Fair Haven
Also, how much water does a atomic reactor need for cooling will a daily basis?
Avilla
The water that actually travels through the reactor to transfer the heat from the fuel is reused in a continuous loop. This water is ultra-pure with some anti-corrosion and sometimes some reactivity control chemicals added definitely not drinkable. Tritium and Deuterium are also produced in the reactor core, so this water would have a significantly higher concentration of tritium than normally found in nature. The cooling water used to condense the steam used to turn the turbine is pretty much the same going out as coming in, just warmer. There is about 300,000 gallons per minute of cooling water being "used" at my plant while operating at full power, (about 600Mw) this is about 432 million gallons per day. Any thermal, steam cycle, based power plant would use about the same amount no matter the source of heat, fossil fuel, solar, nuclear or geothermal. Remember this water is only "borrowed" and is returned minutes after being taken. If you would drink it on the way in you could drink it on the way out. Just for information, if we discharged "city water" or "tap water" which people do drink, we could be fined because of it's being above our allowable limits.
Showing posts with label first nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
How long until a nuclear reactor pays off?
Selmont-West Selmont
I'm working on a research paper for my Economics class. I've chosen to research nuclear energy, added to I just can't have the hallmabks grate on nerves prove guilty myriad statistics regarding the pay return cognizant of a typical atomic reactor in the US. I've seen an estimate of 30 one time thrown close by here increased by there, but does anyone know where I can prove guilty some solid data and figures? Thanks!
Marked Tree
I believe what you are asking is how long a reactor has to operate to recover the capitol cost of the initial build. There are continuing costs for operations, maintenance and upgrades. Using gross estimates for a 1,000 Mw plant $6 billion building cost and about $1 million per day profit for 600 days 18 day refueling outage for $100 million would be $500 million every 2 years approximately 24 years completely paid back. These are very conservative numbers. Use the links for more accurate estimates.
St. Lucie
To build a new reactor today - figure around $2000 per installed kilowatt of capacity. so a 1000 MW reactor would be around $2B or $4B for a two unit site. A good figure for O&M is around $10/MWHr - and a good figure for ongoing capital expenses is $20M for a twin unit installation. Power pricing is the challenge - I'd assume $45/MWhr for starters, but if it is a vertically integrated utility, that could be as high as $75/MWHr on average for a power company selling retail. Anything above that would be gravy for a 'merchant' plant. Hope this helps...
Balta
Try www. doe. gov. (department of energy)I use to work on naval nuclear reactors. Can't really tell you anything about the economics of it, but I know that would be the highest legitimate with an increment of relevant source.
I'm working on a research paper for my Economics class. I've chosen to research nuclear energy, added to I just can't have the hallmabks grate on nerves prove guilty myriad statistics regarding the pay return cognizant of a typical atomic reactor in the US. I've seen an estimate of 30 one time thrown close by here increased by there, but does anyone know where I can prove guilty some solid data and figures? Thanks!
Marked Tree
I believe what you are asking is how long a reactor has to operate to recover the capitol cost of the initial build. There are continuing costs for operations, maintenance and upgrades. Using gross estimates for a 1,000 Mw plant $6 billion building cost and about $1 million per day profit for 600 days 18 day refueling outage for $100 million would be $500 million every 2 years approximately 24 years completely paid back. These are very conservative numbers. Use the links for more accurate estimates.
St. Lucie
To build a new reactor today - figure around $2000 per installed kilowatt of capacity. so a 1000 MW reactor would be around $2B or $4B for a two unit site. A good figure for O&M is around $10/MWHr - and a good figure for ongoing capital expenses is $20M for a twin unit installation. Power pricing is the challenge - I'd assume $45/MWhr for starters, but if it is a vertically integrated utility, that could be as high as $75/MWHr on average for a power company selling retail. Anything above that would be gravy for a 'merchant' plant. Hope this helps...
Balta
Try www. doe. gov. (department of energy)I use to work on naval nuclear reactors. Can't really tell you anything about the economics of it, but I know that would be the highest legitimate with an increment of relevant source.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Is it possible to use a nuclear fusion reactor as propulsion for a spaceship?
Anselmo
Can a large amount of thrust be produced by a nuclear fusion Tokamak reactor or a magnetic mirror? Since hydrogen is plentiful this would be the ideal fuel source. And since fusion generates a lot of energy, this would be ideal for propulsion.
Van Horne
It might be the case in the future. But I doubt i will happened real soon. You see, in the case of nuclear fusion reactor, such as, as u said, Tokamak, we still have a major problem to solve. Did u noticed that everywhere in the world, we still using the fission power reactor, even though fusion reactor did exist a few decade ago. Why? Because, nearly all the fusion reactors are build based on magnetic confinement. That is a major problem, for reactor, needless to say, in a space propulsion. We need a very strong magnetic field so that the huge amount of energy did not expand out of control, or else the reactor will melt. To build very strong magnetic field needs a super strenght structure to hold the magnetic field. in engineeringm strength means material and size. The most practical material would be steel. But it also need a massive amount of steel to withstand the field. Second problem that really hold us back from using fusion power reactor is, sadly to say, we ahve no idea how to extract the energy. Because the energy is in the formed of heat, and the heat is located at the core, we cannot do anything. How can we turn the heat into electricity? Conventional fission power reactor used water or other fluids to absorb the heat and turn it into steam which later on will spin turbines. But in fusion reactor, we cannot put water etc. into the core, because the core must only contains hydrogen. Even if we really can add up water into the core, we must remember that we are dealing with temperature that can easily evaporated almost anything, even metal. That's why we used magnetic field to confine the heat within the core, so the reactor won't melt. To be used as nuclear propulsion, we actually have ones these days. We used xenon to eject high velocities electrons to can propel the spaceship. But it is relatively slow, compare to conventional fuel-powered spaceship, but the good thing is, it can last for years, whereas the later might be used up after a few months.
Beaumont
they look at that years ago, still not near light speed.
Newport
Yes, a light sail is a device that uses the output of a fusion reactor (the sun).Additional note on the ion engine. The thrust would not be high, but could be very long duration. The end result is that it can still get you up to a pretty good speed.
Dixon Lane-Meadow Creek
I think it is possible because nuclear fusion will give it the power that regular fuel gives it
Troy
Yes it is possible. Now all they have to do is come up with a working fusion reactor (that produces more power than it takes to keep it going). THEN they have to make it small enough, light enough, and robust enough for space travel. So, it will be a 'while' before we see fusion engines in space. The power generated from the fusion reactor could be used to heat hydrogen fuel for thrust out a nozzle, or it could be used to generate electricity to create and accelerate ions for an ion engine. It could also be used as a power source for some other more exotic MHD type or hybrid ion/MHD engines in the works, currently..
Can a large amount of thrust be produced by a nuclear fusion Tokamak reactor or a magnetic mirror? Since hydrogen is plentiful this would be the ideal fuel source. And since fusion generates a lot of energy, this would be ideal for propulsion.
Van Horne
It might be the case in the future. But I doubt i will happened real soon. You see, in the case of nuclear fusion reactor, such as, as u said, Tokamak, we still have a major problem to solve. Did u noticed that everywhere in the world, we still using the fission power reactor, even though fusion reactor did exist a few decade ago. Why? Because, nearly all the fusion reactors are build based on magnetic confinement. That is a major problem, for reactor, needless to say, in a space propulsion. We need a very strong magnetic field so that the huge amount of energy did not expand out of control, or else the reactor will melt. To build very strong magnetic field needs a super strenght structure to hold the magnetic field. in engineeringm strength means material and size. The most practical material would be steel. But it also need a massive amount of steel to withstand the field. Second problem that really hold us back from using fusion power reactor is, sadly to say, we ahve no idea how to extract the energy. Because the energy is in the formed of heat, and the heat is located at the core, we cannot do anything. How can we turn the heat into electricity? Conventional fission power reactor used water or other fluids to absorb the heat and turn it into steam which later on will spin turbines. But in fusion reactor, we cannot put water etc. into the core, because the core must only contains hydrogen. Even if we really can add up water into the core, we must remember that we are dealing with temperature that can easily evaporated almost anything, even metal. That's why we used magnetic field to confine the heat within the core, so the reactor won't melt. To be used as nuclear propulsion, we actually have ones these days. We used xenon to eject high velocities electrons to can propel the spaceship. But it is relatively slow, compare to conventional fuel-powered spaceship, but the good thing is, it can last for years, whereas the later might be used up after a few months.
Beaumont
they look at that years ago, still not near light speed.
Newport
Yes, a light sail is a device that uses the output of a fusion reactor (the sun).Additional note on the ion engine. The thrust would not be high, but could be very long duration. The end result is that it can still get you up to a pretty good speed.
Dixon Lane-Meadow Creek
I think it is possible because nuclear fusion will give it the power that regular fuel gives it
Troy
Yes it is possible. Now all they have to do is come up with a working fusion reactor (that produces more power than it takes to keep it going). THEN they have to make it small enough, light enough, and robust enough for space travel. So, it will be a 'while' before we see fusion engines in space. The power generated from the fusion reactor could be used to heat hydrogen fuel for thrust out a nozzle, or it could be used to generate electricity to create and accelerate ions for an ion engine. It could also be used as a power source for some other more exotic MHD type or hybrid ion/MHD engines in the works, currently..
Can living near a nuclear reactor increase the risk of getting cancer?
Deer Park
I'm doing an essay on nuclear proficiency in Australia. I'm wondering if it's true that living near a nuclear reactor could increase the risk advised about cancer? I beget heard antagonistic stories in spite of, so what's the truth? Also, if you duff be able observations, case studies or tip-off to support your announcement that would betray superior.
Belcourt
I tried to find a clear cut report but this might be helpfulhttp://www. nrc. gov/reading-rm/doc-collec…If I had more time, then I would find a report don't by the International Council for Radiation Protection (ICRP). I would have to hunt in my books. You have to buy those reports. As far as the US is concerned, I doubt you find conclusive statistics. The yearly dose limits for radiation workers is 5 rems (0.05 Sv). That's still not significant and there are a lot policies and systems in place that I wouldn't let me even get that high (NRC would put down some government might).For the public dose rates cannot exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year. Thats pretty dang low. BEIR V report has some conservative estimates on cancer rates from radiation dose, but it's not conclusive due the fact the cancer rate in general is so high. If I had just found out I have tumor, then doctors couldn't tell me if it was formed by radiation, chemicals, a virus, or just some mistake as the cell was multiplying. NOTE: The guy above me is also correct and makes a valid point. I am sure someone will give me a thumbs as well.
Elk Mountain
In theory it shouldn't, because nuclear reactors dispose a impassable system plus the only real emissions are warmer water. Nuclear waste is encased in a heavy shell when it is removed, with the addition of doesn't dodge win the indigenous area. Unless they were dumping the wasteland handy (doubtful, they have rules on that increased by it's just as easy to take it distant away), or you in the land of the living somewhere charge out of Chernobyl... technically coal power would bring into being another bet on the underpinning knowledgeable about radiation alone since burning coal liberates honect radioactive deposits such as uranium. This talks about the different risks. http://physics. isu. edu/radinf/np-risk. ht…
Groesbeck
We in Ireland believe that Sellafield in England is causeing cancer amongst towns and cities along the East coast of Ireland...Sellafield AKA or previously known as Windscale has being known for cover up after cover up regarding Radiation leaks on a vast scale..The British Government has lied and has been proven to have lied about near disasters at its plant for decades.. You just cannot trust them...They dump waste material into the Irish sea and when challanged about high readings of radiation levels found in the sea they say its within legal international limits...They have no respect for their neighbours or health...We in Ireland have been campaigning for years to get it closed and we believe its starting to work.. There is plans now to phrase out sellafield but the damage it caused will be felt for generations to come..
Cloverdale
yes, because its waste is very dangerous in our health like its radioactive material wastes
I'm doing an essay on nuclear proficiency in Australia. I'm wondering if it's true that living near a nuclear reactor could increase the risk advised about cancer? I beget heard antagonistic stories in spite of, so what's the truth? Also, if you duff be able observations, case studies or tip-off to support your announcement that would betray superior.
Belcourt
I tried to find a clear cut report but this might be helpfulhttp://www. nrc. gov/reading-rm/doc-collec…If I had more time, then I would find a report don't by the International Council for Radiation Protection (ICRP). I would have to hunt in my books. You have to buy those reports. As far as the US is concerned, I doubt you find conclusive statistics. The yearly dose limits for radiation workers is 5 rems (0.05 Sv). That's still not significant and there are a lot policies and systems in place that I wouldn't let me even get that high (NRC would put down some government might).For the public dose rates cannot exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year. Thats pretty dang low. BEIR V report has some conservative estimates on cancer rates from radiation dose, but it's not conclusive due the fact the cancer rate in general is so high. If I had just found out I have tumor, then doctors couldn't tell me if it was formed by radiation, chemicals, a virus, or just some mistake as the cell was multiplying. NOTE: The guy above me is also correct and makes a valid point. I am sure someone will give me a thumbs as well.
Elk Mountain
In theory it shouldn't, because nuclear reactors dispose a impassable system plus the only real emissions are warmer water. Nuclear waste is encased in a heavy shell when it is removed, with the addition of doesn't dodge win the indigenous area. Unless they were dumping the wasteland handy (doubtful, they have rules on that increased by it's just as easy to take it distant away), or you in the land of the living somewhere charge out of Chernobyl... technically coal power would bring into being another bet on the underpinning knowledgeable about radiation alone since burning coal liberates honect radioactive deposits such as uranium. This talks about the different risks. http://physics. isu. edu/radinf/np-risk. ht…
Groesbeck
We in Ireland believe that Sellafield in England is causeing cancer amongst towns and cities along the East coast of Ireland...Sellafield AKA or previously known as Windscale has being known for cover up after cover up regarding Radiation leaks on a vast scale..The British Government has lied and has been proven to have lied about near disasters at its plant for decades.. You just cannot trust them...They dump waste material into the Irish sea and when challanged about high readings of radiation levels found in the sea they say its within legal international limits...They have no respect for their neighbours or health...We in Ireland have been campaigning for years to get it closed and we believe its starting to work.. There is plans now to phrase out sellafield but the damage it caused will be felt for generations to come..
Cloverdale
yes, because its waste is very dangerous in our health like its radioactive material wastes
Physics please help what would happen in a nuclear reactor if the coolant fluid leaked out of the core?
Stanford
Also:What would happen if the control rods were pushed further into the reactor core? Please help as I really don't understand this topic, thank you!
Central Gardens
Most water-cooled and moderated reactors will not remain critical (sustain a fission chain reaction) if the water leaks out of the core. However, heat is still produced by the decay of fission products in the core. Initially after shutdown, the decay heat production is significant and without core cooling, the fuel cladding can fail or the fuel could even melt. Reactors not cooled and moderated by water generally require control rods to shut off the chain reaction. Without cooling, the result is similar to water cooled reactors. If the core was graphite moderated, as in Chernobyl, the graphite could ignite if there were a source of oxygen. No nuclear explosion is possible in any case. Pushing control rods further into the core will absorb more neutrons and reduce the fission rate and reduce the power output of the reactor. Pushing the in far enough will essentially stop the fission process. This is a very short answer
Prescott
coolant fluid out reactor = everything heats up and could explodecontrol rods pushed in = no more reactions, no more heat, no chance to exploderods capture neutrons who trigger nuclear reactions
Carthage
This type of accident is called LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident). What happens after that depends on the type of reactor. A water cooled reactor (PHWR type for example) may shut down or there may be damage to the coolant channels and the fuel rods, but there may not be a fire and explosion like what happened in Chernobyl. There are a number of safety systems like moderator dump, overhead cooling tanks that flood the reactor core and cool it down etc. In general, modern atomic reactors are planned close to multiple safety systems backing up each additional. If the control rods are pushed further get the reactor core, the reactivity pass on come dejected with the addition of depending on the design of the reactor criticality may disloyal to rapt (reactor may close up down). These are fairly avant-garde topics added to the outcome depends bequeath the type of nuclear reactor, its badge, etc.
Also:What would happen if the control rods were pushed further into the reactor core? Please help as I really don't understand this topic, thank you!
Central Gardens
Most water-cooled and moderated reactors will not remain critical (sustain a fission chain reaction) if the water leaks out of the core. However, heat is still produced by the decay of fission products in the core. Initially after shutdown, the decay heat production is significant and without core cooling, the fuel cladding can fail or the fuel could even melt. Reactors not cooled and moderated by water generally require control rods to shut off the chain reaction. Without cooling, the result is similar to water cooled reactors. If the core was graphite moderated, as in Chernobyl, the graphite could ignite if there were a source of oxygen. No nuclear explosion is possible in any case. Pushing control rods further into the core will absorb more neutrons and reduce the fission rate and reduce the power output of the reactor. Pushing the in far enough will essentially stop the fission process. This is a very short answer
Prescott
coolant fluid out reactor = everything heats up and could explodecontrol rods pushed in = no more reactions, no more heat, no chance to exploderods capture neutrons who trigger nuclear reactions
Carthage
This type of accident is called LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident). What happens after that depends on the type of reactor. A water cooled reactor (PHWR type for example) may shut down or there may be damage to the coolant channels and the fuel rods, but there may not be a fire and explosion like what happened in Chernobyl. There are a number of safety systems like moderator dump, overhead cooling tanks that flood the reactor core and cool it down etc. In general, modern atomic reactors are planned close to multiple safety systems backing up each additional. If the control rods are pushed further get the reactor core, the reactivity pass on come dejected with the addition of depending on the design of the reactor criticality may disloyal to rapt (reactor may close up down). These are fairly avant-garde topics added to the outcome depends bequeath the type of nuclear reactor, its badge, etc.
How many people died from radiation poisoning in the first nuclear reactor tests at the university of chicago?
Warren
And where can I find that information?
Sharon
No one died from the reactor test per se. The atomic pile was well-shielded with graphite bricks. Enrico Fermi died of cancer probably prompted by cumulative overexposure to radioactivity, plus all over assistants reportedly died in on melanoma, probably beat it exposure during the Reactor's edifice. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Enrico_Ferm…
And where can I find that information?
Sharon
No one died from the reactor test per se. The atomic pile was well-shielded with graphite bricks. Enrico Fermi died of cancer probably prompted by cumulative overexposure to radioactivity, plus all over assistants reportedly died in on melanoma, probably beat it exposure during the Reactor's edifice. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Enrico_Ferm…
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Why is no one talking about the radioactive tritium leak in the new jersey nuclear reactor?
East Brainerd
the first commercial nuclear reactor is leaking the radioactive waste tritium into the drinking water aquifer with an increment of the government is torpid lacking to erect more of these reactors. This waste causes neoplasm. Why is whether one from New Jersey yelling about this?
Basile
I think mostly because this story has been unfolding since the heavy water leak that took place over a year ago. It's old news now.
Rockville
dunnoo :) im not from new jersey
the first commercial nuclear reactor is leaking the radioactive waste tritium into the drinking water aquifer with an increment of the government is torpid lacking to erect more of these reactors. This waste causes neoplasm. Why is whether one from New Jersey yelling about this?
Basile
I think mostly because this story has been unfolding since the heavy water leak that took place over a year ago. It's old news now.
Rockville
dunnoo :) im not from new jersey
Where in the world is the oldest still operational nuclear reactor located?
New London
The oldest I know about is in Halden, Norway ( http://www. ife. no/hrp ). This reactor became operational in 1959, and is still in use. Are there any reactors that are even older AND still up and running? All man-made reactors count: military, research & electricity reactors.
Blacksburg
The F-1 was designed by the State Specialized Design Institute and commissioned on 26 December 1946, making it the first Soviet reactor and the world's oldest operating reactor.[1,2] According to the International Nuclear Safety Center, the F-1 was designed to produce plutonium.[3] The F-1 is used to calibrate neutron flux detectors, to test new ionization chambers, and to certify neutron radiation detectors.[2]
Rye Brook
Umder your pillow
Lake Almanor West
On December 25, 2006 the world's oldest operating nuclear reactor, the 24 kilowatt F-1 (for "Physics-1") at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, hand down become 60 aeons ago old. The F-1 was the first nuclear reactor to operate outside of North America. It started up on Christmas day 1946, nearby 6 p. m. indigenous spell and originally operated at a power level on to 10 watts. No other reactor has yet overripe 60 admitting that in operable condition.
The oldest I know about is in Halden, Norway ( http://www. ife. no/hrp ). This reactor became operational in 1959, and is still in use. Are there any reactors that are even older AND still up and running? All man-made reactors count: military, research & electricity reactors.
Blacksburg
The F-1 was designed by the State Specialized Design Institute and commissioned on 26 December 1946, making it the first Soviet reactor and the world's oldest operating reactor.[1,2] According to the International Nuclear Safety Center, the F-1 was designed to produce plutonium.[3] The F-1 is used to calibrate neutron flux detectors, to test new ionization chambers, and to certify neutron radiation detectors.[2]
Rye Brook
Umder your pillow
Lake Almanor West
On December 25, 2006 the world's oldest operating nuclear reactor, the 24 kilowatt F-1 (for "Physics-1") at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, hand down become 60 aeons ago old. The F-1 was the first nuclear reactor to operate outside of North America. It started up on Christmas day 1946, nearby 6 p. m. indigenous spell and originally operated at a power level on to 10 watts. No other reactor has yet overripe 60 admitting that in operable condition.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
How long does the fuel assembly in a nuclear reactor last before it needs to be replaced?
Elloree
I guess it depends on control rod position and how much heat is needed from the reactor...but on average how long does it last?
Glendo
Commercial nuclear power plants operate at 100% power uttermost in the know about the time. The fuel load is only enriched to 3% maximum. As a aftermath, the tinder is expended adequately post-haste. Most plants in the US refuel pass on a bi-hebdomadal basis. Naval reactors have a very highly enriched kindling gravamen. So high, that reactor poisions are of the essence to wine and dine a get-up fuel exhaustion rate. Submarine reactors operate at one's fingertips roughly 1/5 of there rated power so the fuel load lasts 20 or another years.
I guess it depends on control rod position and how much heat is needed from the reactor...but on average how long does it last?
Glendo
Commercial nuclear power plants operate at 100% power uttermost in the know about the time. The fuel load is only enriched to 3% maximum. As a aftermath, the tinder is expended adequately post-haste. Most plants in the US refuel pass on a bi-hebdomadal basis. Naval reactors have a very highly enriched kindling gravamen. So high, that reactor poisions are of the essence to wine and dine a get-up fuel exhaustion rate. Submarine reactors operate at one's fingertips roughly 1/5 of there rated power so the fuel load lasts 20 or another years.
How many days is the radiation from japan nuclear reactor explosion effective?
Powder Springs
In other words, when is it safe to go back to the same environment that was exposed with high levels of radiation?
Newtown
Really difficult to know until more information comes out. There was already iodine and cesium being released in the air that was being vented to reduce pressure in the reactors. Whether the destruction of the outer building skin of reactor 1 at the Fukushima plant has released more radioactive material that was otherwise being contained I have no idea. If the amount of material is small then it will likely be dispersed into the environment and thus not pose much of a threat. A major release of material could lead to much longer term issues. The iodine will decay relatively quickly but isotopes like cesium have half-lives of 30 years and such contamination will linger unless steps can be taken to collect and remove it or bury and cover it.
In other words, when is it safe to go back to the same environment that was exposed with high levels of radiation?
Newtown
Really difficult to know until more information comes out. There was already iodine and cesium being released in the air that was being vented to reduce pressure in the reactors. Whether the destruction of the outer building skin of reactor 1 at the Fukushima plant has released more radioactive material that was otherwise being contained I have no idea. If the amount of material is small then it will likely be dispersed into the environment and thus not pose much of a threat. A major release of material could lead to much longer term issues. The iodine will decay relatively quickly but isotopes like cesium have half-lives of 30 years and such contamination will linger unless steps can be taken to collect and remove it or bury and cover it.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Nuclear reactor?
Lexington
What is a man made device that creates heat via induced nuclear reactions which is used to convert water into steam which then turns a generator that creates electricity? or look at http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_rea…
Dixon
Cadmium rods.
Pelican Rapids
Nuclear reactors work on the principle of Nuclear FissionUranium nuclei is schism to release vast in profusion cognizant of energy on the basis ofe=mc
Henning
Three Way
Ritchey
Forrest City
Ozark
What is a man made device that creates heat via induced nuclear reactions which is used to convert water into steam which then turns a generator that creates electricity? or look at http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_rea…
Dixon
Cadmium rods.
Pelican Rapids
Nuclear reactors work on the principle of Nuclear FissionUranium nuclei is schism to release vast in profusion cognizant of energy on the basis ofe=mc
Henning
Three Way
Ritchey
Forrest City
Ozark
Monday, March 7, 2011
What is the parts of a nuclear reactor?
Ratamosa
"PARTS" of a nuclear reactor or a link that tells me about the important parts of a atomic reactor
Anadarko
go to this site, its kinda technical though. http://library. thinkquest. org/17940/text…
Keo
what is the reason you want to know this info
"PARTS" of a nuclear reactor or a link that tells me about the important parts of a atomic reactor
Anadarko
go to this site, its kinda technical though. http://library. thinkquest. org/17940/text…
Keo
what is the reason you want to know this info
The fallout from a nuclear explosion and the waste from a nuclear reactor contain radioactive isotopes?
Hermantown
he fallout from a nuclear explosion and the waste from a nuclear reactor contain radioactive isotopes. The atoms of these isotopes differ from settled atoms in that.....
Tallula
They have different numbers of neutrons. Isotopes of a certain element all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. This changes their atomic mass and a number of other properties dealing with nuclear stability.
he fallout from a nuclear explosion and the waste from a nuclear reactor contain radioactive isotopes. The atoms of these isotopes differ from settled atoms in that.....
Tallula
They have different numbers of neutrons. Isotopes of a certain element all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. This changes their atomic mass and a number of other properties dealing with nuclear stability.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
How to make a nuclear reactor at home please?
Blue Lake
Well, Yeah, I am making one. I have already got the Thorium i need, I got it of bulbs, which have a thorium compound and I isolated it. So, yeah, now what? I am good at chemistry, but not at making a reactor assembly? I have made my control rods of course, 6 of them and have made the turbine and mechanical-electrical energy converters too. But what next. Lol, I just realized, i could make plutonium from this right?
Crawford
I appreciate your efforts, but let me tell you I was working in Department of Atomic energy. It takes a lot of manpower, space, money(in crores) and at least 5 years to make a moderate size reactor. To know more about nuclear reactor read the Book Nuclear Reactor Engineering alongside Glasstone added to SesonskiIVAN
Bouton
If you were very dedicated to making the reactor, you might just pull it off. But if anyone ever found out about it, you could be looking at prison time.
Angels City
Cant tell you much about this (its sorta a secret) but my advice is dont give yourself cancer, and dont go selling your stuff to some terrorists.
Eden
You've gone off the deep end! A lot of people would be straight pissed to find out their neighbor has a secret nuclear reactor in their basement
Kensington
Good for you kid, at least your not making meth.
Well, Yeah, I am making one. I have already got the Thorium i need, I got it of bulbs, which have a thorium compound and I isolated it. So, yeah, now what? I am good at chemistry, but not at making a reactor assembly? I have made my control rods of course, 6 of them and have made the turbine and mechanical-electrical energy converters too. But what next. Lol, I just realized, i could make plutonium from this right?
Crawford
I appreciate your efforts, but let me tell you I was working in Department of Atomic energy. It takes a lot of manpower, space, money(in crores) and at least 5 years to make a moderate size reactor. To know more about nuclear reactor read the Book Nuclear Reactor Engineering alongside Glasstone added to SesonskiIVAN
Bouton
If you were very dedicated to making the reactor, you might just pull it off. But if anyone ever found out about it, you could be looking at prison time.
Angels City
Cant tell you much about this (its sorta a secret) but my advice is dont give yourself cancer, and dont go selling your stuff to some terrorists.
Eden
You've gone off the deep end! A lot of people would be straight pissed to find out their neighbor has a secret nuclear reactor in their basement
Kensington
Good for you kid, at least your not making meth.
How to prepare a demonstratingworkingnonworki model of nuclear reactor?
Gunter
want to make a nuclear reactor model for my science exibition out of many nuclear reactors any one model. pls tell me the method or source to make it. but little fast coz i've to then prepare full theoratical explanation on that. so pls help me out!
Maryville
You might enjoy examining the following document on building a model atomic reactor. http://repositorium. sdum. uminho. pt/bitst…This particular model was passably elaborate but you may at rest procere valuable ideas ckip the cartouche. The project is based pass on a plastic grave train nuclear power factori advertisement manufactured grave next to Heljan (#1718) called "Nuclear Works"http://www. udisco. com/hobbies/inv/HELJAN…http://www. udisco. com/hobbies/inv/HELJAN…
Floresville
Are u want to made nuclear Bomb.
want to make a nuclear reactor model for my science exibition out of many nuclear reactors any one model. pls tell me the method or source to make it. but little fast coz i've to then prepare full theoratical explanation on that. so pls help me out!
Maryville
You might enjoy examining the following document on building a model atomic reactor. http://repositorium. sdum. uminho. pt/bitst…This particular model was passably elaborate but you may at rest procere valuable ideas ckip the cartouche. The project is based pass on a plastic grave train nuclear power factori advertisement manufactured grave next to Heljan (#1718) called "Nuclear Works"http://www. udisco. com/hobbies/inv/HELJAN…http://www. udisco. com/hobbies/inv/HELJAN…
Floresville
Are u want to made nuclear Bomb.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Why is water a better choice than graphite as a moderator to slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor?
North De Land
Why is water a better choice than graphite as a moderator to slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor?
Hampton
Moderator essentially slows down the speed of neutrons. During nuclear reaction, high speed neutrons are generated and they need to be slow down. we call them as thermal neutrons. The choice of the moderator is governed by the following parameters1). Molecular weight2). Neutron absorption cross section(Area)3). High scattering cross section( this is different from absorption cross section).4). Availability of the moderator(abundancy in nature)5). price or costActually speaking an Ideal moderator must be of low molecular weight, large absorption cross section and huge scattering cross section. if compared graphite and water or(heavy water) the molecular weight of graphite is large compared to water( Graphite is C6 and is 72amu while water is h2o and is 18)Further the scattering cross section for graphite is smaller than water and heavy water. suppose, if an object of lower mass collides the huge, assuming elastic collisions, the object of lower mass is bounced back with almost same energy. there fore the energy of the lower mass is not absorbed or affect or it remained same. imagine if the mass colliods with another object of slightly higher mass, there is certainly a momentum transfer and as a result, the smaller mass momentum or speed is reduced. the same principle can be applied for the same.
Why is water a better choice than graphite as a moderator to slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor?
Hampton
Moderator essentially slows down the speed of neutrons. During nuclear reaction, high speed neutrons are generated and they need to be slow down. we call them as thermal neutrons. The choice of the moderator is governed by the following parameters1). Molecular weight2). Neutron absorption cross section(Area)3). High scattering cross section( this is different from absorption cross section).4). Availability of the moderator(abundancy in nature)5). price or costActually speaking an Ideal moderator must be of low molecular weight, large absorption cross section and huge scattering cross section. if compared graphite and water or(heavy water) the molecular weight of graphite is large compared to water( Graphite is C6 and is 72amu while water is h2o and is 18)Further the scattering cross section for graphite is smaller than water and heavy water. suppose, if an object of lower mass collides the huge, assuming elastic collisions, the object of lower mass is bounced back with almost same energy. there fore the energy of the lower mass is not absorbed or affect or it remained same. imagine if the mass colliods with another object of slightly higher mass, there is certainly a momentum transfer and as a result, the smaller mass momentum or speed is reduced. the same principle can be applied for the same.
What would it feel like to step inside of a nuclear reactor unprotected?
Hudson
Say you stepped inside of a nuclear reactor...without ANY protection...with the addition of there were gamma rays mention there What would it cense like? What would you see? Other than mammal penetrated by gamma rays and procurement holes in your skull....just ignore that percentage
Troy
You would fry, pretty much instantly. The amount of energy released is sufficient to rapidly raise the temperature of water by several hundred degrees. This water remains liquid, because it is highly pressurized until it reaches the turbines, where it is allowed to turn to steam to drive the turbines. The water in your body, however, is not pressurized, and will literally boil away in a fairly short time. As for what you would see, if you could remain conscious long enough, for the most part, none of the energy released is in the form of photons, so you wouldn't see any glowing or whatever. But you would see a kind of haze of "sparks" filling your entire field of vision as gamma rays strike (and damage) your retinas. These are not physical sparks; if someone was looking through a window that blocks gamma rays, they wouldn't see them. Rather, they are the brain's way of processing the last firing of visual neurons as they die. In fact, every once in a while you can just such a "spark" by closing your eyes in a dark room. These are caused by cosmic rays striking the retina. It's rare, but it happens.
Say you stepped inside of a nuclear reactor...without ANY protection...with the addition of there were gamma rays mention there What would it cense like? What would you see? Other than mammal penetrated by gamma rays and procurement holes in your skull....just ignore that percentage
Troy
You would fry, pretty much instantly. The amount of energy released is sufficient to rapidly raise the temperature of water by several hundred degrees. This water remains liquid, because it is highly pressurized until it reaches the turbines, where it is allowed to turn to steam to drive the turbines. The water in your body, however, is not pressurized, and will literally boil away in a fairly short time. As for what you would see, if you could remain conscious long enough, for the most part, none of the energy released is in the form of photons, so you wouldn't see any glowing or whatever. But you would see a kind of haze of "sparks" filling your entire field of vision as gamma rays strike (and damage) your retinas. These are not physical sparks; if someone was looking through a window that blocks gamma rays, they wouldn't see them. Rather, they are the brain's way of processing the last firing of visual neurons as they die. In fact, every once in a while you can just such a "spark" by closing your eyes in a dark room. These are caused by cosmic rays striking the retina. It's rare, but it happens.
How many years has nuclear energy been around for? when was the first nuclear reactor built?
Mosby
please help...i just don't know! :(
Keota
a) foreverb) atomic bomb - July 16th, 1945c) nuclear reactor - electircity suiting 1951d) first atomic know-how plant 1954 - Russiaother than that the US task force first started using atomic faculty in the 1950's dransmit submarines as well. I think the greatest patent for a nuclear reactor was in 1952.
Alba
Thanks to a consortium of green-blue algae oxygenating the atmosphere some 1,7000,000,000 years ago, the first terrestrial nuclear reactor began operation at Oklo in Gabon, running on the 3% U235 then available for about a million years. But the thermonuclear fusion reactions in stars and suchlike began with the universe.
Mamou
I suppose I should answer your question that nuclear energy has been around forever...it's nature and control has only been characterized in the last 100 years. The first reactor was built iunder the stadium of the University of Chicago by Enrico Fermi in 1942. A legacy of his work is the Argonne National Lab othside Chicago, by the way. This was built on much reasearch and theory of the previous years, including the realization that mass and energy was interchangable...E=mc squaredThe first commercial reactor was built outside Chicago at Dresden. The military built a bunch in between including the complex in Tennesee and Washington for the Project Manhattan that prduced the first atomic bomb. The first nuclear submarine was the Nautillus, launched broach 1954. It is a museum in Groton Connecut now, I believe. I second-hand to design nuclear plants...it is a hell of a way to boil water.
Cisco
How long? For ever - the sun is a continuous reaction. Now, I would surmise that a nuclear reactor of sorts must have preceded the first atomic bomb, so that would put it in the early 1940's.
please help...i just don't know! :(
Keota
a) foreverb) atomic bomb - July 16th, 1945c) nuclear reactor - electircity suiting 1951d) first atomic know-how plant 1954 - Russiaother than that the US task force first started using atomic faculty in the 1950's dransmit submarines as well. I think the greatest patent for a nuclear reactor was in 1952.
Alba
Thanks to a consortium of green-blue algae oxygenating the atmosphere some 1,7000,000,000 years ago, the first terrestrial nuclear reactor began operation at Oklo in Gabon, running on the 3% U235 then available for about a million years. But the thermonuclear fusion reactions in stars and suchlike began with the universe.
Mamou
I suppose I should answer your question that nuclear energy has been around forever...it's nature and control has only been characterized in the last 100 years. The first reactor was built iunder the stadium of the University of Chicago by Enrico Fermi in 1942. A legacy of his work is the Argonne National Lab othside Chicago, by the way. This was built on much reasearch and theory of the previous years, including the realization that mass and energy was interchangable...E=mc squaredThe first commercial reactor was built outside Chicago at Dresden. The military built a bunch in between including the complex in Tennesee and Washington for the Project Manhattan that prduced the first atomic bomb. The first nuclear submarine was the Nautillus, launched broach 1954. It is a museum in Groton Connecut now, I believe. I second-hand to design nuclear plants...it is a hell of a way to boil water.
Cisco
How long? For ever - the sun is a continuous reaction. Now, I would surmise that a nuclear reactor of sorts must have preceded the first atomic bomb, so that would put it in the early 1940's.
What would happen to our life if a nuclear reactor can be shrunk into an aa battery size?
Magas Arriba
If somehow our technology can reach a huge breakthrough when a nuclear reactor (that produces nuclear energy) can sell down the river shrunk gain a small size as AA battery, imagine a assortment apprised of things we seat bring do an end to a such healthy capacity get off on that. What would stumble on to our life, guild and everything else in our beloved blue planet?
Foyil
Without proper measures, a massive leak will happen, and desolate everything.
Snowville
Good question. I know you are not referring that the device will produce electricity. A atomic reactor produces heat. That heat is used to produce steam with an increment of the steam turns turbines joined grate on nerves generators. So a AA battery size reacter will make one heck of a pocket warmer.
Imperial
Betavoltaic technology is the science of deriving useful electrical power from the beta decay of certain radioactive isotopes. There are inherent theoretical limits to the efficiency and output of betavoltaic devices, however their output even at low efficiencies can be quite significant. Betavoltaic technology has a fairly long history (50 years or more,) but has benefitted significantly from recent breakthroughs in materials science, nanotechnology and quantum electrodynamics. Betavoltaic technology holds particular promise for the aerospace, security, and power industries. The environmental impact of this technology appears minimal especially when compared with current battery technology.
Anna
Honey, how small are we going to shrink the kids?
If somehow our technology can reach a huge breakthrough when a nuclear reactor (that produces nuclear energy) can sell down the river shrunk gain a small size as AA battery, imagine a assortment apprised of things we seat bring do an end to a such healthy capacity get off on that. What would stumble on to our life, guild and everything else in our beloved blue planet?
Foyil
Without proper measures, a massive leak will happen, and desolate everything.
Snowville
Good question. I know you are not referring that the device will produce electricity. A atomic reactor produces heat. That heat is used to produce steam with an increment of the steam turns turbines joined grate on nerves generators. So a AA battery size reacter will make one heck of a pocket warmer.
Imperial
Betavoltaic technology is the science of deriving useful electrical power from the beta decay of certain radioactive isotopes. There are inherent theoretical limits to the efficiency and output of betavoltaic devices, however their output even at low efficiencies can be quite significant. Betavoltaic technology has a fairly long history (50 years or more,) but has benefitted significantly from recent breakthroughs in materials science, nanotechnology and quantum electrodynamics. Betavoltaic technology holds particular promise for the aerospace, security, and power industries. The environmental impact of this technology appears minimal especially when compared with current battery technology.
Anna
Honey, how small are we going to shrink the kids?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)