energy question

[agachak]

first think of normal nucklear plant and how much it produces energy?

then think of nuckealer submarine reactor and how much it produces ?

and then this why dont they use in space stations/shutles nucklear energy reactor and build it inside a freezer so it cools down

 

and if submarine nucklear reactor is efficient enough why dont use them to power up towns factories building them inside a freezer too

Edited February 16, 2013 by agachak

[ajb]

and then this why dont they use in space stations/shutles nucklear energy reactor and build it inside a freezer so it cools down

Nuclear reactors are heavy and potentially very polluting. Not really suitable for space stations, at least not in the form of a fission reactor.

 

Radioisotope thermoelectric generators are used in space probes for example. I don't think one can get a lot of power from these and so are not really useful on a space station, but are good for space probes. One also has to contend with the radio active nature of the materials used even after the life span of the device.

and if submarine nucklear reactor is efficient enough why dont use them to power up towns factories building them inside a freezer too

We do use nuclear reactors to generate the power that is distributed to homes and industry.

 

I assume you are thinking of small reactors used by private companies for their own use?

 

Safety is probably the biggest worry, but also cost.

[swansont]

You don't build reactors inside a giant freezer because the thermal energy is what you're using to boil water, make steam to drive a turbine and make electricity. You want them to be hot. Besides, where would you get the energy to run the freezer?

[agachak]

You don't build reactors inside a giant freezer because the thermal energy is what you're using to boil water, make steam to drive a turbine and make electricity. You want them to be hot. Besides, where would you get the energy to run the freezer?

u wuld get energy to freezer of course from reactor it self

[swansont]

u wuld get energy to freezer of course from reactor it self

 

You get less energy than you'd need, since both processes are far from 100% efficient. Besides, what would be the point?

[ydoaPs]

Nuclear reactors are heavy and potentially very polluting. Not really suitable for space stations, at least not in the form of a fission reactor.

Also, there'd have to be a massive redesign of the secondary plant to use a steam plant. Gravity helps a lot in everything from steam generation to condensation to net positive suction head for the pumps.

 

You don't build reactors inside a giant freezer because the thermal energy is what you're using to boil water, make steam to drive a turbine and make electricity. You want them to be hot. Besides, where would you get the energy to run the freezer?

Well, you could have electrical cooling for the condensers. It would probably still be a major energy concern considering the thermodynamic load of the vast array of condensers. And you'd still need a heat sink somewhere. The freezer thing only really uses up energy and pushes the problem back.

 

u wuld get energy to freezer of course from reactor it self

Like swansont said, there will always be losses. You can't run a generator off of a motor forever because of the same reason-energy losses.

 

and if submarine nucklear reactor is efficient enough why dont use them to power up towns factories building them inside a freezer too

Aside from the freezer bit, we actually do use nuclear plants for terrestrial energy production. Not so much in America, but France gets a large portion of their electricity via nuclear reactors.