• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

There are two major problems with this. The first takes the pragmatic view of this option and the other aesthetic.

Even in 2010, a jump to the moon is nothing to trifle at. It still takes time, it still takes resources, and more importantly, it still costs money (and a lot of it). But that's not even taking into account the waste you would have to transport. Nuclear waste is going to be heavy, meaning you need a bigger rocket, more rocket fuel, and more money. For these reasons, disposing of nuclear waste on the moon would be astronomically expensive and completely impractical.

Additionally, we have polluted the Earth quite effectively. Do you really want to extend that to the Moon? It may be a hunk of rock devoid of life, but it is currently devoid of pollution as well. I don't like the thought of polluting the Earth, much less the extension of pollution outside of Earth.

• 
• 1 answer

Stars

• 
• 1 answer

This is the CANDU reactor, developed in Canada. They have been successful and produce a large amount of power in Canada and other countries where they have been built.

CANDU stands for CANadian DeUterium. The heavy water (D2O) is a better moderator than ordinary (light) water, and allows a reactor to be built that runs on unenriched uranium (u-238) as opposed to slightly enriched uranium (u-235, about 4%). The heavy water slows the fast neutrons down more, allowing better absorbtion, and the subsequent use of u-238.

• 
• 1 answer

You mean nuclear fission I think

• 
• 1 answer

• high temperature
• high pressure
• a fuel that can undergo fusion

• 
• 1 answer

Yes.

Examples: The hydrogen bomb and the creation of new elements.

• 
• 1 answer

Nuclear energy is a very expensive proposition. The costs associated with designing and building a nuclear plant are monumental. Additionally, the operating risks have been exposed at different places and at different times. (Chernobyl is the best worst case example.) Another issue is that nuclear materials can be stolen or otherwise "redirected" to make weapons, or very "dirty" conventional weapons. (In a conventional application, a chemical bomb is used to disperse radioactive materials over a populated area.)

Given these variables, not all countries or powers want to get involved in the nuclear energy business. Though new plants could be built, there aren't many on the drawing board. Costs, difficulties in construction, and hazards associated with operating accidents dissuade most parties that might participate.

• 
• 1 answer

yes, positrons were discovered in experiments in the 1930s just like theory had predicted. many other anti-particles have been discovered since.

• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

Bilibino Nuclear power plant in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Russia, houses the world's smallest commercial nuclear reactor. It is equipped with four EGP-6 light water graphite reactors (LWGR) with gross power capacity of 12MWe each.

Here the world's 10 smallest commercial nuclear reactors, either in operation or under construction.

It depends on critical mass. For uranium-235, at normal density, at 100% enrichment, a perfect sphere would be critical mass at about 52 kg, or about 17 cm diameter. For plutonium-239, it would be about 10 kg, or about 9.9 cm diameter.

Problem is, that if you are right at critical mass, then the first event would take the reactor subcritical, because that first event would consume fuel, reducing mass, and reducing criticality. Its an interesting problem, and I can't get any more detailed than that, because information beyond this is classified, and I don't have access to it.

• 
• 1 answer

Heat from a controlled nuclear reaction heats water into steam. The steam turns a turbine, which is attached to a generator. The generator then makes electricity.

• 
• 1 answer

Henri Becquerel in 1896

• 
• 1 answer

The fact that when a fission occurs, more than one neutron is released. Thus by careful design, one of these second generation neutrons can be captured by a further nucleus causing another fission, and so on.

Up to about 2.5 neutrons per fission can be utilized. In a bomb, all of them are used, and the reactivity (approximately) doubles with each reaction. In a controlled reaction, such as in a reactor, the moderator and geometry are such that one neutron per fission goes on to create another fission, yielding a stable reactivity.

• 
• 1 answer

fission

• 
• 1 answer

By a neutron.

• 
• 1 answer

No. Nuclear power should be encouraged. However, there have to be limits and controls because it is not appropriate for nuclear proliferation to continue.

• 
• 2 answers

no

• 
• 1 answer

Electrical energy that turns into light and heat.

• 
• 1 answer

Well, provided with enough energy, any atom can be a "reactant" of fission and fusion. We're usually concerned about atoms producing exothermic reactions though, which for fission are heavy (mass numbers around 90 and greater), and for fusion are light (mass numbers around 25 and lower).

• 
• 1 answer

The nuclear fission process produces a range of lighter elements as fission products, and many of these are radioactive.

• 
• 1 answer

This nomenclature is used in transport of radioactive material, and was developed under IAEA auspices, as clearly all countries should use at least the same minimum standards. IP just means Industrial Package. The basic requirements for IP-2 qualification are that the contents shall not leak, and the shielding shall not be damaged allowing extra radiation from the contents, during normal transport and some accident conditions such as a defined drop.

If you want to get into details you will find some relevant websites on the internet.

• 
• 10 answers

b

• 
• 1 answer

There are several ways to store tritium.

It can be stored as a gas for short term storage (as in nuclear weapons -- the gas in the tritium reservoir needs to be replenished periodically; or tritium illumination for watches or survival gear -- these wear out and go dim over time.).

For longer term and final storage, a hydride storage vessel using a uranium metal bed, or better yet, a titanium sponge can be used. Most of the gas can be recovered from these systems by desorption under vacuum. To remove the rest, isotopic exchange is required.

• 
• 1 answer

I believe it has something to do with stability, But as per new information, It doesn't necesarliy have to happen at high temperatures anymore. The NIF Facility in Livermore in California has recently sucessfully performed COLD Fusion, which is Fusion without the Super-High, Metal Melting temperatures. It is MUCH MUCH lower. So yeah. EA Game's Generals' USA faction's Cold Fusion Reactor is now a possibilty.

Note that the claims of low-temperature "Cold" fusion are as yet still unsubstantiated. Those claiming such advances are suspiciously secretive of their work; so much so, that they have the appearances of charlatans.

NIF is working not on "Cold" fusion (which is the premise that fusion can happen at relatively low temperature and pressure, no more than found inside a typical Internal Compustion Engine), but is instead experimenting with laser-compression fusion. LCF is a process where a small pellet of hydrogen is hit with several lasers for a very brief instant, compressing the hydrogen radically, to allow for fusion. In an LCF reactor, the hydrogen fuel is compressed to several thousand atmospheres by this laser, though the reactor itself isn't pressurized in the conventional sense.

Based on our current understanding of fusion, high temperature OR high pressure are required to overcome the natural repulsion of hydrogen nuclei. That is, to be able to push two hydrogen nuclei together, either enormous pressure is required, or extreme temperatures which change the matter composition and characteristics of hydrogen. No scientific basis for low-temperature or low-pressure fusion has ever been published or publicly demonstrated.