Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Potential Energy


Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Recent Posts

Blog Topics

Recent Comments

  • ... : Investment of the scale in discussion, should not, and must not, be based on sophistication,or...
  • tmcmurph : Uh news release for you all. SHALE GAS. 50 to 60 year supply with current known technology. The...
  • z0rr0 : Wind: $7.272 Trillion Nuclear: $3.245 Trillion  Not-In-My-Backyard:  Priceless
  • Kevin... : Spad12, Thanks for the comment. My point was that the wind farm, even though it would be the...
  • spad12 : Here are some numbers for ya:  For an intermittent power source, the total generation capability...
  • spad12 : This is what I am trying to get at when I refer to "scale". I have to say it so often that I get...
  • vanzandtj : Spad12: I'll quibble with your comment above: I suggest that the problem with wind and solar...
  • bkrichard : Thank you for correcting Mr. Bullis' comment.  It amazes me that so many science writers make...
  • kstauff : I find nothing scientific about your response, so I'm afraid your plea to "keep it to science"...
  • spad12 : Note, all of my numbers for wind came from the case in this article. I used a base cost of $1650,...
Advertisement
Tuesday, April 07, 2009

China Close to Firing Up Its Fast Nuclear Reactor

The technology could help the United States deal with the issue of nuclear-waste storage.
By Peter Fairley

Russian nuclear-energy company Rosatom reported yesterday that a subsidiary had completed construction of an experimental nuclear reactor in Beijing. At 25 megawatts, the reactor's power output is small, but it sends a big message about where nuclear technology may be heading--especially after the Obama administration's effective cancellation of plans to store spent U.S. nuclear fuel at an underground repository below Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

The Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor is so named because the neutrons produced in its core are not "moderated" with water like those that generate heat in nearly all commercial nuclear reactors. The faster neutrons can burn some nuclear waste and generate more fissile material, helping to deal with the thorny problem of waste storage as well as energy independence.

Fast reactors have proved difficult to operate because most rely on highly flammable liquid sodium for cooling. But their promised benefits keep the hope alive. As Rosatom puts it in its press release, "Just like in Russia, China's nuclear strategy is based on the use of fast reactors as this type of reactor ensures the most efficiency [sic] use of nuclear fuel. CEFR is a project of national significance."

China's experimental reactor is to be loaded with fuel this summer. If all goes well, the plan is to follow up with a larger scale "prototype" before proceeding to commercial-scale plants in about 2035.

China may not be alone. Japan is pushing forward with plans to restart a 280-megawatt fast reactor at Monju that was idled by a sodium fire within months of start up in 1995, and has not run since. India and Russia, meanwhile, are both building large fast reactors.

And in the United States? The Bush administration pointed the U.S. nuclear R & D toward recycling spent fuel in fast reactors, and that approach is back in the spotlight now that Obama has frozen development of Yucca Mountain. A blue-ribbon panel may be struck to set a new course for U.S. spent fuel. But some politicians are already calling for recycling the waste, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

The United States will need an interim solution if it opts for recycling in fast reactors. They will not be ready for commercial operation for at least two decades, according to a report issued by the OECD's Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency last month. Japan, which is basing its future energy policy around fast reactors, does not anticipate that it will begin to displace conventional pressurized water reactors until after 2050.

Comments

  • Not again!!!!!
    "Japan is pushing forward with plans to restart a 280-megawatt fast reactor at Monju that was idled by a sodium fire within months of start up in 1995, and has not run since."
    Rate this comment: 12345

    protn7
    04/08/2009
    Posts:69
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: Not again!!!!!
      Yet again. The Japanese government's efforts to restart Monju went all the way to its Supreme Court, after an appeals court rejected a positive safety review by nuclear authorities. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court in 2005, and work has been underway to restart ever since, with deadlines sliding.

      Those looking for background on the troubled development of fast reactors can look at my coverage of France's nuclear fuel cycle -- including its equally troubled SuperPhenix fast reactor -- for IEEE Spectrum (see "Nuclear Wasteland"). Breeders come in to the picture on page 4.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      pfairley
      04/08/2009
      Posts:10
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • fast reactor
    Any notion that the fast reactor is going to a) solve the U.S. waste problem, and b) provide unlimited energy to counter climat change - ignores the history of the technology - a failure in energy terms with waste forms that remain unmanaged and unmanageable, while glossing over the direct proliferation threats posed the production of supergrade plutonium in the breeder blankets - China developing breeder reactors is looked on with deep suspicion in Japan - and will encourage South Korea in its ongoing efforts (Kalimer project) - the reality is that these program's are directly linked to the wider strategic-military dynamic - breeders programs provide justification for research into the most sensitive areas of nucler technology and have no place in a sustainable energy future. The termination of the domestic arm of GNEP in the last days, rather than being a negative indicates that some inside the Obama administration understand the economic, political and environmental folly of large scale reprocessing and fast reactor development.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    plutscot
    04/20/2009
    Posts:1
  • Goal here
    Very soon the nuclear hopes of millions will become real. I only hope that they will be safe as they suppose. Roll on nuclear fusion.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Policy
    10/31/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
    • Re: Goal here
      In my old age I'm weary of uninformed analysis of harzards.  More people are killed in coal mining every year than all the people ever killed or even hurt in nuclear accidents.  Please get some perspective. The quantities of hazardous waste generated by nuclear energy are miniscule in comparison to those generated by burning coal.  The majority of these waste are heavy and are not going very far, even without containment. Please get educated and then open your mouth. Ignorance is a very shakey platform from which to opine.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      TooMany
      11/01/2009
      Posts:52
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.