DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplying the Nuclear Arsenal: Production Reactor Technology,Management, and Policy 1942-1992

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SUPPLYING THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL: PRODUCTION REACTOR TECHNOLOGY,MANAGEMENT, AND POLICY 1942-1992 January 1994 Rodney P. Carlisle and Joan M. Zenzen HISTORY ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED The Historic Montrose School 5721 Randolph Road Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 770-1170 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, History Division Under Contract No. DE-ACO2-91N P00092 ii Supplying the Nuclear Arsenal DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, prod- uct, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe pri- vately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Contents Preface and Acknowledgements vii Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Introduction—Beginnings and Endings xv 1 Manhattan Engineer District: Setting Up 1 Wartime Schedules . 1 The MED Culture . 3 The Physics Behind the Reactors . 7 Met Lab Organization . 10 The Manhattan District and the Du Pont Contract . 11 Stagg Field . 14 Du Pont and Chicago: the Early Relationship . 17 Site Selection: Hanford . 18 2 Building Hanford: B, D, F 21 Conceptual Design and Relations Between Contractors . 22 X-10: Reactor for the Separations Pilot Plant . 22 Environmental Impact and Mitigation . 26 The Heavy Water Alternative: Wigner vs. Du Pont . 29 Construction at Hanford . 33 Hanford Operations . 34 Reactor Cousins and Nuclear Politics . 39 3 Hanford: AEC and GE Take Over 43 Institutionalizing Control of Atomic Energy . 44 iii iv Supplying the Nuclear Arsenal General Electric Replaces Du Pont at Hanford . 50 Keeping the Piles Running . 52 Shaping Plans . 53 Problems and Solutions . 55 More Production Through Power Upgrades . 59 4 Production Reactors 65 Supplying the Super with Tritium . 69 New Reactors at a Second Site . 72 Urgent Schedules . 75 Participation in the Design Process . 77 Design Flexibility . 79 Expeditious Procedures . 83 Postponed Decisions . 85 Long-Range Concerns . 88 5 Growth of the Hanford Family 91 Korea and its Impact . 92 The New Round at Hanford . 94 Jumbo Reactors . 95 Balancing Safety with Production . 98 Thaw in the Cold War . 104 6 The Last, and Hybrid, Member of the Family 107 A New Production Reactor . 107 Policy Choices Leading to N Reactor . 110 Origins of the Dual Purpose Concept . 115 Safety and Design . 123 Final Approvals . 127 Production Reactors Up and Running . 129 7 Production Reactor Dilemma 131 The Sixties—An Age of Transformations . 131 Land Use on Wahluke Slope . 137 Reactor Risk: Theories and Practices . 138 Peaceful Uses . 144 Reactor Closings . 147 Local Pressures at Hanford . 153 Contents v Diversification Efforts . 155 Monopoly and Overproduction . 160 8 Tritium Shortfalls and Technopolitics 165 Detente Continued . 165 The Widened Political Environment . 167 Calvert Cliffs, Ralph Nader, and Three Mile Island . 170 Reports and Recommendations . 176 The L Restart Controversy . 181 Roadblocks to the Glennan Recommendations . 184 Chernobyl, N, and Congress Again . 190 Decisions . 195 9 New Production Reactors 199 The Management Culture . 199 The Navy’s Management Culture as a Source . 202 The Old Culture at DOE . 205 Specific Changes, Styles, and Management Reforms . 209 The New Culture at New Production Reactors . 211 Expert Choices Without Special Pleading . 215 The End of the Cold War; The Arms Race in Decline . 220 New Production Reactors Cancelled . 222 The Circle Closed . 224 Production Reactor Families 227 The World War II Round . 227 The Post-World War II Round . 228 The Korean War Round . 228 Dual Purpose . 229 Savannah-Little Joe Round . 229 The Korean Round at Savannah . 230 Auxiliary Reactors . 230 Chronology 233 Endnotes 243 Bibliography 287 vi Supplying the Nuclear Arsenal Preface and Acknowledgements This work results from a contract with the Department of Energy to prepare a history of production reactors. The Office of New Production Reactors (ONPR) initiated the contract and provided History Associates Incorpo- rated (HAI) with funding that allowed for a concerted research and writing effort over three years. During this period of time, HAI staff gathered copies of pertinent documents from the National Archives, the Department of Energy archives, and holdings of records at Richland, Washington, and Wilmington, Delaware. In addition, HAI researchers gathered documents from separate offices within the ONPR. Rodney Carlisle met several times with the director of the ONPR, Dr. Dominic Monetta, and his adminis- trative assistant, Michael Shapiro, together with management consultants Dr. D. Scott Sink and Dr. Harold Kurstedt from Virginia Polytechnic In- stitute. These meetings were invaluable for providing insight into current operations, management approaches, and the day-to-day decision-making process and for helping to develop a more thorough understanding of the evolution of nuclear engineering. Another meeting with Dr. Monetta’s suc- cessor, Tom Hendrickson, shed light on the transitions. The ONPR ceased operations early in 1993, and HAI completed and submitted this written history to the Department of Energy’s History Division. Both the ONPR and the History Division allowed us to shape and define the history and to interpret the facts as we saw them, providing us with suggestions for clarification. The only constraints were the length of the manuscript and the amount of time and resources we could expend. The information we uncovered could have allowed for a much more detailed vii viii Supplying the Nuclear Arsenal and lengthy treatment, but we believe we have captured here the central story of the birth, life, and death of American weapons-material production reactors. The reader will find this work, as any study of modern American gov- ernmental operations, crowded with acronyms whose presence tends to frustrate those unfamiliar with them, but without which the work would be longer. We have included as part of the front matter a complete listing of the acronyms we have used. In addition, we have provided a number of tools in the appendices which may prove useful. Appendix A is a sum- mary of the lives of the production reactor "families," whose letter designa- tions are sometimes confusing. A reference to this brief set of biographical sketches of each of the families may help place the reactors in context. The chronology, Appendix B, may also be useful in placing events bearing on the reactors against contemporary world and national events. Appendix C is a time line which shows the life spans of the reactors in contrast to each other and to a few major events. Endnotes showing sources for each chapter follow the appendices. Our bibliographic note and bibliography give further information about the sources we have used. Two short mono- graphs prepared by Rodney Carlisle for the Office of New Production Re- actors provided material on risk assessment and on the political issues of the 1980s, which we have incorporated in this work. As in any work over a period of time, the authors owe a series of intellec- tual debts to a wide range of people who assisted in the research and who provided readings of part or all of the manuscript. In our case, that debt was compounded by the fact that we worked through History Associates Incorporated, which brings a team approach to its tasks, and through the Department of Energy. Within HAI we had able research assistance from Kathryn Norseth, Teresa Lucas, Michelle Hanson, Adam Hornbuckle, Lau- rie Kehl, Jim Gilchrist, Jonathan Koenig, Greg Wright, and Eric Golightly. James Lide not only provided research but prepared an early draft of some materials incorporated in chapter 8. Readings and suggestions from Ruth Dudgeon, Ruth Harris, Brian Martin, and Richard Hewlett led to direct im- provements; production work by Gail Mathews and Darlene Wilt put the manuscript in final form. Our research at a number of facilities was assisted by the depth of knowledge of the archivists, including Marjorie Ciarlante at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; Dr. Michael Nash, Marjorie Preface ix McMinch, and Lynn Catenese at the Hagley Museum; Flo Ungefug at the Records Holding Area of the Hanford Operations Office in Richland Wash- ington; Terri Traub at the Hanford Public Reading Room; and Dr. Roger Anders at the Department of Energy in Germantown, Maryland. At the De- partment of Energy, readings and comments by Drs. B. Franklin Cooling, Roger Anders, and Terrence Fehner of the History Division sharpened and corrected a number of points in the manuscript. Jane Register and Rich Goorevich facilitated our access to personnel and files at the ONPR. We extend our thanks to all of these folk. In the Francis Parkman tradition, we also had the unique opportunity to tour three Hanford production reactors and gain immeasurable insight from seeing the control rooms, reactor faces, and other equipment. We thank Mike Berriochoa for arranging the tour, Don Lewis for sharing his expe- riences in operating B reactor during World War II, and Herb Debban for showing us the remarkable differences between the earlier Hanford reac- tors and the N. As to our co-authorship, a few words are appropriate. Although common in many disciplines, a team approach and co-authorship is relatively rare in the historical profession. We used this situation to advantage, trading ideas on how to interpret the sources and develop themes. Dr. Rodney Carlisle took the lead in writing on this project, and Ms. Joan Zenzen supervised the various research assistants, organized the voluminous files collected, and directly authored two chapters of the final manuscript.
Recommended publications
  • Wahlen, R. K. History of 100-B Area

    Wahlen, R. K. History of 100-B Area

    WHC-EP-0273 History of 100-B Area R. K. Wahlen Date Published October 1989 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Management and Administration w Westinghouse P.O. Box 1970 0- Hanford mpany Richland, Washington &I352 Hanford Operations and Engineering Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO6-87RLlOg30 WHC-EP-0273 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt that informed him of the work that had been done by Enrico Fermi and L. Szilard on converting energy from the element uranium. He also informed President Roosevelt that there was strong evidence that the Germans were also working on this same development. This letter initiated a program by the United States to develop an atomic bomb. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Department of Defense, was assigned the task. The program, which involved several locations in the United States, was given the code name, Manhattan Project. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont) was contracted to build and operate the reactors and chemical separations plants for the production of plutonium. On December 14, 1942, officials of Du Pont met in Wilmington, Delaware, to develop a set of criteria for the selection of a site for the reactors and separations plants. The basic criteria specified four requirements: (1) a large supply of clean water, (2) a large supply of electricity, (3) a large area with low population density, and (4) an area that would cover at least 12 by 16 mi.
  • The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest

    The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF D. Erik Ellis for the degree of Master of Science in History of Science, presented on December 17,2002. Title: The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest. 1943 to 1965. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: William G. Robbins The scientific endeavors that took place at Hanford Engineer Works, beginning in World War II and continuing thereafter, are often overlooked in the literature on the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission, and in regional histories. To historians of science, Hanford is described as an industrial facility that illustrates the perceived differences between academic scientists on the one hand and industrial scientists and engineers on the other. To historians of the West such as Gerald Nash, Richard White, and Patricia Limerick, Hanford has functioned as an example of the West's transformation during in World War II, the role of science in this transformation, and the recurring impacts of industrialization on the western landscape. This thesis describes the establishment and gradual expansion of a multi-disciplinary research program at Hanford whose purpose was to assess and manage the biological and environmental effects of plutonium production. By drawing attention to biological research, an area in which Hanford scientists gained distinction by the mid 1950s, this study explains the relative obscurity of Hanford's scientific research in relation to the prominent, physics- dominated national laboratories of the Atomic Energy Commission. By the mid 1960s, with growing public concern over radiation exposure and changes in the government's funding patterns for science, Hanford's ecologically relevant research provided a recognizable and valuable identity for the newly independent, regionally-based research laboratory.
  • Hanford B Reactor and Beyond

    Hanford B Reactor and Beyond

    How DOE and the Tri Cities Community are Working to Redefine Hanford’s Post‐Cleanup Future Colleen French DOE Richland Operations Office Government Programs Manager Hanford • Hanford was created in 1943 as part of the top secret Manhattan Project • 586 square miles • Production of plutonium increased during Cold War (peaking between 1959‐1965) • Hanford produced 2/3 of the nation’s plutonium between 1945‐1985 • Home to the first full‐scale nuclear producon reactor ― B Reactor Complex during operations (1940s‐1960s) the B Reactor, now a National Historic Landmark 2 The Hanford Site • Fuel fabrication and irradiation in nuclear reactors along the Columbia River • Chemical separations in canyon facilities to dissolve fuel and extract plutonium in the Central Plateau • Liquid and solid wastes disposed of in Central Plateau • Eventually, 9 reactors were built and Hanford operated for defense production through 1988 3 Hanford Cleanup Overview Two Department of Energy Offices Office of River Protection • Tank Waste Richland Operations Office • River Corridor • Central Plateau Cleanup Work • Treat contaminated groundwater • Demolish facilities • Move buried waste, contaminated soil away from Columbia River • Isolate contamination from environment on Central Plateau • Treat underground tank waste Workforce • 8,500 total Department of Energy and contractor employees 4 www.em.doe.gov HANFORD SITE CLEANUP 859 waste sites BY THE NUMBERS have been remediated SIX of Hanford’s nine reactors have been “cocooned” 12K cubic meters of underground waste have been removed more reactors will be TWO cocooned in the coming years 49K visitors have toured the B Reactor percent of the site’s spent National Historic fuel has been moved to dry Landmark 100 storage 10 billion gallons of buildings have been demolished contaminated 743 groundwater have been treated 5 What are Hanford’s “Assets”? 6 Hanford Site Post 2015 Cleanup Controlled Access Vision for Access and Use to Some of the Cleaned-up River Shoreline Natural Resource Preservation 1.
  • HEAVY WATER and NONPROLIFERATION Topical Report

    HEAVY WATER and NONPROLIFERATION Topical Report

    HEAVY WATER AND NONPROLIFERATION Topical Report by MARVIN M. MILLER MIT Energy Laboratory Report No. MIT-EL 80-009 May 1980 COO-4571-6 MIT-EL 80-009 HEAVY WATER AND NONPROLIFERATION Topical Report Marvin M. Miller Energy Laboratory and Department of Nuclear Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 May 1980 Prepared For THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UNDER CONTRACT NO. EN-77-S-02-4571.A000 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. A B S T R A C T The following report is a study of various aspects of the relationship between heavy water and the development of the civilian and military uses of atomic energy. It begins with a historical sketch which traces the heavy water storyfrom its discovery by Harold Urey in 1932 through its coming of age from scientific curiosity to strategic nuclear material at the eve of World War II and finally into the post-war period, where the military and civilian strands have some- times seemed inextricably entangled. The report next assesses the nonproliferation implications of the use of heavy water- moderated power reactors; several different reactor types are discussed, but the focus in on the natural uranium, on- power fueled, pressure tube reactor developed in Canada, the CANDU.
  • Testimony of L Wayne,D Dupont,B Norton,M Kaku,M Pulido, R Kohn

    Testimony of L Wayne,D Dupont,B Norton,M Kaku,M Pulido, R Kohn

    _ _ __ l I - PA N E L- [ " * u hv/s3 | CNEMICAI, REACTIONS I | Introduction 1. In 1957,~a very serious fire occurred at a non-power reactor located at Vindscale, England. Although the reactor was a production reactor, it had a number of sinhities to the UCIA reacter-- fuel containing uranium metal clad in aluminum, with a graphite moderator / reflector, and normal operation at relatively low temperatures, which permitted build-up of stored "Vigner" energy in the graphite. Release of that r stored energy contributed to the cause of the fire, which resulted in extensive daanse and 20,000 curies of iodine-131 being released to the environment. Milk contaminated with I-131 had to be disposed of in an area of 200 square miles around the reactor because of the accident. , l 2 In 1960, the UCIA Argonaut-type reactor began operation. Its Hasards Analysis did not addrissa Vigner energy storage, and a brief paragraph ; dismissed the potential for fire largely based on the assertion that | "none of the anterials of construction of the reactor are infh==mble." (p.62) 3. As the Windacale fire showed, and as shall be discussed in detail below, that assertion is dangerously untrue.* The graphite can burns i the uranium metal can burns the angnesium can burns even the aluminum ' under sono circumstances will burn. And ignoring Vigner energy can like- vise be dangerous. 4 It has further been asserted that the only chemical reaction of signif- icance to be considered for the UCIA reactor is a water reaction with aluminum, and that aluminum weald have to be in the form of metal filings | for such a reaction to occur.
  • Norman Hilberry' Dr

    Norman Hilberry' Dr

    Norman Hilberry' Dr. Norman Hilberry, now retired, was formerly director of Argonne Na tional Laboratory, one of the principal research and development centers in the field of nuclear science and engineering in the United States. The Laboratory is operated by the University of Chicago for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commis sion. Dr. Hilberry's association with the nuclear energy program began late in 1941 when, as personal aide, he joined Dr. A. H. Compton who had just been designated as project director for the Metallurgical Project, later known as the Plutonium Project. In this capacity Dr. Hilberry was associated with the group under Fermi which first achieved a self sustaining, controlled nuclear chain re action on December 2, 1942. As associate project director of the Metallurgical Project, he acted as the project office's representative at Clinton Laboratories during the start-up of the X-10 reactor in the Fall of 1943. Starting in the summer of 1944 he served ( again in his capacity as associate project director) as head of the resident project group which provided the official liaison between the DuPont organization and the Metallurgical Project during the start-up of the production facilities at the Hanford Engineer Works. With the successful operation of Hanford an accomplished fact, Dr. Hilberry returned to the Metallurgical Project office during the winter of 1945. After Dr. Compton's move to St. Louis as Chancellor of Washington University in July, 1945, he took over the closing out of the affairs of the central project office. Dur ing this period he assisted the Manhattan District of the U.
  • Evaluation of Covert Plutonium Production from Unconventional Uranium Sources

    Evaluation of Covert Plutonium Production from Unconventional Uranium Sources

    International Journal of Nuclear Security Volume 2 Number 3 Article 7 12-31-2016 Evaluation Of Covert Plutonium Production From Unconventional Uranium Sources Ondrej Chvala University of Tennessee Steven Skutnik University of Tennessee Tyrone Christopher Harris University of Tennessee Emily Anne Frame University of Tennessee Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Engineering Education Commons, International Relations Commons, National Security Law Commons, Nuclear Commons, Nuclear Engineering Commons, Radiochemistry Commons, and the Training and Development Commons Recommended Citation Chvala, Ondrej; Skutnik, Steven; Harris, Tyrone Christopher; and Frame, Emily Anne (2016) "Evaluation Of Covert Plutonium Production From Unconventional Uranium Sources," International Journal of Nuclear Security: Vol. 2: No. 3, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7290/v7rb72j5 Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns/vol2/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Nuclear Security by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns. Chvala et al.: Evaluation Of Covert Plutonium Production From Unconventional Uranium Sources International Journal of Nuclear Security, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2016 Evaluation of Covert Plutonium Production from Unconventional Uranium Sources Tyrone Harris, Ondrej Chvala, Steven E. Skutnik, and Emily Frame University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of Nuclear Engineering, USA Abstract The potential for a relatively non-advanced nation to covertly acquire a significant quantity of weapons- grade plutonium using a gas-cooled, natural uranium-fueled reactor based on relatively primitive early published designs is evaluated in this article.
  • Monica Mwanje on How Inclusion and Diversity Will Shape the Future of the Industry

    Monica Mwanje on How Inclusion and Diversity Will Shape the Future of the Industry

    www.nuclearinst.com The professional journal of the Nuclear Institute Vol. 16 #6 u November/December 2020 u ISSN 1745 2058 Monica Mwanje on how inclusion and diversity will shape the future of the industry BRANCH The latest updates from your region ROBOT WARS The future of contamination testing YGN Staying connected in a virtual world FOCUS ANALYSIS NET ZERO Why glossy marketing won’t New capabilities in radioactive Could nuclear-produced fix the gender diversity materials research hydrogen be the answer problem to climate change? u Network u Learn u Contribute u CNL oers exciting opportunities in the burgeoning nuclear and environmental clean-up eld. CNL’s Chalk River campus is undergoing a major transformation that requires highly skilled engineers, scientists and technologists making a dierence in the protection of our environment and safe management of wastes. PRESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVE 4 Gwen Parry-Jones on building a new normal NEWS, COLUMNS & INSIGHT 6-7 News 23 8-9 Branch news 10-11 BIG PICTURE: Robot Wars 12 Letters to the Editor 13 BY THE NUMBERS: Russia’s nuclear plans 14-15 MEMBER VALUE: Supporting diversity 18 News 19 Supply chains in the nuclear industry FEATURES 20-22 FOCUS: Fixing the gender diversity problem – by Jill Partington of Assystem 23-25 ANALYSIS: New capabilities in radioactive material research - by Malcolm J Joyce, Chris Grovenor and Francis Livens 26-27 NUCLEAR FOR NET ZERO: Could nuclear-produced hydrogen solve climate issues? - by Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan of LucidCatalyst 20 YOUNG GENERATION NETWORK
  • Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling

    Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling

    Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling Kirk Sorensen Flibe Energy, Inc. ORNL MSR Workshop October 4, 2018 2018-10-16 Hello, my name is Kirk Sorensen and I’d like to talk with you today about fission products and their handling in molten-salt reactors. One of the things that initially attracted me to molten-salt reactor technology was the array of options that it gave for the intelligent handling of fission products. It represented such a contrast to solid-fueled systems, which mixed fission products in with unburned nuclear fuel in a form that was difficult to separate, one from another. While my focus will be on our work on molten-salt reactor fission product handling, many of the principles are general to molten-salt reactors as a whole. Fundamental Nuclear Reactor Concept In its simplest form, a nuclear reactor generates thermal energy that is carried away by a coolant. That coolant heats the working fluid of a power conversion system, which generates electricity from part of the thermal energy and rejects the remainder to the environment. coolant working fluid fresh fuel electricity Power Nuclear Heat Conversion Reactor Exchanger System spent fuel heated water or air coolant working fluid The primary coolant chosen for a nuclear reactor determines, in large part, its size and manufacturability. The temperature of the coolant determines the efficiency of electrical generation. Fundamental Nuclear Reactor Concept In its simplest form, a nuclear reactor generates thermal energy that is carried away by a coolant. That coolant heats the working fluid of a power conversion system, which generates electricity from part of the thermal energy and rejects the remainder to the environment.
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies

    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.
  • 0409-TOFE-Elguebaly

    0409-TOFE-Elguebaly

    BBenenefitsefits ooff RRadadialial BBuuildild MinMinimimizatioizationn anandd RReqequuirirememenentsts ImImposedposed onon AARRIEIESS CComompapacctt SStetellallararatotorr DDeesigsignn Laila El-Guebaly (UW), R. Raffray (UCSD), S. Malang (Germany), J. Lyon (ORNL), L.P. Ku (PPPL) and the ARIES Team 16th TOFE Meeting September 14 - 16, 2004 Madison, WI Objectives • Define radial builds for proposed blanket concepts. • Propose innovative shielding approach that minimizes radial standoff. • Assess implications of new approach on: – Radial build – Tritium breeding – Machine size – Complexity – Safety – Economics. 2 Background • Minimum radial standoff controls COE, unique feature for stellarators. • Compact radial build means smaller R and lower Bmax fi smaller machine and lower cost. • All components provide shielding function: – Blanket protects shield Magnet Shield FW / Blanket – Blanket & shield protect VV Vessel Vacuum – Blanket, shield & VV protect magnets Permanent Components • Blanket offers less shielding performance than shield. • Could design tolerate shield-only at Dmin (no blanket)? • What would be the impact on T breeding, overall size, and economics? 3 New Approach for Blanket & Shield Arrangement Magnet Shield/VV Shield/VV Blanket Plasma Blanket Plasma 3 FP Configuration WC-Shield Dmin Magnet Xn through nominal Xn at Dmin blanket & shield (magnet moves closer to plasma) 4 Shield-only Zone Covers ~8% of FW Area 3 FP Configuration Beginning of Field Period f = 0 f = 60 Middle of Field Period 5 Breeding Blanket Concepts Breeder Multiplier Structure FW/Blanket Shield VV Coolant Coolant Coolant ARIES-CS: Internal VV: Flibe Be FS Flibe Flibe H2O LiPb – SiC LiPb LiPb H2O * LiPb – FS He/LiPb He H2O Li4SiO4 Be FS He He H2O External VV: * LiPb – FS He/LiPb He or H2O He Li – FS He/Li He He SPPS: External VV: Li – V Li Li He _________________________ * With or without SiC inserts.
  • Download Download

    Download Download

    Blaylock’s Bomb: How a Small BC City Helped Create the World’s First Weapon of Mass Destruction Ron Verzuh our years into the Second World War, the citizens of Trail, British Columbia, a small city with a large smelter in the moun- tainous West Kootenay region near the United States border, were, Flike most of the world, totally unaware of the possibility of creating an atomic bomb. Trail’s industrial workforce, employees of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada (CM&S Company), were home-front producers of war materials destined for Allied forces on the battlefields of Europe. They, along with the rest of humanity, would have seen the creation of such a bomb as pure science fiction fantasy invented by the likes of British novelist H.G. Wells.1 They were understandably preoccupied with the life-and-death necessity of ensuring an Allied victory against the Nazis, Italian fascists, and the Japanese. It was no secret that, as it had done in the previous world conflict, their employer was supplying much of the lead, zinc, and now fertilizer that Britain needed to prosecute the war.2 What Trailites did not know was that they were for a short time indispensable in the creation of the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. 1 H.G. Wells, The Shape of Things to Come (London: Penguin, 2005) and The World Set Free (London: Macmillan and Co., 1914). Both allude to nuclear war. 2 Lance H. Whittaker, “All Is Not Gold: A Story of the Discovery, Production and Processing of the Mineral, Chemical and Power Resources of the Kootenay District of the Province of British Columbia and of the Lives of the Men Who Developed and Exploited Those Resources,” unpublished manuscript commissioned by S.G.