Archive:000/Conventional nuclear power: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:29, 26 October 2024

Currently, all of the world's nuclear power plants(...)( any exceptions are experimental and not scalable yet (as of 2024) ) run on conventional nuclear power: nuclear fission that depends heavily on uranium-235.

Scarcity of uranium-235

Major limitation

Uranium occurs naturally as a mix of two isotopes: uranium-235 (0.7%) and uranium-238 (99.3%).

uranium.reserves

8.070 million tonnes uranium_natural

Global uranium mineral reserves, measured in energy units

The calculator understands "tonnes uranium_natural" as an energy unit. It's based on the fact that natural uranium is just 0.7% uranium-235 (the isotope we extract energy from). The rest is uranium-238, which isn't useful for energy unless we use breeder reactors.

Citation:
Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand ('Red Book')
"The total recoverable identified resources to $260/kg U is 8.070 million tonnes U."

nuclear_power_plant.efficiency

33%

Electrical output divided by the heat energy of the nuclear reactor

Nuclear power plants convert heat (from uranium-235, currently) into electricity. The process is approximately 33% efficient.

Citation: Key World Energy Statistics 2020 (IEA report) - Page 73 - Glossary - Nuclear

energy.tfc

9937.70 Mtoe/year

Global energy usage - total final consumption (TFC)

Includes: fuel (80.7%) + electricity (19.3%) AFTER it is generated.

Does not include the fuel used in generating electricity. See [energy.tes] for that.

Citation: "Key World Energy Statistics 2020" IEA
- Page 47 - Simplified energy balance table - World energy balance, 2018

This is the main reason why nuclear power only provides a small fraction of the world's energy. Uranium-235 is a scarce mineral - far more scarce than fossil fuels.

If all the world's energy were to come from nuclear, we'd run out of uranium-235 in about 4 years. (see maths) years energy.tfc(calculation loading) (more)~ We'd run out even faster if all nations were developed.

~ In either case, conventional nuclear power can't really meet global energy demands. Best case, it might be sufficient for baseload electricity only (which is a smaller part of total energy demand).

Possible solutions:

Breeder reactors, to make use of uranium-238, which is over 100 times more abundant.

FAQ:

"What about obtaining uranium from seawater? I heard that's more abundant?"
- The amount of energy required to extract uranium from seawater is high. The only way to get back more energy than we put in is if we use the uranium-238 part of it. Conventional nuclear power does not.

Nuclear waste

Long-term problem

Since the reactors only make use of the uranium-235 component, the remaining matter becomes "spent fuel" and must be disposed of. This nuclear waste is still radioactive enough to cause harm to anyone exposed to it without protective equipment. It remains this way for millions of years.

Possible solutions:

Breeder reactors, which could keep obtaining energy from the spent fuel (mostly uranium-238) until there's barely any radioactive waste left at all.

Risk of meltdowns

Generally manageable

Meltdowns have happened twice in history: Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear plants have since been designed to not repeat the mistakes of the past. ^{[ELABORATION needed]} Then again, some people say there are still unknown risks. ^{[discussion needed]}

Weapons proliferation

Under control

Reactors are well designed to prevent people from stealing uranium to make thermonuclear bombs. Governments of course still have nuclear warheads, which is still a major issue in itself.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[File:Nuclear Power Plant Cattenom.jpg|thumb|Nuclear power plant]]
-Currently, all of the world's nuclear power plants{{x|any exceptions are ''experimental'' and not scaleable yet}} run on '''conventional nuclear power''': [[nuclear fission]] that depends heavily on uranium-235.
+[[Category:Energy sources]]
+Currently, all of the world's nuclear power plants{{x|any exceptions are ''experimental'' and not scalable yet (as of 2024)}} run on '''conventional nuclear power''': [[nuclear fission]] that depends heavily on uranium-235.
 {{considerations}} __NOTOC__
 ==Scarcity of uranium-235==
-{{basically|Major problem}}
+{{basically|Major limitation|bad}}
-[[File:Shinarump Mine Waste Rock.jpg|thumb|Uranium occurs naturally as a mix of two isotopes: uranium-235 (0.7%) and uranium-238 (99.3%).]]
+[[File:Shinarump Mine Waste Rock.jpg|thumb|Uranium occurs naturally as a mix of two isotopes: uranium-235 '''(0.7%)''' and uranium-238 '''(99.3%)'''.]]
 {{dp
@@ Line 40: / Line 42: @@
 }}
-This is the main reason why nuclear power only provides a '''small fraction''' of the world's [[energy]].<!-- TODO: add pie chart --> Uranium-235 is a scarce mineral - far more scarce than [[fossil fuels]].
+'''This''' is the main reason why nuclear power only provides a '''small fraction''' of the world's [[energy]].<!-- TODO: add pie chart --> Uranium-235 is a scarce mineral - far more scarce than [[fossil fuels]].
 If all the world's energy were to come from nuclear, we'd '''run out''' of uranium-235 in about '''4 years.'''
 {{p2|(see maths)|{{calc|uranium.reserves * nuclear_power_plant.efficiency|years energy.tfc|||}} }}
 {{p2|(more)|~ We'd run out even faster [[energy demand scenarios|if all nations were developed]].<br /><br />~ In either case, conventional nuclear power can't really meet global energy demands. Best case, it might be sufficient for [[baseload]] electricity only (which is a smaller part of total [[energy demand]]).}}
+<!-- TALK: There's another way this can be calculated: comparing 'uranium primary energy' vs 'fossil fuel primary energy'. Both calculations produce about the same result. It might be worth refactoring this page to include both, if it can be done in a way that doesn't make things seem more complicated for the reader. -->
 '''Possible solutions:'''
 * [[Breeder reactors]], to make use of uranium-238, which is over 100 times more abundant.
-* <small>Extracting [[uranium from seawater]]</small><sup>[unlikely to be viable]</sup>
+'''FAQ:''' <small>
+* "What about obtaining uranium from seawater? I heard that's more abundant?"
+** The amount of energy required to extract [[uranium from seawater]] is high. The only way to [[EROI|get back more energy than we put in]] is if we use the uranium-238 part of it. Conventional nuclear power does not.
+</small>
 ==Nuclear waste==
@@ Line 66: / Line 73: @@
 ==Risk of meltdowns==
 {{basically|Generally manageable}}
-{{empty}}
+Meltdowns have happened twice in history: [[Chernobyl]] and [[Fukushima]]. Nuclear plants have since been designed to not repeat the mistakes of the past. {{en}} Then again, some people say there are still unknown risks. <sup>[discussion needed]</sup>
+<!-- TODO: {{qn}}: put in perspective the number of lives lost and the amount of land lost, relative to the amount of energy generated (throughout all of history). Compare to fossil fuels etc. -->
 ==Weapons proliferation==
 {{basically|Under control}}
-{{empty}}
+Reactors are well designed to prevent people from stealing uranium to make thermonuclear bombs. Governments of course still have nuclear warheads, which is still a [[nuclear war|major issue in itself]].