Power cuts ?

[joe-90]

Refined plutonium CAN be used as a fuel but it produces more radioactive material than it consumes. So I ask you (yet) again. Where are you going to store that fuel/waste?
And also, the refining process is far more dangerous than burying the stuff in geo-stable rock.
So what exactly is your point? (other than science fiction?).

 

[bernardgreen]

There are existing nuclear hazards such as radon gas ouzing out of the ground and filling houses.

Plutonium can be used as a fuel. Or it can be en-capsulated in glass ( to prevent dust ) and then placed at the bottom of deep holes drilled into granite where the radiation from it at surface level will be significantly lower then the natural radiation from the granite or radon gas from the granite and other rocks.

The advantage with nuclear fuel is that it is amost carbon neutral and could also be used to produce hydrogen from water for clean vehicle fuel.

 

[joe-90]

Plutonium won't be used as fuel in this country because of its potential terror target.

 

[bernardgreen]

Plutonium won't be used as fuel in this country because of its potential terror target.

Low grade material for a dirty bomb is far far more likely to be used for terror attacks.

 

[tim west]

plutonium is low grade and not suitable for weaponry except a dirty bomb perhaps.

but it's ideal to be processed as a fuel for nuclear power stations.

Uranium 238 is weapons grade but has a short life before reverting to the lesser effective 235. One of the reasons so much weapons testing went on.

 

[tim west]

There are existing nuclear hazards such as radon gas ouzing out of the ground and filling houses.

Plutonium can be used as a fuel. Or it can be en-capsulated in glass ( to prevent dust ) and then placed at the bottom of deep holes drilled into granite where the radiation from it at surface level will be significantly lower then the natural radiation from the granite or radon gas from the granite and other rocks.

The advantage with nuclear fuel is that it is amost carbon neutral and could also be used to produce hydrogen from water for clean vehicle fuel.

exactly why the powers to be are backing it lock stock and barrell
which brings me back to why Greenpeace keep spouting on about the dangers to the environment when it seems to be far friendlier to the environment than the old methods of power generation.

 

[Coniferman]

Seven of UK's 19 reactors closed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7058185.stm

Quote:
""extremely worrying that one of the major sources of electricity is half-down at this time". "

Quote:
"It is disturbing. I mean, we're going to have to rely on it being a warm winter"

 

[megawatt]

This is yet another thread heading down the pan to locksville due to J90's inability to read what is being written and respond accordingly rather than bluffing along on rubbish sourced from Google.

Joe-90 Wrote:

If this dust were dispersed into the atmosphere, radioactive plutonium could spread quickly and easily through the environment, creating a very dangerous hazard to humans

He'll be safe then

 

[joe-90]

Which bit would you like to talk about then meggawatt? (he won't)

 

[tim west]

how about the bit joe where you reckon that plutonium is waste to be disposed of.

 

[Balenza]

Joe 90 wrote

Let's talk about Plutonium then. How do you reduce the half-life of plutonium?

Then Tim West wrote in reply

See above

Do you also think that Plutonium is waste to be disposed off when you referred Joe 90 to your earlier reply ?. (Up until the point perhaps where you also googled the answer as to what Plutonium really is)

 

[tim west]

Hello Joe sorry i mean Balenza whats wrong with that post Balenza 90? where's the reference to plutonium in that post apart from joes use of the word? the see above is in reference to what i typed not joe

 

[Balenza]

Tim west wrote

where's the reference to plutonium in that post

What Post ???.

I can only reiterate what you said after Joe 90 asked ....

Let's talk about Plutonium then. How do you reduce the half-life of plutonium?

To which you replied ......

See above

And if you look above to your previous reply you can see this ....

the remaining WASTE is not nearly as long lived as it would otherwise be

So you obviously think that plutonium is a waste also.
Let the back tracking begin.

 

[tim west]

No sorry Balenza you've got it all wrong, look at the times of the posts joe replied just a few seconds before me so the reference was to the added bit on my post. That had absolutely nothing to do with plutonium which joe decided to introduce into the discussion. I go on record as never saying plutonium is waste only that plutonium is fuel and therefore wouldnt be disposed of.

As for googling plutonium no need I knew what it was before but you seem to know different, mind reader are you?

 

[Balenza]

OK , that settles it for me.