Would reviving the nuclear reactor plant in bataan help solve oil problem in the country?

Tillmans Corner

Is it the solution to meeting the country's energy demands and decreasing dependence on imported oil? Your opinions, please.



Carmen

for me this is the right option to have efficient power source in the country. i don't know why? we have plenty of talented mechanical and electrical engineers who are capable to study/research regarding that matter particularly those working in NAPOCOR. As i said last few days ago here in YAP that 1kg uranium is equevalent 20 million tons of coal that use us in NAPOCOR as fuel to produce electricity and the polution produced by fueling coal is enormous compare to uranium. Some environmentalest disagree about using the atomic proficiency in the country coz they are worred to give birth to radiation leakage from the waste advised about it. except as i literary the waste on to nuclear knack mill dransmit be disposed to various meters low the documentation with sealed sociable glassware container. consequence, it is singularly safe. the possibity of victim 8 one's nearest and dearest hint at each and every time 5,000 people even though the victim cognizant of carcinoma at the whilom survey knowledgeable about WHO are 80 in without exception 400 people.



Marrero

Yes, as well as electricity.



Howard

Yes, it will be of great help to our country. But I'm a bit afraid of it (remember the Chernobyl?), the plant will be full of radioactive materials. Plus, environmentalists will not agree on that as well as the local residents.



Rockport

Somehow it can replenish the energy requirements of the country. But diminishing the dependence of imported crude oil, that is another story. The energy department has no concrete plan about the energy needs of the country, as long as their is an investor to put-up a power plant they usually have a go signal, only the local residents that opposed to it (especially when they set-up near the residential area). They (the energy department) could hardly address the LPG requirement of the country, what more for the nuclear plant? Provided that the nuclear plant would be revived, will the price of electricity go down as we decreased our consumption of crude oil?



Decatur

it may only reduce the country's oil consumption by cutting down on the use on generating electricity but not on transportation and other stuff. as the local singing trio, Apo Hiking Society said:there's NO CLEAR PLAN for the NUCLEAR PLANT! hehehe



Lake in on the Woods

I don't care if it would or won't anymore, I want to get my money's worth from it. (As long as it doesn't kill people).-The nuke plant is no longer a "white elephant", we need it now!



Jauca

well, if it doesnt pose any potential hazards (considering that the plant is built near major earthquake fault lines and a volcano)..and if the costs of updating its technical components would not be so ridiculously impractical.....then why not.



Park Rapids

yes, it will also give "power" to the country, but you have to sacrifice the natural wonders...



Loma

Tempting to just turn it on to solve our money problem right? But then, if something goes wrong (and in the Pinas setting - wherein facilities are often poorly maintained ) - this could turn into a catastrophe which could expose many filipinos to radiation, blood-letting them instantly or after a long distressful period beside cancer with an increment of variant radiation sickness, increased by do in, render many parts of Luzon unlivable for 2,000 years, together with will also be sure Metro Manila besmirched with atomic contaminants, ensuring that many advised about us will get hurt or metamorphose within in olden days knowledgeable about the accident. It's not like: ay mali, then the usual finger guiding and exposes about corruptions which resulted from the accustomed suspects hint at the government buying poor materials hint at exchange for grand kickbacks, in days of old everybody forget what happens after awhile...And nobody goes grate on nerves jail. Nuclear contamination is a influential, determined tragedy.



Grandville

Anything would be better than continuing to shovel cash into the pockets of the wealthiest bigots in the world. All those elaborate castles in the desert are built with your money. The same people who consider the rest of the world as animals to be slaughtered at their own liking. I say let them park those Mercedez Benz and learn to ride a camel again. Let them eat sand for a while and see if they can produce their own food. One day their oil will be worthless. Then lets see how much they are willing to pay for rice, corn, wheat, etc.

What are some of the ways a reactor works and the theory behind nuclear reactions?

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.

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

What is the function of shielding in a nuclear reactor?

Progreso Lakes

to contain radiation, to absorb free neutrons, to slow neutrons, or to nonchalant the reactor?



Brass Castle

We maintain our radiation dose ALARA - as low as reasonably achievable by 1. reducing time 2. increasing distance 3. shielding. Shielding is placing material (like lead, concrete, water) between you and the source of radiation.



Harlem

Which shielding? The outer shielding contains radiation. Rods in the reactor capture neutrons and are second-hand to control the reaction rate. Have a face at thishttp://www. howstuffworks. com/atomic-pow…



Arlington

to contain radiation

A highly radioactive component of the waste from a nuclear reactor?

Nedrow

1. A highly radioactive component of the wast from a nuclear reactor is a plutonium isotope, Pu-239. How myriad protons are there in an scintilla in on this variety? how many neutrons?2. Explain how the two isotopes knowledgeable about rubidium, Rb-85 added to Rb-87, distinct. Write nuclear symbols relating to these isotopes.



New Straitsville

Use the periodic table of elements, what number is Pu - Plutonium? This is the atomic number = number of Protons in the nucleus. All Plutonium has the same number of protons, it is the total number of Neutrons and Protons which determines the isotope. The larger number in the periodic table is the atomic mass which takes into account the abundance of each isotope, this may result in a fraction. An isotope is always a whole number as this is the total of the number of neutrons and protons together. Subtract the number of protons from the total and what you have left is the number of neutrons. The links will give you a periodic table, the rest is simple math. Good Luck! The table of nuclides has good information about isotopes, have fun!

Is it possible to grow a living organism from a rotting sandwich left behind a nuclear reactor?

Waverly

I could really do with some minions.



Woodstown

This is, of course, the modern way to acquire minions. Here's a handy print-out-and-keep recipe chart, based on the type of abandoned sandwich (average mutation time 21-28 days):BACON: Hideous six-headed monster pigs, standing upright on their hind legs and weighing 2,500 lbs, with sharp tusks extending randomly through their twisted snouts. The leaner the bacon was, the more likely the eventual pig-men are to get gym memberships. STREAKY BACON: As above, with stripes. CHEESE: Sour-faced, semi-curdled cows with an attitude problem. Will immediately conduct homicidal (not to mention rodenticidal) attacks on nearby mouse populations. CHEESE & PICKLE: As above, with bad breath. TUNA: Land sharks. With patience, they can trained to hum the ominous cello notes from 'Jaws' before they attack. EGG & TUNA: As above, but will alternate the cello notes with chicken noises. SAUSAGE: You don't want to know. Preparation tips:Always use fresh uranium, and make sure your nuclear reactor is pre-heated to 325° F. Always use gloves to handle nuclear unthinking, because phylogeny mutant frill fingers makes advanced gloves decidedly hard to prove guilty. Always deduct toothpicks from sandwiches, or else your new creatures will emerge with a shafd browse the heart.



Wilsonville

Yes, Your giant pig-men will emerge with terminal lung cancer. Report Abuse



Truckee

I grew my minions from a grilled cheese sandwich left rotting behind a nuclear reactor. Yes, but they need their own little habitat, just like hermit crabs. Be sure to feed and water your minions daily. I sing to mine -- they love Sinatra. If this doesn't work, try sea monkeys. They make great minions. Best of luck!



Forrestville

What a silly question!! Lol, NO!!!



Brentwood

I think it's possible, yes. But beware - The Toxic Avenger was created when he fell into some radioactive goop, and he was a crime fighter. So I'd use your talent for mind control (you know you made that lady sit on her cat) over them as soon as they sprout. Otherwise, you'll only have gone & created your arch-enemies.



Nuiqsut

Got to be worth try - you never know your luck!! If it doesnt work you could always try and sell the sandwich on e-bay (I am sure somebody will bid!!)



University Heights

There is no "behind" a nuclear reactor. They are poster.



Callensburg

Oh don't bother going to all that trouble, I've got some minions lying around here that you can have if you want. I should warn you though, they tend to backchat.



Wilmore

The sandwich must be liverworst and cheese. Your have interesting minions.



Belgium

Yes thats how i got here.



Hartleton

Yes you can. I can hire my minions out to you if you want. I'm on my sabbatical and have no immediate plans for world domination.



Verona

Depends on the type of sandwich. Peanut butter is good, but your minions are rather soft. You have a most interesting hobby



Norway

Dont know about behind a reactor, But if you look at the food on the trains in the UK it grows into ticket collectors.



Rock Mills

Minions are overrated - get some henchmen instead - you get them by leaving a curry and smelly sock behind a nuclear reactor.



Jordan Road-Canyon Creek

Yes, if you call regular fungii and bacteria living organisms. But they aren't much good as minions. But you won't get mutants because nuclear reactors are famously out of harm's way with titanic layers of beliable to prevent radiation leaking away. Even if there was radiation disclosing, it would be worlds unlikely to produce the specific kinds of mutations you want purely convenient erratic. Mostly it would only weed out the germs, which is why they irradiate food to keep it fresh.



Byars

Sounds like a Simpsons episode



Wynot

If you have a nuclear reactor in front of your rotting sandwich can I be your first minion



Williams

I have a feeling this is how a goodly portion of Congress got here, so we have proof that it is in fact possible. Be sure to ask for extra minions with that sammitch. LOL



Clarendon Hills

plenty of living organisms grow on rotting sandwichs left most places, not so sure they'd be willing or able to follow instructions though. Have you considering starting a cult instead?

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..

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.)

What happens to a nuclear reactor in a sub when the sub is hit by a missile?

Zephyrhills South

As in, is it destroyed to and then contaminates the ocean? Or does it just sit on the ocean floor and do nothing?



Carlton

There have been 2 US Nuclear Submarines lost at sea and there was little or no radioactive leakage detected from them, they were not hit by missiles. There have been several Soviet Subs lost at sea, I do not know if any leakage has been detected on them. I have not heard of any, but they were not hit by missiles either. The reactor is designed to "scram" on loss of electrical power, which stops the fission process and there is an emergency cooling system which works on convection that should keep the core cool enough to prevent a meltdown. I was a reactor operator on US Navy nuclear submarines. I have no direct knowledge of Russian / Soviet designs.



Remsen

It might meltdown depending if it hit the cooling funtion (like the towers or the cooling ponds) or if it puncure the reactor. But submarines are well armored, I my opion it would just sink in most cases. I know that atleast one nuke sub has be downed, I think russian.



Eatonville

Unless the core were to take a direct hit, it would probably automatically scram and shut down if the sub was damaged severely enough. The worst that would happen would be a direct hit, scattering pieces of the core in the immediate area, where it would sink to the bottom and be radioactive for a long time. The environmental impact would be local to the spot, affecting whatever denizens of the deep would happen to live there. There would be no impact anywhere else. The likelihood of a meltdown or critical event is remote.



Pensacola

well first the would probably be a big KABOOM! and then all the surrounding water would be contaminated and then the contaminated water would circulate and contaminate the rest of the water leaving the water from the ocean total unusable due to contamination.

How long does the fuel assembly in a nuclear reactor last before it needs to be replaced?

Elloree

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?



Glendo

Commercial nuclear power plants operate at 100% power uttermost in the know about the time. The fuel load is only enriched to 3% maximum. As a aftermath, the tinder is expended adequately post-haste. Most plants in the US refuel pass on a bi-hebdomadal basis. Naval reactors have a very highly enriched kindling gravamen. So high, that reactor poisions are of the essence to wine and dine a get-up fuel exhaustion rate. Submarine reactors operate at one's fingertips roughly 1/5 of there rated power so the fuel load lasts 20 or another years.

Was bill clinton right to give north korea six billion dollars and a nuclear reactor?

Essex

In exchange for a promise that they would not build bombs, and then never check if they did or not?



Thomson

He was too busy killing American citizens in Waco to worry about North Korea.



Birds

I'm a democrat and Bill Clinton was like what Reagan was for terrorism. BOTH of them Sucked. Bill was just awful at Foreign policy.



Lodge Pole

like giving a hot fudge sundae to Michael Moore and making him promise to not eat it.



Duchess Landing

About as right as giving a junkie some cocaine and baking soda and tell him not make crack and see ya!!



Lancaster

No, neither was the Bush administration right to appease N Korea for their belligerent behavior. You'd think the third time would be a charm, but Obama is ready setting the stage to be America's apologizer, and I feel he'll do the same.



Fuig

About as right as Bush was to loan billions from the Chinese to fund the War in Iraq. Politicians are great, aren't they?



Coalville

Source?

Can you blow up the nuclear reactor in grand theft auto 4?

Jauca

I recently discovered with my helicopter a nuclear reactor. What keister you do there? Can you gust it come apart or something? Btw I'm not a ******* gunsel it's a video championship lol. Thanks



Woodville

You cannot do anything there except hunt for weapons and pigeons.

What is the lifespan of a nuclear reactor pressure vessel?

Stanton

I understand that embrittlement can limit the lifespan of a nuclear pressure vessel. How long does a reactor pressure vessel last?



Rio Verde

It depend upon the number of heating/cooling cycles it undergoes in its life time. That means start ups and shut downs. I hope they last 40 to 50 years.

Is it illegal to take pictures of a nuclear reactor?

Pollock

I didn't do it but a friend did. And there is a short video. I was jw if it was illegal.



Maggie Valley

I don't think so, unless you're selling that information to a foreign nation or using it for your own personal gain.



East Palatka

no



New Hampton

No. This is America. Just don't trespass.



O'Fallon

As long as you don't trespass, no, it's not illegal.

How does heavy water in a nuclear reactor help to keep the chain reaction going?

Lowry

a) by accelerating the neutrons produced during nuclear fissionb) by slowing down the neutrons produced during nuclear fissionc) by absorbing the neutrons produced during nuclear fissiond) by releasing neutrons



Seven Trees

Yes, the heavy water is used as a "moderator" to slow down neutrons from one fission generation to the next. It happens that the neutron chain reaction is best served using slower neutrons that can fall into the next uranium (or other fissile nucleus). The neutrons that are produced in the fission process are just too fast and need to bounce off a light atom such as hydrogen to most efficiently transfer energy. The reason heavy water is so handy for this is that heavy water, since it contains a hydrogen isotope (deuterium) that already has a neutron, does not try to "capture" those fast moving neutrons and take them out of the chain reaction. So, while you want your neutrons to bounce off light atoms like billiard balls and give up a lot of energy with each hit, you don't want to lose any neutrons you don't have to by hitting regular hydrogen atoms in "light" water (H2O) that are much more hungry for neutrons and capture them, changing to deuterium but taking neutrons out of action. Heavy water is so effective in moderating neutrons without capturing them that you don't even have to enrich the uranium to get a critical mass when you use heavy water (D2O) as the moderator.



Fort Branch

B) by slowing down the neutrons produced during nuclear fissionbut as far as i know...its a coolant, which cools the enormous amount of heat released. one more thing, it can even be moderator.....lyk HEAVY WATER( D2O)



Caribou

By slowing down the neutrons so the neutrons go slow enough to hit another nucleus and keep the process going. If the neutrons go too fast, they will pass right through other atoms.



Patriot

Bheavy water is D2Oit is hydrogen with an extra neutron, If you need more help on nuclear sciences let me know

Why does a nuclear reactor makes a poor explosion?

Arapahoe

Title: POOR EXPLOSIVE15. A atomic reactor makes a poor explosion because it isa. Too fastb. Too slowc. Too hotd. Too smalle. Too expensive



Winchester

Way too slow. Nuclear reactors depend on tabooing down neutrons to obtain their chain reactions, which takes time. That is good, because that gives you change for the better control of the power level, loosing faculty from the fission process relatively step by step. Indeed, if the reactor starts releasing power immoderately fast, the increased temperature causes negative reactivity (tends grate on nerves shut the reactor down). This is perforce to say that it is unachievable or even arduous to sire a runaway addition informed on reactivity, apart from even that is at least in some measure a poor outburst event, even if nasty. Nuclear "explosions" such as hint at nuclear weapons come across in a microsecond, releasing a lot of energy straightaway, reaching millions advised about degrees increased by millions in on pounds per square inch oblige.

What are 5 positive things and 5 negative things about a nuclear reactor?

West Okoboji

Any kind of nuclear reactor



North St. Paul

I will start with the negative things (and I will make it mostly about commercial reactors).Negative:1. Costly to build and maintain2. Require expertise that we are fast losing (not enough engineers and technical people graduating to fill positions; average age at my plant right now is 49 yrs old).3. Terrorist target - may not be high on the list but you can imagine4. Problem of what to do with the spent fuel. Some of the radionuclides have half-lives in the thousands of years range. Everyone seems to say "Not in my back yard."5. Difficulty in getting any property large enough and isolated enough with access to water. Water is needed to cool the plant. Positive:1. Steady source of electricity - our plants run about a year and a half between refuelings, putting out 1100 MWte each. We have run 481 days without a single shutdown.2. No greenhouse gases. We do not burn carbon, so no CO-2.3. Employment for many workers at well-above minimum wage. We have about 1400 workers steadily here for a two unit plant. This kicks in lots of money to the tax base. .4. No need to be dependent upon Middle Eastern energy deposits. Uranium is pretty worldwide.5. The folks that work at a nuclear facility plant are excellently-educated, community-prone, healthy (drug and psychologically screened, as superlatively), and give back to their locale. Many work alongside Scouts, Little League with the addition of other programs. Pretty nice dynasty values in inclusive. 6. There is the Megatons grate on nerves Megawatts program that takes the earlier Soviet Union weapons' sphere uranium and dilutes it out to burn in US reactors. Pretty much drub swords into plowshears.



Beverly

I'll start with the negative things so that we end up on a positive note!1) Insanely expensive! Too construct, maintain, repair and staff even a ***shutdown*** Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is eminently VERY costly2) Radioactive waste generation with the addition of storage. It's one of those shit you give birth to unduly earmark with that nolens volens gentleman certainly likes unduly talk neabby.3) Heath Physics programs are exceptionally challenging in terms on to compliance.4) Getting permission too construct one is challenging beyond belief!5) No matter what NNP you badge. No issue what procautions are put in place. No matter what you do too certain it "guabanteed"... their is on all occasions the threat of a nuclear accident. Now for the agreeable jam!1) Insanely chaste with zero emmissions.2) Very stable power generation bring up high book.3) Lots and lots together with lots on to spin off industry. (Think about it! The sources that are used bring up prescription come from ***some*** where!)4) Great potential overly further the understanding apprised of the subatomic world.5) They are immensely safer immoderately opperate and living near than a fossil fuel plant.

When a uranium nucleus at rest breaks apart in the process known as fission in a nuclear reactor the resultin?

Webb

When a uranium nucleus at rest breaks apart in the process known as fission in a nuclear reactor, the resulting fragments have a absolute kinetic vigour of about 205 MeV. How highly mass was lost broach the process?



Hamilton Branch

assuming from your question that all of the loss of mass was converted to KE of the fission fragements, one atomic mass unit (amu) equals 931.46 Mevso...... 205MeV/931.46MeV/amu = 0.220084598 amu1 amu = 1.66E-27Kg so 1.66E-27Kg/amu * 0.220084598 amu = 3.65459E-28Kgusually, the KE of the fission fragments accounts for 85% of the total energy released in fission of U235



Carbon Hill

kinetic energy of the resulting fragments is 205 Mev which is previously stored in the nucleus as a potential energy because of the force between proton-proton because of their electric charge and force between proton-proton, proton-neutron, neutron-neutron because of their quarks structure before fission occurs...and when it occurs then the energy produces due to lose of mass....So, as an equation of Einstein..E=m. c

What would be required for a stable nuclear fusion reactor to work?

West Harrison

I understand that the tokamak reactor came close to achieving nuclear fusion, but lacked the necessary restraints to hold the plamsa at the high temperaturs needed.



Hingham

Besides a miracle in High Temp Materials and Super Cooling along with some work in theoretical physics, not too much is needed. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_fus…http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fusion_powe…http://hyperphysics. phy-astr. gsu. edu/Hba…

When a nuclear reactor wall is irradiated many vacancies and interstitials are created?

Leesville

When a nuclear reactor railing is irradiated, myriad vacancies and interstitials are created. The vacanciescluster compile to sort voids; what do you think happens to the interstitials?



Carthage

The interstitial metallic atoms dislodged from their organized lattice structure become positioned such that they can and do interfere with any stress relieving lattice corrections such as would occur in high pressure systems such as reactor plants. The reactor wall is under tremendous stress from actual internal pressure as well as stresses due to temperature differentials across the wall thickness. The interstitial obstacles simply make the metal rigid and, thus, brittle or more subject to brittle fracture. The problem can be relieved somewhat by annealing (raising the embrittled metal to a high temperature for a while, allowing the lattice structure to heal or reform). Conversely, at lower temperatures the pressure vessel is far more susceptible to brittle fracture, especially with voids or cracks and any such stress raiser.



Morley

Neutron embrittlement is a common problem in very very very old reactors. When the wall is irradiated it means the coolant isn't efficiently capturing the neutrons. It also means that the wall is designed of the wrong material. Zirconium nitride is great stuff for coating walls, etc... you tell me why.