Talk:Subcritical reactor

If subcritical reactors could be made economical whereby they process unenriched nuclear materials such as natural uranium and thorium, you could ban the existence of any kind of enriched nuclear material outside a nuclear facilities process streamlines - meaning you couldn't even store enriched uranium or plutonium in drums as a weapon's reserve inside your nuclear plants, if it's radioactive, you keep reprocesssing it. This could cut down theft and proliferation issues tremendously, because you would have a clear way to catch people red handed. Sillybilly 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my Radioactive_Waste's post here.

Take care of this link about how to use radioactive waste to produce precious metals. It is from a forum of an italian national television:

http://www.la7.it/community/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=14133&start=1

It was a topic on Mondial Corruption and Poverty.

In the same topic there is also the description of how to produce artificial diamants of 10 carats and "above" of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. so reducing the wars for the diamonds (do you remember an Hollywood movie about it?).

In short, precious metals can be produced from radioactive waste, and the new tabletop particle accelerators of two Universities can do the rest.

The project to burn nuclear waste was also promoted by the Nobel Price Carlo Rubbia, and to produce precious metals is a subproduct of this method of nuclear burning with a linear particle accelerator.

Many posts are in English.

And I think you must give an eye on this too. Carlo Ceballos obtains PhD on shorter life-span of radioactive waste 05 February 2007 by TNWToday | M&C

http://www.tnw.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=57ba3c4a-4b79-4474-820d-2c1237876169&lang=en

A more general view on this process with a bit of history about particle accelerators for this project (2002?):

http://www.neutron.kth.se/publications/conference_papers/W_Gudowski_FR202_1.PDF

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radioactive_waste"

Merge proposal

It seems to me that Subcritical reactor and Energy amplifier are essentially the same thing. Ergo, I propose merging them. Comments?
—WWoods (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are essentially the same thing, so eventually the articles should be merged, but I don't think that a consensus has been reached in the nuclear industry as to what this technology should be called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.38.101 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise to the contrary. The reactor can take additional neutrons from any appropriate device or none for specific research applications. The "Rubbiatrone" is just ONE application of the Subcritical reactor... /Kurtan (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these things exist at all?

From scanning the entire article I get the hunch that subcritical reactors only exist on paper and in small-scale lab settings. Is that right? Shouldn't the opening paragraph then state that this article concerns

a proposed type of nuclear fission reactor

? Qwertyus (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no good online sources, would have to go in real life to Argonne and ask around. Actually been done. Even was petitioning for nuclear facilities to switch to Advanced Fast Reactor/Forced Fast Neutron was proven at Argonne for over 2 decades... Media reported it all under new name of {Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Reactor (ADSR)} and making sound like is NEW research and maybe something possible in future! Also crediting C Rubbia in '93 with the idea! Even though Walt Deitrich, Pete Planchon, and Chuck Matthews, under John Sackett proved it all in the 80's. This sort of setup was main source of medical radionuclides for USA for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.123.92 (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]