Searching \ for '[TECH]: Recover 95% of used Uranium fuel ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=recover+used+uranium
Search entire site for: ': Recover 95 of used Uranium fuel ?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH]: Recover 95% of used Uranium fuel ?'
2008\11\19@193154 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0811&RELTYPE=IDN&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=LA&CommonCount=0

 MA
WFT Electronics
Denver, CO   720 222 1309
" dent the UNIVERSE "

All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT  
Electronics ( and it's principals ),  that are included with this  
signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as  
of the date of this communication .

2008\11\20@154512 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Michael Algernon wrote:
> http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0811&RELTYPE=IDN&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=LA&CommonCount=0


Why is the subject line in the form of a question?


2008\11\20@171217 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
>
> On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Vitaliy wrote:
>
> Michael Algernon wrote:
>> http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0811&RELTYPE=IDN&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=LA&CommonCount=0
>
>
> Why is the subject line in the form of a question?
>
Can I believe the article ????
MA


 WFT Electronics
Denver, CO   720 222 1309
" dent the UNIVERSE "

All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT  
Electronics ( and it's principals ),  that are included with this  
signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as  
of the date of this communication .

2008\11\21@035552 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Michael Algernon wrote:
>> Michael Algernon wrote:
>>> www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0811&RELTYPE=IDN&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=LA&CommonCount=0
>>
>>
>> Why is the subject line in the form of a question?
>>
> Can I believe the article ????

Why not? Over time, the nuclear fuel becomes contaminated with the
byproducts of the reaction, which slow it down (while there's still plenty
of Uranium-235). So they take out the rods, reprocess the fuel, and use it
again.

The technology existed for almost as long as nuclear reactors, until Carter
issued a ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel (for security reasons).

Vitaliy

2008\11\21@042440 by Artem Zezyulinskiy

flavicon
face
Don't forget the breeder reactor, that produce greater amount of fuel
than it consume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Vitaliy a écrit :
{Quote hidden}

--
Artem ZEZYULINSKIY
SEDATELEC, Chemin des Mûriers
Irigny, 69540, FRANCE
Tel : +33 [0] 472 663 326

2008\11\21@121505 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:54:30 -0700, "Vitaliy" <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> said:

> The technology existed for almost as long as nuclear reactors, until
> Carter
> issued a ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel (for security reasons).

Correction:  President Gerald Ford, by presidential directive, October
1976


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own

2008\11\21@123021 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> The technology existed for almost as long as nuclear reactors, until
>> Carter
>> issued a ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel (for security reasons).
>
> Correction:  President Gerald Ford, by presidential directive, October
> 1976

Looks like we're both right.

=========
In a 1976 policy statement, President Gerald Ford declared, "The avoidance
of proliferation must take precedence over economic interests." He also
stated that U.S. domestic policies must be changed to defer "the
commercialization of chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel which results in
the separation of plutonium."

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter deferred indefinitely commercial
reprocessing of plutonium produced in commercial U.S. nuclear plants, citing
concerns about the consequences of proliferation.
========

http://www.acamedia.info/politics/nonproliferation/references/nei_2003.htm

Vitaliy

2008\11\21@123938 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
And then their decisions were reversed by President Reagan in 1981, so I
guess reprocessing is allowed now.

-Bob

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:29:15 -0700, "Vitaliy" <.....spamKILLspamspam@spam@maksimov.org> said:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

2008\11\21@140359 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
It should be noted that this does not mean a free lunch. Breeder
reactors take in U235 and U238 and output Pu which can then be used in
another reactor. This does not violate conservation of mass/energy
because U238 does have some nuclear "potential energy" which cannot be
easily released. The breeder reactor is a means of accessing the
stored energy in U238.

If you take the total matter+energy input to a breeder reactor, and
the matter+energy output, they are still equal. Mass is taken from
U235 and U238 and converted into some heat, some useful energy, and
mass of Pu, which can then be further used to end up with more energy
and less mass.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Artem Zezyulinskiy
<artemzezspamKILLspamsedatelec.com> wrote:
> Don't forget the breeder reactor, that produce greater amount of fuel
> than it consume:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
>

2008\11\21@170904 by olin piclist

face picon face
Sean Breheny wrote:
> If you take the total matter+energy input to a breeder reactor, and
> the matter+energy output, they are still equal. Mass is taken from
> U235 and U238 and converted into some heat, some useful energy, and
> mass of Pu, which can then be further used to end up with more energy
> and less mass.

If you're extracting energy based on nuclear reactions, you're leaving
energy on the table unless your spent fuel is 100% iron.  In all the
processes in use today, including the breeder chain, we are leaving a
**lot** of energy on the table.  Breeders just ever so slightly less so.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\21@174152 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
> If you're extracting energy based on nuclear reactions, you're leaving
> energy on the table unless your spent fuel is 100% iron.  


Yes. An interesting thought - 'iron is star ash'.


 R

2008\11\21@180036 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
\On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:41 PM, apptech wrote:

>> If you're extracting energy based on nuclear reactions, you're  
>> leaving
>> energy on the table unless your spent fuel is 100% iron.
>
>
> Yes. An interesting thought - 'iron is star ash'.
>
>
>  R

Well, and oxygen, carbon, helium...  :-)

-Pete

2008\11\21@182500 by olin piclist

face picon face
Peter Loron wrote:
>> Yes. An interesting thought - 'iron is star ash'.
>
> Well, and oxygen, carbon, helium...  :-)

Not in the sense of material that can't be burned any further, or the result
of the reaction running to completion.  Oxygen, carbon, and helium are
largely star products, but not star "ash".


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\21@184114 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Olin,

Yes, I agree that both breeding and non-breeding reactors leave a lot
of energy in the fuel. However, I think that a breeder is a bit
different in the sense that it converts an unusable fuel into a usable
fuel. I don't know all the physics but I would imagine that one could
rig up a breeder reactor system (including a secondary plutonium
reactor) which could get more energy out of the U235+U238 combination
than you could get out of the original U235 in a hypothetical U235->Fe
reactor.

Sean


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam.....embedinc.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\11\22@015407 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> Yes. An interesting thought - 'iron is star ash'.

> Well, and oxygen, carbon, helium...  :-)

No.
The rest are byproducts along the way. But iron is at the end of the chain.
True nuclear ash.

  R


2008\11\22@133008 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
Sure, Fe is as low as it will go. However, just like in a wood fire,  
there's a lot of stuff given off by the combustion besides CO2.

-Pete

On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:43 PM, apptech wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\11\22@165006 by olin piclist

face picon face
Sean Breheny wrote:
> I don't know all the physics but I would imagine that one could
> rig up a breeder reactor system (including a secondary plutonium
> reactor) which could get more energy out of the U235+U238 combination
> than you could get out of the original U235 in a hypothetical U235->Fe
> reactor.

But the spent fuel of the breeder still wouldn't be iron, so additional
nuclear reactions could in theory extract more energy, a lot more.  We don't
currently have the technology to actually perform those nuclear reactions.
This is just a theoretical argument.  The breeder chain is probably the best
we can do with reasonably available starting elements and our current
technology.

We can barely hold hydrogen at sufficient pressure and temperature to
convert some to helium for a short time.  Even the sun can only do that, not
even helium to helium in a self-sustaining reaction (yet).  The far more
energetic reactions that make heavier elements happen only in super novas as
far as we know.  There is a reason super novas makes a really big bang.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\24@020116 by Artem Zezyulinskiy

flavicon
face
Exactly. It is a mean to produce more nuclear fuel, which is very rare
on the planet (only for 50 years?)
But I think is very dangerous/difficult to maintain this reactor, in
France it is closed now.

Sean Breheny a écrit :
{Quote hidden}

--
Artem ZEZYULINSKIY
SEDATELEC, Chemin des Mûriers
Irigny, 69540, FRANCE
Tel : +33 [0] 472 663 326

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...