Bill Gates Funds New China Reactor

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:39 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Medic!!! Bring the self-back pat splits!
No, wait a second. Seems he has used that motion often enough that he has developed the needed flexibility.

:: i don't understand.

... moving on ...

i think this Gates+China move might be a game changer: It's pushed the stakes up, and the 'savvy'. it says, 'this is where "smart money" goes', and its going with an 'outlier'.

if Gates pulls this deal off, and the technology comes though (and i don't believe there are any serious reasons why it wont), this will swamp the news, and investor interest.

Chinese will treat the project as a matter of national pride, as only they do, whilst wisely ensuring the continuation of consumer growth within the wider economy, that is 'what is good for China'.

'Fill your boots' Bill, but ultimately good for everyone, i suggest, including all/any 'alternative' research right now.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:43 pm

How does one control the reaction with a TWR? The graphic seems to imply no control rods. Just start and let it run? Sounds as dangerous as the Timberwind to me, and at least the latter was not intended to run for more than a few minutes.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:07 pm

No need for control rods, the TWR are mainly a slow breeder type of reactor, whose reaction rate is controlled by the energy of the Neutrons and by the moderator temperature.
Too hot and the Neutron will not be absorbed (and hence no fission occurs), too cold and the neutron will not be absorbed.

In these type of reactors the reaction is in all aspects self limiting in a fixed range of temperatures.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:55 pm

rcain wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Medic!!! Bring the self-back pat splits!
No, wait a second. Seems he has used that motion often enough that he has developed the needed flexibility.

:: i don't understand.

You wrote: "as you were..." to which, as a description of himself:
he wrote: "Very clever"
Kind of patting himself on the back, no? Hence...

K

Obviously I didn't quite have the intended degree of humor.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:09 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
rcain wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Medic!!! Bring the self-back pat splits!
No, wait a second. Seems he has used that motion often enough that he has developed the needed flexibility.

:: i don't understand.
You wrote: "as you were..." to which, as a description of himself:
he wrote: "Very clever"
Kind of patting himself on the back, no? Hence...

K

Obviously I didn't quite have the intended degree of humor.

no, i think it sort of worked, and for very much all the wrong reasons... which i like to see...

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:41 pm

re: TWR ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor wrote: ...
Depleted uranium is widely available as a feedstock. Stockpiles in the United States currently contain approximately 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium, which is produced as a waste byproduct of the enrichment process.
....

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor#Concept_criticism wrote: Kirk Sorensen of Flibe Energy has criticized the TWR as "a particularly difficult implementation" of the fast breeder reactor, which he characterizes as "already hard to build in the first place", as well as for aspects of its eventual nuclear decommissioning...

not going to be all smooth sailing then...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:35 pm

no, i think it sort of worked, and for very much all the wrong reasons... which i like to see...

That is my opinion as well. Also my intention.

Kite: As a person full of con-jectures your annoyance at assumed back patting is amusing.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:19 am

MSimon wrote:
no, i think it sort of worked, and for very much all the wrong reasons... which i like to see...
That is my opinion as well. Also my intention.

Kite: As a person full of con-jectures your annoyance at assumed back patting is amusing.

Sorry! If I projected annoyance, I failed utterly. I was aiming at good humored teasing, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:12 am

Giorgio wrote:No need for control rods, the TWR are mainly a slow breeder type of reactor, whose reaction rate is controlled by the energy of the Neutrons and by the moderator temperature.

Ed Teller's original TWR design was supposed to be self-regulated thanks to an innovative Li6/Li7 apparatus (would it have ever worked?).
Now, if I believe in their paper published at the ICAPP Conference in 2010, there are control rods in the TWR, just as with any fission reactor.
What Bill and his boys have actually done is to keep the fancy name and opt for a quite classical design of sodium-cooled fast reactor, the same as what was operated in France in the late 80s and early 90s(1200 MW Superphenix), should have been followed by the Italian-German-French EFR (European Fast Reactor) and was abandoned, the same that is now being built in India in Kalpakkam (Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor).
Terrapower have far better chance that it will work with control rods than without.

The most innovative part of their design is the "fuel shuffling": it resembles a refueling operation, moving fuel elements inside the core, but in a fully automated way without opening the core. I see that as complicated and not very useful but not opening the core is supposed to prevent proliferation, so that must be good.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:47 am

olivier wrote:
Giorgio wrote:No need for control rods, the TWR are mainly a slow breeder type of reactor, whose reaction rate is controlled by the energy of the Neutrons and by the moderator temperature.
Ed Teller's original TWR design was supposed to be self-regulated thanks to an innovative Li6/Li7 apparatus (would it have ever worked?).
Now, if I believe in their paper published at the ICAPP Conference in 2010, there are control rods in the TWR, just as with any fission reactor.

Thanks for the info! I was in fact convinced that their design was mirroring the original TWR design.
Do you have any link for the ICAPP paper?

Enginerd · Post by **Enginerd** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:48 pm

olivier wrote:Terrapower have far better chance that it will work with control rods than without.

It will just just fine without control rods... Little Boy didn't have control rods and it worked just fine, however briefly and inefficiently. It all depends on your definition of the word "work".

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:50 pm

Well, the ICAPP 10 URL does not work anymore: http://icapp.ans.org/icapp10/program/ab ... /10189.pdf.
You have the abstract here:
http://www.terrapower.com/Technology/Te ... tions.aspx
Last but not least, you can read most of the contents of the paper here (if not all):
http://www.allbusiness.com/safety-accid ... 695-1.html

quixote · Post by **quixote** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Try this.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... URyA&pli=1

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:23 am

@olivier, @quixote,

thanks for the links, really appreciated!