The Economist has a helpful overview of the coming technology in nuclear energy production:
The six most promising “generation IV” designs identified by the GIF from an original list of over 100 concepts depart markedly from the light-water moderated, once-through models that dominate the existing fleet. Even those reactors that draw upon aspects of current designs add some new twists.
Of the six, I like the one they wrote the least about – the Molten Salt Reactor, in particular the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) variant:
One form of MSR, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), has garnered particular enthusiasm among those who regard thorium as an attractive replacement for uranium and plutonium in the fuel cycle. (Thorium is both cheaper and more abundant than uranium.) According to Kirk Sorensen, an engineer at NASA who also runs a blog on the merits of the thorium cycle, natural thorium provides at least 250 times more energy per unit than natural uranium.
Anyway, read the whole thing…
H/T/ Commenter Carl
December 21st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
The liquid salt reactors may have a propensity to release xenon-135, a radioactive gas, which later decays to mildly radioactive cesium-135.
My favorite is the sodium fast reactor: the core operates at low pressure, and it may be possible to reprocess the fuel without separating the plutonium.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I like SFR too but nothing is perfect (from it’s wiki page):
“With innovations to reduce capital cost, such as making a modular design, removing a primary loop, integrating the pump and intermediate heat exchanger, or simply find better materials for construction, the SFR can be a viable technology for electricity generation”
LFTR doesn’t use a fuel we will run out. I worry we will do a lot of investment and see it all wasted as uranium prices rise.
My goal is MORE energy, not just to replace oil / coal.