It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That depends on the fuel and a measure called "burn-up" which measures how much of the fuel can be "burned" by the time it is "spent". Here are some ranges for burn-up:
originally posted by: Hyperboles
Ques:
How does the mass of a spent nuclear fuel rod compare to that of a new one?
An issue in operating reactors and hence specifying the fuel for them is fuel burn-up. This is measured in gigawatt-days (thermal) per tonne and its potential is proportional to the level of enrichment. Hitherto a limiting factor has been the physical robustness of fuel assemblies, and hence burn-up levels of about 40 GWd/t have required only around 4% enrichment. But with better equipment and fuel assemblies, 55 GWd/t is possible (with 5% enrichment), and 70 GWd/t is in sight, though this would require 6% enrichment.
Consumption of a 3000MWth (~1000MWe) reactor (12-months fuel cycle)
It is an illustrative example, following data do not correspond to any reactor design.
Typical reactor may contain about 165 tonnes of fuel (including structural material)
Typical reactor may contain about 100 tonnes of enriched uranium (i.e. about 113 tonnes of uranium dioxide).
This fuel is loaded within, for example, 157 fuel assemblies composed of over 45,000 fuel rods.
A common fuel assembly contain energy for approximately 4 years of operation at full power.
Therefore about one quarter of the core is yearly removed to spent fuel pool (i.e. about 40 fuel assemblies), while the remainder is rearranged to a location in the core better suited to its remaining level of enrichment (see Power Distribution).
The removed fuel (spent nuclear fuel) still contains about 96% of reusable material (it must be removed due to decreasing kind of an assembly).
Annual natural uranium consumption of this reactor is about 250 tonnes of natural uranium (to produce of about 25 tonnes of enriched uranium).
Annual enriched uranium consumption of this reactor is about 25 tonnes of enriched uranium.
Annual fissile material consumption of this reactor is about 1 005 kg.
Annual matter consumption of this reactor is about 1.051 kg.
But it corresponds to about 3 200 000 tons of coal burned in coal-fired power plant per year.
ah ok. thanks. so 1 kg of u 238 when weighed on a weighing scale shows 1 kg, but the mass is much higher? how do you substitute that higher mass in the actual mass energy equivalence equation?
originally posted by: ErosA433
It isn't that the protons, neutrons and electrons don't exit anymore there are several processes going on.
1) Nuclear binding energy release, by splitting an atom, you reduce the required binding energy and this energy takes up a mass-energy equivalence while an atom is bound, when it is broken in half (in the case of U238 fission) energy is released and the mass of the constituents parts is less of that of the original Uranium. This mass deficit is released as energy.
It isn't that those particles don't exist anymore, it is the binding energy that is released.
2) Some of the neutrons will escape the reactor
3) Some of the resulting neutrons will produce neutrinos, these will escape the reactor, they have very small mass, but you loose that mass regardless.
That's not what Eros said at all.
originally posted by: Hyperboles
ah ok. thanks. so 1 kg of u 238 when weighed on a weighing scale shows 1 kg, but the mass is much higher? how do you substitute that higher mass in the actual mass energy equivalence equation?
originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur
of what kind or form is this kinetic energy/ and or binding energy, meaning mechanical, electromagnetic or some other exotic form ?
The strong interaction is the strong interaction. It's not electromagnetic interaction, it's not the weak interaction, and it's not gravitational interaction, the other three types of interactions.
originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: ErosA433
Ok thanks. tho this strong force is kind of mechanical, so how can it be kinetic energy, which requires fluctuation of the mechanical force. and how is it that it reflects on the weighing scale? Mass energy equivalence is more or less a latent energy.
Let's agree on what kinetic energy is first. Let's do a calculation of kinetic energy based on that definition.
originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur
kinetic energy is when something moves of if stationary any forces emanating or acting fluctuate. meaning wrt time. so how does a stationary atoms nucleus posses any kind of kinetic energy?
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Do colors as we perceive them (what you see when you experience red, or blue) actually exist (as the red you see) in nature; or does it only exist physiologically, psychologically, concious-chemically in living creatures heads?
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: moebius
Ok, so in other words, nature is in black and white..or grey? And all colors are produced only by the mixing of em frequencies? Or do you have to say colors are produced by the organization of atoms, which produce the frequencies?