PDA

View Full Version : Traveling-Wave Reactor



Nimander
03-04-2009, 03:54 PM
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/page1/


Enriching the uranium for reactor fuel and opening the reactor periodically to refuel it are among the most cumbersome and expensive steps in running a nuclear plant. And after spent fuel is removed from the reactor, reprocessing it to recover usable materials has the same drawbacks, plus two more: the risks of nuclear-weapons proliferation and environmental pollution.

These problems are mostly accepted as a given, but not by a group of researcher*s at Intellectual Ventures, an invention and investment company in Bellevue, WA. The scientists there have come up with a preliminary design for a reactor that requires only a small amount of enriched fuel--that is, the kind whose atoms can easily be split in a chain reaction. It's called a traveling*-wave reactor. And while government researchers intermittently bring out new reactor designs, the traveling-wave reactor is noteworthy for having come from something that barely exists in the nuclear industry: a privately funded research company.

As it runs, the core in a traveling-*wave reactor gradually converts nonfissile material into the fuel it needs. Nuclear reactors based on such designs "theoretically could run for a couple of hundred years" without refueling, says John G*illeland, manager of nuclear programs at Intellectual Ventures.

Gilleland's aim is to run a nuclear reactor on what is now waste. *Conventional reactors use uranium-235, which splits easily to carry on a chain reaction but is scarce and expensive; it must be separated from the more common, nonfissile uranium-238 in special enrichment plants. Every 18 to 24 months, the reactor must be opened, hundreds of fuel bundles removed, hundreds added, and the remainder reshuffled to supply all the fissile uranium needed for the next run. This raises proliferation concerns, since an enrichment plant designed to make low-enriched uranium for a power reactor differs trivially from one that makes highly enriched material for a bomb.

But the traveling-wave reactor needs only a thin layer of enriched U-235. Most of the core is U-238, millions of pounds of which are stockpiled around the world as leftovers from natural uranium after the U-235 has been scavenged. The design provides "the simplest possible fuel cycle," says Charles W. Forsberg, executive director of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project at MIT, "and it requires only one uranium enrichment plant per planet."

Janot79
03-04-2009, 04:11 PM
I don't see why you quoted them when you posted a link to the site, but cool information.

Nimander
03-04-2009, 04:36 PM
I don't see why you quoted them when you posted a link to the site, but cool information.

dunno seemed like the thing to do at the time.

Also I remember seeing something before about a research group that was able to significantly reduce the half life of radioactive materials but I can't find that link :(

With energy seeming to be a hot topic this past year, I'm amazed we haven't seen a push for more reactors. Hopefully we technology like this we can solve our energy issues without ruining the environment.

Redenbacher09
03-05-2009, 02:39 PM
Nuclear reactors based on such designs "theoretically could run for a couple of hundred years" without refueling, says John G*illeland, manager of nuclear programs at Intellectual Ventures.

What happens after that 100 years? Seems a long way out, but makes the plan seem more like a band-aid than an energy solution. I'm all for nuclear energy, but the principal concern is the storage of nuclear waste.

If, after 100 years, this reactor dumps 100 years worth of nuclear waste, has it accomplished anything?

Father Diablo
03-18-2009, 03:25 PM
I don't see why you quoted them when you posted a link to the site, but cool information. LMAO yah i was thinking the same thing haha, but wht ev.

AKAtheMilkman
03-20-2009, 01:07 AM
What happens after that 100 years? Seems a long way out, but makes the plan seem more like a band-aid than an energy solution. I'm all for nuclear energy, but the principal concern is the storage of nuclear waste.

If, after 100 years, this reactor dumps 100 years worth of nuclear waste, has it accomplished anything?

I guess the hope would be that it gives them an extra 100 years to find a better way of disposing of the waste

Xx Tikki xX
03-20-2009, 01:12 AM
I guess the hope would be that it gives them an extra 100 years to find a better way of disposing of the waste

FLY IT TO THE MOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we talked about this in science in year 8 me and my teacher, he thought it was a good idea yet it was stupid since what it saves it just dumps back into the earth 100 or so years later....

AKAtheMilkman
03-20-2009, 01:25 AM
Between the pollution it takes to fly stuff to the moon and the risk of having a rocketship full of radioactive material exploding in the atmosphere, I think it would be better to go ahead and not fly it to the moon :p