How much heat can radionuclides in HLNW generate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joknhial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat
AI Thread Summary
The United Kingdom has 120 tons of nuclear waste, and there is interest in identifying the predominant radionuclides, their decay modes, half-lives, and decay heat emissions. A proposal was made to utilize nuclear waste for energy generation by passing a volatile liquid through an irradiated chamber to harness decay heat. However, experts note that while the concept is intriguing, it may not be economically viable, as similar ideas have been explored without success. The decay heat from nuclear waste decreases significantly over time, making it insufficient for large-scale energy production. Overall, the feasibility of generating surplus energy from nuclear waste remains questionable due to economic and technical challenges.
joknhial
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
The united kingdom has a 120 tons of nuclear waste, i have no idea which radionuclides constitute the largest portion, i want to know this. furthermore, if you can find which radionuclide it is, can you please tell me the decay mode it uses, its half life, and if it emits any decay heat. Thank you very much in advance. I know I don't live in the UK, but the UK has the largest civilian reserves for radioactive substances, hence the the reference. I'm thinking of devising a method, where nuclear waste is used to generate surplus energy. you send a highly volatile yet abundant liquid such as dry cleaner fluid or previously heated water ( has a lower boiling point) through a beta or alpha irradiated chamber with radionuclides that produce vast of amounts decay heat, in the range of 200 mega watts. this heated liquid will spin a turbine, generating electricity.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Thread moved to nuclear engineering forum.

We have some nuclear engineers here who can probably answer the specifics. But my gut tells me that while it's a nice idea, but an obvious one and so if it were economical it would already be done.
 
russ_watters said:
Thread moved to nuclear engineering forum.

We have some nuclear engineers here who can probably answer the specifics. But my gut tells me that while it's a nice idea, but an obvious one and so if it were economical it would already be done.
Hi, thanks for the quick reply, i was also thinking of that, it is a very simple idea indeed, however i have not taken the economical dimensions into my consideration. it would be great to hear back from some nuclear engineers.
 
This has been studied multiple times, and it is too expensive. Nuclear reactors are designed in the GW-range for a good reason, 200 MW thermal (where does that number come from?) wouldn't allow to sell enough electricity to make it worth building a power plant.
 
The decay heat decreases rapidly once the reactor is shut down. For a typical commercial power reactor here's a breakdown showing how the decay power reduces over time. This is the decay power, as a percent of the steady-state operating power of the reactor:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & second & 6.599\\
1 & hour & 1.454\\
1 & day & 0.625\\
1 & month & 0.182\\
1 & year & 0.040\\
3 & year & 0.013
\end{pmatrix}$$
So for a typical 3400 MW core, the decay power 3 years after shutdown is only ~450 kW.
 
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...
Back
Top