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

Alan Baker wrote:
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?

I don't disagree with any of the above (except where you call me not well
informed or wrong). I didn't mean to say a reactor would spontaneously
explode. My only point was that the principle of the atomic bomb is
simple, to have enough of a atomic material in one place. A reactor is
also just so much atomic material in one place. The two are not completely
unsimilar concepts. I said from the beginning that a reactor dilutes this
material to the point that it won't make an atom bomb.

The experts say that enough material can't combine from the melting of the
fuel to make an atomic blast, so I'll accept that. Thanks for doing the
Google searches to find out about this stuff.

But I can see this is just another of your "wrong again" crusades, so I'll
just leave it at that. It was almost an enjoyable conversation for
awhile, but your need to talk down to others is just winning out again.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CANDU reactor questions
    ... plutonium from elsewhere (such as dismantled nuclear weapons) they ... energy needs using various fuel sources in which a U-235-only fuel cycle ... These aren't *all* uranium reserves, because they consider, as usual, only ... doesn't happen in reactors using fast neutron reactor ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago
    ... fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta ... fuel is exposed to atmosphere (such as opening the zirconium-clad fuel ... Nuclear is indeed a very clean technology today. ... operating a reactor for a decade or so. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts
    ... Nuclear reactors cannot explode. ... This is true given proper operation of the reactor. ... explode like an atomic bomb, whether by accident, sabotage, or any ... nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago
    ... fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta ... fuel is exposed to atmosphere (such as opening the zirconium-clad fuel ... Nuclear is indeed a very clean technology today. ... operating a reactor for a decade or so. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • `Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track
    ... `Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track' ... INDIANS are now the world masters of the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor ... in a nuclear project's implementation, ... nuclear fuel. ...
    (sci.energy)