Natural Atomic Power and Environmentalists

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

Natural Atomic Power and Environmentalists

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I would venture to say both natural Fission & Fusion have occurred, are occurring and will occur some where in the universe maybe around some G class stars w/ planets.

THE NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTOR AT OKLO: A
COMPARISON WITH MODERN NUCLEAR REACTORS
By Dr. Andrew Karam
All rights are reserved by the Author. Contact the author for permission to use this article for any purpose other than educational.
Editors note: Despite some claims, there is no evidence or even credible theory that the Oklo nuclear reactor was anything but a natural phenomenon. The 6 reactor zones are spread over a huge area that was a uranium mine during the time it was first discovered.
The reactor zones were the result of natural physical processes, active for thousands of years. It should also be noted that the possibility of natural nuclear reactors was first postulated by P. K. Kuroda (1956).
Abstract:
Uranium contains only one naturally occurring isotope, 235U, which will sustain a nuclear chain reaction using normal water to moderate and reflect neutrons. At present, this isotope is present in low abundance (0.72%), requiring enrichment to 3% or greater for effective use in commercial nuclear reactors.
Two billion years ago, however, the natural abundance of 235U was approximately 3%. Evidence indicates that a rich uranium deposit in Gabon, West Africa achieved nuclear criticality and operated for tens of thousands of years or longer. Comparing the geometric and nuclear characteristics of the Gabon reactor with those of modern, artificial nuclear reactors supports this possibility. An examination of rare earth elements and 235U abundance in the rocks that comprise the reactor zone confirm that a nuclear reactor did operate at this site about 2 billion year ago (Ga), using surface and ground waters to moderate and reflect fission neutrons in order to sustain the chain reaction. Finally, it is apparent that 239Pu was produced in measurable quantities, suggesting that uranium is not the heaviest naturally occurring element known.

Also:
The value of space exploration in search of life:
Interview with Zach Adam department of Aeronautics/Astronautics Engineering and the Center for Astrobiology at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

http://www.nuclearspace.com/SciexpoLIFE.aspx

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Wednesday 10th of March 2010 02:03:17 AM

GoogleNaut · Guru

I would also posit this: that renewable energy sources are fine--and should be exploited for various good reasons--but they cannot supply enough baseload power for industrial and transportation needs. Nuclear fission power currently is the only power source open to us that can supply the quantities of industrial baseload power that the worlds needs to be viable.

At the current rates of economic growth we are headed for, if not a global disaster, then a period or periods of 'disruptive economic adjustments'--such as the one we find ourselves in right now. Further, some of these 'disruptive economic adjustments' will be far more ecologically damaging to all of us if they involve the use of nuclear weapons in a global 'resource war' that would likely kill billions.

So, we need to agressively invest in accelerating nuclear baseload capabilities: a standardized, cookie cutter power plant design similar to the French nuclear industry is the way to go. We need to think in terms of reprocessing to extract isotopes from nuclear waste that are energy producing fuels from fission products which have relatively short half-lives. We need to look at electrifying the transportation sector: electric trains for rail, synthetic light-hydrocarbons or fuel cells for motor transportation; synthetic fuels for aircraft; hydrogen production from off-peak electricity generation; synthetic fuels from biomass conversion and coal as makeup carbon; replanting forests everywhere for carbon takeup and eventually more resources; and looking to space for additional sources of platinum group metals and solar energy production.

Oh and we need to stabilize population growth globally--so universal education and universal health care are a must. There we go, a quick outline to solve all of the worlds problems. Whew, I'm ready for break!
:)

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I would agree with every thing googlenaut outlined with a proviso on population stabalization.

A general rule of thumb backed by research concludes as countries wealth rises and classes move toward increasing its middle class population stabilization occurs on its own and in some cases is slightly reduced on its own without the need for enforcement (war, population control penalty/incentives policies).

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

Although pure fusion power would ideally be the way to go I do not think that we can afford to wait decades for this technology to mature. It would seem that an attractive interim solution would be a more advanced fission power plant such as a fourth generation nuclear power plant. These power plants seem to address most of the objections of the environmentalists which is the ability to recycle nuclear waste without creating nuclear proliferation and if nuclear waste is created the radioactivity only lasts decades instead of millenia which makes nuclear waste much more manegable. Also fourth generation nuclear power plants can use existing nuclear waste as a fuel. Additional advantages of fourth generation power plants is that they are terrorist proof and can withstande plane crashes. Fifth generation power plants will probably be fission fussion hybrid power plants that are capable of totally incinerating nuclear waste.

Unfortunately fourth generation nuclear power plants only exist on the drawing board and are not expected to become operational by 2030. However they can be fast tracked to the year 2020 which is not too far off and would be an ideal technology for futurists who believe that we should take quantum leaps rather than a step by step approach yet are realistic and want to avoid disappointing pipe dreams.Of course a technology that addresses the concerns of the environmentalists will not mean that the environmentalists will embrace this technology because a lot of times the environmentalists do not want a solution to the problem but rather a lifestyle change. Nevertheless their concerns should be addressed with the most advanced designs possible.

GoogleNaut · Guru

I would recommend going to a high temperature gas-cooled system using pressurized helium as coolant in a Brayton cycle gas-turbine arrangement: thermal efficiencies approach 50% and the plant is fairly easily adaptable to provide process heat for thermochemical synthesis--ideal for large synthetic fuel plants. Monolithic (prismatic) UC/PuC-Tungsten fuel blocks for fast spectrum; UC/PuC with graphite for more of a thermal spectrum.

One thing I'm not too sure about is how much helium might be available for this...

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

GoogleNaut wrote:

One thing I'm not too sure about is how much helium might be available for this...

Supposing it cost $20 per m^3, how much do you think such reactors would take?

Dusty · Veteran Member

G R L Cowan wrote:

GoogleNaut wrote:

One thing I'm not too sure about is how much helium might be available for this...

Supposing it cost $20 per m^3, how much do you think such reactors would take?

According to that fount of all knowledge Wikipedia.

Global Helium production currently runs at around 32,000 tons/Annum. What is more, it also suggests that known reserves are rapidly becoming depleated with some major produces in the US being exhausted within 10 years!

We might find that by the time GenIV is ready for mass deployment, there may not be enough Helium left to equip them! cry

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

I thought that the moon has lots of helium if it can be mined there.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

The Future of Helium

In 1996, the United States government proposed that the government-funded storage program for helium be halted. This has many scientists worried. They point out that helium is essentially a waste product of natural gas processing, and without a government storage facility, most of the helium will simply be vented into the atmosphere, where it will escape into space and be lost forever. Some scientists predict that if this happens, the known reserves of helium on Earth may be depleted by the year 2015.

John · Senior Member

I thought that the moon has lots of helium if it can be mined there.

The moon is considered to be one of the best source of helium-3 due to the solar winds. This a fuel for an advance fusion concept that reduces the neutron flux in the reactor. It is also consider a better form of fusion for magnetic confinement space propulsion.

We are discussing ordinary helium which is all most all helium-4.

Most environmentalists tell me that they will never accept any high technology megafix like nuclear fusion but rather insist on simple appropriate or low technology.

Basically hard core environmentalists dont have a realistic view of things. While the original intent of the movement was good it has been taken over some people with some very strange objectives.

-- Edited by John on Wednesday 17th of March 2010 01:55:05 AM

Dusty · Veteran Member

On a more general not I find it "worring" that quite a lot of our modern technologies rely on rare minerals whose reserves are rapidly becoming exhausted.

The big popular concern is "Peak Oil" but what about "Peak Tantalite" or "Peak Lithium" or indeed "Peak" any number ot other rare materials without which much of our current technology would be impossible and, even worse, hoped for future technologies, unobtainable!

There seems to be very little discussion about this!

cry