So I've been reading up on fast neutron reactors

[midnight armadillo]

Specifically, I've been reading about the US Integral Fast Reactor program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor for starters).

So here we had a prototype design of a passively safe reactor, that can burn and eliminate plutonium supplies and make far more efficient (99.5%) use of fuel...and we cancelled it? Instead the gov wants to bury all that useful high level waste in Yucca Mountain under the "mobile Chernobyl" scenario where we ship dangerous isotopes all over the country through large population centers.

I think we as a nation may be clinically insane on the issue of nuclear power.

[Fridays Child]

1. We live in a corporatist/fascist country and corporations are insane.

The Corporation

[oneighty]

2. Fast Breeder Reactor?

A popular idea at one time. I often wonder why it was not pursued.

180

[jpak]

5. The US, France, UK, Japan and Russia did pursue it

They don't work - they employ liquid sodium that has a tendency to catch on fire...

Three US prototype breeders (EBR-1, the Teledyne experimental breeder and Fermi 1) either caught fire or experienced meltdowns.

France's SuperPhenix , Japan's Monju and Russia's BN-350 and BN-600 breeders all experienced fires - some serious. None successfully bred any plutonium.

The US, UK France and Russia abandoned their breeder programs. Japan's Monju program has not recovered from the sodium fire it experienced a decade ago.

[jpak]

3. The National Academy of Sciences argued against it

They concluded that a once-through nuclear fuel cycle with geological isolation of spent fuel was the best policy.

Obviously they are "insane"....

[midnight armadillo]

4. they can be used to produce plutonium

From what I understand, a fast neutron reactor can produce plutonium (a proliferation risk) or consume it. This, along with the costs and difficulties of reprocessing spent fuel, led to the end of many breeder reactor programs. The IFR was intended to never separate its plutonium, thus greatly reducing proliferation risks.

But, since the US already has what, 6,000 nuclear weapons, what is our worry about proliferation with ourselves?

[NNadir]

6. Well, it's too bad about the IFR, but we need to understand when it was

cancelled.

In 1994 there was a surfeit of uranium and fissionable material. At that time, the world had about 4000 years less reactor-years of experience. Nuclear energy was still unpopular. The price of oil, and energy in general, was falling to nearly historic lows in real terms. The concept of external costs had not been systematically explored.

There was actually only one major politician who was aware of global climate change and its implications, and he had a job that, while nominally was the second highest office in the land, was still for all intensive purposes, largely powerless.

The glaciers were not so obviously melting, and the droughts were in places no one cared about (Africa). Global climate change was then almost like a some day science fiction scenario, not a day to day experience.

Platitudes about the external cost, economics, and reliability of renewable fuels could be supported with hand-waving, wishful thinking, and fantasy. No one had tested the claims - as they are being tested right now.


The important concepts involved with IFR, I think, are not dead. Pyroprocessing and/or electrorefining will become, I predict, an industrial process widely used in the world, if not in the United States. Fast reactors will ultimately become mainstream, but only after the price of uranium - which is the equivalent of gasoline at less than a tenth of a cent a gallon, rises.

In general, liquid sodium metal reactors had (and continue to have) poor economics and poor reliability, although one might argue, and be quite reasonable, that considerable experience has been gained with them.

Plutonium inventories will have to fall before then. Right now there is over 3000 metric tons - enough to supply all of the world's energy demand from all sources for many months. Given that nuclear reactor capacity is no where as high as it will be if humanity survives global climate change, there is sufficient plutonium for many years to come. I note that plutonium is always created in MOX reactors. The chief difference between a breeder reactor and a standard reactor is that the breeder makes more plutonium than it consumes. However all reactors make plutonium - this is why we have so much of it. I personally rather like the light water scenarios that are recently being explored, since there are many of them that place an economic incentive for denaturing weapons plutonium. This kind of approach is nothing short of excellent. It means that the existing nuclear weapons states will have an economic incentive to dismantle their weapons to sell them as fuel. Cashed strapped states, particularly poor states - and who can argue that the United States is not about to be crushingly impoverished - will want to dismantle their weapons to get money.

Overall, I'm ambivalent about the cancellation of the IFR. I think it was, like most breeders, too far ahead of its time. The world wasn't ready for it in 1994, although it may be ready for it in 2014.

I note that the Clinton nuclear policy was not so bad. It is Clinton who decided that the path of burning surplus plutonium in light water reactors was a good idea. He was right. This was an excellent decision, a winner for all humanity. This is a very active area of research, and it offers many exciting opportunities.

I think there are many fast reactor choices available that differ from the liquid sodium type. I rather like the idea of the lead-bismuth system, which has been selected for Gen IV. There are many other types of breeders that are conceivable that can be expected to offer almost all the advantages associated with the IFR.

I am pleased to have learned from you that the proponents of the IFR (albeit for pork reasons) included Dick Durbin and Carol Brown. Thanks for pointing that out.