Power cuts ?
- Thread starter clf-gas
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Never looked at it that way Bernard, learn somthing every day
J90, had an idea on where they can store all the nuke waste..... in the
back gardens of all those empty propertys from the 80 billion imigrants heading for the UK
No we`ll need to get it out of the country not in MW,,
Unless of course you mean the migrants leaving to make room for the imigrants
Unless of course you mean the migrants leaving to make room for the imigrants
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
I wonder when (if ever) J90 will realise it's his taking me on attitude that is the problem
It means that I am putting a diametrically opposed view (which is just as popular amongst the general public). Many people are anti nuclear (though I'm not)
I guess you could say that it's your intolerance to an opposing viewpoint that is the problem.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
Would you like to show me where? I cop plenty of abuse but never give it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote
Mod 7
That's just straight talking. You got a problem with that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote
Mod 7
That's just straight talking. You got a problem with that?
MW a very informative document, what suprises me though is the reference to plutonium as waste material when I have always been led to believe that plutonium can be reprocessed to use as fuel in nuclear reactors? Is this not the case then?
Which now begs the question which documents are to be believed as the latest on how to deal with the waste, buried or reprocessed into fuel and virtually harmless waste.
Are there any nuclear workers visiting this forum who could give a definitive answer to how the whole process works?
Are there any nuclear workers visiting this forum who could give a definitive answer to how the whole process works?
tim west said:
Sorry Tim but that's all wrong. Uranium 238 has two properties that make it useful for weapons: it's very hard and very heavy. It may also be used as a container for nuclear bombs but is not fissile itself. It's half life is about 4,500,000,000 years and it's activity is a lot lower than that of the carbon 14 you eat every day.
It decays to thorium 234, and thus begins a line of disintegrations that ends with lead 206.Uranium 235 is the fissile stuff that reactors typically run on. Its half life is 710,000,000 years which is long enough for some of it to be still around. It's the second of three naturally occurring radioactive nuclides that have been here since the solar system first formed and which are the source of most of the others. The third one is thorium 232.
Joe-90, I'll answer your question. There is no known way of altering the half life of plutonium. I've no doubt that some day we will learn how nuclear forces actually work and then we'll be able to do it - but not yet.
Meanwhile we do have one way of getting rid of plutonium and its really quite simple. Add a neutron.
The plutonium nucleus happily grabs the extra neutron then rearranges its internal structure and splits in two. That's how nuclear fission works, whether in a reactor or a bomb. It's where 80% of the energy comes from. (The remaining 20% comes from the decay of the fission products which have far too many neutrons in them.)Plutonium can be used as fuel. It was used in the experimental fast breeder reactor which was intended to produce more plutonium than it consumed by adding the fission neutrons to the otherwise useless U 238 thus:
U 238 + n = U 239 -> Np 239 + beta -> Pu 239 + beta.
Like all the early magnox reactors it was built for the sole purpose of making plutonium for bombs. Anything that came out into the national grid was a bonus. If you don't put any U 238 in there you WON'T get more plutonium out than you put in.
We will eventually run out of U 235. We have a lot more U 238 which can, in theory at least, be converted to plutonium and then used as fuel. Right now I suspect that we won't want to do this because there's already too much post cold war plutonium in circulation and the sooner it's used up the better!
Sorry to disagree Space Cat but you havn't stated where i'm wrong? As i've been led to believe Uranium 238 is the best stuff to use for weapons and is usually thus named weapons grade, though it has to be produced from raw U235 which doesn't contain the necessary floating unpaired neutrons(?)/particles that are needed for rapid chain reaction this processed material i'm given to understand has a short life as it gives off these floaters fairly rapidly in decay and quickly reverts back to U235 and why one of the reasons that nuclear weapon ability countries used to carry out testing in the past before the bans came in to check if a batch of U238 was still volatile(if that's the correct term to use)?tim west said:
Sorry Tim but that's all wrong. Uranium 238 has two properties that make it useful for weapons: it's very hard and very heavy. It may also be used as a container for nuclear bombs but is not fissile itself. It's half life is about 4,500,000,000 years and it's activity is a lot lower than that of the carbon 14 you eat every day.
Uranium 235 is the fissile stuff that reactors typically run on. Its half life is 710,000,000 years which is long enough for some of it to be still around. It's the second of three naturally occurring radioactive nuclides that have been here since the solar system first formed and which are the source of most of the others. The third one is thorium 232.
edit after re reading article
Ok Space Cat agreed I got it partly wrong as it's been a while since I read the article but its enriched U235 thats weapons grade U238 is the tamper used to initiate the split.
Joe the statement"reducing the half life " refers not to changing the radioactive life of an element rather changing the element itself and therefore aquiring a new half life that is greatly reduced from the previous elements half life ( element may not necessarily be the correct term so replace "element" with "stuff" if the case )
)
Thats true ,, I workedd on the MOX reprocessing Hall at Sellafield in 99 (free lancing with the eld fella
)At the time a lot of Japanese waste was suposed to be coming in!!!!!!!
I aint into all that **** , All I want to KNOW will we have power cuts this winter...........Shove your Plutonium enrichment / depletion and nuclear **** up your arse and argue on what you can`t Google the answer for.
I wont pretend to know anything about it, I know enough in laymans terms, so do you smart arses know is ther to be power cuts
BTW, If my text appears aggresive, I have drank today
The only people who will be able to give you a definitive answer C are the energy companies but I doubt they'll go on record until they have no choice
As for preserving fossil fuels ... Hmmmnnnn, at the rate industry is growing I doubt that would be a feasible solution and would favour the development and use of alternatives.
The fact that we don't understand how to dispose of nuclear waste today isn't a reason for trying to find a way ... Something's only impossible until it isn't
Somebody bright once said
Sentiment's spot on though.
MW
As for preserving fossil fuels ... Hmmmnnnn, at the rate industry is growing I doubt that would be a feasible solution and would favour the development and use of alternatives.
The fact that we don't understand how to dispose of nuclear waste today isn't a reason for trying to find a way ... Something's only impossible until it isn't
Somebody bright once said
Oh no, I remember now, it was from Jurassic Park
Sentiment's spot on though.
MW
Sponsored Links
