This is interesting

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EN...s_2106131.html

A way to not use uranium, and burn up plutonium, in conventional reactors

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Ah, but how much energy is used to mine and refine the material, then
produce the fuel. Did not the UK have a plant for making this sort of fuel
which has never actually worked very well and cost a lot of dosh, hoping to
use all the plutonium up?

anyway, I guess we shall see. Trouble is that things in this industry move
slowly at best, and go backwards at worst. I can remember that Fast breeders
were the future in 1962.. erm what happened to those?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
This is interesting

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EN...s_2106131.html

A way to not use uranium, and burn up plutonium, in conventional reactors

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:34:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

This is interesting

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EN...s_2106131.html

A way to not use uranium, and burn up plutonium, in conventional reactors

Hallelujah - at last, it's 1960.

On 23/06/13 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Ah, but how much energy is used to mine and refine the material, then
produce the fuel.

Not very much.
Due to the incerdibly high energy density of nuclear fuels.

Did not the UK have a plant for making this sort of fuel
which has never actually worked very well and cost a lot of dosh, hoping to
use all the plutonium up?

That's because recycling is more expensive than using fresh mined uranium.

anyway, I guess we shall see. Trouble is that things in this industry move
slowly at best, and go backwards at worst. I can remember that Fast breeders
were the future in 1962.. erm what happened to those?

Uranium got dirt cheap. And we had enough plutonium to destroy Russia by
then.
Then interest rates went up and north sea gas was discovered...

Brian



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 23/06/2013 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
I can remember that Fast breeders
were the future in 1962.. erm what happened to those?

Uranium is more plentiful (cheaper) than believed when they were
conceived, rendering them economically redundant for their original
premise. However the cynic in me believes they were really created to
produce Pu, when that was something that was desired.

On 23/06/2013 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:

anyway, I guess we shall see. Trouble is that things in this industry move
slowly at best, and go backwards at worst. I can remember that Fast breeders
were the future in 1962.. erm what happened to those?

They discovered that lithium hydride was more bang per buck so they
don't need anywhere near as much plutonium.

On 22.06.2013 21:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
This is interesting

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EN...s_2106131.html

A way to not use uranium, and burn up plutonium, in conventional reactors

and this is interesting
Alexander Cannara - Energy Basics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUVq81kBKyk

The lecture by Alexander Cannara
is interesting because it tells why we all need
thorium reactors, and why we need then very fast.
--
jo
"Academics that are climate denialists testify that
education can sometimes be wasted." --Jo Stein