First measurements of Earth's core radioactivity

[Satanic Mechanic]

I found this interesting.  I wonder if the local anti-nuke pukes will now protest the Earth!


First measurements of Earth's core radioactivity
New Scientist ^ | 7/27/05 | Celeste Biever

EARTH'S natural radioactivity has been measured for the first time. The measurement will help geologists find out to what extent nuclear decay is responsible for the immense quantity of heat generated by Earth.

Our planet's heat output drives the convection currents that churn liquid iron in the outer core, giving rise to Earth's magnetic field. Just where this heat comes from is a big question. Measurements of the temperature gradients across rocks in mines and boreholes have led geologists to estimate that the planet is internally generating between 30 and 44 terawatts of heat.

Some of this heat comes from the decay of radioactive elements. Based on studies of primitive meteorites known as carbonaceous chondrites, geologists have estimated Earth's uranium and thorium content and calculated that about 19 terawatts can be attributed to radioactivity. But until now there has been nothing definitive about exactly how much uranium there is in the planet, says geologist Bill McDonough of the University of Maryland in College Park. "There are fundamental uncertainties."

There is one way to lessen this uncertainty, and that is to look for antineutrinos. These particles are the antimatter equivalent of the uncharged, almost massless particles called neutrinos and are released when uranium and thorium decay to form lead. If antineutrinos are being created deep within the planet they should be detectable, because they can pass through almost all matter.

Now, the KamLAND antineutrino detector in Kamioka, Japan, has counted such antineutrinos. An international team of scientists analysed the data and found about 16.2 million antineutrinos per square centimetre per second streaming out from Earth's core. They calculate that the nuclear reactions creating these particles could be generating as much as 60 terawatts, but are most likely putting out about 24 terawatts (Nature, vol 436, p 499). "We have made the first measurements of the radioactivity of the whole of Earth," says John Learned, who heads the KamLAND group at the University of Hawaii in Manoa. The KamLAND group's finding is like unwrapping a birthday present, says McDonough.

With time, as more antineutrinos are detected, KamLAND may be able to determine once and for all whether radioactivity is entirely responsible for heating Earth or whether other sources, such as the crystallisation of liquid iron and nickel in the outer core, also play a significant role. "[Detecting anti-neutrinos] is the way of the future in terms of hard numbers about the system," says McDonough.

Antineutrinos could also reveal the radioactive composition of the crust and mantle, which will give geologists clues as to when and how they formed. But to do that, they will have to be able to pin down exactly where the antineutrinos are coming from, and this will require a whole network of detectors. "We are heading towards doing neutrino tomography of the whole Earth," says Learned. "This is just the first step."

[tomcat]

First measurements of Earth's core radioactivity
New Scientist ^ | 7/27/05 | Celeste Biever

A long time ago I speculated that at the Earth's core Uranium, and the rest of the heavier elements, would melt, flow together, and that ought to get a 'reaction'.  Apparently I was right.

It is just pressure and heat plus quantity of radioactive materials that begins either fission, or fusion, or both.

At any rate, you can solve all the energy problems by just digging down deep.  Geothermal works.  We not only need the Cubes but we need to put some of the Cubes underground.


///tomcat///

[Satanic Mechanic]

Earth's core is not massive enough to generate a fusion reaction.  Jupiter itself is not big enough to generate nuclear fusion.  Even the great pressure of Jupiter which compresses hydrogen into metallic hydrogen is not massive enough to undergo fusion.  Many people have said that Jupiter is a "failed sun".

[Satanic Mechanic]

Geothermal may work but it is too costly to drill shafts into the earth.  Nuclear power is more cost effective.

[jdbenner]

There was at least one natural nuclear reactor.  If I remember correctly it was some ware in Africa, The French found the remains when the Uranium ore was deficient in U235 and trace plutonium was present.  It was estimated to have been inactive for something like 30 million years.  The earth’s core could have concentrated uranium, due to uranium’s high density.  It might just be possible that Earth has a fission reactor near the core.  We will have to wait for better neutrino mapping of the earth to confirm or deny.   

[Satanic Mechanic]

There was at least one natural nuclear reactor.  If I remember correctly it was some ware in Africa, The French found the remains when the Uranium ore was deficient in U235 and trace plutonium was present.  It was estimated to have been inactive for something like 30 million years.  The earth’s core could have concentrated uranium, due to uranium’s high density.  It might just be possible that Earth has a fission reactor near the core.  We will have to wait for better neutrino mapping of the earth to confirm or deny.   

You are correct about the natural Africa reactor.  I too have heard this story from the operators of the local reactor.  The neutron's from the U-235 hit the inert U-238 and made plutonium.  Same concept as a breeder reactor.
I am willing to bet the Earth's core is like a breeder reactor also.  Thanks for bringing up that Africa story, I have not heard that one in six years.

SM

[tomcat]

Geothermal may work but it is too costly to drill shafts into the earth.  Nuclear power is more cost effective.

This isn't true everywhere.  Iceland has geothermal at a very reasonable cost.  The magma is close to the surface there.  If dwellings were deep within the Earth then geothermal would be cost efficient, and non-polluting.


///tomcat///

[Satanic Mechanic]

This isn't true everywhere.  Iceland has geothermal at a very reasonable cost.  The magma is close to the surface there.  If dwellings were deep within the Earth then geothermal would be cost efficient, and non-polluting.


///tomcat///

Try to find a location where magma is stable.  Some of these places are remote and if the costs of building a generation facility in a location that is remote does not kill the project, the cost of transmission lines will (on average $1 million per mile).  Also the eco-greenie-pinkos will kill the project with an enviromental impact study in a New York minute.  Believe me, I am in the electrical protection industry.
That is a false statement about geothermal being non-polluting, just like the claim that hydroelectric is non-polluting- take a look at the waste oil that is thrown away used to lubricate the turbine shafts.  Don't beleive me, visit a dam.  All power generation generates waste and nuclear power produces the least.

SM

[jdbenner]

Yes, all power generation is polluting.
  Hydro electric reservoirs cover many square miles with water.  The flooded terrain kills tones of vegetation, which decompose, releasing carbon dioxide, methane and other gasses in to the atmosphere.  Also the rotting vegetation lowers the pH of the water leaching mercury from the ground and these are just a few of the environmental problems associated with hydro electric.

Solar electric relies on solar cells made from very pure materials.  Has any one considered what pollution is generated in processing the materials to manufacture solar cells?

Nuclear Power may be one of the cleanest power sources, but I am not sure that it is “The Cleanest”.

[Satanic Mechanic]

Solar electric relies on solar cells made from very pure materials.  Has any one considered what pollution is generated in processing the materials to manufacture solar cells?

Nuclear Power may be one of the cleanest power sources, but I am not sure that it is “The Cleanest”.

We have talked about photovoltaics in previous topics.  It costs more to produce one ounce of a 50% efficient photovoltaic cell than an ounce of gold.  There is tremendous arsenic waste generated with the production of photovoltaics.  Photovoltaics are fragile and need periodic checking.

[tomcat]

I have long believed that atomic fission could have been much more profitably used by building non-containment dome power plants in remote areas of the United States.

It is the containment domes -- a triumph of engineering nontheless -- that take so long to build and cost so much.  Without the domes nuclear power would have been extremely profitable and actually have cut consumer electric bills.

A remote location could have been selected on Federal land in Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, or elsewhere.  Fence 100 square miles surrounding the plant and have guards to insure no one enters the Radiation Area.  Use square of the distance to handle the radiation.  Remember the U.S. government already owns this land so there is no cost for land.  Use thick concrete and lead to protect workers in their work area and erect a wall to protect the road leading into the plant and the parking lot.

The nuclear reactor would be underneath the surface so that radiation would only flange up and out, giving some natural protection as well.  Absolutely huge atomic power plants could be built like this, at a fraction of the cost of the containment dome ones that are close to cities.  They could feed their power into the national grid that, by the way, already exists.

This, I believe, is a good idea while we are waiting for something better to come down the road.  I still like He-3 but space cargo planes have got to be built first and that will take 5 to 10 years at the earliest to be operational.  Hydrogen fuel generators show promise but still has to be developed -- and will probably become a secondary source of electrical power on a par with wind turbines and the like.

///tomcat///

[Satanic Mechanic]

  They could feed their power into the national grid that, by the way, already exists.

Actually there are three electrical grids here in the U.S.A., West, East and Texas.  The grids in my opinion are in poor to average condition transmission wise.  California is the perfect example of poor high power infrastructure.
In light of the recent terrorist activity, I definately want a containment dome.  Thankfully it is mandatory in this nation.  The cost of the dome is really not that much.

SM

[jdbenner]

Dito

[tomcat]

  They could feed their power into the national grid that, by the way, already exists.

Actually there are three electrical grids here in the U.S.A., West, East and Texas.  The grids in my opinion are in poor to average condition transmission wise.  California is the perfect example of poor high power infrastructure.
In light of the recent terrorist activity, I definately want a containment dome.  Thankfully it is mandatory in this nation.  The cost of the dome is really not that much.

SM

The containment domes add years to the construction of a nuclear power plant.  Also, we need really big plants -- terrawatts!  These can most safely and most economically be built in the vast expanses of our western states on federal land.  This is a must do in the near future to keep pace with increasing electrical demand.  Electricity must not only be more plentiful but must be cheaper as well.

///tomcat///

[Satanic Mechanic]

[The containment domes add years to the construction of a nuclear power plant.  Also, we need really big plants -- terrawatts!  These can most safely and most economically be built in the vast expanses of our western states on federal land.  This is a must do in the near future to keep pace with increasing electrical demand.  Electricity must not only be more plentiful but must be cheaper as well.

///tomcat///

Need I state this again.  Safety.  The domes are there for protection.  They can withstand a 747 hitting it since it is over 4 feet in thickness.  I think you overexagerate the time it takes to make a containment dome but it adds safety.  We are not some third-world nation that cuts corners on construction or safety.  The containment dome is law and is here to stay.

Ok, you want to build a nuclear plant in the western states.  You cannot stick it in the middle of Nevada because you need a continous and adequate source of water.  In other words a river.
I have lived in the western states all my life I can tell you a few things about rivers and water rights. You stick the plant near a continous river in Montana, lets say.  The farmers and ranchers will bitch about water rights.  Also when you build the plant it will have to be near a main transmission line to save on transmission line costs.  Like I stated before about construction costs. 

Do we need more electrical generation?  Yes we do.  But we locate the plants with containment domes closer to cities.