darkbake I read on the BBC that although nuclear power might supply 2-3 generations with a good source of power, it could potentially
affect up to 3,000 generations with the waste generated, not to mention nuclear disasters like Fukushima.
1. Actually the numbers killed by air-born fossil fuel pollution (hundreds of thousands per year worldwide) make this logic questionable. If a coal
plant had been built instead of Fukushima then both would have killed thousands of people, but that’s only because Fukushima got hugely unlucky.
2. Nobody (not even the global warming scientists) are sure to what degree
climate change is manmade, and to what degree the negatives like
drought outweigh benefits. However if only a fraction of this manmade CO2 arguments are true, then fossil fuel release into the environment is less
controlled than nuclear leaks. Furthermore: Although the effects of CO2 pollution on life are mild compared with C02 on a gram by gram basis, the
quantities of C02 released are so much more vast it’s hardly surprisingly if they are in fact more dangerous.
3. To effectively compare nuclear power with Fukushima is to assume new reactor designs compare with Fukushima. It is a fact they do not! It is a fact
that Fukushima, and 3 mile Island, were all designed and built before Chernobyl.
Where there is a terrible and ethically needless danger, is the way the US and other countries continue to operate old reactors, in deteriorating
condition, and very questionable regulation. Unfortunately it is these that the anti-nuclear crowd will use to contaminate the image of e.g. Passive
Safety technology. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just as there is no “safe fire”, there isn’t a safe electricity either. Even with wind and solar (and people have been killed by
freak accidents involcing gravity from both) their cost is so high (in the it’ UK over twice the price for wind), that money could better progress
mankind if e.g. a nuclear reactor were built and the governmental savings used to fund medical research & general healthcare.
CrankyoldmanNuclear reactors have, and always will be, creators of weapon material. Their byproduct, not their reason for being, their
byproduct is heat/steam.
Here you demonstrate a popular delusion built on scientific and factual ignorance…
All the UK’s weapons grade plutonium comes from either the two Windscale Piles built in 1947 which never made a single watt
of electricity, or from Calder Hall which did make both electricity and weapons grade plutonium and was closed in 2003 after a virtually faultless
existence. The U.S also only had one reactor that made both electricity and weapons grade plutonium (the N-reactor closed in 1987
The Scientific Reason:
If you want a nuclear bomb it either needs to be Uranium 235 (naturally occurring) or plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is 5
over times better than uranium 235.
However: Whilst all nuclear reactors create plutonium they also create the wrong kinds of plutonium (i.e. plutonium isotopes 238, 239, 240, 241, 242,
and 244) the last two are too stable to work in any nuclear bomb. The others are all more radioactive than 239, but so radioactive they would kill
anyone handling the bomb, unless the amount of bomb shielding was so thick the bomb would basically weigh too much. They also permanently, naturally,
create large amounts of heat which is a problem given every nuclear warhead uses conventional explosive to combine its Critical Mass prio to
Furthermore: (And this is the big obstacle) if you do not have pure plutonium 239 then your bomb will detonate prematurely, with the result the
reaction never becomes more than about truck bomb sized. But separating the different types of plutonium is near impossible because they chemically
behave the same.
Plutonium purification by centrifuges is obstructed by it only being 1 neutron, whilst for naturally occurring uranium 235 and 238 it’s 3.
So: A bomb making reactor must allow depletive uranium (U238) to be placed around the reactor core, AND removed before more than 1.5% of it has become
Plutonium 239. Otherwise the plutonium concentration will happily build up beyond 1.5% but it will be the wrong kind (i.e. higher isotopes) of
plutonium, and (being higher) completely obstruct bomb production.
This is the reason why it took so long to figure out how to make both electricity and weapons from nuclear reactors, it is also why there is a
significant difference between Weapons Grade and Reactor Grade plutonium (this being mixed isotopes no matter how chemically pure it is). It is also
why it is very easy to tell if a countries reactor is being built for peaceful use, or for defense, as one built for war must have a way of releasing,
AND quickly replacing, uranium sheets, before the plutonium concentration exceeds 1.5%.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason