http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7336089.stm
[Edited on 8/4/08 by woodster]
ONE MORE STEP TO A WAR THEN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7336089.stm
[Edited on 8/4/08 by woodster]
and the threat of war comes from the only country in the world to have blown up citys with nukes
who was it on here was trying to build a cetrifuge a month or two ago?
The main difference being, that your demonic avatar can't decide, all on his own, to nuke anyone else, or give the technology to terrorists and let them get on with it - both of which are possible consequences of Iran creating its own weapons. Their assertion that they need to refine uranium for power generation is pretty much rubbish afaik - there's only one thing you could use that many centrifuges for, and that's collecting plutonium. You certainly don't need that in a power station.....
quote:
Originally posted by vinny1275
The main difference being, that your demonic avatar can't decide, all on his own, to nuke anyone else, or give the technology to terrorists and let them get on with it - both of which are possible consequences of Iran creating its own weapons. Their assertion that they need to refine uranium for power generation is pretty much rubbish afaik - there's only one thing you could use that many centrifuges for, and that's collecting plutonium. You certainly don't need that in a power station.....
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
quote:
Originally posted by vinny1275
The main difference being, that your demonic avatar can't decide, all on his own, to nuke anyone else, or give the technology to terrorists and let them get on with it - both of which are possible consequences of Iran creating its own weapons. Their assertion that they need to refine uranium for power generation is pretty much rubbish afaik - there's only one thing you could use that many centrifuges for, and that's collecting plutonium. You certainly don't need that in a power station.....
does depend on what tyre of reactors they have, the yanks have been running on Plutonium for years (so have the French) in their fast breaders, from the Nuclear World Association -
'An ordinary large nuclear power reactor (1000 MWe LWR) gives rise to about 25 tonnes of used fuel a year, containing up to 290 kilograms of plutonium. Plutonium, like uranium, is an immense energy source. The plutonium extracted from used reactor fuel can be used as a direct substitute for U-235 in the usual fuel, the Pu-239 being the main fissile part but Pu-241 also contributing.
If the used fuel is reprocessed, the recovered plutonium oxide is mixed with depleted uranium oxide to produce mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, with about 5% Pu-239. Plutonium can be used on its own in fast neutron reactors, where all the plutonium isotopes fission, and so function as a fuel (along with U-238). It is thus said to be "fissionable", as distinct from fissile. The energy potential of plutonium is more fully realised in a fast reactor.'
[Edited on 8/4/08 by Mr Whippy]
That’s what I got in high school physics; we even went to Dune Ray as a field trip great fun really, very hot especially in the repossessing bit,
stood on the top of the reactor vessel
[Edited on 8/4/08 by Mr Whippy]
is this you mr whippy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
is this you mr whippy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
do you glow in the dark
When in the reactor room we were told that during the previous school trip the teacher had inadvertently picked up a small radioactive particle from a
class experiment. When he entered the reactor room and walked past the detector he set the alarms off and was not allowed to leave till he had removed
the garment that the particle had settled on, unfortunately that was his trousers : in front of the rest of the group
It takes a lot of tonnes or raw uranium to get any usable kg's of fuel uranium out. hence the huge amount of centrifuges.
I think they then have to put it through an enriching process to make it suitable for pelitising and using in the reactors.
Plutonium is produced by exposing non-fissile uranium (U-238) to a radiation source and getting an addition proton? (or neutron cant rember which) to
attach to the nucleus giving pu-239.
Currently theres enought uranium 235 for only 50 years or so of current use. However theres enought 238 for 10,000 years of full human usage if you
react it to get Pu-239. Its almost a renewable resource as we cant make a dent in it at current rates.
I think the future 2 design of reactors are for using plutonium with the fuel stored in the core to react to make the Pu-239.
Just need to dig a bigger hole in dounrey for the waste.
Been ages since ive done anything on nuclear power so cant confirm varacity of my facts.
I think that was always the argument for breeder reactors, that they were the cheapest way to run nuclear, using old waste fuel kind off 'Pay me
to take you toxic waste away' and then run your plan on the stuff
Personally I'm totally against nuclear, it's just to dangerous by far and toxic for 100's of thousands of years, not acceptable.
Goign a bit off topic....
The unfortunate situation is that despite what other may argue nuclear power is required at the moment.
We simply do not have any other viable sources of (the politcally fashionable) low carbon bulk generation. Renewables (as far as can be seen) are not
suitable due to their characteristics.
I do agree that waste is an issue and something must be resolved about it. Although waste from the nuclear industry is only part of the problem as
medical and industry create a lot of it too.
dump it in the sun. Just need a good way to get it there.
Nuclear is the only way forward, there are NO alternatives that can provide the colossal amounts of energy we need and will need in future.
Awwww - how nice. Russia taking a diplomatic view;
But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov instead suggested a new package of incentives to encourage Iran to halt uranium enrichment.
Or do they define incentives differently to the rest of us?