Sentences with phrase «nuclear fuel did»

Not exact matches

We don't need to create a new star in order know that they are fueled by nuclear fusion.

We sold them some jets, and maybe some of them could be modified to deploy nuclear bombs, but we did not give them any bombs, nuclear fuel, or even help them all that much in that area.

The problem here was that at the time, not only did the US not want Iran to do any fuel cycle work, the US also opposed any nuclear energy program in Iran.

By divesting the state from any business with corporations who fuel Iran's terrorist activities and pursuit of nuclear weapons, we are doing our part to make the world a safer, more secure place.

«The British government will need to do far more, both with our own nuclear arsenal and with cooperation for international control of the nuclear fuel cycle, before these words can be moved beyond rhetoric.»

While nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide at the point of power generation, the nuclear fuel chain is responsible for carbon emissions during mining, milling, enriching, construction, transportation, and decommissioning.

«It's clear to me that no technology will do more than nuclear to reduce our use of fossil fuels.»

The issue concerns what to do with radioactive waste after uranium and plutonium have been recovered from spent nuclear fuel using reprocessing methods such as Plutonium Uranium Redox EXtraction (PUREX).

Because M dwarfs are so lightweight, they don't burn through their nuclear fuel as fast as their heavier cousins.

The pipes in and out of the reactor sit above the nuclear fuel rods themselves, ensuring that any leaks do not result in uncovered fuel.

Voyager 1 has enough nuclear fuel to keep doing science through to 2025, and then it will be dead, adrift.

After all, once operating, nuclear power plants burn nothing and therefore emit no carbon dioxide as fossil fuel — burning power plants do.

Cogema, the state - owned company that handles France's nuclear fuel, says that it has a contract with the Russian atomic ministry to do such work but that it does not know where exactly the work is done.

Nuclear fuel processing, the work that would have been done at the proposed Jiangmen project, poses little risk to public health, according to industry experts and the industry lobby group, the World Nuclear Association.

Leaks, burst cooling pipes, faulty controls, misplaced fuel rods and engineers» warnings about design flaws have done little to slow down approvals for continued operation of the nation's aging nuclear plants

What will nuclear plants do with all their spent fuel in the meantime?

In fact, the new energy secretary Steven Chu said during in his Senate confirmation hearing that he did not view used fuel management as an issue that should hamper the growth of nuclear power.

Yet France does good business sending nuclear fuel to Russia for reprocessing.

Fast reactors can extract more energy from nuclear fuel than thermal reactors do because their rapidly moving (higherenergy) neutrons cause atomic fi ssions more effi ciently than the slow thermal neutrons do.

Nuclear power and most renewable forms of energy do produce greenhouse gases, and this is recognised in Britain by the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation.

The U.S. government is also interested in recycling the spent nuclear fuel, as France, Japan, Russia and the U.K. do, under the terms of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a consortium of 21 foreign countries as well as domestic nuclear technology firms formed to promote nuclearnuclear fuel, as France, Japan, Russia and the U.K. do, under the terms of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a consortium of 21 foreign countries as well as domestic nuclear technology firms formed to promote nuclearNuclear Energy Partnership, a consortium of 21 foreign countries as well as domestic nuclear technology firms formed to promote nuclearnuclear technology firms formed to promote nuclearnuclear power.

It promises a large - scale energy source on Earth, based on fuel extracted from water, and does not create the long - term waste that uranium - based nuclear fission does.

The separation of uranium, a key part of the nuclear fuel cycle, could potentially be done more safely and efficiently through a new technique developed by chemistry researchers at Oregon State University.

Therefore, either reprocessing or recycling spent nuclear fuel, as the French and Japanese do, is likely to be a waste of money better spent on improving the light - water reactors presently in use.

«Today, we don't know whether spent nuclear fuel from light - water reactors is waste or a resource,» Moniz noted.

The U.S. remains a nation in search of a solution for what to do with its nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, which has a small fraction of plutonium mixed in it.

Does that mean we'll be turning the HEU in our warheads into fuel for nuclear power plants too?

The plan boosts funding, however, for the Generation IV program that supports multinational research and development for next - generation reactors and also would increase funding for fuel - cycle research and development within DoE's nuclear energy office.

But rather than selling nuclear fuel abroad and then attempting to police how its new owners manage it, she thinks the United States should consider leasing nuclear fuel supplies, which is what the Russians do.

A study projects 130 future cancer deaths from the meltdowns at the reactors in Fukushima last year, but does that suggest nuclear power is safer than fossil fuel alternatives?

In recent decades, the U.S. share of the growing fuel market has declined from 30 % to just 10 %, he notes, so the United States no longer wields the power within international nuclear safety that it did when the NNPA was written.

SMR - 160, a nuclear reactor, does not rely on any pumps or motors to remove heat from the nuclear fuel during any anticipated transients or postulated accidents.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which Feinstein chairs and Alexander serves as the top Republican, may again include a mandate for DOE to designate a high level waste / spent nuclear fuel storage site, as they did in the 2012 bill that the last Congress did not pass.

Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy does not create greenhouse gases when generating clean, reliable baseload electricity.

For existing commercial nuclear generators (and for any new facilities built in other countries), we should stick to the so - called «once through» fuel cycle, with direct disposal of spent fuel, and strongly encourage other countries to do likewise.

«Unlike today's nuclear reactor, the IFR [integral fast reactor] can generate unlimited amounts of inexpensive clean power for hundreds of thousands of years... It provides an excellent solution for what to do with our nuclear waste because it can use our existing nuclear waste for fuel and it is significantly more proliferation - resistant than other methods of dealing with nuclear waste... The IFR is also inherently safe.

Response: SMR - 160 is a small modular pressurized water nuclear reactor power plant that does not rely on any pumps or motors to remove heat from the nuclear fuel, for all normal and accident scenarios.

One of the most vexing issues facing the nuclear power industry today is what to do with the spent nuclear fuel after it has been used in a nuclear reactor.

Improved separations would enable a closed nuclear fuel recycling option — a tantalizing prospect considering the United States uses only 1 percent of the potential nuclear energy of the uranium that it mines and currently does not recycle nuclear fuel.

Szilard had many ideas about the reactor design, and it was at this time that he actually thought up a name to the «nuclear breeder reactor,» which is supposed to make more fuel than it consumes by bombarding uranium - 238, which does not fission, turning it into plutonium - 239, which does fission.

«What it does is it takes different sorts of fuel materials such as plutonium or used nuclear fuel, it casts that into a metallic fuel, it puts it in a reactor that has liquid sodium as a coolant — and if you have liquid sodium as a coolant then the energies of the neutrons are higher so you can use a different fuel source.

Comprehending the isotopic signature of fossil fuel loading of the air does not need calculations of nuclear states and decay paths.

I was trying to estimate the mining footprints of solar and nuclear, and came up with some very tentative rough estimates that ore input for solar energy might have an energy density (per unit mass) ~ 5 to 80 times coal, while nuclear (convential US fuel cycle) may be ~ 20 times coal — on the solar side, this doesn't include some balance of system components, and on the nuclear side, it only includes the U, but on the solar side, the actual energy density could get much higher with recycling of the same material into multiple successive generations of solar energy devices, and on the nuclear side, breeder reactors.

Renewable energy currently tends to have higher up - front costs than fossil fuel - based power systems do, but in the long run equipment depreciation is lower and the fuel (sunlight and wind) is free, thus any honest cost analysis over the lifetime of the power - generating equipment will conclude that solar is cheapest, wind second, nuclear third, and fossil fuels are unworkable in the long run due to the global warming issue.

«You don't buy fuel every day for a nuclear power plant.

Our seas will need to have tens of thousands to these wind turbines deployed at several per week to do the job in time and only shallow offshore is viable at the present time and that is inline with existing baseload fossil fuel coal and gas fired power plants along with existing nuclear ones to.

How do you deal with the fact that wind electricity is competitive with fossil fuel and nuclear electricity NOW and is still coming down?

I think the only hope we have of phasing down emissions and getting to the middle of the century with a much lower level of fossil fuel emissions — which is what we will have to do if we want young people to have a future — we're going to have to have alternatives and at this time nuclear seems to be the best candidate.

The out - of - control status of the 6 Fukushima nuclear reactors and their stored spent fuel rods is a textbook example of «Don't Know Squared — It's What You Don't Know You Don't Know» that can bring down any system designed by humanity.

1b: We have enough nuclear fuel for 5000 YEARS!!!!!!!! All we have to do is recycle spent fuel, breed thorium into Uranium 234 and use diluted plutonium as fuel.