Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (307981)	10/27/2006 10:31:00 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1572212

yuccamountain.org One reason I don't like this scheme is much of the waste will come by train to Salt Lake City, directly INTO the city, then turn south to Yucca mountain. Which would make us a prime taget to blow up one of the trains..

To: SilentZ who wrote (307981)	10/27/2006 11:01:31 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1572212

"So what is it they want to bury in Yucca Mountain and why?" We currently aren't reprocessing spent rods. Which is a waste, in more ways than one. Because without reprocessing, we can use up all the uranium in a matter of decades. It was decided that if we didn't develop the technology, then other countries wouldn't either and that would reduce the chances for nuclear proliferation. But things are changing. For one, other countries are developing breeder technology, we aren't the technology driver any more. For another, we and other countries have discovered how to burn in place. By running our reactors somewhat "hotter"(higher neutron density), we can breed radionuclides that can then be used in the same reactor. This, and other things we have developed, has allowed us to more than double the amount of power generated in our nuclear reactors, despite not having built a new one in a couple of decades. This can also mean that reactors can be developed which don't expend rods. This from the wiki Even more comprehensive are such systems as the IFR pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten cadmium and electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at the reactor. Such systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both uranium and plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported away from the site of the breeder reactor. Breeder reactors incorporating such technology would most likely be designed with breeding ratios very close to 1.00, so that after an initial loading of enriched uranium and/or plutonium fuel, the reactor would then be refueled only with small deliveries of natural uranium metal. A block of natural uranium metal about the size of a milk crate delivered once per month would be all the fuel such a 1 gigawatt reactor would need. [9] Such self-contained breeders are currently envisioned as the final self-contained and self-supporting ultimate goal of nuclear reactor designers. en.wikipedia.org Such a reactor would generate little waste. There still would be some, but the volume would be much less than what is currently generated. If proliferation is a concern, then we need to develop these for sale to other countries. llnl.gov We can use them too. It would greatly simplify any large scale build out of nuclear plants because it is modular in smaller increments and has low overhead as far as required personnel. A power plant would consist of a SSTAR, a cooling tower and some generators. If there is an available lake, river or bay, then the cooling tower could be eliminated and the unit would be very compact.