Talk:Breeder reactor

Saving some stuff that was there originally, and that which I wanted to clarify and add, which is LFTR specific, that if we want to keep probably belongs in its own article: LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * LFTR does not need to operate at 50+ atmospheres of pressure like conventional pressurized water reactors. It operates at atmospheric pressure. This would greatly decrease construction costs, and greatly increase safety characteristics.
 * Mined thorium is cheaper than enriched uranium, and because the fuel is liquid it does not need to be fabricated into fuel pellets with exacting standards, which will make it cheaper.
 * The reactor uses a fluoride salt as both the fuel and the working fluid, which removes the need of using water near the radioactive bits, which removes that possible vector for getting the radioactive stuff airborne. In fact, nearly all of the radioactive bits like to stay in solution in the fluoride salt. When you combine this with the lack of pressurization, there is little to no vector for the radioactive bits to get airborne and disperse. The lack of pressurization, specifically water under pressure, makes impossible the hydrogen explosives seen at Fukushima One.
 * Due to the frequent or continuous sparging of xenon and other radioactive gases, the actual dangerous radioactive content of the reactor will be less than a convental solid fuel reactor, again limiting impact in accidents.
 * Moving the fuel to a safe configuration in case of accident. Otherwisek known as a drain tank. This is not present in all LFTR designs. Moving the fuel in case of accident is only practical because the fuel is liquid.
 * Due to the specific physics involved, specifically the lower starting atomic weight (Thorium 232 vs Uranium 238), less long lasting waste is produced. The waste is back to uranium ore radiation levels in a few hundred years.
 * Due to the higher fuel efficiency (about 1% for conventional reactors vs 90%+ for LFTR), less waste is produced. This is true for LFTR due to the purported ease of frequent or continuous fuel reprocessing. This can be applied to other reactor designs, but the liquid fuel form probably will make it much easier with LFTR than solid fuel reactor designs.