NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7325

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-29 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: [e-mail] (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:29:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 28

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>The scientific viability of fast reactor technology has, I feel, been
>adequately demonstrated.  High plutonium content, high burn-up fuels have
>been successfully made and used, the science and engineering of fuel
>reprocessing is obviously doable, or else there would not be so many
>nuclear weapons in existence, and the French do have a plant in operation
>that vitrifies the high level waste from fuel reprocessing.
>
>The problems with SuperPheonix are largely associated with the use
>of liquid sodium as a coolant.  These problems are of an engineering
>nature, rather than fundamental and should be soluble given enough
>effort.  I would refer you to a posting of 93/01/26 by Joseph Askew, who
>originally raised this issue on the net, in which he gives further
>details of the technology and agrees with my view that the technical
>issues can probably be overcome.
>

Here's a genuine, non-rhetorical question. How do the "engineering"
problems of getting a breeder reactor to work compare with the problems
of getting cheap/reliable photo-electric panels to work. If you were
asked to explain why $Nbillion dollars of of research monies should be
pumped into one technology or the other, what arguments would you make?


--


[e-mail]