Selmont-West Selmont
I'm working on a research paper for my Economics class. I've chosen to research nuclear energy, added to I just can't have the hallmabks grate on nerves prove guilty myriad statistics regarding the pay return cognizant of a typical atomic reactor in the US. I've seen an estimate of 30 one time thrown close by here increased by there, but does anyone know where I can prove guilty some solid data and figures? Thanks!
Marked Tree
I believe what you are asking is how long a reactor has to operate to recover the capitol cost of the initial build. There are continuing costs for operations, maintenance and upgrades. Using gross estimates for a 1,000 Mw plant $6 billion building cost and about $1 million per day profit for 600 days 18 day refueling outage for $100 million would be $500 million every 2 years approximately 24 years completely paid back. These are very conservative numbers. Use the links for more accurate estimates.
St. Lucie
To build a new reactor today - figure around $2000 per installed kilowatt of capacity. so a 1000 MW reactor would be around $2B or $4B for a two unit site. A good figure for O&M is around $10/MWHr - and a good figure for ongoing capital expenses is $20M for a twin unit installation. Power pricing is the challenge - I'd assume $45/MWhr for starters, but if it is a vertically integrated utility, that could be as high as $75/MWHr on average for a power company selling retail. Anything above that would be gravy for a 'merchant' plant. Hope this helps...
Balta
Try www. doe. gov. (department of energy)I use to work on naval nuclear reactors. Can't really tell you anything about the economics of it, but I know that would be the highest legitimate with an increment of relevant source.
Showing posts with label japan times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label japan times. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
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.
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 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
How can the us be an allie of russia when they helped our enemy with his nuclear reactor?
Matthews
also how can China be our friend when he is doing friendly talks with North Korea? are this signs of world war 3?
Burns
We are not friends, it is a very great word for our relationships. Nor Obama nor Medvedev use such a word as "friends" they use word "partners"
Byng
Because Russia and China are part of the diplomatic processes to find peaceful solutions to the antagonistic attitudes of Iran and North Korea. These are not signs of World War III; these are attempts to prevent World War III.
Flower Hill
We are not allied with Russia and never have been. Nor with China. Friendly relations do not make any country our ally. some things are just necessary.
Bedford
No, it is a sign of the exact opposite. Nations learning to somehow co-exist despite differences.
Morrison
china and russia has NEVER been our friends, and NEVER will be. they hate this country. but they love to use us when they need something.
Ben Lomond
A US company gave Russia the money to build the reactor in Iran.
Whittingham
Who says we are, not alot has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union besides uniforms.
Steinauer
Where did you learn English?
also how can China be our friend when he is doing friendly talks with North Korea? are this signs of world war 3?
Burns
We are not friends, it is a very great word for our relationships. Nor Obama nor Medvedev use such a word as "friends" they use word "partners"
Byng
Because Russia and China are part of the diplomatic processes to find peaceful solutions to the antagonistic attitudes of Iran and North Korea. These are not signs of World War III; these are attempts to prevent World War III.
Flower Hill
We are not allied with Russia and never have been. Nor with China. Friendly relations do not make any country our ally. some things are just necessary.
Bedford
No, it is a sign of the exact opposite. Nations learning to somehow co-exist despite differences.
Morrison
china and russia has NEVER been our friends, and NEVER will be. they hate this country. but they love to use us when they need something.
Ben Lomond
A US company gave Russia the money to build the reactor in Iran.
Whittingham
Who says we are, not alot has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union besides uniforms.
Steinauer
Where did you learn English?
Why did the chernobyl nuclear power plant not have cooling towers? what kind of nuclear reactor was it? lwr?
Southport
Was it a LWR, BWR, HWR or was it a graphite-moderated reactor or something else? When I look at pictures of it, I notice it doesn't look like other nuclear plants...there are no cooling towers. Why is this? Any kind of source would be appreciated.
Bayville
According to http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Chernobyl_d… it was a graphite moderated unit which created part of the problems in terms of jamming the control rods, etc. Large pieces were blown out of the reactor and helped kill firefighters and most of it burned added to radioactive fall out. As to cooling towers, if you go to this location 51.386611°N 30.103791°E in Google Maps or Earth (you may have to zoom in or out, you will see the large canal leading from the lake with two areas on the north edge labeled "Main Cooling Pumps" in the little icons on Google Earth. Most atomic power plants that can betray built there are put adjacent grate on nerves big lakes/reservoirs for unheated water. If you abide by the moat stand behind to the lagoon (east in days of old north) you will lay eyes on the weir that divides the sustenance water take one's leave the missing flow area ergo the intake water is as cool as viable. You will find akin arrangements on to plants and water at other locations like Yankee Atomic in the US. 42.727966°N 72.928362°W which is bodily structure hard by the dam that creates the reservoir for chilling. Where such water is not available, cooling towers are used.
Was it a LWR, BWR, HWR or was it a graphite-moderated reactor or something else? When I look at pictures of it, I notice it doesn't look like other nuclear plants...there are no cooling towers. Why is this? Any kind of source would be appreciated.
Bayville
According to http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Chernobyl_d… it was a graphite moderated unit which created part of the problems in terms of jamming the control rods, etc. Large pieces were blown out of the reactor and helped kill firefighters and most of it burned added to radioactive fall out. As to cooling towers, if you go to this location 51.386611°N 30.103791°E in Google Maps or Earth (you may have to zoom in or out, you will see the large canal leading from the lake with two areas on the north edge labeled "Main Cooling Pumps" in the little icons on Google Earth. Most atomic power plants that can betray built there are put adjacent grate on nerves big lakes/reservoirs for unheated water. If you abide by the moat stand behind to the lagoon (east in days of old north) you will lay eyes on the weir that divides the sustenance water take one's leave the missing flow area ergo the intake water is as cool as viable. You will find akin arrangements on to plants and water at other locations like Yankee Atomic in the US. 42.727966°N 72.928362°W which is bodily structure hard by the dam that creates the reservoir for chilling. Where such water is not available, cooling towers are used.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
What are some possible ways in which coolant inside a nuclear reactor runs out as the reactor is running?
Oakport
Could you please describe how the process may occur with regards to all the components. Thanks.
Bolindale
There are pressurized water reactors (commercial and naval) and boiling water reactors (commercial). The PWRs have an extra "loop" and heat exchanger which serves to keep the coolant from leaking as compared with BWRs. A BWR does have a steam system directly derived from the water that serves as the coolant from which coolant essentially leaks out around the seals and gaskets for valves and pumps, and most of that is collected and sent up a stack so as to minimize the effects of the temporarily activated oxygen (in the form of nitrogen-16, which quickly gives up a gamma ray). Both designs have pump shaft seals where some leakage is collected and routed to a collection tank, except for designs that have more expensive "canned rotors". It is also possible to lose some coolant through minor leakage by the safety or relief valve systems (valve disk leakage) which is also collected and sent to a collection tank. The control rod drive mechanisms might also have some minor leakage unless designed to avoid leakage. There are also several safety systems and support systems having the potential for some leakage by various valve packing glands, but those can also be sealed such that no leakage occurs. Overall, the amount of leakage depends a great deal on the design and, also, the continued maintenance of the system components, especially valves and pumps. Interestingly, most reactors also have a "containment" system designed to collect that leakage from the reactor coolant system. Ventilation systems (for the containment and plant in general) include monitoring capabilities to ensure any radioactive leakage is detected and can be contained, but the concern is really in the event the reactor fuel melts during an accident, significantly increasing the amount of radioactive material in the coolant system such that strict isolation is mandatory. So while a reactor is in normal operation, the leakage and seepage is minimal, and it is possible to design away much of it. Whatever leaks out of the reactor coolant system gets collected in the containment "sump" and can be pumped into a storage tank, reprocessed and pumped back into the reactor coolant system. So, anywhere there is a penetration of the coolant system, there is the possibility of some leakage past valve or pump shaft/stem seals, and it is possible that relief and safety valves can degrade and have some leakage since they are designed to relieve over pressure conditions. Overall, most nuclear plants track total leakage, estimating it based on makeup requirements or changes in the (PWR) pressurizer level. Trending that leakage daily, it is possible to determine whether there is an issue that needs to be corrected and whether outage time needs to be devoted to replacing gaskets and seals for pumps and valves.
Tubac
What kind of reactor are we talking about? There are quite a few different ones, you know. Anyways; the primary coolant is usually water, pure and simple. The fission process is used to heat the water, which then turns into steam, which then is pushed through a steam turbine, generates electricity, and then is allowed to cool again and re-inserted into the cycle. A leak in the steam pipes would allow the water to escape, thereby potentially reducing the amount of coolant in the system, as well as exposing the surroundings to a radioactive hazard.
Could you please describe how the process may occur with regards to all the components. Thanks.
Bolindale
There are pressurized water reactors (commercial and naval) and boiling water reactors (commercial). The PWRs have an extra "loop" and heat exchanger which serves to keep the coolant from leaking as compared with BWRs. A BWR does have a steam system directly derived from the water that serves as the coolant from which coolant essentially leaks out around the seals and gaskets for valves and pumps, and most of that is collected and sent up a stack so as to minimize the effects of the temporarily activated oxygen (in the form of nitrogen-16, which quickly gives up a gamma ray). Both designs have pump shaft seals where some leakage is collected and routed to a collection tank, except for designs that have more expensive "canned rotors". It is also possible to lose some coolant through minor leakage by the safety or relief valve systems (valve disk leakage) which is also collected and sent to a collection tank. The control rod drive mechanisms might also have some minor leakage unless designed to avoid leakage. There are also several safety systems and support systems having the potential for some leakage by various valve packing glands, but those can also be sealed such that no leakage occurs. Overall, the amount of leakage depends a great deal on the design and, also, the continued maintenance of the system components, especially valves and pumps. Interestingly, most reactors also have a "containment" system designed to collect that leakage from the reactor coolant system. Ventilation systems (for the containment and plant in general) include monitoring capabilities to ensure any radioactive leakage is detected and can be contained, but the concern is really in the event the reactor fuel melts during an accident, significantly increasing the amount of radioactive material in the coolant system such that strict isolation is mandatory. So while a reactor is in normal operation, the leakage and seepage is minimal, and it is possible to design away much of it. Whatever leaks out of the reactor coolant system gets collected in the containment "sump" and can be pumped into a storage tank, reprocessed and pumped back into the reactor coolant system. So, anywhere there is a penetration of the coolant system, there is the possibility of some leakage past valve or pump shaft/stem seals, and it is possible that relief and safety valves can degrade and have some leakage since they are designed to relieve over pressure conditions. Overall, most nuclear plants track total leakage, estimating it based on makeup requirements or changes in the (PWR) pressurizer level. Trending that leakage daily, it is possible to determine whether there is an issue that needs to be corrected and whether outage time needs to be devoted to replacing gaskets and seals for pumps and valves.
Tubac
What kind of reactor are we talking about? There are quite a few different ones, you know. Anyways; the primary coolant is usually water, pure and simple. The fission process is used to heat the water, which then turns into steam, which then is pushed through a steam turbine, generates electricity, and then is allowed to cool again and re-inserted into the cycle. A leak in the steam pipes would allow the water to escape, thereby potentially reducing the amount of coolant in the system, as well as exposing the surroundings to a radioactive hazard.
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
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.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Is a nuclear reactor required to make a nuclear bomb?
Northeast Ithaca
can anyone tell me if you need a nuclear reactor in order to make a nuclear bomb, if you posterior, please specify where it is used and what it is used for.
South St. Paul
No. But you have to get fissionable material from somewhere. One of the ways to make fissionable material is with a "breeder reactor", with is a type of nuclear reactor. With a breeder reactor, you butt be confident of weapons grade fissionables as a sort advised about biproduct in the know about operating your atomic knack mill. You can con on every side breeder reactors will several websites. The first atomic bombs first class (and used in WWII) were pucka long before there were any atomic reactors. The fissionable unthinking was made next to buried the right isotopes of uranium. The regular concentration in the know about the radioactive isotopes in the know about uranium is far-away to lower down. They used Cyclopean membrane separators with an increment of centrifugal devices and other techniques. It required jumbo facilities close to multitudinous people working for a long period to get cufficient concentrated uranium isotope re a celibate bomb.
New Hempstead
no, the first bomb was made by concentrating U235 from uranium derived from the ground, which is mostly U238. The concentrating was done via gaseous diffusion of uranium hexaflouride. .
Sackets Harbor
No
Novato
Actually, it's quite the other way around. Over the past twenty years, the Russian nuclear stockpile has caved... not because they're destroying them, but because we're buying them! Their use as fission/fusion weapons as decayed beyond their shelf life, but it's still perfectly good for nuclear reactor fuel rods have a yen for a short bit of taste processing. It's a win-procere.. and maybe a third win all roughly. Win -- we acquire tinder without having to hollow out it up plus process it from 0.0 all by ourselvesWin -- gentleman of our two enemy's nuclear bring together is worlds reducedWin -- Russia gets some resources for cram that they would have in another situation had to find a place to storeRead the news a little bit on every side people getting all up in a bunch round North Korea with an increment of Iran edifice centrifuges to make material for self-possessed purposes (that is by the by ideally applicable for detonation, not lazy fission). Modern ways mention the US/Russia/China are far more advanced. But anyway, whether, you do perforce need (at all) a reactor grate on nerves make a weapon.
can anyone tell me if you need a nuclear reactor in order to make a nuclear bomb, if you posterior, please specify where it is used and what it is used for.
South St. Paul
No. But you have to get fissionable material from somewhere. One of the ways to make fissionable material is with a "breeder reactor", with is a type of nuclear reactor. With a breeder reactor, you butt be confident of weapons grade fissionables as a sort advised about biproduct in the know about operating your atomic knack mill. You can con on every side breeder reactors will several websites. The first atomic bombs first class (and used in WWII) were pucka long before there were any atomic reactors. The fissionable unthinking was made next to buried the right isotopes of uranium. The regular concentration in the know about the radioactive isotopes in the know about uranium is far-away to lower down. They used Cyclopean membrane separators with an increment of centrifugal devices and other techniques. It required jumbo facilities close to multitudinous people working for a long period to get cufficient concentrated uranium isotope re a celibate bomb.
New Hempstead
no, the first bomb was made by concentrating U235 from uranium derived from the ground, which is mostly U238. The concentrating was done via gaseous diffusion of uranium hexaflouride. .
Sackets Harbor
No
Novato
Actually, it's quite the other way around. Over the past twenty years, the Russian nuclear stockpile has caved... not because they're destroying them, but because we're buying them! Their use as fission/fusion weapons as decayed beyond their shelf life, but it's still perfectly good for nuclear reactor fuel rods have a yen for a short bit of taste processing. It's a win-procere.. and maybe a third win all roughly. Win -- we acquire tinder without having to hollow out it up plus process it from 0.0 all by ourselvesWin -- gentleman of our two enemy's nuclear bring together is worlds reducedWin -- Russia gets some resources for cram that they would have in another situation had to find a place to storeRead the news a little bit on every side people getting all up in a bunch round North Korea with an increment of Iran edifice centrifuges to make material for self-possessed purposes (that is by the by ideally applicable for detonation, not lazy fission). Modern ways mention the US/Russia/China are far more advanced. But anyway, whether, you do perforce need (at all) a reactor grate on nerves make a weapon.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
What would be required for a stable nuclear fusion reactor to work?
West Harrison
I understand that the tokamak reactor came close to achieving nuclear fusion, but lacked the necessary restraints to hold the plamsa at the high temperaturs needed.
Hingham
Besides a miracle in High Temp Materials and Super Cooling along with some work in theoretical physics, not too much is needed. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_fus…http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fusion_powe…http://hyperphysics. phy-astr. gsu. edu/Hba…
I understand that the tokamak reactor came close to achieving nuclear fusion, but lacked the necessary restraints to hold the plamsa at the high temperaturs needed.
Hingham
Besides a miracle in High Temp Materials and Super Cooling along with some work in theoretical physics, not too much is needed. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_fus…http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fusion_powe…http://hyperphysics. phy-astr. gsu. edu/Hba…
How can i build a nuclear reactor in my backyard?
New Hampton
Can I use a nice potting soil for the dampening agent or do I need to use boron or graphite like the pros do?
Ranlo
It is imaginal thought but not impossible. It is too much dangerous for living kind. If you really want to make, plz. for God shake go far from any living creature more then 2 KM.
Oxford Junction
whoa, i was about to tell you to use a concrete pot with pallets on top which would make asn axle with a magnet spin.. but you seem to have a better idea of how a nuclear reactor than me.. weird question then!
Denison
you cannot build a atomic reactor in your backyard. First advised about all, all nuclear functions are monitored beside the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission. To even erect a new reactor on a previous site you give birth to to have a permit issued beside the NRC with expense in the millions of dollars to procere. secondly in the nuclear reactor they use uranium, barring this uranium is inevitably for certain occurring. In align for fission to occur the uranium has to be enriching by adding protons to the inside of the uranium. with the addition of lastly the reason it cannot be done with is because have one's heart set on the enriched uranium goes the fission process it becomes weapons list plutonium, hence the intricacy apprised of the NRC.
Goleta
Where do you live - i may need to move :-)
Wauneta
Well first you must put up a tall fence, and be ready to repell the 'green' protestors. Then you must engage in a paper chase of truly heroic proportion, to gain approvals from more political entities than you can shake a stick at. (Shaking a stick doesn't work very well, they'll have bigger ones.)When you've accomplished that, ..call me.
Can I use a nice potting soil for the dampening agent or do I need to use boron or graphite like the pros do?
Ranlo
It is imaginal thought but not impossible. It is too much dangerous for living kind. If you really want to make, plz. for God shake go far from any living creature more then 2 KM.
Oxford Junction
whoa, i was about to tell you to use a concrete pot with pallets on top which would make asn axle with a magnet spin.. but you seem to have a better idea of how a nuclear reactor than me.. weird question then!
Denison
you cannot build a atomic reactor in your backyard. First advised about all, all nuclear functions are monitored beside the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission. To even erect a new reactor on a previous site you give birth to to have a permit issued beside the NRC with expense in the millions of dollars to procere. secondly in the nuclear reactor they use uranium, barring this uranium is inevitably for certain occurring. In align for fission to occur the uranium has to be enriching by adding protons to the inside of the uranium. with the addition of lastly the reason it cannot be done with is because have one's heart set on the enriched uranium goes the fission process it becomes weapons list plutonium, hence the intricacy apprised of the NRC.
Goleta
Where do you live - i may need to move :-)
Wauneta
Well first you must put up a tall fence, and be ready to repell the 'green' protestors. Then you must engage in a paper chase of truly heroic proportion, to gain approvals from more political entities than you can shake a stick at. (Shaking a stick doesn't work very well, they'll have bigger ones.)When you've accomplished that, ..call me.
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.
Friday, March 4, 2011
What elements are byproducts in a nuclear reactor?
River Vale
I am doing a science project, and I need to know what certain elements are byproducts of nuclear reactors. This would really help!
Garden City
You are looking for a list of fission products. See the links. Most fission products are unstable and will decay into other elements, so your byproducts should include the fission products as well as the elements they decay into which are called "daughter products". Also, sometimes U235 absorbs a neutron but doesn't fission.
Browns Valley
you can get depleted uranium/plutonium and steam radio active carbon rods and i suppose you could talk about the process to mine uranium a good website is www. wagingpeace. org/menu/issues/nuclea…
I am doing a science project, and I need to know what certain elements are byproducts of nuclear reactors. This would really help!
Garden City
You are looking for a list of fission products. See the links. Most fission products are unstable and will decay into other elements, so your byproducts should include the fission products as well as the elements they decay into which are called "daughter products". Also, sometimes U235 absorbs a neutron but doesn't fission.
Browns Valley
you can get depleted uranium/plutonium and steam radio active carbon rods and i suppose you could talk about the process to mine uranium a good website is www. wagingpeace. org/menu/issues/nuclea…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)