Thanks for that SmartAlbert. My reference to fast reactors "not working out" was certainly not meant as the last word on the subject. Nor was it - as you have proven! In the limited space of this post I couldn't really get into the past present and future of IFRs, but I wanted to acknowledge them as a way of broadening the point of why MSRs lost back in the 60s/70s. In a general, shorthand sense, IFRs did not work out in the Nixon plan. As you note, Clinton's decision certainly didn't help. But we haven't seen the end of them. China and Russia have big plans for them. Bill Gates is behind the idea with his TerraPower. So is Richard Branson http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/virgin-nuclear-branson-asks-obama-for-reactor-help-sir-richard-v-bill-gates/17784?tag=search-river and climate guru James Hansen http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/grandfather-of-global-warming-fight-nuclear-power-saves-millions-of-lives/16828?tag=search-river. Even Robert Redford's film festival managed to feature them in January http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/lights-camera-atoms-sundance-to-debut-pro-nuclear-film/8362?tag=search-river. General Atomics has a nifty one under development that could rival Gates. There's a chance the UK will use the GEH PRISM for plutonium disposal. IFRs, MSRs, PBRs, even fusion will compete for a clean energy future.
↧
