Visions of a nuclear future

[Belinda Wong-Swanson-2]

-----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outdated as the cold war.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 ? 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20040716/e666f403/attachment.htm

[Owen Densmore]

Reading this morning's paper, I stumbled across yet another  
discussion of nuclear power and the conflict between clean, efficient  
power it provides and the fear of its dangers.  I recalled an article  
Belinda sent out a while back and thought it worth forwarding,  
below.  (The original URL was no longer valid but http://tinyurl.com/ 
7kxj5 points to one that works .. and I've attached Belinda's original)

I'm curious if we have more recent information within the group.  For  
example, do we know any of the presenters at the
     Second Annual Workshop on Accelerator-Driven Subcritical System
     http://iac.isu.edu/workshops/ADSS2004_3.html
Or do we know if the initial ADS research has been found flawed?

This sub-critical reactor technology seems almost impossibly sweet --  
even consuming existing nuclear wastes and potentially having fewer  
and shorter lived waste.
   http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/pdf/ADS.pdf
   http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ja/asiaadspdf/06-zhao.pdf
   http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ws/pdfen/4-1_Oigawa.pdf

I find it depressing that the US has blown decades of research  
because of the unfortunate reaction to Political Correctness.

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


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





     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org

[Bruce Sawhill]

20-100 MW output power accelerators don't grow on trees or use a  
negligible amount of power!  And they could be used for other, less  
beneficial purposes.

Bruce


On Jan 8, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

> Reading this morning's paper, I stumbled across yet another
> discussion of nuclear power and the conflict between clean, efficient
> power it provides and the fear of its dangers.  I recalled an article
> Belinda sent out a while back and thought it worth forwarding,
> below.  (The original URL was no longer valid but http://tinyurl.com/
> 7kxj5 points to one that works .. and I've attached Belinda's  
> original)
>
> I'm curious if we have more recent information within the group.  For
> example, do we know any of the presenters at the
>      Second Annual Workshop on Accelerator-Driven Subcritical System
>      http://iac.isu.edu/workshops/ADSS2004_3.html
> Or do we know if the initial ADS research has been found flawed?
>
> This sub-critical reactor technology seems almost impossibly sweet --
> even consuming existing nuclear wastes and potentially having fewer
> and shorter lived waste.
>    http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/pdf/ADS.pdf
>    http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ja/asiaadspdf/06-zhao.pdf
>    http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ws/pdfen/4-1_Oigawa.pdf
>
> I find it depressing that the US has blown decades of research
> because of the unfortunate reaction to Political Correctness.
>
>      -- Owen
>
> Owen Densmore
> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
> 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 ? 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All
> rights reserved.
> Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
>
>
>
>
>
>      -- Owen
>
> Owen Densmore
> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Belinda Wong-Swanson]

I believe there is on-going research on different ways to deal with the
waste issues, some are quite promising.

While my own interests are more in renewable energy technologies, energy
efficiency and distributed power, I recognize that RE in conjunction
with nuclear energy is the only way we can meet the world's energy
appetite and the goals of the Kyoto Protocol of controlling green house
gas emissions, especially if China, India, and other countries continue
their industrial growth. I guess I am your typical pragmatic Chinese.

By the way, after China's unsuccessful bid to buy Unocal last year, it
is in the process of buying 45% of Nigeria oil & gas fields (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4594058.stm). In the last few years,
it has developed warm relationships with oil-producing countries all
over the world in order to secure its near-term oil & gas needs
(probably one of the reasons why the President of Venezuela could thumb
his nose at the US, and why the US has not been as persuasive in OPEC's
production amount in the last year). At the same time, it is developing
hydro, wind, and solar, and learning about carbon sequestration because
of its large coal reserve. I am more concerned about China's economic
rather than military dominance in the coming years.

Belinda

=====

Owen Densmore wrote:

>Reading this morning's paper, I stumbled across yet another  
>discussion of nuclear power and the conflict between clean, efficient  
>power it provides and the fear of its dangers.  I recalled an article  
>Belinda sent out a while back and thought it worth forwarding,  
>below.  (The original URL was no longer valid but http://tinyurl.com/ 
>7kxj5 points to one that works .. and I've attached Belinda's original)
>
>I'm curious if we have more recent information within the group.  For  
>example, do we know any of the presenters at the
>     Second Annual Workshop on Accelerator-Driven Subcritical System
>     http://iac.isu.edu/workshops/ADSS2004_3.html
>Or do we know if the initial ADS research has been found flawed?
>
>This sub-critical reactor technology seems almost impossibly sweet --  
>even consuming existing nuclear wastes and potentially having fewer  
>and shorter lived waste.
>   http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/pdf/ADS.pdf
>   http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ja/asiaadspdf/06-zhao.pdf
>   http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ws/pdfen/4-1_Oigawa.pdf
>
>I find it depressing that the US has blown decades of research  
>because of the unfortunate reaction to Political Correctness.
>
>     -- Owen
>
>Owen Densmore
>http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
>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 ? 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All  
>rights reserved.
>Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- Owen
>
>Owen Densmore
>http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
>
>============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>  
>