Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 25/01/01 -0500, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >Just as the anti-nuke crowd opposes the
> >construction of breeder reactors here in the US for the simple reason
> >that such reactors would eliminate the problem of accumulating nuclear
> >waste (and thus they would have to get new jobs and wouldn't have the
> >waste issue to harp over)
> This sort of assertion is not worthy of your intelligence, Mike.
> That's the only conceivable reason for opposing fast breeder reactors, eh?
> Let's see:
> < Reactors designed specifically to produce more fissile material than they
> consume as a result of the conversion of uranium-238 into fissile plutonium
> isotopes are called "breeder reactors.">
> Hey! That's a great idea! Let's breed lots and lots of fissile plutonium
> isotopes! We could set up another plant down the road to pump out
> industrial quantities of Sarin gas while we're at it, but we'd make sure to
> keep it in very safe bottles.
> Oh, by the way, the same report claims:
> < Despite its theoretical attractiveness in converting non-fissile into
> fissile material, the breeder reactor has turned out to be a far tougher
> technology than thermal reactors. Despite five decades of effort during
> which many pilot and "demonstration" plants have been built, the
> sodium-cooled breeder reactor design remains on the margin of commercial
> nuclear technology. The magic of fuel multiplication has not yet been
> realized on any meaningful scale relative to nuclear electricity generation
> levels. >
> Is that to be believed? After all, the Institute for Energy and
> Environmental Research is almost certainly a bunch of pinko self-serving
> sky-are-fallers. And it might be that the reason breeders are not yet
> financially plausible is precisely because ninny bureaucracies have
> mandated orders of magnitude more safety provisions over their deployment
> than is warranted. I can accept that. I mean, this is just nice, clean
> *plutonium* we're talking about making here, right, all around the world?
> Damien Broderick
Once is reached critical mass, there is no reason to discourage enough
generation of isotopes to renew the mass.
If there is 25 pounds of plutonium, then it should be kept in a secure
container. Any attempt to use it to generate weapons should cause it to become
Any radioactive material, there should exist the method to cause it to become
inert. There might exist ways to dampen the various waves and particles of
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/ Confucious says, "My name is Confucious."
415 584 6363
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:25 MDT