Factoring Fuel generation is nuclear energy still a viable solution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the environmental impact of nuclear power, particularly regarding CO2 emissions associated with nuclear fuel production. A European scientist argues that nuclear power is not CO2-free, highlighting that as uranium ore quality declines, CO2 emissions from fuel production will increase significantly by 2040 to 2080. In contrast, proponents of nuclear energy counter that each ton of uranium used can save substantial amounts of CO2 compared to coal, and the decline in uranium-235 concentration is a slow process over millennia. They also suggest that rising ore costs could incentivize the reprocessing of spent fuel, which could mitigate some concerns about resource depletion. Overall, the debate emphasizes the complexities of nuclear energy's carbon footprint and resource sustainability.
koab1mjr
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Hi all

I saw the posting below in regards to nuclear not being all that its cracked up to be. This is from a scientist in europe. I am intersted in rebuttals. I am pro nuke and just entering the industry but I do not have the experience to shoot this down. Fishing for comments


Post starts here
Nuclear power is not CO2 free, the plant itself is not the main source of CO2 production from Nuclear power. But the production of nuclear fuel does produce a growing amount of CO2.

In a fossile power plant the CO2 production is lineair with the amount of kWh, between 500 and 1000 gr CO2 per kWh
In a nuclear power plant the CO2 production depends on the amount of Uranium 236 in the ore. That amount is falling, so U236 in the ore means more CO2
In fact it is estimated that somewhere between 2040 to 80, the amount of CO23 from nuclear power will explode, because easy uranium ores will be used up.

By then, there is more energy needed to produce nuclear fuel that the nuclear power plant will produce with that fuel

Just study the energy balance for nuclear power


His full argument is in the note below
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Well... where to begin.
first, the carbon: http://www.science.org.au/nova/002/002key.htm
120,000 tons of coal is saved per ton of uranium used. That's 440,000 tons of CO2.
At typical burndown, "Every tonne of mined uranium used for fuel in place of coal saves the emission of 40,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide."

Second: the "falling amount of U[235] in the ore" is falling at the rates on the order of mega years, not years. For easily the next millenium, there will be ~0.77% U235 in Uranium ore.

Third: if the cost of ore increases, then reprocessing spent fuel becomes more attractive, and we start working through a 60 year inventory of burnt down fuel, typically used only 5%. This fuel is far and away the easiest way to get high grade feedstock for enrichment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top