tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post5046624581392420760..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Rod Adams comments and I respond on nuclear wasteCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-48037519730435237022008-06-01T21:46:00.002-05:002008-06-01T21:46:00.002-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-70787762950581338232008-06-01T21:46:00.001-05:002008-06-01T21:46:00.001-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-59039275364720110882008-06-01T21:46:00.000-05:002008-06-01T21:46:00.000-05:00The pebble bed reactor is being developed in South...The pebble bed reactor is being developed in South Africa. I assume that the plan includes an intention to sell units to other African countries. Small reactors, including LFTR would probably work better for African countries than big reactors. Africa might also use CSP. I don't know how much future very small reactors have.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-62899398897627994592008-06-01T21:31:00.000-05:002008-06-01T21:31:00.000-05:00I see. Thanks!Doesn't this make nations in the de...I see. Thanks!<BR/><BR/>Doesn't this make nations in the developing world the likely candidates for the pebble bed type reactors and the small sealed units like that little Toshiba unit being put in Galena Alaska? <BR/><BR/>Can the byproducts of these be recycled in a LFTR?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-63745535443939776182008-06-01T20:24:00.000-05:002008-06-01T20:24:00.000-05:00Actually LFTR can be designed on the to breed on a...Actually LFTR can be designed on the to breed on a1 to one ratio. Withdrawing U-233 for weapons purposes would cripple the reactor. The proliferation issue is completely bogus, however. The most likely customers for LFTR would either have nuclear weapons already, or would already posses the ability to build them. Even if nether were the case, it would be significantly more difficult to produce nuclear weapons with U-233 from a LFTR than it would by building a graphite pile reactor and producing Pu-239, as the North Koreans did.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-64306913258192436532008-06-01T20:04:00.000-05:002008-06-01T20:04:00.000-05:00I am a complete layman in these matters, but it is...I am a complete layman in these matters, but it is my understanding that the pebble bed reactor is VERY difficult to use for weapons production and that and its very low maintenance are a large part of its its appeal. <BR/><BR/>I was under the impression that the PBR reactors and the various types of small reactors referred to as "nuclear batteries" would depend on spent modules (reactors in the case of the "batteries") to be recycled in some sort of breeder anyway. <BR/><BR/>If this was not part of their plan, then how difficult would it really be to ship off (to a more politically stable area) the disposed of pellets or spent "batteries" for fueling, recycling in a thorium cycle reactor? <BR/><BR/>The proliferation issue is nontrivial. IIRC thorium reactors using the liquid flouride technology you and Mr. Sorensen advocate are sub-optimum for weapons production, but, they ARE breeders and as such I would think it advisable to keep them out of certain parts of the world for the foreseeable future. <BR/><BR/>Am I operating under incorrect assumptions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com