4 ms·

I can't believe this doesn't mention Megatons to Megawatts!? [1] For 20 years between 1993 and 2013, fully 10% of all US electricity came directly from dismant

I can't believe this doesn't mention Megatons to Megawatts!? [1] For 20 years between 1993 and 2013, fully 10% of all US electricity came directly from dismantled ex-soviet nuclear weapons. We bought downblended highly-enriched uranium from the warheads and put it in our peaceful nuclear reactors. The bombs that were once aimed at cities then powered them. This was a beautiful and true destruction of nuclear weapons. Same can be done with plutonium using MOX fuel (as briefly mentioned at the end of the post). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Thanks very much for posting this. I never knew about it, and always great to see a well-executed, purposeful government program that pretty much accomplished all of its goals.
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
godelski 4y ago
For added context, this program led to the destruction of (effectively) over 20k soviet warheads. It is BY FAR the most successful deproliferation program.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  For greater context, Russia and America maintain their nukes very differently. The US DOE studies them and works hard at maintaining existing stocks without building many new warheads. Russia does it differently. Their nukes have a finite lifespan. Once past, they are torn down, fuel reprocessed, and rebuilt from scratch. So pulling "20k" nukes out of the Russian system had a very different impact than pulling 20k would have from the US system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I’m not sure I understand how it’s different, assuming that the fuel for 20K warheads is no longer available for use in active warheads.
    - hattmall 4y ago
      They were upgraded instead of simply deleted from the arsenal. Russia maintains a much more active enrichment program than the US. For some reason the US seems to want to keep it that way, or at least doesn't have a problem with. It's great that we used that fuel for domestic energy but those funds paid to Russia supported their further enrichment activities. Even today the US is supplying Russia with radioactive material and procuring enriched products from Russia. Maybe less in the last year but we generally have an open exchange of supplies and information with nuclear technology. From a war standpoint the nuclear material isn't that big of deal, the delivery system is vastly more important for national security.
      - yummypaint 4y ago
        Russia has been putting the squeeze on the US with regard to isotopes for many years, particularly medical isotopes. That was one of the motivating factors behind building HFIR at oak ridge.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      They make more fuel. They are still running RBMK reactors (Chernobyl type) that can produce plutonium as well as generate electricity.
slicktux 4y ago
Interesting piece of history! Thank you for sharing!
Apofis 4y ago
Pretty curious how the anti-nuclear reactor movement went after shutting down all nuclear reactors when we badly need them, they lead to actually dismantling nuclear weapons, and at the same time coal power plants spew a ton of radioactive smoke into the atmosphere.
photochemsyn 4y ago
There's also this: "Design of an accelerator-driven system for the destruction of nuclear waste" Y Kadi, JP Revol - 2003 - osti.gov > "Progress in particle accelerator technology makes it possible to use a proton accelerator to produce energy and to destroy nuclear waste efficiently. The Energy Amplifier (EA) proposed by Carlo Rubbia and his group is a sub-critical fast neutron system driven by a proton accelerator. It is particularly attractive for destroying, through fission, transuranic elements produced by present nuclear reactors. " Not much seems to have happened since then other than simulations, however. It might be more applicable for the minor actinides that contaminte 'spent' nuclear fuel, maybe, and which tend to have very long half-lives, but it should work for plutonium as well, though maybe MOX fuel is the better option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_actinide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_actinide > "The most important isotopes of these elements in spent nuclear fuel are neptunium-237, americium-241, americium-243, curium-242 through -248, and californium-249 through -252."
trenchgun 4y ago
I think it does not mention it, because the blog post is just slightly edited GPT-3 generated garbage.
- tuhriel 4y ago
  That is a pretty strong accusation, for which you surely be able to show some evidence
  - trenchgun 4y ago
    Either it is GPT generated, or imitates the style and quality

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Thanks very much for posting this. I never knew about it, and always great to see a well-executed, purposeful government program that pretty much accomplished all of its goals.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

godelski 4y ago

For added context, this program led to the destruction of (effectively) over 20k soviet warheads. It is BY FAR the most successful deproliferation program.

sandworm101 4y ago
For greater context, Russia and America maintain their nukes very differently. The US DOE studies them and works hard at maintaining existing stocks without building many new warheads. Russia does it differently. Their nukes have a finite lifespan. Once past, they are torn down, fuel reprocessed, and rebuilt from scratch. So pulling "20k" nukes out of the Russian system had a very different impact than pulling 20k would have from the US system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I’m not sure I understand how it’s different, assuming that the fuel for 20K warheads is no longer available for use in active warheads.
  - hattmall 4y ago
    They were upgraded instead of simply deleted from the arsenal. Russia maintains a much more active enrichment program than the US. For some reason the US seems to want to keep it that way, or at least doesn't have a problem with. It's great that we used that fuel for domestic energy but those funds paid to Russia supported their further enrichment activities. Even today the US is supplying Russia with radioactive material and procuring enriched products from Russia. Maybe less in the last year but we generally have an open exchange of supplies and information with nuclear technology. From a war standpoint the nuclear material isn't that big of deal, the delivery system is vastly more important for national security.
    - yummypaint 4y ago
      Russia has been putting the squeeze on the US with regard to isotopes for many years, particularly medical isotopes. That was one of the motivating factors behind building HFIR at oak ridge.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    They make more fuel. They are still running RBMK reactors (Chernobyl type) that can produce plutonium as well as generate electricity.

slicktux 4y ago

Interesting piece of history! Thank you for sharing!

Apofis 4y ago

Pretty curious how the anti-nuclear reactor movement went after shutting down all nuclear reactors when we badly need them, they lead to actually dismantling nuclear weapons, and at the same time coal power plants spew a ton of radioactive smoke into the atmosphere.

photochemsyn 4y ago

There's also this: "Design of an accelerator-driven system for the destruction of nuclear waste" Y Kadi, JP Revol - 2003 - osti.gov > "Progress in particle accelerator technology makes it possible to use a proton accelerator to produce energy and to destroy nuclear waste efficiently. The Energy Amplifier (EA) proposed by Carlo Rubbia and his group is a sub-critical fast neutron system driven by a proton accelerator. It is particularly attractive for destroying, through fission, transuranic elements produced by present nuclear reactors. " Not much seems to have happened since then other than simulations, however. It might be more applicable for the minor actinides that contaminte 'spent' nuclear fuel, maybe, and which tend to have very long half-lives, but it should work for plutonium as well, though maybe MOX fuel is the better option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_actinide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_actinide > "The most important isotopes of these elements in spent nuclear fuel are neptunium-237, americium-241, americium-243, curium-242 through -248, and californium-249 through -252."

trenchgun 4y ago

I think it does not mention it, because the blog post is just slightly edited GPT-3 generated garbage.

tuhriel 4y ago
That is a pretty strong accusation, for which you surely be able to show some evidence
- trenchgun 4y ago
  Either it is GPT generated, or imitates the style and quality