-3

I am looking to combine the principles of spallation neutron sources, wakefield particle accelerators, and neutron absorption to enable anybody to create large amounts of plutonium using relatively abundant uranium-238.

Thanks to the strong neutron flux of spallation neutron sources, I believe that the neutrons will be sufficient enough to create large amounts of plutonium from uranium, as long as the neutrons are slowed down by some magnitudes (my estimate: perhaps several grams of plutonium over 100 days or so).

In addition, the wakefield particle accelerators will allow the acceleration of protons using very compact facilities, potentially allowing multiple particle accelerators and spallation neutron sources, speeding up plutonium production.

My first question is:

  • How can I slow down the absurdly fast neutrons produced by spallation so that the uranium will actually absorb neutrons instead of breaking? Will deuterium oxide be enough? Maybe paraffin?

In addition:

  • What is the best way for individuals to create a DIY wakefield accelerator?
Young Jun Lee
  • 293
  • 1
    The project you imagine cannot be carried by individuals. See what it takes to moderate the energy of fast neutrons for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator – anna v May 04 '23 at 15:47
  • @annav I see. I will wait for Physics to advance further then. Thank you for your reply. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 15:48
  • @annav Though: if a governmental entity were to initiate such a project, what moderator would they use to slow down the neutrons? I saw some government-level projects which used the SNS to create medical isotopes. Thank you. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 15:58
  • 1
    did you read the wiki link I gave for moderators? It will depend on the exact experiment. – anna v May 04 '23 at 17:09
  • I disagree with the notion that this can't be done by an individual. That person just has to have the tenacity and business acumen of someone like Elon Musk. Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter was a larger expense of capital than the entire LHC project. Incidentally, he probably spent more on Twitter than he spent on SpaceX. I leave it to all of you to make a value judgement... – FlatterMann May 04 '23 at 19:21
  • Your more focused version of this question (v4) omits your questions about transmuting a chemically significant amount of material using neutrons from your accelerator. Since the transmutation was the focus of your existing answer, that answer now doesn't make sense as a response to your question. It is generally considered impolite to edit questions so that existing answers are invalidated in this way. – rob May 04 '23 at 23:46
  • 1
    @rob Got it, changed it back, and also asked a new question. – Young Jun Lee May 05 '23 at 13:42
  • To answer my own question: – Young Jun Lee Mar 25 '24 at 13:09
  • First, use deuterium oxide or another neutron moderator. For the DIY Wakefields, I am not sure yet. All I know is that one must have expertise in the fundamentals of lasers, which happens to be much easier than seems. The challenges I believe arise in the actual engineering. – Young Jun Lee Mar 25 '24 at 13:11

1 Answers1

2

When the wakefield accelerator was first developed, I went to a colloquium about it. One of the questions was,

I’m on the board advising the Jefferson Lab 12 GeV upgrade. We are about to spend a huge amount of money on traditional radio frequency electron accelerator modules. Should we stop and use tabletop accelerators instead?

The answer was, “You’ll never beat big iron.”

Transmuting a chemically-significant amount of an element has an unreasonable energy cost. For spallation, you’d have to buy that energy from your power utility. It’s an order of magnitude cheaper to put your uranium in a pile in a breeder reactor and let it transmute itself. The small scale hurts rather than helps here.

rob
  • 89,569
  • Thank you for your reply. While I understand the high energy cost, I do not believe it should be greater than the alternative: mining literal tons of uranium ore, and enriching it to obtain a minuscule amount of U-235. My reasonings for this project are not economical in nature, and I also don't have a breeder reactor (because I have no U-235). This is a bit of a stretch, but if I resort to solar energy, I am sure I can create a solar-pumped laser, at significant energy losses but nevertheless much cheaper in money. My other question: is there any DIY wakefield being developed? – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 16:21
  • Also, if there is such an unreasonable energy cost, there is no reason not to answer my questions, as the amount of energy needed would hinder any non-state actors from actually executing my plans. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 16:23
  • 2
    The whole point of the wakefield accelerator was that it’s a tabletop device. The cost of the optics is beyond a typical DIY budget. You need to spend some time in the literature, which I’m sure has evolved in the fifteen years since I have looked seriously at it. – rob May 04 '23 at 16:25
  • I see. Maybe an organization at the level of a medium/large company or religious organization can execute my plans then? I will need to contact many places. In the meantime, which Journals do you recommend? Lastly, thank you for all the help. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 16:28
  • 1
    @YoungJunLee - you do not need to enrich the uranium. The Hanford reactors ran just fine on natural uranium. – Jon Custer May 04 '23 at 16:28
  • @JonCuster Natural uranium is too bulky for individuals to use for power generation. Even the RTG relies on fission byproducts. Plutonium is easy to make (relatively) because its creation relies on relatively accessible neutrons and U-238. Not to mention, the creation of Pu-239 has many other applications... – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 16:31
  • 1
    @YoungJunLee Let us all know when you have managed to beat the cost of a solar panel with a home made spallation source. I am sure we would all love to have that tiny electricity generator in our basements. – FlatterMann May 04 '23 at 19:23
  • @FlatterMann Well, I am never going to achieve that. The creation of Pu-239 is more for concentrating large amounts of energy into a very small amount of time and space. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 19:28
  • 1
    @YoungJunLee Nuclear weapons are pretty cheap, actually. Once you have made the upfront investment in a breeder reactor, the individual nuke is probably less than $10 million in acquisition cost for the weapon in quantities. Total delivery and lifetime cost for a nuclear force are much higher, of course. Economics is part of physics. Every university professor can tell you about budgeting for research. It's a sad story. – FlatterMann May 04 '23 at 19:34
  • @FlatterMann I see. Honestly, I cannot tell if you actually think my project is worthwhile, or if you are being sarcastic. But because you seem knowledgeable in this subject: what next steps should I take regarding my idea? I don't know any DIY particle accelerators (let alone a wakefield particle accelerator), and I am a bit lost on the next steps. Thank you. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 19:40
  • 1
    @YoungJunLee I am simply giving you support. If you really think that you got something there, then you should follow your dream. Elon Musk is certainly following his. Good luck! – FlatterMann May 04 '23 at 19:42
  • @FlatterMann Thank you, and I wish you the best as well. – Young Jun Lee May 04 '23 at 19:43
  • 1
    @YoungJunLee I didn't close your question. To read about the community process for closing and reopening questions, take the [tour] and explore the help pages. – rob May 04 '23 at 23:49
  • An aside: I calculated that creating a CP-1 style reactor using deuterium instead of graphite will set someone back 3 million dollars at the very least. I don't think the lasers + their energy cost will ever get close to the cost of using a breeder reactor unless you are assuming I will pay to use a breeder reactor operated by the government. – Young Jun Lee Mar 25 '24 at 13:14