| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Hi Ludwik-******************************************************************
You write:
***************************************************************
The reactor information is from the CERN report [CERN/AT/95-44(ET)],
by C.
Rubia et al., Geneva, 29th September, 1995. The title of this report
is
"Conceptual Design of a Fast Neutron Operated High Power Energy
Amplifier".
The term "energy amplifier" is used as a reference to a new kind of a
power
plant (reactor plus accelerator) which could generate electricity and
destroy
nuclear waste. The reactor is subcritical and its heat removal system
is
based on natural convection (eliminating possibilities of
Chernobyl-like and
TMI-like events). Why do people in charge (See Physics Today, June
1997)
still say that the best way of dealing with spent reactor fuel is to
bury
it under ground?
Ludwik Kowalski
P.S.
The U.S. term for the new technology, centered at LANL, is ATW
(Accelerator
Transmutation of Waste). The most recent issue of "Nuclear News",
December,
1997, p 20-22, has two short articles on ATW.
Carlo Rubia, the Nobel Laureate, is a very active leader of a large
group
of European reserarchers developing new accelerator-reactor systems.
The Omega project in Japan is the third research center where reactors
designed to "incinerate" nuclear waste are being actively developed.
********************
Which people in charge say that? Someone "in charge" is
pushing
the Los Alamos project.
Regards,
Jack