Re: 2005 was the hottest year on record

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:13:54 +0000, John Devereux
<jdREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:29:28 +0000, John Devereux
>> <jdREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Bell <ruffrecords@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My answer is nuclear power.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately there is only enough nuclear fuel for about 100 years - what
>>>> happens then?
>>>
>>>100 years is a long time in terms of technological progress. Then at
>>>least we will have had time to develop alternatives - e.g. fusion, or
>>>economical solar power.
>>>
>>>There are also fast breeder reactors - but as I understand it you then
>>>end up manufacturing bomb-grade plutonium as part of your fuel
>>>cycle. That might not be a good idea for a worldwide roll-out...
>>
>>
>> It's not bomb grade unless you separate it. And I think it could be
>> seeded with other plutonium isotopes which are very hard to separate
>> but make it useless as bomb material.
>
>I thought the difference was that you only have to do a *chemical*
>separation, rather than isotopic. If you are right and you still have
>to do isotopic separation anyway, then the fast breeder fuel cycle
>would indeed be no worse than conventional.
>
>> And you can guard the fuel rods, always a good idea.
>
>I was thinking in the context of nuclear power as a global
>solution. It makes it much harder to prevent a country aquiring
>nuclear weapons, if that countries power stations directly use a
>nuclear explosive as fuel!

Fuel rods aren't, and wouldn't be, bomb-grade stuff. Uranium rods are
mildly enriched. If we did a breeder cycle, the plutonium content of
fuel rods would also be low, way below bomb grade. And if plutonium is
mixed with active neutron emitting isotopes, they must be separated -
very difficult - and the plutonium concentrated to make it
bomb-worthy. Pu will fizzle during the implosion phase if there are
too many wild neutrons around.

Some day nukes will make sense again, as the oil runs out.

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Not so bad news
    ... > No one knew the power of the bomb at that time. ... But when they were going to set off the first bomb, ... foolish suicide" (subheadline: "fire chiefs urge people to remember the ... apart in the Soviet Union _INTERNALLY_...so, one wonders, should it be ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Clean power for Audio and AV
    ... Is it true clean power with a separate transformer, or do I need simply separate earth connections? ... sound system and control booth. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft)
  • Re: Safety of Nuke Power
    ... onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building. ... the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods, ... Chernobyl accident caused the dispersion? ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
    ... Power reactors don't produce material useful for bomb ... Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass, ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: OT: IRAN
    ... swept the Shah and his goons into power, the next gave us a theocratic ... dictatorship. ... That would be a holy disaster as bad as the holy tyranny. ... Let me tell you (I hear a lot of this "drop the Bomb" bullshit at work): ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
Quantcast