[ RadSafe ] IFR and TWR with Bill and Melinda Gates Inteview on 60 minutes. What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?

David Lee davidleesafe at gmail.com
Sat May 18 13:43:43 CDT 2013


Thank you, for explaining it so nicely. My memory, is not as well as it
used to be, so I am not sure, if I ever heard of this reactor concept

I did not know that you guys at Argonne worked on such sophisticated and
cool things! kudos to you guys, I am very impressed!!!
Fissile trigger and breeder in within in waves. I bet it was exciting and
exhausting to do reactor design calculations.

Bill Lipton,
About the TRUST: If these kind of  IFR and TWR made Bill Gates excited.
What more trust do we can pray for?
Bill and Melinda Gates are saving millions of children in Africa YEARLY,
Who can gives more credibility to the nuclear industry?????
May be new Pope could, he is kind of a humble person but he is not a
techy;-) (joke)

So what is the point?

The point:

Mark IV (or VI, these Romans) from Fukushima is not gonna bring this TRUST!
Forget about it, public will not buy it.
It is not a recall on Toyota or Ford.

When Michail Gorbachev in 1987, after Chernobyl has announced
projectcompetition for "100" proof reactor design.
One reactor design institution had audacity to present graphite moderated
reactor prototype!!!! It was like a wolf in sheep's skin.
When, I heard it from my professor, I thought, he was kidding.....he was
extremely serious fella and never jocked or smiled.

The bottom line:

People will TRUST only to:

1. New reactors (mandatory).
2. New people (optional).


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM, George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>wrote:

> David:
>       No, not heavy water (not even heavy water could make depleted
> uranium go critical -- CANDUs can use natural uranium).
>   .  TerraPower's TWR (Travelling Wave Reactor) is a variant of the IFR
> (Integral Fast Reactor) developed at Argonne National Laboratory.  It will
> use metal fuel and be cooled by liquid sodium (no moderator).
>      Both IFR and TWR need an initial charge of fissile material (U-235 or
> Pu-239), and then they breed enough new fissile to keep themselves going
> indefinitely, using ~1 ton of depleted uranium per GWe-year of energy
> produced.  The main difference is that the TWR would be loaded with 60
> years-worth of fuel from the start (i.e. something like 80 tons per GWe),
> whereas the IFR would recycle its fuel much more frequently, adding fresh
> depleted periodically, and thus would be very much smaller.
>      George S. Stanford
>      Reactor physicist. retired from Argonne National Laboratory
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~
> At 06:30 AM 5/17/2013, David Lee wrote:
> Radsafers,
> Here is the video interview 13 min. on "60 minutes"
> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/**watch/?id=50146679n<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146679n>
> Laser mosquito zapper interesting too, huh?
> Not much of reactor design details. Moderator gotta be heavy water.
> No one else would keep the neutron field critical with depleted uranium
> fuel.
> Reactor controls sequences must be very different from the present days.
> ______________________________**_________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/**
> radsaferules.html <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list