Design and safety of nuclear power plants

• Jane Liu

  About nuclear power

  I'm concerned with your topic. I also think nuclear energy is the most effective way at present time to substitute fossil energy as coal and petroleum to decrease the emission of carbon dioxide.I'm concerned with your topic. I also think nuclear energy is the most effective way at present time to substitute fossil energy as coal and petroleum to decrease the emission of carbon dioxide. There must be a lot for human to reserch nuclear energy to make it go on a satety way to benefit us. I want to follow you and do something I can.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (38)

  • 
    Kenneth Ricci replied

    Thank you Florian for your well-written follow-up. I am sorry if I sounded like a hot-head for saying, "this is a most ridiculous lie..." When we consider that the capital cost of a nuclear reactorThank you Florian for your well-written follow-up. I am sorry if I sounded like a hot-head for saying, "this is a most ridiculous lie..." When we consider that the capital cost of a nuclear reactor is several times higher than the capital cost of other types of power plant, it is not surprising that the initial capital investment comes with a relatively hefty price tag in terms of carbon emissions as well (consider for example how much carbon dioxide is emitted making all that concrete for the reactor building!) But even including the concrete and other up-front energy costs, nuclear fission over a typical plant lifetime is still a much lower emitter of carbon dioxide than a fossil-fueled plant. Here is the simple calculation I was hinting at earlier: 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity generation requires the combustion of about 410 grams of coal, releasing about 1500 grams of CO2 (not including the up-front energy costs of the coal power plant, which are small relative to the CO2 emissions from the fuel.) So even according to the literature you have cited, nuclear fission would reduce the carbon emission by about 90% to 93%, from 1500 grams CO2 to about 100 grams CO2 per kilowatt-hour. Clearly I exaggerated when I said fission produced less than 2% of the carbon emissions of a fossil fuel plant. A more accurate number would be 5-15%. Nevertheless this is a huge reduction. Instead of saying "this is a ridiculous lie" I should have said, "100 grams of CO2 per nuclear kw-hour sounds bad, until you compare it to 1500 grams of CO2 for coal or 800 grams CO2 for natural gas. When you put it in this perspective, nuclear fission still looks like a great deal for the environment." The argument is really whether nuclear energy emits less carbon dioxide than wind or solar energy, and does it matter. Because all three (wind, solar, fission) can greatly reduce the carbon dioxide emission--but at what cost? It is certainly true that in places like the United States, which already have a fully-powered electricity grid, the lowest cost way to reduce the carbon footprint is by continuing to increase energy efficiency-- in automobile fuel efficiency, lighting efficiency, buildings designed for efficiency, and especially urban planning (reducing neighborhood sprawl by building compact, walkable cities), as well as conversion of fossil fuel power plants to more efficient combined-cycle and industrial or district heating uses for the waste heat. But in parts of the world that do not yet have a fully industrialized economy-- and these are the parts of the world that are in fact growing fastest economically, like India and China and parts of South America-- the energy storage capacity does not yet exist to make wind energy economically competitive with nuclear energy (except on a small-scale, niche-market basis in some localities) and solar energy is not price-competitive with nuclear energy, even ignoring the energy storage problem. How many decades of new coal power plants will Asia build while waiting and hoping that wind and solar power will become cost-effective enough to replace coal? Would it not be wiser to build some nuclear power plants in place of some of those coal plants? Because in the rapidly growing economies of developing nations, the choice is not between wind, solar, and nuclear as it is in the wealthy, "post-industrial service economies" of California or Germany. The choice is between coal and nuclear fission. If you ask me to "pick your poison," I will pick nuclear over coal. And I think, when they see the total picture in economics, risk, and environmental footprint, most other people will choose fission over coal too. And yes, I agree that we should also be trying to develop renewable energy technology as fast as economically feasible, in parallel. But let us not expect the 2 billion people in the world who currently do not have electricity to sit on their hands and do nothing while praying for cheap solar energy to arrive. That is simply not going to happen in most places. Those people will work just as hard to improve their lives as you and I do, and they will burn coal if no comparably cost-effective option is available this decade.

    13 days ago
• Kenneth Ricci

  Nuclear Fission for Asia

  Since 1991 I have been waiting for the "Nuclear Energy Renaissance" to restart in North America. It was about that time that I began to take seriously the concern that human industrial andSince 1991 I have been waiting for the "Nuclear Energy Renaissance" to restart in North America. It was about that time that I began to take seriously the concern that human industrial and agricultural activity is changing the climate of our planet faster than it would otherwise change, and also the concern that United States of America policy in Middle Eastern nations could not be fair and objective about democracy, human rights, and other values as long as USA is highly dependent on petroleum exports from those nations. The logical engineering solutions to the USA dependence on petroleum and the international dependence on fossil fuels is to replace coal-generated electricity with nuclear fission, and then produce hydrogen-based fuels and battery-based transportation vehicles using the excess electricity that can be generated by a global fleet of breeder reactors. I also had hopes at that time that solar energy and magnetic confinement fusion would advance quickly enough to play a major role in 21st century energy solutions. As we can now see, neither fusion nor cost-effective solar energy has advanced fast enough to avert major political turmoil over petroleum and major climate change risk. Tragically, while fission could have been scaled up to fill this need over the past 30 years, over-exaggerated fears in the wake of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents in Europe and USA continued to prevent the widespread adoption of nuclear fission as the only rational solution currently available. The recent development of battery systems capable of carrying a passenger vehicle over 100 kilometers on one charge-up has been a major breakthrough in the direction of freeing world transportation needs from reliance on petroleum, but only if an abundant source of cost-effective electricity is available. Thus the logical imperative to promote a replacement of coal-generated electricity by nuclear fission is now stronger than ever. Tragically, in the wake of the recent Fukushima reactor incident, I do not expect rapid expansion of nuclear energy in North America or Europe. The international media in some parts of the world--notably in USA-- gave more coverage to the radiation leaks and two TEPCO nuclear plant workers who received radiation burns than to the 20,000 victims who drowned in the tsunami. Citizens of California rushed to buy iodine pills and gas masks in the naive thought that radiation would somehow drift across the Pacific Ocean in quantities large enough to harm them. In short, it appears that most citizens of USA and nations like Germany are too comfortable and complacent with the way things are going to make any timely changes in the way their energy is produced. While citizens of USA and Germany spend billions of tax dollars on ambitious solar and wind adventures--which engineering studies show cannot exceed 10% of the power grid supply without causing baseload fluctuations too large for existing power grid technology-- the people of developing nations cannot afford to be so foolish. Therefore I propose that scientists of all nations put our emphasis on India and China as the new leaders of the Global Nuclear Rennaissance. Together these two nations have over 35% of the world's population, and both are undergoing rapid economic development accompanied by rapid expansion of their national electrical generation capabilities. This is the primary place where carbon-dioxide emissions will increase globally over the next decade, and it is the primary place where new energy technology is needed. What can be done? Firstly, scientist worldwide-- but especially scientists fluent in the many languages of China and India-- need to concentrate on providing honest and rational information about the risks and benefits of nuclear energy relative to other energy types. This is the primary place where the governments of USA and Germany have failed their people: they have allowed inaccurate environmentalist propaganda to portray nuclear energy as a dangerous and environmentally toxic energy source, while the actual engineering data show that nuclear energy in North America in particular has been the safest and most environmentally benign energy source--per unit of energy produced-- in USA since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Secondly, I call on scientists worldwide to put aside petty nationalist concerns and realize that we are all in this "lifeboat" earth together. So for example, while I have trouble convincing the US Dept Of Energy to fund a research project for nuclear energy in Asia because that is outside the mandates of the USA Dept of Energy, we as scientists cannot afford to be so provincial in our thinking and personal mandates. It is time for us all to band together and work on the best solutions for electricity in China and India. We should also consider that economic growth is taking place in many other nations in SouthEast Asia, South America, and to a lesser extent on other continents. To the extent that any nation gets its economic and industrial structures in place to achieve a high rate of economic growth, it will merit our attention. But China and India are the largest of the rapidly-growing economies, so I place my emphasis there in this letter. Thirdly, we must realize that the geographical distribution of energy resources is uneven, and there is no simple solution to this problem. When hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, there is no way simply to say, "let's just share this equally, one unit of the resource will go to each unit of population around the world." We all know that, in a world where scarcity has not been abolished, the world economy cannot work that way. This is of particular importance where nuclear fission is concerned because China and India have vast mineral reserves but insufficient good quality uranium reserves to operate their electricity grids based on the enriched uranium fuel cycle that predominates elsewhere in the world today. In the short term, China and India may be able to buy enough enriched uranium from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (major ore sources include Russia, Kazakhstan, United States, Canada, and Australia). However this is strategically a non-starter for China and India over the long term: neither nation can afford to rely on the political goodwill of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for their vital energy supplies. They will have to develop breeder reactors in order to make better use of their limited uranium supplies, and to begin using thorium. Fourth--Thorium! The thorium breeder reactor concept is at least 50 years old, but has never been commercialized because * at the beginning of the nuclear age it was easier to start with uranium * by the time the proliferation concerns and uranium fuel supply concerns became apparent, West Germany and the United States, who originally lead the thorium reactor research, had essentially abandoned nuclear energy progress. * only India has maintained a robust thorium breeder reactor research program uninterrupted for the last 40 years. Since China and India both have abundant thorium reserves, one place where nuclear engineers and physicists may hope to have the greatest impact on the well-being of the world's people is in studying, researching, and promoting the development of thorium breeder reactors for India and China. This is my own professional goal. I have a detailed knowledge of the thorium fuel cycle and some very specific ideas about how to bring this about in the soonest, safest, and most economically practical way possible. It is also VERY important that any international work on nuclear energy be carried out with the full consideration of avoiding weapons proliferation, and with the full knowledge and consent of the IAEA and relevant governments who are invested in preventing weapons proliferation. If you have a degree in nuclear engineering, nuclear materials, metallurgy, or physics, and would like to assist me, please post a follow-up note here and we can make contact through Linked-In. My project is not currently funded but I am writing grant proposals now. If you have insights into the best place to send these grant proposals, I would like to hear from you. If you are concerned about weapons proliferation, please post here and I will be happy to follow up with a full discussion of the proliferation safeguards that will accompany this line of research.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (4)

  • 
    Florian Glodeanu replied

    “Not all democracies do things so poorly. But nuclear power is about to become less and less a creature of democracies. The biggest investment in it on the horizon is in China—not because China is“Not all democracies do things so poorly. But nuclear power is about to become less and less a creature of democracies. The biggest investment in it on the horizon is in China—not because China is taking a great bet on nuclear, but because even a modest level of interest in such a huge economy is big by the standards of almost everyone else. China’s regulatory system is likely to be overhauled in response to Fukushima. Some of its new plants are of the most modern, and purportedly safest, design. But safety requires more than good engineering. It takes independent regulation, and a meticulous, self-critical safety culture that endlessly searches for risks it might have missed. These are not things that China (or Russia, which also plans to build a fair few plants) has yet shown it can provide.” http://www.economist.com/node/21549936 This new WEC report, “World Energy Perspective: Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima”, shows that after the accident, the public, political leaders as well as nuclear industry leaders could seize an opportunity to reinforce once more the necessary international coordination on matters of nuclear safety. Even though the accident of Fukushima was fundamentally different from the two earlier accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it demonstrates that there is a rationale, a demand and a room to improve, on a continuous basis, our ambitions in the matter of nuclear safety. International governance on nuclear safety has already improved a lot since the 1980’s thanks to the efforts of all parties, but I am confident it can go one step further, on all aspects of nuclear safety, be it on the conception and design of the plants; or on operation, crisis management and dismantling; or on communication, transparency and control by independent authorities. http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/world_energy_perspective__nuclear_energy_one_year_after_fukushima_world_energy_council_march_2012_1.pdf

    14 days ago
• Mustafa muhammad khairul ariff

  Fuel Transfer cask TRIGA reactor

  Does anyone have experience in developing fuel transfer cask for TRIGA type reactor?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (1)

  • 
    Florian Glodeanu replied

    IAEA-TECDOC-1593 Return of Research Reactor Spent Fuel to the Country of Origin: Requirements for Technical and Administrative Preparations and National Experiences Proceedings of a technical meetingIAEA-TECDOC-1593 Return of Research Reactor Spent Fuel to the Country of Origin: Requirements for Technical and Administrative Preparations and National Experiences Proceedings of a technical meeting held in Vienna, August 28–31, 2006

    19 days ago
• Denis Aquino

  Can you use neutron activation analysis (NAA) to measure the C-12 from the 7Be(alpha,n)12C reaction?

  Measuring gamma from the C-12 to correlate the number of reactions from a Am-Be neutron source.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (3)

  • 
    Nicholas Sion replied

    I don't think it is feasible because it may lead to C-11 with a half life of 20 minutes to decay into nitrogen. Below is a brief outline of the process: Neutron Activation Analysis is a preciseI don't think it is feasible because it may lead to C-11 with a half life of 20 minutes to decay into nitrogen. Below is a brief outline of the process: Neutron Activation Analysis is a precise method of determining trace elements in mineral samples to identify contents without chemical separation. The core sample is bombarded with thermal neutrons (of energies of around 0.025 keV) to activate the various trace elements so that they become radioactive. The activated trace elements are identified by their decay characteristic half lives and by the intensity of specific energies. The method is used in forensics and in carbon dating. The carbon element is number 6 on the periodic table and though it has many isotopes, there are only 2 stable isotopes of carbon viz; C-12 and C-13. there are only trace amounts of the radioactive C-14 found on Earth and it has a half life of 5730 years which is short by life span of the earth since it would have all decayed by now since the earth began. The persistent cosmic ray flux that abound in the atmosphere at altitudes of 9-15 km above earth, releases neutrons in the carbon to produce C-14 and releasing Nitrogen into our atmosphere.

    Apr 27, 2012
• Kenneth Ricci

  Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Power

  In the post-Fukushima world, it is extremely important for us as nuclear engineers and scientists to try to describe the risks and benefits of nuclear power in a balanced way. There will probably beIn the post-Fukushima world, it is extremely important for us as nuclear engineers and scientists to try to describe the risks and benefits of nuclear power in a balanced way. There will probably be a backlash against nuclear power as there was after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Depending on how quickly anthropogenic climate change moves (and this cannot be predicted well with currently available data and models), a reaction against nuclear power could actually cost far more lives in the long run than an episode like Chernobyl: because nuclear fission is one of the few options we currently have to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions without significantly slowing or damaging economic growth in areas like Asia and South America. On the other hand, it would be foolish to react to Fukushima simply by saying, "nobody died, so there's no problem." We need to have the humility to admit mistakes were made, some older Light Water Reactors need safety reviews and possibly safety upgrades/retrofits; while at the same time pointing out that all energy types involve risks and have included loss of life, even in the past year. (For example, just in 2010 alone, the Deep Water Horizon oil platform killed 11 workers, the Big Branch Coal Mine killed 29 miners, and a natural gas pipeline in California killed 8 residents and left hundreds homeless.) By comparing the risks and benefits of nuclear power to other energy sources, we can see that nuclear is actually one of the safest alternatives we have-- yet there is still some room for improvement in older reactor designs that have not been upgraded as recommended by Probabilistic Risk Assessment. This is the message we MUST convey to the world public, or else the indirect consequences of Fukushima--through fear and ignorance-- will be far more long-reaching and severe than a few lives lost to radiation.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (9)

  • 
    Kenneth Ricci replied

    Florian, Thank you for that well-considered comment. The full data analysis on Fukushima is not yet complete, but early indicators suggest there will be few additional cancers to plant workers andFlorian, Thank you for that well-considered comment. The full data analysis on Fukushima is not yet complete, but early indicators suggest there will be few additional cancers to plant workers and the general population of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, as a result of radiation exposure. With two exceptions, nearly all individually recorded exposure levels to plant workers were at or below the threshold where cancer risk is shown statistically to increase. Flights over and through the affected area to monitor airborn radiation indicate that the general population received much lower doses still. There were no deaths yet attributable to radiation (almost 20,000 from the Tsunami, unfortunately) and it appears now that if any deaths or illnesses result indirectly from cancer due to radiation exposure, those will certainly be within the margin of error of normal population cancer statistics and therefore not "provable" or measurable in any accurate sense. Also as you say, the main way in which Fukushima was a "disaster" was to cause the rapid shut-down of working nuclear power plants in Japan and Europe as a response. In this sense it was a media-manufactured disaster. It is possible over the long sweep of history that millions or even billions of human lives will be lost indirectly as a result of the Fukushima meltdown-- not from radiation but from the switch away from nuclear fission to fossil fuel. History in this sense can be deeply ironic. The good news for humankind as a whole is that the two largest rapidly growing economies in Asia-- China and India-- are still committed to growing their fission nuclear industries as rapidly as practical. We know from news reports that the Chinese government has not slowed its nuclear power development plans, but that the democratically elected government of India has seen a significant slowing in their nuclear power development because the population is now afraid of nuclear power; there have been protests in India to delay, shutdown, or hinder the fueling and commissioning of India's newest nuclear power plants. As scientists we may be able to play a positive role here by presenting accurate, well-written information. Over the past year I have been slowly (with many long interruptions) gathering the "best articles yet written" on the facts of nuclear power plant safety, preferably from sources such as medical and economics journals that appear to be independent of the nuclear industry. (While the most accurate data on the subject are in fact compiled and analyzed by the nuclear industry, the general populations of the world are deeply suspicious nuclear energy and tend to view these scientific results as biased, even in the cases when the nuclear industry data are not biased.) It has taken me a long time to assemble a short list of "nuclear industry safety" publications that are beyond dispute and beyond reproach: there is so much at stake and so much heated argumentation on both sides of the nuclear energy debate that it is hard to find information that I believe will be credible to the majority of suspicious lay-persons. Two of the resources I have identified so far that are particularly credible and above reproach are the British medical journal __The Lancet__ and the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Both have published large-scale reviews of nuclear energy that show that fission-generated electricity has resulted in the FEWEST deaths and illnesses to human beings, per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, of any major electricity source (fewer casualties than coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, petroleum, wind, or biofuel-based electricity production) in the past 40 years, even including their estimated 4000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Both of these organizations are known for their primary interest in human health and safety, and are not "tainted" by the perception that they are biased toward sympathy for the nuclear industry. I will post a summary of these articles and links here later, as I find time to do so. Any of you readers who can find similarly well-written scientific studies that are "above reproach," please post your links here. Let us try to make this discussion space a clearing-house for good, accurate information on nuclear energy safety. The common well-being of humanity is at stake.

    Mar 15, 2012
• Akshata Kori

  hi!!!

  This is Akshatha here doing my B.E... M much more intrested in the depth of nuclear science... Nice to join this group... Hope i get lots of knowledge about this topic..

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (3)

  • 
    ravi shekhar Singh replied

    hi Akshata actually it deals with nuclear technology (fission & fusion,its a totally nuclear physics concept) , in india nuclear technology is used on avery vast scale to make electricity..bz afterhi Akshata actually it deals with nuclear technology (fission & fusion,its a totally nuclear physics concept) , in india nuclear technology is used on avery vast scale to make electricity..bz after 70 yrs no source is there for producing electricity india has to rely totally on nuclear power....BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE IS THE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION WHICH use this by operating NUCLEAR PLANTS IN india..NPCIL (NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED ) IS THE wing company under central govt BARC. which operates these plants & so many SCIENTISTS ARE working here & nuclear engineers.

    Feb 19, 2012
• Djamshed Abdushukurov

  Dear colleagues, We have prepared ISTC project #T-1903 “Development and Research of the Sub-Millimeter Spatial Resolution Neutron Detectors for the Neutrongraphy on Customs Examination of the ClosedDear colleagues, We have prepared ISTC project #T-1903 “Development and Research of the Sub-Millimeter Spatial Resolution Neutron Detectors for the Neutrongraphy on Customs Examination of the Closed Objects”. The short description can be found to the address http://www.istc.ru/istc/db/projects.nsf/All/371B776D3D44DF5EC32577C2003578BE?OpenDocument&search=1 In the project we intend to develop detectors and methodic for a neutrongraphic investigation of the closed objects. It is supposed to spend big volume of modeling on search of drugs and explosives. To regret, ISTC have a financial difficulties and cannot pay the project. We search for colleagues which are interested in performance of similar researches.

  T-1903 Proposal.doc
• Kenneth Ricci

  Vinoth Kumar has begun a discussion about fusion energy and the International Toroidal Experimental Reactor (ITER) being built in southern France. I'd like to place this discussion in a new threadVinoth Kumar has begun a discussion about fusion energy and the International Toroidal Experimental Reactor (ITER) being built in southern France. I'd like to place this discussion in a new thread on PRACTICAL FUSION ENERGY right here. So far, it would appear that ITER (magnetic confinement fusion in a magnetic toroid or tokamak) is in the lead of the various possible fusion technologies for practical energy. But we hear occasionally of smaller-scale fusion technologies (cold fusion, Bussard polywell fusion, sonoluminescent fusion, etc.) that MIGHT have a slim chance of turning into something really valuable, if we only understood the physics and knew how to ask the right questions about these extremely challenging experiments. Anybody out there want to enlighten us on what YOU have done or read recently about alternative practical fusion energy concepts? Or about progress at ITER?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (1)

  • 
    Edwin Pell replied

    I am impressed with the work done by Mike Kubre at SRI in Menlo Park, California. He is able to observe He4 and heat at a rate of 31MeV of energy per atom of He4. This is a little over the 23.8MeVI am impressed with the work done by Mike Kubre at SRI in Menlo Park, California. He is able to observe He4 and heat at a rate of 31MeV of energy per atom of He4. This is a little over the 23.8MeV that we expect for D+D->He4. Then there is the nickel and hydrogen system. Piantelli has done good work with it. The Defkalion company in Greece makes many interesting claims.

    Jan 19, 2012
• Aysha Rababah

  hey ,, i have a project in shielding design Material ,, to design a shield to Cf-252 source , 1 inch height , and 1mm diameter ? if you can help me to...

  hey ,, i have a project in shielding design Material ,, to design a shield to Cf-252 source , 1 inch height , and 1mm diameter ? if you can help me to choose the right material in the shield .. thankhey ,, i have a project in shielding design Material ,, to design a shield to Cf-252 source , 1 inch height , and 1mm diameter ? if you can help me to choose the right material in the shield .. thank u :)

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (10)

  • 
    Serban Constantin Valeca replied

    Hey, First is amatter of relative dimensions of the source. If is a smalle source i recomend to you stainless steel, especially martensitic (as our colleagues alredy say"s) ,for corrossionHey, First is amatter of relative dimensions of the source. If is a smalle source i recomend to you stainless steel, especially martensitic (as our colleagues alredy say"s) ,for corrossion protection and and neutron capture.

    Jan 10, 2012
• Sugu Mar

  Anybody have Radiation detection and Measurement by Knoll in ebook format ? Kindly send it to my mail ID.

  Radiation detection and Measurement by Knoll in ebook

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (5)

  • 
    Avik Kumar Saha replied

    E book available at library.nu

    Jan 6, 2012
• Soheibben Benmoussa

  Hello

  i study the NUclear Transformation and i want the definition of binding energy (El)

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (1)

  • 
    Kennedy Kilel replied

    Binding energy is amount of energy required or supplied to remove nucleon.

    Dec 9, 2011
• Jose Melara

  Boron transport in two phase experimental data?

  I am interested in validating a boron transport model in two phase BWR conditions. Anybody know public experimental data for any useful experiment or any idea?. Other possibility is validate againstI am interested in validating a boron transport model in two phase BWR conditions. Anybody know public experimental data for any useful experiment or any idea?. Other possibility is validate against a CFD. Any CFD with well behaviour for this fhenomena?. Thanks
• Irebola Ajeboriogbon

  innovative

  due to the bombing activities that is going in the world i believe that scientist should try to work on atomic bomb neutralizer or any device that can weaking the power of such atomic bomb.suggestiondue to the bombing activities that is going in the world i believe that scientist should try to work on atomic bomb neutralizer or any device that can weaking the power of such atomic bomb.suggestion pls

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (3)

  • 
    Kenneth Ricci replied

    Excuse me, I will correct my earlier statement: the PETAWATT laser is not necessary to achieve self-focusing laser pulse propagation in atmosphere. It is sufficient to build a TERAWATT laser. As anExcuse me, I will correct my earlier statement: the PETAWATT laser is not necessary to achieve self-focusing laser pulse propagation in atmosphere. It is sufficient to build a TERAWATT laser. As an example of such a laser system, see the link here: http://spie.org/x8496.xml?ArticleID=x8496 While in theory such a laser might bring new hope to the failed "Star Wars" missile defense concepts of the 1980s, I have read no published papers about successful tests of this kind of laser against missiles, aircraft or satellites-- for the obvious reason that if such tests were performed, they would be classified secret.

    Jul 12, 2011
• Prashant Sharma

  Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR)

  People say that LENR will change the geo political and geo economic scenarios of the world...Is this technology really that great and capable...???

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (1)

  • 
    Kenneth Ricci replied

    Research into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (also related to topics "Cold Fusion" and "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions) is controversial, mainly because some physicists, chemists, and engineersResearch into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (also related to topics "Cold Fusion" and "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions) is controversial, mainly because some physicists, chemists, and engineers in the past have made claims that turned out to be inaccurate. These sensationalist claims suggested that energy from LENR might be "just a small engineering step away," which would change the world by revolutionizing the way industrial nations produce electricity and use energy. However, some 22 years after the most sensational claims from LENR were made (look up the Pons-Fleischmann Effect on Wikipedia for details), there is still no theoretical understanding of the effect, no fully reproducible method to derive energy from it, and substantial disagreement over exactly what is actually taking place in these experiments. There is a general consensus among experts in this experimental field that some nuclear reactions are taking place, but since the energy required to initiate these nuclear reactions is missing (hence "low energy nuclear reaction" as opposed to high energy nuclear reactions which are well understood) there are many different and contradictory explanations for how a chemical system (usually a metal lattice with a high level of defects or impurities) can somehow catalyze or accelerate the rate of nuclear reactions which would normally be negligibly slow/improbable at these energies. Since there is no consensus on the theory, or on how to reliably produce useful results, progress in this field has been painfully slow over the past two decades. No one can predict when, if ever, this research process might eventually lead to a practical energy source.

    Jul 7, 2011
• Prashant Sharma

  Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR)

  People say that LENR will change the geo political and geo economic scenarios of the world...Is this technology really that great and capable...???