On 10/12/2018 22:55, dpb wrote:
On 12/10/2018 4:29 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:12:56 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 1:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news ...

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.
...

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected).Â* It isn't
physically possible to create a supercritcal mass from the low-enriched
commercial reactor fuel.

But don't commercial reactors create weapons grade stuff on behalf of
the military?Â* It's why the governments subsidise them in the first
place.

No, and no they don't subsidize commercial generation (at least outside
places like N Korea and the like).

There is no reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel at all in the US and
afaik, none currently going on anywhere world wide outside the few rogue
states that may be doing some.

(http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...lear-fuel.aspx)


World commercial reprocessing capacity (tonnes per year)
LWR fuel
France, La Hague 1700
UK, Sellafield (THORP) 600
Russia, Ozersk (Mayak) 400
Japan (Rokkasho) 800*
====
Total LWR (approx) 3500

Other nuclear fuels
UK, Sellafield (Magnox) 1500
India (PHWR, 4 plants) 330
Japan, Tokai MOX 40
====
Total other (approx) 1870
=====
Total civil capacity 5370

* now expected to start operation in 2018

Processing used nuclear fuel is in accordance with the definition of
sustainable used fuel management set out by the World Nuclear Association.*


Enrichment for weapons is a totally separate enterprise from commercial
nuclear power; it's a very inefficient way to do so so only those
needing to subvert other restrictions would go at it that way.

--


--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman