3 ms·

Seems like a misinterpretation on the electric power part. Very few power plant designs use atomic power resources explosively to make electricity. They probabl

Seems like a misinterpretation on the electric power part. Very few power plant designs use atomic power resources explosively to make electricity. They probably just meant undergrounded regular old fission nuclear power plants, which Teller also liked. But maybe not; that's a pretty direct statement. Certainly there were ideas to blow weapons up and then recover energy from the heated walls (often some kind of high heat capacity liquid).

Someone 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER: “The earliest references to the use of nuclear explosions for power generation date to a meeting called by Edward Teller in 1957. Among the many topics covered, the group considered power generation by exploding 1 Mt bombs in a 1,000-foot (300 m) diameter steam-filled cavity dug in granite. […] A series of 50-kiloton bombs would be dropped into the cavern and exploded to heat the water and create steam. The steam would then power a secondary cooling loop for power extraction using a steam turbine. Dropping about two bombs a day would cause the system to reach thermal equilibrium, allowing the continual extraction of about 2 GW of electrical power” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome: “Unlike most nuclear tests, which were focused on weapon development, Shot Gnome was designed to focus on scientific experiments: - "Study the possibility of converting the heat produced by a nuclear explosion into steam for the production of electric power."“
chriswarbo 6y ago
You're right that fission power plants don't rely on explosions. However, using hydrogen bombs as a heat source is currently the only method we have for a (man-made) fusion power plant. The economics have never made it worthwhile to attempt (H-bombs are expensive!), but from an engineering perspective it would mostly be a construction project. Hopefully that will change soon, if/when tokamaks, inertial confinement, or some similar technique are able to produce a net gain in power; yet that would require a bunch of basic science problems to be resolved in plasma physics, materials science, etc.
- dboreham 6y ago
  Most of the energy released by the thermonuclear devices we know how to make is from fission.
  - xoa 6y ago
    This is not correct and I'm curious what you're basing it on. The most powerful bomb we ever detonated (Tsar Bomba at 50 Mt) got something on the order of 96-97% of its energy from fusion with its 2-stage test design (tamper replaced with lead). It's true the full power 100 Mt 3-stage with a U-238 tamper would have gotten vastly more from fission (at the cost of terrifying levels of fallout), but it didn't need it. Castle Bravo, the biggest US bomb ever tested, was also heavily fusion (and big thanks to the unexpected lithium 7 tritium bonus), though I think you're right that a lot of ultimate yield was from fission of the natural uranium tamper. It did directly lead to the Mk-21 though, tested in Redwing Navajo at 4.5 Mt and 95% fusion I think? It's true that placing a fusion bomb in a uranium case can massively boost the yield of any single explosive, and in a full fission-fusion-fission design a good half the energy can come from fission. It's not required to work though, a transparent casing can be chosen too, that's the whole concept behind neutron bombs and "low-yield" weapons after all. I'm no expert for sure, this is just my understanding from reading some of the archives and such, so I'd be curious to read any other sources you have.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      >Castle Bravo, the biggest US bomb ever tested, was also heavily fusion (and big thanks to the unexpected lithium 7 tritium bonus), though I think you're right that a lot of ultimate yield was from fission of the natural uranium tamper. It seems to be generally accepted that 10Mt (two thirds) of the yield in Castle Bravo was indeed from fast fission of the tamper.
    - danielrpa 6y ago
      I'm very interested in nuclear energy/bombs but don't know where to start. I don't want to get too deep on the physics of it (a bit deep/technical is OK) - you seem to know a lot about the topic, do you know where I could learn more without becoming a Nuclear engineer? I'm especially interested in the history of bombs going beyond info on Wikipedia, basically the stuff you are talking about. Thank you in advance!

Someone 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER: “The earliest references to the use of nuclear explosions for power generation date to a meeting called by Edward Teller in 1957. Among the many topics covered, the group considered power generation by exploding 1 Mt bombs in a 1,000-foot (300 m) diameter steam-filled cavity dug in granite. […] A series of 50-kiloton bombs would be dropped into the cavern and exploded to heat the water and create steam. The steam would then power a secondary cooling loop for power extraction using a steam turbine. Dropping about two bombs a day would cause the system to reach thermal equilibrium, allowing the continual extraction of about 2 GW of electrical power” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome: “Unlike most nuclear tests, which were focused on weapon development, Shot Gnome was designed to focus on scientific experiments: - "Study the possibility of converting the heat produced by a nuclear explosion into steam for the production of electric power."“

chriswarbo 6y ago

You're right that fission power plants don't rely on explosions. However, using hydrogen bombs as a heat source is currently the only method we have for a (man-made) fusion power plant. The economics have never made it worthwhile to attempt (H-bombs are expensive!), but from an engineering perspective it would mostly be a construction project. Hopefully that will change soon, if/when tokamaks, inertial confinement, or some similar technique are able to produce a net gain in power; yet that would require a bunch of basic science problems to be resolved in plasma physics, materials science, etc.

dboreham 6y ago
Most of the energy released by the thermonuclear devices we know how to make is from fission.
- xoa 6y ago
  This is not correct and I'm curious what you're basing it on. The most powerful bomb we ever detonated (Tsar Bomba at 50 Mt) got something on the order of 96-97% of its energy from fusion with its 2-stage test design (tamper replaced with lead). It's true the full power 100 Mt 3-stage with a U-238 tamper would have gotten vastly more from fission (at the cost of terrifying levels of fallout), but it didn't need it. Castle Bravo, the biggest US bomb ever tested, was also heavily fusion (and big thanks to the unexpected lithium 7 tritium bonus), though I think you're right that a lot of ultimate yield was from fission of the natural uranium tamper. It did directly lead to the Mk-21 though, tested in Redwing Navajo at 4.5 Mt and 95% fusion I think? It's true that placing a fusion bomb in a uranium case can massively boost the yield of any single explosive, and in a full fission-fusion-fission design a good half the energy can come from fission. It's not required to work though, a transparent casing can be chosen too, that's the whole concept behind neutron bombs and "low-yield" weapons after all. I'm no expert for sure, this is just my understanding from reading some of the archives and such, so I'd be curious to read any other sources you have.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    >Castle Bravo, the biggest US bomb ever tested, was also heavily fusion (and big thanks to the unexpected lithium 7 tritium bonus), though I think you're right that a lot of ultimate yield was from fission of the natural uranium tamper. It seems to be generally accepted that 10Mt (two thirds) of the yield in Castle Bravo was indeed from fast fission of the tamper.
  - danielrpa 6y ago
    I'm very interested in nuclear energy/bombs but don't know where to start. I don't want to get too deep on the physics of it (a bit deep/technical is OK) - you seem to know a lot about the topic, do you know where I could learn more without becoming a Nuclear engineer? I'm especially interested in the history of bombs going beyond info on Wikipedia, basically the stuff you are talking about. Thank you in advance!