The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor.
The reactors are used in nuclear power plants to produce nuclear power from nuclear fuel.
Wiki
|
|
Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory that is knowledge. All comments are the sole possesion of the commenters and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS. Related Posts |
I read that as “breast feeder.”
And I should care about this “FBR” because… …?
Because it’s FANTASIC
@ian356094: Because its probably the only practical way to generate sustainable power for next 100 years, but its banned in the US.
why?
It’s also redundant – unless you intend to create nuclear weapons. But you then run the risk of a melt down. Now Candu reactors don’t melt down, but you can’t use them to create nuclear weapons. Unless you convert them to Breeder reactors, like India and Pakistan did.
I know how we could make Fusion work.
Either we NUKE THE GENERATOR OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Or
We build the generator INSIDE THE SUN.
Gunface’s mom works very well as a Fast breeder reactor. Reacts slowly during facials though.
Nuclear power is really only “sustainable” if you ignore the considerable challenge of storing spent fuel safely for the next 40,000 years.
@LukeV1-5: That’d be carrying coals to Newcastle writ large. That reminded me of this song, so I thought I’d share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyz7e8iQ6Uo
Breeding fuel terrifies the tits [read 'man boobs'] off me. Maybe I don’t [read 'I sure as shit don't'] fully understand the process, but it sounds like purposefully creating a chain reaction to me.
I know this is going to be controversial, but my understanding of nuclear power is that it is very safe and very clean when done well. We all hear about the terrible consequences of things going pear-shaped when there’s a meltdown or a spillage, but we seldom hear about the gigawatts of clean, cheap energy produced round the clock by well managed and well funded nuclear power plants. Sure, the bi-product is possibly the most lethal substance on god’s green earth, but when compared to the tonnes of CO2 emitted by power stations burning fossil fuels the tiny quantities of nuclear waste produced by nuclear plants appears very manageable.
Burning fossil fuels now has an immediate and wide-reaching effect on the planet that has become accepted after centuries of burning coal. Nuclear power is still a dark art where the consequences of making a single error are immediately and painfully obvious.
Now for the controversial bit. France has been generating nuclear energy for decades with an incredibly good safety record. By the late eighties France was producing around a third of it’s electricity using nuclear power and is now producing considerably more than that. It’s annual output is second only to the USA, however, with a population one-fifth that of America’s, it’s output per capita is significantly higher than any other country on Earth. Because of this it finds itself in a position where it can export electricity in bulk. Not only does France export electricity to it’s geographical neighbours, it supplies unique projects such as CERN (and all m[c]s junkies have seen how much power that bad boy sups). Clearly in today’s energy-dependent world, an abundance of electricity is no bad thing.
We are all justifiably nervous of another Chernobyl, but ask yourself; would your country let that happen? The Chernobyl Disaster was over twenty years ago and was truly a terrible thing. But honestly, do you think the USSR had the capabilities to build or operate nuclear power stations in the first place? And as an aside, did you know that the other reactors at Chernobyl remained operational until late 2000?
To wrap this whole ugly tangential rant up as neatly as can be done after a half crate of Corona, I guess my point is that there are two opposing opinions of nuclear power. One is that it offers big rewards, but with risks. The other is that the risks are too high to contemplate. My belief is that the risks are indeed big, yet they are also manageable if the funding and governance are in place.