In 2009 1,800 kg of plutonium was shipped to Japan for their MOX reactors.

[snagglepuss]

Very depressing but important information about plutonium and the MOX reactors which are used worldwide.

snip

MOX actually increases the chances of nuclear proliferation. Plutonium in spent nuclear fuel is harder to extract for use in nuclear weapons than plutonium in MOX fuel. None of the 39 MOX reactors worldwide reactors effectively burn up plutonium. No wonder MOX and its waste travel under such huge security. On top of that, there is no evidence that the structural strength of the containers used for MOX transport is enough to withstand possible accidents.

Also, MOX is more even complicated and unstable that other nuclear fuels meaning it give lower performance and presents greater risks. In 1999 the poor quality of the MOX shipped to Japan from France meant it could not be used. Half is still being stored as waste in Japan and the other half was returned to Sellafield in the UK, its whereabouts currently unknown.




http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/02/mox_to_japan_the_largest_shipm.html



:mad:

[fascisthunter]

1. well, that's ok, because Gambling with People's Lives is A-Ok

sociopaths

[AtheistCrusader]

2. It is in Reactor #3 at Fukushima Dai-ichi. One of the three at that site now in danger.

I don't think they returned it. It is in live production. Only in Reactor #3.

(Shoulda put it in Reactor #6, since it has a Mark II containment...)

[AtheistCrusader]

3. There are a total of three Reactors using it in Japan, only one is in danger.

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/09/17/fukushima-to-restart-using-mox-fuel-for-first-time-091704.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28211

[PamW]

5. Right = it's not the MOX

There are a total of three Reactors using it in Japan, only one is in danger.
===========================

Plutonium is a fission fuel material for these reactors. But the fission
chain reaction stopped last Friday. When the plant sensed the quake, it
shutdown. The control rods were dropped, and the fission chain reaction stopped.

So why do we have a heating / cooling problem? It's because of the fission products,
the nuclear "ash".

It's the nuclear "ash" that is giving us this heat now, not the fuel.

Plutonium has nothing whatsoever to do with the heat that needs to be removed now.

Burning plutonium gives you essentially the same nuclear "ash" as burning uranium.

There's zero reason for a reactor fueled with MOX to be any different.

Besides, as I said in another post, the partially burned fuel the reactor is running
on which started out as only uranium, looks like MOX after a few months in the reactor.

Reactors run on something that looks like MOX all the time.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

6. It might make a difference in fallout

if the reactors go a-glitter and all containment fails. (Unlikely)

But otherwise, yes, makes no difference.

[PamW]

4. Greenpeace nonsense.

Also, MOX is more even complicated and unstable that other nuclear fuels meaning it give lower performance and presents greater risks.
=======================================

I expect nonsense like that coming from Greenpeace.

Look at it this way. Suppose you had a reactor you loaded with fresh
uranium fuel. You run that reactor a year or a year and a half before
refueling it.

The days immediately before you refuel it, is not the reactor running OK?

What does the fuel in the reactor just before re-fueling look like? It
looks a lot like MOX!!! ( It's MOX with fission products ( nuclear ash ) )

People don't understand that when you fuel a reactor with fresh uranium,
it produces its own plutonium as it runs, and also burns it. In the
3 years that the fuel typically stays in the reactor, about 40% to 50%
of the energy you get comes from burning plutonium.

There's nothing "unstable" about plutonium. It's a fissile material just
like the Uranium-235 that normally fuels reactors. About the only notable
difference is that the delayed neutron fraction for plutonium is about
0.3% vs 0.7% for uranium, but that's well within what the reactor can handle,
especially when the plutonium is burned in conjunction with uranium.

Why do people believe they are going to get scientifically accurate information
from Greenpeace? When you go to the Greenpeace website, you get Greenpeace
propaganda. Why can't people see it as such?

PamW

[SpoonFed]

7. hmm. words to be eaten?

do any of these anti-greenpeace words need to be eaten,
now that hours later, No.3 at Daiichi has suffered an explosion?

I'd say it's a little past "in danger" and that worries are "full of crap"...
don't you?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Still looks like a replay of TMI.

But sure, I'll eat some crow. This is way worse than I expected.

Still currently a damn sight short of some of the hysterical posts I've seen, but bad, yes.

[SpoonFed]

9. I'm not sure I understand the problem...

I haven't read any blatantly hysterical posts here. And frankly, I've read a lot more
blindly optimistic posts about the situation based on little or no information, which
is what all sides seem to be dealing with.

And things seem to continue to get worse and worse, hour by hour as more information
comes in, and none of it is good.

So frankly, I sort of forgive the hysterics since they seem to have a more rational
and common sense based approach to this unbelievable situation that is still growing,
than the calm sit back and doing silly calculations on envelopes types, or the
faith-based approaches to analysing and solving these problems.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. You're not looking very hard if you haven't read any.

[SpoonFed]

10. And yeah, at present at least 2X three mile islands, maybe more?

I'm waiting to read the "it's only a TMI-like 5..." no worries.