7 ms·
Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
- pstuart 13y agoIt'd be cool if some serious makers made a LFTR reactor :-)
- manglav 13y agoThere is a company trying to model it by 2015. Check FLiBe Energy out.
- codebaobab 13y agoFreeman Dyson's book, Disturbing the Universe, which is quoted in this article, is a great read. Highly recommended.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- trekky1700 13y agoJust one of the problems with kids these days, don't have any 'ppreciation for the skill and craft of building a hobbyist nuclear reactor in their parents basement.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ISL 13y agoTo 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 would bring withering community backlash. (For those who haven't seen one, here's what it looks like when the control rods are blown out of a TRIGA [1]; the reactor runs away momentarily, but then self-moderates when the fuel warms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orNP1wMmPK4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orNP1wMmPK4 . The Cherenkov flash is a beautiful blue.) Nuclear power can provide a safe, well-studied, and effective bridge to solar power. Almost nobody's dabbling in it because there's so much societal opposition. Working on a reactor in an old schoolhouse in a rural area? Someone elsewhere in the county will be willing to speak at every county governmental meeting to shut you down. Their opposition has merit; it's easy to point to Fukushima and Chernobyl as major disasters. A simple, clear, and publicly-understandable regulatory framework in which both society and innovators can feel comfortable with small-scale nuclear experimentation would go a long way toward driving new startups in the field. Experimenters shouldn't get their hopes up too far: Some forms of radiation are extremely penetrating/hard to shield, and some hazardous isotopes live a long, long time. If you're dabbling in the field, please plan from the beginning to minimize and safely store your waste. We only get one planet; I'd rather it not be too warm nor contaminated by our litter. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA
- archgoon 13y agoCan 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?
- ISL 13y agoWhile 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 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 regarding rules in an experimental setting. Even if there's no "nuclear science" underway at a school, if there's a medical school or nuclear chemistry at work, there's probably a radiation safety office.
- s800 13y agoWhat is Experimental Gravity? serious. tnx.
- ISL 13y agoWe 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/ 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance [5] http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4828 http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4828 [6] http://www.nanoradian.com http://www.nanoradian.com
- chrisb 13y agoIf anyone is interested in investigating nuclear reactions, there is a wealth of publicly available data from a huge number of experiments; and simulation software is available. For example: EXFOR (Experimental nuclear reaction data https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/exfor.htm https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/exfor.htm) is an international collection of more than 20000 nuclear reaction experimental results dating back to the discovery of the neutron. ENDF (Evaluated nuclear data library http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/endf/b7.1/ http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/endf/b7.1/) is the current best evaluation of the most up-to-date data available for many nuclear reactions that have been seen experimentally. FLUKA (http://www.fluka.org/ http://www.fluka.org/) "is a fully integrated particle physics MonteCarlo simulation package", partially developed and used by CERN. Beware that all of these require some knowledge of nuclear physics to use and understand (obviously!), and can be somewhat archaic in data formats and computer languages used (think FORTRAN). But it is truly wonderful how you and I have such easy access to such high quality and complete data.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoMy 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 people, I think the only way to combat the misperceptions is with improving results. I recognize I am a minority in that regard.
- stesch 13y agoAnd the waste simply vanishes if you really wish for it very hard.
- ufo 13y agoIt actually does, depending on your reactor design.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoThat is one of the emotions. If you read the article you will read about two reactors that are actually fueled by what we consider waste today. That we don't completely burn the fuel used in a reactor is a 'bug', a misfeature if you will. That was expedient when the initial reactors were being brought online and now is a regulatory pain in the butt. There is nothing in the physics that requires a nuclear reactor complex to generate nuclear waste of any kind[1]. Only in the regulations. [1] Nuclear incineration of even low level waste can effectively convert anything that was once radioactive into short lived nucleotide. Converting everything burned into its lowest energy stable state. But we don't do that either.
- dredmorbius 13y agoThe fact that a reactor is fueled by waste doesn't mean it doesn't create waste or have a waste-disposal aspect. In the case of any nuclear reactor, the vessel and mechanism itself becomes radioactive and must be disposed of (the same process also leads to embrittlement and other issues with the vessel/structure itself). And the resulting fission products are also still radioactive and require disposal, though my understanding is that thorium designs tend to produce lower quantities with lesser radioactivity than other designs. Or at least, that's the PR / theory, as the designs haven't been put into production use. Nuclear power in general has been a huge exploration of unintended consequences.
- dm2 13y agoProbably because it's easier, safer, and cheaper to just purchase one or visit your local university if you have enough interest. You're very unlikely to invent a new nuclear reactor improvement in your basement (50 years ago it would have been plausible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-R... http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/170482802/are-mini-reactors-the-future-of-nuclear-power http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/170482802/are-mini-reactors-th...
- icegreentea 13y agoThis isn't actually the point that the article is trying to make. The submission title for example can be reinterpreted in two slightly different ways. The first is the way that you interpreted. The problem is that -nobody- out of the general population chooses to make nuclear reactors as a recreational activity of some sort. The article however poses it in a different way. It rather seems to mean that nobody goes into the field of nuclear engineering with the expectation of experimentation and "having fun" while working. It has nothing to do with expense, danger, illegality, working with universities, doing it in your basement, or any of that. It has to do with commercial interests not supporting their engineers in experimenting with possible designs.
- dm2 13y agoMini reactors are becoming a big industry. For cities or countries (or large ships) that can't afford a full-scale nuclear reactor there are smaller and cheaper ones that can replace fossil-fuel power plants. I'm sure most people go into the nuclear field to experiment, few people expect to sit around with a checklist and watch a dial. This company is working on similar goals: http://terrapower.com/ http://terrapower.com/
- nicholassmith 13y agoI'm sure the last few times people built reactors for fun, people with large guns appeared to ask them to stop what they were doing. http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout/ http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout...
- dvanduzer 13y agoA 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 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.
- johnminter 13y agoMy 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-reactor_n_1515463.html 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.
- DennisP 13y agoThis is one reason I've started to think fusion might be more promising than advanced fission. The regulatory barriers are so light that high school students build reactors and run them on deuterium fuel just like most of the big projects, and it's perfectly legal. There's quite a lot of work being done on small-scale alternative reactor designs. I wrote up a bunch of them here: http://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304168 http://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestI...
- XorNot 13y agoDon't worry, "environmentalist" movements have gotten way out in front with opposing the ITER project.
- adamnemecek 13y agoThere were a couple of IAMA's on reddit with some teenagers who (supposedly) build nuclear reactors http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/hmn56/iama_teenager_who_built_and_operates_an_iec/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/hmn56/iama_teenager_wh... http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xd19t/iama_an_incoming_freshman_beginning_to_work_on_a/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xd19t/iama_an_incoming...
- russellsprouts 13y agoThese are impressive, but they aren't fission reactors, but fusion reactors. They do not generate power, but they do convert hydrogen to helium.
- draker 13y agoSure they do: The Boy Who Played With Fusion http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/boy-who-played-fusion?nopaging=1 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/boy-who-played...
- dredmorbius 13y agoThe dynamics by which nuclear reactor design cease to be "fun" resonates very strongly with yesterday's post on creativity, and in particular on simonsarris's mention of John Cleese's video on creativity. The how to kill creativity bit at the end in particular. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862240 I've got my own thoughts and doubts over the ultimate viability of nuclear energy and of the net potential of technology, but brakes on creativity itself, whether introduced or intrinsic to the system, are of concern.
- memracom 13y agoAnd what about the guy who though up the Higgs boson saying that he would be kicked out of university these days because he doesn't meet the arbitrary bureaucratic metric thought up by small-minded administrators. I.e. he does not publish enough papers. These are a few examples of the idiocracy taking root. MBAs running companies into the ground because they fundamentally do not understand the domain in which their business operates. Police incompetence manifested as an increase in paramilitary actions coupled with a decline in common sense. And what about the TSA?
- dredmorbius 13y agoThat too. There's been something of a confluence of posts on this topic in the past few days. Not that it isn't a topic that has some attraction here. Another datapoint: a recently posted (here?) interview of Richard Feynman, shot only a few weeks before he died. What really got me was the mischievous nature he displayed: constantly smiling and joking. Einstein was somewhat similar. God may not play dice with the Universe, but each of these two was, I think, toying with it.
- memracom 13y agoThis is just talking about America. Perhaps the people having fun building nuclear reactors are now working in Russia. Interestingly enough Russia has recently invested a lot on new kinds of R&D facilities including a suburb of Moscow being modeled on Silicon Valley. And they are reforming their whole system of doing science and science research, moving it away from the old bureaucracy in which it became embedded in the Soviet era. In life, usually when the pendulum swings to an extreme in one place, there is another place where the pendulum heads in the opposite direction, and in nuclear reactors it would not be surprising if Russia is the place where nuclear innovation is happening these days.
- NAFV_P 13y agoDavid Hahn did.
- crbnw00ts 13y agoWell, there's this company: http://generalfusion.com http://generalfusion.com VC-backed, too!
- dmfdmf 13y agoBarring some exciting breakthrough in physics that gives us either a new energy source or high-efficiency solar and the ability to store it, eventually nuclear will come back. It is the only viable civilization-scale power source that can keep the heat, lights and computers on once the oil runs out.
- lispm 13y agoYou sound like it is a bad thing...