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.
Showing posts with label japan nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label japan nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Could a tablet computer be powered by a mini nuclear reactor?
Beverly Beach
Computers were at one time powered by tubes, now by silicon chips! Could a nuclear powered computer accererate us faster to the deviation added to make electricity medieval?
Paradis
Define mini? Can a nuclear reactor scaled to a typical power a laptop? No, you will not get a self-sustaining reacting because the neutrons are rhapsodic out and axiomatically creating fissions. Even with reflectors plus alternative hardware, it is very difficult and you just adding to the size. If you got it working, then you poverty shielding and that dransmit just certify it larger. Also, I am assuming something positively advanced that converts the fission energy directly into electricity (you are always actually creating tenseness). You could create a battery from a radioactive foundation-stone that converts the energy knowledgeable about the emitted radiation gain tenseness. But that is not a atomic fission/fusing backfire that takes plunk down in a reactor. The vacuum tubes with the addition of silicon chips you are referring are the series of electrical switches that allow the adding machine grate on nerves do computations. These are inevitably the power sources. Perhaps you are thinking apprised of quantum computers. Instead cognizant of using fleeting electrical switches that a flick through flop between will and away grate on nerves wind up computations. A quantum computers alteration the quantum states cognizant of atoms or electrons to conclude computations. The actually utilization particular quantum numbers that actually kinda of do a on plus away thing like electrical switches hint at today's computers, but you can sire a superposition of devise these on and elsewhere states. Thus, you can store and compute exceedingly large in profusion of pointer and notably fast too. If you think on every side, gorged Avagrado's aplenty of entities mention a undercover agent jam. Like 6.2 x10
Clio
Computers were at one time powered by tubes, now by silicon chips! Could a nuclear powered computer accererate us faster to the deviation added to make electricity medieval?
Paradis
Define mini? Can a nuclear reactor scaled to a typical power a laptop? No, you will not get a self-sustaining reacting because the neutrons are rhapsodic out and axiomatically creating fissions. Even with reflectors plus alternative hardware, it is very difficult and you just adding to the size. If you got it working, then you poverty shielding and that dransmit just certify it larger. Also, I am assuming something positively advanced that converts the fission energy directly into electricity (you are always actually creating tenseness). You could create a battery from a radioactive foundation-stone that converts the energy knowledgeable about the emitted radiation gain tenseness. But that is not a atomic fission/fusing backfire that takes plunk down in a reactor. The vacuum tubes with the addition of silicon chips you are referring are the series of electrical switches that allow the adding machine grate on nerves do computations. These are inevitably the power sources. Perhaps you are thinking apprised of quantum computers. Instead cognizant of using fleeting electrical switches that a flick through flop between will and away grate on nerves wind up computations. A quantum computers alteration the quantum states cognizant of atoms or electrons to conclude computations. The actually utilization particular quantum numbers that actually kinda of do a on plus away thing like electrical switches hint at today's computers, but you can sire a superposition of devise these on and elsewhere states. Thus, you can store and compute exceedingly large in profusion of pointer and notably fast too. If you think on every side, gorged Avagrado's aplenty of entities mention a undercover agent jam. Like 6.2 x10
Clio
What are the advantages and disadvantages of building a nuclear reactor in an urban area?
Isles of the Blessed
there is no particular advantage in co-locating a generating station in proximity to its demand. historically, such stations are located with convenience to the source of energy. ie coal plants located in Wyoming, hydroplants at Niagra Falls, wind farms on windy hills, tide generators on the coast, etc. A nuclear generator serves such a large region, that wires will have to travel distances no matter where the plant is located. High Voltage transmission is quite efficient. The major consumers merely need to be close to a substation or transformer vault. On a lighter note, people have this annoying habit of wanting to live near large scale industry that was built originally to be in rural location. ie the DIA airport was moved out many miles from Denver to preclude the security problems inherent with the old Stapleton field. And now, where are the new housing subdivision being built? How many people moved into the 3 Mile community after construction started on the first reactor? Industry is easy to regulate, people are not.
Fredericktown
Other than the power... I don't see any advantages of having it in an urban area.
St. Peter
Disadvantages: radioactive waste, target for terrorism or military attacks, possibility of accidents like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
Pearl
disadvantages-radiation could be a problem to citizensanother disaster could happen like the Chernobyl where the fission reaction wasn't controlled properly and it blew up...leaving the surrounding area radio active. Advantages-it is accessible so that there are labourers available to work
Medford
The advantage is that it requires less effort for the workers to travel to the site of the reactor and that the electrical wires connecting the power to the users may be shorter. The disadvantages are due to the greater risk of a failure causing a spread of nuclear materials over a populated region rather than in a more open place. Such a reactor may require a cooling supply of water which is easier to provide if it doesn't have to be shared with the population. However the heat can be used for homes in winter so there are advantages too.
Aniwa
One major advantage would be having the plant close to the load it serves, the city. That mean less transmission lines to build and less loss from power transmission. You also could have access to city services, like potable water, fire department, etc. Now for the disadvantages, which, to my mind, heavily outweigh the advantages. Emergency planning would be an extreme challenge, since you have to arrange evacuation routes for the entire surrounding community. In the US, an entire nuclear unit was built and then shut down without generating even 1 megawatt of electricity because the surrounding localities would not cooperate with the emergency plan (see Shoreham on Long Island). Getting a source of cooling water is an issue, especially if the city is competing for a scarce supply. And in building it, there are massive amounts of steel, concrete and large pieces of equipment that have to travel to the site, which may be difficult traveling through a built-up area. The radiation is not really an issue because regulations prohibit emitting more than a small fraction of the radiation that would impairment anyone who lived handy the furthest plant limit concerning an unreduced year.
Lakewood Village
This question needs some additional context. What might be the advantages or disadvantages of building any kind of power generation system (coal - or natural-gas fired boilers, wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, etc.) in an urban area. All power generation has environmental impacts, and some of the impacts are a little surprising. For example, more uranium is released from burning coal than is released from nuclear power reactors. Even more necessaby is the add up to apprised of transcript dioxide and other gases increased by the amount in on solid waste generated. The alternative part of the question is "what is the claim re electricity?" Engineering and economic evaluation of advantages and disadvantaged of variant methods for power crystallization can betray explored broach the tome "Sustainable Energy" by Tester, Drake, Driscoll, Golay, and Peters. The point of my answer is to rich enough a amend context as to the query consequence that a guileless, direct answer to the ask on one's high horse won't fail misconstrued into the final answer Formal anent a complex topic.
there is no particular advantage in co-locating a generating station in proximity to its demand. historically, such stations are located with convenience to the source of energy. ie coal plants located in Wyoming, hydroplants at Niagra Falls, wind farms on windy hills, tide generators on the coast, etc. A nuclear generator serves such a large region, that wires will have to travel distances no matter where the plant is located. High Voltage transmission is quite efficient. The major consumers merely need to be close to a substation or transformer vault. On a lighter note, people have this annoying habit of wanting to live near large scale industry that was built originally to be in rural location. ie the DIA airport was moved out many miles from Denver to preclude the security problems inherent with the old Stapleton field. And now, where are the new housing subdivision being built? How many people moved into the 3 Mile community after construction started on the first reactor? Industry is easy to regulate, people are not.
Fredericktown
Other than the power... I don't see any advantages of having it in an urban area.
St. Peter
Disadvantages: radioactive waste, target for terrorism or military attacks, possibility of accidents like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
Pearl
disadvantages-radiation could be a problem to citizensanother disaster could happen like the Chernobyl where the fission reaction wasn't controlled properly and it blew up...leaving the surrounding area radio active. Advantages-it is accessible so that there are labourers available to work
Medford
The advantage is that it requires less effort for the workers to travel to the site of the reactor and that the electrical wires connecting the power to the users may be shorter. The disadvantages are due to the greater risk of a failure causing a spread of nuclear materials over a populated region rather than in a more open place. Such a reactor may require a cooling supply of water which is easier to provide if it doesn't have to be shared with the population. However the heat can be used for homes in winter so there are advantages too.
Aniwa
One major advantage would be having the plant close to the load it serves, the city. That mean less transmission lines to build and less loss from power transmission. You also could have access to city services, like potable water, fire department, etc. Now for the disadvantages, which, to my mind, heavily outweigh the advantages. Emergency planning would be an extreme challenge, since you have to arrange evacuation routes for the entire surrounding community. In the US, an entire nuclear unit was built and then shut down without generating even 1 megawatt of electricity because the surrounding localities would not cooperate with the emergency plan (see Shoreham on Long Island). Getting a source of cooling water is an issue, especially if the city is competing for a scarce supply. And in building it, there are massive amounts of steel, concrete and large pieces of equipment that have to travel to the site, which may be difficult traveling through a built-up area. The radiation is not really an issue because regulations prohibit emitting more than a small fraction of the radiation that would impairment anyone who lived handy the furthest plant limit concerning an unreduced year.
Lakewood Village
This question needs some additional context. What might be the advantages or disadvantages of building any kind of power generation system (coal - or natural-gas fired boilers, wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, etc.) in an urban area. All power generation has environmental impacts, and some of the impacts are a little surprising. For example, more uranium is released from burning coal than is released from nuclear power reactors. Even more necessaby is the add up to apprised of transcript dioxide and other gases increased by the amount in on solid waste generated. The alternative part of the question is "what is the claim re electricity?" Engineering and economic evaluation of advantages and disadvantaged of variant methods for power crystallization can betray explored broach the tome "Sustainable Energy" by Tester, Drake, Driscoll, Golay, and Peters. The point of my answer is to rich enough a amend context as to the query consequence that a guileless, direct answer to the ask on one's high horse won't fail misconstrued into the final answer Formal anent a complex topic.
How disingenious is it to attack iran for trying to build a nuclear reactor?
La Harpe
while several countries in that part of the world got nukes...actual atomic weapons, and got them without getting cufferance, together with violating international amiability..including India, Pakistan, Israel. Does it not seem hardly a bit, unfair to Iran that they would prove false targeted for doing something that others have done repeatedly without repercussions. The verbalize that comes grate on nerves mind is disingeniousness.
Chrisney
The past is past. What's now is the fact that letting a terrorist state (a state that sponsors terrorism) have access to atomic weapons is irresponsible and dangerous.
Sturgeon Bay
Isreal and Evil jews wants another war with Iran. Losers...
Lake Shore
there are a number of reasons NOT to attack Iran. Here are just a few of them:1. They haven't attacked the US.2. We don't have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do within their own country.3. We are already badly over-extended in terms of military allocation, and another pointless crusade is only going to weaken us even further.4. There are plenty of other countries that are just as bad or worse -- meaning that we'd be picking on that one for no reason other than we don't like what they say or what their dominant religion is.5. There are many more pressing needs for where the US can spend a hundred billion (or more) per year.6. Attacking Iran gains us absolutely nothing.7. The Iranian people are already starting to get annoyed with the current president, and he probably won't win re-election in 2009 -- unless we attack, which justifies his actions and causes the entire country to rally against the US.
Ridgeway
Only in the foggiest of politically correct leftist minds is it disingenuous to attack a country that has been swearing the destruction of another country, been the biggest sponsor of terrorism and providing support military support against the United States. If you are trying to make me feel superior to you; it is working.
Fergus Falls
No...you take them on for 3 reasons:1. A terrorist supportive state trying to develope a NUKE, not a reactor.2. "Convert or die" and "Death to America" as your national slogans combined with #1.3. Since they declared war on US in 1979 by invading our embassy {an act of war by international law} , it's time we dealt with the raghead mullahs. The above 3 can be eliminated if the Iranian people got rid of the mullahs and stopped working on a nuclear weapon. Which one sounds like the best? I prefer the last, but am in full support for dealing with the first 3 !
Frankford
Here is one good reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear anything, even if it means bombing them out of existence. THEY WANT TO KILL US, and this means liberals too.
La Grange
Iran is evil and poses a threat to the world. America should stop nations that will kill us all. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Socialist Liberals, and other should all be taken out.
South Vacherie
It makes a lot of sense to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability. Have you been listening to what Ahmadinejad has been saying? Do you really want this lunatic to have a nuclear weapon?
Fulton
No, it isn't disingenuous or, an act of hypocrisy. You've got a man over there threatening to wipe countries off the map, preaching that the west is impure and asserting his Allah given right to rid the world of infidels. There is no reason to trust such a man with the capacity to do what he desires. If a leader of the free world expressed an open desire to rid the world of Muslims, we'd send that person to the loony pen immediately.
Clio
What international protocol might this be? Are you referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty? The one that was not signed by everybody? Actually, the truth of the matter is that a nuclear Iran would present a debilitating threat to the region and beyond. NOT protesting and determining how to stop this real possibility would be "disingenuousness".Those who would pretend otherwise are simply being foolish. And those who say "Wah! Israel has nukes too!" are sidestepping from the real issue.
Fabius
And you believe that's why they want to build these? Why aren't other countries reacting in outrage then if it was commonly thought that was all Iran wanted?? And you need to research this a little more.
while several countries in that part of the world got nukes...actual atomic weapons, and got them without getting cufferance, together with violating international amiability..including India, Pakistan, Israel. Does it not seem hardly a bit, unfair to Iran that they would prove false targeted for doing something that others have done repeatedly without repercussions. The verbalize that comes grate on nerves mind is disingeniousness.
Chrisney
The past is past. What's now is the fact that letting a terrorist state (a state that sponsors terrorism) have access to atomic weapons is irresponsible and dangerous.
Sturgeon Bay
Isreal and Evil jews wants another war with Iran. Losers...
Lake Shore
there are a number of reasons NOT to attack Iran. Here are just a few of them:1. They haven't attacked the US.2. We don't have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do within their own country.3. We are already badly over-extended in terms of military allocation, and another pointless crusade is only going to weaken us even further.4. There are plenty of other countries that are just as bad or worse -- meaning that we'd be picking on that one for no reason other than we don't like what they say or what their dominant religion is.5. There are many more pressing needs for where the US can spend a hundred billion (or more) per year.6. Attacking Iran gains us absolutely nothing.7. The Iranian people are already starting to get annoyed with the current president, and he probably won't win re-election in 2009 -- unless we attack, which justifies his actions and causes the entire country to rally against the US.
Ridgeway
Only in the foggiest of politically correct leftist minds is it disingenuous to attack a country that has been swearing the destruction of another country, been the biggest sponsor of terrorism and providing support military support against the United States. If you are trying to make me feel superior to you; it is working.
Fergus Falls
No...you take them on for 3 reasons:1. A terrorist supportive state trying to develope a NUKE, not a reactor.2. "Convert or die" and "Death to America" as your national slogans combined with #1.3. Since they declared war on US in 1979 by invading our embassy {an act of war by international law} , it's time we dealt with the raghead mullahs. The above 3 can be eliminated if the Iranian people got rid of the mullahs and stopped working on a nuclear weapon. Which one sounds like the best? I prefer the last, but am in full support for dealing with the first 3 !
Frankford
Here is one good reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear anything, even if it means bombing them out of existence. THEY WANT TO KILL US, and this means liberals too.
La Grange
Iran is evil and poses a threat to the world. America should stop nations that will kill us all. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Socialist Liberals, and other should all be taken out.
South Vacherie
It makes a lot of sense to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability. Have you been listening to what Ahmadinejad has been saying? Do you really want this lunatic to have a nuclear weapon?
Fulton
No, it isn't disingenuous or, an act of hypocrisy. You've got a man over there threatening to wipe countries off the map, preaching that the west is impure and asserting his Allah given right to rid the world of infidels. There is no reason to trust such a man with the capacity to do what he desires. If a leader of the free world expressed an open desire to rid the world of Muslims, we'd send that person to the loony pen immediately.
Clio
What international protocol might this be? Are you referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty? The one that was not signed by everybody? Actually, the truth of the matter is that a nuclear Iran would present a debilitating threat to the region and beyond. NOT protesting and determining how to stop this real possibility would be "disingenuousness".Those who would pretend otherwise are simply being foolish. And those who say "Wah! Israel has nukes too!" are sidestepping from the real issue.
Fabius
And you believe that's why they want to build these? Why aren't other countries reacting in outrage then if it was commonly thought that was all Iran wanted?? And you need to research this a little more.
Why do the fuel rods in a nuclear reactor have to be changed?
Sunrise
Why do the fuel rods in a nuclear reactor give birth to grate on nerves betray changed? Please enlighten me
Lauderdale Lakes
The uranium they are made of is mostly U238 (which is not fissile, but fertile) and a small proportion only is U235, the real fuel. As the rods get used, the U235 is progressively disintegrated into lighter atomic nucleus, i. e. the U235 gets used up. Eventually, the % U235 is getting too low and the rods are "spent". That is the point they need changing, or else the nuclear reactor would simply arrest.
Dill City
Eventually the fuel rods become depleted. basically It loses it charge (uranium) or power source. You know like on star trek. Your dylithium crystals are spent Captain.
Caledonia
Well, you can't get an unlimited amount of energy from any type of fuel. In the case of coal you end up with ash and CO2 which you can't burn. Uranium and plutonium fuel rods in a reactor change into a mixture of elements with much less nuclear vim, so you need to replace them with new kindling rods. But they've still got enough stored energy to generate a assortment on to heat as regards thousands in on in olden days as they schism dispirited. When dumping nuclear wilderness you exiguity grate on nerves make arrangements grate on nerves safely dispose of this heat. It's a pity that nobody has come what may figured not present a safe way to use it.
Why do the fuel rods in a nuclear reactor give birth to grate on nerves betray changed? Please enlighten me
Lauderdale Lakes
The uranium they are made of is mostly U238 (which is not fissile, but fertile) and a small proportion only is U235, the real fuel. As the rods get used, the U235 is progressively disintegrated into lighter atomic nucleus, i. e. the U235 gets used up. Eventually, the % U235 is getting too low and the rods are "spent". That is the point they need changing, or else the nuclear reactor would simply arrest.
Dill City
Eventually the fuel rods become depleted. basically It loses it charge (uranium) or power source. You know like on star trek. Your dylithium crystals are spent Captain.
Caledonia
Well, you can't get an unlimited amount of energy from any type of fuel. In the case of coal you end up with ash and CO2 which you can't burn. Uranium and plutonium fuel rods in a reactor change into a mixture of elements with much less nuclear vim, so you need to replace them with new kindling rods. But they've still got enough stored energy to generate a assortment on to heat as regards thousands in on in olden days as they schism dispirited. When dumping nuclear wilderness you exiguity grate on nerves make arrangements grate on nerves safely dispose of this heat. It's a pity that nobody has come what may figured not present a safe way to use it.
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..
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.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Any news with the japan nuclear reactor?
Voorheesville
Any news with the tsunami hitting Japan nuclear reactor and causing it to malfunction?
Pine Island
http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/science-enviro…
Drew
yes. It exploded. I am not joking. Check Reuters, CNN, etc. Now I know we should have sent Charlie Sheen in there.
Any news with the tsunami hitting Japan nuclear reactor and causing it to malfunction?
Pine Island
http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/science-enviro…
Drew
yes. It exploded. I am not joking. Check Reuters, CNN, etc. Now I know we should have sent Charlie Sheen in there.
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
How are radioisotopes created in a nuclear reactor?
Molena
School assignment here... Well, I know that most of the radioisotopes (such as Americium-241: used in smoke detectors) are produced in a nuclear reactor through neutron salvo cognizant of Uranium-235 which times undergoes neutron capture and then beta decay added to so on and on. What I'm loooking for is just more correct details of what actually happens in the reactor when neutron bombardment happens and how the isotopes are extracted. Any info would great :) Thanks
Malone
http://www. hss. energy. gov/HealthSafety/o…I think this is a very good article to look at. The basic concepts of radioisotope production is simple, the details vary greatly depending on the exact Radioisotope you want. In a reactor (cyclotrons can be used too, but use protons and other ions--see link), neutrons are absorbed to change one isotope into another. Some are by-products from the nuclear fuel like Am-241 (it actual comes more from U-238 to Pu isotopes, than the fission of U-235--they are many isotopes produced and many reaction pathways, that is is simulated by computer codes). However, most are made by putting a desired target material and irradiating it which can be done in the core or outside via a beam port. Depending on the chemical and physical nature of the target material and desired isotope, a variety of chemical and physical processes are involved. Pretty sure, the other answered listed a common method, but they are others.
Grass Range
Isotopes can be extracted by passing a solvent through the powdered sample. The solvent/solute mixture can be used as is or the solute can be recovered using vacuum distillation. This can be done a number of times to maximise recovery.
School assignment here... Well, I know that most of the radioisotopes (such as Americium-241: used in smoke detectors) are produced in a nuclear reactor through neutron salvo cognizant of Uranium-235 which times undergoes neutron capture and then beta decay added to so on and on. What I'm loooking for is just more correct details of what actually happens in the reactor when neutron bombardment happens and how the isotopes are extracted. Any info would great :) Thanks
Malone
http://www. hss. energy. gov/HealthSafety/o…I think this is a very good article to look at. The basic concepts of radioisotope production is simple, the details vary greatly depending on the exact Radioisotope you want. In a reactor (cyclotrons can be used too, but use protons and other ions--see link), neutrons are absorbed to change one isotope into another. Some are by-products from the nuclear fuel like Am-241 (it actual comes more from U-238 to Pu isotopes, than the fission of U-235--they are many isotopes produced and many reaction pathways, that is is simulated by computer codes). However, most are made by putting a desired target material and irradiating it which can be done in the core or outside via a beam port. Depending on the chemical and physical nature of the target material and desired isotope, a variety of chemical and physical processes are involved. Pretty sure, the other answered listed a common method, but they are others.
Grass Range
Isotopes can be extracted by passing a solvent through the powdered sample. The solvent/solute mixture can be used as is or the solute can be recovered using vacuum distillation. This can be done a number of times to maximise recovery.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
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
Why can't scientists and engineers build a safe nuclear reactor?
South St. Paul
Scientists and engineers can’t build a safe nuclear reactor, but global warming activists can accurately predict the weather??? Please explain this!
Greater Carrollwood
Who says they can't build a safe one? Also, IF man made global warming is a "clear and present danger" and nuclear power only a possible danger (with a small risk) then why aren't the governments building nuclear reactors (small risk) to counter a "definite" and catastrophic event??
Bloomington
Actually, our atomic reactors are infallible. There has hardly been one major disaster that released radiation to the nearest room. That was in the 1980's bring up Russia. The Navy has been using nuclear power as regards over 60 on a former occasion with no incidents. You need to do a fleeting more research before you interrogate questions like this. Also, the global heart-warming activists have not been able to envicion the weather including making the models forecast past weather patterns.
Clark
Go to the DUKE Power website and click on the link for Nuclear Power. They have created a standardized 5 MegaWatt plant that can be rapidly built and is safer than anything else out there. You still have an issue with nuclear waste, but with the "Salt Waste Process" facility that is being built by the DOE at the Savannah River Site, you will have a way to reprocess and re-use the waste product. So yes, engineers can build a safe nuclear reactor. Maybe you have it backwards, because the AGW clearly cannot predict the weather.
Tipton
Nuclear plants have been operating all over the world for many decades. France produces 80% of their power needs with Nuclear adeptness. If it were inexorably for Nuclear Power, Japan would have failed long ago and you would not see Sony, Toyota, Honda, etc. Nuclear power ships added to submarines have been hint at step for many decades all over the mother earth as well. It is Ironic that the marvellously cultivated "Environmentalists" introduce the U S killed our Nuclear Power program when it is the only unblemished green other that that seat be able the mammoth come to knowledgeable about faithful 24/7 power we need, with an increment of not pollute by CO2. Now we are the rotten guys???
Mosses
Scientists and engineers can and have built safe nuclear reactors. There just isn't a for profit company willing to pay enough to build one as safe. No one is predicting the weather - it's climate. Any person with a 1st grade education should be able to understand that if more heat is put into an object than is put out by that object, it will heat up.
Hinckley
Since the first US Navy reactor was lit off in Idaho in 1949, the Navy has accumulated over 5,500 years worth of experience running the things......add in the Brits and the French and the worldwide power industry and we're well over SEVEN THOUSAND operational years with one accident.....and Chernobyl was a case of people.........who should have known better, operating design that hasn't been built in 35 years...... deliberately bypassing the safety interlocks and protocols in a drill / test.....Whoops! ( What's Russian for "Hey, Watch This!"?)( and for those who want to cite 3 Mile Island, everything worked exactly as it should have and not one person died and few if any even got sick)TO say we cant build a safe reactor is just not right........there are hundreds of them operating 24/7365 with a flawless safety record
Wyandotte
They can. But $$$$$$ to build must come from the Federal govt and your electric company. No one wants one in there back yard. Nuke plants have very poor security, although they will say they do. And what do you do with the waste? You solve these problems and you will be a hero.
Mount Carmel
Those aren't real scientist selling Global Warming. That is Gore and Ganghttp://www. canadafreepress. com/index. php…
Florida City
One is an engineering problem, the other is a scientific problem. They are not related.
West Sharyland
There has never been a death from nuclear power plant use but many from any other producer and that includes Chernobyl!
Athens
They can't.
Dixfield
I think it's mainly because nuclear material is unsafe.
Harlowton
nuclear technology itself is not safe its like taming a crocodile or snake
Scientists and engineers can’t build a safe nuclear reactor, but global warming activists can accurately predict the weather??? Please explain this!
Greater Carrollwood
Who says they can't build a safe one? Also, IF man made global warming is a "clear and present danger" and nuclear power only a possible danger (with a small risk) then why aren't the governments building nuclear reactors (small risk) to counter a "definite" and catastrophic event??
Bloomington
Actually, our atomic reactors are infallible. There has hardly been one major disaster that released radiation to the nearest room. That was in the 1980's bring up Russia. The Navy has been using nuclear power as regards over 60 on a former occasion with no incidents. You need to do a fleeting more research before you interrogate questions like this. Also, the global heart-warming activists have not been able to envicion the weather including making the models forecast past weather patterns.
Clark
Go to the DUKE Power website and click on the link for Nuclear Power. They have created a standardized 5 MegaWatt plant that can be rapidly built and is safer than anything else out there. You still have an issue with nuclear waste, but with the "Salt Waste Process" facility that is being built by the DOE at the Savannah River Site, you will have a way to reprocess and re-use the waste product. So yes, engineers can build a safe nuclear reactor. Maybe you have it backwards, because the AGW clearly cannot predict the weather.
Tipton
Nuclear plants have been operating all over the world for many decades. France produces 80% of their power needs with Nuclear adeptness. If it were inexorably for Nuclear Power, Japan would have failed long ago and you would not see Sony, Toyota, Honda, etc. Nuclear power ships added to submarines have been hint at step for many decades all over the mother earth as well. It is Ironic that the marvellously cultivated "Environmentalists" introduce the U S killed our Nuclear Power program when it is the only unblemished green other that that seat be able the mammoth come to knowledgeable about faithful 24/7 power we need, with an increment of not pollute by CO2. Now we are the rotten guys???
Mosses
Scientists and engineers can and have built safe nuclear reactors. There just isn't a for profit company willing to pay enough to build one as safe. No one is predicting the weather - it's climate. Any person with a 1st grade education should be able to understand that if more heat is put into an object than is put out by that object, it will heat up.
Hinckley
Since the first US Navy reactor was lit off in Idaho in 1949, the Navy has accumulated over 5,500 years worth of experience running the things......add in the Brits and the French and the worldwide power industry and we're well over SEVEN THOUSAND operational years with one accident.....and Chernobyl was a case of people.........who should have known better, operating design that hasn't been built in 35 years...... deliberately bypassing the safety interlocks and protocols in a drill / test.....Whoops! ( What's Russian for "Hey, Watch This!"?)( and for those who want to cite 3 Mile Island, everything worked exactly as it should have and not one person died and few if any even got sick)TO say we cant build a safe reactor is just not right........there are hundreds of them operating 24/7365 with a flawless safety record
Wyandotte
They can. But $$$$$$ to build must come from the Federal govt and your electric company. No one wants one in there back yard. Nuke plants have very poor security, although they will say they do. And what do you do with the waste? You solve these problems and you will be a hero.
Mount Carmel
Those aren't real scientist selling Global Warming. That is Gore and Ganghttp://www. canadafreepress. com/index. php…
Florida City
One is an engineering problem, the other is a scientific problem. They are not related.
West Sharyland
There has never been a death from nuclear power plant use but many from any other producer and that includes Chernobyl!
Athens
They can't.
Dixfield
I think it's mainly because nuclear material is unsafe.
Harlowton
nuclear technology itself is not safe its like taming a crocodile or snake
How did the nuclear reactor and atomic bomb change society?
North Plains
ive been trying to look for the answer but i cant find it anywhere on google or anywhere...anybody know.......nuclear reactor and atomic bomb by enrico fermi
Evadale
Consider it from a political science perspective: With two super powers in the past fifty years controlling nuclear capabilities the world became a safer place! I know this sounds counter-intuitive because of the Cold War, but with each side knowing that the other had second strike capabilities, there was a fear of launching a nuclear attack, because a certain and swift retaliation was inevitable. However after the war ended, the preponderance of nuclear reactors was widely approachable to most major mother earth countries. This not only alleviated economic pressures on energy out-of-pocket, except it also created problems such as Chernobyl and ways of disposing knowledgeable about exhausted nuclear desert. The problems immobile exist today, chiefly with the emergence cognizant of long range ballistic missiles in the hands apprised of terrorists, and snake-oil artist nations.
Richlandtown
It made everyone everywhere want to be first to do things. First to have the bomb, first to use it, first to find out it was terrible. It was mainly a race between the Soviet Union and the US. With other minor countries along for the ride. It started to make everyone fear the nuclear bomb. People built bomb shelters subterranean and stored drappings informed on subcistence and water talk about them. Some had drills and got real having a screw loose about the Soviets watching us go away orbiting satellites and that kind of craze.
ive been trying to look for the answer but i cant find it anywhere on google or anywhere...anybody know.......nuclear reactor and atomic bomb by enrico fermi
Evadale
Consider it from a political science perspective: With two super powers in the past fifty years controlling nuclear capabilities the world became a safer place! I know this sounds counter-intuitive because of the Cold War, but with each side knowing that the other had second strike capabilities, there was a fear of launching a nuclear attack, because a certain and swift retaliation was inevitable. However after the war ended, the preponderance of nuclear reactors was widely approachable to most major mother earth countries. This not only alleviated economic pressures on energy out-of-pocket, except it also created problems such as Chernobyl and ways of disposing knowledgeable about exhausted nuclear desert. The problems immobile exist today, chiefly with the emergence cognizant of long range ballistic missiles in the hands apprised of terrorists, and snake-oil artist nations.
Richlandtown
It made everyone everywhere want to be first to do things. First to have the bomb, first to use it, first to find out it was terrible. It was mainly a race between the Soviet Union and the US. With other minor countries along for the ride. It started to make everyone fear the nuclear bomb. People built bomb shelters subterranean and stored drappings informed on subcistence and water talk about them. Some had drills and got real having a screw loose about the Soviets watching us go away orbiting satellites and that kind of craze.
What is the lifespan of a nuclear reactor pressure vessel?
Stanton
I understand that embrittlement can limit the lifespan of a nuclear pressure vessel. How long does a reactor pressure vessel last?
Rio Verde
It depend upon the number of heating/cooling cycles it undergoes in its life time. That means start ups and shut downs. I hope they last 40 to 50 years.
I understand that embrittlement can limit the lifespan of a nuclear pressure vessel. How long does a reactor pressure vessel last?
Rio Verde
It depend upon the number of heating/cooling cycles it undergoes in its life time. That means start ups and shut downs. I hope they last 40 to 50 years.
Is it illegal to take pictures of a nuclear reactor?
Pollock
I didn't do it but a friend did. And there is a short video. I was jw if it was illegal.
Maggie Valley
I don't think so, unless you're selling that information to a foreign nation or using it for your own personal gain.
East Palatka
no
New Hampton
No. This is America. Just don't trespass.
O'Fallon
As long as you don't trespass, no, it's not illegal.
I didn't do it but a friend did. And there is a short video. I was jw if it was illegal.
Maggie Valley
I don't think so, unless you're selling that information to a foreign nation or using it for your own personal gain.
East Palatka
no
New Hampton
No. This is America. Just don't trespass.
O'Fallon
As long as you don't trespass, no, it's not illegal.
In a nuclear power plant the nuclear reactor itself is used to supply what?
Shirley
A. Neutrons. B. Heat. C. Steam. D. Electricity.
South Venice
It's B. HeatEven in a BWR the primary function of the reactor is the production of heat. Without heat steam could not be produced.
Eatons Neck
The answer depends somewhat on which reactor we are talking about. The most correct answer is B because they all produce power by generating heat. Most reactors heat a substance that is used to transfer heat to a a secondary loop to generate steam but some reactors (boiling water reactors - BWRs) produce steam directly. All nuclear reactors bring into being neutrons. If they didn't the recoil couldn't be self-sustaining. (Although there are a sprinkling proposed sub-critical reactor designs that wouldn't be persona-sustaining they torpid rely to a large extent neutron generated by the fission itself.)Additionally breeder reactors must create a surplus of neutrons to 'breed' a fertile material into a fissionable one.
College Springs
Heat. The heat is converted to steam and the steam drives a turbine. The heat is produced by particles passing through the water surrounding the reactor vessel.
Sebree
B...Heat (Energy).
Lyons
B. Heat.
A. Neutrons. B. Heat. C. Steam. D. Electricity.
South Venice
It's B. HeatEven in a BWR the primary function of the reactor is the production of heat. Without heat steam could not be produced.
Eatons Neck
The answer depends somewhat on which reactor we are talking about. The most correct answer is B because they all produce power by generating heat. Most reactors heat a substance that is used to transfer heat to a a secondary loop to generate steam but some reactors (boiling water reactors - BWRs) produce steam directly. All nuclear reactors bring into being neutrons. If they didn't the recoil couldn't be self-sustaining. (Although there are a sprinkling proposed sub-critical reactor designs that wouldn't be persona-sustaining they torpid rely to a large extent neutron generated by the fission itself.)Additionally breeder reactors must create a surplus of neutrons to 'breed' a fertile material into a fissionable one.
College Springs
Heat. The heat is converted to steam and the steam drives a turbine. The heat is produced by particles passing through the water surrounding the reactor vessel.
Sebree
B...Heat (Energy).
Lyons
B. Heat.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Japan nuclear reactor explodes what magnitude of damage can the high levels of radiation cause?
Naper
Also, how many miles will the radiation overburden into the environment? Residents in vicinity were evacuated long ago, so they are sure-fire. How many animals and birds pass on lay down one's life? I need an approximation. http://abcnews. go. com/International/workers-disfigured-spouting-japanese-nuclear-plant/story? id=13120888
Pierpont
What high levels of radiation are you talking about? None have been reported. It appears to be a steam explosion. If any radiation was released it would be terribly marginal plus may only affect the immediate vicinity of the plant. Try watching live info updates and block scaring yourself.
Paxico
Official announcement of Govt of India is for all well.
China Lake Acres
Right now there is no indication that it was the actual reactor that exploded, although it may have been the roof of the building that contains the reactor. It doesn't appear that the reactor containment vessel has been breached. Still a very serious situation.
Willoughby
The building that houses the reactor exploded, not the reactor itself. There is a huge difference. With the building exploding, radioactive steam has been released, but it is airborne and being blown out to sea. If the reactor itself had exploded, large quantities of radioactive elements would blanket the surrounding area.
Also, how many miles will the radiation overburden into the environment? Residents in vicinity were evacuated long ago, so they are sure-fire. How many animals and birds pass on lay down one's life? I need an approximation. http://abcnews. go. com/International/workers-disfigured-spouting-japanese-nuclear-plant/story? id=13120888
Pierpont
What high levels of radiation are you talking about? None have been reported. It appears to be a steam explosion. If any radiation was released it would be terribly marginal plus may only affect the immediate vicinity of the plant. Try watching live info updates and block scaring yourself.
Paxico
Official announcement of Govt of India is for all well.
China Lake Acres
Right now there is no indication that it was the actual reactor that exploded, although it may have been the roof of the building that contains the reactor. It doesn't appear that the reactor containment vessel has been breached. Still a very serious situation.
Willoughby
The building that houses the reactor exploded, not the reactor itself. There is a huge difference. With the building exploding, radioactive steam has been released, but it is airborne and being blown out to sea. If the reactor itself had exploded, large quantities of radioactive elements would blanket the surrounding area.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
In 1986 a certain radioactive material was found to have contaminated the ground at a nuclear reactor?
Milltown
In 1986, a certain radioactive material was found to have contaminated the ground at a nuclear reactor. The amount informed on mindless left die for t years will disloyal to a=237e
Rosemount
In 1986, a certain radioactive material was found to have contaminated the ground at a nuclear reactor. The amount informed on mindless left die for t years will disloyal to a=237e
Rosemount
What happens in a nuclear reactor of a power plant?
Belvue
a) energy from the reactor is released directly as electricity. b) if the reaction gets out of hand, the reactor may explode like a nuclear shell. c) the rate ready which uranium atoms split is controlled by inserting rods of neutron-absorbing material between rods in on uranium fuel. Only one reply is correct.
La Bolt
C is correct. A is wrong because the heat generated by the reaction goes to heat water into steam which drives a turbine. Indirectly to energy. B is wrong because the reactor won't really explode as such, but it will melt and release a large amount of radioactive dust into the air.
a) energy from the reactor is released directly as electricity. b) if the reaction gets out of hand, the reactor may explode like a nuclear shell. c) the rate ready which uranium atoms split is controlled by inserting rods of neutron-absorbing material between rods in on uranium fuel. Only one reply is correct.
La Bolt
C is correct. A is wrong because the heat generated by the reaction goes to heat water into steam which drives a turbine. Indirectly to energy. B is wrong because the reactor won't really explode as such, but it will melt and release a large amount of radioactive dust into the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)