NUCLEAR
All the evils of plutonium Ungaro Federico
reprocess nuclear fuel to produce plutonium useless. Worse, dangerous to the environment, expensive for the pockets of taxpayers and may increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Has no half measures Frank von Hippel, a researcher at the Center for Energy and Environmental studies of Princeton University, when it comes to comment on the latest developments in U.S. energy policy. In his opinion, appeared in the journal Science Member U.S. is taking the wrong path nellaffrontare the problem of nuclear waste.
Hippel points his finger on the report of the National Energy Policy Development Group , published last May. In this report, the experts chaired by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, recommended that the country should review its policies to allow the research, development elimpiego reprocessing methods, which reduce the production of nuclear waste and risks of nuclear proliferation. A mistake, according Hippel, because the reintroduction of any form of reprocessing, already locked dallamministrazione Clinton in 1993, will produce exactly the effects that are to be avoided. To understand why, it is necessary to review linters chain through which the fuel is produced nucleare.La combustibileIn nature Lurani chain consists of two isotopes, the 238 and 235. Meks, that the only usable in the process of fission nuclear reactors, up about 0.7 percent delluranio natural. To be used in power stations, therefore, must be enriched natural Lurani. There are basically two processes of enrichment: gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuging. Both allow you to bring to the 3.5 to 4.5 per cent of the total percentage dellisotopo 235. At this point, are made of the fuel rods, each of which lasts about 3-5 years before being used up and be removed from the nuclear reactor. The spent fuel rods to contain 95 percent uranium 238. The rest consists of uranium 235 and plutonium, an artificial element produced in all nuclear reactors. The separation of plutonium 238 dalluranio called reprocessing.
Plutonium, explains Paolo Cotta Ramusino, president of USPID (Union of Scientists for Disarmament Affairs), can be used mainly as fuel in two ways: in uranium and plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) for cooled reactors Water (Light Water Reactors) or as fuel in reactors Fbr (Fast Breeder Reactors). In these reactors the flow of fast neutrons produced by nuclear reactions in the core of plutonium is absorbed by a layer of uranium-238 that is transformed into plutonium. This is then reprocessed and put back into the reactor core. In this way the Fbr transforms the uranium 238 in a fuel nucleare.Il risk proliferazioneNegli sixties, you start thinking that producing plutonium from spent fuel would make it possible to get more energy at low cost. But the economic premises on which it is based programs use the plutonium, says Hippel, were wrong: the reactors resulted Fbr expensive and difficult to manage. The discovery of new uranium deposits, the use dellenergia small nuclear (one-tenth of what was initially expected) cost of reprocessing elalto further help make inefficient Luso plutonium. To this we must add, continues Hippel, the risk of nuclear proliferation. United States to reconsider their decision to focus on plutonium reactors, after Linda made his nuclear arsenal from the very civil plutonium obtained from reprocessing, performed with technologies sold by the United States.
During the eighties and nineties, the United States, Germany, England and France abandoned plans for reactors Fbr. In some countries (France and England), to have continued programs of commercial reprocessing of plutonium, even if the buyers of this material are less and less. Cos reprocessing become a problem for the proliferation, because at the end of 1999 happens to be looking for stocks of plutonium 200 000 kilograms, that the equivalent of 25 000 Nagasaki atomic bombs and for the environment because it produces radioactive waste of various kinds. It also adds Hippel, using plutonium MOX fuel to achieve economically wrong, because the plutonium costs billions of dollars more delluranio should replace. So concludes Hippel, try to restart production of plutonium is a problem and a dated way of addressing the problem. Better would store the spent fuel in geological repositories are particularly stable (as proposed by the U.S. Department dellenergia) and reflect calmly on the matter.
The hi-tech marking time? Valentino Ferro UMTS, scenes in slow motion Roberto Chinzari Bluetooth, wireless uncertain Valentino Ferro E-book, a broken promise? Roberto Chinzari In theory, the chip should resist Philip Ball - Back to Nature Napster, but you pay Roberto Chinzari Simputer, the computer of the poor Q & A BBC Grid, the new computer revolution by Lance
The tainted by biotechnology? Sabina Morandi Permian, was not a meteorite caused the extinction? Sarah Capogrossi Colognesi But is it true that TV is bad? Manuela Evangelista health in a society increasingly wake of Isabel Vergara All the evils of plutonium Federico Ungaro Six little eggs ... Titanosaurus of Sarah Capogrossi Colognesi rocks Eros John Whitfield - Nature Alarm Leonid Philip Ball - Nature
reprocess nuclear fuel to produce plutonium useless. Worse, dangerous to the environment, expensive for the pockets of taxpayers and may increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Has no half measures Frank von Hippel, a researcher at the Center for Energy and Environmental studies of Princeton University, when it comes to comment on the latest developments in U.S. energy policy. In his opinion, appeared in the journal Science Member U.S. is taking the wrong path nellaffrontare the problem of nuclear waste.
Hippel points his finger on the report of the National Energy Policy Development Group , published last May. In this report, the experts chaired by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, recommended that the country should review its policies to allow the research, development elimpiego reprocessing methods, which reduce the production of nuclear waste and risks of nuclear proliferation. A mistake, according Hippel, because the reintroduction of any form of reprocessing, already locked dallamministrazione Clinton in 1993, will produce exactly the effects that are to be avoided. To understand why, it is necessary to review linters chain through which the fuel is produced nucleare.La combustibileIn nature Lurani chain consists of two isotopes, the 238 and 235. Meks, that the only usable in the process of fission nuclear reactors, up about 0.7 percent delluranio natural. To be used in power stations, therefore, must be enriched natural Lurani. There are basically two processes of enrichment: gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuging. Both allow you to bring to the 3.5 to 4.5 per cent of the total percentage dellisotopo 235. At this point, are made of the fuel rods, each of which lasts about 3-5 years before being used up and be removed from the nuclear reactor. The spent fuel rods to contain 95 percent uranium 238. The rest consists of uranium 235 and plutonium, an artificial element produced in all nuclear reactors. The separation of plutonium 238 dalluranio called reprocessing.
Plutonium, explains Paolo Cotta Ramusino, president of USPID (Union of Scientists for Disarmament Affairs), can be used mainly as fuel in two ways: in uranium and plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) for cooled reactors Water (Light Water Reactors) or as fuel in reactors Fbr (Fast Breeder Reactors). In these reactors the flow of fast neutrons produced by nuclear reactions in the core of plutonium is absorbed by a layer of uranium-238 that is transformed into plutonium. This is then reprocessed and put back into the reactor core. In this way the Fbr transforms the uranium 238 in a fuel nucleare.Il risk proliferazioneNegli sixties, you start thinking that producing plutonium from spent fuel would make it possible to get more energy at low cost. But the economic premises on which it is based programs use the plutonium, says Hippel, were wrong: the reactors resulted Fbr expensive and difficult to manage. The discovery of new uranium deposits, the use dellenergia small nuclear (one-tenth of what was initially expected) cost of reprocessing elalto further help make inefficient Luso plutonium. To this we must add, continues Hippel, the risk of nuclear proliferation. United States to reconsider their decision to focus on plutonium reactors, after Linda made his nuclear arsenal from the very civil plutonium obtained from reprocessing, performed with technologies sold by the United States.
During the eighties and nineties, the United States, Germany, England and France abandoned plans for reactors Fbr. In some countries (France and England), to have continued programs of commercial reprocessing of plutonium, even if the buyers of this material are less and less. Cos reprocessing become a problem for the proliferation, because at the end of 1999 happens to be looking for stocks of plutonium 200 000 kilograms, that the equivalent of 25 000 Nagasaki atomic bombs and for the environment because it produces radioactive waste of various kinds. It also adds Hippel, using plutonium MOX fuel to achieve economically wrong, because the plutonium costs billions of dollars more delluranio should replace. So concludes Hippel, try to restart production of plutonium is a problem and a dated way of addressing the problem. Better would store the spent fuel in geological repositories are particularly stable (as proposed by the U.S. Department dellenergia) and reflect calmly on the matter.
The hi-tech marking time? Valentino Ferro UMTS, scenes in slow motion Roberto Chinzari Bluetooth, wireless uncertain Valentino Ferro E-book, a broken promise? Roberto Chinzari In theory, the chip should resist Philip Ball - Back to Nature Napster, but you pay Roberto Chinzari Simputer, the computer of the poor Q & A BBC Grid, the new computer revolution by Lance
The tainted by biotechnology? Sabina Morandi Permian, was not a meteorite caused the extinction? Sarah Capogrossi Colognesi But is it true that TV is bad? Manuela Evangelista health in a society increasingly wake of Isabel Vergara All the evils of plutonium Federico Ungaro Six little eggs ... Titanosaurus of Sarah Capogrossi Colognesi rocks Eros John Whitfield - Nature Alarm Leonid Philip Ball - Nature
0 comments:
Post a Comment