So another country is getting ready to extract plutonium from the fuel rods for nuclear reactors and may use this for making bombs. Are there any reactor types that don't use plutonium? ERS
- posted
18 years ago
So another country is getting ready to extract plutonium from the fuel rods for nuclear reactors and may use this for making bombs. Are there any reactor types that don't use plutonium? ERS
they produce plutonium as a waste by-product.
Reactors don't generally use plutonium, What they do is convert uranium into plutonium (and a host of other nasty things) in the process of producing heat and neutrons.
except for nuclear reactors on submarines.
iHighly enriched Uranium 235
Well then, why aren't all peaceful use reactors made like the submarine ones? Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer in the long run to offer to replace all of Iran's reactors with ones that don't produce plutonium? Or maybe GB just wants to kill another bunch of innocent American soldiers and innocent Iranian children. ERS
Yeah, that's it. It's George Bush's fault for not changing out the reactors....
Ok, let's start from the top. Iraq doesn't need reactors. The French and Russians and probably a couple other countries sold them a kit so they could *cough* generate power. Now if you think that they need reactors to generate power, we ought to stop the discussion right now. But they have the reactors, at least the ones Israel didn't destroy and they are happily breeding Pu with them. Same with N. Korea.
As to a reactor that doesn't produce Pu, I'm no expert, but I think they all do. The thread got a little confused and I think that the answer to the submarine reactor question was that they use enriched uranium, not that they don't produce Pu.
Here is one site Eric.
But as to the question, does it *produce* Pu, the answer is still yes. The practical difficulties of extracting and making the Pu weapons-grade are very difficult though.
Navy reactors use highly enriched U235 to reduce physicial size and the reduced mass of the core enables the reactor to change power levels much quicker than say a land based power station type reactor.
Some other things like liquid metal cooling (sodium) also reduces the size.
They all produce Plutonium, it's part of the fision process.
Hugh Old radiated NucSafety guy.
Thanks, I was mistaken.
i
Here's to the old 'glow boy', Hugh is right on.
I won't get into what we do to highly enrich 235. Or the fact that the whole reason we (as a not to well educated public) were told that Nuke Power was the future (think making bombs for us) Sad truth is we *ARE* a nation of sheep Eddy Teller was such a good sales man, gotta have Pu for a hydrogen bomb... too bad we now have more spent rods than we know what to do with.
As for other reactor designs, sure there are 10's (if not 100's of them).. Graphite block works great for absorbing neutrons, what do ya think Fermi's toy was under the squash court..... 'cept when ya have a Chernobyl kinda thing..(oops)
It's a shame GE and Babcock &Wilcox were just fronts for the military industrial complex, we *might* have found some interesting technology instead of..... oh hell you know the story, (and if ya don't go watch 'China Syndrome') Too bad 'Shiva' and 'Mega Shiva' never got more energy out than we put in.. now fusion .. that's some serious stuff!
The really sad thing is that now days any bright high school physics student is taught enough to understand this. Given enough money by a corrupt government (like ours) they can easily design a plant that can make the raw materials for nice bomb. India (where people are dying by the 10's of thousands), Pakistan (that's half outlaw and Osma is hiding in) and now even Korea (didn't we fight and loose our first war there?) can do it... Let alone Iran (oh yeah I remember the Shaw) and a host of other not so white and Christian places that are working on it.
Dave (403-029 Sir, what's your service number?)
Umm, the parliament had them blown up! Never test flown.
Ah, yes, the "Shqval", a bad transliteration from the Cyrillic.
260 Knots underwater! Too bad one of them blew up, caught fire or whatever, inside the Kursk. Kind of threw a damper on what would have totally outclassed every other undersea Navy in the world. Or maybe I should just say every other Navy, period.Jon
most don't as noted by other posters
ther is a type of reactor that is/was(?) known as a "Fast Breeder Reactor" that uses Plutonium as a fuel and, IIUC, produces more plutonium than the fuel it starts with
IIUC Cerrnobyl(sp?) was a 'Fast Breeder
HTH Otto
Hm, many people are also "fast breeders".
i
No. It was a water-cooled graphite-moderated reactor, similar to the Hanford N-reactor.
Fast breeders almost alway use liquid metal moderators.
Interesting spew of hate.
Are you forgetting it was your butt buddy Clinton that gave em the reactors?
Gunner
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill
Greetings Jim, If you read my first message again you'll see I was talking about Iran, not Iraq, that is, or seems to be, on the way to extract Pu for weapons use. At least, that's what the current administration is saying. And Iraq having any knid of nuclear plant is not GWB's fault. But all the dead American and other soldiers, along with all the dead innocent children, is GWB's fault. More and more we see that the reasons for the war were trumped up. Meanwhile, the people responsible for the largest attack against the USA on our soil still remain free. And George Bush remains friends with the Saudi family that is funding Madrasas that teach religious fervor and hate against Americans. ERS
Funny how that works, eh? They blow up our country, and we go over there and pat their backs. Those pictures were amazing.
Jim
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.