Nuclear future

[Mike Oliker]

Belinda,
This is fabulous.  I've felt for some time that there's been far too little
innovation in Nuclear Power since 1948.  Do you know anyone in New Mexico
pursuing this kind of vision?  It's an area I'd like to know more about.
-Mike Oliker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Belinda WS [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Information about Business & Sustainable Development


http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&DocId=6413

Visions of a nuclear future


Financial Times, 16 July 2004 - How do you turn a Green bright red? Just
mention nuclear power, judging by the response of environmentalists to the
growing use of the N-word in debates about future energy sources.

Last week, Tony Blair told a committee of senior parliamentarians that
America was pressing Britain to re-examine the case for building a new
generation of nuclear power stations and that nuclear power could not be
removed from the agenda.

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, South Africa's minerals and energy minister, last
month incurred the wrath of environmental campaigners for suggesting that
nuclear power might give her nation greater energy diversity and security of
supply.

A few weeks earlier, Professor James Lovelock, the British environmental
guru, had provoked outrage with his apparent apostasy in calling for huge
investment in nuclear power to help combat global warming.

Sir Crispin Tickell, a leading British environmentalist, has even managed to
annoy both eco-activists and ministers by accusing the UK government of
failing to make the case for nuclear power in tackling global warming.

At first sight, it is hard not to share the frustration of environmentalists
at being presented with a bleak choice between climatic disaster or reliance
on the technology that gave us Three Mile Island, the Chernobyl disaster and
thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste.

Yet it is a false dichotomy, based on a view of nuclear technology as
outdated as the cold war. Whisper it quietly, but experiments are about to
begin on a new form of nuclear power that even eco-warriors might tolerate,
if not welcome.

It is radically different from the traditional reactor designs that prompt
fear and loathing: for one thing, its safety is underwritten by the laws of
physics, rather than human ingenuity.

Better still, it can use a range of different fuels - including some that
would minimise the risk of weapons production by "rogue" nations. But best
of all, this new form of reactor can incinerate waste from other reactors,
turning today's noxious stockpiles into energy.

Such are the prospects held out by the new reactor, the Accelerator-Driven
Subcritical (ADS) system. First proposed in the 1990s by scientists at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, and Carlo Rubbia, the Italian
Nobel prize-winning physicist, the idea behind ADS is more elegant than its
name.

Conventional nuclear power exploits the energy released by the splitting -
"fission" - of uranium atoms. Along with energy, this fission process
releases neutrons capable of splitting further uranium atoms, triggering a
chain reaction.

If the numbers of neutrons are just sufficient to keep the reaction in
balance, the result is a "critical" reactor - and a steady flow of power
that today provides about 17 per cent of the world's electricity demand.

But if the chain reaction runs out of control, the reactor could explode as
an atomic bomb does. This has compelled designers to devise measures to
prevent a disaster - yet these are no guarantee of safety. The ADS system
adopts a different approach to nuclear safety - one that even Homer Simpson
could not undermine.

As its name implies, the ADS reactor is "sub-critical" - that is, its fuel
simply does not generate enough neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.
Instead, the reactor is fed with neutrons created by a particle accelerator.

Cut off this supply of neutrons - deliberately or accidentally - and the
reactor reverts to its natural, somnolent state. An explosive chain reaction
is not just unlikely: it is prevented by the laws of physics.

Moreover, as chain reaction stability no longer depends on the type of fuel
used, the ADS system is a nuclear omnivore, able to work with fuels that are
wholly unsuited to weapons production. To cap it all, an ADS reactor can
even consume radioactive waste from conventional reactors.

This holy trinity of advantages has made the ADS the subject of intense
theoretical research for more than a decade. Now the theory is to be tested
in experiments by an international team of scientists at Italy's Casaccia
Research Centre, near Rome.

A small research reactor at the centre has been modified to make it
sub-critical, and a particle accelerator is to be built to feed the reactor
with neutrons knocked out of a tantalum target.

The first experiments, expected to start within two years, will focus simply
on gaining experience in the art of feeding neutrons to a reactor.

Once these are completed, the team plans to use a more powerful reactor and
accelerator system to create an ADS system capable of waste incineration. A
pilot plant could be completed within five years.

That is the plan. In reality, the ADS approach may still harbour an
unexpected problem that stops it realising its potential. Most concern
surrounds the creation of the neutrons needed to feed the reactor.

A commercial power station consuming substantial amounts of waste will
require an accelerator substantially more powerful than any now available.

However, the biggest cloud hanging over the project is the same one that has
dogged nuclear power for decades: economics. No matter what its benefits, if
the electricity ADS generates costs too much, it will have no role to play
in future energy policy.

With the public rightly chary of the return of old-style nuclear power, but
a growing belief even among some environmentalists that renewables alone are
not enough, a lot is riding on the success of those experiments near Rome.

Copyright 2004 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)

Copyright C 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy





            Author   Robert Matthews


            Publication Date   16.07.2004


            Document Type   News articles



            Issue/Topic   Energy & Climate



            Region   Europe



            Country   United Kingdom



            Source   Financial Times

[Carl Tollander-2]

Check out http://www.unm.edu/~isnps/

They are part of an annual conference in Albuquerque;
see http://www.unm.edu/~isnps/staif/main.html

The orientation is more towards smaller scale nuclear
power generation for space purposes, but they do stuff
on terrestrial applications as well.

Carl


Mike Oliker wrote:

> Belinda,
> This is fabulous.  I've felt for some time that there's been far too little
> innovation in Nuclear Power since 1948.  Do you know anyone in New Mexico
> pursuing this kind of vision?  It's an area I'd like to know more about.
> -Mike Oliker
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belinda WS [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Information about Business & Sustainable Development
>
>
> http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&DocId=6413
>
> Visions of a nuclear future
>
>
> Financial Times, 16 July 2004 - How do you turn a Green bright red? Just
> mention nuclear power, judging by the response of environmentalists to the
> growing use of the N-word in debates about future energy sources.
>
> Last week, Tony Blair told a committee of senior parliamentarians that
> America was pressing Britain to re-examine the case for building a new
> generation of nuclear power stations and that nuclear power could not be
> removed from the agenda.
>
> Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, South Africa's minerals and energy minister, last
> month incurred the wrath of environmental campaigners for suggesting that
> nuclear power might give her nation greater energy diversity and security of
> supply.
>
> A few weeks earlier, Professor James Lovelock, the British environmental
> guru, had provoked outrage with his apparent apostasy in calling for huge
> investment in nuclear power to help combat global warming.
>
> Sir Crispin Tickell, a leading British environmentalist, has even managed to
> annoy both eco-activists and ministers by accusing the UK government of
> failing to make the case for nuclear power in tackling global warming.
>
> At first sight, it is hard not to share the frustration of environmentalists
> at being presented with a bleak choice between climatic disaster or reliance
> on the technology that gave us Three Mile Island, the Chernobyl disaster and
> thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste.
>
> Yet it is a false dichotomy, based on a view of nuclear technology as
> outdated as the cold war. Whisper it quietly, but experiments are about to
> begin on a new form of nuclear power that even eco-warriors might tolerate,
> if not welcome.
>
> It is radically different from the traditional reactor designs that prompt
> fear and loathing: for one thing, its safety is underwritten by the laws of
> physics, rather than human ingenuity.
>
> Better still, it can use a range of different fuels - including some that
> would minimise the risk of weapons production by "rogue" nations. But best
> of all, this new form of reactor can incinerate waste from other reactors,
> turning today's noxious stockpiles into energy.
>
> Such are the prospects held out by the new reactor, the Accelerator-Driven
> Subcritical (ADS) system. First proposed in the 1990s by scientists at the
> Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, and Carlo Rubbia, the Italian
> Nobel prize-winning physicist, the idea behind ADS is more elegant than its
> name.
>
> Conventional nuclear power exploits the energy released by the splitting -
> "fission" - of uranium atoms. Along with energy, this fission process
> releases neutrons capable of splitting further uranium atoms, triggering a
> chain reaction.
>
> If the numbers of neutrons are just sufficient to keep the reaction in
> balance, the result is a "critical" reactor - and a steady flow of power
> that today provides about 17 per cent of the world's electricity demand.
>
> But if the chain reaction runs out of control, the reactor could explode as
> an atomic bomb does. This has compelled designers to devise measures to
> prevent a disaster - yet these are no guarantee of safety. The ADS system
> adopts a different approach to nuclear safety - one that even Homer Simpson
> could not undermine.
>
> As its name implies, the ADS reactor is "sub-critical" - that is, its fuel
> simply does not generate enough neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.
> Instead, the reactor is fed with neutrons created by a particle accelerator.
>
> Cut off this supply of neutrons - deliberately or accidentally - and the
> reactor reverts to its natural, somnolent state. An explosive chain reaction
> is not just unlikely: it is prevented by the laws of physics.
>
> Moreover, as chain reaction stability no longer depends on the type of fuel
> used, the ADS system is a nuclear omnivore, able to work with fuels that are
> wholly unsuited to weapons production. To cap it all, an ADS reactor can
> even consume radioactive waste from conventional reactors.
>
> This holy trinity of advantages has made the ADS the subject of intense
> theoretical research for more than a decade. Now the theory is to be tested
> in experiments by an international team of scientists at Italy's Casaccia
> Research Centre, near Rome.
>
> A small research reactor at the centre has been modified to make it
> sub-critical, and a particle accelerator is to be built to feed the reactor
> with neutrons knocked out of a tantalum target.
>
> The first experiments, expected to start within two years, will focus simply
> on gaining experience in the art of feeding neutrons to a reactor.
>
> Once these are completed, the team plans to use a more powerful reactor and
> accelerator system to create an ADS system capable of waste incineration. A
> pilot plant could be completed within five years.
>
> That is the plan. In reality, the ADS approach may still harbour an
> unexpected problem that stops it realising its potential. Most concern
> surrounds the creation of the neutrons needed to feed the reactor.
>
> A commercial power station consuming substantial amounts of waste will
> require an accelerator substantially more powerful than any now available.
>
> However, the biggest cloud hanging over the project is the same one that has
> dogged nuclear power for decades: economics. No matter what its benefits, if
> the electricity ADS generates costs too much, it will have no role to play
> in future energy policy.
>
> With the public rightly chary of the return of old-style nuclear power, but
> a growing belief even among some environmentalists that renewables alone are
> not enough, a lot is riding on the success of those experiments near Rome.
>
> Copyright 2004 The Financial Times Limited
> Financial Times (London, England)
>
> Copyright C 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights
> reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
>
>
>
>
>
>             Author   Robert Matthews
>
>
>             Publication Date   16.07.2004
>
>
>             Document Type   News articles
>
>
>
>             Issue/Topic   Energy & Climate
>
>
>
>             Region   Europe
>
>
>
>             Country   United Kingdom
>
>
>
>             Source   Financial Times
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org
>

[Belinda Wong-Swanson-2]

I don't know who at LANL is doing this but I will look into it. This
technology certainly sounds promising, almost too good to be true.

Belinda

Belinda Wong-Swanson, Principal
Innov8 LLC, 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM 87501
www.innov8llc.com
email: [hidden email]
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of Mike Oliker
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:43 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Nuclear future


Belinda,
This is fabulous.  I've felt for some time that there's been far too little
innovation in Nuclear Power since 1948.  Do you know anyone in New Mexico
pursuing this kind of vision?  It's an area I'd like to know more about.
-Mike Oliker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Belinda WS [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Information about Business & Sustainable Development


http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&DocId=6413

Visions of a nuclear future


Financial Times, 16 July 2004 - How do you turn a Green bright red? Just
mention nuclear power, judging by the response of environmentalists to the
growing use of the N-word in debates about future energy sources.

Last week, Tony Blair told a committee of senior parliamentarians that
America was pressing Britain to re-examine the case for building a new
generation of nuclear power stations and that nuclear power could not be
removed from the agenda.

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, South Africa's minerals and energy minister, last
month incurred the wrath of environmental campaigners for suggesting that
nuclear power might give her nation greater energy diversity and security of
supply.

A few weeks earlier, Professor James Lovelock, the British environmental
guru, had provoked outrage with his apparent apostasy in calling for huge
investment in nuclear power to help combat global warming.

Sir Crispin Tickell, a leading British environmentalist, has even managed to
annoy both eco-activists and ministers by accusing the UK government of
failing to make the case for nuclear power in tackling global warming.

At first sight, it is hard not to share the frustration of environmentalists
at being presented with a bleak choice between climatic disaster or reliance
on the technology that gave us Three Mile Island, the Chernobyl disaster and
thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste.

Yet it is a false dichotomy, based on a view of nuclear technology as
outdated as the cold war. Whisper it quietly, but experiments are about to
begin on a new form of nuclear power that even eco-warriors might tolerate,
if not welcome.

It is radically different from the traditional reactor designs that prompt
fear and loathing: for one thing, its safety is underwritten by the laws of
physics, rather than human ingenuity.

Better still, it can use a range of different fuels - including some that
would minimise the risk of weapons production by "rogue" nations. But best
of all, this new form of reactor can incinerate waste from other reactors,
turning today's noxious stockpiles into energy.

Such are the prospects held out by the new reactor, the Accelerator-Driven
Subcritical (ADS) system. First proposed in the 1990s by scientists at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, and Carlo Rubbia, the Italian
Nobel prize-winning physicist, the idea behind ADS is more elegant than its
name.

Conventional nuclear power exploits the energy released by the splitting -
"fission" - of uranium atoms. Along with energy, this fission process
releases neutrons capable of splitting further uranium atoms, triggering a
chain reaction.

If the numbers of neutrons are just sufficient to keep the reaction in
balance, the result is a "critical" reactor - and a steady flow of power
that today provides about 17 per cent of the world's electricity demand.

But if the chain reaction runs out of control, the reactor could explode as
an atomic bomb does. This has compelled designers to devise measures to
prevent a disaster - yet these are no guarantee of safety. The ADS system
adopts a different approach to nuclear safety - one that even Homer Simpson
could not undermine.

As its name implies, the ADS reactor is "sub-critical" - that is, its fuel
simply does not generate enough neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.
Instead, the reactor is fed with neutrons created by a particle accelerator.

Cut off this supply of neutrons - deliberately or accidentally - and the
reactor reverts to its natural, somnolent state. An explosive chain reaction
is not just unlikely: it is prevented by the laws of physics.

Moreover, as chain reaction stability no longer depends on the type of fuel
used, the ADS system is a nuclear omnivore, able to work with fuels that are
wholly unsuited to weapons production. To cap it all, an ADS reactor can
even consume radioactive waste from conventional reactors.

This holy trinity of advantages has made the ADS the subject of intense
theoretical research for more than a decade. Now the theory is to be tested
in experiments by an international team of scientists at Italy's Casaccia
Research Centre, near Rome.

A small research reactor at the centre has been modified to make it
sub-critical, and a particle accelerator is to be built to feed the reactor
with neutrons knocked out of a tantalum target.

The first experiments, expected to start within two years, will focus simply
on gaining experience in the art of feeding neutrons to a reactor.

Once these are completed, the team plans to use a more powerful reactor and
accelerator system to create an ADS system capable of waste incineration. A
pilot plant could be completed within five years.

That is the plan. In reality, the ADS approach may still harbour an
unexpected problem that stops it realising its potential. Most concern
surrounds the creation of the neutrons needed to feed the reactor.

A commercial power station consuming substantial amounts of waste will
require an accelerator substantially more powerful than any now available.

However, the biggest cloud hanging over the project is the same one that has
dogged nuclear power for decades: economics. No matter what its benefits, if
the electricity ADS generates costs too much, it will have no role to play
in future energy policy.

With the public rightly chary of the return of old-style nuclear power, but
a growing belief even among some environmentalists that renewables alone are
not enough, a lot is riding on the success of those experiments near Rome.

Copyright 2004 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)

Copyright C 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy





            Author   Robert Matthews


            Publication Date   16.07.2004


            Document Type   News articles



            Issue/Topic   Energy & Climate



            Region   Europe



            Country   United Kingdom



            Source   Financial Times




====================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
http://www.friam.org