Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wurlitzer
No huge containment structure is needed as in a light water reactor.

Why not? A 300 year half life is still potent.

Lots of advantages cited, but it's hard enough to restart the LWR industry, let alone license a plant based on new technology.

7 posted on 09/01/2010 8:32:34 AM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cicero2k

With only a 300 year storage requirement maybe all the billions spent on Yucca Mt. can actually go to good use. Especially since the level of waste is 1% of a similar LWR.

No need to scrap current LWRs but given the alleged intrinsically safe nature the approval process should not be anywhere near the level of a LWR. Maybe 2X of a coal plant.

There are current designs. There are a few current operating reactor so a complete blank sheet of paper is not needed but certainly engineering an upscaling would be required.


10 posted on 09/01/2010 8:37:33 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson