Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts

In article <1Qfqg.79680$4L1.37165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Nuclear power. It's reasonably cheap, we know how to do it, and
unlike solar or wind, it can be scaled up pretty much as far as
you'd like.

And thanks to envirowhackos spreading lies about it 3/4 of the
population thinks a nuclear reactor is an A-bomb in a different
form and wants nothing to do with one.

Er, Mayor... a nuclear reactor *is* an A-bomb in "different form!"

Nuclear reactors cannot explode. They are not A-Bombs.

This is true given proper operation of the reactor.

This is true all the time.

Or so they would like you to believe.

<URL:http://ans.engr.wisc.edu/phpws/index.php?module=faq&FAQ_op=view&FAQ_
id=15>

"Q: Can a nuclear reactor explode?

A: It is physically impossible for a commercial nuclear reactor to
explode like an atomic bomb, whether by accident, sabotage, or any
other cause. The composition of nuclear fuel used to generate
electricity is quite different from the materials used in a bomb."

I provide quotes below that show bomb material and nuclear fuel are the same
material.


All you need for an atomic explosion is a big enough piece of
uranium to achieve critical mass. The first A-bombs worked by
having a piece of uranium missing from the main mass that was
forcibly assembled to it by a conventional explosive charge.

Actually the Gadget was an implosion type bomb as was Fat Man.
Little Boy was the only one of the first batch that was a gun type.
Which doesn't matter anyway. Nuclear reactors don't work like either
type.
Its a bit like saying that a patio block is the same thing as the
Collesium because they both have concrete in them.

No, it's more like I'm saying all you need for an atomic blast is to
collect enough nuclear material into a large enough lump that it
achieves critical mass. Reactors keep this amount of material
separate by containing it in fuel rods, and using control rods, but
nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. All that's
missing is the right type of sabotage or accident.

No, Edwin. Atomic reactors don't use the same mix of isotopes as
atomic bombs.

Yes, Alan, they do. Read my quotes below.

No, Edwin, they don't.


The uranium in a reactor can't achieve criticality
because it isn't sufficiently enriched (enriching is the name for the
process by which the natural mixture of uranium isotopes is modified
to favour more Uranium-235).

Enriching just means increasing the percentage of U-235, or Pu-239, which my
quotes below identify as both bomb material and as nuclear fuel. That just
means you need a bigger pile of it to get an atomic blast.

Yes, that's what enriching means, but how *much* you enrich changes the
way the material will behave. Without sufficient enrichment, the fuel
cannot achieve criticality.


"The isotopes desirable for a nuclear weapon are those which have a high
probability of fission reaction, yield a high number of excess neutrons,
have a low probability of absorbing neutrons without a fission reaction, and
do have a low spontaneous fission rate. The primary isotopes which fit these
criteria are U-235, Pu-239 and U-233."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

Right. Which is why fuel for nuclear reactors isn't enriched to the
point where there is a lot of these isotopes in the mix.


"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are 235U and 239Pu, and the actions
of mining, refining, purifying, using, and ultimately disposing of these
elements together make up the nuclear fuel cycle, which is important for its
relevance to nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Sorry, Edwin. You're quoting but you're not understanding.

<URL:http://www.kernenergie.net/informationskreis/en/faq/reaktorsicherhei
t.php#3>

"Can a nuclear power plant explode like an atomic bomb?

Nuclear power plants cannot "explode like an atomic bomb". The
possibility to perform nuclear fission in form of a chain reaction is
the common basic principle for nuclear reactors as well as for atomic
bombs. However, all physical, chemical and technical preconditions for
the operation of a nuclear reactor are principally different to those
leading to the explosion of an atomic bomb.

The explosion of an atomic bomb requires the availability of fissionable
material with highest isotope purity (uranium-235 or plutonium-239 near
to 100 percent) and concentration. In a nuclear reactor, on the other
hand, the fissionable material is both chemically (oxide instead of
metal) and also in its isotope purity "diluted" (up to 3.5% uranium-235
approx.) and distributed to hundreds of fuel elements.

In atomic bombs, the chain reaction is intended to take place
uncontrolled and within a very short time period (about a billionth
second). This is made possible by mathematically and technically
complicated conditions (a sort of ballistic method for uranium-235, an
implosion technique for plutonium-239). In nuclear reactors, however,
the chain reaction of the nuclear fission is only made possible by a
certain extensive geometry of the fuel elements and by the existence of
a "moderator" (neutron moderating agent in case of light- and
heavy-water reactors). Control rods made of neutron-absorbing material
allow for a controlled nuclear fission at any time. Conditions given by
the laws of nature provide an "inherent" (self-regulating) safety of the
operating sequences of the reactor."

Are you getting it yet? Maybe this will help:

<URL:http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Snucweap.htm>

"Such a sudden release is not easily achieved. Rather sophisticated
technology is needed, otherwise heat released early in the fission
"chain reaction" blows the fuel apart and stops the process. A nuclear
reactor can never explode like a bomb: the most it can do is explode
like a steam boiler without safety valves, or more likely, its fuel
might melt down into expensive slag, as happened on Three Mile Island.
Malfunctioning reactors can certainly be dangerous, since they hold
intensely radioactive fission products (remember Chernobyl!). However,
they cannot become nuclear bombs."

Still not convinced? Here:

<URL:http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_disasters/nuclear_
disasters.html>

"The Myth of a Reactor Explosion:

It is impossible for any PWR or LWR nuclear reactor to explode like an
atomic bomb. This is because in order for an uncontrolled chain reaction
to occur that is similar to an atom bomb, the uranium fuel must be
extremely enriched, much more than the 4% 235U that is present in
regular, commercial nuclear reactor fuel. So, if it can't explode, what
does happen in a nuclear reactor? The answer is what is called a
meltdown. When a meltdown occurs in a reactor, the reactor "melts". That
is, the temperature rises in the core so much that the fuel rods
actually turn to liquid, like ice turns into water when heated. If the
core continued to heat, the reactor would get so hot that the steel
walls of the core would also melt. In a complete reactor meltdown, the
extremely hot (about 2700 Celsius) molten uranium fuel rods would melt
through the bottom of the reactor and actually sink about 50 feet into
the earth beneath the power plant. The molten uranium would react with
groundwater, producing large explosions of radioactive steam and debris
that would affect nearby towns and population centers."

Still skeptical? Maybe the Encylopaedia Britannica will convince you:

<URL:http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Xcy5wdekdqgJ:www.britannica.com/e
b/article-9106041+can+an+atomic+reactor+explosion+%7C+bomb&hl=en&ct=clnk&
cd=6>

(sorry for the cache link, but the EB shortened the text they'll show
you for free)

"In an atomic bomb the chain reaction is designed to increase in
intensity until much of the material has fissioned. This increase is
very rapid and produces the extremely sharp, tremendously energetic
explosions characteristic of such bombs. In a nuclear reactor the chain
reaction is maintained at a controlled, nearly constant level. Nuclear
reactors are so designed that they cannot explode like atomic bombs."

Well, Edwin? Are all these sources wrong? Or will you just admit that
you weren't as well-informed as you thought you were -- that you were
simply wrong about this?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts
    ... Nuclear reactors cannot explode. ... This is true given proper operation of the reactor. ... I provide quotes below that show bomb material and nuclear fuel are ... nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Former Anti-Nuclear Activist Does A 180
    ... to the number of death due to nuclear power, ... Chernobyl was close to being about as bad as a civil nuclear reactor ... messy and best avoided by intrinsically safe design. ... Tokai-mura managed to do that in 1999 in a fuel reprocessing cock-up. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Defusing a Nuclear Nightmare
    ... >>After the successful exploding of the first atomic bomb in the desert ... >> Von Clauswitz?s legendary laws of war no longer applied, ... >>between nuclear powers will yield no winners. ... It was a deadly manifestation of the arrogance of American power, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Defusing a Nuclear Nightmare
    ... >After the successful exploding of the first atomic bomb in the desert ... >between nuclear powers will yield no winners. ... It was a deadly manifestation of the arrogance of American power, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Defusing a Nuclear Nightmare
    ... >>After the successful exploding of the first atomic bomb in the desert ... >>between nuclear powers will yield no winners. ... >> - It was a deadly manifestation of the arrogance of American power, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)