The following year-old patent, in a more perfect world, might form the
basis of an incredible unintended benefit in cheap nuclear energy
(apparently unintended by the inventors, that is).
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060140326.html
Alas, the powers-that-be in the USA will most likely never envision the
possibilities for this advance, nor put "imagination to work" - much
less put $$$ to work... which sad outcome is due to political realities
in the nuclear industry. Not to mention the second-to-none influence of
the General Electric corporation, its minions and sycophants - allied
with the Sierra Club and the hot fusion program (MIT Princeton etc).
Had these strange bedfellows realized the potential economic
consequences, this patent itself would likely have been sequestered, and
never have been openly published. I predict that the patent will find a
welcome home in some foreign land. Actually this new home is surely
'fait accompli' by now.
BTW, the key impediment in a 50 year-old roadblock in providing safe
"too-cheap-to-meter" nuclear power, has NOT been the obvious
over-regulation of the industry, per se. The problem is far a more
complex by-product of capitalism itself.
That over-regulation was actually wise, considering the circumstances,
epitomized by TMI and its brain-dead reactor design which we have been
stuck with. Most of the present problem goes back to the '50's era and
that antiquated but highly profitable design scheme, shared by three
co-conspirators. Compounded by the years of intransigence, resulting in
a total 'lack-of' a small, mass-producible, super-safe modular
subcritical reactor design... and the diminution of profits to
entrenched players.
...which predicament itself all derived from the 'lack-of' an order of
magnitude technical advance in small neutron generators, which would
have permitted such.
Of course, a fusion design, or fusion-fission design would also work, on
paper. Fusion is the money-pit where the federal buck has disappeared,
and we are still no closer. In fact, the more we learn about hot fusion,
the worse it looks. Dead in the water.
The big lie in the $20 billion+ fusion boondoggle is/was that fusion is
claimed to be "cleaner" or safer, or cheaper. Not so - when compared to
the "ideal" fission (or fission/fusion) alternative - instead, hot
fusion is possibly dirtier, no safer, and much more expensive than an
alternative which could have been put in its place, had that massive
funding been shared.
Thanks to your tax dollars at LLNL, however (even if 20 years too late)
this first bottleneck in an "ideal" fission-based subcritical
alternative has now been overcome, but to zero acclaim - actually little
more than ignorant yawns; but also to the great potential advantage to
other nations.
Our only hope for some benefit from this is that the beneficiary nations
will sell the reactors back to us at a fair price, once they have been
perfected overseas. It would not surprise me at all to see an
energy-poor country, like India or China rapidly design a
mass-producible, small reactor around a version of this LLNL neutron
generator. This would be a 'supersafe' reactor of about 20-50 MW
capacity, capable of being used to power ships, trains, office
complexes, aluminum refineries, oil refineries, coal-to-methanol plants,
etc. etc.: Small, mass-produced and super-safe.
The 'holy grail' of this reactor design is:
1) unpressurized
as simple as it sounds, internal pressurization is the number one flaw
of current design. Any supersafe reactor will be cooled with molten salt
or lead-alloy (which can contain neutron multipliers, as well). Oak
Ridge all but solved this problem decades ago, before political intrigue
resulted in funding being abruptly halted.
2) subcritical - using an advanced neutron generator for makeup
3) fueled with natural U (carbide or soluble salt)
4) in situ 'partial' cleanup (continuous removal of soluble ash)
5) Assembly line, low-cost production of modular reactor components
6) Instant system 'swap-out' using train transport, instead of refueling
7) Full fuel reprocessing at a central facility for continuous
sequential swap-out operation, and near 100% fuel burn-up.
Even with predictable mishaps, this reactor would release far less
radioactivity than the equivalent coal or oil fired plant (fossil fuels
release plenty of radioactive elements which are not caught by filters).
Being subcritical and unpressurized means that there is no possibility
of a TMI-type of mishap. Even LENR, due to transmutation, has some risk.
The required first step towards accomplishing this design goal is
through "an order of magnitude advance in neutron generators" ... Now done.
Sadly... too-late to matter for this once-great country... but not for
those in the 3rd world who may actually need it more. Poetic justice?
If there is blame ... for this predicament - it is due in large part to
GE - that paragon of capitalism in one accounting, but OTOH seen by
critics as closer to an organized-crime outfit, seldom bringing "good
things to life" unless to the opulent lifestyle of its directors, and
seldom putting "imagination to work" unless in political maneuvering and
sub-rosa machination.
END of obligatory GE rant.
Jones
