Slashdot Mirror


Rover Fuel Came From Russian Nuke Factory, But Supplies Running Low

gbrumfiel writes "The Curiosity rover will soon start rolling, and when it does, it will be running on gas from a Russian weapons plant. Slate has the story of how the plutonium-238 that powers the rover came from Mayak, a Soviet-era bomb factory. Mayak made the fuel through reprocessing, a chemical process used to make nuclear warheads that also polluted the surrounding environment. After the cold war ended, the Russians sold the spare Pu-238 to NASA, which put some of it into Curiosity. Now, the Russian supply is running low and NASA hopes to restart Pu-238 production on U.S. soil (They're planning on making less of a mess this time)." One interesting way of dealing with nuclear waste: reprocess fuel a few times, extracting Pu-238 and friends (those pesky "have to keep waste sealed forever to prevent hyper-squirrels in the year 3,001,000 from being irradiated" elements) and launching an army of deep space probes. But then there's the waste stream from reprocessing...

139 comments

  1. Good by ThePeices · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good. Nice to see plutonium used for more worthwhile endeavours than nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good. Nice to see plutonium used for more worthwhile endeavours than nuclear weapons.

      In other news, /. anti-nuke nuts discover MOX fuel and that reactors like CANDU can use it as a fuel source.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read the entire PDF
      "...and other national security concerns."

      This doesn't directly imply they would use it to make nuclear weapons, or something else (nuclear powered drones?) But the reason they want to make the Pu238 in the US is so that they aren't relying on Russia.

    3. Re:Good by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      We should have declared Mars a nuclear free zone when we had the chance!

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should have declared Mars a nuclear free zone when we had the chance!

      We could do the same on earth, but as far as I know, only one country in the world has done that.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on! Nobody is going to give their nuclears away for free.

    6. Re:Good by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      there's a big difference between the 238 and 239...

    7. Re:Good by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering nuclear weapons gave us MAD which gave us a period of relative calm that didn't involve something called WW3 I'm inclined to call your comment hyperbole.

    8. Re:Good by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good. Nice to see plutonium used for more worthwhile endeavours than nuclear weapons.

      That's like saying "Good. Nice to see aluminum used for more worthwhile endeavours than nuclear weapons". It's not insightful, it's ludicrous - the isotope of Plutonium used in RTG's is useless for bombs, and the isotope used in bombs is useless for RTG's.

    9. Re:Good by meerling · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'll definitely deflect the nukes when someone decides to turn them into a parking lot.

      Besides, those materials have a lot of uses in medicine and aerospace, but the supplies are critically low. Similar issue with Helium, and that's also due to a shutdown of certain portions of the nuclear industry. You don't like the weapons and the wastes, but you do like the rest of the package. Guess you've got some choices to make, after you do the actual research over what will be affected, rather than just listening to anti-nuke propaganda. (Or pro-nuke propaganda. Pretty much all propaganda is garbage.)

    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having gone 50+ years without a nuclear weapon being used, I cannot say I agree.

    11. Re:Good by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      Oh come on! Nobody is going to give their nuclears away for free.

      Believe it or not, you are not allowed to give away your smoke for free in smokefree zone
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    12. Re:Good by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      or something else (nuclear powered drones?)

      Pretty much not. PU238 puts otu a lot of heat and a lot of alpha particles. It's neither fissile nor fissionable. It does produce about 500W/kG of power, in the form of heat, which is not all that much for an aircraft.

      Regular old Uranium or Plutonium is what you want for a nuclear powered drone.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Good by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US DoD uses Pu238 "batteries" in stealthy spacecraft, spysats without large solar panels that would otherwise be easily tracked using ground-based telescopes and radars. Another use for such power sources is seabed listening stations used to monitor submarine and surface-ship movements in "areas of interest".

      Pu-238 is made in specialised isotope-producing reactors. It's not extracted by reprocessing regular spent nuclear fuel from power-station reactors as it would be impossible to separate the Pu-238 out from the large quantities of other Pu isotopes bred from U-238 during regular operation. Those isotope-production reactors have been getting shut down in the US, Canada and elsewhere over the past couple of decades due to age, more restrictive licencing regulations and occasionally by celebrity-powered publicity campaigns. The ex-Soviet isotope reactor fleet is about the only regular source of such material operational today hence the national-security aspect -- the Russians are not that keen to make it easier for the DoD to spy on them by supplying them with lots of Pu-238.

    14. Re:Good by iiiears · · Score: 1

      "Atoms for Peace" /um, never mind.

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    15. Re:Good by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ... that didn't involve something called WW3...

      Yet. The book is still open on that one.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:Good by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      I believe that is the point. Without nuclear weapons WW3 would HG Ave been fought between the west and eastern blocs decades ago. Going by the death counts from the previous world wars and their use of weapons of mass destruction WW3 would have had a body count in the tens of millions, possibly 100 plus million. Like them or not nuclear weapons have done more for peace than anything else in history. There's good reason they used to call them 'peacemakers'.

    17. Re:Good by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Why would we want to do that? That's as silly as declaring Earth a chemistry-free zone, or an electromagnetism-free zone.

      Nuclear physics lets us do lots of nifty things. Only a few of them relate to killing people, and murder by nuclear explosion is not really that different from any other sort of murder. The problem has to do with the murder, not with how it's done.

    18. Re:Good by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

      might as well link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#238Pu.2C_90Sr

      now.. Po-210 sounds like fun on a bun, but the pu really sounds like the best thing for long term electricity generation.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    19. Re:Good by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Just because we haven't had a global scale war since the nuclear bomb went off doesn't mean that nukes are the reason we haven't. It's just a tiger repellant rock. There has been, and continue to be, plenty of conflicts in the world. It's just that none of them have escallated to world war status.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Good by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      That rock can't stop armies from taking over nations in systematic order. At the end of WW2 the Russians systematically took over one eastern European nation after another in rapid succession because there was nothing to stop them. The same thing started to happen in Asia in rapid order as well.

      The only thing that stopped those armies was the threat of nuclear weapons. Read up on your history and you'll see we had a death toll from Communism of about 100 million last century. Conventional army's with conventional weapons would have continued the forced spread of communism whether the world wanted it or not. It's the entire reason that NATO was founded and the cold was was spurned.

  2. Long-lived isotopes won't work by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Informative

    As part of the pseudo-environmentalist lead scare campaign against nuclear power you always hear about things that will supposedly be radioactive for ONE MILLION years (thank you Dr. Evil).

    Well, those ONE MILLION year radioactive elements won't power an RTG because they decay so slowly that the rate of heat production would hardly be measurable even with sensitive test equipment. You could use a lump of that stuff as a paper weight and as long as you didn't eat/drink/breath it then you would never have any negative health effects from it.

    The real issue with radioactive material is from materials like cesium and strontium that are pretty radioactive and have mid-range half-lives of ~30 years or so. Not a real issue for long-term storage since they will be pretty much gone in 1000 years, but not something you want spread around the environment ala Chernobyl, which, BTW, is coming up on its first half-life anniversary for the nastier elements.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Informative

      What if I used it as a butt-plug?

      You would have a red-hot glowing asshole.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if I used it as a butt-plug?

      Mucus membranes. In short, the walls of your rectum are very thin; this to pull the last few drops of water from your shit. Unfortunately, they can absorb heavy metals from your new toy with equal ease.

    3. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Ruie · · Score: 1

      As part of the pseudo-environmentalist lead scare campaign against nuclear power you always hear about things that will supposedly be radioactive for ONE MILLION years (thank you Dr. Evil).

      Well, those ONE MILLION year radioactive elements won't power an RTG because they decay so slowly that the rate of heat production would hardly be measurable even with sensitive test equipment. You could use a lump of that stuff as a paper weight and as long as you didn't eat/drink/breath it then you would never have any negative health effects from it.

      The real issue with radioactive material is from materials like cesium and strontium that are pretty radioactive and have mid-range half-lives of ~30 years or so. Not a real issue for long-term storage since they will be pretty much gone in 1000 years, but not something you want spread around the environment ala Chernobyl, which, BTW, is coming up on its first half-life anniversary for the nastier elements.

      This not quite right. A half life of 1 million years is only ~10000 times longer than Pu-238, which glows red hot in air. So to measure heat production you could simply use a large quantity of long lived isotope, (say 100x as much) and insulate it better, such as by enclosing in Dewar flask.

      Of course, for a space mission you'd want to minimize the weight.

    4. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You could use a lump of that stuff as a paper weight and as long as you didn't eat/drink/breath it then you would never have any negative health effects from it.

      Yes, it's perfectly safe as long as it doesn't leak into the water supply. Welcome to the nuclear power debate.

    5. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What if I used [RTG pellet] as a butt-plug?

      Google "Goatse" to find out. (Make sure no children around.)
           

    6. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one was attempting to legimize rape. In fact, he clarified what he meant. It's asshats trying to make political hay where there is none that keeps that story going. Not much for Assange. I think he's done way more harm than good out of a desire to see his name in lights rather than informing the public. And yeah, I've seen Obama's economic ideaology (as well as his ideas about democracy and foreign policy) and I'm hoping to change leadership in 2012. Although to be fair what you are seeing in that article is a result of outsourcing which is a consequence of policy failures going back a few decades and spanning several administrations (including this one).

    7. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm convinced that liberals wear liberal contacts that only allow them to see what they want to see and block out everything else. It's the only explanation as to how they could still support this disaster in chief.

    8. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by tp1024 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it will be radioactive for millions of years

      Pu-238 decays into U-234, which has a half life of about a quarter million of years (subsequent isotopes are shorter lived). But still, its radioactivity drops by a factor 3000 to one tenth that of pure Pu-239. U-234 is a natural isotope that is the result of the decay of U-238 (to Thorium-234, which decays in two steps to U-234) - there's plenty of that around on earth, it decays (among other isotopes) into each of the well known isotopes Radium-226, Radon-222, Polonium-210 and eventually stable Lead-206 ( Uranium decay is the original source of almost all the lead we have on earth today).

      All of which we deal with on a daily basis without panicking or evacuating huge areas - even though places like Cornwall are sufficiently "contaminated" with all of those by nature, that they would have to have been evacuated, if the criteria of post-Chernobyl evacuations had to be met all over the world. However, increased cancer rates, Mutants, Zombies and Gozilla are noticably absent from over 1000 years of historical records of Cornwall.

    9. Re:Long-lived isotopes won't work by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Chemical poisons such as mercury and cadmium stay toxic forever. We handle them industrially without wrecking the world. Nuclear waste is a smaller issue than chemical industry waste.

      Perfect example of your point: bismuth. It has a half life in the quadrillions of years. Pepto-Bismol users swallow it.

  3. Who killed Alexander Litvinenko? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did NASA have any reasons to not to like him? I'm just curious...

    1. Re:Who killed Alexander Litvinenko? by jeffasselin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pu238 is not Po210

      Although Polonium 210 has also been used in rovers (lunar ones), it's definitely not the same thing as Plutonium 238.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  4. Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by hawguy · · Score: 1

    One interesting way of dealing with nuclear waste: reprocess fuel a few times, extracting Pu-238 and friends (those pesky "have to keep waste sealed forever to prevent hyper-squirrels in the year 3,001,000 from being irradiated" elements) and launching an army of deep space probes. But then there's the waste stream from reprocessing...

    Of course, the problem with that proposal is that spacecraft don't always end up where you want them, and sometimes crash back to earth and leave a widespread flaming pile of debris that can spread the plutonium over large areas.

    1. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name even one time where plutonium has been spread over large areas in such a fashion?

    2. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Informative

      RORSAT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

      Although it was a Uranium reactor and not plutonium.
      Moral of the story: The radioactivity caused mutant Canadians to have one hockey-stick shaped arm and another arm perfectly shaped to hold a beer. It was considered the greatest even in Canadian history.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

      Well, it's uranium, but the closest I could recall off the top of my head.

    4. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Can you name even one time where plutonium has been spread over large areas in such a fashion?

      This is the closest I could find so far:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_96#Fate_of_the_plutonium_fuel

      The fate of the plutonium is unknown.

      But if you sent up an army of these plutonium powered craft, eventually one will have a plutonium fuel cell rupture after a launch failure and contaminate a large area.

    5. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by tragedy · · Score: 4, Informative

      As you mentioned, that was Uranium, not Plutonium. It was also a reactor and not an RTG, which means that it's much harder to lock the fuel up in a safe, shielded container. RTGs use pellets of radioactive material inside a casing that will almost always survive a disastrous re-entry intact. Add to that the fact that Plutonium 238 is very safe relative to Uranium 235. There's no gamma radiation or neutrons and it can be effectively shielded with very thin shielding. The biggest danger it presents is probably that the capsule containing the Plutonium will hit someone on re-entry.

    6. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by war4peace · · Score: 1
      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      But if you sent up an army of these plutonium powered craft, eventually one will have a plutonium fuel cell rupture after a launch failure and contaminate a large area.

      Given a long enough time frame anything that is physically possible will happen.

    8. Re:Not a perfect way to dispose of waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it, radioactive fuck ups seem to be go hand and hand with Russia?

  5. Better Power Supply for Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of Pu-238, the rover would function much better with an illudium pu-36 explosive space modulator...

  6. Just bring an extension cord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and plug it into Elon Musk's Mars condo. Duh.

  7. It's too bad by detritus. · · Score: 1

    It's too bad that Iran will never be given the chance for developing nuclear technology with their thriving scientific endeavors and their new space program.

    1. Re:It's too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can’t tell if you’re sarcastic or trolling.

    2. Re:It's too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the chance???? They've had nothing but a chance. No one is stopping them (yeah stuxnet I know); not seriously. Maybe if we draft a few more UN resoltions that'll put an end to this nasty business (but likely not). They are actively pursuing what they see as an end game trophy. I'm fairly certain that if they ever get it Israel will be the first to go and the US won't be far behind.

    3. Re:It's too bad by detritus. · · Score: 1

      Yet we're not worried about a huge force like Russia having nukes? The same Russians who are great friends with Iran and Syria? And can you remind me who was the only country who ever dropped nuclear bombs on another country?

  8. Pu-36 by JimWise · · Score: 1

    Maybe future NASA projects should use Pu-36 instead. Marvin could point out the plentiful mines and Curiosity could extract it. Although since Curiosity is a roving lab maybe it could process it into Pu-238.

  9. US should reprocess more by tomhath · · Score: 1

    The metal is the same no matter where it came from, so the parts about Soviet era bomb factories and pollution are interesting mostly because those days are behind us. We know how to do it right now, no reason not to.

    1. Re:US should reprocess more by slew · · Score: 1

      Why not reprocess? People (rightly or wrongly) are concerned with nuclear proliferation...

    2. Re:US should reprocess more by EuNao · · Score: 2

      One of the things that people don't realize is that plutonium from long running reactors is of an isotopic mix that is very poor for nuclear weapons. Mostly the bad thing that reprocessing has going for it is that the same equipment and process can be used to separate uranium that has been irradiated for a much shorter period of time (and that has a much more favorable isotopic composition.) Reprocessing spent fuel is just good policy. We are quite literally throwing away the baby with the bathwater right now. Another thing people tend for forget is that long half life radioactive elements are mostly harmless. Its the short half life stuff that is nasty. The long half life stuff is just more fuel. Fissionable material has this wonderful property that it makes more fissionable material. We are throwing away the gold that midas has made for us.

      --
      Jeff | MemVance - Memory Advanced | View my blog on memory and study techniques
    3. Re:US should reprocess more by Creepy · · Score: 1

      People are taught that any radiation is bad, and then they go out and get a suntan, bathing in alpha and beta radiation, and maybe get a radiation burn... er, sunburn, make food on their radioactive granite countertops, etc. Most radiation that people absorb is, in fact, radon gas that comes up naturally from the ground. If you want a huge argument against fracking for oil, that itself releases massive amounts of radon gas, which has a relatively short half life (two weeks or so for the more stable isotopes, I believe) and is dangerous to be around for long periods of time.

    4. Re:US should reprocess more by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Even North Korea has nukes now, so I think proliferation is less of a worry now than before. Though the warmongers in the US seem to think that we need more when it happens.

    5. Re:US should reprocess more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a suntan from UV-A and UV-B radiation which are quite different from alpha and beta radiation.

  10. In Other News by guttentag · · Score: 1

    Tehran announced that it intends to not only beat India to Mars, but it will top them as well by retrieving "mineral samples" of "intense national interest" and bringing them back to Earth for "study."

    1. Re:In Other News by v1 · · Score: 2

      do you know why there are no Muslims in Star Trek?

      Because it takes place in the future.

      Better be careful about that, or some cleric'll put out a hit, er I mean fatwa on you.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's no Christmas either.

      Obviously the War was finally won. By the enemy.

      Doesn't that just make you BURN?

  11. Moon: nuclear waste dump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong? Aside from triggering a sci-fi show that won't stand the test of time very well...

  12. Homer time by Zaelath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Homer: [reading screen] "To Start Press Any Key". Where's the ANY key?
                    I see Esk ["ESC"], Catarl ["CTRL"], and Pig-Up ["PGUP"]. There
                    doesn't seem to be any ANY key. Woo! All this computer hacking
                    is making me thirsty. I think I'll order a TAB. [presses TAB
                    key] Awp...no time for that now, the computer's starting.
                      [reading screen slowly] "Check core temperature, yes slash no."
                    [types] Yes.
                    "Core temperature normal." Hmph. Not too shabby.
                    "Vent radioactive gas." [types] NO.
                    "Venting prevents explosi-on." Heeheee...whoa, this is hard.
                    Where's my Tab? Okay, then, [types] YES, vent the stupid gas.
                      [Cut to a farmer tending his corn. The gas release blows away
                    part of the crop.]
    Farmer: Oh, no! The corn. Paul Newman's gonna have my legs broke.

  13. Re:What!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it PU551?

  14. Waste stream from Reprocessing by NReitzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, there is a waste stream from reprocessing.

    However, it is informative to look at how and when the mess that is - among others - Hanford, came to be.

    At the time, the Military was building bombs to kill a million people at a shot, and the prevailing attitude was that the Soviet Union was only a month away from launching bombers and submarines and missiles, to kill US citizens by the tens or hundreds of millions. The Russians thought the same thing of the US; I think it perplexed them terribly that we didn't attack. After all, their sworn ally, Adolf Hitler, just changed his mind one day and launched a full scale invasion. So the Russians (and Ukranians, and others) were building bombs to kill people in the US by the tens or hundreds of millions.

    Along with all this paranoia, came a driving requirement to build more and bigger weapons. There was a bomber gap, then a missile gap, and if you watched Dr. Strangelove, a mine shaft gap. No one in the bomb business was worrying about poisoning a few hundred workers, or a few thousand coyotes or fish or prairie dogs. They were building bombs, and it was enough that the waste from their efforts not end up with dead workers before they managed to actually build their bombs.

    They temporized, they were careless (careless enough to skewer a reactor operator to a concrete slab with a control rod), but most of all, they were in a tearing hurry. They had to build those bombs before the Rooskies (or the Amerikans) attacked.

    It's no wonder they did a crap job.

    One would sincerely hope that today, we are a little more rational. We can reprocess fuel - we know the basic processes - and we can do so without making a radioactive dead spot on the prairie, or creating glow-in-the-dark salmon. It's kind of like building airplanes. Mistakes happen, people die. But every time something bad happens, we send in very smart engineers and figure out what happened, and why, and design new and better processes so that the next time, fewer people die.

    Chernobyl happened for exactly the same reasons. The Soviets essentially copied the very first Fermi pile (the one under the squash stadium), added cooling and steam pipes, and scaled it up by a factor of a few thousand. This was poor engineering, but it was quick, and they had to get their reactors online quickly so that they could make the materials to make the bombs that they needed to defend themselves. All delusion (well, mostly delusion) but they had a good reason, as did we. The end result was a whopping big accident, but pay close attention here, there was no nuclear explosion.

    We can reprocess fuel rods - which to me, sounds a whole lot better than leaving thousands of tons of insanely radioactive stuff cooling its heels in ponds all over the world. By reprocessing the fuel, we can make new fuel, we can take that crazy hot stuff and concentrate it into kilograms instead of tonnes, and incidentally, make it radioactive enough that no terrorist could stay alive long enough to steal it. We can separate needed isotopes for space exporation and cancer treatment and food sterilization.

    And what do we have to give up to do this? We have to give up irrational fear. There are lots of things to fear - read Feynman's talk about building Y-12 - but the things to fear are real things, not crazy paranoid fantasies. The Fukushima disaster may have achieved criticality of stored used fuel rods, but there was no nuclear explosion. People died, from the tidal wave. Some people were exposed to low levels of radiation, but as was pointed out earlier in this venue, less exposure than they would have had than had they simply lived in Denver, USA for a year.

    We can do this. We have the technology, we have the scientists, we have the engineers. Like any new thing, there will be mistakes, and perhaps those mistakes will cost lives. The comparison isn't to "will bad things happen if we do this" -- the proper comparison is "what bad things will happen if we don't do this."

    -- Norm Reitzel

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by fermion · · Score: 1
      so, like 3.5 kilograms of plutonium on the rover. If we can reprocess and use the fuel in robots launched into space, then that would be a good thing. The whole problem with reprocessing is what to do with the products, other than making bombs. Because there was not much use, it really makes more sense to just make the product difficult to use.

      The only thing to fear is the explosion of the plutonium in atmosphere. The plutonium will be dispersed, humans will breath it, and it will remain in the tissue for a lifetime emitting alpha particles. But how likely is this. If we look at a long life vehicle, the Atlas, it appears that the vehicle failed about 5% in atmosphere. This means that we can expect 1 out 20 failures. When we begin major explorations, we probably can expect a failure every few years. But failure in atmosphere is not necessarily critical because the plutonium is in a explosion proof unbreakable container. It should never fail, but NASA also said the shuttle would never fail and would have a turn around time measured in weeks. So there is really no way to say how dangerous these launches are. If this becomes SOP there will be launch failures, and even if the plutonium failure is 1%, something the shuttle does not achieve, a conservative estimate would put total failure on the order of 1 in 1000. This would indicate we might expect 1 failure in an agressive generation of launches, which would contaminate an uncontrolled area and uncontrolled number of people with potentially lethal doses of Uranium. There is every reason to believe this would never happen, but it is one of those things that could be politically troublesome to the space program. Well first the rocket must fail in the atmosphere. The only problem is that these robots fail, they are not even human spec, so after a while one will fail. For example, the Atlas Centaur had a failure rate of 10%, so we can assume a failure every 10 launches. The plutonium is supposed to be an unbreakable container, but nothing is perfect. The question is what is the real failure rate of the plutonium container, and what portion of the rocket failures would occur in the atmosphere.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by khallow · · Score: 1

      they were careless (careless enough to skewer a reactor operator to a concrete slab with a control rod)

      What makes that careless?

      Mistakes happen, people die. But every time something bad happens, we send in very smart engineers and figure out what happened, and why, and design new and better processes so that the next time, fewer people die.

      Which is exactly what happened with the accident above. It was a mistake. They sent in very smart people to figure out what happened. And they designed new and better processes so that next time, fewer people die.

    3. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The worker who was skewered with the control rod was suicidal. There was no reason for the reactor to explode like that. The post-mortem found no cause for the explosion other than "the guy pulled it all the way out quickly". Investigators found the worker had personal problems. Took another worker with him, too.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      It should never fail, but NASA also said the shuttle would never fail and would have a turn around time measured in weeks.

      IIRC, the original estimate for the shuttle was 1% risk of failure at each launch. With 2 failures in 135 shuttle missions, it seems that they nailed it. We should be able to achieve them same rate with plutonium-carrying rockets if we are willing to pay the price, but in most cases, the plutonium containment will not fail, so we are probably looking at one plutonium dispersion event every 1000-10.000 launches.

      Furthermore, plutonium and plutonium oxides are heavy. You can breath them for a short time, but they will quickly settle as dust, after which breathing is not possible. Plutonium oxides mostly passes unaffected through the human digestive tract (IIRC, about 1% is taken up), so there is no reason to suspect that the land will be unihabitable. If people were rational, they would just have to move people out for a week or two, and then they could move back. Of course, moving back to land that is contaminated with plutonium, even if everybody says it is OK, is not something most people will enjoy.

    5. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is a waste stream from reprocessing.

      However, it is informative to look at how and when the mess that is - among others - Hanford, came to be.

      Yeah, Hanford is bad but it does not hold a candle to its Soviet counterpart.

    6. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      One would sincerely hope that today, we are a little more rational.

      Hope in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first.

      We have the technology to build nested pipelines and we don't use that for oil. What makes you think we're going to use the technology we have to make nuclear cleaner to actually make nuclear cleaner?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... (careless enough to skewer a reactor operator to a concrete slab with a control rod)...

      It was very unlikely to be carelessness on the part the worker who cased the reactor to go prompt critical. It was the investigation and mock recreation found that would have been unlikely that removal of the control rod at the speed required would have occurred as a result of been stuck and the work attempting to forcible pull up the control rod. It took a very deliberate attempt to move the rod at the speed required. The sad truth is that operator likely wanted to kill himself and coworker who was rumored to have been cheating with the man's wife. During an interviews with other trained operators when ask what would happen if a control rod where removed rapidly all responded that it would blow the reactor. It also an agreed upon unofficial response to question of what to do if a Russians where going to over run a base with a SL-1. Idahoans can thank god that reactor building held as it was not designed to for a prompt critical event.

      I do think that SL-1 is why the USA has had a pretty good record with Nuclear Power. We have learned lessons, but I fear that time has made us forgetful.

    8. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a video of the above incident search youtube for "SL1 accident".

    9. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the first I've heard of that. Watching the video it didn't look intentional. He fkd up. Plain and simple.

    10. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hanford is an outstanding example of mismanagement and political posturing. It really didn't have to be the way it is. Environmentalists have been opposed to every single proposal that has been put forward to clean it up. Politicians are hesitant to do anything that will upset a significant portion of their constituency. When money was finally devoted to the project the contractors gladly took the money while simultaneously providing little to no benefit due to insufficient oversight and the lack of measurable goals tied to the project.

    11. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrational fear, huh? I have this irrational fear that the output of the 2 new AP1000 reactors being built at Plant Vogtle, in Burke County GA, directly across the river from SRS, in addtion to the 2 existing ones ( and representing, I'm told, roughtly 50% of the generating capacity in the state) will be used for things like pumping the water out of the Savannah and Ogeechee rivers to Atlanta, now that it's pretty much sucked the Chattahoochee dry, or running vast NSA SIGINT and datamining centers at Ft. Gordon which could all too easily end up being used to keep tabs on the thoughtcrimes of the suckers paying for it, or to pave the Smokies, the Blue Ridge, and vast swaths of farmland and forests in Georgia and Tennessee with new interstate highway and urban sprawl. All these eventualities have either been discussed or are extant. Silly irrational me. I should be more concerned about getting into real estate speculation there, instead.

      Now, it is indeed reassuring to see bombs and warheads being rendered into MOX fuel and such at SRS. If we don't suddenly need those bombs and warheads, for whatever reason. And it's too bad the AP1000 is not one of the new style reactors you're talking, either, just PWR redux, but I guess you can't have everything, and of course the people who got all those contracts to make all those bombs and all that toxic and radiological mess and now have contracts to clean it up, or at least glassify it and ship it back and forth across the country like a vast irradiated political football, now that Yucca Mountain has been abandoned, are sure to have some solution to that as well.

      What I can't figure out is where all the $20 billion (back when that was real money) McCormack fusion money that was sifled off to the SDI ruse actually went. Lyndon LaRouche's pockets? Black triangles hovering Phoenix? Damn sure didn't end up anywhere near me. Good luck with your hope of seeing modern fission reactors built, though. I'd put one in my back yard.

    12. Re:Waste stream from Reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mayak didn't just make mistakes, it was a cosmic disaster. Thet dumped nuclear waste to a lake, later that lake evaporated and all that stuff was exposed. Then the winds carried it away to surrounding area. Then theres this river Techa, countless of accidents etc. With Russia turning back to kind of country it was before 1990, it's a realllly bad idea to process waste there.

  15. In Soviet Russia by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia Pu-238 reprocess you!

  16. 1.21 gigawatts by kdogg73 · · Score: 5, Funny

    [referring to the Curiosity rover]
    Reuters [looks through a camcorder] This is heavy-duty, Doc. This is great. Uh, does it run, like, on regular unleaded gasoline?
    NASA Scientist: Unfortunately, no. It requires something with a little more kick. Plutonium.
    Reuters: Um, plutonium. Wait a minute. Are...
    [lowers the camcorder]
    Reuters: Are you telling me that this sucker is nuclear?
    NASA Scientist: Hey, hey, hey! Keep rolling. Keep rolling there.
    [The reporter raises the camcorder]
    NASA Scientist: No, no, no, no, no, this sucker's electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need.
    Reuters: Doc, you don't just walk into a store and-and buy plutonium. Did you rip that off?
    NASA Scientist: Of course. From a group of Soviet nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and, in turn, gave them a shoddy bomb casing full of used pinball machine parts. Come on! Let's get you a radiation suit. We must prepare to reload.

    --
    Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
    1. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually the LASER is "only" 1MW (which is still very high)
      It would have been much more fun if they used a 1.21GW laser, which is in existence, and not too big either.
      (ignoring the fact that it uses short pulses)

    2. Re:1.21 gigawatts by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if there was going to be a post with that sort of reference after I read the summary. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in nerd-dom.

    3. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are in a conference room on the 33rd floor of a skyscraper with a hazy view of smog filled NYC. It is only a few
      minutes until sunset. It is a Friday in the middle of summer and most office workers have left hours ago. Present are
      men and women whose names you have never heard of and in all likelihood never will. During the last ten minutes
      they have slowly begun to come into the conference room, some walk to their usual seat at the conference table
      without the barest acknowledgment of the other arrivals, some will exchange nods and greetings and some will
      sit down and in quiet voices startup small-talk with their neighbors. The last seat at the head of the table remains
      empty and is not meant for the elderly gentleman who finally enters the room.

      The man enters the room and c merely nods to the attendees who on his cue join hands and begin chanting in a low voice over and over
      "El sofes sahad, gohu iad belata, ipamis bel ipada,padhim bel ipamis!". Later research shows you that the Enochian
      Key given here is not authentic, yet some formula for the evocation of a spirit is indeed chanted in the room, over
      time the voices become louder and louder and increasingly insistent. You can see how some of the men and women
      have become a bit uncomfortable, not only because the temperature has fallen 4 degrees in the room during the last
      minutes, but also because they feel what could be described as the queasiness one feels before the onset of a
      strong fever. If you yourself were to witness this, you would at this point bolt from the room. You would find yourself
      running down the deserted hallways and tearing through office spaces, often bruising your shoulders as you literally
      slam into doors some of which are locked, some not. Months later there will be occasions that remind you of what
      you felt in that room, how something brushed against you in that room, reached out to you and wanted you and you
      will be reduced to tears of fear every time.

      Not so the men and women in the room, from their childhood on they have been educated and trained in knowledge
      and arts clearly out of reach of the profane like you. They are now chanting, rather shouting the evocation formula
      nearly at the top of their voices and a distinct very cold breeze can be felt in the room. It has fallen dark outside but
      you can clearly see a figure sitting at the head in table. You can not see the really see the outlines, it appears more
      like a shadow that has solidified but it speaks. It speaks in a quiet and raspy voice with shrill overtones as if metal
      is being drawn across a stone floor.

      It speaks: "How is our kindness repaid?"

      and one after another they stand up and approach the figure to kneel down and bow their heads. They quietly
      report their accomplishments, in their hearts prepared for the great punishments that are held over the heads of
      those who fail their tasks. The men often come away with an erection and also one often kneels into a puddle
      of urine left behind one of the women who came before. Such is the fear.

      The gentlemen representing Slashdot is one of the last to approach and kneel. This man lives a lavish lifestyle
      you can not conceive of and any dark or light pleasure is his for the taking, he will never stand before a judge
      and never enter a prison unless it is for his pleasure. It is saying too much to claim he represents slashdot
      but slashdot is just one of the medium to high-profile outlets of nonsense and propaganda this man controls.

      "My Lord. This week we have done well. We have run the usual left-right bullshit propaganda, we have carried
      every single propaganda piece that came to us from the government, we have spun the usual propaganda for
      GMO's and neurological implants and enticed the masses for new gadgets"

      The dark shadow remains silent so the man averts his gaze one more time bowing his head down once more
      before he lifts himself up. Walking back to his seat he notices that his right knee is wet again.

      There. Now start mooing cattle.

  17. And Idaho National Laboratory followed up... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Idaho National Laboratory actually commented on the Slate piece, saying:

    It was disappointing to read Mr. Brumfiel's article. The Curiosity mission represents everything that is great about American ingenuity and engineering. For months, we've hosted a public website that explains via a virtual tour and factsheets how the nuclear battery was developed, fueled, tested and delivered. The website is available at http://www.inl.gov/marsrover.

  18. Re:What!? by macshome · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, no... It's because we've now given the Martians what they need to make PU-238 space modulators.

  19. A series of nuclear reactors? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    With the waste produced by nuclear reactors, I have always wondered whether it would be possible to feed the waste of one reactor into another reactor that is designed to use the waste of the first? You could then have a whole chain of reactors each optimised to use the waste of the previous reactor.

    The other question is I have is whether Thorium reactors produce less waste?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:A series of nuclear reactors? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      don't need a series, the right type of reactor can "burn" the "spent fuel" and leave waste that decays in years rather than tens of thousands of them

    2. Re:A series of nuclear reactors? by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      The Nuclear Centipede

    3. Re:A series of nuclear reactors? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2
      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  20. LFTR is the way to go by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One useful byproduct of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor is PU238

    1. Re:LFTR is the way to go by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      another is near 100% pure U233, which works rather well in bombs.

      not saying it shouldn't happen. just that there's sensitivity there.

    2. Re:LFTR is the way to go by greg_barton · · Score: 2

      Here is a better rebuttal than I could ever write.

    3. Re:LFTR is the way to go by Creepy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was reading about that yesterday, as well as the fact that mining thorium would yield a supply of heavy rare earth elements that could make the US a major exporter of these, bypassing the massive Chinese tariffs on export put in place specifically to get companies to move their manufacturing to China.

      It just baffles me why the US government doesn't put money into researching LFTR because honestly, it is just win-win-win-win, but then I remember the 600 billion in lobbying the nuclear industry does pretty much specifically to shut out competition. Proliferation concerns are a joke - thorium is a minor alpha emitter in its raw state, which would be the state it is used in for a LFTR, and really, the US doesn't have the capability to even enrich the waste into a bomb, much less a terrorist. Dirty bombs with this stuff is even more of a waste of time - potassium (the stuff you have to ingest to live) is more radioactive.

    4. Re:LFTR is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A geologist I know has essentially said the same thing. If we could just get the fscking lobbiests out of the way it would be very beneficial to all concerned parties.

    5. Re:LFTR is the way to go by drwho · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work well in bombs. Sure, it blows up nicely, if you were able to put the bomb together without everyone being poisoned by the high levels of gamma radiation it emits. There's a reason why LFTR has a fair amount of shielding.

      Simply put, it is not practical to make a bomb out of U-233

  21. Re:not so Good (Pu238 vs. Pu239) by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Look like someone failed in physics/chemistry:
    [Pu238] is a heat source in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are used to power some spacecraft.
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

    [Pu239] can sustain a nuclear chain reaction, leading to applications in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  22. pu-238 it damn hot! by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    it glows from its own radioactivity
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:pu-238 it damn hot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.5 Watts per gram. Or, 500 W/kg. Of course it would be prohibitively expensive and highly illegal, but... if I could get my hands on a few hundred kg of this, I'd build a motorhome around a small steam-turbine power plant with this at its core and cruise the country, never paying for gas or electric. The only trouble of course is where to get the Plutonium-238. Oh now... I don't know how they found me, but they did. It's the Libyans. RUN, MARTY, RUN!

  23. Justification via argument from effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'It is good/right/moral/whatever that the Soviets came to be since they created the fuel we use to explore mars"

    "It is good/right/moral/whatever that the US government steals money because they use some of it to explore mars"

  24. You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by rve · · Score: 5, Funny

    Already, three major cities in Japan have been turned into an uninhabitable
    nuclear wasteland, where no life can exist for millions of years, and you want to continue this trend? Already, Europeans have done the right thing and are starting to go along in banning radiation and nuclear. Germany is closing all its existing reactors. Do you want to be worse than Germany?

    1. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by NReitzel · · Score: 2, Informative

      No life can exist for millions of years?

      You do realize you are so full of crap your eyes are brown?

      Nuclear fuel rod storage ponds have to be treated so that they don't grow algae. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is full of mink and fox and birds and mice. They're all radioactive, a little, but then we're all a little radioactive. If no life could live around Fukushima, why are crops from there prohibited from being shipped and sold?

      At least make a token effort to get the actual facts, mmmkay?

      -- Norm

      --

      Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    2. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by mug+funky · · Score: 0

      wow, this troll ticks every box! i like it!

    3. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, nuclear fuel rod storage ponds sound like a great place to take a hot bath! Lets all go!

    4. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, you didn't click on the pictures, did you? :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by rve · · Score: 2

      Wow, nuclear fuel rod storage ponds sound like a great place to take a hot bath! Lets all go!

      Maybe not in the storage ponds, but in Russia it is fairly normal to go swimming in the cooling water, because it's nice and warm in the winter.

    6. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not so good at sarcasm detection, are you?

    7. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      wow, this troll

      Try actually reading the posts and clicking on the links.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I used to go crabbing in NJ at the outlet of the Oyster Creek Plant. The crabs could grow all year round and were nice and big.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generating_Station

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    9. Re:You are in the pockets of Big Uranium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heat sink system in most nuclear power plants is a tertiary system. Only the primary loop gets contaminated with radioactivity. The secondary loop moves the heat from the primary system to the turbines. The tertiary loop helps condense the secondary's loop steam back to a liquid. The warm water discharge from a plant would only be from the tertiary system, which is two steps removed from contact with radioactive materials.

  25. ...there's the waste stream from reprocessing... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Which decays to a level of activity less than that of the ore still in the ground is about 600 years (and to a level such that the hazard is negligible long before that).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  26. Mayak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mayak dumped high level nuclear waste into a little lake behind the plant. During the late 60's there was a drought not unlike the one in North America today. The lake dried up and the waste blew around the region.

    That's not the best part though. The best part was when a huge, neglected storage tank blew up in 1957. It was full of high level waste that had been left without cooling because the 'engineers' decided it wasn't necessary to fix the broken cooling system. Being reckless fools, but not chemists, they failed to anticipate the concentration of nitrogen. The blast created the East Urals Radioactive Trace, a smear of exotic iotopses spread downwind of the blast/fire/spill/mess.

    All this and much, much more were kept quiet, both inside and outside of the Soviet Union till the 80s. The place holds many dirty secrets yet. The Russian won't allow unfettered inspections of the place. They've lost a little of their European reprocessing business as a result.

    So thanks for the Pu you fucking ruskies. Should have slagged the lot of you when we had the chance.

  27. Rocky Flats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're still cleaning up the mess from their last attempt to make plutonium here in the US. Are they hoping we've forgotten how much of our land they've ruined and how many people got cancer and other diseases because of the working conditions?

  28. Mayak? by serbanp · · Score: 1

    A soviet-era bomb maker? I also remember it for its quite good reel-to-reel tape recorders (late eighties), so it must have been something like a diversified industry conglomerate, not just a war-related material factory.

    1. Re:Mayak? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Different Mayak. The one you're talking about is a factory in Kirov; this one is a nuclear facility near Chelyabinsk.

    2. Re:Mayak? by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Hey, thank you for the information. Does Mayak mean anything in Russian?

    3. Re:Mayak? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Lighthouse"

  29. About those hyper-squirrels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    those pesky "have to keep waste sealed forever to prevent hyper-squirrels in the year 3,001,000 from being irradiated" elements

    Too late. My client, a certain Mr. (starts with 'S', rhymes with 'rat') is already more hyper than you could possibly imagine as a result of encountering your nuclear waste. But he's a reasonable hyper-squirrel. He's willing to settle for only a million .... (sounds of whispering and hurried consultation) ... make that a BILLION ... acorns, delivered to his current residence.

  30. BIGGGGGGG difference by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    there's a big difference between the 238 and 239

     
    1 ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:BIGGGGGGG difference by meerling · · Score: 1

      1 can be a HUGE difference, especially when dealing with elements.

      I suspect that you were making a joke, but there are too many people reading these posts that don't know.

    2. Re:BIGGGGGGG difference by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2

      220, 221 whatever it takes...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX3kxAA2L4Q

    3. Re:BIGGGGGGG difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one little neutron can ruin your whole day.

    4. Re:BIGGGGGGG difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hg 198 and Au 197 - off by one.

      Kick two neutrons out of Hg 198 and add a proton - alchemy!

    5. Re:BIGGGGGGG difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one little neutron can ruin your whole day.

      One too many or one too few? Depends entirely on what your day job is. :)

  31. Iran by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Of course it would be totally all right if Iran would make the weirdest accusations at this point.

    Yes, it's a flame. I'm still waiting for the WMD to be found in Irak...

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well wait no longer....
      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

  32. How would you choose the CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Nuclear Reprocessing Industries?

  33. Re:What!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

  34. Return Pu from where it came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just return Pu from where it came from...If you have a kg of Pu, Mix it with a 10-ton of mud, put it on a converted pesticide transport plane, sprinkle it all over the world, 1kg-mud per sq/km.

  35. Re:What!? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

    It's the same thing, but in hex.

  36. I'm sure the Brits have some spare by stiggle · · Score: 2

    The British have been reprocessing nuclear fuel since they started nuclear power, so they're bound to have some Pu available.
    They used some in some fast breeder reactors, but should still have plenty left, and I'm sure the National Park next to the reprocessing site would be happy to have it leave.

  37. Fly in Ointment by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We can do this. We have the technology, we have the scientists, we have the engineers.

    We also have the corporations, dedicated to cutting every corner for a golden parachute reward - along with bought and paid for politicians that have their back when (not if) something goes wrong due to their craven desires (see: Wall Street banks).

  38. US Soil Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course if the vehicle fails and burns up in the atmosphere over the US launch site then I'm sure it is still an appropriate use of technology. Sorry about your elevated cancer and mutation levels, however.

  39. 2 words BREEDER REACTOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know for a fact that in the 70's there were relatively efficient breeder reactors. With modern control systems, computers, tech, etc this would be more of a reality. There is no such thing as radioactive waste. If its radioactive, energy can still be extracted. This was communicated to me by one of the engineers who designed said reactors in the 70s. Look it up! Amend the rules on reprocessing of waste to allow breeder reactors. No more uranium pools, more cheap cleaner energy....its a win for everyone...

  40. Can't you see the writing on the wall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA will become SKYNET and we will all DIE from their nuclear powered drones!!!

  41. enough for about three more generators by peter303 · · Score: 1

    About 40 pounds left and ten required for a decent generator. Cant easily go past Mars without a generator. However the recently launched Jupiter Juno mission has massive solar panels - about the limit of this power source.

  42. LFTR by drwho · · Score: 0

    This is my obligatory mention of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. Yes, you may have heard lots about this type of nuclear reactor before, but this post is just to remind you that it can produce the valuable isotopes needed for fueling space probes, as well as nuclear medicine. You see, people need to be hit over the head with data multiple times before they pay attention.