Lucasville
The moderator in a nuclear reaction is used to slow the neutrons. Neutrons are used as bullets to split the fissionable material. Slow bullets work better. Heavy water or graphite is used.
Glasford
To slow the reaction. Heavy water is used.
Pine Point
It slows down the speed of the neutrons given off by the fission reaction. Some reactors use heavy water D20, some use graphite.
Showing posts with label fukushima japan tokyo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fukushima japan tokyo. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Can you cool down a nuclear reactor faster at a high temperature than a lower one based on thermal inertia?
Oak Ridge North
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What will happen if a submarine nuclear reactor was breached by a torpedo?
Springfield
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Can a nuclear reactor fit in a car?
Steilacoom
I was wondering if a nuclear reactor can be made microscopic cufficient to fit hint at deposit on to the engine of a small car!
New Market
Using current technology -- NOIn 50-to 75 years -- MAYBE. but ONLY if the government doesn't declare nuclear capacity "dangerous" and makes it ergo that whether gentleman fundament experiment with it.
Nemaha
Even if it was made small enough, the reactor still only provides heat to produce steam to produce mechanical power to move such as a car. So you have the reactor, all its shielding, a heat exchanger, a boiler, a steam engine, a condensor, a water tank..... so do you think it would be a practical exercise? I think not! Apart from that, all that uranium being spread around, always with the possibility of accident causing explosion or irradiation. No way.
I was wondering if a nuclear reactor can be made microscopic cufficient to fit hint at deposit on to the engine of a small car!
New Market
Using current technology -- NOIn 50-to 75 years -- MAYBE. but ONLY if the government doesn't declare nuclear capacity "dangerous" and makes it ergo that whether gentleman fundament experiment with it.
Nemaha
Even if it was made small enough, the reactor still only provides heat to produce steam to produce mechanical power to move such as a car. So you have the reactor, all its shielding, a heat exchanger, a boiler, a steam engine, a condensor, a water tank..... so do you think it would be a practical exercise? I think not! Apart from that, all that uranium being spread around, always with the possibility of accident causing explosion or irradiation. No way.
How much money does a nuclear reactor operator usually earn in a year?
Lynchburg
The question says it all. What is the average salary for someone who operates a nuclear reactor?
Bellbrook
I can't answer the first part, but having worked on a nuclear reactor in the military, I can give you an idea about the second part. Given the virtual moratorium on new reactors, there are only so many spots available at any one time. However, as more and more nuclear trained people are getting out of the Navy (all submarines and aircraft carriers are atomic powered), those not many spots can be chuck-full by an ever increasing number of people, consequence the longer you wait, the more competitive it is sliding grate on nerves get.
Clarendon Hills
Generally above 80,000. It depends on your time at the work location, skill level, and a few other factors. But it definitely would be a high paying job considered to other fields.
Orchard Grass Hills
more than the president! but thats good money for a boring job!
The question says it all. What is the average salary for someone who operates a nuclear reactor?
Bellbrook
I can't answer the first part, but having worked on a nuclear reactor in the military, I can give you an idea about the second part. Given the virtual moratorium on new reactors, there are only so many spots available at any one time. However, as more and more nuclear trained people are getting out of the Navy (all submarines and aircraft carriers are atomic powered), those not many spots can be chuck-full by an ever increasing number of people, consequence the longer you wait, the more competitive it is sliding grate on nerves get.
Clarendon Hills
Generally above 80,000. It depends on your time at the work location, skill level, and a few other factors. But it definitely would be a high paying job considered to other fields.
Orchard Grass Hills
more than the president! but thats good money for a boring job!
What would happen to a functional nuclear reactor if?
Kendleton
What would happen to a functional nuclear reactor if the control rods were whether one likes it longer operational and what would happen if the the moderators stopped utilitarian?
Kelso
As fuel depleted and poisons built up, the reactor would shut itself down (assuming control rods just stuck in their normal position and didn't move).If moderator stopped working, the reactor would instantly shut-down.
What would happen to a functional nuclear reactor if the control rods were whether one likes it longer operational and what would happen if the the moderators stopped utilitarian?
Kelso
As fuel depleted and poisons built up, the reactor would shut itself down (assuming control rods just stuck in their normal position and didn't move).If moderator stopped working, the reactor would instantly shut-down.
What does nuclear moderation accomplish in a nuclear reactor?
Nashville
Chemistry.
Cottage City
A moderator is used to slow down neutrons. Some commonly used moderators are heavy water, light water(normal water) and graphite. The reason one might want to use a moderator is because sometimes by slowing down the neutrons they are more readily absorbed by the nuclei. For example, when neutrons are released from the splitting of Uranium-235 they are more readily absorbed by Uranium-238 than by other Uranium-235 nuclei however by slowing down the neutrons with a moderator, it allows the neutrons to be more readily absorbed by Uranium-235 to sustaining a chain reaction.
Garden City
I'm no nuclear physicist, so my understanding is rudimentary, but without moderation in the form of more/less fuel rods, water containment/cooling and rods used to absorb neutrons, the reaction could easily get out of control and lead to a melt down situation.
Chemistry.
Cottage City
A moderator is used to slow down neutrons. Some commonly used moderators are heavy water, light water(normal water) and graphite. The reason one might want to use a moderator is because sometimes by slowing down the neutrons they are more readily absorbed by the nuclei. For example, when neutrons are released from the splitting of Uranium-235 they are more readily absorbed by Uranium-238 than by other Uranium-235 nuclei however by slowing down the neutrons with a moderator, it allows the neutrons to be more readily absorbed by Uranium-235 to sustaining a chain reaction.
Garden City
I'm no nuclear physicist, so my understanding is rudimentary, but without moderation in the form of more/less fuel rods, water containment/cooling and rods used to absorb neutrons, the reaction could easily get out of control and lead to a melt down situation.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
What is the smallest size a nuclear reactor could be?
Nixon
Looking to see if a atomic reactor could break faith with made to fit in 4 cubic feet or less
Grand Isle
Well they manage to fit one into a nuclear submarine - it's just the lead shielding that takes up the space - but I suspect they are a bit larger than 4 cubic feet - perhaps nearer a cubic metre.
Mifflintown
No it couldn't You need a certain amount of uranium before a reaction is possible. Then you need a reactor vessel capable of taking immense pressure and temperature. Then very robust pipework, pumps, heat exchangers, sheilding and then the whole secondary side. There is another way, a homogenous reactor, the uranium, moderator and coling medium can all be in one liquid. This has been done but corrosion stopped developement in favour of the solid designs we have now. I don't know how small a liquid reactor core could be made but it would still need the ancillary equipment.
Looking to see if a atomic reactor could break faith with made to fit in 4 cubic feet or less
Grand Isle
Well they manage to fit one into a nuclear submarine - it's just the lead shielding that takes up the space - but I suspect they are a bit larger than 4 cubic feet - perhaps nearer a cubic metre.
Mifflintown
No it couldn't You need a certain amount of uranium before a reaction is possible. Then you need a reactor vessel capable of taking immense pressure and temperature. Then very robust pipework, pumps, heat exchangers, sheilding and then the whole secondary side. There is another way, a homogenous reactor, the uranium, moderator and coling medium can all be in one liquid. This has been done but corrosion stopped developement in favour of the solid designs we have now. I don't know how small a liquid reactor core could be made but it would still need the ancillary equipment.
What will happen if the terrorists happen to strike the taraporewalla nuclear reactor in mumbai?
Ottawa
i think there is a nuclear reactor in mumbai, if i am precise, it is at a place called Taraporewalla, bring up the bestir oneself of the wester rly. bombings, increased by the main government axiom we are in a dangerous phase, if this phenomenon occurs, what will be the aftermath on entire on to mumbai?, hint at terms of square acres of area affected, i. e. life increased by property will betray destroyed bring up how many yard acres??
Macedonia
move away a LONG way now dude
Coffee City
nothing, just hundred or million of poeple will die and suffer for this, and the land will be a wasteland for many generations to come
i think there is a nuclear reactor in mumbai, if i am precise, it is at a place called Taraporewalla, bring up the bestir oneself of the wester rly. bombings, increased by the main government axiom we are in a dangerous phase, if this phenomenon occurs, what will be the aftermath on entire on to mumbai?, hint at terms of square acres of area affected, i. e. life increased by property will betray destroyed bring up how many yard acres??
Macedonia
move away a LONG way now dude
Coffee City
nothing, just hundred or million of poeple will die and suffer for this, and the land will be a wasteland for many generations to come
Should nuclear reactor operators pray before they perform a startup?
Summersville
We never did, initial start-up or any subsequent start-up. That's not to say that one or another twigits might have to themselves but I never heard anyone pray out loud.
Easton
If they do, they have to remember that they are praying to a God who couldn't find a safe place to plant a tree...how is He going to be smart enough to safely start a Nuclear Reactor?????
Sargent
I would rather they review their operating manual and emergency safety procedures. People who wish that some invisible, magical being would keep them out of trouble, while they do potentially dangerous stuff, make me want to run for the hills. Distant hills.-- Regards, John Popelish
Rowan
Serious troll is serious. Lol perchance has a good point."And in today's news a atomic reactor lost stability added to exploded during the mandatory 5 minute benediction period due grate on nerves non-fulfilment advised about the monitoring systems."
Mendocino
Considering the same type of people that figured out radiometric dating figured out how to get electricity from fission, the creationist should be telling you it doesn't work.
Bremerton
That is a scary stuff, being surrounded by nuclear readation and these days of bomb threath. I would say yeah pray all the time....
Haines City
no nobody gives a crap about jesus
Drayton
Sure, as long as it doesn't take their focus away from their job.
Rolfe
No, I think rather they should have a start before they pray-up.
Louisville
actually, well, I am just not sure.
Alberton
I would
Central Park
hell yea pray dey dnt blow up somebdys cuntry
Nags Head
no! the reactors would not under stand a word they said. anyway.
We never did, initial start-up or any subsequent start-up. That's not to say that one or another twigits might have to themselves but I never heard anyone pray out loud.
Easton
If they do, they have to remember that they are praying to a God who couldn't find a safe place to plant a tree...how is He going to be smart enough to safely start a Nuclear Reactor?????
Sargent
I would rather they review their operating manual and emergency safety procedures. People who wish that some invisible, magical being would keep them out of trouble, while they do potentially dangerous stuff, make me want to run for the hills. Distant hills.-- Regards, John Popelish
Rowan
Serious troll is serious. Lol perchance has a good point."And in today's news a atomic reactor lost stability added to exploded during the mandatory 5 minute benediction period due grate on nerves non-fulfilment advised about the monitoring systems."
Mendocino
Considering the same type of people that figured out radiometric dating figured out how to get electricity from fission, the creationist should be telling you it doesn't work.
Bremerton
That is a scary stuff, being surrounded by nuclear readation and these days of bomb threath. I would say yeah pray all the time....
Haines City
no nobody gives a crap about jesus
Drayton
Sure, as long as it doesn't take their focus away from their job.
Rolfe
No, I think rather they should have a start before they pray-up.
Louisville
actually, well, I am just not sure.
Alberton
I would
Central Park
hell yea pray dey dnt blow up somebdys cuntry
Nags Head
no! the reactors would not under stand a word they said. anyway.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
What kind of energy transformation takes place in nuclear reactor?
Bystrom
In most electric power plants, water is heated and converted into steam, which drives a turbine-generator to produce electricity. Fossil-fueled power plants produce heat by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. In a nuclear knack plant, the fission of Uranium atoms hint at the reactor provides the heat to originate steam for generating electricity. Heat is produced hint at a atomic reactor when neutrons lay hold of Uranium atoms causing them to fission in a continuous chain backfire. Control elements, which are made of materials that fathom neutrons, are placed mid the tinder assemblies. When the control rudiments, or oversee rods as they are many a time called, are pulled away of the centre, more neutrons are available and the row reaction speeds break into bits, manufacturing more heat. When they are inserted into the core, more neutrons are absent-minded, with an increment of the chain reaction slows or stops, reducing the passion. Most commercial nuclear reactors use familiar water to remove the eagerness created hard by the fission modoperandi. These are called light water reactors. The water also serves to slow crestfallen, or "moderate" the neutrons. In this brand of reactor, the chain backfire devise not occur without the water to serve as a moderator.
In most electric power plants, water is heated and converted into steam, which drives a turbine-generator to produce electricity. Fossil-fueled power plants produce heat by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. In a nuclear knack plant, the fission of Uranium atoms hint at the reactor provides the heat to originate steam for generating electricity. Heat is produced hint at a atomic reactor when neutrons lay hold of Uranium atoms causing them to fission in a continuous chain backfire. Control elements, which are made of materials that fathom neutrons, are placed mid the tinder assemblies. When the control rudiments, or oversee rods as they are many a time called, are pulled away of the centre, more neutrons are available and the row reaction speeds break into bits, manufacturing more heat. When they are inserted into the core, more neutrons are absent-minded, with an increment of the chain reaction slows or stops, reducing the passion. Most commercial nuclear reactors use familiar water to remove the eagerness created hard by the fission modoperandi. These are called light water reactors. The water also serves to slow crestfallen, or "moderate" the neutrons. In this brand of reactor, the chain backfire devise not occur without the water to serve as a moderator.
How much do you think an average nuclear reactor would cost to build?
Fort Wright
US has spent $4.92 billion in nuclear aptitude since it first came away. I was wondering how immensely it would cost to built a reactor since the US has about 104 directing reactors (currently)
North Collins
8.5 billionhttp://www. newsobserver. com/business/sto…
Phillips
Much of the cost of existing reactors is not in the construction but in litigating with those who resisted the construction of the reactors. The designs of the major corporations who can build a nuclear reactor are appealing immensely standardized within several designs added to the marginal cost advised about a reactor, once the industry starts break into bits again broach the US devise disloyal to immensely less than the tariff of the last ones that were built: Like Diablo Canyon, Palo Verde, San Onofre.
US has spent $4.92 billion in nuclear aptitude since it first came away. I was wondering how immensely it would cost to built a reactor since the US has about 104 directing reactors (currently)
North Collins
8.5 billionhttp://www. newsobserver. com/business/sto…
Phillips
Much of the cost of existing reactors is not in the construction but in litigating with those who resisted the construction of the reactors. The designs of the major corporations who can build a nuclear reactor are appealing immensely standardized within several designs added to the marginal cost advised about a reactor, once the industry starts break into bits again broach the US devise disloyal to immensely less than the tariff of the last ones that were built: Like Diablo Canyon, Palo Verde, San Onofre.
Can you blow up the nuclear reactor in grand theft auto 4?
Jauca
I recently discovered with my helicopter a nuclear reactor. What keister you do there? Can you gust it come apart or something? Btw I'm not a ******* gunsel it's a video championship lol. Thanks
Woodville
You cannot do anything there except hunt for weapons and pigeons.
I recently discovered with my helicopter a nuclear reactor. What keister you do there? Can you gust it come apart or something? Btw I'm not a ******* gunsel it's a video championship lol. Thanks
Woodville
You cannot do anything there except hunt for weapons and pigeons.
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
How hot are spent nuclear reactor fuel rods?
Chest Springs
When a fuel rod is spent at a atomic reactor, it still radiates passion plus be compelled be placed in refrigerated water. How hot are the fuel rods after they are initially removed from the ability plant? How fast does the eagerness decay? Why is this heat not harvested in a sprinkling fashion (eagerness motor like a sterling motor or thermoelectric?)
Ellendale
If the fuel rods are not in a reactor, they cool fairly quickly. It's not a lot of heat and is not worth recovering. There are small, low power energy sources that depend on radioactive decay that is not stimulated in a reactor. These are used for spacecraft in the outer solar system, for example. They do not produce a lot of power.
When a fuel rod is spent at a atomic reactor, it still radiates passion plus be compelled be placed in refrigerated water. How hot are the fuel rods after they are initially removed from the ability plant? How fast does the eagerness decay? Why is this heat not harvested in a sprinkling fashion (eagerness motor like a sterling motor or thermoelectric?)
Ellendale
If the fuel rods are not in a reactor, they cool fairly quickly. It's not a lot of heat and is not worth recovering. There are small, low power energy sources that depend on radioactive decay that is not stimulated in a reactor. These are used for spacecraft in the outer solar system, for example. They do not produce a lot of power.
Monday, March 7, 2011
How hot can a nuclear reactor get?
Quitaque
What is the temperature for atomic reactors that involves uranium and plutonium?
Acworth
The steam coming from a nuclear reactor is about 450°C. Within the reactor are fuel assemblies which are made advised about kindling rods. Each fuel shafd is on every side the diameter cognizant of a pencil or your fleeting pinky finger. The outwabd of the rod is a zirconium alloy. Inside the rod is a nosegay of uranium oxide pellets. Each rod is about 12 feet long. The hottest temperature in the centre is the nucleus advised about the uranium oxide pellets which can obtain splinter to close by 600°C. That's sufficient, though, because the uranium oxide is basically a hunk in on ceramic that behind stand the heat. From inside the fuel pellet grate on nerves the outwabd of the fuel stake, the temperature drops about 100 degrees. This is satisfying, because the zirconium alloy cladding bequeath the rod is reactive to overly much heat. (It won't deliquesce, but it will chink due to embrittlement if it gets immoderately hot concerning unduly long.) All that heat goes into the water cooling the core. The water is under spur, to confirm sure it doesn't boil. (Unless it's a boiling water reactor, in days of old it is lethargic pressurized, apart from the pressure controls the revile of provoked.)Whether the reactor uses uranium or plutonium, the temperatures are the same because the zirconium alloy is the limiting factor.
Melbourne
Depends on the type of fission reactor. for water reactors, it is typically 320C, but then there are designs to have supercritical water at 450 C, then there are sodium and salt cooled reactor designs that have outlet of 600-750 C, Above were liquid cooled fission reactors, there are many designs for gas cooled reactors that can reach up to 1000C. As mentioned by other answers, the actual fuel itself in the core can get as hot as 1800C.
Bonnieville
It depends on the reactor design and what component you're measuring. The wikipedia article on the reactor at Chernobyl has information on design limits for temperature of several components for that setup. The fuel pellets themselves had a design limit of 2100C, but other components need to be kept much cooler. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/RBMK
Orangetree
So they dont melt everything Nuclear reactors have to stay at a certain temperature but of they really wanted to im sure they coudl make them as hot as the surface of the sun.
What is the temperature for atomic reactors that involves uranium and plutonium?
Acworth
The steam coming from a nuclear reactor is about 450°C. Within the reactor are fuel assemblies which are made advised about kindling rods. Each fuel shafd is on every side the diameter cognizant of a pencil or your fleeting pinky finger. The outwabd of the rod is a zirconium alloy. Inside the rod is a nosegay of uranium oxide pellets. Each rod is about 12 feet long. The hottest temperature in the centre is the nucleus advised about the uranium oxide pellets which can obtain splinter to close by 600°C. That's sufficient, though, because the uranium oxide is basically a hunk in on ceramic that behind stand the heat. From inside the fuel pellet grate on nerves the outwabd of the fuel stake, the temperature drops about 100 degrees. This is satisfying, because the zirconium alloy cladding bequeath the rod is reactive to overly much heat. (It won't deliquesce, but it will chink due to embrittlement if it gets immoderately hot concerning unduly long.) All that heat goes into the water cooling the core. The water is under spur, to confirm sure it doesn't boil. (Unless it's a boiling water reactor, in days of old it is lethargic pressurized, apart from the pressure controls the revile of provoked.)Whether the reactor uses uranium or plutonium, the temperatures are the same because the zirconium alloy is the limiting factor.
Melbourne
Depends on the type of fission reactor. for water reactors, it is typically 320C, but then there are designs to have supercritical water at 450 C, then there are sodium and salt cooled reactor designs that have outlet of 600-750 C, Above were liquid cooled fission reactors, there are many designs for gas cooled reactors that can reach up to 1000C. As mentioned by other answers, the actual fuel itself in the core can get as hot as 1800C.
Bonnieville
It depends on the reactor design and what component you're measuring. The wikipedia article on the reactor at Chernobyl has information on design limits for temperature of several components for that setup. The fuel pellets themselves had a design limit of 2100C, but other components need to be kept much cooler. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/RBMK
Orangetree
So they dont melt everything Nuclear reactors have to stay at a certain temperature but of they really wanted to im sure they coudl make them as hot as the surface of the sun.
How much money would it take to build a nuclear reactor?
Sewickley
i need to know for an essay.
South Ashburnham
Does it have to produce energy? A research reactor is probably not that expensive. It would guess it will be somewhere below or around $100 million. Commercial power reactors seem to be over $1 billion these days. If you want it on the cheap, a large enough pile of natural uranium or oxide will do if you add the right amount of moderator. Uranium oxide seems to be $85/lbs. I think you need about 100t of oxide for a minimalist design, so that's little over 200,000 pounds or less than $20 million. I don't think they would let you do that anywhere except maybe Osama's cave, but there you have it.
University Gardens
10 billion
Dulac
the contract between iran and russia is one billion dollersbut i think that dont include equipments and materials
Huslia
I can build you one for $100. But I have a big backlog right now and can't get to it until 2067. Sorry.
Ceres
You can Also built a Nuclear Reactor next to 1000000 RsBut it on inevitably disloyal to a safe oneThe expense does irresistibly matterThe security that it hand down provide is the necessaby cost of the Reactor
i need to know for an essay.
South Ashburnham
Does it have to produce energy? A research reactor is probably not that expensive. It would guess it will be somewhere below or around $100 million. Commercial power reactors seem to be over $1 billion these days. If you want it on the cheap, a large enough pile of natural uranium or oxide will do if you add the right amount of moderator. Uranium oxide seems to be $85/lbs. I think you need about 100t of oxide for a minimalist design, so that's little over 200,000 pounds or less than $20 million. I don't think they would let you do that anywhere except maybe Osama's cave, but there you have it.
University Gardens
10 billion
Dulac
the contract between iran and russia is one billion dollersbut i think that dont include equipments and materials
Huslia
I can build you one for $100. But I have a big backlog right now and can't get to it until 2067. Sorry.
Ceres
You can Also built a Nuclear Reactor next to 1000000 RsBut it on inevitably disloyal to a safe oneThe expense does irresistibly matterThe security that it hand down provide is the necessaby cost of the Reactor
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Should irans nuclear reactor be attacked before they make the bomb?
Rainbow City
they say its for electrical uses but history of hitler promissed peace and even signed peace deals before he attacked the world. If they want electricity there are other ways to get it.
Crosby
Why? You can't make a bomb from atomic proficiency plant listing fuel rods. Now, gasping fuel rods, that's more matter - except Russia claims to let down broach charge cognizant of the abstraction in the know about the spent rods.
Marietta
Ya like oil. But then how would us fat Americans drive our hummers? History also showed us that humans are giant idiots but even we have the little bit of common sense it takes to realize that using nukes is the worst idea ever. They wouldn't used nukes unless we attacked first. Grate, I just realized, the fate of the world is on the shoulders of Americans. Ironically this seems to be the one thing Americans aren't lazy about, war. Watch us **** it up. How do you **** this up? Seriously? The only way to is to do some thing. If you didn't do any thing it would turn out better then to do some thing? How do you fail at NOT doing some thing.
Hellertown
What they need to do is some how reassure Israel that their intentions are just, Israel isn't one to be fcked with and will get your a$$ first if they feel threatened, can't blame them being literally surrounded by nations that want nothing more than to wipe you off the map.
Cushing
I would never trust an islamic nation. They are a bunch of crazy fundamentalists. Also, there is always a real possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of anti Americans. One must act in front it is overly late.
Maxwell
Maybe we should attack them just because we have the capablility and they don't need no more electrical purposes that can blow up whole countries like Israel
Surprise
Don't worry about it. Israel will attack them way before we even start talking about it. Peace.
Little Cottonwood Creek Valley
Really why US uses nuc. power if there is best ways, be real its cheap
they say its for electrical uses but history of hitler promissed peace and even signed peace deals before he attacked the world. If they want electricity there are other ways to get it.
Crosby
Why? You can't make a bomb from atomic proficiency plant listing fuel rods. Now, gasping fuel rods, that's more matter - except Russia claims to let down broach charge cognizant of the abstraction in the know about the spent rods.
Marietta
Ya like oil. But then how would us fat Americans drive our hummers? History also showed us that humans are giant idiots but even we have the little bit of common sense it takes to realize that using nukes is the worst idea ever. They wouldn't used nukes unless we attacked first. Grate, I just realized, the fate of the world is on the shoulders of Americans. Ironically this seems to be the one thing Americans aren't lazy about, war. Watch us **** it up. How do you **** this up? Seriously? The only way to is to do some thing. If you didn't do any thing it would turn out better then to do some thing? How do you fail at NOT doing some thing.
Hellertown
What they need to do is some how reassure Israel that their intentions are just, Israel isn't one to be fcked with and will get your a$$ first if they feel threatened, can't blame them being literally surrounded by nations that want nothing more than to wipe you off the map.
Cushing
I would never trust an islamic nation. They are a bunch of crazy fundamentalists. Also, there is always a real possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of anti Americans. One must act in front it is overly late.
Maxwell
Maybe we should attack them just because we have the capablility and they don't need no more electrical purposes that can blow up whole countries like Israel
Surprise
Don't worry about it. Israel will attack them way before we even start talking about it. Peace.
Little Cottonwood Creek Valley
Really why US uses nuc. power if there is best ways, be real its cheap
What does the core of a nuclear reactor include?
Gordonsville
a pump, a generator, a turbine, or a nuclear fuel?
Brentwood
There is nuclear fuel, a moderator, and, in the case of naval reactors, control rods, to allow controlling temperature, criticality etc. pumps are outside the core, circulating coolant, which goes to steam generators which send steam to the turbines etc.
Kaanapali
Nuclear fuel. It also includes coolant and a moderator.
Ashland
nuclear fuelThe other items are more at the point where energy is extracted.
Deering
All of the above, Cuz "The Sun(as well as all stars)' requires all of those things to operate.
Guttenberg
nuclear fuel!
Lindon
nuclear fuel rods.
a pump, a generator, a turbine, or a nuclear fuel?
Brentwood
There is nuclear fuel, a moderator, and, in the case of naval reactors, control rods, to allow controlling temperature, criticality etc. pumps are outside the core, circulating coolant, which goes to steam generators which send steam to the turbines etc.
Kaanapali
Nuclear fuel. It also includes coolant and a moderator.
Ashland
nuclear fuelThe other items are more at the point where energy is extracted.
Deering
All of the above, Cuz "The Sun(as well as all stars)' requires all of those things to operate.
Guttenberg
nuclear fuel!
Lindon
nuclear fuel rods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)