Fears over Bulgarian nuclear boom

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-07-08 11:35am

Was there any safety payoff, in using the less-enriched fuel? Or was it just a matter of industrial efficiency?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-09 12:17am

Or was it just a matter of industrial efficiency?

The RBMK designers tried to decrease the complexity of reactor construction, which arguably could be said as leading to greater safety. Less enriched fuel is also cheaper to make, and that increases lifetime of enrichment plants and ease of work. Mostly industrial efficiency of course.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-07-09 12:36am

They should have used a CANDU design

We can use stuff that would be regarded as waste by other reactor designs.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-07-09 12:56am

Damn you Canadians, sitting up there being all efficient, and everything...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-07-09 02:17am

Well mind you, the CANDU design forces the creation of a completely ancillary support industry for heavy water production, so it's not as if you necessarily cut down on the volume of work. But all things considered, I think most nations would feel more comfortable with the proliferation of heavy water production facilities than uranium refining facilities.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-09 02:50am

Yeah, CANDU is not exactly the most economical reactor out there, but it's pretty safe. Also, greater capital construction costs are offset by fuel economy gains. The RBMK design also processed fuel better than what our nation had at the time, I guess that's why it was accepted.

Also, no active zone size limitations... that opened possibilities. Or at least it seemed so before.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-07-09 11:49am

Maybe CANDU's job-creation in the heavy-water area could be a net positive, if'n there's people in need of the jobs.