Integral Fast Reactor: Why Did Funding Stop?

[vanesch]

These are all very valid points. However, the economic advantages of the IFR will be realized only when competing with plants using once-through fuel. If the world were to eventually replace its nuclear plants with IFRs, the demand for new U fuel would drop dramatically. This would result in the price of U going down to a level that would make all but the richest deposits economic to mine.

A few hundred miles north of where I live is the world's richest uranium deposit at MacArthur River, Saskatchewan. It is 24% U. Every load of ore that is hauled to the mill is worth about half a million dollars. This single deposit could supply the world with Uranium to generate all of the world's electricity for several hundred years if all of the world's electricity were produced by IFR's.

AM

I would even add, there would be NO reason to mine any uranium anymore for a few thousands of years. The actual "waste" and depleted uranium that we already have are largely sufficient. Switching to IFR style reactors would put an end to uranium mining for power purposes.

 

[mheslep]

... Now assume that 12 one-GW(e) reactors (Brayton Cycle IFRs of course) are built in the shale fields of the west-central U.S. It is estimated that there are one trillion barrels of oil locked in shale in this portion of the U.S. Let's assume further that the electricity produced by these reactors is used to heat the oil shale in the manner described in the Shell in situ conversion process - see: http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/shell_businesses/upstream/locations_projects/onshore/mahogany/mrp_technology.html

The heat produced by these 12 reactors could yield 10 to 12 million barrels of shale oil per day at a cost of about $20 to $25 per barrel if the government provided the reactors. If shale oil is extracted at a cost of $25 per barrel and oil is selling on the open market at $50 per barrel, that would save the U.S. about $115 billion per year. If the reactors each cost $20 billion, they would pay for themselves in about six years (the shale has to be heated for 3 to 4 years before it produces oil and natural gas). The savings would continue for as many years as the U.S. imports this amount of oil. If the cost of oil goes up, the amount of savings will increase. Nuclear power cannot replace gas in cars, but nuclear power can help put gasoline in cars. .

That's a fair idea for nuclear use, but I would favor concentrated solar thermal (i.e. power towers) over nuclear to process shale oil, at least up to the mid latitudes of the US. Its a little cheaper than nuclear at $3,300/kW(e) installed, and solar is a perfect match for a task like shale oil processing where short term variability of the source doesn't matter. When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/35060.pdf (page ES-4, trough costs)

 

[mheslep]

Just announced US energy chief and nobel laureate Steven Chu on fast reactors this past year in a public talk:

...There is a possibility for greatly reducing the waste of nuclear fission by having a small fraction, about 20-25% of the fission reactors use a fast spectrum – high energy neutrons, and what that does is it burns down the long lived waste to much shorter lived waste and it also converts some of the fuel, which can be used. That technology is not deployable today. The generation of nuclear reactors that are now being designed are much, much safer than old, but that new technology - the fast neutrons - is less safe...

starting at 1:36


in the same talk:

...Nuclear won't be a major factor no matter what, because of the money issue. ...
Its about 20% in the US, it will go down I think...

 

[RobertW]

Just announced US energy chief and nobel laureate Steven Chu on fast reactors this past year in a public talk:

starting at 1:36


in the same talk:

I would love to hear Chu debate Dr. Charles Till (one of the inventors of the IFR) about the IFR - INL had everything working, they just wanted to tweak the pyroprocessing a bit. Yes, one has been built, but Clinton & Co. made them tear it down.

 

[vanesch]

When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.

I actually agree with you. That's why I find it also strange that people would consider nuclear plants in hot desert countries to do desalination of seawater...

Concerning Chu's interview, it is a pity that even a guy like this resorts to "well-known" urban legends about nuclear power. What on Earth would make him think that fast breeders *have to be* less safe than PWR ? He's right of course that that technology is not immediately commercially deployable, it will take still some prototyping and engineering which might take 10 years or so, before a commercial series can be designed. That was already the case in the 80-ies. One could have had such a series by 2000 if development had continued. Of course, as long as you don't DO it, it will remain 10 years. If we don't do it for 20 more years, in 2030, it will still be 10 years away of course.

 

[Astronuc]

That's a fair idea for nuclear use, but I would favor concentrated solar thermal (i.e. power towers) over nuclear to process shale oil, at least up to the mid latitudes of the US. Its a little cheaper than nuclear at $3,300/kW(e) installed, and solar is a perfect match for a task like shale oil processing where short term variability of the source doesn't matter. When a renewable is in the same cost ball park as nuclear, I'm always going to favor renewable given nuclear proliferation issues.

Cost and uncertainty will always win out.

For shale oil processing, one would simply use the thermal energy (process heat) directly rather than generate electricity and use that for energy, or perhaps there would be a hybrid system, using both process heat and electricity generated. The deciding factor would be most efficient way to get heat to where it would be used in the shale formation.

The other factor to consider is the matter of keeping radioactive products out of the environment, and this matter is of critical importance in NPP design.

The disadvantage of solar is the daily cycle which impacts availability.

 

[sloughter]

According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary. Since a base load IFR program would have eliminated the need for the Hot Fusion Program at MIT (Sort of the AC/DC debate 100 years ago), the most obvious beneficiaries of closing down the research would have been MIT. No other Senators tried as hard as Senator Kerry to shut down the program. Perhaps he was just protecting his constituents.

Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.

 

[sloughter]

Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:

1)Site the reactor complex on the Hudson Bay,
2)Form the Canadian-American Corporation (CANAM). I envision a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors. CANAM does everything but build the plants. They buy the land, perhaps as much as 100 square miles along the Hudson Bay. They do the environmental impact statements over 20 years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. They put in the railroads. They establish the transmission corridors. They build perhaps the first dozen light-water plants i.e. existing nuclear technology.

If the reactor complex is never approved, then the dozen or so plants can crack hydrogen with electrolysis, or more efficiently with high temperature gas cooled reactors. Then they serve as the respository for all toxic, biological and solid waste from Montreal, Canada, Chicago, New York and Boston. They will process 10,000-100,000 tons of solid waste/day. Waste goes in and the cheapest steel anywhere in the world (free oxygen), metal hydrides (solid hydrogen), ingots of glass, rolls of aluminum, sheets of plastic and various and sundry metals come out.

The project requires that all the treaties necessary for the project be worked out and get indemnity from any future legal challenges without a 2/3 vote of Congress.

CANAM recoups its investment by taxing the electricity and the worker's wages. The power companies just build power plants. If the reactor complex is approved it could generate 1,500-3,000 gigawatts of power.

Here are the cost savings of the project.

1)CANAM provides a stable economic environment---utilities need stability. They don't want or need another Shoreham,

2)Spread out over 1000 plants, the environmental impact statements would cost only $10 million/plant,

3)The Hudson Bay thermal sink permits once through cooling, the cheapest kind of cooling,

4)Standardized design---there are no separate designs for each plant as has been the case for nuclear power plants in this country.

5)Pre-fabricated construction. These smaller plants (300-500mW) are already predicted to be built in three years instead of the existing ten; seven years of extra power generation matters. Their components will be carried by rail,

6)A stable work force. Since this project would be operational for at least 100 years, we can predict that we would be able to approximate the assembly line approach by shuttling clusters of workers from construction site to construction site. They might work on as many as a dozen plants in any given year,

7)Elimination of the need for Yucca Mountain. The IFR can burn up all the radioactive wastes from existing light-water reactors; this would save about $100 billion,

8)The high temperature gas cooled reactors, in tandem can generate 50% more hydrogen than electrolysis by using a patented process involving copper and chlorine,

9)A "Ponzi" scheme to lure investors to come on board early; they get a cut of the action of every power plant built later in the complex,

10)Saving in line losses by perfecting high-temperature superconductivity over the next several decades,

11)Charging other utilities and other countries to dispose of their wastes from light-water reactors,

12)Since the reactor complex will serve as a sink for all special nuclear materials, the cost of the fuel should be inexpensive as the complex acquires, among other sources, all the plutonium left over from decommisssioned nuclear warheads,

13)The residual IFR radioactive wastes require sequestration in the 100's of years, not 10,000's of years. That waste can be enclosed in a silica gel and injected by hydrofracturing at great depth where it is allowed to die with practically no environmental effects.

Does anyone think that this project would be uneconomic?

Relative to the other types of reactors in current use, IFRs of the EBRII design are the safest reactors in the world at this time. The Russians have had a fast neutron reactor in continuous operation on their power grid since 1981. The world has about 290 reactor-years of experience with fast neutron reactors. See:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

The IFR negative that comes to mind first is that the "fuel reprocessing cell" is costly. However, the cost of creating huge water reserviors for cooling light water reactors is also costly. Considering the safety advantage in not having to transport highly radioactive fuels on our highways and railroads, I believe the fuel reprocessing cell is worth its cost.

Another problem with metal-cooled reactors is that the liquid metals, particularly lead, used for cooling may cause problems with the piping used in the reactor. For example, liquid lead can leach some of the metal from the piping. I understand MIT has done research on the leaching problem with highly favorable results. MIT found that chromium and nickel alloys are very resistant to leaching.

I would like to know if you have found anything else WRONG with the IFR.

 

[mheslep]

Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:
...

Send it to Sec. Chu and ask for stimulus grant. DOE has $4.29B of the supposedly urgently needed stimulus budget and so far has spent $46M, 1%.
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/agency-summary&agency_code=89

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a program idea I sent to every member of the Senate and 300 members of Congress. We can bridge to the Integral Fast Reactor with the new Westinghouse reactor. Here is how you make the IFR cost effective:


2)Form the Canadian-American Corporation (CANAM). I envision a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors. CANAM does everything but build the plants. They buy the land, perhaps as much as 100 square miles along the Hudson Bay. They do the environmental impact statements over 20 years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. They put in the railroads. They establish the transmission corridors. They build perhaps the first dozen light-water plants i.e. existing nuclear technology.

If the reactor complex is never approved, then the dozen or so plants can crack hydrogen with electrolysis, or more efficiently with high temperature gas cooled reactors. Then they serve as the respository for all toxic, biological and solid waste from Montreal, Canada, Chicago, New York and Boston. They will process 10,000-100,000 tons of solid waste/day. Waste goes in and the cheapest steel anywhere in the world (free oxygen), metal hydrides (solid hydrogen), ingots of glass, rolls of aluminum, sheets of plastic and various and sundry metals come out.

The project requires that all the treaties necessary for the project be worked out and get indemnity from any future legal challenges without a 2/3 vote of Congress.

CANAM recoups its investment by taxing the electricity and the worker's wages. The power companies just build power plants. If the reactor complex is approved it could generate 1,500-3,000 gigawatts of power.

In addition to approval of the US government, one also needs approval of the Canadian government.

Here are the cost savings of the project.

There is no indication of cost savings. There are claims without any technical or financial basis.

2)Spread out over 1000 plants, the environmental impact statements would cost only $10 million/plant,

3)The Hudson Bay thermal sink permits once through cooling, the cheapest kind of cooling,

4)Standardized design---there are no separate designs for each plant as has been the case for nuclear power plants in this country.

5)Pre-fabricated construction. These smaller plants (300-500mW) are already predicted to be built in three years instead of the existing ten; seven years of extra power generation matters. Their components will be carried by rail,

6)A stable work force. Since this project would be operational for at least 100 years, we can predict that we would be able to approximate the assembly line approach by shuttling clusters of workers from construction site to construction site. They might work on as many as a dozen plants in any given year,

7)Elimination of the need for Yucca Mountain. The IFR can burn up all the radioactive wastes from existing light-water reactors; this would save about $100 billion,

8)The high temperature gas cooled reactors, in tandem can generate 50% more hydrogen than electrolysis by using a patented process involving copper and chlorine,

9)A "Ponzi" scheme to lure investors to come on board early; they get a cut of the action of every power plant built later in the complex,

10)Saving in line losses by perfecting high-temperature superconductivity over the next several decades,

11)Charging other utilities and other countries to dispose of their wastes from light-water reactors,

12)Since the reactor complex will serve as a sink for all special nuclear materials, the cost of the fuel should be inexpensive as the complex acquires, among other sources, all the plutonium left over from decommisssioned nuclear warheads,

13)The residual IFR radioactive wastes require sequestration in the 100's of years, not 10,000's of years. That waste can be enclosed in a silica gel and injected by hydrofracturing at great depth where it is allowed to die with practically no environmental effects.

Does anyone think that this project would be uneconomic?

2.) 1,500-3,000 gigawatts / 1000 plants = 1.5-3 GW (1500 - 3000 MW) vs These smaller plants (300-500mW)? One means 300-500 MW/plant?

3.) What are the consequences of pouring 1000's GW of thermal energy into Hudson Bay.

4.) Standardization is fine.

5.) Westinghouse project 3.5 years for an AP-1000 plants. AREVA estimate 5 yrs (60 months) for construction of the EPR, but there are quality problems and delays at Flamanville-3 and Olkiluoto-3. Make sure contractors and labor are qualified.

6.) Sounds like a plan

7.) Still need a waste repository for the vitrified waste which encapsulates the various fission products: Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu

8.) Hydrogen production currently assumes a S-I process. Please provide the US patent number for Cu-Cl process.

9.) Good luck with the "Ponzi" scheme. It sounds illegal.

10.) Don't count of superconducting transmission lines. Cooling the lines would be costly.

11.) Cost/benefit. Perhaps the countries will sell their spent fuel to whomever offers the best price.

12.) WG-Pu is already target for MOX in LWRs. I doubt the Russians will provide their WG-Pu to such a group. They have been uncooperative with the current program.

13.) Don't count on it.


One has not made a case for the economics.

 

[sloughter]

Let me meet you 80% of the way. How about a combination of just enough IFR's to breed plutonium for the cheapest, safest power plants and enough of them to burn up all other special nuclear material? Clearly, there is not enough uranium to meet the needs of 3,000 gigawatts of installed light-water reactors.

According to George S. Stanford in his article on the IFR, their wastes need only a few hundred years of sequestration. As I indicated these can be injected under extremely high pressures within a silica gel medium at depths of 3-5 kilometers. There will be minimal impacts on the environment.

As far as safety:
1)No terrorists could overrun the facility,
2)No unauthorized planes could access the facility; there will be an airstrip with fighter jets and the complex will be ringed with surface to air missiles. Besides, why would terrorist target something so remote from population centers?

Now for my safety designs:

A)A multi national multi billion dollar hazmat team will be assembled. They will serve 1/3 of their time at the facility, 1/3 third of their time in their country of origin, and 1/3 of their time off,

B)There are five barriers to keep the plutonium out of the human biosphere,

First, the internal loop of the IFR,
Second, because the plant will be fully automated with only a small staff in the control room, I recommend keeping the plant under positive CO^2 pressure. This will prevent any fires caused by the sodium burning in air,
Third, the containment vessel itself,
Fourth, in the event of a breach of the containment vesse, have dozens of drones fly though the radioactive cloud with either dry ice to cool off the cloud and chelation agents to force the metals out of the cloud where they can be cleaned up on the ground by the Hazmat team,
Fifth, The nearest major city will be over 1000 km away. Distance is a safety feature

Here are additional cost savings I haven't mentioned,

1)The enhanced Carnot Cycle compared to say a thermal plant in Florida. Probably the additional cooling might result in a 1% improvement in terms of efficiency. That would amount to the equivalent of getting 30,000mW of installed capacity for free, or about enough to meet the electrical damands of New York State. This is offset by the increased cost of construction (hostile environment/high labor costs)

2)Taconite, an iron ore, comes from the Lake Superior region. This could be converted into cheap steel by using cheap ore, free oxygen, cheap electricty and state-of-the-art steel mills circa 2030. This will be the cheapest steel anywhere in the world,

3)All the necessary manufacturing facilities can be built on site i.e. every piece of equipment and all the components of the plants can be built on site e.g. the turbines. Transportation costs drop to zero,

4)It should be possible to retire all coal-fired plants, natural gas plants and all old light-water reactors. For the first two, anyway, this would free up thousands of acres of land for commercial and residential development,

5)Charging tipping fees to process solid waste. Then, using the most aggressive recycling techniques, scavange all metals, all glass and all plastics. Burn up any organic compounds that cannot be salvaged.

6)Using electric arc furnaces it should be possible to turn all biological wastes and toxic wastes into harmless elements. Again, the complex will charge a premium for doing this,

7)Spent fuel rods may be a liability or an asset,

Now, to your other issues,

1)Clearly a mix of 2500 installed light-water capacity with 500mW of IFR makes sense,

2)The $10 billion EIS's mean superb data and computer models. If thermal load form the reactors is a problem, then go to cooling towers. My guess is, though, that the thermal burden even from 7500 gigawatt thermal will raise the temperature of Hudson Bay maybe 1/2 degree,

3)I only read the patent once and couldn't get back to it with a search. Don't know where it is on line, now. Sorry,

4)We have a firm in Schenectady working on high temperature superconductivity. Bismuth is looking promising,

5)A Ponzi scheme is only illegal when it is opaque. Here it is transparent i.e. the utilities who risk less, pay more. This is good old fashioned Capitalism,

The greatest legacy baby boomers (Who have engaged in gourmand spending, sucking up the world's natural resources, despoiled the environment, bankrupted social security and Medicare) is cheap energy. This is the least we can do for them.

Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.

 

[Morbius]

According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary. Since a base load IFR program would have eliminated the need for the Hot Fusion Program at MIT (Sort of the AC/DC debate 100 years ago), the most obvious beneficiaries of closing down the research would have been MIT. No other Senators tried as hard as Senator Kerry to shut down the program. Perhaps he was just protecting his constituents.

sloughter,

I very sincerely doubt that Kerry opposed the IFR at the behest of MIT. Both Massachusetts US
Senators; Kerry and Kennedy are intensely anti-nuclear. In fact, MIT has had lots of trouble
from both of them because they have worked to have MIT's nuclear reactor shutdown.

Additionally, I don't see why the IFR and hot fusion should be at odds. You don't put all your eggs
in one basket - there's plenty of need to research both concepts.

NO - as Dr. Till explains in his interview with Frontline; the shutdown of the IFR program began with
President Clinton and VP Al Gore. President Clinton's main adviser on energy and environmental
policy was VP Al Gore who was in charge of energy policy. Senator Kerry was just the "point man" in
the Senate doing the bidding of the President of the same political party. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

"The decision was made in the early weeks of the Clinton administration. It was tempered somewhat in the
Department of Energy in that first year. Congress then acted to keep the program alive in that first year.
And then in the second year of the Clinton administration, the decision to really reinforce the earlier
decisions was made final, and the Administration put a very considerable effort into assuring successfully
that the IFR would be canceled."

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0509till.html

"The end of the IFR was signaled in Bill Clinton's second State of the Union address in early 1994. ...
The new Clinton Administration had brought back into power many of the best-known anti-nuclear
advocates...In 1994, Democrats were in the majority in both houses of Congress. Anti-nuclear advocates
were also settling into key positions in the Department of Energy, the department that controlled IFR
funding. Other anti-nuclear people were now in place in the office of the President's science advisor, in
policy positions elsewhere in the Administration, and in the White House itself."

From President Clinton's first State of the Union address:

http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/clinton-1.html

"Our budget will, by 1997, cut 140 billion dollars from the deficit – one of the greatest real spending cuts by an
American president. We are making more than 150 difficult, painful reductions which will cut federal spending
by 246 billion dollars. We are eliminating programs that are no longer needed, such as nuclear power
research and development. We are slashing subsidies and canceling wasteful projects..."

The person most responsible for the shutdown of the IFR program was not Kerry, and was not
Hazel O'Leary. President Clinton gave Al Gore the assignment of "Reinventing Government"
and to slash spending on "unnecessary programs". One of the programs Al Gore determined was
"unnecessary" and needed to be terminated was the IFR. The people most responsible were Bill Clinton
and Al Gore.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

According to Wikipedia, the IFR was shut down because of opposition to the program by Senator John Kerry (D, MA) and Hazel O'Leary..

sloughter,

The Wikipedia Integral Fast Reactor article states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

"With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the
Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and
O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, ..."

As Dr. Till states in his Frontline interview, the non-proliferation concerns about IFR are just plain wrong:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

"Q: The argument most put on the Senate floor was that the IFR increases the risks of proliferation.

A: Yes. Well, it doesn't. As simply as that. There's no technical reason why one would make that
argument. In order to produce weapons, you have to produce pure plutonium. The IFR process will
not do that..."

It was one of the USA's own nuclear weapons design laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory; that told the Clinton Administration that the IFR was not a proliferation threat as two
US Senators wrote the New York Times to say. The original New York Times editorial stated:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/opinion/unnecessary-nuclear-relics.html

The B-2 is wasteful, but the new nuclear reactor is downright wrong. It was originally designed as a
breeder reactor, which produces more plutonium than it consumes. At a time when the world is worried
about nuclear proliferation and cannot keep track of the tons of plutonium it already has, producing more
of this critical ingredient in bombs is perverse.

Financing the Integral Fast Reactor would send the wrong signal to Japan and others who are planning to
produce more plutonium to fuel nuclear power plants.

The Senators' response:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

"You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates
plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A
recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more
proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium...

Senator Paul Simon
Senator Dirk Kempthorne

Unfortunately, when the answer the scientists gives to the politicians is not to the politician's liking;
then the politicians completely ignore the scientists and go on record with an argument that the scientists
have told them is just flat out WRONG.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[sloughter]

Much as I would like to believe that Senator Kerry's motivations are pure, I feel constrained to point out: Big tobacco told you that nicotine was not addictive. Big coal told you that CO^2 does not cause global warming. Big physics told you that the IFR was a threat to non-proliferation.

Where did Kerry get the idea that the IFR led to nuclear proliferation? Since the MIT hot fusion scientists stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants (Why would we need a future source of base load power, when we already had a functioning source of base load power, the IFR?), they had spectacular reasons to give Kerry bogus advice.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Senator Kerry, the old non-proliferation Senator, actually caused the spread of nuclear weapony and nuclear proliferation because of his opposition to the IFR? This is the view of Charles E. Till. 2006. Plentiful Energy and the Integral Fast Reactor. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR GOVERNANCE, ECONOMY AND ECOLOGY, 1,2, 212-221. "The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) was a concept that promised inexhaustible, clean, safe, proliferation-resistant energy...The development of the IFR was abandoned by the US Government in 1994, as it neared completion, because too many in the US Congress and Administration did not understand its potential to help control the spread of nuclear weapons."

Who benefited from this confusion? Do you really believe that the hot fusion scientists who stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants had no motive to lie to Senator Kerry? As for Kerry: Was he oblivious to the motivation of scientists whose livelihood was on the line who stood to gain the most by stifling the opposition?QUOTE=Astronuc;1621304]Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.[/QUOTE]

 

[sloughter]

Surprise, surprise---Two Senators from Massachusetts are intensely anti-nuclear. And who are their constituents? Hot fusion scientists at MIT. Do you really believe that these two Senators, non-scientists, when they are told by a bunch of PhD's that nuclear power is dangerous, they would question them? Think about it. The hot fusion program has been in operation for what, about 35 years? What if we had gone the way of France and gotten 70% of our electricity from light-water reactors? Why would we need the hot fusion program at MIT? For 35 years, MIT physicists have undoubtedly been putting a bug in the ear of both Kennedy and Kerry how dangerous nuclear power is. Oooh the dreaded meltdown, the China Syndrome. Oooh---the threat of nuclear proliferation and the spread of nuclear weapony. It is a very effective ploy.

Has anyone done a worst case scenario for wind comparable to a worst case scenario for nuclear? I have. Here it is. Suppose we have 5% of our electricity coming out of the wind corridor in the center of the U.S. All of a sudden a massive high pressure center settles over New Orleans for two weeks, a once in a million year occurrence. This sends hot, moist air at the end of July into 1,000,000 square miles in the center of the U.S. This produces the highest heat indices ever seen over that area. The wind dies. Electrical output goes from 50,000mW to 2500mW. Now for the worst case scenario--75% of the backup gas-fired generators fail. Isn't that what they do with nuclear power plants? We have a shortfall of 45,000mW of installed capacity and a massive increase in demand for air conditioning. Guess what? The grid collapses and a massive blackout grips the center of the U.S. 100 million people bake in their homes with nowhere to go. I was kicked out of WalMart, because in a power outage they had no backup generators. 1,000,000 people die of heat stroke, mostly the elderly, infirm and babies.

Oh, by the way, this is 1000 times more likely than a nuclear meltdown killing 10,000 people. And we're worried about the China Syndrome??

Certainly one single plant would be uneconomical because of all the R&D that goes into it.

The argument about proliferation is spurious, because weapon states can develop the technology, and non-weapon states could also if they are able to obtain the technology from countries other than the US.

Gore may have had more to do with undermining support for nuclear energy in the US than Clinton, but Clinton was certainly not supportive of nuclear. Hazel O'Leary was not a good choice for Sec of Energy. In fact, I was unimpressed by many in the Clinton cabinet, particularly those as SecEnergy.

 

[Morbius]

Much as I would like to believe that Senator Kerry's motivations are pure, I feel constrained to point out: Big tobacco told you that nicotine was not addictive. Big coal told you that CO^2 does not cause global warming. Big physics told you that the IFR was a threat to non-proliferation.

Where did Kerry get the idea that the IFR led to nuclear proliferation? Since the MIT hot fusion scientists stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants (Why would we need a future source of base load power, when we already had a functioning source of base load power, the IFR?), they had spectacular reasons to give Kerry bogus advice.

sloughter,

You are 100% WRONG! I worked on the Integral Fast Reactor when I was at Argonne. MIT was
part of our academic PARTNERS. MIT Prof. Kazimi was on the safety committee for the IFR:

http://18.80.2.252/people/faculty/index.html?id=48

Member, Safety Subcommittee, Integral Fast Reactor Program, University of Chicago, 1990-1994

MIT scientists did NOT tell the Senators that the IFR was dangerous - in matter of fact - an MIT
professor was part of the group that was helping Argonne certify that the IFR was SAFE!

Additionally, you are also incorrect when you say that the hot fusion program at MIT would suffer
if the IFR program went forward. They are funded out of two separate programs within DOE. Congress
gives the fission energy program a certain amount of money, and they give the fusion program a certain
amount of money - and you can't "mix" the two "colors" of money. The MIT fusion program can't get
any of the fission program money and visa-versa.

Big physics did NOT tell you the IFR was a threat to proliferation. The only labs that are really qualified
to answer that question are Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Lawrence Livermore was asked by
the Administration for its determination and LLNL said that the IFR was NOT a proliferation threat.

The death of the IFR was driven not by scientists but PURELY by the POLITICIANS - and specifically
one VP Al Gore! If you want the name of the one person who pushed most for the cancellation of the
IFR, and is the single person that is most responsible for the demise of the IFR that one person would be
Al Gore.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

MIT physicists have undoubtedly been putting a bug in the ear of both Kennedy and Kerry how dangerous nuclear power is. Oooh the dreaded meltdown, the China Syndrome. Oooh---the threat of nuclear proliferation and the spread of nuclear weapony. It is a very effective ploy.

sloughter,

Again - 100% WRONG! The fusion program at MIT is run out of Course XXII - the Nuclear Engineering
Department - as is the fission reactor research program. In essence, at MIT is the same group of
professors. Where do you get this innuendo that "MIT physicists undoubtedl benn putting a bug in the ear.."
Pure 100% NONSENSE!

MIT has been particularly instrumental in publishing that the so-called "China Syndrome" of the anti-nukes
is a bunch of nonsense.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Where did Kerry get the idea that the IFR led to nuclear proliferation?

sloughter,

From Clinton and Gore - NOT from MIT!

At the time - the early '90s; Plasma Fusion Center at MIT was well funded by the Dept. of Energy
to run the Alcator C-mod experiments. MIT wasn't in any danger of losing funding for its fusion program.

http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres95/07.140.html

The amount of money that MIT got for its fusion program from the DOE Office of Fusion Energy is
quite separate from how much money Argonne National Lab got for the IFR. They are basically two
non-fungible funding streams as far as the Dept. of Energy is concerned.

The Senators from Massachusetts have been vehemently anti-nuclear for decades. Those opinions
predate the IFR and MIT's founding of its Plasma Science and Fusion Center in 1976. Senator
Kennedy's opposition to nuclear power dates back to the '60s. John Kerry was actively opposed to
nuclear power as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts dating to 1982, and as US Senator since
1984.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Where did Kerry get the idea that the IFR led to nuclear proliferation? Since the MIT hot fusion scientists stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants (Why would we need a future source of base load power, when we already had a functioning source of base load power, the IFR?), they had spectacular reasons to give Kerry bogus advice.

sloughter,

Kerry and Kennedy would like nothing better than to have the MIT fusion scientists lose their funding!
Kerry and Kennedy do NOT want nuclear research - fission or fusion - or nuclear "anything" in Cambridge.
They vote AGAINST funding nuclear research for MIT. They would be happy if all the MIT nuclear labs
along Albany Street from the reactor down to Alcator C-Mod would just "disappear".

Kerry and Kennedy are NOT going to attempt to help MIT keep their nuclear research funding - they want
that to go away. Is Harry Reid happy that billions of federal dollars are pouring into Nevada for the
Yucca Mountain project? NO - Harry Reid doesn't want the nuclear project in his state.

Likewise, the predecessor to the Integral Fast Reactor was the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project
which was to be built in Tennessee. Who opposed the Clinch River project and eventually killed it?
Tennessee Congressman and later Senator Al Gore. Al Gore doesn't want nuclear power - he wants
windmills, solar power, and carbon credit trading. When the Integral Fast Reactor project came along;
it was seen as a continuation of the Clinch River reactor project. The full-scale prototype of the IFR
could be built in Tennessee on the already approved Clinch River site. Gore opposed IFR.

Then in 1993, Gore became VP; and President Clinton gave him the job of "Reinventing Government" -
to get rid of wasteful and unnecessary federal spending. Gore determined that nuclear power research
like the IFR was unnecessary and needed to be terminated; which found its way into President Clinton's
State of the Union speech that I quoted above in post #102.

Kerry wasn't opposing IFR at the behest of MIT; he was taking his marching orders from the White House.

The cancellation of the IFR is not a "cat fight" between fission scientists and fusion scientists. Scientists
of both disciplines by in large believe that we need to pursue both approaches. After all, one of the most
promising ways to take fusion energy and turn it into useful power is to use the fusion reactor to drive
a sub-critical fission reactor in a hybrid system such as Lawrence Livermore's LIFE concept:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/how_life_works.php

That's basically fast reactor technology being used in the hybrid - so the fusion scientists have a
interest in good fast fission reactor technology.

The cancellation of the IFR was not due to the funding wishes of the fusion community. The demise
of the IFR was due to politicians who are anti-nuclear - the ones that consider anything nuclear as
being "evil". They don't want the money saved by canceling IFR spent on fusion - they want that
money spent on windmills, solar, and carbon-credit trading.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[sloughter]

Still, Senator Kerry was the one who shut down the IFR. If you plot our dependence on foreign oil over the past 35 years and plot on the same graph the amount of money spent on the hot fusion program at MIT, I'll bet you'll see a striking correlation. You can thank the multigenerational failure of the DOE, hot fusion scientists at MIT and our politicians for our failed energy policy.

Was there ever a Draft Environmental Impact Statement or a Final Environmental Impact Statement ever performed for the hot fusion program at MIT? Did DOE ever bother to get input from other branches of science i.e. geologists, chemists, biologists or atmospheric sciences before the started what they KNEW would be a fifty year long project? I submit that the hot fusion program is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. There can be no greater impact on the environment then the expenditure of billions of dollars and the suppression of known, green technologies, due to the lack of funding. The hot fusion program will only be successful after global warming is terminal. Ask any hot fusion scientist when hot fusion will be commercially viable, their stock answer will be, "Thirty years from now."

As for Al Gore---he played fast and loose with his graphs. If you plot up the correlation between global warming and CO^2, there is a correlation, but not the one he would have you believe. He has got the cart before the horse. If you plot up the relationship of global warming and CO^2 over the past million years, FIRST you get global warming, THEN you get a 200 year lag, and then you get an increase in CO^2. This is not surprising when you think about it, because warm water will hold less gas than cold water.

Show me a place with cities and industries and so on where, say, more than 75% of the electricity has been reliably provided by alternatives, for at least a few years.

 

[sloughter]

It has been alleged that Senator John Kerry was against hot fusion at MIT. The following statement was made by Kerry in the following venue, "Bush and Kerry Offer Their Views" from Scienxpress.

Kerry stated, "Our energy plan will tap America's initiative and ingenuity to stengthen our national security, grow our economy, and protect our environment. I support a strategically balanced U.S. Fusion program that includes participation in ITER to supplement a strong domestic fusion science and technology portfolio."

I googled under the following search "Senator John Kerry oppostion to hot fusion at MIT" Nothing turned up, but I did find the above statement by Kerry.

Again to suggest that two streams of research don't impact on each other is absurd on its face. If the IFR got there first and could successfully be deployed as a reliable base-load power system that could sufficient power to meet our energy needs, what possible reason would we continue a hot fusion program that has never produced even one kilowatt of power and probably never? With hot fusion, we are not going to find a pot gold at the end of the rainbow, only a pot of manure.

Thank you for all the information, but what if you look at it in a perspective of IFR against all other alternate energy (solar, wind, biofuels) instead of against other reactors? Does that change anything?

 

[vanesch]

You can thank the multigenerational failure of the DOE, hot fusion scientists at MIT and our politicians for our failed energy policy.

I find this an odd statement. Now I don't know all the intrigue that has taken place here, but thinking that fusion research has anything to do with an energy plan for the next 50 years is not knowing what he's talking about.

Fusion research is no substitute at all for either nuclear fission or renewables. Fusion research is long term *research* out of which MIGHT be coming a brilliant energy solution 50 years from now (or not). Given the promise, it's worth doing the research.
But fusion has nothing to say about the energy provision between now and, say 2060 or so, and that's the time frame where fission nuclear, as well as renewables are playing in.

Considering that funding for nuclear fission is somehow related to the funding for fusion (in whatever way) is as relevant as considering that funding of a space telescope is somehow related to satellite television.

It might be, but then the one who did so was a nitwick, or a crook, or both.

 

[sloughter]

MIT hot fusion scientists will do whatever it takes to shut down the competition. To suggest, somehow, that Senator Kerry would not help out his constituents if they stood to lose billions of dollars in reseach grants, seems unlikely.

Here is a brief history of LENR research: When the first cold fusion experiments were done at MIT, initial results found excess heat in one cell. MIT hot fusion scientists in their preliminary report to DOE dutifully reported this. Then in the final version of their report they changed the expermental design to read the "sudden onset of heat". They then told DOE in their final report that they got a null result. That's right---they changed the experimental design after the experiment was run. This so thoroughly disgusted Eugene Mallove that he quit his good job as science writer for MIT to set up the New Energy Foundation and their flagship publication Infinite Energy. He knew that cold fusion would never be treated fairly in the press.

We learn the following from 'Emerging Energy Marketing Firm, (Inc.) (EEMF)...Prepared for Republican National Committee. Subject: the politics of new energy technology.'

"When low-energy nuclear fusion (dubbed 'cold fusion' by the media) was first announced, the 'hot fusion' community falsely assumed that this low energy nuclear reaction was a threat to the continuation of $500 million (or more) per year from the DOE. Lobbyists for the 'hot fusion' community took the following steps:

1)A committee visited several laboratories where low-energy nuclear reactions were achieved and declared them invalid,

2)An agent was obtained at the Office of Patents and Trademarks to ensure that no cold fusion patent applications were approved,

3)All major U.S. technical journal were warned against printing any cold fusion articles (All but FUSION TECHNOLOGY agreed not to publish),

4)A fund of about $30,000 was provided to Random House to fund a book to destroy the credibility of cold fusion. The book was BAD SCIENCE, THE SHORT LIFE AND WEIRD TIMES OF COLD FUSION, a hatchet job by Gary Taubes,

5)An 'official' from Washington, D.C. called all major universities and warned them, 'If you have so much as a graduate student working on cold fusion, you will get NO CONTRACTS OUT OF WASHINGTON!',

6)Robert Park, a self-appointed 'spokesman' for the American Physicial Society has been vigorously lambasting cold fusion and its supporters for over 10 years. PARK IS NOW BEING SUED."

What is the status of LENR today? Park recanted after 18 years and grudgingly acknowledged that cold fusion was, in his words, 'science'. Experts get excess heat, reliably on demand in a short period of time. They even get alpha particles from their cells.

Doubt this? Consider the following statement under the heading, "Invest in Cold Fusion Energy and Palladium Commodities/Palladium May 18, 2009,

"Cold fusion, that Pariah of established science, made a comeback in March as the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Center went public with results which they believed confirmed that low-energy nuclear reactions were present, repeatable and decisively demonstrable in their specialized palladium/heavy water experiments."

MIT hot fusion scientists aggressively shut down cold fusion research in this country. The IFR was a far more immediate threat to their program so they were so anxious to shut it down, Kerry scuttled the research even though completing the research cost no more than shutting it down (Stanford). In view of their response to LENR research, do you really think that MIT hot fusion scientists had no interest in shutting down IFR research? If MIT hot fusion scientist were so anxious to shut down LENR research, don't you think that they would attempt to scuttle the IFR research, particularly if it made the hot fusion program superfluous? And who is the Senator whose constituents stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants if the IFR research reached commercial viability which it was predicted to do in as little as three years?

Show me a place with cities and industries and so on where, say, more than 75% of the electricity has been reliably provided by alternatives, for at least a few years.

 

[vanesch]

MIT hot fusion scientists will do whatever it takes to shut down the competition. To suggest, somehow, that Senator Kerry would not help out his constituents if they stood to lose billions of dollars in reseach grants, seems unlikely.
In view of their response to LENR research, do you really think that MIT hot fusion scientists had no interest in shutting down IFR research? If MIT hot fusion scientist were so anxious to shut down LENR research, don't you think that they would attempt to scuttle the IFR research, particularly if it made the hot fusion program superfluous? And who is the Senator whose constituents stood to lose billions of dollars in research grants if the IFR research reached commercial viability which it was predicted to do in as little as three years?

Maybe this is true, but then, it is done by people who don't know what they are talking about, or by people who think they have to do with people who don't know what they are talking about (which is not impossible, btw).

But I don't see how the IFR is a threat to hot fusion. The day that hot fusion works, we can start thinking about taking out all fission power. Hot fusion, *if it works*, is way better than fission: safety is easier, the waste problem is easier, the supply is easier. So *in any case* it is interesting to pursue fusion research. And, BTW, much materials research between fast reactors and fission is in common (behavior of materials under fast neutron irradiation). So a succesfull IFR program could only boost a hot fusion research program.

Only, the IFR is for the 21st century, and fusion is for the 22nd century. So I don't see the competition, unless the decider really doesn't know what he's talking about.

In France, there is no competition between fission research, and fusion research which is both done by the same organism (CEA). I don't see why this would be any different in the USA.

Fusion, for most the 21st century, has nothing to do with energy provisions. It is research. The IFR has everything to do with energy provision. It could have been up and running by now if Kerry didn't kill it. Fusion is not going to be up and running for most of the 21st century.

 

[Morbius]

But I don't see how the IFR is a threat to hot fusion. The day that hot fusion works, we can start thinking about taking out all fission power. Hot fusion, *if it works*, is way better than fission: safety is easier, the waste problem is easier, the supply is easier.

vanesch,

Actually the day we get hot fusion to work - we won't start thinking about taking out fission power.

When hot fusion works - you have most of your energy in 14.1 MeV neutrons - assuming D-T fusion.
The next step is "How do we get useful energy from hot fusion". It turns out that the leading idea there
is to run fusion-fission hybrid reactors. That's what is at the heart of Lawrence Livermore's LIFE concept:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/how_life_works.php

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[vanesch]

vanesch,

Actually the day we get hot fusion to work - we won't start thinking about taking out fission power.

When hot fusion works - you have most of your energy in 14.1 MeV neutrons - assuming D-T fusion.
The next step is "How do we get useful energy from hot fusion". It turns out that the leading idea there
is to run fusion-fission hybrid reactors. That's what is at the heart of Lawrence Livermore's LIFE concept:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/how_life_works.php

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Myeah. That's one of the most complicated "accelerator-driven" subcritical reactor designs I've ever seen. Indeed, if *that*'s the goal, a "classical" fast reactor such as the IFR is way more practical, no ?

I can see the political advantages of that LIFE thing. It is "once-through" (although I'd be surprised to see that the spend fuel can handle a 1000 GW-day/ton burnup in one go...) which sounds nice, and in that case the "no reprocessing need" and yabadabadaba and no proliferation blahblah... And "no criticality required" yes, this will sell very well. But what are the genuine technical advantages over an IFR ?
Or even, over a "standard" spallation-source accelerator-driven system ?

I was more thinking of an ITER-like fusion concept, and when I say, "when hot fusion works", I meant that we have an up-and-running pure-fusion power plant. Such a plant, if it runs (economically), would surely be nicer than any fission reactor.

 

[Morbius]

Q

But what are the genuine technical advantages over an IFR ?
Or even, over a "standard" spallation-source accelerator-driven system ?

vanesch,

That's an unanswered question. In fact, one of my colleagues has been tasked with the job of
answering that very question.

As for the accelerator driven approach - the neutron fluences from an ICF ignition are MANY,
MANY orders of magnitude greater than what can be sustained in an accelerator.

I was more thinking of an ITER-like fusion concept, and when I say, "when hot fusion works", I meant that we have an up-and-running pure-fusion power plant. Such a plant, if it runs (economically), would surely be nicer than any fission reactor.

Even with ITER - you have a burning plasma that is throwing of 14.1 MeV neutrons like crazy. Now
how are you going to capture that energy in the most efficient manner and with the least amount of
radioactive activation?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[vanesch]

As for the accelerator driven approach - the neutron fluences from an ICF ignition are MANY,
MANY orders of magnitude greater than what can be sustained in an accelerator.

Time-averaged too ?

Even with ITER - you have a burning plasma that is throwing of 14.1 MeV neutrons like crazy. Now
how are you going to capture that energy in the most efficient manner and with the least amount of
radioactive activation?

I don't know. Cook water with it ? A layer of a few meters of water would surely stop them and get most of their energy, no ? (and even produce deuterium) I have to say that I'm not terribly well versed in the technicalities of fusion.

 

[Morbius]

Time-averaged too ?
I don't know. Cook water with it ? A layer of a few meters of water would surely stop them and get most of their energy, no ? (and even produce deuterium) .

vanesch,

The mean free path for 14.1 MeV neutrons in water is about 10 cm - see page 11 at:

https://wci.llnl.gov/codes/tart/media/pdf/UCRL-TR-220605.pdf

However, you can get an order of magnitude more energy by using the 14.1 MeV neutrons to drive
a sub-critical fission system, as in the LIFE concept.

Additionally you don't need to produce deuterium - the easiest way to get that is to separate it from
ordinary water. What you do need to produce is tritium - and for that you need a target of lithium not
water.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[vanesch]

vanesch,

The mean free path for 14.1 MeV neutrons in water is about 10 cm - see page 11 at:

https://wci.llnl.gov/codes/tart/media/pdf/UCRL-TR-220605.pdf

Right, and if you have, say, 10 collisions with hydrogen, you have reduced the energy by about 1000 (so you've extracted most of useful energy), which means 1 meter of water (and even less, of course, because the cross section rises with lowering neutron energy, and the path is random, and not straight). So, 50 cm of water or so should absorb most of the neutron energy.

However, you can get an order of magnitude more energy by using the 14.1 MeV neutrons to drive a sub-critical fission system, as in the LIFE concept.

Sure, but what are the hardest problems of a fission system ? Not really reactivity control. The hardest part is cooling of the fission products, containment, and waste. And compared to a fast reactor, there's not really an improvement.