Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Fw: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

Expand Messages
  • Robert Johnston
    True enough. I think I do disagree with you on the potential for safe nuclear power and its potential value in our national energy mix/policy. However, I
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 26, 2006

      True enough.  I think I do disagree with you on the potential for safe nuclear power and its potential value in our national energy mix/policy.  However, I greatly respect your knowledge of physics and solar energy and truly appreciate your many contributions to this group and to our world.  Thanks!

       

      Robert

       

       


      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
      Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:26 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: Fw: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

       

      With this kind of logic one cannot proceed to discuss any further. You have every right to have your views and others too who disagree.

      ----- Original Message -----

      Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:08 PM

      Subject: RE: Fw: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

       

      Hmmm...

      Sounds like we’d better never move to a solar-generated hydrogen economy.  Electrolysis is a process that produces harmful by-products including those that can be used as explosives (H2O à ½ O2 + H2). 

      OK... I may be stretching the point, but seriously, we deal with very hazardous substances all the time.  Witness what a 767 loaded with jet fuel can do.  But do we ban them?  Where’s the balance here? 

       

      While I don’t want to get nuked anymore than the next guy, do you think the odds of that happening are better or worse if the US builds a few hundred new nuclear reactors?  Is it possible that by thereby lowering our dependence on and thus profile in the Middle East , we could actually lower our risk?  After all, we’ve never used our civil nuclear capabilities for war yet (the deterrent argument holds some water after all).  Meanwhile, we’ve certainly killed hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons (it only took a few weeks in Iraq in Operation Desert Storm).  Perhaps someday our civil nuclear products will be diverted to such a use, but at the rate we’re going, I’m not so sure the damage/violence will be worse that what we are already doing.

       

       


      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
      Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:12 AM
      To: Michael K Ewert; Mike C
      Subject: Re: Fw: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

       

      When one looks at an equation of "nuclear reactants," one cannot ignore the byproducts of these reactions which are harmful, and should not be ignored. Any process which results in harmful by-products including those which can be used as explosives is not good for mankind.

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Mike C

      Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:35 AM

      Subject: Re: Fw: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

       

      THEN YOU AGREE THAT THIS TYPE OF NUCLEAR POWER (IFR) IS FEASABLE?  IT WOULD WORK....

       
      On Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 09:40PM, Bashir Syed <bsyed@...> wrote:

      >
      ><<Original Attached>>


       

      You are trying to teach someone who already has education in this branch of Physics, and was associated with teachers who had worked on Manhattan Project (one a Nobel Laureate). Thanks for refreshing my knowledge!

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Mike C

      Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:11 AM

      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

       

      Well, actually Jimmy Carter is not a reliable source to rely on for nuclear technology.  He trained for 9months in the Navy on the concept of simple nuclear energy and worked on a sub for a few years.  So, thats not what I would call expert opinion.


      Fast Breeders are simply that once the fuel has been used, and used to the maximum extent it can, which generally takes about three years, that you take it out and process it in a manner that allows you to take all of the useful elements out of it and recycle them back into the reactor bed. Simple as that.
      The IFR was a concept that was worked on for some ten years. And it was an outgrowth really of the studies that were caused by the Carter administration in the late '70s, where it looked at all the various kinds of reactors, types of fuel, processes for dealing with the waste, and so on. And it became obvious to us that one could put a total reactor concept together that would at the same time give you safety of a kind that reactors today don't have, that would allow complete recycling of the fuel, and thus extension of the ability to produce energy (very roughly, by a factor of 100), and also a waste product that did not contain the most dangerous elements. So with one concept you attack all of the principal real issues that there are for the use of nuclear energy.

      The way the fuel cycle is done now is: you mine uranium; you purify the metal; you convert it to oxide; you put it in a reactor in the form of pellets; it stays in there for about three years; you take it out, and you try to find someplace to put it. The way the IFR fuel cycle would work would be: you could start with mined uranium, or you could start with fuel for present day reactors. Either one would do perfectly well. It's left in the metal form because metal is a particularly easy thing to fabricate. And so you cast it into uranium. They're put in steel jackets and loaded into the reactor. They stay in there about three to four years, and when they come out, they're put through a very simple process. One step separates out the useful materials. And then cast the metal again back into fuel that go right back into the reactor. The material that's left behind is the true, the natural waste.


      On Monday, April 24, 2006, at 07:30PM, Bashir Syed <bsyed@...> wrote:

      >
      ><<Original Attached>>


      I wonder if you know the background of Breeder reactors. Jimmy Carter being trained in Nuclear Engineering sensed that Breeder reactors could lead to nuclear proliferation and diversion of fuel for warfare. He was the only president who used intelligence to stop and closed one at Savanah River facility.  That was the begining and demise of Breeder reactors during his presidency. The rest is history! The Three-Mile Island accident happened on his watch too. Thus he was quite are of the ,ishaps or proliferation problems.

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: jmc1007

      Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:34 PM

      Subject: [hreg] Fast Breeder Reactors..answer to energy problem??

       

      What about Fast Breeder Reactors?  It's supposed to extend the supply of
      uranium.

      Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) power stations can generate electricity while
      producing more fuel than they consume. The production of new fuel is achieved by
      transforming non-fissile Uranium-238 into fissile Plutonium-239; this greatly
      improves the efficiency with which precious uranium resources are used.
      Resource-scarce Japan is therefore promoting the development of fast breeder
      reactors as the major nuclear power source for the future.

      A fast reactor would work like this: Nuclear fire burning in the core would heat
      the radioactive liquid sodium running through it. Some of the heated sodium
      would be pumped into an intermediate heat exchanger, where it would transfer its
      thermal energy to nonradioactive liquid sodium running through adjacent but
      separate pipes and into a secondary sodium loop. The nonradioactive sodium would
      in turn bring heat to a final heat exchanger/steam generator, where steam would
      be created in adjacent water-filled pipes. The hot, high-pressure steam would
      then be used to turn steam turbines that would drive electricity-producing
      generators.


       

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.