Peak-a-boo

You have mistaken the Super-Phénix which was shut down in 1996 with the Phénix which is expected to be shut down in 2014. The Indians have bred thorium in their their test fast breeder, and the plan to breed thorium in the prototype fast breeders as well as in their "thorium" commercial breeder design. Since the Indians have operated their test breeder for over 20 years, and are building a prototype commercial reactor, I would say they passed the test. Why are you so skeptical about the capacity of the Indians to develop an advanced technology? If the Russians can succeed in developing the BN-600 why not the Indians?

I am not a particular fan of the liquid sodium fast breeder, which I think has proven a difficult to master in practice. Better, far safer, and technologically less arduous approaches are to be found in fluid fueled reactors, Like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or the Liquid Chloride Breeder Reactor. But I do not doubt, that a Liquid Sodium fast breeder can be made to work.

Charles

The Phénix is a prototype. It is used to develop scaleable projects like the Super-Phenix and others. Under the title of "Successful Breeder Reactors" I would not give France the gold medal. My sense is the Russia's B-600 is also a prototype that is kept functional for themselves and other countries to study. The holly grail of nuclear energy is the FBR, humankind just doesn’t have a viable FBR solution yet. This is my perception.

India is attempting to make great strides forward. It is only natural for each of us to protect our own interests. In the case of India, the US, Germany, Russia and France were the first to take the lead in nuclear power. India is working hard to find an independent nuclear power system, free from the west. Since they haven't achieved the ultimate Thorium reactor or FBR, they are reliant on the west, the US, Russia, France, and Germany for their fuel. These countries have their interests to protect. This is my perception.

Peak-a-boo, My point is that the EROEI of various nuclear fuel/reactor combinations should be assessed. Evan if you count the BN-600 and the Phénix as prototypes, we are in effect in the stage of commercial development for the LMFBR. And that is exactly what the Indians are doing. At this point in the reactor development cycle there is little doubt that commercial LMFBRs can be made to work. My point here is not to say I like the LMFBR, because I don't, but to argue when questions - which I regard as poorly informed - are raised about the future availability of uranium. My point is this. At least 99% of the potential energy of uranium is unextracted by the current uranium/LWR system. Even if we were running out of uranium, and we are not. We possess the technology to produce nuclear power for a long time, and in addition, even if we are running out of uranium, which is not the case, we can still extract nuclear energy from thorium. Our thorium reserve will last for a very long time.

So far, the problem about breeders has been high capital costs. This is the Achilles' heel of nuclear power, and any new technology that exagerbates it is a non-starter.

Slashing capital costs is one of the most important issues for new breeder designs.

Fluid fuel reactors such as liquid fluoride reactors offer advantages in capital costs over LWRs. They're low pressure and so massive steel pressure vessels aren't required, they're more scalable for very high or low powers than LWRs. That they eliminate the fuel fabrication and complex reprocessing steps are nice also.

LFTR does appear to be one of the most promising concepts, if not the most promising.

Do you have any news on the commercialization of such reactors? The only one I know of is the Fuji project, which isn't proceeding very rapidly, and IIRC won't use continuous reprocessing to maximise the potential of the design.

Cyril R, at the moment theoretical and materials research is being conducted in several countries, but only the Fuji project is directed at developing an actual reactor. This is tragic considering the potential of the LFTR. Development of the LFTR will require an act of political will. The manufacture of LFTR would destroy the current business model of LWR manufacturers, who make their money selling fuel rather than reactors. Efficient use of nuclear fuel in LFTRs would mean that the manufacturers would have to make their money selling reactors, and the current manufactures don't know how to do that.

Here is a list of benefits from the development and adoption of the LFTR/liquid core reactor design.

. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design. It is self regulating. Core meltdown is absolutely not a problem. Continuous removal of radioactive gases insure that only small amounts of radioactive gases would be released in a worst case accident. Coolant leaks do not lead to fires or explosions. There would be little or no solid fission product release/radiation problem in the event of a leak. Because of the chemical properties of the liquid salt coolant/fuel attacks by terrorists using explosives or aircraft, would not create a wide dispersal of radioactive materials. The use of liquid salts eliminating a threat to public safety from terrorists attack on LFTRs.

2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient. Up to 98% of thorium used in a LFTR can be burned. In contrast only about 0.6% of uranium involved in the LWR/uranium fuel cycle is burned.

3. Virtual elimination f the problem of nuclear waste. The LFTR produces 0.1% of the waste that light water reactors produce, per unit of power produced. Instead, the spent fuel of LFTRs contains many useful and some rare and very valuable metals and minerals. LFTR "spent fuel" represents a potential means of providing industry with rare materials in an increasingly resource starved world.

4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety. A LFTR is more than a reactor. It is a fuel processing/reprocessing system. The liquid salts approach enables fuel and breeding materials to be processed on a continuous basis while the reactor is producing power. This includes continuous removal of gases produced in the nuclear reaction, the processing of newly breed reactor fuel, the removal of fission products. Nuclear fuel (U-233, U-235, and plutonium) can be continuously added to the reactor. Thus the reactor never needs to stop operating for refueling. The nature of the LFTR fuel cycle makes reactor fuel theft by terrorist impossible, while diversion of reactor fuel for weapons purposes a very unlikely approach to nuclear proliferation.

5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies. The LFTR can be designed in a size that can be mass produced on assembly lines. Many external parts including heat exchanges can be made from low cost carbon-carbon composite materials, dramatically lowering materials, parts, and assembly costs. High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines. Compact reactor/generation unit means smaller, less expensive reactor/power unit housing is required. The inherently safer design means that less money needs to be spent on reactor safety systems, and on accident containment, while assuring the highest possible public safety. Small reactor/power generator size can simplify siting problems LRTRs can be manufactured and set up in weeks or months, compared years for custom built LWRs.

6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste.

High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines.

Charles, that sounds as though it would also be good for the production of hydrogen - not that I believe in basing the economy on hydrogen production, but it could possibly be used to make things like biodiesel, which would be less volatile.

This might make problems of using nuclear reactors for peak power more manageable, as during periods of low demand the surplus might be used effectively.

Unfortunately hydrogen production is one of those flat out demands that is either allways on or not if you want any efficiency.

Good demand management will have to be found somewhere else.