Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
19. WRONG!
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 10:36 AM
Oct 2013

kristopher states
They do NOT recommend moving to a closed fuel cycle (the use of breeder reactors).

A closed fuel cycle and using a breeder are two DIFFERENT things. See the above MIT study in Chapter 4 at page 33.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower

Quoting:

It is important to note that this balanced closed fuel cycl is entirely different from breeder fast reactor fuel cycles where net plutonium is produced in fast reactors is made into MOX fuel to be burned in thermal reactors. In the closed fuel cycle we considered, the fast reactor burns plutonium and actinides created in thermal reactors.

That's why it's good to have a degree in physics or nuclear engineering, so one can understand these concepts without getting confused and posting erroneous information.

The MIT study made clear that the choice of once through fuel cycle over a closed cycle was due to some assumptions. Please see page 4 of the MIT study for the following. One assumption was the future supply of uranium:

We believe that world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of deployment over a 40 year lifetime of this fleet.

Many here have made claims in the past that are at variance with the above.

At the bottom of page 4 continuing to page 5 they say:

The result of our detailed analysis of the relative merits of these representative fuel cycles with respect to key evaluation criteria can be summarized as follows: The once through cycle has advantages in cost, proliferation and fuel cycle safety, and is disadvantageous only in respect to long-term waste disposal; the two closed cycles have clear advantages only in long-term aspects of waste disposal, and disadvantages in cost short-term waste issues, proliferation risk, and fuel cycle safety. Cost and waste criteria are likely to be the most crucial for determining nuclear power's future.

So which fuel cycle "wins" is really determined by what you value.

The MIT study chose the open cycle because of cost, and they didn't really care about the fact that the open fuel cycle leaves you with long term wastes that are imposed on future generations.

I think that if one substituted the values that are more characteristic of DU members; then we would get the opposite answer. DU members, I believe, are less likely to impose long term waste disposal issues on future generations in return for less cost and bigger profits for the utilities.

Given the choice; I would say, the average DU forum member would put a lesser value on the cost and more value on not leaving waste problems to future generations. Hence, when you apply your values in making the decision to the options outlined in the study, the average DU member has different values from the MIT professors, and would opt to have the nuclear industry spend the money to clean up after itself and not leave a long term waste issue for future generations. That would argue for the use of a closed cycle with fast reactors to burn the long-lived waste.

The MIT study stated that the open cycle had the advantage in terms of proliferation. That really isn't the case. If you bury the plutonium, then it isn't immediately available for making weapons. However, what you create for the future is a "plutonium mine". When the radioactivity of the fission products decays in a relatively short time; then there's nothing to stop one from digging up that plutonium and using it for nuclear weapons.

With the closed fuel cycle, the plutonium is burned to make energy, and there's no plutonium in the waste stream to make into weapons. Additionally, as Dr. Till states, and was confirmed by the study from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; the plutonium that is recycled in the closed IFR fuel cycle can NOT be made into nuclear weapons. Quoting Dr. Till again:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.

The IFR fuel cycle provides the proliferation resistance that I believe DU members would prize as I do. Additionally, I care more about not imposing long term nuclear waste disposal issues on future generations, and I care less about utility profits. In this way, I'm different in values from the MIT professors that drew conclusions based on their values. I believe my values are more in keeping with what the average DU member values.

Or are you saying that the choice by the MIT professors of valuing utility profit over long term waste disposal issues is the correct value system?

PamW



Looks to me like madokie Oct 2013 #1
It doesn't have to be a problem for future generations... PamW Oct 2013 #2
Wonder why Japan didn't follow that path? kristopher Oct 2013 #10
Why didn't Japan build their own airliners instead of buying from Boeing / Airbus? PamW Oct 2013 #12
The question was why hasn't ANYONE pursued the IFR if it is so superior? kristopher Oct 2013 #13
The name is Pam!! PamW Oct 2013 #17
Nope kristopher Oct 2013 #18
WRONG! PamW Oct 2013 #19
I value the most effective means of reducing carbon emissions. kristopher Oct 2013 #20
WRONG, as per usual PamW Oct 2013 #21
No, Greg, you are wrong - again. kristopher Oct 2013 #22
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! 100% WRONG!!! both the name and substance PamW Oct 2013 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author PamW Oct 2013 #3
In a world with static or declining energy demand this might be true GliderGuider Oct 2013 #4
Lets not get too carried away here madokie Oct 2013 #5
Agreed. I just wanted to get the idea out there, and this was as good a place as any. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #6
happy to be able to oblige madokie Oct 2013 #7
More of your hypothetical bullpucky kristopher Oct 2013 #8
I used 30 year averages to ensure that I wasn't mistaking noise for trend. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #9
No, you used 30 years to fudge the numbers kristopher Oct 2013 #11
Actually, I didn't. Here's the graphic proof of what I'm saying GliderGuider Oct 2013 #14
The picture has already changed. kristopher Oct 2013 #15
Not according to the data I have GliderGuider Oct 2013 #16
You're pointing your camera in the wrong direction kristopher Oct 2013 #23
At least you've stopped trying to beat us to death with Mark Z. Jacobsen... GliderGuider Oct 2013 #24
You stopped making the specific claims that Jacobson refuted. kristopher Oct 2013 #25
You can attribute whatever you wish. It's your belief system. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #26
Memo to sceptics of a low-carbon world – 'it's happening' kristopher Oct 2013 #27
What do Portugal's cars run on? What heats their homes? GliderGuider Oct 2013 #28
Tougher nuts to crack? kristopher Oct 2013 #29
I know that's the renewable dream, and that RMI are the head dreamers. GliderGuider Oct 2013 #30
It was abundantly clear you haven't got a clue... kristopher Oct 2013 #31
I call it "refining my understanding of the situation" GliderGuider Oct 2013 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Viability of Germany’...»Reply #19