DOCSLIB.ORG

Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options IAEA-TECDOC-1587 Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options August 2008 IAEA-TECDOC-1587 Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options August 2008 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria SPENT FUEL REPROCESSING OPTIONS IAEA, VIENNA, 2008 IAEA-TECDOC-1587 ISBN 978–92–0–103808–1 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2008 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2008 FOREWORD The IAEA continues to give a high priority to safe and effective implementation of spent fuel management. The purpose of this publication is to review current and future options for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels and the future direction of the nuclear fuel cycle most likely to achieve the objectives of assured energy supply, environmental protection, economic feasibility, and safeguards of special nuclear materials. Substantial global growth of nuclear electricity generation is expected to occur during this century, in response to environmental issues and to assure the sustainability of the electrical energy supply in both industrial and less-developed countries. This growth carries with it an increasing responsibility to ensure that nuclear fuel cycle technologies are used only for peaceful purposes. Recently, proposals have been set forth by the IAEA Director General, governments of the United States of America and Russian Federation for the internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle. These proposals entail an implied need for the development of innovative means for closure of the nuclear fuel cycle as advanced reactors (Generations III and IV) are deployed and as the quantities of material in the fuel cycle are set to increase to levels several times larger than at present. Such increases can cause stress to the international non-proliferation regime and create undue problems for nuclear waste disposal if not dealt with through open and comprehensive international collaboration. The proper management of spent fuel arising from nuclear power production is a key issue for the sustainable development of nuclear energy. While reprocessing of spent fuel was historically the favored strategy for the back end fuel cycle, in the past few decades some countries have turned to other options. Specifically some countries have adopted a direct disposal or a ‘wait and see’ strategy, partly in response to concerns such as nuclear weapons proliferation, public acceptance and economics. Some other countries have continued to develop and improve closed fuel cycle technologies. The IAEA has issued several publications in the past that provide technical information on the global status and trends in spent fuel reprocessing and associated topics, and one purpose of this present publication is to provide an update of this information. However, the scope of this publication has been significantly expanded in an attempt to make it more comprehensive by including more information on emerging technologies. A Scientific Forum on the topic “Fuel Cycle Issues and Challenges”, held during the 48th General Conference of the IAEA on 20– 22 September 2004 provided an opportunity to review and discuss several of the issues associated with spent fuel management and to provide some of the input to finalize this publication. For the preparation of this publication, a Technical Meeting (TM) was held in October 2005, preceded by a consultancy meeting in December 2004. Additional Consultancy Meetings were held in October 2006 and April 2007. The preliminary draft has subsequently been reviewed and revised several times by the contributors themselves and by other reviewers. The contributions of all who brought indispensable help in drafting and editing the publication (listed at the end of the publication) are greatly appreciated. The IAEA staff member responsible for this publication was Z. Lovasic of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology. EDITORIAL NOTE The papers in these proceedings are reproduced as submitted by the authors and have not undergone rigorous editorial review by the IAEA. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA, the governments of the nominating Member States or the nominating organizations. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. The authors are responsible for having obtained the necessary permission for the IAEA to reproduce, translate or use material from sources already protected by copyrights. CONTENTS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2 1.1. Global statistics in spent fuel management ........................................................ 2 1.2. Background of the IAEA activities in the field .................................................. 2 1.3. Scope of work..................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1. Global evolution of spent fuel management options .............................. 4 1.3.2. Technical challenges............................................................................... 9 1.3.3. Non-technical challenges...................................................................... 10 2. REPROCESSING OPTIONS FOR SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT .......................... 10 2.1. Historical background and current status of reprocessing options in industrial scale.............................................................................................. 10 2.2. Prospects for advanced fuel cycle strategies .................................................... 12 2.3. Advanced reprocessing options........................................................................ 13 3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D) IN SUPPORT OF ADVANCED REPROCESSING OPTIONS.................................................................. 25 3.1. Major actinides separation technologies........................................................... 25 3.1.1. R&D on Hydrometallurgical processes (Aqueous technologies) in some countries .................................................................................. 25 3.1.2. Pyrometallurgical processes (non aqueous technologies, the “dry route”) ..................................................................................... 27 3.1.3. Exploratory R&D on non- aqueous innovative processes .................... 27 3.1.4. Status of R&D on non aqueous processes by fuel type ........................ 28 3.2. Minor actinides separation................................................................................ 32 3.2.1. Aqueous processes................................................................................ 32 3.2.2. Non-aqueous processes......................................................................... 34 3.3. Group actinide separation technologies............................................................ 35 3.4. Fission and activation products separation technologies.................................. 41 3.5. Alternative routes to transmutation: conditioning in an inert matrix ............... 42 4. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES RELATED TO SPENT FUEL REPROCESSING...... 43 4.1. Resources management and economics ........................................................... 44 4.1.1. Basic economic principles (adopted from INPRO methodology)........ 47 4.1.2. Economic analysis and comparison...................................................... 47 4.1.3. Cost categories...................................................................................... 49 4.1.4. Factors affecting economics ................................................................. 51 4.2. Proliferation risk reduction............................................................................... 51 4.2.1. General background of proliferation issues .......................................... 52 4.2.2. Proliferation assessment methodology ................................................. 53 4.3. Physical protection ........................................................................................... 55 4.4. Environmental impact issues ............................................................................ 55 4.5. International safety standards ........................................................................... 56 4.6. Public acceptance ............................................................................................. 55 4.7. Modeling tools.................................................................................................. 57 4.7.1. International Atomic Energy Agency................................................... 57 4.7.2. OECD/NEA .......................................................................................... 58 4.7.3. Dynamic Model of Nuclear Development (DYMOND) ...................... 58 4.7.4. AFCI Module........................................................................................ 59 4.7.5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to GE Hitachi
    Overview of ABWR Safety Features INPRO Dialogue Forum November 19-23, 2013 J. Alan Beard Principal Engineer Copyright 2013 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, LLC - All rights reserved GE Hitachi nuclear alliance and businesses Wilmington, NC Tokyo, Japan Wilmington, NC Wilmington, NC Peterborough, ON USA USA Yokosuka, Japan Canada •Nuclear Power Plants: ABWR, •Uranium •Nuclear Fuel Fabrication ESBWR and PRISM Enrichment ….BWR and CANDU •Nuclear Services … Third •CANDU Services •Advanced Programs … Generation •Fuel Engineering and Support Recycling Technology Services •GENUSA European Fuel Joint Venture Copyright 2013 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, LLC - All rights reserved 2 BWR legacy around the world Dodewaard - Netherlands KKM - Switzerland K6/K7 - Japan Dresden 1 – USA KRB - Germany Lungmen - Taiwan Santa María de Garoña - Spain Vallecitos – USA Garigliano - Italy Laguna Verde - Mexico Tarapur 1&2 – India Copyright 2013 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, LLC - All rights reserved 3 Recent project experience Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6/7 ABWR COD 1996/1997 Hamaoka-5 ABWR COD 2005 Shika-2 ABWR Continuously building for 58 years COD 2006 Images copyright TEPCO, Hokuriku Electric Power, Chugoku Electric Power, and J-Power; Provided by Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy Copyright 2013 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, LLC - All rights reserved 4 Current project status Ohma ABWR Ohma 1 • 38% complete Shimane 3 • 94% complete Under Construction • Approaching fuel load Shimane-3 ABWR Lungmen 1&2 • 94% complete • Startup and Pre-Op
    [Show full text]
  • Overview on RRSF Reprocessing, from Spent Fuel Transportation to Vitrified Residues Storage
    TH RERTR 2015 – 36 INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON REDUCED ENRICHMENT FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS OCTOBER 11‐14, 2015 THE PLAZA HOTEL SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Overview on RRSF reprocessing, from spent fuel transportation to vitrified residues storage J.F. VALERY, X. DOMINGO, P. LANDAU AREVA NC, 1 place Jean Millier, 92084 Paris La Défense Cedex – France M. LAUNEY, P. DESCHAMPS, C. PECHARD AREVA NC La Hague, 50440 Beaumont-Hague – France V. LALOY, M. KALIFA AREVA TN, 1 Rue des Hérons, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux – France ABSTRACT AREVA has long experience in transportation and industrial-scale reprocessing of RR UAl spent fuel. Over 23 tons of RR UAl type fuels have been reprocessed at AREVA’s facilities in France, both in Marcoule and La Hague plants. Furthermore, More than 100 RR fuels transportations per year are carried out by AREVA (for fresh and spent fuels). Benefiting from its past experience, AREVA proposes to detail in pictures all the stages of a (Research Reactor Spent Fuel) RRSF reprocessing from its evacuation from reactor site to its corresponding post- reprocessing vitrified waste production and management. In order to comply with its customers growing needs in terms of RRSF management, AREVA is also developing new RRSF reprocessing capacities in the La Hague UP2-800 facility based on the same process principles. This new TCP facility is planned to reprocess several types of RRSF including both UAl and U3Si2 RRSF. 1. Introduction Reprocessing is one of the today-available options for managing back-end of Research Reactor fuel cycle. As described in figure 1 below, this solution offers to RR: - Non-proliferation: reducing 235U enrichment of RRSF from 20-93% to below 2%, - Final waste management optimization: standardizing final waste package and reducing volume and radio-toxicity, removing IAEA safeguards on final waste, - Sustainability of RRSF back-end management: long-lasting solution, re-use of valuable material for civilian purposes i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Society of Chemistry Input to the Ad Hoc Nuclear
    ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY INPUT TO THE AD HOC NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) was pleased to hear of the instigation of the Ad Hoc Nuclear Research and Development Advisory Board (the Board) following the findings of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry ‘Nuclear Research and Development Capabilities’.1,2 The RSC is the largest organisation in Europe for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of 47,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, its activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public. This document represents the views of the RSC. The RSC has a duty under its Royal Charter "to serve the public interest" by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and it is in this spirit that this submission is made. To provide input to the Board the RSC has performed a wide consultation with the chemical science community, including members of both our Radiochemistry and Energy Sector Interest Groups and also our Environment Sustainability and Energy Division. September 2012 The Role of Chemistry in a Civil Nuclear Strategy 1 Introduction Chemistry and chemical knowledge is essential in nuclear power generation and nuclear waste management. It is essential that a UK civil nuclear strategy recognises the crucial role that chemistry plays, both in research and innovation and in the development of a strong skills pipeline. As the RSC previously articulated in our response to the House of Lords Inquiry, 3 nuclear power is an important component of our current energy mix.
    [Show full text]
  • Depleted Uranium Technical Brief
    Disclaimer - For assistance accessing this document or additional information,please contact radiation.questions@epa.gov. Depleted Uranium Technical Brief United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA-402-R-06-011 Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 December 2006 Depleted Uranium Technical Brief EPA 402-R-06-011 December 2006 Project Officer Brian Littleton U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation Protection Division ii iii FOREWARD The Depleted Uranium Technical Brief is designed to convey available information and knowledge about depleted uranium to EPA Remedial Project Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, contractors, and other Agency managers involved with the remediation of sites contaminated with this material. It addresses relative questions regarding the chemical and radiological health concerns involved with depleted uranium in the environment. This technical brief was developed to address the common misconception that depleted uranium represents only a radiological health hazard. It provides accepted data and references to additional sources for both the radiological and chemical characteristics, health risk as well as references for both the monitoring and measurement and applicable treatment techniques for depleted uranium. Please Note: This document has been changed from the original publication dated December 2006. This version corrects references in Appendix 1 that improperly identified the content of Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. The document also clarifies the content of Appendix 4. iv Acknowledgments This technical bulletin is based, in part, on an engineering bulletin that was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), with the assistance of Trinity Engineering Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Fuel Reprocessing
    Spent Fuel Reprocessing Robert Jubin Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is undertaken for several reasons. These include (1) recovery of the valuable fissile constituents (primarily 235U and plutonium) for subsequent reuse in recycle fuel; (2) reduction in the volume of high-level waste (HLW) that must be placed in a geologic repository; and (3) recovery of special isotopes. There are two broad approaches to reprocessing: aqueous and electrochemical. This portion of the course will only address the aqueous methods. Aqueous reprocessing involves the application of mechanical and chemical processing steps to separate, recover, purify, and convert the constituents in the used fuel for subsequent use or disposal. Other major support systems include chemical recycle and waste handling (solid, HLW, low-level liquid waste (LLLW), and gaseous waste). The primary steps are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Aqueous Reprocessing Block Diagram. Head-End Processes Mechanical Preparations The head end of a reprocessing plant is mechanically intensive. Fuel assemblies weighing ~0.5 MT must be moved from a storage facility, may undergo some degree of disassembly, and then be sheared or chopped and/or de-clad. The typical head-end process is shown in Figure 2. In the case of light water reactor (LWR) fuel assemblies, the end sections are removed and disposed of as waste. The fuel bundle containing the individual fuel pins can be further disassembled or sheared whole into segments that are suitable for subsequent processing. During shearing, some fraction of the radioactive gases and non- radioactive decay product gases will be released into the off-gas systems, which are designed to recover these and other emissions to meet regulatory release limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Solvent Extraction Process for Group Actinide Recovery from Used Nuclear Fuel
    THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Development of a Solvent Extraction Process for Group Actinide Recovery from Used Nuclear Fuel EMMA H. K. ANEHEIM Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden, 2012 Development of a Solvent Extraction Process for Group Actinide Recovery from Used Nuclear Fuel EMMA H. K. ANEHEIM ISBN 978-91-7385-751-2 © EMMA H. K. ANEHEIM, 2012. Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers tekniska högskola Ny serie Nr 3432 ISSN 0346-718X Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Sweden Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 1000 Cover: Radiotoxicity as a function of time for the once through fuel cycle (left) compared to one P&T cycle using the GANEX process (right) (efficiencies: partitioning from Table 5.5.4, transmutation: 99.9%). Calculations performed using RadTox [HOL12]. Chalmers Reproservice Gothenburg, Sweden 2012 Development of a Solvent Extraction Process for Group Actinide Recovery from Used Nuclear Fuel EMMA H. K. ANEHEIM Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Chalmers University of Technology Abstract When uranium is used as fuel in nuclear reactors it both undergoes neutron induced fission as well as neutron capture. Through successive neutron capture and beta decay transuranic elements such as neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium are produced in substantial amounts. These radioactive elements are mostly long-lived and contribute to a large portion of the long term radiotoxicity of the used nuclear fuel. This radiotoxicity is what makes it necessary to isolate the used fuel for more than 100,000 years in a final repository in order to avoid harm to the biosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand
    A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix
    Re-examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix T. E. G. Nicholasa,∗, T. P. Davisb, F. Federicia, J. E. Lelandc, B. S. Patela, C. Vincentd, S. H. Warda a York Plasma Institute, Department of Physics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK b Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PH c Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GJ, UK d Centre for Advanced Instrumentation, Department of Physics, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LS, UK Abstract Fusion energy is often regarded as a long-term solution to the world's energy needs. However, even after solving the critical research challenges, engineer- ing and materials science will still impose significant constraints on the char- acteristics of a fusion power plant. Meanwhile, the global energy grid must transition to low-carbon sources by 2050 to prevent the worst effects of climate change. We review three factors affecting fusion's future trajectory: (1) the sig- nificant drop in the price of renewable energy, (2) the intermittency of renewable sources and implications for future energy grids, and (3) the recent proposition of intermediate-level nuclear waste as a product of fusion. Within the scenario assumed by our premises, we find that while there remains a clear motivation to develop fusion power plants, this motivation is likely weakened by the time they become available. We also conclude that most current fusion reactor designs do not take these factors into account and, to increase market penetration, fu- sion research should consider relaxed nuclear waste design criteria, raw material availability constraints and load-following designs with pulsed operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Museums Visit More Than 80 Million Visitors, 1/3 of Who Are Visitors Under 18
    Moscow 4 There are more than 3000 museums (and about 72 000 museum workers) in Russian Moscow region 92 Federation, not including school and company museums. Every year Russian museums visit more than 80 million visitors, 1/3 of who are visitors under 18 There are about 650 individual and institutional members in ICOM Russia. During two last St. Petersburg 117 years ICOM Russia membership was rapidly increasing more than 20% (or about 100 new members) a year Northwestern region 160 You will find the information aboutICOM Russia members in this book. All members (individual and institutional) are divided in two big groups – Museums which are institutional members of ICOM or are represented by individual members and Organizations. All the museums in this book are distributed by regional principle. Organizations are structured in profile groups Central region 192 Volga river region 224 Many thanks to all the museums who offered their help and assistance in the making of this collection South of Russia 258 Special thanks to Urals 270 Museum creation and consulting Culture heritage security in Russia with 3M(tm)Novec(tm)1230 Siberia and Far East 284 © ICOM Russia, 2012 Organizations 322 © K. Novokhatko, A. Gnedovsky, N. Kazantseva, O. Guzewska – compiling, translation, editing, 2012 icom.russia@gmail.com www.icom.org.ru © Leo Tolstoy museum-estate “Yasnaya Polyana”, design, 2012 Moscow MOSCOW A. N. SCRiAbiN MEMORiAl Capital of Russia. Major political, economic, cultural, scientific, religious, financial, educational, and transportation center of Russia and the continent MUSEUM Highlights: First reference to Moscow dates from 1147 when Moscow was already a pretty big town.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Nuclear Reactor Development
    THREE-AGENCE STUDY IAEA INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR REACTOR DEVELOPMENT Opportunities for International Co-operation Profil couleur : Generic CMYK printer profile - None Composite Trame par dØfaut INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY 9, rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris, cedex 15, France The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It autonomous body which was established in received its present designation on 20th April November 1974 within the framework of the 1972, when Japan became its first non-European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and full Member. NEA membership today consists of Development (OECD) to implement an inter- 28 OECD Member countries: Australia, Austria, national energy programme. Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, It carries out a comprehensive programme of Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, energy co-operation among twenty-six* of the Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, OECD’s thirty Member countries. The basic aims of the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of the IEA are: Korea, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. • to maintain and improve systems for coping The Commission of the European Communities also with oil supply disruptions; takes part in the work of the Agency. • to promote rational energy policies in a global The mission of the NEA is: context through co-operative relations
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Chemistry Card Sort
    Nuclear Chemistry Card Sort Submitted by: Annette Gillespie, Ashely Gilomen, Sarah Johnson, and Stephanie Kimberlin Appalachian Regional Commission/Oak Ridge National Laboratory Summer Math-Science-Technology Institute Grade: 9-12 Lesson Duration: 45-60 minutes Materials Needed: • Media for Venn Diagram (e.g., poster board, white board, butcher paper, electronic devices) • One copy of the list of nuclear chemistry concepts/nuclear chemistry concept cards provided in this lesson plan • Envelope for storing cut-up list/cards Background Information: Students should be able to describe the basic structure of an atom and have a basic understanding of nuclear notation. Lesson Objective: Students will be able to • Describe the basic principles of nuclear chemistry. • Discern between diagrams and representations of nuclear equations and processes. • Use context clues to correctly categorize nuclear events. Instructional Process: All informative resources should be made available to the students so they can categorize the concepts (e.g., notes, text books, Internet). This lesson is best suited as an introduction activity for the beginning of the nuclear chemistry unit and/or as a review activity at the end of the nuclear chemistry unit. Students should be organized into groups of 3-4 to complete this activity. Each student group should create and label a three-circle Venn diagram on the teacher-designated media. (Refer to the examples provided in figure 1 and at the end of this lesson plan.) Each group should receive one copy of the list of nuclear chemistry concepts/nuclear chemistry concept cards, which they will cut up into individual cards. Once students have their diagrams drawn and cards cut out, they should place the nuclear chemistry concepts cards into one of three categories on the diagram: fission, fusion, or nuclear decay.
    [Show full text]