From what I have read, obtaining the power required of the spallation source beam is NOT a simple engineering accomplishment. It has been done repeatedly for scientific purposes, but commercial, not so much.geleto wrote:This is a rather simple concept with a straightforward implementation. Why hasn't it been tried many years ago?
Nuclear Reactor Could Operate 200 Years On Same Fuel
Re: advantages of a spallation source
I think the whole idea of these buried closed box reactors is completely messed up and represent our messed up attitude to nuclear power, out of sight out of mind.
What people don't seem to realise is that as long as nuclear waste can be safely contained nuclear power is 100% clean but only a few large accidents change all that. In many ways a thriving nuclear industry with 10,000 state-of-the-art well run reactors with an army of fully skilled personel to run them and a fuel cycle that has been carefully thought out and benefits from economies of scale is actually safer than 10 poorly run reactors which are a leftover of an ageing poorly funded nuclear industry with no skilled personel to look after them.
Why don't we want our reactors to be actively managed to prevent accidents and fix problems as soon as they arise? What is it with this idea of burying them in the ground and abandoning them?
What people don't seem to realise is that as long as nuclear waste can be safely contained nuclear power is 100% clean but only a few large accidents change all that. In many ways a thriving nuclear industry with 10,000 state-of-the-art well run reactors with an army of fully skilled personel to run them and a fuel cycle that has been carefully thought out and benefits from economies of scale is actually safer than 10 poorly run reactors which are a leftover of an ageing poorly funded nuclear industry with no skilled personel to look after them.
Why don't we want our reactors to be actively managed to prevent accidents and fix problems as soon as they arise? What is it with this idea of burying them in the ground and abandoning them?
Excellent point JMC.
I think the public will generally see the "it's not my problem" aspect of these reactors and have a hankerin' to "return the waste to it's source" by hook or by crook. Nuclear ash needs to be managed, and leaving it behind isn't a management strategy that will fly.
I have an uneasy feeling of these types of reactors too.
I think the public will generally see the "it's not my problem" aspect of these reactors and have a hankerin' to "return the waste to it's source" by hook or by crook. Nuclear ash needs to be managed, and leaving it behind isn't a management strategy that will fly.
I have an uneasy feeling of these types of reactors too.