Reply to post: Re: .. not really

Electric cars can't cut UK carbon emissions while only the wealthy can afford to own one

EBG

Re: .. not really

I'm sorry, but your undersanding is limitted and selective, to the point that you're just plain wrong. Civil PWR are derived from SSN propulsion units in the sense that they're PWRs, but the design details are very different. "Suitability for nulcear enrichment" is a bit confused. Only the very first weapons were enriched U, almost immediately, i.e. in the Nagaski bomb onwards, they were Pu. It's the gas graphite reactors that were dual purpose "Pu factories".

There are "other issues" with the reactor types that as truely passively safe. E.g. as well as fast breeders being abandonded, so were the pebble bed designs. We're not on gen1 nuclear NPPs, were on gen 2+, having run into a wall with 2 different gen 3 options. Decades of high level research have passed, it's not the case that these designs have not been well explored. That they're not in place is not due to some tin foil hat political conspirancy, it's due to the engineering realities.

Re. your post on waste below. Simply saying there is a divide between highly active and long lived is extremely misleading. Activity is not the only hazard. You have highly radiotoxic long lived contamination to consider as well as radiation. The high atomic mass fission products, which require deep disposal are not the same as Co60 etc that are the neutron activation products and will decay in-situ in a de-fueled NPP, on the 130 year timeframe.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019