Skip to main content

Build your own nuclear reactor!

By Kevin McCoy

Suppose you really want your own nuclear reactor, but the price is a bit steep, you don’t have enough space, and the NRC licensing requirements are just too much of a hassle. If that’s your problem, you can now build a 1:350 scale model of an EPR. The price is about $30, the finished model fits in an area 79 x 84 cm (31 x 33 inches), and no NRC license is required. The model kit contains printed sheets of heavy paper that you cut, fold, and glue to create the various components.

The complete model, with about 2900 parts, is astonishingly detailed, with reactor vessel, steam generators, piping, cranes, emergency diesel generators, even turbine rotors.

It is said to take 150 to 300 hours to construct. If that is too much work for you, you can use the same kit but build a simpler version in which some or all of the internal components are eliminated. The simplest version is an architectural model only, with about 220 parts. That version is said to require about 55 hours to complete. On the other hand, if you are really a serious model-builder, you won’t be satisfied with just one of these kits. You will want to build a three-unit plant!

The complete model would be an exceptional training tool. It would show spatial relationships within the plant far more vividly than drawings or even computer animations. It also might be a good gift for a high school student who is interested in nuclear engineering.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would much much prefer the real thing. I really wish i lived near one of the marvels, but we dont have any in Australia. Ah well...
December 2, 2005 at 8:09 PM
Anonymous said…
Speaking of "an execeptional training tool", Gee, do you think the Jihad or the Timothy McVeigh wanna-bes could use one of these for their very own table top exercise on how to take out a nuke?

Paul,NIRS
December 3, 2005 at 2:11 PM
Brian Mays said…
Frightening indeed! Just imagine what they might discover:

If you pour enough water on the containment building it gets soft and mushy!

The entire building is extremely inflammable!

Airplanes (also made of paper, of course) really don't cause much damage when they hit the plant. Oh well ... back to skyscrapers ...
December 5, 2005 at 6:58 AM
Kevin McCoy said…
That's an interesting idea, Paul, but I don't think it holds up. If I were a terrorist (I'm not) bent on attacking a nuclear power plant, locating a specific component to attack would probably be the least of my worries.

To put it slightly different terms, suppose you wanted to break into a bank at night and steal all the money from the vault. Sure, you would need to know where the vault was, but the real challenge would be how to get into it.
December 6, 2005 at 12:33 PM
Kevin McCoy said…
For more information on the EPR cardmodel, including an interesting discussion on the design of cardmodels and the recent history of cardmodeling, visit http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=76&storyCode=2025159
January 10, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said…
i am a high school student in india ,i want to make a model of a nuclear power plant for science model copetetion at national level can you help me out if so please reply me on my user account that is push_pendharkar@yahoo.com
i will be thankfull to you sir
June 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Unknown said…
can some one just tell me where can i find the nuclear reactor if i want to buy the $30 one
plz contact me before 30th August
my email id is nasirmaniar@aol.in
August 19, 2008 at 3:01 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more