Bob-- The military uses Pu 239 and NASA wants Pu 238 for it short high energy decay rate. The excess Pu 239 doesn’t have much Pu 238 in it and it would be harder to separate than to use an accelerator to transmute U 238 to Pu 238 or to make it by some other scheme.
Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re; [Vo]:Climate And Nuclear Energy My understanding is that there is a glut of fissionable materials (plutonium) in the hands of the military today - both in the US and Russia - due to the strategic arms limitation treaty and decommissioning of many nuclear weapons. It would be surprising if either power is significantly concerned about breeding more plutonium. This is in stark contrast to NASA's position on not being able to get their hands on plutonium for their deep space probe RTGs. When I read that the military has a glut of plutonium, how hard can it really be for NASA to get an increased allocation? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> wrote: I've heard about them as very safe. I understand that Russia is going full on with breeder reactors - as expensive but endless power. I would not be surprised if the focus on breeder reactors is due to the ability to create fissile material for weapons. (I had not heard about such a focus until now.) Eric
