DOCSLIB.ORG

IHLЦ\Aooo^ on FUSION and FISSION BREEDER REACTORS;

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IHLЦ\Aooo^ on FUSION and FISSION BREEDER REACTORS; IHLÖ\Aooo^ ASSOCIATIE EURATOM-FOM FOM-ÏNSTITUUT VOOR PLASMAFYSICA RUNHUIZEN - NIEUWEGEIN - NEDERLAND ON FUSION AND FISSION BREEDER REACTORS; THE IIASA REPORT RR-77-8 REVIEWED AND UPDATED by B. Brandt, H.Th. Klippel and W. Schuurman Rijnhuizen Report 81-129 ASSOCIATIE EURATOM-FOM February 1981 FOM-INSTITUUT VOOR PLASMAFYSICA RIJNHUIZEN - NIEUWEGEIN - NEDERLAND ON FUSION AND FISSION BREEDER REACTORS; THE IIASA REPORT RR-77-8 REVIEWED AND UPDATED by B. Brandt, H.Th. Klippel and W. Schuurman Rijnhuizen Report 81 -129 The author H.Th. Klippel is employed by the Slichting Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (FX'N) This work was performed as part of the research programme of the association apreement of Euratom and the "Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie" (FOM (with 'inancial support from the "Nederlandse Organisatie voor Zuiver-Weten­ schappelijk Onderzoek" (ZWO) and Euratom. CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION 3 FUEL RESERVES 3 PRESENT STATUS, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND 6 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIALIZATION 3.1 Present status and development of fast breeder reactors 6 3.2 Present status and development of fusion reactors 10 3.3 Cost aspects 14 3.4 Summary 14 REFERENCE REACTOR DESIGNS 15 4.1 Designs of fast breeder reactors 15 4.2 Design studies for fusion reactors 18 4.3 Reference reactors 18 RADIOACTIVE INVENTORY OF REACTOR SYSTEMS 22 5.1 Problem exposition 22 5.2 The fast sodium-cooled breeder reactor 2 3 5.3 The fusion reactor 30 5.4 Comparison between fast breeder and fusion reactor 35 5.5 Conclusions 39 EMISSION OF RADIOACTIVITY AT NORMAL OPEi^ATION 40 6.1 The fission reactor 40 6.2 The fusion reactor 40 6.3 Conclusions 42 DANGER OF ACCIDENTS 42 7.1 The fast breeder reactor 42 7.2 The fusion reactor 4 4 7.3 Consequences of an improbable hypothetical accident 45 7.4 Summary 46 PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSE 47 8.1 Nuclear explosives 47 8.2 Radiological weapons 48 8.3 Safeguards 50 MATERIALS AND RADIATION DAMAGE 50 9.1 The fast breeder reactor 50 9.2 The fusion reactor 52 9.3 Conclusions 57 9.4 Consumption of materials 58 SUMMARY 62 REFERENCES 65 -1- 1. INTRODUCTION In July 1977 the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis at Laxenburg, Austria, published a detailed report (here­ after called I), in which fission and fusion reactors were compared. 2) Data of fission reactors were mainly taken from the SNR-300 ; as a prototype of the fusion reactor the UWMAK-I Tokamak Design Study of the University of Wisconsin 3) was taken. The D-D fusion reactor, the hybrid reactor,and the laser fusion reactor were briefly described in appendices. The fact that the IIASA-report was composed of the work of several independent groups involved in fission and fusion research led certain points of view to not being tuned in tc each other, especially the treatment of the radioactive inventory of the reactor. In the following considerations we shall summarize the results of I and clarify them on certain points. We shall also consider more recent developments in the field of thermonuclear reactors. In the conclusions, a summarizing table will compare the two ways of energy production qualitatively and sometimes quantitatively. This report was written in Dutch for internal information in 1979. The authors have provided the present version upon repeated suggestions trom abroad. 2. FUEL RESERVES The world fuel reserves for fission and fusion reactors, their energy content and consumption time are assembled in table 2.1. a. The number for lithium was conservatively estimated in 1970 and is valid for a production price up to 0.06 $ per gram metallic lithium. For uranium the number was taken from a OECD/IAEA-report, December 1975. It concerns only uranium inventories producible at a maximum price of 0.07 $ o+; 1975 per gram U,Og. b. The volume of seawater is 1.4 x 1018 m3 . The concentration of D in seawater is 33 g/m3 . The average concentration of Li in f.eawater is 170 mg/m3, that of uranium only 3.4 mg/m3. The price of this uranium and the technology of its winning are uncertain. -3- c. For D the basic reactions are D + T * "He + n + 17.6 MeV and 6 Li + n •* "He + T + 4.8 MeV. For Li v/e assumed a tritium breeding ratio of 1.3 without enrich­ ment of 'Li. For uranium we used the statement in I that 5*1012 kg U in the oceans, if used in fast breeders, have an energy content of 2*10-:" J. d. The load factor is assumed to be 100%. e. The total energy consumption in the world in 1975 was 7*io13 kWh (10% electrical). f. The assumption was made that all energy was produced in reactors. g. By fuel costs are meant the costs of winning of the natural ele­ ment. h. In this row the total cost of the fuel inventory per kWh(e) produced are given. In the case of LiA&O, as breeding material the cost of the neutron-multiplying beryllium have been taken into account. Further included in the costs are those of the first loading of the blanket and of the reprocessing or replacement of breeding material and neutron amplifier once every two years (with depreciation taken into account). For uranium the costs are mainly those of the fabrication of fuel elements, interest costs for the plutonium inventory and the costs of transport, reprocessing and waste disposal. As a comparison: the corresponding costs of the fossile fuels hard coal and oil/gas are 23.2 mill/kWh(e) and 19.2 mill/kWh(e) respectively, the fuel costs of the LWR are 5.5 mill/kWMe) . CONCLUSION The fast breeder and the fusion reactor produce an energy in the order of 1 MW{th)day per gram fuel. The ore costs are relatively low so that also low grade ores can be used. The reserves are not accu­ rately known but will certainly be sufficient on the long run. Thus, the duration of a world economy based on nuclear energy is not limited by the fuel reserves, but possibly by the availability of the other materials (see chapter 9). -4- Table 2.1. Fusion reactor Fission reactor deuterium natural lithium natural uranium a. estimated world reserves - 6xl09 kg 3.5xio9 kg {not in seawater) b. estimated world reserves 4.6*1016 kg 2.4*10llt kg 4.8*10IZ kg in seawater c. energy content per gram 100 MV?h(e) 4 MWh(e; 7 MWh(e) of natural element d. fuel quantity required per yeer for a 1 GW(e)- 90 kg 2300 kg 1300 kg reactor e. fuel quantity required fuel: 7*105 kg fuel: 1.8xl07 kg fuel: l.OxlO7 kg per year for total raw material: raw material: raw material: world energy consumption 8,5*109 kg seawater 4.5*10a kg pegmatite or 3.5*l0y kg Colorado sand 16x10 r/ kg seawater stone or 2 . 3X101 •' kg seawater f. number of years that without seawater: without seawater: fuel is sufficient for 6;-10io years 330 years, with seawater: 350 years, with seawater: world economy 1.3*1Q7 years 4.4*10'' years g. fuel costs (ore) 5xio-3 mill/kWh(e) 4xio-'* mill/kWh(e) 1.5xio"? mill/kWh(e) h. fuel cycle costs 6*10~3 iruil/kwh(e) Li: 0,6 mill/kwh(e) 4 mill/kWh(o) LiA^o3: 6.4 mill/kWh(e) 3. PRESEMT STATUS, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIALIZATION 3.I Present status and development of fast breeder reactors The principle of breeding with fast neutrons was already known when nuclear research began. Fermi and Zinn designed a fast breeder reactor as early as 1944. The first fast breeder experiment was Clementine, that became critical for the first time in 1946. Electric­ ity production was first demonstrated with EBR-I in 1952. According to views of that time uranium or plutonium metal was chosen as a fissile material. The small experiments till 1960, based on this principle, can be designated as the first generation or fast reactor experiments, the most important ones being Clementine (1946), EBR-I (1952), BR-5 (1958), DFR,and EFFBR. The majority of these are no longer operative. Their power did not exceed 60 MW(th). Uranium or plutonium as a fissile macerial made the core compact and the power density high. The coolant was either liquid sodium or mercuy. In relation to the long-term strategy, the achievement of a short doubling time was emphasized rather than a small inventory and low costs of the fuel cycle. In view of the limited power (- 100 HW(e) ) of the power stations of that time one had expected to reach this power level in a single step. After 1960, also based on progress in technology of thermal reactors, stress was laid on economic aspects of the fuel cycle, in particular on the realization of a high burn-up. In comparison with the thermal reactor, the fuel of the fast bleeder reactor has a high enrich­ ment factor, making the economic burn-up of the order of 10s MWday/ton, two or three times as high as in the LWR. The most suitable fuel for this is the ceramic mixture UO-/PuO„. The choice of this fuel ushered in the second generation of fast reactor experiments, with completely different physical aspects (a.o. softer spectrum) and technical aspects (a.o. lower power density). The most important members of this second generation of fast breeders are SEFOR (1969), BOR-60 (1969), Rapsodie (1970), KNK (1977), Joyo (1977) and FFTF (1978).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Breeder Reactors: a Renewable Energy Source Bernard L
    Am. J. Phys. 51(1), Jan. 1983 Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source Bernard L. Cohen Department of Physics. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renew- giving an equilibrium Q = S/8. Assuming that equilibrium has been able,” that adjective apparently means that they will be available in reached, 8–1 = Q/S = (4.6×109 tonne)/ (3.2×104 tonne/yr) = 140 000 undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current yr. Since this is such a short time geologically, it is reasonable to relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion assume that equilibrium has been reached, and that the value of Q years. It is the purpose of this note to show that breeder reactors at t = 0 is immaterial to the discussion. Moreover, the fact that 8–1 using nuclear fission fulfill this definition of a renewable energy is so much longer than the time for dilution of material through the source, and in fact can supply all the world’s energy needs at world’s oceans, less than 1000 yr,5 means that nonuniformity of present costs for that time period. uranium concentration is not a long-term problem. The world’s uranium resources are sufficient to fuel light-water If we were to withdraw uranium at a rate R, the differential reactors for only a few tens of years, and since uranium is used equation for Q would become about 100 times more efficiently as an energy source in breeder dQ/dt = S – R – 8Q, 8 reactors than in light-water reactors, it is frequently said that the leading to an equilibrium Q = (S – R)/ = Q00(1 – R/S), where Q is amount of uranium available can support the world’s energy needs the present value of Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Liberation of Neutrons in the Nuclear Explosion of Uranium
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kyoto University Research Information Repository Liberation of neutrons in the nuclear explosion of uranium Title irradiated by thermal neutrons Author(s) 萩原, 篤太郎 Citation 物理化學の進歩 (1939), 13(6): 145-150 Issue Date 1939-12-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/46203 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University 1 9fii~lt~mi~~ Vol. 13n No. 6 (1939) i LIBERATION OF NEUTRONS.. IN THE NUCLEAR EXPLOSION OF URANIUM IRRADIATED BY THERMAL NEUTRONS By Tolai•r:vFo IIrtlsiNaaa 1'he discovery ivas first announced by Kahn and Strassmanlir'. that uranium under neutron irradiation is split by absorbing the neuttntis into two lighter elements of roughly equal weight and charge, being accompanied h}' a:very large amount of ~energy release. This leads to~ the consic(eration that these fission fragments would contain considerable ea-cess of neutrons as compared with the corresponding heaviest stable isotopes with the same nuclear charges, assuming a division into two parts only. Apart of these exceh neutrons teas found, in fact, to be disposed of by the subsequent (~-ray transformations of the fission products;" but another possibility of reducing the neutron excess seems to be a direct i nnissioie of the neutrons, .vhich would either be emitted as apart of explosiat products. almost i;istantaneously at the moment ofthe nuclear splitting or escape from hi~hh' excited nuclei of the residual fragments. It may, Clterefore,he ex- rd pected that the explosion process mould produce even larger number of secondary neutrons than one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor, 2 B.C
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 13 5-1-1972 The nE vironmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor William O. Doub Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation William O. Doub, The Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor, 2 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 237 (1972), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol2/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASPECTS OF THE BREEDER REACTOR By William O. Doub* On January 14,1972, in Washington, D.C., the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Dr. James R. Schlesinger, announced that the Commission had accepted, "as a basis for de­ tailed negotiation, a joint proposal of the Commonwealth Edison Company of Chicago and the Tennessee Valley Authority for the construction and operation of the nation's first demonstration liq­ uid metal fast breeder reactor plant."l The plant, a joint industry­ Government effort, is to be built in Eastern Tennessee at a specific location still to be designated. Work was scheduled to begin within the year. The plant is expected to go on the line by 1980.2 Nationwide attention had been focused on the breeder reactor as a result of the President's Energy Message to Congress on June 4, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Plutonium Chloride Fast Breeder Reactor Cooled by Molten Uranium Chloride
    Annals of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 277 to 281. Pergamon Press 1974. Printed in Northern Ireland MOLTEN PLUTONIUM CHLORIDE FAST BREEDER REACTOR COOLED BY MOLTEN URANIUM CHLORIDE MIECZYSLAW TAUBE and J LIGOU Swiss Federal Institute of Reactor Research, Würenlingen, Switzerland Abstract—A fast breeder reactor of 2000 ~MWt output using molten chlorides as fuel and coolant is discussed. Some of the most significant characteristics are: The liquid fuel contains only PuCl3/NaCl. The coolant is molten UCl3/NaCl and also forms the fertile material along with the blanket system, again UCl3/NaCl: the coolant blanket system is divided into 2 or more independent circuits. The fuel circulates through the core by forced convection; the core is not divided. The thermal stability of the reactor is very good. Power excursions or fuel temperature transients are quickly damped by the phenomena of fuel expansion pushing part of the fissile material out of the critical zone. The loss of coolant accident results in a loss of half (or ⅓, ⅔) of blanket which, without relying on a reactor scram, results in an automatic adjustment of the reactor power level. Corrosion effects form the most difficult problem. Thermodynamic studies suggest the use of molybdenum alloys as structural materials. Breeder reactors differ from other reactor types in that The coolant blanket circuits are in the form of at they are not only power-producing devices but also a least two independent systems: the core vessel is not source of fissile material and therefore should be divided. considered as part of a complex “breeding system” The core is directly connected with: overflow buffer which includes both the power reactor (producing vessel (for thermal expansion of fuel), emergency fuel electricity and heat) and the reprocessing and fuel drainage tank, reprocessing and fuel preparation plant, preparation plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program
    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program By Robert Alvarez Formed over 6 billion years ago, uranium, a dense, silvery-white metal, was created “during the fiery lifetimes and explosive deaths in stars in the heavens around us,” stated Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias.1 With a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years, uranium-238 is the most dominant of several unstable uranium isotopes in nature and has enabled scientists to understand how our planet was created and formed. For at least the last 2 billion years, uranium shifted from deep in the earth to the rocky shell-like mantle, and then was driven by volcanic processes further up to oceans and to the continental crusts. The Colorado Plateau at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where some of the nation’s largest uranium deposits exist, began to be formed some 300 million years ago, followed later by melting glaciers, and erosion which left behind exposed layers of sand, silt and mud. One of these was a canary-yellow sediment that would figure prominently in the nuclear age. From 1942 to 1971, the United States nuclear weapons program purchased about 250,000 metric tons of uranium concentrated from more than 100 million tons of ore.2 Although more than half came from other nations, the uranium industry heavily depended on Indian miners in the Colorado Plateau. Until recently,3 their importance remained overlooked by historians of the atomic age. There is little doubt their efforts were essential for the United States to amass one of the most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 the Last Lecture Today
    10/9/2013 ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 The last lecture Today • About final report and individual assignment • Short introduction to “problems” • Discussion about “typical problems in the course” 1 10/9/2013 Plan-Do-Study-Act Plan Act Do E.g. Bergman, Klefsjö, Quality, Study Studentliteratur, 1994. Quality Improvement Paradigm 1. Characterize 2. Set goals 3. Choose model 4. Execute Proj org EF 5. Analyze 6. Package V. Basili, G. Caldiera, D. Rombach, Experience Factory, in J.J. Marciniak (ed) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 469-576, Wiley, 1994. (Also summarized in C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén, "Experimentation in Software Engineering", Springer, 2012.) 2 10/9/2013 Learning organization • “A learning organisation is an organisation skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights” D. A. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization”, in Harward Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp. 47–80, Harward Business School Press, Boston, USA, 1998. • Requires: systematic problem solving, experimentation, learning from past experiences, learning from others, and transferring knowledge Postmortem analysis • IEEE Software, May/June 2002 3 10/9/2013 Postmortem analysis cont. • “Ensures that the team members recognize and remember what they learned during the project” •“Identifies improvement opportunities and provides a means to initiate sustained change” Three sections of the PFR • Historical overview of the project – Figures,
    [Show full text]
  • DOE-OC Green Book
    SUBJECT AREA INDICATORS AND KEY WORD LIST FOR RESTRICTED DATA AND FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUGUST 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Where It All Began .................................................................................................................................... 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RD/FRD and NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (NSI) ......................................... 3 ACCESS TO RD AND FRD ................................................................................................................................ 4 Non-DoD Organizations: ........................................................................................................................... 4 DoD Organizations: ................................................................................................................................... 4 RECOGNIZING RD and FRD ............................................................................................................................ 5 Current Documents ................................................................................................................................... 5 Historical Documents ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 108–650 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 108–650 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Energy and Water Development Appropriations Fiscal Year 2005 108th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION H.R. 4614 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2005 (H.R. 4614) S. HRG. 108–650 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4614 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Defense—Civil Department of Energy Department of the Interior Nondepartmental witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–143 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study
    INIS-mf —13106 DISARMAMENT Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study -^^~ XpJ United Nations Preface The cover reproduces the emblem of the United Nations and the emblem of the World Disarmament Campaign, a global information programme on disarmament and international security launched by the General Assembly in 1982 at its second special session devoted to disarmament. The programme has three primary purposes: to inform, to educate and to generate public understanding of and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the field of arms limitation and disarmament. In order to achieve those goals, the programme is carried out in all regions of the world in a balanced, factual and objective manner. As part of the programme's activities, the Department for Disarmament Affairs provides information materials on arms limitation and disarmament issues to the non-specialized reader. Such materials cover, in an easily accessible style, issues which may be of particular interest to a broad public. This is one such publication. It is published in the official languages of the United Nations and intended for worldwide dissemination free of charge. The reproduction of the information materials in other languages is encouraged, provided that no changes are made in their content and that the Department for Disarmament Affairs in New York is advised by the reproducing organization and given credit as being the source of the material. Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study Background In December 1988, by resolution 43/75 N, the United Nations General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to carry out a comprehensive update of a 1980 study on nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutonium Disposition in the BN-800 Fast Reactor: an Assessment of Plutonium Isotopics and Breeding
    Science & Global Security, 22:188–208, 2014 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0892-9882 print / 1547-7800 online DOI: 10.1080/08929882.2014.952578 Plutonium Disposition in the BN-800 Fast Reactor: An Assessment of Plutonium Isotopics and Breeding Moritz Kutt,¨ Friederike Frieß, and Matthias Englert Interdisciplinary Research Group Science, Technology and Security, Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Alexanderstraße, Darmstadt, Germany According to the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which was signed in 2000 and amended in 2010, Russia and the United States agree to dispose of 34 tons of excess weapon plutonium each. Russia plans to use the plutonium as fuel in its sodium-cooled fast reactors BN-600 and BN-800. This article analyzes BN-800 core models with and without breeding blankets for the plutonium isotopic vector in spent fuel, plutonium production in breeding blankets, breeding ratios for different plutonium concentrations in fuel, and possible annual material throughput. It finds that any spent fuel in the core contains less than 90 wt% plutonium-239, but using breeding blankets the reactor can be configured to be a net producer of plutonium, even with a breeding ratio below one, and that plutonium produced in blankets will be weapon-grade. INTRODUCTION In 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton and Russian president Boris Yeltsin re- leased a joint statement offering to withdraw 50 metric tons (MT) of plutonium each from their respective military stockpiles.1 It was agreed that this pluto- nium should be rendered unusable for nuclear weapons either by irradiation in existing commercial reactors or by immobilization.2 In 2000, Russia and the United States agreed on the “Plutonium Manage- ment and Disposition Agreement” (PMDA).
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 10 Instrumentation and Control Prepared by Dr
    1 CHAPTER 10 Instrumentation and Control prepared by Dr. G. Alan Hepburn Independent contractor (AECL Retired) Summary: This chapter describes the role of instrumentation and control (I&C) in nuclear power plants, using the CANDU 6 design as an example. It is not a text on the general design of instrumenta- tion and control algorithms, a subject which is well covered by many textbooks on the subject. Rather, it describes the architectural design of these systems in nuclear power plants, where the requirements for both safety and production reliability are quite demanding. The manner in which the instrumentation and control components of the various major subsystems co-operate to achieve control of the overall nuclear plant is described. The sensors and actuators which are unique to the nuclear application are also described, and some of the challenges facing design- ers of a future new build CANDU I&C system are indicated. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Learning Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 5 2 Nuclear Safety and Production Requirements for I&C Systems ............................................. 5 2.1 Requirements for the Special Safety Systems................................................................
    [Show full text]