>>1392157Hey faggot retard, 5% enrichment doesn't explode. Also, you can't raise levels of enrichment without the production facilities that let you make enriched uranium from ordinary yellow cake - thereby removing any incentive to take the fuel.
Let me further explain why you are a retarded faggot.
17,000,000 gigajoules of generated power per year from a single static reactor. Assuming perfect efficiency, that's like a fifth of a kilo of 235. Critical mass is 52 kilos. A nuclear reactor for a fucking train does not need to power a city.
Fuck it, let's say the retards that think a nuclear train is a good idea are retarded enough to use 50% enriched fuel. The critical mass for that is literally in range of tons. Critical mass for 5% enrichment? Literally doesn't exist.
Let's keep going as to why you are a faggot.
The decay products of nuclear reactions are dangerous. But it is all about timescale. There is no meaningful danger from uranium that is not currently fissioning, not even on the timescale of thousands of years of exposure. The reactor fuel is only capable of (sustained) fissioning due to neutron reflectors. Remove the reflectors, and it isn't self-sustaining. Spent nuclear fuel is relatively dangerous because of the effects of the decay chain, but you're talking about levels of radiation that are comparable to a few xrays and the decay chain basically stops being a meaningful issue within 3 days.
Another reason why you are a faggot: reactors exist which can run on enriched fuel.
A nuclear train is a stupid idea because it is inefficient compared to a combustion engine, but everything you said was complete nonsensical faggotry.
