How was the IFR idea different from the concepts underlying traditional nuclear-power fuel cycles?
All of those fuel cycles were derived from technologies developed to meet special military needs: naval propulsion, uranium enrichment, weapons-plutonium production, and plutonium separation. Waste disposal has been approached as “someone else’s problem.” The IFR concept is directed strictly to meeting the needs of civilian power generation. It is an integrated, weapons-incompatible, proliferation-resistant cycle that is “closed” – it encompasses the entire fuel cycle, including fuel production and fabrication, power generation, reprocessing and waste management. Do we need a new kind of reactor? What’s wrong with what we have now? IFRs could reduce or eliminate significant difficulties that beset thermal-reactor fuel cycles – problems or concerns with: * production and build-up of plutonium * short-term management of plutonium * disposition and long-term management of plutonium * plutonium in national and international commerce * other proliferation concerns * long-term waste manageme
