Display:
I think the argument here goes along the lines that with breeder reactors you don't need as high-grade fuel and you don't need as much because the fuel is recycled. Also the possibility to use Thorium as fuel.

The concern here is one of proliferation, but that is political. If the answer to our global energy needs were thorium-fuelled breeder reactors the motivation would be there to get serious about non-proliferation.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 10th, 2010 at 10:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Thomas mentioned IFR, but then went on to claim that it goes with PWR too. At any rate, talking of breeder reactors is talking of hypothetical future reactors to be developed and made commercially viable, similar to fusion. It's not something that can be rolled out big-time now or before 2030, so the big push would first need Flamanville 3-style plants (as he mentioned) using mined uranium. (I just made another quick calculation: with an exponential increase of capacity from now until 2030 to reach the current world total electricity generation only, assuming the EPR's claimed fuel efficiency, the "reasonably assured reserves" of all grades claimed in OECD's Uranium2007 study would be gone in 2029, and the "inferred reserves" by 2035.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 10th, 2010 at 02:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yup, this is correct - tough it should be noted that, the Russians, at least, will sell you a fast reactor for power purposes today, and the IFR is not really very far off from commercial use either. (Not bitter at Clinton at all about this. no.)
by Thomas on Wed Feb 10th, 2010 at 07:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series