GAO Warns Of Threat To Tritium Stockpile

[bananas]

"To produce tritium, stainless steel rods containing lithium aluminate and zirconium are irradiated in the Tennessee Valley Authority's commercial nuclear power reactor."

So commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons!

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20101008_7866.php

GAO Warns Of Threat To Tritium Stockpile
Friday, Oct. 8, 2010

By Sara Sorcher
CongressDaily

WASHINGTON -- The nation's supply of tritium -- an essential isotope for nuclear weapons -- is in danger of falling below the required levels, according to a Government Accountability Office report released yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 5).

While the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Agency now meets the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements, tritium decays at a rate of 5.5 percent a year and the agency "has been unable to overcome technical challenges" in producing more tritium, GAO said.

That puts the NNSA's ability to meet the stockpile requirements of the future "in doubt," said GAO, which urged the agency to take active steps to ensure availability of tritium from domestic sources.

To produce tritium, stainless steel rods containing lithium aluminate and zirconium are irradiated in the Tennessee Valley Authority's commercial nuclear power reactor. But GAO said tritium has been leaking into the reactor's coolant water "at higher than expected rates," causing TVA to restrict the amount of rods NNSA can irradiate.

<snip>

From February:

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100205_9220.php

DOE Seeks to Produce Tritium at Additional Site
Friday, Feb. 5, 2010

The Obama administration has called for a second Tennessee nuclear plant to begin producing tritium for use in U.S. nuclear weapons, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reported Wednesday (see GSN, Jan. 27).

(Feb. 5) - The U.S. Energy Department's latest budget request calls for production of weapon-grade tritium at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, shown above (U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority photo).

<snip>

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar nuclear plant has produced weapon-grade tritium under a contract that the federal agency signed in 1999 with the Energy Department. The 35-year deal designates the Sequoyah plant as a secondary site for producing the gas (Dave Flessner, Chattanooga Times Free Press I, Feb. 3).

The two sites are the nation's only nuclear plants permitted to manufacture bomb-grade tritium as a secondary function (Pam Sohn, Chattanooga Times Free Press II, Feb. 4).

<snip>

[GliderGuider]

1. OMG - "So commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons!"

Wait, so are lathes...

Tritium isn't the thing Doc Gregory is talking about, and you know it.

[madokie]

4. And you pay attention to what the doc says

:rofl:
Now thats fucking funny

[GliderGuider]

5. This post appears to have its roots in the Doc's comment

That the design requirements for commercial reactors and bomb material reactors were different. The material he was talking about was HEU and plutonium. Dragging in tritium is a red herring, and implying that tritium production makes a reactor a bomb factory is intellectually dishonest.

I'm glad you have a sense of humour about this.

[bananas]

6. No, it doesn't

I don't read most posts, and I don't recall anything from him about the subject.
There are regularly posts by others claiming that nuclear energy plants have nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

[GliderGuider]

7. OK, so what prompted it then?

Tritium isn't a nuclear explosive any more than high-carbon steel is. The impulse for even a boosted-fission weapon is the uranium or plutonium. Without them, the tritium just sits there and glows. In the same sense, without the HEU or plutonium the casing for the bomb is just a steel cylinder.

How is a power reactor any more of a "bomb factory" than a machine shop is?

[kristopher]

10. Are you really that uninformed?

Or are complex situations too much for you to process? From your previous "work" on peak oil I suspect both are at play, but I'll detail it for those who are interested.

Nuclear power is an energy source.

It is sold (literally) to developing nations using the justification that it will enable the country to ensure their energy security.

However, in order to address non-proliferation concerns, the control of fuel processing is still vested in countries outside of places such as Iran (to use a current example).

Since energy security is not ensured when a country is dependent on threats to its fuel supply (nuclear or fossil), then once a country has a reactor, the next stage of their quest for energy security is found in building facilities for fuel enrichment.

Those same fuel enrichment technologies are the basis for weaponization of a county's nuclear program.

If a country wants to join the "club" of nuclear powers, this is the path to be followed.

If we use nuclear to meet just 1/3 of global electric supply, it will require 1700 1GW reactors. Since reactors have a lifespsan of 40* years, it is an inevitable part of this approach that some member states will eventually reject outside reprocessing and develop their own reprocessing facilities (as as Iran).

Holdren knows what he is talking about; the poster identifying him/herself as "Doctor Greg" does not.

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.


WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.


BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.



• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.



• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...

---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;

---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.



• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...

---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

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

[GliderGuider]

11. Where is tritium mentioned in your post?

Is tritium required to make nuclear weapons?

the OP was about the production of tritium at two specially certified reactors in the US. There is no proliferation threat from that, as far as I can tell.

[kristopher]

12. You diverted the topic to the imcompetent assessment by greg.

[GliderGuider]

13. So now it's diverted back to the point of the OP.

Is tritium required to make nuclear weapons?

The OP was about the production of tritium at two specially certified reactors in the US. There is no proliferation threat from that, as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure what all the fuss was about. It's just tritium, after all.

[bananas]

16. See posts 14 and 15

and please watch the video of Valerie Plame, it's only ten minutes long.

[DrGregory]

31. Tritium NOT required

Is tritium required to make nuclear weapons?
=============================================

Is it "required" to make a nuclear weapon - NO!
As I stated, neither of the USA's first nuclear
weapons, Fat Man and Little Boy used tritium.

Tritium IS used in the much more advance
thermonuclear weaponry that the US has; which
is why the USA makes it.

However, a new nuclear weapon state is NOT going
to make a thermonuclear weapon for its first nuclear
bomb.

As an analogy; the USA's B-2 Spirit bomber uses a
top-secret radar absorbing coating to make it stealthy.

Is it REQUIRED to have this coating in order to make
a bomber? Of course NOT.

However, does the USA have to have this coating for
B-2s? YES. B-2s don't have any type of counter-defenses.
There are no tail-gunners, or turret gunners on a B-2.
The ONLY thing the B-2 has for its own protection is its
stealth - and for that you need to coating.

So does the USA need the coating? YES.

Does Country X making its first air bomber need that
coating? NO - there are LOTS of bombers without that coating.

Dr. Greg

[GliderGuider]

35. Yeah, I know. By asking the question

I was suggesting that antinukes at least think, if not say, the words: "Tritium is not required to make nuclear weapons." That should lead to the realization that the fact that these two commercial reactors have been fitted to produce tritium for thermonuclear initiators is neither here nor there if one is concerned about proliferation. This thread appears to be an attempt to confuse the issue of power reactors with nuclear weapons, to paint nuclear power with the same revulsion we all share for nuclear weapons. It's a move with ideological roots, intended to short-circuit rational discussion of nuclear power.

[DrGregory]

45. When you lack a cogent argument...

This thread appears to be an attempt to confuse the issue of power reactors with nuclear weapons, to paint nuclear power with the same revulsion we all share for nuclear weapons. It's a move with ideological roots, intended to short-circuit rational discussion of nuclear power.
--------------------------------------------

I agree. That's what people do when they don't have cogent arguments;
they resort to some emotional appeal.

Nuclear power has suffered from the fact that most of the world
learned about "nuclear" in the form of a couple weapons that
vaporized two Japanese cities. People haven't been able to
get the mushroom clouds out of their heads since.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

14. Nothing "prompted" it, I regularly make posts about proliferation

because this is a discussion forum for progressives and liberals,
and proliferation has long been a topic of discussion for progressives and liberals.

And every time I make a post about it, some people object, some incorrectly claiming that nuclear energy has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, some incorrectly claiming that US reactors are not used at all for nuclear weapons production, some incorrectly claiming that nuclear reactors can't be used for weapons production, etc.

So in this case I wanted to explicitly point out that US nuclear reactors are in fact being used for weapons production.

You asked, 'How is a power reactor any more of a "bomb factory" than a machine shop is?'
Well, if a machine shop is in fact making parts for a nuclear weapon, then it is in fact making parts for a nuclear weapon.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a "bomb factory", because a bomb factory is where the parts are assembled together.
But these are both examples of the kinds of things CIA spies like Valerie Plame monitored in foreign countries, and it's the kind of thing the IAEA monitors in foreign countries. Some people in the Global Zero campaign have suggested that to get to zero, the US may have to subject itself to IAEA inspections. Valerie Plame has joined the Global Zero movement herself because this is such an important issue.

[GliderGuider]

17. Here are my observations

Even though bombs, commercial power reactors and nuclear weapon production reactors all use fissioning uranium as an energy source, my understanding is that that modern commercial power reactors are not designed to produce HEU or plutonium for bombs. They may, however produce material that can be subsequently reprocessed to create bomb-grade material.

Tritium production in a specially certified US reactor doesn't have any impact on "proliferation", so the post really wan't about nuclear proliferation, in the sense of making it possible for Lichtenstein to build a bomb.

Your comment "So commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons!" was incorrect, at least as relating to this instance of tritium production, and I suspect it was intended to be inflammatory. If it was not intended to be inflammatory, I suggest you could have chosen a more technically correct way to make your point.

[kristopher]

19. Too bad your desire for technical correctness begins and ends with defending nuclear power.

[GliderGuider]

20. Actually, my desire for technical correctness extends to GHG assessments as well.

Do you have an answer yet for my question about the actual Global Warming Potential of NOx?

In another thread you apparently mistakenly ascribed the Global Warming Potential of N2O (300x CO2e) to the NOx pollutants that will be scrubbed from the Four Corners coal plant. My request for clarification has as yet gone unaddressed. Surely your desire for overall technical correctness will lead you to clarify that situation too?

[kristopher]

21. Only if it is in the service of supporting nuclear power.

You've corrected the mistake, what would you like me to add?

[GliderGuider]

22. Just looking for confirmation. You might have found some information I hadn't. nt

[DrGregory]

32. Let me put it this way...

Your comment "So commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons!" was incorrect, at least as relating to this instance of tritium production, and I suspect it was intended to be inflammatory.
====================================

Let me put it this way. A commercial reactor with these
tritium producing "targets" will NOT help you get your
FIRST bomb.

Tritium is a useful material for the very experienced
nuclear weapons designers to use in making advanced
weapons like thermonuclear weapons.

But tritium will NOT help you with your FIRST bomb.

Therefore, tritium is NOT a proliferation threat.

Tritium is used commercially in watch dials and in those
signs that say "EXIT" that glow in an emergency when the
power fails and points you to the escape route.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

41. My comment was correct.

You wrote:

Even though bombs, commercial power reactors and nuclear weapon production reactors all use fissioning uranium as an energy source, my understanding is that that modern commercial power reactors are not designed to produce HEU or plutonium for bombs. They may, however produce material that can be subsequently reprocessed to create bomb-grade material.

Tritium production in a specially certified US reactor doesn't have any impact on "proliferation", so the post really wan't about nuclear proliferation, in the sense of making it possible for Lichtenstein to build a bomb.

I should have said "and nuclear weapons",
I should have said:

I regularly make posts about proliferation and nuclear weapons
because this is a discussion forum for progressives and liberals,
and proliferation and nuclear weapons have long been a topic of discussion for progressives and liberals.

You wrote:

Your comment "So commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons!" was incorrect, at least as relating to this instance of tritium production, and I suspect it was intended to be inflammatory. If it was not intended to be inflammatory, I suggest you could have chosen a more technically correct way to make your point.

My comment that "commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons" is correct.
Some people, including some engineers, refuse to work on military projects.
Some people strongly object to working on military projects.
Some people are ok with other military projects, but strongly object to nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons production.
For some people, it's a moral issue, for some people, it's a religious issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_livelihood

Right livelihood (samyag-ājīva • sammā-ājīva). This means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained thus:<19><30><31><45><46>

And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood.

The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:<47><48><49>

1. Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing.
2. Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults.
3. Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.
4. Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs.
5. Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.

[GliderGuider]

42. I don't know many people who would want to work on weapons.

I sure wouldn't. On the other hand, working on a civilian, commercial reactor that was supplying electrical power only wouldn't present much of a moral dilemma. That's why I'm always interested in making sure that the discussion stays focused and the issues don't bleed into each other.

Regarding Right Livelihood, I'm totally on board with 1, 2 and 5. I see humans as another part of the natural world, so for me "business in meat" as in buying and selling it for food is a less of an issue than the rearing practices involved. Everybody's got to eat. "Business in intoxicants" is a complete non-issue because of cultural differences.

So while I wouldn't make a perfect Buddhist, I'm happy with the state of my karma.

[DrGregory]

46. Historian Richard Rhodes points out..

I don't know many people who would want to work on weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------

Historian Richard Rhodes points out that the loss of life in
wars was going up exponentially until 1945. Then the rate
dropped and has remained relatively low - we haven't had
anything like the carnage of the two World Wars.

Rhodes states something happened in 1945 to terminate the
exponential growth of wartime deaths - and it is pretty
clear what triggered the reduction.

I'm playing devil's advocate; one could make the argument that
people who work on nuclear weapons are preventing more large
scale wars.

There's something to be said for the argument that if we
abolish nuclear weapons, we just make the world safe again
for large-scale conventional conflict.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

15. Listen to Valerie Plame Wilson at the Santa Fe Opening of Countdown to Zero

You can watch it in the Political Videos forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x501447

In post #14, I mentioned that Valerie Plame has joined the Global Zero Movement.

She says:
"the only way to proceed is to ultimately get to zero"
"we have to set as our goal global zero"
"it will be through significant and intrusive inspections,
monitoring, verification, processes, protocols that everyone must be held to"

That means intrusive inspections and monitoring of U.S. reactors, too.

[GliderGuider]

18. Monitoring and inspection are excellent ideas.

I'd rather we didn't build nuclear weapons either. Good inspection programs would go a long way towards making everyone feel more comfortable with nuclear power plants.

[TheWraith]

25. "Nothing to do with nuclear weapons"?

No, but a energy-production nuclear reactor has about as much to do with producing nuclear weapons as a muffler shop has to do with producing machine guns. They could theoretically do it, but equating the two is ridiculous.

[madokie]

8. sorry,

but the doc is laughing stock :rofl:

[GliderGuider]

9. We're all laughing stock to somebody.

I've always found it worthwhile to examine my own motivations whenever I found myself laughing at someone.

[madokie]

2. Will man ever learn

to not trust the nuclear power industry to be honest about anything. Didn't Gore say that Nuclear wouldn't play a big part in our getting out of this GW mess we're in?

[krispos42]

3. It's also used in watches and gun sights

Tritium glows in the dark as a result of radioactive decay. Some watches and handgun sights place capsules of tritium on them so they can be seen in the dark.

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

26. Actually, tritium does NOT glow in the dark on it's own.

It has to be placed into a sealed vial lined with a phosphorescent material that reacts to the beta particles given off by the tritium's decay. The phosphor is what glows, driven by the "energy" of the gas.

[krispos42]

28. That makes sense. Similar in concept to a fluorescent light bulb, right? n/t

[TheWraith]

38. Pretty much, yeah.

Except that instead of outside electricity to stimulate it, it's the gas' own radioactive decay.

[LongTomH]

23. Tritium is also used in the 'initiator' of a fission bomb

From Wikipedia - Neutron Initiator:

Actuated by an ultrafast switch like a krytron, a small particle accelerator accelerates ions of tritium and deuterium to energies above the 15 kilo-electron-volts or so needed for deuterium-tritium fusion and directs them into a metal target where the tritium and deuterium are adsorbed as hydrides. High-energy fusion neutrons from the resulting fusion radiate in all directions. Some of these strike plutonium or uranium nuclei in the primary's pit, initiating nuclear chain reaction. The quantity of neutrons produced is large in absolute numbers, allowing the pit to quickly achieve neutron levels that would otherwise need many more generations of chain reaction, though still small compared to the total number of nuclei in the pit.

So, without tritium, the bomb doesn't go BOOM!

[GliderGuider]

24. It's nice, but not necessary.

http://reactor1967.fortunecity.com/niniator.htm

The "Fat Man" weapon of World War II used a finely tooled initiator known as an "urchin", made of alternating concentric layers of beryllium and polonium separated with thin gold foils. When these layers are mixed (by the Munroe effect), the high-energy alpha particles produced by the polonium hit beryllium nuclei, expelling neutrons to initiate the fission process.

...

An initiator is not strictly necessary for an effective gun design, as long as the design uses "target capture" (in essence, ensuring that the two subcritical masses, once fired together, cannot come apart until they explode). Initiators were only added to Little Boy late in its design. The use of an initiator can guarantee precise control (to the millisecond) over the timing of the explosion.

Without tritium a bomb can indeed be made to go BOOM!.

[madokie]

27. But they're not being made without using tritium

and thats the point.

[DrGregory]

34. WRONG AGAIN!! - as always.

But they're not being made without using tritium
-------------------------------------------------

As usual - you are 100% WRONG!!!

Yes they ARE made without tritium.

Neither Fat Man nor Little Boy used tritium.

There are OTHER materials that can be used
for the initiators.

Tritium just happens to be used in US weapons;
because we have it and we designed our weapons
to use it.

However, there are MUCH SIMPLER ways to do the
job of initiator WITHOUT tritium.

You have to remember that the weapons in the US
stockpile are very advanced and sophisticated and
are NOT the type of thing that a new nuclear weapons
state is going to attempt to build as its FIRST bomb.

Dr. Greg

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

40. It might well be for security reasons

Tritium decays, so if a US nuclear weapon is stolen or lost, it does not have an indefinate shelf life. Unlike a land mine or cluster muntion, for example.



I recall in the book "The Sum of All Fears", when the nuclear bomb is detonated in Denver the output is drastically diminshed because some of the tritium had decayed. That might have been a fusion bomb, though, not your basic fission bomb.

[madokie]

43. I like the sound of that

and I like the security feature for sure. In other words somewhere down the road if they aren't being updated they will lose their effectiveness?

[krispos42]

44. According to Wikipedia, yes. It's called "boosting"

;-)


In a non-boosted bomb, like Fat Man or Little Boy, nearly all of the fissionable material is destroyed by the explosion before it can be split. The uranium or plutonium atoms releases a couple of high-speed neutrons when they split, and the fast-moving neutrons fly out and hit other uranium/plutonium atoms and split them. It's a chain-reaction, you see. But because the explosion moves so fast most of the plutonium or uranium is just splattered across the landscape rather than being split.

It looks like the military injects a small quantity of tritium and deuterium (both hydrogen isotopes) inside the core of a fission bomb. When the uranium or plutonium is compressed by explosives, the fission reaction starts, and the heat from the fission triggers a small nuclear fusion reaction (tritium and deuterium fusing into helium and releasing energy) which generates lots more of the critical fast-moving neutrons. And fast-moving neutrons are what drives the fission reaction to further heights.

So basically by adjusting the amount of tritium in the bomb you can adjust the yield (explosive power). According to Wikipedia, the US B61 nuclear bomb, in 'tactical' configuration, can be dialed between 0.3 kilotons and 170 kilotons. 20 kilotons was what was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You get much more output for the same about of fissionable material; or you can get a fixed output with less uranium or plutonium. And remember, uranium and plutonium is hideously expensive!




The nice thing about tritium is that when it decays, it decays into a neutron-absorbing gas, which actually reduces the yield! So it goes from being an attribute to being a liability as the time goes on.

I imagine they don't even add the tritium unless the bomb is on standy (like in a nuclear missile silo). The stuff costs $30,000 per gram and the world only uses 400 grams a year. I imagine it's fairly easy to track, too. Hopefully, at least.

[DrGregory]

49. Evidently, they don't let it become a liability....

The nice thing about tritium is that when it decays, it decays into a neutron-absorbing gas, which actually reduces the yield! So it goes from being an attribute to being a liability as the time goes on.
=====================================================

From the online Nuclear Weapons Archive:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html

US nuclear weapons are known to incorporate tritium as a high pressure gas, that is kept in a reservoir external to the core (probably a deuterium - tritium mixture). The gas is vented into the weapon core shortly before detonation as part of the arming sequence. Initial densities with a room- temperature gas (even a very high pressure one) are substantially lower than liquid density. The external gas reservoir has the important advantage though that it allows the use of "sealed pit", a sealed plutonium core that does not need servicing. The tritium reservoir can be easily removed for repurification and replenishment (removing the He-3 decay product, and adding tritium to make up for the decay loss) without disturbing the weapon core.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

48. The "Sum of All Fears" bomb was thermonuclear

I recall in the book "The Sum of All Fears", when the nuclear bomb is detonated in Denver the output is drastically diminshed because some of the tritium had decayed. That might have been a fusion bomb, though, not your basic fission bomb.
---------------------------------------

The bomb in Tom Clancy's novel "The Sum of All Fears"
was indeed a THERMONUCLEAR bomb, aka "hydrogen bomb"
or "H-bomb". It was not a basic fission bomb.

Dr. Greg

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

30. There are other materials besides tritium...

So, without tritium, the bomb doesn't go BOOM!
===============================================

There are OTHER materials that can be used to
make initiators. For example, NEITHER "Fat Man"
nor "Little Boy" used tritium initiators.

Tritium is NOT a "MUST HAVE".

Dr. Greg

[happyslug]

33. That a FUSION reaction, not a Fission Reaction

Sorry, Tritium is used in "Hydrogen Bombs" to provide the FUSION of Tritium which then provides the neutrons to make a massive amount of Fission reactions.

Tritium is a radioactive variation of Hydrogen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

When A hydrogen bomb goes off, an Uranium bomb is first used (Primary Fission Bomb Stage) to provide the energy needed to start a Fusion reaction. Once the Fusion reaction starts it released a huge amount of neutrons that will accelerate any fissionable material to rapid fission.

I.e. an Atomic Bomb is used to start a Fusion reaction, and the Fusion reaction releases a huge number of neutrons that will cause any fissionable material to go supercritical (i.e. "Boom").

Now, if the Neutrons released by the Fusion reaction does NOT have any Fissionable material, the neutrons will accelerate till they hit something that stops their movement. This was the basis of the "Neutron" bomb of the 1980s. A small atomic Bomb would start a fusion reaction, but with NO fissionable material in the warhead (i.e. NO Uranium other then in the Atomic bomb that started the reaction) the neutrons would then go wild killing anyone above ground, or in vehicles (Three to six feet of dirt would absorb most of the Radiation, if you can find such cover). Thus the famous observation that the Neutron Bomb killed people but did not destroy property.

More on the Neutron bomb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

The Hydrogen Bomb itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

[DrGregory]

36. Someone here paid attention in Science class..

Sorry, Tritium is used in "Hydrogen Bombs" to provide the FUSION of Tritium which then provides the neutrons to make a massive amount of Fission reactions.
---------------------------------------

Very Good!!! Tritium is a FUSION fuel used
principally in Thermonuclear weapons.

Since the USA already has to make Tritium for
its FUSION weapons - it has a supply to make
initiators out of.

However, as another poster cited; tritium is
NOT REQUIRED. There are EASIER ways to make
an initiator with simpler, more readily available
materials, as in the description of the "urchin".

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

29. Only the last few years....

So commercial nuclear power plants are used for making nuclear weapons!
============================================================

First, commercial power plants are NOT used to make Plutonium for
fission bombs.

The USA needs to make Tritium for the USA's stockpile of
thermonuclear weapons. That used to be done by special
reactors at DOE's Savannah River complex in South Carolina.

However, in the nuclear cost-cutting fever of the '90s; the
Congress decided not to fund further tritium production at
Savannah River. Rather than have special reactors for making
tritium, they wanted to know if a Government-owned power reactor,
namely ones owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority - TVA - could
be used instead. So two of TVA's reactors, Watts Bar and
Sequoyah were designated as the reactors to fulfill the mission
of making tritium for the nuclear stockpile. Since tritium is
radioactive with a 12 year half-life; it goes away on you if
you don't continually make the stuff.

The special "target" rods just need neutrons to impinge on them
in order to make tritium; and there are plenty of neutrons in
the power reactors to do the job.

Of course, this would be useless to a new nuclear power. Tritium
alone can not be used to make nuclear weapons. Additionally, it
is used in the USA's thermonuclear weaponry; and a nascent nuclear
weapons power isn't going to make thermonuclear weapons as their
first weapons.

The USA could always go back to using the Savannah River reactors.
I believe the Savannah River "K" Reactor was mothballed in case
the USA wanted to use it again. It just takes more $$$ to restart
the K Reactor.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

37. It looks like DOE decided it didn't need "K" reactor after all

I believe the Savannah River "K" Reactor was mothballed in case
the USA wanted to use it again.
------------------------------------

With the success of tritium production by
Watts Bar, the DOE evidently decided it no
longer needs to keep K Reactor as a backup;
and has started the job of demolition:

http://www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/SRSFootPrint.pdf

Dr. Greg