Most people know that nuclear reactors exist around the world, but few people know how they work. I looked into it and was very surprised to know that the reactors simply create fission in Uranium-235, use the heat generated to turn water into steam and use it to turn a turbine. (very primitive)

 

What i really don't get why they don't use the gamma radiation for power as well. when a gamma ray interacts with an electron, it causes it to separate from the atom. why don't scientist use these electrons to create additional power?

it`s been done, although I`m not sure about using Gamma, I don`t think it`s suitable.

 

lookup Betavoltaics

Not very efficient and costly when compared to the amount of energy you get out.

Most f the energy released in fission is forms other than gammas, an making gammas interact where you want them to would be exceedingly difficult to do efficiently.

It would be costly and unreliable. Photovoltaics are somewhat sensitive, and they would have to be located very near the core and subjected to heavy radiation. Even if the cell survived the radiation, it would become radioactive and contribute to the plant's radioactive waste. If the cell was damaged due to radiation, it would have to be replaced by robots because humans can't go so close to the core.

a thermopile can be used also, but again that`s not Direct Gamma radiation to electricity, but rather heat radiation to electricity.

it just skips over the Steam and Turbine bits.

humans can't go so close to the core.

 

How close are you talking? Inside the reactor vessel?

IIRC, I think the Wigner effect would ruin the PV cells very quickly (and most other delicate apparatus).

How close are you talking? Inside the reactor vessel?

 

Close enough that there the radiation is at about full strength. Otherwise there wouldn't be any sense in putting a photovoltaic or other direct radiation-to-electricity device.

There's a reason we use TWO shields. You could totally place such a device outside of the primary shield. Sure it will be less efficient, but the ease in maintenance would win. Which would a company choose, cheaper(and longer lasting) or more efficient but shorter lived with more expensive maintenance?

Which would a company choose, cheaper(and longer lasting) or more efficient but shorter lived with more expensive maintenance?

 

I think that, as Klaynos mentioned, the time and money that would go into such a activity would probably outweight the benefit of the extra electricity generated.

Although there could be cheaper technologies out there which could make this kind of thing viable for companies to use.