MOX fuel - details that matter....
Plutonium threat at Japan reactor, expert warns
Masashi Goto - worked for Toshiba as a reactor researcher and designer
"more volatile and toxic"
"MOX also has a lower melting point than the other fuels"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20042852-76.html
AND.....
MOX Battle: Mixed Oxide Nuclear Fuel Raises Safety Questions
One of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi reactors contains a blend of uranium and plutonium fuel that may soon find use in the U.S. Does it pose more risks than standard uranium fuel?
By John Matson | March 25, 2011
.....
Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says that MOX is not the best way to irreversibly render plutonium unsuitable for weapons use. "If you really want to pursue the path of irreversibility, there are probably cheaper, easier ways to do it," he says. One way would be to blend the plutonium down to a low concentration and put it in the DoE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the New Mexico desert. With the price tag attached to the MFFF, "it's certainly not something you'd think you could make money off," Alvarez says. "I kind of see it as a nuclear equivalent to a bridge to nowhere." ..."the future of MOX fuel remains somewhat uncertain in the U.S. "The DoE still can't find a utility that's willing to take this stuff..."
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., argues that MOX is more likely to cause nuclear accidents than ordinary uranium fuel and is liable to release more harmful material in the event of an accident. "Plutonium has different properties than uranium 235 that generally tend to degrade some of the safety systems in nuclear plants," Lyman says. For instance, because weapons-grade plutonium fissions more readily than uranium 235, reactors may need more robust control rods—neutron absorbers that shut down the nuclear chain reaction when inserted into a reactor's core. "You never get quite as much margin even after doing all that as you do with uranium," Lyman says.
Lyman authored a study in 2001 in Science & Global Security showing that radioactive leakage from a meltdown with MOX fuel, which in addition to plutonium has higher levels of radioactive isotopes such as americium 241 and curium 242, would be deadlier than a low-enriched uranium meltdown. "Because plutonium is so much more radiotoxic than many of the other radionuclides, even if it's released in relatively small concentrations it can have an impact on the effects," Lyman says. He adds that it is not possible at the moment to identify how much the MOX fuel in Fukushima reactor No. 3 has contributed to the radioactive plumes emanating from the plant.
Lyman questions whether even TVA will be a willing taker. "I don't see why any utility, even a government-owned one like TVA, would want to dabble with this stuff," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mox-fuel-nuclear
AND....
MOX fuel rods used in Japanese Nuclear Reactor present multiple dangers
Plutonium is at its most dangerous when it is inhaled and gets into the lungs. The effect on the human body is to vastly increase the chance of developing fatal cancers.
http://www.dcbureau.org/20110315782/natural-resources-news-service/mox-f...
AND....
What is MOX?
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm
AND ....
MOX plutonium fuel used in Fukushima's Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than enriched uranium
http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html
AND......
Current technology DOES NOT eliminate ....Plutonium from reprocessed fuel is STILL REMAINS in the spent fuel....
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
....However, at present the general policy is not to reprocess used MOX fuel, but to store it and await the advent of fuel cycle developments related to Generation IV fast neutron reactor designs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
AND....
go google MOX fuel YOURSELF...
(Note: the ebay link does not work.... (yet))
But we know the solution...
We are in a plutonium ‘hole’, thus it seems advisable, to quit producing more.
----------------------------
But we know the solution. The solution is to recycle the Plutonium and burn it as fuel as France, Great Britain, Japan....are doing. Do you see any of these countries attempting to hollow out one of the Alps, or Mount Fuji, as we were doing with Yucca Mountain in an attempt to store this material for an extended period of time?
The solution is at hand. We just have to implement it as other nations are doing, and MOX is a part of that.
Since we have the solution, there's no impetus to stop producing more. Additionally, since nuclear power accounts for about 20% to 25% of our electricity ( more in places like northern Illinois where the Commonwealth Edison service area is 80+% nuclear ), the cessation of nuclear power production just flat out isn't going to happen.
Instead of the anti-nuke dream of a nuclear free USA; all should get onboard with solving the problem that we already know the solution to, rather than some unattainable dream that nuclear power is going away any time soon.
Pay AREVA Cash - NOT
Your so called 'SOLUTION' is to:
A) Pay AREVA a lot of cash for their nasty-a$$ MOX
B) Keep digging the Plutonium hole, deeper and deeper and deeper
So, how much does AREVA pay YOU for wasting our time?
Not likely
digging into the issues......
I really like the idea and concept of disposal via MOX. Currently it does not work from an economic perspective nor is it the security solution for elimination of Pu with our slow neutron reactors. In fact I wonder, has the complete repetitive burn, process, burn to finality cycle even been completed in the lab ? What exactly (how much processing) is required to complete ? The high energy gamma must be HUGE in later stages.....
from the OP:
Current technology DOES NOT eliminate ....Plutonium from reprocessed fuel is STILL REMAINS in the spent fuel....
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
....However, at present the general policy is not to reprocess used MOX fuel, but to store it and await the advent of fuel cycle developments related to Generation IV fast neutron reactor designs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
SO IN TRUTH:
MOX used as process to fully consume Plutonium is STILL a MAYBE FUTURE THEORETICAL 'solution' (that creates a raft of issues in the process....) a VERY EXPENSIVE fairy tale and a rabbit hole in essence. PLAINLY A WASTE OF MONEY AS A FUEL, AS A 'ONE DAY', 'HOPED FOR' SECURITY MEASURE.
.....our better solution which can start now, from the OP:
Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says that MOX is not the best way to irreversibly render plutonium unsuitable for weapons use. "If you really want to pursue the path of irreversibility, there are probably cheaper, easier ways to do it," he says. One way would be to blend the plutonium down to a low concentration and put it in the DoE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the New Mexico desert. With the price tag attached to the MFFF, "it's certainly not something you'd think you could make money off," Alvarez says. "I kind of see it as a nuclear equivalent to a bridge to nowhere." ..."the future of MOX fuel remains somewhat uncertain in the U.S. "The DoE still can't find a utility that's willing to take this stuff..."
Of course moving beyond fission and not creating the crap in the first place is the ultimate solution.
Just another CROCK
Just another misrepresentation
The use of MOX fuel in nuclear reactors does not result in less plutonium. The isotopic mix of the plutonium will vary, but the total plutonium either increases or remains constant.
---
Oh, and can we skip the 'follow-up-lie', that: 'nuclear reactor plutonium isotopes cannot be used as bomb material' (denatured lie)? Any pure plutonium, regardless of isotopic mix, can be made to explode, as proven in the 1960s and disclosed by the Clinton Administration.
And let's also skip the minimum concentration malarky, if you please.
Reactor grade plutonium
From Wikipedia regarding "reactor grade plutonium":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor-grade_plutonium
The reactor grade plutonium nuclear test was a low-yield (under 20 kilotons) underground nuclear test using non-weapons-grade plutonium, conducted at the US Nevada Test Site in 1962.[2] Some information regarding this test was declassified in July 1977 under instructions from President Jimmy Carter as background to his decision to prohibit nuclear reprocessing in the USA.
The plutonium used was manufactured in a Magnox reactor in the United Kingdom, and provided to the US under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement. Its isotopic composition has not been disclosed, other than the description reactor grade and it has not been disclosed which definition was used in describing the material for this test as reactor grade.[2] The plutonium was apparently sourced from the military Magnox reactors at Calder Hall or Chapelcross. The content of plutonium-239 in material used for the 1962 test is estimated to have been at least 85%, much higher than typical spent fuel from currently operating reactors.
Google TechTalk
The following is a tutorial from the Google TechTalk series which gives the history of the Molten-Salt Reactor design championed by Dr. Alvin Weinberg, who used to be Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bbyr7jZOllI
Just prior to the 24 minute mark on this program, the speaker states that there is a difference between "weapons grade" plutonium and "reactor grade" plutonium and that the latter is "not suitable" for making nuclear weapons.
WRONG!!!
Any pure plutonium, regardless of isotopic mix, can be made to explode, as proven in the 1960s and disclosed by the Clinton Administration.
=====================
Shall we get to the details? It actually wasn't the Clinton Administration that made the disclosure that you refer to - it was done in the 1970s. In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission labs fashioned a nuclear explosive and tested it in which the plutonium came from a Generation I nuclear reactor. Generation I nuclear reactors at that time achieved a "burnup" of about 25,000 Megawatt-Days per metric tonne of fuel. The higher the burnup, the larger the concentration of undesirable Pu-240 and Pu-242 in the Plutonium. Because Pu-240 and Pu-242 spontaneously fission, they can cause a weapon to predetonate, or "fizzle".
The fact that commercial reactor generated plutonium could be made into a nuclear weapon was kept secret until the 1970s. At that time, however; the USA had retired all the Generation I nuclear reactors in favor of Generation II nuclear reactors which were then attaining burnups of around 45,000 Mw-D/MT. Today those same reactors are achieving burnups in the 55,000 - 60,000 Mw-D/MT range. So it was deemed safe to release the information about the bombs made with 25,000 Mw-D/MT burnup.
The previous poster is just plain flat out WRONG in stating that plutonium of any isotopic mix can be used in nuclear weapons. For example, the plutonium that comes from the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) can not be used to make nuclear weapons as stated by then Associate Director of Argonne National Lab, Dr. Charles Till, in an interview with PBS's Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?
A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.
It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.
The fact that the plutonium from the IFR can not be made into a nuclear weapon was affirmed by a study / report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. LLNL designs the USA's nuclear weapons, and therefore they should know what can / can not be done in the nuclear weapons field.
This report was furnished to members of Congress and was referred to by Senators Simon and Kempthorne in a rebuttal in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium...
You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium.
So who does the causal reader believe? Do they believe an anti-nuke posting anonymously and providing no credentials of expertise in nuclear weapons design?
Or does the casual reader believe the statements of a nuclear physicist who was Associate Director of Argonne National Lab, one Dr. Charles Till, with corroborating evidence from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, referred to by two US Senators.
For the intelligent reader, the question of who to believe is clear.
Let's examine the Alvarez proposal....
Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says that MOX is not the best way to irreversibly render plutonium unsuitable for weapons use. "If you really want to pursue the path of irreversibility, there are probably cheaper, easier ways to do it," he says. One way would be to blend the plutonium down to a low concentration and put it in the DoE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the New Mexico desert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let's examine the Alvarez proposal. What Alvarez is thinking would work if the material that we were attempting to dispose of was highly enriched uranium, i.e. U-235. Fissile U-235 can be fixed with non-fissile U-238 to create low enriched uranium which is not usable for bombs. Once U-235 is "down blended", it takes a very difficult isotopic separation process to recover weapons usable U-235 from the downblended material.
However, with Plutonium, we have a very different story. Most of the Plutonium is Pu-239 which is the fissile species. What does Alvarez propose we mix this Plutonium with so that we get a low concentration? Any material other than Plutonium, and weapons usable material can be recovered from the downblended low concentration material by simple chemical extraction.
Whether it's WIPP or Yucca Mountain; one has the same problem of how to guarantee that the Plutonium has to stay out of the environment for a considerable length of time. Why is WIPP any different than Yucca Mountain in that regard.
The rest of the above argument boils down to the old maxim that "perfection is the enemy of good enough". The argument is essential that if you can't rid the world of every last atom of Plutonium, then you might as well do nothing.
Do we make such arguments with other problems. Suppose some pathogen is causing great numbers of humans to suffer some terrible illness. We evaluate our chances of completely wiping out the pathogen and conclude that it is not possible to do so. So then we throw up our hands and say that since it is impossible to completely wipe out this pathogen, it's not worth fighting at all.
Right - that's what we do. If you can't guarantee 100% success, you help nobody.
Where do we get this tendency for "binary thinking" when it comes to nuclear issues? It's all black / white, good bad, 100% or nothing.
Pu is a special case
MOX production and use in the US has a unique set of hurtles to overcome before, or if ever, we move ahead with the current MOX tech (here). We are not the UK or France. Our energy needs and resources and restraints are, and will remain for some time, very different. The US is not a compliant population.
The idea of blending to 'dilute / pollute' and vitrification to stabilize is far from new. Robert Alvarez is just a recent member of the technical community lending his voice to espouse the idea and its application to Pu. It is far from a total solution or complete / permanent solution. In fact I would say bad solution if long term storage was the end game. Used for a long term INTERMEDIATE storage it has merit. MOX production and use is, with current technology, a dicey business at best compared to ANYTHING. The costs and risks (especially production) are increasingly understood to be off the charts. I am certain continued Pu research is the next step, who knows what we will discover about its use. It may turn out that it can be used in a non destructive, non fission process that opens new doors in science for energy or an unrelated industry.
Rather than taking precious resources to create increasing international duplication of MOX production (and use, and research) why not focus on a single international plutonium research / MOX program. Any resulting power generation could also be used in a collaborative fashion as well.
It is already understood as an international problem, but we are just beginning to grapple with it as such. We need to grow as a species. The modern world will come to a ugly end if we continue to be dominated by fearful cavemen. Perhaps this is another program that can become a purpose on the path to growth.
DISAGREE!!!
Used for a long term INTERMEDIATE storage it has merit. MOX production and use is, with current technology, a dicey business at best compared to ANYTHING. The costs and risks (especially production) are increasingly understood to be off the charts.
==========================
I have to strenuously DISAGREE!!! MOX production and use has been ongoing for DECADES, just not in the USA.
Would you care to elaborate what you think is "dicey" or risky about MOX?
Again, MOX has been produced / used extensively in the countries with nuclear power excepting the USA, and this has been on-going since the dawn of the use of nuclear power.
The clamor about risk is all on the part of the anti-nuclear community. The "risk" to them is that MOX will be understood as the solution to the nuclear waste issue, and that is the last problem the anti-nuclear community wants to solve. They want to milk that problem for all it's worth.
Just look at all the vacuous arguments the anti-nukes put forward that putting MOX in a reactor was risky or would destabilize the reactor. Reactors create Plutonium, or MOX, in situ; even if you only add uranium fuel. About 40% of the energy you get from a nuclear reactor comes from burning plutonium. You could say that at any given moment, about half of the "burning fuel" in a reactor is plutonium. Again, that comes about even if you don't use MOX. Reactors are designed with this in mind. But does that stop the anti-nukes from making these vacuous claims that only demonstrate they are total clueless about the field of reactor physics?
You are obviously concerned about some "risks", which you probably picked up by reading the propaganda from the anti-nukes. If you elaborate on what these risks are, I believe I can give you the true science behind these myths that are promulgated by the anti-nukes.
As far as these proposed solutions to bury plutonium, either permanently or for intermediate storage; in a relatively short time, the radioactivity of the fission products that make approach to the buried material risky, will have decayed. We will then have buried plutonium surrounded by low activity material. What we will then have essentially created is a "plutonium mine".
Reactors are designed for this...
The recycling of spent fuel as MOX was envisioned from the earliest days of the commercial nuclear program. Reactors have been designed so that they can use MOX. As pointed out above, the marginal reactivity effect due to spectrum hardening is easily compensated by limiting the amount of MOX in a core, or increasing the loading of boron in control rods and dissolved boric acid shim.
Again, the marginal differences in reactivity coefficients, and delayed neutron fraction are easily managed by limiting the amount of MOX used in the core. Reactors do not load with 100% MOX.
It's a bit like saying that snow reduces the coefficient of friction between tires and road surface. Do we therefore say that we should never drive in snow because of the reduced friction or braking ability? No - we put snow tires on our cars and equip them with ABS braking systems. But we still drive in the winter time. We don't institute a moratorium on driving from November to March.
Many don't understand that reactors have very generous safety margins when it comes to reactivity parameters. Even if one decreases the margins a modest amount, the safety margins are generous to cover any decrease so that the result is still a safe reactor.
Our reactors, our cars, our jet airliners are all designed to handle degraded conditions. My Christmas vacation airline flight was a roller coaster ride over half the country due to weather related turbulence. Do we discontinue airline service when the air is turbulent? NO - the airliners are designed to handle the turbulence and fly through it. Do people think that Boeing designers only design their craft for glass-smooth air? NO - they are designed for real world conditions.
Likewise, the usage of MOX was envisioned from the earliest days of the commercial nuclear power program, and like the Boeing designers, the reactors, like our airliners, were designed so that they could safely use MOX.
Edwin Lyman; UCS LIAR in CHIEF
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., argues that MOX is more likely to cause nuclear accidents than ordinary uranium fuel and is liable to release more harmful material in the event of an accident. "Plutonium has different properties than uranium 235 that generally tend to degrade some of the safety systems in nuclear plants,"
---------------------------------
Once again UCS's LIAR in CHIEF Edwin Lyman attempts to con the unsuspecting public. We have here a classic half-truth from Mr. Lyman.
Using the Brookhaven National Lab website, we can plot the fission properties of U-235 and Pu-239 as a function of energy:
U-235 fission cross-section:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/getPlot.jsp?evalid=15321&mf=3&mt=18&nsub=10
Pu-239 fission cross-section:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/getPlot.jsp?evalid=15337&mf=3&mt=18&nsub=10
If one switches back and forth between the two plots, one will see that for most of the energy range, the fission cross-section for Pu-239 is somewhat higher than that of U-235. It is certainly true for higher energies, which bombs use, and hence it takes less Pu-239 to make a bomb than U-235.
However, light water reactors are NOT bombs. They don't run with a fast ( high energy ) neutron spectrum. They run with a "thermal" ( low energy ) neutron spectrum. The reason it's called "thermal" is that the neutrons are in thermal equilibrium with temperature of the materials in the reactor.
Reactor temperatures are about 500 - 600 F which is about 0.05 eV in energy.
Therefore, the pertinent information is what are the fission properties of U-235 vis-a-vis Pu-239 AT the energy of the neutrons in a reactor.
If we examine the plots, we find that the U-235 fission cross-section at 0.05 eV to be about 600 barns.
If we examine the plots, we find that the Pu-239 fission cross-section at 0.05 eV to be about 600 barns.
So although Pu-239 has a higher fission cross-section than U-235 over most of the energy range, in the energy range that REALLY COUNTS which is at the energy of the neutrons one finds in a power reactor, the difference in the fission cross-sections of the two fissile species is negligible.
This type of half-truth on the part of the anti-nukes really shows their true colors. They count on the fact that not all the readers and journalists are experts in nuclear physics; so they can "slip by" these half-truths.
Thankfully, the readers of this forum enjoy a readership that has the expertise to debunk these crude propagandists attempts.
MOx & UOx Control Issues
Several differences between the use of MOX fuel and uranium fuel affect safety:
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_5/5-4/moxmain4.html
Technical Aspects of the Use of Weapons Plutonium as Reactor Fuel
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
By Arjun Makhijani
Changing the fuel can affect the ability of the control rods to provide the needed amount of reactor control. Hence, modifications to the reactor may be required before the new fuel can be used. Therefore, changing the fuel in any significant way also requires re-licensing of the reactor.
Several differences between the use of MOX fuel and uranium fuel affect safety:
The rate of fission of plutonium tends to increase with temperature. This can adversely affect reactor control and require compensating measures (see box on reactor control). This problem is greater with MOX made with weapons-grade plutonium than that made with reactor-grade plutonium.
Reactor control depends on the small fraction of neutrons (called delayed neutrons) emitted seconds to minutes after fission of uranium or plutonium. Uranium-235 fission yields about 0.65 percent delayed neutrons, but plutonium yields only about 0.2 percent delayed neutrons. This means that provisions must be made for increased control if plutonium fuel is used, if present control levels and speeds are deemed inadequate. (See box on reactor control.)
Neutrons in reactors using plutonium fuel have a higher average energy than those in reactors using uranium fuel. This increases radiation damage to reactor parts.
Plutonium captures neutrons with a higher probability than uranium. As a result, a greater amount of neutron absorbers are required to control the reactor.
The higher proportion of plutonium in the fuel would increase the release of plutonium and other transuranic elements to the environment in case of a severe accident.
Irradiated MOX fuel is thermally hotter than uranium fuel because larger quantities of transuranic elements are produced during reactor operation when MOX fuel is used.
Overall, the issues related to reactor control, both during normal operations and emergencies, are the most crucial. Most independent authorities have suggested that only about one third of the fuel in an LWR can be MOX, unless the reactor is specifically designed to use MOX fuel. However, there are some operational problems associated with using partial-MOX cores since MOX fuel is interspersed with uranium fuel. Their differing characteristics regarding control, radiation and thermal energy mean that there are non-uniform conditions in the reactor that can render operation and control more complicated. Some reactor operators claim they can use 100 percent MOX cores without needing to make physical changes to the reactor or control rods. The safety implications of such claims need to be independently verified.
Didn't we debunk this lie?
Plutonium captures neutrons with a higher probability than uranium. As a result, a greater amount of neutron absorbers are required to control the reactor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't we debunk this lie? Another post gave links to the plots of fission cross-section for U-235 vs Pu-239. The fission cross-section is the probability that the given nuclide will undergo a fission reaction.
As was presented; the fission cross-section for Pu-239 was indeed greater than the fission cross-section of U-235 for most neutron energies, particularly high energies.
However, we are talking about a thermal reactor in which most neutrons have energies of about 0.05 eV. At this energy, which is what is important; the fission cross-sections of both U-235 and Pu-239 were both about 600 barns.
Again one has to remember that reactors are making Plutonium in situ all the time. Reactors have to be able to run safely when Plutonium is in the core, because reactors continually make Plutonium out of the 96% of the core that is U-238.
Even if you don't put Plutonium in the core in the form of MOX; one still has Plutonium in the core due to the transmutation of U-238.
Reactors were designed for MOX
Again, the use of MOX was envisioned from the earliest days of the commercial nuclear power program. It is nothing new.
The designs of all commercial power reactors have included provisions for the use of MOX.
All those that say there is something inherently wrong with using MOX and Plutonium keep forgetting a very important fact.
Reactors make Plutonium in situ. In the 3+ years that a reactor fuel assembly spends in a reactor, about 40% of the energy comes from burning Plutonium
People "think" that if you don't put MOX in your reactor core, that you are going to have a "MOX-free" "Plutonium-free" reactor. NOTHING could be further from the truth.
The reactor makes Plutonium all the time it is operating, even if it was loaded only with uranium. About 3-4% of the uranium in the reactor is the fissile U-235. About 96% is U-238, which when it absorbs a neutron, turns into Plutonium.
So if you "think" that you don't have what is essentially MOX in your reactor already, even if you fuel with only uranium; then you don't understand reactor physics.
Reactors have to be able to handle MOX - because they are making Plutonium out of the U-238 that comprises 96% of the core; all the time.
Scientific American
There appears to be some discussion/debate regarding the MELTING temperatures of MOX fuel. Probably, we should begin by stipulating that Plutonium melted in Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima Daichi Unit-3.
Is LIAR an appropriate accusation, where scientific discussion of state changes is ongoing?
The Scientific American link below, contains the following statement ...
In an early attempt to refill the vital pools with water Thursday, the Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF) dispatched a cargo helicopter—specially outfitted with lead plates to help shield crewmembers from direct radiation—to drop seawater on the plant's reactor No. 3. The unit houses MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, which can melt at lower temperatures and could release some of its plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,000 years.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-fuel-fukushima
Meanwhile, this link
http://itu.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/media/Annual_Report_2009.pdf
The current melting point of stoichiometric
PuO2 (3015 ± 28 K) is considerably higher than the
value reported by Kato et al. (see Fig 3). Solidus and liquidus
temperatures measured in the PuO2-x phase domain
are also higher than reported in earlier studies. Further investigation
of the melting behaviour of mixed oxides with
25 wt%, 50 wt% and 75 wt% of PuO2 is highly necessary
in view of these results and will be undertaken soon.
Real world numbers...
Further investigation
of the melting behaviour of mixed oxides with
25 wt%, 50 wt% and 75 wt% of PuO2 is highly necessary
in view of these results and will be undertaken soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there needs to be more work on 25%, 50%, and 75% PuO2
mixtures.
However, the MOX that is used now and has been used for decades
in France, Great Britain, Japan.... is about 7% PuO2.
Those are the real world numbers.
LIAR is appropriate
Is LIAR an appropriate accusation, where scientific discussion of state changes is ongoing?
===================
There's ZERO confusion with regard to physical properties like melting temperatures. It's very easy to measure a melting temperature.
So LIAR is very much the proper term to use when someone misrepresents an easily measured physical quantity.
They make the misrepresentation in order to further political agendas when the science doesn't support their agendas. So they LIE and hope nobody calls them on it.
LIAR an appropriate accusation....four fingers pointing back
LIAR DUDES, YOUR PANTS ARE ON FIRE !
Thermophysical Properties of MOX and UO2 Fuels Including the...
www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/109264.pdf
A review of the thermophysical properties of MOX and UO2 fuels
144.206.159.178/FT/629/554280/13363867.pdf
THE DATA, YES DATA, SHOWS A SOLID STRONG TREND FOR DECREASING MELTING POINT OF THE COMPOSITE MOX AS THE CONCENTRATION OF Pu INCREASES.
YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. SORRY
'ZERO confusion ' ...the only confusion here is that which YOU are creating.
Why the bald face lie ? Are you a investor in MOX tech ? Money motivating the LIE ?
'It's very easy to measure a melting temperature' ..... What a truly obfuscating misdirection. The melting point is very dynamic and continuously so as the fuel ages or burns up. IT IS A COMPLEX, CONSTANTLY CHANGING SCENARIO.
What kind of half-baked materials science course did you take, or did you just pretend ? I know shouting shills don't need no stinking facts that are applicable, just something that sounds right and misdirects, right ?
Which is why concentrations are limited...
THE DATA, YES DATA, SHOWS A SOLID STRONG TREND FOR DECREASING MELTING POINT OF THE COMPOSITE MOX AS THE CONCENTRATION OF Pu INCREASES.
-----------------------------------------------
Which is why the concentration is limited.
The anti-nukes find cases for which the melting point is lowered, and then assume that these are the cases that will actually be used in the reactor, and then have the audacity to criticize someone's materials science knowledge.
Yes - fuel ages and melting points change - but that is all part of the fuel management.
Somehow the anti-nukes never fathom that the operators of reactors take all of this into consideration when they plan the operation of the reactor. The problem is that anti-nukes "think" ( term used loosely ) that the people who are in favor of nuclear power, or who designed our nuclear power plants, and those who operate them are all idiot pinheads that don't know enough to tie their own shoes.
The anti-nukes "think" that the operators will run the plant until dangerous conditions develop, and then press on in the mindless pursuit of profit.
Besides, melting point is not a major safety issue. If the reactor is operating normally and is being properly cooled, then temperatures are nowhere near the melting point of either UO2, PuO2, or any mixture there of. If we have accident scenarios, where the cores are not properly cooled, then the decay heat can melt either material.
If only MOX-fueled Unit 3 melted down, and the other reactors did not; THEN you might have an argument. But that's not what happened is it? BOTH the MOX-fueled and the Uranium-only fueled reactors had core melts.
Leave it to the anti-nukes to attempt to turn some non-issue into a problem, and then the hypocrites accuse others of misdirection. GEESH!!
Randomized Concentrations
Random meltdown events are UGLY
The plutonium concentrations become somewhat RANDOM, when the Zircalloy tubes sequentially catch fire, and dump fuel during meltdown conditions.
The plutonium isotopic concentrations will vary through the fuel cycle for UOX and MOX fuels.
Then, as hydrogen gas explosions occur, some of the melted fuels may fall 1st to the bottom of the reactor vessel, while higher melting point fuel products are blasted about by the explosion at the top of the reactor. Concentrations become unpredictable and unmeasurable.
Random and pseudorandom events are not 'pretty' inside nuclear reactors.
Tick-Tock goes the Reactor as it becomes an atomic bomb ...
Reactors are not atomic bombs. Never can be...
Tick-Tock goes the Reactor as it becomes an atomic bomb ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear reactors are not atomic bombs; and can NEVER become one.
Although a reactor can release hydrogen in a meltdown, and there can be a chemical explosion of same; a nuclear reactor can never be a nuclear bomb.
The fuel in a nuclear reactor is too dilute to make a nuclear weapon type explosion. The dilute fuel of a nuclear reactor runs on slow neutrons, whereas a nuclear weapon runs on fast neutrons, since there's insufficient time in an explosion to wait for neutrons to slow down.
Nuclear weapons rely on nuclear materials that are compressed to very high densities by chemical explosives in order to get the type of system that can explode as in an atomic bomb. There are no explosives and explosive lenses which are required in atomic bombs, present in any nuclear power reactor system.
It's a popular myth peddled by the anti-nukes that reactors are really just bombs that are just an accident away from exploding. However, that is just flat out false.
Never say Never Again
Never say Never and Never say Never Again
Nuclear Reactor = Atomic Bomb
The SL-1 military nuclear reactor prompt criticality and fatality is proof positive that nuclear reactors can produce and have produced at least one fatal atomic explosion. Oh and please skip the 'fall-back-lies' about plutonium isotopes and concentration limitations; as we have heard them already.
PROOF, according to the Atomic Energy Commission.
Two documentary films describe an earlier uncontrolled atomic explosion in a nuclear reactor. There are many documented accounts of this fatal nuclear reactor prompt criticality. Perhaps it is simpler for non-technical readers to watch these military briefing films. To view a description and explanation of this proof, simply fast-forward the film, to the indicated Elapsed Time (ET) [minutes indicated]
18:46, “Evidence of an uncontrolled chain reaction”
19:18, “Only neutron capture could have transmuted (metals)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIBQMkd96CA&feature=player_embedded#at=817
http://highpowerrocketry.blogspot.com/2010/11/sl-1-nuclear-reactor-accid...
http://www.inl.gov/proving-the-principle/chapter_15.pdf
http://www.id.doe.gov/foia/archive.htm
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5257
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Idaho Operations Office
The Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One (SL-1), was a United States Army experimental nuclear power reactor. On January 3, 1961 the reactor was restarted after a shutdown of eleven days. Maintenance procedures commenced, which required the main central control rod to be withdrawn a few inches; at 9:01 p.m. this rod was withdrawn almost to the top of the core, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power surge caused water surrounding the core to begin to explosively vaporize. The water vapor caused a pressure wave to strike the top of the reactor vessel. This propelled the control rod and the entire reactor vessel upwards, which killed the operator who had been standing on top of the vessel, leaving him pinned to the ceiling. The other two military personnel, a supervisor and a trainee, were also killed. The victims were Army Specialists John A. Byrnes and Richard L. McKinley and Navy Electrician's Mate Richard C. Legg.
On the night of January 4, a team of six volunteers used a plan involving teams of two to recover the body of Byrnes. Radioactive gold 198Au from the man's brass watch buckle and copper 64Cu from a screw in a cigarette lighter subsequently PROVED that the reactor had indeed gone prompt critical. Up until the recovery of radioisotopes of uranium, fission products, and the radioactive isotopes from the men's belongings, scientists had doubted that a nuclear excursion had occurred, thinking it inherently safe. These findings ruled out early speculations that a chemical explosion caused the accident.
SL-1 accident
While it is true that the SL-1 suffered an accident, and that this accident was the result of an unplanned prompt criticality, it pejorative to call this "an atomic explosion". It's not what the average person thinks of when the term "atomic explosion" is used. "Atomic explosion" usually means the type of city-killing explosion as was evidenced at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If you'd like to see another prompt criticality, you can view this video of the 10,000-th firing of the Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR) at Sandia National Laboratory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0Fmcv83nw
A nuclear excursion can span the gamut from the type of excursion seen in the video above, up to much larger excursions. However, the term "prompt criticality" or even "criticality" doesn't necessarily connote a disaster.
My CATMA FOR THE " can NEVER become " DOGMA
A full melt reactor becomes churning cavern of chaotic hell where condensations, concentrations, formations and masses bear NO RESEMBLANCE to a reactor and fuel core.
Add a shaped charge from say a hydrogen explosion (or 2) contained in vessel and you've got your BOMB.
More than possible, maybe even likely.
flames away.....
HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!
Using terms we don't understand are we?
Add a shaped charge from say a hydrogen explosion (or 2) contained in vessel and you've got your BOMB.
----------------------------------------
Evidently we have someone who has heard the term "shaped charge" but doesn't understand what a shaped charge is. Shaped charges are very precisely constructed configurations.
Saying that a shaped charged is going to randomly evolve from a random release of hydrogen is analogous to saying that if we have a random pile of metallic junk that a Swiss watch is going to randomly evolve. It's NOT going to happen.
The other thing this nuclear neophyte doesn't understand is that for a nuclear explosion, the device you want is NOT a "shaped charge" but an "explosive lens":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_lens
The explosive charges that make it up have different rates of detonation, just as an optical lens is composed of media having different effects on the velocities of light passing though them. To convert spherically expanding wavefront into spherically converging by single boundary between fast and slow explosives...
An explosive lens is made by having TWO different explosives and the two explosives have TWO different detonation velocities That's why the above quoted passage refers to "fast and slow explosives".
In our nuclear reactor accident, we only have a SINGLE explosive material; the hydrogen. So without a second explosive material, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the requisite explosive lens to exist.
Or to carry the optical lens analogy, it's like saying we have a slab of molten glass lying on the floor, and someone "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that an optical lens that can focus light such as in your spectacle is going to evolve by random chance. Sorry - it's NOT going to happen.
Simple
Duh,
Every explosive charge has a shape. Some are precisely and elegantly designed, like Marilyn Monroe, others not so much, like your grandmother. Shaped (conventional) charges are quite common in military and industrial applications. They consist of a cone of explosive material, typically enclosed in a metal housing.
For example, oil and gas applications include perforation guns, loaded with shaped perforation charges. These may range in size from about a ½” to about 4” in diameter. These shaped charges burn holes in casing, cement and porous formation media. The next step is hydraulic fracturing of the well.
The ‘Fat Man’ nuclear weapon required far more precise charge shaping than the ‘Thin Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ bomb designs.
Correct.
They consist of a cone of explosive material, typically enclosed in a metal housing.
---------------------------------------------------
A typical shaped charge has a cone of metal, like copper; that is surrounded on the OUTSIDE by a charge of high explosive. When the chemical high explosive is detonated, it collapses the cone of metal. The metal has no where to go; so it forms a "jet" of molten metal that cuts through armor or destroys the target.
Lawrence Livermore National Lab is one of the leaders in the development and simulation of shaped charges. They conduct experiments in which the jet of molten metal is photographed and compared to computer simulations:
Shaped Charges Pierce the Toughest Targets
https://www.llnl.gov/str/Baum.html
Contrary the the contentions of a previous poster, such configurations do not occur by random chance.
Drooler
Evidently a knuckle-dragging drooler
Quick wipe your chin; before anyone notices.
Fission and fusion happen by chance, in certain environments, including Gabon and the sun.
Fusion not "by chance"; at least not on Earth
The nuclei of atoms are positively charged due to the protons they contain. Because of that they electrically repel each other via the Coulomb force. In order to get close enough so that the very strong, but short-range "strong nuclear" force can fuse the nuclei, they must overcome this "Coulomb barrier". In order to do that they have to be moving very, very fast; which is another way of saying that the atoms are very, very hot. It takes temperatures of 10s of Millions of degrees to accomplish that.
Temperatures of 10s of Millions of degrees are found naturally inside of stars. If you have a bunch of hydrogen that is MILLIONS of time bigger than the entire Earth, then the mutual gravity of this hydrogen can develop extreme pressures and temperatures at which nuclear fusion can take place.
However, we don't find temperatures of 10s of Millions of degrees naturally on Earth; so we do not find nuclear fusion naturally on Earth
On Earth, nuclear fusion ignition has only been accomplished by the scientists that design / build thermonuclear bombs, or hydrogen bombs.
But nuclear fusion ignition doesn't happen "by chance"; at least not on Earth.
Funny how the anti-nukes fabricate such lies; and then call other people "knuckle draggers" and "droolers".
More demonstrated ignorance from the anti-nukes
Fission and fusion happen by chance, in certain environments, including Gabon and the sun.
============================
Another ignorant anti-nukes needs some instruction in the physics.
Shall we consider the case of the Gabon reactor. In natural Uranium, there are two isotopes U-235, which is the fissile isotope, and U-238, which is non-fissile ( but fissionable by high energy neutrons ). U-235 has a half-life of 0.7 million years. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. So U-235 decays faster than U-238.
Currently, the fraction of natural Uranium that is U-235 is 0.7%. However, because U-235 is the faster decaying of the two species; the fraction that is U-235 used to be MUCH HIGHER in natural Uranium.
Many billions of years ago, the U-235 concentration in natural Uranium was MUCH, MUCH HIGHER; and it was at that time that the Gabon reactor was in operation.
The Gabon reactor could NOT OPERATE today because a reactor moderated by light water can NEVER achieve a self-sustaining chain reaction when the U-235 concentration is only 0.7% There are only two materials that can serve as moderator for a natural uranium reactor at 0.7% U-235; those are graphite and heavy-water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
A key factor that made the reaction possible was that, at the time the reactor went critical 1.7 billion years ago, the fissile isotope U-235 made up about 3.1% of the natural uranium, which is comparable to the amount used in some of today's reactors. (The remaining 97% was non-fissile U-238) Because U-235 has a shorter half life than U-238, and thus decays more rapidly, the current abundance of U-235 in natural uranium is about 0.7%. A natural nuclear reactor is therefore no longer possible on Earth without heavy water or graphite.
Our ignorant little anti-nuke didn't know that, which is why the claim that a reactor could happen by chance as it did at Gabon, is NO LONGER POSSIBLE.
I find it amusing that someone with such little analytical and mental ability goes around calling other people "knuckle draggers" and droolers.
I think the average forum reader can tell who has the intellect; and for whom intelligence is sorely lacking.
DAMN YOU PRO-NUKES TO HELL!!!
I don't want a lecture from some damn pro-nuke that is out to destroy the world. What is wrong with you pro-nukes is that you worship science. You have no humanity at all. Damn science to hell. We don't need your damn science.
Why can't we all just live in peace?
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Since most scientists believe
Since most scientists believe that scientific exploration stands in opposition to, if not refutes entirely, religiosity, I personally find the exclamation, "Damn science to hell!" hilarious, to say nothing of the disingenuous immediate postscript, "Why can't we all just live in peace?"
Unintentionally hilarious, to be sure...but knee-slapping funny, regardless.
No logical paradox
Yes - it is true that science refutes religiosity, and that scientists may not be religious.
However, it is the poster that is calling for scientists to be damned; not the other way around. The poster believes in religion, and is calling for scientists who don't believe in religion to be damned. There's nothing logically disingenuous about that!
It's the damner that needs to believe in religion; not the damned.
I agree
There's ZERO confusion with regard to physical properties like melting temperatures. It's very easy to measure a melting temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that there can be no confusion with regard to physical properties.
It's like saying we should reserve our opinions regarding the melting temperatures of dry ice vis-a-vis water ice, and that discussion is ongoing.
Who doesn't know that dry ice has a much lower melting temperature than water ice. Somebody that says there is scientific discussion about the relative magnitude of the melting temperatures of dry ice vs. water ice is just plain wrong.
Evidently someone lied about the relative melting temperatures of uranium vs. plutonium dioxide, and the lie was repeated. However, if people get their data from legitimate scientific references instead of propaganda pieces; there will be no confusion.
just post once -- if you can manage via single persona
up your meds until you get your multiple personality, dim-witted cheerleader persona under control...you will be a better person and there will be less garbage in this forum.
Imagining things again??
Evidently we have another, or maybe it's the same, who can tell; poster who "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that there is one and only one pro-nuclear poster on this forum, or possibly in the world.
There are many pro-nuclear posters, in spite of the delusions of the anti-nukes.
Just shut up and go away,
Just shut up and go away, Cromack, already. We know it's "just" you! And you, and you and you and you! A circular firing squad!!!!
Touchy, touchy, touchy...
These anti-nukes are such delicate creatures.
Unless you swallow their party line "hook, line, and sinker"; they get so upset.
SO, you finally admit that
SO, you finally admit that you ARE Rick Cromack, king of all shills and perveyor of personas? Well thats refreshing. Just curious are you paid by the hour, post, personality, or lie you spread on behalf of your employers, the pro-nuke "death cult"?
I'm supposed to be paid????
I'm supposed to be paid???
Where do I pick up my check?
So again, just to be clear:
So again, just to be clear: you are making NO EFFORT to deny that you're the infamous Cromag, in the service of the world-annhilating nuclear cabal? that you are well-compensated for your lies, deceptions, distractions and ofbuscations? Or that you are the ONE AND ONLY troll, posting under many identities, plaguing this blog and several others in an concerted effort to attack and weaken the REAL truth-seekers who are trying to get, finally, to the truth at the bottom of this Extinction-Level Hellyou and your whoremasters have hidden under layer upon layer for b---s---? You tell the truth so rarely, I feel a need to take advantage of your momentary candor.
Gulty until proven innocent?
So again, just to be clear: you are making NO EFFORT to deny that you're the infamous Cromag, in the service of the world-annhilating nuclear cabal?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's guilty until proven innocent? Typical of the anti-nukes, but not the "American way".
I do so enjoy a paranoia-filled rant by a rabid anti-nuke about how all in the world are liars except the self-righteous anti-nukes....
Please, sir. I want some more.
AND you shall have it.
AND you shall have it. Promise.
HOWEVER - I suppose I should say, THANK YOU Mr. Cromack, for helping me to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that you are in fact the nuclear power industry "fixer" whose been guiding and directing propaganda efforts here since very early on in the crisis. Many of the good people on this blog, some of whom fell for your lies and deceptions and were duped into believing you were "just" a concerned citizen, have been working tirelessly for months to investigate & expose you for the fraud and charaltan that you clearly are. It seems fitting that it should be me, so often a victim of your unprovoked ad hominym attacks, who should finally pull back the veal to reveal you for the shill and troll that I always suspected you of being.
Fool me once shame on you. You wont be fooling anyone else though, not anymore. We know you and who and what you represent. Your finished you hateful pro nuke scumbag!!!!!!!!!
OH BROTHER!!!
who should finally pull back the veal to reveal you for the shill and troll that I always suspected you of being.
--------------------------------------
Very funny, very funny. "..who should finally pull back the veal....
I think you mean "veil".
From Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veal
Veal is the flesh of a young calf
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veil
Veil is the cloth that you pull back.
However, for your information, I am NOT CROMACK
However, if this Cromack has been tormenting you for some time now;
I'm jealous.
Dont even try to deny it now,
Dont even try to deny it now, Cro-mag; we've come to far for that. Silly rabbit... Tricks are for kids!!!!
Neither will we fall for the oldest shill trick in the book; distracting attention away from our salient discourse by focusing on irrevelancies like simple, honest, eminently understandable typographical errors. Don't think for a nanosecond that your fooling anybody with your predictable drivel.
You have been exposed!! And thats all there is to it, Cromack. Go cry somewhere else, noone here wants to hear your inane prattle anymore, you stooge.
Sorry you don't believe it...
Sorry you don't believe it. But I'm really NOT Cromack.
REALLY!!! I'm NOT Cromack.
I've had a really nice time leading you on; but I'm not Cromack.
Perhaps I can make fun of you some other time.
Seriously folks!!!!!
You really doeth protest too much, Cro-macknon. Only Cromack would be soo intent on denying it...3 times no less!!!
You've said how much you admire Cromack already: then WHY DENY IT???? HUH???????????
Just admit you're been caught and move on. There are plenty places left online that you can spew your malicious drivel in.
-the BRAWN Community .
There are??? Oh do tell; where are they?
There are plenty places left online that you can spew your malicious drivel in.
=====================
There are??? Oh do tell; where are they?
I thought you said you were
I thought you said you were going away. Once more you prove your are a LIAR.