Slashdot Mirror


Megatons To Megawatts Program Comes To a Close

necro81 writes "In the aftermath of the Cold War, the disintegrating Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and tons of weapons-grade fissile material. In the economic and political turmoil, many feared that it would fall into unfriendly hands. However, thanks to the doggedness of an MIT professor, Dr. Thomas Neff, 500 metric tons of weapons grade material made its way into nuclear reactors in the United States through the Megatons to Megawatts program. During the program, about 10% of all electricity generated in the U.S. came from weapons once aimed at the country. Now, after nearly 20 years, the program is coming to an end. The final shipment of Soviet-era uranium, now nuclear fuel, has arrived in Baltimore."

125 comments

  1. Great way to end by CaptQuark · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is a great way to use the nuclear fuel that was aimed at us. Bravo.

    1. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is that the fuel is being aimed at us again.

    2. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Fred? Whining that you missed the first post by one minute because you were crafting such an insightful comment? LOL

      I agree he didn't leave a great post, but I've seen much worse first post messages.

    3. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article makes no mention of what happens to the spent fuel rods that you so selflessly imported.

      Perhaps they will go into the ground like the other 70.000 metric tons of spent fuel rods generated by the US?

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/01/28/deferring-recycling-u-s-to-bury-almost-all-existing-nuclear-waste/

    4. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, I'm just waiting for the Taco Cowboy remora post to come and attach itself around here.

    5. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least on the old /. web page, compared to the beta, I do not have to put up with idiots saying First Hah!!

      Or instead you get random posts that have nothing to do with the story just extremists making racist claims.

    6. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's only a great post if it is a pointless, negative whine about something you can't do anything about - a bit like this post, actually :). Positive attitudes not allowed!

    7. Re:Great way to end by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      They came from the ground, it sounds like a good idea to put them right back.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Great way to end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's certainly a lot better, and on topic, than your inane blathering. Wait...is that your mom I hear calling you up from the basement? Ah yes, your Fruit Loops are ready!

    9. Re:Great way to end by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We don't want to get rid of spent fuel, because it's a valuable resource. We need to keep those rods in dry storage until it becomes economical to recycle them into new fuel plus medical/industrial isotopes.

    10. Re:Great way to end by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Crap. I used up all my mod points yesterday. You do NOT deserve to have your comment labelled as Troll. Such a shame. :(

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  2. Nuclear dangers... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sadly, nuclear power is dying due to ignorance. Coal kills thousands (maybe 15+) in the US alone every year, and tens to hundreds of thousands worldwide every year. Yet what do we hear in the news? Fukushima. Where you can count the death toll with 0 fingers, and even in 50 years it'll be less than coal kills in the US in a single year.

    You can argue that Coal is a false choice (it isn't, it's what we have now) but even natural gas kills an order of magnitude or more people yearly than nuclear power, and yes _Solar_ kills more people.

    1. Re:Nuclear dangers... by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      Melanoma, or are you talking about those crazy schmucks with solar grills initiated some DIY spontaneous-human-combustion?

    2. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar kills more people? Explain or cite. (And heat stroke doesn't count)

    3. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he is talking about deaths due to accidents during solar panel maintenance aka cleaning. Of course nuclear plants have non-radiation related fatalities. Also, I would think the distributed nature of solar leads to more electrical fires and fatalities. (Yes, most are caused by improper maintenance/installation.) Also, wind plants kill people who work on them. Everything from the manned space exploration to matchbox toys has a number of deaths per unit that can be calculated to varies degrees of accuracy/directness of effect.

    4. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Turns out working on roof's is one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, it has quite a few fatalities on a yearly basis or so it seems.

    5. Re:Nuclear dangers... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Hes talking about mining / industrial waste from manufacturing the things, I would guess.

    6. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hes talking about mining / industrial waste from manufacturing the things, I would guess.

      Those exists for nuclear too. The people falling from roofs while installing solar power is enough to outnumber nuclear.
      Of course one can claim that those numbers can be reduced with proper safety measures but if one accept that argument for solar then the same should hold for nuclear.

    7. Re:Nuclear dangers... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, nuclear power is dying due to ignorance.

      Yes, lets compute the human deaths in the production, while ignoring non-lethal health issues, other species (which we are not independent of) and the 10000 year contamination of the end products and any issues that will occur during this time.

      Both nuclear and coal are crappy options.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    8. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out working on roof's is one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, it has quite a few fatalities on a yearly basis or so it seems.

      That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? I mean you could also argue:
      Dozens of aluminium miners die every year in work accidents... OMG!!! Aluminum soda cans are dangerous, THEY KILL PEOPLE!!!

    9. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Sneftel · · Score: 2

      If that were the case, then yes, you could argue that the use of aluminum is dangerous. A decrease in the use of aluminium would result in a decrease in deaths.

      Bauxite is strip-mined, though, which is pretty safe as far as the miners are concerned.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    10. Re:Nuclear dangers... by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      I guess he is primarily talking about the pollution from burning coal. ( For example: http://www.theguardian.com/env... , articles from across the pond also exist about this.). Not sure where the solar cost is coming from.

      --
      It is what it is.
    11. Re:Nuclear dangers... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the options are crappy. We just have to make do with picking the least-crappy.

    12. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fukushima? Hiroshima!

      And even if we somehow decide to ignore the weapons potential, do you really think that people don't die from uranium mining? Besides being highly radioactive, it's also a chemically very potent poison.

      I agree however coal is not a solution. But the only people who seem to think so are Americans and Chinese...

      One a finite planet, the only hope is renewables, as long as we don't have fusion. This is not rocket science. And much as everybody is going to kick as scream, conservation.

    13. Re:Nuclear dangers... by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      The pollution from coal waste is permanent, it never decays unlike nuclear waste. US coal-fired power generators pump 50 tonnes of mercury into the environment every year, it never goes away or decays, it ends up in water and the soil, in the sea and seafood. Nobody cares, any attempt to reduce these sorts of emissions is a "War on Coal".

    14. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. You're welcome to go live in Fukushima if you want to.

    15. Re:Nuclear dangers... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Both nuclear and coal are crappy options.

      Bullshit.

      List the non-leathal health issues of storing safely a small amount of nuclear waste of a half-life of a few hundred years that you get from an integral fast reactor.

    16. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He's talking out of his ass.

    17. Re:Nuclear dangers... by c0lo · · Score: 0

      The pollution from coal waste is permanent, it never decays unlike nuclear waste. US coal-fired power generators pump 50 tonnes of mercury into the environment every year, it never goes away or decays, it ends up in water and the soil, in the sea and seafood. Nobody cares, any attempt to reduce these sorts of emissions is a "War on Coal".

      Unless the coal power generation involves alchemy and transmutation (or a fresh supernova explosion nearby), that mercury you speak of... came from Earth environment.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    18. Re:Nuclear dangers... by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      That mercury WAS buried underground well away from the biosphere. Now it's been dug up, burned, vapourised and spread over cropland and towns and cities downwind, deposited into rivers and lakes supplying drinking water to the population before it eventually makes its way into the sea where it bioaccumulates in fish to the point where authorities recommend people don't eat too much of it because of the toxic mercury content.

      You might want to look up "sequestration" sometime.

    19. Re:Nuclear dangers... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not a small amount - it's a long process and it's not just the depleted fuel that's a waste storage problem. Anything that gets bombarded with a lot of neutrons becomes nuclear waste itself, so. That's what the "nuclear is magic beans appearing in the reactor core" crowd don't get. That's why real solutions like Synrok were ignored for decades.
      The health problems start with water runoff in the mines (eg. acid mine drainage), just like a lot of other things. Nuclear is not magic just because it's nuclear.
      It's an industrial process that has impacts and benefits and has to be looked at that way instead of the stupid "clean" dream. We got over "duck and cover" and "too cheap to meter" - it's time to get over the "clean" propaganda as well.

    20. Re:Nuclear dangers... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      So little uranium needs to actually be mined for IFR fuel (not to mention the fact that there's a load of nuclear "waste" lying around that could be used as fuel first anyway); surely mining could be done carefully to avoid water runoff problems.

    21. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      List the non-leathal health issues of storing safely a small amount of nuclear waste of a half-life of a few hundred years that you get from an integral fast reactor.

      Please tell us about the IFR reactors in commercial operation, so that we can discuss the subject fully. Oh, right...

    22. Re:Nuclear dangers... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Our system is effortlessly able to discreetly process the people killed by conventional pollution.

      Nuclear accidents are disruptive. Dispersed death isn't even interesting.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    23. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to the strict guidelines at nuclear plants there are far fewer worker related deaths in construction and maintenance than other buildings.
      With solar power you can get deaths when installing and maintaining because some worker decided safety harnesses are for pussies. Not so at a nuclear plant as any incident will have to be reported and investigated.

    24. Re:Nuclear dangers... by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      surely mining could be done carefully to avoid water runoff problems

      Maybe, but it's currently a problem at a lot of mines including some uranium mines (eg. yearly at the Ranger mine in Kakadu National Park in Australia).
      My point is that nuclear is not special just because it's nuclear - it has it's own downsides just like everything else. Minimising those is of course a very good thing but they still shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant. For decades waste has been written off as irrelevant, and everything other than fuel rods swept under the carpet. We shouldn't do that.
      I'm also a fan of that sort of reactor concept (certainly beats reprocessing by a mile) even if liquid metal gives me the heebie-jeebies. Along those lines Russia has a large sodium cooled reactor planned which is related enough that it may assist with the technical problems likely to be associated with full scale liquid metal reactors

    25. Re:Nuclear dangers... by alphatool · · Score: 0

      No, you're not welcome to go live in Fukushima. First, it's almost impossible to get a residency visa to live in Japan, unless you are being sponsored for a job that nobody in Japan can do. There aren't any of these jobs in Fukushima. Second, even if you do manage to get a visa, the government has forcibly evacuated the area around Fukushima and is not allowing residents to return. The odds of a new resident being allowed to move into the area are zero.

      All up, even well informed people, who are willing to accept the risks (if any) of low level radiation exposure, are not allowed to live in Fukushima. It must really suck for the people who were forced to leave their lives behind.

    26. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

      Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much, much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    27. Re:Nuclear dangers... by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      It's actually hard to determine the greatest crime of the modern environmental movement.

      They're well-intentioned, generally I'd concede that.

      But from the (pointless, politically motivated) ban on DDT that resulted in millions of needless deaths in malarial climates, to the histrionic anti-nuclear activism that has effectively blocked the development of nuclear power in the US for the last 30 years (condemning us - until the recent switches to gas - to coal-fired plants and more particulates, more acid rain, more CO2, etc.) the choices made by modern environmentalists are the direct cause of the deaths of many humans.

      Of course, this would presume that one sets aside the agenda of the radical environmentalist movement, which IS in fact totally amenable to millions if not billions of human deaths.

      --
      -Styopa
    28. Re:Nuclear dangers... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course one can claim that those numbers can be reduced with proper safety measures but if one accept that argument for solar then the same should hold for nuclear.

      Only if nuclear is at the same level of non-compliance with proper safety measures. I wonder what the price tag would need to be to get solar regulated at the same hardcore level as is present with the nuclear industry?

    29. Re:Nuclear dangers... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No you are wrong. Coal is crappy. Coal will produce more and wider spread radiation then nuclear ever will while also producing tons of carbon. Speaking of long term effects both Coal and natural gas produce many times the carbon of Nuclear.
      Solar can not work for base load. Wind is a bit better but it still needs natural gas fired peaking plants to back it up. Simple truth is you are spouting the same FUD we hear all the time about nuclear.
      The anti-nuclear people are as bad as the climate change deniers.

      Here are some scientists that say you are wrong.
      http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/...
      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...

      And a co founder of Greenpeace. http://www.wired.com/science/p...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say nuclear might require more transmission lines which equals more deaths to get the power to where you need it but then again wind turbines and solar arrays tend to use a decentralized remote layout which should need more lines then a centralized remote layout for nuclear plants. I also know that early Uranium mining and processing caused environmental and personal damage. All that being said am be looking into buying stocks associated with uranium mine and production. Right now uranium is being sold on the spot market for less then cost to mine. It can't go on that way forever. Especial since Russian and China are building a bunch of nuclear plants. I need to do more research but am most interested in companies developing mining in Mongolia which lest face it could use more exports.

      Another reason to build nuclear is ironically nuclear winter, or any man-made/natural sky blocking event. If we are reliant on nuclear we could survive even total darkness and bitter bitter cold. Not everyone mind but enough people. Also, nuclear energy density looks like the only reasonable way we currently have to get humans to other planets.

    31. Re:Nuclear dangers... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it is the nuclear industries fault that they follow safety regs and your mom and pop solar installer doesn't?

      Nuclear is far far safer than most things. 250k coal mining deaths in the last 50 years worldwide. 64 nuclear deaths. Even accounting for relative energy production nuke is about 6% (fossiil fuels were lumped together where I found them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...) and scaling: you'd be looking at ~1k deaths if all were nuke versus about 500k if all coal (assuming ~50% of the fossil fuels is coal generation, the rest oil, natural gas).

    32. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Even less interesting to the Western press is the eighteen thousand people who died in that very calamity at places other than Fukushima. Mass deaths in one of the largest and costliest natural disasters of all time mean nothing to those pursuing a political crusade.

    33. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is problem you know. We should be building and using those more right now for the simple reason that in 50 years we will be doing that anyway out of pure necessity. It's going to be a way more rough and dangerous ride then if we just suddenly start building hundreds of plants with limited experience.

    34. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because absolutely no other energy solutions have environmental impacts from the extraction of necessary materials. Certainly not solar, which require massive amounts of rare-earth metals that get strip mined out of conflict zones. Nope, no mine tailings coming from that!

    35. Re:Nuclear dangers... by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      It's not a small amount - it's a long process and it's not just the depleted fuel that's a waste storage problem. Anything that gets bombarded with a lot of neutrons becomes nuclear waste itself, so. That's what the "nuclear is magic beans appearing in the reactor core" crowd don't get. That's why real solutions like Synrok were ignored for decades. The health problems start with water runoff in the mines (eg. acid mine drainage), just like a lot of other things. Nuclear is not magic just because it's nuclear. It's an industrial process that has impacts and benefits and has to be looked at that way instead of the stupid "clean" dream. We got over "duck and cover" and "too cheap to meter" - it's time to get over the "clean" propaganda as well.

      You forget, that the so called "waste" from nuclear reactors is (by design) contained in one tiny little rod that is relatively easy to handle. This is the opposite of any fossil fuel based energy source, which just dumps all its waste (i.e. green house gases) into the atmosphere and in much MUCH greater quantities.

      It's time to get over the "NOOCLEAUR IZ EVIL!!" propaganda.

      could you name even one present day technology that could do a better job of generating electricity with little waste, than a nuclear reactor?

    36. Re:Nuclear dangers... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The pollution from coal waste is permanent, it never decays unlike nuclear waste. US coal-fired power generators pump 50 tonnes of mercury into the environment every year, it never goes away or decays, it ends up in water and the soil, in the sea and seafood. Nobody cares, any attempt to reduce these sorts of emissions is a "War on Coal".

      The irony being those who complain about mercury in CFLs (metallic form) yet don't realize an incandescent that's coal-powered will release far more mercury (in far more dangerous bio-available form) in its lifetime than what's in a CFL bulb.

      And metallic mercury is actually quite safe to handle - it's not easily bio-available so it's much more difficult to get mercury poisoning that way. The form in coal is bio-available and the body rapidly absorbs it into the tissues that way.

    37. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this fails to address worst-case scenarios. An explosion at a coal mining facility is tragic. An explosion at a nuclear plant is a disaster that extends far beyond the facility itself, with long-term costs and potential health problems. Also, no one gets too upset if a lump of coal goes missing.

    38. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      It's not permanent. Eventually it will be reintroduced into the ground via long term ecological and geological processes. We're talking millions of years, but then again we are comparing it to nuclear wastes.

    39. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      one rod? I'm pretty sure nuclear reactors use more than one rod.

    40. Re:Nuclear dangers... by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      The Boxing Day tsunami that hit Indonesia and elsewhere in the southern Pacific in 2004 killed over 230,000 people, over ten times the number of dead resulting from the Great Tohoku earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Indeed that tsunami wasn't even the biggest natural disaster to hit Japan in a hundred years as over 100,000 people died in the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923.

    41. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has to do with automatic budget cuts right?

    42. Re:Nuclear dangers... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Bauxite is strip-mined, though, which is pretty safe as far as the miners are concerned.

      A lot of coal is strip mined, as well, and strip mining is far worse for the environment than tunnel mining even if it is a lot safer for the miners. With aluminum or any other metal, the danger is as bad or worse in the factory. I worked in a copper factory for a couple of months in the late '70s; hard, dangerous work. One guy was boiled in molten copper when I worked there.

      But the deaths from coal come after it's burned; coal is one of the nastiest fuels we currently use.

    43. Re:Nuclear dangers... by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Why would a modern nuclear power plant explode? I understand why the old designs explode, they have high pressure steam pipes that can burst, solid fuel that can melt down, chemically incompatible materials in contact, and so forth. That's how we used to build nuclear power plants. We don't build them like that any more. A modern design operates at ambient pressure, no high pressure pipes to break. A modern design uses liquid fuels, the fuel cannot melt down because it's already molten.

      If a modern nuclear power plant has an explosion its because there was a massive failure in security and someone planted a bomb. Even then there is unlikely to be a release of any radioactive material of much concern. I'm sure that the radiation would be detectable since we have techniques that can detect the slightest change in radiation. With modern reactor designs the fuel is continuously being reprocessed on site to remove dangerous radioactive material, so the amount in the reactor will always be minimal.

      Past releases of radioactive material from nuclear reactors like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island cannot happen. We just don't build reactors like we used to. We've learned from our mistakes and new reactors are incredibly safe. Problem is that the federal government does not know anything about the new designs so they will only allow the continued operation of old designs. The problem with unsafe nuclear power is a government that is still living as if nothing has changed in the last 30 years. Instead of allowing new designs to get built the federal government will allow the building of new reactors of an old design. If there is a nuclear disaster then we can blame the government.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    44. Re:Nuclear dangers... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this fails to address worst-case scenarios. An explosion at a coal mining facility is tragic. An explosion at a nuclear plant is a disaster that extends far beyond the facility itself, with long-term costs and potential health problems. Also, no one gets too upset if a lump of coal goes missing.

      Even then, the evacuations and other issues with bad nuclear accidents are there to prevent deaths that we are already seeing with coal.

    45. Re:Nuclear dangers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say nuclear might require more transmission lines which equals more deaths to get the power to where you need it

      Considering that transmission lines are not unique to nuclear (how else does electricity get from coal and natural gas power plants to your house?), I would think that deaths and injuries surrounding the transmission of power should either be dropped, or shared among all methods of generation.

    46. Re:Nuclear dangers... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      The range of coal problems extend much farther too. Coal doesn't kill you right away so the don't evacuate you. Instead you die at 65 rather than 75 because of all the population in the air or water. As mentioned by another poster too: evacuations prevent the deaths. There is a cost to evacuating to be sure, even likely a non-zero death toll for the average evacuation of the scale of Fukushima but the thing is you can evacuate people vs having the air poisoned for 1000+km around the site of use but a low enough levels you can't get assistance (or permanently relocate) the people affected.

    47. Re:Nuclear dangers... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No we didn't forget - you just don't know. Look up radioactive decay and read about what neutrons do.

    48. Re:Nuclear dangers... by khallow · · Score: 1

      So it is the nuclear industries fault that they follow safety regs and your mom and pop solar installer doesn't?

      I also blame them for morning wood. Their perfidy knows no bounds.

      I think it is more helpful to consider my post an observation rather than an accusation. Solar power would have gotten a lot more expensive both for the producers and for the regulators, if governments were regulating it just as thoroughly as nuclear power is. So sure, it might be possible to get solar power safety figures down to the point where there're similar deaths per MwH as there are with nuclear, but it'd greatly increase the cost of solar in the process.

    49. Re:Nuclear dangers... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it would ever get down to nuclear levels. The energy density is just too low, you need a few guys to spend a few days on a roof to generate 10kwH of power. They can use proper rigs and suck but ultimately someone has to go up the roof the first time without a harness to mount the ropes for the harnesses, they have to do this a few hundred times to equal the capacity of 1 reactor. The density of a nuclear plant means things like skyjacks, rigging etc gets diffused over many more kwH of generation. The project is bigger so it can afford a few $100k employees doing nothing but looking after safety versus a traveling building inspector overseeing 100+ job sites across a city which means that they are at best only at the site a few minutes a day (if they even show up at all before the project is completed). But I get what you are saying there definitely is level of regulation/level of cost for bad outcomes differential between the two techs.

    50. Re:Nuclear dangers... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Instead you die at 65 rather than 75 because of all the population in the air or water.

      Or you die at 35 because you won the lung cancer lottery. But it's from inhaling soot rather than radioactivity, so it's an okay, non-scary cancer death.

      Not that it matters, since the opposition to nuclear is ideological, not rational.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Good and bad by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With computers, we have good and bad CPU designs, good and bad GPU designs, good and bad OS designs.

    Like computers, nuclear power plants come in many designs, some good and some bad. Watch this and learn a bit more, especially about the Integral fast reactor design.

    I'm all for green power, but let's not forget that right now solar panels are not terribly efficient and very resource-intensive during the manufacturing process, wind farms don't work without wind (duh) and kill birds, etc. Each choice has drawbacks and from the numbers given in this film, if they are accurate, we'd be insane not to use nuclear power plants as long as they're IFR-type.

    1. Re:Good and bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah there are "good guns" and "bad guns and there is "good poison" and "bad poison" and there are "good liars" and "bad liars" and there are "good murderers" and "bad murderers" and there is "bad cancer" and "good cancer" ...
      srsrly it's time to wake up and firmly put the word "nuclear" in the list of words that invoke a bad feeling!
      as for on-topic: i find it fantastic that the most atomic bombs have detonated on/in american soil, that the most nuclear poison (waste) is produced on american soil and now the former enemy has found a sneaky way to transport even more potential poison onto american soil : )

    2. Re:Good and bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm all for green power, but let's not forget that right now solar panels are not terribly efficient and very resource-intensive during the manufacturing process,

      Moden solar panels reach energy payback in three years and even the old PC PV panels did it in seven... In the seventies. There is no, repeat NO good reason not to increase solar generation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Good and bad by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nuclear is relatively safe but has rather extreme risks, which makes it extremely expensive. A lot of nuclear fans don't seem to appreciate why low probability but very high cost risks are a problem.

      Nuclear safety is expensive. Nuclear insurance against incredibly expensive accidents is literally priceless, in that no commercial insurance company will offer it so the government has to. The cost of centralizing so much capacity in a form that can randomly shut down at any time (and regularly does) creates a lot of cost to the grid for reserve capacity. Compared to most other forms of energy nuclear is just very, very costly and that is what is killing it off.

      The only places where new nuclear is being built is where the government is funding it. For example in the UK the government provides insurance and has guaranteed well above market rates for any electricity produced.

      IFRs are interesting but have their own problems (such as spontaneously catching fire if there is a sodium leak, as happened in Japan) and are a long way from a proven commercial scale design. With all the other costs and risks involved (and by risk I mean the risk that some design issue creates massive extra costs or cancellation) it is unlikely that any company will want to invest in developing one. Even if they did it would be a decade or more before it was even built and operating, by which time Germany will be nuclear free and the market is likely to have changed dramatically in light of that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Good and bad by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      You're wrong in many particulars but your errors are common ones commonly repeated so I won't bother knocking them down one by one. I'll just point out that IFR reactors cover a wide range of designs and technologies and several have run successfully for a few decades although not without major problems in some cases. The Soviet/Russian BN-350 is one such fast reactor which operated from the mid-70s providing electricity and desalination process heat. It was only shut down around 2000 when its rather specialised fuel was no lnoger available. The larger sodium-cooled BN-600 based on a similar design started up in 1980 and is still running today despite several accidents and fires as the core was not compromised and there were no radiation leaks when things did go wrong. It's been enough of a success that an even larger version (the BN-800) is being built in Russia (planned commercial startup is April 2014) and, if agreement is reached, more BN-800s or dervatives will be built in China.

      The physical technology of the IFR is pretty well understood, the problems arise due to the failure of materials exposed to high temperatures, very high neutron fluxes, radiochemistry and other factors that should be solvable with enough experience of operation and seeing where the bits land after the next explosion. Baby steps baby steps.

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

      Assuming 21 hours of direct noonday sun per day, no clouds, and no nesting birds.

    6. Re:Good and bad by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      I'm all for green power, but let's not forget that right now solar panels are not terribly efficient and very resource-intensive during the manufacturing process,

      Moden solar panels reach energy payback in three years and even the old PC PV panels did it in seven... In the seventies. There is no, repeat NO good reason not to increase solar generation.

      How long does a panel last? 10 years? 15? Compare that to Nuclear plants in the US, which have been coming near to their 40th birthday. Sure, some have been closed, but all of those shut downs (with one exception) have been for political reasons dressed up as "economic" reasons.

    7. Re:Good and bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No maintenance costs? No major overhauls or upgrades? No staff? They just last forever and run by themselves?

    8. Re:Good and bad by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Fast neutron reactors need highly enriched uranium, which is very politically undesirable to the powers currently possessing nuclear weapons.

    9. Re:Good and bad by Aetrigone · · Score: 1

      >How long does a panel last? 10 years? 15?

      Seriously? And no link or at least cogent argument? I mean, come on, this is pretty obviously wrong. It's no longer 1995, the tech is much better implemented & understood; does anyone really believe solar panels fail after a decade? I *like* nuclear power, and I *like* solar power; they both have their uses. I can argue for and against both, and providing supporting data for all sides.

      Short case in point...

      Panels are warrantied 30 years & last 30+ years. Panels are *supposed* to degrade by 20% over the course of that 30 year period, meaning that an array producing 20kWh/day at the beginning will produce 16kWh/day minimum 30 years after installation. My experience has been minor degradation but not as bad so far - 9 years in.

      Note that 30 years is a typical warranty, not lifespan. They won't magically stop at 30 years. In fact, if I assume regular degradation of 20% every 30 years, that means they will last 150 years and in my case (3kW panels) will produce 362 MWhours of power. Think about that one for a moment, let it sink in - and while you're at it check my math (4832460 watt hours first year, assume degradation of .667% per year).

      The DC -> AC inverter - because panels generate DC and if grid-tied you need to convert to AC - are warrantied 25 years. Again, that's just when the warranty runs out. Inverters typically run at 95%+ efficiency when in normal production capacity. Early morning & late evening when the sun is weak, it drops - but who cares? Trivial percentage of the power produced. The inverter actually can be an issue since it's a comparitively complicated piece, but as with panels it's getting cheaper and it's not *that* tough to do DC to AC inversion.

      I can point off to DOE websites that talk about energy needed to produce the component parts - that gets paid off in about 2-3 years. I can talk about money invested versus returned - comes out to about 11-13 years for me. It's going to be a lot less for someone buying now as prices have come down, just like it's less for me than folks 10 years before I did my install as prices came down. We can also talk about issues around the rare(r) earth elements and where they come from, impact of their mining etc.

      These are almost besides my real point - if you make an assertion, please back it up. If not, you might get support from those who agree with you, but you are more lilely to give support to those on the other side by appearing uninformed. I like finding arguments that supports my point; I like more arguments that run counter to what I know. I want my ideas tested and that can't happen without supporting evidence & informed debate.

      >Compare that to Nuclear plants in the US... all of those shut downs (with one exception) have been for political reasons dressed up as "economic" reasons.

      Although I believe this is not completely accurate, it's still sadly mostly true. Nuclear can be an excellent piece of the puzzle and if we can get away from the silver bullet mentality, we'll see it as quite possibly *the* major piece of high end concentrated power production.

  4. Misnomer by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The warheads were only Megatons because they were fusion weapons.

    We only used the fission trigger part to generate power'

    Still it is a good 'swords into plowshares' story.

    We need to develop controlled fusion to solve our energy problems.

    1. Re:Misnomer by stoploss · · Score: 4, Informative

      The warheads were only Megatons because they were fusion weapons.

      We only used the fission trigger part to generate power'

      Your pedantry is misplaced: your error is thinking of the warheads individually.

      Instead, there were ~20k nuclear warheads worth of HEU involved (500 metric tons). Since even the inefficient gun-type Little Boy weapon had an estimated yield of 15 kt for 64 kg of HEU, the program represents a minimum of 120 megatons worth of yield—even falsely presuming they couldn't achieve better yields with that HEU than using a gun-type weapon approach.

      The program's name is perfectly cromulent.

    2. Re:Misnomer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      The warheads were only Megatons because they were fusion weapons.

      No, this is a common misconception.

      A basic nuke compacts a lump of (e.g.) plutonium to above the critical mass using convential explosives. The momentum caused by the explosives holds it together while the chain reaction grows exponentially. Eventually it flies apart, generally before the fission fuel is used up because the explosives don't hold it together very long.

      You can introduce fusion by hollowing out the pit and filling it with tritium, giving a boosted fission bomb. That boosts the power a bunch (yay!).

      However, the thing to note is nuclear explosions are much bigger than conventional ones, and if a conventional explosion is good at holding the fissile material together, then a nuclear one ought to be much better, and it is.

      So basically, you pack lithium deuteride around another fissile pit. When the nuke goes off, it irradiates the deuterium creating tritium and compresses the second pit giving another nuclear explosion. It's a much more efficient one second time since it's held together longer and you also have much more tritium, so both the fusuion and fission but yield a lot more energy.

      At this point you have two relatively small fission explosions, one mid sized fusion one and one large fusion one. Most of the energy comes from the fusion. It's also relatively clean in that the amount of nasty byproducts to energy ratio is low.

      The logic continues. It a small fission explosion is really good at compressing, then a large fusion/fission one ought to be REALLY REALLY good. A third stage can therefore be added (allegedly this is not usually the case).

      But it still doesn't usually end there. The nuclear reactions yield what is technically known as an ass-load of neutrons. If you wrap the entire thing in natural or even depleted uranium, the neutrons cause it to undergo fission. Lots of fission. It's generally thought that this stage more than doubles the yield and comes at next to no extra cost, size or weight (the bomb has to have some sort of heavy casing anyway).

      Anyway, that's a summary of the wikipedia article and a few other bits and bobs.

      TL;DR in most cases a bit over half of the energy comes from fission.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Misnomer by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are nitpicking but also wrong.
      Even thermonuclear weapons get most of there yield from fission. The fusion reaction is mainly a neutron producing event that then goes on to fission the tamper made of natural uranium. That is how variable yield weapons work. You adjust the amount of tritium boost gas you inject in the triggers pit.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Misnomer by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that if you use that depleted uranium tamper in your last scenario, not only do you get a metric shit-tonne of fission, but you also get an incredibly dirty cloud of half-used radioisotopes and daughter products extending several kilometers into the sky for all kinds of nice fallout effects.

      These are weapons we're talking about here. Cleanliness doesn't matter as much when you're looking to vaporize a few square miles, and incinerate / lay flat a few dozen more surrounding them by way of the ensuing firestorm and overpressure wave.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Misnomer by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It's pretty incredible that first we beat the launchers into plowshares in the 60s to put man in space; then disassembled the warheads, unenriched the nuclear fuel and used it for power generation.

      Recycling at it's finest!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. In Post-Soviet Russia... by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Funny

    The enemy disposes of your nuclear waste for you!

  6. If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by wisebabo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I wish history (books? professors? courses?) would do a better job of recognizing people like this.

    Like the people (Mr. Haber?) who created the Haber process that gave the world cheap, safe (not made from human excrement!) fertilizer. Or the "father" of the Green Revolution. Or not just the creators of the life saving vaccines (Pasteur, Salk) but the ones who are getting them distributed including (Gasp!) Bill Gates.

    Of course this list could get rather long. What about the inventor of the container ships that may have reduced the costs of global trade? Or the inventor of the jet engine or radar or even asphalt pavement? Too bad there a "good" politically neutral way of rating someone's contribution to mankind. (My business friends would say "money" is the way the world rewards people but, as we all know, the market is often wrong. I'm sure Kalishnikov made a lot more money selling his rifles than Dr. Neff did from his efforts.

    (Then again there are those who may have been in positions of great power and respect but who have left legacies that are a bit more troubling. Like Mao, whose great leap forward may have caused tens of millions of deaths from starvation. Or the president of S. Africa (after Mandela) who's resistance to fighting AIDS caused the epidemic to go on. Or (gasp again!) perhaps the founders of the U.S. who didn't/couldn't stop the scourge of slavery from being a part of the new nation.)

    That's probably a big reason why people believe in God; judging a very flawed humanity would require a truly omniscient point of view. Maybe we can ask Google to do it someday :)

    Anyway, if there are any other people who have contributed so much but been recognized so little, I'd love to know about them.

    1. Re:If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      Would that be the "Father of chemical warfare" Haber by any chance ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    2. Re:If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Anyway, if there are any other people who have contributed so much but been recognized so little, I'd love to know about them.

      I reported large numbers of e-mail spammers to their ISPs over the years, and got the offending IP addresses appropriately nominated to MAPS for blacklisting.

      I also wrote a bunch of enhancements to IRC server software in the 90s made over 4000 beneficial edits on Wikipedia, and probably added about 10000 comments to Slashdot; there's gotta be something in there.......

    4. Re:If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by slew · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Kalishnikov made a lot more money selling his rifles than Dr. Neff did from his efforts.

      From the NYTimes article...

      The general often claimed that he never realized any profit from his work. But in his last years he urged interviewers not to portray him as poor, noting that he had a sizable apartment, a good car and a comfortable dacha on a lake near the factory where he had worked for decades.

      Work and loyalty to country, he often suggested, were their own rewards. “I am told sometimes, ‘If you had lived in the West you would have been a multimillionaire long ago,’ ” he said. “There are other values.”

      Anyway, if there are any other people who have contributed so much but been recognized so little, I'd love to know about them.

      FWIW, there are plenty of practically unknown contributors to the world. Here are a few...

      Frank Willis (the security guard that first called the police in some office complex called somekindofliquid-GATE)
      Thomas Midgley, Jr (first invented Tetra-Ethyl-Lead and later Freon, probably the man with the most impact on the environment)
      Vasili Arkhipov (commander of the K-19 sub AND later the officer that decided to NOT start WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis)
      And all the women who had their contributions minimized back in the day when it wasn't proper to recognize their contributions.

    5. Re:If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by Crookdotter · · Score: 1

      ... whose wife begged him to stop developing chemical weapons and when he refused, she shot herself in her broken heart with his revolver.

      The same Haber who, next day, left for the front to oversee more weapons leaving behind his dead wife to be discovered by his 13 year old son.

      What a guy.

    6. Re:If there's a heaven I hope he goes there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People that beg to be rewarded generally aren't worth rewarding.

  7. did i say 'civil'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    retraction demands fly; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ny-congressman-threatens-reporter-after-sotu/

  8. And where did US ship his warheads? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where did US ship his dismantled warheads? Oh wait...those are still pointed at the rest of the world.
    You fuck'n liars duped the bad old Russia to hand over nuclear fuel.

  9. explains why we stopped importing oranges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pretty much. if all of our 'allys' stop growing export oranges we'll only need one brand of oranges. the finest (only) oranges in the world, each one as perfect as the other. what should they be called?

  10. not straight into more weapons? by dwater · · Score: 1

    How do we know the US didn't just use it for their own weapons? I guess it says somewhere, perhaps the Russians did some 'inspection' things to make sure it was being used for power, along the lines of Iran?

    --
    Max.
    1. Re:not straight into more weapons? by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US has a large stockpile of weapons-grade material (U-235 and also Pu-239) from decommissioned nuclear weapons produced in the 1960s when it had over 30,000 weapons ready for use. It now has about 5000 warheads, most in reserve (i.e. not ready for immediate use or kept as "junk box" units that could be refurbished given the need, will and funding). The ready-for-use warhead count is about 2,200 or so.

      They don't need to divert this ex-Soviet material to make more weapons, they don't need more weapons, they don't have the launchers and platforms to carry more weapons and they don't have the facilities or funding to pay for new weapons to be built and besides the uranium arriving in America has already been downblended to fuel-level enrichment (probably 4 or 5%) from the original 90% or so of the original weapon cores.

      That's how we know the US didn't use it for their own weapons.

    2. Re:not straight into more weapons? by dwater · · Score: 1

      I don't think that qualifies as 'know', but it convinces me :)

      --
      Max.
    3. Re:not straight into more weapons? by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do we know the US didn't just use it for their own weapons? I guess it says somewhere, perhaps the Russians did some 'inspection' things to make sure it was being used for power, along the lines of Iran

      The highly enriched, weapons grade, bomb ready uranium was not shipped as is. Instead, it was diluted with natural or depleted uranium first, and that is what got shipped to the US. I suppose it is possible that it went from there to a U.S. weapons lab, re-enriched from fuel grade to weapons grade, and then made into weapons. Basic economics, however, suggests otherwise:

      1) Uranium is a commodity, like a lot of other metals, and the amount that is produced and consumed each year is known. Mismatches in supply and demand affect the price of uranium on the open market - a price that is closely watched like other commodities. If there was diversion away from fuel processors and power plants and into the U.S. arsenal, that would be a pretty obvious signal. (There was a spike in the uranium markets in 2007, but there are more prosaic explanations for that, and it came about 13 years into the Megatons To Megawatts program.) The U.S. military has no shortage of uranium available to it, particularly as it dismantles its own arsenal.

      2) Nuclear weapons production is a massive undertaking - in terms of cost and very-specialized-and-not-easily-hidden infrastructure. If the U.S. were taking the Soviet fuel and making new weapons from it, that could not be hidden, just like the original build up during the Cold War could not be hidden. Secret, yes, but not hidden.

      And, yes, inspection and verification was a part of the program. And unlike Iran, the U.S. (civilian) nuclear program makes itself available to the inspectors of the IAEA. A large diversion of incoming uranium away from fuel processors and power plants would be pretty obvious - the numbers wouldn't add up. I find it difficult to believe that hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium (and many times that of fuel-grade uranium) could have been made to disappear from the civilian fuel cycle without somebody noticing. The dismantlement of the U.S nuclear arsenal was verified by Russia, just as we verified theirs.

    4. Re:not straight into more weapons? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Because the number of weapons is going down. AKA we have more than we need as it is. The Russians also down blend it so it is no longer weapons grade when it is shipped. That is not because they worry the US will use it for weapons but to make it useless for weapons if stolen and make it safer to ship as it can not form a critical mass.

      So in other words you are a paranoid idiot that didn't bother to read the article.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:not straight into more weapons? by dwater · · Score: 1

      ah, personal insults. that's mature.

      --
      Max.
    6. Re:not straight into more weapons? by dwater · · Score: 1

      nice response...kudos.

      --
      Max.
    7. Re:not straight into more weapons? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You are right. I am sorry. I was just in a bad mood and should have kept the comment constructive.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:not straight into more weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, it was diluted with natural or depleted uranium first

      It was diluted 30 to 1, somehow managed to produce 10% of the power the USA used. Explain that!

  11. Price of Nuclear Energy by Infestedkudzu · · Score: 1

    So, does this mean nuclear reactors will be more expensive to run now that what I assume is free or subsidized fuel is gone?

    1. Re:Price of Nuclear Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, does this mean nuclear reactors will be more expensive to run now that what I assume is free or subsidized fuel is gone?

      No, we just have to start dismantling US bombs instead.

    2. Re:Price of Nuclear Energy by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Not particularly. Nuclear fuel is cheap per joule of electricity generated, about 0.6cents/kWh. It's the cost of operating the plant, paying off the loans to build it in the first place, licencing and regulation, insurance, paying for spent fuel disposal and funding the eventual decommissioning of the plant that brings the total generating cost up to par with coal or gas.

      The recycling of the ex-Soviet weapons material has depressed the world markets for mined uranium for the past few years meaning yellowcake (U3O8) is ridiculously cheap, currently $35/lb. A number of mining operations have cut back production or closed temporarily for this reason. Even if yellowcake tripled in price it would only add a cent or two to the wholesale price per kWh for generators. If the cost of gas or coal tripled that would have a much greater effect on electricity prices.

    3. Re:Price of Nuclear Energy by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Other than a price spike around 2007, the price of uranium fuel has been pretty low since the end of the Cold War. Prices are higher now than they were a decade ago, but appear to be relatively stable. Uranium can be had from lots of places - it's a worldwide commodity like any other metal. There are lots of sources for it, and the Soviet arsenal was only ever a small contribution. So, yes, prices may go up a little bit, but you aren't likely to see that in your utility bill anytime soon. The price of fuel-grade uranium isn't a major contributor to the cost of nuclear power - the cost of building and operating the plant is the big thing.

  12. Which reactors? by multi+io · · Score: 1

    Can existing commercial reactors run on weapons-grade Uranium or Plutonium?

    1. Re:Which reactors? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      No, but all you have to do is mix it with either depleted uranium or even freshly refined unenriched stuff to get it to the ranges necessary for use.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Which reactors? by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      The US paid for downblending to be done in Russia and the other ex-Soviet republics; no weapons-grade material (90% plus enriched) was actually shipped to the US.

    3. Re:Which reactors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be mistaken here, but i thought CANDU reactors can?

      "CANDU can burn a mix of uranium and plutonium oxides (MOX fuel), the plutonium either from dismantled nuclear weapons or reprocessed reactor fuel. "

    4. Re:Which reactors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, some plutonium is mixed into normal uranium fluel rods. I don't think you can put 90% plutonium alone as fuel. The rod itself would be supercritical.

    5. Re:Which reactors? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Never said it was done in the states, and on second thought it's highly unlikely you'd mix it with depleted. 1 kg mixed with 9kg of natural gives you 10kg of 'reactor grade', depending on the reactor, of course, but if you're mixing it with depleted you might only be able to mix it with 4kg for the same effect.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Which reactors? by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      I don't know which they chose for the downblending process but if they had depleted UF6 to hand they may well have used that; it's a byproduct of centrifuge enrichment lines. It's expensive to convert the depleted UF6 back into metal unless there's a good reason. The US has about 700,000 tonnes of UF6 in storage, for example.

      http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium...

    7. Re:Which reactors? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You don't need to convert it to UF6 to combine it though. That's part of the reason you might want to use freshly refined(but not enriched/depleted) uranium - You only need to kick up the proportion of 235 a bit with natural, as opposed to providing nearly all of it if you're using depleted.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Which reactors? by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      It needs to be thoroughly mixed to a statistical level to be used as fuel in a reactor as lumps of higher and lower enrichment within fuel pellets could cause some odd radiological and physical problems. Converting HEU to UF6 makes the mixing easier and more predictable. Of course we could stop guessing and look up how the downblending process was actually achieved...

      http://www.usec.com/educationa...

      Conversion to UF6 and then "mixed with other material". They're not specific about whether this "other material" was depleted UF6 or regular UF6 produced from minehead yellowcake. Either would be available to the downblenders and would work as well but I don't know the intricacies.

  13. so we get stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with the bill (and risks) for disposal of this material once it has been used for power generation. what a bargain.

    1. Re:so we get stuck by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the bill (and risks) of having assembled nuclear weapons being barely guarded and dispersed across Asia.

      I'll happily pay for the disposal.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  14. Sounds like Dr. Thomas Neff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Neff should have won a Nobel Peace Prize.

    But I guess those are about politics, so we give them US Presidents simply for being elected.

    It's very sad.

  15. Thanks by confused+one · · Score: 1

    Well, it was great while it lasted. So long and thanks for the fish.

  16. Movie Plot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The final shipment of Soviet-era uranium, now nuclear fuel, has arrived in Baltimore.

  17. Re:Nuclear is Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What stops me from giving a TAX CUT for all business who get solar on their rooftops...!

  18. Re:MicroNuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear needs to commoditized itself to be relevant and sell it to the home market or lose to Solar...!

  19. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no rare-earth metals used in any commercial solar cells.

    Do you even know what a rare-earth metal is?

  20. Re:Solar will beat Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people in the Nuclear Industry can not run a business even if their lives depended on it...!

  21. Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice time to hoard a basket of uranium miner stocks.

  22. Wouldn't the Russians also have PU-239? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the Russians also have PU-239?