[HN Gopher] Building a Reactor
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Building a Reactor
        
       Author : beefman
       Score  : 112 points
       Date   : 2024-05-30 21:49 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.usnc.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.usnc.com)
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | > The reactor itself, the nuclear core, is not a complicated
       | mechanical contraption. The core has no moving parts or complex
       | mechanisms. It's just an arrangement of special materials, that
       | permits nuclear reactions to occur. There are moving parts to
       | transfer the heat and control the reactions, but it's basically a
       | pile of bricks.
       | 
       | I could say roughly the same thing about a smartphone.
        
         | willis936 wrote:
         | Yes, but a smartphone has billions of microswitches and
         | articulated features. The smallest feature of a fission core is
         | about the same size as a smartphone. The level of
         | sophistication of the tooling needed is miles apart. If we were
         | to start from scratch we could make a fission core long before
         | we could make a smartphone.
        
           | Maakuth wrote:
           | And we did, half a century earlier!
        
           | amelius wrote:
           | However, the smartphone is evolutionary not revolutionary.
        
         | numpad0 wrote:
         | Nuclear reactors are definitely simpler. The simplest reactor
         | is just a pure enough and large enough blob of a fissile
         | material. A Turing machine is more complex.
        
           | acidburnNSA wrote:
           | Arguably, the complexity of getting the blob of fissile
           | material should count as complexity. I'd argue that the
           | simplest reactor therefore is the kind you can make with
           | natural material, so a beryllium, heavy water, or graphite
           | moderated natural uranium reactor like CP-1. Even then there
           | was much complexity in getting pure enough graphite.
        
             | grecy wrote:
             | The article even mentions there were naturally occurring
             | nuclear reactors on earth a while ago.
             | 
             | So it's possible to for a blob of fissile material to just
             | form naturally.
        
               | acidburnNSA wrote:
               | Well, that was 2 billion years ago. Since U-235 has a
               | shorter half-life than U-238, the natural uranium
               | enrichment was far higher back then. And indeed that was
               | a water-moderated reactor. [1]
               | 
               | Some people have postulated that the moon itself was
               | formed in a nuclear fission excursion [2], and/or that
               | there is or was a nuclear reactor in the center of Earth
               | [3]. These are both not commonly believed.
               | 
               | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission
               | _reacto...
               | 
               | [2] https://phys.org/news/2010-01-moon-nuclear-
               | explosion.html
               | 
               | [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5934
        
         | tekla wrote:
         | The Chicago pile was demonstrated in 1942. Transistors weren't
         | even invented yet.
         | 
         | You are incredibly off on complexity
        
         | simmerup wrote:
         | Not to pile on but there have been natural reactors in nature,
         | but zero natural smartphones
        
           | krallja wrote:
           | > pile
           | 
           | I see what you did there
        
           | bobthepanda wrote:
           | I mean our brains are basically meatsack computers.
        
         | barfbagginus wrote:
         | Yep you definitely need Unix Theory to build and run a nuclear
         | reactor. I'm saying you're right!
        
         | 12_throw_away wrote:
         | Not sure how any this description could apply to even the
         | simplest microprocessor-containing device. Seems like fabs are
         | sufficiently advanced tech so as to be indistinguishable from
         | magic ... so much so that we forget how amazingly, absurdly,
         | not-simple they are?
        
       | preisschild wrote:
       | Somewhat related, a random nuclear reactor generator :)
       | 
       | https://whatisnuclear.com/random.html
        
         | dtgriscom wrote:
         | Rats. I thought the "Start Company" button would draw up custom
         | incorporation papers for a company building my random nuclear
         | reactor.
        
       | dtgriscom wrote:
       | > To split atoms and release nuclear binding energy, we need to
       | launch neutrons at the fuel atoms. ... 1 kg of natural Uranium
       | generates just 10 such neutrons per second.
       | 
       | Not saying that's wrong, but my seat-of-the-pants guess would
       | have been ten orders of magnitude higher than this. (Citation?)
        
         | credit_guy wrote:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium
         | 
         | Natural uranium is a mix of 0.7% U-235 and 99.3% U-238. U-235
         | has a half-life of 700 million years and a spontaneous fission
         | (SF) probability of 7e-11. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion
         | years and a SF probability of 5.4e-7. So on average it takes 6
         | times longer for a U-238 to decay than U-235, but when it does
         | it has a probability to do it by spontaneous fission that is
         | 7000 times higher. Add to that that U-238 is 141 times more
         | plentiful in natural uranium, and you get that you can
         | completely ignore U-235 when it comes to spontaneous fission.
         | 
         | 1 kg of Uranium is about 4.2 moles. Each has 6e23 atoms
         | (Avogadro's number), that's a total of about 25e23 atoms. Every
         | year about 1 in 4.5 billion of those will decay one way or
         | another. That's 5.5e14 decay events. The probability of
         | spontaneous fission is 5.4e-7, so basically 10 million of these
         | decay events are SF. There are 32 million seconds in a year, so
         | I am getting about 0.3 SF events per second. On average a
         | fission event generates about 2.5 neutrons, so that's close to
         | 1 neutron per second.
         | 
         | They are getting 10 per second. They are nuclear engineers and
         | I'm just a guy who knows how to multiply and how to read
         | wikipedia. Most likely their number is correct.
        
           | ffhhj wrote:
           | Interesting. How much Uranium do we have on Earth?
        
             | archgoon wrote:
             | Depends on what you mean. If you mean "how much is
             | commercially viable" versus "how many kilograms of the
             | stuff are there" you get very, very different answers.
             | 
             | For just "how much stuff is there", we can look at the
             | concentration in the earths crust, and we get about 10^17
             | kilograms of the stuff (10^15 if you want U-235).
             | 
             | If you just say "Sure, but we can't get most of that, how
             | much can reasonably get extracted at current prices and
             | technology" then you go down to about 10^9 kilograms.
        
               | the8472 wrote:
               | Most of Earth's uranium is already engaged in
               | commercially useful activity such as sustaining the
               | geomagnetic field and the geological carbon cycle.
        
             | credit_guy wrote:
             | For all practical purposes the quantity is infinite. The
             | so-called "proven" reserves currently stand at 6 million
             | tons [1]. But the quantity of uranium in seawater is
             | staggering, of the order of 5 billion tons. It is estimated
             | that, if needed, one could extract uranium from seawater at
             | about 10 times the current cost of getting it from mines.
             | That would add less than 1 cent to the price of 1 kWh of
             | electricity generated by nuclear power plants. For
             | comparison the average retail price of 1 kWh in the US is
             | about 17 cents. Of course, nobody is seriously thinking of
             | getting uranium from seawater because there are much
             | cheaper ways to get it from mines. But any talk of uranium
             | lasting only a few decades, or centuries is non-sense.
             | 
             | [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-
             | fuel-c...
        
           | worldvoyageur wrote:
           | > that's close to 1 neutron per second.
           | 
           | > They are getting 10 per second. They are nuclear engineers
           | and I'm just a guy who knows how to multiply and how to read
           | wikipedia. Most likely their number is correct.
           | 
           | Nicely done! It gets complicated, well beyond my current
           | understanding. However, U238's first decay product is
           | Thorium234, which has a half life of 24 days. Thorium234 in
           | turn decays into Proactinium, which has a half life of 1.17
           | minutes. There are 16 more decays until finally arriving at
           | Pb206 (lead), which is stable.
           | 
           | These decays must give room for lots more neutrons to emerge.
        
             | acidburnNSA wrote:
             | Those decays don't emit neutrons. Only spontaneous fissions
             | make neutrons. The reactions you're talking about emit
             | alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays.
        
           | kryptiskt wrote:
           | Some of the neutrons from spontaneous fission will hit other
           | uranium atoms and cause non-spontaneous fission. Maybe enough
           | to amplify it ten times?
        
       | lven wrote:
       | I worked on this and host it on my site as well where it's not
       | parceled up into bits and pieces. Have to thank Bartosz
       | Ciechanowski. Learned a lot from his code and approach.
       | 
       | https://lvenneri.com/nuclear_reactor_explainer
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-02 23:01 UTC)