Q: Thorium in monazite: Indian monazite beach sands typically contain approximately what percentage of thorium (as thorium-bearing minerals)?

Introduction / Context: India’s thorium resources are largely found in monazite-bearing beach sands, which are strategic for the thorium fuel cycle. Knowing typical thorium content provides context for resource assessments and processing economics. Given Data / Assumptions: “Indian monazite sand” refers to placer deposits along certain coasts. Thorium content is asked as an approximate percentage, recognizing natural variability. Concept / Approach: Monazite is a phosphate mineral containing rare-earth elements and thorium. Typical thorium content for Indian monazite is on the order of ten percent by weight (often quoted near 9–10% as ThO2 equivalent), though deposits vary by location. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recall typical reported ranges for Th in Indian monazite.2) Select the closest rounded value from the options.3) Therefore, 10% is the best representative choice. Verification / Alternative check: Resource summaries and historical data commonly reference ~10% thorium in monazite concentrates, acknowledging variability across beaches and processing stages. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 25%, 60%, 90%: substantially higher than typical monazite thorium content and unrealistic as bulk sand composition. 5%: below the commonly cited rounded value for monazite concentrates in India. Common Pitfalls: Confusing raw beach sand composition with monazite mineral composition; ignoring deposit-to-deposit variability. Final Answer: 10

Q: Isotopic effects: hydrogen (protium) differs from deuterium primarily in which type of properties, while remaining largely similar in the others?

Introduction / Context: Isotopes of an element have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons, leading to different masses. Mass differences produce noticeable physical property changes (density, diffusion rate, boiling point) while chemical properties remain broadly similar because electron structure is the same. Given Data / Assumptions: Hydrogen (protium, ^1H) vs deuterium (^2H or D). We compare radioactive, physical, and chemical properties at ordinary conditions. Neither protium nor deuterium is radioactive; tritium (^3H) is the radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Concept / Approach: Isotopic substitution changes mass-related properties: heavier isotopes tend to have higher boiling/melting points and lower diffusion coefficients. Chemical reactivity patterns are mostly preserved but kinetic isotope effects can alter reaction rates. Since neither ^1H nor ^2H is radioactive, “radioactive properties” are not a distinguishing factor. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the defining difference: mass (1 u vs ~2 u).2) Mass differences affect physical properties (density, phase-change temps, diffusion).3) Chemical properties remain similar, aside from kinetic isotope effects.4) Therefore, the principal differences are physical, not radioactive or wholly chemical. Verification / Alternative check: Experimental data show D2O has higher boiling point and density than H2O. Reaction kinetics with C–H vs C–D bonds illustrate kinetic isotope effects without fundamentally changing qualitative chemistry. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Radioactive properties: both are stable; tritium is the radioactive isotope. Chemical properties: broadly similar; differences are secondary (kinetic), not primary. All of the above: incorrect because (a) is false. Nuclear stability only: both are stable; not a differentiator. Common Pitfalls: Assuming isotopes always have notably different chemistry; conflating deuterium with tritium. Final Answer: Physical properties

Q: Fuel terminology: “enriched uranium” refers to uranium in which the U-235 content has been increased to what relative level compared with natural uranium?

Introduction / Context: Natural uranium contains only about 0.71% U-235, the primary fissile isotope for most thermal reactors. Many reactor types require a higher fraction of U-235, hence the term “enriched uranium.” Given Data / Assumptions: Natural uranium composition: ~99.27% U-238, ~0.71% U-235, trace U-234. Enrichment processes increase the U-235 assay above its natural level. We use the common definitional threshold relative to natural abundance. Concept / Approach: Any uranium whose U-235 content exceeds the natural 0.71% is called “enriched.” Low-enriched uranium (LEU) generally means ≤ 20% U-235 (typical power reactors use 3–5%); high-enriched uranium (HEU) is > 20% U-235. Statements implying “only fissile” or “only fertile” are incorrect, since mixtures always remain. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Establish the natural benchmark: 0.71% U-235.2) Define enrichment: any increase above the natural benchmark.3) Therefore, “more than 0.71% U-235” defines enriched uranium. Verification / Alternative check: Fuel specifications for light-water reactors list assays around 3–5% U-235, clearly above natural levels. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only fertile or only fissile: unrealistic—mixtures persist. Impurity-free: enrichment is isotopic, not chemical purification per se. Exactly 0.71%: that is natural, not enriched. Common Pitfalls: Confusing chemical purity with isotopic composition; equating enrichment with removal of all non-fissile isotopes. Final Answer: More than 0.71% U-235

Question 1

Nuclear fuels and isotopes: in naturally occurring uranium, which isotope is present in the greatest abundance by percentage composition?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Natural uranium is a mixture of several isotopes, chiefly U-238 and U-235, with traces of U-234. Understanding which isotope dominates is foundational for topics such as enrichment, reactor physics, and nuclear fuel cycles. This question checks awareness of natural isotopic abundance and why enrichment is required for many reactor types. Given Data / Assumptions: “Natural uranium” means uranium as mined and processed without isotopic enrichment. Relevant isotopes: U-238, U-235, U-234 (trace); others like U-236 do not occur naturally in notable amounts. We focus on percentage composition by atom percent (or weight percent, nearly the same conclusion). Concept / Approach: Natural uranium is overwhelmingly U-238 (about 99.27% by atoms), with U-235 around 0.71% and U-234 about 0.005–0.01%. Because U-235 is the principal fissile isotope for thermal reactors, the low natural fraction typically necessitates enrichment for light-water reactors. Heavy-water or graphite-moderated designs can sometimes use natural uranium due to superior neutron economy. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) List natural isotopes: U-238 ≫ U-235 ≫ U-234 (trace).2) Compare magnitudes: U-238 is about two orders of magnitude more abundant than U-235.3) Therefore, the most abundant isotope in natural uranium is U-238. Verification / Alternative check: Textbook and data compilations consistently report ~99.27% U-238, ~0.711% U-235, and ~0.005–0.01% U-234. Any small variance in quoted figures does not change which isotope is dominant. Why Other Options Are Wrong: U-235: only ~0.71% naturally. U-234: trace isotope (parts per ten thousand). U-236: not naturally abundant; generally produced in reactors. None of these: incorrect because U-238 is clearly correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “fissile importance” with “abundance”; U-235 is key for fission but is not the most abundant in nature. Assuming enrichment changes natural composition—enrichment is a separate industrial step. Final Answer: U-238

Question 2

Reactor types and operating regimes: which reactor is characteristically run at very high neutron flux but comparatively low thermal power for experiments and isotope production?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Different reactor types are optimized for different objectives: electricity generation, breeding fissile material, materials testing, or isotope production. Some applications demand extremely high neutron flux for experimentation and radioisotope production rather than high thermal power output. Given Data / Assumptions: “High neutron flux” means a large number of neutrons per unit area per unit time in the core. “Low power level” indicates modest heat generation compared with commercial power reactors. We seek the reactor category typically configured for experiments and isotope manufacture. Concept / Approach: Research reactors (including materials testing reactors and university reactors) are designed to provide an intense neutron field with flexible irradiation facilities and experimental access. Power conversion efficiency is not the goal; instead, core geometry and coolant/moderator selection maximize flux and accessibility. Breeder or liquid-metal fast reactors emphasize power and breeding ratio rather than low-power, high-flux experimentation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify reactor objectives: research vs power generation.2) High flux with low power matches experimental/isotope missions.3) “Research reactor” is the standard designation for such facilities. Verification / Alternative check: Well-known installations (e.g., materials testing reactors) operate at tens of megawatts thermal or less but deliver neutron fluxes comparable to or greater than many power reactors due to compact core designs and specialized moderators. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Breeder and fast power reactors: targeted at breeding or utility-scale power. Heterogeneous reactor: describes core arrangement, not operating regime. Liquid-metal cooled: a cooling choice typical of certain fast reactors, not inherently “high-flux/low-power.” Common Pitfalls: Equating “high flux” with “high power”—compact cores can achieve very high flux at modest power. Final Answer: Research reactor

Question 3

Particle physics basics: the rest mass of a positron (anti-electron) is equal to the rest mass of which particle?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The positron is the antiparticle of the electron. Recognizing matter–antimatter pairs and their properties—mass, charge, and spin—is fundamental in nuclear and particle physics and underpins phenomena like beta-plus decay and pair production. Given Data / Assumptions: Positron (e+) is the electron’s antiparticle. We compare rest masses of basic particles: electron, proton, neutron, alpha particle, muon. Non-relativistic rest mass equality is considered. Concept / Approach: By definition, a particle and its antiparticle have equal rest mass and spin, and opposite electric charge and certain quantum numbers. Therefore, the positron’s rest mass equals the electron’s (≈ 9.11×10^-31 kg, or 0.511 MeV/c^2). Protons and neutrons are about 1836 and 1839 times heavier than an electron; alpha particles (He-4 nuclei) are heavier still. The muon is a heavier lepton (~105.7 MeV/c^2), not equal to the electron mass. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify positron as antiparticle of electron.2) Apply antiparticle property: equal mass, opposite charge.3) Therefore, the positron’s mass equals the electron’s mass. Verification / Alternative check: Conversions between mass and energy (E = m*c^2) yield the same rest energy for e− and e+ (0.511 MeV). Beta-plus decay emits a positron with the same mass as an electron. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Proton/neutron/alpha: many orders of magnitude heavier. Muon: a lepton but substantially heavier than an electron. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “similar” leptons (like muons) share mass with electrons; confusing rest mass with charge magnitude. Final Answer: Electron

Question 4

Uses of artificial radioisotopes: which of the following applications legitimately use artificially produced radioactive isotopes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Artificial radioisotopes—nuclides produced in reactors or accelerators—are widely used across medicine, industry, research, and power applications. Recognizing the breadth of their applications is essential for engineering awareness and public policy discussions on nuclear technology. Given Data / Assumptions: Artificial radioisotopes include medical isotopes (e.g., I-131, Tc-99m), industrial sources (Co-60), and special-purpose nuclides (Pu-238 for radioisotope power systems). “Power generation” here includes radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and heater units, not just fission reactors. “Initiating fission/fusion” includes neutron sources (e.g., Am-Be) and tritium for fusion research. Concept / Approach: Each listed domain has well-established uses: RTGs provide long-lived electrical power for spacecraft; radiotherapy and imaging rely on specific isotopes; neutron sources and tritium support fission startup, calibration, and fusion experiments. Hence, artificial isotopes are legitimately used in all the listed ways. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Match examples to each option: Co-60/Tc-99m for medicine, Pu-238 for RTGs (power), Am-Be/Po-Be and tritium for neutron/fusion work.2) Confirm each application is real and established.3) Therefore, “All of the above” is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Review of mission profiles (e.g., Voyager, Curiosity) shows RTG use; standard hospital radiopharmacies dispense artificial isotopes; reactor startups and research labs use sealed neutron sources and tritium handling systems. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single item alone omits other legitimate uses. “None of the above” contradicts extensive practice. Common Pitfalls: Thinking “power generation” must mean grid-scale fission reactors only; overlooking that RTGs are genuine power systems driven by radioactive decay heat. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 5

Radioactivity concepts: identify the single wrong statement among the following about alpha and beta emissions and radioactive decay laws.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Conceptual questions on radioactivity often mix statements about nuclear emissions (alpha, beta) and the decay law. The task is to spot the statement that contradicts basic nuclear physics. Understanding atomic charge right after emission and the probabilistic nature of decay is key. Given Data / Assumptions: Alpha (α) emission ejects a helium-4 nucleus carrying +2 charge. Beta-minus (β−) emission ejects an electron carrying −1 charge. Decay constant λ and half-life t_1/2 describe exponential decay, largely unaffected by macroscopic thermodynamic variables. Concept / Approach: Immediately after α emission, the electron cloud still corresponds to the parent atomic number Z, while the nucleus has Z−2; the atom is left with two excess electrons and is momentarily negative until charge re-equilibration—making option (a) acceptable in the “instant after emission” sense. After β− emission, the nucleus becomes Z+1 while the electron cloud still has Z electrons, leaving a net +1 charge until neutralization—so (b) is acceptable. Radioactive decay is exponential; even after many half-lives, complete disintegration is asymptotic, never literally 100% in finite time. Hence, (c) is the wrong statement. The decay constant is a nuclear property, insensitive to ordinary pressure, temperature, or concentration, validating (d). The exponential law description in (e) is correct. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Analyze immediate post-emission charge states for α and β− processes.2) Recall exponential decay: N(t) = N0 * exp(−λ t), half-life t_1/2 = 0.693/λ.3) Show that “complete disintegration in 40 years” for t_1/2 = 20 years is false: after 20 years → 50% remains; after 40 years → 25% remains.4) Conclude that option (c) is the single incorrect statement. Verification / Alternative check: Plugging numbers into N(t) verifies residual fractions at multiple half-lives (e.g., at 2 half-lives, N/N0 = 0.25). Why Other Options Are Wrong (i.e., why they are not the incorrect statements): (a) Correct in the immediate, pre-neutralization sense. (b) Correct in the immediate, pre-neutralization sense. (d) Correct: λ is insensitive to normal environmental conditions. (e) Correct: exponential law governs decay. Common Pitfalls: Interpreting (a) and (b) after electron rearrangement (ultimately atoms neutralize); forgetting that “complete” decay never occurs in finite time under the exponential model. Final Answer: A radioactive element with a half-life of 20 years will be completely disintegrated in 40 years.

Question 6

Uranium resources in India: at which of the following locations is uranium ore mined and concentrated?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Awareness of India’s nuclear fuel supply chain includes knowing mining and milling sites for uranium ore. Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) operates several mines and processing plants, with Jadugoda historically prominent. Given Data / Assumptions: We compare well-known industrial locations in India. The question asks specifically for uranium mining and concentration (milling) sites. Concept / Approach: Jadugoda in Jharkhand is a long-established uranium mining and milling center. The ore is processed to produce yellowcake for subsequent conversion and fuel fabrication. Kota, Tuticorin, Talcher, and Neyveli are associated with other energy/industrial sectors (thermal power, ports, lignite, etc.) rather than uranium ore mining. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify UCIL’s classic mining hub: Jadugoda.2) Disqualify alternatives: Kota (nuclear plant nearby at Rawatbhata, but not a uranium mine), Tuticorin (port/industrial), Talcher (coal), Neyveli (lignite).3) Conclude that Jadugoda is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Government and public sources list Jadugoda as India’s first uranium mine with associated mill; additional mines (e.g., Narwapahar, Turamdih) are in the region. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kota: known for education/industry; the nuclear station is at Rawatbhata. Tuticorin: port and petrochemical industries. Talcher: major coalfields and thermal plants. Neyveli: lignite mining and power. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a nuclear power–associated city must also be a uranium mine; conflating thermal and nuclear energy hubs. Final Answer: Jadugoda (Jharkhand)

Question 7

Radiation penetration comparison: among alpha (α), beta (β), gamma (γ), and X-rays, which radiation is the least penetrating in matter?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Penetration power determines shielding requirements and biological hazard profiles for different radiations. Recognizing which radiation is least penetrating guides practical safety measures and experimental setups. Given Data / Assumptions: Alpha particles are helium nuclei (2p + 2n), heavy and doubly charged. Beta particles are energetic electrons or positrons. Gamma rays and X-rays are high-energy photons. Comparisons assume similar initial energies typical of laboratory or reactor contexts. Concept / Approach: Due to their large mass and charge, alpha particles lose energy quickly through dense ionization and have very short ranges in matter (stopped by a sheet of paper or the outer dead layer of skin). Beta particles penetrate more than alphas but are stopped by thin metal or plastic. Photons (gamma and X-rays) are most penetrating, requiring dense materials (lead, concrete) for shielding. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Rank by mass/charge and interaction: α (heavy, 2+) > β (light, 1−/1+) > photons (neutral).2) Higher ionization density implies shorter range: α < β < γ/X-ray (in penetration).3) Therefore, alpha radiation is the least penetrating. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical ranges: a few centimeters in air for α; meters for γ depending on energy and shielding. Industry tables corroborate the qualitative ranking. Why Other Options Are Wrong: β, γ, and X-rays travel farther; photons are the most penetrating. Fast neutrons can be deeply penetrating and require hydrogenous shielding; not the least penetrating. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “biological hazard if ingested/inhaled” (where α can be severe) with external penetration power. Final Answer: Alpha (α) rays

Question 8

Thorium in monazite: Indian monazite beach sands typically contain approximately what percentage of thorium (as thorium-bearing minerals)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India’s thorium resources are largely found in monazite-bearing beach sands, which are strategic for the thorium fuel cycle. Knowing typical thorium content provides context for resource assessments and processing economics. Given Data / Assumptions: “Indian monazite sand” refers to placer deposits along certain coasts. Thorium content is asked as an approximate percentage, recognizing natural variability. Concept / Approach: Monazite is a phosphate mineral containing rare-earth elements and thorium. Typical thorium content for Indian monazite is on the order of ten percent by weight (often quoted near 9–10% as ThO2 equivalent), though deposits vary by location. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recall typical reported ranges for Th in Indian monazite.2) Select the closest rounded value from the options.3) Therefore, 10% is the best representative choice. Verification / Alternative check: Resource summaries and historical data commonly reference ~10% thorium in monazite concentrates, acknowledging variability across beaches and processing stages. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 25%, 60%, 90%: substantially higher than typical monazite thorium content and unrealistic as bulk sand composition. 5%: below the commonly cited rounded value for monazite concentrates in India. Common Pitfalls: Confusing raw beach sand composition with monazite mineral composition; ignoring deposit-to-deposit variability. Final Answer: 10

Question 9

Isotopic effects: hydrogen (protium) differs from deuterium primarily in which type of properties, while remaining largely similar in the others?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Isotopes of an element have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons, leading to different masses. Mass differences produce noticeable physical property changes (density, diffusion rate, boiling point) while chemical properties remain broadly similar because electron structure is the same. Given Data / Assumptions: Hydrogen (protium, ^1H) vs deuterium (^2H or D). We compare radioactive, physical, and chemical properties at ordinary conditions. Neither protium nor deuterium is radioactive; tritium (^3H) is the radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Concept / Approach: Isotopic substitution changes mass-related properties: heavier isotopes tend to have higher boiling/melting points and lower diffusion coefficients. Chemical reactivity patterns are mostly preserved but kinetic isotope effects can alter reaction rates. Since neither ^1H nor ^2H is radioactive, “radioactive properties” are not a distinguishing factor. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the defining difference: mass (1 u vs ~2 u).2) Mass differences affect physical properties (density, phase-change temps, diffusion).3) Chemical properties remain similar, aside from kinetic isotope effects.4) Therefore, the principal differences are physical, not radioactive or wholly chemical. Verification / Alternative check: Experimental data show D2O has higher boiling point and density than H2O. Reaction kinetics with C–H vs C–D bonds illustrate kinetic isotope effects without fundamentally changing qualitative chemistry. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Radioactive properties: both are stable; tritium is the radioactive isotope. Chemical properties: broadly similar; differences are secondary (kinetic), not primary. All of the above: incorrect because (a) is false. Nuclear stability only: both are stable; not a differentiator. Common Pitfalls: Assuming isotopes always have notably different chemistry; conflating deuterium with tritium. Final Answer: Physical properties

Question 10

Fuel terminology: “enriched uranium” refers to uranium in which the U-235 content has been increased to what relative level compared with natural uranium?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Natural uranium contains only about 0.71% U-235, the primary fissile isotope for most thermal reactors. Many reactor types require a higher fraction of U-235, hence the term “enriched uranium.” Given Data / Assumptions: Natural uranium composition: ~99.27% U-238, ~0.71% U-235, trace U-234. Enrichment processes increase the U-235 assay above its natural level. We use the common definitional threshold relative to natural abundance. Concept / Approach: Any uranium whose U-235 content exceeds the natural 0.71% is called “enriched.” Low-enriched uranium (LEU) generally means ≤ 20% U-235 (typical power reactors use 3–5%); high-enriched uranium (HEU) is > 20% U-235. Statements implying “only fissile” or “only fertile” are incorrect, since mixtures always remain. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Establish the natural benchmark: 0.71% U-235.2) Define enrichment: any increase above the natural benchmark.3) Therefore, “more than 0.71% U-235” defines enriched uranium. Verification / Alternative check: Fuel specifications for light-water reactors list assays around 3–5% U-235, clearly above natural levels. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only fertile or only fissile: unrealistic—mixtures persist. Impurity-free: enrichment is isotopic, not chemical purification per se. Exactly 0.71%: that is natural, not enriched. Common Pitfalls: Confusing chemical purity with isotopic composition; equating enrichment with removal of all non-fissile isotopes. Final Answer: More than 0.71% U-235

Question 11

Nuclear materials: compared with metallic nuclear fuels or structural metals, ceramic nuclear materials (e.g., UO2, BeO, SiC) characteristically exhibit which property more prominently?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ceramic nuclear materials such as uranium dioxide (UO2), beryllia (BeO), alumina (Al2O3), silicon carbide (SiC), and zirconia (ZrO2) are widely used as fuels, coatings, and accident-tolerant claddings. Comparing their bulk properties with metallic nuclear materials (e.g., uranium metal, stainless steels, zirconium alloys) helps explain why reactors prefer ceramics for fuels while relying on metals for cladding and structures. Given Data / Assumptions: “Ceramic” refers to refractory, ionic/covalent compounds typically hard and brittle. “Metallic nuclear materials” refers to fuel metals (U, Pu) and structural alloys (Zircaloy, austenitic steels). We compare generic property trends important to reactor service. Concept / Approach: Ceramics usually have very high melting points and good chemical stability, making them dimensionally stable at reactor temperatures. Metals, while ductile and tough, soften at elevated temperature and often melt far below ceramic fuels. Ceramics also generally resist aqueous corrosion and radiolysis better than many metals, although they have lower thermal conductivity than most metals and are brittle. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify key distinguishing properties: melting point, corrosion behavior, radiation stability, thermal conductivity, and high-temperature strength.Ceramics (e.g., UO2) melt well above 2700 °C; metals used in reactor cores melt far lower (e.g., Zr ~1850 °C, steels ~1400–1500 °C, uranium metal ~1130 °C).Ceramics typically maintain stiffness at high temperature but are brittle; “low strength at high temperature” is not generically correct compared to metals that lose strength as temperature rises.Radiation: many ceramics tolerate displacement damage without catastrophic creep or swelling; “greater susceptibility” is not generally true.Corrosion: oxide ceramics are often more chemically inert than metals in water/steam; “poorer corrosion resistance” is incorrect.Thermal conductivity: most ceramics (UO2, ZrO2, Al2O3) have lower conductivity than metals; “much higher thermal conductivity” is wrong. Verification / Alternative check: Fuel choice illustrates the trend: UO2 is favored over uranium metal primarily for its high melting point and better dimensional/chemical stability despite its modest thermal conductivity. Accident-tolerant fuel claddings increasingly consider ceramics/ceramic composites for similar reasons. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lower strength at high temperature: metals typically lose strength faster; ceramics retain stiffness but are brittle. Greater radiation damage: many ceramics are comparatively radiation-resistant. Poorer corrosion resistance: oxide ceramics resist corrosion well in many coolants. Much higher thermal conductivity: opposite—metals conduct heat better. Common Pitfalls: Equating brittleness with low high-temperature capability; assuming the fuel must be metallic for good heat removal despite high ceramic melting points. Final Answer: Higher melting points

Question 12

Fast breeder reactors: which material is used as the principal fissile fuel in the core?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Fast breeder reactors (FBRs) operate with a fast-neutron spectrum and are designed to produce more fissile material than they consume by converting fertile isotopes (typically U-238) into fissile isotopes (such as Pu-239). Understanding the choice of core fuel clarifies how breeding and high power density are achieved. Given Data / Assumptions: Core operates without a moderator (or with minimal moderation) to maintain fast neutrons. Blanket contains fertile material (often U-238) for breeding. Coolant commonly a liquid metal (e.g., sodium) to preserve a fast spectrum. Concept / Approach: Plutonium-239 has favorable fission cross-sections in a fast spectrum and is typically the primary fissile in FBR cores, often as mixed-oxide fuel (MOX: PuO2-UO2). The surrounding blanket of U-238 captures fast neutrons to create additional plutonium, enabling a breeding ratio above one. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify which isotopes fission efficiently with fast neutrons: Pu-239 is well suited.Recognize common core fuel forms: MOX with significant plutonium content.Eliminate options not serving as primary fissile in FBRs (radium is non-fissile, neptunium is not standard core fuel, thorium is fertile not fissile).Select plutonium. Verification / Alternative check: Historical and contemporary FBR programs (e.g., BN-series, Phénix, Monju, PFBR) rely on plutonium-bearing fuels to achieve fast-spectrum performance and breeding. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Uranium alone: Low-enriched uranium is optimized for thermal reactors, not fast cores without plutonium makeup. Radium: Not a reactor fuel. Neptunium: Can be transmuted but is not the standard FBR fissile base. Thorium: Fertile (breeds to U-233) but not fissile itself. Common Pitfalls: Confusing fertile with fissile materials; assuming fast reactors mirror thermal reactor fuel choices. Final Answer: Plutonium

Question 13

Nuclear safety systems: the “safety” (shutdown) rods inserted during upsets such as earthquakes are commonly made from which strong neutron absorbers?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Reactor shutdown systems must rapidly terminate the chain reaction under abnormal conditions (e.g., seismic events). Control and safety rods achieve negative reactivity insertion by absorbing neutrons efficiently. Material selection centers on elements with high neutron capture cross-sections and adequate mechanical/chemical compatibility. Given Data / Assumptions: Control/safety rods must insert promptly and withstand radiation and temperature. Materials should have high thermal neutron absorption and acceptable structural properties. Common rod materials: boron (as B4C) and cadmium, sometimes hafnium, silver-indium-cadmium alloys. Concept / Approach: Boron-10 and cadmium isotopes have large capture cross-sections for thermal neutrons, making them ideal for scram systems. Zircaloy and structural steels are preferred for cladding/structures due to low absorption; using them as absorbers would be ineffective. Step-by-Step Solution: List candidate absorbers and their cross-sections.Match to widely used control-rod compositions: B4C pellets, cadmium sheets, or Ag-In-Cd alloys.Select “boron or cadmium.” Verification / Alternative check: Reactor handbooks and vendor specs consistently show B4C and cadmium as proven absorber media for shutdown rods. Why Other Options Are Wrong: High-carbon steel, molybdenum, Zircaloy: structural materials with relatively low absorption; unsuitable as primary absorbers. Copper-nickel: not used for control rods. Common Pitfalls: Confusing cladding/guide tube alloys (low absorption) with absorber media (high absorption). Final Answer: Boron or cadmium

Question 14

Thermophysical property: heavy water (D2O) exhibits its maximum density at approximately what temperature (°C)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Like ordinary water (H2O), heavy water (D2O) displays an anomalous density behavior with a temperature of maximum density (TMD). Understanding the shifted TMD in D2O is useful for reactor thermal-hydraulics and moderator performance analysis in heavy-water systems. Given Data / Assumptions: Heavy water replaces hydrogen with deuterium, doubling hydrogen’s mass. We seek the temperature at which D2O reaches peak density at 1 atm. Comparative reference: H2O has TMD near 4 °C. Concept / Approach: Isotopic substitution alters vibrational modes and hydrogen bonding, shifting thermophysical properties. For D2O the TMD is higher than for H2O because heavier deuterons modify the balance of thermal expansion and hydrogen-bond network restructuring. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall: H2O TMD ≈ 4 °C.For D2O the TMD shifts upward; standard property tables list ≈ 11.6 °C.Select 11.6 °C from the options. Verification / Alternative check: Moderator handbooks for CANDU-type reactors and thermophysical databases report D2O density maximum close to 11.6 °C at 1 bar, confirming the value. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4 °C: value for H2O, not D2O. 0 °C: freezing point, not TMD. 18.6 °C and 25.0 °C: typical room-temperature vicinity; density is already decreasing with temperature. Common Pitfalls: Assuming D2O mirrors all properties of H2O; overlooking isotopic effects on hydrogen bonding. Final Answer: 11.6

Question 15

Nuclear vocabulary: atoms of different elements having the same value of (mass number − atomic number) are called what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Several “iso-” terms distinguish nuclear relationships: isotopes, isobars, isotones, and nuclear isomers. Knowing which quantity remains the same in each category is a common exam check that prevents confusion when analyzing decay chains and nuclear reactions. Given Data / Assumptions: Mass number A = protons + neutrons. Atomic number Z = number of protons. A − Z = number of neutrons N. Concept / Approach: If two or more atoms have the same value of A − Z, they have the same neutron count N, regardless of Z. The term for nuclides with equal neutron numbers is “isotones.” In contrast, isotopes share Z, isobars share A, and isomers share A and Z but differ in nuclear energy (metastable states). Step-by-Step Solution: Translate the condition “same (A − Z)” to “same N.”Recall definitions: isotopes (same Z), isobars (same A), isotones (same N), isomers (same A and Z but excited state).Pick “Isotones.” Verification / Alternative check: Example: 14C (Z=6, N=8) and 15N (Z=7, N=8) are isotones because both have eight neutrons though A and Z differ. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Isomers: same A and Z, different nuclear energy states. Isotopes: same Z but different N (not fixed A − Z). Isobars: same A, not same A − Z. Isoelectronic: same electrons for ions/molecules; atomic electrons, not nuclear. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “isobars” (A same) with “isotones” (N same); overlooking that A − Z equals neutron count. Final Answer: Isotones

Question 16

Nuclear plant siting: which single factor is generally the most decisive practical criterion when selecting a site for a nuclear power station?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Nuclear power stations reject large amounts of low-grade heat to the environment. Continuous access to a substantial cooling-water source is essential for condenser operation, thermal efficiency, and passive safety margins during transients. While many siting constraints exist (seismicity, emergency planning, grid access), abundant cooling water is a ubiquitous, non-negotiable requirement. Given Data / Assumptions: Condenser-cooled steam cycle with large circulating-water demand. Regulatory constraints on seismic and population criteria are satisfied at candidate sites. Comparison seeks the most decisive practical criterion among listed options. Concept / Approach: The thermodynamic cycle requires massive, reliable heat rejection. River, lake, or coastal sites are favored to ensure continuous cooling even in drought. Other factors (seismic hazard, remoteness) are critical go/no-go constraints, but numerous locations can meet them; few inland sites offer year-round high-flow cooling with environmental compliance, making water availability frequently decisive. Step-by-Step Solution: List critical siting needs: cooling water, seismic/soil stability, grid proximity, environmental and emergency planning.Identify the factor most universally required for day-to-day operation: cooling water.Select option emphasizing “abundant and reliable availability.” Verification / Alternative check: Globally, many nuclear stations are sited on coasts or large rivers to secure condenser cooling capacity and ultimate heat sink access, reflecting the primacy of water supply. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Zero seismic risk: Practically unattainable; design codes handle bounded seismic risk. Maximum remoteness: Balanced with grid access, workforce, and logistics. Fuel proximity: Fuel is infrequent, centralized logistics; not decisive. Highest demand: Grid connects generation to load centers; not a site prerequisite. Common Pitfalls: Focusing solely on seismicity/evacuation without acknowledging the continuous operational necessity of cooling water. Final Answer: Abundant and reliable availability of cooling water

Question 17

Natural occurrence: the proportion of heavy water (D2O) naturally present in ordinary water is closest to which percentage?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ordinary water contains a small fraction of molecules in which deuterium replaces protium, forming heavy water (D2O) or semi-heavy water (HDO). Quantifying this natural abundance underpins heavy-water production processes and isotopic analyses in geoscience and biology. Given Data / Assumptions: Natural deuterium abundance in the hydrosphere is roughly 0.015–0.016% by atoms. We express the order of magnitude as a simple percentage for MCQ purposes. Temperature/salinity variations cause only small local deviations. Concept / Approach: The tiny natural deuterium content means heavy-water production requires energy-intensive separation (e.g., Girdler sulfide or distillation). The figure most commonly cited in introductory texts is about 0.015%, which sets expectations for feedstock enrichment effort. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall canonical deuterium abundance ≈ 0.015–0.016%.Map this to the options; 0.015% matches closely.Choose 0.015. Verification / Alternative check: Isotopic ratio standards (VSMOW) indicate deuterium/hydrogen ratios consistent with ~0.015% abundance, validating the chosen value. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 7.54 and 32.97: Orders of magnitude too high. 0.71: Associated with U-235 in natural uranium, not deuterium in water. 0.0015: Too low by about an order of magnitude. Common Pitfalls: Confusing U-235 abundance (0.71%) with deuterium; missing the percent versus fraction distinction. Final Answer: 0.015

Question 18

Fission likelihood: among the following nuclides, which undergoes thermal-neutron-induced fission most readily?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thermal reactors depend on nuclides with large fission cross-sections for slow (thermal) neutrons. Identifying which common actinides are fissile versus merely fertile clarifies fuel cycle choices and moderation requirements. Given Data / Assumptions: Thermal neutron spectrum considered. Standard isotopes U-235, U-238, Th-232, Pu-240 listed. “Undergoes fission easily” = large thermal fission cross-section. Concept / Approach: Fissile nuclides (e.g., U-235, Pu-239, U-233) readily fission with thermal neutrons. Fertile nuclides (U-238, Th-232) capture neutrons to become fissile isotopes but do not fission efficiently at thermal energies. Pu-240 has low thermal fission probability compared to Pu-239 and mainly undergoes capture. Step-by-Step Solution: Classify each nuclide: U-235 (fissile), U-238 (fertile), Th-232 (fertile), Pu-240 (poor thermal fissile).Pick the fissile candidate for thermal neutrons: U-235.Confirm others are not “easy” thermal fissioners. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-section tables show U-235 thermal fission cross-section orders of magnitude higher than U-238 or Th-232; Pu-240 is predominantly a capture isotope. Why Other Options Are Wrong: U-238: Primarily captures to form Pu-239. Th-232: Captures to become U-233 via Pa-233. None of these: Incorrect because U-235 is clearly fissile thermally. Pu-240: Not favored for thermal fission. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all uranium isotopes behave similarly; conflating fertile and fissile definitions. Final Answer: U-235

Question 19

Fertile-to-fissile conversion: after absorbing a neutron, thorium-232 is ultimately converted into which fissile nuclide?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thorium-based fuel cycles exploit the fertile nature of Th-232. Upon neutron capture and subsequent beta decays, thorium breeds a fissile isotope that can sustain a chain reaction in thermal spectra, offering alternative fuel-cycle pathways. Given Data / Assumptions: Single neutron capture by Th-232 followed by decay sequence. Intermediate nuclide protactinium appears temporarily. We seek the final fissile product. Concept / Approach: The chain is: Th-232 (n,γ) → Th-233 → β− → Pa-233 → β− → U-233. U-233 is fissile with thermal neutrons and is the endpoint of interest. Protactinium-233 is an intermediate that decays to U-233; it is not the long-term fuel in the closed cycle. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with Th-232 capturing a neutron to form Th-233.Th-233 beta-decays to Pa-233.Pa-233 beta-decays to U-233 (fissile).Therefore the fissile product is U-233. Verification / Alternative check: Thorium fuel-cycle studies universally denote U-233 as the target fissile isotope produced from Th-232 after two beta decays. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Thorium-233: Intermediate, not fissile endpoint. Uranium-235: Not produced directly from Th-232 capture chain. Plutonium-239: Breeding product of U-238, not thorium. Protactinium-233: Intermediate precursor, not the final fissile product. Common Pitfalls: Stopping at Pa-233 and assuming it is the fuel; confusing U-233 with U-235 pathways. Final Answer: Uranium-233

Question 20

Moderator identification: which of the following is not used as a neutron moderator in nuclear reactors?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Moderators slow fast neutrons to thermal energies to increase fission probabilities in fuels like U-235. Suitable moderators have low neutron absorption and good slowing-down power (high scattering per absorption). Distinguishing moderators from coolants and absorbers is a foundational reactor engineering skill. Given Data / Assumptions: Common moderators include light water, heavy water, graphite, and beryllium/beryllia. Some materials serve different roles (e.g., sodium is a coolant in fast reactors). Boron-bearing substances are strong absorbers and used for control/poisoning rather than moderation. Concept / Approach: A moderator should scatter efficiently while absorbing minimally. Light water, graphite, and beryllium satisfy this (with varying absorption). Molten sodium is chosen for liquid-metal cooling in fast reactors specifically to avoid moderation. Boron hydrides contain boron, a strong neutron absorber; while hydrogens can moderate, the boron presence makes such compounds unsuitable as practical moderators in power reactors. Step-by-Step Solution: List each material’s typical reactor role.Light water/graphite/beryllium: established moderators.Molten sodium: coolant in fast reactors; not a moderator.Boron hydride: absorber/poison characteristics dominate; not used as a moderator.Select the clearly correct “not a moderator”: molten sodium. Verification / Alternative check: Fast-spectrum sodium-cooled reactors avoid moderation to maintain fast neutrons; sodium’s scattering is weak and absorption is non-negligible compared to ideal moderators. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Light water: Canonical moderator in PWR/BWR. Beryllium: Effective low-absorption scatterer used in some designs and reflectors. Boron hydride: Not a moderator in practice but an absorber; included here as a distractor highlighting absorber vs moderator distinction. Graphite: Classic moderator in many designs. Common Pitfalls: Confusing coolant role (sodium) with moderation; assuming all hydrogenous compounds are good moderators despite strong absorbers like boron present. Final Answer: Molten sodium

Nuclear Power Engineering Questions