Do they also make the uranium fuel pellets, or do other companies make those?
210225
Mining uranium companies: \nCameco\nCogema \nERA\nKazAtomProm \nWMC \nRossing \nPriargunsky \nNavoi \n\nAt least one of these does produce pellets.
630802
Look in yer phone book. They still make those, right?
322473
I would contact the manufacturer, one of the biggest companies is Alliant, they have a great quality product. They can be reached at    \nalliant.reloading@atk.com
161162
The Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year. Their projected date for this type of operation is at least 2yrs off.  The two Bushehr reactors appear to be geared toward electicity output\n\nPlutonium containing high quantities of fissile material i.e. Pu-239 in the order of 90-95 %, is known as weapon-grade plutonium. Plutonium containing lower concentrations, in the range of 50-60 % is known as reactor-grade plutonium.
378419
I assume you are talking about extracting the Plutonium and Uranium 235 from the spent fuel currently stored in casks and storage pools.  Yes, it is feasible to cull these isotopes from the waste fuel, and use it to make new fuel to place back in reactors to make electrical power.\n\nThe spent fuel currently stored in casks generate very little heat outside the cask and not enough in the casks to be a practical source for electrical generation.
199392
there is a company out there called "Tanks, inc." they should be on line. they have a lot of different fuel tanks that they make and i am sure they can help you. gramps
203803
You need to be talking to gas turbine manufacturers or packagers like Solar, GE, Allison or others.
395553
CanTexan is on the right path. More specifically, Nuclear Reactors create Heat. This heat energy creates a Pressure in the transfer medium (Water -> Steam) and is transferred to Rotational Mechanical Energy in a turbine. The attached Generator produces Electrical Energy.
286116
Nuclear, beyond any shadow of a doubt. \n\nThe US has appreciable Uranium reserves itself, and major Uranium producing nations such as Australia are already favored trading partners and stable western democracies.\n\nForget corn. It takes more oil to produce ethanol than the ethanol replaces. I. other words using corn for energy means we have to use MORE oil. We currently produce corn ethanol as an economic subsidy for corn growers. If we didn't make ethanol we would have to dump that corn in the ocean. But Corn ethanol is NOT a fuel source. See the first article below.\n\nHydrogen is iffy. We can only obtain hydrogen by splitting water using massive amounts of electricity. That electricity has to be obtained using normal power stations, usually coal. As a result hydrogen is like ethanol: it takes far more fossil fuel to produce than it actually replaces. That makes it a possible oil substitute but very unwise WRT greenhouse gas emissions unless coupled with lots of nuclear power stations.\n\nSolar and wind are never going to be major players. There simply isn't enough land available to make more than a minor contribution and because the supplies are erratic we would still need other power stations to make up the regular shortfalls. See the second article below.\n\nNucelar is the only real solution.
651608
The use of depleted uranium is NOT the use of "low yield nuclear weapons!"  This comparison is simply invalid.\nDepleted uranium is used as is it is extremely dense, simple physics explains the use of a heavy item causes more damage than a light item as a projectile.\nNuclear weapons take advantage of the instability of certain isotopes and their ability to release great amounts of energy.\nNo valid comparison between the methods of use!
223015
Hi:\n\nNASA mostly use hydrogen and oxygen or tri-nictro-oxide in the liquid stages of their rockets and ammonium Nitric or some other solid state fuel that similar to gun cotton for the solid rocket booster. However in the early day of rocketry; they use any liquid fuel that would combined with liquid oxygen, Such gasoline,100 proof grain alcohol,Kerosene, fuel oil. and gunpowder or gun cotton for solid rockets Today however they mostly use hydrogen and oxygen for the liquid fuel rockets. What type of fuel they put into their rocket depend on how much weight their payload is; and how high they want it to go, and if they are visiting the planets in our solar system this as to be accounted for too.\n\nBack in the 1950,s and 1960's NASA had developed a Nuclear rocket engine under a project name: "Project Pluto" where liquid hydrogen was heated by a nuclear reactor to produce  a rocket thrust to propel a spacecraft in space. It fell out favor with the public due to radiation issues. There is a new type of rocket that uses ion propulsion where a gas such a hydrogen or Xenon gas is ionized and run ed through a series of electrically charge grids and are accelerated to very velocity as they exit the spacecraft And then there is:  The Antimatter and Matter rocket engine this where Matter and Antimatter is allow to mix in certain ratio in a rocket reactor vessel and focused by magnetic field to generate a lot of thrust
584200
in my area, we have "build a bear". so I think it might be different companies with the same idea. But I couldn't say for sure.
121871
To be annoyingly pedantic, there are no fusion reactors yet.  They still have not achieved breakeven point of input energy=output energy.  The lasers you refer to are one area of research to achieve this.  \n\nTo answer your question, it is an evolving field, not just laser technology; but now the design of the fuel pellet is now a subject of interest.\n\n"Nova Laser System\n\nNova is the name given to the second generation laser fusion device at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. It employs lasers ten times more powerful than the Shiva laser fusion device and will attempt to reach the breakeven point for fusion. Nova makes use of ten lasers which are focused on a 1 mm diameter target area, dumping 100,000 joules of energy into the target in a nanosecond.\n\nAs of 1994, Nova has reached the Lawson criterion, but at a temperature too low for fusion ignition."\n\nHowever, by designing the laser to make multiple passes through the laser material using lenses; and by designing the fuel pellet to these criteria, the LNL's 192 nova lasers  have competition.  a Few (<10 I believe) of these new lasers and redesigned fuel pellets achieved close to the aame results as the 192 nova lasers.
3665
Quite a few years back during the cold war such a engine was designed, built, and Patented by Westinghouse.\nThis engine/reactor was smaller than a 55 gal. barrel and kinda cute.\nDo you know that back then, an idea being promoted, was a reactor in every home. (Big Business quashed this one)\nEveryday, reporting to work we workers seen a model displayed in the Lobby.\nThe technology is complete and viable, but I suspect the Carter Presidential Era put the brakes on using it and we never got a chance to use it due to the incorrect media generated danger of Nuclear Energy.
220322
I GOT THIS FROM WIKIPEDIA\n\nPlutonium is a radioactive, metallic, chemical element. It has the symbol Pu and the atomic number 94. It is the element used in most modern nuclear weapons. The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,110 years. It can be made from natural uranium and is fissile. The most stable isotope is 244Pu, with a half-life of about 80 million years, long enough to be found in extremely small quantities in nature. Nuclear materials workers sometimes call it "plute".\n\nThe isotope 239Pu is a key fissile component in modern nuclear weapons, due to its ease of fissioning and availability. The critical mass for an unreflected sphere of plutonium is 16 kg, but through the use of a neutron reflecting tamper the pit of plutonium in a fission bomb is reduced to 10 kg, which is a sphere with a diameter of 10 cm. Complete detonation of plutonium will produce an explosion of 20 kilotons of trinitrotoluene (TNT) per kilogram. (See also nuclear weapon design.)\n\nPlutonium could also be used to manufacture radiological weapons or as a (not particularly deadly) poison.\n\nAll isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2006, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to exposure to plutonium itself (with the exception of plutonium-related criticality accidents). Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulin toxin are still more toxic. Botulin toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose of 300pg/kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot.\n\nWhen taken in by mouth, plutonium is less poisonous (except for risk of causing cancer) than several common substances including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more poisonous than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco; and many illegal drugs (some such as marijuana are negligibly poisonous). From a purely chemical standpoint, it is about as poisonous as lead and other heavy metals. Not surprisingly, it has a metalic taste. [3]\n\nThat said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly. The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Particularly at risk are the skeleton, whose surface it is likely to be absorbed on, and the liver, where it will collect and become concentrated. Approximately 0.008 microcuries absorbed in bone marrow is the maximum withstandable dose. Anything more is considered toxic. Extremely fine particles of plutonium (on the order of micrograms) can cause lung cancer if inhaled.\n\nOther substances including ricin, botulinum toxin, and tetanus toxin are fatal in doses of (sometimes far) under one milligram, and others (the nerve agents, the amanita toxin, the fugu toxin) are in the range of a few milligrams. As such, plutonium is not unusual in terms of toxicity, even by inhalation. In addition, those substances are fatal in hours to days, whereas plutonium (and other cancer-causing radioactives) give an increased chance of illness decades in the future. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have immediately died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.\n\nIt must be noted, however, that in contrast to naturally occurring radioisotopes such as radium or C-14, plutonium was man
33844
I really don't know how those centrifuges look like, but they separate the Uranium into their isotopes (235 and 238) because of the different masses between them.\n\nTry this http://www.exportcontrols.org/centrifuges.html
526568
Are you aware we don't even know who make our energy policy. Oh, Cheney and some of his budies.  I wonder if the record profits the oil companies are making could have anything to do with Cheney and his secret policy energy making group?