The article doesn’t make clear whether this is a homogenous reactor, or keeps the coolant separated from the fuel.
Nor does the original source of the research:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2012/news120209.html
The future of nuclear is cold fusion.
Tunneling Beneath the 4He Fragmentation Energy
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4 (2011) pages 241–255 ^ | February 2011 | K P Sinha
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2743039/posts
Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 10:45:05 PM by Kevmo
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4 (2011) pages 241–255
A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal deuterides
Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:14:09 PM · by Kevmo · 35 replies
International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008 ^ | July 2008 | K P Sinha
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732072/posts
Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief (Focardi & Rossi - not cold fusion but close enough)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2730240/posts
Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:56:09 AM · by Titus-Maximus · 52 replies
How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real (or Fake)
LENR.QUMBO.com ^ | April 6, 2011 | Alan Fletcher
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2011 7:52:15 PM by Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2730401/posts
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
HOW TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY
Friday, December 31, 2010 1:57:41 AM · by Kevmo · 40 replies The American Reporter ^ | December 29, 2010 | Joe Shea
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2649712/posts
Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2270920/posts
Friday, June 12, 2009 11:25:41 PM · by Kevmo · 27 replies · 1,027+ views
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612201v2.pdf ^ | Reginald T. Cahill
The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 78 replies · 1,626+ views Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 | http://www.suppressedscience.net/
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
‘Cold Fusion’ Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212864/posts
Monday, March 23, 2009 12:42:14 PM · by FlameThrower · 35 replies · 1,586+ views
Science Daily ^ | Mar. 23, 2009 | American Chemical Society
____________________
Wait a minute . . we have a nuclear industry? I remember we used to have one!
Nothing new...just ask our Soviet/Russian friends. Seems this nimrod is not that concerned about what happens when liquid sodium-cooled reactors fail, particularly in proximity to good old water. He doesn’t talk much about how technologies have advanced to make such reactors safe, particularly when contrasted with the issues Fukushima is having right now (and it being a more modern water-cooled reactor).
If we’re going to build a nuclear reactor, which I think we should be doing, there are several new technologies put forth in the past 20 years or so that are worth exploring. Case in point is the pebble-bed reactor; it’s less dependent upon cooling loops and contains the fissile material in such a manner so as to minimize the chance for runaway reactions.
You can love whatever variation of nuclear power that you want. And, you can point out all of the technical articles you want on your favorite. In the end, none but the conventional PWR and BWR will be built until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its regulations are re-structured to allow a licensing process. The NRC barely has the resources to keep up with regulating the 100 plus running plants in this country and applications for 30 plus more. Demands for the federal government to subsidize this that and the other because they already waste/wasted money on something else is ridiculous logic. Note that the current licensees pay fees designed to fund the NRC completely; effectively the NRC is self-funded.
There are several SMR designs out there. No one has built a working model yet.
I'm obviously not a nuclear engineer or anything close but this part caught my eye. Since lead is far denser than water, wouldn't it slow down neutrons more efficiently?
Thanks in advance.
This experiment in using nuclear power to boil water started in 1942 only for creating and exacting the by-product plutonium, for bomb making. It was billed later as unlimited source of electric power generation as a cover when other countries wanted to join the ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ (MAD) nuclear race.
Once you start a nuclear reaction, you can’t stop it. The fission may end but decay of parent material into daughter material continues indefinitely (in our time frame).
If you expose a recent spent fuel assembly to air, heat from decaying material reactions will cause it to catch on fire in 15 minutes or less releasing its radioactive contamination. Takes five to ten years for the fuel assembly’s decay reactions to diminish enough to even think about exposing it to air and still you need circulating air to carry off residual heating.
This is why nuclear fuel sits in pools next to the reactors as it must be transferred (moved) and stored underwater at all times, for years. Plus, constant cooling (removal of heat) from the storage pool water or the water will heat up beginning to steam and boil away.
BWR are only about 30% efficient as the quest for more efficient designs are elusive when it comes to overall costs. Water and other moderators slow down the bouncing neutrons to cause or give a better chance of them striking the nuclear fuel pellets inside the fuel rods that makeup fuel assemblies. The more strikes the better as they cause more heating due to the reactions (fission). Without a moderator, neutrons move to fast to be effective.
Heat exchangers are vulnerable points as high temperatures meet cold temperatures during heat transfer usually through relatively thin metal tubes. (Not so recently, San Onofe i.e. Original heat exchanges were meant to last the life of the plant’s operation, were recently replaced due to wear and the replacements are failing after only a few years.)
The more efficient a design, the less daughter by-products would remain, meaning any reactions would give off their heat at once leaving little or no nuclear byproducts...like a perpetual motion machine, ain’t going to happen.
If you can’t keep up with your own posts then don’t post.
Basic BWR reactors are a failure on many fronts. Costs. Nuclear wastes. Environmental and human risks.
But you are set to continue down the path of fission destruction with next generation reactors either for power or heat generation. Never mind the experiments in 1st generation and 2nd generation and 3rd generation and so on, designs are all failures mainly due to costs of nuclear waste storage but you are all ready for the compact version of fission and ignoring the results of large output fission reactors.
Some people never learn.
Either you have a small reactor and refuel it yearly or use more powerful fuels to extend the refueling time but what you end up with is dealing in plutonium spread out all over the world.
Britain already has more plutonium than it knows what to do with along with other nuclear countries. Must be creating a new market to unload the stuff in someone’s backyard while ignoring the consequences.
Japan says the 3 blown nuclear units at Fukushima are in cold shutdown but have no idea where the (3) cores are and they are certainly not contained. The experiment continues...