whatisnuclear
Establish consensus on renaming nuclear energy to something that doesn't evoke thoughts of weapons
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.
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.
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) 😂
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.