Group items tagged

"Integral fast reactors" and other "fourth generation" nuclear power concepts have been gaining attention, in part because of comments by US climate scientist James Hansen. "We need hard-headed evaluation of how to get rid of long-lived nuclear waste and minimise dangers of proliferation and nuclear accidents," Hansen says. "Fourth generation nuclear power seems to have the potential to solve the waste problem and minimise the others." Integral fast reactors (IFRs) are reactors proposed to be fuelled with a metallic alloy of uranium and plutonium, with liquid sodium as the coolant.

AMory Lovins has a look at various new forms of nuclear power being touted as the next big thing - "New" Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story. he dominant type of new nuclear power plant, light-water reactors (LWRs), proved unfinanceable in the robust 2005-08 capital market, despite new U.S. subsidies approaching or exceeding their total construction cost. New LWRs are now so costly and slow that they save 2-20x less carbon, 20-40x slower, than micropower and efficient end-use.1 As this becomes evident, other kinds of reactors are being proposed instead-novel designs claimed to solve LWRs' problems of economics, proliferation, and waste.2 Even climate-protection pioneer Jim Hansen says these "Gen IV" reactors merit rapid R&D.3 But on closer examination, the two kinds most often promoted-Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors4-reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale, and the thesis is unsound for any nuclear reactor.

"The White House has proposed barring Energy Department research on fast reactor recycling of nuclear waste and technical support for licensing of small, modular light-water reactors, drawing protests from Energy Secretary Steven Chu that such prohibitions will have broad adverse effects, including hurting the U.S. nuclear industry's renaissance; crimping U.S. ability to influence other countries' fast reactor designs to address proliferation concerns; and taking away nuclear waste disposal options that might be considered by the administration's planned blue-ribbon panel on alternatives to the Yucca Mountain repository. In the letter, Chu said he "strongly disagree[s] with the policy direction [proposed by OMB] concerning allowable nuclear energy R&D activities.""