undefined

points

by AnthonyMouse12 hours ago |

comments

by Joel_Mckay11 hours ago|

[-]

>What does that have to do with how the US can deal with spent fuel?

Unlike France, the US did not use a closed-loop multi-grade fuel cycle for economic reasons.

>an empirical demonstration that reactors that run on spent fuel

It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel.

However, China's recent Thorium reactor facility is interesting, and it would be neat to see some real data on its output. The US shuttered their own facility a long time back, but it is unclear why the research was effectively abandoned. There probably was a legitimate reason, but who knows for sure. =3

by AnthonyMouse10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Unlike France, the US did not use a closed-loop multi-grade fuel cycle for economic reason

Those are the existing reactors. The premise is building new ones of a different design.

> It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel.

It has to be accounted for but it's not some kind of impossible sorcery.

> The US shuttered their own facility a long time back, but it is unclear why the research was effectively abandoned. There probably was a legitimate reason, but who knows for sure.

There is a lot of politics involved in energy in general and nuclear in particular.

by inigyou10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

There's no such thing as a closed-loop fuel cycle - that would be perpetual motion.

by sehansen7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In a nuclear energy context "closed cycle" just means that the uranium and plutonium is separated out from the spent fuel for future reuse. The loop is only closed in the sense that some of the spent fuel material that leaves the reactor will enter it again in the future. It doesn't imply that new inputs won't be added to the loop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle_in_France#C...