Can a nuclear reactor become a nuclear bomb?
548164
Your question is a very good one and everyone here is trying to help. Let me wade in with what I hope is a clear answer or two.\n\nCommercial reactors do not have the configuration to do what a nuclear bomb does: go promptly critical and thus have a large-scale supercritical nuclear explosion. Even Chernobyl (may the 40 or so people who died from it rest in peace) was mostly a steam explosion with a burning of the graphite core. The RBMK reactors like Chernobyl have mostly been shut down now - folks in the former Soviet Union may chime in now as to their status. \n\nModern commercial nuclear reactors (unlike the RBMK design) have large concrete domes called containments over them. The containment structures are designed to hold large amounts of pressure to guard against an accidental release of radiation. Even if the reactor core (part with the nuclear fuel) should become uncovered and thus lose its cooling, the containment will hold most of the radioactive material inside. That is precisely what happened at Three Mile Island. Most of the fuel and fission products were in the containment basement and plated out on the walls.\n\nThe most credible accidents are practiced for often at every power plant. Drills exercise the staff from the control room to the folks who go out into the field to survey for radiation. Those drills are graded not just by the plant, not just by the NRC, but by the county and state. \n\nNuclear reactors do not become nuclear bombs. If you were to take used fuel from nuclear reactors and chemically reprocess it - separating out the plutonium that is made in small amounts in the fuel - you could eventually make a bomb. We do not do reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel in the US. There is a worry that some countries may do that. Of course, that is precisely what the military does do.\n\nMy job? I am a Health Physicist. I teach radiation protection, nuclear physics, and radiation chemistry. In the event of an accident, I read remote monitors and figure out what the pathway the radionuclides are taking out, how much, and what dose might be delivered to the population downwind. My predictions are used to advise the county about evacuation of persons living in a 20 mile radius of the power plant. I have a Bachelors of Science in biology from Baylor University, Masters in Applied Nuclear Science from Georgia Tech, and my PhD work was in leukemia research at Baylor Col. of Medicine. I was part of the Three Mile Island Recovery Team.
37488
An atomic bomb is composed of some heavy-duty explosives, U-235 or P-239, and a neutron source.\n\nThe neutron source is in the center, surrounded by the Uranium or Plutonium, and then the explosives. Upon detonation, the explosives explode simultaneously, crushing the nuclear material in on the neutron source. This causes the material to achieve critical mass and a massive chain reaction takes place. Very massive.
1130985
Most nuclear weapons rely on fission (the breaking down of a nucleus into smaller nuclei).  This breakdown releases the energy that would otherwise go into holding the nucleus together.  That's not much energy for one nucleus, but breaking a few nuclei releases stray particles that bump into other nuclei and break them  -- which releases more energy, and more stray particles which bump into still more nuclei, and so on.  That's a chain reaction.  This reaction isn't limited to weapons; it also occurs in peaceful uses of nuclear technology such as reactors.  A nuclear weapon simply releases all of the available energy all at once.\n  As to predicting the reaction products, that's largely a function of what fissionable material you start with.  Nuclear physicists (which I am not) know what materials result from the nuclear decay of specific radioactive elements.  How you achieve fission is also a factor; a nucleus will break differently when hit by a fast neutron than it will when hit by a gamma ray.  Fusion is much simpler; if you start with hydrogen, the result is always helium.
833620
Nukes with the ability to launch them.
958392
Hydrogen bombs ARE nuclear bombs; they are a particular type of nuclear bomb and are powered by a fusion reaction.  By "nuclear bombs", I assume you meant fission (usually uranium-based) bombs, which are another type of nuclear bomb.\n\nBasically, fission bombs consist of unstable elements which constantly break down into lighter elements.  This breakdown releases heat and subatomic particles [radiation].  Being subjected to radiation also causes the breakdown rate to increase, so in large enough quantities, a chain reaction occurrs where millions of atoms split nearly instantaneously due to the high radiation from the neighbouring atoms disintegrating.  Large quantities of heat and radiation are released, causing a massive explosion and residual radiation which lasts for years.\n\nIf you meant to ask whether or not fusion bombs have replaced the less-powerful fission bombs, then the answer is a more complicated "yes-and-no"... yes, the fusion reaction is much more intense and releases much more energy than the fission reaction does.  Fusion describes the process whereby two atoms of a light element (hydrogen atoms, in this case) are bonded together to create a heavier element (helium, in the case of the hydrogen bomb).  However, these atoms do not spontaneously fuse - catalyzing the reaction requires an immense amount of energy.  Obviously the energy subsequently released is enormous - more than enough to fuel the fusion of more atoms - but to initially get the reaction started, a huge amount of energy is required.  The best way to do this, in the case of a hydrogen bomb, is a small fission bomb which generates the required energy for the fusion to begin.  Since a fission bomb is used to trigger the fusion bomb, it is still necessary to have engineers and scientists who study and build fission bombs, so it would be inaccurate to say that the fusion bomb has "replaced" the fission bomb.
963741
A neutron must be going extremely slow (the same speed as the molecules of the water due to room temperature heat -- just jiggling around) to cause a uranium atom (the kind weighing 235 units, the ones we split in reactors and bombs mostly) to fission.
194920
It depends.\n1) In nuclear power plants a moderator is used to reduce the neutrons' velocity and the chain reaction rate is thereby controlled.\n\nA typical 1000 MWe nuclear power station uses only about 24 tonnes per year of uranium fuel.\nwww.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/subs/sub5.pdf\nOR\nhttp://www.uic.com.au/whyu.htm\n\nThe average reaction rate would calculate as follows:\n\n(24 tonnes/year) X (1000 kilograms/tonne) x (year/365 days)=\n                 66 kilograms/day (about 145 pounds a day)\n\n                   OR\n(66 kilograms/day) x day/24 hours x hour/60 minutes x 1000grams/kilogram =\n\n                 46 grams every minute \nThis is the weight of one typical (1.55 ounce) candy bar!\n\n2) In a nuclear bomb the neutrons are not moderated.\nThe reaction time for a bomb is 1/1000 second. (Complicated quote below.)\n\n "An explosion is an interplay between the total amount of energy released, energy density, and the time in which the energy is released. The time factor is perhaps the easiest to define. While there is no exact definition of reaction time for an explosion, we use one millisecond as a reasonable value to distinguish a steady-state regime from an explosive regime."                      \n\nhttp://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-6/fusion.html\n\nThe reaction rate calculation for a very small bomb (10 kilograms):\n\n10 kilograms / 1/1000 seconds = 10,000 kilograms/second !\n                       OR\n                217,391 candy bars per second!\n\nSummary:\n Nuclear Power Plant - Chain Reaction Rate \n 1 candy bar per minute\n\n Nuclear Bomb - Chain Reaction Rate\n 217,391 candy bars per second\n\nI haven't calculated candy bars per minute (Nuclear Bomb) because no one can eat that many in a minute.\n\n- Stan the Answer Man
226426
Atomic and hydrogen bombs explode while nuclear power plants can not.  Nuclear power plants use nuclear fuel that can not explode.  It can melt if not properly cooled.  The plant may use high temperature water and steam that can explode if there is a major rupture just as in a conventional power plant.  Very careful design and operation has avoided all but a few major incidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and the lessons learned have been heeded.  Your novel should not spread misinformation to be accepted by critics.  Good luck.
957400
All the above is true,\nIt also however formed the basic understanding of Nuclear power generation.  The reaction that causes an explosion for a weapon, is the same as that in a reactor except it is controlled.  Modern ( western) nuclear generators can trace their lineage back to the Manhatten Project.
548851
Some pros to this energy source are: 1) Vast new source of energy 2) Fuels (mostly hydrogen) are plentiful 3) Inherently safe since a malfunction results in a rapid shutdown 4) No atmospheric pollution leading to acid rain or "greenhouse" effect 5) Radioactivity of the reactor structure, caused by neutrons, decays rapidly and can be minimized by careful selection of low-activation materials. There is basically only one con to these energy sources though. Scientists have not figured out a way to make it efficiently. At this point they have sustained a reaction at the break-even point, which essentially means they used as much energy as they created to make the reaction take place.
334150
nuclear bombs is the general term for any bomb that involves a nuclear reaction, but often is meant to denote a fission bomb that uses uranium or plutonium, like the ones dropped on japan. a hydrogen bomb uses nuclear fusion, which is more powerful, but requires a fission reaction to start it, so a hydrogen bomb contains a fission bomb and hydrogen to undergo fusion\nhydrogen bombs are definitely not more environmentally correct; they cause much more destruction and as much if not more radiatioactivity. this is especially true if they have a uranium "jacket" that creates a second fission explosion after the first fission and fusion.
132027
Nuclear fusion has indeed been successful in the past in two types of events.  The first event was totally military in nature when the first hydrogen bomb, USA's Ivy Mike, was detonated on October, the 31st 1952 (GMT).  The nuclear fusion accounted for around 25% of the total energy released (10.4 MT) whereas the rest of the energy was coming from the fission of the U238 pusher/tamper (i.e. the shell).  The bomb was designed around an A-bomb that was acting as an igniter, a tank of liquid deuterium (the fusion fuel) and a shell of U238 that reflected the energy of the A-bomb igniter towards the deuterium.\nSee http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ivy.html\n\nNow, as for the peaceful use of nuclear fusion, there has been also a successful attempt in 1991 when the European tokamak JET, or Joint European Torus, diverged (that is, provided energy by its fusion process).  A tokamak is a torus volume surrounded by powerful magnetic fields.  The deuterium fuel is introduced into the torus, heated up to a plasma and confined by the magnetic fields (to avoid melting the torus walls).\nTo be sure, it was for a limited time (4 seconds in 1997) but it did give off energy (up to 16 MW, again in 1997).  It has spurred the continuing efforts of the international community and moved the American government to participate (They even tried to steal the whole project from the Europeans!!).  The next projects are the ITER (the "Next Step"), the DEMO (a 2000 MW power plant concept demonstrator) and the PROTO (a 1500 MW power plant prototype).\nSee http://www.jet.efda.org/documents/brochures/jeteuropeansucess.pdf
154746
There are two major types of reactors in use in the U.S.  Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)\nPressurized Water Reactors (PWR)\nIn either type the coolant acts as a moderator to slow down the speed of neutrons so that they have a better chance of intereacting with the fuel.  The neutron collides with a fuel atom causing it to split releasing some energy (read heat) and two more neutrons to continue the process.  Control rods absorb some neutrons as does chemicals injected in the water (boron)  to slow down the reaction.  This way you get a nice slow even release of energy instead of all at once.  The water is pressurized to allow it to remain liquid at much higher temperatures sort of like your radiator.  A steam generator is a heat transfer device that allows the water to stay pressurised in the primary system and still get steam to turn the turbine.  After that, it all works like any other power plant.  The only difference is how you make the steam.  \n\nIn a boiler I am sorry to have to back away because all of my experience is with PWR's.\n\nCheck out the link below for plenty of info on these beasts.
1018555
Yes, and all our environmental problems.   At nuclear fusion temperatures you could make a fusion torch that would decompose waste into useful raw materials and transmute radioactive waste into stable elements.   A fusion reactor isn't likely to be small enough to power cars or aircraft, but the cheap energy it produces could be used to synthesise fuels for these vehicles.   We've been researching controlled nuclear fusion since the 1950s and we haven't made much progress.   But it will solve so many problems that it's worth spending vast amounts of money on this field.   Any technology that doesn't violate any fundamental laws of physics will one day work.
814757
A nuclear reactor contains uranium and a moderator, such as water or carbon (as graphite).  If struck by a neutron, U-235 is likely to fission, yielding fragments and two or three neutrons, which can, if you do things right, cause more fissions -- it's called a chain reaction.  Unfortunately, most uranium is U-238, which does not like to fission nearly as much as U-235 does -- but it does eat neutrons, becoming U-239 which decays to Np-239 and Pu-239.  The appetite of U-238 for neutrons is considerably reduced if the neutrons are slowed down before they have a chance to interact with it, and that is what a moderator does: it slows them down so that instead of traveling near the speed of light, they are traveling at about the speed of sound.  When the slow neutrons encounter a uranium fuel rod, they are more likely to be captured by U-235 to produce fission than by U-238, so the chain reaction can continue.  It is important that not all neutrons created by a fission are released immediately -- some are delayed, and that permits the reactor to be controlled by inserting rods of a neutron-absorptive material to keep the reaction from getting out of hand. \n In an atomic bomb, U-235 (or Pu-239) in nearly pure form is quickly assembled into a mass of such size that more neutrons cause fission than escape through the sides of the material, and so that delayed neutron release is overwhelmed by quick release, so a kilogram or more of uranium can fission before the device blows itself to pieces.
218083
I assume you mean nuclear "bomb"...\n\nIn simplistic terms, and nothing you can't easily find elsewhere, a nuclear bomb is made up of material that fissions (meaning that its atoms can be split to release energy) - this is either Uranium-325 or Plutonium.  Uranium is found in nature but the vast majority is U-238 which doesn't fission - natural uranium must be enriched to create a fissionable amount of uranium - this is true for commercial power reactor fuel too.   Plutonium is made in nuclear reactors from bombarding other materials with neutrons.\n\nTo have a "nuclear yield" the fissionable material in a bomb must be forced into a 'critical mass' configuration which means that it is so dense (atoms close together) that once the material starts to fission and release energy and neutrons, other atoms will capture the released neutons and then they will fission releasing more energy and neutrons and so on and so on with the chain reaction making the boom.\n\nWith the early plutonium bombs (Fat Man), the material was in a sphere and was forced together with high explosives uniformly to create a ball (critical mass). In the first uranium bomb (Little Boy, which they didn't even test until it was dropped on Japan since they were confident it would work) 2 uranium blobs were forced together by essentially thrusting/throwing/shooting one to the other to create the critical mass.  The math behind all this physics is incredibly complex.\n\nTo add bang for the buck they started adding the gas Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, hence the name Hydrogen bomb versus just the Atomic Bomb...  Tritium makes the yield much bigger.
913412
Not now.\nAlso, iron being at the nuclear energy low point, changing it to other elements takes power, rather than releasing it.