Obama and Lisa Jackson seize control of CO2 production

[CLite]

Just curious, but what exactly is it about the CANDU reactors that you like? Heavy water reactors aren't widely used for a reason.

Well a CANDU burns Uranium much for thoroughly than a LWR and can use fuel that is much less enriched, it can actually burn spent fuel from LWRs. I think they can even process weapons grade plutonium and reduce their enrichment.

The downside of course is the high cost of heavy water.

 

[rcpratt]

Well a CANDU burns Uranium much for thoroughly than a LWR and can use fuel that is much less enriched, it can actually burn spent fuel from LWRs. I think they can even process weapons grade plutonium and reduce their enrichment.

The downside of course is the high cost of heavy water.

Sure. But Canada only went that route because they couldn't fabricate large RPVs nor did they have enrichment technology. We have both, not to mention that we still have a huge reserve of weapons-grade uranium that we can unenrich to reactor grade.

 

[ElFenix]

I think this is a good idea. Not because of pollution of global warming, but because of the economic vulnerability that our dependence on fossil fuels puts us in. Let's face it, we have debts up to our neck, and the only way out is to devalue our currency. The big fly in their ointment is that dollar denominated commodity prices will go up as the dollar falls. So we need to prepare for that.

you're aware that even if the commodity is not dollar denominated, the price will tend to go up as the dollar falls relative to other currencies, right?

 

[werepossum]

Just curious, but what exactly is it about the CANDU reactors that you like? Heavy water reactors aren't widely used for a reason.

Well a CANDU burns Uranium much for thoroughly than a LWR and can use fuel that is much less enriched, it can actually burn spent fuel from LWRs. I think they can even process weapons grade plutonium and reduce their enrichment.

The downside of course is the high cost of heavy water.

This, mainly. The flexibility of fuel, lower cooling requirements, and the inherent safety and stability of using less-enriched uranium I find attractive.

 

[K1052]

Sure. But Canada only went that route because they couldn't fabricate large RPVs nor did they have enrichment technology. We have both, not to mention that we still have a huge reserve of weapons-grade uranium that we can unenrich to reactor grade.

Burning up our spent LWR fuel for power generation is increasingly attractive given the odds that the national repository will never be established.

 

[rcpratt]

Burning up our spent LWR fuel for power generation is increasingly attractive given the odds that the national repository will never be established.

Only delays the "problem."

 

[werepossum]

Only delays the "problem."

I had a very wise chemistry professor in college who said that if we want to get rid of nuclear waste, we should seal it in barrels with slow leaks and dump them in deep parts of the ocean. We do not create radioactivity, we merely concentrate it to make it useful, so slowly distributing it back into nature would "dispose" of it. He also said that would be stupid, as nuclear waste still contains much concentrated energy which, if not currently practical to recover, will certainly eventually be practical to recover. More than three decades later those two statements ring as true as ever.