<div>Safety, cost and security are all objections to fast breeder reactors. But the <strong><em>long term availability</em></strong> of reactor fuel to render nuclear reactors a major contributor to the mix of energy sources needed to largely replace fossil fuels, <strong><em>for a century of more on an international scale</em></strong>, is perhaps the main reason to give fast breeder reactors consideration. New reactor designs, according to scientific sources (given below), are available for fast breeder reactors, that have the potential to completely replace coal for electricity generation in the US, for a century or morel; and the safety and security issues can be managed, according to credible sources.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The efficiency of the use of nuclear fuel in most current nuclear reactor designs now in operation cannot support a century of more of major expansion of nuclear power on an international scale, if I understand the facts correctly. Fast breeder reactors use fuel much more efficiently, and can use nuclear waste as fuel. The subject heading of this post indicates the vast energy potential of fast breeder reactors.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am addressing the promise of fast breeder reactors in the context of a future where accelerating climate change induces a major shift in the economics of energy production. If climate change due to how we generate energy has huge negative economic impacts, even if fast breeder reactors are more costly than, for example, coal, for energy generation, if they reduce what may be massive negative economic impacts of climate change, by lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they may be viewed as cost effective.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are numerous options for largely replacing fossil fuels for energy: bio fuels, geothermal, solar (both photovoltaic and thermal), wind, wave and tidal, nuclear, hydrogen, hydro power and CCS (carbon capture and storage), if fossil fuels cannot be avoided, for some fossil fuel applications. Some of these energy sources may not live up to optimistic claims, but they may all be needed to address energy needs. Fast breeder reactors have advantages over many of the other options, as discussed in the sources given lower down.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would rather see a world where energy use is reduced so dramatically that a massive increase in energy demand does not occur. But realistically, as the world's population increases to 8-9 billion (or more?), with industrialized energy intensive development, energy demands will place incredible pressures for expansion of energy supply. If energy replacements for fossil fuels are not ready, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels may increase dramatically, with potentially disastrous results from climate change. There is too much "smiley face" optimism, it seems to me, that alternative energy and energy conservation will allow significant reduction in global fossil fuel use.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The science and engineering involved in fast breeder reactors is very complex, and I can only defer to those who are qualified to understand the issues in depth. From my reading, I gather there is a credible debate, both pro and con, for expansion of deployment of fast breeder reactors. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I previously in this thread mentioned Tom Blees' book "Prescription of the Planet," which advocates expansion of fast breeder reactors. The Union of Concerned Scientists' David Lochbaum critiqued Blees' book, and Blees responded, the details of which can be read at website below. This document is sourced from Steve Kirsch's website (Kirsch's impressive bio is here: <a href="http://www.skirsch.com/misc/bio.htm">http://www.skirsch.com/misc/bio.htm</a> ), where he addresses arguments and objections to expanding fast breeder reactors, specifically in the context of addressing climate change, at another website below.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>UNC's David Lochbaum critiques Blees' "Prescription for the Planet, with responses from Blees included:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrUCSresponse.pdf">http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrUCSresponse.pdf</a></div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Tom Blees' or Kirsch's scientific expertise to specifically address nuclear technology can be called into question, but other very qualified scientists are also advocating fast reactors. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In fact, not only are they being advocated, they are now under construction, or being planned for construction, in Japan and India, as discussed in the following technical journals referenced below. The reference immediately below from June 22, 2010, discusses new Generation IV reactor design developments, indicating there are six types of Generation IV fast reactors:</div>
<div>
<h1><font size="2">Preliminary Design Study of Medium Sized Gas Cooled Fast Reactor with Natural Uranium as Fuel Cycle Input</font></h1>
<h3><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings"><font size="2">AIP Conf. Proc.</font></a><font size="2"> -- June 22, 2010 -- Volume </font><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=1244"><font size="2">1244</font></a><font size="2">, pp. 62-69<br>
<a href="http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS001244000001000062000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no">http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS001244000001000062000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no</a></font></h3>
</div>
<div>In<sup> </sup>this study a feasibility design study of medium sized (1000<sup> </sup>MWt) gas cooled fast reactors which can utilize natural uranium<sup> </sup>as fuel cycle input has been conducted. Gas Cooled Fast<sup> </sup>Reactor (GFR) is among six types of Generation IV Nuclear<sup> </sup>Power Plants.</div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000132000010102921000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no">http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000132000010102921000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>ASME Conference Proceedings </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=ASMECP002008048241000701000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no">http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=ASMECP002008048241000701000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>Again, here is a website for a Scientific American article that argues that "Fast neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation, and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated."</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf">http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps refuting the points in this article is necessary to argue compellingly against fast reactors?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------ </div>
<div>Below is Steve Kirch's long question and answer discussion, with numerous references and technical information, regarding fast reactors:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="4">The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project: Q&A</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrQandA.htm" target="_blank">http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrQandA.htm</a></div>
<div>------------------<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/16/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ron Force</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:rforce2003@yahoo.com" target="_blank">rforce2003@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div>Thanks, Ted,<br>The problem is, as I understand it, is that the near-term issue is not the availability or cost of nuclear fuel; it's the capital costs of construction, which are 1/3 higher for LMFBRs vs. PWRs. They've also had a checkered history, with many operational and maintenance problems, sodium fires & leaks, etc.<br>
The US program was canceled in the 80's because of cost over runs and pressure from the nuclear nonproliferation community. It was felt that the controls at that time weren't adequate to prevent possible diversions from the amount of bomb-grade plutonium that would be produced in large-scale reactor operation. That was under the Regan administration. President Regan, despite his "warrior" image was quite concerned with the issues of nuclear weapons and their proliferation.<br>
</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif"><span><br>Ron Force<br>Moscow ID USA<br></span>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<hr size="1">
<span><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Ted Moffett <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> Moscow Vision 2020 <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>
</span><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wed, September 15, 2010 7:44:21 PM<br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Liquid-Metal Fast-Breeder Reactor: Twice as Much Energy in World Uranium Reserves (!) as in Fossil Fuel Reserves<br>
</font>
<div><span><br>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div>To "Off list" respondent:<br> </div></blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div>You may very well be correct. Perhaps the ALMR (Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor) that is discussed in the following 2005 article from Scientific American is not as promising as it appears the authors indicate:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf</a></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The advantages, unless I misunderstand, are that much much more energy can be derived given uranium resources, and nuclear waste can be reduced given it can be used as fuel. Existing PWR reactor designs, if I have my facts straight, cannot supply enough energy from uranium over many decades, to largely replace fossil fuels, given the low efficencies of how PWRs use fuel.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thorium is another option for powering nuclear reactors, more abundant than uranium; but with fast breeder reactors using uranium thorium is not as necessary, given uranium could supply a lot of energy for many decades. Info on thorium as a nuclear fuel at website below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html" target="_blank">http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html</a></span></div></blockquote>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>More information on fast neutron reactors with a list of fast reactors that have already been in operation at website below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html" target="_blank">http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html</a></span></div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>Tom Blees' "Prescription for the Planet" advocates use of fast breeder reactors to partially solve the anthropogenic climate warming crisis:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://prescriptionfortheplanet.com/" target="_blank">http://prescriptionfortheplanet.com/</a></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The website below, "Science Council for Global Initiatives," presented on the "Prescription for the Planet" website above, also endorses use of "Integral Fast Reactors (using nuclear waste as fuel)" with a positive suggestion that nuclear weapons be used to generate peaceful (my wording) energy:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/</a></span></div>
<div><span><br> </span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Ted Moffett <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> Moscow Vision 2020 <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Mon, September 13, 2010 4:48:20 PM<br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> [Vision2020] Liquid-Metal Fast-Breeder Reactor: Twice as Much Energy in World Uranium Reserves (!) as in Fossil Fuel Reserves<br>
</font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>
<div>Perhaps environmentalists who are opposed to peaceful nuclear power should consider the technology proposed below, given it has the potential to greatly reduce reliance on fossil fuels, dependence on which (especially coal) has polluted the environment and caused more premature human death than peaceful nuclear power, many times over. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle anyway, and those determined to abuse nuclear technology for nefarious ends will not be deterred by environmentalists who oppose nuclear power for peaceful energy generation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Read document "Resource Limitations on Earth-Energy," Kulcinski, 2004, University of Wisconsin-Madison, on page 28, regarding the claim in the subject heading:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture3.pdf" target="_blank">http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture3.pdf</a></span></span></div>
<div>------------------- </div>
<div> </div>
<div>HyperPhysics website (way cool one stop shop for Physics science) from Georgia State University, with info on liquid metal fast breeder reactors::</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html" target="_blank">http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html</a></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html#c4" target="_blank">http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html#c4</a></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><span><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/reactor.html#c5" target="_blank">http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/reactor.html#c5</a></span></span></div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div></div></div></div></div></div><br> </div></blockquote></div><br> </div></blockquote></div><br></span></div></div></div></div><br> </div></blockquote></div><br>