ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

In "The Nation" magazine, writer Mark Hertsgaard has taken it upon himself to "correct" the "errors" of the documentary film, "Pandora's Promise". However, it is Hertsgaard that is in ERROR and needs to be corrected.

In "The Nation" article:

http://www.thenation.com/article/174733/pandoras-terrifying-promise-can-nuclear-power-save-planet#

Mark Hertsgaard makes the following claim:

"It’s an inalterable physical fact: nuclear fission produces plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons.

BZZZT!! WRONG!! Hertzgaard "thinks" that fission produces plutonium? The statement just shows that Hertzgaard doesn't understand the word "fission" in the everyday English vernacular, let alone in the context of nuclear reactions. The word "fission" in BOTH the English vernacular and in the context of a nuclear reaction means to have something split in two. In the context of nuclear bomb fuel, "Plutonium" means "Plutonium-239". It is only the Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) isotope of Plutonium that is "fissile" and can be nuclear bomb fuel. Likewise, when we talk about the fissioning of fuel in a reactor, we are refering to Uranium-235 (U-235). The number suffix in both cases denotes the atomic mass of the isotope. Because 239 is greater than 235; Pu-239 is a larger and heavier nucleus than U-235. In analogy, the Pu-239 is like a grapefruit which is bigger / heavier than an orange which corresponds to U-235.

So would it make sense to say that when one slices an orange in half ( fissions the orange ) that the process creates the heavier grapefruit? Of course NOT!! That's NONSENSE. However, that's exactly what this Hertzgaard is saying when he states that fission producing plutonium is an inalterable physical fact. Hertzgaard is just plain WRONG!!

We do know that Plutonium CAN be produced in a reactor; so if not fission, what makes Plutonium? Glad you asked. Plutonium is produced via neuton capture on Uranium-238 followed by two radioactive beta decays. The process is:

U-238 + n --> U-239 (neutron capture)
U-239 --> Np-239 + e + (anti-neutrino) (beta radioactive decay)
Np-239 --> Pu-239 + e + (anti-neutrino) (beta radioactive decay.)

In order to produce Pu-239, the reactor must have U-238 in the core in addition to the U-235 fuel. The neutrons that come from fission can provide the original neutron that is captured. However, without the presence of U-238; there can be no production of Pu-239 in the reactor.

Many pro-nuclear supporters cite reactors that work on the "thorium cycle". If one puts plentiful Thorium-232 into the reactor, it will be transmuted into Uranium-233 in a manner similar to the way that U-238 is transmuted into Pu-239. The Uranium-233, however, is fissile like Uranium-235 and is fissioned. Hence one can have a fission reactor fuel cycle that does NOT involve the production of Plutonium; in contradiction to the ill-founded claims of Hertzgaard.

Hertzgaard also states:

The problem is that this same miracle fuel is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons. In fact, it was by exploiting the dual nature of nuclear fission that India acquired nuclear weapons in 1974—much as Iran is believed to be trying to do in 2013.

Actually Iran's attempt at obtaining a nuclear weapon has NOTHING to do with nuclear fission. It has to do with enrichment, or isotopic separation. Iran is seeking NOT a plutonium bomb, but a uranium bomb. Natural uranium consists of 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. It's the U-235 that can be used as a nuclear bomb fuel in high enough concentration. Therefore, Iran is using isotopic separation technology to increase the concentration of U-235 from the 0.7% found in natural uranium, up to a percentage that can be used in a nuclear weapon. Herzgaard is in ERROR; fission has NOTHING to do with that quest.

Hertzgaard further claims:

The film accepts uncritically Till’s claim that the IFR is inherently safe. IFRs are, however, cooled by sodium, which reacts violently upon contact with air or water; nearly all of the world’s sodium-cooled reactors have suffered fires, like the one that closed the Monju nuclear plant in Japan in 1995.

Actually, the claims made by Dr. Till as to the inherent safety of the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR were based on a series of tests conducted on the IFR prototype at Argonne. There's nothing "uncritically" about it; when the claims are based on scientific tests.

Hertzgaard's concerns are based on the fact that the IFR is liquid-metal cooled, and there have been fires at other test reactors that are liquid-metal cooled. However, one should keep in mind, that these other reactors that had the
fires were NOT commercial reactors; they were ALL experimental reactors. Evidently, Hertzgaard doesn't appreciate what scientists do; which is to conduct tests, to stress the system, to find the "breaking points". That's how scientists and engineers learn. For example, in the interview with Dr. Till that I've often quoted here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Till describes some of the tests that the IFR prototype was put through; including one test that was eeirily similar to the accident scenario that resulted in the Chernobyl crisis. The IFR prototype faired well in the test. But that is not the case in all scientific experiments. Sometimes experimental equipment breaks, and that's how scientists / engineers learn. The breakdowns that happened at these test reactors weren't happenstance. They were done "on purpose" to stress the system, and find where the weak spots were. Does Hertzgaard not know that there were crashes of experimental planes in the aviation industry? Should we all eschew commercial air travel because some of the forebearers of the airliners in which many people fly had problems when pushed to the limits by their designers?

However, the particular reactor that served as the IFR prototype had a flawless history that spanned decades. That reactor spent the first 20 years of its life as Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II), and never had a fire or sodium accident. It then spent over 10 years as the prototype IFR, again flawlessly. One of the reasons for this flawless record is that EBR-II / IFR was a "pool" reactor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ifr_concept.jpg

As can be seen from the above; the reactor sat in a large vat of liquid sodium; which eliminated the need for a lot of "loop-type" sodium piping.

Additionally, Hertzgaard implies that there is something outlandish and uncommon in dealing with liquid metals. For Heaven's sake, doesn't Hertzgaard realize that EVERY FOUNDRY deals with liquid metals. Does Hertzgaard drive a car, own metal tools, even flatware, forks, spoons, and knives? ALL these metal products were liquid metals at some previous time.

Hertzgaard also engages in a lot of foolishly FLAWED logic that many anti-nukes do; which is to consider all members of a given class or set; as equivalent. The Boeing 777 airliner in which you fly is a jet aircraft. The B-52 and B-2 are also jet aircraft and they drop bombs. Therefore, one can drop bombs with a Boeing 777.

Or consider the following analogy; if I have discovered a new, cheap way to produce alcohol then I can conquer the liquor industry, right? Not if the alcohol that I'm producing is methanol! The type of alcohol in liquor is ethanol. Methanol is toxic. Can one "reason"; "Liquor is made with ethanol. Ethanol is an alcohol. Methanol is also an alcohol. Therefore, I can make liquor with methanol."

This FAULTY LOGIC would say that since ethanol is potable and an alcohol; then all alcohols must be potable; so methanol is potable because it is an alcohol. By the same token, all mammals are the same. Finally, all plutonium is the same, and thus all is nuclear bomb fuel.

Now isn't "logic" like that the epitome of being BRAINLESS STUPID!

However, Hertzgaard engages in this same flawed logic by stating that since the IFR is a breeder-type reactor, and breeder type reactors produce Plutonium, and Plutonium has been used in nuclear weapons; concluding that the IFR is a proliferation risk.

Hertzgaard is clearly lacking in the brainpower that it takes to understand that this line of so-called "reasoning" is
flawed. As Dr. Till states in the above PBS Frontline interview:

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.

Herzgaard doesn't understand that not any old composition of Plutonium isotopes can be made into a weapon; that it takes a particular type of composition which the IFR doesn't produce and was specifically designed NOT to produce.

The fact that IFR Plutonium can NOT be used to make nuclear weapons was certified by the very people that design nuclear weapons for the USA. They certified that in a report to their bosses; the US Congress. Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) refer to this report in their rebuttal to a New York Times editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

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.

Hertzgaard speaks about the cancellation of the IFR:

Under Republican and Democratic administrations alike and with bipartisan congressional support, Washington halted the development of breeder reactors in the 1970s and canceled Till’s beloved IFR program in 1994.

It was the Clinton Administration that halted the IFR program, and did so by having then Senator Kerry LIE to his colleagues in Congress. As a Senator, Kerry was briefed on the findings of Lawrence Livermore that Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) quote above. However, as Dr. Till states in this article:

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0509till.html

The anti-IFR forces were led by John Kerry. He was the principal speaker and the floor manager of the anti forces in the Senate debate. He spoke at length, with visual aids; he had been well prepared. His arguments against the merits of the IFR were not well informed?and many were clearly wrong. But what his presentation lacked in accuracy it made up in emotion. He attacked from many angles, but principally he argued proliferation dangers from civilian nuclear power.

So if someone LIES to the Congress and MISREPRESENTS scientific facts; as long as they do it passionately, with emotion; and the Congress gullibly "buys into" the LIES and votes accordingly; then somehow that is OK?

I guess some think that "the ends justify the means" when it goes their way; and ignore the fact the such a justification is considered UNETHICAL.

Hertzgaard also contends that renewables will solve our problems and meet our energy needs. However, Hertzgaard is NOT a scientist, and, as demonstrated above; could NEVER be since he is such a piss-poor thinker; but the rest of us know what some of the most respected climate scientists say about the potential of renewables:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

So the fact of the matter is that the documentary "Pandora's Promise" was pretty much "right on" in all it stated, and the so-called "errors" pointed out in "The Nation" article are due to misunderstandings, ignorance, or just plain deficient mental reasoning powers on the part of Mr. Hertzgaard.

It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation".

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[happyslug]

1. Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy.

Just glancing at them, you quickly see no one source of energy will solve the energy problem, and nuclear will be a key part of the Future energy use.



http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm



http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm



http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11951&src=Total-b2

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/

[kristopher]

2. That tells you nothing of the sort

Energy efficiency and renewables are more than adequate. Nuclear is a 'trivial' source of energy providing only 1/6th the final energy that renewables provide. And as you can see from the cost-deployment charts we are at a major turning point in what will be selected going forward.









Just as food for thought, here is the status of world final energy consumption by source.



This is the concept behind calls for energy efficiency (a strategy that is anathema to the coal and nuclear industry because it slashes their profits).

The energy wasted from thermal sources is a very significant factor in understanding the issue of what energy source is doing what. Primary energy measures the total amount of energy that a fuel source yields - no matter whether it is powering our lives (ie electricity or or propulsion for autos) or whether it is waste heat being transferred to our waterways from nuclear plants or heat causing NO2* emissions off the hot engine block of an internal combustion.

An alternative (and most say better) way of looking at the production and use of energy is to measure what is needed and consumed by the actual work being accomplished. For example, an average internal combustion engine (ICE) powered car ejects 85% of the energy content of the gasoline it consumes as heat and only uses 15% for motive power. When we look for alternatives to gasoline do we think biofuels, and duplicate the efficiencies of the gasoline powered ICE or do we focus on batteries and electric motors that have far better efficiencies - typically using 90% of the input energy for locomotion?

Writ large, what does that mean? Take a look at this flow chart and note that the "rejected energy" comprised 58.1 quads of the total 95.1 quads of primary energy used in the US last year. How much was actually used to do the work of the nation? Only 37 quads.



If we look more closely at the various sectors we can see where the major opportunities for energy efficiency improvements are to be found:

Sector: Gross - Useful Energy; Rejected Energy (proportion of useful to rejected)

Transportation: 26.7 - 5.6; 21.1 (21 : 79)
Electric Generation: 38.10 - 12.40; 25.70 (33 : 67)

In sectors where the heat value of the energy is useful we see much higher efficiency
Industrial: 23.9 - 19.1; 4.77 (80 : 20)
Commercial: 8.29 - 5.39; 2.90 (65 : 35)
Residential: 10.60 - 6.9; 3.72 (65 : 35)

Now let's look at the Solar, Wind and Hydro Subset of Electric Generation. These produce electricity directly with insignificant primary energy lost as heat in the generation phase, however they do incur line losses of about 7%.

SolarWindHydro: 4.07 - 3.78; 0.285 (93 : 7)

Let's compare that to
Nuclear: 8.05 - 2.62; 5.43 (33 : 67)

In the US, the our fleet of nuclear reactors (what is it, down to 99 and falling fast?) might have produced 8.05 quads of primary energy, but at about 35% efficiency at the busbar and a further 7% line loss, (8.05q x 0.35 = 2.82q x 0.93) that only equals 2.62 quads actually delivered to the end user for work.

3.78q > 2.62q

See also: http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11788#utm_medium=email&utm_source=LNH+07-19-2013&utm_campaign=NAW+News+Headlines

[PamW]

11. Lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

Once again, kristopher demonstrates his lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with the above "apples and oranges" comparison.

Scientists who DO understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics realize that when we discuss energy; we have to divide energy into two different types of energy as the 2nd Law says different things about the two types.

The first type is called "work" - work is "high quality energy" and is characterized by being free of entropy. Rotational / Translational motion and electric energy are examples of "work".

The second type is "heat" - heat is "low quality energy" and is characterized by the fact that it DOES contain entropy.

The 2nd Law forces us to consider these two types of energy separately and not conflate them as kristopher has done in the above "apples and oranges" comparison.

If we examine the summary chart from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; electrical energy which is work comprises 38.1 units of energy.

Nuclear power is ONLY used to provide electric power or work and as a percentage of the total electric energy nuclear provides ( as per the LLNL chart ):

Nuclear power % = 8.05 / 38.1 = 21.13%

So contrary to kristopher's ill-informed contention above; nuclear is over 21% of the type of energy that we use nuclear energy to produce. Additionally, there is no reason why nuclear can not be a larger percentage. After all, France is over 80% nuclear power. We just need to build more nuclear plants.

Let's look at kristopher's favorite energy forms wind and solar as how they relate to producing electric energy. In order to do an "apples to apples" comparison, and not the "apples to oranges" that kristopher did; we shall consider only the part of solar and wind that go into providing high quality "work" or electric power.

As per the LLNL chart; solar gives us 0.0408 units of energy for electric power.

As per the LLNL chart: wind gives us 1.36 units of energy for electric power.

So the sum of wind and solar for electric energy gives us 1.40 units or 3.68% of our electric power.

So far from being "trivial", nuclear which is only used to provide high quality "work" in the form of electric energy provides nearly 5.74 TIMES as much high quality work or electric energy as do renewables.

Because he doesn't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; kristopher failed to take into account the difference in energy QUALITY.

It would be like comparing two sources of metal; source A and source B.

Source A gives you 6 times as much metal by weight as does Source B. So Source A is more valuable? Right?

Not necessarily.

Suppose the metal you get from Source A is Iron.

Suppose the metal you get from Source B is Gold and Platinum.

The fact that you only get 1/6-th the mass of metal is OVERWHELMED by the fact that Source B's metal is valuable Gold and Platinum.

It's an "apples and oranges" comparison to compare "Iron" on one hand to "Gold and Platinum" on the other.

That's the ERROR that kristopher essentially makes in FAILING to account for the difference in energy quality dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; that he can't comprehend.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

13. Nope

Up in smoke: how efficient is electricity produced in the UK?
Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day in our gas, coal and nuclear power stations.

Over half of the energy in gas and around two thirds of the energy in nuclear and coal used to produce electricity is lost as waste heat.

Information is Beautiful has created a graphic for Friends of the Earth that illustrates just how much energy is lost in production and compares it to renewables sources, which lose less than 1%.

It makes particularly interesting reading when considered alongside Good Energy's (one of our partners on the Clean British Energy campaign) recent graphic showing where our energy comes from.

This graphic was produced...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/energy-green-politics#

[PamW]

15. 100% WRONG AGAIN as always!!

I've been through this with kristopher before; and he just does NOT "get it".

kristopher desires that we turn heat 100% into work without the "waste heat".

Unfortunately for kristopher; Mother Nature FORBIDS that!

Here is a page from the Physics Department at Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c2

What kristopher wants to do is what is depicted in the right half of the above graphic; which is to have ALL the energy transformed into useful work.

But look what the Professors of Physics at Georgia State University say about that:

Extracting heat QH and using it all to do work W would constitute a perfect heat engine FORBIDDEN by the second law.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that "waste heat" is NECESSARY for a heat engine.

What kristopher wants to do is FORBIDDEN by a Law of Physics.

That SHOULD be the end of any such consideration; but kristopher doesn't understand it.

That is why I always say:

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[caraher]

3. It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation".

So pray tell, what is your favorite progressive publication? Given that, of course, as a good Democratic Underground member, you are here to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints.

[PamW]

7. I don't have a favorite political publication

caraher,

I don't have a favorite political publication. I eschew ALL "political" publications.

Why do I need a publication to do my political thinking for me?

I just need the media to get me the facts; and the opinions I generate on my own.

I don't need help from some political publication; and certainly NOT a publication like the The Nation where their prognosticator on nuclear power, Mr. Hertzgaard has a level of knowledge and intellect INFINITELY INFERIOR to my own.

So I can do with out the whole lot of them.

PamW

[caraher]

17. Well, I think we all get that The Nation is not a technical journal

and I can appreciate that one can form political opinions on one's own.

But knowing the "facts" require investigation, and the infotainment industry does a poor job supporting investigative journalism. I count on publications like The Nation to bring things to my attention that I hadn't known about before. And when The Nation publishes something I think is wrong - and I've definitely seen that happen - I tend to be disappointed in them, rather than thinking, "Well, what do I expect, it's "The Nation," after all..."

So I thought I'd ask what you do read, given that you seemed to react to "The Nation" the way I would to, say, FOX News... It seemed like the kind of thing someone who didn't think that our country is better off, overall, with Democrats in elected office than Republicans might say.

Some of your gripes with the piece are inappropriately pendantic given its purpose, which is not to teach nuclear physics but to discuss nuclear power in light of the film. So when Hertsgaard says "fission produces plutonium," you have to use an obstinately literal interpretation to generate your ERROR!. As you yourself demonstrate, any fission reactor with U-238 in its fuel rods will produce plutonium, which only supports the main purpose of the sentence - establishing that ordinary fission reactors always produce some Pu-239. His statement is no more in error than to speak of "electricity generated from fission," a perfectly acceptable shorthand for the many processes that happen in a reactor between the fission reaction and electricity flowing across a power line.

Moreover, while historically concern on Iran has focused on enrichment, there is new concern about their possibly working the plutonium route as well, as Hertszgaard suggests.

The sodium issue is a matter of both you and Hertsgaard selecting only the facets of the situation that suit your respective cases. You just look silly pretending his beef is that the coolant is a liquid metal, because it's more the fact that liquid sodium burns that he's concerned about - and you do concede his claim that "nearly all of the world’s sodium-cooled reactors have suffered fires" is factually accurate. I've worked with small quantities of liquid metals many times, including liquid sodium, and there's a very different level of risk associated with liquid sodium compared to, say, molten aluminum or electrical solder - both of which merely solidify, rather than catching fire, if you spill them. This is not to say liquid sodium cannot be used safely as a coolant as a fact of engineering practice, but it does mean that there's one more important risk factor to consider in building a plant.

Finally, referring to this published conversation between Hertsgaard and Terry Tempest-Williams as a "rebuttal" shows a very mistaken understanding of the nature of the piece. While there's no doubt that Hertsgaard's rhetorical purpose is anti-nuclear, Williams persistently tells Hertsgaard that the film did cause a reassessment of nuclear in her mind, even after hearing his criticisms. For all your purported devotion to "facts," your gripes with Hertsgaard boil down to things like speculation about what was on Kerry's mind when IFR got canceled and nit-picking word choice in a transcript of a conversation.

[PamW]

18. It's STILL an ERROR

caraher points out
Some of your gripes with the piece are inappropriately pendantic given its purpose, which is not to teach nuclear physics but to discuss nuclear power in light of the film. So when Hertsgaard says "fission produces plutonium," you have to use an obstinately literal interpretation to generate your ERROR!. As you yourself demonstrate, any fission reactor with U-238 in its fuel rods will produce plutonium, which only supports the main purpose of the sentence

caraher,

It's STILL an ERROR. Hertzgaard states that it is an "inalterable physical fact... That's WRONG!.

It's NOT "inalterable". As I point out, the thorium-uranium fuel cycle produces NO plutonium.

Additionally, Hertzgaard made this statement with regard to a particular reactor, the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR.

Although the IFR does produce plutionium, the IFR was specifically designed so that the mixture of plutonium isotopes that the IFR produces can NOT serve as nuclear bomb fuel. If you read the Frontline interview with Dr. Till of Argonne; he makes that clear to the interviewer, Richard Rhodes. Additionally, in this thread, I cite the report the Lawrence Livermore made on the IFR.

A bit more on that report in regard to Mr. Kerry. The report was requested by Congress which wanted to know if the IFR constituted a proliferation risk. The determination by weapons experts / designers at Lawrence Livermore was that it was IMPOSSIBLE to make a bomb from IFR plutonium. One of my colleagues went to Washington to brief the Congress on the contents of the report. This colleague addressed then Senator Kerry face to face in a briefing and told then Senator Kerry that the IFR was NOT a proliferation risk. Senator Kerry then went on the Senate floor, and said the exact opposite. What else could it be beside a BOLD-FACED LIE?.

Liquid sodium ONLY reacts with certain materials ( water being the principle example ). All one has to do is be sure that the liquid sodium is ISOLATED from materials with which it could react. For example, I visited the IFR prototype in Idaho. The liquid sodium reactor coolant was in one building; and NO water or other material that the sodium could react with was allowed in that building.

The plant was connected to a Rankine steam cycle to produce electric power; which meant water; but that was in a completely different building some distance away. That reactor operated for over 3 decades without a single sodium mishap. I think that is an important fact to bring to the discussion.

I don't like it when Democrats LIE; especially about scientific FACTS. I think it is important that one polices one's own side. Who should be the ones that keep our Democratic statesmen on the "straight and narrow" and not LYING their backsides off!! The people who need to police them, and call them out when they LIE are other Democrats.

It's hypocritical to allow our own side to LIE and then reap the results that accrue to our benefit. NOPE - I believe in playing the game honestly. How can one call out the Republicans for their LIES if Democrats are doing the same thing. You either play the game honestly; or you are a HYPOCRITE.

You get disappointed when journalists LIE or report erroneously. Stay tuned; when you see enough of it; your disappointment will turn into expectation.

PamW

[bananas]

4. Kerry didn't lie, in fact he was validated by MIT a decade later

You wrote:

It was the Clinton Administration that halted the IFR program, and did so by having then Senator Kerry LIE to his colleagues in Congress.

Wow - a right-wing conspiracy theory attacking Kerry right after he negotiates an historic agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations.

No, Kerry didn't lie about the IFR.

Kerry, Clinton, Gore, and Congress were absolutely correct in canceling it.

They were validated by the "most important recommendation" in MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Power":

Our analysis leads to a significant conclusion: The once-through fuel cycle best
meets the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance. Closed fuel cycles
may have an advantage from the point of view of long-term waste disposal
and, if it ever becomes relevant, resource extension. But closed fuel cycles will
be more expensive than once-through cycles, until ore resources become very
scarce. This is unlikely to happen, even with significant growth in nuclear
power, until at least the second half of this century, and probably considerably
later still. Thus our most important recommendation is:

For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.

Two of the participants in that report were John Holdren and Ernest Moniz.
Obama selected Holdren to be his Science Advisor,
and Obama appointed Moniz to head the Department of Energy.

[PamW]

8. More typical anti-nuke "logic"

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Bananas treats us to another example of anti-nuke "logic".

We can see this one demonstrated in the following analogy.

There are a whole plethora of different types of mushrooms. However, the type called "The Destroying Angel" is fiendishly toxic and will kill you if you ingest it. Since we know that the "Destroying Angel" is toxic, it is OK to eat the one called the "Death Cap" because we've already identified the "Destroying Angel" as the one that is toxic.

Bananas is engaging in the same FLAWED logic. Since the MIT report says that the once-through fuel cycle is proliferation resistant; then all the other fuel cycles must be non-proliferation resistant. Do you see the INHERENT FLAW in the logic; and how it parallels the case with the mushrooms. The inherent flaw is the assumption that there is ONLY ONE proliferation resistant fuel cycle; just as the assumption above that there was only one toxic mushroom.

NO, bananas; the once through cycle is proliferation resistant; but the IFR fuel cycle is even MORE proliferation resistant because the IFR is specifically designed to burn up Pu-239, which is the isotope of plutonium that makes good nuclear weapon fuel.

The MIT study chose "once through" because it is cheaper than recycling. However, "once through" also leaves one with long-lived waste to dispose of; and the MIT study didn't put any value on that. They didn't consider the long-lived waste that needs to be disposed of as a major negative point. I think a lot of people here would disagree with that assessment, as one of the most common arguments I hear from anti-nukes is "What do we do with the long-lived waste?" The MIT study didn't put any value on that argument.

The IFR cycle in which one recycles the fuel is more expensive; but doesn't leave any of the multi-thousand year waste problem. The IFR burns down the fuel until the waste is mostly short-lived fission products:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

The longevity of the waste from the IFR has the relatively short lives that Dr. Till speaks of; and there's no multi-thousand year waste disposal problem.

So the IFR fuel cycle has an answer for those who ask, "What about the long-term waste". The "once through" cycle doesn't have an answer for that question; it leaves you with multi-thousand year longevity waste that needs to be disposed above. It trades off the waste problem for lower cost.

For me, and my values; I'd rather spend more than the cheaper "once through" cycle; and with that extra expenditure of money; I'd implement the IFR cycle; and clean-up the waste, and not leave it to an unspecified disposal method.

Of course, all of this has NOTHING to do with Kerry and the LIES he told in Congress.

As per the letter to the NY Times editor posted by Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R); the Congressionally-requested report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose scientists are THE EXPERTS as to what can and can not be made into nuclear weapons, because they are the ones that design the USA's nuclear weapons; the IFR from their determination as weapons physicists; is proliferation resistant. The scientists said that the IFR was proliferation resistant.

It's a scientific question, not a political question, as to whether or not weapons can be made with IFR plutonium.

Our own nuclear weapons EXPERTS said NO!.

Kerry said the opposite of what the scientist say on a scientific question; so Kerry LIED.
Q.E.D.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

9. There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues)

Cost
Safety
Waste
Proliferation

The MIT study is based on an approach seeking the best balance of solutions to those issues.

IFR and other closed fuel cycle breeder reactors are judged by MIT's panel to be inferior to the once through fuel cycle.

Conflating the benefits of different technologies while ignoring the drawbacks is a favorite tactic of nuclear aficionados.

[PamW]

20. We can address those...

The MIT study chooses "once through" over closed due to cost. That's because they don't assess any cost to having long lived nuclear waste piling up. I think most of the people here, including myself, believe that you need to clean up the waste. The MIT study doesn't include long-term waste as a cost; hence making the open cycle artificially cheap.

Coal is cheap too - if you don't assess any cost to the health and environmental damage.

Taking each in turn.

Cost - one of the things that makes nuclear cost so much is that anti-nuclear opposition. I still can't see how one can be intellectually honest, and oppose nuclear power, and then bleat about the cost when the opposition is a big part of the reason the cost is high.

Look at what a nuclear reactor plant cost BEFORE the anti-nukes got involved in protesting nuclear power plants. The Palisades Plant was built in the late '60s / early '70s before the anti-nuclear movement got started:

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

Look at the table at right to see what this STILL OPERATING plant cost to build: $149 Million.

Palisade is still operating, still licensed; so it has ALL the safety features needed of any modern power plant; there's no "chincing" there. What enabled Consumers Power, the original owner to build the plant so cheaply is that it did NOT face opposition. The anti-nuke movement hadn't gotten started; so there were no delays due to lawsuits and the like.

Safety - "inherently safe" reactors like the IFR which rely on "Laws of Physics" for their safety as opposed to "engineered" safeguards can be built. When your shutdown cooling relies on "natural convection" then all you need is the heat source and gravity. Gravity won't fail; not even in an earthquake. If the heat is there and there is a need for forced cooling; that heat provides the motive force.

Waste - as Dr. Till points out; the IFR fuel cycle doesn't produce long lived wastes.

Proliferation - as Dr. Till and Lawrence Livermore point out that the IFR can NOT be used to make weapons.

It's all in Dr. Till's interview with Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Of course I know you don't believe any of the SCIENCE that enables such a reactor to be built.

Where did you get your University degree in a SCIENTIFIC field that gives you the credentials to dispute the science?

Please tell us where / when; what University and what year you got a SCIENCE degree?

I thought NOT!.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

21. "The MIT study chooses "once through" over closed due to cost." - Nope.

They consider and weigh all 4 areas.

You're claims are becoming more wild eyed by the minute.

[PamW]

25. 100% WRONG!!

kristopher,

They considered and weighed all 4 areas; but they selected a "once through" cycle that leaves us with long-lived waste to dispose of.

I don't think they put enough weight or cost on the long-lived waste.

Evidently, kristopher doesn't understand that there isn't one CORRECT way to do the weighting.

There are a multitude of ways to do that weighting.

I, and I think a lot of people here, would HIGHLY NEGATIVELY weight any scheme that leaves us with long-term waste to dispose of; as does the "once through" cycle.

Evidently, MIT didn't heavily negative weight the long-term waste problem; or they wouldn't have settled on a cycle like "once through" which leaves us with long-term waste to dispose of.

If they weighted the leaving of long-term waste; which is what most anti-nukes complain about; if they had weighted long-term waste VERY NEGATIVELY; then they would never have chosen the "once through" cycle.

If you believe as I do, and I think most here; that long-lived long-term waste is a bad thing; then you wouldn't select a fuel cycle that leaves you with long term waste.

You would select a closed fuel cycle that cleans-up after itself. That's what I'd recommend.

I don't know why you would be in favor of a "once through" cycle; unless you WANT long-lived waste to sit around so you have something to complain about.

PamW

[kristopher]

27. You're morphing your previous failure into yet another failed argument

You wrote, "If you believe as I do, and I think most here; that long-lived long-term waste is a bad thing; then you wouldn't select a fuel cycle that leaves you with long term waste."

Yes, "waste is a bad thing" but a system that increases the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation, is too expensive to build, and has an unproven record on safety is also a bad thing.

[PamW]

29. 100% WRONG as ALWAYS!!

But your assumptions above are WRONG.

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) does NOT increase the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation; in fact just the OPPOSITE because it is an actinide ( i.e. Plutonium ) "BURNER".

Perhaps you can tell us why you "think" that the selection of coolant ( liquid sodium ) determines the composition of the spent fuel and whether it can be used for weapons or not. Please show us your technical acumen!!

Argonne National Lab BUILT an Integral Fast Reactor in Idaho and operated it for over a decade. If a national laboratory can build such a reactor; why can't a utility. It didn't cost billions when the anti-nukes couldn't interfere.

The IFR has a PROVEN safety record. It operated SAFELY in Idaho for OVER 10 years and all the while being subjected to potential accident scenarios as the scientists at Argonne ATTEMPTED to get the reactor to fail. It didn't.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you in fact ran an experiment that was comparable to what happened at Chernobyl?

A: Yes, yes. Let me go on a little bit about that, because it is a rather dramatic characteristic. The Chernobyl accident happened in April 26 of 1986. Earlier that month, the first week in April, with our test reactor in Idaho, in fact the same reactor control room where we're now sitting, we performed a demonstration of that characteristic, where if you cut off the coolant from the reactor, what would happen? And there are two ways to cut off the coolant. One is that simply the pumps that are pumping the reactor stop. The reactor just shut itself down.

As Dr. Till indicates; one of the scenarios that the IFR was subjected to, and WITHSTOOD was the scenario that caused the Chernobyl accident. Unproven safety record, my foot; you have ZERO evidence as to the safety characteristics of the IFR. In the academic / scientific community, you can't just MAKE UP evidence because you don't like something merely because it's the competition to something else that you prefer. Evidence is NOT FABRICATED or MADE UP on the basis of someone's whim.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[PamW]

30. MIT study on Proliferation Resistant Fast Reactor

I note that no explanation as to why the choice of coolant affects the composition of spent fuel, and whether said spent fuel can be used in nuclear weapons; has been forthcoming from kristopher in response to challenge issued.

The reason of course is that whether spent fuel can be used to fuel nuclear weapons IS NOT DETERMINED by the choice of coolant.

It certainly IS POSSIBLE to design fast reactors that are proliferation resistant as has been done in this study from MIT:

Proliferation Resistant Fast Breeder Reactor

http://tppserver.mit.edu/TMP_2013/Sess-01/03%20Mohit%20Singh.pdf

Techniques such a additions of "minor actinides" and "moderator" are shown to be effective in driving the Bathke Proliferation Metric negative; thus yielding Proliferation Resistant Fast Breeder Reactor Designs; contrary to the unsubstantiated, falsely asserted, and without scientific foundation claims of kristopher.

As stated, the 2009 Bathke Proliferation Metric has been reviewed for accuracy by scientists at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Labs.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

31. I'm sure NNSA and MIT didn't have that data.

You'd better get it to them ASAP and let them know how WRONG!!!! they are.

[PamW]

32. I'm SURE NNSA and MIT had that data

kristopher,

I'm SURE that NNSA and MIT have / had that data.

First, the primary author of the presentation I cited above is Benoit Forget; as in Professor Benoit Forget of the MIT Department of Nuclear Engineering.

So MIT certainly has that data.

Additionally, the presentation cites the Proliferation Metric that was reviewed by Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

Since NNSA is the administrative parent to both Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore; I'm sure that NNSA also had that data.

So, MIT, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, NNSA, and DOE all agree; and agree with Argonne on the ability to design Proliferation Resistant Fast Breeder Reactors.

The only "odd man out" of this is you; and Lord only knows what NNSA or DOE reports you were reading and didn't understand that led you to the WRONG conclusions.

That's why it is good to have training / understanding of the science when reading any technical reports from NNSA or DOE.

Your scientific training was at what University again? Oh - I forgot...

Everything's explained. Case Closed

Q.E.D.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe ( or understand ) in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

33. The conclusions of both MIT and NNSA refute your claims.

So either they didn't have the data or there conclusions are drawn from a wider body of knowledge than you are willing to accept.

Since you acknowledge the obvious we are left with your inability to accept the unequivocal conclusions of MIT and NNSA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758716#post4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758716#post14

[PamW]

34. NOT AT ALL

kristopher,

NOT at ALL - we are left with the conclusions of someone who MISUNDERSTANDS the conclusions of MIT and NNSA.

Evidently, you still don't understand that NNSA itself does NOT have scientists; but is the administrative agency that oversees the scientists at the NNSA defense national labs; which are Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia. Any SCIENTIFIC conclusions of NNSA can be traced to one of the above labs.

We know what the Lab that did the study on the IFR; which was Lawrence Livermore; has to say.

So why is there a question?

There's a question due to the MISUNDERSTANDING and LACK of KNOWLEDGE in the field by someone WITHOUT any technical training or credentials for same.

It's as if we had someone who did NOT go to medical school, and does NOT have the degree "M.D." for "Medical Doctor" after his / her name. This same non-doctor isn't even schooled in University level biology or pre-medical studies. In fact, this person didn't even take science in high school.

Yet - this UN-DEGREED, MEDICALLY-ILLITERATE person has read a highly technical paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, and has NOT understood it; due the the fact that he / she is totally OBLIVIOUS to the medical principles, and probably also the medical vocabulary. In short; this person doesn't have even the most basic prerequisites required for understanding the medical paper.

However, this person can't admit to being medically inept; and takes his / her EXTREMELY LIMITED knowledge and MISINTERPRETS the medical paper. I mean how can someone without medical school training understand highly technical medical papers?

Then he / she proceeds to ARGUE the matter with a Professor of Medicine from the Mayo Clinic who is one of the world-acknowledged experts in the field.

It would be like someone that can't even understand something as simple as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is taught in high school physics class; attempting to understand post-graduate nuclear physics. If you can't understand the simple stuff; how can one understand the more complex.

It really is sad to see someone vainly attempting to excel beyond their mental limits.

How sad; how pitiful. Pride goeth before a fall is the maxim.

The issue is settle among all those with the intellect to understand the issue.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

35. You've been completely and absolutely refuted

by both MIT and NNSA.

[PamW]

36. Non-scientist kristopher is 100% WRONG AGAIN

kristopher,

Your MISUNDERSTANDING and ERRONEOUS LOGIC is NOT my error.

Just making the ASSERTION that I'm in error, which is all that you've done; is NOT proof or substantiation.

At least, not in scientific communities; there is no doctrine of PROOF by ASSERTION. No EVIDENCE; no PROOF

It seems incredible that one could say that I've been refuted by MIT. After all, Professor Benoit Forget of the MIT Nuclear Engineering Department published the work that I referenced above:

Proliferation Resistant Fast Breeder Reactor

http://tppserver.mit.edu/TMP_2013/Sess-01/03%20Mohit%20Singh.pdf

Professor Forget and colleagues demonstrate that a Proliferation Resistant Fast Breeder Reactor IS possible; which is what I am claiming; and your claim is that MIT is refuting me.

I would say that MIT and Professor Forget, in particular; already knew that Proliferation Resistant Fast Breeder Reactors were possible before they even begun the study. One doesn't start a study to design something that the Laws of Physics say is impossible.

For example, Professor Forget didn't start a study to determine the ways to design a heat engine that did NOT reject waste heat. Professor Forget certainly knows that a 100% efficient heat engine that doesn't reject waste heat is PRECLUDED by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So Professor Forget would never start what would be a "fool's errand".

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c2

It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.

The amount of heat QC which must be exhausted to a cold reservoir, as REQUIRED by the 2nd Law, is called "waste heat".

Again, you still fail to understand, even though I've explained it many times; that NNSA is the administrative arm of the DOE nuclear weapons complex. The NNSA in Washington is NOT the place where the SCIENTISTS are. The NNSA in Washington has all the administrators that deal with the budget, make sure the lab operations are in compliance with law, do public relations, deals with Congress... that type of thing. However, when you want a scientific question answered, that is a task for the scientists and the scientists are at the national labs, like Lawrence Livermore. I'm quoting the scientists directly.

I'll try the medical office analogy again, see if it "sticks" this time. I'm asking the DOCTOR directly in the doctor's office about a medical opinion; and you are telling me that the answer I received from the DOCTOR has been refuted by the receptionist. It really is FUNNY / RIDICULOUS.

In addition; I think we have some more examples of what I call; "mushroom logic".

Fact: The Death Cap mushroom is both a mushroom and is toxic.
Fact: The Portabello, Shitake, and Button are also examples of mushrooms.
"Conclusion": Portabellos, Shitakes, and Buttons are also toxic.

BZZZT!! 100% WRONG!!! ERROR ERROR!! FALSE!!! UNINTELLIGENT!!

The conclusion doesn't follow from the facts presented. Just because Portabello, Shitake, and Button are mushrooms does NOT mean they are toxic.

Mushrooms are fungi that are defined by certain properties. However, toxicity is NOT a defining characteristic of the class. We can have mushrooms that are toxic, and we can have mushrooms that are edible. Just because the Death Cap is toxic doesn't mean the other three are not edible.

Just because the MIT / NNSA studies chose "once through" open fuel cycles as being preferred to the closed cycles they studied; I see NO EVIDENCE presented by kristopher that the IFR cycle was one of the closed cycles considered.

kristopher is making an UNWARRANTED GENERALIZATION which is analogous to concluding that all mushrooms are toxic.

Did either the MIT / NNSA studies that he references make the choice of open cycle over the IFR closed cycle; IN PARTICULAR, or is this just kristopher's unwarranted generalization. One can't tell when one doesn't have a reference to the whole paper; just the brief snippets that kristopher has "cherry picked" to support his conclusion. ( If you call that "support" )

Inspite of unwarranted generalizations and cherry-picked data; the scientific facts remain.

Additionally, I seriously doubt that many of the readers here would make the same value choice as did MIT, that the open fuel cycle, which requires disposal of long-lived waste is to be preferred. Usually, when I hear objections to nuclear power, I hear people say, "What about the long-term waste?" That's what people are concerned about. An open "once through" fuel cycle, which is what we have now; leaves one with radioactive material with multi-thousand year lifetimes that must be disposed.

The IFR closed fuel cycle features a recycling / burning of long-lived radioisotopes so that the only waste one has to dispose of is short-lived:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

The IFR closed fuel cycle leaves us with only short-lived waste, of the longevity mentioned by Dr. Till. I think most reader here would prefer the short-lived waste to the long-lived waste that MIT prefers. That's more of a value / preference type of choice; rather than a scientific question.

The IFR fuel cycle was designed SPECIFICALLY to produce a spent fuel that could NOT serve as nuclear weapon bomb fuel; and Argonne achieved that goal. Dr. Till explains it in the Frontline interview:

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.

and Dr. Till's contention was CONFIRMED by a report by the true nuclear weapons experts, the scientists that design nuclear weapons for the USA; the scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who addressed the proliferation potential of the IFR SPECIFICALLY at the behest of Congress, who were debating the program's fate at the time. The results of that study are cited by US Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) in a rebuttal to a New York Times editorial:

New Reactor Solves Plutonium Problem

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

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 the studies from MIT and NNSA that kristopher cites, do NOT specifically address the IFR fuel cycle, but non-scientist kristopher makes unwarranted scientific generalizations for his so-called "refutation" and "evidence". I'm citing a study SPECIFIC to the IFR. When US Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne state that, "..indicates that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant..."; the "this reactor" of which they speak is the IFR. I'm NOT generalizing like kristopher. The study I'm referencing via Senators Simon and Kempthorne is the IFR SPECIFICALLY.

For those with the intellect to understand this issue; it's really settled, and requires no more waste of bandwidth.

Others can wallow in their unsupported and unsubstantiated false assertions all they want. But I'm rather bored.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[bananas]

39. A "Proliferation Resistant" Reactor is like a "Water Resistant" Watch

Remember, unless specified by depth, water resistant only means "ACCIDENTAL WETTING"! Think of it like this. "Oops, didn't mean to do it, dry it off real quick", and it should be okay.

http://deloachwatchservice.com/other_stuff/water_resistancy.htm

[PamW]

40. OH REALLY?????

bananas,

When did the watch marketers on Madison Avenue get the gig for defining the meaning of "resistant" when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation?

Don't you really love this "logic"?

The watch manufacturers essentially "hedge" their claims, as many businesses do in our overly litigious society; against the possibility that someone will put on one of their watches and dive to some great depth. So instead of saying "water proof"; they say "water resistant".

Now the anti-nukes find it CONVENIENT to dredge up this "definition".

By what "logic" has it been mandated that the usage of the word "resistant" in the nuclear non-proliferation community has to adhere to the "standards" set by 1960s TV marketing commercials for Timex watches?

I think we've plumbed new depths of ABSURDITY.

How is the link provided in ANY WAY RELEVANT to the issue of nuclear non-proliferation?

If one is willing to be open minded; it is really quite easy to explain.

The Manhattan Project developed 2 basic designs for nuclear weapons; "gun-assembled" ( Little Boy / Hiroshima ) and "implosion" ( Fat Man / Nagasaki )

Because of effects of the isotope Plutonium-240 which is present in even "weapons-grade" Plutonium from Hanford; the "gun assembled" method can NOT be used when Plutonium, even weapons grade is slated as the bomb fuel:

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

Gun assembly: one piece of fissile uranium is fired at a fissile uranium target at the end of the weapon, similar to firing a bullet down a gun barrel, achieving critical mass when combined.
Implosion: a fissile mass of either material (U-235, Pu-239, or a combination) is surrounded by high explosives that compress the mass, resulting in criticality.

The implosion method can use either uranium or plutonium as fuel. The gun method only uses uranium. Plutonium is considered impractical for the gun method because of early triggering due to Pu-240 contamination and due to its time constant for prompt critical fission being much shorter than that of U-235.

Plutonium can be used with the implosion system because as its developer Manhattan Project scientist Seth Neddermeyer put it; the implosion system assembles in 3 dimensions while the gun assembly system only assembles in 1 dimension ( along the gun barrel ). Therefore, the implosion system is about 3 times faster in assembly.

However, what happens if the amount of Pu-240 contamination is increased? The effects of Pu-240 contamination increase with the percentage of Pu-240 until the effect is large enough that even the implosion system can't compensate.

The IFR was designed to optimize the burning of Pu-239 which is the isotope that is bomb fuel; and with the presence of Pu-240 and other actinides ( see the paper by Professor Benoit Forget of MIT referenced herein ); the effects of Pu-240 and other actinides make even implosion type nuclear weapons INOPERABLE with bomb fuel with the level of actinide contamination found in spent IFR fuel.

The IFR reactor was specifically designed with that behaviour in mind; in order to forestall using spent IFR fuel as nuclear weapons fuel. Argonne National Lab reactor designers succeeded in achieving that design goal.

Again, the fact that IFR fuel can NOT be used as nuclear weapons fuel was certified to the US Congress in a report issued 2 decades ago when the US Congress was debating the continued funding of the project. That report was authored by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Those scientists are the true experts in nuclear weapons design, since they designed the nuclear weapons in the USA's own nuclear stockpile.

I can't understand why the anti-nukes want to be "science deniers"; in every way the kindred spirits of "climate deniers"; and they have now resorted to the absurdity of claiming that the meaning of words used in the nuclear non-proliferation community are some how to be constrained in usage by how those same words were used in marketing watches on TV.

I guess when all the SCIENCE and FACTS are against you; those are the levels to which some will stoop.

If I were on the wrong side of the FACTS; I'd rather say NOTHING; than promulgate NONSENSE which would impugn my credibility.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[bananas]

5. PamW wrote: "Iran is seeking NOT a plutonium bomb, but a uranium bomb."

PamW is now on the record claiming that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

edit to add: No wonder she's attacking Kerry after he negotiates an historic agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations.

[PamW]

10. Do you doubt it?

A few years ago; nuclear inspectors found samples of uranium that qualified as "highly enriched" in Iran.

Highly enriched uranium, that is uranium with a high percentage of U-235 relative to U-238 does NOT occur in Nature.

It has to be the result of enrichment.

Normal power reactors and research reactors don't need highly enriched uranium.

There are really only two applications that require uranium that is highly enriched; naval reactors and nuclear weapons.

I don't see Iran with any nuclear-propelled naval vessels; so the HEU that was found was in all probability produced for a nuclear weapons program.

Besides; I'm not the one that made the original claim; Mark Hertzgaard in "The Nation" made that original claim:

http://www.thenation.com/article/174733/pandoras-terrifying-promise-can-nuclear-power-save-planet

In fact, it was by exploiting the dual nature of nuclear fission that India acquired nuclear weapons in 1974—much as Iran is believed to be trying to do in 2013.

Mark Hertzgaard is the one that brought up Iran as a potential nuclear weapons proliferant. However, Hertzgaard ERRONEOUSLY states that Iran is pursuing the same path as India did in 1974. That is wrong. IF Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; which is why the USA and others put sanctions on them; then they are doing so by using their centrifuges to enrich uranium to high enrichment. They are seeking a "Little Boy" bomb; not the "Fat Man" bomb, as did India.

You may believe that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, but evidently Hertzgaard, Secretary Kerry, the US Government, and all those countries promoting the sanction; evidently DO believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Not without reason.

PamW

[kristopher]

14. What about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)?

In 2008 they rated the proliferation risks of the:

Once-Through Fuel Cycle
Full Actinide Recycle
Partial Actinide Recycle

in 6 categories.

The Full Actinide Recycle approach is rated in the category

"Fuel Cycle:Inherent proliferation risk of technology"

as

"Highest risk: Capable of separating weapons-usable material, though some modification may be needed depending on the separations technology used."

And in the category

"Material Attractiveness"

as

Highest: Removal of fission products and separation of actinides greatly reduces barriers to theft, misuse, or further processing, even without separation of pure plutonium. Fast reactor fuels have higher concentration of weapons-usable materials.

For the category

Safeguards

as

Highest cost and difficulty: Separation processes require continuous monitoring against diversion and novel bulk materials present new measurement challenges.

Whose judgement is that?
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
"NNSA has the best science, technology and engineering in the world, and we are fortunate to have dedicated professionals who are truly leaders in their fields working every day to promote our nuclear security mission."
http://nnsa.energy.gov/


Can you believe the gall of those antinuclear idiots and the degree they've infiltrated the government?

[PamW]

16. You are arguing with the SCIENTISTS!!!

kristopher,

NNSA is part of DOE; NNSA is the part of DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons program.

However, DOE and NNSA in Washington do NOT have scientists; except for maybe the Secretary like Chu or Moniz. However, even then; they are NOT nuclear weapons scientists.

NNSA's expertise in nuclear weapon resides TOTALLY in the Laboratories that it oversees; like Lawrence Livermore.

I'm BYPASSING the administrators who are NOT scientists; and telling you what the SCIENTISTS say.

The nuclear weapons scientists at Lawrence Livermore, who with their colleagues at Los Alamos are the ONLY PEOPLE who are really qualified to say what can / can not be used in making nuclear weapons because they are the ones that actually DESIGN nuclear weapons for the USA.

The TRUE EXPERTS the weapons designers at Lawrence Livermore say that IFR-produced Plutonium can NOT be used to make nuclear weapons. They certified that in a report to Congress in the early '90s that Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) refer to in this rebuttal to the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

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.

The people in Washington DOE/NNSA are administrators; they are NOT SCIENTISTS.

The nuclear weapons SCIENTISTS are ONLY at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.

In analogy, kristopher is quoting the receptionist at the doctor's office on a medical opinion. I'm quoting the DOCTOR. Who do you think is more qualified?

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

19. No, I'm quoting the scientists

That would be as opposed to listening to anonymous internet posters that make absurd arguments while claiming the credentials of a scientist.

Contrary to your wild claims of the other day on this topic, the National Nuclear Security Administration has the best scientists available at the DOE (and the national labs) to work with in meeting their mandate. I'm glad to see you admit this.

[PamW]

23. WRONG!!!

kristopher states:
Contrary to your wild claims of the other day on this topic, the National Nuclear Security Administration has the best scientists available at the DOE (and the national labs) to work with in meeting their mandate.

kristopher,

You are only quoting DOE and NNSA; the people in Washington, DC

The people in Washington are the administrators. You are quoting administrators.

The scientists are at the national labs; NOT in Washington; at the labs.

In particular, when it comes to nuclear weapons work and classified information; that information is found ONLY at the Labs. Washington DC leaks. So they keep the classified information AT the Labs.

The people in Washington deal with the budget, and overseeing conformance with applicable laws. They also are the public interface; they draft reports for the general public based on the more technical reports that come from the labs. That's the type of report that you are reading.

I'm referencing a particular report; that LLNL did to address just the question about the IFR and proliferation. As Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) stated to the NY Times; the IFR is MORE proliferation resistant than once-through reactor fuel, and is, as Dr. Till relates; it is IMPOSSIBLE to make nuclear weapons with IFR-produced Plutonium.

I explained that in another post; where I discussed the role of Pu-240 and the implosion scheme of Neddermeyer.

I see again that you don't understand that. Why should I be surprised; you don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics either, and they teach that in high school. Nuclear weapons physics is beyond even the University level.

Now where did you get that University degree that gives you the credentials for understanding this complex field?

Speak up; I didn't hear you. I thought NOT!

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

24. No, it isn't wrong.

In a long long list of extremely absurd claims, this is one of your most childish.

[PamW]

28. 100% WRONG as ALWAYS!!

For Pete's sake; kristopher doesn't have ANY credentials in the sciences; doesn't have the academic skill set to properly evaluate scientific reports, doesn't work in the DOE / NNSA complex; has ZERO access to the reports of the DOE / NNSA, doesn't know the people and where the scientists work; yet kristopher has the temerity to tell us what DOE / NNSA says.

Unless kristopher is holding out on us as to some University degree that he hasn't told us about????

I have a doctorate in the field; and I work at the very national laboratory that wrote the study; and I also helped and advise on said study. I should know a thing or two about it.

kristopher is engaging in what I am now calling "mushroom logic". It goes like this:

Shitake mushrooms are mushrooms and are edible.
Portabello mushrooms are mushrooms and are edible
Button mushrooms are mushrooms and are edible.

Therefore, ALL mushrooms are edible.

Of course this last conclusion is FALSE. Just because there are edible mushrooms doesn't mean that they are ALL edible. The "Death Cap" and "Destroying Angel" are two examples of mushrooms that are toxic.

Likewise, just because a reactor is a breeder or sodium-cooled reactor, and some sodium-cooled breeders make weapons useable material; does NOT mean that they ALL do.

The Death Cap and Destroying Angel are EXCEPTIONS to the rule that mushrooms are edible.

The IFR is an EXCEPTION to the rule that sodium-cooled breeders make weapons usable Plutonium.

The IFR was designed specifically so that it would NOT produce weapons usable material.

So how do you know whether you can eat a given mushroom or not; follow the advice of a mushroom expert.

How do you know which reactors don't produce weapons usable material? Follow the advice of someone who is an expert on reactors and / or nuclear weapons.

Because of my experience working at BOTH Argonne and Lawrence Livermore National Labs; I happen to be one of the very few people who is an expert in BOTH fields.

IFR produced Plutonium is, as Dr. Till states; IMPOSSIBLE to make into nuclear weapons:

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.

Dr. Till's statement above is SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[bananas]

6. DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon."

PamW's post is full of so much bullshit it's ridiculous.

PamW says:

It is only the Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) isotope of Plutonium that is "fissile" and can be nuclear bomb fuel.

PamW is wrong:

http://www.ccnr.org/plute.html

Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear Explosives

~ excerpted from the US Department of Energy Publication ~

Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material Storage and Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives

(pages 37-39)
January 1997

Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes -- the different forms of an element having different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei -- can be used to make a nuclear weapon.

<snip>

All of these grades of plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons. The only isotopic mix of plutonium which cannot realistically be used for nuclear weapons is nearly pure plutonium-238, which generates so much heat that the weapon would not be stable. (International rules require equal levels of safeguards for all grades of plutonium except plutonium containing more than 80 percent plutonium-238, which need not be safeguarded.)

<snip>

In short, reactor-grade plutonium is weapons-usable, whether by unsophisticated proliferators or by advanced nuclear weapon states. Theft of separated plutonium, whether weapons-grade or reactor-grade, would pose a grave security risk.

<snip>

[PamW]

12. Actualy; the above is NOT true.

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

There are different isotopes of Plutonium; Plutonium-238, Plutonium-239, Plutonium-240, Plutonium-240...

The ONLY isotope that is "fissile" and thereby connotes "bomb fuel" is Pu-239.

If I give you an isotopic mix of Plutonium that contains Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-242, and NO Pu-239; can you make a weapon out of it?

NOPE; because the only fissile isotope; the only isotope that is bomb fuel; Pu-239; is MISSING.

So you can NOT make a weapon out of it.

So much for the "any mixture" can be used to make a nuclear weapon.

That's a SIMPLIFICATION.

The IFR is a particularly good "actinide burner" in that it burns Pu-239 particularly well; so that there is little Pu-239 in the IFR waste stream.

Do you know why the scientists of the Manhattan Project came up with TWO nuclear weapons designs; "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"? The slender "Little Boy" bomb that destroyed Hiroshima is a "gun-assembled" type and used highly enriched U-235 as bomb fuel.

The "Fat Man" is short and bulbous; it is an "implosion assembled" device that used Plutonium as bomb fuel.

Since it is so difficult to make highly enriched uranium; the Manhattan enrichment effort lasted about 3 years and came up with enough U-235 for only ONE bomb, the "Little Boy" bomb. The reactors at Hanford could make Plutonium at a rate much faster than the enrichment plants at Oak Ridge. So the Manhattan Project pursued BOTH bomb fuels; U-235 and Pu-239.

The Manhattan Project scientists originally planned to use a "gun-assembled" method for the Pu-239 bomb. However, the Hanford reactors first started operation in September 1944, and the first chemical processing to recover Plutonium began Dec 26, 1944 ( see Richard Rhodes book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" ). Los Alamos got their first samples of Hanford-made weapons-grade Plutonium in early 1945.

However, they discovered that Plutonium, even weapons-grade Plutonium WON'T WORK in a gun-assembled device because of the effects of Pu-240:

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

The implosion method can use either uranium or plutonium as fuel. The gun method only uses uranium. Plutonium is considered impractical for the gun method because of early triggering due to Pu-240 contamination and due to its time constant for prompt critical fission being much shorter than that of U-235

Even weapons-grade Plutonium from Hanford contained too much Pu-240 for a gun assembly method to work.

However, Los Alamos had another assembly method courtesy of a scientist by the name of Seth Neddermeyer. Seth Neddermeyer reasoned that a gun only assembled in ONE dimension; along the gun barrel. Neddermeyer questioned whether one could assemble the bomb in THREE dimensions; an implosion. In essence, an implosion method is "THREE TIMES" faster than a gun method. The implosion method developed by Neddermeyer is fast enough to assemble a bomb with weapons grade Plutonium.

But what if the amount of Pu-240 is greater than in weapons-grade? Just as the amount of Pu-240 in weapons-grade plutonium is too much to allow use of a gun assembly; could an even greater amount of Pu-240 prevent the use of the implosion method?

The answer to that question is YES. The IFR produces Plutonium that is so "contaminated" with Pu-240 that not even Neddermeyer's implosion method can be used.

You can cite GENERALIZATIONS from DOE all you want.

The Lawrence Livermore National Lab weapons scientists stated that in PARTICULAR; that IFR-produced plutonium can NOT be made into nuclear weapons.

That is a scientific TRUTH.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[bananas]

37. No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong.

Richard Garwin addressed all the issues you raised back in 1998,
he also pointed out that John Holdren understands this.

Obama knows because Holdren is his Science Advisor,
and because Garwin has been advising presidents on these issues forever.

For example, you falsely claim:

The ONLY isotope that is "fissile" and thereby connotes "bomb fuel" is Pu-239.

If I give you an isotopic mix of Plutonium that contains Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-242, and NO Pu-239; can you make a weapon out of it?

NOPE; because the only fissile isotope; the only isotope that is bomb fuel; Pu-239; is MISSING.

So you can NOT make a weapon out of it.

Garwin points out:

The nations signing the NPT, and the nuclear power industry
worldwide, would be delighted if plutonium produced by
nuclear reactors that operate to generate electrical energy
were not usable to make nuclear weapons, but the facts are
otherwise, as explained in the previous paragraphs.

Nevertheless, some interpret their own wishes as the facts;
and beyond those who are confused in this fashion there are
advocates and publicists (either without the ability to form
their own judgment or who do not recognize the
responsibility to do so) who repeat arguments that -- if
true -- would cut one possible link between nuclear power and
nuclear weapons.

<snip>

even pure Pu-240 has a critical mass of 40 kg -- smaller than pure U-235 -- for use in a nuclear weapon.

<snip>

http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm

Here's another reference (not Garwin):

For obvious reasons the reprocessing lobby has a few myths of its own concerning plutonium bombs, which have been repeated over and over again. As usual, their statements contain some truth and some suggestive half-truth, which together are to persuade you to draw the "right" conclusions. It is very interesting to examine the facts first and discover how such myths can be made up afterwards. Once you have developed some feeling for their methods, the nuke lobby propaganda becomes quite transparent, if not predictable.

<snip>

The difference in reactivity between the so-called "fissile" uneven numbered isotopes and the "non-fissile" even numbered ones is not extremely big for fast neutrons, contrary to the reactivity for thermal neutrons in a LWR. In a bomb, every plutonium isotope is fissile.

http://www.ricin.com/nuke/bg/bomb.html

Here's a table of critical mass for various isotopes: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/criticalmass.htm

As anyone can see, it lists Pu-238 through 241 as "fissile" in "fast" systems.

This lists Pu-242 as "fissile" with fast neutrons:

http://www.aaas.org/cstsp/files/selden.pdf

[madokie]

38. Its a fools errand

paying any attention to her

[PamW]

41. BALONEY!!!

bananas,

You are NOT a nuclear weapons designer; and just achieving a "critical mass" is NOT SUFFICIENT to make weapons.

Garwin is just plain WRONG in saying that a material is "fissile" just because it is in a bomb. For Heaven's sake; look at the DEFINITION of the word "fissile" in the nuclear context:

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

By definition, fissile materials can sustain a chain reaction with neutrons of any energy. The predominant neutron energy may be typified by either slow neutrons (i.e., a thermal system) or fast neutrons.

If you read the article; you get a better understanding.

"Fissile" means that the material can be fissioned with neutrons of ANY energy fast or slow.

Some materials, called "fissionable" can only be fissioned with neutrons that have an energy above a certain threshold.

So if we have "fissionable" material like U-238, which will only fission with neutrons above about 1 MeV; and will not fission with low energy neutrons like U-235 does.

So if U-238 is outside of a nuclear bomb and a slow neutron comes along; the U-238 knows not to fission.

However, Garwin would have us believe that if the U-238 is IN a bomb that somehow the U-238 knows that and will fission with a low energy neutron?

Give me a BREAK!!!! It just goes to show the degree to which someone like Garwin with PERVERT the Physics when the FACTS disagree with his politics. I really don't have much respect for scientists that do that. It's IRONIC that Garwin decries those that interpret their own wishes as facts; when that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

Fissile really means "will fission" in slow systems. Therefore, any definition that says "fissile in fast systems" is an OXYMORON.

Evidently you also missed the fact that there is MORE to the inability of IFR Plutonium working in a nuclear bomb than just the fact that Pu-240 is non-fissile.

The article by Selden is DATED. The IFR produces higher burnups than ANY burnups contemplated by Selden when he wrote that article in November 1976. See reference 33 of:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v283/n5750/abs/283817a0.html

When Selden wrote that article in 1976; the only "spent fuel" or "reactor grade plutonium" came from Light Water Reactors which were ejecting fuel at burnups of about 40,000 Megawatt-Days/metric tonne. Today's LWRs eject fuel at 55,000 - 60,000 Megawatt-Days/metric tonne. But Selden never envisioned in 1976; an IFR-type reactor with even higher burnups, and a fuel cycle that was doctored to make the fuel USELESS for nuclear weapons. That type of technology wasn't even on the horizon when Selden wrote that paper.

Bananas whole diatribe above is based on OUTDATED information.

Is an argument based on OUTDATED and OBSOLETE information, the best you can do?

Better come up with something that is more CURRENT bananas; or just admit that you are out of your field.

PamW

[bananas]

42. No, Pamw, you're wrong again.

Garwin didn't say Pu-240 was fissile, he said

The point is that "non-fissile" Pu-240 is fissionable with the
fast neutrons that carry the chain reaction in plutonium
metal; in fact, even pure Pu-240 has a critical mass of 40
kg-- smaller than pure U-235-- for use in a nuclear weapon.

And he's absolutely correct.

[FBaggins]

43. Sorry... once again, you've cited something that you simply don't understand.

And he's absolutely correct.

The problem is that he's being intentionally deceptive and you don't see it because you don't understand the difference. The same thing could be said for U-238. It isn't fissile, but it is fissionable with fast neutrons. But that doesn't make it a proliferation risk - which is a darned good thing because the stuff is everywhere.

To simplify - you can put Pu-240 into a bomb... but having Pu-240 doesn't get you any closer to making a bomb. In fact, in many ways it makes it harder.

Garwin didn't say Pu-240 was fissile

But you did... while claiming that PamW was wrong on the subject.

[PamW]

44. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!

FBaggins is EXACTLY CORRECT.

Whether something is "fissile" or not is a PHYSICAL PROPERTY of the isotope; and does NOT depend on WHERE it is.

It's like saying paper is combustible or not combustible depending on where it is, ( or time of day, phase of moon.... ). It's NONSENSE.

As FBaggins points out; everything that is being said about Pu-240 can be said about U-238. But that doesn't mean you can make a bomb out of U-238.

Additionally, this is all a "red herring". Non-scientist bananas doesn't realize that the main problem with Pu-240 is NOT whether it is "fissile" or merely "fissionable". The main problem with Pu-240 is that it SPONTANEOUSLY FISSIONS.

That's a BIG PROBLEM because it leads to the "pre-detonation" problem; which is why Plutonium can NOT be used in a gun-assembled device.

It is also why when you have enough Pu-240; that you can't use the material in an implosion device either.

So many of these discussions are fostered by anti-nukes like bananas who are NOT SCIENTISTS and they don't know what is or is not important.

That's why they can be BUFFALOED so easily.

They jump up and down and scream about some TRIVIALITY that has NOTHING to do with determining the issue at hand.

Witness bananas PREOCCUPATION with whether Pu-240 is "fissionable" or not. I never said that Pu-240 was not "fissionable". I said it was not "fissile". Bananas doesn't understand the vocabulary and is EASILY CONFUSED when two words sound SIMILAR but have DIFFERENT meanings.

For the record, Pu-240 is fissionable, but NOT fissile. U-238 is also fissionable, but NOT fissile. You can't make out bomb out of U-238.

The anti-proliferation technology that is present in the IFR fuel cycle is MUCH, MUCH more than whether certain materials are "fissile" or merely "fissionable". As stated by Dr. Till; some of the materials included are radioactive and produce undesired heating. See:

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.

It takes many years of study to master all the intricacies of this highly complex field; and bananas "thinks" he can master it with a few clicks on Google.

PamW

[kristopher]

46. Sorry... once again, you've corrected someone when it's you that's wrong

Robert W. Selden in his presentation "Reactor Plutonium and Nuclear Explosives" that said Pu240 is fissile.

• All plutonium isotopes can be used directly in nuclear explosives.
• The concept of “denatured” plutonium (Pu which is not suitable for nuclear explosives) is fallacious.
• A high content of the Pu-240 isotope is a complication, but not a preventative.

...

Nuclear Reactivity (cont’d)
• All Pu isotopes are fissile for fast neutrons.

http://www.aaas.org/cstsp/files/selden.pdf

Selden in a 2009 presentation

Robert W. Selden, a former leader of the applied theoretical physics division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, also urged the use of international safeguards to avoid weapons proliferation. He said that all plutonium isotopes, including those in spent fuel, can be used directly in nuclear explosives. He dismissed as fallacious the concept that plutonium from spent fuel could somehow be "denatured" so it cannot be used in a weapon.

Kemp and Selden spoke at a 12 May (2009) Hill luncheon briefing on nuclear proliferation co-sponsored by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy and the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0602proliferation.shtml

Everyone should read the article at the above American Association for the Advancement of Science link because frankly, it shows what we all already know, GregPam's claims are an exercise in shoveling more manure than Hercules in the Augean Stables.
If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities, Selden said, "you can make a bomb."
-R.W. Selden

Now if GregPam wants to refute this with claims that Selden isn't qualified or is dated in spite of the AAAS recognition of him as an expert in the field, then we'd need to see confirmable information that provides verification of credentials more impressive than Selden's.

[PamW]

48. 100% WRONG!! AGAIN!!

kristopher,

YOU are the one that is WRONG. Once again the NON-SCIENTIST "thinks" he knows better about science than the SCIENTIST.

As a non-scientist; you do NOT know the terminology and don't understand the meaning of "fissile"

The definition of "fissile" means that the nuclide will fission with neutrons of ANY energy; including SLOW or "thermal" neutrons.

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

In nuclear engineering, a fissile material is one that is capable of sustaining a chain reaction of nuclear fission. By definition, fissile materials can sustain a chain reaction with neutrons of ANY energy. The predominant neutron energy may be typified by either slow neutrons (i.e., a thermal system) or fast neutrons. Fissile materials can be used to fuel thermal-neutron reactors, with a neutron moderator; fast-neutron reactors, with no moderators; and nuclear explosives.

Whether a nuclide is "fissile" or not is a material property and depends ONLY on the material, and NOT on the energy of the incident neutrons.

Since kristopher has done his usual "cut and paste" / "cherry picking" of reports instead of giving us the whole report in context, I can't tell if the statement presented is kristopher's construction or if Selden actually made that statement; but in any case; the statement that Pu-240 is fissile is just plain WRONG!

From the definition above, when they say "fissile", it means the nuclide can be fissioned with neutrons of ANY energy; that includes SLOW neutrons. There is another term that means can be fissioned by only FAST neutrons; and that word is fissionable.

So it doesn't make sense to say something is "fissile" with ONLY FAST neutrons.

The determining factor is the behaviour with SLOW neutrons.

If a nuclide will fission with BOTH FAST and SLOW neutrons; then it is termed "fissile".
If a nuclide will fission with ONLY FAST neutrons; then it is termed "fissionable"

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say "fissile with fast neutrons"; because we already have a term for that, namely "fissionable".

Once again; kristopher demonstrates that he doesn't have an inkling of acumen when it comes to this technology.

I agree with Selden's statement about "denaturing" Plutonium. The misunderstanding here is all kristopher's misunderstanding. "Denaturing Plutonium" is when you have Plutonium that COULD be used to make nuclear weapons; and you attempt to do something so that it can't be used. That's a "fools errand" because you can always recover the weapons usable Plutonium by UNDOING the denaturing process.

What kristopher FAILS to COMPREHEND is that the IFR-made Plutonium is NOT weapons usable to begin with. Therefore; the is NO NEED to denature it; and hence there no process that can be UNDONE to yield weapons usable Plutonium.

I can see where this is CONFUSING to people who have ZERO COMPETENCE in science and nuclear technology. If an aeronautical engineer tells you that a given vehicle will NOT fly; then it may be difficult to comprehend how he can say that when one doesn't understand Bernoulli's principle and why aircraft fly in the first place.

Selden has been long gone from Los Alamos; and evidently doesn't know about the more recent advances in nuclear reactor technology that have resulted in proliferation resistant ( proliferation proof ) reactors like the IFR.

Besides as stated elsewhere; this whole notion of talking about what is fissile or fissionable is really a "red herring". As FBaggins stated in one of the other posts; EVERYTHING that is being said about Pu-240 being able to be fissioned with fast neutrons; whether you call that (INCORRECTLY) "fissile or "fissionable"; the EXACT same thing can be said about Uranium-238. Uranium-238 will fission when struck by fast neutrons.

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

Uranium's most common isotope, U-238, is fissionable but not fissile (meaning that it cannot sustain a chain reaction by itself but can be made to fission with fast neutrons)....It cannot sustain a chain reaction, because its own fission neutrons are not powerful enough to cause more U-238 fission.

The above says it quite clearly; something that can be made to fission with fast neutrons is fissionable; but that does NOT mean that it can sustain a chain reaction by itself, which is what a "fissile" material can do.

So as ANYONE knows that you can't make a self-sustaining bomb out of Uranium-238.

It is true that one can use U-238 to "augment" the yield of a Hydrogen bomb. From the above Wikipedia entry:

The neutrons released by fusion will fission U-238. This U-238 fission reaction produces most of the energy in a typical two-stage thermonuclear weapon.

However, the fusion driven thermonuclear weapon is WAY beyond the technical competence of even the most advanced would-be proliferator.

I can't "prove" my technical competence on an open forum. There's no "certificate of nuclear weapons expertise" that I could post to an unclassified forum.

However, I CAN address kristopher's last paragraph and TRUMP the qualification of a single individual.

I can TRUMP the qualification of a single individual by citing the qualifications of a WHOLE LABORATORY.

When a WHOLE LAB of MULTIPLE scientists of equal or greater expertise than Selden ( even if you don't know their names; because the Dept of Energy doesn't go around letting everyone know WHO the REAL experts in nuclear weapons design are. That's BAD for security. The fact that Selden has been acknowledged by the AAAS is actually a mark AGAINST his expertise. The REAL experts, DOE doesn't advertise.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in response to a request by Congress which was debating the continuation of IFR at the time; performed a study on the proliferation resistance of the IFR in PARTICULAR. Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) cite the results of that study in a rebuttal to a New York Times editorial:

New Reactor Solves Plutonium Problem

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

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 much for the FAILED attempt for non-scientist kristopher in his attempt to "correct" SUPPOSED errors on my part. As one can see, the discrepancies are due to kristopher's LACK of scientific understanding.

Kristopher do you argue like this with your medical doctor. Do you tell your doctor that since you got the Boy Scout "First Aid" badge that you know more about medicine than your degreed M.D. that underwent an intense study of medicine in medical school, followed by intense training as both an intern and resident?

Do you actually pit the knowledge that you gleaned in a few days of study against someone who has had intensive study for years.

Do you really think that much of yourself?

If you don't do it with your M.D.; then why do you do it here with me?

The good thing about science is that it is true; whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

49. I can read and Selden's language is unambiguous

You are a hyperbolic ranter on the internet with no credentials at all and a long record of deliberately making demonstrably false claims.

Selden is currently recognized by the AAAS as an expert in the field and his credentials are impeccable.

[PamW]

50. WRONG AGAIN!!

kristopher,

What you've SHOWN us of Selden's quote is unambiguous.

However, since you can read; that means you can ALSO READ the definition of "fissile" on the Wikipedia entry.

Evidently, you never thought about resolving this for yourself by going to a reference publication like a DICTIONARY. Let's see what the dictionary has to say about what is or is not fissile:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fissile

(of a nuclide) capable of undergoing fission induced by low-energy neutrons, as uranium 233 and 235.

So the REAL definition of "fissile" is as I say. Perhaps Selden was using a non-standard definition as a way of making his point to an audience that was not technically cognizant of the true meaning of "fissile". I don't know whether Selden was mis-speaking or not; since we only have your "cut and paste" version of his words. Who knows what the true meaning was in context.

Kristopher, I do NOT RECOGNIZE the AAAS as a rating agency for a CLASSIFIED FIELD.

The AAAS is for general science; science that is out in the open and is unclassified. Certainly the members of AAAS can rank people on that.

However, the members of AAAS are NOT CLEARED for CLASSIFIED information; so they really don't know; do they?

It would be like the chefs that give out the "James Beard" award ranking medical doctors. They don't know medicine.

PamW

[FBaggins]

56. Ah... but not if you read without understanding.

When he wrote those words (that 240 was fissile), it was mere months after the definition was refined... so he can be forgiven the error.

You cannot. Quoting his words absolutely is "ambiguous" if the words do not mean today what they meant when he said them.

The legal and technical definition of "fissile" includes only materials that are fissionable with slow neutrons (further refined to include production/absorbtion neutron cross-sections, but that's outside the scope of the conversation).

[PamW]

62. CORRECT!!!

FBaggins is CORRECT

Selden can be forgiven for the words used when the definitions were in a state of flux, and terminology was not tied down.

But TODAY; those ambiguities of terminology HAVE been RESOLVED and the words "fissile" and "fissionable" have PRECISE meanings.

Kristopher is attempting to use this "ambiguity" in changing meaning over time; to assert something that is NOT TRUE and saddle Selden with its authorship.

If Selden were a party to this thread; and knowing CONTEMPORARY definitions; Selden would DISAVOW the statement that kristopher is attempting to saddle him with.

As I stated in a previous post; this is all just DISHONEST "word games".

The real issue isn't the definition of "fissile" or "fissionable".

The real issue is whether the thread conveys a FALSE IMPRESSION to the readers, especially the non-scientist readers.

Some are desparately attempting to give the casual, non-scientist reader a FALSE impression.

If the only way one can convince others to agree with your opinion is by DECEPTION and LYING; then perhaps one is holding the WRONG opinion.

PamW

[caraher]

51. bananas and kristopher certainly win on source credibility here

Unlike any of us asserting unverifiable credentials on this board, it's easy to tell that Selden is immune to the oft-leveled charge of not being a SCIENTIST or bomb designer, as he is both. From his NNSA bio:

ROBERT SELDEN is currently a private consultant in defense science and research management. He retired in 1993 as an associate director at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His career in the DOE national laboratories began at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 1960s when he was one of the two participants in the Nth Country Experiment to design a nuclear explosive from unclassified information. After moving to Los Alamos in 1979, he served as the Division Leader of the Applied Theoretical Physics Division, as Associate Director for Theoretical and Computational Physics, and as the first Director of the Los Alamos Center for National Security Studies. Dr. Selden served as the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force from 1988 to 1991 where he received the Air Force Association’s Theodore von Karman Award for outstanding contributions to defense science and technology. He has been a member of the Strategic Advisory Group to the Commander of the United States Strategic Command since 1995. Since 2003 he has served as Chairman of the Advisory Group's Stockpile Assessment Team, which has the responsibility to conduct a detailed annual review of the United States nuclear weapon stockpile. He also is currently a member of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Surety to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy. He was a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board from 1984 to 2005. Dr. Selden received his BA degree from Pomona College, Claremont, California, in 1958, and his Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of Wisconsin in 1964.

[PamW]

52. NOPE!! They do NOT!!

caraher,

The key point is that Selden RETIRED in 1993.

When you retire; you don't have access to the CLASSIFIED information any more.

It was about 1993 that the CLASSIFIED techniques to insure that IFR can NOT be used for weapons were developed.

I don't care how many awards someone gets; even if they get the Nobel Prize in Physics.

If they no longer have the CLEARANCE to know HOW the IFR can achieve weapons-free capability;
then they just plain DO NOT KNOW.

PamW

[caraher]

53. Well, it seems you are a liar, traitor or a fool - your choice

If you're telling us that classified information proves IFR poses no proliferation risk, you are a traitor to your country by revealing the existence of classified information.

If this information does not exist, your are telling lies.

If you think any sane person should prefer to accept your unverifiable claims over the considered opinion of a man who spent a decades-long career studying these issues, is still an active consultant on these questions and worked on these problems at the highest levels of the scientific nuclear security establishment, you are a fool.

[PamW]

55. NOPE!!!

caraher,

The FACT that the IFR is NOT a proliferation risk is NOT classified.

After all; Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) presented that to the world in their rebuttal to the New York Times editorial:

New Reactor Solves Plutonium Problem

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

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.

The FACT that the IFR can NOT be used to make bombs is NOT classified.

The details of HOW you do that is what is sensitive; because you need to know the details of how bombs work.

As an analogy; the FACT that nuclear weapons work is NOT classified.

So if someone says that an entire city can be wiped out with the explosion of just a single device that works on nuclear energy is NOT classified.

The details of HOW that is done; i.e. the details of how bombs work is classified.

I'm NOT giving the details. I wish I could.

But I'm giving you the results which are unclassified.

How do you know whether to believe an unverifiable claim?

How about believing in what your elected legislators say?

Then Senator Paul Simon is a DEMOCRAT. Now why would one of our own LIE to us?

Sorry; when you RETIRE you no longer have "need to know" and you don't get information.

Besides; all the IFR studies were done at LIVERMORE, and Selden was at Los Alamos at the time.

If you don't know that access to these subjects are CONTROLLED and not just anybody gets access just because they were a high ranking official at another facility; then you don't know how the system works.

PamW

[FBaggins]

54. Nope.

You need to pay attention to where Pam is agreeing and disagreeing with Selden... and you further need to understand the games that Selden is playing when he claims that you can make a nuclear bomb with a given material.

The key difference is on the definition of "fissile"... and that's beyond dispute. Pu-240 is not fissile by the currnet scientific definition. There was a time decades ago when "fissile" and "fissionable" were used as synonyms... and the distinction would be made by which types of neutrons were involved. You've no doubt noted that the only quotes from Selden refering to Pu-240 as fissile are from the mid-70s? That's because he knows very well that you can't say "fissile with fast neutrons but not slow neutrons" any longer without being self-contradictory. Coincidentally, the current usage of the term began right around that same year (1975 or 1976 - when the "post-heritage period" began).


On the second point, note the quote: "He said that all plutonium isotopes, including those in spent fuel, can be used directly in nuclear explosives. He dismissed as fallacious the concept that plutonium from spent fuel could somehow be "denatured" so it cannot be used in a weapon."

He's playing a strawman game here... because the question (as outlined multiple times above) is not whether or not you can "use" it in a nuclear bomb. The relevant question is whether or not access to that element gets a rogue nation or terrorist group any closer to building a nuclear bomb. The fact is that it simply doesn't (any more than other fissionable, but non-fissile elements more commonly available do). Selden knows this... but he's intentionally dancing around the subject without addressing it. He knows that bomb designers consider Pu-240 to be a contaminant that makes bomb design harder... they go out of their way to reduce the amount in their devices.

Can you make a bomb that has "too much" 240 in it? Sure... and the more you use, the smaller the explosion (and greater the chance of total failure) until, while technically "nuclear", the yield isn't much greater than a high-explosive bomb of comparable weight.

The thing to understand is that if you were given a ton of pure Pu-240... you would be no nearer to making a nulcear bomb than before you received it.

[PamW]

58. EXCELLENT!!!

FBaggins,

EXCELLENT POST

You've explain it all very well. I wish I had done as good a job.

It's upsetting that some scientists have chosen to "dance around" the issue. The problem with doing that is that; although you definitely will NOT FOOL a technically adept audience of scientists; you do give a FALSE impression to the non-scientists.

I wish more scientists would consider what the non-scientists will "take away" from the talk; and whether they get an ERRONEOUS message because the speaker was SLOPPY in their terminology or how they said something.

EXACTLY; Pu-240 IS a CONTAMINANT; see:

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

The implosion method can use either uranium or plutonium as fuel. The gun method only uses uranium. Plutonium is considered impractical for the gun method because of early triggering due to Pu-240 contamination and due to its time constant for prompt critical fission being much shorter than that of U-235.

FBaggins; you do a EXCELLENT job of explaining something that the non-scientist would get confused about in Selden's presentation.

The question about whether you can use Pu-240 in the weapon. Really the word should be tolerate.

It's something that hurts you and doesn't help you; but the question is if you can "tolerate" it.

However, as you point out; if you are given a ton of the Pu-240; you are no closer to getting a bomb than before.

Maybe the non-technical people will get it if I use an analogy. Consider Pu-240 as charcoal briquettes. You can use it in your grill.

However, if all you have available is charcoal briquettes; can you grill tonight?

You can't get the grill fire going unless you have some lighter fluid or some newspapers or kindling or you have one of those grill chimneys.

If all you have is charcoal briquettes spread about on the deck of your grill; it's going to be mighty hard getting all that to catch fire so you can grill.

You're NOT grilling tonight if all you have is charcoal briquettes.

PamW

[kristopher]

59. "If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009

Current positions:
He has been a member of the Strategic Advisory Group to the Commander of the United States Strategic Command since 1995.
Since 2003 he has served as Chairman of the Advisory Group's Stockpile Assessment Team, which has the responsibility to conduct a detailed annual review of the United States nuclear weapon stockpile.
He also is currently a member of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Surety to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy.

ROBERT SELDEN is currently a private consultant in defense science and research management. He retired in 1993 as an associate director at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His career in the DOE national laboratories began at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 1960s when he was one of the two participants in the Nth Country Experiment to design a nuclear explosive from unclassified information. After moving to Los Alamos in 1979, he served as the Division Leader of the Applied Theoretical Physics Division, as Associate Director for Theoretical and Computational Physics, and as the first Director of the Los Alamos Center for National Security Studies. Dr. Selden served as the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force from 1988 to 1991 where he received the Air Force Association’s Theodore von Karman Award for outstanding contributions to defense science and technology. He has been a member of the Strategic Advisory Group to the Commander of the United States Strategic Command since 1995. Since 2003 he has served as Chairman of the Advisory Group's Stockpile Assessment Team, which has the responsibility to conduct a detailed annual review of the United States nuclear weapon stockpile. He also is currently a member of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Surety to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy. He was a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board from 1984 to 2005. Dr. Selden received his BA degree from Pomona College, Claremont, California, in 1958, and his Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of Wisconsin in 1964.

[FBaggins]

60. An we've both explained to you what that means.

Feel free to ask questions where you didn't understand.

Also... please be more accurate where placing quotations. You've combined a statement that he did not make with one that he did.

[PamW]

61. A clear example of how he was being SLOPPY!!!

kristopher,

The statement that you quote of Selden in 2009 is a CLEAR example of how SLOPPY he was being.

Suppose the "any type of Plutonium" in Selden's statement is Pu-238.

Can you make a nuclear weapon if all you have is Pu-238?

NOPE

Here's a blurb from NASA about Pu-238:

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/docs/APP%20RPS%20Pu-238%20FS%2012-10-12.pdf

At the bottom of the 2nd column on the first page:

Pu-238 would not work well as the fuel in a nuclear reactor and is NOT the type of plutonium used for nuclear weapons.

Or take a look at the fission cross-section ( which is the propensity for fission ) for both Pu-238 and Pu-239 courtesy of the Nuclear Data Center at Brookhaven National Lab:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/index.jsp?as=238&lib=endfb7.1&nsub=10

Click on "238" to the left of the green box to select Pu-238; and then click on "Plot" after the &quot n, total fission)" line in the green box.

You will get a logarithmic plot of the fission cross-section of Pu-238. Note that the maximum value at left is about 1.0e+3 which is 1,000.

Now click on "239" to the left of the green box to select Pu-239; and as before click on "Plot" after the &quot n, total fission)" line in the green box

Again you will get a logarithmic plot; but the maximum value at left is about 1.0e+4 which is 10,000!

The propensity of Pu-238 to have a fission is TEN TIMES LOWER than Pu-239

An order of magnitude drop in fission cross-section for Pu-238 relative to Pu-239 EFFECTIVELY KILLS its usefulness as a bomb fuel.

For all the good credentials Selden has; modulo the fact that I only have your "cherry picked" references to what he was saying; we have no context; but if you are protraying Selden's comments accurately; then one can come to no other conclusion except that he was being SLOPPY.

He may have been speaking to scientists who would know not to take the statement too literally. However, as I've said; the non-scientists are taking the statement quite literally as if it had been handed down on stone tablets from the Almighty.

This is NOT the case. kristopher is using a SLOPPY statement from a scientist to portray something that is just plain NOT TRUE

PamW

[kristopher]

63. More citations on the point of plutonium for weapons

Global stocks of plutonium
Plutonium was first produced in significant amounts as part of the Manhattan project, set up by the United States during the Second World War to manufacture nuclear weapons. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb.

Most military production of plutonium in the established nuclear-weapon powers (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the USA) has halted. But amounts of plutonium in commercial plutonium programmes are increasing dramatically. In France, Japan, Russia, and the UK stocks of civil plutonium will increase by as much as 125 tonnes by 2015, equal to half of all the plutonium produced by the nuclear-weapon states for use in nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Stocks of civil plutonium have now (mid-2005) reached 205 tonnes, rivalling the 250 tonnes in military stocks. In the next ten years, global stocks of civil plutonium will total about 330 tonnes (1).

Currently, twelve countries have stocks of civil plutonium. The UK has a stock of about 71 tonnes; France has a stock of about 46 tonnes; Japan has about 39 tonnes; Russia has about 37 tonnes; the USA has about 5 tonnes; Belgium has about 4 tonnes; Sweden has about 0.83 tonnes; Spain has about 0.63; Switzerland has about 0.6 tonnes; India has about 0.5 tonnes; and the Netherlands has about 0.2 tonnes. France, Russia, Japan, and the UK own about 94 per cent of the world’s civil plutonium. (2)

Types of plutonium
There are various grades of plutonium, each with different isotopic compositions depending on the way in which the reactor producing it is operated. Plutonium produced in civil nuclear-power reactors operated for the most economical production of electricity is called reactor-grade plutonium. Plutonium produced in military plutonium production reactors, specifically for use in nuclear weapons, is called weapon-grade plutonium. Weapon-grade plutonium typically contains 93 per cent of plutonium-239 and about 7 per cent of plutonium-240. Reactor-grade plutonium typically contains about 60 per cent plutonium-239, about 20 per cent of plutonium- 240.

Usability of reactor-grade plutonium in nuclear weapons
It is now generally recognised that nuclear weapons can be made from reactor-grade plutonium although those made using weapon-grade plutonium are somewhat more effective (3). Official recognition that reactor-grade plutonium can be used to fabricate nuclear weapons was given by, for example, Lord Gilbert in the UK (4). It is for this reason that reactor-grade plutonium is normally subjected to national and international security and safeguards measures in an effort to detect and deter its diversion or acquisition by countries or terrorist groups.

Weapon designers prefer weapon-grade to reactor-grade plutonium mainly because of the spontaneous fission that occurs in plutonium-240. If a nuclear weapon is made from reactor-grade plutonium, spontaneous fission occurring in the core of the weapon made causes it to heat up. To avoid the distortion of the core by this heat, measures must be taken to dissipate some it, although this is not a difficult problem.

Nevertheless, some official statements still imply that reactor-grade plutonium cannot be used in nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. For example, Ryukichi Imai, former Japanese Ambassador for Non-Proliferation, stated that:

“Reactor-grade plutonium is of a nature quite different from what goes into the making of weapons . . . Whatever the details of this plutonium, it is quite unfit to make a bomb.”

(5)

But, as Robert Seldon of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory explains:

“All plutonium can be used directly in nuclear explosives. The concept of . . . plutonium which is not suitable for explosives is fallacious. A high content of the plutonium 240 isotope (reactor-grade plutonium) is a complication, but not a preventative.” (6)

The former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Hans Blix, stressed that the IAEA:

“considers high burn-up reactor-grade plutonium and in general plutonium of any isotopic composition...to be capable of use in a nuclear explosive device. There is no debate on the matter in the Agency’s Department of Safeguards.” (7)

And at a conference in Vienna in June 1997, Matthew Bunn, who chaired the US National Academy of Sciences analysis of options for the disposal of plutonium removed from nuclear weapons, made a crucially important statement based on recently declassified material “of unprecedented detail on this subject”:

“For an unsophisticated proliferator, making a crude bomb with a reliable, assured yield of a kiloton or more -- and hence a destructive radius about one- third to one-half that of the Hiroshima bomb -- from reactor-grade plutonium would require no more sophistication than making a bomb from weapon- grade plutonium. And major weapon states like the United States and Russia could, if they chose to do so, make bombs with reactor-grade plutonium with yield, weight, and reliability characteristics similar to those made from weapon-grade plutonium. That they have not chosen to do so in the past has to do with convenience and a desire to avoid radiation doses to workers and military personnel, not the difficulty of accomplishing the job. Indeed, one Russian weapon-designer who has focused on this issue in detail criticized the information declassified by the US Department of Energy for failing to point out that in some respects if would actually be easier for an unsophisticated proliferator to make a bomb from reactor-grade plutonium (as no neutron generator would be required).” (8)

That reactor-grade plutonium can be used to fabricate nuclear weapons was proved by the British who exploded such a device in 1956 (9) and by the Americans who exploded at least one such device in the 1960s. This is why reactor-grade plutonium is also known as weapon-usable plutonium.

The critical mass of a fissile material, such as plutonium, is the minimum mass necessary to sustain a nuclear-fission chain reaction and, therefore, to produce a nuclear explosion. No explosion occurs in a mass of plutonium below the critical mass. If the mass is more than critical (i.e., it is super-critical) the fission chain reaction is sustained for as long as the mass of plutonium remains super-critical. The critical mass of a bare sphere of reactor-grade plutonium metal is about 13 kilograms, a sphere of about six centimetres in diameter. The critical mass of a bare sphere of weapon-grade plutonium metal is about 11 kilograms. (10)

If the sphere of plutonium metal is surrounded by a shell of material, such as beryllium or uranium, neutrons that escape from the sphere without producing a fission event are reflected back into the sphere. A reflector, therefore, reduces the critical mass. The reduction can be considerable. A thick reflector will reduce the critical mass by a factor of two or more. Modern nuclear weapons contain less than 4 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium.

OXFORD RESEARCH GROUP
The Proliferation Consequences of Global Stocks of Separated Civil Plutonium
Dr. Frank Barnaby June 2005
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/plutonium.pdf

1. Soaring stocks of weapons-usable plutonium demand international support of Comprehensive Fissile Materials Treaty, Greenpeace International, Press Release, Washington DC, 12 May 2004.
2. Shaun Burnie, Paper prepared for the NPT Review Conference, New York, May 2004.
3. Mark, J. Carson, Reactor-Grade Plutonium Explosive Properties, Nuclear Control Institute, Washington D.C., August 1990.
4. Gilbert, Lord, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, House of Lords, Hansard, 24 July 1997, Col WA 184.
5. Imai, R., Plutonium, No. 3, October 1994.
6. Selden, R. W., Reactor Plutonium and Nuclear Explosives, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, California, 1976.
7. Blix, H., Letter to the Nuclear Control Institute, Washington DC, 1990. 8. Bunn, M, paper at International Atomic Energy Agency Conference, June 1997.
9. Arnold, L., A Very Special Relationship: British Atomic Weapon Tests, Chapter 4, HMSO, London, 1987.
10. Lovins, A. B., 1990, Nuclear Weapons and Power-Reactor Plutonium, Nature, London 283, 817-823 and typographical corrections, 284, 190.
11. The Environment Council, report of the Plutonium Working Group, March 2003 (http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/docs/PuWG_Report_Mar_03.pdf)

[PamW]

64. Non-scientist kristopher MISSES the implicit assumption

kristopher,

As a non-scientist, you are missing something important! You are MISSING the fact that in ALL those studies, "reactor grade" means spent fuel from a "Light Water Power Reactor". ALL those studies are on LWR fuel.

The IFR is NOT a "Light Water Reactor".

There is a DIFFERENCE in the composition of what comes out of a Light Water Reactor, and what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor.

It's like saying the stuff that comes out of a brewery is all frothy and fizzy; so the stuff that comes out of a winery is also frothy and fizzy.

A brewery is NOT a winery.

A Light Water Power Reactor is NOT an Integral Fast Reactor.

ALL those studies that Selden, et al are talking about have to do with Light Water Reactors. At the time most of those studies were done; the IFR didn't exist.

In addition; the ONLY study of the proliferation risk of the Integral Fast Reactor, specifically, that I'm aware was done by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the early '90s. I've NEVER seen any other proliferation risk studies on the IFR.

I also know the people who are responsible for archiving the specifications of the IFR; and they tell me that NO OTHER studies save for LLNL were done. Since they are the "keepers" of the specifications; they would have to know if there were other studies. If someone wanted to do a study; they would need to get the specifications from these "keepers" as to what the IFR is.

So you can "cut and paste" till the cows come home; and it is all MEANINGLESS because ALL those studies you "cut and paste"; EVERY LAST ONE was done with Light Water Reactor spent fuel in mind and NOT IFR fuel.

PamW

[kristopher]

65. "what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor"

You wrote, "There is a DIFFERENCE in the composition of what comes out of a Light Water Reactor, and what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor."

I'm well aware of that. But tell me what is Integrated with the Fast-breeder Reactor and where does the fuel come from before it is loaded and where does it go when it "comes out" of the reactor? Also, in conceptualizing way IFRs are to be actually deployed at scale how many are going to be needed? Isn't it true that they are visualized as being mated with about 4 LWR reactors and are, in fact, not really thought of by even most experts that support them as "the" fuel cycle that will address the 4 Horsemen of the Atomic Era?
Anyway, Integrating the Fast (breeder) Reactor with the pyroprocessing is an entirely different animal than just a breeder reactor. There are some good aspects to the technology, but there are also some very real drawbacks, including the potential proliferation situation that would be created in future cases like Iran.

Efforts in the United States to resuscitate fast reactors
Since the cancellation of the CRBR in 1983, ANL and the Nuclear Energy program office in the DOE have continued to seek ways to revive fast-neutron reactor development in the United States, first by promoting the Integral Fast Reactor concept,72 then through the Generation IV International Forum, and most recently the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

Integral Fast Reactor and pyroprocessing
In the wake of the demise of the Clinch River Reactor project, ANL scientists developed and promoted the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept. Patterned after the EBR-II with its Integral Fast Reactor fuel cycle facility (see EBR-II discussion), the IFR would integrate the plutonium-breeder reactor with an on-site spent fuel pyroprocessing and electro-refining process. In this process, plutonium and the minor transuranic elements would be separated and recycled together into new fuel.

The IFR was advanced as the key to making the breeder reactor economical, proliferation-resistant and environmentally acceptable.73 There were ample grounds for skepticism, however. Most importantly, pyroprocessing looked still more expensive than conventional reprocessing. Moreover, were the IFR technology to be adopted by a non-weapon state it would provide the country with access to tons of plutonium in each co-located reactor and reprocessing facility. A cadre of experts trained in transuranic chemistry and plutonium metallurgy could separate out the plutonium from the other transuranic elements using hot cells and other facilities on-site. A 1992 study commissioned jointly by the U.S. Departments of Energy and State describes a variety of ways to use a pyroprocessing plant to produce relatively pure plutonium.74

Fast Reactor Development in the United States
Despite these problems, ANL was able to attract federal support for the IFR concept for a decade until the Clinton Administration cancelled the IFR program and the Congress terminated its funding in 1994. As a political compromise with Congress, it was agreed that while EBR-II would be shut down, funding of the fuel reprocessing research would continue—renaming it the “actinide recycling project.”75 A decade later this program would be re-characterized and promoted as necessary for long-term management of nuclear waste—becoming the centerpiece of the George W. Bush Administration’s GNEP.

After Congress terminated funding for the IFR program, the DOE kept its pyroprocessing program alive by selecting it to process 3.35 metric tons of sodium-bonded EBR-II and FFTF spent fuel at INL. In 2006, the DOE estimated that pyroprocessing could treat the remaining 2.65 tons of this fuel in eight years at a cost of $234 million, including waste processing and disposal for a reprocessing cost of approximately $88,000/kg.76
Pg 103, 104

Conclusion
Although there are safety issues generic to liquid metal fast reactors, it does not appear that they were the predominant reasons for the demise of the breeder program in the United States. More important were proliferation concerns and a growing conviction that breeder reactors would not be needed or economically competitive with light-water reactors for decades, if ever.

Under GNEP, the DOE expressed renewed interest in fast reactors, initially as burner reactors to fission the actinides in the spent fuel of the light-water reactors. So far, the new designs are mostly paper studies, and the prospect of a strong effort to develop the burner reactors is at best uncertain. The Obama Administration has terminated the GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and efforts by DOE to move to near-term commercialization of fast reactors and the closed fuel cycle for transmutation of waste. As this report went to press, it was debating whether to even continue R&D on fast-neutron reactors.83 The economic and nonproliferation arguments against such reactors remain strong.
Pg 105


relevant notes:
72 This is the concept in which the spent fuel would be recycled onsite, Jack M. Holl, Argonne National Laboratory, 1946–96 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 425, 426, 443–446.

73 Ibid.

74 R.G. Wymer et al., “An Assessment of the Proliferation Potential and International Implications of the Proliferation Potential and International Implications of the Integral Fast Reactor,” Martin Marietta K/IPT-511 (May 1992); prepared for the Departments of State and Energy.

75 J. M. Holl, op. cit., 456.

76 U.S. Department of Energy, “Preferred Disposition Plan for Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel,” Report to Congress (March 2006), tables 1 and 3. Pyroprocessing would account for 57 percent of the total cost<http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/DisPlanForSodBondedSNFMarch2006.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009).


From "Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status"
Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel

International Panel on Fissile Materials Feb 2010

You wrote,

In addition; the ONLY study of the proliferation risk of the Integral Fast Reactor, specifically, that I'm aware was done by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the early '90s. I've NEVER seen any other proliferation risk studies on the IFR.

See reference 74 above, I'm guessing that's what you're referring to. Contrary to your experience, there are quite a few credible proliferation assessments prepared by or under contract to DOE ranging from 1986 to 2003.

The most recent (which dovetails with the Bush push for the GNEP program mentioned by von Hippel) has this to say:

In the most basic analysis, only extrinsic barriers are effective against national proliferation, whether overt or covert. By extrinsic barriers, we mean the international nuclear nonproliferation regime that includes a collection of treaties, agreements, national policies and laws, multilateral inspections, and export control practices. The host country is responsible for safeguarding and securing the nuclear materials in the fuel cycle from sub-national or terrorist groups, again through
such extrinsic barriers as access control, a protective force, and an effective nuclear materials accountancy program. Intrinsic barriers such as high radiation fields potentially can make this task easier and perhaps less costly. However, some traditionalists dislike inherent proliferation-resistant characteristics because they make precise measurements more difficult due to high background signals and the problem of obtaining a representative sample from a heterogeneous matrix. This argument, which when carried to its extreme would seem to favor pure plutonium metal, fails to consider the effect on the overall system of safeguards or the potential for new developments.

International deployment is a key issue in nonproliferation analysis. But the idea that to be developed, a technology must be deployable anywhere simply doesn’t pass muster. Performing a proliferation-resistance assessment for deployment of an IFR nuclear park in a country that otherwise does not possess a significant nuclear infrastructure is not a particularly useful exercise— in spit of the fact that its intrinsic barriers would be relatively effective in such a situation. Advanced closed fuel cycles in today’s context would only seem to make sense in countries with a substantial nuclear energy investment and where nuclear waste management and national energy security are priorities.

I was going to be like you here, and not tell you anything else because, hey, "it's classified."

But I won't; the final quoted section is from:
PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR
Harold F. McFarlane Argonne National Laboratory P. O. Box 2528 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415, USA

BTW, I want to congratulate you on your dedication to the use of inapt metaphors; they do clarify the picture but perhaps not in the way you imagine.

[PamW]

66. Yes - I know Harold...

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

kristopher,

Yes - I know Harold McFarlane from the years I was at Argonne.

The full text of Harold McFarlane's paper can be found at:

http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2002/07/43534.pdf

Look at the sentence immediately preceding the one you emphasize:

Performing a proliferation-resistance assessment for deployment of an IFR nuclear park in a country that otherwise does not possess a significant nuclear infrastructure is not a particularly useful exercise— in spite of the fact that its intrinsic barriers would be relatively effective in such a situation.

The IFR presents VERY SIGNIFICANT intrinsic barriers to proliferation that MacFarlane says would be RELATIVELY EFFECTIVE at preventing proliferation.

However, what MacFarlane points out is that it always seems that when the nuclear non-proliferation community considers the proliferation resistance of a particular technology; they always seem to hypothesize that we are going to give this technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria... the latest potential proliferant; and then the non-proliferation community works like crazy to find ways to circumvent the non-proliferation barriers.

WHO SAYS WE HAVE TO GIVE THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE PROLIFERANTS???

Why can't the USA alone use IFR technology; and then we don't have to worry about the technology being misused by the rest of the world.

The USA is a country that fits the description of the sentence you emphasized. The USA has a substantial nuclear development; and how nuclear waste is disposed of, and the security of our energy facilities ARE priorities for the USA.

I would STRONGLY disagree with the other statement that you highlight about extrinsic vs intrinsic barriers. Yes - the extrinsic barriers seem to make "policy wonks" get the "warm fuzzies"; and they don't like "intrinsic barriers" because they are very technical. However, I would point out that we had an extensive regime of "extrinsic barriers" with Iraq in the 1980s. Hans Blix and his inspectors were regularly inspecting Iraq and giving them "A+" ratings for compliance with the NPT.

However, that all came crashing down after the inspectors got into Iraq after the 1991 Iraq War. It turned out that Iraq was certainly "knocking on the door" of having nuclear weapons. They were even enriching uranium via the EMIS - ElectroMagnetic Isotope Separation process totally unbeknownst to Hans Blix and his cadre of IAEA inspectors. So I don't put much faith in "extrinsic" barriers; although the "policy wonks" like them.

From the Federation of American Scientists; an assessment of the Iraq nuclear weapons program pre-1991:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi scientists had progressed through several design iterations for a fission weapon based on an implosion design (one that is much more difficult to develop than the alternative, gun-type design. Still at the early stages of completing a design, they had successfully overcome some of, but certainly not all of the obstacles to a workable device. Using highly enriched uranium (HEU), a completed device based on the latest Iraqi design reportedly might have weighed from about a ton to somewhat more than a ton.

A one-ton nuclear weapon would certainly be within the capacity for their Al-Hussein ( aka SCUD ) missile. Also:

How close Iraq was to completing a bomb is still open to debate....These designers reportedly concluded that bottlenecks in the program could have delayed completion of a working bomb for at least three years, assuming Iraq had continued its multifaceted strategy and design approach...However, several experts familiar with the inspections believe that Iraq could also probably have produced a workable device in as little as 6 to 24 months, had they decided to seize foreign-supplied HEU from under safeguards and focus their efforts on a crash program to produce a device in the shortest possible amount of time.

So; depending on which experts you believe; Iraq was somewhere between 6-24 months and 3 years away from having a nuclear weapon. I don't think that's very good; when all the while Hans Blix and the IAEA was saying all during the '80s that Iraq was in compliance with the NPT.

Contrary to your statement about the proliferation studies from 1986 to 2003; those studies were all on GENERIC reprocessing and pyroprocessing technologies. The ONLY study that used the SPECIFIC Argonne design; and not generalizations; was the Lawrence Livermore study that I have been referencing. Besides; Oak Ridge is NOT a nuclear weapons design laboratory. When it comes to nuclear weapons design; the USA has ONLY TWO nuclear weapons design labs; and those are Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. They are the ONLY true nuclear weapons experts in the USA; and since the proliferation resistance involves nuclear weapons design; I give LANL and LLNL INFINITELY more credence than I would ORNL.

To address your first concerns, what is "Integrated" with the IFR is the fuel reprocessing system. The reactor and the reprocessing system are a "matched set".

There are a number of feed stocks that could go into the IFR; the normal uranium feedstock supply for our current Light Water Reactors could be used; as could material taken out of weapons... As to what comes out; what comes out is "fission products". In Argonne's IFR conception; ALL Plutonium stays within the IFR system, within the high-radiation area where personnel can't go. The Plutonium is recycled in that environment until it is fissioned; and ONLY THEN will the fission products be removed.

In addition to the interview with Dr. Till that I've repeated cited; there's another good summary by Argonne scientist George P. Stanford:

http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/index.php/george-stanford

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

( Yes - I do know that the National Center is a conservative group. However, the AUTHOR of the piece is a scientist. The paper could just as well have been published by a more progressive publication - except they don't seem to give the time of day to nuclear scientists. I would hope that would change.)

Some of what Dr. Stanford says:

If IFRs can be either breeders or burners, why do some people insist on calling them breeders?

Partly for historical reasons (originally, fast reactors were investigated because of their potential to breed), partly because of genuine confusion, and partly for the emotional impact, since "breeder" carries the subliminal connotation of runaway plutonium production. The central fact that those people are missing is that with IFRs you can choose not to breed plutonium, whereas with thermal reactors you make plutonium whether you want it or not.

Then it is today's reactors that are runaway producers of plutonium, and IFRs could put a stop to it.

Exactly.

and

How can that be?

An IFR plant will be a "sink" for plutonium: plutonium to be disposed of is shipped in, and there it is consumed, with on-site recycling as needed. Only trace amounts ever come out.

Here's the answer to why the non-proliferation community and the studies from 1986 to 2001 got different answers that what Argonne / LLNL came up with finally. That's because previous studies were done ASSUMING the reprocessing was done by PUREX:

How does the IFR square with U.S. policy of discouraging plutonium production, reprocessing and use?

It is entirely consistent with the intent of that policy - to render plutonium as inaccessible for weapons use as possible. The wording of the policy, however, is now obsolete.

How so?

It was formulated before the IFR's pyroprocessing and electrorefining technology was known - when "reprocessing" was synonymous with PUREX, which creates plutonium of the chemical purity needed for weapons. Since now there is a fuel cycle that promises to provide far-superior management of plutonium, the policy has been overtaken by events.

Why is the IFR better than PUREX? Doesn't "recycling" mean separation of plutonium, regardless of the method?

No, not in the IFR - and that misunderstanding accounts for some of the opposition. The IFR's pyroprocessing and electrorefining method is not capable of making plutonium that is pure enough for weapons. If a proliferator were to start with IFR material, he or she would have to employ an extra chemical separation step.

But there is plutonium in IFRs, along with other fissionable isotopes. Seems to me that a proliferator could take some of that and make a bomb.

Some people do say that, but they're wrong, according to expert bomb designers at Livermore National Laboratory. They looked at the problem in detail, and concluded that plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactivity and spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium.


The ONLY study that was done that used the Argonne approved specific design for both reactor and reprocessing facility was the Lawrence Livermore study. Additionally, the ONLY proliferation study that was done by a nuclear weapons design laboratory who are the ONLY real experts as to what can / can not be used to make a nuclear weapon; was again, the study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

So; yes - there have been LOTS of studies by people from Universities and national labs, and "think tanks"....you name it.

However, the ONLY study that got the true design specifications directly from Argonne was the LLNL study.

Additionally, the others have to GUESS as to what could / could not be used in a bomb. NONE of the people at those Universities, "think tanks" or whatever... have ANY REAL nuclear weapon design experience; by which I mean; they designed something that was put into a hole in Nevada and made a nuclear explosion when they pulled the trigger.

So the ONLY study that really PASSES MUSTER with good scientific principles; is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study; and we all KNOW what that one says!!!

PamW

[kristopher]

67. And that brings us full circle

WHO SAYS WE HAVE TO GIVE THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE PROLIFERANTS???
Why can't the USA alone use IFR technology; and then we don't have to worry about the technology being misused by the rest of the world.
The USA is a country that fits the description of the sentence you emphasized. The USA has a substantial nuclear development; and how nuclear waste is disposed of, and the security of our energy facilities ARE priorities for the USA.

Your admission that the dual use nature of the technology makes it a proliferation risk is crystal clear. National Nuclear Security Administration findings (which incorporates input from ALL the subordinate national labs) are also crystal clear - the technology has a high proliferation risk.

When you begin discuss limiting the use only to nations heavily invested in nuclear you open the door to a large number of issues including the inability to predict the future commitment of those nations to cooperate in limiting the technology. Comparisons of cost are not favorable to IFR technology either, especially if the potential market is so dramatically limited.

Your view that we should invest massive funding in developing this technology simply isn't persuasive when the need for climate action is placing such high demands on our energy investment dollars. We can do far, far more for carbon reduction by directing funding at deploying renewables than we can propping up the pet projects of a few nuclear zealots.

[PamW]

68. 100% WRONG!! AGAIN!!

kristopher states
Your admission that the dual use nature of the technology makes it a proliferation risk is crystal clear.

100% WRONG AGAIN

I DO NOT ADMIT the dual nature. That's just your CARELESS INCOMPLETE reading.

Although the IFR presents VERY SIGNIFICANT intrinsic barriers to proliferation; I am merely pointing out that there is no need to test those barriers.

We could just not allow the technology into the hands of proliferant nations.

Let me give an analogy.

I claim that commercial airliners are EXTREMELY safe. There's less than a 1 in a MILLION chance of being injured on a flight.

However, for those of you who don't want to deal with even the 1;MILLION chance; you can always stay home and not fly at all.

Kristopher self-servingly reads that as an ADMISSION that air travel is dangerous because I'm telling people not to fly.

NOT AT ALL

Air travel is EXTREMELY SAFE; but for those than can't handle very small fractions, their mathematical acumen stops after the second place after the decimal point; then one can make the probability a hard ZERO by not flying at all.

Because kristopher LACKS the training in the sciences; he can NOT APPRECIATE that the IFR offers an INSURMOUNTABLE obstacle to the proliferant weapons designer.

Kristopher doesn't even understand something as basic as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; and he "thinks" that he knows how to best spend our limited dollars.

The scientists disagree with kristopher; including climate researcher Hansen and the others who stated that renewables WON'T SCALE and they recommend nuclear power

Kristopher is being dismissive when he says it's only "a few nuclear zealots"; when it is really the entire scientific community.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.

Science has spoken.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[bananas]

69. Oh look - George Stanford says it TWICE in that interview!

From your link http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

<snip>

with plutonium of almost any isotopic composition it is technically possible to make an explosive

<snip>

it is technically possible, with difficulty, to make an explosive with plutonium of almost any isotopic composition

<snip>

He also says the IFR must be safeguarded because it is a proliferation risk:

You mentioned safeguards a while ago. Are you saying that IFRs need to be safeguarded?

Of course. Any kind of nuclear fuel cycle needs safeguards procedures, the most important job being to make sure that a power reactor is not operated so as to produce high-quality plutonium. The IFR is no exception, although it might be more easily safeguarded than other cycles.

You've been proven wrong by George Stanford, Richard Garwin, John Holdren, Robert Selden, all recognized experts.

It's clear you really don't know what you're talking about.

In the OP you falsely claimed:

It is only the Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) isotope of Plutonium that is "fissile" and can be nuclear bomb fuel.

In post #12 you falsely claimed:

The ONLY isotope that is "fissile" and thereby connotes "bomb fuel" is Pu-239.

If I give you an isotopic mix of Plutonium that contains Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-242, and NO Pu-239; can you make a weapon out of it?

NOPE; because the only fissile isotope; the only isotope that is bomb fuel; Pu-239; is MISSING.

So you can NOT make a weapon out of it.

In post #55 you falsely claimed:

The FACT that the IFR is NOT a proliferation risk is NOT classified.

Well George Stanford said it is a proliferation risk in the link you yourself gave.

You are seriously misinformed - your "FACTS" are wrong.

You've made these false claims over and over, just as you've made other false claims over and over.

Even after you've been proven wrong with multiple sources, you keep pretending.

[PamW]

70. bananas LITANY of ERRORS!!

bananas states
You've been proven wrong by George Stanford, Richard Garwin, John Holdren, Robert Selden, all recognized experts.

WRONG AGAIN bananas; because Stanford, Garwin, Holdren, are NOT nuclear weapons experts.

Because of the EXTREMELY sensitive nature of nuclear weapons design; and that's what this question involves is can a nuclear weapon be designed to use IFR plutonium; the ONLY true experts in nuclear weapons design are at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Nobody else is even allowed to know the workings of nuclear weapons.

So in order to answer the question, we need two conditions. We need the people who are answering the question to be EXPERTS in the field. Secondly, they have to KNOW the features Argonne designed into the IFR to make it proliferation proof.

The ONLY experts are at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Selden was at Los Alamos and is familiar with weapon design; however, he doesn't meet the 2nd criterial Selden doesn't know what Argonne did to make the IFR proliferation proof. Selden RETIRED before the study was done, and it was NOT Selden's lab (Los Alamos) that was given the job of the analysis.

So Selden COULD have rendered an accurate determination IF he were still active at Los Alamos, and if Los Alamos was given the data on the IFR. Since the IFR data was NOT given to Selden or his lab; we can rule him out as an "expert" for this determination.

Garwin, and Holdren are NOT nuclear weapons designers. Evidently, you don't understand how closely guarded this HIGHLY CLASSIFIED information is. Unless, someone is on staff at one of the nuclear weapons design labs; the they just plain do NOT get access to the data.

It doesn't matter how smart or how credentialed a scientist is; if they do NOT have access to data; then they can NOT render an ACCURATE assessment.

Suppose you are a financial planner. I ask you whether something is a good investment in my circumstances. However, I don't tell you what my circumstances are. You don't know how much I earn, how much I have in the bank, other investments.... You could be the WORLD'S BEST financial planner. But if I don't tell you anything about my circumstances; then you can NOT give good advice.

That's the predicament that Garwin and Holdren are in.

Stanford is not a nuclear weapons designer either; but evidently has been informed of the results of the analysis by Lawrence Livermore. Sanford states,

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

But there is plutonium in IFRs, along with other fissionable isotopes. Seems to me that a proliferator could take some of that and make a bomb.

Some people do say that, but they're wrong, according to expert bomb designers at Livermore National Laboratory. They looked at the problem in detail, and concluded that plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactivity and spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium.

Evidently, bananas MISUNDERSTOOD what Sanford is talking about with regard to safeguards for the IFR. ( This is a problem when people are discussing highly technical material, when they don NOT know the science behind that material. )

If the IFR is NOT MODIFIED and is run as it SHOULD be run; then there is ZERO capacity of someone to make a nuclear weapon.

However, supposed someone took an IFR and MODIFIED it and they did NOT operate it properly; then it is a "no brainer" that it could be misused.

Say you buy a GM car that is certified to meet California emission requirements. It will do so. However, suppose you take that car and MODIFY it. You "supe" up the power by bypassing a lot of the GM-designed emission controls. You also put leaded-gas into it.

It isn't going to meet emission requirements any more. You MODIFIED it; you turned an environmentally friendly car into a polluter.

There's NO WAY to make a car to be clean no matter WHAT MODIFICATIONS are done. The modifications can include bypassing all the clean car engineering.

That's why when you re-register the car, and they do a smog check; they CHECK to be sure you haven't modified the car in a manner that makes it dirty.

Same with the IFR. If you MODIFY it; you could turn it into something else. HELL, you could dismantle it, melt down the parts and recast it as any type of reactor you want.

You think there is something that can PREVENT that???

However, just as with the DMV; you are going to get caught if there are safeguards.

Again, I don't know why the anti-nukes can't get this concept; if you are worried about any nation misusing the technology; then DO NOT LET THEM HAVE IT.

There's only a handful of countries that we don't want to have nuclear weapons, and we want to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Iran is one. Syria is another.

So do NOT let them have IFRs. However, the USA, Canada, European countries...., i.e. the MAJORITY of the big electric users are countries that we can trust. Even then, you can put verification schemes in place.

It takes a long time between when you start modifying a reactor, and someone discovers your trickery; until you can exploit your modified design. In the meantime, various sanctions could be in place.

There's no FOOL PROOF way of preventing a nation from getting nuclear weapons. The USA developed nuclear weapons ALL BY ITSELF. Any nation that is willing to spend the money and time to acquire the talent and build facilities can get nuclear weapons.

If your standard is that there is no possible way at all for a country to make nuclear weapons; that's a fool's errand. We can't prevent it. We can deter it. But we can't prevent it.

Evidently bananas "understanding" of the role of fissile fuel in a nuclear weapon leaves much to be desired.

I explained previously that Pu-239 is the ONLY "fissile" isotope of Plutonium.

I also gave directions in an earlier post on how to get the plots of the fission cross-section for various Plutonium isotopes from the Brookhaven National Lab Nuclear Data Center:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/index.jsp

Just as with kristopher, you have NOT proved me wrong. Only in your DELUSIONS.

This IS my PROFESSION; and a couple of forum denizens with ZERO training in even the most basic science at the high school level; can NOT POSSIBLY "prove" me wrong on this.

I'm NOT pretending anything.

To show that one can't believe what bananas has written above; take the case where he said in post #55 that I falsely caimed: "The FACT that the IFR is NOT a proliferation risk is NOT classified".

If bananas claims that I am wrong; then he is saying that it IS CLASSIFIED

But we all KNOW that it is NOT because 2 US Senators made the statement PUBLICLY in a rebuttal to the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

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.

If the above statement were classified, then Senators Simon and Kempthorne could NOT have said the same thing in the open; i.e. on the pages of the New York Times.

So that statement by bananas is ERROR RIDDEN.

If the reader does a careful examination of the others, and a little homework at Brookhaven; the reader will see that the other statements by bananas are just as WORTHLESS[/b ]

PamW

[PamW]

71. Evidently bananas does NOT understand...

bananas states
it is technically possible, with difficulty, to make an explosive with plutonium of almost any isotopic composition


The operative word in the above that bananas evidently didn't pick up on is almost.

ALMOST any isotopic composition; but the composition of IFR spent fuel is the EXCEPTION.

Evidently, bananas also does NOT UNDERSTAND how classified information is "restricted" or "compartmentalized", as it is called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28information_security%29

Only a select few are permitted under classification laws in knowing a given subject area. The determination of who is given access, is determined, as specified above, by the concept of "need to know". For example, for the group that is given access to how nuclear weapons work, under classification law, NOT EVEN President Obama is given access, due to "need to know". The President is the person that can authorize the use of nuclear weapons, but why would the President need to know how they work? The fact is, he DOESN'T. All the President needs to know is that they WILL work. The President makes the decision "I want to obliterate Country Orange, because they attacked us!". The President doesn't even have to know the yields of the weapons; all he has to know is that enough firepower will be used to do what he desires; obliterate Country Orange. The military knows the yields of the weapons; so they can figure out how many and what type to use. However, the military doesn't need to know how the devices work, just that they will deliver the specified yield.

Classified information can be accessed ONLY by the people in the "compartment", and those people have the list of all the other people in the compartment with them so they know who they can and can not talk to about that information. Garwin and Holden are NOT nuclear weapons designers, and therefore have NO "need to know", and they are NOT in the compartment.

An good illustration of how this works was available on last night's ( Dec 15 ) episode of CBS New's "60 Minutes" "60 Minutes" visited the NSA - the National Security Agency. At one point, the NSA guide for the CBS reporters said the the "Holy of Holies", the most sensitive information in the NSA are the files on which codes the NSA has cracked. The NSA guide showed the CBS reporters a locked "Kardex" brand file repository, and stated that only a handful of NSA employees had the keys to the locked "Kardex". The NSA has THOUSANDS of cleared employees at Fort Meade, but only a very few are given access to this most secret of information.

So if someone says, "You have been proved wrong that NSA has cracked the Russian "Zephyr" ( made up name ) code. World renown mathematicians and winners of many awards, Professors Smith and Jones of XYZ University say that the Zephyr code is too complicated to crack." Such a statement is TOTALLY BOGUS!!!

Smith and Jones are NOT one of the very few that have access to the NSA Kardex; in fact, they don't even work for the NSA at all, let alone being one of the chosen few. They work at XYZ University.

Smith and Jones may have an opinion that the Zephyr code is too hard to crack, but they do NOT KNOW.

On the "60 Minutes" program, the Deputy Director of NSA was interviewed and said that NSA hires bright students during the summer, and it is quite common for one of those smart students to devise some clever tact that nobody at NSA had thought of in the years before. So some clever summer student may have thought of something that Professors Smith and Jones didn't think of, and that led to the cracking of the Zephyr code.

So when dealing with classified information, it is FOOLISH to cite as "authorities", people who do NOT have access to the information.

Likewise, Garwin and Holden do NOT know what clever tricks the scientists at Argonne used to develop a reactor that is essentially "proliferation proof". The Argonne clever tricks are something that Garwin and Holden did NOT think of.

In addition, it really doesn't have to be "proof". There's an old joke that goes: "You and I are being chased by a hungry Grizzly Bear, that wants to make lunch out of one of us. You say, 'Do you really think we can out run the bear?' I say, 'No - but I don't have to out run the bear. I only have to out run YOU!'"

The IFR, as designed by Argonne, produces Plutonium that can NOT be used for nuclear weapons.

However, what if someone MODIFIED it. Heck, you could disassemble it, melt the metal down, and recast it into parts for a reactor of ANY design.

So you can't really make something that can never be modified into a production reactor.

However, as in the case of the joke; you don't need to. You just have to make it more difficult than starting from scratch.

A country bent on building nuclear weapons always has the opportunity to design / build production reactors from scratch. As long as the effort it takes to modify an IFR is greater than designing / building a production reactor from scratch, then a country won't acquire and modify an IFR. They'll just design / build a production reactor from scratch.

So much for the IMPLAUSIBLE claim that some of the forum's members who are NOT TRAINED in the sciences, and have demonstrated that they do NOT know science even at the high school level; have somehow "proven wrong", a PhD level Physicist in her own field.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[PamW]

45. What's happened to HONESTY!!!

I believe the purpose of this forum is to give people good information.

With good information in hand; the people can draw their own INFORMED opinions.

However, more and more I see people that are out to "con" the good denizens of this forum.

We see more tactics like "playing word games".

Tactics like using / quoting old OUTDATED and OBSOLETE information.

Any tactic that can give people a FALSE impression is to be tolerated and exploited.

The idea is not to get good information to people so they can make up their own minds.

No - more and more it seems the goal is to get people DISTORTED information ( propaganda? ).

The idea force people to come to the same conclusion the author has already chosen for them.

If the author has to LIE, and promulgate PROPAGANDA; well that's just fine.

All that matters is that people join the author's pre-chosen opinion; even if they do it based on LIES.

Has it really come to that?

How about trusting our fellow forum members to make good decisions; when they are properly informed with
HONEST information.

What a concept.

PamW

[kristopher]

47. Yes, what happened to honesty?

Given your history of posting as exemplified by the above exchange, I hope you take the time to look in the mirror when you ask that question.

[FreakinDJ]

57. Pam - don't worry about him

He has no credibility here

His purpose self admitted is to advocate solar - that doesn't include facts

[NoOneMan]

26. The movie was such a blatant farce, I dont know who would waste the energy attacking or defending it

I mean really? Don't you have better things to do today? Isn't there a legitimate pro-nuclear piece you could instead promote and fawn over?

At times I thought I was watching Ancient Aliens