Part A: Basic Nuclear Concepts and Calculations

1. NU235=(2)e(-.693*4.5X10^9)/7.10*10^8=-4.455
NU238=(100)e(-.693*4.5X10^9)/4.5X10^9=-.693
Now to find the ratio: -4.445/-.693=6.43

2. 1kg235U=
1 kg x 1000g/1 kg x gmol/235g x(6.022 x 1023)atoms/gmol x 3.2 x 10-11J/atom=
8.2x 1013J/kg=8200 x 1010kJ/kg=82 TJ/kg235U
1kg CH4=
802 kJ/1 mol CH4x 1 mol CH4/16.0 g CH4= 50 kJ/g CH4x 1000 = 50,000kJ/kg CH4=50,000kJ/ 1,000,000,000kJ= 0.0005 TJ/ g CH4
82 TJ/ kg235U/0.00005 TJ/kg CH4= 1.64 x 106TJ/1

3.What is the ratio of the energy released by the fusion of 1.0 kg of hydrogen to that released by fission of 1.0 kg of Uranium-235?
Energy released by U-235 = 3.2 x 10-11J/atom x 2.56 x 1024atoms = 8.2 x 1014J/kg U-235 or 82 TJ/ kg U-235
Energy released by 1000 g of hydrogen = 1000 g H – 993 g He= 7 g of matter converted into energy using Einstein’s energy equation E = mc2.
Convert the grams to kilograms= 7 g/1000g = .007 kg = 7.0 x 10-3kg
E = (7.0 x 10-3kg) x (9.0 x 1016m2/s2) = 6.3 x 1014kg *m2/s2
The ratio of energy of U-235/H = (8.2 x 1014J/kg)/ (6.3 x 1014kg*m2/s2)
The unit kg*m2/s2= one joule so convert the ratio to this:
1 kg*m2/s2x (8.2 x 1014J) / (6.3 x 1014J) = 1.3016 J/1

Given the obvious advantage in energy production, briefly describe some of the difficulties in designing and operating a fusion power plant to explain why there are no commercial fusion power plants in operation today.
Nuclear fusion has often been hailed as the silver bullet solution to the problems that plague other sources of energy. Proponents claim it's clean, has a virtually limitless supply of hydrogen fuel that can be extracted from water, does not have the same radioactive waste issues that plague nuclear fission energy and is available on-demand, no matter the weather. That, however, does not mean that nuclear fusion is not without problems of its own.
Time
Researchers have yet to create nuclear fusion reactions that are even able to produce as much useful energy as they consume, the break-even point. Sustaining reactions that produce enough energy to make them a commercially viable power source is even further away, likely decades away.
Politics
Most research into nuclear fusion is currently funded by governments. This means it will always be at the whim of the politicians who control government spending. Construction cost overruns have placed nuclear fusion in competition with other research efforts for money in the past and it is possible that nuclear fusion could emerge the loser in that competition in the future.
Feasibility
While many scientists and researchers believe that it is possible that technology will advance to the point where nuclear fusion is able to be a commercially viable source of power, there is still a chance that further research efforts will turn up an unsolvable problem that will render nuclear fusion impractical as a source of energy.
Economics
Nuclear fusion reactions generate so much energy that they would likely require building large centralized power plants that would distribute energy out to where it is consumed, like currently exists today. It is possible that advances in various energy technology, such as wind and solar panels, will result in a system of decentralized power production. Electricity would be generated in much smaller quantities much closer to where it is consumed. If such a system were to be more efficient than a centralized system of distribution, it would render nuclear fusion an economically inferior way to produce energy. Thus, it would just not be utilized or development would be halted. http://www.ehow.com/info_8512332_disadvantages-nuclear-fusion.html 4. France:
Reactor engineering and new build
The first eight power reactors were gas-cooled, as championed by the Atomic Energy Authority (CEA), but EdF then chose pressurized water reactor (PWR) types, supported by new enrichment capacity and fully indigenous manufacturing. EdF plans for some BWR units did not proceed.
All French units (the first two derived from US Westinghouse types) are now PWRs of three standard types designed by Framatome (now AREVA): 3-loop 900 MWe (34), 4-loop 1300 MWe P4 type (20) and finally 4-loop 1450 MWe N4 type (4). This is a higher degree of standardization than anywhere else in the world. (There have been two fast reactors – Phenix which ran for over 30 years, and Super Phenix, which was commissioned but then closed for political reasons.) French development of the 4-loop 1300 MWe design flowed back to later US plants, and the 1450 MWe N4 design evolved from it.
Exports: The well-established 900 MWe PWR design was sold to several export markets: Iran (2), South Africa (2) and South Korea (2) and China (4). There are two 900 MWe French reactors operating at Koeberg, near Cape Town in South Africa, two at Hanul/Ulchin in South Korea and four at Daya Bay/Ling Ao in China, near Hong Kong. The deal with Iran collapsed politically in 1979 and the engineering components retained in France were built at Gravelines. China's CPR-1000 design is based on the four French M310 units.
French nuclear power reactors Class | Reactor | MWe net, each | Commercial operation | 900 MWe | Blayais 1-4 | 910 | 12/81, 2/83, 11/83, 10/83 | | Bugey 2-3 | 910 | 3/79, 3/79 | | Bugey 4-5 | 880 | 7/79-1/80 | | Chinon B 1-4 | 905 | 2/84, 8/84, 3/87, 4/88 | | Cruas 1-4 | 915 | 4/84, 4/85, 9/84, 2/85 | | Dampierre 1-4 | 890 | 9/80, 2/81, 5/81, 11/81 | | Fessenheim 1-2 | 880 | 12/77, 3/78 | | Gravelines B 1-4 | 910 | 11/80, 12/80, 6/81, 10/81 | | Gravelines C 5-6 | 910 | 1/85, 10/85 | | Saint-Laurent B 1-2 | 915 | 8/83, 8/83 | | Tricastin 1-4 | 915 | 12/80, 12/80, 5/81, 11/81 | 1300 MWe | Belleville 1 & 2 | 1310 | 6/88, 1/89 | | Cattenom 1-4 | 1300 | 4/87, 2/88, 2/91, 1/92 | | Flamanville 1-2 | 1330 | 12/86, 3/87 | | Golfech 1-2 | 1310 | 2/91, 3/94 | | Nogent s/Seine 1-2 | 1310 | 2/88, 5/89 | | Paluel 1-4 | 1330 | 12/85, 12/85, 2/86, 6/86 | | Penly 1-2 | 1330 | 12/90, 11/92 | | Saint-Alban 1-2 | 1335 | 5/86, 3/87 | N4 – 1450 MWe | Chooz B 1-2 | 1500 | 12/96, 1999 | | Civaux 1-2 | 1495 | 1999, 2000 | | Total (58) | 63,130 | |
Differences in net power among almost identical reactors is usually due to differences in cold sources for cooling
Framatome in conjunction with Siemens in Germany then developed theEuropean Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), based on the French N4 and the German Konvoi types, to meet the European Utility Requirements and also the US EPRI Utility Requirements. This was confirmed in 1995 as the new standard design for France and it received French design approval in 2004.
There have been two significantfast breeder reactorsin France. Near Marcoule is the 233 MWe Phenix reactor, which started operation in 1974 and was jointly owned by CEA and EdF. It was shut down for modification 1998-2003, returned at 140 MWe for six years, and ceased power generation in March 2009, though it continued in test operation and to maintain research programs by CEA until October 2009.
A second unit was Super-Phenix of 1200 MWe, which started up in 1996 but was closed down for political reasons at the end of 1998 and is now being decommissioned. The operation of Phenix is fundamental to France's research on waste disposal, particularly transmutation of actinides. See further information in R&D section below.
All but four of EdF's nuclear power plants (14 reactors) are inland, and require fresh water for cooling. Eleven of the 15 inland plants (32 reactors) have cooling towers, using evaporative cooling; the others use simply river or lake water directly. With regulatory constraints on the temperature increase in receiving waters, this means that in very hot summers generation output may be limited.
Following the Fukushima accident in 2011 the IRSN undertook a 6-month review of reactor safety. Its report, released in conjunction with ASN, proposed a new set of 'hard core' safety requirements to ensure the protection of vital safety-critical structures and equipment to ensure that vital functions can be maintained in the face of events beyond the design basis of the plant, such as earthquakes, fires, or the prolonged loss of power or emergency cooling. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/#.UnicELHnZqM France’s Energy production numbers for 2007
Demand: (Unit = Mtoe) (From all sources)
Electricity Generation2007Output shares (%)Total Losses of which:98.7
INPUT (Mtoe)137.0Coal5.0Electricity and Heat Generation 84.6
OUTPUT (Mtoe) 48.5Oil1.1Other Transformation1.6
(TWh gross) 564.4Gas3.9Own use and Losses 12.5
Nuclear 77.9Statistical Differences 0.1
Energy-related CO2 Emissions (Mt CO2) 369.3 Mt/CO2

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/france2009.pdf

Calculate the amount of CO2emissions per year, in tonnes, that are avoided by using nuclear power. Assume 900 tonnes of CO2/GWh is emitted by the average fossil fuel plant, while only 9 tonnes of CO2is emitted by the average nuclear plant.
2007 MWe Output:
Nuclear:63,310 MWe = 9 tonnes CO2/63.31 GWh = 0.1423 tonnes CO2/GWh
Fossil Fuels: total % of all listed fuels = 87.9% (output shares), balance is 12.1% from other renewable sources
Total Output = 48.5 Mtoe x .879 = 42.6315 Mtoe electricity output from listed sources above
42.6315 x .779 = 33.21 GWh from nuclear power plants
42.6315 – 33.21 = 9.422 GWh x 900 tonnes/GWh = 8,479.35 tonnes of CO2from fossil fuels

Another example is Germany.
It has a gross power production of 615X109kWh
If we convert this to GWh: 615000GWh
Listed online Germany gets 17.6% from Nuclear
57.2% from Fossil Fuels
If we assume 900 tonnes of CO2/GWh come from Fossil fuel we get:
55350000 CO2/GWh annually
If we assume 9 tonnes of CO2/GWh come from nuclear we get:
553500 CO2/GWh annually
(https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm)

5.

Part B: The “EUROSOL” Spreadsheet

1.
a. The numbers are relatively similar, although there is a decent gap between Berlin’s and Valenita’s December Radiation. | Kew | Valenita | Berlin | Total Solar Radiation | 1065 | 1159 | 1156 | Dec. Radiation | 25 | 26 | 22 |

b. Lerwick’s total incident solar radiation over the year 890 kWh/yr. December alone 7 kWh

Kew’s total incident solar radiation over the year 1065 kWh/yr. December alone 25 kWh

Carpentras’ total incident solar radiation over the year 1825 kWh/yr. December alone 81 kWh

Messina’s total incident solar radiation over the year 1800 kWh/yr. December alone 85 kWh

*Total incident solar radiation (TISL)
Yes, there is a difference in the figures for the four cities. The biggest difference would be Lerwick compared to Carpentras and Messina, 935 kWh and 910 kWh, respectively for total incident solar radiation. Kew’s TISL is 1065 kWh compared to 890kWh for Lerwick.
For December alone, Kew with 25 kWh there is a difference of 18KWh from Lerwick’s 7 kWh, Carpentras with 81 kWh with a difference of 74 kWh, and Messina with 85 kWh difference of 78 kWh. (For Lerwick comparison)
There is also a substantial difference from Kew to Carpentras and Messina, 760 kWh/yr. and 735 kWh/yr., respectively.

For December only, Kew has 25 kwh which is a difference of 56 kWh from Carpentras, and 60 kWh from Messina. Longitude seems to have the greater influence on the availability of solar radiation across Western Europe. With each decrease in longitude, the solar radiation availability seems to increase significantly. The greater the value of Latitude, the lower of value is given for Solar Radiation.

2. | Kew | Berlin | Lewick | Carpentras | Messina | Valenita | a.Degree Days | 2801 | 3377 | 4033 | 2026 | 846 | 2728 | b.Average Temp Cold | 4.2 | -0.9 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 11.4 | 6.8 | c.Average Temp Warm | 17.5 | 18.7 | 12.1 | 22.7 | 26.4 | 15.4 | d.Temp Range B vs. C | 13.3 | 19.6 | 9.2 | 17.8 | 15 | 8.6 |

e. Yes, when the above information is analyzed, it seems that the greater the Latitude, the more Degree Days there are.

3. | Table 2: | Lerwick | Valentia | Kew | Berlin | Carpentras | Messina | a) | Number of degree days/yr | 4033.5 | 2728.4 | 2801.1 | 3377.2 | 2062.6 | 845.9 | b) | Avg. Temp of coldest month C | 2.9 | 6.8 | 4.2 | -0.9 | 4.9 | 11.4 | c) | Avg Temp of warmest month C | 12.1 | 15.4 | 17.5 | 18.7 | 22.7 | 26.4 | d) | Incident Solar Radiation kWh/yr | 890.0 | 1159.0 | 1065.0 | 1156.0 | 1825.0 | 1800.0 |

From this table, we can see the differences between each of the cities in availability of solar radiation, degree-days, and average summer and winter temperatures.

In the Mid-European Coastal zone, the UK winters with are milder with modest amounts of solar radiation and mild summers than those in the Continental zone, which can have very cold winters with modest amounts of solar radiation, and hot summers. Northern European Coastal zone and the Continental zone differ in the average temperatures with the NEC zone being much colder, but still have about the same amount of solar radiation during the year.
The differences in summer and winter temperatures, also vary from each of the zones, some with bigger variations in both seasons.

The Mid-European coastal, the Continental, and Southern and Mediterranean zones might be the best places to build houses with solar space heating. These regions have somewhat fewer degree days than Lerwick, and more solar radiation for the year, so that would seem to place them in the best spots to build houses. But with any building, the amount and kinds of insulation, building materials, types of windows, and where they are positioned in relation to the Sun can all affect how well any type of heating/cooling system will work anywhere. So the best built house in Lerwick might not get lots of solar radiation, but if it is built with energy efficiency in mind, the use of passive solar heating methods and active solar heating in place, then it could easily be more energy efficient than a house in Messina, if that house isn’t built with energy efficiency in mind. Upon further review, another suggestion we have is the Continental/ Berlin region would be the “best” place for maximum solar heating. This region has the best ratio of both degree days and Total amount of solar radiation, giving a more consistent energy capturing.

5. Window energy balance | | Lerwick | Valentia | Kew | Berlin | Carpentras | Messina | Daily input solar | kWh/m2/day | 0.20 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.66 | 2.55 | 2.35 | Daily heat losses | kWh/m2/day | 1.99 | 1.51 | 1.87 | 2.51 | 1.81 | 0.72 | Daily energy balance | kWh/m2/day | -1.78 | -0.74 | -1.09 | -1.84 | 0.74 | 1.63 |

Window energy balance | | Lerwick | Valentia | Kew | Berlin | Carpentras | Messina | Daily input solar | kWh/m2/day | 0.18 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.58 | 2.22 | 2.15 | Daily heat losses | kWh/m2/day | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.12 | Daily energy balance | kWh/m2/day | -0.16 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.16 | 1.92 | 2.03 |