5 ms·

Why are nukebros incapable of comprehending the difference between fissile and fertile?

Manuel_D 3y ago
A fissile isotope can readily undergo fission reaction, and a fertile isotope can be converted into a fertile isotope via neutron capture (this is how plutonium is made for nuclear bombs). Neutron capture is not part of the main waste reprocessing method [1], the neutron capture already happened in the reactor. Reprocessing separates the plutonium and other byproducts from the remaining uranium 235 fuel before the latter is re-used, no fertile material is being converted to fissile material. So now I ask you: what relevance, at all, does the distinction between fissile and fertile material have with respect to magic_hamster's claims about the feasibility of waste reprocessing? That commenter claimed reprocessing was not feasible, I responded with dozens of examples of reprocessing being carried out. What does fertile vs. fissile have to do with this? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
- Schroedingersat 3y ago
  The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. First it does nothing to the fission products (which are the bulk of the radioactive waste by mass). Second turning U238, Pu240, Am241, and transuranics other than Pu239 into usable fuel has never happened without being a minor side-product of neutrons from a fissile source, and using the dregs of Pu239 that is <1% of the spemt fuel and <20% ofntue waste does not reduce the radioactivity of the waste, rather it makes it more dangerous because Pu239 is significantly less harmful than the result of putting MOX in a nuclear reactor, as is regular spent uranium fuel. Pretending otherwise is knowingly disonhest.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    > The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. Nobody was ever talking about fertile material until you brought it up. Let's re-read the relevant part in the root comment shall we? > As pointed out in the video re-processing the fuel gets all of the usable fissile material out. We were always talking about recovering fissile material. "Partially spent fuel" refers to fuel rods that still contain some fissile material. I have no idea where you got the idea that "partially spent material" referred to fertile material, especially when the comment you're referring to explicitly mentioned recovering fissile material.
    - Schroedingersat 3y ago
      You are attempting to insinuate that reprocessing will eliminate the nuclear waste and obviate mining new U235. It does neither. Stupid semantic games and motte and bailey rhetorical techniques do not change this.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        It will recover U235 from spent fuel and reduce the need to mine and enrich new uranium. Nobody ever suggested reprocessing somehow cheats entropy and creates unlimited energy. Can you point to where in the comment chain you feel like someone made the claim that reprocessing entirely eliminated the need to mine new uranium? It recovers a portion of otherwise wasted U235, and I don't see anyone claiming that it makes infinite energy. There's no motte and baily, your interjection about fertile vs fissile material was totally irrelevant.
        Schroedingersat 3y ago
        > The big lie is calling it waste; "partially spent fuel" is more accurate Which you doubled down on twice, before backpedalling and claiming you never meant that the *other* 99% of the waste wasn't waste and "partially spent" actually means "has a few leftover dregs that don't make a meaningful difference".
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        Where did anyone in this comment chain claim that 99% of the material in spent nuclear fuel is reclaimed and reused? Recovering the "few leftover dregs that don't make a meaningful difference" are economically viable when uranium prices are high. I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to engage with someone responding to what seems to be an entirely imaginary set of comments. Nobody in the thread is making the wild claims you seem to be trying to refute.
        Schroedingersat 3y ago

A fissile isotope can readily undergo fission reaction, and a fertile isotope can be converted into a fertile isotope via neutron capture (this is how plutonium is made for nuclear bombs). Neutron capture is not part of the main waste reprocessing method [1], the neutron capture already happened in the reactor. Reprocessing separates the plutonium and other byproducts from the remaining uranium 235 fuel before the latter is re-used, no fertile material is being converted to fissile material. So now I ask you: what relevance, at all, does the distinction between fissile and fertile material have with respect to magic_hamster's claims about the feasibility of waste reprocessing? That commenter claimed reprocessing was not feasible, I responded with dozens of examples of reprocessing being carried out. What does fertile vs. fissile have to do with this? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX

Schroedingersat 3y ago
The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. First it does nothing to the fission products (which are the bulk of the radioactive waste by mass). Second turning U238, Pu240, Am241, and transuranics other than Pu239 into usable fuel has never happened without being a minor side-product of neutrons from a fissile source, and using the dregs of Pu239 that is <1% of the spemt fuel and <20% ofntue waste does not reduce the radioactivity of the waste, rather it makes it more dangerous because Pu239 is significantly less harmful than the result of putting MOX in a nuclear reactor, as is regular spent uranium fuel. Pretending otherwise is knowingly disonhest.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  > The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. Nobody was ever talking about fertile material until you brought it up. Let's re-read the relevant part in the root comment shall we? > As pointed out in the video re-processing the fuel gets all of the usable fissile material out. We were always talking about recovering fissile material. "Partially spent fuel" refers to fuel rods that still contain some fissile material. I have no idea where you got the idea that "partially spent material" referred to fertile material, especially when the comment you're referring to explicitly mentioned recovering fissile material.
  - Schroedingersat 3y ago
    You are attempting to insinuate that reprocessing will eliminate the nuclear waste and obviate mining new U235. It does neither. Stupid semantic games and motte and bailey rhetorical techniques do not change this.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      It will recover U235 from spent fuel and reduce the need to mine and enrich new uranium. Nobody ever suggested reprocessing somehow cheats entropy and creates unlimited energy. Can you point to where in the comment chain you feel like someone made the claim that reprocessing entirely eliminated the need to mine new uranium? It recovers a portion of otherwise wasted U235, and I don't see anyone claiming that it makes infinite energy. There's no motte and baily, your interjection about fertile vs fissile material was totally irrelevant.
      - Schroedingersat 3y ago
        > The big lie is calling it waste; "partially spent fuel" is more accurate Which you doubled down on twice, before backpedalling and claiming you never meant that the *other* 99% of the waste wasn't waste and "partially spent" actually means "has a few leftover dregs that don't make a meaningful difference".
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        Where did anyone in this comment chain claim that 99% of the material in spent nuclear fuel is reclaimed and reused? Recovering the "few leftover dregs that don't make a meaningful difference" are economically viable when uranium prices are high. I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to engage with someone responding to what seems to be an entirely imaginary set of comments. Nobody in the thread is making the wild claims you seem to be trying to refute.
        Schroedingersat 3y ago