Talk:Breeder reactor

There is another page on this subject fast breeder. To my knowldege, breeders require more highly enriched uranium since the fast-neutron cross section of U235 is smaller, so greater enrichment is needed to sustain fission. I'm no expert, though. The early graphite reactors which produced plutonium used unenriched fuel, enrichment having yet to be accomplished. But I don't know that breeders are designed or in service which, as roadrunner suggests, use unenriched uranium.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, User:BobCMU76. (This is possibly a futile message as your contributions ceased in 2003. Hope you are well.) Andrewa 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Article recreation

There are possible, proposed and even prototype breeders that are not fast neutron reactors, and therefore not fast breeder reactors. These use thorium feed stock to breed U-233. To accomodate these types, I intend to recreate this article.

I haven't looked to see whether the material from previous versions of this article was actually merged elsewhere, because it contained so many mistakes and confusions anyway that IMO it's better to start again. Andrewa 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. See also discussion at Talk:Fast breeder reactor#BWR risk and article name. Andrewa 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

When & where are breeder reactors used?

I looked up this article to see if Breeder reactors are currently in use, or haven't been developed yet (I've heard both claims). The article isn't quite as clear as it could be - I get the impression here that they're in use, but I couldn't see information on when they were first developed and when are where they are/were used for power generation. --Singkong2005 ^talk 05:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. Some breeder reactors are in use ( such as the Pheonix reactor in France ). However, in many countries nuclear power has been opposed politically and thus many breeder reactors have been shut down, or are planned to be shut down, with various justifications. As an example, the US currently bans reprocessing of spent fuel and closed down EBR-II as a consequence. In France a large breeder reactor called Superphoenix was shut down because it was deemed more expensive than PWR reactors ( tho there are allegations of this decision being politically rather than economically motivated ). In the UK the breeder reactor program was slashed as the government withdrew support from the nuclear industry in general. India runs a few breeder reactors and are planing building more. Japan has a breeder reactor, Monju, scheduled to be reopened in a few years after having been shut down for repairs and safety inspections following a sodium leak that damaged it's secondary coolant loop. All in all there are a few breeder reactors actually used for power generation, there are a few planned, and quite a few are being used for research related to the Generation IV reactor initiative. Additionally, several countries, including the UK and France, run reprocessing programs to extract the plutonium breed from their thermal reactors. Most of this information can be found in the fast breeder reactor and nuclear reprocessing articles.137.205.192.27 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

fissile, fertile, fissionable

The current version of the first sentence reads

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that consumes fissile and fertile material at the same time as it creates new fissile material.

I was asked to explain my edits. Breeders don't "consume" fertile material. They "convert" it to "fissile" - or more broadly to "fissionable" material. Although thermal neutron breeders are possible in principle, in practice all breeders have been fast neutron reactors. A thermal breeder would be able to consume only fissile material - defined as nuclear species that have a high fission cross section at or near zero energy, typically from a resonant absorption process. A fast neutron breeder can consume the broader category of "fissionable" material - which include nuclear species that can be fissioned using the fast neutrons resulting from fission. As far as I am aware, the fertile materials do not fission at these energies, but they do absorb neutrons to become fissile.

Based on this, I think the first sentence should read

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates new fissile or fissionable material at a greater rate than it consumes such material.

This is simpler and cleaner than my oritinal edit. Also, I think it is better to talk about fissile (or fissionable or fertile) material collectively in the singular. The plural is used when comparing or listing different nuclear species that fit into this category. A blend of plutonium and neptunium is "fissionable material," but they could be listed separately as "fissionable materials." NPguy (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining your edits. I had reverted them because it seemed as if the changes you put in were (pardon me for using the verb) obfuscating the efforts of an earlier editor to succinctly explain the distinction between "fertile" and "fissile", which is a pretty fundamental concept in understanding breeder reactors. --arkuat (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, woah. The sentence should read "fissile." Not fissile and fissionable. Nearly every actinide is fissionable given a fast enough neutron, and standard thermal reactors produce (relatively) huge amounts of minor actinides (Np, Am, Cm) that are fissionable. The purpose of breeders is to produce more fissile material than they consume. That's a textbook definition (I'll get the reference out of Duderstadt & Hamilton later on in my office). Fast reactors do indeed consume more fissionable nuclides thank to the hard neutron spectrum, but the majority of the energy still comes from splitting fissile nuclides (U233, U235, Pu239, Pu241, Am242m, etc.), which are much more likely to fission than cause a radiative capture at ALL energies. Check the cross section data at the NNDC if you want to see it for yourself. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/index.jsp?as=240&lib=endfb7.0&nsub=10 We're talking orders of magnitude here, folks.

Fissionable is a very weak term and should be used cautiously, and definitely not in the sentence we see in the article. Ntouran (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

I really appreciated the section in Energy amplifier discussing advantages and disadvantages. I think such a heading would be great here. Mathiastck (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article does not explain why Breeder Reactors are no longer in vogue and what has been replacing them. --TimeHorse (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

At the time this article was recreated, what probably ought to have happened was that Fast breeder reactor ought to have been moved to Breeder reactor, and then the material about (theoretical and prototyped, but not actually used) thermal-neutron breeders added to it. Right now there are unacceptable levels of duplication and redundancy between these two articles. --arkuat (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course they should be merged. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't make sense not to. Slashe50 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

seeing that the articles do duplicate massively, and there is a rough consensus to merge already, it shall be done right now! 85.210.47.66 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

85.210.47.66 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Breeding ratio

"In normal operation, most large commercial reactors experience some degree of fuel breeding. It is customary to refer only to machines optimized for this trait as true breeders, but industry trends are pushing breeding ratios steadily higher, thus blurring the distinction." - Matthews, B. (1996). Division Director Discusses Plutonium Future part 1. The Actinide Research Quarterly Spring, 6–7.

The reference does not discuss breeding ratio at all. For the most part, this editorial talks about the glut of plutonium and the need for converting the Pu into MOX fuel. Is the given reference given correct? Kgrr (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment, without reviewing the article. Most commercial reactors are light-water reactors that use low-enriched uranium fuel. They generate plutonium through activation of U-238 even as they consume U-235, but the breeding ratio - the ratio of fissile isotopes consumed and produced - remains well below one. I believe typical ratios are on the order of 0.3. There is no way these reactors can be net breeders, so the distinction - at least for these reactors - remains unblurred. The second claim - that there is a glut of plutonium - is undoubtedly true. World stockpiles of civil plutonium are roughly 250 metric tons, and increase steadily each year. This is not including nearly 100 tons of plutonium removed from weapons programs in Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. As long as the price of uranium remains low, plutonium-bearing mixed oxide (MOX) fuel will not be cost-competitive with LEU fuel. NPguy (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NPguy, thanks for the response. However, I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to say. I don't have a problem with what is being said in the first and second sentence. What I have a problem with is that the reference given at the end of the second sentence does not cover what was being said in the two sentences. Instead, it talks about the plutonium glut. I did not want to delete the reference and replace it with a {{fact}} tag, because no one would get what is wrong here. But what needs to be done is to find another reference for reference #5. Kgrr (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh!

Why was the Breeding Ratio article merged into the Breeder Reactor article? I wanted a nice, clean, technical article. Now it's all mixed in with the rest of this stuff. (sigh)

Ehn, so it goes, I guess. :) 69.140.29.118 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of the breeder reactors

I was wondering why there's no mention on this page of how Jimmy Carter almost single-handedly killed the chance of breeder reactors being used? It's used on the CRBRP page, so I don't see why it shouldn't be here. 64.150.146.254 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not wise to treat a issue in many places. As things change, treating it in many places causes many places that need to be maintained later. The best way to do this is to put the issue in one place and refer to it from other places if need be.Kgrr (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The debate over, and eventual termination of, the breeder reactor development in the US certainly needs to be mentioned, and would help to balance the article. Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is still, in the U.S. Department of Energy, an R&D program for fast neutron reactors, with a focus on liquid sodium-cooled reactors. It seems unlikely to go far unless the economics of nuclear power improve significantly. NPguy (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

waste minimization

There's been an annoying reversion war on whether the ability of fast reactors to minimize long-lived transuranic waste is actual or potential. To achieve those benefits requires that the spent fuel be reprocessed and recycled in fast reactors, effectively removing transuranics from the waste stream. Fast reactors have been demonstrated, but as far as I am aware the recycling of spent fast reactor fuel in fast reactors has not been demonstrated. If I am wrong, please provide a citation. But don't just revert. NPguy (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You started the confusion by reverting well-known facts about breeder reactors. You'd have done better to start asking questions on this discussion page instead of equating your unfamiliarity with the technology with absence of it.Cde3 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the basic claim. I know there's a fair amount of experience with breeders, but I'm not aware of a single demonstrated example of a breeder "eating its own waste." I agree it should be technically feasible, but until it's demonstrated it is best described as "potential." NPguy (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what it says. It doesn't say breeders consume their own waste. It merely says more energy is extracted from a given amount of uranium. The resulting fissile material can fuel other reactors and thereby increase the amount of energy produced. Your objection seems to be that breeders haven't been operated on mixed-oxide fuel. That is irrelevant since the point is only that the product can be used. All the MOX going into power plants came from breeders. In point of fact, though, at least one breeder has operated with MOX. Since there aren't any commercial breeders operating, our experience is only with test reactors. A few minutes of googling came up with this paper on using MOX at FFTF: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/45/11/45_1183/_article. I hope this addresses your concerns satisfactorily.Cde3 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This started as a discussion of waste minimization benefits of breeders. You seem to have changed the subject with your edits. The main impact of breeders on waste is the ability to separate transuranic elements from spent fuel for use fissionable fuel. That has yet to be demonstrated. You have changed the subject to the more complete use of uranium resources. That is a valid point, linked more to the anticipated scarcity and cost of uranium than to waste minimization. Just showing reduced waste volume per unit electric energy is not sufficient to show a significant waste benefit, since heat load and radiation doses over time also need to be considered. The full breeder cycle also has yet to be fully demonstrated (no breeder has operated on recycled material from a breeder), though enough of the pieces are in place that the feasibility is reasonably clear. I await your response before editing further. NPguy (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

However the discussion started, the article as it is now reflects factual information about the subject. The validity of waste reduction through breeders does not depend on those reactors using recycled fuel, although they have done so. If breeders used only enriched natural uranium and the bred fuel was only used in conventional reactors, the waste reduction would still occur. As it is, bred fuel is being used in conventional reactors today and has been used in breeders before. I can't understand why you are insisting on a point which is both trivial and false. The word "potential" carries the connotation that it is uncertain and unlikely. For example, dry geothermal energy has the potential to provide a major part of the world's energy. In reality, the prospects of technology developing that would allow it are remote. The complete fuel cycle is not potential, it is proven, and not just in parts.

I've answered all your questions. I even answered the challenge of citing a breeder that has run on bred fuel, even though that is not part of the issue. I cited a reference that stated exactly what the article says now. That should end this tiresome dialogue; the reference is authoritative and under WP guidelines that's enough. If you have a reference that says the opposite then please let's see it. Otherwise the issue is settled.Cde3 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not regard "potential" as derogatory. It merely means "not yet demonstrated." Second, I have seen nothing from you that provides a single example of reuse of recycled breeder fuel or blankets in a reactor, breeder or otherwise. The ability to extend uranium resources depends on such recycling. So overall, nothing you have said changes my original statement that "potential" is appropriate. I also think the original meaning of this sentence should be added, because waste minimization is one big reason for renewed interest in fast reactors.

Do you know the difference between a breeder and a production reactor? Production reactors use highly moderated thermal neutrons to produce plutonium in natural uranium. Breeders use unmoderated fast neutrons, and therefore require highly enriched fuel. NPguy (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, all production reactors are breeders. There are two kinds of breeders, as explained in the article. Production reactors are thermal breeders --I think because they were made when fast reactors weren't available. Also, I would suppose the refueling cycles of fast breeders would make them unsuitable for weapons material. Commercial breeders won't be bothered by Pu240. However that is, the article presently is correct (at least on this point). If you have better information, please post a reference.Cde3 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. A breeder is a reactor that has more fissile material in its spent fuel than in its fresh fuel. Certain thermal reactors using thorium can breed slightly more U-233 than the U-235 they consume. These are not production reactors. Typical production reactors consume U-235 in natural uranium to produce lower quantities of Pu-239. NPguy (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment doesn't even relate to what I said. But a more important point is that you aren't meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. The articles are supposed to reflect published information from authoritative sources, not your opinions.Cde3 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this claim. I have asked for citations to support the claim that the potential benefits of a breeder reactor have been demonstrated. Instead of providing citations, there have been a number of misunderstandings about what a breeder is. NPguy (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We've hit a dead end. You argue that production reactors have a breeding ratio of less than unity. My understanding is that it is more than unity, but I can't find a reference that gives a number. So I'll yield on the use of the word "would" until I come across a reference. At least this is better than the misleading term "potential." Thanks for the interesting exchange.Cde3 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Traveling wave reactor

The Peak uranium article was hit by a drive-by where someone inserted a section about a Traveling Wave Reactor, claiming it ran on nuclear waste and not needing to be refueled but once every 200 years. I have not seen the Intellectual Ventures patent, although IV is known to be a Patent troll and the references given pretty much all read alike. So I moved the piece about the TWR here. The Peak uranium article is not dealing with breeder reactor technology, but instead about their ability to create more plutonium and uranium. Please feel free to move it again pr delete it if you feel it to be necessary.Kgrr (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion of nuclear reactors and weapons proliferation?

We need both an historic context for the proliferation discussion - the US banned breeders because of the weapons threat - and our current status - Reagan lifted ban, but none have been built (why?). A careful discussion of the relative merits and demerits of each of the breeder technologies, including a better discussion of economics. Weapons polifieration, waste minimization (lower fuel demand) and economics seem to be the three most important reasons to build breeders. Lets see this presented so the average person can understand the issue and form an informed opioion about the merits of building breeders. This is crucial part of the discussion that should be present. 96.252.103.113 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)96.252.103.113 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proliferation is a relevant issue, but it's not the main reason we don't have breeders. The main reason is cost. Breeders are more expensive both to build and to fuel. Proliferation risk has been an important secondary reason, depending on the party in power in the United States. Breeders presume a closed fuel cycle, separating weapons-usable material from spent fuel. Depending on how they operate, breeders can produce so-called "ivory grade" plutonium - plutonium with a Pu-240 isotopic content of 2-3% Pu=240, well below the 6% level typical of weapons-grade. NPguy (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Weapons proliferation and dubious economics are topics which each need a separate section, in order to bring more balance to the article. Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Economics remain the primary reason why most countries are not pursuing breeders. Nonproliferation is a significant argument generally used against breeders, though under the Bush Administrations GNEP program fast neutron reactors (burners rather than breeders) were promoted as having a nonproliferation benefit. NPguy (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear cycle

I think this article is a bit hard to follow, could it have the following statements : - U-235, which makes up a small proportion of natural uranium (0.7% - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull206/20604782938.pdf) , is the only type which forms a chain reaction in a conventional reactor. - Once consumed, spent fuel rods are almost 100% U-238, not fissible in a conventional reactor. - Plutonium is created when U-238 is bombarded with neutrons. Plutonium is fissible and consumed in _all_ types of reactors. - A breeder is cooled with sodium (or other liquid metal), not water which absorbs neutrons. The water slows down the neutrons and reduces the amount of plutonium created in a conventional vessel. In a breeder, more plutonium is therefore created than consumed. - There is no "free lunch". Power is created in a breeder through fission. Plutonium is created when U-238 is bombarded with neutrons - which have to come from somewhere - usually from U-235 (or from the Plutonium created in the breeder). - The plutonium can be extracted and used in any type of reactor. Note that the plutonium ultimately comes from the U-238, that is from the unused portion of the uranium - it is not "free". - The principal benefit of breeders is that you can extract a much larger proportion of the natural uranium for use to create power.203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC) -

Monju disaster

Is Monju operational? I added this entry to the Monju discussion thread too. In short, IVTM (In-vessel Transfer machine) fell due to the failure of the crane and is currently generating a big flat 0 watts of power as we speak now. The article seems to imply Monju is actually producing some electric power, which it is not doing right now 128.253.53.180 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The "tormented history" of the Monju reactor is discussed in a recent article here. It, and cuts in the Japanese breeder program, need to be fully discussed in order to bring more balance to this article.Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Monju has its own dedicated full page, which is linked from this article. Detailed references to that 'tormented history' would probably go better there, rather than cluttering up this article. 69.140.29.118 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Monju is such a notable breeder that it does deserve more coverage here, within a broader discussion of problems of the Japanese program. Johnfos (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is achieved without problems, which expose weaknesses to be overcome. Remember Apollo 13? Watch the movie. Sooku (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A source

The source

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/17-1-Ramana-India-FBR.pdf

seems to be skeptical about FBRs, claiming they're unreliable, have much downtime due to expensive accidents and is more expensive to build than a light water reactor. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a good source on disappointments with the Indian program, as well as some bigger issues. Yes, it needs to be included to bring some more balance to this article. Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that this article comes from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, and not a Physics or technology group. Papers written by policy wonks often have a political agenda. For instance, the author ascribes India's breeder program to a lack of Uranium and desire to produce plutonium for weapons, and omits the fact that India has the world's largest reserves of Thorium, which can meet its power needs through breeder technology. The author sprinkles in a bunch of technical issues with value judgments about safety (and by implication, his lack of faith in the team). Sooku (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Policy wonks"? Name-calling is childish and really doesn't help. Author M.V. Ramana has Ph.D. in physics. Johnfos (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Policy wonk" is not an insult. I'm a proud policy wonk. NPguy (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Me too ... whatever it is. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section needs to better comply with WP:Lead. It is far too long and doesn't present a good summary of the article. And some statements are incorrect, for example, "nuclear waste became a greater concern by the 1990s". In fact, the absence of a working waste management facility became an important issue in the US by the mid-1970s:

In 1976, the California Energy Commission announced that it would not approve any more nuclear plants unless the utilities could specify fuel and waste disposal costs, an impossible task without decision on reprocessing, spent fuel storage and waste disposal. By the late 1970s, over thirty states had passed legislation regulating various activities associated with nuclear waste.

POV tag

There really is no choice but to add a POV tag to this article, as the article is unbalanced for the reasons discussed in the above sections on this Talk page. There are many problems with breeder reactors and their development but this does not come through in the article as it stands. Johnfos (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many links to other Wiki articles about individual reactors, in which their full history is laid out in detail. Trying to bring all that detail into a summary article would be way to much text. I'll go ahead and stick in a link to the Wiki page about nuclear controversy, though, that should do just fine to 'balance things out.'69.140.29.118 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting bringing in a lot of detail. As I've said above, I'm suggesting building up a balanced "bigger picture" that covers issues such as proliferation and economics in sections of their own, and provides a better overview of problems with the Japanese, Indian and US programs in particular. Johnfos (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos, the article is extensively using references to untested hypotheses as being facts, the seewater extraction has only been expensively prototyped in small scale, the assumption of a breeding factor of 100 seems to be contradicted by the breeder reactors, it seems like a bold assumption that all actinides are consumed by breeding, and in real reality it appears the fuel rods cannot simply be used the presumed long time, but need to be chemically reprocessed to fabricate new fuel rods, which appears to be too expensive for the time being. A balanced article should preferrably reflect both an optimistic and a realistic view. The lead should just tell what a breeder reactor is, and some reactions for and against. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There is tension between the US nuclear industry and new nuclear nations like India and South Africa, which makes opinions about the technology less than objective. As an indication, see the doubt cast upon the India entry. The reader is cautioned that breeder reactors are a politicized issue.Sooku (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that everyone has his/her own POV. Please look at a posters' profile to be aware of his/her POV. Sooku (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't (because of my poster's bloat). I'll tell you here instead: I'm a skeptic against any fantastical technology claim (nuclear, solar power or otherwise) not based on demonstrated effective production. If you can find sources to your claim, they will be welcome. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to add some info about your interests and views to your User page. Johnfos (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the POV tag. There has been far too much wishful thinking in the editing by technology enthusiasts. It needs to be tempered. The technology is not really proven in an operational context. NPguy (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seawater extraction is covered in other articles like Uranium market and Peak uranium that this article currently fails to link.

Breeding ratio refers to the breed/burn ratio at an instant in time, not the proportion of fertile material (uranium-238 or thorium-232) ultimately consumed. Different designs treat reprocessing differently, including the burnup of the Integral Fast Reactor which is higher than current light water reactors but still much less than 100% per cycle, the traveling wave reactor which does not reprocess at all and burns less than 100% of its initial load of fertile material, and the continuous reprocessing of the molten salt reactor. These should be linked individually. --JWB (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tag in intro

I ended the second paragraph of the intro with a dubious tag. The entire second paragraph builds a vision of virtually infinite access to nuclear power. The vision is based on undemonstrated levels of efficiency from the UFO-nic kind of external source given, first an about 50 times more efficient fuel breeding than today, and secondly a small scale demonstrated seawater uranium extraction that is not demonstrated in the scales necessary for the vision to be anything near to true. In nuclear power adherent sources this seawater extraction is regarded by interest, but not (yet) considered anything like economically feasible. The paragraph is not suitable for the intro, it could be used in some history or some adherents claims section. As it is written now, it is heavily POVvy, presenting a far future vision as being "in fact", and "concerns for X is not valid because of Y". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I still hold that the dubious tag is not necessary:

1. the source is an analysis by a physics professor. I think it certainly meets the Wikipedia source quality standards.

2. the paragraph uses words like "could in principle", its no secret that fully closed fuel cycle is not yet commercially demonstrated. But it is a fact that breeder reactors could in principle extract almost all of the energy in uranium (since they use U-238), compared to cca 1% in standard LWRs, which only use U-235 (and less than unity breeding).. This is also a main reason why they are pursued (besides the ability to consume current nuclear waste), so its very appropiate for intro.

3. Care to point out how breeding efficiency should be a problem for those claims? Even an isobreeder could have such fuel efficiency increase compared to LWRs, simply because it can use U-238. This is a feature of all above unity breeder reactors which burn Pu from U-238, limited only by reprocessing of the fuel, NOT breeding efficiency. Its based on isotopic composition of the natural uranium (1% U235 vs 99% U238), NOT on breeding ratios. Why do you relate the two?

3. current seawater uranium extraction methods achieve costs like 300 USD / kg according to OECD, thus is not economically feasible compared to currently mined uranium (130 USD / kg) when used in a LWR, but since breeders would use the uranium 100x more efficiently, thus effectively slashing the cost by a factor of 100, unless the OECD cost estimate is orders of magnitude wrong, there is nothing dubious about the analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering writing a guideline for writing articles about technology, as opposed to science articles. Technology articles with interest from important political and economical lobby groups, should be written to describe what really exists and is functional, and then how different groups regard the technology, what their motivation might be, and how they regard the future of the technology in question. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

One of all the flawed paragraphs is paragraph 4 in the intro. It reads:

In principle, breeder fuel cycles can recycle and consume all actinides[2], leaving only fission products.

Good, so far, but that is an unproven hypothesis. Now the text continues as if the previous sentence was plainly and factually true:

So, after several hundred years, the waste's radioactivity drops to the low level of the long-lived fission products. If the fuel reprocessing process used for the fuel cycle leaves actinides in its final waste stream, this advantage is reduced.

This is building a WP:SYNTH falsarium. The comment from User:ShotmanMaslo indicates a discussion about Breeder Reactor efficiency, for which I don't care, I'm discussing the article. I will substitute the removed dubious tag for a SYNTH tag, because it uses unproven statements about possible future technology efficiency to build a false image of inevitability. The trouble is not the title of the authors of the sources, the trouble is how we use them. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be a citable reference for the claim that a fast reactor cycle can in principle (with highly efficient recovery of transuranics) produce waste that mostly decays within a few hundred years. I believe the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership includes an analysis to that effect, but I'm having a hard time finding it since DOE's GNEP web site was dismantled. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible CV

There are several Sections with contend nearly identical to [1] - currently ref. no 19. This looks like CV - at least I could not find a 1997 or older version in Wikipedia. --Ulrich67 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this article, the change [2] shows, that the WP article has at least in some placed grown in steps from different authors. This makes is more likely that WP was first. In this case the link above is not a valid reference !--Ulrich67 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

skip or expand in the intro: "Such nucleii usually lack the low-speed "thermal neutron" resonances of fissile fuels used in LWRs."

full paragraph:

" There are two main types of breeding cycles, and they can both reduce actinide wastes:

The fast breeder reactor's fast neutrons can fission actinide nucleii with even numbers of both protons and neutrons. Such nucleii usually lack the low-speed "thermal neutron" resonances of fissile fuels used in LWRs. "

Doesn't the last phrase deserve a full paragraph, well whatever it takes to explain it? I can't understand it from reading the link-words. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh.... Hmmm. Well, nuclear resonances are well established facts of neutron economics: That's why thermal reactors (and the entire concept of neutron moderation) exist at all. It's a large and deep foundational topic, and would probably be way too in-depth for this article. I'll look around, maybe Wikipedia has an existing article about resonances and can link to it. Failing that, maybe I'll just write one.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.248.41 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, here we go, Wikipedia does have a page on the topic, and it's not even too bad. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section

I'll see if I can remember how to link this sucker in, should more than clear up any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.248.41 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How to cite .pdf's?

I'm tinkering away at this article, and somebody stuck in a bunch of 'reference required' tags. So, I'm digging up reference .pdf's, but weirdly enough, neither bing nor google will give me a url to the pesky things.

For example, here's what shows up in the url bar when I try to find a good supercritical water fast spectrum reactor design reference:

http://www.gxxgle.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=super%20fast%20reactor%20japan&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f.waseda.jp%2Fokay%2Fenglish%2Fenglish%2FHP_IAEA%2BT.pdf&ei=xajPUKKQPMmq0AGo9YHoCw&usg=AFQjCNEbc7j1jKnTUHyhb70ULWIidLOrQQ&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.dmQ

...er, whut? :D

How do I use this?

Any clue-in is appreciated!

...stoopid spam-filter.... Replace gxxgle with google to see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.248.41 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacks?

Arthur Rubin, why did you roll back nine edits recently made? You wiped out new citations with this brute-force change, not to mention such earth-shattering things as changing 'declined' and 'receded'. Reverting this until I hear exactly what the issue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.248.41 (talk • contribs) 19:28, December 18, 2012‎

It's still not good, in that some of the additions say the same thing as is already there, using different notation (e.g., U232 vs. U-232). But it's not as bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Citations Fixed

Okay, I think I've dug up current citations to cover all the 'citation needed' tags that were in there. If I missed any...I'll work on it more later, it's Christmas.

Happy holidays, all!

76.100.248.41 (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Awwww, come on! Somebody added some NEW ones! (sigh)

I'll see about digging up some more refs, i guess.

Aside from that, good edits, somebody does werds good.

76.100.248.41 (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuel Resources

The article claims 5 billion years of nuclear energy at current use rates. I find this incredibly long and irresponsible to report. I read a book once suggesting 4 thousand years of energy from nuclear power, although I've lost the assumptions that the author made. Additionally, for someone to claim seawater uranium extraction and then to assume 100% extraction is an unconservative estimate. As uranium is extracted from seawater, its concentration will decrease, making the extraction less economically viable. At some point, the concentration will be too low to make nuclear generated electricity competitive. At that point, a good fraction of the uranium will remain in seawater. --128.194.3.19 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but you'll need to find the flaw in the analysis in the source cited for this claim. Perhaps there could be an introductory phrase "according to one analysis, ... ." NPguy (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's Dr. Cohen's old analysis. Those numbers are rock solid, and yes, he's completely serious about the five billion year claim. His reasoning is based upon the amount of Uranium washed into the ocean through erosion each year, roughly five thousand tons. As long as there are continents getting rained on, that supply is pretty much invariant. Yes, there really is that much uranium out there. :) In a fully closed fast neutron breeder fuel cycle, 5000 tons of U per year contains as much energy as 500,000 tons of U we use today in the once-through fuel cycle. Sure, to use it all like that would require a lot of work, but I doubt fossil fuels will keep up with demand for much more than another century, tops.

It's comforting to know that there's that much available energy out there. Heck, Dr. Cohen didn't even include Thorium! (Thorium doesn't dissolve well in seawater, so we'd have to mine it from the continents, instead.) If you include thorium energy, plain old fission can power civilization well after the Sun has crisped us all to cinders, a billion years from now. Morg00

Claims of abandonment by US & UK

Just to counter this disinformation edit by the Australian anti-nuclear advocate Johnfos on Nov 16 2013 -

• "In 2010, The International Panel on Fissile Materials said "After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries". In Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, breeder reactor development programs have been abandoned.Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status International Panel on Fissile Materials

First off, breeder reactor development has not been abandoned in the UK & US. The Generation IV international forum, the "GIF", has UK & US research involvement. The Generation IV international forum just held their 36th meeting on Monday 18th Nov 2013 in Brussels. German, British, and French institutes mere months ago were studying (2010 to 2/28/2013) the European Gas cooled Fast Reactor. They were funded by the EU's 7th FWP framework programme.The GOFASTR research program The British are cooperating on the French Astrid reactor design, a descendant of the Phénix reactor. The central European Visegrád Group are committed to breeding. -> The V4G4 Centre of Excellence for performing joint research, development and innovation in the field of Generation-4 (G4) nuclear reactors have been established. 20 July 2013 National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ

The European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) will support three Generation IV reactor systems: a sodium-cooled fast reactor, or SFR, called Astrid that is proposed by France; a gas-cooled fast reactor, GFR, called Allegro supported by central and eastern Europe; and a lead-cooled fast reactor, LFR, technology pilot called Myrrha that is proposed by Belgium.

That's to say nothing of the Indian, Chinese and Russian breeder reactor programs, which are arguably ahead in many respects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.31.96 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly misleading to state that the United States "abandoned" its breeder development program. There have been several projects to build breeder reactors, including most notably the Clinch River project. Some were completed (e.g. the FBTR and EBR II), but all have since been shut down. And for a time the United States had no program in this area. The current U.S. program is one of design studies only. I can't speak for the UK or Germany, but I think their history is similar. NPguy (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, there are no operating breeder reactors, under construction or even contracted in UK or US. "Abandonment" pretty much sums it up. There is a very long road between conferences on the subject and actual construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.79.164.144 (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In the UK the whole breeder site has been in the hands of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority since 2005, who will have largely dismantled it by about 2025 (at a cost of around £2.9 billion - ouch). Programme is clearly abandoned. Rwendland (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But are you not contradicted yourself, how can one simultaneously call breeder development "abandoned" in the US while by your own admission US national labs and industry continue to spend both time and money designing breeder reactors? Sure there are no active breeder reactors in the US or UK, and breeder development in both those countries was curtailed considerably in the 90s, but that's not abandoning it altogether. In fact, in many respects there is now a resurgence of interest in both countries, especially to operate fast breeders as burners of cold war legacy plutonium, once true cycle reactor spent fuel and not to mention thorium breeders.

In the US, you have the S-PRISM design and in the private sector you have the fast breeder Terrapower, funded by Bill Gates with LANL collaboration.

You also have the US DOE collaborating with the PRC's Chinese Academy of Sciences on LFTR.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/us-partners-with-china-on-new-nuclear/?tag=search-river

In the UK, there is the Thermal breeder reactor group, also keen on LFTR.

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/people/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/thorium-energy.htm

Secondly, both references used to support this "abandonment" claim are both authored by Frank von Hippel and his biased acolytes, who, as it is well known, have been doggedly attempting to scuttle breeder( and burner) reactors their entire careers. Frank had a hand in the Clinton administration pulling the plug on the EBR-II's replacement that you brought up, the integral fast reactor and he has a history of being opposed to burning up plutonium-239 weapon stockpiles, instead he dubiously advocates geological disposal for everything, so no wonder he's opinionated about breeders, one could easily reply to his statement with his own words slightly altered - "After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, [geological disposal] remains largely unfulfilled."

According to Dr. DeVolpi Alexander, of Progressive Case fame, states - "Frank von Hippel and Amory Lovins are two prominent outspoken opponents of plutonium demilitarization...While short in relevant credentials, each has been actively impeding arms-control and non-proliferation efforts..."

83.71.31.96 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)