PLENTIFUL ENERGY

process. Quite simply, a lot of radioactivity stays in the product, harmless to
reactor operation, requiring remote handling.
5. Waste can be largely stripped of the long-lived actinide elements; their
amount is decreased by two orders of magnitude, and without additional
steps or cost. They stay in the recycled fuel where they are burned. It is
these elements that gave the waste its ―forever‖ reputation. The lifetime of
radio toxicity affecting the environment above permissible standards
decreases from hundreds of thousands of years to a few hundred years.
6. The waste forms for permanent disposal have been developed and they are
simple too. The waste is of two kinds. One is a metal waste form of steel
from the fuel assembly hardware, cladding from the fuel elements, and
zirconium from the fuel alloy. It is cast as an impervious metal alloy. The
second waste form is comprised of fission products immobilized in a
ceramic.
7. The excellent heat transfer characteristics of the metal fuel and coolant
efficiently lower the power in proportion to need in the face of serious
accident initiators like those at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. These
accidents would not have happened in an IFR.
8. The size, the scale of these things, is on a human scale. Huge installations are
unnecessary.
In total, accomplishments like these and more represent a largely proven reactor
technology with remarkable characteristics. Lessons can be drawn from the IFR
experience, some obvious, some not. Principal among them are, first, that exciting
new technologies can be developed still at this nation‘s great national labs. Second,
that R&D success on large complex projects takes money; but not only money,
commitment is required. The development of a completely new reactor system
requires national political will that must last between administrations. The early
research stage can be done at the nation‘s national laboratories, if the necessary
talent and will to undertake the task happen to be present. But even for this, the
national will to fund the research, and to continue to fund it, is necessary. There is
no savings account at a national laboratory. Funding each year, every year, is
needed from Congress at the start of the fiscal year. If not, the program must
collapse and the scientists and engineers working on it must be transferred or let go.
The bigger the program, the bigger is the risk to any laboratory‘s well-being. But
the commitment of the best of the laboratories to accomplish important things for
the nation should not be underestimated. If the program is scientifically sound and
important, from forces generated within them, laboratories will take such risks. To
bring them to fruition, long-lasting political will must be patiently cultivated.
50