Not Smart
In that we live in a world full of humans, only a fool would bet that we have outgrown war. It may be impossible to calculate, with any factual basis, what the odds are for a future cataclysmic war, but my bet is that a credible number is between 99 and 100%.
With this in mind, consider conventional nuclear power plants. They contain over 100 metric tones of fuel and at least a ton of high-level nuclear waste. In a future war, the 99 plants in the U.S. could be targeted as weapons against our own population. Now this may seem insignificant compared to the threat of a hydrogen bomb evaporating a city. However, a single nuclear plant would produce the fallout of a thousand bombs. And although the immediate casualties might outweigh the long-term environmental consequences, they actually may not outweigh them.
Having said this, the important questions remain, "Is there any point in being concerned?" "If the threat of nuclear war exists independent of nuclear power plants, does their vulnerability add anything substantial to the threat?" And even if they do, "Can their vulnerability be decreased?" and if so "At what cost?"
Fortunately, nuclear plant vulnerability can not only be eliminated completely, it's elimination would enable 10 times cheaper electricity. The fact is that an ideal nuclear plant can be nearly as simple as the Sun. Although they operate on different reactions, many of their principals they share in common. All it takes to make nuclear plants harmless and very inexpensive, is to remove the nearly 100,000 fuel rods, fill the vessel with Lead, and salt it with low-enrichment Uranium powder. In this design, if a plant is ever bombed, the Lead will rapidly congeal and encapsulate almost all the hazardous material, thereby greatly inhibiting its escape into the environment.
Of course it is reasonable to be skeptical that such a conversion is both possible and vastly superior. After all, an entire nuclear industry has been built on 100,000 fuel rod reactors. Surely if all that was actually required for a perfectly safe reactor was a tank of Lead, our leaders would not have built an inherently and catastrophically unsafe reactor design at a hundred times the necessary expenditure. Or would they?
In writing this article, this is not just a warning about how nuclear plants can and probably would be used against our population in the event of a war. It is also a call to reduce the cost of electricity ten-fold and assuage global warming concerns all at the same time. It is an opportunity to exercise a win-win-win scenario.
I am not here to convince anyone that what I am saying is true. It is true regardless of whether I say it or the reader believes it. It is simply how science says is the best, safest, and vastly less expensive way to build a device that operates on the principals of neutron competition and heat removal. And the existence of the Sun is indisputable proof that a 'reactor' can be as simple as a ball, or tank, of material.
All who read this and the country at large are perfectly free to ignore this article. I am old enough that Chernobyl levels of background radiation spread across the country won't cut my life short by much, even if it happens tomorrow. It really isn't my concern. It is however a heck of an unnecessary risk at which to place oneself. It just doesn't seem very smart. It is a good bet that nuclear weapons will be used one day. And anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon, is probably willing to spread the ashes of their enemy's nuke plants across their countryside. The odds are everything is survivable by some percent of the population, but inordinately high background radiation levels will definitely make things so much more difficult.
With this in mind, consider conventional nuclear power plants. They contain over 100 metric tones of fuel and at least a ton of high-level nuclear waste. In a future war, the 99 plants in the U.S. could be targeted as weapons against our own population. Now this may seem insignificant compared to the threat of a hydrogen bomb evaporating a city. However, a single nuclear plant would produce the fallout of a thousand bombs. And although the immediate casualties might outweigh the long-term environmental consequences, they actually may not outweigh them.
Having said this, the important questions remain, "Is there any point in being concerned?" "If the threat of nuclear war exists independent of nuclear power plants, does their vulnerability add anything substantial to the threat?" And even if they do, "Can their vulnerability be decreased?" and if so "At what cost?"
Fortunately, nuclear plant vulnerability can not only be eliminated completely, it's elimination would enable 10 times cheaper electricity. The fact is that an ideal nuclear plant can be nearly as simple as the Sun. Although they operate on different reactions, many of their principals they share in common. All it takes to make nuclear plants harmless and very inexpensive, is to remove the nearly 100,000 fuel rods, fill the vessel with Lead, and salt it with low-enrichment Uranium powder. In this design, if a plant is ever bombed, the Lead will rapidly congeal and encapsulate almost all the hazardous material, thereby greatly inhibiting its escape into the environment.
Of course it is reasonable to be skeptical that such a conversion is both possible and vastly superior. After all, an entire nuclear industry has been built on 100,000 fuel rod reactors. Surely if all that was actually required for a perfectly safe reactor was a tank of Lead, our leaders would not have built an inherently and catastrophically unsafe reactor design at a hundred times the necessary expenditure. Or would they?
In writing this article, this is not just a warning about how nuclear plants can and probably would be used against our population in the event of a war. It is also a call to reduce the cost of electricity ten-fold and assuage global warming concerns all at the same time. It is an opportunity to exercise a win-win-win scenario.
I am not here to convince anyone that what I am saying is true. It is true regardless of whether I say it or the reader believes it. It is simply how science says is the best, safest, and vastly less expensive way to build a device that operates on the principals of neutron competition and heat removal. And the existence of the Sun is indisputable proof that a 'reactor' can be as simple as a ball, or tank, of material.
All who read this and the country at large are perfectly free to ignore this article. I am old enough that Chernobyl levels of background radiation spread across the country won't cut my life short by much, even if it happens tomorrow. It really isn't my concern. It is however a heck of an unnecessary risk at which to place oneself. It just doesn't seem very smart. It is a good bet that nuclear weapons will be used one day. And anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon, is probably willing to spread the ashes of their enemy's nuke plants across their countryside. The odds are everything is survivable by some percent of the population, but inordinately high background radiation levels will definitely make things so much more difficult.
Comments
Post a Comment