From: kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch)
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:28:56 GMT

Everyone is entitled to there opinion, and indeed everyone has a
valauble opinion to share with the world, but misguided crap really
makes me mad....

In <1ilhrgINNpcu@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:

>] >> In order to get the energy required by all these people [the supposed 
>] >> carrying capacity of the earth -- 30 Billion people], we would
>] >> have to use nuclear breeder reactors.
>] > 
>] >Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?
>] 
>] Breeder reactors don't produce waste, they consume it.

>Ah, that's not really true.  Although it is a claim commonly made about
>breeder reactors.  The other common claim is that breeder reactors
>produce more fuel that they consume - also a misleading claim.

>The fact is, breeder reactors produce just as much fission byproducts
>as a conventional reactor, and they tend to irradiate their surroundings
>more (read: more shielding required, more expensive/difficult/dangerous
>to decommission) because of the much higher neutron flux they generate.

This is O.K., breeder reactors are difficult to operate safely due to 
a number a factors for example being smaller than "conventional"
reactors makes it harder to cool them efficientl.                  

>They don't produce the same amount of radioactive 'depleted uranium'
>(i.e. U238) as a conventional reactor, because the essence of a breeder
>reactor is that it enriches its own fuel - i.e, U238 in and around the
>reactor core tends to get converted to U235 usable as fuel.           

Hold on ther now, I was under the impression that the small amount of
U235 under normal fission in the reactor turns U238 which is effectivley
useless to Pu239 which while toxic (most toxic substance on earth) and
"usefull" in weapons production can also be used as a reactor fuel. 
This is of obvious use when the worlds Uranium stores run out, which
won't be far away if we keep digging it all up.

>that was made was that a breeder reactor would act as a U235 factory,
>so that you could multiply your supply of U235 to enable you to build
>vast numbers of reactors.

SORRY , I THINK THIS IS WRONG.

>They *also*, however, produce vast quantities of weapons-grade plutonium.
>A fast reactor (or 'breeder' reactor) is the most efficient way yet known
>of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

That's the general idea, full marks for those three lines.

>(Anyone smelling a rat yet?)

As I have already stated above, Plutonium is to say the least, nasty
stuff, so nasty in fact that shipping off into space to get rid of it is
too dangerous. Though the risk of a rocket accident is small, the
consequences would be too great to risk it. So what do we do??
It turns out that there are only two ways of using plutonium safely;
1) 'burn' it in reactors
2) Put it in weapons
I would go for the former and I'm sure that any sane person would do
likewise. So one would think that obviously we just put all the
plutonium into breeder reactors to burn it, WHICH DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY 
MORE FUEL. While true that radioactive byproducts are produced they are
relativley harmless when compared to plutonium. We also have the
advantage that we don't have to dig up vast areas of land to mine more
uranium and that's pretty good aswell. There is enough plutonium around
to shut down some fossil fuel burning stations and thus ease the global
warning problem not to mention air polution so while accepting that we 
connot rid the world of radioactive byproducts all together, these can
be safely dealt with and in the long run I can only come to the
following conclusion:
WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER.
The only rats I smell are people who insist on killing off nuclear power
leaving us no option but to burn fossil fuels (wind, sea and solar power
are still too expensive to be of any use). These same people then give
out about global warming and greenhouse CO2.
I call it blatant HYPOCRASY.     

(did I spell hypocrasy wrong?)

Kev. 


>-- 
>      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
>    ......................................................................
>    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
>      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
>           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
--
________________________________________________________________________________
kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie
also  dept.of pure and applied physics
I write this for me not my college or anyone else.