MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
Chemistry Corner[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Welcome Page  
  About This Site  
  Message Boards  
  General  
  Inorganic  
  Organic  
  Pictures  
  Random  
  FOR ALL  
  Handy Symbols  
  Chemistry Humor  
    
  Documents  
  Chemistry Sites I  
  Chemistry Sites II  
  Chemistry Sites III  
  Organic Sites I  
  Organic Sites II  
  Analytical Sites I  
  Analytical Sites II  
  Lesson Plan Sites  
  Online Problems  
  Names & Formulas  
  Naming Exercises  
  Equations I  
  Equations II  
  Eq. Exercises I  
  Eq. Exercises II  
  The Mole I  
  The Mole II  
  Mole Exercises  
  Stoichiometry  
  Stoich. Exercises  
  More Communities  
  School's Out!  
  _________________  
  Site Map  
  
  
  Tools  
 
Inorganic : any idea
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 2 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname·Steve·  in response to Message 1Sent: 3/18/2006 8:50 AM
Hi, the cartoon graphic didn't come through, but basically, a "normal" reactor uses the rare isotope of uranium, uranium-235, as the fissionable fuel, while a "breeder" reactor can convert the common but non-fissionable isotope of uranium, uranium-238, into fissionable plutonium-239.  Thus the fear that any nation that acquires a breeder reactor can make fissionable material for atomic weaponry in abundance.

There are lots of sites about breeder reactors; I included several below.
 

Steve
 
 
 

Wikipedia article - Breeder reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
 
Another Wikipedia article - Fast Breeder reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

The Changing Need for a Breeder Reactor (quoted from below):
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/wilson.htm

"It was realised that the existence of many tonnes of chemically separated plutonium might lead to the possibility of the theft, or "diversion", of enough fissionable material to make a nuclear bomb. The presence of "weapons grade" fissionable material in the hands of a small "rogue" country, or a terrorist group, is unacceptable and would be a nightmare. This led to a study sponsored by the Ford Foundation (Ref 6) and the subsequent decision of President Carter, on 7 April 1997, to abandon the plans in the USA to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and to slow the development of the breeder reactor. Other countries did not follow the US lead and continued to reprocess nuclear fuel. While there is argument and disagreement about the dangers of reprocessing, I argue here that reprocessing is not necessary for the future of nuclear power over the next half century. Fossil fuel supplies are more plentiful and cheaper than anticipated, supplies of uranium ore are adequate, and the cost of the experimental breeder reactors has been greater than expected. This conclusion seems to differ from that of many others (Ref 7). Reprocessing may be desirable �?but not for fuel resource reasons."


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: any idea   MSN Nickname·Steve·  3/18/2006 9:21 AM