|
I also like Ted's
factsheet.
However, I think the
statement about fuel consumption should be made clearer. As it is, it may
be considered as being deceiving.
Let's assume we're
talking about a 1,000 MW(e) LWR. Its thermal output is about 3,000 MW(th),
and in one year it produces about 3,000*365= 1.1*10^6 MW.d of fission
energy. If the burnup is assumed to be even 40,000 MW.d/Mg(U), the amount
of fuel going through the plant in one year is 1.1*10^6/40,000 Mg(U), ie., about
25 Mg (tons) of uranium [and, by the way, the amount of mined uranium would be
several times this amount].
No matter how much of
the uranium actually fissions, most people would consider that the plant has
consumed 25 tons of uranium. Unless the fuel coming out of the reactor is
re-used essentially right away and in an easy way (which for the most part it
isn't), it is piling up as spent fuel and most people would indeed consider that
the amount of uranium consumed is 25 tons.
Thus the statement on
fuel consumption should really say 25 tons, not 1 kg or a few kg. A
subsequent sentence could say that much of the fuel coming out of the reactor
could be recovered and eventually re-used. This way the statement is
correct all around.
My suggestion,
anyway.
Again, I like the
factsheet and think it is very useful.
Benjamin Rouben -----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cuttler [mailto:jerrycuttler@rogers.com] Sent: 2002/mm/13 5:04 PM To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail) Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly: Handout on radwaste Dear George,
The actual amount of uranium "burned" or
fissionned is only a part of the U-235 content. A very small amount
of the U-238 is transmuted into plutonium, and ~40% of that is "burned" in an
LWR. The rest of the uranium is not consumed. So that's where he
gets a kilogram. The "unburned" uranium should not be considered
waste. Future generations will likely recycle it, if we don't make it
too difficult to recover.
Jerry
|