Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Science

New Production of Plutonium 238 79

Posted by timothy from the getting-warm-in-here dept.
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "According to the New York Times (login req, but you can google for it as well), the Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war. Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory. Officials denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space, but rather would power 'secret espionage devices.' Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its moons."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Production of Plutonium 238 More

New Production of Plutonium 238

Comments Filter:
  • http://bugmenot.com/ [bugmenot.com] useful website people always neglect to mention for logins to websites like nytimes.com :(
  • I, for one, welcome our secret espionage device overlord. 330lbs of Pu must make one hell of a secret espionage device. Maybe they're got an SEP field set up?

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Informative)

      by cheezedawg ( 413482 )
      330lbs sounds like a lot, but its probably about the size of a 12 pack of coke.
      • Actually, it would be a cube 20cm on a side.

        I think...checking:

        330lbs = 149,685 grams. 149,685 grams at 19.84 grams / cm^3 is about 7545 cm^3. The third root of 7545 is 19.6.

        Can that be right? Wow. I knew it was dense stuff, but holy sh*t!
        • which is why the "loss" of 60 pounds of plutonium a couple months was so funny their was at least one pundit screaming that it could used to make I think he said ten nuclear weapons. at the time I guesed that it would be a chunk roughly the size of a tennis ball and hardly enough to be critical mass.
          • Seems to me that the physical size of the core has pretty much nothing to do with it. If it can reach critical mass, particularly when surrounded by appropriate materials (beryllium reflector, u-235 shell, etc), then it can...whether it's the size of a basketball...or a golf ball.

            The smallest warhead made ("Davy Crockett") was a shoulder-launched, tactical size unit whose business end was the size of a cantaloupe.
    • I just hope noone steals their Plutonium 238 Explosive Space Modulator(*). There could be an Earth-shattering kaboom as a result.

      * Note: Yes, I know, it was originally an Illudium Q-36 model, but that was a long time ago; things change.
    • 330lbs of Pu must make one hell of a secret espionage device.

      My guess would be that this is going to fuel thousands of small unattended ground sensors, not big devices. Because the are unattended, they need steady fuel for a long period of time, and because they are transmitting data (perhaps in an ad-hoc swarm manner), they will need need a moderate amount of energy.

      So the correct slashdot cliche here is - in Soviet Russia a beowolf cluster of secrete espionage devices welcome you!

  • Spacecraft RTGs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @02:14PM (#12923485) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like this is used to power Radioisotope Thermal Generators. this is a very good thing; we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft, both nearby (spy satellites) and far (science missions). It's the only power we can generate when we're beyond Mars orbit (solar cells are much less effective the farther you get from the Sun.

    My wife brought up the pollution aspect - not from polluting outer space (I explained already about the fact that space is far more radioactive than the plutonium is, we're not 'polluting' space). Rather, the Hanford (Washington State USA) processing facility created / processed lots of plutonium during the cold war and ended up creating massive environmental damage with radionucleides in the groundwater, soil, etc.

    Where exactly is this processing plant and is the DOD allowing the EPA to supervise environmental maintenance/protection?

    (Note: I don't care where it is; if telling me hurts security that's fine I don't need to know, but I don't want this kind of a plant showing up next door to me without someone having filed an environmental impact statement).
    • From TFA "The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research, stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho... The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52 reactors... New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost about $250 million."
    • IYRTAYK, if you read the article you'd know or even just made an assumption from the summany. Idaho, is of course the location of the Idaho National Laboratory (go figure), which is near Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Looks like they'll run into a lot of local opposition to the plan, but personally I hope it passes. They dutifully elect Republicans, now, let them deal with some (more) long term environmental damage.
    • Its right here [google.com]. I found it using the locations they gave on their site(it's one of the only places in Idaho that google maps can zoom in all the way).
    • On the second page of the article gives this relevant fact:

      Today, the United States doesn't make plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the Russians, it cannot use the imported material -- some 35 pounds since the end of the Cold War -- for military purposes.

      So what it sounds like is the goverment needs the plutonium for military applications, not for NASA since they can already get Pu-238 from Russia for NASA missions.

    • This is NOT good news. In fact, I think it sucks. Let me be perfectly clear, I think we need Pu238 and the RTGs it's used in for space missions that travel beyond the area close enough to the sun for solar cells to be useful. The Cassini mission to Saturn is the prime example of this, the amount of incredibly fantastic science being done by that mission is impossible without RTGs. There is a small risk of Pu dispersal if the probe explodes on launch, but after that these things are looong gone and pose no e
      • Wrong. There is zero risk of dispersal even if the launch vehicle explodes or if the vehicle should burn up on re-entry. The RTG's were designed to survive these types of events completely intact which is some serious, hard-core engineering. Frankly I was rather impressed and I don't impress easily when it comes to engineering.
        • You are mistaken. If you had read the full environmental impact statement [nasa.gov] for Cassini you'd know that a significant portion of the RTG heater units were expected to burn up and disperse on re-entry should that've occured. These things are not indestructable. A fast flying shard of metal during an on pad explosion could easily slice right through an RTG.
          • And if you had done some more research you would know that RHUs are not the same as RTGs. To enlighten you, RHU are as you correctly stated heater units. However, these are very small units containing a tiny amount of plutonium to heat instruments etc. RTGs basically are large stacks of plutonium that have to generate much larger amounts of heat so that they can produce electricity for use in the spacecraft. The RTGs are designed to survive explosion of the launch vehicle, subsequent reentry in the atmosphe
            • Uh yeah thanks but I think I just MIGHT [wikipedia.org] know what I'm talking about here. The RTG heater units (NOT the 1 watt RHUs) are called GPHS modules (general purpose heat sources). Read this chapter [nasa.gov]!! The probabilities of RTG breakup and dispersal in the atmosphere are calculated for you, you don't even have to think. THE PROBABILITY IS NON ZERO! I can't make this any clearer.
              • I, for one, do not consider Wikipedia an authoritative source, but that is beside the point. Did you actually even read the report completely and examine the probabilities associated with the various accident scenarios? Judging from your somewhat hysterical postings you did not. If that were the case, and I were you, I'd be far more worried about the coming near miss scenario with that asteroid in the future.

                In other words, the probabilities are very low of an accident occurring and even were one to oc

                • So you claim to have a degree in probability theory yet cannot seem to tell the difference between zero and finite risk. wow. nice. you must've graduated at the head of the class.
                  • Nice troll. Sarcasm aside, what I said was that the probabilities are extremely small and when combined with the probabilities involved to achieve a worst case scenario you should be far more worried about an asteroid colliding with the earth than your worst case scenario. I actually read and analyzed the report and I understood the numbers.

                    There is a non-zero probablility that a nuclear reactor can be in cold shutdown and go (nearly) instaneously supercritical to meltdown. Similarly, there is a non-

  • Nuclear power really won't take you very far unless you use breeder reactors. About 40 years by some estimates.

    By using breeder reactors, we can have up to 40,000 years of energy.

    Breeder reactors let you take U238, which is mostly useless for reactors, and turn it into Pu238, which is a great source of energy.

    Maybe this is also practice for a larger project down the road.

    • Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Phase Shifter ( 70817 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @02:30PM (#12923728) Homepage
      Nuclear power really won't take you very far unless you use breeder reactors. About 40 years by some estimates.

      I've heard that if the existing weapons-grade plutonium were converted to reactor fuel (by "diluting" it with other isotopes) we would have enough to last 250 years.

      BTW, don't you mean breeder reactors produce Pu-239 instead of Pu-238? I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.

      • BTW, don't you mean breeder reactors produce Pu-239 instead of Pu-238? I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.

        Ooops. You're right, of course. Pu-239 is correct.

      • MOD parent up (Score:4, Interesting)

        by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @07:59PM (#12927285) Homepage
        That's right. Other than for the benefits in powering espionage/space devices, this move could be laying the groundwork for full scale Pu238 production, to mix with Pu239 (from fast breeders), as a deterrent to the use of Pu239 for weapons. The world will need breeders soon, and neutralizing their potential for weapons use will be a priority.
    • Pu239 is used for reactor fuel and for bombs. Pu238 is used for RTG generators. Pu240 is a spiking agent used to make nuclear reactor fuel go off prematurely if it were used in a bomb. Well, its not actually added to reactor fuel, its a byproduct of the process. But in a reactor it doesn't matter much. In a bomb it makes the reaction go off prematurely, and really cuts down on the yield.

  • secret missions (Score:4, Funny)

    by lowrydr310 ( 830514 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @02:22PM (#12923603)
    Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details.

    Secret Missions? Come on, we all know that plutonium is the perfect fuel to produce the 1.21 Jigawatts that our flux capacitors need.

  • Pollute Canada (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 )
    From the article:
    "Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."

    North and upwind of Grand Teton, eh? Sounds like we are going to be sending some pollution up Canada's way. On behalf of all Americans, I apologize.

    • Or, in other words, "all our radiation are belong to you."

      Ugh, I cannot believe I just made an "All Your Base" joke. I think I am going to be sick.

    • Re:Pollute Canada (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 ) *
      On behalf of all Americans

      Uh.. You don't speak for me at least. I bet there are a whole bunch more of us you don't speak for either. If you did, we could build somehting like this somewhere else that wasn't out of everybody's way and on the border with another country.

      Not to mention that you make that statement with no facts to back it up... I have a good idea! <sarcasm>Let's just kick ourselves in the asses on the off chance it'll please some other country that gives some small portion of our popu
    • Speaking of Grand Teton...do you know how the name translates into English? [altavista.com]

  • DIY is too expensive (Score:3, Funny)

    by GlobalEcho ( 26240 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @02:25PM (#12923646)
    program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory

    If we're running low, why not just buy some more from North Korea?

  • How much is that? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) * <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Monday June 27, 2005 @02:35PM (#12923790) Homepage Journal
    330 pounds of plutonium occupies a volume of about 7.5 liters.

    • Re:How much is that? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, and if you put all 330 pounds into the 7.5 liters volume, how much of explosive yield would you get?

    • FYI (Score:2, Informative)

      by swelke ( 252267 )
      Wikipedia article here [wikipedia.org]
      Plutonium 239 is the one used in nuclear weapons and some nuclear power plants. Pu238 has a halflife of 88 years, and the decay mode is fission (so it outputs quite a lot of energy) or alpha emission. Quoth the wiki:

      "The plutonium isotope 238Pu is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 87 years. These characteristics make it well suited for electrical power generation for devices which must function without direct maintenance for timescales approximating a human lifetime. It is ther
    • 330 pounds of plutonium occupies a volume of about 7.5 liters.

      Huh? What's that in hogsheads?

      -

  • Its about time. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Momoru ( 837801 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @03:02PM (#12924159) Homepage Journal
    This plutonium is sorely needed to aid in our national defense. Thanks to treaties signed by some nancy pants presidents of the past we are only down to a measly 4,000 or so ICBMs.

  • Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Evro ( 18923 ) *
    What, no Mr. Fusion?
  • Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells.

    So what exactly are they planning on spying where the sun don't shine?
  • was quoted as saying "Victory shall yet be mine!". Mr. S. Griffin refused to comment further.

  • Thanks George.... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by tacocat ( 527354 )

    Sorry, but I think it will take decades for the United States to recover from the damage that this president is doing to our country.

    George managed to blow of the Kyoto Accord in the name of economics, but have pissed off most of our trade nations in the process.

    George invaded Iraq and didn't have the intelligence to know that there was no such thing as Weapons of Mass Destruction there. Making us look like a bunch of fucking idiots.

    George continues to deny that there is any such thing as a human contri

  • Are they going to use it for weapons in space?!?!

    "Officials denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.."

    Oh, good.

    "..but rather would power 'secret espionage devices"

    Man, is that reassuring.
    How is it a good thing that it will be used for secret espionage rather than space warfare again?
  • I can't think of the exact agreement, but nuclear material is not allowed in orbit because satellites must be deorbited and could cause massive contamination. More likely the secret espionage devices are about the size of a nickel and run for years.
  • They could use some of it to make batteries for laptops. It would be great for that warm burning sensation that they already cause.

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close