Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
by outcast » Mon 24 Nov 2008, 22:17:59
NECROTHREADAGE!!!!!!!!!!!
But yeah, you're right. Even if we somehow exhaust our massive reserves of Uranium, there still is Thorium which is far more plentiful.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rance to have 80% Nuclear
And they are the only western European country without electricity problems.
-
outcast
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by Kiboru » Sun 28 Dec 2008, 19:22:31
It seems to me that there won't be a big push toward nuclear until oil price goes through the roof. And when that happens, will there be enough qualified companies and workers to build them? And don't we use oil to build these plants?
Also, extraction and transporting uranium to the plants require oil-powered vehicles. We need replace the vehicles with electric-powered vehicles. It is currently impossible to create a car without oil. So we need to build thousands of new vehicles because it will be too expensive with the old oil-powered ones.
I think oil price will make the push for nuclear very difficult.
And one more thing...I don't think it is possible to create pesticides with electricity...or plastic or thousands of other oil-based products.
And what about our fleet of 700 million internal combustion engine cars? We can't run them with electricity. Everyone will have to buy electric cars. Will they be able to produce enough when the time comes? And since cars are produced using oil, how will this affect the price of those electric cars?
What about the electric grid? Won't wee need to expand its capacity way way more than it currently can support? And don't we need oil to do that? Producing and transporting all the stuff needed...
Because of all of these things I seriously doubt nuclear will fill the gap in time. Am I wrong?
-
Kiboru
- Wood
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
-
by vaseline2008 » Mon 29 Dec 2008, 19:52:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Robert Espy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'R')obert, nukes may in fact be an alternative. I for one have 3 problems with that as a solution – public acceptance, waste and deployment.
If you accept that a peak is near rather than far, the time to convince the public IMHO is prohibitive considering the time required to build what I assume would be a large number of plants. The cost would be huge at today’s energy prices and by the time people were convinced that they needed alternatives the cost would be incredible – remember we’re at war.
And when it comes to waste – NIMBY.
Pops
Well, at least this time I'm not going to tell you to read the first post of the thread. Instead, read the second. Then you'll get the context of the rest of the thread.
As to actual plants and waste, MBY is fine. Especially considering any alternative I can think of. Tell my why you are so against nuclear.
Radioactive Waste Leaking into Champagne Water Supply$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')We have been told for decades that nuclear dumpsites will not leak and that the best standards are being applied. In reality the dumpsite in Normandy is a disaster, and radioactivity is already leaking from the dumpsite in Champagne," said Shaun Burnie nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace International. "The authorities know they have a problem in Champagne already, with mistakes in the design. This is only the beginning of the problem, the bigger picture is that France has a nuclear waste crisis out of control that is threatening not only the environment and public health but also the economy of the Champagne region."
Why The French Like Nuclear Energy$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hings were going very well until the late 80s when another nuclear issue surfaced that threatened to derail their very successful program: nuclear waste.
French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter. It was assumed that this high-level waste would be buried in underground geological storage and in the 80s French engineers began digging exploratory holes in France's rural regions.
To the astonishment of France's technocrats, the populations in these regions were extremely unhappy. There were riots. The same rural regions that had actively lobbied to become nuclear power plant sites were openly hostile to the idea of being selected as France's nuclear waste dump. In retrospect, Mandil says, it's not surprising. It's not the risk of a waste site, so much as the lack of any perceived benefit. "People in France can be proud of their nuclear plants, but nobody wants to be proud of having a nuclear dustbin under its feet." In 1990, all activity was stopped and the matter was turned over to the French parliament, who appointed a politician, Monsieur Bataille, to look into the matter.
Nuclear waste arrives at German dump$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Despite soaring power bills, polls show that a majority of Germans also remain opposed to nuclear power and believe the technology remains highly dangerous because of potential accidents and terrorist attacks.
They also say that the question of where to permanently store nuclear waste, which can take centuries to become non-toxic, remains unresolved - both in Germany and across Europe.
Gorleben is only meant to be a "temporary" storage site where the waste can stay for up to 40 years, Till Doerges from protest organisers x-tausendmal quer said.
But it then has to be permanently put somewhere else, he said.
Earlier this year it emerged that water had leaked into another storage site, at Asse in northern Germany, leading to radioactive contamination in the local area in what was a "catastrophe," Mr Doerges said.
"For years the public has been lied to. For years we had radioactive contamination around Asse and no one was told ... Nuclear power cannot be the answer to the climate problem," he said.
I'd rather be the killer than the victim.
The Money Badger don't care. Sucks to be poor!
-
vaseline2008
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Mon 28 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by Zero-point » Fri 02 Jan 2009, 10:11:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kenny', 'W')hy is nuclear unlimited? Fissionable uranium 235 is not all that plentiful. A masive effort to add capacity from standard nuclear reactors would exhaust all known supplies within a decade or two.
What you're left with is the possibility of using fast breeder reactors to convert plentiful U238 into Plutonium 239 which can then be used for nuclear reactors. Manufacturing the levels of Plutonium 239 necessary to fuel future nuclear reactors would create a global political and environmental nightmare.
That's the problem with popular thinking in today's world. Nuclear energy encompasses a vast area of possible reactions. You don't have to use the conventional uranium fuel cycle which by the way lets a small group of corporations have control of a huge nuclear industry and then we are back to an oil-like situation.
You can use the thorium fuel cycle based on thorium and since there is enough thorium in the earth that can be mined there is enough to supply everyone on earth with all the energy they need for a few million years and that qualifies as virtually unlimited energy.
Plus there is no proliferation problem with the thorium fuel cycle, virtually no waste problem, no water pollution problems, no meltdown problems, and more.
Watch this google video presentation by Dr. Joe Bonometti at Google headquarters
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
-
Zero-point
- Peat
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun 10 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
-
by cephalotus » Fri 02 Jan 2009, 10:54:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '.')..but Nuclear is here now and we need it badly for baseload capacity to replace Coal and NatGas.
you use natural gas for base load?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'Why is it sensible for France to have 80% Nuclear and the USA to have 19%? ')
1. France desperately wanted to have it's own nuclear bombs after two world wars and decided to invest heavily into nuclear technology. The price of these plants have been heavily subsidized.
2. France has little coal and gas and oil
3. the French grid is integrated in an European grid. Otherwise it would be next to impossible to have 80% power from very inflexible nukes. Base load is NOT a good thing.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'Wind can at most supply 20% of a stable grid, ')
wind can supply 50% if you don't have your base load nukes in the grid and if you are willing to shut of wind power plants from time to time. You need backup power plants of course.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
Solar has all sorts of problems mostly related to storage capacity for those times the sun is shining vs those when it is night, stormy, cloudy or winter. Where I live today we only got about 10 hours of daylight, and it gets down under 9 at winter Solstice. ')
Demand is highest during the day.
So 10% solar power seems to be very doable (even with 50% wind)
-
cephalotus
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue 18 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Germany
-
by kublikhan » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 02:03:15
What about the issue that any country with a nuclear power plant can make nuclear weapons? What happens when every nation on earth has nuclear power and the capacity to build nuclear weapons?
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by Tanada » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 06:35:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'W')hat about the issue that any country with a nuclear power plant can make nuclear weapons? What happens when every nation on earth has nuclear power and the capacity to build nuclear weapons?
It is a misnomer to make the statement you have here kublikan. You don't need a reactor of any sort to manufature the fissionable material for weapons, all you need is machinery for enriching Uranium. If you decide to use Pu-239 or U-233 instead of natural Uranium then you need a reactor, however a power producing reactor in most cases makes an inconvenient place to manufacture it. Building a Plutonium 239 production reactor is basic physics, the USA managed it in 1943 and anyone who thinks any country on the planet that chose to do so couldn't build a more efficient one in 2009 is just fooling themselves.
A fissionables production reactor design is, by and large, incapable of producing useful power and by the same token a power production reactor, by and large, is incapable of producing the purity you need for stable weapons use.
Fuel from either can be used for a dirty bomb, but so can the source material for irradiation devices like medical scanners or food preservative systems.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
-
Tanada
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
-
by kublikhan » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 19:36:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'B')uilding a Plutonium 239 production reactor is basic physics, the USA managed it in 1943 and anyone who thinks any country on the planet that chose to do so couldn't build a more efficient one in 2009 is just fooling themselves.
Are you saying it is cheap and easy to make nuclear weapons? If so, why haven't the terrorists used them by now?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'A') fissionables production reactor design is, by and large, incapable of producing useful power and by the same token a power production reactor, by and large, is incapable of producing the purity you need for stable weapons use.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. 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.
As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power."2 In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb). or a commercial reactor.
Since World War II there have been several instances where countries have pieced together nuclear weapons from the fuel from "peaceful research reactors." France, China, and India have done so. Recently, it was feared that Iraq and North Korea would do likewise, a prospect which was lessened only through the direct threat or actual use of military intervention as an option.
Nuclear Power And Nuclear Weapons
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by Dezakin » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 19:46:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'B')uilding a Plutonium 239 production reactor is basic physics, the USA managed it in 1943 and anyone who thinks any country on the planet that chose to do so couldn't build a more efficient one in 2009 is just fooling themselves.
Are you saying it is cheap and easy to make nuclear weapons? If so, why haven't the terrorists used them by now?
Most terrorists don't have the resources of indoor plumbing, let alone a nation state. Cheap and easy is a relative term.
-
Dezakin
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by Tanada » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 22:05:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'B')uilding a Plutonium 239 production reactor is basic physics, the USA managed it in 1943 and anyone who thinks any country on the planet that chose to do so couldn't build a more efficient one in 2009 is just fooling themselves.
Are you saying it is cheap and easy to make nuclear weapons? If so, why haven't the terrorists used them by now?
Because no nation state has been crazy enough to give them to terrorists?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'A') fissionables production reactor design is, by and large, incapable of producing useful power and by the same token a power production reactor, by and large, is incapable of producing the purity you need for stable weapons use.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. 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.
As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power."2 In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb). or a commercial reactor.
Since World War II there have been several instances where countries have pieced together nuclear weapons from the fuel from "peaceful research reactors." France, China, and India have done so. Recently, it was feared that Iraq and North Korea would do likewise, a prospect which was lessened only through the direct threat or actual use of military intervention as an option.
Uh huh, and Amory Lovins, noted nuclear power adversary is a reliable source exactly why?
Well gosh, you mean a few nation states have run their reactors in a way that is very inefficient in the production of energy just so they could garner enough Plutonium to make a few devices? Why am I not shocked by this revelation?
Look, if you take a nuclear power reactor and run it for 30-90 days and then extract the fuel which was used for 30-90 day ONLY and chemically seperate out the Plutonium you might get enough to make one or two bombs. That is basically what India did in the 1970's and what N Korea did a few years ago. However for a real weapons program you would build a plutonium production reactor of a VERY different design and make as much weapons grade material as you wanted over time.
So yes you CAN use a power reactor to produce weapon material, but its a lot more expensive to do it that way than it is to just build a production reactor right from the start.
If a nation state wants nuclear weapons then they can build them, its really not that hard with 2009 technology compared to 1943 technology.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
-
Tanada
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
-
by kublikhan » Sun 04 Jan 2009, 01:38:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'U')h huh, and Amory Lovins, noted nuclear power adversary is a reliable source exactly why?
If the data is solid, I don't really care where it comes from. If it's not solid, then rebuttal it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'W')ell gosh, you mean a few nation states have run their reactors in a way that is very inefficient in the production of energy just so they could garner enough Plutonium to make a few devices? Why am I not shocked by this revelation?
I was responding to this comment:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'p')ower production reactor, by and large, is incapable of producing the purity you need for stable weapons use.
I thought the text I quoted was an appropriate rebuttal. If you want to argue that is an inefficient way of producing plutonium, fine. But the text I quoted does not seem to jive with your earlier comment.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by Tanada » Sun 04 Jan 2009, 05:10:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'U')h huh, and Amory Lovins, noted nuclear power adversary is a reliable source exactly why?
If the data is solid, I don't really care where it comes from. If it's not solid, then rebuttal it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'W')ell gosh, you mean a few nation states have run their reactors in a way that is very inefficient in the production of energy just so they could garner enough Plutonium to make a few devices? Why am I not shocked by this revelation?
I was responding to this comment:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'p')ower production reactor, by and large, is incapable of producing the purity you need for stable weapons use.
I thought the text I quoted was an appropriate rebuttal. If you want to argue that is an inefficient way of producing plutonium, fine. But the text I quoted does not seem to jive with your earlier comment.
Then I will try one more time, using fuel from a POWER reactor is not an efficiant way to make WEAPON GRADE fissionable material, if you want WEAPON GRADE fissionable material as a nation state it is a lot faster, cheaper and easier to build a WEAPON GRADE fissionable PRODUCTION reactor.
To make a weapon you can hold in a nuclear stockpile and be fairly certain it will still work after months to years later you need the purest Pu-239 or U-233 you can manufacture, the isotopically similer impurities cause more and more reliability issues the greater their percentage of the whole. In practice the minimum purity used by nation states is around 95% for Pu-239. Regular reactor fuel from one power cycle of 12-18 months is only 58% to 72% Pu-239 depending on where in the core it was produced. Can you theoretically use it for making a weapon if you have an emergency situation and you don't have 30-90 days to produce pure Pu-239 for your weapon? Sure, but the reliabillity is suspect and you will want to scrap it in a few months if you don't use it because it becomes increasingly unreliable as time passes. So what is your scenario, a nation state going to war and needing a fission weapon NOW NOW NOW, or what? If its really that urgent you probably already lost the war. If its not that urgent then you can set up a system to make reliable storable weapons that will be availible for many years before needing to be scrapped and rebuilt.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
-
Tanada
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
-
by kublikhan » Sun 04 Jan 2009, 08:36:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'u')sing fuel from a POWER reactor is not an efficiant way to make WEAPON GRADE fissionable material, if you want WEAPON GRADE fissionable material as a nation state it is a lot faster, cheaper and easier to build a WEAPON GRADE fissionable PRODUCTION reactor.
Of the nuclear powers or suspected nuclear powers, which ones actually have a weapon grade production reactor? Does India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Israel? I don't know about you, but I care about what is actually happening in reality. Not what is the most efficient method of making plutonium.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by Tanada » Sun 04 Jan 2009, 10:54:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'u')sing fuel from a POWER reactor is not an efficiant way to make WEAPON GRADE fissionable material, if you want WEAPON GRADE fissionable material as a nation state it is a lot faster, cheaper and easier to build a WEAPON GRADE fissionable PRODUCTION reactor.
Of the nuclear powers or suspected nuclear powers, which ones actually have a weapon grade production reactor? Does India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Israel? I don't know about you, but I care about what is actually happening in reality. Not what is the most efficient method of making plutonium.
India and Pakistan have production reactors.
North Korea is suspected of using power reactors while building production rectors but the data there goes all over the map with speculation.
Iran is going the other route by manufacturing U-235 through enrichment.
Officially nobody know's WHAT Isreal has done, some claim they were supplied Pu-239 by the USA covertly, other claim they built their own production reactor and still others claim they built their own covert enrichment plant and use U-235.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
-
Tanada
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
-
by outcast » Sun 04 Jan 2009, 21:25:22
That India and Pakistan have a great number of nukes each while Iran and North Korea have little to none tells the whole story about the practicality of using production reactors instead of power reactors. Hard doesn't mean impossible, just not very practical because you can only make small amounts of it.
-
outcast
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by kublikhan » Mon 05 Jan 2009, 01:14:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')re you saying it is cheap and easy to make nuclear weapons? If so, why haven't the terrorists used them by now?
Because no nation state has been crazy enough to give them to terrorists?
In your opinion, what is the threat we will see nuke armed terrorists in the next 50 years? Do you have any concerns about weapons grade plutonium and other nuclear materials showing up on the black market?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he reliabillity [of the nuke] is suspect and you will want to scrap it in a few months if you don't use it because it becomes increasingly unreliable as time passes.
North Korea is suspected of using power reactors while building production rectors but the data there goes all over the map with speculation.
Assuming for the moment that North Korea actually did build a few nukes, does that mean that they have gone bad by now, or they will in the next few months?
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by Tanada » Mon 05 Jan 2009, 07:58:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')re you saying it is cheap and easy to make nuclear weapons? If so, why haven't the terrorists used them by now?
Because no nation state has been crazy enough to give them to terrorists?
In your opinion, what is the threat we will see nuke armed terrorists in the next 50 years? Do you have any concerns about weapons grade plutonium and other nuclear materials showing up on the black market?
IMO unless something else happens first we will see a device or devices used somewhere. Also IMO if it is blamed on Terrorists it is really the nation state which did the deed trying to shift the blame to someone else. If a nation state had set off a nuke about 10:30 AM on 11Sep2001 in say Philadelphia and they used an untraceble weapon who would have gotten the blame?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he reliabillity [of the nuke] is suspect and you will want to scrap it in a few months if you don't use it because it becomes increasingly unreliable as time passes.
North Korea is suspected of using power reactors while building production rectors but the data there goes all over the map with speculation.
Assuming for the moment that North Korea actually did build a few nukes, does that mean that they have gone bad by now, or they will in the next few months?
We have reports of 'renewed activity' by North Korea which says to me they have been scraping and rebuilding their stockpile. When you have one of these reactor grade devices you have to remove the core and break it down chemically, then remanufacture it to remove the decay products from the impurities. If you don't it gets very hot both physically and in terms of emitted dose of radiation. The temperature heat will fry the electronics and might damage the explosives that set it off, the radioactive dose makes it a danger to anyone handling it including those you are trusting to deliver it to the target.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
-
Tanada
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
-
by kublikhan » Mon 05 Jan 2009, 12:07:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'W')e have reports of 'renewed activity' by North Korea which says to me they have been scraping and rebuilding their stockpile. When you have one of these reactor grade devices you have to remove the core and break it down chemically, then remanufacture it to remove the decay products from the impurities. If you don't it gets very hot both physically and in terms of emitted dose of radiation. The temperature heat will fry the electronics and might damage the explosives that set it off, the radioactive dose makes it a danger to anyone handling it including those you are trusting to deliver it to the target.
Lol, that's awesome. Their nukes are frying themselves. That actually makes me feel a little better
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
Return to Energy Technology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
