SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (326755)2/20/2007 10:31:15 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576613
 
You'd think a technologist could appreciate nuts 'n bolts "nuance" like that!

en.wikipedia.org

"Light water reactors are simpler and cheaper than heavy water reactors, and although they have the same power-generating capabilities, it is far more difficult to use them to produce weapons-grade plutonium, as the reactor must be shut down and the fuel rods replaced every four months because if they stay in any longer, the plutonium-240 concentration will become too high and poison the plutonium-239. A disadvantage of light water reactors is that they must use enriched uranium, while heavy water reactors can use natural uranium."



To: combjelly who wrote (326755)2/20/2007 10:52:32 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576613
 
CJ, there are more barriers to getting the bomb than just producing the weapons-grade material.

Train more North Korean scientists (the ones getting first dibs on rice donations) to calibrate and maintain the light water reactors, and you'll help North Korea take yet another step toward producing more potent nuclear weapons.

No need to tell me that it's "different." With North Korea sitting on mountains of coal, they should not have any energy problems in the first place, much less dictate the form of energy aid. North Korea is very desperate and cunning, and Carter naive to say the least.

Tenchusatsu