I'm in no way competant to critically evaluate the fuel cycle that was proposed but I'm reasonably scientifically literate and willing to be taught, so I'm interested in any nuclear engineering types who are putting the idea through the wringer. Anyone know of any such analyses?
For instance one thing that immediately struck me as dodgy was the idea of using molten sodium as the moderator for the proposed fast neutron reactors. Dim recollections of how reactive Na and its cognates are from my chemistry O-level made me think that this was a distinctly bad idea, but I fully acknowledge that I'm not the person who can back that gut-reaction up with anything that looks like evidence without doing much more work on this than my family and employer would be happy with.
So if anyone is able to point me to an enlightening source or two I'd be grateful.
Regards Luke -- #include witty_sig.h
The advantage of a sodium-cooled reactor is that it is inherently safe from meltdown. If the core overheats the sodium, which is a liquid metal coolant, expands. The expansion results in cooling. So the reactor goes subcritical. The other advantage of sodium is that it doesn't slow down the neutrons, and a fast-neutron reactor can do stuff a water-moderated one cannot. It would be good for making hydrogen, for example.
The drawback of sodium is that it does not get along well with air or water so you have to keep it in a sealed loop and take care about the part of the process that involves transferring the heat the sodium carries away from the reactor to the steam generator--the pipes carrying water to be turned into super-heated steam to spin the turbines that make the electricity.
