UK Plutonium Problem: Fast Reactor or MOx Plant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter koab1mjr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uk
AI Thread Summary
The UK is considering options for managing its plutonium stocks, focusing on either a MOx plant or fast reactor technology. There is strong support for fast reactors, particularly the GEH Prism fast reactors, as they can eliminate plutonium while generating power. Some argue against burning plutonium, citing the high costs of its production and potential future needs for it. Concerns about secure storage of plutonium are also raised, suggesting that long-term containment may be a viable alternative. The discussion highlights the balance between energy production and the management of nuclear waste.
koab1mjr
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
I was curious to know the PF communities opinion on the recent press the UK has been generating in its choice on retrying a MOx plant or dabbling with a Fast Reactor Tech


How would you all vote if you were in charge?


I am for fast reactors since the industry needs the push but I am biased as a young person in the field.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I'd say they should go with the two pack of GEH Fast Reactors. Get rid of the plutonium and produce power while they're at it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thermalne said:
I'd say they should go with the two pack of GEH Fast Reactors. Get rid of the plutonium and produce power while they're at it!

Why should we get rid of the plutonium (I assume weapon grade)? It was produced at horrendous expense. If we burn it now and then need it again (asteroid blasting?), we will need to make it again.

What's the problem with just storing it somewhere secure?
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Back
Top