1. Thank you for the link’s Rod. I have become addicted to reading nuclear articles online, so more sources to feed my addiction are always appreciated.

    I am always on the search for a copy of Glasstone and Sesonske as I do not believe it is in production any longer. My copy is a 1st edition and is showing it’s age (~57 years old). My copy actually claims that you cannot sustain a critical reaction using natural uranium – that is really showing its age.

    1. Wow, that first edition must not have quite anticipated the possibilities if one simply has an adequate “Can Do” attitude.

      Get it?

      1. Haha, definitely not a “Can Do” attitude.

        I actually think I got the date wrong, it is 45 years old, copyright is 1967.

        Here is the quote from page 17: “Natural uranium alone, containing about 0.7 per cent of uranium-235, can never become critical, no matter how large its mass, because too high a proportion of the fission neutrons are lost in nonfission reactions.”

      2. When I worked in Toronto in the banking industry, I used to spell CAN DO as CANDU on my notes and presentation …

        I evangelized in an acceptable and light fashion at work for 5 years and made a lot of friends.

        Before Xmas, when Bruce 1 and 2 are back on line, Bruce Power will be the biggest nuclear installation in the world in terms of capacity.

        That will be worthy of an atomic insights moment/celebration.

    2. @George – I think you have misinterpreted what you read. It is impossible to sustain a critical reaction using natural uranium alone. A natural uranium reactor is possible if you include a sufficient quantity of a neutron moderator with a very low neutron absorption coefficient (generally graphite or heavy water) arranged in the correct fashion.

      Do you really think that Glasstone and Sesonske were unaware of the physics behind such early reactors as CP-1, CP-2 and the Hanford plutonium production reactors?

      1. You are probably correct, Rod. I never really thought too much on it past when I read it.

        A third edition has the same text, but has italicized the word “alone”. At first glance it seems like they are claiming that natural uranium could never sustain a critical reaction. With “alone” italicized in the newer edition, it becomes clear that they are referring to natural uranium without suitable moderation.

  2. Coal from the Powder River Basin is burned in vast quantities due to its low sulpher content. The coal averages about 8500 BTU/lb. Quite a few more tons of this coal are needed to equal the energy content of one pound of uranium.

  3. Thanks for the mention, It is actually an honor to be a part of the nuclear industry and to be mentioned here. This is the safest industry I have ever worked in and I will spread that word to anyone willing to listen. I have been in 21 nuclear plants in the USA and look forward to many more, the people are phenomenal and are the most dedicated and experienced workers I have ever had the opportunity to meet. For a more personal interaction with me try my Facebook page also. Thanks again and GO NUCLEAR. https://www.facebook.com/nuclear.nukeroadie.

  4. A Uranium exploration company, located in western US, seeks funding. After 2 rounds of drilling, their two world-class uranium geologists have verified that further extensive drilling is justified and advised to proceed to a further verification of deposits stage. It’s already thoroughly documented via Canadian NI 43-101 standards of data recording. The company has already invested over $2.5M. Any interest, advise.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts