Contents:
Remember me on this computer. Most current ADS designs propose a high-intensity proton accelerator with an energy of about 1 GeV , directed towards a spallation target or spallation neutron source. In reality, this These materials also have good neutron economy, allowing the pitch-to-diameter ratio to be large, which allows for improved natural circulation and economics. A subcritical reactor does not contain sufficient fissile material to maintain a chain reaction. Baeten, H.
Leave fission products in the reactor, just crank up the beam. They claim a net energy gain of depending on the fuel mix.
Transmutation of Radioactive Materials using Thermal Neutrons. If more neutrons were emitted in fission, there would be no need for enrichment or reprocessing, and much more of the mined uranium could be burned without proliferation-prone and expensive technologies. The purpose of enrichment and reprocessing is to make up for the limited neutrons from fission.
The ADNA Corporation in collaboration with the physics staff of Duke University and Virginia Tech have embarked on an alternative approach to nuclear energy to reduce the non-beneficial loss of neutrons and to add external neutrons to sub-critical reactors from accelerators and ultimately fusion neutron sources. These external sources in combination with molten salt fuel enable the fuel to be recycled many times without separations that generate a waste stream.
Because waste is not removed, waste is concurrently burned so that the ultimate waste storage requirements are reduced by about a factor of ten and delayed for generations. This approach, which works best with graphite-based reactors, will be cheaper than the combination of enrichment, reprocessing, and fast reactors and would not be burdened with proliferation concerns.
Graphite systems were the original path for nuclear energy and we believe graphite systems should be brought back owing to many advantages that were not realized in early development. Neutron scattering studies on small samples of graphite at the Los Alamos National Laboratory revealed the physics basis. The consequences of reduced neutron loss are enhanced performance of graphite-based critical reactors and better performance with external neutron sources than previously thought.
Brian Wang. He is known for insightful articles that combine business and technical analysis that catches the attention of the general public and is also useful for those in the industries. Conventional reactors are fuelled by uranium — specifically, the uranium isotope U That's a lively old isotope that likes to split: it is "fissile". When U splits, it releases neutrons, and these go on to initiate an energy-generating nuclear chain reaction by splitting still more U atoms.
But there are downsides to the use of uranium as fuel: first, it produces plutonium as waste. Second, the uranium fuel cycle is what engineers call "critical": once it gets going it's self-sustaining, so there is a risk — albeit a tiny risk — of loss of control. Instead, we would shift two spaces to the left in the periodic table, to uranium's unsung cousin: thorium.
Despite being named for the god of thunder, thorium sits quietly in the Earth as a safe, unreactive mineral — and it sits there in great abundance, especially in Welsh earth. Unlike uranium, the thorium atom does not easily split, making it safe to store and handle. But we need a fissile atom to initiate the energy-generating nuclear reaction. Since thorium is not fissile, it must be converted to something that is.
In an ADSR, the thorium-containing reactor core would be coupled to a particle accelerator. This would fire up a beam of protons before slamming them into a block of lead inside the reactor core. The bombardment induces the lead to release neutrons, in a process called spallation. Those neutrons are then smashed into the thorium atoms, turning them into atoms of uranium, which is fissile — and so the reaction begins.
It's still nuclear fission, but a crucial safety difference between a conventional nuclear reactor and an ADSR is that in the latter the reaction operates at subcritical levels: it is not self-sustaining. So in the event of a problem, all the operator has to do is switch off the proton beam. Almost immediately, the reaction will cease.
Better yet, an ADSR could actually utilise, as fuel, the plutonium waste created by current reactors, eliminating toxic waste while generating further energy.
But surely that particle accelerator needs a lot of energy to operate? Yes, it does. However, you get far more power out at the other end. Yes, the accelerator will require power input — around 20MW — but that power can be taken from the ADSR's own output, leaving an excess MW of electric power. So what we have, in principle, is a reactor running off stable, abundant fuel, producing an excess of energy, with no danger of meltdown.
If ADSRs are really this perfect, how come we don't already have one? The problem is that, for the moment, our available options for the accelerator are limited. Commercial accelerators are pretty big, not to mention expensive to build and run. We can't have a Cern in every city. If we're going to have ADSRs as standard power stations, we have to get around this.