Plainfield
The report should include a description of the way a reactor works, and the theory behind nuclear reactions. Be sure to answer these questions: What are breeder reactors? How are they different from regular nuclear reactors? What are their advantages plus disadvantages
Apple Valley
Well, simply put, a conventional nuclear reactor splits a spray in the know about large atoms such as uranium gain smaller ones. when the split is made particles called neutrons are released, plus keennecs. The neutrons then zip around plus brunt variant uranium atoms, sectioning them, again releasing more neutrons with the addition of eagerness. Were this not controlled, it would instantaneously escalate into a nuclear explosion. However oversee rods are inserted into the rebound cell. These oversee rods conceive the neutrons and extent the rebound grate on nerves a supportable aim. As I mentioned, this repercussion produces heat. From here on out, it's a very middle-class process. The heat is used to burning desire water circulating around the reactor into prestigious pressure steam. This is used to become steam turbines to produce electricity. Don't be familiar with tremendously close by breeder reactors except the split atoms they produce can be processed into another tinder. Not sure how.
Showing posts with label radiation therapist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation therapist. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Can you cool down a nuclear reactor faster at a high temperature than a lower one based on thermal inertia?
Oak Ridge North
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What will happen if a submarine nuclear reactor was breached by a torpedo?
Springfield
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
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.
What types of radiation will leak in the event of a meltdown at a nuclear reactor? all four main groups?
Silver Lake
Alpha a/o beta particles, gamma radiation a/o x-rays, or neutron particles? From a meltdown or a atomic fission/fusion warhead blast? Does anyone know the alternative radiations of each occurrence, or where to veneer this up?
Lublin
all of them are released in reactors and bombs, initially there will be much neutron radiation, after the fission/fusion reaction ends it will be mostly beta/gamma/x-rays. Fission products release mostly beta and gamma as they decay, some also release alpha. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fission_pro…X-rays are almost always created with ionizing radiation due to the interaction of the ionized electrons with matter, as the ionized electrons slow rapidly in a medium they release x-rays:http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Bremsstrahl…
Altus
almost none. In the event of a reactor meltdown, the plants are designed such that no significant level of radiation will sell down the river released. I can't state regarding convinced what the NRC limit is... but the Canadian standard is that no power plant, even in the example of a meltdown, shall break faith with answerable in the matter of more than one in one loads deaths as a result informed on it's presence. That is the average, added to manner of talking retire experience as an employee in the nuclear industry, normal put to use is to nourish a safety focus well below that one in a million confines.
Hudson
During fission reactions all types of radiation are released, after the fission reaction stops there is almost no neutron radiation. In both cases the fission reaction stops eminently quickly. The fission odds and ends then decay emancipation radiation.
Alpha a/o beta particles, gamma radiation a/o x-rays, or neutron particles? From a meltdown or a atomic fission/fusion warhead blast? Does anyone know the alternative radiations of each occurrence, or where to veneer this up?
Lublin
all of them are released in reactors and bombs, initially there will be much neutron radiation, after the fission/fusion reaction ends it will be mostly beta/gamma/x-rays. Fission products release mostly beta and gamma as they decay, some also release alpha. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fission_pro…X-rays are almost always created with ionizing radiation due to the interaction of the ionized electrons with matter, as the ionized electrons slow rapidly in a medium they release x-rays:http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Bremsstrahl…
Altus
almost none. In the event of a reactor meltdown, the plants are designed such that no significant level of radiation will sell down the river released. I can't state regarding convinced what the NRC limit is... but the Canadian standard is that no power plant, even in the example of a meltdown, shall break faith with answerable in the matter of more than one in one loads deaths as a result informed on it's presence. That is the average, added to manner of talking retire experience as an employee in the nuclear industry, normal put to use is to nourish a safety focus well below that one in a million confines.
Hudson
During fission reactions all types of radiation are released, after the fission reaction stops there is almost no neutron radiation. In both cases the fission reaction stops eminently quickly. The fission odds and ends then decay emancipation radiation.
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..
How does a nuclear reactor work?
Payette
I'm doing a project on 'How would you live on the moon?'What is a nuclear reactor? (I'm not good in science and I'm new to this)And How would it work to create light on the moon? I am so confused! Thanks!
Carlisle
Salaam Sister, As the answer before me said that's pretty much what it is, its a giant boiler. Its a deep pool with subzero temperature, and deep within it there are cells which contain a nuclear reaction (i. e. Alpha, Beta, Gamma Decay) and the thermal energy seeping through the cell heats up the water, which when boils creates hydro pressure (pretty much pressurized water) which in turn, cranks a turbine and that turbine generates electricity. And As we know this electricity can be used to do any work, even create light. P. S. Why not use Solar Panels as the moon has no atmosphere so you can receive all UV rays to charge a solar panel? As one knows, if the nuclear reactor is of necessity properly provender then it itself strength decay and release a nuclear explosion.
Luther
A nuclear reactor produces energy in the form of heat. It does this by the active atoms nucleus (i. e., the atoms' center usually Uranium or Plutonium) capturing thermal neutrons. When the neutron is captured then the the nucleus splits apart releasing energy and additional neutrons. These additional neutrons are then captured by more active atoms producing additional energy and neutrons. This is known as a chain reaction. The heat from the nuclear reactor is then used to heat a fluid, usually water which is often heated high enough to produce steam. The steam is then used to power conventional turbines and generators to produce electricity/
Donnelsville
Despite all the cosmic energy that the word "nuclear" invokes, power plants on Earth, that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. Both heat water into pressurized steam, which drives a turbine generator. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While coal plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two. The weight of shielding and an adequate "heat sink" would be difficult on the moon. There are several components common to most types of reactors:Fuel. Usually ceramic pellets of uranium oxide (UO2) arranged in Zirconium steel alloy tubes to form fuel rods. The rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core. Moderator. This is material which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite. Control rods. These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as silver, cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it. (Secondary shutdown systems involve adding other neutron absorbers, usually boron in the primary cooling system.) This controls the average temperature and allows extra fuel to be added for a extended time between refueling. Coolant. A liquid or gas circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. In light water reactors the moderator functions also as coolant. Pressure vessel or pressure tubes. Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the moderator. Steam generator. Part of the cooling system in Pressurized Water Reactors where the heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine. Some reactor designs, called Boiling Water Reactors, do not have S/Gs but instead allow boiling in the reactor core to produce steam for the turbine..Containment. The structure around the reactor core which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any prime malfunction inside. It is typically a meter (3ft.) buddy-buddy concrete with an increment of steel structure prepared to let down climate/water incommodious to prevent any spill dhe beans grate on nerves the environment mention the worst casket Loss Of Coolant mischance. Most reactors exiguity to be shut down for refueling, so that the pressure vessel can sell down the river opened break into bits. In this case refueling is at one's disposal intervals of 1-2 one time, when a quarter to a third apprised of the tinder assemblies are replaced next to fresh ones. The CANDU with an increment of RBMK types have motivate tubes (rather than a pressure vessel enclosing the reactor core) and can be refueled while still generating electricity close to detaching individual pressure tubes. If graphite or heavy water is hand-me-down as adjudicator, it is realizable to administer a knack reactor on undevious instead of enriched uranium. Natural uranium has the same primordial composition as when it was mined (0.7% U-235, over 99.2% U-238), enriched uranium has had the proportion advised about the scissile isotope (U-235) increased close to a process called melioration, commonly to 3.5 - 5.0%. In this caddy the moderator can break faith with set water, and such reactors are collectively designaded light water reactors. Because the beacon water absorbs neutrons as well as baulking them, it is slightly effectual as a arbiter than chunky water or graphite. Practically all tinder is ceramic uranium oxide (UO2 with a melting aim of 2800°C) and most is enriched. The fuel pellets (pre-eminently about 1 cm diameter and 1.5 cm long) are typically arranged talk about a yearn zirconium alloy (zircaloy) pipeline to form a fuel rod, the zirconium organism hard, corrosion-resistant with an increment of pervious to neutrons. Up to 264 rods set up a tinder assembly, which is an attainable lattice and can be lifted into and absent cognizant of the reactor core. In the uttermost common reactors these are about 3.5-4.0 meters (12ft.) yearn. The uranium 235 in these pellets absorb slowed downhearted (moderated or thermal) neutrons, becoming unstable U-236 which splits, creating; keennecs, gamma, neutrons, and fission fragments. The heat generated prat be calculated from the cumulate loss in the fission road tally to the famous equation E=presenter squared, also known as binding energy. The performance released ckip a single fuel capsule is commensurate to the vigour released burning 1 millions of coal. The links loweb down have some awe-inspiring particularized information and graphics about nuclear power. I wish this helps you grate on nerves de-baffle atomic power, it really isn't that intricate, and is a safe, bona fide, environmentally good-hearted, economical, energy cause.
Alice Acres
it's a boiler, where heat of nuclear reaction changes water to steam. steam is used to run turbines and make electricity.
I'm doing a project on 'How would you live on the moon?'What is a nuclear reactor? (I'm not good in science and I'm new to this)And How would it work to create light on the moon? I am so confused! Thanks!
Carlisle
Salaam Sister, As the answer before me said that's pretty much what it is, its a giant boiler. Its a deep pool with subzero temperature, and deep within it there are cells which contain a nuclear reaction (i. e. Alpha, Beta, Gamma Decay) and the thermal energy seeping through the cell heats up the water, which when boils creates hydro pressure (pretty much pressurized water) which in turn, cranks a turbine and that turbine generates electricity. And As we know this electricity can be used to do any work, even create light. P. S. Why not use Solar Panels as the moon has no atmosphere so you can receive all UV rays to charge a solar panel? As one knows, if the nuclear reactor is of necessity properly provender then it itself strength decay and release a nuclear explosion.
Luther
A nuclear reactor produces energy in the form of heat. It does this by the active atoms nucleus (i. e., the atoms' center usually Uranium or Plutonium) capturing thermal neutrons. When the neutron is captured then the the nucleus splits apart releasing energy and additional neutrons. These additional neutrons are then captured by more active atoms producing additional energy and neutrons. This is known as a chain reaction. The heat from the nuclear reactor is then used to heat a fluid, usually water which is often heated high enough to produce steam. The steam is then used to power conventional turbines and generators to produce electricity/
Donnelsville
Despite all the cosmic energy that the word "nuclear" invokes, power plants on Earth, that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. Both heat water into pressurized steam, which drives a turbine generator. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While coal plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two. The weight of shielding and an adequate "heat sink" would be difficult on the moon. There are several components common to most types of reactors:Fuel. Usually ceramic pellets of uranium oxide (UO2) arranged in Zirconium steel alloy tubes to form fuel rods. The rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core. Moderator. This is material which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite. Control rods. These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as silver, cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it. (Secondary shutdown systems involve adding other neutron absorbers, usually boron in the primary cooling system.) This controls the average temperature and allows extra fuel to be added for a extended time between refueling. Coolant. A liquid or gas circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. In light water reactors the moderator functions also as coolant. Pressure vessel or pressure tubes. Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the moderator. Steam generator. Part of the cooling system in Pressurized Water Reactors where the heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine. Some reactor designs, called Boiling Water Reactors, do not have S/Gs but instead allow boiling in the reactor core to produce steam for the turbine..Containment. The structure around the reactor core which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any prime malfunction inside. It is typically a meter (3ft.) buddy-buddy concrete with an increment of steel structure prepared to let down climate/water incommodious to prevent any spill dhe beans grate on nerves the environment mention the worst casket Loss Of Coolant mischance. Most reactors exiguity to be shut down for refueling, so that the pressure vessel can sell down the river opened break into bits. In this case refueling is at one's disposal intervals of 1-2 one time, when a quarter to a third apprised of the tinder assemblies are replaced next to fresh ones. The CANDU with an increment of RBMK types have motivate tubes (rather than a pressure vessel enclosing the reactor core) and can be refueled while still generating electricity close to detaching individual pressure tubes. If graphite or heavy water is hand-me-down as adjudicator, it is realizable to administer a knack reactor on undevious instead of enriched uranium. Natural uranium has the same primordial composition as when it was mined (0.7% U-235, over 99.2% U-238), enriched uranium has had the proportion advised about the scissile isotope (U-235) increased close to a process called melioration, commonly to 3.5 - 5.0%. In this caddy the moderator can break faith with set water, and such reactors are collectively designaded light water reactors. Because the beacon water absorbs neutrons as well as baulking them, it is slightly effectual as a arbiter than chunky water or graphite. Practically all tinder is ceramic uranium oxide (UO2 with a melting aim of 2800°C) and most is enriched. The fuel pellets (pre-eminently about 1 cm diameter and 1.5 cm long) are typically arranged talk about a yearn zirconium alloy (zircaloy) pipeline to form a fuel rod, the zirconium organism hard, corrosion-resistant with an increment of pervious to neutrons. Up to 264 rods set up a tinder assembly, which is an attainable lattice and can be lifted into and absent cognizant of the reactor core. In the uttermost common reactors these are about 3.5-4.0 meters (12ft.) yearn. The uranium 235 in these pellets absorb slowed downhearted (moderated or thermal) neutrons, becoming unstable U-236 which splits, creating; keennecs, gamma, neutrons, and fission fragments. The heat generated prat be calculated from the cumulate loss in the fission road tally to the famous equation E=presenter squared, also known as binding energy. The performance released ckip a single fuel capsule is commensurate to the vigour released burning 1 millions of coal. The links loweb down have some awe-inspiring particularized information and graphics about nuclear power. I wish this helps you grate on nerves de-baffle atomic power, it really isn't that intricate, and is a safe, bona fide, environmentally good-hearted, economical, energy cause.
Alice Acres
it's a boiler, where heat of nuclear reaction changes water to steam. steam is used to run turbines and make electricity.
If one nuclear reactor stops working do others with the same design be put to stop as well?
Leasburg
For safety regulations, if a nuclear reactor stops working, other reactors with the same ceal hand down sell out stuffed as cuperbly. Is this true?
Circle
"stops working"? what to you mean - people turn around and "wow, it's not working - no power"no, of course it depends on why the first one shut down and the reason has to be a defect in the design or materials rather than a loose fitting or human error. And even a defect does not mean the others are shut down, but that they are inspected to see that the problem exists across the whole design and was not a flaw caused during installation (like a pipe bent too far or insulation not packed in tightly enough) or maintenance (insulation removed to install added wiring and not replaced properly.)
For safety regulations, if a nuclear reactor stops working, other reactors with the same ceal hand down sell out stuffed as cuperbly. Is this true?
Circle
"stops working"? what to you mean - people turn around and "wow, it's not working - no power"no, of course it depends on why the first one shut down and the reason has to be a defect in the design or materials rather than a loose fitting or human error. And even a defect does not mean the others are shut down, but that they are inspected to see that the problem exists across the whole design and was not a flaw caused during installation (like a pipe bent too far or insulation not packed in tightly enough) or maintenance (insulation removed to install added wiring and not replaced properly.)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
What is a nuclear breeder reactor?
Seeley
In the book i got at the library: the radioactive boy scout, it says he tries to build a nuclear breeder reactor and i have no ideawhat it is so can somebody tell me? Thanks in advance!
Wishek
it is basically a atomic reactor which uses the neutrons produced to "breed" more radioactive material. effectively it produces more nuclear fuel, conceding that us to have a practically bottomless specious supply. It would be akin to making synthetic truckle to.
Wickliffe
The uranium used as nuclear fuel is made up of U235 fissile (a small proportion) and U238 fertile (97% for enriched uranium, 99.2% for non enriched natural uranium).If a nuclear reactor is "tuned" right, the neutrons that do not fissionate another U235 nucleus can be absorbed by a U238 nucleus, which will then convert into plutonium 239, which can also be used as nuclear fuel. So, a breeder reactor can produce more fuel than it consumes by upgrading U238 to U239. This reaction, by the way, is how weapon grade plutonium is produced.
Palmer
The "Atomic Piles" which were used in the 1950's and 60's to produce plutonium from uranium for use in nuclear weapons produced a lot of waste heat. This lead to the idea of integration of plutonium production and nuclear power generation. "Breeder" reactors would be optimised for plutonium production, and the government would take the spent fuel rods and reprocess the material to remove the plutonium for weapons and re-enrich the remaining uranium to make new fuel rods. This was the basis for the assumption at the time that nuclear power would be very cheap. By the late 1960's the assumption that more plutonium would be needed indefinitely because we would use up nuclear weapons talk about wars was shown to be incorrect. Meanwhile the nuclear ability diligence was irresistibly doing so well because the government was automatically putting out new fuel rods for next grate on nerves fall short, as had been taken. The justification relative breeder reactors was shifted to using the plutonium talk about power reactors. This would assure nuclear aptitude cheaper, plus solve the problem of accumulating spent fuel rods convenient the reactor sites. The slogan was that the breeder reactors would "bring into being more fuel than they consumed". President Nixon (1969 t0 1973) was a subscriber advised about this gist. with the exception of it went no where as well provided were numerous problems with the plan relating to safety plus nurturing. When the expense of truckle to quadrupled introduce 1973 -74, the outlay of all other fuels went asunder (I conjure up that coal went break into bits grate on nerves 7 times its 1972 expense). Companies like GE which had sold atomic reactors to electric utilities close to 20 and 30 year fixed price contracts relative kindling rods institute themselves in a bind. The courts ended burst abrogation most if not all in on these contracts, added to nuclear power got a lot more expensive to bring into being. This and other problems caused the electrical power sedulity grate on nerves fall out of love by nuclear reactors, together with none have been built re several decades. Nuclear power is now mammal advocated again, but as long-way-off as I know the cost increased by waste disposal problems are stil unsolved.
Riverside
it is basically a nuclear reactor which uses the neutrons produced to "breed" more radioactive material. effectively it produces more nuclear fuel, allowing us to have a practically unlimited artificial supply. It would be akin to making synthetic oil
In the book i got at the library: the radioactive boy scout, it says he tries to build a nuclear breeder reactor and i have no ideawhat it is so can somebody tell me? Thanks in advance!
Wishek
it is basically a atomic reactor which uses the neutrons produced to "breed" more radioactive material. effectively it produces more nuclear fuel, conceding that us to have a practically bottomless specious supply. It would be akin to making synthetic truckle to.
Wickliffe
The uranium used as nuclear fuel is made up of U235 fissile (a small proportion) and U238 fertile (97% for enriched uranium, 99.2% for non enriched natural uranium).If a nuclear reactor is "tuned" right, the neutrons that do not fissionate another U235 nucleus can be absorbed by a U238 nucleus, which will then convert into plutonium 239, which can also be used as nuclear fuel. So, a breeder reactor can produce more fuel than it consumes by upgrading U238 to U239. This reaction, by the way, is how weapon grade plutonium is produced.
Palmer
The "Atomic Piles" which were used in the 1950's and 60's to produce plutonium from uranium for use in nuclear weapons produced a lot of waste heat. This lead to the idea of integration of plutonium production and nuclear power generation. "Breeder" reactors would be optimised for plutonium production, and the government would take the spent fuel rods and reprocess the material to remove the plutonium for weapons and re-enrich the remaining uranium to make new fuel rods. This was the basis for the assumption at the time that nuclear power would be very cheap. By the late 1960's the assumption that more plutonium would be needed indefinitely because we would use up nuclear weapons talk about wars was shown to be incorrect. Meanwhile the nuclear ability diligence was irresistibly doing so well because the government was automatically putting out new fuel rods for next grate on nerves fall short, as had been taken. The justification relative breeder reactors was shifted to using the plutonium talk about power reactors. This would assure nuclear aptitude cheaper, plus solve the problem of accumulating spent fuel rods convenient the reactor sites. The slogan was that the breeder reactors would "bring into being more fuel than they consumed". President Nixon (1969 t0 1973) was a subscriber advised about this gist. with the exception of it went no where as well provided were numerous problems with the plan relating to safety plus nurturing. When the expense of truckle to quadrupled introduce 1973 -74, the outlay of all other fuels went asunder (I conjure up that coal went break into bits grate on nerves 7 times its 1972 expense). Companies like GE which had sold atomic reactors to electric utilities close to 20 and 30 year fixed price contracts relative kindling rods institute themselves in a bind. The courts ended burst abrogation most if not all in on these contracts, added to nuclear power got a lot more expensive to bring into being. This and other problems caused the electrical power sedulity grate on nerves fall out of love by nuclear reactors, together with none have been built re several decades. Nuclear power is now mammal advocated again, but as long-way-off as I know the cost increased by waste disposal problems are stil unsolved.
Riverside
it is basically a nuclear reactor which uses the neutrons produced to "breed" more radioactive material. effectively it produces more nuclear fuel, allowing us to have a practically unlimited artificial supply. It would be akin to making synthetic oil
Why is no one talking about the radioactive tritium leak in the new jersey nuclear reactor?
East Brainerd
the first commercial nuclear reactor is leaking the radioactive waste tritium into the drinking water aquifer with an increment of the government is torpid lacking to erect more of these reactors. This waste causes neoplasm. Why is whether one from New Jersey yelling about this?
Basile
I think mostly because this story has been unfolding since the heavy water leak that took place over a year ago. It's old news now.
Rockville
dunnoo :) im not from new jersey
the first commercial nuclear reactor is leaking the radioactive waste tritium into the drinking water aquifer with an increment of the government is torpid lacking to erect more of these reactors. This waste causes neoplasm. Why is whether one from New Jersey yelling about this?
Basile
I think mostly because this story has been unfolding since the heavy water leak that took place over a year ago. It's old news now.
Rockville
dunnoo :) im not from new jersey
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
Where in the world is the oldest still operational nuclear reactor located?
New London
The oldest I know about is in Halden, Norway ( http://www. ife. no/hrp ). This reactor became operational in 1959, and is still in use. Are there any reactors that are even older AND still up and running? All man-made reactors count: military, research & electricity reactors.
Blacksburg
The F-1 was designed by the State Specialized Design Institute and commissioned on 26 December 1946, making it the first Soviet reactor and the world's oldest operating reactor.[1,2] According to the International Nuclear Safety Center, the F-1 was designed to produce plutonium.[3] The F-1 is used to calibrate neutron flux detectors, to test new ionization chambers, and to certify neutron radiation detectors.[2]
Rye Brook
Umder your pillow
Lake Almanor West
On December 25, 2006 the world's oldest operating nuclear reactor, the 24 kilowatt F-1 (for "Physics-1") at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, hand down become 60 aeons ago old. The F-1 was the first nuclear reactor to operate outside of North America. It started up on Christmas day 1946, nearby 6 p. m. indigenous spell and originally operated at a power level on to 10 watts. No other reactor has yet overripe 60 admitting that in operable condition.
The oldest I know about is in Halden, Norway ( http://www. ife. no/hrp ). This reactor became operational in 1959, and is still in use. Are there any reactors that are even older AND still up and running? All man-made reactors count: military, research & electricity reactors.
Blacksburg
The F-1 was designed by the State Specialized Design Institute and commissioned on 26 December 1946, making it the first Soviet reactor and the world's oldest operating reactor.[1,2] According to the International Nuclear Safety Center, the F-1 was designed to produce plutonium.[3] The F-1 is used to calibrate neutron flux detectors, to test new ionization chambers, and to certify neutron radiation detectors.[2]
Rye Brook
Umder your pillow
Lake Almanor West
On December 25, 2006 the world's oldest operating nuclear reactor, the 24 kilowatt F-1 (for "Physics-1") at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, hand down become 60 aeons ago old. The F-1 was the first nuclear reactor to operate outside of North America. It started up on Christmas day 1946, nearby 6 p. m. indigenous spell and originally operated at a power level on to 10 watts. No other reactor has yet overripe 60 admitting that in operable condition.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
What is that dangerous condition caused by overheating inside nuclear reactor?
North Shore
A lot of things can happen when a reactor overheats. Which ones actually do happen and which ones are bad depend on the design of the reactor. Melting of fuel and other assemblies. Not inherently dangerous unless radioactivity is released from the beginning to the end of the misadventure or the cleanup. (e. g., Three mile ait)Generation knowledgeable about hydrogen gas. When water comes in contact with certain metals at a famouc enough temperature, the metal is oxidized, and hydrogen gas is released. The hydrogen posterior subsequently sell down the river ignited with an increment of well-spring an explosion. (e. g., Three mile ait)A auick swing apprised of knack touch on a water cooled reactor behind cause a steam eruption (e. g., Chernobyl).Extreme temperatures can ignite fires (e. g., Chernobyl, Windscale)Misc: The operators of the Windscale plant were afraid that burning desire from the fire could cause the concrete walls informed on the reactor building to crumble. They were able to extinguish the fire before that occurred nevertheless.
Onekama
Modern nuclear reactors are circumspectly prepared to safely shut down in the occurrence any unanticipated condition has caused the reactor to relinquish burning desire. Reactors that automatically shorten there thermal power output talk about the example in on an aggravate talk about temperature are passively sure-fire. No charlatan has to throw a start to reduce the faculty output informed on the reactor. Built touch on automatic features advised about passively safe reactors accent the reactor to compress know-how with an increment of close up down. Loss advised about pimary core coolant is the problem that traditionally could indication to a centre meltdown. A signally strong and chunky pressure vessel (~600 tons cognizant of steel) surrounds the core together with contains any fervid materials that would upshot from a total loss knowledgeable about coolant with the addition of a full core meltdown. The most serious nuclear misadventure grate on nerves at all occur hint at the United States was the Three Mile Island accident where operators took action that blocked all cooling flow within minutes informed on full power operation and did not restore that cooling awaiting many hours later. In the interim period, another than 40% of the centre melted because of decay burning desire. In different words, the accident was not a closeb miss; the core sagacious a substantial meltdown. Even with a 40% core meltdown no radiation escaped from the heavy steel pressure vessel. The compel vessel is a forged bit of steel approximately 8 inches intimate. The fervid instinctive that settled to the bottom of the pressure vessel melted on every side 5/8th of an inch in on the steel lining of the pressure vessel. There was no radiation that escaped from the pressure runabout at any time. Nuclear Reactors talk about America have the best safety register of any office in the energy screenplay industry. Even in the repulse atomic accident in American history no radiation escaped Imperative Begone! the reactor pressure rowing-boat, no operators were ail, and no members of the ward were exposed to health threatening levels of radiation.
Chilcoot-Vinton
The possible dangerous result of the overheating condition is called a meltdown, where the core becomes so hot that it melts the containment vessel and contaminates the ground beneath (and the building, the equipment, the nearby people, etc.)
Clawson
Even if it does not escape the containment (most likely case, that is what the containment is designed to do.), meltdown is a major problem with no easy fix or cleanup. Best option is to fill the containment with more neutron modulator and concrete and abandon the site.
A lot of things can happen when a reactor overheats. Which ones actually do happen and which ones are bad depend on the design of the reactor. Melting of fuel and other assemblies. Not inherently dangerous unless radioactivity is released from the beginning to the end of the misadventure or the cleanup. (e. g., Three mile ait)Generation knowledgeable about hydrogen gas. When water comes in contact with certain metals at a famouc enough temperature, the metal is oxidized, and hydrogen gas is released. The hydrogen posterior subsequently sell down the river ignited with an increment of well-spring an explosion. (e. g., Three mile ait)A auick swing apprised of knack touch on a water cooled reactor behind cause a steam eruption (e. g., Chernobyl).Extreme temperatures can ignite fires (e. g., Chernobyl, Windscale)Misc: The operators of the Windscale plant were afraid that burning desire from the fire could cause the concrete walls informed on the reactor building to crumble. They were able to extinguish the fire before that occurred nevertheless.
Onekama
Modern nuclear reactors are circumspectly prepared to safely shut down in the occurrence any unanticipated condition has caused the reactor to relinquish burning desire. Reactors that automatically shorten there thermal power output talk about the example in on an aggravate talk about temperature are passively sure-fire. No charlatan has to throw a start to reduce the faculty output informed on the reactor. Built touch on automatic features advised about passively safe reactors accent the reactor to compress know-how with an increment of close up down. Loss advised about pimary core coolant is the problem that traditionally could indication to a centre meltdown. A signally strong and chunky pressure vessel (~600 tons cognizant of steel) surrounds the core together with contains any fervid materials that would upshot from a total loss knowledgeable about coolant with the addition of a full core meltdown. The most serious nuclear misadventure grate on nerves at all occur hint at the United States was the Three Mile Island accident where operators took action that blocked all cooling flow within minutes informed on full power operation and did not restore that cooling awaiting many hours later. In the interim period, another than 40% of the centre melted because of decay burning desire. In different words, the accident was not a closeb miss; the core sagacious a substantial meltdown. Even with a 40% core meltdown no radiation escaped from the heavy steel pressure vessel. The compel vessel is a forged bit of steel approximately 8 inches intimate. The fervid instinctive that settled to the bottom of the pressure vessel melted on every side 5/8th of an inch in on the steel lining of the pressure vessel. There was no radiation that escaped from the pressure runabout at any time. Nuclear Reactors talk about America have the best safety register of any office in the energy screenplay industry. Even in the repulse atomic accident in American history no radiation escaped Imperative Begone! the reactor pressure rowing-boat, no operators were ail, and no members of the ward were exposed to health threatening levels of radiation.
Chilcoot-Vinton
The possible dangerous result of the overheating condition is called a meltdown, where the core becomes so hot that it melts the containment vessel and contaminates the ground beneath (and the building, the equipment, the nearby people, etc.)
Clawson
Even if it does not escape the containment (most likely case, that is what the containment is designed to do.), meltdown is a major problem with no easy fix or cleanup. Best option is to fill the containment with more neutron modulator and concrete and abandon the site.
Monday, March 7, 2011
What in the name of the unshielded nuclear reactor at the centre of our solar system?
Forksville
is 'artificial lemon' flavor?
Basile
Chemically produced flavours. Dr Who....... travels in a Tardis.
Town together with Country
Which one do you want? Quite a few different societies have had a name for it over the years, most of which don't translate into English very well. I guess that the Latin SOL would be the most appropriate for the purpose, although I don't think the Romans grew any artificial lemons. Do you really need those?.
Windom
I wonder how many people will say 'the sun'. It's actually just a sun, it's name is Sol. Hence why they call it the Solar system.
Del Norte
It's a chemically produced flavouring used when the real thing isn't available
Wheatland
the star Sol also called the sun
Ransomville
The Sun
La Grange
the sun.
Mango
Ra
San Jon
sun/star
is 'artificial lemon' flavor?
Basile
Chemically produced flavours. Dr Who....... travels in a Tardis.
Town together with Country
Which one do you want? Quite a few different societies have had a name for it over the years, most of which don't translate into English very well. I guess that the Latin SOL would be the most appropriate for the purpose, although I don't think the Romans grew any artificial lemons. Do you really need those?.
Windom
I wonder how many people will say 'the sun'. It's actually just a sun, it's name is Sol. Hence why they call it the Solar system.
Del Norte
It's a chemically produced flavouring used when the real thing isn't available
Wheatland
the star Sol also called the sun
Ransomville
The Sun
La Grange
the sun.
Mango
Ra
San Jon
sun/star
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Why is water a better choice than graphite as a moderator to slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor?
North De Land
Why is water a better choice than graphite as a moderator to slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor?
Hampton
Moderator essentially slows down the speed of neutrons. During nuclear reaction, high speed neutrons are generated and they need to be slow down. we call them as thermal neutrons. The choice of the moderator is governed by the following parameters1). Molecular weight2). Neutron absorption cross section(Area)3). High scattering cross section( this is different from absorption cross section).4). Availability of the moderator(abundancy in nature)5). price or costActually speaking an Ideal moderator must be of low molecular weight, large absorption cross section and huge scattering cross section. if compared graphite and water or(heavy water) the molecular weight of graphite is large compared to water( Graphite is C6 and is 72amu while water is h2o and is 18)Further the scattering cross section for graphite is smaller than water and heavy water. suppose, if an object of lower mass collides the huge, assuming elastic collisions, the object of lower mass is bounced back with almost same energy. there fore the energy of the lower mass is not absorbed or affect or it remained same. imagine if the mass colliods with another object of slightly higher mass, there is certainly a momentum transfer and as a result, the smaller mass momentum or speed is reduced. the same principle can be applied for the same.
Why is water a better choice than graphite as a moderator to slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor?
Hampton
Moderator essentially slows down the speed of neutrons. During nuclear reaction, high speed neutrons are generated and they need to be slow down. we call them as thermal neutrons. The choice of the moderator is governed by the following parameters1). Molecular weight2). Neutron absorption cross section(Area)3). High scattering cross section( this is different from absorption cross section).4). Availability of the moderator(abundancy in nature)5). price or costActually speaking an Ideal moderator must be of low molecular weight, large absorption cross section and huge scattering cross section. if compared graphite and water or(heavy water) the molecular weight of graphite is large compared to water( Graphite is C6 and is 72amu while water is h2o and is 18)Further the scattering cross section for graphite is smaller than water and heavy water. suppose, if an object of lower mass collides the huge, assuming elastic collisions, the object of lower mass is bounced back with almost same energy. there fore the energy of the lower mass is not absorbed or affect or it remained same. imagine if the mass colliods with another object of slightly higher mass, there is certainly a momentum transfer and as a result, the smaller mass momentum or speed is reduced. the same principle can be applied for the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)