[NTYNUT (OP)]

hello
nuclear generate energy what chemical are used in it

[Bored chemist]

what chemical are used in it

Lots of chemicals are used in  nuclear power plants.
But the reaction that produces the power is not a chemical reaction.
It is a nuclear reaction- that is where the name comes from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

[NTYNUT (OP)]

Hello
Which chemical are used in it what is name of it
how to start chemical

[Bored chemist]

Uranium.
If you put enough of the  right isotope of uranium together in the same place you get a nuclear reaction.
Do you understand that this is not a chemical reaction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

[NTYNUT (OP)]

Uranium.
If you put enough of the  right isotope of uranium together in the same place you get a nuclear reaction.
Do you understand that this is not a chemical reaction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

Hello
where to buy Uranium

[Bored chemist]

You can not buy the right isotope of uranium on the open market because it can also be used to make atomic bombs.

[NTYNUT (OP)]

Hello
I want to make electricity no bomb

[Bored chemist]

Hello
I want to make electricity no bomb

Other people want to make bombs.
It is easier to stop anyone selling it than to find out if they want power stations or bombs.

[alancalverd]

You can also use thorium, which so far has not been made into a nuclear explosive. Good news is that there is plenty in India.

[Evageasse]

I consider, that you are not right.

[comingdwindling]

A nuclear power plant is a thermal power station in which the heat source is a nuclear reactor. As is typical of thermal power stations, heat is used to generate steam that drives a steam turbine connected to a generator that produces electricity.

[Evageasse]

As the expert, I can assist. I was specially registered to participate in discussion.

[Colin2B]

As the expert, I can assist. I was specially registered to participate in discussion.

Come on then, participate. Assist, show us what you know as an expert.

[Bored chemist]

I was specially registered

No, you were not.
How did you think that turning up on a science web page and telling lies would help?

[Emilelix]

Thorium is an excellent opportunity, and it promises much. It isnt ready to go like Uranium is, there is still lots of work to do before it can be placed in service like Uranium is now. There are no commercial Thorium power reactors in service that I know of, it may be a valuable step along the way to fusion, IMO. I see no objection to developing it and giving it a chance to fulfill these promises. It is less reactive than Uranium, and will require different reactor designs, but that shouldnt stop us, and there is considerable research to draw on for engineering working solutions for commercial power reactors.

Something to keep in mind, what we are calling nuclear waste is as valuable as gold, it is a source of energy itself this waste. Any fission reactor will produce spent fuel, effectively reprocessing is a key part of the fuel cycle, this would need to be developed for Thorium too.

Swiftsword,
These miniature solutions sound like a good thing, I hope we see some of them going into production in this decade. The idea of blending U 233 back into the stockpile of low enriched fuel is about weapons reduction, it has its merits, and its drawbacks. It effectively wastes a lot of work, already done- but it places a lot of bomb material out of reach and reduces the ready stockpile of bomb fuel - which is a noble idea - whether it is practical or advisable to do this is another question. On the cooling question: designing a system which uses the most of the available thermal energy and doesnt dump excess heat into the environment is a key step, water or gas, or liquid metal, cooling is necessary in nuclear power, using the thermal energy now wasted is an engineering opportunity.