Consumption of a nuclear reactor: Uranium VS Oil (equivalence)

Cars, buses, bicycles, electric airplanes: all electric transportation that exist. Conversion, engines and electric drives for transport ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79356
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11059

Consumption of a nuclear reactor: Uranium VS Oil (equivalence)




by Christophe » 29/12/10, 10:47

What is the mass consumption of a nuclear reactor and its mass equivalent of oil?

A) Heard in a documentary on Russian nuclear icebreakers:

300 g of Uranium equivalent to 350 Tons of diesel over 24 hours.
Real power = 75000hp.


From this we can do some checks and estimates history to have orders of magnitude in mind:

10 kWh per L of fuel oil
11.9 MWh per T of fuel oil

24h thermal power = 11.9 * 350/24 = 173.5 MW
Mechanical power at 35% efficiency = 173.5 * 0.35 = 60.7 MW = 82 hp.

However, the power is given for 75 hp, i.e. 000 kW, hence the actual efficiency = 55 / 500 = 55.5%

Ratio of the masses consumed = 1.2 million. In other words: 1 gram instead of 1.2 Tonne. It's huge".
We can clearly see the interest of uranium in the propulsion of large maritime vessels!


Thermal energy supplied by 1kg of Uranium = 11.9 * 350 / 000 = 0.3 kwh = 13 GWh
Thermal energy supplied by 1kg of fuel oil = 11.9 kWh

And obviously, we find the ratio to approximations near 14 GWh / 11.9 kWh = 1.2 million

B) Corrolary: we can estimate the uranium consumption of an electric nuclear reactor.

Mechanical power of a reactor = 1 GW
Yield = 30%
Thermal power of a reactor = 3.3 GW

Uranium consumption in kg / h for a 1GW reactor at full power = 3.3 / 14 = 236 grams.

The load factor is around 80%, we assume the constant efficiency, so we get:

Daily uranium consumption = 236 * 0.8 * 24 = 4.5 kg
Annual consumption of a 1GW reactor = 4.5 * 365 = 1.6 Tons of Uranium.

In reality in France we have reactors of 0.9GW, 1.3 GW and 1.5 GW so make the corrections: 1.44 T / year, 2.08 T / year and 2.4 T / year

Let us say, given the uncertainty on the load factor and the efficiency: 1.5, 2 and 2.5 T / year. Reactor according to the type.

The interested reader can add up the annual French consumption of uranium for the 58 reactors in operation: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ ... _en_France
(although at the moment, given the aging of the power plants, we are probably no longer at 80% annual load factor).

Please note that this is not the ultimate waste after treatment.

Read also:
Energy-Nuclear-all-your-questions t2172.html
equivalence-production-of-solar-wind power-and-nuclear-t5501.html

ps: thank you for not (too) trolling on the nuclear waste debate.
Last edited by Christophe the 30 / 07 / 15, 15: 39, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6522
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 1641




by Macro » 29/12/10, 10:55

It only remains to make micro nuclear power plants a few grams to put it in the trunk of the car Citro Citroen ... And it will be gone for millions of km ... And with the cooling water it can even heat the rind ...

No real doc Emet Brown ??? : Cheesy:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79356
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11059




by Christophe » 29/12/10, 11:00

Well if we start in science fiction: exercise of the day (I just did mine above). How many kg of uranium would have to be loaded on a new electric car so that it could cover 500 km over its lifetime.

Hypotheses:

- average mechanical consumption required for advancement: 0.2 kWh / km
- on-board reactor efficiency: 30%

ps:
No real doc Emet Brown ???

you take my words out of my mouth : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 29/12/10, 12:30

The president of Areva said:"nuclear is the oil of tomorrow".
It is clear that nuclear presents pseudo ease of functioning, which can be compared to an athlete consuming doping products: rapid and effective results, resulting from a complex science ... but with terrible consequences!

It is clear that a large number of "developing" countries choose nuclear power: Brazil, India (hence the recent presidential trip) Vietnam ... It seems to be more national arrogance (owning a nuclear reactor is a sign of power) than a real desire for energy independence (which disappears when the said reactor is operating ...)
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79356
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11059




by Christophe » 29/12/10, 14:57

The argument for energy independence is no longer valid for nuclear power. It was until the early 80s when there were still a few uranium mines in France ... cf:
https://www.econologie.com/energie-nucle ... -4034.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-france- ... t7045.html

Especially not for developing countries that outsource technology ...

The argument for nuclear power without CO2 is no longer one, it is already producing it, but above all nuclear power by fission will never represent a significant part in the global energy mix primary energy and as it is today, not tomorrow (iter, fission) that we must act against global warming ... well ... splash in the water ...

ps: the president of Areva is a ......, jpe pas la blairer ... : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 30/12/10, 01:07

She's cute? :D

http://lci.tf1.fr/science/environnement ... 97179.html

not even...

The boss of Areva, Anne insisted Friday on the fact that "none" of the two incidents that occurred in nuclear effluent treatment facilities of her group had "had an impact on the health of staff and residents ".


The Green deputies for their part called for the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry to analyze "the dysfunctions of the French nuclear industry in terms of security". And the presence in the water table near Tricastin of unexplained uranium concentration points, unrelated to the incident because they were highlighted before, also still raises many questions.

___________________________________________________

On the subject:

Quite a bit of chef’s calculations
Interesting to note the difference in energy density

But what a factory to exploit Uranium !!

AND THE Z-PINCH THEN?
https://www.econologie.com/forums/tout-savoi ... t3019.html
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79356
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11059




by Christophe » 01/06/11, 15:18

According to wiki: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

1 kg of natural uranium allows the production of approximately 500 MJ [000] in a conventional reactor, to compare with the 23 MJ obtained by 39 kg of natural gas, 1 MJ for 45 kg of oil, and 1 to 20 MJ for coal [30].


It gives a coef. about 10, very different from the 000 million given above. Factor 1 is not nothing!

Are we talking about the same type of Uranium or is there a big error in the figures I heard above?

Already there may be a gourance on the wiki figures: 45 MJ is the raw energy of oil, not what it allows to do in electricity! Unless "allows production" it is thermal energy (it is not very clear, because the production of a reactor is not thermal but electric).

But that would only change the cost. error only by a factor of 3 ... far from 100 ...
0 x
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 02/06/11, 00:21

An interesting site http://www.kernenergie.ch/fr/efficacite ... tique.html

The very high energy density of uranium

The great energy efficiency of nuclear power lies in the enormous amount of energy contained in uranium. 1 kilogram of natural uranium produces as much energy as

10 kilograms of coal
7000 kilograms of heavy oil
4900 kilograms of natural gas

This is why two fuel pellets the size of a glass bead allow a nuclear power plant to produce the amount of electricity a family needs for a whole year.


and this :
Image

if this graph is to be believed, more than 80% of the amount of primary energy used is consumed in the production of fuel !!

the problem is that these stages are ensured by fossil fuels ...

But refining by centrifugation should make it possible to divide by 50 the share of consumption this stage
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 02/06/11, 01:46

A detailed answer to verify:
http://mecano.gme.usherbrooke.ca/~mlacr ... harbon.pdf

1 kg of natural uranium ~ 23 tonnes of coal


We must not mix uranium 235 enriched at 100% and natural at 0,7% of 235, strongly disappeared since 5 billion years after the supernova which created us !! !!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
One kilogram of uranium-235 can theoretically produce about 80 terajoules of energy (8 × 1013 joules), assuming complete fission; as much energy as 3000 tonnes of coal. [5]


Otherwise, there are lots of errors on the internet !!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79356
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11059




by Christophe » 02/06/11, 07:49

Mwarf !! All these sources lead to different reports ... and not just a little !!!

On coal:

23 for dede
10 for maloche
16 to 25 for wikipedia

On diesel:

1 for Thalassa / me on the Russian nuclear ice breezes who claimed that:

300 g of Uranium equivalent to 350 Tons of diesel


Statement which seems definitely exaggerated !!

Should we conclude that nobody knows anything specifically ??? : Shock: : Cheesy:

There I want to compare the fuel of the plant, that is to say that enriched to 4% ... at least in France ...

It is perhaps from there that all the uncertainties come: 1kg of uranium enriched with 8% of fissile will have 2 times more energy (with the ladle) ...

In addition, depending on the technology of the reactor used, a more or less significant part of this fissile material may not be usable ?? Hence the uncertainties on the figures said above ....

:?:

The goal is to obtain the price of nuclear fuel (uranium at X%) relative to the thermal joules it can provide ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Electric transport: cars, bicycles, public transport, planes ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 201 guests