User talk:Ulrich67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Ulrich67, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A question[edit]

What do you mean by "URV problem"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talkcontribs) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The deleted text is a direct copy from the article given as source. Without proper quotation (marked as a direct quote) this is a violation of copyright laws - at least in most countries. If not really needed the use of direct quotes should be avoided in WP, and I don't see any reason for this.
In addition to this more formal reason to delete this sentence, I also have a slight problem with what it says. At first this is a speculation about possible future costs - with cost estimates on nuclear facilities being wrong most of the time. The second problem is, that it is not really related to scalability - its just a price-claim at one size, and just for one part of a power plant - so this part of information is essentially useless to nearly everyone. Finally I even have a problem with a 100 MW LFTR: This is to large for 2-fluid design without using many tubes or core sections in parallel. Thus it would have to problems that made ORNL switch to the 1-fluid design. For a single fluid LFTR a 100 MW unit is rather low power and would have high neutron leakage if not using large unit at a low power density. As a consequence break even breeding (a requirement to really call it a LFTR) in a small 100 MW unit is hardly possible or would need excessive fast reprocessing. So a 100 MW LFTR is a rather bad idea. This one point that shows that a LFTR don't scale well at all: small units up to about 10 MW may be practical as a 2-fluid design. And large units (e.g. 500 MW and up, or more than about 1000 kg fissile inventory) may work as a 1 fluid.--Ulrich67 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)