Integral Fast Reactor
sms...@acad.drake.edu
able to find any information on the theory behind it or anything.
Thanks.
Scott
Jason Edward Floyd
: What does anyone know about the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR)? I haven't been
: able to find any information on the theory behind it or anything.
: Thanks.
For starters. Go to a library and get a basic text on Nuclear Engineering
and read the chapter on fast reactors. Then look for Nuclear News,
Scientific American, etc. Many techincal journals have done things on the
integral fast reactor. Look at a science index of some kind.
--
In Real Life: Jason E. Floyd jfl...@wam.umd.edu
University of Maryland at College Park
"Life is a grapefruit." - Douglas Adams
Carl Baily
Briefly, the IFR is a sodium cooled fast reactor, with an integrated fuel
reprocessing facility. There's too much information and background involved
for me to try to explain the IFR in a Usenet posting (also, there are people
that do a much better job of it than I can). If you have access to Mosaic,
look up Argonne National Laboratory - East. We run the program, and the
ANL home page will lead you to some good information on the project.
If you want to e-mail me your mailing address, I will see if I can put
together an information packet for you, with a set of the information
brochures that the Laboratory has on the IFR project. If you have any further
questions, please e-mail and I will try to get the information to you, or
locate someone who can.
Carl Baily
Paul Leventhal
are the lab receiving millions of dollars from the Federal Government to
develop it.
They are also not likely to mention that the IFR was originally
designed as a fast breeder reactor, i.e., one which produces more
plutonium than it consumes, or that it could be converted back into one.
Nor are they likely to discuss the nonproliferation safeguarding
problems posed by the IFR.
Right now Argonne is in a pitched battle to preserve IFR funding. The
House cut the funding this year, but the Senate included it.
*Both* sides of the IFR debate are laid out in great detail in the
House floor debate, which can be found in the June 30, 1994 issue of the
Congressional Record.
Carl Baily (ba...@anl.gov) wrote:
Paul Leventhal
I accidentally failed to sign my previous post on the IFR. Sorry for
any inconvenience.
Steven Dolley
Research Director
Nuclear Control Institute
Carl Baily
>From: n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal)
>Subject: Re: Integral Fast Reactor
>Date: 25 Jul 1994 16:18:55 GMT
> Bear in mind when you read Argonne's information on the IFR that they
>are the lab receiving millions of dollars from the Federal Government to
>develop it.
Bear in mind also that if we do not recieve millions of dollars to develop the
project, we will be receiving millions of dollars to shut it down and clean it
up. The present DOE budget for shutdown ends up costing about the same as
if we continued the present project, and performed shutdown
concurrently.
> They are also not likely to mention that the IFR was originally
>designed as a fast breeder reactor, i.e., one which produces more
>plutonium than it consumes, or that it could be converted back into one.
That is basically the concept, that the reactor can produce more fuel than it
consumes, and recycles that produced fuel back into the reactor. The reactor
can also be used to burn plutonium from weapons source. It all depends on
what your trying to accomplish. One overall thrust of the general debate
seems to be whether you consider plutonium to be an energy resource or a waste
to be immediately disposed of.
> Nor are they likely to discuss the nonproliferation safeguarding
>problems posed by the IFR.
Plutonium from the IFR does not leave the facility. It is mixed with other
fission products and remains highly radioactive, as well as being maintained
at a relatively low concentration. One of the problems with present
reprocessing methods used by France, Japan, etc. (ie the "Purex" process) is
that you end up with pure plutonium. The IFR fuel is too radioactive to
transport without a huge amount of shielding, and is therefore very difficult
to divert. Also, you would need a further purification process to make weapon
plutonium out of the IFR process. I would suspect that the process would be
more difficult than diverting PWR fuel and processing it to make bombs.
> Right now Argonne is in a pitched battle to preserve IFR funding. The
>House cut the funding this year, but the Senate included it.
> *Both* sides of the IFR debate are laid out in great detail in the
>House floor debate, which can be found in the June 30, 1994 issue of the
>Congressional Record.
I would also suggest that you follow the senate debate, as well as possibly
looking at the 1993 debates. I don't follow the congressional record, and I
regret I can't direct you to a specific issue.
> Carl Baily (ba...@anl.gov) wrote:
>: In article <1994Jul24...@acad.drake.edu> sms...@acad.drake.edu writes:
>: >What does anyone know about the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR)? I haven't been
>: >able to find any information on the theory behind it or anything.
>: >Thanks.
>: >Scot
>: Briefly, the IFR is a sodium cooled fast reactor, with an integrated fuel
>: reprocessing facility. There's too much information and background involved
>: for me to try to explain the IFR in a Usenet posting (also, there are people
>: that do a much better job of it than I can). If you have access to Mosaic,
>: look up Argonne National Laboratory - East. We run the program, and the
>: ANL home page will lead you to some good information on the project.
>: If you want to e-mail me your mailing address, I will see if I can put
>: together an information packet for you, with a set of the information
>: brochures that the Laboratory has on the IFR project. If you have any further
>: questions, please e-mail and I will try to get the information to you, or
>: locate someone who can.
>: Carl Baily
Scot, obviously I can't claim to be an unbiased source of information, since I
do work for the laboratory in question. I would DEFINITELY recommend that you
get all the information you can, and make up your own mind. I would also
caution you that Mr. Leventhal's group, Nuclear Control Institute, is no more
an unbiased source than I, as they are a professional Anti-nuclear
lobbying group, and have been fighting us every step of the way.
The House did recommend termination of the program, as they did last year.
The senate restored funding last year, and we hope they will do so this year
as well. Time will tell. I would recommend that you also follow the Senate
debates on the IFR.
I am not a PhD or professional lobbyist. As a lowly staff engineer, I really
don't have the entire background on the debate, nor do I follow the
congressional records that closely. If Mr. Levanthal wants to debate further,
I suspect I am out of my league and do not intend to spend the next six months
in a flame war.
In summary
1. Get all the information you can, pro and con.
2. Don't necessarily believe everything you hear.
3. Make up your own mind.
Carl Baily
Staff Engineer
IFR Operations Division, ANL-W
Standard disclaimer The opinions stated above are my own , etc.
Carl Baily
for myself, not for ANL. I do not consider myself an expert on the IFR
debate.
Carl Baily
Staff Engineer
IFR Operations Division, ANL-W
Standard disclaimer The opinions stated are purely my own, and do not reflect
the opinions or policies of ANL-W
Carl Baily
>> They are also not likely to mention that the IFR was originally
>>designed as a fast breeder reactor, i.e., one which produces more
>>plutonium than it consumes, or that it could be converted back into one.
With:
>That is basically the concept, that the reactor can produce more fuel than it
>consumes, and recycles that produced fuel back into the reactor. The reactor
>can also be used to burn plutonium from weapons source. It all depends on
>what your trying to accomplish. One overall thrust of the general debate
>seems to be whether you consider plutonium to be an energy resource or a waste
>to be immediately disposed of.
I realized, somewhat belatedly, that I had neglected to mention that all
reactors produce plutonium. As I understand, a standard water reactor
actually produces more plutonium than the IFR, in its present configuration.
The main difference is that plutonium is a fuel for us, whereas it is merely a
waste product for a water reactor. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert on
Nuclear Physics.
Carl Baily
Opinions expressed are purely my own.
Michael R James
> They are also not likely to mention that the IFR was originally
>designed as a fast breeder reactor, i.e., one which produces more
>plutonium than it consumes, or that it could be converted back into one.
Actually all conventional LWR's produce more
plutonium than they consume, because the initial fuel load
is uranium.
IFR is unique in it's design to do the opposite.
> Nor are they likely to discuss the nonproliferation safeguarding
>problems posed by the IFR.
The plutonium produced in an LWR (as well as IFR I expect)
contains a high ratio of Pu240/Pu239. Too high to
be considered "bomb-grade". To create bomb-grade
plutonium, the fuel cycle has to be changed drastically
from the typical power-generation one,
Or have on-line refueling. From that standpoint,
the Canadian CANDU reactors might be a worse proliferation
hazard.
--
Michael James mrjg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
statistical mechanics."
-David L. Goodstein "States of Matter"
Paul Leventhal
If Mr. Bailey from ANL, self-proclaimed lowly staff engineer, does not
wish to get into a flame war, he should at least take care to represent
accurately his opponents.
The Nuclear Control Institute is not a "professional anti-nuclear
group," as he puts it. We are neutral on the question of the
desirability of nuclear power. We are opposed to the IFR because of its
nuclear proliferation threat, and the fact that it can easily function as
a breeder reactor, as Mr. Bailey concedes. Nuclear power can proceed
quite nicely without IFR technology, as it has for over 40 years. IFR
proponents have been trying to blur the specific debate on the Integral
Fast Reactor and its dangers into the broader pro-anti-nuclear
controversy, because it works to their advantage. They know that it's a
lot easier to defend "nuclear power" as a concept than this specific reactor.
Ask anyone objective in the nuclear or utility industry, and they'll
tell you that if another nuclear power plant is ever built in the US, it
will probably be an advanced light-water-cooled reactor (ALWR).
Mr. Bailey's "pay me now or pay me later" argument on project
termination costs is a classic example of the mentality that perpetuates
pork barrel projects throughout the Federal Government. Perhaps he could
explain to us something that Senator Johnston couldn't in the floor
debate on the IFR: Termination and clean-up costs have to be paid,
whether you complete the R&D or not. How can it possibly be cheaper to
complete the R&D, *plus* pay for termination and clean-up?
The argument that the plutonium never leaves the IFR facility betrays a
dangerous overreliance on containment and surveillance (C/S) safeguards.
Even if it's correct, it neglects foreign environments that an IFR might
someday operate in once exported. I'm sure the Russians, for instance,
never thought their plutonium would leave the facility either. Now it's
on sale in Western Europe.
More importantly, this neglects the national (rather than
terrorist) proliferation threat.
Comparing IFR to PUREX reprocessing is a straw man. Very few nations
reprocess spent fuel now. And I haven't heard IFR advocates claim that
future access to IFR technology should be limited to nations already
using PUREX. All reprocessing should be opposed, because it separates
plutonium, putting it either into weapon-usable or near-weapon-usable form.
I've already taken up too much bandwidth. Write me with more questions
if you like. It's nice to be able to agree with Mr. Bailey on his last
three points: don't take anyone's claims at face value; get all the info
you can; decide for yourself.
Why don't you guys at Argonne concentrate on some of your excellent
anti-proliferation projects, such as RERTR fuel development?
Steven Dolley
Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
Paul Leventhal
Please, not this dangerous myth again.
The fact that some plutonium is not weapon *grade* does not mean that it
cannot be used to make an effective and highly destructive nuclear
weapon. The US exploded a nuclear bomb made from reactor-grade Pu in
1962. The International Atomic Energy Agency requires the same
safeguards on all grades of Pu, and Director-General Hans Blix has
admitted that all grades can be used to make weapons.
BTW, a breeder reactor (like the IFR) does *not* need to be "changed
drastically" to produce even weapons *grade* Pu. Unlike LWRs, breeders
produce Pu both in their fuel and in their blanket assemblies. The
original IFR design was such a breeder. And Pu produced in breeder
blankets is nearly pure Pu-239.
Steven Dolley
Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
: The plutonium produced in an
John De Armond
> The argument that the plutonium never leaves the IFR facility betrays a
>dangerous overreliance on containment and surveillance (C/S) safeguards.
>Even if it's correct, it neglects foreign environments that an IFR might
>someday operate in once exported. I'm sure the Russians, for instance,
>never thought their plutonium would leave the facility either. Now it's
>on sale in Western Europe.
You know, Peter, this kind of oral excrement makes me ashamed to also be
opposed to IFR. Anyone who would relate the nonexistant risk of
proliferation of non-weapons-suitable Pu produced in power reactors
with the actual weapons Pu now thought to be on the black market from
Russia has about the same integrity and truthfulness as Klinton.
I challenge you to cite even a single example of reactor fuel being
diverted to weapons use. You can't do it. This is a strawman and
a lie.
What is really sad is that an adequate case against IFR can be made
without lying or exaggerating. In case you haven't thought of legitimate
reasons, here are a few:
* IFR is not needed and no utility is interested enough to spend
real money on the project. I confirm this from time to time by
chats with my friends at INPO.
* Liquid alkali metal cooling is a technology whose time will never come.
It is a safety and maintenance nightmare, there is no need for it
and there is no problem that would uniquely be solved with it.
* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
are just a couple that come to mind.
> Comparing IFR to PUREX reprocessing is a straw man. Very few nations
>reprocess spent fuel now. And I haven't heard IFR advocates claim that
>future access to IFR technology should be limited to nations already
>using PUREX. All reprocessing should be opposed, because it separates
>plutonium, putting it either into weapon-usable or near-weapon-usable form.
What makes you think that whatever the US does with IFR matters at
all internationally? I imagine the world recognizes IFR for what
it is - scientific welfare. If the supply of uranium ever becomes
short enough to make integral fuel cycle breeding attractive,
it is a certainty that something other than IFR will fill the
international bill. More likely, over the next few decades,
weapons grade Pu from the soviets will be denatured and turned into
reactor fuel. The US may not do it but the rest of the world likely will.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
to kill him.
Jeremy Whitlock
[...]
>The main difference is that plutonium is a fuel for us, whereas it is
>merely a waste product for a water reactor. Again, I don't pretend to be
>an expert on Nuclear Physics.
I must quibble with that "merely a waste product" description. Although
it is true that spent fuel from water reactors contain much unused
Plutonium, these reactors do produce a significant amount of their power
from Plutonium. In CANDU fuel late in the cycle most of the fission
energy, in fact, comes from Plutonium.
(CANDU is also the only current power reactor that can burn weapons-grade
Plutonium without a system modification. The DOE is co-sponsoring a
feasibility study towards this end.)
--
Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
McMaster University, 1280 Main West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Jeremy Whitlock
[...]
>To create bomb-grade plutonium, the fuel cycle has to be changed drastically
>from the typical power-generation one, Or have on-line refueling. From
>that standpoint, the Canadian CANDU reactors might be a worse proliferation
>hazard.
For the record, it must be added that on-line refuelling, as a concept, is but
one characteristic of production reactors. CANDU's are definitely unsuitable.
Jeremy Whitlock
>The fact that some plutonium is not weapon *grade* does not mean that it
>cannot be used to make an effective and highly destructive nuclear
>weapon.
I would dispute this. A nuclear weapon can certainly be made with
commercial-grade Plutonium, but "effective and highly destructive" is
debatable. An almost non-portable device with a >50% chance of going off in
your face and a even higher chance of irradiating its users is not
"effective", and because of their much lower yield, expense, and poor
deliverability, experts have classified such devices as "militarily
insignificant".
>[...] And Pu produced in breeder blankets is nearly pure Pu-239.
Is this true? I don't see how it can be.
Paul Leventhal
this thread. Please write to me @ this E-mail address if you want more
information. The proliferation dangers in particular are much too
complex to explain in a single post.
Re: Mr. Whitlock's responses. First, on the weapons-usability of reactor
grade Pu. Note that he cites no sources for these claims. I would refer
you to the National Academy of Sciences January 1994 study, Management
and Dispositin of Excess Weapons Plutonium (p. 4).
"Plutonium of virtually any isotopic composition, however, can be used to
make nuclear weapons. Using reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade
plutonium would present some complications. But even with relatively
simple designs such as that used in the Nagasaki weapon--which are within
the capabilities of many nations and possibly some subnational
groups--nuclear explosives could be constructed that would be assured of
having yields of at least 1 or 2 kilotons. Using more sophisticated
designs, reactor-grade plutonium could be used for weapons having
considerably higher minimum yields. Thus, the difference in
proliferation risk posed by separated weapons-grade plutonium and
separated reactor-grade plutonium is small in comparison to the
difference between separated plutonium of any grade and unseparated
material in spent fuel."
As to breeder blanket material, it is weapons-grade (very high amounts of
Pu-239) because the blanket is fertile, not fissile, material. Thus, the
U-238 captures neutrons and becomes Pu-239. The blanket acts as target
material, not fuel.
I believe I accidentally deleted one post critiquing some of my previous
comments. As I said, anyone who wants more information can write me
here. Also, as Mr. Baily at ANL did, I should point out that I'm not the
resident IFR expert here. And my opinions are my own, though in many
cases the Nuclear Control Institute shares them.
One final word: Here's the NAS study's conclusion about using the IFR to
dispose of excess weapons Pu from the U.S. arsenal:
"Construction of new reactors cannot be justified for this mission unless
existing reactors are unavailable and alternative disposal options prove
unpromising; if new reactors are built for this mission, they should be
based on existing or evolutionary LWR [light water reactor] designs,
rather than advanced concepts." (p. 187)
Actually, that's their conclusion about *all* advanced reactor options,
not merely IFR.
Steven Dolley, Research Director
Nuclear Control Institute
Carl J Lydick
="Plutonium of virtually any isotopic composition, however, can be used to
=make nuclear weapons. Using reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade
=plutonium would present some complications. But even with relatively
=simple designs such as that used in the Nagasaki weapon--which are within
=the capabilities of many nations and possibly some subnational
=groups--nuclear explosives could be constructed that would be assured of
=having yields of at least 1 or 2 kilotons. Using more sophisticated
=designs, reactor-grade plutonium could be used for weapons having
=considerably higher minimum yields. Thus, the difference in
=proliferation risk posed by separated weapons-grade plutonium and
=separated reactor-grade plutonium is small in comparison to the
=difference between separated plutonium of any grade and unseparated
=material in spent fuel."
Hmmm. They seem to've overlooked the fact that one can also make low-yield
nuclear explosives using enriched uranium and a simple design. Or higher-yield
devices using a more sophisticated design. Uranium is quite common, if you're
willing to use low-grade ores, and enrichment of uranium is not at all an
impossible task. Whether IFR poses a proliferation threat depends not just on
whether one could make a bomb with material from it, but on whether that would
be the easist way to make such a bomb, something a lot of people tend to
forget.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>are the lab receiving millions of dollars from the Federal Government to
>develop it.
>
This is not the complete story as Mr. Leventhal would like you to
believe. First and foremost, the IFR was conceived as an alternative
to the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, in which President Carter killed
in the late 70's over "proliferation" concerns. The IFR is primarily
a BURNER reactor which CONSUMES plutonium as part of the ACTINIDE
RECYCLE process. Note: ALL fission reactors produce plutonium, the
most prevalent being the 110 operating LWRs which utilize 3% enriched
U-235, and 97% U238. Note Pu is made from neutron + U238 =Pu239.
The IFR is an integrated inherrent-safe reactor which employs passive
safety features as demonstrated in 1986 whennn the plant operators
deliberately put the reactor through TMI-type scenarios-which were
sucessfully handled. Second, with the Fuel Cycle Facility, the
capability to BURN plutonium is the most salient feature of the CLOSED
loop RECYCLE process. The Japanese government and many US utilities
are interested in this technology, and have given financial support
> They are also not likely to mention that the IFR was originally
>designed as a fast breeder reactor, i.e., one which produces more
>plutonium than it consumes, or that it could be converted back into one.
>
See above. Nothing Levinthal said could be farther from the truth.
In an attempt
to set the record straight, before this thread mutates into a technical
and philosophical pissing contest, let me reiterate that the detrators
of the IFR would like the layman to believe that ONLY fast reactors
produce plutonium. Let me reiterate that a fast reactor utilizes
the neutron-U238 fission more prevalently than the thermal LWR variety.
Recall, at best, one gets 3% utilization from LWR fuel. THe whole
idea of using fast reactors in this day and age IS NOT to produce
plutonium (for bomb triggers as Mr. Levinthal would like you to
believe). Rather, the primary goal of a Fast Reactor is to utilize
as much raw material, in this case, U-238/U-235, and Pu as possible.
Noting the relative utilization of fast versus thermal reactors, it
is no wonder the forces which are primarily ANTI-WEAPONS have sided
with the ANTI-POWER people to spread yet another propaganda message
that Advanced Reactors are just a prop for the next generation bomb
factory.
Firstly, inorder to understand Mr. Levinthal's argument, I would like
to solicit opinion on the following:
1) What is meant by a "proliferant" technology?
In my opinion, it is not enough to say that just because Pu is
utilized, that makes whatever a prolifereant technology. Case in
point, Heart pace-makers use Pu-240 as alpha emitters and their
isotopic power source. Does this mean that everone with a pacemaker
powered by Pu has a minature nuclear bomb implanted in their chest?
(The fission reactor which made this Pu would hardly be considered
proliferant)
What makes a technology proliferant ranges from the ridiculous to
the sublime. Case in point, many computer systems are considered
classified since they are powerful enough to do the 3-D transport
to the accuracy desired. (Its why Sadam Hussein couldnt develop the
bomb). Also, North Korea is using "Calutron" technology (50 years old)
to separate the Pu from U from an ordinary LWR research reactor.
A proliferent technology must therefore deliver in its mission,
fissile/fusion material and the necessary support structures to
assure a viable product.
2) Does the IFR qualify as such, or is it deemed "anti-proliferant"
Since the Clinch River Breeder Reactor was canceled, care was
used in defining the mission for the next generation fast reactor.
It is a given that a fast reactor CAN become a BREEDER reactor, which
as previously stated, doesn't put one in a state of sin. Rather, a
fast reactor is best utilized as a BURNER reactor. To better understand
this, recall that in conventional breeders, the core is surrounded
by a blanket of uranium, which captures leaking neutrons and produces
plutonium to a degree. This plutonium can be used as fuel since the
actinide chain is both fissile and fissionable. Moreso, the Pu chain
is fertile in that continued neutron activation will give rise to
Am-241->Cm246 which are also fissile. So it would be more prudent to
BURN Pu than leave it lying around for 10's of thousands of years.
What is different about the IFR and conventional breeder reactors,
something Mr. Levinthal conviently leaves out, is that the IFR fuel
is alot different than "breeder" technology. This fuel is a metal alloy
of Zr-Na-U-Pu, which renders itself RECYCLABLE in a process known
as "Electro-refining". This is the key step in the Pu recovery process.
Most notably, when the Pu is recovered in this step, so are minor
actinides, and UNUSED Uranium. Its all collected in a conglomeration
which is in a "non-proliferant" form.
Ask yourself this question. When LWR reactors refuel, are the
spent fuel rods in a proliferant form, or must they be reprocessed
inorder to get the form needed?
I think you get the picture. The IFR is in fact, ANTI-PROLIFERANT on
2 counts -1) It BURNS Plutonium, thus keeping it out of the waste
stream 2) Its recyled form is not suited for bomb grade material
WITHIN the walls of the facility. If you wanted to remove the material,
you would somehow have to shield 10^6 rads generating from product
from the humans transporting it. The whole process here in Idaho is
done behind 6 feet of glass and concrete, in an Argon gas environment.
3) Are there inadequate safeguards OUTSIDE our borders which are
exacerbated by IFR technology, or does this technology provide
a way to handle in a rational manner, the increased inventory of
world wide actinides
As the Japanese have found out, the IFR technology will enable
their nuclear industry to better utilize their fuel. Additionally,
since their Constitution prohibits them from engaging in proliferant
activities (i.e. really building a bomb), I see no connection
with IFR and overseas bomb making at this juncture.
Recall when Greenpeace had a caniption when France wanted to send Japan
spent fuel. Is this activity "proliferant"? Only if the activity
directly resulted in the construction of atomic weapons, which it
did not.
4) Will IFR technology reduce the volume of actinide material, and
in paralllel, produce as a by-product, actinides which are not
readily transmuted into "bomb grade material"
Much to the chagrin of Mr. Leavinthal, yes. The truth is that
the "Plutonium Paranoia" which has so enraptured the beltway
(I assume Mr. Leavinthal's group is in Washington DC), has clouded
the rational thinking of people to "avoid" the issue, rather than
deal with it head on as the IFR provides. The best solution to
plutonium is to BURN it, and not stick it in the ground, as Mr.
Leavinthal abrogates. (YES- you are either for BURNING Pu or
Burial-and burial is not an option)
I read Mr. Leavinthal's editorial in the Washington Post some time
ago. I was amused yet concerned that someone with his background
(probably physics and not engineering) would claim that a fast reactor
could somehow explode like a nuclear bomb. I have researched the
root document of this argument, and it comes from a 1960's textbook
of a scenario which would appear non-plausable. In recent years the
naysayers of fast-reactor technology have used this obscure reference
as bellweather of what could happen, when in fact, the scenario has
been debunked time and time again.
> Nor are they likely to discuss the nonproliferation safeguarding
>problems posed by the IFR.
"Non-proliferation safeguarding" is an oxy-moron. I believe I have
answered the physical and radiological barriers which keep Electro-
refined byproduct behind a shielded structure. I am also challenging
Mr. Leavinthal to come up with a concrete scenario in which safeguards
would be compromised.
Sitting about 300 feet from the building, and
having read the FSARS and plans which BTW are PUBLIC record, I offer
him the same playing field. Come to Idaho sir, and see for yourself,
rather than sit in your Ivory Tower contemplating the sky is falling.
The furthest thing is that the IFR is somehow enshrouded in some
secret Post-Cold war military mind-think. Mr. Leavinthal has tried
to play the "trust me" card. He has tried to play the "fear" card
i.e. fast reactors = plutonium factories. He has tried to play the
"money" card, saying the IFR is too costly. On the contrary, by
using EXISTING Class A reactor facilities, like EBR-II, costly
contruction of full scale reactor is precluded by a demo-scale, cost
efficient demonstration. This has actuall SAVED money and moved
us closer to fufilling nuclear energy's promise.
What Mr. Leavinthal doesn't want known, is that IF the IFR proves what
it could, then 1) The nuclear waste issue would be answered 2)
The safety issue would be answered 3) The proliferation issue would be
answered 4) The LWR industry would in-time (within 20 yrs) adopt
the methodology to reduce their own actinide inventory. THus makeing
burial obsolete.
I put it to you Mr. Leavinthal, choose one and only one...
Would you rather 1) Bury Plutonium or 2) Burn Plutonium for fuel?
There are no alternatives.
Paul Leventhal
well. However, he blurs important distinctions among uranium ore,
enriched uranium, and highly enriched (HEU). Only the latter can be used
in nuclear weapons.
Enrichment of uranium is not impossible, but it's extremely technically
complex and expensive. Saddam Hussein had 10,000 people working for 10
years, spending $10-20 billion, and Iraq *almost* had the technology in
place when the Gulf War started. So let's not oversimplify the uranium
route.
I don't agree that a technology only poses a proliferation threat if it's
the easiest route to the bomb. All proliferation risks should be
minimized to the extent possible.
By the way, Mr. Lydick trimmed off the source of the quote that any grade
of plutonium can be used in weapons: a study by the National Academy of
Sciences.
Steven Dolley
Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
: Hmmm. They seem to've overlooked the fact that one can also make low-yield
Paul Leventhal
Argonne on the IFR!
The most recent "Setting the Record Straight" posts are very long and
detailed. As I mentioned in a previous post, I will be out of town for a
week and cannot continue this thread right now. I will post answers upon
my return, and again reiterate my offer for you to write for more
information.
A few important corrections before I go, however.
1. Paul Leventhal didn't write these posts. The E-mail account is in
his name. I'm Steven Dolley (research director at NCI) and I'll take
credit/blame for them.
2. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Nuclear Control Institute isn't
anti-nuclear. We're a public interest group working on
nonproliferation. The only way IFR proponents stand a chance, as I
mentioned before, is if they can turn the IFR debate into a
pro-anti-nuclear debate. But that's not what it is. There are many
existing and advanced reactor technologies beside IFR, most of which are
actually much more realistic.
3. I need to address the pacemaker point because it's simply irrelevant.
Pu-240 is not a fissile isotope. That's why you can't make a bomb out of
a pacemaker. Actually, you can't make a bomb out of just a gram or two
of anything, which is another reason this example is irrelevant and a
smokescreen to confuse you. Don't fall for it. If Argonne can develop
an IFR that will operate on 2 grams of Pu-240, I will support it.
Check the Congressional Record, June 30, 1994 for the Senate floor debate
on IFR, which presents detailed explanations of *both* sides of the issue.
4. The appeal to provincialism (beltway bandits, ivory tower, come to
Idaho an' see) is disgusting, and has no place in a reasonable policy
argument. I'm sorry that my every opinion is geographically invalid
based upon where I live and work. Could you kindly let me know as soon
as possible which states in the union you find acceptable, so I can
consider moving to one and continuing the debate from there?
Paul Leventhal
gold, and blew up your city, how would you feel?
Just following through, if you insist on conducting the debate in
aphorisms.
Steven Dolley
(speaking for me and not NCI):
____________________________________________________________________
: Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
: email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
: If someone dumped a ton of garbage in your yard, would you
: be angry? If that same person turned the garbage into gold,
: how would you feel?
: (The Univ of Chicago and ANL/DOE are absolved of my sins)
: ____________________________________________________________________
Michael R James
>Please, not this dangerous myth again.
>The fact that some plutonium is not weapon *grade* does not mean that it
>cannot be used to make an effective and highly destructive nuclear
>weapon. The US exploded a nuclear bomb made from reactor-grade Pu in
>1962. The International Atomic Energy Agency requires the same
>safeguards on all grades of Pu, and Director-General Hans Blix has
>admitted that all grades can be used to make weapons.
I never said it was impossible, but reactor-grade plutonium is
*much* harder to make a bomb with than "bomb-grade".
That's why the distinction is made.
Jason Edward Floyd
: 3. I need to address the pacemaker point because it's simply irrelevant.
: Pu-240 is not a fissile isotope. That's why you can't make a bomb out of
: a pacemaker. Actually, you can't make a bomb out of just a gram or two
Radio-isotope power sources using Pu use 238 not 240..
John De Armond
>Mr. Lydick is quite correct. One can make a nuclear bomb from uranium as
>well. However, he blurs important distinctions among uranium ore,
>enriched uranium, and highly enriched (HEU). Only the latter can be used
>in nuclear weapons.
Nope. One can build a low yield "bomb" (if you can call it that) out
of near-natural uranium. Depending on your assumptions, the minimum
enrichment works out to in the 1 to 3% range. In other words,
good old fashioned reactor fuel. Of course most of us don't consider
a highly complex, very sophisticated (due to the precision of the
implosion and the size of the required neutron source), very large
device that maybe will yield 1 kt to be a bomb. Fizzles don't
really count, which is why devices built from Pu-239/240 generally
are not regarded as bombs except by those seeking to argue.
>Enrichment of uranium is not impossible, but it's extremely technically
>complex and expensive. Saddam Hussein had 10,000 people working for 10
>years, spending $10-20 billion, and Iraq *almost* had the technology in
>place when the Gulf War started. So let's not oversimplify the uranium
>route.
Which only goes to show that even an almost totally isolated small
country can start from ground zero and build a nuclear program for
a reasonable price. Most of the time and money spent was building
up to starting SNM production, something most programs wouldn't have
to do. BTW, according to the IAEA (and confirmed by the inspection
videos released to the public), his calutrons were working and
the German centrifuges were sitting on-site ready to be installed.
Had he kept to himself and out of Kuwait, he'd probably have a crude
device right now.
>I don't agree that a technology only poses a proliferation threat if it's
>the easiest route to the bomb. All proliferation risks should be
>minimized to the extent possible.
Why? Worrying about power reactor proliferation is kinda like worrying
about the dripping faucet when the dam is breaking. As S. Africa
demonstrated, any state which wants the bomb can get it and none of 'em
ever stole any reactor fuel.
>By the way, Mr. Lydick trimmed off the source of the quote that any grade
>of plutonium can be used in weapons: a study by the National Academy of
>Sciences.
John
Jeremy Whitlock
>Re: Mr. Whitlock's responses. First, on the weapons-usability of reactor
>grade Pu. Note that he cites no sources for these claims. I would refer
>you to the National Academy of Sciences January 1994 study, Management
>and Dispositin of Excess Weapons Plutonium (p. 4).
>
>"Plutonium of virtually any isotopic composition, however, can be used to
>make nuclear weapons. Using reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade
>plutonium would present some complications. But even with relatively
>simple designs such as that used in the Nagasaki weapon--which are within
>the capabilities of many nations and possibly some subnational
>groups--nuclear explosives could be constructed that would be assured of
>having yields of at least 1 or 2 kilotons. Using more sophisticated
>designs, reactor-grade plutonium could be used for weapons having
>considerably higher minimum yields. Thus, the difference in
>proliferation risk posed by separated weapons-grade plutonium and
>separated reactor-grade plutonium is small in comparison to the
>difference between separated plutonium of any grade and unseparated
>material in spent fuel."
None of this repudiates anything I said. My first statement was that
nuclear weapons can be made with commercial-grade Plutonium -- thank you
for the confirmation. I then went on to state how such weapons cannot be
considered "effective" because of their >50% chance of predetonation,
higher chance of user irradiation, and poor deliverability -- none of which
the above quote addresses.
A good summary can be found in Meyer et al., "The Homemade Nuclear Bomb
Syndrome," _Nuclear_Safety_, 18(4),p.427. As an example, the probability
of predetonation for a 4.5 kT device is estimated at 85%. The maximum
yield is estimated as 20 kT, with a 100% chance of predetonation. Nice weapon.
>As to breeder blanket material, it is weapons-grade (very high amounts of
>Pu-239) because the blanket is fertile, not fissile, material. Thus, the
>U-238 captures neutrons and becomes Pu-239. The blanket acts as target
>material, not fuel.
And what happens when the Pu-239 absorbs a neutron...?
B. Alan Guthrie
>="Plutonium of virtually any isotopic composition, however, can be used to
>=make nuclear weapons. Using reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade
>=plutonium would present some complications. But even with relatively
>=simple designs such as that used in the Nagasaki weapon--which are within
>=the capabilities of many nations and possibly some subnational
>=groups--nuclear explosives could be constructed that would be assured of
>=having yields of at least 1 or 2 kilotons. Using more sophisticated
>=designs, reactor-grade plutonium could be used for weapons having
>=considerably higher minimum yields. Thus, the difference in
>=proliferation risk posed by separated weapons-grade plutonium and
>=separated reactor-grade plutonium is small in comparison to the
>=difference between separated plutonium of any grade and unseparated
>=material in spent fuel."
I'm not an expert in making boombs of any sort, but I bet I could
make an explosive with a yield of 1 or 2 kilotons without using
any isotope heavier than Pb-208. Let's see now - some nitrogen,
some hydrogen.
My point is that if you're going to settle for such a low yield,
then you can come up with an explosive that is much simpler, reliable,
and cheaper than a nuclear weapon. Admittedly, there's a psychological
aspect to nuclear weapons....
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
zc...@octopus.pgh.wec.com |
Paul Leventhal
I should have picked up the 240 vs. 238 error in the original post to
which I was responding, but I didn't.
The point I was making remains the same: Pu-238 is not a fissile
isotope, either.
Thanks for the clarification.
Steven Dolley, Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
Jason Edward
Floyd (jfl...@wam.umd.edu)
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>
>
> If Mr. Bailey from ANL, self-proclaimed lowly staff engineer, does not
>wish to get into a flame war, he should at least take care to represent
>accurately his opponents.
>
acknowledges that he isn't versed in reactor physics. What is wrong
with that? Nevertheless, he knows more about the real issues of the
project than you could imagine. Come off your high-horse. I have read
alot of the "I'm an activist I don't have to be an expert" crap from
your side for too long now.
> The Nuclear Control Institute is not a "professional anti-nuclear
>group," as he puts it. We are neutral on the question of the
>desirability of nuclear power. We are opposed to the IFR because of its
I doubt that you are neutral. 1) Where do you get your funding? From
PIRGS? SIerra Club? UCS? Do our tax dollars front your activities or do
you exist as a non-profit think tank funded by the myriad of social
engineering societies and organizations?
2) If you are neutral to the desirablility of nuclear power, then why
would you be against a project that makes nuclear power more desirable?
What I am saying is that the IFR has a unique role in nuclear power
deployment, in that the concept as demonstrated answers a) reactor
safety questions b) waste disposition questions c) non-proliferation
(yes) questions and d) economic questions which have dogged the
industry.
Here on the one hand, in the early 80's Post TMI, Chernobyl era, the
"pickers of nits" said- "Nuclear Power? Not now. But if you solve the
waste, safety, proliferation, and economic issues, then, may be we can
talk". Thus a charter to do just that was created, and the finest
technical talent was assembled to prove it. In 1986, they got the first
part done. Now it seems that the lobbyists and the Kerrys, and the
Coppersmiths of the world want to make some political hay during the
Post-Cold War era, specifically at the expense of allready noteworthy
and promising research which ironically, brought an end to the Cold
War.
Completing the IFR will not bring the hands closer to midnight. In
fact, it may set them back quite a way. (I am referring to the Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists Clock in reference to midnight being atomic war)
>nuclear proliferation threat, and the fact that it can easily function as
>a breeder reactor, as Mr. Bailey concedes. Nuclear power can proceed
A Breeder Reactor does not necessarily put you in a state of sin,
Steve. Now it should be evident to you that the 110 LWRs produce much
more Pu than any in-cycle breeder. After all, the National Academy of
Sciences report on world wide plutonium puts LWRs as the major
contributor. So what? It has been studied by Albrecht et all, that
power reactor spent fuel is not the best way to generate plutonium.
Neither vertical nor horizontal diversion would be compromised with
BURNING actinides.
>quite nicely without IFR technology, as it has for over 40 years. IFR
>proponents have been trying to blur the specific debate on the Integral
>Fast Reactor and its dangers into the broader pro-anti-nuclear
>controversy, because it works to their advantage. They know that it's a
>lot easier to defend "nuclear power" as a concept than this specific reactor.
>
Its no great crime to be pro-nuclear. I have been since I walked into
the registrars office and declared my major nuclear engineering. Nine
years (off and on) of college havent swayed me in my conviction, however
I do understand why one must "defend" nuclear power, versus defending
MRI,air travel, high voltage transmission lines, automobiles, etc..
The question is who put us on the defensive? Ourselves? It could be
argued that nuclear power was attacked PRIOR to TMI. That the
anti-nuclear power movement arose out of a grass roots movement to
de-centralize our lives, and erase fears of mass-destruction prevalent
in the "duck and cover" 60's, and to continue the counter-culture
protest movement which brought an end to Vietnam. Oh sure the industry
was ripe for a fall, and it did fall. But like anything, there is a
time for learning and growth.
This is what this project is all about, taking the best ideas from what
works (inherrent reactor feedback), and fixing the problems that were
not the best ideas in hindsight (waste).
I will defend this SPECIFIC REACTOR CONCEPT with the facts, and not
some Ivory Tower whitewash, after all, I only sit about 500 yards from
it. First and formost, the IFR is ANTI-PROLIFERANT as a previous post
reveals. This is evident if you have information on the fuel type
(metal alloy) and the Electro-Refining process which dilutes the U/Pu
with minor actinides (Am-241->Cm246). Hardly a horizontal proliferation
source. Most notably, since the species stays behind 6 feet of glass
and concrete, tell me, how, radiologically, can one bring the stuff
outside the site boundary? And if you could, you still would need a way
to separate out the actinides, and fission products,and produce
product.
Recall that raw material in itself is not sufficient to make a bomb.
You still need the separation technology, and the computer science,
and ancilliary development which is hard to conceal. I doubt the PUREX
process is equipted at this time, to handling the IFR product, as it
handles the LWR spent fuel. Namely, since provisions must be made for
the impurities the product is spiked with.
The fact remains that the Nuclear Control Institute got wind of the
fact that EBR-II, the 30 year old test reactor used to burn IFR fuel,
contains that word "Breeder", ergo, it must be anathema to them. After
all, these were the same people who convinced an ex-Navy nuke named
Jimmy Carter to scrap Clinch River.
It makes no sense to on the one hand, scrap Clinch River (a given) and
say.. "Develop a BURNER reactor which will not fall prey to the same
forces which killed Clinch River". Thus a reactor concept which burns
spent fuel and was proven inherrently safe (1986 tests) appeared to be
the "better mousetrap" the nuclear industry was looking for, given the
pounding it took from various fringe groups on waste and safety issues.
> Ask anyone objective in the nuclear or utility industry, and they'll
>tell you that if another nuclear power plant is ever built in the US, it
>will probably be an advanced light-water-cooled reactor (ALWR).
You need to know why this is. Not because fast reactors or MHTGRs are
less worthy. It is because the infrastructure for LWR allready exists.
Utilities have experience with light water. They hire operators from
the Navy, which contains hundreds of LWRs (ships and subs). The NRC has
licensing experience in LWR, and of course vendors have ALWRs allready
pre-approved.
May I inquire that your semantics of "if another nuclear power plant
is ever built".. renders you biased that nuclear power should never be
built in this country. Thus making your argument non-objective.
ALWR deployment still will not be done on non-proliferation grounds as
you suggest, rather, because its the next logical step. A mix of ALWRs
such as PIUS and IFRs will be necessary to reduce the actinide
through-put in the waste stream.
>
> Mr. Bailey's "pay me now or pay me later" argument on project
>termination costs is a classic example of the mentality that perpetuates
>pork barrel projects throughout the Federal Government. Perhaps he could
>explain to us something that Senator Johnston couldn't in the floor
>debate on the IFR: Termination and clean-up costs have to be paid,
>whether you complete the R&D or not. How can it possibly be cheaper to
>complete the R&D, *plus* pay for termination and clean-up?
Let me put it to you another way. Say you are building a nice "retreat"
on the coast. You get 9/10 of the way done, and some environmental group
says you cant finish because your house is on the site of the
endangered Chesapeake dust-mite. They immediately want you to go out
and get a wrecking ball and level your hard work. You reply, "Gee I
just wasted 10 years of my life, and ironically, this structure was
state of the art in terms of energy efficience, and whatnot and would
demonstrate that we could power ourselves and grow our own vegetables
and prove energy independence from BG&E."
A scenario like this would not happen in real life because a structure
on endangered species ground would not get the same emotional response
as a "nasty plutonium producing breeder reactor".
You miss the point about completing the work *plus* clean up.
The cleanup will cost irreguardless of completion. What will be lost
will be the research, knowledge, and experience gained over the
years; human knowledge and technical expertise. This is not one of
your preverbial "Oh well, back to the drawing board scenarios". After
all, this technology answers what Clinch River could not.
>
> The argument that the plutonium never leaves the IFR facility betrays a
>dangerous overreliance on containment and surveillance (C/S) safeguards.
>Even if it's correct, it neglects foreign environments that an IFR might
>someday operate in once exported. I'm sure the Russians, for instance,
Read my last post. There is not overreliance on containment and
surveillance for proliferation sake. Mainly, its to protect human
beings from being exposed to the stuff. You wouldn't stick your head in
a vat of acid, now why would you want to put actinides+fission products
in your pocket, or what not.
You are also not up to speed on the fact that "foreign environments"
will have IFR technology irreguardless of our approval. Note the
Japanese have invested over $100 million over the life of this project.
It will be a sad day when we go to them and ask for expertise and
services when we initiated the concept.
>never thought their plutonium would leave the facility either. Now it's
>on sale in Western Europe.
When you think of plutonium for sale, is it pure Pu or spiked with
fission products? If you say the latter, I'm sure there are alot of
dead Frenchmen and Germans. But alas, I do believe you mean "post
processed plutonium"
>
> More importantly, this neglects the national (rather than
>terrorist) proliferation threat.
>
> Comparing IFR to PUREX reprocessing is a straw man. Very few nations
>reprocess spent fuel now. And I haven't heard IFR advocates claim that
>future access to IFR technology should be limited to nations already
>using PUREX. All reprocessing should be opposed, because it separates
>plutonium, putting it either into weapon-usable or near-weapon-usable form.
>
I don't understand your argument. On the one hand you say the IFR
should be rejected because it will in your opinion increase the world
wide OPEN plutonium market, and on the other hand you say that we
should be privvy to the technology, thus making a new "nuclear club"
Here is why your argument doesn't wash; 1) The IFR process which
reclaims the U/Pu also includes some fission products and actinides.
Of these actinides, many are of non-bomb grade. There is no way to
get pure Pu feedstock from this process. It will be diluted so much
that one would have to reprocess it in the conventional sense to
reclaim any pure product. This, as I have said, would be impractical
from radiologic and logistic sense. 2) Why does a nation use the PUREX
process? To re-utilize the U/Pu for BOTH weapons grade Pu and re-cast
into fuel (off-site). The IFR process is designed for ONLY re-cast on
site into fuel, and not diversionary motives. (All though you may make
the weak argument that it could be perverted into something we didn't
intend on).
Your statement "All reprocessing should be opposed" goes counter to
the notion that a responsible method of actinide disposition should be
attained. I ask you then, if you do not advocate BURNING, then you must
by de-facto argument, advocate BURIAL. This then leaves the waste in
the ground for future recovery and utilization. Is this responsible?
Procrastination is not the same as non-proliferation. You just invite
someone, or entity license to reclaim it at a future date.
Best to burn the actinides as FUEL, than worry about it as waste.
>I've already taken up too much bandwidth. Write me with more questions
>if you like. It's nice to be able to agree with Mr. Bailey on his last
>three points: don't take anyone's claims at face value; get all the info
>you can; decide for yourself.
>
>Why don't you guys at Argonne concentrate on some of your excellent
>anti-proliferation projects, such as RERTR fuel development?
It is not up to me what to concentrate on, that comes from other
sources, like the one that said, "we need to answer the waste and
safety question".
I did a MS on an RERTR project. This was 5 years ago. The world wide
community has pretty much saturated this to "Research Reactor Status"
I ask you, why would you want to put RERTR fuel in commercial reactors
when they are allready at 3% enriched? (I know the answer, do you?)
>
>Steven Dolley
>Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo,PhD,P.E.,S.R.O. EBR-II Reactor Physics
email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
If someone dumped a ton of garbage in your yard, would
you be angry? If that same person turned that garbage into
gold, sold it, and gave you the money, now how would you feel?
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
I am sorry about the attitude of the author of posting 23713. I am not sure
where this attitude emanates, except from 1960's and 70's propaganda from those
who are out to scare the public and public officials into believing that
nuclear power is directly related to nuclear bombs.
Any thinking person can easily figure out that the two are as linked physically
as telescopes and fiber optics: both use light, but they are used for entirely
different things. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons utilize energy by
splitting large atoms into smaller ones. The difference in mass between the
original and the products is convert to energy using E=mc^2. The major
differences, and I mean MAJOR, are 3 fold:
1) the rate of reaction
2) the controlability (passive or physical and engineered) of the reaction
3) the composition of the materials needed for the reaction
In a bomb, the rate of reaction is microseconds and the whole event lasts for
milliseconds. In a reactor - any reactor - the rate of reaction is controlled
through physical and engineered means so that it could NEVER reach the speed -
or anywhere near it - of a bomb. Also, a bomb by design is uncontrolled by
physical or engineered means. A reactor on the other hand is highly controlled
through various means. Physics is used in limiting the concentration of
fissionable nuclei, designing the fuel so that the fission reaction is stopped
if the fuel expands when it gets hot, etc.... This last mean of control is a
nice feature called a negative feedback effect. If the reaction gets out of
balance and starts to accelerate, the power goes up in the reactor and the fuel
gets hotter. As the fuel gets hotter, it expands - a physical trait of all
materials that cannot be changed by humans. When it expands, the reaction rate
goes down and power falls making the fuel cooler - a natural control mechanism.
This is a passive feature: no engineered or operator action is needed to
control this feature.
So just from the first 2 points here, the 23713 author's remark about an IFR
type reactor exploding is incorrect and only meant to scare various groups. I
do not say this to inflame, it is the only conclusion from the remarks made and
the facts about the IFR. I wish that everybody understood a nuclear reactor as
well as I do, then there would be very few problems. However, I understand and
am grateful that this is not true: diversity makes the world go around!
Therefore, my effort here is to educate those who have open enough minds to
listen to the facts instead of an emotional based argument.
The last point mentioned above is, I feel, the crux of the IFR matter. Now, to
explain this, I am going to get technical because the subject demands it. If
as a reader you have any questions, please feel free to email me at the address
below.
Point 3. It gets down to proliferation - the use of material to build (and
presumably detonate) nuclear bombs. Two primary materials can be used to build
a bomb. One of the materials resides in the ground - uranium of which 0.7255%
is fissionable and 99.2745% is not readily fissioned. However, with VERY
simple technology from the 1940's, this material can be enriched in the
fissionable isotope. The limit is about 97.3%. This I will call bomb grade
uranium. To make a bomb however, it DOES NOT have to be enriched to this
concentration. The bomb yield (or amount of energy given off for an initial
amount of uranium) is lower if the enrichment goes down, but if you are within
a half mile of the epicenter of the bomb, you wont care because they will never
be able to identify the little scorch mark that was you. To get and enrich
uranium, all you need is ore from a uranium mine, some centrifuges or lasers,
and a bench top. Once you have enriched the uranium, all you need is a 20 foot
tube with half of the material at both ends. Drop the material at the top of
the tube onto the material at the bottom and BOOM. Of course, if you can
mechanically accelerate the two halves together, the yield goes way up, the
boom is much bigger, and the bomb is much smaller!!!
The second material is plutonium (named after the planet or the dog?). This
material does not exist naturally (one proof of the age of the earth which must
be greater than 5700 or 11,000 years). How to create it? One neutron from a
reactor or accelerator and one uranium atom (U238). In a reactor designed and
operated to generate this isotope, Pu239, very little but complex and time
consuming processing must be done to extract this material from the fuel rods
and fashion it into the form needed to survive the environment of a nuclear
weapon. Once fashioned, very sophisticated explosive and fuse technology is
needed to implode the plutonium and make it dense enough to sustain the
reaction and explode.
Pound for Pound, plutonium makes a bigger boom, so everybody is concentrating
on this material. I have said that all reactors produce plutonium - the
material. But only certain isotopes, as in the uranium case, make a bomb. These
isotopes are the odd atomic weight isotopes, Pu239, Pu241, etc.... However, in
a reactor operated to generate power, all isotopes of plutonium are generated
along with americium and other actinides. Chemically, these isotopes are VERY
hard to separate. These even atomic weight isotopes of plutonium and other
actinides are bad for bombs. They spontaneously fission and produce neutrons
that will make the bomb start to react before it is dense enough to make its
biggest boom. These isotopes and materials must be taken out of the reactor
generated plutonium - the complex and time consuming part of plutonium
processing.
It has been studied and shown in various places that power reactor fuel is not
the best system to generate plutonium - this includes the IFR in plutonium burn
or production mode. The Reactors must be specifically designed and operated in
order to produce plutonium in the correct form needed to make bomb grade
material - the IFR is not of this configuration. IFR is also designed to make
the plutonium highly radioactive with fission products to keep it inside a cell
that has 6 foot thick, high density concrete walls. In order to take the IFR
product and process it for bombs, massive facilities would need to be built.
Our new satellites (whether the HST turned toward earth, or whatever our
scientists and engineers can come up with since we no longer have SR-71's)
would detect this and inquires would be made - ie, North Korea.
It appears that the IFR is not even close to the negative propaganda being
pushed by the author of 23713 and others. My question is what is their real
motive in pressing this issue? It can't be technical. It is either political
or alterer. The only alterer motive I can think of is the total elimination of
technology and a return to a technology of 1850's society. I don't want to go
back, do you?
For more information on this, I will post two more things to the net today or
tomorrow (7/27/94):
1) The free speech page from the Idaho Falls Post Register, and
2) A letter to Terry Lash (office of nuclear energy, DOE) in response to the
free speech page sent to Hazel O'Leary.
If you have any other questions or comments (please, make them rational and
intelligent, I don't have time or patients for "flaming" remarks), please feel
free to write me at the email address below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Singleterry Jr., Ph.D. | "I can no longer sit back and allow
Argonne National Laboratory - West | communist infiltration, communist
But speaking as a common citizen | indoctrination, communist
with a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering| subversion, and the international
Idaho Falls, ID | communist conspiracy to sap and impurify
| all of our precious bodily fluids."
email: singl...@anl.gov | Col. Jack Higgins (?)
| from Dr. Strangelove
| ---------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Michael Smith
>n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal) writes:
>
>>Mr. Lydick is quite correct. One can make a nuclear bomb from uranium as
>>well. However, he blurs important distinctions among uranium ore,
>>enriched uranium, and highly enriched (HEU). Only the latter can be used
>>in nuclear weapons.
>
>Nope. One can build a low yield "bomb" (if you can call it that) out
>of near-natural uranium. Depending on your assumptions, the minimum
>enrichment works out to in the 1 to 3% range. In other words,
>good old fashioned reactor fuel. Of course most of us don't consider
>a highly complex, very sophisticated (due to the precision of the
>implosion and the size of the required neutron source), very large
>device that maybe will yield 1 kt to be a bomb. Fizzles don't
Hmmm... Indulging in hyperbole again, eh John? A one KILOTON 'kaboom'
is not a bomb? Gee ... didn't the World Trade Center bomb weigh
less than 1000 TON (2,000,000 lbs)... I've personally been next
to a very small explosion (a 'mere' pound or so), and it was quite
an experience ... a few weeks in the hospital and several years of
repairs...
Yeah. It would be a big, ugly, hairy, hard to build, damn near
impossible to transport, tricky to make go (but arn't they all..)
device... But a kiloton IS a bomb.
>really count, which is why devices built from Pu-239/240 generally
>are not regarded as bombs except by those seeking to argue.
Those like, for instance, Taylor? You know, they guy whose job
it was to design bombs for the US Govt ... He seemed to think
that a 1 to 2 kiloton 'fizzle yield' device was a bomb. (Source:
McPhee. "The Curve of Binding Energy". A book about Taylor with
interviews.)
If you stick to the position that it is an irrelevant fact due to
the other problems (size, complexity, probable failure, almost as
easy to make a bomb from real bomb materials, handling the materials used
would likely kill the bomber especially for reactor fuel Pu, etc...)
you would have a stronger case. Hyperbole is fun, but stating that a
2,000,000 pounds of TNT KA-BANG! would not be a bomb stretches credulity...
>>Enrichment of uranium is not impossible, but it's extremely technically
>>complex and expensive.
This is something I've wondered about... It is, by definition, 1940's
technology ... Seems to me that there would be better ways by now.
But even if U is hard to enrich, can't you make Pu fairly easy?
I'd have expected that one could just make a 'research reactor' out
of U and Graphite bricks (like in the 'old days' ;-) and irradiate
some fuel rods on a short cycle for Pu production and do a simple
chemical extraction. Maybe there is something about Pu bomb material
that I'm missing, but wasn't that how it was done for 'Little Boy'?
(Or whatever it was that we dropped on Nagasaki...)
I know, the 'Devil is in the Details'... and I should leave Nuke
design to nuclear engineers ... but I just have a hard time accepting
that 1940's technology could not be mastered by most any country in
the 1990's with out much effort.
>>Saddam Hussein had 10,000 people working for 10
>>years, spending $10-20 billion, and Iraq *almost* had the technology in
>>place when the Gulf War started. So let's not oversimplify the uranium
>>route.
>
>Which only goes to show that even an almost totally isolated small
>country can start from ground zero and build a nuclear program for
>a reasonable price.
Here we agree a fair amount. $10 Billion is 'chump change' for a
rich oil state. Heck, that is less than the revenue of MANY companies
(HP and DEC come to mind...) in a single year ...
>Most of the time and money spent was building
>up to starting SNM production, something most programs wouldn't have
>to do.
It would seem to me, a layman, that making SNM would be an easier
route, expecially if you used a 'research reactor' approach to
make Pu. I'm sure I've missed something, so what is it?
>Why? Worrying about power reactor proliferation is kinda like worrying
>about the dripping faucet when the dam is breaking. As S. Africa
>demonstrated, any state which wants the bomb can get it and none of 'em
>ever stole any reactor fuel.
Good analogy. Or like an overweight smoker who worries about the
health risk from artificial sweetner in his diet cola ...
--
E. Michael Smith
Manager of Stuff
Cygnus Support
E. Michael Smith
>In article <3137v2$5...@news1.digex.net>, n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal) writes:
>>="Plutonium of virtually any isotopic composition, however, can be used to
>>=make nuclear weapons. Using reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade
>>=plutonium would present some complications.
>>=having yields of at least 1 or 2 kilotons.
>
> make an explosive with a yield of 1 or 2 kilotons without using
> any isotope heavier than Pb-208. Let's see now - some nitrogen,
> some hydrogen.
Talk about your 'deliverability' problems... Have you thought about
how large a freighter you need to deliver 2000 tons of nitrate based
explosive? Think of it as 2000 pickup loads ... or a few 18 wheelers
or train cars ... or 2,000 conventional bombs of 1000 lbs each...
Yeah, you can do it ... but you better own a train to deliver it with...
> My point is that if you're going to settle for such a low yield,
> then you can come up with an explosive that is much simpler, reliable,
> and cheaper than a nuclear weapon. Admittedly, there's a psychological
> aspect to nuclear weapons....
And a size aspect. Even a lousy un-deliverable 2kt Pu device is
far more deliverable than 2kt of conventional explosives...
And a 'fizzle yield' is going to scatter some nuclear material over
quite an area leading to some truely spectacular panic and clean-up
costs (IMHO, more expensive than the actual damage is likely to be...)
James Bell
to be, but I do have a quick common sense problem with one thing this
gentleman said.
> N...@access2.digex.net remarked the following:
Nc> Nor are they likely to discuss the nonproliferation safeguarding
Nc> problems posed by the IFR.
While the IFR can in fact assume a configuration to breed plutonium
( i.e. make it from uranium 238 that is ~80-90% of the fuel by
bombarding it with neutrons), and the IFR concept does include a
reprocessing plant in conjunction and connected to the containment
building, I have difficulty seeing what proliferation risk this might
pose. Just a quick question and one I've posed at least three times
over the last year:
Which is safer from possible proliferation: A) A large building
and/or hole in the ground with fences and soldiers surrounding it, or
B) A large building with fences and soldiers, PLUS a radiation field
that would toast anyone trying to take Pu illicitly, and of course
making the task of retrieving said Pu so difficult and time-consuming
that soldiers from Az would have time to drive to ID in order to
take them down?
Sorry for injecting a little common sense into a technical discussion,
but it can be useful at times.
Jim
---
ž Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ž
--
---------------------------------------------------------
James Lee Bell jlb...@indirect.com
Nuclear Engineer Will NUKE for Food!
---------------------------------------------------------
David Hoadley
>In article <310olf$m...@news1.digex.net> n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal) writes:
>> Bear in mind when you read Argonne's information on the IFR that they
>>are the lab receiving millions of dollars from the Federal Government to
>>develop it.
>This is not the complete story as Mr. Leventhal would like you to
>believe.
> [...long argument explaining that IFR will consume, not
> export, plutonium, omitted...]
>What Mr. Leavinthal doesn't want known, is that IF the IFR proves what
>it could, then 1) The nuclear waste issue would be answered 2)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well well well! Does this mean that the fission products from
"burning" plutonium (and presumably some U235) are completely
non-radioactive, and require no special storage? This is a
surprise! Or is this another case of nuclear apologists being
economical with the truth...
This is why the public has built up such a level of distrust.
David.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hoadley Internet: s84...@minyos.xx.rmit.edu.au
Electrical Engineering, RMIT
Melbourne, Australia Ph: +61 3 660-4847, Fax: +61 3 660-2007
jlb...@indirect.com
>Carl Baily <ba...@anl.gov> wrote:
>[...]
>>The main difference is that plutonium is a fuel for us, whereas it is
>>merely a waste product for a water reactor. Again, I don't pretend to be
>>an expert on Nuclear Physics.
>
>I must quibble with that "merely a waste product" description. Although
>it is true that spent fuel from water reactors contain much unused
>Plutonium, these reactors do produce a significant amount of their power
>from Plutonium. In CANDU fuel late in the cycle most of the fission
>energy, in fact, comes from Plutonium.
True, and actually it is true of most LWR's as well. The figure I'm
familiar with is about 70% of power at EOC=~18 months, for a Combustion
Engineering System 80+ (Palo Verde). Longer the cycle, the higher the
percentage of power from Pu.
Jim
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>
>Please, not this dangerous myth again.
Maybe if Steven Dolley knew about nuclear energy and can solve the neutron
transport equation analytically like I can, he would understand that the yield
from the reactor grade Pu bomb in 1962 was horrible (smaller than some chemical
explosive bombs on the "market" now). This is not a myth, but a fact. Of course,
how does he know this information with out breaking any codes of ethics or laws???
Last I knew, ALL nuclear experiments and especially explosions were classified??
>
>The fact that some plutonium is not weapon *grade* does not mean that it
>cannot be used to make an effective and highly destructive nuclear
>weapon. The US exploded a nuclear bomb made from reactor-grade Pu in
>1962. The International Atomic Energy Agency requires the same
>safeguards on all grades of Pu, and Director-General Hans Blix has
>admitted that all grades can be used to make weapons.
In this case, why isnt uranium, thorium, etc... not high on the list of
proliferant materials with the IAEA???? I can make a reactor grade U bomb
with a much larger yield than a reactor grade Pu bomb. I can make a
Th bomb, etc.... Why pick on Pu versus U and Th, etc.... I dont
understand your reasoning Mr. Dolley, please explain!!!!!
>
>BTW, a breeder reactor (like the IFR) does *not* need to be "changed
>drastically" to produce even weapons *grade* Pu. Unlike LWRs, breeders
>produce Pu both in their fuel and in their blanket assemblies. The
>original IFR design was such a breeder. And Pu produced in breeder
>blankets is nearly pure Pu-239.
Get a degree or find out about the machine that sits less than 100 yards
from my desk. The blanket only "produces pure" Pu-239 if it is changed every
ten days or so. If the Pu-239 is left in longer than this, some gets either
used as fuel or converted to other actinides like Pu-240 and Am-241 which
act as premature triggers in Pu based bombs. This is a basic fact of nuclear
engineering Mr. Dolley!! It takes a very special design and operating
procedures to get a reactor - ANY REACTOR INCLUDING THE IFR - to produce
plutonium in quanities and qualities enough to make bombs. If any reactor
could produce plutonium for bombs, why was DOE so eager to get the N-reactor
funded and built - a reactor designed to produce Pu and H3??? Why not just
use EBR-II, ATR, any commercial reactor, or any TRIGA reactor with Li
targets??? This is a very important question, please answer it!!
Now specific to the IFR. A particular IFR reactor must be designed to include
the blanket for breeding when built. An IFR reactor NOT designed with the
blanket in mind cannot be redesigned easily to include a blanket. If you
knew about the machine here, you would also know that EBR-II is NOT an IFR,
but and IFR prototype. Its original purpose was to perform experiments
for the next generation of breeder reactors. When Clinch River went down
in flames (with your help??), a new direction was found that answered 99%
of the questions experts had with Clinch River. Many things were changed to
accomplish this new task of being the IFR testbed, however, the basic design
was NOT changable!!! The blanket stayed. This will soon be removed and
replaced with stainless steel reflectors; however, it will still be an IFR
prototype - with out a blanket. How can this be?? Mr. Dolley, please
explain this!!
>
>Steven Dolley
>Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
What research are you director of?? What aspect of nuclear are
trying to control??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Singleterry Jr., Ph.D. | "I can no longer sit back and allow
Argonne National Laboratory - West | communist infiltration, communist
A private citizen with a Ph.D. in | indoctrination, communist
Nuclear Engineering | subversion, and the international
(transport cowboy) | communist conspiracy to sap and impurify
| all of our precious bodily fluids."
email: singl...@anl.gov | Col. Jack Higgins (?)
voice: MYOB | from Dr. Strangelove
fax: MYOB | ---------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael, nice try, but it appears you must be very specific with Mr. Dolley.
However, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!! Mail that FREE SPEECH page in the newgroup
to your rep in ILL and to Senators Simon and Mosley-Braun (spell)!!!
>
> : The plutonium produced in an
>LWR (as well as
>IFR I expect) : contains a high ratio of Pu240/Pu239. Too high to
>: be considered "bomb-grade". To create bomb-grade
>: plutonium, the fuel cycle has to be changed drastically
>: from the typical power-generation one,
>: Or have on-line refueling. From that standpoint,
>: the Canadian CANDU reactors might be a worse proliferation
>: hazard.
>: --
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
I am including a page from my local paper written by various people. Read it
and if you agree, then send it to your senators and representatives -
especially the house!!!!. If you need their address, send me a mail message
and I'll get back to you. The conference committee will meet soon, so do it
now!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Singleterry Jr., Ph.D. | "I can no longer sit back and allow
Argonne National Laboratory - West | communist infiltration, communist
A private citizen with a Ph.D. in | indoctrination, communist
Nuclear Engineering | subversion, and the international
(transport cowboy) | communist conspiracy to sap and impurify
| all of our precious bodily fluids."
email: singl...@anl.gov | Col. Jack Higgins (?)
voice: MYOB | from Dr. Strangelove
fax: MYOB | ---------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE SPEECH PAGE
Published in the Idaho Falls Post-Register on June 10th, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case in favor of the IFR
by Robert Singleterry, PhD; Bob Ritzman; Alenka Brown-Van Hoozer, PhD candidate
The focus of this page is the Integral Fast Reactor, now being developed
and demonstrated at Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago and at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory.
Throughout its development to date, funding and oversight for the IFR have
been provided by the US Department of Energy. Now, the IFR and the closely
associated Actinide Recycle Project are scheduled to be terminated Oct. 1,
1994, by the DOE acting on President Clinton's proposal to terminate all
nuclear research.
At first glance, this may appear to be a good thing: make government
smaller and cheaper and eliminate what some perceive as a danger. However, the
rest of the story is that this attitude toward all things nuclear will cost
taxpayers more money than continuing the project to completion and transferring
the technology to industry and society.
Why would it cost more? One reason is that the current nuclear industry
(hospitals, food processing companies, industrial testing companies) along with
electric utility nuclear power plants have a problem with disposal of nuclear
waste.
Low Level Waste Compacts, created to bury the low level radioactive waste,
are being opposed by well intentioned, but often misinformed, citizens.
Disposal sites for high-level waste from the nuclear power industry and the DOE
complex are being opposed by the states of Nevada and New Mexico (which have
been targeted to receive the waste) and numerous citizen groups. The main
concern is that the waste contains long-lived radioactive chemical elements or
radioisotopes. This makes the waste measurably radioactive and possibly
dangerous for up to a quarter of a million years.
While suits and counter-suits are filed, taxpayers continue to pay for the
waste storage and upkeep in the DOE complex and studies to characterize a
commercial burial site. Those who use electricity generated by nuclear power
plants are paying a fee of 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour for the eventual shipment
of the waste to DOE and storage at a DOE-operated burial site. This fee
amounts to approximately $720,000 per ton of spent reactor fuel. However the
fuel continues to stack up at nuclear power plants all around the country.
DOE is already years late in complying with a federal law requiring it to
take possession of commercial spent fuel. If we assume that the burial sites
will open and the waste will be buried, the cost does not go away. Buried
high-level waste must be maintained (guarded) for centuries after the site
closes.
A greater loss than the cost of burying and monitoring the waste is
throwing away the value of the waste itself. Just as we recycle aluminum,
plastic, and paper in our own household waste, valuable materials and energy
supplies can be recovered from spent fuel and reused for our benefit.
When we use today's technology for extracting gold, the tailings from 19th
century mining operations become some of our richest sources of ore. Using
technology available today, the spent fuel from nuclear power plants represents
one of our most valuable energy and exotic material resources.
In preparation for this page, we submitted specific questions concerning
IFR technology and its future to Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary. We
received many promises that information would be forthcoming; however, none
has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invisible solution
Clinton policy ignores the promise of IFR
by Bob Ritzman; Robert Singleterry, PhD; Alenka Brown-Van Hoozer, PhD candidate
Lets imagine that you have just bought one of the new small cars, but it
gets only one mile per gallon of gasoline. Lets further imagine that the fuel
this car wastes is collected - somewhat dirtied by the combustion process -
from the car's tail pipe. And finally, lets imagine that government
regulations require you to store this unburned gasoline in your back yard or
garage, and make it illegal for you to process it for use or disposal.
Far-fetched? A nearly identical situation exists all over the United
States. Out of every 20 pounds of uranium fuel loaded into a commercial power
plant reactor, only one pound is used to produce power. The remainder becomes
contaminated with byproducts of nuclear fission. It becomes high-level nuclear
waste. Federal regulations require this "spent" fuel to be stored indefinitely
at each of the 100, plus or minus, nuclear power plants in the United States.
High-level nuclear waste has been recognized as a problem since the
earliest days of nuclear research. It has long been regarded as the single
greatest problem facing commercial nuclear power production.
What can you do with the waste? Reprocessing nuclear fuel using
conventional methods (i.e., those used by the DOE to date in defense programs)
is not an adequate solution; it creates additional large quantities chemically
hazardous, intensely radioactive waste. It also separates and purifies
plutonium, one of the byproducts of the fuel cycle. The plutonium can be used
in the manufacture of new fuel and can be "burned" in the reactor, but it can
also be used in nuclear weapons production. Even so, every nation having a
large-scale investment in nuclear power, outside the United States, has
committed to fuel reprocessing, either individually or in groups, as a means of
reducing their spent fuel inventory, making efficient use of the energy it
still represents, and eliminating the plutonium it contains.
In 1984, a project began at Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago and
Idaho Falls with the goals of improving nuclear reactor design to produce an
inherently safe system and making the fuel cycle more efficient. The research
has proceeded in accordance with that plan. The Integral Fast Reactor, as it
now exists, has the following characteristics:
* Safety tests, unprecedented in any other type of reactor, have proven
that the types of nuclear accidents that occurred at Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl are not possible with an IFR because nature is used as a safety
system rather than the human engineered safety systems used in the current
generation of commercial nuclear power plants.
* As shown in the accompanying diagram, fuel reprocessing permits the
total elimination of plutonium and other long-lived transuranic elements by
"burning" them in the reactor as fuel. It does not matter where these
transuranics come from, so the process can burn plutonium removed from nuclear
weapons.
* Fuel fabrication is simple and inexpensive when compared to commercial
nuclear fuel production. The methods used to reprocess the fuel cannot be used
to directly produce material for weapons.
* Hazardous waste generation in the fuel cycle has been virtually
eliminated through recycling of chemicals. None of the waste produced will be
harmfully radioactive beyond a few generations, and all can be safely stored
without fear of contaminating ground water during that time.
The IFR represents the best available solution in the world today for
eliminating high-level nuclear waste from all sources including weapons
stockpiles. Continued development of the IFR is important to our national
interests and to the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unwanted bombs
Consume and sell bomb-grade material for power; don't bury it
by Robert Singleterry, PhD; Bob Ritzman; Alenka Brown-Van Hoozer, PhD candidate
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the world is virtually littered with
tons of bomb-grade material. In its present form, this material potentially
could be stolen by or sold to terrorist groups and detonated immediately.
Simple and proven security measures can be employed to stop terrorists
from stealing the materials, but we have no way of knowing how lax security
measures might become over hundreds of years. Various countries in the nuclear
community are strapped for hard currency, so the new threat of selling the
material for cash must also be guarded against.
As viewed by the current administration, there are only two solutions to
this problem. The first is to supply these countries with currency so that
there is no need to sell the bomb-grade material. One would hope the cash
might also be used to bolster their security measures. The second solution is
to collect all the material, mix it with highly radioactive fission products to
make it dangerous to handle and impossible to immediately detonate, and bury
the mixture in a qualified repository. The first solution would be a burden on
the world community, so the administration has chosen the second.
In reality, future use of this bomb-grade material can be prevented by
using one of three methods:
The first is to detonate the material as originally intended. This is not
a viable solution, even though it would technically solve the problem of
accumulating material.
The second is to bury the material and guard it until it is no longer
dangerous or able to be detonated. This is the method being advocated by the
administration through the Department of Energy. This a solution one would
expect in a throw-away society. However, our society is beginning to realize
that there usually is value in what initially looks like garbage. This is true
of nuclear waste as explored elsewhere on this page.
Taking a closer look at the burial option, we find that it does not
produce results comparable to its cost. Mere burial is NOT a permanent
solution. While the material is out-of-sight, it is not necessarily
out-of-mind. Guards and administrative controls must be placed on-site to
prevent the material from recovery by anyone having enough money to pay for its
chemical reprocessing. Most human structures cannot be maintained longer than a
few hundred years after they are built, so we must plan for periodic
restoration or rebuilding of the protective structures.
The protective structures will be needed indefinitely because the fission
products used to prevent handling or detonation of the bomb-grade materials
have a lifetime on the order of a few hundred to 2,000 years. However, the
lifetime of plutonium is such that in 24,000 years half of it will still exist.
For uranium, the time period is much longer -- billions of years. This means
that in a few hundred years it could be possible to safely handle the
bomb-grade materials. And using the technology of the 1940s, anyone gaining
access to the materials could build and detonate a bomb.
The bury-and-forget method is therefore not a permanent solution, only a
postponement of use. The deterrent (the fission products, protective
structures, and guards) will not last more than a thousand years, yet the
material we want to isolate lasts many thousands of years. Therefore, this
method will become a continuous and unnecessary drain on taxpayers.
The third method of removal is permanent and contains within it the values
of the American way of life. The solution is to consume the bomb-grade
material in a reactor designed for that purpose and allow the operator,
commercial or government, to make a profit from this endeavor by selling the
power generated.
Consuming bomb-grade material is a purpose envisioned by the designers of
the Integral Fast Reactor concept. Plutonium and uranium (plus other
actinides) are all fuel for the reactor. From this fuel, the reactor generates
power that can be sold. Neither existing nuclear reactors nor the proposed
next generation of reactors can consume this material readily. This makes the
IFR the only technology currently able to consume this material and produce a
profit while doing it.
Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho and Illinois is in the last stages of
demonstrating this technology. Upon completion of this demonstration, within
three years, plans call for a plant built specifically as an IFR. There, any
engineering difficulties can be identified and solved. Then the technology
will be ready to benefit society at large.
In summary, the current strategy of DOE is to bury the bomb-grade
material, although it could be dug up at any time and used for its intended
purpose. The material could also be dug up and used in an IFR, but the cost of
burial, recovery, and reprocessing would be high. Therefore, if anyone is
going to dig up the bomb-grade material, it is reasonable to assume that it
will be used to threaten another society. So, why bury it? Why not consume it
in an IFR-type reactor and reap the benefits of placing people in highly
skilled jobs, aiding environmental recovery from smog and pollution,
eliminating the possibility of leakage of radioactive wastes from burial sites,
and providing assurance that bomb-grade material is being permanently
eliminated?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's plenty of value in nuclear "waste"
by J. Stephen Herring, PhD
Today, spent nuclear fuel is considered the most worthless material
imaginable. The Atomic Energy Commission and now the Department of Energy have
tried for decades to find a suitable (and willing) locality for final disposal.
I believe that the United States is losing a valuable resource in the
disposal of spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called high level nuclear waste.
There are several elements in spent nuclear reactor fuel that are quite
valuable. I want to discuss the uses and value of the various "fission
products", i.e. those fragments of the uranium nucleus created by the fission
event. I will not discuss the value of the uranium, plutonium and heavier
elements also present in spent reactor fuel, though these heavier elements are
also valuable and contain an immense energy resource.
In all of the following calculations, I will discuss the amounts of
various fission products produced by one 1000-megawatt-electric (MWe) nuclear
power plant operating for one year. Currently the U. S. has 109 nuclear energy
plants with a capacity of 99,000-MWe. The numbers I will cite are typical for
the current generation of light water reactors, but would not be significantly
different for the Integral Fast Reactor now being developed by the Argonne
National Laboratory. In fact, the IFR fuel reprocessing method lends itself
well to the recovery and beneficial use of most of these fission products.
The noble gas xenon is the most abundant fission product. A 1000-MWe plant
produces about 400 lbs of xenon per year. Since it is a noble gas it reacts
chemically with only a very few other elements. Today xenon is recovered from
the atmosphere, where it is present at a concentration of only 87 parts per
billion. Xenon has an increasing number of uses in modern technology, in the
common electronic photographic flash unit, in flash lamps for pulsed lasers, as
the lasant in excimer lasers. Xenon has a rich potential for future uses since
it is the heaviest non-radioactive noble gas and it has a wide range of excited
electronic states.
A second group of fission products consists of the noble metals palladium,
rhodium, and ruthenium. These metals belong to the strategically important
platinum group and have similar chemical properties and uses. The platinum
group metals have a wide variety of uses in modern technology. For example,
each automotive catalytic converter requires 0.6 gram of palladium and 0.15
gram of rhodium. Rhodium and palladium are widely used in the chemical
industry as catalysts and in the petroleum industry for increasing the octane
of gasoline. The noble metals are used in the glass industry for the
production of fibers. Palladium, rhodium and ruthenium are all used in the
electronics industry for contacts and thermocouples. The noble metals are also
used in medical, dental and jewelry products.
A 1000-MWe nuclear plant produces 94 lbs of palladium, 27 lbs of rhodium
and 171 lbs of ruthenium per year. Thus the nuclear industry is producing a
significant fraction of the U. S. demand for noble metals, though these metals
are not now being recovered.
The radioactive fission product atoms constitute only about 10 percent of
the total fission product mass ten years after removal of the fuel from the
reactor. Of these radioisotopes, several are useful.
Cesium 137 produces gamma radiation that has been used for the
sterilization of medical supplies, food and biologically hazardous wastes, e.g.
sewage sludge. Strontium 90 is a concentrated heat source used for radioisotope
generators that produce electric power for instruments and communications in
remote locations. Krypton-85 is a radioactive, chemically inert, gas which is
used for detection of cracks in metals, in some computer displays and as a long
lived light source. Technetium, which has no stable isotopes, has shown
surprising corrosion prevention capabilities.
Concluding with four points:
* We are abandoning a rich domestic resource in disposing of fission
products. The present situation closely parallels our waste of natural gas in
the early days of the petroleum industry. Natural gas at the well is smelly,
poisonous and explosive. The best management of natural gas 100 years ago was
thought to be to burn it at the wellhead. However, as techniques were
developed for safely handling and separating the natural gas from petroleum an
extremely valuable resource was recovered. I believe that we will eventually
separate and recover fission products in much the same way.
* Many of the fission products contained in high level waste are by nature
very valuable and non-radioactive. Because they do not decay, these valuable
elements will continue to be present in a high level waste repository
indefinitely. Thus the intrinsic value of the noble metals will attract
generations far in the future who may want to mine these materials and who will
likely not be as careful in protecting the integrity of the repository as its
designers would wish.
A comparable situation has occurred with the Pyramids in Egypt. Gold was
buried and was known to have been buried with the Pharaohs. The tombs were
sealed, supposedly in perpetuity. However, the gold's presence attracted grave
robbers and now, 4000 years later, both the gold and rest of the tombs'
contents are gone. I'm personally concerned that a high level repository
containing large amounts on intrinsically valuable, stable materials would
suffer the same fate.
* Some suggestions for the recovery and use of fission products were made
in the early days of the nuclear industry. A few experiments were performed.
However the lack of good isotope separation techniques and the press of more
immediate problems led to the demise of that program. Today, laser isotope
separation techniques are rapidly being developed and the prudent management of
nuclear wastes has become a pressing problem in its own right.
* Taking a historical view of the problems of nuclear waste management, we
need to remember that man has known of radioactivity for less than a century.
Yet, when we permanently bury high level waste, we implicitly assume that we
will never learn more about the phenomena of radioactivity and will never be
able to speed the rates of radioactive decay. I think we should have more faith
in the ingenuity of future generations.
I believe that a creative approach to the recovery and beneficial use of
fission products could fundamentally change our attitude toward spent nuclear
fuel and could change that "waste" into a resource.
Herring, Idaho falls, is public information chair for the American Nuclear
Society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration a victim of plutonium paranoia
by Robert Singleterry, PhD; Bob Ritzman; Alenka Brown-Van Hoozer, PhD candidate
Paranoia can be defined as unreasonable distrust or suspicion, strenuously
defended by the afflicted person with apparent logic and reason. This also
defines the current Administration's view of plutonium.
Plutonium and radiation in general have been the subjects of many false
and misleading statements over the years, and the administration's latest
action to terminate the Actinide Recycle Project and the Integral Fast Reactor
because they involve the use of plutonium is just another unreasonable
judgement on a technology that has been falsely accused.
The public misconception about plutonium was started by Dr. Norman
Hillberry in the late 1950s, or so he admitted. While working at Argonne
National Laboratory, he made the statement that one atom of plutonium could
give you cancer. Using the same analogy, one ultraviolet ray from sunlight
could give you cancer. The mechanism of creating a cancerous cell is the same
in both cases and the risk developing cancer from either event is also about
the same. Yet one is treated as a potent risk to human health while the other
is absurd.
The truth about the radiation effects of plutonium are straight forward.
The radiation emitted by plutonium can be stopped by any type of clothing,
tissue paper, or your own surface layer of dead skin. The radiation from
plutonium is only a problem when it is produced inside the body. Inside the
body, there are no dead skin layers to protect the living cells. However, the
body has its own mechanisms to protect itself from these effects.
Humans live in a large and varying radiation field. Sunlight contains the
radiation that causes sunburn. Cosmic rays from the sun bombard the Earth's
surface. All rocks emit radiation. Most importantly, our own bodies emit
radiation. Various radioactive chemical elements in our bodies irradiate our
internal organs constantly. Yet, we as a species survive in this radiation
field and have prospered.
Another misconception is that plutonium is the most dangerous chemical
toxin known to the human species. This is simply false. Plutonium acts like
any other heavy metal in the body. It is not beneficial and large quantities
can disrupt bodily functions, but these effects are no more or less toxic than
lead or mercury. These toxins are tolerated to some extent in the environment
and our bodies. Human ingenuity has produced many more deadly toxins than
plutonium such as Dioxin, DDT, and PCBs. These chemicals are also readily
available in the environment in much larger quantities than plutonium.
Does the risk from plutonium require that we remove all of it from the
environment and never again produce it, even if benefits can be derived from it
use? If the argument to ban its production is accepted, then chemicals more
toxic than plutonium should also be removed from the environment and never
produced again. Such a step would affect many areas of everyday life.
If the production of plutonium is banned, it denies us technologies that
are important to our national defense, electric-generating facilities, and even
modern medicine. All nuclear reactors, whether on aircraft carriers,
submarines or powerplants, produce some plutonium.
Must we beach all of our nuclear-powered ships because they produce some
plutonium? Must we shut down commercial power reactors and bring on major
brown- and black-outs in the Northeast because they produce a bit of plutonium?
Must we stop using radioactive isotopes for medical diagnosis and treatment
because the reactors that produce the isotopes also produce some plutonium?
From a biological standpoint, plutonium is not the villain it is portrayed
to be. Banning plutonium's production seems to be an over-reaction in light of
the facts. Unfortunately, the current Administration is pursuing this very
over-reaction. Through the Department of Energy, IFR is being terminated.
The only reason given is that the United States does not want to produce
any plutonium -- none -- because it is an extremely dangerous toxin and cannot
be tolerated in any amount in the environment and hence our bodies. From our
point of view, the same could be said of lead, mercury and sunlight. This
seems unreasonable and, yes, paranoid.
This paranoia is destroying one of the most environmentally sound,
long-term energy production technologies available. The facts do not seem to
justify such harsh treatment. In fact, IFR technology can help clean up the
plutonium that already exists in our environment.
It seems that plutonium paranoia has overcome the administration and the
facts will not deter their intended course of action. Only Congress has the
power to overcome this paranoia and restore sanity to our energy policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what Congress, Idaho must do to save the IFR
by Bob Ritzman; Robert Singleterry, PhD; Alenka Brown-Van Hoozer, PhD candidate
Perhaps the saddest fact related to this discussion is that the DOE has no
energy policy. The current mission statement of the DOE speaks of diversity,
technology transfer, and fostering economic growth, but it does not identify
the energy resources to power our economy or cushion us from natural or
man-made energy shortages. It seems incredible that the administration would
call a halt to all nuclear development only months after government offices in
the nation's Capital were forced to shut down because of electrical power
shortages during a period of cold weather. Nuclear power plants provided
diversity that compensated, in part, for a seasonal shortage of natural gas.
Electric power generation using nuclear energy, a technology pioneered at
the INEL, is a vital part of our nation's economic strength and quality of
life. Nuclear power plants in the United States are safe, clean and reliable.
They produce no greenhouse gases, no ash heaps, no toxic waste. Even without
the IFR, no other technology available to us is capable of generating an
equivalent amount of electricity with less harmful impact on the environment.
Spent fuel, the only byproduct unique to nuclear power plants, is a
valuable resource for energy and exotic materials, not a waste product to be
disposed of. IFR technology enables us to extract useful energy from spent
fuel and other long-lived nuclear "waste" while reducing a long-term storage
danger to a short-term storage inconvenience.
In view of the above facts, we propose the following alternatives to DOE's
present course of action:
* Congress should override the administration's decision to shutdown the
IFR and should continue development and demonstration until the technology has
been proven in a commercial-scale plant.
* The United States should develop a policy and implement a permanent
solution for the long-lived nuclear materials removed from decommissioned
weapons. Burial, no matter how deep or how well protected, is only a temporary
solution.
* As soon as it has been proven viable in an appropriately sized
demonstration plant, IFR technology should be transferred to the commercial
sector for generating electric power and eliminating commercial spent fuel.
* IFR technology should be marketed to all U.S. nuclear allies to reduce
the potential for diversion of nuclear materials to unapproved (e.g.,
terrorist) weapons production. U.S. assistance, at an appropriate price,
should be offered for eliminating nuclear materials from dismantled weapons.
* An energy priority should be established to encourage development of
technologies that aid in inexpensive generation and transmission of energy. The
policy should provide for these technologies to be marketed throughout the
world, particularly in developing nations to aid them in creating jobs, raising
their standard of living, and reducing the demand for fossil or plant-derived
fuels for heating and meal preparation.
* DOE should be assigned to a watchdog role to guard against unauthorized
or terrorists' diversion or use of nuclear materials. The United States should
adopt the standards of the International Atomic Energy Association and DOE
should monitor domestic reactor operations in accordance with these standards.
We recognize these alternatives are likely to meet stiff opposition from
the administration. Congress alone has the power to enact such sweeping
changes, and the political reality is that all congressional representatives
will act in accordance with the perceived best interests of their respective
states.
It will be necessary, therefore, to provide our own representatives with
additional sweeteners to be used, if necessary, to obtain acceptance and
support from the representatives of other affected states. To that end, we
propose the following:
* The state of Idaho, and specifically the INEL, should be offered as a
national research center for nuclear energy. The resources of this area should
be made available for testing of advanced reactor designs and transfer of the
technology for commercial development.
* Because many people are not yet able to see spent reactor fuel as a
valuable resource, space at the INEL should be offered for temporary storage of
spent reactor fuel. This is essentially a stop-gap measure to permit electric
utilities to continue operating their nuclear power plants while IFR facilities
are constructed to permanently eliminate the spent fuel. Costs for
transportation, inspection, storage, monitoring, and retrieval can be paid by
the fuel owners or by the trust fund established for fuel disposal.
If you agree with these proposals, or if you can suggest other
alternatives that will preserve America's nuclear energy option, and provide
for the elimination of nuclear waste, please call or write to your local, state
and national representatives. Let them know that you regard nuclear energy as
a vital national interest and a valuable Idaho resource. They are facing an
uphill battle and your support is important.
Whether you live in Idaho or elsewhere, be active in your own state. Mail
this page to friends in other states and to other Members of Congress. Tell
them that the IFR is too valuable to lose.
John De Armond
>None of this repudiates anything I said. My first statement was that
>nuclear weapons can be made with commercial-grade Plutonium -- thank you
>for the confirmation. I then went on to state how such weapons cannot be
>considered "effective" because of their >50% chance of predetonation,
>higher chance of user irradiation, and poor deliverability -- none of which
>the above quote addresses.
"I just built a pipe bomb by taking a piece of pipe, capping
both ends and filling it with kitty litter"
This is what the proliferation alarmists are saying. As Jeremy notes,
one can build most anything using most any material if one doesn't
expect it to actually work.
>And what happens when the Pu-239 absorbs a neutron...?
Details, details, Jeremy. Why, you can't expect someone of the stature
of "research director" to worry about details, can you? :-)
Jason Edward Floyd
: Talk about your 'deliverability' problems... Have you thought about
: how large a freighter you need to deliver 2000 tons of nitrate based
The tons means tons of TNT. Not tons of any arbitrary explosive. There are
many chemical explosives with much greater explosive power than TNT.
: And a size aspect. Even a lousy un-deliverable 2kt Pu device is
: far more deliverable than 2kt of conventional explosives...
How about a fuel-air weapon?
John De Armond
>In article <-=s8#+=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal) writes:
>>
>>>Mr. Lydick is quite correct. One can make a nuclear bomb from uranium as
>>>well. However, he blurs important distinctions among uranium ore,
>>>enriched uranium, and highly enriched (HEU). Only the latter can be used
>>>in nuclear weapons.
>>
>>Nope. One can build a low yield "bomb" (if you can call it that) out
>>of near-natural uranium. Depending on your assumptions, the minimum
>>enrichment works out to in the 1 to 3% range. In other words,
>>good old fashioned reactor fuel. Of course most of us don't consider
>>a highly complex, very sophisticated (due to the precision of the
>>implosion and the size of the required neutron source), very large
>>device that maybe will yield 1 kt to be a bomb. Fizzles don't
>Hmmm... Indulging in hyperbole again, eh John? A one KILOTON 'kaboom'
>is not a bomb?
I haven't acknowledged that such a device would even explode; I'm
merely shooting holes in zippy's arguments. I'm not at all
convinced that it would. In any event, it would take a huge neutron
source to raise the probability above zero. I have a listing of
every detonation conducted by the US and I don't seem to find
any evidence of this guy's claim that the US built and detonated
a low enrichment bomb. Knowing what I do about the US weapons
programs, I find it highly doubtful that anyone would waste the
administrative effort to get such an academic project authorized.
>Yeah. It would be a big, ugly, hairy, hard to build, damn near
>impossible to transport, tricky to make go (but arn't they all..)
>device... But a kiloton IS a bomb.
You left out "improbable to explode".
>This is something I've wondered about... It is, by definition, 1940's
>technology ... Seems to me that there would be better ways by now.
>But even if U is hard to enrich, can't you make Pu fairly easy?
Define "better". "Better" to the US who was building a multi-thousand
warhead inventory is much different than a small but moneyed despot
wanting to display his nuclear phallus. The neat thing about that
"old" technology is that it leave very little signature that intelligence
assets can spot. And unlike a reactor, the size-time relationship
scales nicely. got a lot of time? Build a small plant and run it
awhile. In a hurry? Duplicate oak ridge and go boom in a couple of
years.
>I'd have expected that one could just make a 'research reactor' out
>of U and Graphite bricks (like in the 'old days' ;-) and irradiate
>some fuel rods on a short cycle for Pu production and do a simple
>chemical extraction. Maybe there is something about Pu bomb material
>that I'm missing, but wasn't that how it was done for 'Little Boy'?
>(Or whatever it was that we dropped on Nagasaki...)
The non-trivial problem is to breed what you want and not what you don't.
>I know, the 'Devil is in the Details'... and I should leave Nuke
>design to nuclear engineers ... but I just have a hard time accepting
>that 1940's technology could not be mastered by most any country in
>the 1990's with out much effort.
It has been. The IAEA report and video showed that the Saddamite
had exactly duplicated the 1940s calutrons from freely available
archive materials. They interviewed one old US scientist who worked
on the Calutrons at Oak Ridge and he said that when he saw the
photos he thought he was looking at historical pix of Oak ridge.
>It would seem to me, a layman, that making SNM would be an easier
>route, expecially if you used a 'research reactor' approach to
>make Pu. I'm sure I've missed something, so what is it?
Look at it this way. You're a tin-can despot with oil billions in
the bank. You feel the need for a nuclear phallus. What do you do?
You COULD try to build an implosion bomb but your odds of succeeding
on the first shot is minimal, it will be expensive and you're
overwhelmingly probably going to be discovered by the US. Or you
could build a small enrichment plant, make some enriched
uranium and build it into a gun bomb using any old howitzer you
happen to have sitting around. You build your enrichment plant
underground, you're careful not to buy materials apt to attract
attention and your plant has no detectable nuclear signature.
Which would you do? Well I can tell you what the sadamite
and S. Africa did. They (were trying to) built gun bombs.
Gun bombs are cheap, simple, guaranteed to go boom on the first
shot if the artillery propellent fires, and contains nothing abnormally
radioactive before detonation. Certainly nothing NESTable.
IMHO this whole plutonium proliferation debate is a smoke screen
hiding some anti-nooks who don't want to be identified as such in
order to preserve credibility. Contemplate that if someone were to
hand me, say 20 kg of pure weapon-grade Pu, I'd still have the
monumental task of building the implosion mechanism and I'd have
very little hope of it exploding the first time.
John De Armond
>> I'm not an expert in making boombs of any sort, but I bet I could
>> make an explosive with a yield of 1 or 2 kilotons without using
>> any isotope heavier than Pb-208. Let's see now - some nitrogen,
>> some hydrogen.
>Talk about your 'deliverability' problems... Have you thought about
>how large a freighter you need to deliver 2000 tons of nitrate based
>explosive? Think of it as 2000 pickup loads ... or a few 18 wheelers
>or train cars ... or 2,000 conventional bombs of 1000 lbs each...
>Yeah, you can do it ... but you better own a train to deliver it with...
Or a cargo ship. They accidentally did that down in Texas, after all.
Besides it doesn't take 2000 tons of boosted ANFO to yield 2 kt.
TNT isn't that energetic an explosive.
Jeremy Whitlock
>[...] I have a listing of
>every detonation conducted by the US and I don't seem to find
>any evidence of this guy's claim that the US built and detonated
>a low enrichment bomb. Knowing what I do about the US weapons
>programs, I find it highly doubtful that anyone would waste the
>administrative effort to get such an academic project authorized.
Petr Beckmann refers to a successful test of a reactor-grade Pu 'device'
during the Carter administration (AtE, Nov.1986). Knowing what we know
about the Carter administration, do you still have doubts? :-)
T Sofu RA/208/xxx 9673
>* IFR is not needed and no utility is interested enough to spend
> real money on the project. I confirm this from time to time by
> chats with my friends at INPO.
Your ascertion that no utility is interested in IFR is not correct.
I would like to know who these friends of yours at INPO are. Names will
be appreciated.
>* Liquid alkali metal cooling is a technology whose time will never come.
> It is a safety and maintenance nightmare, there is no need for it
> and there is no problem that would uniquely be solved with it.
Liquid metal cooling is a technology that has been here for quite some time
now (for about half a century). What bothers me is that you have to mention
"safety and maintenance" as a concern. This is exactly what anti-nuclear
groups (like NCI) do to state their opposition to LWRs and LMRs alike.
The fact is, liquid metal (Na to be specific) cooling provides a superb
alternative to water cooling by minimizing all kinds of corrosion/erosion
and mechanical equipment degradation concerns. No need to mention the
advantages due to tremendous heat removal capacity that makes the inherent
safety features possible. There is no credible accident condition that
leads to fuel damage in the IFR design. In 30+ years of operation of
EBR-II, an IFR prototype, there has never been a steam generator tube leak.
>* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
> what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
> right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
> give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
We all know that if IFR was a "welfare program" (scientific or other kind),
there wouldn't be such be big push to terminate it. The only reason IFR is
on NCI's agenda these days is because it's about to deliver its promises and
prove that the technology is feasible. It's because next year may be too
late. Perhaps that's why you are also against it.
>* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
> to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
> technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
> reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
> are just a couple that come to mind.
Clearly, you are not informed about pyroprocessing. It simply does not
involve "thousands of pounds of hot, reactive liquid metal." I have to admit
that it's the first time I've heard about "gas cooled" and/or "pebble bed
reactor-integral fuel reprocessing." Do you make these up as you go along?
>What makes you think that whatever the US does with IFR matters at
>all internationally? I imagine the world recognizes IFR for what
>it is - scientific welfare. If the supply of uranium ever becomes
>short enough to make integral fuel cycle breeding attractive,
>it is a certainty that something other than IFR will fill the
>international bill. More likely, over the next few decades,
>weapons grade Pu from the soviets will be denatured and turned into
>reactor fuel. The US may not do it but the rest of the world likely will.
Aren't you something? A few paragraphs above you were talking on behalf
of the utilities, now you are talking on behalf of the world. I won't
comment on last few sentences since I can't quite understand what
exactly you mean by "integral fuel cycle breeding" and "something other
than IFR." Would calling it just a "fast reactor" do?
Tanju
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>
>> The argument that the plutonium never leaves the IFR facility betrays a
>>dangerous overreliance on containment and surveillance (C/S) safeguards.
>>Even if it's correct, it neglects foreign environments that an IFR might
>>someday operate in once exported. I'm sure the Russians, for instance,
>>on sale in Western Europe.
>
>opposed to IFR. Anyone who would relate the nonexistant risk of
>proliferation of non-weapons-suitable Pu produced in power reactors
>with the actual weapons Pu now thought to be on the black market from
>Russia has about the same integrity and truthfulness as Klinton.
>I challenge you to cite even a single example of reactor fuel being
>diverted to weapons use. You can't do it. This is a strawman and
>a lie.
Please, no flaming here. Let's be professional and discuss the merits of the
argument, not personalities (or my typing ability)!
>
>What is really sad is that an adequate case against IFR can be made
>without lying or exaggerating. In case you haven't thought of legitimate
>reasons, here are a few:
>
>* IFR is not needed and no utility is interested enough to spend
> real money on the project. I confirm this from time to time by
> chats with my friends at INPO.
>
EXCUSS ME!!! SCE and PG&E are VERY interested in this project to the tune
of 2 million $. For a profit based organization, that is a lot of money. As for
being not needed, what is needed??? More coal and LWR plants?? Cant have more coal,
the "new" LWRs are just rehashes of old technology and large tanks of
borated water incase all else fails - real technology there!!! With a
once through system - current and next LWRs - MASSIVE quantities of uranium
are wasted, to be buried in the ground - plutonium in tact - to be dug up,
purified, and detonated (maybe?) with 1940's technology at a later date??
Sounds VERY resonable to me as long as I am on space station Freedom when
it occurs!!!!!
>* Liquid alkali metal cooling is a technology whose time will never come.
> It is a safety and maintenance nightmare, there is no need for it
> and there is no problem that would uniquely be solved with it.
>
Gee, in 25+ years of operation at various sites around the world, more
people were killed by soap than by liquid Na. Maybe we should ban soap!!
Unfortunately, your argument as stated here is emotional, no content to
argue exists. I can say you are wrong, but that is just an emotional
argument to answer an emotional argument. Give me a technical reason
as to why liquid Na is the worst thing plutonium and maybe I can
understand where you are coming from!!
>* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
> what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
> right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
> give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
>
Get a job and try to think clearly, I dont understand this argument and
I dont think I want to, but I am willing to give it a try!!!
>* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
> to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
> technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
> reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
> are just a couple that come to mind.
Well, gas cooled and pebble bed reactor still use a ceramic coating to
encapsilate their ceramic fuel. THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!! This ceramic
is why HF and HNOx dissolution in mass quanities is needed for chemical
seperation and reprocssing. If the fuel is metal, then electrorefining
makes sense. The PUREX system works, but at what cost?? LWR/pebble bed
fuel can only be reporcessed at with PUREX or something like it. Without
reprocessing, might as well kiss nuclear power off. It wont last long
enough to be of any use to society.
>
>> Comparing IFR to PUREX reprocessing is a straw man. Very few nations
>>reprocess spent fuel now. And I haven't heard IFR advocates claim that
>>future access to IFR technology should be limited to nations already
>>using PUREX. All reprocessing should be opposed, because it separates
>>plutonium, putting it either into weapon-usable or near-weapon-usable form.
>
>What makes you think that whatever the US does with IFR matters at
>all internationally? I imagine the world recognizes IFR for what
>it is - scientific welfare.
Sorry Mr. De Armond. This is where you are just wrong. Japan and Russia
are VERY ready and WILLING to take IFR technology and make it work if
the US does not!! We can reap the benefits of this technology and
make it as nonproliferent as any technology can be or we can let it go
today and being buying it back in 20 to 30 years as a power source
or as nuclear grade bomb material.
>If the supply of uranium ever becomes
>short enough to make integral fuel cycle breeding attractive,
>it is a certainty that something other than IFR will fill the
>international bill.
Like WHAT????? Please give us details. If you have a new and exciting
reactor design, please share!!!
>More likely, over the next few decades,
>weapons grade Pu from the soviets will be denatured and turned into
>reactor fuel. The US may not do it but the rest of the world likely will.
Mr. De Armond, please do the calculations. A 600 MWe IFR plant with
10ZR-20Pu-70U fuel will burn about 12 metric tonnes of PU in a 40 year
life with a 70% capacity factor. This is 10 IFR's and about 60 billion
dollars of revenue at 0.04$/kw-hr. Not a substantial increase in power from
nuclear. If we built 100 IFR's (still less power than the US gets from nuclear
today), then the bomb grade Pu will not sustain this. Other means of getting
fuel will be necessary or the nuclear industry will go away and we'll be
burning the forest for heat and cooking fuel!! Just a thought!
>
>John
>
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
>to kill him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>Michael R James <mrjg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>To create bomb-grade plutonium, the fuel cycle has to be changed drastically
>>from the typical power-generation one, Or have on-line refueling. From
>>that standpoint, the Canadian CANDU reactors might be a worse proliferation
>>hazard.
>
>one characteristic of production reactors. CANDU's are definitely unsuitable.
>
> --
> Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
> Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
> McMaster University, 1280 Main West
> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>
Jeremy,
I understand your point of view and support it, but I must also point out
the opposition's argument:
ANY REACTOR CAN PRODUCE PU OR U OR TH OR .... THAT CAN BE USED IN A WEAPON.
Of course, as a nuclear engineer, I still havent figured out what this means
or how to do it, but maybe for a post doc thesis???? Of course, you can shave
soap, put a blasting cap in it and make it explode - maybe we should start
to ban soap!!!
GEZZ, does this sound as stupid as it sounds to me???
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>Paul Leventhal <n...@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>
>>The fact that some plutonium is not weapon *grade* does not mean that it
>>cannot be used to make an effective and highly destructive nuclear
>>weapon.
>
>commercial-grade Plutonium, but "effective and highly destructive" is
>debatable. An almost non-portable device with a >50% chance of going off in
>your face and a even higher chance of irradiating its users is not
>"effective", and because of their much lower yield, expense, and poor
>deliverability, experts have classified such devices as "militarily
>insignificant".
>
>>[...] And Pu produced in breeder blankets is nearly pure Pu-239.
>
>Is this true? I don't see how it can be.
It isnt, he's blowing smoke!!!!!!! Do the physics and it comes right out!
>
> --
> Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
> Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
> McMaster University, 1280 Main West
> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R S Rodgers
>commercial-grade Plutonium, but "effective and highly destructive" is
>debatable.
Put it in the drinking water. Scatter it around popular areas to
maliciously irridate folks.
>An almost non-portable device with a >50% chance of going off in
>your face and a even higher chance of irradiating its users is not
>"effective",
Sounds about as effective as a car bomb, actually. Well, a
multi-kiloton carbomb that generates radioactive fallout.
> >and because of their much lower yield, expense, and poor
> >deliverability, experts have classified such devices as "militarily
> >insignificant".
Perhaps so. But so what? The experts obviously haven't classified
terrorism as a military act. Such a device would be *great* to
explode outside an Israeli embassy, next to a mosque, in the world
trade center, across from Buckingham palace, etc.
An absolute nightmare would be a portable nuke, small enough to carry
in a briefcase or in a backpack. Even a low-yeild device would give a
terrorist organization unprecedented power to destroy -- or even to
simply wreak havoc with the threat.
--
Previous .sig deleted because some people couldn't parse "from email
_received_ re: a post on comp.sys.powerpc."
E. Michael Smith
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>What Mr. Leavinthal doesn't want known, is that IF the IFR proves what
>>it could, then 1) The nuclear waste issue would be answered 2)
>
>"burning" plutonium (and presumably some U235) are completely
>non-radioactive, and require no special storage? This is a
>surprise! Or is this another case of nuclear apologists being
>economical with the truth...
I think you will find that the 'magic' is that the long lived 'stuff'
is used as fuel, where the short lived 'stuff' can be short term
stored as it becomes non-radioactive and is then not a problem ...
I think the buzz phrase for this is 'on line reprocessing' or some such.
The only open issue I see here is moderate lived 'stuff', if any ...
>This is why the public has built up such a level of distrust.
I think his answer was more abbreviated than desirable, but not
a matter of being 'economical with the truth' (so much as economical
with the technical details...).
James M. Constantino
> The Nuclear Control Institute is not a "professional anti-nuclear
> group," as he puts it. We are neutral on the question of the
> desirability of nuclear power.
Neutral? That would mean you have a pro- message for every con- message....
> We are opposed to the IFR because of its
> nuclear proliferation threat, and the fact that it can easily function as
> a breeder reactor, as Mr. Bailey concedes. Nuclear power can proceed
> quite nicely without IFR technology, as it has for over 40 years.
It never ceases to amaze me how whipped up people get over the P-word. If you fear the
integrity of ANL's brochures, check out the scientific literature (which I'm sure you
have on hand, being a scientific "Institute"). Read for yourself the advances that the
IFR cycle has in terms of non-proliferation, by using a closed-fuel-cycle controlled
remotely in gloveboxes. Actually, the fast reactor you refer to is possibly the
world's longest-operating nuclear unit (EBR-II).
> Ask anyone objective in the nuclear or utility industry, and they'll
> tell you that if another nuclear power plant is ever built in the US, it
> will probably be an advanced light-water-cooled reactor (ALWR).
Yep, you can ask, and you're correct. However, at the inefficiencies that uranium is
burned in LWRs, fast reactors will eventually come of age. Much sooner than the fabled fusion (or biomass or cow farts or...), I assure you.
> Mr. Bailey's "pay me now or pay me later" argument on project
> termination costs is a classic example of the mentality that perpetuates
> pork barrel projects throughout the Federal Government. Perhaps he could
> explain to us something that Senator Johnston couldn't in the floor
> debate on the IFR: Termination and clean-up costs have to be paid,
> whether you complete the R&D or not. How can it possibly be cheaper to
> complete the R&D, *plus* pay for termination and clean-up?
Easy. Guess who is paying for a fat chunk of the research money to keep it going?
A consortium of Japanese utilities. And don't forget, Monju just started up. How
many years before we buy this technology back from them? If you have your doubts,
look at the back of your VCR, your TV, your stereo, and then look at the boom in
nuclear power in southeast asia and Japan.
> The argument that the plutonium never leaves the IFR facility betrays a
> dangerous overreliance on containment and surveillance (C/S) safeguards.
> Even if it's correct, it neglects foreign environments that an IFR might
> someday operate in once exported. I'm sure the Russians, for instance,
> never thought their plutonium would leave the facility either. Now it's
> on sale in Western Europe.
No. You missed another point in the ANL propaganda/literature. The process that they
use keeps the plutonium "poisoned" with other isotopes, preventing any moron to
"run off" with pure Pu. Trust me, if any organization has the technology to reduce
this product into pure plutonium, then they already have the bomb by other means...
> More importantly, this neglects the national (rather than
> terrorist) proliferation threat.
Read the last comment.
> Comparing IFR to PUREX reprocessing is a straw man. Very few nations
> reprocess spent fuel now. And I haven't heard IFR advocates claim that
> future access to IFR technology should be limited to nations already
> using PUREX. All reprocessing should be opposed, because it separates
> plutonium, putting it either into weapon-usable or near-weapon-usable form.
Steve, you missed it _completely_. The IFR puts the material into neither weapon-
nor near-weapon usuable form. Read the literature, do a little homework, and perhaps
your "neutral" opinion might sway. More fast reactors will be built eventually. It's
just a matter of what country wants to make billions of dollars building and selling
them.
> Steven Dolley
> Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
Speaking for myself,
James Constantino
Nuclear Engineer, ComEd
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What else am I going to do, man, be a nuclear scientist? All I know how to
do is fight."
-- Jailed former heavyweight champ Mike Tyson, on his plans
to resume his boxing career once he is paroled
Jeremy Whitlock
>John, you must be getting crotchety in your old-age. The above
>statement was made by Mr. Steve D at the NCI, not I. I do agree with
>your suposition with on exception- the N and K reactors at
>Hanford and Savahnah river did have some grid capability (albeit
>it was probably local and house loads)
As do (did?) the production reactors at Sellafield.
John De Armond
>>* IFR is not needed and no utility is interested enough to spend
>> real money on the project. I confirm this from time to time by
>> chats with my friends at INPO.
>>
>EXCUSS ME!!! SCE and PG&E are VERY interested in this project to the tune
>of 2 million $. For a profit based organization, that is a lot of money. As for
That's chump change to the utility, a token payment to be let in the
door to see what's going on. kinda like the 25 cent movie houses we have
around here. The movies might not be too hot but you go anyway just
to see cuz the risk is low.
If you want to demonstrate that there is utility interest, there is one
sure fire way to prove it. Shinny back away from the public trough and
let the utilities fund the development. We're only talking about one
little reactor, after all. Either EPRI or INPO could host the fund. A
few million from each utility each year - more chump change - would fund
you guys to play. Hell, Georgia Power has squandered more than that
playing with electric vans. But as long as you keep sucking at the
public tit, your claims that the utilities want this pink elephant have
a ring of incredulity to them.
>being not needed, what is needed??? More coal and LWR plants?? Cant have more coal,
>the "new" LWRs are just rehashes of old technology and large tanks of
>borated water incase all else fails - real technology there!!!
I know it might be a surprise to the ivory tower types but the objective
is NOT to make technology, it is to generate inexpensive and safe power.
Current generation nuclear plants are doing that just fine. The next
generation will do it better. Had I been the grand poobah in the late
40s, I'd certainly not have selected water cooled reactors for power
depolyment but neither would I today toss it all out just so some
government employees (and contractors, just to keep peter happy)
can continue to play.
>With a
>once through system - current and next LWRs - MASSIVE quantities of uranium
>are wasted, to be buried in the ground - plutonium in tact - to be dug up,
>purified, and detonated (maybe?) with 1940's technology at a later date??
>Sounds VERY resonable to me as long as I am on space station Freedom when
>it occurs!!!!!
Can't argue with that but I CAN argue with trying to solve political
problems with technology. The current problems are purely political
and the IFR will NOT solve them. I should also remind everyone that
what we have now was NOT designed to be a once-through system.
It has been forced on the industry by the same government that is
now trying to force us to pay for IFR.
>>* Liquid alkali metal cooling is a technology whose time will never come.
>> It is a safety and maintenance nightmare, there is no need for it
>> and there is no problem that would uniquely be solved with it.
>Gee, in 25+ years of operation at various sites around the world, more
>people were killed by soap than by liquid Na. Maybe we should ban soap!!
>Unfortunately, your argument as stated here is emotional, no content to
>argue exists. I can say you are wrong, but that is just an emotional
>argument to answer an emotional argument. Give me a technical reason
>as to why liquid Na is the worst thing plutonium and maybe I can
>understand where you are coming from!!
Gee, you're as bad as peter at exploding off in all directions, using
emotional language. I come from a perspective of having spent much of
my career in commercial nuclear power plants. I KNOW what is involved
in plant maintenance and I blanch at the thought of dealing with
thousands of gallons of explosively reactive, optically opaque hot
metal. The last time this debate went around Peter talked in glowing
terms of all the robotic maintenance planned. We got to suffer through
all those DOE robot experiments at TMI-II. None of them worked and the
stuff that DID work was, for the most part, hinked together by our guys
on-site. And I saw at Oak Ridge and Battelle what happens when this
reobotic and remote stuff breaks. You clean up the mess as much as you
can and then you send the zoomies in to fix things and soak up RADs.
Don't make me laugh trying to sell me on the concept of doing this in a
sodium environment. I might laugh until I choke.
>>* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
>> what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
>> right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
>> give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
>Get a job and try to think clearly, I dont understand this argument and
>I dont think I want to, but I am willing to give it a try!!!
I have a job and I pay your salary. I have half my income taken by
taxes under the threat of force (Yes, sports fans, the IRS DOES
use guns) so the government cna redistribute it to all sorts of
people. I see no material difference between giving money to a
welfare breeder queen and giving money to a welfare scientist to play.
A lot of your play got hidden behind the shield of the Cold war but
that's gone now. Time to, uh as you said, get a job.
>>* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
>> to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
>> technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
>> reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
>> are just a couple that come to mind.
>Well, gas cooled and pebble bed reactor still use a ceramic coating to
>encapsilate their ceramic fuel. THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!! This ceramic
>is why HF and HNOx dissolution in mass quanities is needed for chemical
>seperation and reprocssing. If the fuel is metal, then electrorefining
>makes sense. The PUREX system works, but at what cost?? LWR/pebble bed
>fuel can only be reporcessed at with PUREX or something like it.
Then your media kit lies. I regret that I have my library packed for an
impending move, for I'd love to quote the exact text, but I can
summarize. One of supposedly huge selling points is that the IFR can
receive, process and burn spent commercial fuel. Commercial CERAMIC
fuel I might add. Either you can or you can't. Where's the lie? If
you can, then it is a small additional step to take the electrorefined
(I believe your press kit calls it pyrorefined) metal fuel and convert
it back to an oxide.
>>What makes you think that whatever the US does with IFR matters at
>>all internationally? I imagine the world recognizes IFR for what
>>it is - scientific welfare.
>Sorry Mr. De Armond. This is where you are just wrong. Japan and Russia
>are VERY ready and WILLING to take IFR technology and make it work if
>the US does not!!
Well then, let's see this project paid for in rubles and yen.
Russia's not going to do anything right now and I have a very hard
time believing that japan is going to switch course in mid stream
to accomodate this technology. Show me some evidence to the
contrary. Assertions don't count. Point me to the proof.
Cite necessary references. Oh I have little doubt that Japan and
even perhaps Russia (using US aid funds?) are paying the same
chump-change just to see what the US is up to but that's a damn
far distance from committment. If this stuff is so good, then the
President (if we had one) should be able to turn it into a nuclear
Desert Storm where the international community pays the tab for
us to do the job.
>We can reap the benefits of this technology and
>make it as nonproliferent as any technology can be or we can let it go
>today and being buying it back in 20 to 30 years as a power source
>or as nuclear grade bomb material.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me even ONE example of commercial
reactor fuel being proliferated to a weapons program outside the
producing country. What pisses me off so about using the proliferation
strawman to justify this boondoggle is that it plays right into the
hands of the anti-nukes who would use it to shut down ALL nuclear
plants. Sheer stupidity.
John De Armond
>>n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal) writes:
>John, you must be getting crotchety in your old-age. The above
>statement was made by Mr. Steve D at the NCI, not I. I do agree with
>your suposition with on exception- the N and K reactors at
>Hanford and Savahnah river did have some grid capability (albeit
>it was probably local and house loads)
My appologies for the freudian slip. I was thinking "paul" and typed
peter.
John De Armond
>>>[...] And Pu produced in breeder blankets is nearly pure Pu-239.
>>
>>Is this true? I don't see how it can be.
>It isnt, he's blowing smoke!!!!!!! Do the physics and it comes right out!
You know, Robert, the reason you PhD types tend to have little credibility
in these debates is that you dismiss people with the wave of the hand and
a sniffed "do the math and see for yourself." One of the reasons that
people like Jeremy and Russ and myself and a few others have been
able to build a bit of credibility in this forum over the past few years is
that we take the time to do the math for the people and to take the
time to explain things in laymen's terms. You know, those laymen
who who vote and who pay your salaries. Thanks to my RO training I
could probably muddle through this one but I'm going to stick to health-
physics, my specialty, and let you take a stab at it. Show everyone
why this Director of Research is full of sh*t.
John De Armond
>>* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
>> what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
>> right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
>> give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
>>
>Once again, no one laid claim to "breeder" technology here. In fact
>you convienently have dodged the issue that CR < 1.0 reactors are
>really what we are after.
Nah, Peter, it's that I don't buy into this sham to try and rename
the Experimental Breeder Reactor to the IFR/expermental burner
reactor prototype for political expediency. Not only is this
deception of a high order, it is stupid. It is stupid NOT to breed
if we're going to have a fast reactor.
>In so far as scientific welfare, we elect Representatives and Senators
>to oversee our interests. If I do recall, Sen. Nunn voted yes on this
>technology. Go take it up with him if you disagree.
We're doing everything we can to get his ass out of congress.
Much of georgia is mightily ashamed of him. Unfortunately
many georgians have voted for Nunn's ability to keep
military bases (military welfare?) in Georgia. We need a naval
air station here in the middle of Marietta like we need a hole in our
heads. Or like those people needed an A-6 in their bedrooms
a couple of years ago. (For those who don't know what I'm talking
about, imagine a naval air station right in the middle of Manhattan.
That's what we have here.)
>>* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
>> to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
>> technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
>> reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
>o are just a couple that come to mind.
>Why would you want to use an unproven technology (Ft.St.Vrain-what
>a nightmare)
What nightmare is that, Peter?
>or little used technology versus something which is
>a natural fit for safety (metal on metal) and has the years of
>experience to back it.
It might be instructive to point out at this point that this EBR-II, ne
IFR that peter is so proud of is, according to their press kit, a
16 MWt, 2 MWe plant. A nuclear pilot light. About like trying to
evaluate the behavior of the fire in a blast furnace by examining
a match. EBR was very successful for what it was intended.
It is NOT a power reactor.
>You can't throw away that experience, even if
>you come from a health-physics background. (BTW no dressout req'd
>to make a containment power entry)
At least until you fail some fuel. But what do you do when
you fail a reactor internal? We send divers down to fix broken
LWR reactor internals, to retrieve dropped parts and such. Can't
do that in sodium. At least not more than once.
>You still don't get it. How many times have I read your diatribe
>blasting anti-nukes for waste and safety issues. John, open your
>eyes, it still isn't too late for salvation.
I opened my eyes a long time ago. And I do it again everytime I see what
I pay in taxes, usually accompanied with a WOW! hey, an experimental
reactor here, a space program there, a billion dollar bomber over
yonder and all of a sudden, the government gets more of my money than
I do. And I'm STILL looking for the Constitutional grant of authority
for the federal government to be doing ANY civilian nuclear research.
John De Armond
>John De Armond <j...@dixie.com> wrote:
>>[...] I have a listing of
>>every detonation conducted by the US and I don't seem to find
>>any evidence of this guy's claim that the US built and detonated
>>a low enrichment bomb. Knowing what I do about the US weapons
>>programs, I find it highly doubtful that anyone would waste the
>>administrative effort to get such an academic project authorized.
>Petr Beckmann refers to a successful test of a reactor-grade Pu 'device'
>during the Carter administration (AtE, Nov.1986). Knowing what we know
>about the Carter administration, do you still have doubts? :-)
Probably not, though knowing the Georgia White Trash's administration
like I do, I'd want to look real closely at the definition of "successful".
I wonder if it was as "successful" as the Iran hostage rescue?
T Sofu RA/208/xxx 9673
>As I mentioned in an earlier post, Nuclear Control Institute isn't
>anti-nuclear. We're a public interest group working on
>nonproliferation. The only way IFR proponents stand a chance, as I
>mentioned before, is if they can turn the IFR debate into a
>pro-anti-nuclear debate.
Isn't it the other way around? The only way you stand a chance is
if you can look impartial and target a specific program at a time.
It's IFR today, ALWRs tomorrow. Sadly, it seems to be working.
Tanju
James Bell
Nc> I am going out of town for a week, and so will be unable to continue
Nc> this thread. Please write to me @ this E-mail address if you want
Nc> more information. The proliferation dangers in particular are much
Nc> too complex to explain in a single post.
I'm sorry to hear that. Not to worry, I'm certain that with the nature
of usenet, the debate will be raging long after you return. Besides, you
have some misinformation to clear up, so we'll look forward to your
return.
Oh, BTW, please feel free to try to explain these "complex" proliferation
dangers in a few posts. Please include complete scenarios on how Pu
could be illicitly diverted from an IFR type plant - rational and realistic
scenarios please - without someone catching on. Sorry, workers walking
off with it in their lunchbox is not possible or credible. ;-}
[snip of response to J. Whitlock]
Nc> As to breeder blanket material, it is weapons-grade (very high amounts
Nc> of Pu-239) because the blanket is fertile, not fissile, material.
Nc> Thus, the U-238 captures neutrons and becomes Pu-239. The blanket
Nc> acts as target material, not fuel.
Let's see, to make this statement completely truthful, a couple qualifiers
will have to be added. Specifically, to the phrase in parenthesis: (sortof
high percentage of the non-uranium material is Pu-239) OR (of the small
percentage of Pu in the blanket a high percentage of it is Pu-239. Also,
"the U-238 captures neutrons and becomes Pu-239, which has a much higher
cross-section to neutrons (likes neutrons more that U-238). The Pu-239 captures neutrons
and becomes Pu-240.........."
I'm sure others can add to this.
Nc> I believe I accidentally deleted one post critiquing some of my
Nc> previous comments. As I said, anyone who wants more information can
Nc> write me here. Also, as Mr. Baily at ANL did, I should point out that
Nc> I'm not the resident IFR expert here. And my opinions are my own,
Nc> though in many cases the Nuclear Control Institute shares them.
Neither am I an IFR expert, just a nuclear engineer who's interested in
the technolgy, and who knows some of the physics behind it. My inet
provider doesn't care about my opinions.
Nc> One final word: Here's the NAS study's conclusion about using the IFR
Nc> to dispose of excess weapons Pu from the U.S. arsenal:
Nc> "Construction of new reactors cannot be justified for this mission
Nc> unless existing reactors are unavailable and alternative disposal
Nc> options prove unpromising; if new reactors are built for this mission,
Nc> they should be based on existing or evolutionary LWR [light water
Nc> reactor] designs, rather than advanced concepts." (p. 187)
Nc> Actually, that's their conclusion about *all* advanced reactor
Nc> options, not merely IFR.
Hmm. Since Mr. Dolley is going to be unavailable for a short time, does
anyone else have access to this study? If so, what disciplines of science
or engineering were the authors members of? I merely ask because I believe
their comments about the mission should be based on existing reactor designs
shows a lack of understanding of the technology. Of those LWR's in
operation here in the states, I can think of a mere handful that could
perform this mission with only a (order of mag only) $10M overhaul rather
than a (order of mag) $100M-$1B overhaul.
Jim
---
ş Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ş
--
---------------------------------------------------------
James Lee Bell jlb...@indirect.com
Nuclear Engineer Will NUKE for Food!
---------------------------------------------------------
Tipton
>John, you must be getting crotchety in your old-age. The above
>statement was made by Mr. Steve D at the NCI, not I. I do agree with
>your suposition with on exception- the N and K reactors at
>Hanford and Savahnah river did have some grid capability (albeit
>it was probably local and house loads)
Hmmmm... Savannah River's K-Reactor had grid capability? Not that I know
of, and I was part of both the restart team and the team that was involved
in doing the physics analysis for the next startup (whenever that's gonna
be... ;) ) There *used* to be a grid capability (many, many moons ago--back
before DoE decided to come back and do seismic upgrades (funny thing--they'd
rather be able to keep the reactor safe in case of an earthquake than ensure
that they had power for the secondary pumps.... :) ) If I remember right,
it was significantly less than 10MW and was used only to keep certain secondary
pumps running, if that. (it was not normally used)
-Andrew
(29 months co-oping with Westinghouse Savannah River Company)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew W. Tipton, KE4FOJ | BNE | MSNE |
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu | 9/94 |UNM, 96|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Sofu RA/208/xxx 9673
>>What Mr. Leavinthal doesn't want known, is that IF the IFR proves what
>>it could, then 1) The nuclear waste issue would be answered 2)
>
>Well well well! Does this mean that the fission products from
>"burning" plutonium (and presumably some U235) are completely
>non-radioactive, and require no special storage? This is a
>surprise! Or is this another case of nuclear apologists being
>economical with the truth...
>
Nuclear waste is an issue only because, without a closed fuel cycle,
it contains unburned actinites (U, Pu, ...) with very long half-life
(tens of thousands of years). With these actinides separated and
recycled, storage of the remaining waste is not a challenge since
it will be converted to stable (and valuable) by-products in a few
hundred years at the most.
The reason why "public has built up such a level of distrust"
(that is if this assumption is correct: polls generally indicate results
in favor of nuclear energy) is blatant misinformation by anti-nuclear
groups.
Tanju
E. Michael Smith
>An absolute nightmare would be a portable nuke, small enough to carry
>in a briefcase or in a backpack. Even a low-yeild device would give a
>terrorist organization unprecedented power to destroy -- or even to
>simply wreak havoc with the threat.
I think these are called 'satchel bombs' or some such. The limit is
about the size and shape of a small attache case, and is rather dirty
and not very efficient. I'll leave the description of the geometry
of the device to someone else ...
Mark O. Wilson
| I'm not an expert in making boombs of any sort, but I bet I could
| make an explosive with a yield of 1 or 2 kilotons without using
| any isotope heavier than Pb-208. Let's see now - some nitrogen,
| some hydrogen.
Has anyone made any estimates of the explosive power of the recent blast
in New York city. (World Trade Center?)
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Mark O. Wilson
|Talk about your 'deliverability' problems... Have you thought about
|how large a freighter you need to deliver 2000 tons of nitrate based
|explosive? Think of it as 2000 pickup loads ... or a few 18 wheelers
|or train cars ... or 2,000 conventional bombs of 1000 lbs each...
Many of the worlds biggest cities are located right next to ports.
You don't have to buy a train, just rent a couple of cars.
How much the cost of a used freighter or a train compare to the billions that
you would have to spend to develop even a low yeild nuclear device?
alex...@gold.tc.umn.edu
think grinding the radioactive waste matter down to the size of dust, and
using it to make a conventional bomb "dirty" would have as much terror
potential.
Michael Alexander
(A.K.A. Rednaxela)
alex...@gold.tc.umn.edu
John De Armond
>>I would dispute this. A nuclear weapon can certainly be made with
>>commercial-grade Plutonium, but "effective and highly destructive" is
>>debatable.
>Put it in the drinking water.
Why would you want to waste perfectly good Pu? You're certainly not
going to harm anyone because the Pu will settle to the bottom of whatever
the water is in and stay there. Most Pu compounds are fairly insoluable
so unless you have some Pu nitrate, don't expect much.
>Scatter it around popular areas to maliciously irridate folks.
Since Pu is a pure alpha emitter, this is going to be a trick unless
you can get your victims to wallow on the ground.
Hard being a nuclear terrorist when you don't know anything nuclear,
isn't it?
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Mag. Unsolicited email published at my sole discretion
--
The government has 3 new savings bonds: The Steffie bond with no maturity,
the Gore bond with no interest and the Clinton bond with no principle.
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>>> Bear in mind when you read Argonne's information on the IFR that they
>>>are the lab receiving millions of dollars from the Federal Government to
>>>develop it.
>
>>This is not the complete story as Mr. Leventhal would like you to
>>believe.
>> [...long argument explaining that IFR will consume, not
>> export, plutonium, omitted...]
>
>>What Mr. Leavinthal doesn't want known, is that IF the IFR proves what
>>it could, then 1) The nuclear waste issue would be answered 2)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Well well well! Does this mean that the fission products from
>"burning" plutonium (and presumably some U235) are completely
>non-radioactive, and require no special storage? This is a
>surprise! Or is this another case of nuclear apologists being
>economical with the truth...
>
>This is why the public has built up such a level of distrust.
>
David, please get the facts before you go off. The facts are:
Yes, the nuclear waste issue would be solved. There would be no need
for deep geologic isolation of current "waste" spent fuel rods. The IFR
would take these rods, get out the actinides, use them as fuel and leave
"waste" that lasts ONLY 300-500 YEARS!!!! Gee, 300-500 years is much
better than 240,000 years isnt it???? If not, let me know and we'll start
to bury the spent fuel rods in your back yard!! (not meant as a flame, but
I'd rather have an IFR in my back yard than a dump!!!)
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Hoadley Internet: s84...@minyos.xx.rmit.edu.au
>Electrical Engineering, RMIT
>Melbourne, Australia Ph: +61 3 660-4847, Fax: +61 3 660-2007
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>In article <-=s8#+=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>n...@access2.digex.net (Paul Leventhal) writes:
>>
>>>well. However, he blurs important distinctions among uranium ore,
>>>enriched uranium, and highly enriched (HEU). Only the latter can be used
>>>in nuclear weapons.
>>
>>Nope. One can build a low yield "bomb" (if you can call it that) out
>>of near-natural uranium. Depending on your assumptions, the minimum
>>enrichment works out to in the 1 to 3% range. In other words,
>>good old fashioned reactor fuel. Of course most of us don't consider
>>a highly complex, very sophisticated (due to the precision of the
>>implosion and the size of the required neutron source), very large
>>device that maybe will yield 1 kt to be a bomb. Fizzles don't
>
>Hmmm... Indulging in hyperbole again, eh John? A one KILOTON 'kaboom'
>is not a bomb? Gee ... didn't the World Trade Center bomb weigh
>less than 1000 TON (2,000,000 lbs)... I've personally been next
>to a very small explosion (a 'mere' pound or so), and it was quite
>an experience ... a few weeks in the hospital and several years of
>repairs...
So, we ban all civialian uses of materials that could be used in a bomb??
This make no sense and limits the human race in ways that could not
be thought about now. This make absolutly NO sense at all!!!
>
>Yeah. It would be a big, ugly, hairy, hard to build, damn near
>impossible to transport, tricky to make go (but arn't they all..)
>device... But a kiloton IS a bomb.
>
>>really count, which is why devices built from Pu-239/240 generally
>>are not regarded as bombs except by those seeking to argue.
>
>Those like, for instance, Taylor? You know, they guy whose job
>it was to design bombs for the US Govt ... He seemed to think
>that a 1 to 2 kiloton 'fizzle yield' device was a bomb. (Source:
>McPhee. "The Curve of Binding Energy". A book about Taylor with
>interviews.)
>
>If you stick to the position that it is an irrelevant fact due to
>the other problems (size, complexity, probable failure, almost as
>easy to make a bomb from real bomb materials, handling the materials used
>would likely kill the bomber especially for reactor fuel Pu, etc...)
>you would have a stronger case. Hyperbole is fun, but stating that a
>2,000,000 pounds of TNT KA-BANG! would not be a bomb stretches credulity...
>
>>>Enrichment of uranium is not impossible, but it's extremely technically
>>>complex and expensive.
>
>This is something I've wondered about... It is, by definition, 1940's
>technology ... Seems to me that there would be better ways by now.
>But even if U is hard to enrich, can't you make Pu fairly easy?
>
>I'd have expected that one could just make a 'research reactor' out
>of U and Graphite bricks (like in the 'old days' ;-) and irradiate
>some fuel rods on a short cycle for Pu production and do a simple
>chemical extraction. Maybe there is something about Pu bomb material
>that I'm missing, but wasn't that how it was done for 'Little Boy'?
>(Or whatever it was that we dropped on Nagasaki...)
>
>I know, the 'Devil is in the Details'... and I should leave Nuke
>design to nuclear engineers ... but I just have a hard time accepting
>that 1940's technology could not be mastered by most any country in
>the 1990's with out much effort.
Yes, the devil is in the details. The Pu production reactors of yesterday
and today are very large. The chemical extraction facilities are also
huge. The reason for the hugness is in order to keep the 240/239 ratio down,
you must turn the fuel over (irradiate and extract) often so that 240 does
not build up in the 239. In order to do this and create enough material
in a short period of time (years), many and large facilities must be built.
This effort would NOT go unnoticed by our government (or any other). A
research reactor simple isnt big enough to do the trick.
>
>>>Saddam Hussein had 10,000 people working for 10
>>>years, spending $10-20 billion, and Iraq *almost* had the technology in
>>>place when the Gulf War started. So let's not oversimplify the uranium
>>>route.
>>
>>Which only goes to show that even an almost totally isolated small
>>country can start from ground zero and build a nuclear program for
>>a reasonable price.
>
>Here we agree a fair amount. $10 Billion is 'chump change' for a
>rich oil state. Heck, that is less than the revenue of MANY companies
>(HP and DEC come to mind...) in a single year ...
>
>>Most of the time and money spent was building
>>up to starting SNM production, something most programs wouldn't have
>>to do.
>
>It would seem to me, a layman, that making SNM would be an easier
>route, expecially if you used a 'research reactor' approach to
>make Pu. I'm sure I've missed something, so what is it?
You are missing a large part of the point! See above.
>
>>Why? Worrying about power reactor proliferation is kinda like worrying
>>about the dripping faucet when the dam is breaking. As S. Africa
>>demonstrated, any state which wants the bomb can get it and none of 'em
>>ever stole any reactor fuel.
>
>Good analogy. Or like an overweight smoker who worries about the
>health risk from artificial sweetner in his diet cola ...
>
>--
>
>E. Michael Smith
>Manager of Stuff
>Cygnus Support
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>rsi...@smokey.ra.anl.gov (R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879) writes:
>
>>>* IFR is not needed and no utility is interested enough to spend
>>> real money on the project. I confirm this from time to time by
>>> chats with my friends at INPO.
>>>
>
>>EXCUSS ME!!! SCE and PG&E are VERY interested in this project to the tune
>>of 2 million $. For a profit based organization, that is a lot of money. As for
>
>That's chump change to the utility, a token payment to be let in the
>door to see what's going on. kinda like the 25 cent movie houses we have
>around here. The movies might not be too hot but you go anyway just
>to see cuz the risk is low.
>
>If you want to demonstrate that there is utility interest, there is one
>sure fire way to prove it. Shinny back away from the public trough and
>let the utilities fund the development. We're only talking about one
>little reactor, after all. Either EPRI or INPO could host the fund. A
>few million from each utility each year - more chump change - would fund
>you guys to play. Hell, Georgia Power has squandered more than that
>playing with electric vans. But as long as you keep sucking at the
>public tit, your claims that the utilities want this pink elephant have
>a ring of incredulity to them.
Being an EX-plant E.I. Hatch employee (Georgia Power), I understand that
spending money on, shall we say, usless things is the mind set there. I
once spent 10,000$ for a 4.77 Mhz PC and a monochrome monitor with a 10 MB
hard disk and 1MB of main memory using GPC'S money. A waste?? Yes, six months
later I could have bought that whole system (very much upgraded) for 5,000$.
GPC is a regulated monopoly, ie, run like a government institution. They have
lots-o-money to spend on useless things and not too much money to spend on
speculation. IFR to them would be speculation. They lean on EPRI to do the
research and EPRI is having problems doing the things on their plate much
less trying to fund the IFR. From what I remembver about the history of
the INEL (previous, National Reactor Test Site - or something along those lines),
most of the "new" reactors were paid for by the navy or the AEC/DOE - the
government. IFR does not change this "tradition". Is that good or bad?? Well,
would a private industry spend 25+ years to develop and keep a testbed for various
non-related industries??? Please, they are out to make money. A testbed is
expensive and a burden unless the payoff occurs within 5 to 7 years at most.
>
>>being not needed, what is needed??? More coal and LWR plants?? Cant have more coal,
>>the "new" LWRs are just rehashes of old technology and large tanks of
>>borated water incase all else fails - real technology there!!!
>
>I know it might be a surprise to the ivory tower types but the objective
>is NOT to make technology, it is to generate inexpensive and safe power.
NOT being an ivory tower type (yet, Ive only been here 1 year), I find that
the IFR IS INEXPENSIVE AND SAFE POWER compared to the true costs of all other
power sources. Nuclear power in general is the only power source that gets
charged truely (or as close as one can come) what it costs. Fossil fuels are
highly subsidized along with wind, solar, geothermal, etc.... Nuclear
power is the only industry that must pay for it's own waste when the
product (electricity) is generated (.1 mil/kw-hr tax). Also, the IFR is
still MANY magnitudes safer than the new LWR's. The new LWR's still must
have engineered safety systems - anything a human touches usually will go
wrong??? For the IFR, physics is used as the ultimate safety system
for nuclear excursions.
>Current generation nuclear plants are doing that just fine. The next
>generation will do it better. Had I been the grand poobah in the late
>40s, I'd certainly not have selected water cooled reactors for power
>depolyment but neither would I today toss it all out just so some
>government employees (and contractors, just to keep peter happy)
>can continue to play.
>
We never said toss LWR's out the window (tomorrow is the only time scale I
can assume you mean). LWR's will produce power for the rest of the plant
lifetimes; however, are we going to throw away a much better system simple
because you are tierd of paying for it?? Very short sited. What happens
when we must bail out GPC because a LOCA happens and ten employees are hurt
(or killed or irradiated) and sue GPC beyond their ability to raise rates? Isnt
that going to be expensive especially when a design exists that makes LOCA
type accidents (actually, most LWR design basis and other accidents)
non-existant? Unfortunately, this leaves me with the only question left:
why are you against government funded research programs??
>>With a
>>once through system - current and next LWRs - MASSIVE quantities of uranium
>>are wasted, to be buried in the ground - plutonium in tact - to be dug up,
>>purified, and detonated (maybe?) with 1940's technology at a later date??
>>Sounds VERY resonable to me as long as I am on space station Freedom when
>>it occurs!!!!!
>
>Can't argue with that but I CAN argue with trying to solve political
>problems with technology. The current problems are purely political
>and the IFR will NOT solve them. I should also remind everyone that
>what we have now was NOT designed to be a once-through system.
>It has been forced on the industry by the same government that is
>now trying to force us to pay for IFR.
We are not trying to solve political problems with technology. We will let
the politicos solve their problem by developing a technical alternative.
Unfortunately, the current politicos cant see this alternative because of
a perceived problem/misunderstanding of the technology - why we are having
this discussion.
>
>>>* Liquid alkali metal cooling is a technology whose time will never come.
>>> It is a safety and maintenance nightmare, there is no need for it
>>> and there is no problem that would uniquely be solved with it.
>
>>Gee, in 25+ years of operation at various sites around the world, more
>>people were killed by soap than by liquid Na. Maybe we should ban soap!!
>>Unfortunately, your argument as stated here is emotional, no content to
>>argue exists. I can say you are wrong, but that is just an emotional
>>argument to answer an emotional argument. Give me a technical reason
>>as to why liquid Na is the worst thing plutonium and maybe I can
>>understand where you are coming from!!
>
>Gee, you're as bad as peter at exploding off in all directions, using
>emotional language. I come from a perspective of having spent much of
>my career in commercial nuclear power plants. I KNOW what is involved
>in plant maintenance and I blanch at the thought of dealing with
>thousands of gallons of explosively reactive, optically opaque hot
>metal.
Non-emotional argument (the reason I use them is to point out that the
argument I am trying to address is emotiona and not technical) The
technical argument is: Just because YOU cant deal with Na does not
mean that nobody can (gezz, three negatives -> but you get what I mean). Most
of the maintainence you talk about is caused by the water and piping
associated with LWRs. These problems go away when Na is used in a pool.
>The last time this debate went around Peter talked in glowing
>terms of all the robotic maintenance planned. We got to suffer through
>all those DOE robot experiments at TMI-II. None of them worked and the
>stuff that DID work was, for the most part, hinked together by our guys
>on-site. And I saw at Oak Ridge and Battelle what happens when this
>reobotic and remote stuff breaks. You clean up the mess as much as you
>can and then you send the zoomies in to fix things and soak up RADs.
>Don't make me laugh trying to sell me on the concept of doing this in a
>sodium environment. I might laugh until I choke.
Well, we've done lots of research in the past year and are studing a
laser method to visuallize the components in the Na tank. But, in reality,
Na does not corrode like water so the ability to "see" through the water
is not needed until deassembly of the fuel is performed (in an argon filled
cell by the way).
>
>>>* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
>>> what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
>>> right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
>>> give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
>
>>Get a job and try to think clearly, I dont understand this argument and
>>I dont think I want to, but I am willing to give it a try!!!
>
>I have a job and I pay your salary. I have half my income taken by
>taxes under the threat of force (Yes, sports fans, the IRS DOES
>use guns) so the government cna redistribute it to all sorts of
>people. I see no material difference between giving money to a
>welfare breeder queen and giving money to a welfare scientist to play.
>A lot of your play got hidden behind the shield of the Cold war but
>that's gone now. Time to, uh as you said, get a job.
Gezz, half huh?? Get another accountant. I paid less than 30% last year.
Again, an emotional argument to answer an emotional argument. There is no
answer/comment/etc... I can give here. In my opinion, the IFR is a worthwhile
project for the numerous reasons given above. I am sorry you feel the
government does not serve us well. Yes, you pay my salary and if I assume
you work for GPC now, then about 10 years ago, I PAID YOUR SALARY!!!!!
>
>>>* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
>>> to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
>>> technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
>>> reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
>>> are just a couple that come to mind.
>
>>Well, gas cooled and pebble bed reactor still use a ceramic coating to
>>encapsilate their ceramic fuel. THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!! This ceramic
>>is why HF and HNOx dissolution in mass quanities is needed for chemical
>>seperation and reprocssing. If the fuel is metal, then electrorefining
>>makes sense. The PUREX system works, but at what cost?? LWR/pebble bed
>>fuel can only be reporcessed at with PUREX or something like it.
>
>Then your media kit lies. I regret that I have my library packed for an
>impending move, for I'd love to quote the exact text, but I can
>summarize. One of supposedly huge selling points is that the IFR can
>receive, process and burn spent commercial fuel. Commercial CERAMIC
>fuel I might add. Either you can or you can't. Where's the lie? If
>you can, then it is a small additional step to take the electrorefined
>(I believe your press kit calls it pyrorefined) metal fuel and convert
>it back to an oxide.
Yes, we can reprocess ceramic fuels, but the "head-end" is still the same.
We would have to desolve the fuel (not in as large quantities as in a PUREX
process) in HF or HNOx, but the PUREX process must have these acids in pure
(non-contaiminated) form. We dont -> we can recycle used acid, PUREX cant.
Their acid becomes waste. Ours does not until all the H+'s are used up. Once
the actindes are in metal form, then the IFR reprocessing part is the same
as before; however, the PUREX process after the head end needs many different
components and reagents to strip/decontaminate etc.... IFR is much cleaner
than PUREX even in reprocessing ceramic fuel. Also, without a FAST reactor
(not a pebble bed or gas cooled reactor) the actinides still must be
seperated and stored in pure form like the LWR/PUREX process. So the
electrorefiner process (IFR) must have a fast reactor or the fuel cycle
cant be closed.
>
>>>What makes you think that whatever the US does with IFR matters at
>>>all internationally? I imagine the world recognizes IFR for what
>>>it is - scientific welfare.
>
>>Sorry Mr. De Armond. This is where you are just wrong. Japan and Russia
>>are VERY ready and WILLING to take IFR technology and make it work if
>>the US does not!!
>
>Well then, let's see this project paid for in rubles and yen.
>Russia's not going to do anything right now and I have a very hard
>time believing that japan is going to switch course in mid stream
>to accomodate this technology.
Russia is interested, not monetarily yet, but may want to jointly
build one in russia to burn their bomb grade Pu suppling the man-power
instead of money. Japn wanted to give the IFR project 25 to 60 million $
last year and still wants to contribute that much this year. For proof,
last week, well over 25 japanesse reps were here in Idaho Falls to
discuss the project with ANL. If you would check your library, you will
see that they are producing papers right and left about fast reactors,
electrorefining, metal fuels, liquid Na safety, etc... (too many to cite here).
All this is IFR type research!!!!! Your evidence wanted below!?!?!
>Show me some evidence to the
>contrary. Assertions don't count. Point me to the proof.
>Cite necessary references. Oh I have little doubt that Japan and
>even perhaps Russia (using US aid funds?) are paying the same
>chump-change just to see what the US is up to but that's a damn
>far distance from committment. If this stuff is so good, then the
>President (if we had one) should be able to turn it into a nuclear
>Desert Storm where the international community pays the tab for
>us to do the job.
Please dont speculate. I try not to. I have the Japan Atomic Power
Company FY1993 report in front of me. They need power today! Of course
they are going to go and plan for technologies that they can see. They
are in this for profit, not research. They will however, support research
to make their fleet (so to speak) of power plants safe, relibale, sustainable,
and cheap. Their view of long term is 25 to 50 years. SCE and PG&E etc...
view of long term is 5 years. This leaves out IFR for now (still need
another 5 years then US utilities will put money in it!). However, should
we as a country kill it because it does not fit into our version of loing term??
>
>>We can reap the benefits of this technology and
>>make it as nonproliferent as any technology can be or we can let it go
>>today and being buying it back in 20 to 30 years as a power source
>>or as nuclear grade bomb material.
>
>I'm still waiting for someone to give me even ONE example of commercial
>reactor fuel being proliferated to a weapons program outside the
>producing country. What pisses me off so about using the proliferation
>strawman to justify this boondoggle is that it plays right into the
>hands of the anti-nukes who would use it to shut down ALL nuclear
>plants. Sheer stupidity.
It may be stupid to you john, but to steven and others, it isnt. Their views
must be addressed. IFR has addressed them. Their problem is that they have
another agenda: to see the total stopage (if I can use this as a word) of
nuclear power. So the IFR is actually a treat instead of a boondoggle!
>
>John
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
>to kill him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>rsi...@smokey.ra.anl.gov (R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879) writes:
>
>>>>[...] And Pu produced in breeder blankets is nearly pure Pu-239.
>>>
>>>Is this true? I don't see how it can be.
>
>>It isnt, he's blowing smoke!!!!!!! Do the physics and it comes right out!
>
>You know, Robert, the reason you PhD types tend to have little credibility
>in these debates is that you dismiss people with the wave of the hand and
>a sniffed "do the math and see for yourself." One of the reasons that
>people like Jeremy and Russ and myself and a few others have been
>able to build a bit of credibility in this forum over the past few years is
>that we take the time to do the math for the people and to take the
>time to explain things in laymen's terms. You know, those laymen
>who who vote and who pay your salaries. Thanks to my RO training I
>could probably muddle through this one but I'm going to stick to health-
>physics, my specialty, and let you take a stab at it. Show everyone
>why this Director of Research is full of sh*t.
FINE! Spending your money to do sinple physics that has been done before:
U(238,92) + n(1,0) -> U(239,92) -> Np(239,93) + e(0,-1) -> Pu(239,94) + e(0,-1)
2.68 barns(thermal neuts) 23.5 min 2.355 day 24,100 years
277 barns(RI neuts)
Since Pu239 is around for so long, then it is subjected to other neutrons in the reactor:
Pu(239,94) + n(1,0) -> Pu(240,94) + n(1,0) -> Pu(241,94) -> Pu(242,94) + n(1,0) ->
capture: 270 barns(therm) 6,560 years 14.4 years 375,000 years
capture: 200 barns(RI)
fission: 750 barns(them)
fission: 300 barns(RI)
Pu(243,94) etc.....
Pu(241,94) -> Am(241,95) + e(0,-1) + n(1,0) -> Am(242,95) + n(1,0) etc....
432.7 years 141 years
From these decay chains, it is apparent if fuel with large amounts of U238 is
left in a reactor for more than a few weeks, lots of Pu239 is converted to Pu240
or burned, etc.... So, IFR fuel and blanket material has lots of "possion" or
pre-detenators in its elemential Pu. Not suitable for bombs, but VERY suitable
for power production. As for blowing people off:
I found all this info in the chart of the nuclides. A common reference available to
any engineer. The math and physics aint that hard. That is why I seem to
"dismiss people with a wave of the hand and sniffed...." I am assuming that you
are responsible enough to think for yourself and if interested enough will research
it.
A tad more credible for you john??? If not, I can write the batemann solution to
the decay equations and come up with exact results for isotope ratios?!?! You tell
me what information you need!!
>
>John
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
>to kill him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alan Guthrie
Of course, the type of Boombs being discussed here would
not fit in a backpack or a briefcase. To build them that
small requires considerable sophistication on the part
of the weapons designer and his materials supplier. The
discussion is dealing with the question of whether a
militarily-significant Boomb can be built using reactor-
grade plutonium.
>--
>Previous .sig deleted because some people couldn't parse "from email
>_received_ re: a post on comp.sys.powerpc."
>
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
zc...@octopus.pgh.wec.com |
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
I am impressed. Here is someone who is using their head in thinking this
proliferation problem through. This "terror" weapon could be built with
U ore directly from the ground or even with ground up commercial
reactor fuel. Therefore we should outlaw all commercial reactor fuel.
(again, an emotional argument to answer the NCI's emotional arguement
about proliferation. The technical side says, why have a nuclear
weapon when spiked conventional weapons will do!!! Cheaper, just as
treatening, and easy!!!)
Michael, I applaud your thinking.
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>>>* The government has no business squandering money it doesn't have on
>>> what ammounts to a scientific welfare program. It is no more
>>> right to take money from one citizen under threat of force and
>>> give it to a scientist than it is to give it to a ghetto breeder.
>>>
>
>>Once again, no one laid claim to "breeder" technology here. In fact
>>you convienently have dodged the issue that CR < 1.0 reactors are
>>really what we are after.
>
>Nah, Peter, it's that I don't buy into this sham to try and rename
>the Experimental Breeder Reactor to the IFR/expermental burner
>reactor prototype for political expediency. Not only is this
>deception of a high order, it is stupid. It is stupid NOT to breed
>if we're going to have a fast reactor.
HUH??? The IFR can have multiple purposes: to breed or to burn. If designed
correctly, once it burns, it cannot breed - if that is important for the bomb
issue. If this issue isnt important, then once designed to breed, it can burn
also!! Plus, we are not talking about massive quanities of Pu here. The best
design of the IFR reactor system is a system that loads some U on site and over
the life of the plant breeds enough material to sustain itself over that life.
IE, no shipments of fuel on/off after the initial loading for 40 years. Talk
about simple, cheap, and non-proliferent!!!! Cant think of any better than this!
>
>>In so far as scientific welfare, we elect Representatives and Senators
>>to oversee our interests. If I do recall, Sen. Nunn voted yes on this
>>technology. Go take it up with him if you disagree.
>
>We're doing everything we can to get his ass out of congress.
>Much of georgia is mightily ashamed of him. Unfortunately
>many georgians have voted for Nunn's ability to keep
>military bases (military welfare?) in Georgia. We need a naval
>air station here in the middle of Marietta like we need a hole in our
>heads. Or like those people needed an A-6 in their bedrooms
>a couple of years ago. (For those who don't know what I'm talking
>about, imagine a naval air station right in the middle of Manhattan.
>That's what we have here.)
>
Having been to Marietta, it isnt anything like Manhattan. Also, have lived
and grownup in Tucson, Davis-Monthan is a money maker for the city etc....
Yes, even we killed two girls on a street corner with a A-7 crash, but, even
though that was incredibly tragic, should it close the entire industry for thaty
city? That is preety harsh punishment.
>>>* The goal of integral fuel reprocessing - if there ever proves
>>> to be a commercial desire for it - can be done with less exotic
>>> technology that doesn't involve thousands of pounds of hot,
>>> reactive liquid metal. Gas cooled and pebble bed reactor designes
>
>>o are just a couple that come to mind.
>
>>Why would you want to use an unproven technology (Ft.St.Vrain-what
>>a nightmare)
>
>What nightmare is that, Peter?
Well, since peter didnt answer, Fort St. Vrain is a gas cooled reactor (commerical)
that never ran well and was a money pit for its life. The EBR series of
reactors have never had this problem.
>
>>or little used technology versus something which is
>>a natural fit for safety (metal on metal) and has the years of
>>experience to back it.
>
>It might be instructive to point out at this point that this EBR-II, ne
>IFR that peter is so proud of is, according to their press kit, a
>16 MWt, 2 MWe plant. A nuclear pilot light. About like trying to
>evaluate the behavior of the fire in a blast furnace by examining
>a match. EBR was very successful for what it was intended.
>It is NOT a power reactor.
Well, again, get your facts straight. EBR-II is a 62.5 MWt, 20 MWe power
plant suppling half of the power that 5 dams on the snake river supply
to Idaho Falls and surrounding area -> 75,000 people, farms (irrigation),
businesses, and the INEL!!! This is by no means a pilot light. In fact,
it is worth
20 MW * .7 * 1 year * 0.04 $ /kW-hr * (365.25*24)hr/1 year = 4.909 Million $
for 1 year operation at a 70% capcity factor and 4 cents per kilowatt hour.
But all we get is 50,000$ bonus if we run for more than 30 calendar days
(first through the first). Not a bad deal for power users in this area??
>
>>You can't throw away that experience, even if
>>you come from a health-physics background. (BTW no dressout req'd
>>to make a containment power entry)
>
>At least until you fail some fuel.
Well, no, even if we fail fuel, you can still walk into the reactor
building with out anti-c's. Nice design feature huh!
>But what do you do when
>you fail a reactor internal? We send divers down to fix broken
>LWR reactor internals, to retrieve dropped parts and such. Can't
>do that in sodium. At least not more than once.
Well, how would we fail a reactor internal? The vessel isnt pressureized.
The Na is VERY NON-CORROSIVE, there are few MOVING parts in the design
and those can be retrieved very easily since they are the pump blades. Also,
I would like you to replace the grid plate in a BWR with divers!!!!! No need
to to a pipe or torus replacement since everything in an IFR is submerged
in a pool of Na under atmospheric pressure. In laymans terms, there are no
parts to fail over and above the unreplaceable (if a word) parts in an LWR
design!!!!! Most of our design utilizes physics instead of mechanics to
drive the system -> a much safer design in many ways!!
>
>>You still don't get it. How many times have I read your diatribe
>>blasting anti-nukes for waste and safety issues. John, open your
>>eyes, it still isn't too late for salvation.
>
>I opened my eyes a long time ago. And I do it again everytime I see what
>I pay in taxes, usually accompanied with a WOW! hey, an experimental
>reactor here, a space program there, a billion dollar bomber over
>yonder and all of a sudden, the government gets more of my money than
>I do. And I'm STILL looking for the Constitutional grant of authority
>for the federal government to be doing ANY civilian nuclear research.
I dont approve of this flaming, but john, please get the facts about the IFR,
nay, come and visit us (really, I'll give you a tour that will answer all your
questions) and see for yourself. Then, loaded with facts (not propaganda), then
think and make your choice.
>
>John
>
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
>to kill him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony C Tweedale
a reactor and summarize--fairly--how the ifr can/cannot be made to produce
relatively purefied weapons grade plutonium? i reviewed the whole thread and
didn't find any such explanation...
i like the idea of the ifr being able to burn up decomissioned bomb's Pu
and until this thread took it at face value that its design made it inca-
pable of being a weapons grade breeder (always understood that it could
be made to produce Pu, but thought that that Pu would be messy w/ other
high actinides. btw, some of the ifr people gave a series of decent
workshops at a conference here ~ a year ago...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
tony tweedale, grad TEMPERATE BUT ENDANGERED PLANET. ENJOYS
env. studies program (evst) WEATHER, NORTHERN LIGHTS, CONTINENTAL
rankin hall u. montana DRIFT. SEEKS CARING RELATIONSHIP WITH
missoula mt 59812 INTELLIGENT LIFEFORM. (f.o.e.)
406-542-1709 internet: es...@selway.umt.edu
David Hoadley
>>
>>>What Mr. Leavinthal doesn't want known, is that IF the IFR proves what
>>>it could, then 1) The nuclear waste issue would be answered 2)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I questioned this assertion, as follows:
>>Well well well! Does this mean that the fission products from
>>"burning" plutonium (and presumably some U235) are completely
>>non-radioactive, and require no special storage? This is a
>>surprise! Or is this another case of nuclear apologists being
>>economical with the truth...
>>
>>This is why the public has built up such a level of distrust.
-to which two authors responded by taking me for an idiot.
First, from the original poster (P Angelo)
>No David, you missed the point. The waste issue is about HLW and
>not LLW. Else you would have every knee-jerk protest group infront
>of hospitals, universities, industrial plants,etc. Over the years,
>we have heard nothing about LLW with respect to the "thousands
>of years of vigilance required- since a couple of hundred years should
>do the trick. Your assertion assumes HLW=LLW and this is not true.
This is interesting. I had always thought that HLW was "Highly
radioactive", or "hot" etc., not "High Atomic Number" waste. I also
thought that the fission products from a reactor were indeed "hot",
whatever their atomic number. Still if P Angelo wishes to make that
distinction, I'll accept it. He isn't trying to muddy the waters,
surely? But am I wrong to be concerned about fission products,
whether or not they are called HLW? I'll return to the
"couple of hundred years" in a minute.
>The waste issue I refer to being answered is the actinide waste
>(A > 92) which everyone wants to complain about but do nothing
>about.
OK, I'll take this as the nearest thing to a concession that I am
going to get from P Angelo that what he should have said was
"a PART of the nuclear waste issue would be solved."
>Capish?
(I think this is local dialect, intended to imply that I am a bit thick.)
The other response, from Robert Singleterry, also of ANL, was a bit more
colorful.
>David, please get the facts before you go off. The facts are:
>Yes, the nuclear waste issue would be solved. There would be no need
>for deep geologic isolation of current "waste" spent fuel rods. The IFR
>would take these rods, get out the actinides, use them as fuel and leave
>"waste" that lasts ONLY 300-500 YEARS!!!! Gee, 300-500 years is much
>better than 240,000 years isnt it????
Well, of course it is. But that doesn't mean the problem is solved.
300-500 years is still a bloody long time! You can't leave it sitting
around for unaware people to approach, can you? It can't be destroyed
even in principle, like other "intractable", toxic or hazardous wastes,
can it? (If it can, without consuming all the energy liberated in
creating it, then we really are getting somewhere.)
And what about the problem of disposing of old reactors and power
stations when they die? Surely you don't think that burying them
all in concrete mountains is a true "solution" do you? I repeat--
a PART only of the waste problem would be solved.
> If not, let me know and we'll start
>to bury the spent fuel rods in your back yard!! (not meant as a flame, but
.. but it is a rather pointless statement.
>I'd rather have an IFR in my back yard than a dump!!!)
David.
E. Michael Smith
>Has anyone made any estimates of the explosive power of the recent blast
>in New York city. (World Trade Center?)
I'll make one. It was delivered in a conventional van. That makes
the payload on the order of one ton weight. It was home-brew Urea Nitrate,
which ought to be less powerfull per ton than TNT. I'd estimate it
at being about a 1 TON TNT equivalent or _less_ explosive force.
Paul Leventhal
Please stop ascribing false arguments to me and our organization. When
did I ever claim that a nuclear reactor could blow up like a nuclear
bomb? Please send me that post.
As for the ongoing IFR debate, it is an interesting and important one.
Unfortunately, we have a very small staff and I can't spend all my time
debating on the Internet. To go through each post that arrived in my
absence and do a line by line refutation is unworkable. I repeat my
offer to send more information about IFR and the Nuclear Control
Institute to anyone who requests it.
I am new to Internet, but if I can find an FTP site for our information
on IFR, I will upload it, and post here to let you know where you can
find it.
I would also issue a plea to keep the very important debate about these
issues on the high ground. Flame wars accomplish nothing. I would
particularly point to false attribution of motivation (anyone opposing
anything nuclear is a rabid antinuke, or worse yet, a luddite), and
patronizing or snide comments ("Well, if you'd read the literature..." or
"Your so called 'Institute'"). We'll never achieve a safe, rational
energy policy or nonproliferation regime if the debate moves forward in
this fashion.
I can understand that one would find this debate very threatening if
one designed fast reactors for a living. But try to resist the urge to
deflect issues by denigrating your opponents.
To conclude, future silence from me in this forum does not imply
concession. It just means that 1) I can't spend my entire life on the
Net, and 2) the intellectual climate is not particularly hospitable to
rational discussion. Perhaps as the Internet evolves and we get used to
using it, that will change.
Sincerely,
Steven Dolley
Research Director, Nuclear Control Institute
Michael Raynold Zika
R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879 <rsi...@smokey.ra.anl.gov> wrote:
>Also, the IFR is still MANY magnitudes safer than the new LWR's.
Please document this claim. As I recall (sorry, references are
elsewhere), PRA analysis on current LWR's estimates a 10^-6 probability
of death per reactor year of operation (please correct that number
if I'm mistaken). I find it extremely hard to believe that IFR
technology can lower that number by "MANY" orders of magnitude.
>------------------------------------
>Robert C. Singleterry Jr., Ph.D. |
>Argonne National Laboratory - West |
>A private citizen with a Ph.D. in |
>Nuclear Engineering |
>(transport cowboy) |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bad form stealing Barry's nickname like that... :-)
--
|
Michael Zika (zi...@trinity.tamu.edu) | Hey don't ask me "why?",
Texas A&M University | I'm still working on "how?" !
School of Nuclear Engineering |
Dave Lewis Appl Phys
any others? Or are there just too many variables to do this in any meaningful
way?
---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------
It is inevitable that we shall eventually | David Lewis
become indistinguishable from our machinery! | Wk: dle...@jezebel.ms.sandia.gov
(All standard disclaimers apply) | Hm: david...@cup.portal.com
E. Michael Smith
>In article <CtMBr...@cygnus.com> e...@cygnus.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <-=s8#+=@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>> Of course most of us don't consider
>>>a highly complex, very sophisticated (due to the precision of the
>>>implosion and the size of the required neutron source), very large
>>>device that maybe will yield 1 kt to be a bomb. Fizzles don't
>>
>>Hmmm... Indulging in hyperbole again, eh John? A one KILOTON 'kaboom'
>>is not a bomb? Gee ... didn't the World Trade Center bomb weigh
>>less than 1000 TON (2,000,000 lbs)... I've personally been next
>>to a very small explosion (a 'mere' pound or so), and it was quite
>>an experience ... a few weeks in the hospital and several years of
>>repairs...
>
>So, we ban all civialian uses of materials that could be used in a bomb??
Sirrah, you have lept to a conclusion only vaguely releated to the
assertion above! John claimed that a KILOTON was not a bomb. I
pointed out that far smaller sizes were considered 'a bomb' and that
I had personal experience with one that is very very small and yet
it certainly WAS 'a bomb'. None of this argues for banning anything.
It only states what is, or is not, 'a bomb'.
>This make no sense and limits the human race in ways that could not
>be thought about now. This make absolutly NO sense at all!!!
Yes, it makes no sense at all since it is wholely a figment of
your creation and is not to be found in the argument above.
I have not argued for the banning of anything in this thread.
I have asserted that things measured in kilotons of TNT equivalent
that go BOOM! ought to be called bombs ...
I happen to like things that go BOOM! ... I've made several ...
It's fun (at least until you get blown up, that is...)
John De Armond
>Having been to Marietta, it isnt anything like Manhattan. Also, have lived
>and grownup in Tucson, Davis-Monthan is a money maker for the city etc....
>Yes, even we killed two girls on a street corner with a A-7 crash, but, even
>though that was incredibly tragic, should it close the entire industry for
>that city? That is preety harsh punishment.
A Naval Air base is an industry? Interesting. What does it make?
Let's step back a moment and analyze this. The Naval base gets (partially)
borrowed US government money and pays some of it to local employees
who get to take some home after sending a good chunk back to the
government. Some more of this borrowed money is paid to local vendors
for this'n'that. Pretty poor method of taking money from some
citizens and giving it to others, don't you think? Maybe I'm
just old fashioned but I always thought that the military should be
about defending the country and not about the redistribution of
wealth. All Dobbins does is let Nunn buy some votes.
>>>Why would you want to use an unproven technology (Ft.St.Vrain-what
>>>a nightmare)
>>
>>What nightmare is that, Peter?
>Well, since peter didnt answer, Fort St. Vrain is a gas cooled reactor
>(commerical) that never ran well and was a money pit for its life.
>The EBR series of reactors have never had this problem.
Ft St Vrain was a commercial sized demonstration project. It was NOT
intended to be a production plant. It was designed to shake out
problems that arise with a full scale plant. I've yet to hear anyone
without a competative ax to grind call this plant anything but
successful. It was amazingly reliable to be what amounts to a prototype.
>>At least until you fail some fuel.
>Well, no, even if we fail fuel, you can still walk into the reactor
>building with out anti-c's. Nice design feature huh!
Yeah, we have the same feature in LWRs.
>Well, how would we fail a reactor internal? The vessel isnt pressureized.
>The Na is VERY NON-CORROSIVE, there are few MOVING parts in the design
>and those can be retrieved very easily since they are the pump blades.
So after something, say a pump blade, breaks off and gets lodged in
the core, how do you retrieve it? I'll not try to predict HOW
something might fail anymore than one could do that in a LWR.
I care about what you do AFTER something does happen.
>Also, I would like you to replace the grid plate in a BWR with
>divers!!!!!
Not being a nuclear diver, I can't really comment on that particular
part but I can note that during the Browns Ferry fire recovery,
they had divers down in Units 1 and 2 for weeks doing something or
another. They partially defueled, of course. I know because I had
to stumble over their hoses on the refueling deck.
>I dont approve of this flaming, but john, please get the facts about the IFR,
>nay, come and visit us (really, I'll give you a tour that will answer all your
>questions) and see for yourself. Then, loaded with facts (not propaganda),
>then think and make your choice.
I'd love to tour the place and see what I've been buying but it won't
change my opinion one iota about government funded R&D. And I doubt
it will answer my maintenance questions. At BFNP, I didn't get called
upon to figure out how the clear and totally invisible camera lens
ended up in the #2 core; I was called upon to figure out how to get
it out. (I figured out that we could do a open-top boiloff and nuke
the plastic back to its elements) That's the perspective I come from.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
John De Armond
>I wonder what color your eyes are, because you are full of it.
>First and formost, the only reason to use a 30-year old realiable
>fast reactor to irradiate IFR type fuel is that it is an adequate
>TEST BED i.e. source of flux for the fuel type. Noteworthy, from
>the 1986 tests, the metal-fuel, metal coolant temperature responses
>were indicative of the inherrent safety from LHS and LOFT transients.
Yes, it was a grand test bed. So now that its purpose is satisfied,
let's make a museum out of it, toss up a plaque, let you guys go
out and get real jobs and save the taxpayers some money.
>Next, EBR-II is a 62.5 MWth plant which provides 19MWe to the INEL
>grid. Ask Russ, he will confirm. Not this "2MW" rinky dink reactor
>as you espouse. Shame on you, since you have this info in hand.
>Is this credibility or what?
No, it comes from working from memory because your whole library is
packed in boxes getting ready to move. Until I can unpack, I'll
concede you the point. Doesn't change the fact, however, that
EBR-II is a pilot plant.
>I may be one of those "PhD types", but I also am not embittered by
>some grudge against the government. I also have the benefit of
>working my way up, and at one time, my SRO would have been enough
>to be your boss.
*Shrug*. I'd be an SRO too, by now, had I chosen to continue. I'm out
for the same reason I imagine you are - I decided that the legal
liabilities of that license neither worth the pay nor the enjoyment.
The prospect of being sent to jail for a simple procedural mistake was
not comforting.
To the point, why do you aver that anyone who thinks the government
ought to at least nominally obey the constitution, that it should not
be robbing this country of its wealth and that it should not
be spending money it doesn't have means the person is carrying an embittered
grudge? About the only thing I would ever get bitter about is the
fact that utterly stupid government nuclear policy destroyed my
profession. I don't have time to dwell on that even.
The problem is, Peter, that you guys make a good case for your playground
and the guys over at NASA make a good case for their playground and a
bunch of guys in thousands of other government programs make good cases
for their playgrounds and the overall effect is that government takes
half or better of most working peoples' income. This is just flat wrong.
I want you off your nuclear playground equally as much as I want
the ghetto breeders off that dole.
>Wrong. This is your mindthink: Abolish the government and let
>private enterprise work out the details. On the otherhand, as a
>small businessman, you are the first to cry foul when you cant
>get enough start-up capital curtesy of your Uncle Sam. Who do you
>think insures the bank against risky ventures of yourself.
Peter, you really ought to get out of that ivory tower and check out the
real world. With the exception of the random SBA loan (check out THEIR
failure rates sometime), usually reserved for one minority or the other,
venture capital does NOT come from the govenrment. It comes out of
private individuals' pockets. And that's the way it ought to be. I
funded my startups the old fashioned way - from savings and from
ordinary loans from friends and the occasional bank secured the old
fashioned way - with everything I owned. The only government money I've
ever had has come either from contracted-for work, salary or a single
SBA grant. The latter was one of the worst business mistakes I ever
made, done at the behest of my token PhD-type who wanted something to do
while I used his resume for marketing purposes. I lost money on that
one.
I think your comments about where you believe venture capital
comes from gives great insight into what is wrong with
government these days - you don't have a clue as to how business works.
>>LWR reactor internals, to retrieve dropped parts and such. Can't
>>do that in sodium. At least not more than once.
>You dont even know what we can and cant do, so once again, no
>credibility is offered on your part with sodium reactor experience,
>unless you slithered under the rug at FFTF, or somehow managed to
>work here.
Ad hominims make you feel good, Peter, but they do nothing for your
credibility. Don't duck the question. And don't tell me accidents
are impossible; we both know they are. Tell me how, after an accident
does happen, how you're going to retrieve debris or broken parts
from a sodium-cooled core. Save the arm waving, just tell us in
plain english how you do it. I'm all ears.
>>Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
>>Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
>>to kill him.
>Shame on you. My father won the bronze star in Korea. He'd kick your
>butt all the way back to the 50's for that bit of conspiratorial
>embellishment.
Well dad has a silver star and a purple heart from WWII and he'd
kick your ass so there. Pfffttttt!
Embellishment? Well let's see. The government engages itself in a
war without purpose, sends soldiers to fight and die without an
intent to win, ties their hands with rules of engagement that would be
funny in another context, soaks them with any old chemical
someone wants to try against the jungle, brings 'em back home and
then subjects them to the worst crime of all - the VA. yeah, I'd
call that every attempt to kill 'em. Even you'd agree with me if
you'd ever been inside a VA hospital.
John De Armond
>Being an EX-plant E.I. Hatch employee (Georgia Power), I understand that
>spending money on, shall we say, usless things is the mind set there.
Are you referring to things the government makes them do or other
things? I'm an ex-Hatch guy too, having spent a summer down there while
the company I owned installed, calibrated and started up their
RegGuide 1.97 equipment. I thought Hatch was one of the better
operated plants, attributed by most people to the distance between
Baxter and Atlanta.
>GPC is a regulated monopoly, ie, run like a government institution. They have
>lots-o-money to spend on useless things and not too much money to spend on
>speculation. IFR to them would be speculation. They lean on EPRI to do the
>research and EPRI is having problems doing the things on their plate much
>less trying to fund the IFR.
IFR would no more be speculation than any of the other demonstration projects
undertaken by EPRI and funded by the utilities. You know as well as I
that the utilities have a degree of freedom in R&D spending. Hell,
GA Pwr has wasted millions buying 50 of Chrysler's electric vans
at $100,000 each. When they brought one of these turkeys to our
SAE section meeting to show off, I asked the program manager where the
money came from. He could not give me a breakdown but he listed in
order, ratepayer money, stockholder money, federal money. If they can
toss $5 million plus down the drain to play with electric vans, they
can damn sure toss money at promising power generation technology.
>From what I remembver about the history of
>the INEL (previous, National Reactor Test Site-or something along those lines),
>most of the "new" reactors were paid for by the navy or the AEC/DOE - the
>government. IFR does not change this "tradition". Is that good or bad?? Well,
>would a private industry spend 25+ years to develop and keep a testbed
>for various non-related industries???
Of course not. They'd have done their R&D in a few years, developed
the product and then shut it down or gone on to the next project.
>Please, they are out to make money. A testbed is
>expensive and a burden unless the payoff occurs within 5 to 7 years at most.
Oh? Perhaps you can explain IBM's Watson Research Center, AT&T's Bell
labs or the baby bells' Bellcore?
>still MANY magnitudes safer than the new LWR's. The new LWR's still must
>have engineered safety systems - anything a human touches usually will go
>wrong??? For the IFR, physics is used as the ultimate safety system
>for nuclear excursions.
Gravity and physics tend to be how LWRs protect themselves against
nuclear excursions too. The RPS is for AFTER scram. Know what?
I bet that after the IFR gets run through the same gauntlet as
LWRs have, you'll have some engineered safeguards too. All you have
to do is look at that article about spent fuel pit cooling that
wafted across this forum a few days ago. If someone can fantasize
about spent fuel pit pool failures, they can fantasize about
IFR failures. And in this business fantasies tend to spawn metal
and concrete.
>Unfortunately, this leaves me with the only question left:
>why are you against government funded research programs??
Because the government has no constitutional authority to take people's
money and spend it on research and because government research
is always financially bloated and rarely produces anything worthwhile.
I'll grudgingly tolerate the bloat and the waste when it is for the
purposes of national defence but building an IFR is NOT. Everytime the
government gets its claws out of an industry, we all benefit.
Trucking, air travel, telecommunications - no one can rationally
suggest that things were better before.
>We are not trying to solve political problems with technology. We will let
>the politicos solve their problem by developing a technical alternative.
Sure you are. You're trying to address the purely political fantasy
of proliferation and the purely political problem of the government
prohibition on LWR fuel reprocessing and the purely political problem of
the government's fucked up policy regarding wastes and the purely
political problem of permitting obstructionists to stall new plant
construction and the purely political problem of excessive "safety"
systems in LWRs with the IFR. Fix the political problems and IFR has
no reason for existing. Fail to fix the political problems and IFR
hasn't a chance of a fart in a whirlwind of surviving the gauntlet.
>Non-emotional argument (the reason I use them is to point out that the
>argument I am trying to address is emotiona and not technical) The
>technical argument is: Just because YOU cant deal with Na does not
>mean that nobody can (gezz, three negatives -> but you get what I mean). Most
>of the maintainence you talk about is caused by the water and piping
>associated with LWRs. These problems go away when Na is used in a pool.
Some do, some don't. I worry about those that don't.
>Well, we've done lots of research in the past year and are studing a
>laser method to visuallize the components in the Na tank. But, in reality,
>Na does not corrode like water so the ability to "see" through the water
>is not needed until deassembly of the fuel is performed (in an argon filled
>cell by the way).
Or until something breaks off cuz someone blew the hydro calculations
and vibration got to it or someone drops something in the pool or
whatever. I'm not really concerned with how a f*ck-up happens, I'm
concerned with what I do after the FUP happens. The reactor vendors
told us, for example, that if we'd just get our water purity high
enough that our corrosion problems would go away. We did it and on
a large scale and guess what? The hyper-pure water caused metal loss
by dissolving some of the alloying metals. Guess what? cracking.
No one knew that until the plan was deployed on a large scale.
You tell me that Na is non-corrosive and I have no reason not to believe
you. But based on my experience I will NOT believe you that this
necessarily holds after the plant is scaled up by a factor of 10 or more
and has operated for awhile. I must assume that shit will happen
and therefore I must ask how to perform the necessary maintenance.
Obviously someone there is concerned or else you would not be looking
at laser visualization. You see more research opportunity; I see
maintenance nightmares.
>Gezz, half huh?? Get another accountant. I paid less than 30% last year.
You probably did pay that much in federal taxes. Then you paid another
8% in SSI (for the priviledge of being self-employed, I get to pay
twice that) and another 1.5% or thereabouts for medicade. Then
if you lived in Georgia you'd pay 8 more percent in state income tax.
let's see, I'm up to 46%. Then you pay property tax (or have it built
into your rent), personal property tax, ad valorem tax and sales tax.
Since sales tax comes out of the net, our local 5% tax is equivalent
to what, oh, maybe 8-10% of your gross. Hmm, I think my 50% estimate might
be low.
>>I'm still waiting for someone to give me even ONE example of commercial
>>reactor fuel being proliferated to a weapons program outside the
>>producing country. What pisses me off so about using the proliferation
>>strawman to justify this boondoggle is that it plays right into the
>>hands of the anti-nukes who would use it to shut down ALL nuclear
>>plants. Sheer stupidity.
>It may be stupid to you john, but to steven and others, it isnt. Their views
>must be addressed. IFR has addressed them. Their problem is that they have
>another agenda: to see the total stopage (if I can use this as a word) of
>nuclear power. So the IFR is actually a treat instead of a boondoggle!
Of course it is. The way to "address their concerns" is to tell 'em to
crawl back under the rocks they came from. This is one of the major
problems with government being involved in research. The government
must be at least somewhat responsive to everyone. Since it must,
the way to minimize the negative impact of the govenrment on the people
is to allow it to do only the very minimum necessary for national
security. Addressing nutcases by spending millions to build an IFR
is NOT the way to do it.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me even ONE instance of
civilian nuclear fuel being diverted to bomb use.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
John De Armond
>>You know, Robert, the reason you PhD types tend to have little credibility
>>in these debates is that you dismiss people with the wave of the hand and
>>a sniffed "do the math and see for yourself."
>FINE! Spending your money to do sinple physics that has been done before:
[Bunch of talking with math deleted]
>As for blowing people off: I found all this info in the chart of
>the nuclides. A common reference available to any engineer. The math
>and physics aint that hard. That is why I seem to "dismiss people with a
>wave of the hand and sniffed...." I am assuming that you are
responsible enough to think for yourself and if interested enough
>will research it.
>A tad more credible for you john??? If not, I can write the
>batemann solution to the decay equations and come up with exact
>results for isotope ratios?!?! You tell me what information you need!!
Robert, I KNOW this stuff. I have a table of isotopes just like you do
and I can muddle through. I'm not the ones you need to convince.
I KNOW that reactor fuel is unsuitable for profileration. The
people you need to convince are all the rest of the people reading
this forum, people who perhaps have a casual interest in physics
but an education in something else. E. Mike Smith is a perfect
example. Mike has (I think) a PhD in Chemistry, has worked in
computers most of his career and is very interested in energy issues
as evidenced by his postings here. Explain to HIM why reactor
fuel is nonproliferant. Explain to the liberal arts grad why
reactor fuel is nonproliferant. Do it with words and as little
math as possible. What all these people have in common is that
they are taxpayers and pay your salary and will ultimately
determine whether or not your project continues to be funded.
People tell me I do a pretty good job of reducing the complex to the
understandable so I KNOW it can be done. Give it a shot. Or
else blow people off and become unemployed. Easy as that.
I actually hope you continue as you are, for it makes it easier for
me to get IFR defunded.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Jeremy Whitlock
>I happen to like things that go BOOM! ... I've made several ...
>It's fun (at least until you get blown up, that is...)
Which, for the unfortunate terrorist trying to make a bomb out of
reactor-grade plutonium, is what most likely will happen.
--
Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
McMaster University, 1280 Main West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Michael Raynold Zika
>rsi...@smokey.ra.anl.gov (R Singleterry IFRO/713 7879) writes:
<SNIP>
>>Well, how would we fail a reactor internal? The vessel isnt pressureized.
>>The Na is VERY NON-CORROSIVE, there are few MOVING parts in the design
>>and those can be retrieved very easily since they are the pump blades.
>
>So after something, say a pump blade, breaks off and gets lodged in
>the core, how do you retrieve it? I'll not try to predict HOW
>something might fail anymore than one could do that in a LWR.
>I care about what you do AFTER something does happen.
Um, if I recall correctly, aren't the pumps in EBR-II EM pumps? I got
the impression that the pumps utilized the magnetic properties of the
liquid sodium to "pump" the fluid rather than a standard impeller configuration.
As I recall, in the 1985 Loss of Primary Flow Accident scenario, the transient
was accomplished by _reversing_ the current to the EM pumps for a short time,
completely stopping the liquid sodium flow in the primary. Thus, making
the scenario conservative (no account for any coastdown).
Granted, this only eliminates pump blades from the "stuff" that might be
in the pool... Just wanted to inject a reality check...
B. Alan Guthrie
<SNIP>
>
>>Well, since peter didnt answer, Fort St. Vrain is a gas cooled reactor
>>(commerical) that never ran well and was a money pit for its life.
>>The EBR series of reactors have never had this problem.
>
>Ft St Vrain was a commercial sized demonstration project. It was NOT
>intended to be a production plant. It was designed to shake out
>problems that arise with a full scale plant. I've yet to hear anyone
>without a competative ax to grind call this plant anything but
>successful. It was amazingly reliable to be what amounts to a prototype.
>
<SNIP>
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Mag. Unsolicited email published at my sole discretion
>--
>The government has 3 new savings bonds: The Steffie bond with no maturity,
>the Gore bond with no interest and the Clinton bond with no principle.
I admit up front to working for a PWR vendor and to having worked for a
different one earlier in my career, but I respectfully take issue with
the characterization of Ft. St. Vrain as being a success. The plant had
a low capacity factor and rarely, if ever, ran at 100% of its rated power.
I recall that it was limited to 70% of rated power. The helium circulators
never seemed to work properly, and I believe that the graphite blocks had
unexpected vibration problems. The plant was closed long before its
projected end of life.
Certainly it was a demonstration plant, but I'd argue that the demon-
stration was less than a success.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | Faster horses,
zc...@monarch.pgh.wec.com | Older whiskey,
| Younger women,
| More money.
JM Alvis
[much interesting stuff cut before and after...]
....
>GA Pwr has wasted millions buying 50 of Chrysler's electric vans
>at $100,000 each. When they brought one of these turkeys to our
>SAE section meeting to show off, I asked the program manager where the
>money came from. He could not give me a breakdown but he listed in
>order, ratepayer money, stockholder money, federal money. If they can
>toss $5 million plus down the drain to play with electric vans, they
>can damn sure toss money at promising power generation technology.
>
But the value of the PR was worth much more to them than the cost
of the vans or developing new nuclear power generation technology.
---
John M. Alvis
Research Engineer
Nuclear Systems and Materials Dept.
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
voice: (509) 376-2099
fax: (509) 376-5824
email: d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
John De Armond
>In article <kg1...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>
>>...the reason you PhD types tend to have little credibility
>>>>in these debates is that you dismiss people with the wave of the hand and
>>>>a sniffed "do the math and see for yourself."
>The reason is that IF they CAN do the math, then their answers
>would be evident. And the reason you feel "PhD types" lack credibility
>IYFUO (In Your FU opinion) is that you can't compete technically
>with them,
Thank you Peter. There is literally no amount of words I could write
that could do as much damage to your cause as you just did. I couldn't
ask for a better ally. Imagine, an engineer engaged in what is probably
the MOST unpopular research in this country telling the people who
pay his salary to just fuck off and let them play with their toys
unmolested and unbothered by the unwashed masses who can't compete.
Gad, I couldn't have scripted this better had I tried.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. (At least *I* am smart enough to keep
my token PhDs, when I need them, AWAY from the customers.)