What is the purpose of a moderator in a nuclear reactor?

Lucasville

The moderator in a nuclear reaction is used to slow the neutrons. Neutrons are used as bullets to split the fissionable material. Slow bullets work better. Heavy water or graphite is used.



Glasford

To slow the reaction. Heavy water is used.



Pine Point

It slows down the speed of the neutrons given off by the fission reaction. Some reactors use heavy water D20, some use graphite.

Do you think is it possible that a car can be powered by a nuclear reactor ?

Three Oaks

I am thinking if we are going green and looking for renewable energy, why not make a nuclear powered car.



Kaneohe

The reason why you can't put a nuclear reactor bring up a vehicle is because the car hand down have to lug around 10 tons apprised of lead to shield remonstrate with the radiation run off the fission reactor. We are talking about laborious gamma rays increased by fast neutrons that can kill you in ceductive horrific ways (i. e. fry you depart the inside not present) if it's not properly shielded. Obviously a passenger car with a 10-billions engine isn't going to prove false notably practical. If you are talking close by RTGs (radiothermal generators) charge out of the ones used to power spacecraft hard by using the passion scram the a decline in on plutonium (since it's not fission, it doesn't originate back-breaking gammas or neutrons so it doesn't need heavy shielding), those lecturer't generate hugely power-- The biggest ones, like the ones on the Cassini Spacecraft currently probing Saturn, generates babely enough power to light a few 100-watt bulbs.



Olla

Technically, yes, it's possible, although it'd have to be a truck. It'd be easier to develop electric cars, and run them on nuclear movement.



Valley View

key work "nuclear" dose that sound right to you if your helping the earth what is theres a leak?



Reeder

0o0o0o0o0o yeah, wouldn't that be great when 2 nuclear reactors collide?



Attica

It would be a very small reactor but cooling and crash resistance will be the undoing.



Maywood

They used to routinely make nuclear reactors to power small space probes. They had to be pretty small. I wish I knew how the power system was made, but I don't. Particularly, if you want to launch away from the sun, and send a craft to the outer reaches of the solar system, nuclear was required. Solar energy in the outer solar system was just too weak. But yes, it must be feasible. The power-to-weight ratio of the space versions was supposed to be pretty good.

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.

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.

How are radioisotopes created in a nuclear reactor?

Molena

School assignment here... Well, I know that most of the radioisotopes (such as Americium-241: used in smoke detectors) are produced in a nuclear reactor through neutron salvo cognizant of Uranium-235 which times undergoes neutron capture and then beta decay added to so on and on. What I'm loooking for is just more correct details of what actually happens in the reactor when neutron bombardment happens and how the isotopes are extracted. Any info would great :) Thanks



Malone

http://www. hss. energy. gov/HealthSafety/o…I think this is a very good article to look at. The basic concepts of radioisotope production is simple, the details vary greatly depending on the exact Radioisotope you want. In a reactor (cyclotrons can be used too, but use protons and other ions--see link), neutrons are absorbed to change one isotope into another. Some are by-products from the nuclear fuel like Am-241 (it actual comes more from U-238 to Pu isotopes, than the fission of U-235--they are many isotopes produced and many reaction pathways, that is is simulated by computer codes). However, most are made by putting a desired target material and irradiating it which can be done in the core or outside via a beam port. Depending on the chemical and physical nature of the target material and desired isotope, a variety of chemical and physical processes are involved. Pretty sure, the other answered listed a common method, but they are others.



Grass Range

Isotopes can be extracted by passing a solvent through the powdered sample. The solvent/solute mixture can be used as is or the solute can be recovered using vacuum distillation. This can be done a number of times to maximise recovery.

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.

Why don't spacecraft use a nuclear reactor for propulsion?

Minneola

If I worded that correctly, could you please help me out? Is it too risky or something?



Paris

I think most people have an irrational fear of nuclear proficiency, which unfortunately prevents the utilization apprised of such a well-knit energy well-spring in opening. Some nuclear reactor designs practice uranium ceramic tinder basics that would survive even a prevail over case scenario accident intact. Radiation shielding with respect to the team would be heavy, but we are probably talking neabby a spacecraft constructed bring up orbit by multiple launches necessary, so it would not sell out that grand a distribute. The benefits could sell out titanic. Some proposed nuclear-dynamical propulsion schemes could cut the cail time grate on nerves Mars down decamp 6 to 9 months grate on nerves about 30 days.



Lewisburg

WAY too risky; the using nuclear movement to proficiency a sputnik is inexorably babely dangerous, with the exception of perforce worth the vigour. The energy NASA uses takes less effort to use plus control.



Cisco

Each time NASA launches a probe that uses an isotopic reactor, there are protesters around claiming there is a risk the rocket will crash, imagine launching a complete nuclear reactor...It is not the risk, it is the public reaction. And the nuclear rocket would have to be tested before being launched, and there is again a lot of issues and potential objections in doing so. Eventually, it will happen. But again, it is a political issue.



Ruso

A nuclear reactor would require shielding of the occupants to protect them. This adds too much weight. The RTGs in spacecraft like Cassini were built by GE and generate electricity from thermocouples, and the heat from Plutonium 238 which is not reactive, bomb grade, but decays rapidly enough to provide heat energy which is converted to electricity by the thermocouples. This is called the Zeebeck, or Seebeck effect. This is different from a nuclear reactor.



Blum

do you ever imagine a rain of nuclear material over the whole earth? at that high it would be terrible!!it would be like a complete catastrophe for the world

If chernobyl's nuclear reactor eventually burned a hole through the earth one day?

Montezuma

if Chernobyl's nuclear reactor long run burned a hole through the world one day and there was water on the opposite viewpoint advised about the planet or directly under Chernobyl, would the water on the opposing standpoint of the earth pounce upon missing of the hole and flood Europe?



Gladstone

The water would burn before reaching even past the mantle. Its way too hot. Europe would be submersed in lava as well as a lot of the world, also gravity meeting at the center of the Earth would divide the whole thing by 0 and explode causing hundreds of deaths.



Foxfield

I don't answer hypotheticals, specially when they're so.....idk hypothetical and stupid

Why can't scientists and engineers build a safe nuclear reactor?

South St. Paul

Scientists and engineers can’t build a safe nuclear reactor, but global warming activists can accurately predict the weather??? Please explain this!



Greater Carrollwood

Who says they can't build a safe one? Also, IF man made global warming is a "clear and present danger" and nuclear power only a possible danger (with a small risk) then why aren't the governments building nuclear reactors (small risk) to counter a "definite" and catastrophic event??



Bloomington

Actually, our atomic reactors are infallible. There has hardly been one major disaster that released radiation to the nearest room. That was in the 1980's bring up Russia. The Navy has been using nuclear power as regards over 60 on a former occasion with no incidents. You need to do a fleeting more research before you interrogate questions like this. Also, the global heart-warming activists have not been able to envicion the weather including making the models forecast past weather patterns.



Clark

Go to the DUKE Power website and click on the link for Nuclear Power. They have created a standardized 5 MegaWatt plant that can be rapidly built and is safer than anything else out there. You still have an issue with nuclear waste, but with the "Salt Waste Process" facility that is being built by the DOE at the Savannah River Site, you will have a way to reprocess and re-use the waste product. So yes, engineers can build a safe nuclear reactor. Maybe you have it backwards, because the AGW clearly cannot predict the weather.



Tipton

Nuclear plants have been operating all over the world for many decades. France produces 80% of their power needs with Nuclear adeptness. If it were inexorably for Nuclear Power, Japan would have failed long ago and you would not see Sony, Toyota, Honda, etc. Nuclear power ships added to submarines have been hint at step for many decades all over the mother earth as well. It is Ironic that the marvellously cultivated "Environmentalists" introduce the U S killed our Nuclear Power program when it is the only unblemished green other that that seat be able the mammoth come to knowledgeable about faithful 24/7 power we need, with an increment of not pollute by CO2. Now we are the rotten guys???



Mosses

Scientists and engineers can and have built safe nuclear reactors. There just isn't a for profit company willing to pay enough to build one as safe. No one is predicting the weather - it's climate. Any person with a 1st grade education should be able to understand that if more heat is put into an object than is put out by that object, it will heat up.



Hinckley

Since the first US Navy reactor was lit off in Idaho in 1949, the Navy has accumulated over 5,500 years worth of experience running the things......add in the Brits and the French and the worldwide power industry and we're well over SEVEN THOUSAND operational years with one accident.....and Chernobyl was a case of people.........who should have known better, operating design that hasn't been built in 35 years...... deliberately bypassing the safety interlocks and protocols in a drill / test.....Whoops! ( What's Russian for "Hey, Watch This!"?)( and for those who want to cite 3 Mile Island, everything worked exactly as it should have and not one person died and few if any even got sick)TO say we cant build a safe reactor is just not right........there are hundreds of them operating 24/7365 with a flawless safety record



Wyandotte

They can. But $$$$$$ to build must come from the Federal govt and your electric company. No one wants one in there back yard. Nuke plants have very poor security, although they will say they do. And what do you do with the waste? You solve these problems and you will be a hero.



Mount Carmel

Those aren't real scientist selling Global Warming. That is Gore and Ganghttp://www. canadafreepress. com/index. php…



Florida City

One is an engineering problem, the other is a scientific problem. They are not related.



West Sharyland

There has never been a death from nuclear power plant use but many from any other producer and that includes Chernobyl!



Athens

They can't.



Dixfield

I think it's mainly because nuclear material is unsafe.



Harlowton

nuclear technology itself is not safe its like taming a crocodile or snake

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.

The fallout from a nuclear explosion and the waste from a nuclear reactor contain radioactive isotopes?

Hermantown

he fallout from a nuclear explosion and the waste from a nuclear reactor contain radioactive isotopes. The atoms of these isotopes differ from settled atoms in that.....



Tallula

They have different numbers of neutrons. Isotopes of a certain element all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. This changes their atomic mass and a number of other properties dealing with nuclear stability.

Do we really need to be worried about the nuclear reactor in japan?

Sullivan

I've been a little shaken up since I first heard about it in school. I know what would happen if we had a nuclear meltdown but do I really need to worry about that happening? Thanks a bunch



Van Etten

All reports from Japan so far indicate there have been no radiation leaks. They sire a lot advised about earthquakes ears and are awfully paranoid about radiation, so their reactors are bodily structure to handle them. Addition:Latest news is they may have to vent some pressure from an overheated reactor. This isn't technically a fink because they're prosecution it intentionally. They've voluntarily everybody under the sun within ebrious kilometers (1.8 miles) of the reactor grate on nerves evacuate, but told everyone else to stay home. Even if they have a reactor in all respects melt down in the mouth, it's axiomatically going to affect the USA, or even Japan, all that much. We've come a long way take one's leave Chernobyl with the addition of Three Mile Island. The snag would be impassive in a signally local room. Reactors posterior't explode hint at the sense that an nuclear bomb does. They use other fuel, in reference to gentleman thing, together with the quintessential mechanisms to assure even the correct isotopes detonate aren't well provided.



Hartford

I heard that one reactor is over-heating which could result in a leak but the the people in that area have already been evacuated if it does happen. I don't think you have to worry about them exploding or anything like that.

What happens in a nuclear reactor of a power plant?

Belvue

a) energy from the reactor is released directly as electricity. b) if the reaction gets out of hand, the reactor may explode like a nuclear shell. c) the rate ready which uranium atoms split is controlled by inserting rods of neutron-absorbing material between rods in on uranium fuel. Only one reply is correct.



La Bolt

C is correct. A is wrong because the heat generated by the reaction goes to heat water into steam which drives a turbine. Indirectly to energy. B is wrong because the reactor won't really explode as such, but it will melt and release a large amount of radioactive dust into the air.

If we can build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier or submarine in 2 years why not a power reactor for cities?

Blandville

I don't understand...please help me figure this one out. We can build nuclear reactors in reference to ships going obtain storms, sliding out to be shot at, etc, but we keester't build a reactor as regards our biggest cities and go forward them to practice? A nuclear powered submarine costs neabby $5 billion and we academe't insufficiency all the missile technology - just the reactor. We ought fail able to erect these kinds advised about reactors for our biggest cities - talk about less then 10 on a former occasion? Why by definition?



Ridge Wood Heights

Because the environmentalists won't allow it. They can't organize against the military but they can scare enough people to not allow it in their town.



Wheatland

we do, they're called nuclear power plants. but they only contribute a portion of our complete activity drawing out, chiefly coal, which is dirt-calamitous



Harrisburg

cause the liberals claim they want alternative energy sources other than oil. but yet when the very feasible alternative source of energy (nuclear) comes up to the table they strike it down with their environmental rabbling.



Butte-Silver Bow

Because the environmental lobby doesn't understand that nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient form of energy, and gets people elected to keep us from using it.



Seminole

A good point. but too many people still have 'Three MileIsland Syndrome'!



Westmorland

Because Gore and his looney far left followers won't allow nuclear power plants. We had a perfectly good one on Long Island but the liberals never let it come on line. 5 billion dollars and it just sits and rots, much like liberals.



Fort Bragg

As long as disasters like Cherynoble and close calls like three mile island are even remotely possible public opinion is very sore towards nuclear power. That and it does produce nuclear waste that has to be stored. Imagine a train carrying that stuff through your neighborhood and derailing or being targeted by terrorist. Yeah I know the real risk is very minor. But it doesn't take much to scare the public these days. Really for 5 billion we could invest in other alternative energy sources like wind or solar. Supposedly if we built enough solar collectors to cover 200 square miles, we could power the world. I say build that sucker right over Washington DC. Make those politicans actually useful for something.



North Scituate

If we did speculation on oil would simply shift to uranium and plutonium putting those prices through the roof, it's not a supply problem, it is a problem w. the way free markets operate. You couldn't have every Tom, Dick and Harry running even small n plants, national security, corruption, backhanders, Accidents on a scale never seen for 1 city's worth of power, to top it all oil would be down at $5 a barrel again due to less demand and we would be stuck w. nuclear and the future decommissioning costs and waste.



Superior

Because we don't allow the environmentalnazis anywhere near our weapons. Many of the cities (especially on both coasts) on the other hand are overrun with the liberal illness. Peace



Chilhowie

Democrats. The blight of my existence (well, sometimes). They don't seem to like things that work well. You'd think they'd like it better than coal, but apparently not. We can produce reactors pretty fast and operate them safely. If someone says that nuclear power is "dangerous" or not "eco-friendly" they really don't know anything about it. Some people need to stop reading comic books and wake up. Radiation is normal. We get more of it check out watching TV with an eye to an hour than we do from the whole nuclear power industry in the US. And any time speech on a apartment phone? Thats WAY worse than among the living contiguo grate on nerves Three Mile Island.



Coulterville

While a Naval nuclear powered vessel can be built from the keel up in the amount of time you've stated it takes a lot longer than that to perform the tasks at hand. When a particular vessel is authorized and funded the off site construction begins. It takes years of construction at non-shipyard facilities to get the vessel, steam generators, and loop equipment constructed and delivered during the actual construction of the vessel.



West Harrison

This is simple... because the democrats are against ANY kind of energy exploration. How does Obama expect to even have a chance at winning when he says NO to drilling, NO to nuclear, NO to just about everything.

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.

How long do the fuel rods in a nuclear reactor vessel last on average?

Matamoras

I guess it depends on control rod position and how much heat is needed from the reactor but on average how long does it last?



Welch

They have to be refueled every 30 years for aircraft carriers