🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27JAN93.11382848@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>The scientific viability of fast reactor technology has, I feel, been 
>adequately demonstrated.  High plutonium content, high burn-up fuels have 
>been successfully made and used, the science and engineering of fuel
>reprocessing is obviously doable, or else there would not be so many
>nuclear weapons in existence, and the French do have a plant in operation
>that vitrifies the high level waste from fuel reprocessing.
>
>The problems with SuperPheonix are largely associated with the use
>of liquid sodium as a coolant.  These problems are of an engineering
>nature, rather than fundamental and should be soluble given enough 
>effort.  I would refer you to a posting of 93/01/26 by Joseph Askew, who
>originally raised this issue on the net, in which he gives further 
>details of the technology and agrees with my view that the technical
>issues can probably be overcome.
>

Here's a genuine, non-rhetorical question. How do the "engineering" 
problems of getting a breeder reactor to work compare with the problems
of getting cheap/reliable photo-electric panels to work. If you were
asked to explain why $Nbillion dollars of of research monies should be
pumped into one technology or the other, what arguments would you make?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu