JoshuaZ comments on Rationality Quotes September 2011 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: dvasya 02 September 2011 07:38AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (482)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: soreff 04 September 2011 04:20:31PM *  2 points [-]

You are quite correct, small pieces of 235U are stable. The difference is that low concentrations of 235U in natural uranium (because of it's faster decay than 238U) make it harder to get to critical mass, even with chemically pure (but not isotopically pure) uranium. IIRC, reactor grade is around 5% 235U, while natural uranium is 0.7%. IIRC, pure natural uranium metal, at least by itself, doesn't have enough 235U to sustain a chain reaction, even in a large mass. (but I vaguely recall that the original reactor experiment with just the right spacing of uranium metal lumps and graphite moderator may have been natural uranium - I need to check this... (short of time right now)) (I'm still not quite sure - Chicago Pile-1 is documented here but the web page described the fuel as "uranium pellets". I think they mean natural uranium, in which case I withdraw my statement that isotope separation is a prerequisite for nuclear power.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 04 September 2011 04:46:29PM *  2 points [-]

I vaguely recall that the original reactor experiment with just the right spacing of uranium metal lumps and graphite moderator may have been natural uranium

I think this is correct but finding a source which says that seems to be tough. However, Wikipedia does explicitly confirm that the successor to CP1 did initially use unenriched uranium.

Edit: This article (pdf) seems to confirm it. They couldn't even use pure uranium but had to use uranium oxide. No mention of any sort of enrichment is made.