|Jul6-05, 08:47 PM||#1|
Hans Bethe's views
From the abstract
|Jul6-05, 09:29 PM||#2|
Th-232 can be used in a thermal breeder to produce U-233, and U-238 is converted to Pu-239 (with subsequent production of Pu-240, 241, 242 and Am-241,242,243, Cm-244). Actinide burning is a possibility.
|Jul7-05, 10:46 AM||#3|
I don't see Bethe's solution as solving the proliferation problem - and neither
did the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation study of the late 70s,
I think the solution lies with concepts like Argonne's Integral Fast Reactor;
The IFR concept allow on-site reprocessing - so that the weapons-grade
material never leaves the high radiation portion of the power plant.
Additionally, as Dr. Till states; the IFR concept doesn't separate the
weapons useable material from other "stuff" that makes the creation
of a weapon with that material impossible.
The IFR is a breeder; so it makes potential use of all the Uranium
available, both U-238 and U-235; and not just the fissile U-235.
The IFR address proliferation concerns - the Plutonium created is never
separated from "stuff" that makes the use of that Plutonium in a weapon
The IFR is "inherently-safe" or "passively-safe" - it doesn't rely on
engineered safeguards like emergency pumps to guarantee safety.
It relies on the Laws of Physics; which always work.
It really is too bad that Clinton cancelled this project in 1994 to
appease the anti-nuclear crowd.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
|Jul7-05, 04:01 PM||#4|
Hans Bethe's views
I thoroughly agree with you doctor. Without your expertise, I have been a proponent of the IFR for years, as my old posts on PF will show. I just thought it was interesting to see what Bethe, for whom I have the greatest respect, thought about it. Maybe the thoughts retailed in the paper were from before the IFR design was developed.
|Similar Threads for: Hans Bethe's views|
|Hans Bethe website||Quantum Physics||5|
|Congratulations Alejandro and Hans!||Beyond the Standard Model||9|
|Hans Bethe (1906-2005)||Quantum Physics||7|