Yes, uranium and plutonium can be used in bombs but the isotopes they use in reactors aren't generally the ones used in bombs, but if needed so can use other elements and isotopes but a lot of that isn't declassified. Hopefully at some point in the future we won't need those bombs.
Yes, uranium and plutonium can be used in bombs but the isotopes they use in reactors aren't generally the ones used in bombs, but if needed so can use other elements and isotopes but a lot of that isn't declassified. Hopefully at some point in the future we won't need those bombs.
Thanks for the link.
Now apparently most of you plan on being dead within forty years and don't care about anyone that will live after you. I do not share that viewpoint. People alive today have a responsibility to the people who will be living two hundred years from now, to both conserve nonrenewable resources and to avoid excessive radioactive contamination.
If we do not develop wind and solar concurrently with nuclear, then there will be a huge spike in energy prices when uranium begins to get scarce fifty years from now. The use of fast breeder reactors apparently would help alleviate this problem, but in any case the cost of nuclear fuel is going to go up significantly over the next fifty years. This should be considered by anyone contemplating building a new nuclear reactor.
As for windmills causing climate change, there are mountains of evidence showing environmental damage from coal, so windmills are certain to be an improvement despite whatever changes they might make to weather patterns. I really doubt that windmills have any serious negative weather effects.
Actually, nuclear reactors do use the same isotopes used in nuclear bombs. The difference is the ratio of isotopes used.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,767
- 46,573
- 136
You said fuel, which would include plutonium, not just uranium.
You cherry picked to one quote out of those links that doesent even support your earlier claim and are now holding it up as proof. You also most likely have no idea that reactor grade uranium is currently at bargain basement prices hence the reason for the "low cost" qualifier in that statement.
There does still seem to be some question about windmills effecting weather patterns and that is something that should be addressed before we go covering large swaths of land in them. My other problems with a heavy reliance on wind power are matters of capacity and availability. Nuclear, coal, and hydro are still the most attractive options for the current time. Solar has some promise that should also be explored and advanced and might be helpful down the road.
We should only have to make it through the next 100 years at the outside since fusion should be at a commercial level by then.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,767
- 46,573
- 136
Reactor grade uranium has a far too low content of U-235, it must be greatly enriched to reach weapons grade.
Plutonium produced in reactors has large amount of undesireable isotopes like Pu-240. Weapons grade Plutonium must be above 90% Pu-239 and have a very low Pu-240 content.
Just remember the government doesn't talk about weapons grade isotopes, hell is the use of U233 even declassified yet? There are a lot of viable isotopes for weapons grade and different reactors can be built to harness all the different isotopes (of that I have no doubt). Just because current reactors use U235 doesn't mean we can't build them to use other isotopes and radio-elements.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,767
- 46,573
- 136
I don't think they declassified the use of U233 in weapons (though it has a much lower critical mass than HE U235 so I have little doubt it is used), you are certainly correct in that it is another potential fuel source.
The CANDU reactors are attractive for the Thorium->U233 fuel cycle since they can refuled while operating.
That's true if you want a good quality weapon. However, if you are willing to accept a fizzle yield (still several orders of magnitude more powerful than a conventional explosive), then any isotopic mixture of plutonium will do.
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
IF a landfill were to be structuraly engineered to settle and be a delivery source to a collection tank farm - it could work.
Especially if there was a stage where the remanants of the process could be harvested - and used itself as a source of bio-mass or pre-converted organic goo.
Bacterial and mold action, along with discarded plactics would yeild some of the petroleum in processable quantities.
After all - it's only organic chemistry . . . a little H over here, a dab of N, sprinkle in some Fe, add a pinch of O2 aand Presto !
Whatever it is, just distill it from the thermal recycle plant & you have raw material.
If the unit could be selectively de-assembles and refilled with trash, the cycle could repeat.
Eventually there would have to be an extraction for metalics as their buildup will to a volume where they may be the equivalent of a low grade ore -
especially the heavy metals.
I like the methane idea, but that's not what I'm here about.
The fact of the matter is, if we want to live in a modern society with modern technology, and maintain at least this quality of society and living, we need to generate energy efficiently and cleanly, and preferably cheaply.
This is where we must evaluate our options.
Wind and Solar are shown to be attractive, but only recently we have seen problems:
Wind takes energy away from the ecological system, and slices up anything that flies through the turbines! Now that I think about it, it has a huge impact, and concerning what happens with bats and birds, not so clean either.
NOT to mention, the demos in Massachusetts voted down the initiative to put up a wind farm cause it was next to some senators house.
Solar also has an impact: it takes a lot of space to generate the same energy as a relatively smaller powerplant using conventional means.
Not to mention: both of the above are quite costly, and not so efficient.
Hydro power is attractive, but the environmental impact is huge, and unacceptable with the enviromentalists, so to them, that's out of the question.
Coal uses, well coal. It's quite dirty, and even I as a conservative would like an alternative.
Natural gas is cleaner, but we have to get that gas somehow.
Don't even get me started on Oil!
Not to mention all of the above are also unacceptable to the environmentalists as well eventually.
So without nuclear, our power generation doesn't grow (and it needs to grow), but drops to zero.
Who's for going back to the 90's...... the 1890's?
The fact of the matter is, if we want to live in a modern society with modern technology, and maintain at least this quality of society and living, we need to generate energy efficiently and cleanly, and preferably cheaply.
This is where we must evaluate our options.
Wind and Solar are shown to be attractive, but only recently we have seen problems:
Wind takes energy away from the ecological system, and slices up anything that flies through the turbines! Now that I think about it, it has a huge impact, and concerning what happens with bats and birds, not so clean either.
NOT to mention, the demos in Massachusetts voted down the initiative to put up a wind farm cause it was next to some senators house.
Solar also has an impact: it takes a lot of space to generate the same energy as a relatively smaller powerplant using conventional means.
Not to mention: both of the above are quite costly, and not so efficient.
Hydro power is attractive, but the environmental impact is huge, and unacceptable with the enviromentalists, so to them, that's out of the question.
Coal uses, well coal. It's quite dirty, and even I as a conservative would like an alternative.
Natural gas is cleaner, but we have to get that gas somehow.
Don't even get me started on Oil!
Not to mention all of the above are also unacceptable to the environmentalists as well eventually.
So without nuclear, our power generation doesn't grow (and it needs to grow), but drops to zero.
Who's for going back to the 90's...... the 1890's?
Now for my suggestion:
Even if we have a risk of pollution or disaster, we move forward.
If our energy levels don't rise, our chances of finding out how fusion or other power technologies is severely limited.
This is where the rub comes in: generating energy allows us to generate more! Generating less energy does nothing but hampers us!
I'm all for increasing pollution a bit for awhile if it means us finally unlocking the secrets to fusion, or some other cheap, clean, efficient power technology. Fusion isn't the only answer, but rather one of many (some we know about, in theory, and others we might not have a clue about). It's a trade off that might be riskier, and dirtier, but what's the alternative? I'll tell you: a dark age.
What happened during the dark ages? Chew on this: the world got dirtier, we had more wars, more disease, more death, and yes, more pollution. Nothing good, all bad. We're giving up the chance for a better cleaner future for this?
I don't see how giving up that chance is wisdom.
Even if we have a risk of pollution or disaster, we move forward.
If our energy levels don't rise, our chances of finding out how fusion or other power technologies is severely limited.
This is where the rub comes in: generating energy allows us to generate more! Generating less energy does nothing but hampers us!
I'm all for increasing pollution a bit for awhile if it means us finally unlocking the secrets to fusion, or some other cheap, clean, efficient power technology. Fusion isn't the only answer, but rather one of many (some we know about, in theory, and others we might not have a clue about). It's a trade off that might be riskier, and dirtier, but what's the alternative? I'll tell you: a dark age.
What happened during the dark ages? Chew on this: the world got dirtier, we had more wars, more disease, more death, and yes, more pollution. Nothing good, all bad. We're giving up the chance for a better cleaner future for this?
I don't see how giving up that chance is wisdom.
I know this is possible because I saw a special once on how the Japanese had been doing this. I have seen that this Gas is normally just burned off.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter