A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2 months



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 07, 09:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Peter Skelton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(John Dallman) wrote:

In article .com,
(Airyx) wrote:

Now, anybody who wants to can look into what is required to prepare
uranium for a nuclear power plant, and see that many of the things
that Iran is doing with their uranium (again, fully in the open),
is not necessary unless you are making weapons.


Can you be specific about these activities? You /do/ need to enrich
uranium for a pressurised-water reactor: it won't go critical with
natural uranium.

You can make a reactor that will run on natural uranium with either
high-purity graphite or heavy water as moderators, but they aren't that
good for power generation. All the USA's commercial nuclear power
plants, and most of the rest of the not-ex-Soviet-Union world's ones are
PWRs, because that's easier to build and run and quite effective.

This is why the sharp division between civilian and military nuclear
technology that people try to draw is illusory. To run civilian power
plants in a cost-effective manner you need to make large quantities of
low-enriched uranium. If you can do that, you also have the technology
to make highly enriched uranium.

Since this point is somewhat technical and politically inconvenient,
media reporting on the subject tends to be unreliable.


Ontario Power Generation would be interested in your comments as
they show clearly the impossibility of generating the 45
tera-watt hours they made last year (they own two other stations
but lease them to private companies who sell back the power, not
included in the 45).

They use CANDU technology, a heavy water reactor. Unfortunately a
by-product is plutonium. This has been an embarassment in the
past.

Peter Skelton
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
12 May 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 May 13th 06 04:49 AM
12 Apr 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 April 13th 06 03:32 AM
Boeing Boondoggle Larry Dighera Military Aviation 77 September 15th 04 02:39 AM
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 December 12th 03 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.