The pebbles multiply the amount of nuclear waste by at least 1000 times because of all the carbon used in the pebbles.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Am I mistaken in thinking that the disposal of fuel waste is an issue that > is shared by all fission reactor designs? > > It seems to me that after Fukushima, passive safety and simplicity of > design are no-brainers for fission power. Perhaps the pebble-bed reactor > has critical issues. I wonder how the Chinese effort is going. > > Eric > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > One problem of pebbles in a reactor is that they are not welded into >> place. Long-lived pebbles are hard to make stay in one place with pneumatic >> forces from He flow and thermal transitions, expansion from pebble internal >> pressures and other loadings in a reactor. They do not hold radioactive >> stuff as well as welded tubes of Zr. However, they are cheap and easy to >> make. >> >> I would not want one near me. >> >> The X-energy web page notes that the design concept has been around since >> 1944. I think I know why it did not catch on. The only good thing about the >> suggested reactor design is that it is relatively small and probably can be >> contained within a good pressure vessel. >> >> Maintenance, refueling and decomissioning of a reactor plant could be a >> significant headache. Disposal of pebbles, particularly those that are >> broken, does not have a good conceptual design in hand. >> >> I would like to know where Axil got his information about the German >> population deciding to ban nuclear power—I do think it focused on pebble >> bed reactors. I think the safety of their large existing reactors, some >> with the same ill-design for fuel storage that caused the Fukushima reactor >> disaster to get way out of hand, was the primary cause of the decision. >> >> Bob Cook >> > >
