Slashdot Mirror


GE To Turn World's Biggest Civilian Plutonium Stockpile Into Electricity

First time accepted submitter ambermichelle writes "GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has proposed to the U.K. government to build an advanced nuclear reactor that would consume the country's stockpile of radioactive plutonium. The technology called PRISM, or Power Reactor Innovative Small Module, would use the plutonium to generate low-carbon electricity. The U.K. has the world's largest civilian stockpile of plutonium. The size of the stockpile is 87 tons and growing. Nuclear reactors unlock energy by splitting atoms of the material stored in fuel rods. This process is called fission. For fission to be effective, neutrons – the nuclear particles that do the splitting and keep the reaction going – must maintain the right speed. Conventional reactors use water to cool and slow down neutrons, keeping fission effective. But water-cooled reactors leave some 95 percent of the fuel's potential energy untapped."

4 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Water-cooled reactors are only 5% efficient? by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am amazed that conventional water-cooled reactors are only 5% efficient. It sure casts the seemingly low efficiency factors of other alternative fuels(such as the cheapest solar panels) into a different light.

    But you are talking about 5% of the energy from a fuel with an energy density which is about 1,000,000 times the energy density of coal

  2. Re:Water-cooled reactors are only 5% efficient? by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not that it's not that efficient, it's that it really doesn't need to be. The energy from fission is mostly captured (although you are dumping a lot of heat), but crucially it leaves high energy products behind in the fuel. It's what makes the spent fuel so hazardous to deal with, which is why it's crazy to suggest burying it in the ground!

    Why bury something that has so much juicy energy still in it that we can extract with current technology? The answer is political, of course.

    The other factor to consider is the sheer magnitude of the energy we're talking about here. E = mc^2 is not just a handy soundbite.

  3. Re:radioactive plutonium by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

    no. but the usual Pu-239 isn't very radioactive, just emits alphas slowly with a very long half life of 24,200 years. That radiation can't even penetrate your skin or go through a piece of paper. Pu-240 is artificial, usually decays by alpha but sometimes spontaneously fissions, it too has long half-life of more than 6500 years. Then there is Pu-238, emits huge amounts of alphas with its short half-life of 88 years, it's used in RTG batteries and also radioisotope heater units. A kilogram of the stuff gives off 500 watts.

  4. Re:New power source? by Rising+Ape · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can't get supercriticality/runaway fiisson like happened at Chernobyl

    Fast reactors are somewhat notorious for being trickier to control than (well-designed) thermal ones. It's very difficult to avoid a positive void coefficient, and fairly small changes in the fuel geometry can lead to large changes in reactivity. There was a meltdown in an early FBR caused by thermal expansion causing the fuel to bow inwards, increasing the reactivity. Phenix in France also had unexplained loss of reactivity incidents.