ORNL Restores US Capability To Produce Plutonium-238 (ornl.gov)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ORNL Restores US Capability To Produce Plutonium-238 (ornl.gov)

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 22, 2015 @03:25PM from the back-in-business dept.

hypnosec writes: Oak Ridge National Laboratory has successfully produced 50 grams of plutonium-238, an isotope that produces heat without a lot of other, problematic radiation. This makes it suitable for use in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which can power space probes. The new sample effectively revives the U.S.'s end-to-end plutonium-238 production capabilities, which have been dormant for around 30 years since work was stopped at the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina. The ORNL is optimistic this important milestone will pave the way for regular production of the material, ensuring constant supply for NASA's future missions.

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

it's all fun and games... by Gravis+Zero · 2015-12-22 15:33 · Score: 1

... until your rover detonates. :P

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:it's all fun and games... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  KAWHUMP!
2. Re:it's all fun and games... by Tablizer · 2015-12-22 18:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Might put an ion out.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
ORNL = Orifice Rimming Nutsack Lickers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 15:34 · Score: -1
Dear perpetually terrified Republican voter who's scared shitless right now because this article has words like "plutonium" and "radioactive",
Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~~)
Unlike other geek fraternities you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:
1. 1. Ownership of a penis, an anus, and/or both
To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!
If you require a membership number for purposes such as framing, adorning your docking station, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)
[ ] I am gay [ ] I am a wigger [ ] I have used SLASHDOT VIDEO to find a sex partner

After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership number. This ID proves your fully extended member status within the GayWAD organization.
Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way!
* GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE or DHI.
** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.
1. Re: ORNL = Orifice Rimming Nutsack Lickers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  The ornl thing was fucking hilarious
2. Re: ORNL = Orifice Rimming Nutsack Lickers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  * GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE or DHI.
  So that means that GayWAD is affiliated with SlashdotMedia?
3. Re:ORNL = Orifice Rimming Nutsack Lickers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  So, where do I download these "Gay Widget Devices"? Do you make an app? Or for the desktop?
just wait until these folks hear about it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 15:38 · Score: 0

Cassini.
1. Re:just wait until these folks hear about it by ze_jua · 2015-12-23 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  OMG ATOMS !!!
2. Re:just wait until these folks hear about it by Immerman · 2015-12-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a pretty weak response from NASA "tested to withstand intense heat" and the Energy department guy "the RTG can't explode like a bomb". That's not the problem. You're strapping a bunch of highly toxic and radioactive material *onto* a huge bomb (aka rocket). So where's the response that says they've tested it to make sure it can survive having the bomb detonate, as sometimes happens?
  If they *haven't* tested the RTG to survive the detonation of the launch vehicle, then I would say the protesters have a perfectly valid concern. Withstanding intense heat is nice and all, especially if it falls from orbit. But doesn't do you any good if the shockwave from an exploding launch vehicle shatters the protective shell.
  Of course its also very possible that it's the journalist that has no idea what they're talking about, and simply failed to quote the response that's actually relevant to the quoted complaint. That would be par for the course.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
3. Re:just wait until these folks hear about it by Coren22 · 2015-12-23 03:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  RTGs have survived that and been retrieved. They also have survived reentry. Though there have been a couple that didn't survive.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  There have been several known accidents involving RTG-powered spacecraft:
  The first one was a launch failure on 21 April 1964 in which the U.S. Transit-5BN-3 navigation satellite failed to achieve orbit and burned up on re-entry north of Madagascar.[26] The 17,000 Ci (630 TBq) plutonium metal fuel in its SNAP-9a RTG was injected into the atmosphere over the Southern Hemisphere where it burned up, and traces of plutonium-238 were detected in the area a few months later.
  The second was the Nimbus B-1 weather satellite whose launch vehicle was deliberately destroyed shortly after launch on 21 May 1968 because of erratic trajectory. Launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, its SNAP-19 RTG containing relatively inert plutonium dioxide was recovered intact from the seabed in the Santa Barbara Channel five months later and no environmental contamination was detected.[27]
  In 1969 the launch of the first Lunokhod lunar rover mission failed, spreading polonium 210 over a large area of Russia [28]
  The failure of the Apollo 13 mission in April 1970 meant that the Lunar Module reentered the atmosphere carrying an RTG and burned up over Fiji. It carried a SNAP-27 RTG containing 44,500 Ci (1,650 TBq) of plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do, the trajectory being arranged so that it would plunge into 6–9 kilometers of water in the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The absence of plutonium-238 contamination in atmospheric and seawater sampling confirmed the assumption that the cask is intact on the seabed. The cask is expected to contain the fuel for at least 10 half-lives (i.e. 870 years). The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of plutonium should occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area. The Apollo 13 accident represents an extreme scenario because of the high re-entry velocities of the craft returning from cis-lunar space (the region between Earth's atmosphere and the Moon). This accident has served to validate the design of later-generation RTGs as highly safe.
  Mars 96 launched by Russia in 1996, but failed to leave Earth orbit, and re-entered the atmosphere a few hours later. The two RTGs onboard carried in total 200 g of plutonium and are assumed to have survived reentry as they were designed to do. They are thought to now lie somewhere in a northeast-southwest running oval 320 km long by 80 km wide which is centred 32 km east of Iquique, Chile.[29]
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
4. Re:just wait until these folks hear about it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Gee. Maybe you should travel back in time to 1997 and protest the launch.
5. Re:just wait until these folks hear about it by Immerman · 2015-12-23 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that Space-bound RTGs have a good track record against reentry concerns, as they are generaly specifically designed to deal with that. But only one of your accidents (possibly two) involved subjecting the RTG to an actual explosion:
  The Lunokhod-0 mission, which did *exactly* what the protestors here were afraid of
  and the Nimbus B-1 mission, which was an intentional destruction due to an erratic flightpath. and may well have been carried out in a manner designed to avoid vaporizing the RTG.
  Not a great track record in terms of the exploding launch vehicle that protesters specifically expressed concern about.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
6. Re:just wait until these folks hear about it by Immerman · 2015-12-23 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing went wrong. Yay. Usually nothing serious goes wrong, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the consequences of various common ways that they *might* go wrong. Because sooner or later something *will* go wrong - the risk of catastrophic failure is always there, and sometimes the secondary consequences can be severe.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
7. Re: just wait until these folks hear about it by cthulhu11 · 2015-12-24 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  One would think that an intensive search would be made to recover landfall units, both for safety and reprocessing. Wouldn't aerial thermal imaging find them?
Need to protect it well. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-12-22 15:41 · Score: 0, Flamebait

WE don't want some random Libyan terrorist stealing it and recruiting a local mad scientist to make nuclear bomb. But if the scientist steals the Plutonium to make a time machine...

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Need to protect it well. by WalksOnDirt · 2015-12-22 16:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Pu-238 cannot be made into a bomb. It is not fissile. You may be thinking of another isotope.
  
  --
  a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
2. Re:Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  But it CAN be used to power a time machine :)
3. Re: Need to protect it well. by boristdog · 2015-12-22 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  Or a Pu-238 space modulator.
4. Re:Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  You can use Pu-238 as long as you have enough of it, but you might as well use AA batteries, or hamsters in wheels. In each case the quantity necessary to generate 1.21 GW is impractical. Only fissile plutonium is practical.
5. Re:Need to protect it well. by plopez · 2015-12-22 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm yeah. But food for thought is that many or the materials used in the manufacture and the waste products it produces are toxic or poisonous, and ORNL is built on top of karst. If you live in the area, don't drink the water. Or eat anything that grows in it.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
6. Re:Need to protect it well. by donscarletti · 2015-12-22 19:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  According to Wikipedia, one gram of plutonium-238 generates approximately 0.5 watts of thermal power. Thus, 2420 tonnes of Pu-238 will generate 1.21 GW for decades.
  An alkaline AA battery weighs 23 g and can put out just over 1 watt of electrical power without overheating. You would need 27830 tonnes of them to output 1.21 GW for about 2 hours.
  A golden hamster weighs 125 grams and apparently generates a maximum of 0.4 watts (according to google). This means you need about 378125 tonnes of hamster to generate 1.21 GW for a few hours.
  Thus, PU-238 is clearly the most practical solution of those mentioned.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
7. Re:Need to protect it well. by Kjella · 2015-12-22 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's what the hamsters want you to think. Like their overlords the mice, they're just running wheels to fool us.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
8. Re:Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm yeah. But food for thought is that many or the materials used in the manufacture and the waste products it produces are toxic or poisonous, and ORNL is built on top of karst. If you live in the area, don't drink the water. Or eat anything that grows in it.
  The same is true for the manufacture of solar panels and many electronic items.
9. Re:Need to protect it well. by ze_jua · 2015-12-23 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot is a cool facts site..
10. Re:Need to protect it well. by DesertNomad · 2015-12-23 03:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As the previous commenter notes, Pu-238 is not fissile.
  Pu-238 is a great thermal heating material. A gram of Pu-238 generates about 500 mW of heat through radioactive decay and initial release of alpha particles (plain old helium nuclei). Helium nuclei are large and heavy, and are stopped by even a sheet of paper. The decay chain for Pu-238 is mostly a number of alpha particle releases and a slow and gradual walk toward Pb (lead).
  In metallic or solid ceramic form, Pu-238 is safe to handle. You could arguably carry around a chunk of it, but the thermal heat generated is significant and you might get burned. Machining it is straightforward, the dust needs to be controlled.
11. Re: Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator?
12. Re:Need to protect it well. by GrumpySteen · 2015-12-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  They've managed to eliminate most of the radioactive deer, which is a shame because we were hoping someone would get bitten and become a superhero with the power to ... err... destroy gardens?
13. Re:Need to protect it well. by rubycodez · 2015-12-23 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  could say the same about the monitor you're staring at. get some perspective.
14. Re:Need to protect it well. by delt0r · 2015-12-23 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  You can get a lot more out of a decent AA battery than 1 watt. NiCd can easily do more than that.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
15. Re:Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  According to the IAU, it's not even an isotope.
16. Re:Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder what it would cost for a blob of Pu238 large enough to power my house for 30+ years?
17. Re:Need to protect it well. by KGIII · 2015-12-23 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  60+ years in prison, probably.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
18. Re:Need to protect it well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  According to Wikipedia, one gram of plutonium-238 generates approximately 0.5 watts of thermal power. Thus, 2420 tonnes of Pu-238 will generate 1.21 GW for decades.
  An alkaline AA battery weighs 23 g and can put out just over 1 watt of electrical power without overheating. You would need 27830 tonnes of them to output 1.21 GW for about 2 hours.
  A golden hamster weighs 125 grams and apparently generates a maximum of 0.4 watts (according to google). This means you need about 378125 tonnes of hamster to generate 1.21 GW for a few hours.
  Who gets the job of cleaning up after the hamsters?
  
  Thus, PU-238 is clearly the most practical solution of those mentioned.
19. Re: Need to protect it well. by cthulhu11 · 2015-12-24 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's still toxic, no?
20. Re: Need to protect it well. by cthulhu11 · 2015-12-24 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously the rad deer are not a fixed population, they get continually contaminated by something that should be found and cleaned up. They shame really is that they don't let the hunters keep them, psychopaths deserve to be poisoned.
21. Re: Need to protect it well. by WalksOnDirt · 2015-12-24 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's still toxic. So are many other things we want. The trick is not to spread it around, but considering how expensive it is that seems unlikely anyhow..
  
  --
  a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
22. Re:Need to protect it well. by countach · 2015-12-25 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen Back to the Future. You an make time machines with Pepsi and aluminium cans. BEWARE!
back to The Curve of Binding Energy by turkeydance · 2015-12-22 15:44 · Score: 1

Cubs Win!
Kiss me you toad gonad! by For+a+Free+Internet · 2015-12-22 15:49 · Score: -1

Rick is out to lunch in a well of lava.

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
1. Re: Kiss me you toad gonad! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  When will he be back?
Subtle Militarism by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 15:56 · Score: 0

Look at the big stick. LOOK AT IT.
1. Re:Subtle Militarism by Immerman · 2015-12-23 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh yes. Who's a big cuddly stick? Too soft to be good for hitting things, and I can wrap it in paper and tuck it into my bed to stay safe and warm at night.
  I'm sorry, was that not the response you were looking for? Perhaps you should have considered exactly what sort of "big stick" you're talking about.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
2. Re:Subtle Militarism by KGIII · 2015-12-23 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Err... I am not a nuclear scientist and I didn't even stay in a hotel last night but I'm pretty sure Pu-238 emits alpha particles which are not harmless but just don't eat 'em. (You put that cookie in your pocket.) So, as a weapon... What, are we going to duct tape the plutonium to a stick and hit people with it so we can... What? Burn them? We can save time, effort, and money just by hitting them with a stick.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Wonder if this can be used for some more items by mlts · 2015-12-22 16:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, it is radioactive, and yes, it is a very nasty heavy metal... but there are still pacemakers ticking away with this stuff as the "battery" 25+ years later.
I wonder if Pu-238 might have some use in areas where batteries are needed and extremely hard to replace other than space projects. Definitely not for a battery for a smartphone, because we don't want Youtubers like TechRax to get radiation poisoning, but airline flight data recorders come to mind.
1. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  You can't just walk into an Apple store... and buy Plutonium.
2. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by Brett+Buck · 2015-12-22 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  It can be very useful as a heater in various applications, dead-nuts reliable and not too dangerous if you encase is properly.
3. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by evilviper · 2015-12-22 16:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  but airline flight data recorders come to mind.
  Terrible idea. First, flight data recorders have easy access to ample power (from the aircraft) for 99.9% of their life... It's only that 0.1% of the time that batteries would have to kick-in, and rechargeable NiMH work great and can last for decades in such an easy duty-cycle.
  Secondly, an RTG costs more than your HOUSE, and is huge.
  Third, PU-238 doesn't make electricity, just heat, so you need a full heat engine in there, somewhere. A simple Peltier works, but they're maybe 90% efficient, so you're talking extremely high temperatures to generate a useful amount of electricity, which need to be conducted out somewhere. That means your iPhone or flight data recorder power by PU-238 will have to run several-hundred degrees hotter than you'd find comfortable...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
4. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  but airline flight data recorders come to mind.
  Terrible idea. First, flight data recorders have easy access to ample power (from the aircraft) for 99.9% of their life... It's only that 0.1% of the time that batteries would have to kick-in, and rechargeable NiMH work great and can last for decades in such an easy duty-cycle.
  Secondly, an RTG costs more than your HOUSE, and is huge.
  Third, PU-238 doesn't make electricity, just heat, so you need a full heat engine in there, somewhere. A simple Peltier works, but they're maybe 90% efficient, so you're talking extremely high temperatures to generate a useful amount of electricity, which need to be conducted out somewhere. That means your iPhone or flight data recorder power by PU-238 will have to run several-hundred degrees hotter than you'd find comfortable...
  I suspect the poster was thinking of the ULB pinger that says "I'm down here". Even if inefficient, what we're interested in a pinger is for it to have a very long lifetime while pinging. It seems like for the recent ocean-disappeared craft the pinger was only good for 30 days or so.
5. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by plopez · 2015-12-22 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  As I pointed out else where Pu-238 is toxic and the waste products and chemicals used in its manufacture are toxic. The waste will doubtless be stored on site and ORNL is built on karst.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
6. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by hackertourist · 2015-12-22 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  The Russians used to use RTGs to power remote, badly-accessible lighthouses and navigation beacons in the Arctic region. The USAF has RTG-powered radar stations in Alaska.
  The reason RTG's aren't more common: Pu-238 is incredibly expensive. The DOE has invested $15M/year to produce (eventually) 1.5 kg of Pu-238/year, which can produce ~750 W.
7. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by TheRaven64 · 2015-12-22 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Some pacemakers use tritium (half life, around 9 years) in a betavoltaic generator, which is a lot easier to make small than a RTG. Tritium is a lot cheaper than Pu-238.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by nojayuk · 2015-12-22 21:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Most if not all of the Soviet-era lighthouse RTGs used Sr-90, an isotope of strontium rather than Pu-238 as a heat source. It required heavier shielding than a Pu-238 RTG but in land-based generators the extra mass of the case didn't affect its capabilities the way an RTG to be mounted on a spacecraft would.
  Sr-90 can be sourced from spent fuel from power plants and the Soviets had a fuel reprocessing capability to produce Sr-90 in quantity. The Russian government is looking to upgrade and expand their existing fuel reprocessing operations, in part to supply their next-generation series of fast reactors like the BN-800 with recycled spent fuel.
9. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Nice astroturf. Also, "youtuber" isn't a word.
10. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by Immerman · 2015-12-23 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. it's an arrangement of letters representing an easily pronounceable sound-pattern with an obvious conceptual meaning. In what way is it not a word?
  Oh, you probably meant it's not a formally recognized word. Gosh, it's a good thing those creators of the Oxford English Dictionary came along. Before then humans must have been limited to communicating with grunts and gestures.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
11. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by ISoldat53 · 2015-12-23 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's some kind of potato isn't it?
12. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by delt0r · 2015-12-23 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  citation required. Pu238 has never been used in a pacemaker.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
13. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by Lodlaiden · 2015-12-23 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  You can't just walk into an Apple store... and buy Plutonium.
  You will as soon as they put rounded corners on it.
  
  --
  Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
14. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by KGIII · 2015-12-23 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's what you say when you're calling someone a potato-head. You Tuber! That said, I'd lie and say I'm sorry but I'm not. If I were sorry then I'd not do what I'm about to do. In fact, I am so not sorry that I'm typing this out in advance. So, it's more a warning...
  Have some "Maine humor." (Maine grows a lot of potatoes. You've eaten some if you live in the US, probably. See McDonald's fries for one example.)
  So, Mommy, Daddy, and Baby Potato were walking downtown one day. And Baby Potato is walking along with them and saying things like, "That guy over there is a painter. I can tell, he has painter's pants and he's carrying a paint can with some brushes." He kept this up for a while. "That store is a hardware store and that's Old Mr. Henry going in there. He's probably going to get nails."
  Daddy Potato grunted angrily but Baby Potato kept on going. He said, "See that! That's a stop sign. That's got eight sides, is red, and it says STOP on it! And that's a car. That, over there, that's Mrs. Duncan. She's a teacher at my school but I don't have her yet. I won't be in her class until next year."
  Finally, Daddy Potato turns around, knocks Baby Potato to the ground, and jumps up and down on him until he's a pile of mushed, dead, potato on the sidewalk.
  Mommy Potato looks on, absolutely horrified, and she's in shock so much that she's unable to speak.
  Daddy Potato looks at her and he sees that she is in shock and is really angry with him. He says, "What! He was just a commentator."
  I, err... I'll see myself out. ;-)
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
15. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by the_other_chewey · 2015-12-23 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  citation required. Pu238 has never been used in a pacemaker.
  Citation
  
  From that page: "Common markings: Pu-238".
16. Re: Wonder if this can be used for some more items by cthulhu11 · 2015-12-24 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  They have been used in Antarctica I think, eg. by the USSR
17. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by delt0r · 2015-12-24 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected. That pretty .. well cool. Time for my humble pie.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
18. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by countach · 2015-12-25 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's that .1% of time after the plane crashes that really matters. The NiMH batteries last what.... 30 days? A lot of searches have lasted a lot longer.
19. Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more items by evilviper · 2015-12-27 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  30 days? A lot of searches have lasted a lot longer.
  Very few searches last that long, and power to the FDR pretty much only helps in large water body crashes. If it's in a field somewhere, you just go around with a metal detector until you find something. Even underwater, you're assuming only power is running out, when a high-speed crash could damage the pinger, and being buried under debris could obscure and render it ineffective.
  Doubling the capacity of the batteries would add maybe $20 to the cost of each FDR... You can't even imagine how much it would cost to include a plutonium-238 power generator in each. I'll ballpark it on the order of 1 million dollars, per.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
0oooo fifty grams 0ooooo! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:04 · Score: 0

The world is quaking in its collective b00ts! I just snorted 50g dude and look it me!
How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:07 · Score: -1

Its no big secret that the public opinion of the US has deteriorated greatly in the last 14 years so I have to wonder how this will be viewed outside the US. I would imagine it is hard enough for international nuclear regulatory agencies to keep proliferation in check without news of the US ramping up its efforts to produce potentially weapons grade fuel. I wish there was enough altruism left in the world for it to be completely accepted that that this fuel will only be used for space exploration but somehow I have my doubts. Anyway, WOOHOO! MORE SPACE PROBES! 'MURRICA,, F__K YEAH!
1. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Why would the US build a plutonium bomb when it has something like 4000 uranium bombs? That would be a step backward. For what purpose?
2. Re: How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because simply pulling out of the New START treaty and stopping the progressive dismantling of our massive nuclear arsenal would be way too easy... *rolls eyes*
3. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  Who gives a shit what foreigners think about the US. It's of no consequence. And reviving the nuclear cycle needed to produce plutonium is no big deal. The US already has a few thousand nuclear missiles positioned all around the world. Creating plutonium to use as a fuel source for space vehicles is a valid justification for producing the plutonium. However, the morons around the world, as usual, are free to make up and publish anything they want with their reality distortion field turned on.
4. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by MachineShedFred · 2015-12-22 16:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  All plutonium isotopes are not made equal.
  Pu-238 = great source of heat, not a great source of boom.
  Pu-239 = great source of boom, not a great source of heat.
  Pu-240, Pu-241 = not a great source of boom or heat.
  Pu-238 is not used in weapons specifically because it fissions too fast spontaneously. That's why it makes so much heat. And, because of this, your weapon would have a significant portion of it reduced to not-plutonum and neutron poisons by the time you want to use it.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
5. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by MachineShedFred · 2015-12-22 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that the vast majority of the US nuclear stockpile is Plutonium-based weapons, right?
  Plutonium takes far less material to create a critical mass, which makes for a lighter weapon. A lighter weapon means you don't need a big-dick huge fucking rocket to put the thing where you want it to be, and instead can use smaller rockets and missiles for deployment. And, if you aren't under the microscope, making Plutonium is easier than separating an ass ton of U235 from an even bigger shit ton of U238 through gaseous diffusion in a centrifuge cascade.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
6. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  If Iran or NK did this, the US would be threatening war.
  Hypocritical, asshole Americans. Go to hell.
7. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  You do know that the vast majority of the US nuclear stockpile is Plutonium-based weapons, right?
  Plutonium takes far less material to create a critical mass, which makes for a lighter weapon. A lighter weapon means you don't need a big-dick huge fucking rocket to put the thing where you want it to be, and instead can use smaller rockets and missiles for deployment. And, if you aren't under the microscope, making Plutonium is easier than separating an ass ton of U235 from an even bigger shit ton of U238 through gaseous diffusion in a centrifuge cascade.
  The answer is (E) all of the above.
  The modern bombs have a plutonium core that sets off a fusion component, and that sets off a uranium shell. Most of the mass and maybe half the power comes from the uranium.
  The problem with pure uranium bombs is that they use the gun type ignition which has a huge problem with possible accidental explosion in a plane crash.
8. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 18:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A not so minor point which deserves mention: the Pu-239 must be >90% pure for weapons. Reactor grade plutonium from spent fuel is absolutely useless for weapons. The only practical method of creating it is to briefly expose U-238 to a neutron flux, separate the Pu-239 out, and repeat many times, which requires a specialized reactor. Pu-239 can't just be pulled out of spent fuel; the plutonium isotopes are too close in mass to make isotopic separation viable.
9. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by fnj · 2015-12-22 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  Plutonium takes far less material to create a critical mass, which makes for a lighter weapon. A lighter weapon means you don't need a big-dick huge fucking rocket to put the thing where you want it to be, and instead can use smaller rockets and missiles for deployment,
  Let's not get carried away into orgasms of hyperbole. The critical mass of fissionable is not the governing determinant of the weight of the weapon. For U-235, the critical mass of a simplistic untamped sphere is 52 kg; for Pu-239 it is 9 kg. Yet the U-235 gun-type little boy weighed 4040 kg, while the Pu-239 implosion-type fat man weighed 4680 kg. Both were about 15 kt yield. The plutonium weapon actually weighed more, as well as being a more unwieldy shape, despite the uranium weapon having to incoporate a heavy gun inside.
  It is all the other crap that made up 98+% of the weight.
  Nowadays all the nuclear weapons that amount to anything in the major powers' inventory are fission-fusion or fission-fusion-fission, and the weight is determined by intricate, very sophisticated and clever detail design. The highest yield weapons the US ever produced, 25 Mt, retired 40 years ago, weighed about the same as the Hiroshima bomb. Most of the vastly reduced remaining US nuclear weapons inventory is no more than about 500 kt. There is nothing at all left above 1 Mt and change.
10. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by goodmanj · 2015-12-22 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder how this will be viewed outside the US
  Assuming they know more about nuclear materials than some Slashdot anonymous coward, which is likely, they won't give a shit because they'll know that this is the kind of plutonium you build space probes from, not the kind you make nuclear weapons from. 238 is not 235.
11. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by goodmanj · 2015-12-22 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  God dammit, self, if you're going to make a pedantic post, don't screw it up or the other pedants will eat you. Pu-238: good for spacecraft, bad for bombs. Pu-239: Good for bombs, bad for spacecraft.
12. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by serviscope_minor · 2015-12-23 01:05 · Score: 2
  
  Pu-238 = great source of heat, not a great source of boom.
  Pu-239 = great source of boom, not a great source of heat.
  Pu-240, Pu-241 = not a great source of boom or heat.
  It's not just that Pu-238 is hot, it's also that it has really benign decay characteristics. It's an alpha emitter (alpha particles are very easy to block and convert to head without getting X rays) and decays to U-234. That's got a much longer half-life (200,000 years) and is also an alpha emitter, and decays to Thorium 230. That's got a moderate half life (75,000 years) and is amazingly also an alpha emitter. That mostly decays (fairly quickly) to Radium 226 via yet more alpha decay. And so on.
  It eventually winds up at Polonium 210 which is the first gamma emitter in the decay chain. It's a rare gamma emitter (1 in 100,000 events), and is going to be rate limited by the half-life of U-234 most strongly, as that's the longest half life in the decay chain.
  IOW, a chunk of Pu-238 emits very very few gamma rays, and only a bit of beta particles (beta particles can cause X rays to be emitted). The vast majority of the emissions are easy to block alpha particles. That combined with the high power output makes it ideal for space faring RTG since little heavy shielding is needed.
  Also, it can be generated in a way that makes little nearby, unwanted isotopes which makes chemical extraction of the stuff reasonably efficient.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
13. Re: How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Alpha decays emit plenty of gamma rays too, as the decaying nucleus rarely drops right into the ground state of the daughter nucleus. It is why gamma rays spectroscopy is so useful for identifying isotopes, even when looking at alpha decays. It might not be the 1+ MeV gammas you get off more notable gamma decays, so the total absorbed dose it can produce is typically lower, buy if you are going to complain about x-rays from ionizing processes, it is more significant than that.
14. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Coren22 · 2015-12-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think that?
  Hint, this is the pinnacle of peaceful nuclear usage, not something that can be used for weapons.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
15. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Just to add, we actually want smaller weapons. It's a matter of efficiency. Since the blast energy dissipates volumetrically (r^3) and we are interested in inflicting damage to the surface of the Earth (r^2), smaller weapons more efficiently attack a surface. We initially had big ones because our aim was so bad that the weapons had to be big to ensure they hit anything.
16. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Immerman · 2015-12-23 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Little Boy yield - 13-18 kt TNT
  Fat Man yield = 20-22 kt TNT
  Given that they were some of the first nuclear weapons ever made, I'm guessing those are ranged estimates rather than tunable yields, meaning that Fat Man had somewhere between 11% and 70% higher yield for that 16% greater mass.
  We're also talking about early bomb designs that were very much proof-of-concept weapons. I suspect that later weapons, especially tactical nukes, are considerably more refined.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
17. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by rubycodez · 2015-12-23 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong, plutonium from spent fuel is where plutonium for nuclear weapons came. my you are confused.
18. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  no, go look it up. Neither or the US bombs were efficient at all, and one was very nearly a fizzle. The total amount of material that underwent fission (including both bombs) was on the order of 1 - 5 GRAMS if I've got it right.
19. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by delt0r · 2015-12-23 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  even numbers of neutrons and protons are also bad from very low fission cross section. They tend to absorb the neutron rather than split.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
20. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Immerman · 2015-12-23 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  Actually Pu238 doesn't fission spontaneously. Fission typically refers to the fragmentation of the nucleus into two roughly equal-sized fragments, which thanks to the lower nucleon mass (=higher binding energy) at lower nucleon counts, multiplied by the large number of nucleons involved, results in considerable mass loss and a correspondingly large energy release.
  In contrast Pu238 undergoes alpha decay, where it ejects just four nucleons as an alpha particle (helium 4 nucleus), only very slightly reducing the per-nucleon mass in the original nucleus, and actually considerably increasing the mass of the ejected nucleons. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg Binding energy peaks at Fe56 (per-nucleon mass is at a minimum), and any transmutation towards 56 nucleons results in mass loss equivalent to the change in binding energy * number of nucleons. As you can see He4 is actually an anomalous peak all by itself, if it wasn't then alpha emission would shed many times as much energy, and probably be far more uncommon.)
  I suspect it's also not used in nuclear weapons or reactors because it's not fissile (it won't fission under slow neutron bombardment). Typically fissile isotopes have an odd number of neutrons, causing them to gain considerably more excess energy (1-2MeV IIRC) when absorbing a neutron due to neutron pairing, which makes the resulting nucleus far less stable and more likely to fission. Without that, causing fission requires hitting the nucleus with a neutron going fast enough to destabilize it through kinetic energy alone.
  Finally, I suspect Pu238 is also also not used in weapons or reactors because it doesn't emit neutrons - and without neutron emission there can be no critical mass, no chain reactions, and no shortcuts to fission.
  Basically, Pu238 totally sucks as a fission fuel, but makes an awesome candidate for RTGs, as explained by serviscope_minor.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
21. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't you cite that if you are so certain? If you twist the definition of "spent fuel" or "reactor grade", it might be true in the loosest sense, but you are clearly being deceptive. Your "spent fuel" came from a reactor like an RBMK, that allowed one to process the fuel rods as described, but it is impossible in typical power reactors which are sealed. After the fuel has been in a reactor for a single fueling cycle, the isotopic mix makes weapons impossible, and all of the spent fuel sitting in cooling ponds and dry casks around the world fall into this category.
22. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by MachineShedFred · 2015-12-23 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, plutonium from spent fuel, at a very high level, is where the plutonium for weapons came from.
  What you're not saying, and the GP did, is that the 'spent' fuel wasn't actually spent, because it was only in the reactor for a very short (and uneconomical) time so that the U238 captured a neutron to become U239, then decayed to Pu239. You leave it in too long, it captures another neutron and becomes Pu240, which ruins the plutonium for weapons purposes.
  Any commercial reactor fuel rods that are being reprocesses are going to have way too much Pu240 and Pu241 to be of any use for weapons. The operator is going to keep the fuel in the reactor as long as they can, because that's the most economical way to create electricity. Creating weapons-grade Plutonium requires very short cycles in order to get the purity required to not have the weapon fizzle.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
23. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by Immerman · 2015-12-23 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  And? Sorry I don't see how that's relevant. Yes, most nuclear weapons (and reactors) have frankly *horrible* conversion rates in the single digit range. Knowing that, you can either work to increase the conversion efficiency (hence things like fission-fusion bombs where the fusion primarily provides a rich neutron source for further fissioning), or increase the fissile payload. Neither is directly relevant to the yields of plutonium versus uranium weapons, though I'll concede that the ease of enhancing conversion rates may vary between them.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
24. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by rubycodez · 2015-12-23 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  two thirds the pu in commercial "spent fuel" is pu-239 and it IS recoverable
25. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by rubycodez · 2015-12-23 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  oh, and what of reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel to make MOX in United Kingdom, France, Russia, India and Japan?
26. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by careysub · 2015-12-23 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  no, go look it up. Neither or the US bombs were efficient at all, and one was very nearly a fizzle. The total amount of material that underwent fission (including both bombs) was on the order of 1 - 5 GRAMS if I've got it right.
  You don't have it right. Each bomb fissioned about 1 kg of material, for the Fat Man this makes it about 20% efficient. That is pretty good for a first design. Fission bombs are generally no more than 50% efficient, usually less.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
27. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by careysub · 2015-12-23 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Pu-238 is not used in weapons specifically because it fissions too fast spontaneously. That's why it makes so much heat.
  No, it makes so much heat because it undergoes alpha decay with an 87.77 year half-life. Its half-life for spontaneous fission is 47.7 billion years, so for each fission it produces 500 million alpha decays. Only 0.00001% of the heat is from fission. It would be a whole lot less useful if it were producing all that heat from fission since it would be similar to a nuclear reactor and the extremely intense neutron flux would require very heavy shielding.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
28. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by KGIII · 2015-12-23 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you could probably attach it to a stick and hit people with it. I mean, if we're going to be pedantic here (and we ARE - it's what we do) then it can be used for weapons. It just probably won't be a very effective weapon. They should cover a thin layer with a chicken-wire reinforced ceramic. I can put it at the end of my bed to keep my feet warm or maybe have varied amounts so that I can use one as an "always" on teapot heater.
  This is also why they don't let me near any of the stuff. However, I'd buy those products. Sure, a stray (very rare) beta or gamma gremlin might come out and try to cause harm but they're seldom occurring, unlikely to actually cause any harm, and I probably have greater risks from things I already do such as leaving the house while the Sun is shining.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
29. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by careysub · 2015-12-23 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Pu238 doesn't fission spontaneously.
  Yes it does. The half-life for this mode of decay is 47.7 billion years, a pretty low rate but sufficient to get 2200 neutrons a second from each gram.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
30. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by MachineShedFred · 2015-12-23 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Pu240 and 241 are just fine in a reactor. They are not in a weapon. Thus "reactor grade" plutonium being less than 20% Pu-239, and "weapons grade" plutonium being greater than 93% Pu-239.
  Reprocessing commercial fuel to make MOX is just fine.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
31. Re:How will this be viewed outside the US by blincoln · 2015-12-24 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the reactors built to produce plutonium in the US did not generate electricity. Their sole purpose was to produce plutonium, and everything else (IE many gigawatts of heat that could theoretically have been used for power-generation) was a waste product. IMO it's extremely misleading to refer to such a source as "spent fuel", because it implies that a typical nuclear power station's spent fuel (IE the waste byproduct of electrical power generation) could be used as a source of weapons-grade plutonium.
  IMO it's sort of like describing orange juice as coming from "spent oranges". Yes, you have to "spend" oranges to make orange juice, but you're not going to get any substantial amount of usable orange juice from oranges that have already been "spent" in some other way.
  Apparently the Russians built a number of dual-purpose reactors, so maybe the claim makes more sense in the context of that part of the world. I don't know how efficient such a system is, but AFAIK there was only ever one reactor in the US (the N Reactor at Hanford) that could produce both weapons-grade plutonium *and* electricity, and it was a political disaster (WPPSS).
  
  --
  "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
You just know... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:30 · Score: -1

those morons in SC loved the fact they made this crap. Those Republicans hate the earth.
1. Re: You just know... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:51 · Score: -1
  
  Actually they don't believe in nuclear fission (it's just a theory, after all), so it's perfectly safe!
Should have switched to Americium-241 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 16:42 · Score: 0

I was hoping NASA would develop on Americium-241 power supply instead. Yes, it is heavier, but Americium-241 is in nuclear waste, and merely has to be separated out. America might be able to buy it from France at a low price. Is this reactor going to cost over $10 million a year to operate, and produce 1.5 kg/year?
1. Re:Should have switched to Americium-241 by Tablizer · 2015-12-22 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  My (limited) understanding is that it's about 1/3 as powerful per weight unit for the duration of typical missions because of its slower decay.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:Should have switched to Americium-241 by Immerman · 2015-12-23 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, less than that - it generates 114W/kg in decay heat, versus ~500W/kg for Pu238
  It also has a non-negligible spontaneous fission rate, and emits gamma radiation. Less of an issue in space where everything is being radiation bombarded anyway, but it makes it a generally less attractive RTG fuel.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more (typo) by evilviper · 2015-12-22 16:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Ugg... Peltiers are about 10% efficient, meaning you'll need to dump 90% of the heat coming out of the PU-238...
Stupid 4+ minute wait.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The U.S. is not alone in the Universe. by Etherwalk · 2015-12-22 16:49 · Score: 1

Who gives a shit what foreigners think about the US. It's of no consequence.
Wrong. The U.S. does more than 4 TRILLION dollars a year of business with the rest of the world. Its scientists and schools collaborate with institutions around the world to advance the sum total of human knowledge, and its schools educate and shape the views of many members of the educated and ruling classes in countries around the world. It also has foreign policy interests that range from offering humanitarian relief after natural disasters and combating human trafficking to building coalitions against terrorist regimes that target it.
Just because it's of no immediate concern to you doesn't mean it's unimportant.
1. Re:The U.S. is not alone in the Universe. by rubycodez · 2015-12-23 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  you are missing the point. the USA can do what it wants without regard to anything you just said with impunity. anyone or any nation hat doesn't like it can fuck off or maybe even get droned or regime changed.
Per battery by ChrisMaple · 2015-12-22 17:06 · Score: 4, Informative

It looks like about 4 kg of plutonium-238 is required for a Mars Rover type mission. (Inferred from wikipedia article)

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
1. Re:Per battery by DigiShaman · 2015-12-23 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  So does the Pu-238 act as a trickle charger for the battery banks on-board the rover, charging them during periods of inactivity or when needed? Or, can the Pu-238 source power the rover directly?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
2. Re:Per battery by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Well 4 kg of Pu-238 would be putting out about 2.3 kW of energy from the alpha decay.
  It uses the power directly according to wikipedia, and some of the heat purely for heating.
3. Re:Per battery by DigiShaman · 2015-12-23 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Impressive! that's just over 3 horsepower of sustained energy for 2.3 kW.
  If I understand this correctly (and discounting AC/DC conversion loss) : For an electric vehicle, Level 1 charging provides 1.8 kW - or 4.5 miles of range per hour of charging. Level 2 charging provides 3.3 kW - or 12 miles of range per hour. Level 2 charging can go to 6.6 kW - or 26 miles of range per hour.
  So depending on how often you drive, where, and length, your next EV could have anywhere from 4kg to 12kg of Pu-238 installed. ....I can dream, can't I?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-22 17:45 · Score: 5, Informative

The process described starts with a solid Neptunium-237 oxide, mixes it with Aluminum, presses it into pellets, irradiates it, chemically separates the Plutonium-238, and then processes it back into a solid oxide. They don't say where the Neptunium itself comes from, other than mentioning an existing inventory. It can be recovered from spent fuel, using another convoluted process starting with solid oxides.
Creating 237Np would be a far more direct process with a LFTR, where the 2% of the fuel which does not fission mostly finds its way to be this very isotope. (The remainder become short-lived fission products.) Naturally, processing a liquid is easier than going through multiple solid oxide steps, and lends itself to a continuous process capable of producing 238Pu in volume. It would be far more interesting if ORNL were developing the processes for this instead.
1. Re:Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by eis2718bob · 2015-12-22 20:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is the only comment (out of 49 so far) in this thread which is intelligent, useful, and constructive. There was a time (oh you youngsters!) when this was the rule, not the exception, on slashdot. The hamster comment deserves credit for humor, though.
  Is there a better site for news for nerds?
2. Re:Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Is there a better site for news for nerds?
  Facebook?
  I kid, I kid...
3. Re:Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by rubycodez · 2015-12-23 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  there is use for Np-237 in reactor core dosimetry and U.S. DOE labs supply it for that purpose. It is separated from normal spent fuel, about 1 part Np 237 per thousand parts plutonium is made
4. Re:Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by bigpat · 2015-12-23 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a better site for news for nerds?
  Just set the slider at the top of the comment section to only display 2 and above comments or even 3 and above comments.
5. Re:Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by KGIII · 2015-12-23 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  In the past week, I've gone over a few old articles and read every one of the comments. Two subjects spring to mind. The first is Mozilla with Firefox and the other is VMware. A common theme was that Firefox would never catch on with the masses and IE would remain king on the desktop. VMware was useless, a fad, vaporware that couldn't work, and virtual machines would never be of interest to anyone in the future, ever.
  I used to have a much lower UID but I got busy, stopped participating, lost the email address, and have since forgotten the name - not that it would do me any good. Then, I have this one, from something like 2007. The first UID was probably from 2000 or so.
  Point being, you view history with rose-tinted glasses. No, Slashdot was never good. At least not as a general rule it wasn't. There are some notable exceptions but, for the most part, we've never been good, knowledgeable, on topic, insightful, factually correct, remotely correct, sane, coherent, or myriad other things thought to be the past.
  Though, in fairness, I seem to recall the same thing but when I look at the old comment threads I am surprised at how stupid we were, even then.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
6. Re:Convoluted process to convert existing 237Np by careysub · 2015-12-23 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  They don't say where the Neptunium itself comes from, other than mentioning an existing inventory.
  U.S. supplies of this are a byproduct of plutonium separation for weapons. I don't have exact figures handy, but the U.S. holds some tons of separated Np-237.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more (typo) by mlts · 2015-12-22 18:12 · Score: 1

It does make sense though. I was assuming by "thermal-electric" generator that a heat engine was involved in the process with a reverse Peltier method.
In general, nuclear (be it fission, elements for radioactive decay, etc) is to be way underused, just due to the sheer and unwarranted fear of it. Yes, it has its dangers, but if used right, it can solve a lot of the world's major problems. It doesn't suffer fools gladly... but neither did steam energy, nor early internal combustion prototypes.
Hamsters make themselves by raymorris · 2015-12-22 19:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Interesting facts.
PU-238 is hard to make.
AA batteries are easy to make.
Hamsters make themselves.
PU-238 is clearly the least practical solution of those mentioned. :)
1. Re:Hamsters make themselves by DigiShaman · 2015-12-23 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  So, a Matrix of hamsters it is.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
2. Re:Hamsters make themselves by ISoldat53 · 2015-12-23 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to change aa batteries in space and hamsters don't do well there.
Just like AA batteries , household cleaners, etc by raymorris · 2015-12-22 19:34 · Score: 1

AA batteries are toxic and the chemicals used to manufacture them are toxic.
Same with solar-electric, household bleach cleaners, etc.
Phosphoric acid (coca-cola) is corrosive AND quite bad for you.
Apple store ? by DrYak · 2015-12-23 00:19 · Score: 1

You can't just walk into an Apple store... and buy Plutonium.
I appreciate the alllusion to the joke in back to the future about plutonium un drug stores....
BUT
Apple Store? Seriously? Since when are their battery replaceable?~
(The fact that you can buy plutonium 238 to replenish your RTG cell is justified the same way that you can't just buy a fresh LiPo once you current one gets too old).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Re:Wonder if this can be used for some more (typo) by Immerman · 2015-12-23 03:50 · Score: 1

The difference though, is that when steam and ICE failed to suffer a fool, it was only the fool and possibly a few bystanders that were harmed. When a nuclear power source fails to suffer a fool, you've generally got some nasty environmental contamination on your hands, and it's unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to clean it up even if they are able. Fukushima springs to mind, but even a plutonium pacemaker that doesn't get removed before cremation is going to be a nasty little local issue. Not too bad on its own, but multiply it by millions of fools and you could have a serious problem on your hands.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
NASA only enough for 3-4 missions worth by peter303 · 2015-12-23 04:52 · Score: 1

Mars-2020 and Europa-2025 have dibs on two of the missions. And you have to decide many years in advance which power source to use.

Jupiter is border line solar. Most of its probes have been nuclear. But Juno due to arrive shortly has 180 feet of solar panels. Juno is designed to last only a short time because it is flying through Jupiters highly toxic geomagnetic fields to study them.

I recall NASAs supply partly came from decommissioned Soviet warheads. But that process is now over.
Cue: Steve Martin by dasgoober · 2015-12-23 05:01 · Score: 1

"Let's splurge. Bring us some fresh Plutonium-238, the freshest you've got - this year's - no more of this old stuff"
Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 07:31 · Score: 0

Progress involves risk, and it's space or nothing.
1. Re:Fuck them by Immerman · 2015-12-23 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  > Progress involves risk
  Certainly. And rational beings weigh the risk against the potential gains, and take steps to mitigate unreasonable risks
  >and it's space or nothing
  Bullshit. I'm a huge space enthusiast, but I also recognize that it's incredibly unlikely that we're going to find anything particularly valuable to humanity on timescales less than a century, and probably closer to thousands of years. Timescales that make "I can't be bothered to avoid poisoning inhabited areas" a pretty weak argument. Colonizing the solar system is cool. New frontiers are good for morale, and the required technologies will pave the way for generation ships to other stars, but unless life is extremely common in the galaxy it's unlikely we'll ever find anything in space that's at all relevant to Earth.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So there are RTG's left on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-23 08:57 · Score: 0

Cool, ready for a movie plot :)
Re:Just like AA batteries , household cleaners, et by countach · 2015-12-25 20:50 · Score: 1

Not even on the same level as production of Pu238