3 ms·
You haven't understood his post, he is correct under worst-case scenario for nuclear -> once through fuel cycle achieves 5% burnup, that's 4 million MJ/KG, or
by ClumsyPilot 4y ago
You haven't understood his post, he is correct under worst-case scenario for nuclear -> once through fuel cycle achieves 5% burnup, that's 4 million MJ/KG, or roughly 60MWd/kg
Enrichment requires that we throw away most of uranium as depleted uranium, that's what he means by "7.4:1 tails/fuel ratio"
That's gives us ~20 years of power at 1KW, but we have are converting to electricity, so it really only gives us 6 years or so.
The main flaw with his argument is, in my understanding, he assumes a once-through fuel cycle, whereas France and others reprocess nuclear fuel. It also discards reactors that work on un-encirched uranium like CANDU.
I am not sure about the ores, but I am greatfull for the detailed writeup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
- Schroedingersat 4y agoReprocessing doesn't turn fertile material into fissile. It mostly just costs money and pours more fission products into the nearest body of water than Fukushim released. It also extracts the dregs of Pu239 and U235 to get another 5-15% of final energy out. CANDU + reprocessing is a bit better than a PWR, but still significantly under 2x the energy in the original U235. Closed fuel cycles are a myth so there is no need to specify 'once through'.