S-PRISM reactor) which can be built straight away. <BR/><BR/>It was a pity that the MSR concept didn't get as much attention as it deserved. I hope this will change in the future, and that we will have significant R&D support on this. But as a simple matter of fact, the MSR design is a couple of decades behind the IFR, and is not as ready for rapid deployment as the IFR. <BR/><BR/>The passive safety features of the IFR are just as good as the LFTR. The pyroprocessing method of reprocessing is integral to the reactor design, it is not an external reprocessing plant. And nuclear fissile material cannot be isolated easily. <BR/><BR/>When you talk on non-proliferation aspects or the safety features of IFR design, your argument stops carrying too much meat. <BR/><BR/>The design of IFR is quite simple as well, eliminating the need to use high temperatures or high pressures. It will probably end up being cheaper than the LWR design. The safety issues of molten Sodium are blown way over the top. <BR/><BR/>You should check out the book of <A HREF="http://www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com" REL="nofollow">Tom Blees : Prescription for the Planet</A>. This book is going to earn quite a few converts to nuclear energy in the future.Ray Lightninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08882462553270746059noreply@blogger.com