Aussies Claim Working Fusion Reactor

[Giorgio]

BTW do you have any mfg contacts in China? I have some ideas.

I am living right in the middle of the Shenzhen SAG market, biggest electronic component market of the world.
I also have some good contacts here in electronics manufacture. Drop me a PM with what you need and I'll be happy to help if I can.

[seedload]

Ladajo and I agree on this (nuclear) one. Funny that.

Nuclear fuel cycle cartel is uber powerful, yet unable to build new plants.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new competition, yet Hyperion exists.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new ideas, yet HPM was researched at Los Alamos, won federal awards, and was successfully licensed.

Got it.

Look, obviously getting a new nuclear fission technology to market would be an exceedingly hard task requiring lots of money and lots of risk in the regulatory process, but I still don't buy the claim that it can't be done because it disrupts the currrent fuel cycle too much and that there would be a significant conspiracy against it based on this fact.

Truth is that it doesn't matter much anyway. We will be buying LFTRs from China in 15 years or so.

regards

[ladajo]

Ladajo and I agree on this (nuclear) one. Funny that.

Nuclear fuel cycle cartel is uber powerful, yet unable to build new plants.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new competition, yet Hyperion exists.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new ideas, yet HPM was researched at Los Alamos, won federal awards, and was successfully licensed.

Got it.

Look, obviously getting a new nuclear fission technology to market would be an exceedingly hard task requiring lots of money and lots of risk in the regulatory process, but I still don't buy the claim that it can't be done because it disrupts the currrent fuel cycle too much and that there would be a significant conspiracy against it based on this fact.

Truth is that it doesn't matter much anyway. We will be buying LFTRs from China in 15 years or so.

regards

It would not disrupt the current fuel cycle as much as it just doesn't fit into it. That is the real issue. The system is comfortbale and happy doing what it is doing. It has no real interest to do anything else. There is no incentive for the existing establishment to bring LFTR into the fold. Until there is a motivation to do so, it will struggle or have to force entry. Either way will require large external capital and time. Normally, this does not add up to a viable business endeavor.
I fully agree with you that LFTR is a viable and useful pursuit. I also agree with you that it is more likely that someone (more than likely foreign) outside of the existing uranium model will run with it.
The uranium fuel cycle infrastructure is just to ingrained and well tied to not just power, but weapons, research, medical, waste and all sorts of things that are not apparent on the surface.
The only way I see LFTR taking off here is with DOD independant buy in for facilities and remote site power. Once they do that, then DOE and industry will buy in. Then you may eventually see LFTR's popping up as community power sources. Again, having an idea how our system works, it is more likely our commercial types will by them from somewhere else and push for licensing and regulatory support to install them.
None of this will be fast nor cheap as yo may think it could be. And for that you can thank the Tree Hugging Consortium who have instilled a massive fear and ignorance of anything using the words atom, radioactive or nuclear into the general populace. It has been a well played IO War by them.

[KitemanSA]

Ladajo and I agree on this (nuclear) one. Funny that.

Nuclear fuel cycle cartel is uber powerful, yet unable to build new plants.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new competition, yet Hyperion exists.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new ideas, yet HPM was researched at Los Alamos, won federal awards, and was successfully licensed.

Got it.

HPM is a liquid metal fast breeeder reactor, similar to other fast breeders in the U/Pu cycle; its part of the cycle "cartel" using your terminology.

There are a few efforts to sneak the Th/U cycle into the system by having it replace some of the pellets or pebbles in a standard fuel cycle reactor.

LFTR differs in ALL aspects from currently approvable technology. Oh well.

I can't help wondering if the problem is that it is TOO easy, once it is found "acceptable". Oops, my conspiracy side is showing!

[MSimon]

Bill Gates developing nuclear reactor with China

Now why would he be doing that in China?

I also started a thread on that

viewtopic.php?t=3436

[seedload]

Ladajo and I agree on this (nuclear) one. Funny that.

Nuclear fuel cycle cartel is uber powerful, yet unable to build new plants.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new competition, yet Hyperion exists.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new ideas, yet HPM was researched at Los Alamos, won federal awards, and was successfully licensed.

Got it.

Look, obviously getting a new nuclear fission technology to market would be an exceedingly hard task requiring lots of money and lots of risk in the regulatory process, but I still don't buy the claim that it can't be done because it disrupts the currrent fuel cycle too much and that there would be a significant conspiracy against it based on this fact.

Truth is that it doesn't matter much anyway. We will be buying LFTRs from China in 15 years or so.

regards

It would not disrupt the current fuel cycle as much as it just doesn't fit into it. That is the real issue. The system is comfortbale and happy doing what it is doing. It has no real interest to do anything else. There is no incentive for the existing establishment to bring LFTR into the fold. Until there is a motivation to do so, it will struggle or have to force entry. Either way will require large external capital and time. Normally, this does not add up to a viable business endeavor.
I fully agree with you that LFTR is a viable and useful pursuit. I also agree with you that it is more likely that someone (more than likely foreign) outside of the existing uranium model will run with it.
The uranium fuel cycle infrastructure is just to ingrained and well tied to not just power, but weapons, research, medical, waste and all sorts of things that are not apparent on the surface.
The only way I see LFTR taking off here is with DOD independant buy in for facilities and remote site power. Once they do that, then DOE and industry will buy in. Then you may eventually see LFTR's popping up as community power sources. Again, having an idea how our system works, it is more likely our commercial types will by them from somewhere else and push for licensing and regulatory support to install them.
None of this will be fast nor cheap as yo may think it could be. And for that you can thank the Tree Hugging Consortium who have instilled a massive fear and ignorance of anything using the words atom, radioactive or nuclear into the general populace. It has been a well played IO War by them.

I agree with everything you just said.

[seedload]

Ladajo and I agree on this (nuclear) one. Funny that.

Nuclear fuel cycle cartel is uber powerful, yet unable to build new plants.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new competition, yet Hyperion exists.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new ideas, yet HPM was researched at Los Alamos, won federal awards, and was successfully licensed.

Got it.

HPM is a liquid metal fast breeeder reactor, similar to other fast breeders in the U/Pu cycle; its part of the cycle "cartel" using your terminology.

There are a few efforts to sneak the Th/U cycle into the system by having it replace some of the pellets or pebbles in a standard fuel cycle reactor.

LFTR differs in ALL aspects from currently approvable technology. Oh well.

I can't help wondering if the problem is that it is TOO easy, once it is found "acceptable". Oops, my conspiracy side is showing!

By fuel cycle, I was referring to the solid fuel industry, which may be the source of your confusion about my comments. I am aware of the inherent differences between U/Pu and Th/U.

[seedload]

Bill Gates developing nuclear reactor with China

Now why would he be doing that in China?

Why do I feel like some big dumb vulture about to be outsmarted by a crafty Bugs Bunny. I'm even humming the song.

I know why Bill Gates is doing that in China. What is your point?

[MSimon]

Bill Gates developing nuclear reactor with China

Now why would he be doing that in China?

Why do I feel like some big dumb vulture about to be outsmarted by a crafty Bugs Bunny. I'm even humming the song.

I know why Bill Gates is doing that in China. What is your point?

Six.

[KitemanSA]

Nuclear fuel cycle cartel is uber powerful, yet unable to build new plants.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new competition, yet Hyperion exists.
Nuclear fuel cycle cartel will squash new ideas, yet HPM was researched at Los Alamos, won federal awards, and was successfully licensed.

HPM is a liquid metal fast breeeder reactor, similar to other fast breeders in the U/Pu cycle; its part of the cycle "cartel" using your terminology.

There are a few efforts to sneak the Th/U cycle into the system by having it replace some of the pellets or pebbles in a standard fuel cycle reactor.

LFTR differs in ALL aspects from currently approvable technology. Oh well.

I can't help wondering if the problem is that it is TOO easy, once it is found "acceptable". Oops, my conspiracy side is showing!

By fuel cycle, I was referring to the solid fuel industry, which may be the source of your confusion about my comments. I am aware of the inherent differences between U/Pu and Th/U.

I do not believe I am confused about your comment. Your "examples" of exceptions to the "cartel" are in fact part of the "cartel" so your "point" is pointless.
There is a massive "government-industrial complex" that without malace aforethought still presents an incredibly high hurdle to overcome. And there appears to be no-one with the resources willing to push LFTR over said hurdle. Oh well!

[seedload]

HPM is a liquid metal fast breeeder reactor, similar to other fast breeders in the U/Pu cycle; its part of the cycle "cartel" using your terminology.

There are a few efforts to sneak the Th/U cycle into the system by having it replace some of the pellets or pebbles in a standard fuel cycle reactor.

LFTR differs in ALL aspects from currently approvable technology. Oh well.

I can't help wondering if the problem is that it is TOO easy, once it is found "acceptable". Oops, my conspiracy side is showing!

By fuel cycle, I was referring to the solid fuel industry, which may be the source of your confusion about my comments. I am aware of the inherent differences between U/Pu and Th/U.

I do not believe I am confused about your comment. Your "examples" of exceptions to the "cartel" are in fact part of the "cartel" so your "point" is pointless.
There is a massive "government-industrial complex" that without malace aforethought still presents an incredibly high hurdle to overcome. And there appears to be no-one with the resources willing to push LFTR over said hurdle. Oh well!

Kite,

The Hyperion HPM approach used uranium hydride in a tub as both the fuel and moderator with no control rods or cladded fuel assemblies. This is not essentially a LMFBR and thus it is well fit for my example.

The Gate's thingy, the travelling wave reactor thingy, is the one that is essentially a LMFBR, but that was MSIMONs example, not mine.

I don't believe that the fact that getting a new design licensed and regulated would be difficult and exceedingly expensive is necessarily saying the same thing as implying that the difficulty would be because of some kind of collusion between the DOD, DOE, GE, Westinghouse, and the NRC to maintain the big money status quo fuel cycle (ladajo's list, not mine).

While I accept the former, I am dubious of the latter especially since the fuel cycle in question will undoubtedly carry on in parallel.

That's all.

Repeat, I accept that regulation will be a HUGE regulatory and financial hurdle. I do not accept that this is because of a fuel cycle conspiracy.

regards

[MSimon]

Repeat, I accept that regulation will be a HUGE regulatory and financial hurdle. I do not accept that this is because of a fuel cycle conspiracy.

No conspiracy required. Just a confluence of interest.

The regulators know U235. The mfgs know U235.

Learning something knew is very, very, difficult. Esp when thinking has to change.

You can go to another thread on another topic and see that even those that support my position do not come at it from a totally different understanding. Despite the fact that the understanding I'm promoting is well supported by the current literature.

Now think of how much harder it is to change when your personal cash flow is involved.

As I said - no conspiracy required. Just a confluence of interest.

[KitemanSA]

There is a massive "government-industrial complex" that without malace aforethought still presents an incredibly high hurdle to overcome. And there appears to be no-one with the resources willing to push LFTR over said hurdle. Oh well!

I don't believe that the fact that getting a new design licensed and regulated would be difficult and exceedingly expensive is necessarily saying the same thing as implying that the difficulty would be because of some kind of collusion between the DOD, DOE, GE, Westinghouse, and the NRC to maintain the big money status quo fuel cycle (ladajo's list, not mine).

That is what I said, and what ladajo said too. The only one implying a conspiracy here (other than my joke) seems to be you miscaracterizing L& my points.

No cospiracy, just a huge bureaucratic-industrial complex that is VERY costly to work within... expecially when it is something truly outside the accepted..

[seedload]

There is a massive "government-industrial complex" that without malace aforethought still presents an incredibly high hurdle to overcome. And there appears to be no-one with the resources willing to push LFTR over said hurdle. Oh well!

I don't believe that the fact that getting a new design licensed and regulated would be difficult and exceedingly expensive is necessarily saying the same thing as implying that the difficulty would be because of some kind of collusion between the DOD, DOE, GE, Westinghouse, and the NRC to maintain the big money status quo fuel cycle (ladajo's list, not mine).

That is what I said, and what ladajo said too. The only one implying a conspiracy here (other than my joke) seems to be you miscaracterizing L& my points.

No cospiracy, just a huge bureaucratic-industrial complex that is VERY costly to work within... expecially when it is something truly outside the accepted..

To be clear on what I was responding to.

LFTR is great and all, but the fact that it would completely disrupt the existing fuel cycle economy can not be discounted as a motviation point for opposition. Not saying its right to do so, but I can imagine there are folks in the existing industry that view it as a threat to be minimized and subdued.

If the civilian side introduces LFTR, or the navy starts to switch to them, it will have an impact on the fuel life cycle. And that is big money.

I think you need to take a deeper look at the relationship between DOE, DOD, USN, and Civilian nuclear power.

I was responding to this line of reasoning. Economy. Big money. Many Parties. Relationships. Implied collusion. I was agreeing that regulation is costly, but not necessarily because of the current economy of the solid fuel cycle. That's all.

Apparently we are agreeing. I am not sure why you keep correcting me.

regards