4 ms·
Yeah, putting bomb-grade fuel into reactors that need to be run by a big crew of experts is a great idea! Pesky public opinion, what do they know?
by greglindahl 7y ago
Yeah, putting bomb-grade fuel into reactors that need to be run by a big crew of experts is a great idea! Pesky public opinion, what do they know?
- duelingjello 7y agoPure FUD. No commercial design uses highly-enriched uranium directly. The difference in effort between reactor-grade and bomb-grade fissile material is billions of dollars in time, effort, infrastructure and materials. Please use language honestly rather than reinforcing ignorance and hysteria.
- greglindahl 7y agoWhat is it about nuclear-related threads on HN that so many people assume bad faith and then begin name-calling?
- nickik 7y agoBecause many people have incredibly strong oppinions that are nothing but often repeated FUD and anybody that has informed himself gets pissed off.
- jabl 7y agoI don't think anybody sane is suggesting running civilian ships on HEU.
- greglindahl 7y agoCheck out current ship and sub reactors, the overwhelming majority run on HEU. I have never seen anyone talking about ship reactors on HN mention not using HEU.
- jabl 7y ago> Check out current ship and sub reactors, the overwhelming majority run on HEU. The overwhelming majority are military, who are not as constrained by non-proliferation concerns as civilian users. So this doesn't really prove anything. As for whether it's technically possible to have naval reactors using LEU, yes it is, for instance French submarines run on 7% enriched fuel. > I have never seen anyone talking about ship reactors on HN mention not using HEU. When talking about a hypothetical large-scale use of civilian nuclear powered ships, I think it's a given.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- FDSGSG 7y ago> bomb-grade fuel > Pesky public opinion, what do they know? Not very much, apparently.