Re: Oil Economics (was IRAQ sort of) OFF LIST***

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 08:46:55 MST

  • Next message: Hubert Mania: "Re: CLIP (was: Tim May calls for nuking of D.C."

    I think Mike may have said:

    > To answer your question, the French use breeder reactors to cleanly
    > dispose of their nuclear waste. We tried to build one here in the US,
    > but the anti-nukers got it canned because if the nuclear waste problem
    > was solved, they'd have to get real jobs.

    I think much of this statment may be inaccurate.

    My current records (I'll supply the spreadsheet for people who send
    me offlist requests) suggest that the U.S. and Russian inventories
    of Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium are respectively 645, 1050,
    100 and 160 *TONS*.

    There *isn't* a problem of "fuel" resources.

    Furthermore, breeder reactors are designed to produce greater amounts
    of fissionable material, *not* to dispose of nuclear waste. I strongly
    suspect that the breeder reactor programs in the U.S. got terminated
    because the military concluded funding the production of more fuel when
    it already had enough for 74000+ nuclear weapons seemed just a
    *little* bit unnecessary. (There are some technical details
    with respect to turning fuel for nuclear weapons into fuel
    for nuclear reactors but these are well understood technical
    issues that can be resolved.)

    Living in the state of Washington, where the Hanford facility
    and the waste on its premisese is a frequent source of news
    I can express with reasonable certainty -- if a breeder reactor
    could dispose of nuclear waste -- we would have one operating
    in this state.

    The French have (largely) solved the problem of a standardized
    reactor design, well trained people who can operate those
    reactors and fuel for those reactors.

    The French have not solved (to my knowledge) the issues
    of the decommissioning of those reactors or the safe
    long term storage of the radioactive materials that
    result from the operation of nuclear reactors. This issue
    is what has produced the intense Yucca Mountain debate
    in the U.S.

    The production of non-radioactive isotopes from the radioactive
    isotopes produced by nuclear activities is currently a research
    activity by Los Alamos National Laboratory and in addition some
    European labs (I believe). I believe I have mentioned this on
    this list before. The technology anticipated for these activities
    is accelerator technology (presumably to impact the radioactive
    isotopes with neutrons or protons to transform them into non-radioactive
    isotopes and is not "breeder reactor" technology. (I suppose one
    could loosely consider this breeder reactor technology but it is
    very much separated from the historical breeder reactor technology
    designed to produce greater quantities of fissionable materials.)

    Since I feel that I'm about to shift into "rant" mode
    I'll terminate this message now. A following message
    may include some commentary related to this topic if
    I get it past my self-censors.

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 08:49:42 MST