Slashdot Mirror
Program to Use Russian Nukes for US Electricity Comes to an End
gbrumfiel writes "For the past two decades, about 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warheads. Under a program called Megatons to Megawatts, Russian highly-enriched uranium was pulled from old bombs and made into fuel for nuclear reactors. NPR News reports that the program concludes today when the last shipment arrives at a U.S. storage facility. In all nearly 500 tons of uranium was recycled, enough for roughly 20,000 warheads."
Our proven uranium reserves would last us over 200 years at current consumption; Well beyond the life expectancy of any of our reactors. The only reason for this program was to provide a failing country with a cheap way of disposing of highly hazardous materials without losing face. It is the proverbial "turning a negative into a positive". It will have zero effect on our energy costs or programs.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's not a matter of being more trusted. It's a matter of the US going to the trouble to negotiate a deal with Russia to dispose of the unneeded fissionable material. France, UK, Japan, etc. could have done it instead ... if they had tried.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
We didn't install the cameras we just accessed the ones you already had set up.
Really? REALLY??? Do you have any idea what was happening in Russia after the USSR fell apart? They were in some serious economic trouble. Securing nuclear assets was of vital importance not just to us, but to them and the entire world. If anything we didn't do enough. I heard there were RTGs left to rust in Siberia. Some of their naval nukes were also mothballed under questionable circumstances.
I'm the first to admit that the USA's actions aren't always for the best; but not in this case.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Specially since this is U-235 (the primary nuclear fuel currently in use on civilian nuclear power stations).
Using U-235 for nuclear weapons is only common in first generation nuclear programs. You see, enriching uranium is a PITA (separating isotopes), while separating plutonium from anything else is soooo much easier (chemical separation).
The trick is having a reactor that takes thatplentiful U-238 and hit it with a neutron to make Pu-239 (that nasty plutonium used in bombs). Plutonium isn't naturally occurring.
If there are still US nuclear weapons that use U-235, those must be the oldest in the inventory.
So, any association from that Russian nuclear fuel with nuclear bombs is only made by those without any nuclear physics knowledge.
U-238 is 99,3% of natural uranium. It's the stuff that enrichment removes from the base material (producing depleted uranium).
A holy grail of peaceful nuclear is breeding Pu-239 from U-238 on the fly inside the reactor and the fission it, but having this happen mixed with all kinds of nasty beta emitters that make using that Pu-239 for nuclear weapons another PITA. Beta radiation is the stuff that really kills (used to kill cancer cells in radiotheraphy), but inside the reactor it's not an issue.
Not to mention that everybody that has significant stockpiles of Pu-239 want to destroy most of it ! Most nuclear reactors can't deal with nuclear fuel with lots of plutonium.
Yes, apparently you wiretap the internet and install the video cameras.
Who, specifically, are the two of you referring to when you say "you" and "we"? All Americans? Really?
Yes sir, no Americans "just talk big" on the internet as they rave into video cameras, and all Americans support "wiretapping the internet" as we giggle our asses off installing the video cameras... and all Irish are drunks, all Brits have bad teeth and all Muslims are terrorists.
You really put your names on this shit? Both of your posts are sense-free trolls. Give it a rest.
Not saying all Americans support this, but it's done in your name by your government. Often against the laws of the country where it happens (which apparently are deemed irrelevant by your laws).
So, like it or not, these are things America is currently doing right now.
Sadly, my country is one of the Five Eyes, and I need to accept that Canada is doing this as well. I don't like it either, but that doesn't change that it's happening in my name or that I wish it wasn't.
But when someone says "ZOMG, teh Canajuns are doing teh spying (eh)" -- the best we can say is "yeah, we don't like it either".
Unfortunately, when our politicians act like douchebags, it reflects on us all. And, sadly, I suspect in many countries where this is occurring those of us who disagree with it are vastly outnumbered by the ones who think that it's OK.
But if you think that still doesn't create some negative backlash against a country in general, you're fooling yourself. If most of your country believes this is OK and what you should be doing, well, then on balance, the whole country bears the blame for it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The US is a leader because we don't just talk big on the internet and rave into video cameras.
Yes, once in a while we actually do something right. Buying the Uranium, which largely gave the substance a safe direction to travel, and a cash reward for compliance worked out well.
Although, in 1995 I was in Prague when the news carried a story about a car being discovered with 6 pounds of enriched Uranium scooting around town. I was pretty alarmed because the people were evidently looking for a buyer.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Trust has very little to do with it. The people who have these weapons have them. The best that can be hoped for is a process of disarmament that does not cause too much damage if trust is broken, and one which prevents other parties from gaining the weapons and thus becoming risk factors in and of themselves.
That said, this particular program was an ingenious way of proving that these weapons were destroyed. It put the most critical parts -what actually makes these things nuclear weapons- through a relatively open, transparent, and auditable process that rendered them, if not precisely inert, then at least unsuitable for use in weapons. Trades of this sort should be more common among countries decreasing their stockpiles.
And why do we feel the US is more trusted with this than anybody else?
Because we already have enough warheads to destroy the entire planet 100x over? How is a bit more Uranium going to help us? So we can destroy it 101x over?
Almost.
U238 + n -> U239 (neutron capture)
U239 -> Np239 + e (beta decay)
Np239 -> Pu239 + e (beta decay)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
the best we can say is "yeah, we don't like it either".
Unfortunately, when our politicians act like douchebags, it reflects on us all. And, sadly, I suspect in many countries where this is occurring those of us who disagree with it are vastly outnumbered by the ones who think that it's OK..
I don't think so. I have a feeling that those who don't like it do out number those who find such behavior appalling. The problem is, is that it doesn't seem there is any way to fix it within the framework any longer. The politicians/lawyers have warped and twisted the system to the point that it no longer serves "we the people" but the politicians themselves. I'm sure it probably always did to a point, but it's almost palpable now. Sadly we don't even have a good option for who to vote for any longer. Our last two presidents were voted into office on good wishes and little else. Bush was going to be reach across the aisle and work with both parties and focus on internal matters and avoid "nation building" and deficit reduction... Our current president was going to close Gitmo, cure global warming and give us unicorns and rainbows. My father has gotten to the point that he simply votes against whomever the incumbent is. If the incumbent is running unchallenged, he uses the write in.
I hope I'm wrong, but I fear we have crossed the line where things can be fixed in a peaceable manner. I don't think we've come to the point where it will take an all out revolt to fix things. But I do fear there may come a time where riots will start occurring. Or even worse, the American people have become so complacent and distracted, that all of the diversions will keep us placated indefinitely. Then we are truly lost.
Oops, just notice I forgot the antineutrinos.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I believe the time has long since passed where nothing except peaceful means and working within the system will be effective in causing change in some countries.
Between the fact that they can monitor everything you do, use terrorism laws to detain you without trial, and have a huge imbalance in terms of force available to them -- the days a revolt being anything other than a suicide pact are long gone.
Any attempts at anything more drastic will only allow them to say "see, terrorists". Unfortunately, they seem quite unwilling to listen to protests and reasoned debate.
Ideally, opinion and policy swing back the other way and things get better. I, like you, fear they won't -- but hopefully countries start to realize you don't need to get as far down the path as needing an armed revolt to adhere to what were your starting principles.
One would like to hope that civil disobedience and less violent means are still viable. And maybe that's truly naive, but the alternative is terrifying: if Western democracies have to resort to armed insurrection, it's all pretty much downhill from there. Because every piss-pot dictator will say "but see, you do the same thing", and the world as we know it will have changed for the worse.
And, sadly, for a lot of people as long as their day to day lives are mostly the same, they're never going to understand why this is happening and not going to side with it. Ideally, you exhaust all other options before resorting to anything more drastic.
One would like to hope there's still some shreds of enlightenment and finding a better way available to us.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And why do we feel the US is more trusted with this than anybody else?
Because we already have enough warheads to destroy the entire planet 100x over? How is a bit more Uranium going to help us? So we can destroy it 101x over?
No, we really don't. Nuclear stockpiles are a fraction of 1% of their cold war peaks (I calculated it once, but don't remember the exact number). I believe our silo-based missiles in the U.S. are down to 150 single-warhead Minuteman IIIs, at around 300 kT each. That's about 450 MT, which is still a lot of destructive power, but the largest single device ever detonated was 50 MT all by itself, and was supposedly capable of being boosted to 100 MT.
And the OP entirely missed the point: This was not "giving" new nukes to the U.S. This was taking old nukes out of circulation and using them for energy. Using your analogy, this is going from 100x to 99x or lower, not the other way around.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
the us spent almost fifty years worried by the prospect of russian nukes lighting up their cities
Specially since this is U-235 (the primary nuclear fuel currently in use on civilian nuclear power stations). Using U-235 for nuclear weapons is only common in first generation nuclear programs. You see, enriching uranium is a PITA (separating isotopes), while separating plutonium from anything else is soooo much easier (chemical separation).
Your notion is about 50 years out of date - this was a common idea in the 1950s. The perfection of the gas centrifuge, available since the early 1960s completely changed the equation.
Highly enriched uranium is much cheaper than plutonium gram for gram (the cost differential is more than 10:1). That "easy" chemical separation you speak of has to be done in a hot cell, and produces large amounts of highly radioactive waste, and requires first making uranium into fuel, then cooking it in an expensive reactor for months, and then more months of cooling. HEU these days simply takes slightly radioactive natural or low enriched uranium and sends it through a gas centrifuge cascade in a modest-sized warehouse giving you product easily converted to metal at the other end after several days later.
Highly enriched uranium (aka HEU, your "U-235") is widely used in modern thermonuclear weapons. The secondary casing is made out of it, the secondary spark plug is likely made out of it, and perhaps half of the total yield of warhead is when the highly enriched uranium is fissioned by the flood neutrons from the thermonuclear burn. There is roughly ten times more HEU in a modern weapon than plutonium, which is only used for the primary (where the fact that it has a lower critical mass is very important).
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj