Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

no one ever mentions nuclear proliferation risk associated with the production of plutonium.


it does get mentioned, and you can have nuclear power without producing plutonium.


but it's less straighforward and developed. Uranium-based nuclear power produces plutonium. non-uranium based nuclear power is possible but requires technology development that in practice has taken much longer than expected.


Part of that development delay is the deliberate decision of the US (and other countries) to build the types of reactors that can produce weapons grade plutonium - for the express purpose of using it for nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors are crazy expensive, so if the money comes from people who want Pu, then that's where the R&D goes.


The rest of hackernews seems to have decided that plutonium is a step on the way to solve the waste problem. What's your take on that?


Which waste problem? And how does Pu solve it?


Open this thread in full, Ctrl+F, "Plutonium", read each post that hits and the one it answers to. That should answer those two questions.


Only by having a nuclear fuel that is itself a proliferation risk (undenatured 235U or 233U).





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: