Russia Unveils Detailed Plans To Build 21 New Nuclear Power Units By 2030

[intaglio]

17. Illiterate?

as you do not appear to know that actinides are not all nuclear fuels or that not all radio-isotopes of those actinides that are used as fuels are suitable for use in nuclear reactions I rather think you are arguing from weakness. Are you also saying that substances such as Chromium 51 does not exist, for it has a half life of 21 days and decays by gamma emission and electron capture? Similarly are you saying that Iron 59 cannot exist or that it cannot decay to cobalt 60?

You also seem completely ignorant of the actual processes of reprocessing and enrichment. Yes, some reprocessed material can be enriched to be fuel but plutonium (one common impurity) is not a particularly popular fuel and limited in use by international treaty whereas MOX (which includes some Pu) has been produced but barely used because of all the problems associated with it. If you doubt that then ask why TEPCO were turning away from the use of that fuel. One big problem with reprocessing is the cost and the transport. I'll leave you to work out why, but you might like to check how many plants that can handle fuel for reprocessing exist world wide.

As you observe embrittlement (one of several processes that alter the physical properties of metals in nuclear reactors) is a well studied problem and, as it cannot be corrected in situ, can only be ameliorated by selecting marginally less vulnerable materials, by thickening the walls of pipework and by reducing the number of welds and stressed components, such as bolts. However it still existes and is still a primary cause of cracks. As to pumps and turbines these highly stressed machines are essential to the proper functioning of reactors so they need to be tested and replaced constantly.

Your claims to know your science rather wilt in the face of your incompetent use of capitals and bolding. You also claim your information coming from "scientists" then the question becomes "Which scientists?" Would these be the same scientists and engineers who depend on the nuclear industry for their jobs? because that rather undermines their impartiality, on exactly the same way that the impartiality of scientists working for the tobacco industry was undermined and the same way that scientist working for the oil industry are often far from impartial.

Oh, and an engineers joke, "How do engineers differ from doctors?" The punchline is why you do not want to trust nuclear power.