Anne Lauvergeon told The Times that the French group was developing a technology to burn up actinides [...]. The technology could be critical in winning greater global public support for nuclear energy and cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.
The project at Areva is similar to research being carried out at the University of Texas in Austin.
Mike Kotschenreuther, also of the IFS, said that the technology rested on the use of a spherical hybrid fusion-fission reactor.
Little technical information is actually provided. Since the Times got the information from AREVA's CEO, I consider it credible. All this has to be seen in the perspective of the dreadful fight for the leadership of the nuclear industry in France between AREVA (the reactor manufacturer), and EDF (the utility). Such announcements may be used as weapons, to demonstrate "I am the one with a true vision for the future".
How difficult do you think it would be to turn a Polywell-type device into a neutron generator for a fusion-fission reactor?
D-T is the easiest fuel to burn and produces the most neutrons. This applys to ANY fusion reactor, but AREVA is talking about a spherical arrangement which suggests the fusion part is NOT a tokamak.
The problem then becomes obtaining the T. However, most MSRs (molten salt reactors) specifically select the isotope of Lithium that does NOT breed Tritium because they typically don't want it. If you DO want it, then the Li salt matrix in the MSR becomes easier to make.
The Times referred to research conducted at the University of Texas at Austin as similar to AREVA's project.
The Science Daily recently published an article about UT's research project. Their fusion-fission reactor is based on a tok. Based on the the drawing, it is difficult to describe its shape as spherical, merely cylindrical.
I know that spherical tokamakmay stand for small aspect ratio tokamak, from which I infer that AREVA's design is nevertheless based on such a compact tokamak, but I am not a fusion scientist.
passenger66 wrote:If you want to burn up actinides, what is wrong with the IFR?
Nobody seems to be comfortable with the tonnes of highly reactive liquid sodium in the system. All trys I know of have been... less that stellar successes. Perhaps you should consider promoting the Lead cooled fast reactor. Not much better, but not quite so volatile either.
No fusion involved here at the end of the day.
It appears that the Times journalist has totally mistaken the sodium fast breeder which the CEA and AREVA actually plan to build for the fusion-fission hybrid reactor which is studied at the University of Texas at Austin. Science journalism is not what is used to be.
passenger66 wrote:If you want to burn up actinides, what is wrong with the IFR?
Nobody seems to be comfortable with the tonnes of highly reactive liquid sodium in the system. All trys I know of have been... less that stellar successes. Perhaps you should consider promoting the Lead cooled fast reactor. Not much better, but not quite so volatile either.
I'm not so sure about that. My daughter gave me the impression that the problems using liquid metal primary cooling loops have been solved. I thought she meant sodium. When she's back in the states I'll ask her about sodium in particular. I figure the folks at UM would know, given their proximity to the Fermi reactor.
StevePoling wrote: I'm not so sure about that. My daughter gave me the impression that the problems using liquid metal primary cooling loops have been solved. I thought she meant sodium. When she's back in the states I'll ask her about sodium in particular. I figure the folks at UM would know, given their proximity to the Fermi reactor.
AFAIK, liquid sodium cooled reactors (LSCR) are kind of inversely like tokamaks. Tok supporters keep saying "we will crack this problem real soon now" but never do while LSCR supporters keep saying "see, we've cracked this problem" but always seem to slink away when yet more problems emerge.
I wish them luck.
I've seen one that MAY prove to be viable, the Toshiba 4S. I suppose similar varients might work also.
Personally, I prefer MSRs. They do the same thing without the volatility.
Sodium cooled reactors were build in UK, France, Russia, India, Japan and even Germany. Superphenix, a 1300 MWe protoype reactor was operated in southern France between 1986 and 1997, then stopped for political reasons. As a prototype it suffered from several minor incidents, but the fact that it was started a few months before Chernobyl did not help.
The technical feasibility of large sodium-cooled reactors is demonstrated. The actual level of safety which you can expect remains a question mark.
It's my private opinion (uncluttered by any kind of factual confirmation), that nuclear designs were excluded from consideration after the mid-70s on the sole basis that they "sound risky."
For instance, fast neutron reactors sound risky, because the layman doesn't think reactors should be in a hurry. The reactor should take its time because when you try to go too fast you start to make mistakes. And breeder reactors? Before you know it, there will be reactors all over the place.