Amount of energy generated from fusion

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the mass of fuel required for a hypothetical fusion reactor to generate electricity for Australia, based on a given energy consumption figure. The subject area includes concepts from nuclear physics and energy conversion, specifically focusing on fusion reactions and mass-energy equivalence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods to calculate the mass of fuel needed, questioning the logic behind dividing energy by a percentage of the speed of light squared. There is discussion about the implications of efficiency in the energy conversion process and the accuracy of energy conversion factors.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants examining various interpretations of the problem and the arithmetic processes involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the division by c² and the implications of efficiency, but no consensus has been reached on the most intuitive approach to the solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential discrepancies in the conversion of energy units and question the assumptions made in the problem setup, particularly regarding the efficiency of the fusion process.

Phys12
Messages
351
Reaction score
42

Homework Statement


Assuming that we could generate Australia's electricity from a fusion reactor, that converted hydrogen to iron and turned the energy into electricity with 100% efficiency, what mass of fuel would it use per year? You may assume that this fusion reaction converts 1% of the mass into energy. Australia uses 225 billion kilo-watt hours of electricity per year which is 8.2*10^17 Joules.

Homework Equations


E=mc^2

The Attempt at a Solution


m = (8.2*10^17)/c^2
=> m = 10 kg (approx.)
Since the fusion converts only 1% mass into energy, I multiply the result by 100 to get 1000 kg.

While my answer is within the margin of error (the real answer is 900 kg.), my way of going about solving the problem might be wrong as the answer given is:
"Divide the energy by 1% of the speed of light squared, to get the mass needed."

What I don't understand is: why would we want to divide it by 1% the speed of light? What's the logic behind that? We obviously are not changing the speed of light, just reducing the efficiency, so, wouldn't increasing the total energy required (as I did) be a more logical approach?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Phys12 said:
why would we want to divide it by 1% the speed of light?
It is strangely worded, but if we read it as "divide by 1% of ((speed of light)2), that is the same as dividing by c2 to get the mass lost, and then multiplying by 100 to get the total mass of fuel, as you did.
One source of discrepancy is that the conversion from kWh to J that they provided is not quite right, but it's only a 1.25% error. But you seem to have made a larger error in your division by c2.
 
haruspex said:
It is strangely worded, but if we read it as "divide by 1% of ((speed of light)2), that is the same as dividing by c2 to get the mass lost, and then multiplying by 100 to get the total mass of fuel, as you did.
One source of discrepancy is that the conversion from kWh to J that they provided is not quite right, but it's only a 1.25% error. But you seem to have made a larger error in your division by c2.
My error comes from dividing 8.2 by 3 * 3. I divided them both to get one, while now that I actually do the division, my answer is coming to 911 which is much closer to 900 than my previous answer of 1000 was. And from your comment, doesn't my way of solving seem more intuitive since we apply that 1% error in the entire energy and not in the speed of light?
 
Phys12 said:
911 which is much closer to 900
If you ignore the given 8.2 and start from the 225 bn kWh you will get even closer to 900.
Phys12 said:
doesn't my way of solving seem more intuitive
It's hard to say what their way of solving it was. They specify an arithmetic process, but not the logic behind it.
 
haruspex said:
It's hard to say what their way of solving it was. They specify an arithmetic process, but not the logic behind it.

Exactly! So I suppose I'll stick to my logic and understand the solution that way, cool?
 
Phys12 said:
Exactly! So I suppose I'll stick to my logic and understand the solution that way, cool?
Sure.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Phys12

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
10K