Talk:Fast breeder reactor

message: __TOC__
EGAD!! why no mention of the thorium cycle? there's no mention of it anywhere else on wikipedia ... nor could i find info on other nuclear cycles for that matter... Discussion of it would provide good insight as to how the reactor actually produces more nuclear fuel than it uses. Thanks in advance to whoever might write something on it!
:I'm unsure of the date of this, but currently or now there is mention of teh Thorium cycle and breeding as a major object of the Indian nuclear programme. --Midgley 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I hope this issue has now been addressed in the new introduction. Andrewa 07:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Andrewa 07:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It was just a vandal.  Feel free to revert when you see interesting material deleted.  --noösfractal 22:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

message: The article should be at Fast breeder reactor. Or it should be a section within Fast neutron reactor. Laurel Bush 14:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article 

message: Removed from the end of "Associated reactor types": "The energy department later condemned the waste producing effects of these fuel reprocessing units, and accordingly shut down all Uranium plants that were deemed harmful to the environment." which was part of a vandalism by 24.97.156.194. At least, I assume it was part of the vandalism; it just reads silly to me. Surely breeder reactors consume long lived waste from ordinary reactors, and produce short lived waste, so even a politician couldn't use this reason to shut down breeders and not ordinary reactors. --Mike Van Emmerik 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they can assert (as some do) that nukes produce greenhouse gas, then they can assert anything. If they can shut down Barsebäck nuclear power plant on promises of not increasing greenhouse gas, then they can do anything. A diplomat's words must have no relationship to action, otherwise what sort of diplomacy is it? - Joseph Stalin. Politics, I'm afraid, has similar problems with the truth. Andrewa 17:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmutation and politics 

message: I took out this:-
:", therefore 2 sodium loops are required to prevent the contamination of the turbine water with the sodium 24"
Na*24 AFAIK doesn't spit neutrons,  agrees (beta decay) so it will not poison a secondary water cooling loop - I think there are also other convincing reasons to not mix Na and water!
:My reference was here  I amn't too hot on nuclear physics so am willing to accept what you say, however there is still a Na / Water heat exchanger so this doesnt account for having a second loop. I was interested in finding out why there was the double loop, and if it isnt to do with Na 24, It would be nice to include why it is as otherwise it looks like complexity for the sake of it.
:: Sodium + water = bad. Radioactive sodium + water = worse.
::: "Sodium reacts chemically with air, and especially with water, which is a safety drawback. To improve safety, a secondary sodium system acts as a buffer between the radioactive sodium in the primary system and the steam or water that is contained in the conventional Rankine-cycle power plant. If a sodium-water reaction occurs, it does not involve a radioactive release." 
::THE SODIUM-COOLED FAST REACTOR (SFR) 
::—wwoods 17:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  that makes excellent sense.  Is the primary loop entirely within the reactor containment, whereas the secondary loop can take heat far enough away to be convenient?  That would make another reason.  Midgley 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please Wikipedia: sign your posts on talk pages.
----  
Some very perceptive comments above! At least part of the motivation (perhaps most of it) for the secondary sodium loop is the need to contain the entire primary coolant within a biological shield. Thus, Dounreay Fast Reactor had a separate neutron shield, inside its biological shield. A sodium leak or fire (probably one implies the other) is going to be embarrassing and difficult whether the sodium contains the short-lived sodium radioisotope or not.
One of the things the Brits did at Dounreay was to do live testing of the results of a pressure tube failure in a sodium-water heat exchanger; The French licensed (and paid for) the technology the Brits developed, and used it at Phénix and Superphénix. Andrewa 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodium, radiation and water 

message: See Talk:Fast neutron reactor#Other articles. Andrewa 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other articles

message: After some soul-searching, I've removed the following section:
Carbon
A Plutonium cycle might reduce the Carbon emissions associated with preparation of fuel - Uranium refinement and enrichment from the lower grade ores which would be used in coming years requires considerable energy and diminishes the advantage fission power has over burning hydrocarbons in limiting greenhouse gas emission and consequent global warming.
Some of this is speculation, but it's entirely based on the false premise that nuclear power contributes to carbon emissions. It doesn't. Even before the development of the gas centrifuge, when significant power was required to drive gaseous diffusion enrichment plants, France managed to fuel all her power reactors, her nuclear submarines, run a weapons program, and export enriched uranium as well, all with a gaseous diffusion plant supplied by a four-unit PWR station. (And in fact the power requirements for the enrichment plant never reached two units, the rest was fed to the grid.)
Claiming that nuclear power requires burning of fossil fuel is an ingenious and sometimes successful political tactic, but it has no basis in fact. In some other parts of the world (notably the USA) enrichment plants are still powered by fossil fuel, but if these plants were to close the nuclear power industry would do very well without them. Andrewa 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: "It is generally agreed that—if designed incorrectly—the FBR poses a greater risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons than the PWR." What about boiling water reactors? Perhaps it should be changed to light water moderated reactors ("light" because the article says heavy water reactors may be able to be breeders).
Also, breeder reactor redirects here, but fast breeders are only one type of breeder reactor. Should a new article be started at breeder reactor, or should this article be modified and the article named changed (back) to "breeder reactor"? -- Kjkolb 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Thermal breeder reactor? splitting from breeder reactor tot eh two with more or less discussion in common left at the junction page?Midgley 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first step is a high-level article at breeder reactor, to replace the current redir. Otherwise, we have a problem as to where this redir will point! Andrewa 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Andrewa 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BWR risk and article name 

message: I've ammended the DFR diagram as suggested, so that the coolant is NaK. One question that has puzzled me though, is why the reactor design appears to be "upside down", as in why is it that the coolant flows in through the top and the hot coolant leaves at the bottom? Other reactor designs iv'e looked at have the hot coolant leave the top of the reactor core. Is it that unusual? If it is, what is the reasoning, and should this be in the article? Emoscopes 11:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I would also like to make a schematic diagram for the Dounreay PFR design. There are some good, if overly technical, schematics here http://www-frdb.iaea.org/react/pfr.html but they have posed me a couple of questions;
# Do other users think I should go into the complexities of the multi-stage heat removal plant? Or should I concentrate on the reactor itself.
# http://www-frdb.iaea.org/photos/pfr/cut_away.jpg this diagram shows what appears to be some rotating part of the core. From what I can make out from http://www-frdb.iaea.org/photos/pfr/discharg.jpg  ;
##when breeding has occured, the "charge machine" lifts the breeder subassembly out and into the rotor
##The rotor is cooled and then rotates in the core so that the breeder sub-assembly can be moved into a transfer flask
##This flask is then lifted out of the core and onto re-processing. Have I got this correct?
# I am presuming that the coolant in this case is Na, not NaK
Emoscopes 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFR 

message: It is always mentioned that the breeders are a potential source of fuel for other reactors. What is never said is how much other reactors a breeder can supply with fuel. 1? 10? 0.5?
This information should in some way be included at least for one or two of breeders that have been in operation.
:It depends what you mean. Breeder reactors would obviously not need fuel from other reactors, so the only reason to build breeder reactors with breeding ratios above 1.0 would be if you wanted to fuel a lot of conventional reactors using a single or a few breeder reactors with high breeding ratio. In this case a breeder reactor could probably produce fuel for roughly 1-2 other reactors of similar power rating. However, this figure would depend greatly on the design of the other reactor as the conventional reactors would also breed some fuel ( They are not called breeders as they can't breed as much fuel as they consume, but they still produce some). As an example, if the breeding ratios of the conventional reactors were as high as 0.5 (and this is not too far fetched a figure ) they would only need about half of their fuel consumption replaced, meaning 2-4 reactors could be fuelled by the fuel from a single breeder reactor. 
:Note however that improved breeding ratios do not increase the total amount of energy that can be extracted once a breeding ratio of 1.0 has been achieved. This is because reactors with breeding ratios above 1.0 can burn all the fertile material, so the amount of available fuel does not increase by increasing the breeding ratio above 1.0, it would just allow you to consume uranium quicker, producing the same total amount of energy over a shorter period of time. Once a breeding ratio of 1.0 has been achieved, the total amount of energy that could be extrated from a closed fuel cycle could extract roughly 100 times as much energy as a once-through fuel cycle (since there is roughly 100 times as much U-238 as U-235 ). If in addition U-233 was made from Th-232 in thermal breeder reactors, this would put the figure up to about 400 times as much. All in all this could easily satisfy current trends in electricity consumption for centuries or more. J.Ring 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How much fuel does a breeder produce?

message: It appears to me that the "Loop Design" section of this schematic contradicts the text by having the primary loop extend outside the biological shielding.
AfOrr 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LMFBR schematic 

message: This article contains several usages of phrases such as `[they]would spontaneously fission'. Is this correct?--Rossheth | Talk 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten to use `undergo fission' instead, which is somewhat better.--Rossheth | Talk 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of `fission' as verb 

message: Hi, I think the Generation IV reactor should be merged into this page. Basically, Generation IV is about fast breeders, only they are being called Gen IV because the term breeder rings the Dr. Strangelove bell . -- 85.125.140.110 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the goals of the GIF is to create, what they call 'sustainable' nuclear energy, and in this they understand that reactors breed their own fuel. On the SCWR: "A SCWR design could be developed with a fast neutron spectrum. Using fast neutrons with higher kinetic energies would enable the system to produce at least as much fissile material as it consumes (thereby fulfilling the sustainability goal as set out in the Generation IV roadmap)". The VHTR, however, does not comply with the goals of Gen IV itself. -- 14:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lcolson removed the merger proposal, as he stated consensus was reached. There has been comments of Lcolson, one anonymous, and me, and I don't think the outcome (which?) qualifies as consensus. -- Eiland (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to push your POV all you want.  Anyone doing any research on the topic will see that the definitions of fast breeder reactor are not the same as Gen4 reactor.  It is simply fact, there is nothing to argue about.  Fast breeder reactors must have a fast neutron spectrum, that is inherent in their definition, google it.  I don't know why you're focused on uniting these two different topics, but I suspect its from your desire to try to lump Gen4 systems in with the "dreaded plutonium economy" as appears evident form your first comment.  This should be brought to arbitration if you don't agree, since this is about a clear definition and should be easily remedied.  Here's a link from the Gen4 forum that states the SCWR may have a thermal spectrum http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/scwr.htm this alone proves definitively that the GEN4 reactors are not all fast and should not all be categorized as so.  Here's another for the VHTR http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/vhtr.htm clearly stating that it is a thermal system.  Here's one for the molten salt reactor http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/msr.htm that clearly states that it can be a epithermal-spectrum reactor   Note: these are from the actual generation 4 forum that the article is about.  I think if 50% of the reactor designs arn't necessarily fast, you it would be a major error to call them so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcolson (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: If you desire more weight to be put to the decision by more contributors, so be it.  I agree fully with Lcolson: it is obvious even from the Gen4 article alone that Gen4 comprises much more than fast breeders. Only the reverse, merging fast breeders into Gen4, could be a theoretical option, but then I think the fast breeder concept is much older (late 60s) than Gen4. In conclusion, I am strongly in favour of removing the merger proposal. --Sesc (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 09:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears that Eiland is has an anti-nuclear POV and is engaged in edit wars on other nuclear pages (see his talk page).  Any edits he makes here and on the Gen4 page are probably circumspect. Lcolson (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whats new about that? Everyone has a point of view, and I strive to make wikipedia a neutral source and relevant source of information, just like I assume you do. Removing my merger proposal without awaiting further discussion goes against WP philosphy, and I strongly object. -- Eiland (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eiland, that is a red herring.  Looking at this "discussion" and other ones you have been involved in, it is apparent that you are not discussing anything.  We have made points ,counter points to yours, and backed them up with good neutral references.  You have not made any logical counter points that address ours.  And the idea is to keep POV out of articles, not have your POV balance ours.  The idea is not to have POV in articles to begin with.  When I write, I try to keep my writing as factual as possible.  Your point is purly based on your opinion, where as mine, Sesc, and Nailedtooth's were based on fact.  You claim to be discussing stuff, but you are not.  I have seen editing like this before, and it always ends in a ban.  I wouldn't bee surprised if you were a sockpuppet of someone who infact was banned (like Ben who got banned from editing Nuclear Power).  I am not going to try too hard to explain this anymore to you, because you might be a sockpuppet who is just wasting my time.  Edit in good faith or be prepared to have your edits removed.  Lcolson (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I still believe that Gen IV is a hollow marketing phrase, bundling random types of nuclear reactors together, most of which have fast breeder properties, which doesn't merit an individual article, but we've spent enough time on this, so I retract my merger proposal. -- Eiland (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: *233U is arguably not a serious proliferation concern because of the associated uranium-232 (from thorium) and its powerful gamma radiation. It's a chicken and egg problem. Only nations that already have nuclear weapons would likely have the remote handling expertise to make a 233U bomb. Of course, a fanatical government could conceivably sacrifice workers lives, but the educated engineers required would be unlikely to go along. Anyway, it should be presented as a more debated point. Anthony717 (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the section about Thorium seems to me to be completely at odds with this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 - I'm not an expert on this subject, so I don't think it's my place to make changes to the article, but for someone with more expertise in the subject, this might make a good source (as I believe the guy is fairly well regarded). Andipi (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uranium-233 not so handy for bombs

message: There's very little information in this article on how a fast breeder reactor actually works, its basic design, how it produces fuel, what fuel it produces. There are some diagrams, but nothing to explain what information is in those diagrams. Some information on this would go a long way to making this article more informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TV4Fun (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactor Functioning Info?