Not All Uranium

[Rigby5]

I thought your expertise was in international law? DURR

Law does not require any expertise.
All you have to know is that the only legal source of authority comes from the defense of individual rights.
If something harms no one, it can't be illegal.
If it does harm someone, then the balance has to be judged.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Law does not require any expertise.
All you have to know is that the only legal source of authority comes from the defense of individual rights.
If something harms no one, it can't be illegal.
If it does harm someone, then the balance has to be judged.

Law does not require any expertise.

Obviously, just look at the idiocy you regularly spew.

 

[Rigby5]

Old nuclear power plants used to use low enrichment, but they required huge containment domes, burned up nuclear fuel quickly

Higher enrichment burns fuel slower? How does that work?


Now they enrich as much as they can, because then there is less U-238 to get in the way and waste neutrons, so the containment can be much smaller.

Do the neutrons magically know which direction to travel?

Containment has nothing to do with enrichment levels or "wasted" neutrons.

Higher enrichment burns up nuclear fuel more slowly because you can use a smaller mass because there is less U-238 to block and absorb neutrons.
The less U-238 you have, the more the neutrons you release produce heat.
U-238 essentially acts like a moderator.

Neutrons do not need to know what direction to travel if you have less U-238 in the way.
If you could only have U-235, then no neutrons would be wasted by hitting and being absorbed by U-238.

If you had higher enrichments, than you produce far more heat with much smaller mass of fissile material. That means the containment dome can be much smaller.
Containment dome size is related to enrichment levels and % of neutrons wasted.
If you have low enrichment, then the whole process produces less heat per gram, so then you need far more fuel mass, which then means much larger containment dome.
The current trend is to make Small Modular Reactors in a factory, instead of building it at the site. And that requires much higher enrichment levels.

 

[JohnDB]

Most fuel rods have a LOT of life left in them as the majority of the uranium is left in them....however....they are too hot to reprocess....running around 300-400⁰ Farenheight. So they set them in cooling ponds encased in Stainless steel and just wait.

Currently it's cheaper to purchase new rods than to reprocess old rods. So there's a huge amount of used fuel rods running around every nuke plant.
And the problem with fuel rods is the plutonium. As fuel rods are fissioning a portion of the rods turns into plutonium by becoming enriched. These rods, as they age, become too unstable to control the reaction (because of the plutonium content) and are removed for new rods not so "enriched".

The configuration of the rods in the reaction chamber determines how long the fuel rods last and how hot of a fission reaction it will create. Lower temp fission reactors (aka: breeder reactors) are what is used aboard nuclear Submarines and Aircraft carriers.
They pull the reactors out from time to time and put in new ones as those are too full of plutonium. They really don't run out of fuel....they just become too hot and unstable to control so easily.

Iran didn’t have an electricity generating reactor....just a breeder reactor configuration that makes more plutonium than actually using the fuel for generation.

Bombs are made of U238 and U239. (Which is what happens in breeder reactors).

But....reprocessing is expensive. The selenium cores are actually worth more than the spent rods at the moment. Separating the two is a bit difficult though. But after sitting in a cooling pond for a few years....maybe.

AND....
Nuke plants can't stop the reaction. Startup is an expensive proposition. You can't just turn them off.

 

[Rigby5]

Law does not require any expertise.

Obviously, just look at the idiocy you regularly spew.

It is not hard to understand law.
Like when the US ratified the UN charter by Congress, then aggressive wars became illegal based on US law.
The only wars still legal would be if someone else attacked us first.
So then things like the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were obviously illegal.
The only tricky part of law comes when judges have to weigh between different conflicting rights.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Higher enrichment burns up nuclear fuel more slowly because you can use a smaller mass because there is less U-238 to block and absorb neutrons.
The less U-238 you have, the more the neutrons you release produce heat.
U-238 essentially acts like a moderator.

Neutrons do not need to know what direction to travel if you have less U-238 in the way.
If you could only have U-235, then no neutrons would be wasted by hitting and being absorbed by U-238.

If you had higher enrichments, than you produce far more heat with much smaller mass of fissile material. That means the containment dome can be much smaller.
Containment dome size is related to enrichment levels and % of neutrons wasted.
If you have low enrichment, then the whole process produces less heat per gram, so then you need far more fuel mass, which then means much larger containment dome.
The current trend is to make Small Modular Reactors in a factory, instead of building it at the site. And that requires much higher enrichment levels.

Higher enrichment burns up nuclear fuel more slowly because you can use a smaller mass because there is less U-238 to block and absorb neutrons.

You're using a higher mass of U-235.

Neutrons do not need to know what direction to travel if you have less U-238 in the way.

They don't need to travel toward a U-235 atom? What if they travel away from U-235? Don't they exit the reactor?

If you could only have U-235, then no neutrons would be wasted by hitting and being absorbed by U-238.

100% of the neutrons hit another U-235? Sounds dangerous!

If you had higher enrichments, than you produce far more heat with much smaller mass of fissile material.

Ummm.....higher enrichment literally means higher mass of fissile material.
Are you sure you don't have a law degree?

Containment dome size is related to enrichment levels and % of neutrons wasted.

That's hilarious! The containment dome isn't there because of the neutrons.
Or the enrichment level.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bombs are made of U238 and U239. (Which is what happens in breeder reactors).

You want to rethink this claim?

 

[Rigby5]

Most fuel rods have a LOT of life left in them as the majority of the uranium is left in them....however....they are too hot to reprocess....running around 300-400⁰ Farenheight. So they set them in cooling ponds encased in Stainless steel and just wait.

Currently it's cheaper to purchase new rods than to reprocess old rods. So there's a huge amount of used fuel rods running around every nuke plant.
And the problem with fuel rods is the plutonium. As fuel rods are fissioning a portion of the rods turns into plutonium by becoming enriched. These rods, as they age, become too unstable to control the reaction (because of the plutonium content) and are removed for new rods not so "enriched".

The configuration of the rods in the reaction chamber determines how long the fuel rods last and how hot of a fission reaction it will create. Lower temp fission reactors (aka: breeder reactors) are what is used aboard nuclear Submarines and Aircraft carriers.
They pull the reactors out from time to time and put in new ones as those are too full of plutonium. They really don't run out of fuel....they just become too hot and unstable to control so easily.

Iran didn’t have an electricity generating reactor....just a breeder reactor configuration that makes more plutonium than actually using the fuel for generation.

Bombs are made of U238 and U239. (Which is what happens in breeder reactors).

But....reprocessing is expensive. The selenium cores are actually worth more than the spent rods at the moment. Separating the two is a bit difficult though. But after sitting in a cooling pond for a few years....maybe.

AND....
Nuke plants can't stop the reaction. Startup is an expensive proposition. You can't just turn them off.

But the point is that Trump supporters are falsely claiming Iran has no nuclear electric power plants and that the enrichment could only have been for weapons.

{...
The primary operational reactor is the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which began operation in 2011 and uses Russian-supplied fuel. Additionally, Iran has the Arak heavy water reactor, which is designed to produce plutonium and is currently under IAEA monitoring. Other facilities include the Tehran Research Reactor and various uranium enrichment plants, which are integral to Iran's nuclear program.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Higher enrichment burns up nuclear fuel more slowly because you can use a smaller mass because there is less U-238 to block and absorb neutrons.

You're using a higher mass of U-235.

Neutrons do not need to know what direction to travel if you have less U-238 in the way.

They don't need to travel toward a U-235 atom? What if they travel away from U-235? Don't they exit the reactor?

If you could only have U-235, then no neutrons would be wasted by hitting and being absorbed by U-238.

100% of the neutrons hit another U-235? Sounds dangerous!

If you had higher enrichments, than you produce far more heat with much smaller mass of fissile material.

Ummm.....higher enrichment literally means higher mass of fissile material.
Are you sure you don't have a law degree?

Containment dome size is related to enrichment levels and % of neutrons wasted.

That's hilarious! The containment dome isn't there because of the neutrons.
Or the enrichment level.
View attachment 1129827

Wrong.
If you use higher enrichment you do not need more U-235. You need less because fewer neutrons are being wasted and absorbed by useless U-238 atoms.

When you contain nuclear fuel you can never control the direction of the neutrons emitted. But if you remove the U-238, then fewer neutrons are wasted.

Less U-238 is more dangerous, but to deal with that, you make the fuel rods smaller and reduce the inherent density.

Containment dome size is based on the size of the fuel rods, moderator, etc.
So if you can reduce the size of the fuel by making it hotter, (more enriched), then the dome can be smaller as well.

Higher enrichment literally does NOT mean higher mass of fissile material.
The higher the enrichment, the less U-238, so the mass of fissile material is less.

Sure burn up is faster with higher enrichments, but that is why you can use smaller fuel rods and still get the same amount of heat. All new reactors are shrinking down and using higher enrichment fuel.

 

[Rigby5]

You want to rethink this claim?

He meant Plutonium-239.
He was referring to a breeder reactor that is intended to make bomb fuel.

 

[irosie91]

You should welcome my expertise, since it is the truth.
I have an MS in physics.

as far as I understand re: MS in physics---just about the best you can do is be a high school
teacher----you may have to do some credits in "education" That which you have NICELY
demonstrated for the edification of the cybercommunity is that making a bomb is no
secret-----many people STILL believe that it is a big secret which Iranians my not have.
As you and I both know------IT AIN'T NO SECRET

 

[BothWings]

There is surely an agent of the NSA trolling here somewhere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
If you use higher enrichment you do not need more U-235. You need less because fewer neutrons are being wasted and absorbed by useless U-238 atoms.

When you contain nuclear fuel you can never control the direction of the neutrons emitted. But if you remove the U-238, then fewer neutrons are wasted.

Less U-238 is more dangerous, but to deal with that, you make the fuel rods smaller and reduce the inherent density.

Containment dome size is based on the size of the fuel rods, moderator, etc.
So if you can reduce the size of the fuel by making it hotter, (more enriched), then the dome can be smaller as well.

Higher enrichment literally does NOT mean higher mass of fissile material.
The higher the enrichment, the less U-238, so the mass of fissile material is less.

Sure burn up is faster with higher enrichments, but that is why you can use smaller fuel rods and still get the same amount of heat. All new reactors are shrinking down and using higher enrichment fuel.

If you use higher enrichment you do not need more U-235.

Higher enrichment literally means more U-235.

You need less because fewer neutrons are being wasted and absorbed by useless U-238 atoms.

10% is more than 5%.

Containment dome size is based on the size of the fuel rods, moderator, etc.

You said it was based on the low enrichment and faster speed of burning the fuel.

You never showed that 3% burns fuel faster than 5% or 15%.

So if you can reduce the size of the fuel by making it hotter,

Hotter? Because it burns faster?

The higher the enrichment, the less U-238, so the mass of fissile material is less.

One kilogram of U-235 with nineteen kilograms of U-238 (5% enriched) burns faster than one kilogram of U-235 with nine kilograms of U-238 (10% enriched)?

Sure burn up is faster with higher enrichments

Huh?

What?

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is not hard to understand law.
Like when the US ratified the UN charter by Congress, then aggressive wars became illegal based on US law.
The only wars still legal would be if someone else attacked us first.
So then things like the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were obviously illegal.
The only tricky part of law comes when judges have to weigh between different conflicting rights.

WRONG

The UN does not supercede the US constitution

Any war approved by congress is legal

 

[Soupnazi630]

You should welcome my expertise, since it is the truth.
I have an MS in physics.

You have no expertise or degree you make shit up as you go

You are stupid and a ******* proven consistent liar

 

[Soupnazi630]

I disagree.

The US illegally attacked Iran by bribing the Shah into a military takeover, so retribution is legal and deserved.
The US is actually the leading terrorist, not Iran.
For example, illegally toppling the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, the Ukraine, etc.

As for the Ukraine, it is not Russian "aggression".
Russia used to have defensive nukes in the Ukraine, so then its radar grid is around the Ukraine and Russia together, with no defenses between Russia and the Ukraine.
That means Russia can never allow the Ukraine to join NATO or any hostile alliance.
If the Ukraine were to join NATO, then the US could and would put first strike nukes on Russia's border that Russia could not detect until detonation.

I agree Trump is at fault for backing out of the deal Obama had with Iran.

But Iran is not a treat to anyone, because they have no delivery means.
So then Iran could only use nukes against an invasion force.

As for solar or wind, they are pretty much insignificant.
They use a huge amount of space, are expensive, fragile, and cannot be ramped up and down with load.
They also require huge battery investments.
The do not last in sandstorms.
All countries need to go nuclear eventually.

LIAR

Russia has no such grid and the US would not and has never wanted to put nukes there

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have no expertise or degree you make shit up as you go

You are stupid and a ******* proven consistent liar

He has an MS in physics.
That's why he said LEU burns faster in post #23
And why he said HEU burns slower in post #43.
And then said HEU burns faster in post #49.

Because he has a Master's Degree. A Master's Degree in physics.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He has an MS in physics.
That's why he said LEU burns faster in post #23
And why he said HEU burns slower in post #43.
And then said HEU burns faster in post #49.

Because he has a Master's Degree. A Master's Degree in physics.

He has claimed masters degrees in 8 seperate disciplines depending on the thread

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I disagree.

The US illegally attacked Iran by bribing the Shah into a military takeover, so retribution is legal and deserved.
The US is actually the leading terrorist, not Iran.
For example, illegally toppling the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, the Ukraine, etc.

As for the Ukraine, it is not Russian "aggression".
Russia used to have defensive nukes in the Ukraine, so then its radar grid is around the Ukraine and Russia together, with no defenses between Russia and the Ukraine.
That means Russia can never allow the Ukraine to join NATO or any hostile alliance.
If the Ukraine were to join NATO, then the US could and would put first strike nukes on Russia's border that Russia could not detect until detonation.

I agree Trump is at fault for backing out of the deal Obama had with Iran.

But Iran is not a treat to anyone, because they have no delivery means.
So then Iran could only use nukes against an invasion force.

As for solar or wind, they are pretty much insignificant.
They use a huge amount of space, are expensive, fragile, and cannot be ramped up and down with load.
They also require huge battery investments.
The do not last in sandstorms.
All countries need to go nuclear eventually.

Russia used to have defensive nukes in the Ukraine, so then its radar grid is around the Ukraine and Russia together,

Defensive nukes? Would they fire them at incoming missiles?

with no defenses between Russia and the Ukraine.

Russia forgot how to build a "radar grid?

If the Ukraine were to join NATO, then the US could and would put first strike nukes on Russia's border that Russia could not detect until detonation.

What's so magic about 500 miles?

 

[JohnDB]

Russia used to have defensive nukes in the Ukraine, so then its radar grid is around the Ukraine and Russia together,

Defensive nukes? Would they fire them at incoming missiles?

with no defenses between Russia and the Ukraine.

Russia forgot how to build a "radar grid?

If the Ukraine were to join NATO, then the US could and would put first strike nukes on Russia's border that Russia could not detect until detonation.

What's so magic about 500 miles?

View attachment 1129840

"Could"....not sure about "would".

Especially when we have Trident missiles on Nuclear submarines that can have Moscow glowing at night in under 10 minutes. And it requires 15 minutes to react to incoming missiles.

We really don't need Ukraine. We also have Norway and Finland as part of NATO.
And Turkey and India.

Russia is surrounded by NATO nukes....Ukraine is not needed.

Russia just wants Ukraine....it doesn't need it. Kinda like Russia invading Afghanistan. It wanted their Yellowcake in the 70's. But left in the 80's....now Russia is hiring migrant workers from Afghanistan. (I don't see this going well)

Likely Russia wants Ukranian's uranium mining. Even though it has more oil/petroleum and LNG than anyone else.

Just saying....