Timothy Murphy wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of
proliferation of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

That's a very thin argument along the lines that one shouldn't process oil
products because of the possibility of making explosives.

You misunderstand my posting.

I simply observed that FBRs are associated with weapon production,
and when challenged gave the above quote.

"Associated" - by whom? Certainly not by the weapons producers
themselves. As I keep trying to tell you, FBRs are not, have never been,
and never will be the practical way to make weapons-grade plutonium.

Even if you had said that a fully developed FBR fuel cycle would put a
lot more plutonium into circulation, that still wouldn't be a valid
point because the material would not be in an accessible or usable form.

If you want something to worry about, make it the amount of Pu-239 that
already exists without benefit of FBRs.


FBRs are not in fact regarded as a good prospect for energy production
for other reasons, in particular the vastly increased
high-level waste production.

The cumulative amount of high-level waste produced by *any* fission
reactor system is almost exactly proportional to the cumulative amount
of heat energy that has been generated. There is no significant
difference between thermal reactors and fast reactors in this respect.



--
Ian White