View Full Version : Fast Breeder Technology, is it Safe and Sustainable for the Future?
This area gave birth to a fabulous technological breakthrough which proved that fast breeding of plutonium from uranium was feasible as a fuel source.
This is good news in terms of economy because approximately 60 times more fissile material is created in the process.
But how sustainable is it if every country had their own breeding programme?
Would that technology be safe in every other country's hands?
Would Climate Change or we as in British be taken seriously on the international stage if we kept the technology to ourselves to provide our energy and cut our greenhouse gases but preach to others that they can't be trusted with it?
How long will the uranium reserves last sustainably even if it was used in fast breeding? And what do we mean by sustainable?
How much can the breeding programme contribute to providing our primary energy over the long term?
I appreciate that there are more qualified persons to speak on this than me but this is an attempt to cut through the sentimentality of Dounreay and look at facts to see if FBR technology is what it is cracked up to be as the answer to the world's energy needs but never used in the UK.
So let us look at the info.
It is a fact that the world's population is striving to use more energy which is similar to what the 'western lifestyle' is accustomed to using, about 85kWh per person per day (DTI 2007) Americans are estimated to be using 150kWh per day.
A normal 1GW powerstation uses 162 tonnes of uranium per year and the Earth has approx 4.7 million tonnes of conventional reserves left.
If we were to use that precious uranium sustainably, ie over a thousand years then we would use 4700 tonnes per year, meaning we could only get 28GW from uranium to make it last.
If we could recover all of the plutonium from that 4500 tonnes then humanity might be able to produce 1680GW of energy production per year.
Dividing through 6 billion persons, that equates to 7kWh per day person which is well short of the 85 kWh per person to support a western lifestyle sustainably?
Even if we aim to use the uranium all up in 100 years then we are still short of a complete solution to our energy needs.
Is the risk to national security worth it for something that falls well short of meeting our needs? :confused
Uranium exists naturally in seawater; the Japanese (who recently recommenced their FBR program) are currently leading the way in extraction of Uranium from seawater.
Uranium exists naturally in seawater; the Japanese (who recently recommenced their FBR program) are currently leading the way in extraction of Uranium from seawater.
You are right, it is in seawater and they have experimented but have abandoned the seawater extraction process.
But they are not using it because of contamination problems within the process and they have failed to prove that they can extract it fast enough and that the energy needed to extract the uranium is worth it when balanced with the recoverable energy from fission. The scaling up the facility to industrial useage doesn't add up either.
Recovery of uranium from seawater in Japan is currently being carried out, and they are also carrying out field trials of new membranes.
I was in Tokyo in May of this year and had discussions with those involved.
Recovery of uranium from seawater in Japan is currently being carried out, and they are also carrying out field trials of new membranes.
I was in Tokyo in May of this year and had discussions with those involved.
So you know all about it then.
So come on give us the facts how it can be used on a mass scale.:roll:
I can't unfortunately its commercial in confidence.
I can't unfortunately its commercial in confidence.
I see. But there are some aspects of the technology which need to be addressed to make it more efficient. The efficiency of adsorbtion through the adsorbent cage is the biggie and the surface area needed to supply one person's annual needs is a statistic which is interesting. I've read that the area needed to adsorb just one persons annual energy needs is about 5mē. That is quite a lot of space and adsorbent cage to build for every person?
Plus the speed at which the ocean current conveyor belt goes at plays a part. It circulates every 1600 years so 1/1600 X 4700 million tonnes which is less than 3,000,000 tonnes per year.
The cages have several layers. There are also a few seawater processes (industrial) which have been shown to capture natural U, and there a synergy between these and the membranes is being investigated.
It doesn't look very promising as a viable energy source for the long term but you tell them from me to keep experimenting, I've nothing against pure research just for the sake of it.
ywindythesecond
19-Sep-10, 23:12
It is a fact that the world's population is striving to use more energy which is similar to what the 'western lifestyle' is accustomed to using, about 85kWh per person per day (DTI 2007) Americans are estimated to be using 150kWh per day.
:confused
Is this one person's domestic consumption, or one person's share of all energy consumption?
Is this one person's domestic consumption, or one person's share of all energy consumption?
It is the estimated average share of one person's daily energy needs from all sectors including domestic, commercial and industrial primary energy, transport, public services, the whole sherbang.
Eh? What about the Hamsters? :confused
What about the Hamsters?
Why? Are they uranium enriched?
Is it naturally occurring or are these lab bread nuclear hamsters?;)
Eh? What about the Hamsters? :confused
They will have to plant the fields around Dounreay with carrots etc. in the hope that they will mutate into giant carrots and thus feed the hamsters cheaply.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 19:09
I am not going to say anything about fast breeders on here because I know little of nuclear technology.
But I would like to know why you did not just do a straight poll on whether people want to save the dome or not instead of banging two totally different questions together with tin-tacks.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 19:51
Eh? What about the Hamsters? :confused
The hamster theory is good. But if there are escapes or emissions there could be problems....
http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad118/johnlittle21/connex-hamster.jpg
But I would like to know why you did not just do a straight poll on whether people want to save the dome or not instead of banging two totally different questions together with tin-tacks.
The poll gives an unbiased way of killing 2 birds with one stone, by careful examination you can see who is for and against on both issues.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 20:13
The poll gives an unbiased way of killing 2 birds with one stone, by careful examination you can see who is for and against on both issues.
Unbiased mae aie!
I did not even look at the thread when I saw its title, thinking I would not comment on things I know little of. I glanced at it idly and saw you had put two questions into one.
Do that in a national referendum and you'd find yourself in trouble with the electoral commission.
If you want two sets of answer to two questions then two polls are logical.
This way you filter out loads of orgers who have no interest in fast breeder technology.
Sneaky!
This way you filter out loads of orgers who have no interest in fast breeder technology.
If that is the case then how can they have any interest in the Dounreay dome? Without knowing what it is or what it is for then it's just a folly.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 20:30
If that is the case then how can they have any interest in the Dounreay dome? Without knowing what it is or what it is for then it's just a folly.
I know that you are not stupid therefore you are being deliberately obtuse.
The future of the dome has nothing to do with the future of fast breeder technology and you know it. Do I really have to spell that out?
As for 'follies' lots of them are preserved as national heritage. As I recall you made a reference to sentimentalism on the other thread - and it is becoming obvious that as far as preserving heritage buildings is concerned, you are a complete and utter utilitarian. They could tear down Fort Augustus, Edinburgh Castle, the smiths at Gretna - Robert Burns' house and you, apparently would not turn a hair - or would you?
You really cannot see the historic significance of this building? Or is it that you don't want to?
I am being forced into the conclusion that if I and others are sentimental, you are a Philistine.
I know that you are not stupid therefore you are being deliberately obtuse.
The future of the dome has nothing to do with the future of fast breeder technology and you know it. Do I really have to spell that out?
As for 'follies' lots of them are preserved as national heritage. As I recall you made a reference to sentimentalism on the other thread - and it is becoming obvious that as far as preserving heritage buildings is concerned, you are a complete and utter utilitarian. They could tear down Fort Augustus, Edinburgh Castle, the smiths at Gretna - Robert Burns' house and you, apparently would not turn a hair - or would you?
You really cannot see the historic significance of this building? Or is it that you don't want to?
I am being forced into the conclusion that if I and others are sentimental, you are a Philistine.
Why the Ad hominem attacks, are you completely incapable of forming an arguement without them?
It would be fair to say I have no sentiment for the Dounreay sphere, it is all before me. I never grew up with it and many generations to come will have that same privilege when it goes.
I've always been a function beats form hands down all the time sort of man anyway. That is why I have never disagreed with anyone about the aesthetic value of wind farms or whether I thought people are wrong to think the Dounreay dome is worth preserving as a heritage site.
As for people who have no opinion on fast breeder technology but love the dome for some strange reason then they are free to study up and get acquainted with fast breeding, until such times I have no interest in their opinion if they feel the need to abstain from the poll.
If want to make another poll, feel free if you are genuinely concerned about the bias otherwise you are being obtuse. :lol:
John Little
20-Sep-10, 20:57
Ad Hominem attacks is it?
"but this is an attempt to cut through the sentimentality of Dounreay"
That's just an irrelevant aside I suppose?
Not an implication that your mind is clear on the matter and free of such irrelevance?
You wish to impugn people who oppose your view as 'sentimental' but they must not question your somewhat Philistine approach in return?
Attack you? Or what you have said?
I'm not attacking you Rheghead. If I were I would call you names But I am attacking your ideas. And your ideas are Philistine ideas.
I do not agree with you.
"As for people who have no opinion on fast breeder technology but love the dome for some strange reason then they are free to study up and get acquainted with fast breeding, until such times I have no interest in their opinion if they feel the need to abstain from the poll. "
Are you really incapable of splitting these two issues?
I would not pretend to know or want to know anything about fast breeder technology.
But I know an historic building when I see one. A place of importance in the history of the second industrial revolution. A landmark feature in human history And in my opinion anyone who wants to tear it down because it's an 'eyesore is little more than a vandal.
(Note anyone- not you particularly)
Your poll is set up to illicit the response you want.
And you know it it.
"... want to make another poll, feel free if you are genuinely concerned about the bias otherwise you are being obtuse. "
Oh I think not - my meaning and purpose are quite clear but thankyou for your reference to the bias.
My opinion of you (not that I imagine for one moment that you care about that) would rise like a rocket if you did such a poll so I'll pass.
Yoda the flump
20-Sep-10, 20:59
Message deleted
But I am attacking your ideas.
Then please feel free to state them without lowering yourself to personal attacks. You do yourself no favours, personal attacks stifle debate. But of course that is what you want, you obviously don't like people who have a differing opinion, you said that yourself.
If we held on to every non functional building just because we liked it then there would be no countryside left.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 21:03
"If we held on to every non functional building just because we liked it then there would be no countryside left."
:eek: Oh no! I suddenly find myself in violent agreement with Rheghead!! :eek:
What numpty suggested that idea?
John Little
20-Sep-10, 21:07
Then please feel free to state them without lowering yourself to personal attacks. You do yourself no favours, personal attacks stifle debate. But of course that is what you want, you obviously don't like people who have a differing opinion, you said that yourself.
If we held on to every non functional building just because we liked it then there would be no countryside left.
Would you please quote in your next post exactly where I launched this/these personal attacks on you?
John Little
20-Sep-10, 21:09
"....you obviously don't like people who have a differing opinion, you said that yourself."
Where did I say that?
Would you please quote in your next post exactly where I launched this/these personal attacks on you?
I'm not into pishing contests and neither are others, end of.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 21:13
I do not wish to either insult you or PM you. But I would like to know exactly where I either called you names or attacked you.
John Little
20-Sep-10, 21:14
I'm not into pishing contests and neither are others, end of.
No more am I.
You have made an allegation.
Please substantiate it or withdraw it.
They will have to plant the fields around Dounreay with carrots etc. in the hope that they will mutate into giant carrots and thus feed the hamsters cheaply.Oh yes, feeding the giants is a real problem and the giant carrots would help so thank you for that suggestion.
I was intending feeding the hamsters from giant plantations of hemp. I read somewhere on here that it grows very quickly and has a huge yield. I forget who was pushing that idea. ;)
Between us we will solve the energy problem with giant hempsters. :lol:
Unfortunately two issue polls don't always kill two birds with one stone because consideration of one part of the question can influence the answer given to the other part. But that is interesting in itself.
Oh yes, feeding the giants is a real problem and the giant carrots would help so thank you for that suggestion.
I was intending feeding the hamsters from giant plantations of hemp. I read somewhere on here that it grows very quickly and has a huge yield. I forget who was pushing that idea. ;)
Between us we will solve the energy problem with giant hempsters. :lol:
Unfortunately two issue polls don't always kill two birds with one stone because consideration of one part of the question can influence the answer given to the other part. But that is interesting in itself.
You are genius!!!Giant hempsters! Two stoned birds indeed..I like the idea of giant hemp plants. I can roll giant reefers..I would be a happy vandal and too blind to see the eyesore.
Whitewater
22-Sep-10, 01:24
I voted yes for keeping the Dome and Nuclear energy. Nuclear power it is the only sensible way forward, time they stoped farting around with windmills and got behind some real power. Australia has began mining uranium again on a much larger scale than they were doing in the 60s. Looking back to the days of my youth I recall talk of uranium extraction in both Caithness and Orkney during that time. There is lots of it about, no need to extract from sea water at this time.
Unfortunately I know how poor old Don Quixote must have felt when he was charging his windmills
Looking back to the days of my youth I recall talk of uranium extraction in both Caithness and Orkney during that time. There is lots of it about, no need to extract from sea water at this time
Isn't there a deposit of uranium somewhere near Broubster that leaches out into the Forss river?
Isn't there a deposit of uranium somewhere near Broubster that leaches out into the Forss river?
By Jove he's right!; "Uranium is being actively transported from uraniferous sedimentary rocks into a peat bog at the Broubster natural analogue site in Caithness, Scotland"
Many links (among others)
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=11918&DID=327535&action=detail (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=11918&DID=327535&action=detail)
By Jove he's right!; "Uranium is being actively transported from uraniferous sedimentary rocks into a peat bog at the Broubster natural analogue site in Caithness, Scotland"
Many links (among others)
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=11918&DID=327535&action=detail (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=11918&DID=327535&action=detail)
Interesting but I doubt if there'd be anywhere near the amount required to run a reactor from it which is about 150 tonnes per year. And I doubt whether Highland council will allow uranium mining further upstream.
So where does that leave us?
Tubthumper
22-Sep-10, 23:32
Oh! Beautiful silvery river of Forss
I look on you every morn
As sun glints right down on your fast flowing course
I give thanks that I was once born
And now I hear word that the forest of Broub
Adds spice to your quicksilver flowing
The trout that leap high chasing darting mayfly
Are not only bigger, they're glowing
Ironic indeed that complainers abound
Bemoaning the work at Dounreay
That left trace of plute in the once-verdant ground
Remaining forever and day
I understand radio-nuclides have been
Around since the dawning of time
That U, Th and Radon are part of our lives
And helped us evolve out of slime
There's plants in the Ukraine just thriving in peace
In shadow of Chernobyl ruin
And treating the radio-isotopes nice
For power we soon should be doin'
Oh! Beautiful silvery river of Forss
Must I have a care while I'm fishing?
My septic tank discharges into your care
Could there be more harm from my pishing?
Tubthumper
23-Sep-10, 11:31
I wonder, if the newly-announced OFGEM review of grid access prices results in reductions on costs to generators, will it make generating up here more economically attractive? Both for renewable energy and nuclear power?
You are genius!!!Giant hempsters! Two stoned birds indeed..I like the idea of giant hemp plants. I can roll giant reefers..I would be a happy vandal and too blind to see the eyesore.Would hemp grow well in Caithness and Sutherland?
I know I should go back and read your old threads but I'm being a lazy bovinette on this lazy Sunday..........
Would hemp grow well in Caithness and Sutherland?
I know I should go back and read your old threads but I'm being a lazy bovinette on this lazy Sunday..........
Yes, hemp will grow virtually anywhere.
Yes, hemp will grow virtually anywhere.
Well there we are then. Not only can hemp provide jobs for the post-Dounreay age but it can help solve the energy problem in a renewable and sustainable way and it can provide painkillers for chronic illnesses such as MS. It's a win, win, win situation. :)
Well there we are then. Not only can hemp provide jobs for the post-Dounreay age but it can help solve the energy problem in a renewable and sustainable way and it can provide painkillers for chronic illnesses such as MS. It's a win, win, win situation. :)
Tell that to the world. Hemp could supply us 80% of what we need. Excellent biomass and it loves carbon dioxide.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.