FARK.com: (7228225) Iran says it could produce nuclear fuel for its ships if it wanted to, which it doesn't, but it so totally could if it did

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Iran says it could produce nuclear fuel for its ships if it wanted to, which it doesn't, but it so totally could if it did (seattletimes.com)		24
		More: Unlikely, Iran, nuclear fuels, Mehr News Agency, IRNA, uranium enrichment, parliamentary committees, International Atomic Energy Agency, loading

• • •

1281 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 2:54 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7228225

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

24 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

vpb		2012-07-23 01:55:02 PM

Well, making nuclear fuel is easier than making bomb material, so, what was his point supposed to be?

MaudlinMutantMollusk		2012-07-23 02:29:39 PM

I'm sure the Israelis are both amused and relieved by this announcement

/nothing to worry about now

Ghastly		2012-07-23 02:32:25 PM

Iran also says it has a smoking hot girlfriend, you probably wouldn't know her, she lives in Canada.

Gyrfalcon		2012-07-23 02:56:34 PM

I'm sure they could produce fuel.

Do they realize that you don't just toss the plutonium into the boilers and fire it up?

Jon iz teh kewl		2012-07-23 02:57:31 PM

better to zone out than actually engineer something useful

stopthedrugwar.org

LoneDoggie		2012-07-23 03:10:44 PM

I figure it'd take the radioactive elements in 3-4 smoke detectors to power that bad boy.

zarberg		2012-07-23 03:27:46 PM

Gyrfalcon: I'm sure they could produce fuel.

Do they realize that you don't just toss the plutonium into the boilers and fire it up?

They're going with a hybrid design - sodium AND water cooled reactors.

Satanic_Hamster		2012-07-23 04:09:26 PM

Some lawmakers say Iran should enrich uranium to levels close to weapons grade to produce fuel for proposed nuclear-powered oil tankers.

Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?

zarberg		2012-07-23 04:12:13 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Some lawmakers say Iran should enrich uranium to levels close to weapons grade to produce fuel for proposed nuclear-powered oil tankers.

Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?

I'm sure there are plenty of government types in Iran who think it's a great idea because said ship could then have an "accident" while it was in a port of someone they don't like.

elguerodiablo		2012-07-23 05:01:36 PM

How many poor nuclear scientists have die at the hands of the Isralis so Iran can pathetically try to live out their atomic fantasies. Won't somenody please think of the scientists.

Radioactive Ass		2012-07-23 05:18:28 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?

Not that I'm anywhere near being a fan of Iran in general but if you were to desire a naval nuclear propulsion program then perhaps attempting a civilian application first to iron out the inherent problems that you will encounter might be a way to do it. Of course then you will have the problem of entire nations being closed off to you and your product(s) due to them not wanting your floating Chernobyl parked in their ports, so there is that tiny problem with the idea.

Smeggy Smurf		2012-07-23 06:16:12 PM

elguerodiablo: How many poor nuclear scientists have die at the hands of the Isralis so Iran can pathetically try to live out their atomic fantasies. Won't somenody please think of the scientists.

Well, Israel did.

Gyrfalcon		2012-07-23 06:43:46 PM

Radioactive Ass: Satanic_Hamster: Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?

Not that I'm anywhere near being a fan of Iran in general but if you were to desire a naval nuclear propulsion program then perhaps attempting a civilian application first to iron out the inherent problems that you will encounter might be a way to do it. Of course then you will have the problem of entire nations being closed off to you and your product(s) due to them not wanting your floating Chernobyl parked in their ports, so there is that tiny problem with the idea.

...except nobody else ever did that. The US nuclear-navy program actually started with submarines, certainly the worst possible ship to try to design a nuclear reactor for.

Radioactive Ass		2012-07-23 07:34:37 PM

Gyrfalcon: ...except nobody else ever did that. The US nuclear-navy program actually started with submarines, certainly the worst possible ship to try to design a nuclear reactor for.

Actually it started with a land based prototype (the Mark I later re-designated S1W). I'm quite aware of how US NNP was implemented. There was also talk back in the 50's before the Nautilus ever sailed of building civilian nuclear powered ships that never came to be because of the costs associated with them.

Satanic_Hamster		2012-07-23 08:28:46 PM

Gyrfalcon: ...except nobody else ever did that. The US nuclear-navy program actually started with submarines, certainly the worst possible ship to try to design a nuclear reactor for.

But the type of ship that got the most use out of it. Main point of nuclear reactors on ships is to extend the time they don't have to meet a supply ship, which isn't really a concern for a commercial vessel.

Pinhedd		2012-07-23 09:02:40 PM

vpb: Well, making nuclear fuel is easier than making bomb material, so, what was his point supposed to be?

Naval nuclear reactors use highly enriched uranium that is at or just below weapons grade.

Radioactive Ass		2012-07-23 09:11:53 PM

Satanic_Hamster: But the type of ship that got the most use out of it. Main point of nuclear reactors on ships is to extend the time they don't have to meet a supply ship, which isn't really a concern for a commercial vessel.

It first went on boats because it allowed them to (eventually) remain submerged for months at a time and have unlimited power to evade someone trying to find you. Before that there was a time and distance limit before you had to surface and get some fresh air and recharge the batteries. AIP was looked at at the same time as nuclear power but it lost out because the technology just wasn't good enough at the time.

Gyrfalcon		2012-07-23 09:43:45 PM

Radioactive Ass		2012-07-23 09:59:15 PM

Gyrfalcon: I bow to your superior Navy knowledge, sailor. I'm just continually impressed by the Rickover legacy.

This is all crap I learned from being on the Nautilus back in the 80's (on shore duty no less). Most people on submarines don't know the trivia behind US submarine history because they have better things to do, I on the other hand was an overpaid tour guide\paint chipper\eye candy for the civilians who was cursed with a good memory and a lot of spare time with a museum full of interesting stuff to keep an eye on during the wee hours of the morning.

ChiliBoots		2012-07-23 10:09:50 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Some lawmakers say Iran should enrich uranium to levels close to weapons grade to produce fuel for proposed nuclear-powered oil tankers.

Wow. Really? Why would you even MAKE a nuclear powered cargo vessel? Has anyone, ever thought this was a good idea?

There was the Savannah and the Otto Hahn. For some reason, both ships were designed to carry passengers and cargo. There's also the nuclear powered Soviet ice-breakers, they could also carry cargo. None of them ever proved to be economical.

Gyrfalcon		2012-07-23 10:18:15 PM

Radioactive Ass: Gyrfalcon: I bow to your superior Navy knowledge, sailor. I'm just continually impressed by the Rickover legacy.

This is all crap I learned from being on the Nautilus back in the 80's (on shore duty no less). Most people on submarines don't know the trivia behind US submarine history because they have better things to do, I on the other hand was an overpaid tour guide\paint chipper\eye candy for the civilians who was cursed with a good memory and a lot of spare time with a museum full of interesting stuff to keep an eye on during the wee hours of the morning.

Graveyard shift is a biatch.

Satanic_Hamster		2012-07-23 10:34:52 PM

ChiliBoots: There was the Savannah and the Otto Hahn. For some reason, both ships were designed to carry passengers and cargo. There's also the nuclear powered Soviet ice-breakers, they could also carry cargo. None of them ever proved to be economical.

Oh, neat. I knew about the Russian ice breaker, but not those two.

Magorn		2012-07-24 10:52:17 AM

Radioactive Ass: Gyrfalcon: ...except nobody else ever did that. The US nuclear-navy program actually started with submarines, certainly the worst possible ship to try to design a nuclear reactor for.

Actually it started with a land based prototype (the Mark I later re-designated S1W). I'm quite aware of how US NNP was implemented. There was also talk back in the 50's before the Nautilus ever sailed of building civilian nuclear powered ships that never came to be because of the costs associated with them.

not just the costs though. The US navy nuke fleet works because they are the US Navy and they can and do demand thier ships be maintianed to a certain standard by perscribing nearly every waking minute of a nuke engineer's shipboard life. Cargo vessels are operated on a for-profit basis, and the general thrust of commercial ship maintenance is "good enough" or "can we jury-rig it to give us a few more trips"?
NOT a good idea where nuke power plants are concerned.