PDA

View Full Version : Japan agrees to hand over nuclear material to United States


4-2-7
03-25-2014, 09:20 PM
I heard about this the other day and it didn't sit right with me. What the hell are we doing taking in more enriched uranium & plutonium. WTF are we going to be the worlds wast dumping ground. This stuff never goes away and cost money to keep it secure.


(CNN) -- Japan and the United States have co-signed an agreement to remove and dispose of hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and separated plutonium from the Asian nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/world/asia/us-japan-nuclear-fuel-deal/

donquixote99
03-25-2014, 09:41 PM
It's the stuff bombs are made of.

4-2-7
03-25-2014, 09:44 PM
It's the stuff bombs are made of.

And is hazardous in any storage. Lets see would you want it in your backyard?

donquixote99
03-25-2014, 10:03 PM
OK, what's my choice here? In my backyard, or coming at me at the end of a missile?

hillbilly
03-25-2014, 10:20 PM
It's one of those cases where we could be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Dondilion
03-25-2014, 10:26 PM
OK, what's my choice here? In my backyard, or coming at me at the end of a missile?

The reality of the nuclear world. :D

hillbilly
03-25-2014, 10:39 PM
I've wondered about how it is stored. It would seem to me that no matter how safely it is packed away under ground, an earthquake in the future at or very near the storage area could not be good for the environment.

4-2-7
03-25-2014, 11:06 PM
OK, what's my choice here? In my backyard, or coming at me at the end of a missile?

I think I would rather have it coming at me.

1)Blown to hell and vaporized.

2) slow agonizing rotting death.

I'll take number one please..

4-2-7
03-25-2014, 11:08 PM
I've wondered about how it is stored. It would seem to me that no matter how safely it is packed away under ground, an earthquake in the future at or very near the storage area could not be good for the environment.

HB

We might be drinking it in the ground water.

BlueStreak
03-26-2014, 02:27 AM
I think I would rather have it coming at me.

1)Blown to hell and vaporized.

2) slow agonizing rotting death.

I'll take number one please..

For YOU, I choose number 2.

For myself, neither.

Dave

bobabode
03-26-2014, 05:36 PM
It's the stuff bombs are made of.

Fuel too. I don't get what the big deal is. We've been buying Russian nukes for fuel for a couple of decades. NASA used Plutonium reactors in long range spacecraft.

4-2-7
03-26-2014, 06:25 PM
For YOU, I choose number 2.

For myself, neither.

Dave

Didn't you just mention a comment to you about suicide?

donquixote99
03-26-2014, 06:26 PM
Fuel too. I don't get what the big deal is. We've been buying Russian nukes for fuel for a couple of decades. NASA used Plutonium reactors in long range spacecraft.

It was just one of yesterday's memes.

4-2-7
03-26-2014, 06:26 PM
Fuel too. I don't get what the big deal is. We've been buying Russian nukes for fuel for a couple of decades. NASA used Plutonium reactors in long range spacecraft.

NASA is out of business:rolleyes:

finnbow
03-26-2014, 09:53 PM
The HEU will down-mixed to make nuclear fuel for power plants. The plutonium will be stored securely by DOE just like they store our own plutonium. Moreover, the Japanese will be paying us to take it off their hands, while removing it from possible diversion to illicit weapons programs. This is a good thing, unless you're too feckin' ignorant to understand it as such.

bobabode
03-26-2014, 10:32 PM
The HEU will down-mixed to make nuclear fuel for power plants. The plutonium will be stored securely by DOE just like they store our own plutonium. Moreover, the Japanese will be paying us to take it off their hands, while removing it from possible diversion to illicit weapons programs. This is a good thing, unless you're too feckin' ignorant to understand it as such.

Indeed. 'Conspiracy Theories' is where this thread belongs.

djv8ga
03-27-2014, 01:51 AM
It's all washing up on California's shores already. What's changed?

MikeG22
03-27-2014, 07:06 AM
No please Japan don't give us that free energy source. I bet Obama's behind this. What's the big theory 4-2-7? Is Obama bringing it here to blow us all up?

4-2-7
03-27-2014, 07:49 AM
It's all washing up on California's shores already. What's changed?

Good point, All that energy is washing onto our shores forever.

Such a strange group here, can't have a pipeline and burn oil. However we can store other countries nuk wast.

Pio1980
03-27-2014, 08:09 AM
The situation re-poses the need to develop sustainable energy policies that encourage efficiency and conservation. Once nuke looked good ("too cheap to meter", they said) but the unintended consequences and delaying unsolved problem complications to a future solution that has yet to appear has only highlighted the difficulties. Solar, as the primary source of energy for most natural processes (evaporation/precipitation= hydro, wind turbines, tidal/wave generation, ect), is still the most promising, and geo-thermal the most intriguing if only the whole world looked like Iceland. It's essential to remember that electricity is a converted transmission and storage mode of energy, it needs a source in order to appear. Basing anything in electric gadgetry must that that into account, likewise for hydrogen as a fuel. AFAIK, only Iceland could economically produce hydrogen for fuel from abundant geothermal generation/ electrolytic conversion.

4-2-7
03-27-2014, 08:09 AM
No please Japan don't give us that free energy source. I bet Obama's behind this. What's the big theory 4-2-7? Is Obama bringing it here to blow us all up?

Dumbest comment on the thread.

Free energy wow! Don't you think if it was free energy that Japan would not use it them selves?

I don't know if you heard about Fukushima going off line. Japan still has trouble meeting there energy demand. So smarty pants why would they not use it if it's free energy?

merrylander
03-27-2014, 08:26 AM
And the NIH factor will prevent the U.S. from looking at the CANDU reactor. India last I heard was looking at running the ones they bought on Thorium.

MikeG22
03-27-2014, 08:45 AM
Dumbest comment on the thread.

Free energy wow! Don't you think if it was free energy that Japan would not use it them selves?

I don't know if you heard about Fukushima going off line. Japan still has trouble meeting there energy demand. So smarty pants why would they not use it if it's free energy?

If free to us if they are paying us to take it and it is already enriched. You rebutted your own argument in your response. With Fukushima off line there is stockpiles of unusable energy. Its like having a shed full of wood pellets and no pellet stove.

Your comparing nuclear to coal or oil power generation? Do you realize how little air pollution nuclear creates vs energy it produces? Go with coal we don't have enough climate change.

4-2-7
03-27-2014, 08:57 AM
If free to us if they are paying us to take it and it is already enriched. You rebutted your own argument in your response. With Fukushima off line there is stockpiles of unusable energy. Its like having a shed full of wood pellets and no pellet stove.

Your comparing nuclear to coal or oil power generation? Do you realize how little air pollution nuclear creates vs energy it produces? Go with coal we don't have enough climate change.

Nuclear energy is powerful and clean I agree with that. It also has by products and faults.

If we built nuk plants they would be susceptible to forces out of our control. Once control is lost it's hazards are a 1000 times greater than any other source of energy. As with Fukushima and it's need for massive water cooling places the source to close to dangerous conditions.

Nothing is free....

MikeG22
03-27-2014, 09:10 AM
I live very close to Indian Point nuclear power plant which supplies energy to NYC. The Kennedys and their riverkeeper group have been trying to shut this plant down as long as I've lived here. These morons built multimillion dollar mansions right near the existing plant and are now crying it's there. The only reason it still exists is there is no viable option to replace the amount of energy it creates very cleanly and efficiently. Best part is it sits on an inactive fault line.

Hopefully someday these alternative sources will be as clean and efficient. For now though using something intended to kill off human existence to power our homes sounds good to me. The by products are much less dangerous then the fuel BTW. Still extremely dangerous and will be for a long time but not mushroom cloud dangerous.

djv8ga
03-27-2014, 09:33 AM
I live very close to Indian Point nuclear power plant which supplies energy to NYC. The Kennedys and their riverkeeper group have been trying to shut this plant down as long as I've lived here. These morons built multimillion dollar mansions right near the existing plant and are now crying it's there. The only reason it still exists is there is no viable option to replace the amount of energy it creates very cleanly and efficiently. Best part is it sits on an inactive fault line.

Hopefully someday these alternative sources will be as clean and efficient. For now though using something intended to kill off human existence to power our homes sounds good to me. The by products are much less dangerous then the fuel BTW. Still extremely dangerous and will be for a long time but not mushroom cloud dangerous.
Look, this a stupid question, but I'm no expert in nuclear plants.
I heard an "expert" on the radio claim that the old rods were more radioactive than the new rods.
Is this true? If it is, why are they?

merrylander
03-27-2014, 09:46 AM
Maybe this is what he was talking about

http://www.4-traders.com/news/Patent-Issued-for-Nuclear-Fuel-Cladding-Having-an-Exterior-Comprising-Burnable-Poison-in-Contact-wit--18164377/

djv8ga
03-27-2014, 09:58 AM
Could be. He was making the case to shut down all of the plants.

MikeG22
03-27-2014, 10:03 AM
Many of the usable isotopes come from spent fuel. The radiation for medical purposes for example. The problem with the spent fuel is it will around for a long long time. Hopefully someday there might be other uses for it.

merrylander
03-27-2014, 10:08 AM
Thorium is being touted as a replacement fuel because it has such a high melting point.

donquixote99
03-27-2014, 11:23 AM
Look, this a stupid question, but I'm no expert in nuclear plants.
I heard an "expert" on the radio claim that the old rods were more radioactive than the new rods.
Is this true? If it is, why are they?

That may be true when they first pop them out of the reactor. There are lots of isotopes produced in the reactor, both fission products (created when atoms are split) and isotopes created when atoms absorb extra neutrons. But a characteristic of radioactive elements is they decay as they emit particles, and the faster they emit particles, the faster they decay. The most radioactive isotopes thus have half-lives measured in weeks (or less).

Here's a graph of overall radioactive decay over time for three type of nuclear fuel, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Activitytotal1.svg

A thing to note is that plot has a logarithmic scale on both axis. That means that on a linear scale, those lines would basically look like this:

http://withfriendship.com/images/c/11544/Hyperbolic-function-picture.jpg

Very fast decrease at first, then a long tail.

Boreas
03-27-2014, 11:26 AM
Thorium is being touted as a replacement fuel because it has such a high melting point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYW50F42ss8&feature=kp

John

merrylander
03-27-2014, 11:51 AM
Try this one it is even more fun,

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear-power-plants/w/nuclear_power_plants/322.candu.aspx

djv8ga
03-27-2014, 12:03 PM
A solar panel is so much simpler.

merrylander
03-27-2014, 01:08 PM
A solar panel is so much simpler.

In AZ maybe but it would not do a hell of a lot of good in the short northern days.

Tom Joad
03-27-2014, 02:35 PM
OK, what's my choice here? In my backyard, or coming at me at the end of a missile?

Here is a helpful video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0XawkZ7zj0

Boreas
03-27-2014, 10:33 PM
In AZ maybe but it would not do a hell of a lot of good in the short northern days.

They do quite well in Germany, Rob. That's pretty far north.

John

merrylander
03-28-2014, 06:40 AM
They do quite well in Germany, Rob. That's pretty far north.

John

But if you get, quite typically, an overcast three or four days will your batteries last that long?

piece-itpete
03-28-2014, 08:20 AM
That's when you fire up the coal plant that you keep in ready-to-operate standby 24/7.

Pete

donquixote99
03-28-2014, 08:36 AM
Better be a gas turbine.

Or a diesel if we're talking self-sufficient power, which I more assume with solar. Solar power starts out distributed all-over, so who needs a grid?

piece-itpete
03-28-2014, 08:48 AM
Personal nuclear reactors. Fusion of course :) Literally a sun in every home!

Pete

merrylander
03-28-2014, 09:04 AM
The CANDU is inherently fail safe, there has never been aFukushima or Three Mile Island with any of the installations.