Live data from Hacker News

Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

blogs.scientificamerican.com

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#21
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to resources to safely and legally begin dabbling? Are you familiar with the process to obtain proper licensing? How are simple reactors like the Farnsworth Fuser regulated, or why are they exempt? Are non power generating reactors exempt from regulation? How does that get defined? Is it based on maximum emitted radiation?

While I work in the same lab as a bunch of nuclear physicists, my physics expertise is in experimental gravity. To get the official scoop on such things, I'd start with the NRC: http://www.nrc.gov . If you're at/near a university, many of them have a radiation safety office as a part of their Environmental Health and Safety department. University radiation safety officers are a great resource for timely details regar…

Experimental gravity? I went into the wrong field.

What's experimental gravity?

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#22
post #20
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I work in the same lab as a bunch of nuclear physicists, my physics expertise is in experimental gravity. To get the official scoop on such things, I'd start with the NRC: http://www.nrc.gov . If you're at/near a university, many of them have a radiation safety office as a part of their Environmental Health and Safety department. University radiation safety officers are a great resource for timely details regar…

What is Experimental Gravity? serious. tnx.

We do precision tests of gravity and searches for forces weaker than gravity.

(Front page is dated, see publications tab for more recent work) http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/

The most-important experiment we do is to test the Equivalence Principle [1], the idea that if you drop two things in vacuum, they'll fall at the same rate regardless of what they're made from. Results from our lab have shown that, at 1 part in 10,000,000,000,000 (10^-13), that's apparently true. General Relativity takes the Equivalence Principle as a postulate, and works from there. Many theories of new physics would break the EP at scales of ~10^-15 or so.

My almost-complete thesis research is searching for violations of the gravitational inverse square law at short distances. In short, over distances smaller than the diameter of a hair, nobody knows if gravity acts. It probably does, but you don't know until you check. String theory would suggest that, at short-enough distances, gravity should get unexpectedly stronger. Solutions to the Cosmological Constant problem [2] may suggest that gravity should turn off at distances shorter than the diameter of a hair. Dark Energy/Hubble Constant observations would suggest that gravity might do something interesting at around this same scale.

Our workhorse technology is the venerable torsion balance [4], souped-up with modern experimental readout and data analysis techniques. Our best angle sensors [5] sense a nanoradian's angular displacement in less than a second. For scale, if we shine a laser pointer from Seattle to San Francisco, a nanoradian is equivalent to about a millmeter's displacement of the beamspot on the TransAmerica building.

If you want me to build you an angle sensor or a precision force sensor, I'm interested in hybrid industrial and academic work [6].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance

[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4828

[6] http://www.nanoradian.com

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#23
post #8

To make an an HN-relevant analogy: The FDA-hobbling of 23andMe pales in comparison to what it's like to work with nuclear regulatory frameworks and societal concerns regarding nuclear science. When I was an undergrad, DOE was willing to pay the university the entire relicensing and operating costs of the on-campus TRIGA. The university declined, knowing that the requisite environmental impact study for relicensing wo…

my classmate's mother makes $82/hr on the computer. She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her pay check was $12046 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out=======> jobs25.ℭOM

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#24
A few years ago, Jim Sanborn (also the Kryptos sculpture guy?!) built a fission device based on an early Fermi/Bohrs/Teller experiment from 1939:

http://jimsanborn.net/main.html#museuminstallations

I got the impression from his talk that he was more worried about DHS than NRC cracking down while working on it.

It wasn't ever turned on while it was in the museum, but just getting near the device probably left me with a greater sense of awe than even the Apollo 11 capsule. On the shoulders of giants, certainly, but one guy built this.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#25
post #13

My daughter was one of the operators of the TRIGA reactor at Reed college. Some of the students joked it was a Fisher-Price My First Reactor reactor :-) at only 250kW its small as reactors go, but also exceptionally interesting. It is very disappointing how constricted the field of nuclear research is, as it is a demonstrably zero carbon footprint energy source. I understand the emotion that nuclear power evokes in p…

And the waste simply vanishes if you really wish for it very hard.

The waste is a vastly exaggerated problem. We've released vastly more uranium and thorium into the atmosphere via burning of coal than we've generated waste from nuclear plants that needs long term storage (the vast majority of nuclear waste by volume has a half life short enough that it is not a storage problem for more than a few decades; only a few percent needs long term storage).

Now, the waste that needs long term storage is more dangerous than the dispersed uranium from coal, but most of the spent fuel can also be reprocessed at least once, and at least India is looking into reprocessing spent fuel multiple times to reduce the amount of high level waste that actually needs to be stored rather than reused.

The resulting storage volume is miniscule, and while it needs to be dealt with, it takes a lot for it to be a significant risk. E.g. plutonium is nasty in some ways - you really don't want to breathe in particulate. But it mostly emits alpha particles, which can be blocked by not much more than cardboard (I remember physics class when our teachers demonstrated with an alpha source, a geiger counter and cardboard...).

Large scale dispersal of plutonium particulate would require a large explosion, so the challenge with plutonium (and uranium) storage is largely to ensure there's no risk of reaching critical mass. But that's "simple" enough to do just by diluting the material enough. There is a security aspect (you don't want people to have an easy way of mining plutonium from waste to produce weapons) but the main storage problem is down to fear.

Most of the gamma emitters have short half lives. I grew up in Norway, and remember the massive fear after Chernobyl relating to Caesium contamination for example (fallout making it into the soil caused Cesium to get picked up in various plants that were eaten by sheep, deer, elks etc. in the highland regions). While it was a public health concern, Caesium-137 has a half-life of "only" 30 years, and a biological half-life in the human body of a few months, and there are plenty of "workarounds" in the case of a major accident (deep ploughing; screening the riskiest food sources; fertilizing with potassium) that helps reduce Caesium uptake until it's radioactivity has sufficiently diminished and/or it has been spread enough to not be a problem any more.

That's not to say we shouldn't take nuclear waste seriously, but it's not a big deal compared to a lot of other hazardous waste we don't think twice about.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#26
post #8

To make an an HN-relevant analogy: The FDA-hobbling of 23andMe pales in comparison to what it's like to work with nuclear regulatory frameworks and societal concerns regarding nuclear science. When I was an undergrad, DOE was willing to pay the university the entire relicensing and operating costs of the on-campus TRIGA. The university declined, knowing that the requisite environmental impact study for relicensing wo…

>Their opposition has merit; it's easy to point to Fukushima and Chernobyl as major disasters.

The disasters are one thing.

The constant lying from authorities, government and assigned experts was another. They were caught pants down telling lies and misinforming in handling the Fukusima accident.

This breaks trust. And for projects like that, that involve billions of dollars (enough to fuel much payola and greed), it's easy not to have much trust in the good intentions of those building and managing them in the first place.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#27
My employer (Eastman Kodak) had one of the few industrial research reactors built for neutron activation analysis (NAA) from 1974 to 2007. NAA provided great trace analysis of impurities that caused problems with photographic film and solid state devices. The reactor was located in the basement of the research labs, next to my electron microscopy lab. I spent close to 20 years next door to this.

There were two main issues that caused the company to decommission the reactor. 1) replacement of the californium source would have been prohibitively expensive. 2) Because the neutron source also contained isotopes that could have been weaponized (with great difficulty,) we had to maintain 24x7 security - at great expense. The press reported on the removal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/kodak-nuclear-react...)

During my tenure as "next door neighbor" to this, I was more concerned about falling on ice in the parking lot during the winter than any concerns from the reactor. The staff in the NAA lab were well-trained scientists who were quite careful and they monitored constantly for activity.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#28

My daughter was one of the operators of the TRIGA reactor at Reed college. Some of the students joked it was a Fisher-Price My First Reactor reactor :-) at only 250kW its small as reactors go, but also exceptionally interesting. It is very disappointing how constricted the field of nuclear research is, as it is a demonstrably zero carbon footprint energy source. I understand the emotion that nuclear power evokes in p…

>It is very disappointing how constricted the field of nuclear research is, as it is a demonstrably zero carbon footprint energy source.

Yes, if only it didn't have any other footprint...

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#29
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I work in the same lab as a bunch of nuclear physicists, my physics expertise is in experimental gravity. To get the official scoop on such things, I'd start with the NRC: http://www.nrc.gov . If you're at/near a university, many of them have a radiation safety office as a part of their Environmental Health and Safety department. University radiation safety officers are a great resource for timely details regar…

Experimental gravity? I went into the wrong field. What's experimental gravity?

See my reply to s800.

Before you jump ship to precision tests of gravity: graduate students' mean time to graduation in our group is >7-8 years. Our experiments take several years to set up, at least a year to execute, and at least a year to analyze.

When a new idea/theory comes up, we can often test it quickly (or rule it out with existing measurements), but our bread-and-butter work is a direct confrontation with hard experimental problems.

For scale, we can choose to be separately sensitive to both the gravitational signal and the tilt of the ground due to a pickup truck parked outside of our lab.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#30
post #8

To make an an HN-relevant analogy: The FDA-hobbling of 23andMe pales in comparison to what it's like to work with nuclear regulatory frameworks and societal concerns regarding nuclear science. When I was an undergrad, DOE was willing to pay the university the entire relicensing and operating costs of the on-campus TRIGA. The university declined, knowing that the requisite environmental impact study for relicensing wo…

I'm not sure what you mean with litter, but isn't nuclear waste storage still an unsolved problem?
Post reply on HN