4 ms·
Regarding the comment toward the end of the article questioning why the west doesn't sell CANDU reactors to Iran; I would guess that's probably to do with the
by Patrick_Devine 12y ago
Regarding the comment toward the end of the article questioning why the west doesn't sell CANDU reactors to Iran; I would guess that's probably to do with the political situation in Canada with the ruling Conservative Party. Some parts of the party tend to be quite jingoistic, and I'm sure would never support building in Iran, despite there being CANDU reactors in India, Pakistan and China. Also, despite heavy water reactors not being a good source of enriched uranium, they still do produce tritium which can be used to do nasty things.
- arethuza 12y agoI don't think you can do very much that is too nasty with tritium unless you already have a working fission bomb (i.e. boosting the fission weapon or using the tritium as part of a multi-stage weapon).
- InclinedPlane 12y agoIndia, Pakistan, and China are already nuclear weapons powers. Iran is too, for all intents and purposes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people want to support that.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jloughry 12y agoCould someone more knowledgeable about nuclear physics than I am comment on the safety aspects of the positive void coefficient of the CANDU design? If the water boils, the reaction could run away. That said, the fact that a CANDU runs on unenriched natural uranium and the way it can be refuelled without shutting down power generation are seriously cool features. And they claim that the long time constant makes avoiding a Chernobyl-style excursion unlikely if the operators are awake. But I still worry about a design that isn't statically safe.
- maaku 12y agoChernobyl would have been safe if the operators were "awake" and doing their job.