Establish consensus on renaming nuclear energy to something that doesn't evoke thoughts of weapons
Opened this issue · 13 comments
As posted in https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2022-04-16-renaming-nuclear.html, we need to rename nuclear. I'll close this ticket once we do that.
I promoted, "elemental energy."
Best regards,
Carl
My vote's on 'Fission Energy'.
The general public already differentiates fusion from fission by calling them 'Fusion Reactors', so I think this works quite well.
As for fuel types - I don't think there's as much value in differentiating U-Pu/Th-U fuel cycles as there is in differentiating fission from fusion, or even different fission reactor types from one another.
Meitnergy
Washington Post Analysis: Who's Afraid of Elemental Power?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/nuclear-power-fear/
Since nuclear reactors require controlled chain reactions,
I suggest that we always use the term “controlled nuclear energy”
when referring to energy produced by nuclear reactors. Doing so
would clearly distinguish energy generated by weapons from energy
generated by reactors, without creating unnecessary restrictions
(e.g., fission vs. fusion) or new terminology that requires new definitions
(e.g., "elemental").
It should be understood by the general public that controlled chain
reactions Involve delayed neutrons to slow down the average fission
reaction rate to a level compatible with molecular timescales, so that
thermal, mechanical, and chemical controls and instruments will work.
This is mostly basic science, but obviously the details need to be
corroborated and corrected if necessary by someone with the required
credentials, e.g., Nick. In any case, the properly vetted terminology and
explanations need to be publicly posted in a suitable place, such as
whatisnuclear.com . If that works out, then the clarifying material should
be communicated to a wider general science audience, e.g., Science Friday
and PBS NOVA.
My understanding is that delayed neutrons are emitted by beta
decay from fission fragments[1], and that they can sustain chain reactions
that would otherwise be dying out. The design parameters of reactors and
fuel (core geometry, fissile isotope density) can then be adjusted to make
the reactors' chain reaction rates slow enough to keep them within the
molecular timescale-imposed limits of thermal, mechanical, and chemical
instruments and controls[2].
References:
[1] Article: Delayed neutron
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_neutron#Principle
“Delayed neutrons are associated with the beta decay of the fission products.
After prompt fission neutron emission the residual fragments are still neutron rich
and undergo a beta decay chain. The more neutron rich the fragment, the more
energetic and faster the beta decay. In some cases the available energy in the
beta decay is high enough to leave the residual nucleus in such a highly excited
state that neutron emission instead of gamma emission occurs.”
[2] Title: “Physics of Uranium and Nuclear Energy”, a summary of the
basic reactions and particle interactions that take place in a nuclear
reactor.
Source: World Nuclear Association
URL: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/physics-of-nuclear-energy.aspx
“The delayed neutron release is the crucial factor enabling a chain reacting system (or reactor) to be controllable and to be able to be held precisely critical…“
Nobody ever won anything from a defensive crouch. If we concede the framing that nuclear is bad, we've already lost.
As an alternative to "nuclear is bad" we could adopt the framing
that "nuclear is ambiguous" and denote the energy output from
fission reactors as "controlled fission energy". The word
"controlled" is still useful to break the unwanted link with
the energy released by prompt-critical nuclear detonations.
As for controlled fission chain reactions, a wise woman pointed
out to me that there are no fusion chain reactions, since no
neutrons are needed to initiate or propagate them. So without
ambiguity, "controlled chain reaction" implies fission.
I still think it should be considered K-12 basic science that delayed
neutrons enable nuclear reactors to bridge timescale gaps between
subatomic and molecular timescales. Assuming that is correct (is it?)
should it be taught in schools (e.g., high school physics or chemistry)?
If that were done, would it help bridge the information gap created by
the politically stoked general fear of all things nuclear?
My current position is help Americans and the world to pronounce "nuclear energy" more gracefully, then reconvene.
"Elemental" is a favorite among co-investors in geothermal and organic agriculture. Could be a category?
My current position is help Americans and the world to pronounce "nuclear energy" more gracefully, then reconvene.
It's new. It's clear. It's NewClear!
Seriously, though, don't harass people over trivia. It does NOT dispose them kindly to you.
"Elemental" is a favorite among co-investors in geothermal and organic agriculture. Could be a category?
Who cares about the investor class? It's not as though appealing to them has actually developed or deployed a single reactor thus far, and there's no sign it will in the future.
My current position is help Americans and the world to pronounce "nuclear energy" more gracefully, then reconvene.
It's new. It's clear. It's NewClear!
Seriously, though, don't harass people over trivia. It does NOT dispose them kindly to you.
"Elemental" is a favorite among co-investors in geothermal and organic agriculture. Could be a category?
Who cares about the investor class? It's not as though appealing to them has actually developed or deployed a single reactor thus far, and there's no sign it will in the future.
Strong Energy (/Strong Force Energy) 😂
Strong Energy (/Strong Force Energy) 😂
Facts.
Also withholds judgment as to what the strength is used for, which is a solid plan. You can power some very bad stuff with nuclear just as easily as you can power good stuff with it.