Correct me if I am wrong, but plutonium is not used as fuel for large scale power generation, so it is pretty useless unless you are building bombs.
Its a byproduct if you are using breeder reactors (which I presume is why the Brits have so much of it).
-XT
As a registered mathtard, I am challenged. But, still, in excess of 200,000 lbs of plutonium? Seems unlikely.
Well, I’d like to see a cite for that as well…I just read it as ‘lots’ and moved on.
-XT
Unless they are using British Tonnes, they’re like 2240 lbs, so 224,000 lbs of plutonium.
Its reported by BBC Ceefax
There is no such thing as a “British Tonne”. It’s either “ton” - the old imperial measure, totalling 2240 lbs, or the metric “tonne”, which is 1,000 kg, or roughly 2,024 lbs.
Could you provide a link? I did a search on the BBC for plutonium but didn’t see the article you were talking about. Not that I doubt you, but it would be nice to read it.
-XT
I can confirm this - it’s on page 154 on BBC1.
ETA: search for ‘plutonium’ here: http://www.ceefax.tv/ (can’t do a direct link).
“I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines.”
Is there a cite for this claim, or is it just a number randomly thrown out. That’s a hell of a lot of plutonium, even for British Nuclear Fuels. If nothing else, they could sell it to the Americans, who have only a very limited and likely to be shutdown plutonium-generating capability.
Stuffing it underground does not “get rid of it.” Out of sight, out of mind is not a credible technical way of dealing with persistant radioactive waste.
Stranger
According to Plutonium Watch
It’s not unsurprising that the number 4(?) nuclear power has about 5%, is it? It wouldn’t all be BNF either. The plutonium where I used to work was owned by other parties.
If the storage facility is properly designed and located, it is far preferable to leaving it in less secure ponds at nuclear power plants scattered around the country.
At least they know where it is.
Depending on who you ask, there’s between 1.5 and 4 tons of plutonium “unaccounted for” (missing) from Hanford.
This being the big “if”; the technical rationales and criticisms I’ve seen regarding the Yucca Flats Repository in the United States leave me suspecting that a lot of handwaving is going on. You’re talking about building a hermitically sealed environment that is essentially uninspectable but has to remain secure for tens of thousands of years despite seismic damage, tectonic stresses, hydraulic pressure and natural change of the underlying water table, et cetera. There’s really little benefit to sticking it underground, especially if it requires OTR or rail transportation across thousands of miles, versus a secure and observable on-site storage facility which can be regularly inspected for integrity. Plus, we might need to reprocess this stuff into fuel, and yes, [sup]239[/sup]Pu can be used as a fissile fuel, although there are stability issues and of course concerns of theft and proliferation which make it somewhat less desireable than low-enriched or natural uranium.
Stranger
I’m guessing jjimm wasn’t working at the Springfields nuclear site in Lancashire. Nor will our plutonium stockpile be being stored there.
FWIW, there is the plutonium from 12 to 16 thousand* nuclear bombs just a few miles from where I’m sitting, and that’s just the ones we’ve dismantled. Still plenty more bombs floating around out there.
*Last I heard there were 12,000 plutonium pits stored there, they were planning an expansion to up the number to 20,000. It seems like I heard 16K at one time, but it might be a few thousand more or less than that. Still plenty of the stuff to have around.
Breeder reactors do produce plutonium - that’s what they breed :smack: - and some of the 100 tonnes will come from the DFR and PFR at Dounreay but the bulk of it will be from reprocessed, spent Magnox and AGR fuel.
It’s not used in most commercial power plants - but it can be. It can be processed into MOX (Mixed OXide fuel) which can be used. The THORP plant at Sellafield was built to produce this. It started out taking spent fuel from Japan and returning MOX for their reactors but between the fuss Greenpeace made, the quality control scandals at BNFL, and the depressed price of uranium it has not been economic.
The figures are reliable - the report they quote is from the Royal Society and I’ve not heard them challenged. The report is available here. (pdf warning!)
Not seeing the problem there, whether its 200 lbs or 200000, it needs the same levels of protection from a terrorist perspective.
Its not like you’re going to go ‘good news prime minister, they only got enough to make 6 nuclear bombs!’ after all.
Otara
How difficult is to handle plutonium?
Bear in mind that the last time I handled radioactive material, I spilled it on my crotch (it was radiolabelled herbicide for a research project on bioavailbility in soil).