What Is The Efficiency Of a Nuclear Reactor In terms Of Mass Conversion To energy?

Answer 1

It's 100% efficient. From the reference: "The total rest masses of the fission products (Mp) from a single reaction is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus (M). The excess mass Δm = M - Mp is the invariant mass of the energy that is released as photons (gamma rays) and kinetic energy of the fission fragments, according to the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc²."

As others noted, the process of converting that into electrical energy is around 30-35% efficient.

With a chemical reaction, you're not really converting matter to energy. You're just playing around with molecular binding energies. You may burn coal (combine carbon with oxygen) to release energy, but you used earlier photosynthesis to separate them.

Answer 2

Very inefficient. About two percent (2%). All that is being done is that the fission reaction is being used to produce heat to make hot water under pressure to turn a turbine. The turbines are about 11 percent efficient, and they are the most efficient part of the system.

It's not like the properties of a nuclear reaction are being used to convert mass directly into energy, as in subatomic particle theory. It's a very clunky process in real life.

That's why power companies stopped building them: they simply don't produce enough power to be profitable. There is some current talk about building some more, but it will not happen any time soon. Not until they can figure out some way to make it profitable.

Answer 3

In terms of before and after masses and the resulting conversion losses in the turbines it has not changed in many years. I seem to recall its well over 80% and much better than any petroleum engine based generator.

Answer 4

the biggest situation with the flexibility situation is that issues ARE controlled by OPEC AND the vast 5 oil organizations! they like to maintain expenses severe so as that they have a great earnings, yet no longer too severe that individuals will prepare conservation or seek for options. With all the mild, flowing water, and wind in this u . s ., there in no way grow to be a reason to burn oil to generate electricity. yet, so some distance as i comprehend, Obama-orama has NO PLAN for ability. yet one extra reason to decide for McCain in '08!!!

Answer 5

Its about 33%(Carnot Cycle). Most of the heat is lost to the condenser(Sea or river water). There is a bit of improvement to about 34-35% when we use feedwater reheaters(ECONOMISERS). A good idea would be to use the low grade heat to produce fuel .eg Making hydrogen.
To answer your question only about 33% ends up being converted to electricity.