Fuel usage (referred to as 'burnup') in a nuclear reactor is generally quoted in units of Megawatt.days per tonne (metric ton = 1000kg). For typical lightwater reactors it is 40,000 MWd/T, after that the fuel is discharged, though it is not possible to ensure that all the fuel reaches this level before discharge. Anyway, taking 40,000 MWd/T as the figure, this means that for 50 kg which is 1/20 of a tonne, the energy produced will be 2,000 MWd. Note this is for typical fuel at about 4 to 5 percent U-235. It is only the U-235 that contributes but the weight of the fuel is taken as the total weight of uranium. The energy figure given is the thermal energy produced by the reactor, not the electrical energy produced which is about 1/3 of this, the rest being rejected to ambient.
These days, after 50 years of nuclear power, it is pretty routine, the scientific input is not much. Scientists are still involved in experimenting with different types of reactor and with nuclear fusion, to some extent with extending the life of plants and fuel used in them, and with waste from spent fuel.
The amount of energy you end up with will still be fifty joules because energy is conserved. If the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, the total energy remains constant.
Wave energy has considerable potential to generate electricity, with an estimated global resource of over 2 terawatts. However, the actual amount of energy that can be produced depends on factors such as wave height, frequency, and technology efficiency. Some wave energy projects have demonstrated the ability to generate up to several megawatts of power.
It seems like "energy extra 50" could be referring to an additional 50 units of energy above a standard amount. This could mean an increase in energy reserves or capacity for a system, device, or individual.
50 units = (0.55) x (the input)Divide each side of the equation by 0.55 :50 units/0.55 = (the input) = 90.91 units (rounded)
Helium-4 can be a product of fusion. Hydrogen-1 cannot be produced by fusion. The uranium isotopes were probably produced by fusion in some star, long ago, and possibly not as uranium, but as something that decayed into uranium. I suppose it would be possible to produce the uranium isotopes in a lab by fusion, but I cannot imagine anyone do so, unless it was to prove a point.
As much as 50% of energy produced in reactions between nucleons and antinucleons is carried away by neutrinos in these applications. It is theoretically possible to retain as much as 100% of the energy in an Antimatter reaction.
Approx. 40 000-50 000 t.
50%
Coal
50% energy
These days, after 50 years of nuclear power, it is pretty routine, the scientific input is not much. Scientists are still involved in experimenting with different types of reactor and with nuclear fusion, to some extent with extending the life of plants and fuel used in them, and with waste from spent fuel.
This is difficult to decide I think. It has been available for 50 years now - does that make it conventional? It is a well established and reliable energy source.
Cca. 50 kg of highly enriched uranium. Now nuclear bombs use plutonium, not uranium.
There were 4 small magnox reactors there, it was known as Calder Hall when it was built in the mid 50's. Each reactor produced 50 MWe. They are now all shutdown permanently.
The common estimate is that there is 50 times the energy reserves in Uranium as in fossil fuels. A common estimate is that we could run out of fossil fuels in 40 years. Therefore one can predict running out of Uranium in 50 * 40 years, or 2000 years.However this is assuming use of only reactors operating on thermal neutrons, which can burn only the uranium-235 isotope. But this is only 0.72% of natural Uranium. Use of fast breeder reactors which can make and burn Plutonium from the uranium-238 making up the other 99.28%, the reserves can be extended by about a factor of 100. In this case the Uranium will not run out for 200,000 years!
Well yes, it wouldn't be worth building a nuclear plant otherwise. Of course the construction with a lot of highly expensive engineering features does cost a lot, compared with a natural gas plant, but the fuel costs once it is built are much lower, so it's best to run a nuclear plant continuously at full power. 'Making the energy' doesn't mean much, as the energy comes from uranium that occurs on earth naturally, we don't make it, though the uranium has to be mined refined and enriched which all uses energy. The structures of the plant in terms of steel, concrete, etc also consume a lot of energy to make them, but once the plant is built it will produce a lot of energy for perhaps 50-60 years. I don't have an energy balance to present to you, but certainly the energy produced over the plant's life will far exceed what is used in building it and the energy used to make the fuel.