*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.)*
* * A reactor that produces bomb grade plutonium (aka pu239) must be stopped frequently and reprocessed to avoid contamination by pu238 and pu240. A long running commercial plant with a high fuel burnup will produce plutonium that is not suitable for making a bomb since it will be loaded with pu238 and pu240 contamination. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > On 05/13/2011 06:45 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> "other forms of energy" >> >> Hmmm, funny you don't just say oil. >> Or perhaps there is something I don't know and I should take the term >> "Light >> Brigade" more literally? Was the war over all that Silicon in the sand to >> make Solar Cells? >> >> Of course oil can't be replaced by Nuclear, since we aren't about to drive >> nuclear powered cars. >> But we can switch to electric cars, but why of all the options is nuclear >> better than "other forms of energy" just as solar, wind, hydro, wave, >> tide, >> biofuel and true alternatives such as what this list is dedicated to? >> >> And what about the other issues around Nuclear power, the waste that is a >> huge problem that will be around forever on a human time scale and as long >> as Nuclear power is used the problem will grow. >> >> Then what about the fact that if Nuclear is the only supported option then >> many countries will take it up and that leads directly into >> Nuclear Weapon programs. (*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) >> commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- >> enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.*) >> >> And then if a natural or man made disaster occurs a meltdown can't be >> stopped and spews radioactive waste everywhere. >> >> Anyway the war in Iraq was not about oil, they were trying to help the >> Iraqi >> people or it was somehow connected to 9/11, Just ask Bush, he might >> recall. >> Oh, that's right, the reason for the war was the claim that Iraq had >> weapons >> of mass destruction. >> Clearly everyone having Nuclear power doesn't contribute to suspicions >> that >> people have access to WMD. >> >> > > Well, blaming nuclear power for Iraq's invasion. That's original, can't > deny it. > > When I said "other forms of energy" I was referring to oil, yes. Nuclear > power has its problems, but it's probably the only serious alternative to > replace oil to generate electricity, in the short term. Electric cars are a > great idea, but they come with the little detail that they need electricity > to run. That electricity will have to be generated somehow. Tapping it from > the Van Allen belt? I have my doubts. > > I think that alternative energy sources like solar, wind, wave, etc. are > currently not "energy dense" enough to replace oil. That will only aggravate > in the future, when the world energy demands increase. In fact, it's > aggravating right now. Why do you think so many developing countries are > building nuclear reactors? Because they want to produce weapons grade > material? No, it's because they see their energy demand increasing, and that > oil is becoming more and more costly and difficult to obtain. India is > building Thorium reactors, by example, which cannot be used to produce > weapons grade material. > > I may sound conventional here, but it's just a question of thinking in > terms or real, already existing, options. > I think that things like cold fusion are unfortunately still in the future. > I would love to be proved wrong, and to see a power plant based on Rossi's > energy catalyzer working at the end of the year, but I have serious doubts > about it. Time will tell. Fortunately we don't need to wait much. > > Regards, > Mauro > >
