Hi all, regarding the roundtable discussion, I personally still think that Very high temperature reactors should be considered rather than Gas cooled reactors. In terms of performance, Gas cooled fast reactors are dependent on VHTR in terms of modification in design and characteristic, minimizing the effort required for GCFR. the waste material produced by GCFR is being recycled. As a result, there is a decrease in efficiency as it is being used many times and loses its capability to generate the same amount of energy. In addition, according to theory, we know that output efficiency is dependent on temperature. So a higher In terms For GCFR, there is a presence of safe accommodation of low thermal inertia and poor heat transfer properties of coolant. In VHTR, waste is not recycled but instead stored away.
In terms of safety or security, there is a temperature monitoring system in VHTR to ensure safety. It monitors the reactors to avoid any meltdown. Such system does not exist in gas cooled reactors that operates at lower temperature. VHTR has a better back-up system. In the event of sudden shutdown due to malfunction, VHTR still can produce energy. It is especially useful for country like France, which 80% of the electricity generated is dependent on nuclear energy. (Butler 2004).
operating temperature of VHTR would allow for more electricity to be produced as compared to gas cooled reactors. Not only that, the waste material being produced by gas cooled fast reactors is pure plutonium and this material is mainly used for weapon making. This is dangerous if it goes out of hand.
Done by:ng jun jie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Done by: Lau Yu Zhong
ReplyDeleteThe GFR is more attractive in term of recycling technology as compare with VHTR. It is able to reduce the number of waste during the process of energy. “Reprocessing is attractive because it could cut the final amount of waste produced-96% of spent fuel consists of uranium and plutonium, whereas troublesome long-lived radionuclides amount for less than 1%. So if these elements could be extracted from spent fuel, all of the uranium and plutonium could be recovered and reused. Only small volume of spent fuel would be left over as waste.” (Butler.D, 2004). In addition, according to world nuclear association, “the cost of managing and disposing of nuclear power plant wastes is about 5% of the total cost of the electricity generated.”(2009). Thus, nuclear waste has not only occupied space, it costs even more to solve the problem. In terms of it producing lesser waste, GFR has proved to be more outstanding than VHTR.
Supporters of VHTR believe that VHRR is more cost effective than the others. The VHTR makes use of a fresh batch of nuclear fuel every time. On the other hand, GFR makes use of recycled waste as fuel. This will inevitably cut down the cost in the long run. According to news report by Butler.D, each of the six prototype costs about US$1 billion to build. Though the VHTR already in testing stage in many countries, the GFR is believed to be less costly in terms of research as it is built on the knowledge of the VHTR. GFR require less visual inspection than VHTR since it produced relatively lesser heat. Also, in building of the VHTR, there will only be countable choices of building materials that can be used since they must have the ability to withstand very high temperature. Thus, the construction of VHTR reactor will definitely be more costly as compared to GFR. Hence, it is relatively cheaper to build GFR than VHTR.
In conclusion, GFR is more environmental friendly as it has an advanced recycling technology that reduces the number of waste as compare with the VHTR. To ensure sustainable development without the compromise on environment, GFR should be chosen over VHTR.
Done by: Lau Yu Zhong