Earth's Reactor Core - Why Greenies need nuclear power!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-23 07:49:43

Did anyone notice the cover story in the August 2002 edition of "Discover" magazine?
According to geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon, Earth started life with a core of uranium 8 miles in diameter. In the past 4.5 billion years that enormous natural fission reactor has used up most of its fuel, and the uranium core is now only 5 miles across. (A reduction in volume of 75%.)
Calculations reveal that Earth's volcanism over the eons would require production of 4 terawatts of power from somewhere. According to Herndon, that's just about what his giant nuclear reactor would provide.
He explains the excess heat production of planets like Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune by proposing similar nuclear-powered energy sources at their cores. And his theory helps to explain strong evidence that our Moon still has a molten interior, though it is a small body and should have lost its internal heat long ago.
For the full story, go to the August 2002 issue at this site

This theory is not universally accepted yet, by any means. But it may end up like Wegener's theory of continental drift - laughed at for a while, and then embraced as the corner stone of modern geology
What excites me about the whole thing is the possibility, if it proves correct for Earth, that Mars too might have an active fission reactor at its core. Although Mars, like Luna, was assumed to have lost most of its internal heat because of its relatively small size, recent discoveries appear to contradict this assumption.
Mars is very likely still geothermally active. And those lovely big volcanoes might be belching CO2 and water vapour into the Martian air any time now!! .... Thickening the atmosphere and making our Terraforming job so much easier!

Mark S · 2002-09-23 21:49:54

I read the article and I'm quite intrigued. As you can probably tell, I'm enamored by all things nuclear, and this new theory is no exception. It leaves open the possibility, I guess, of using the earth's core to meet our future energy needs. It also does a lot to explain the nature of planetary magnetic fields (and why Mars is lacking one.)

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-24 06:31:51

Hi Mark!
I may be wrong, but I infer from your last comment, about Mars, that you think it either never had a reactor, or its reactor shut down a long time ago(? ).
I suppose that this new theory, inasmuch as it predicts a shorter volcanic future for Earth than the reigning theory does, would seem to offer less hope for a currently geologically active Mars. Assuming, that is, that Mars, being smaller than Earth, started out with less uranium in the first place.
But does it have to be that way? The evidence seems ambiguous to me.
Mars has no significant global magnetic field today, that's true. But the evidence for quite extensive volcanic activity within the last few million years is very strong. In fact, there is evidence for geologically recent volcanism on a scale big enough to flood an area the size of Canada with lava! And some flows could have occurred as recently as 10 million years ago or less (- a geologist talks about 10 million years ago the way we talk about last weekend! ).
So with all that volcanism, on such a small planet, there must presumably be a powerful heat source still functioning inside Mars. According to Herndon, the perfect candidate for such a heat source, would probably be (perhaps HAVE to be) a nuclear furnace at the core.
So where's the magnetic field that goes with it?
I have an idea which might explain it. What if Mars DOES have a nuclear reactor at its core, but it was never as big as Earth's. It may be that such a reactor would 'poison' itself with fission products more quickly due to the smaller volume of uranium. And, in the lesser gravity of Mars, those products would tend to float to the outer core more slowly. Thus, the periodic and natural shutting down of the fission process, which we experience here on Earth as magnetic pole reversals, would occur more often and last longer on Mars.
Is it not possible, or even probable, in such a scenario, that we have arrived at Mars (with our instruments at least) in the middle of a magnetic field shut-down?

I have been trying to find maps of known lava fields on Mars, particularly more recent ones, and detailed maps of remnant crustal magnetic fields. (No luck so far.) I've been thinking that it might be interesting to see if any of the maps 'overlap', i.e. whether any of the recent lava flows exhibit 'frozen' magnetic fields. If any correlations could be found, it would prove that Mars is still capable of generating a global magnetic field, though perhaps only sporadically.

I would be interested to hear any opinions and/or criticisms of my line of reasoning.

Mark S · 2002-09-24 14:40:08

Your theory sounds good to me. Of course, we'll need to put humans there to test it out.

Phobos · 2002-09-24 21:30:06

According to geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon, Earth started life with a core of uranium 8 miles in diameter. In the past 4.5 billion years that enormous natural fission reactor has used up most of its fuel, and the uranium core is now only 5 miles across. (A reduction in volume of 75%.)

Damn, that's a big chunk of uranium. I wish people would start to entertain the idea of switching to a hydrogen power base that would use a *small* number of nuclear power plants to extract the hydrogen we need. Of course big oil lobbies and environmentalists will both cry bloody murder at such a thought, but I believe it's a solution to our energy and environmental problems. It's better than turning the clock back to the stone age at least like many of the hardcore "environmentalists" want us to.

I have an idea which might explain it. What if Mars DOES have a nuclear reactor at its core, but it was never as big as Earth's. It may be that such a reactor would 'poison' itself with fission products more quickly due to the smaller volume of uranium. And, in the lesser gravity of Mars, those products would tend to float to the outer core more slowly. Thus, the periodic and natural shutting down of the fission process, which we experience here on Earth as magnetic pole reversals, would occur more often and last longer on Mars.
Is it not possible, or even probable, in such a scenario, that we have arrived at Mars (with our instruments at least) in the middle of a magnetic field shut-down?

Impressive theory! I wonder how else you could test it. If we could take cores of Martian regolith and look for tell tale signs of magnetic reversals (I believe they do this on Earth somehow by checking the polarity and alignment of certain minerals) maybe we could ascertain how long ago Mars had a magnetic field. If it had one fairly recently, then your fission idea might be an explanation for why it "died" so recently. Of course I'm no geologist so everything I just wrote might be total crap, but it might work.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-23 07:49:43

Re: Earth's Reactor Core - Why Greenies need nuclear power!

#2 2002-09-23 21:49:54

Re: Earth's Reactor Core - Why Greenies need nuclear power!

#3 2002-09-24 06:31:51

Re: Earth's Reactor Core - Why Greenies need nuclear power!

#4 2002-09-24 14:40:08

Re: Earth's Reactor Core - Why Greenies need nuclear power!

#5 2002-09-24 21:30:06

Re: Earth's Reactor Core - Why Greenies need nuclear power!

Board footer