From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 12 Jan 1993 01:52:58 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <kkretsch.726755336@unix1.tcd.ie>, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes:
] In <1ilhrgINNpcu@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
] >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.

Being *SMALLER* than conventional reactors?????

Ah, excuse me...  ave you ever *seen* a fast (excuse me, 'breeder')
reactor?  Have you ever seen a schematic of a fast reactor?  Fast
reactors have *HUGE* cores.


] >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.

OK, I over-simplified slightly there.  The processes that go on in a fast
reactor actually include several different isotopes of both thorium and
plutonium.

While it is technically true that plutonium *can* be used as a reactor
fuel, to the best of my knowledge no-one has actually built a plutonium
fueled reactor yet (unless you count the plutonium-fueled 'atomic battery'
used to power some military satellites).  I also point out that the
toxicity of plutonium (which you note) should preclude its commercial use
by any sane nation.  The possible consequences of a Three Mile Island -
or worse yet, a Chernobyl - at a plutonium-fueled reactor are almost
too horrific to contemplate.  If the Chernobyl reactor had been fueled
by plutonium, half of the Soviet Union and Asia might well be depopulated
by now.

] >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.

If you mean the original assertion that they would make this possible
is wrong, then you're dead right.


] >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.

So what's your point?  What do you plan on doing with it?  Running your
power stations on plutonium is like running your car on nitroglycerine.
Quite honestly, the only thing plutonium is really any damn use for is
building fission bombs.  It's too dangerous to use for anything else.


] >(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 you'd rather risk nuclear accidents?  Hey, I'll take my chances with
shooting it into the sun any time.  Think about this for a moment:  You
take a nice chunk of plutonium, you wrap it in a half-inch or so of lead,
you take a stack of these and wrap them up in about an inch of steel,
and you put drag vanes on it so that even if the whole damn rocket explodes
it won't fall too fast.  If you really want to get paranoid, you encase the
whole thing in three inches of heatshield material - say, RTV615.

Now just what can happen in a rocket accident, that's going to be so violent
it'll damage what is basically a solid chunk of metal with a heat shield?


Besides:  Frankly, rocket technology had a pretty good safety record once
it matured, until we came up with that godawful abortion called the Space
Shuttle.

] 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).

And nuclear isn't?
Here's a little home truth for you:  Fission power is cheap (relatively)
*ONLY* if you don't consider the decomissioning costs.  The nasty little
surprise comes at the end of a reactor's useful life (yes, a fission
reactor does have a finite service life) and you discover that the cost
of safely decommissioning the plant is greater than the sum of the
construction cost and all the revenues that the plant generated during
its entire lifetime.

Then there's the question of what you do with the waste.  (And don't
give us the old GE bushwa about how clean nuclear power is, please.)

] I call it blatant HYPOCRASY.     
] 
] (did I spell hypocrasy wrong?)

Yes.	:-)	Since you asked.



-- 
      "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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens