DOCSLIB.ORG

Terrapower and the Traveling Wave Reactor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terrapower and the Traveling Wave Reactor CONFIDENTIAL TerraPower and the Traveling Wave Reactor Washington State Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee March 28 2013 Doug Adkisson, Senior Vice President Key Points • Who is TerraPower? • What is the Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR)? • How is it different from other reactors? • Why do we think it is a better (safe, economic, less waste) energy source? • Where are we having an impact and Where will it probably be built? Public 2 Who is TerraPower? • For profit company funded by Bill Gates (Chairman), Mukesh Ambani (Reliance), Vinod Khosla, and other visionary private investors • A nuclear power innovation company. Will not build, own or operate nuclear plants – no nuclear liability exposure • Expert management and staff with 300 man-years of experience on fast reactors (e.g., FFTF, EBR –II) • Over 80 contracts/agreements with national labs, universities, companies, government agencies and expert consultants since 2007 • Have state-of-the-art computer capabilities and proprietary software for reactor simulations • Enormous data base and access to spent fuel assemblies from previous fast reactors. Owns TWR intellectual property and know-how Public 3 The TerraPower Team: Innovative Collaborative Approach Public 4 What is the TWR? Fuel from Available Depleted Uranium • Breeds and burns depleted uranium or discharged LWR fuel • Fueled once and can burn up to 40+ years • Weapons proliferation resistant. • The “Traveling Wave” evolved to a conventional geometry • Assemblies are shuffled within a reactor vessel, limited access Public 5 Current Nuclear Fuel Cycle Uranium mining Conversion to Uranium Fuel fabrication and milling uranium enrichment hexafluoride Long-term Depleted geologic uranium repository storage Nuclear power Actinide fuel generation fabrication Reprocessing Spent fuel storage TWR Simplified Fuel Cycle Uranium mining Conversion to Uranium Fuel fabrication and milling uranium enrichment hexafluoride Long-term Depleted geologic uranium repository storage Nuclear power Actinide fuel Reprocessing Spent fuel generation fabrication Confidential and Proprietary storage No reproduction or distribution without express written permission of TerraPower, LLC Each 14-ton canister of depleted uranium can …enough to power six generate 60 million million households at megawatt-hours of current U.S. rates of electricity… consumption for a year. How is the TWR different from Light Water Reactors (LWRs)? • The TWR is a “Sodium Fast Reactor” (SFR) – Similar to the first reactor to produce electricity in the US LWR TWR Physics ‘Thermal’ Neutrons ‘Fast’ Neutrons (2200 m/sec) (90,000,000 m/sec) Cooling Water Liquid Sodium Temperature 600oF 900oF Pressure 1000 – 2150 psi atmospheric Thermal Efficiency 33-37% 42% Uranium Utilization 3% 20% Public 9 Fast Reactors of History: Nearly 500 Reactor Years SFR Experience • CLEMENTINE (25 kWt) • EBR-I (1.4 MWt) • EBR-II (62.5 MWt) • Fermi 1 (200 MWt) • SEFOR (20 MWt) • FFTF (400 MWt) • DFR (60MWt) • Rapsodie (40MWt) • Phenix (233 MWe) • Superphenix (1200MWe) • BOR-60* • BN-350 • BN-600* • Joyo (75 MWt) • Monju (714 MWt ) • CEFR (65 MWt)* • FBTR (10.5MWt)* * currently operating Public 10 The TWR can Create Starter Fuel for Subsequent Plants First generation of TWRs started with enriched uranium Second and subsequent Every reactor is capable of generations started with recycled feed fuel from running indefinitely on previous generations depleted uranium Public 11 Why do we think the TWR is better? • The Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR) is a Generation IV nuclear power plant designed to: – Enable a new regime of nuclear safety standards – Be cost competitive by using huge stores of depleted uranium as fuel, decreasing enrichment needs, eliminating reprocessing and reducing final waste disposal – Be more environmentally friendly with the creation of significantly less waste – Greatly increase nuclear proliferation resistance and therefore enable freedom to export – Enhance energy security by requiring significantly less natural uranium and a less complex supply chain The TWR Prototype plant is based on proven technology and can be licensed, ready to operate in 10 years Public TWR-P Project • TWR prototype plant: – First electricity producing TWR – TWR-P Nuclear Island - Startup about 2023 600 MWe – Demonstrates key plant equipment – Verifies operational performance – Bases for 600 & 1150 MWe plants Equipment Hatch Containment – Last step of fuel and material Dome qualification Secondary Sodium Pipes and Guard pipes • Design features included for Large and Small additional testing & development Reactor Head Rotating plugs – Lead test fuel assemblies Thermal Shield Intermediate Heat Exchangers – Capability for post irradiation fuel In Vessel Fuel (4) examinations Handling Machine – First-of-a-kind instrumentation, Reactor & Guard Upper Internal Vessel maintenance considerations Structure Reactor Core & Core Primary Sodium Support structure Pump (2) Public 13 TWRs are Safer Sets a New Safety Standard Safety Cost Environment Proliferation Security • Advanced Reactor Design – Safety benefits of pool type sodium cooled fast reactors • Inherent safety: automatic shutdown without need for human interaction in event of accident • System operates at low pressure; less likely to fail • Fukushima type accidents are not possible – Passive decay heat removal even without offsite or onsite emergency power • Simplified Fuel Cycle – Reduced safety risk in support activities due to less mining, enrichment, processing, and waste transportation and storage Public 14 TWRs Require No Electricity for a ‘Fukushima-like’ Station Blackout Safety Cost Environment Proliferation Security Typical BWR/PWR TerraPower’s TWR • Coolant water at high pressure • Coolant sodium at atmospheric (1000 psi - BWR, 2150 psi - PWR pressure o Possible LOCA w/ rapid o LOCA not credible coolant loss • Loop reactor with low thermal • Pool reactor, large thermal inertia inertia o Decay heat to boil coolant at o Decay heat to boil coolant at 1 atm ~25 hours 1 atm <2 hours • Relies on Diesels for backup • Relies on natural air circulation power for decay heat removal for decay heat removal • Zr-H2O reaction generates H2 • No H2 generation Public 15 TWRs are Economic Compared to Current Reactors Safety Cost Environment Proliferation Security Total LCOE ¢/kW-hr 7.17¢ 6.75¢ 6.22¢ 5.78¢ $26 $25.7 $25 $24.2 $24 $23 $22.3 $22 $21 $20.7 Lifetime Cost ($Billion) Cost Lifetime $20 LWR FBR TWR Perpetuation Fresh TWR Perpetuation Successor Assumptions - Same electrical output and plant life - Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) = revenue to yield 8% return - Plant and Non-Fuel Operating Costs are similar Public TWRs Need Less Mined Uranium Safety Cost Environment Proliferation Security Mined Uranium Needed For Identically Sized Fleets (628 Built less 228 Retired = 400 Operating at Year 2100) 90,000 80,000 Assumes 10 70,000 New Plants Escalated Uranium Cost Annually From 60,000 Yr 2100 '29 - '00 Yr. 2037 - 2100 LWR: $160B $4,100B LWR 50,000 FBR: 0 $585B FBR TWR: 0 $370B MTU/Year 40,000 TWR 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079 2089 2099 Year Public 17 TWRs are More Environmentally Beneficial Safety Cost Environment Proliferation Security • Uses depleted uranium or waste from LWR • Greatly reduced uranium mining • Significantly less enrichment needed; none later • No reprocessing facilities required • At least 7X less high level waste relative to LWR • Waste retained in the reactor; delayed external storage for up to 40 years • Waste disposal footprint smaller and permanent Public Where is TerraPower Having an Impact Today? Washington State • TerraPower employees – 60+, Full time WA consultants - ~20 • Other Washington State subcontracts for engineering development - ~$5-7M/yr • TerraPower owns one of the larger super computers in the state National University Support • MIT, Tex A&M, U of Mich, Oregon State, UNLV, UC Berkeley - ~$4M/yr • 7-9 graduate level interns each year; hire rate: 40% National Lab Support • Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with INL, LANL, PNNL - >$7M/yr ‘Soft Impacts’ • 6-8 technical papers presented at international conferences annually • R&D work recognized as leading edge, international requests for participation • Bill Gates active sponsorship throughout all his talks Public 19 TerraPower Global Team Michigan Y-12 NFS RIAR NEA KAERI ANL MIT TerraPower HQ Kobe Steel PNNL INL ANL – Argonne Nat’l Lab DOE – US Dept.of Energy INL – Idaho Nat’l Lab Florida – University of Florida KAERI – Korea Atomic Energy Research Inst. LANL LANL – Los Alamos Nat’l Lab MIT – Massachusetts Inst. of Technology Michigan – University of Michigan UNLV NEA – National Energy Administration, China NFS – Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. TAMU PNNL – Pacific Northwest Nat’l Lab Florida Burns DOE RIAR – Research Inst. of Atomic Reactors, Russia TAMU – Texas A&M University & Roe UNLV – University of Nevada, Las Vegas Public 20 Where Will the First Plant Probably be Built? Greatest Opportunity is in the Far East South Africa Public 21 TerraPower’s TWR Program Integrated world class expertise and design innovations to maximize TWR performance: • Targeted design innovations • Systematic qualification • Irradiation test programs • Leading calculation tools • International suppliers • National laboratories and universities Public 22 TerraPower’s TWR: Economic, Base Load Electrical Generation Public 23 TerraPower’s Generation IV Traveling Wave Reactor Safety Economics Environment Proliferation Resistance Public 24 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bringing American Ingenuity to a Global Nuclear Sector
    TERRAPOWER: BRINGING AMERICAN INGENUITY TO A GLOBAL NUCLEAR SECTOR TerraPower, LLC is a nuclear innovation company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The company originated with Bill Gates and a group TerraPower Fast Facts of like-minded visionaries who evaluated the fundamental challenges to Founded: 2008 raising living standards around the world. They recognized energy access was crucial to the health and economic well-being of communities and decided Location: Bellevue, Washington that the private sector needed to act and create energy sources that would advance global development. Full-time employees: 150 Now marking more than 10 years of innovation, TerraPower continues to Supply chain: 80+ contracts worldwide grow and diversify. The multidisciplinary team of approximately 150 full-time Products: professionals has made progress on advanced reactor designs, modeling Traveling Wave Reactor interfaces and future isotope applications. Their dedication and talent help Molten Chloride Fast Reactor TerraPower pursue its vision to be a world leader in new nuclear technologies Medical Radiochemistry Applications that bring the world sustainable, affordable and safe energy, and other high- Innovative Industrial Applications benefit products. The company has put together an impressive aggregate of American suppliers, universities, laboratories and consultants. These partnerships yield significant breakthroughs and shape the foundation of modern supply chains that use nuclear science and technology to the benefit of humanity. GENERATE INITIATE ESTABLISH REFINE DEVELOP DEPLOY IDEAS DESIGN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS CONCEPT PRODUCT ACADEMIA GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SECTOR CREATING A CULTURE THAT INNOVATES TerraPower’s agile business approach leverages the world’s best capabilities and expertise to design and develop nuclear science and technology. Private-sector management, flexibility, funding and efficiency enable TerraPower to accelerate its product deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates
    PNNL-25978 Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates November 2016 SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as an account of work sponsored by Alberta Innovates (“AI”). Neither AI, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), DOE, the U.S. Government, nor any person acting on their behalf makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 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 AI, PNNL, DOE, or the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of AI, PNNL, DOE or the U.S. Government. Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) November 2016 Prepared for Alberta Innovates (AI) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary At present, the steam requirements of Alberta’s heavy oil industry and the Province’s electricity requirements are predominantly met by natural gas and coal, respectively. On November 22, 2015 the Government of Alberta announced its Climate Change Leadership Plan to 1) phase out all pollution created by burning coal and transition to more renewable energy and natural gas generation by 2030 and 2) limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • "U.S. Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge." (Pdf)
    US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation And The Strategic Global Challenge Report of the Atlantic Council Task Force on US Nuclear Energy Leadership Honorary Co-Chairs Senator Mike Crapo Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Rapporteur Dr. Robert F. Ichord, Jr. Co-Directors Randolph Bell Dr. Jennifer T. Gordon Ellen Scholl ATLANTIC COUNCIL 1 US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge 2 ATLANTIC COUNCIL US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation And The Strategic Global Challenge Report of the Atlantic Council Task Force on US Nuclear Energy Leadership Honorary Co-Chairs Senator Mike Crapo Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Rapporteur Dr. Robert F. Ichord, Jr. Co-Directors Randolph Bell Dr. Jennifer T. Gordon Ellen Scholl ISBN-13: 978-1-61977-589-3 Cover: A US flag flutters in front of cooling towers at the Limerick Generating Station in Pottstown, Penn- sylvania May 24, 2006. US President George W. Bush briefly toured the nuclear facility and spoke about energy and the economy. Source: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque. This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. May 2019 ATLANTIC COUNCIL I US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge II ATLANTIC COUNCIL US Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT BY HONORARY CO-CHAIRS 2 TASK FORCE MEMBERS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Terrapower Public Letterhead
    June 8, 2021 TP-LIC-LET-0005 Project Number 99902087 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Document Control Desk Subject: Regulatory Engagement Plan for the Natrium™ Reactor This letter transmits the TerraPower, LLC (TerraPower) Regulatory Engagement Plan. The plan is provided for information and outlines proposed interactions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) associated with the Natrium™ Reactor. The Natrium design is a TerraPower and GE-Hitachi technology. The Regulatory Engagement Plan for the Natrium Reactor, Enclosure 1, includes anticipated future dates for interactions or submittals, changes will be communicated to the NRC in advance. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Ryan Sprengel at [email protected] or (425) 324-2888. Sincerely, Ryan Sprengel License Application Development Manager TerraPower, LLC Enclosure: 1. Natrium Reactor Regulatory Engagement Plan cc: William Kennedy, NRC Mallecia Sutton, NRC 15800 Northup Way, Bellevue, WA 98008 www.TerraPower.com P. +1 (425) 324-2888 F. +1 (425) 324-2889 ENCLOSURE 1 Regulatory Engagement Plan for the Natrium Reactor Controlled Document - Verify Current Revision PLAN Document Number: NATD-LIC-PLAN-0001 Revision: 0 Document Title: Regulatory Engagement Plan for the Natrium Reactor Engineering Functional Area: Licensing N/A Discipline: Effective Date: 6/7/2021 Released Date: 6/7/2021 Page: 1 of 17 Approval Title Name Signature Date Originator, License Application Development Ryan Sprengel Electronically Signed in Agile 6/7/2021 Manager Reviewer, Director George Wilson Electronically Signed in Agile 6/7/2021 Regulatory Affairs Approver, Project Director Natrium Demonstration Tara Neider Electronically Signed in Agile 6/7/2021 Reactor ☒ Export Controlled Content: Yes ☐ No ☒ QA Related: Yes ☐ No QA Criterion: N/A SUBJECT TO DOE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Engineering
    Academic Program Review Self-Study Report February 8-11, 2015 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary of the Self-Study Report ..................................................... 1 A. Message from the Department Head and Graduate Program Adviser ................................ 1 B. Charge to the External Review Team .................................................................................. 2 II. Introduction to Department ..................................................................................3 A. Brief departmental history ................................................................................................... 3 B. Mission and goals ................................................................................................................ 3 C. Administrative structure ...................................................................................................... 4 D. Advisory Council ................................................................................................................. 7 E. Department and program resources ..................................................................................... 8 1. Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 8 2. Institutes and Centers ..................................................................................................... 11 3. Finances ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uwlaw, Fall 2012, Vol. 66
    University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Alumni Magazines Law School History and Publications Fall 2012 uwlaw, Fall 2012, Vol. 66 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/alum Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation uwlaw, Fall 2012, Vol. 66, (2012). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/alum/11 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Alumni Magazines by an authorized administrator of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nonprofit Org US Postage 66 PAID L eaders for the Seattle, WA E Permit No. 62 M BOX 353020 SEATTLE, WA 98195-3020 U Global Common Good L 2012 VO 2012 L A F L uw uwlaw uwlaw CALENDAR FALL - WINTER - SPRING 2012 - 2013 law OCTOBER 29 FEBRUARY 8 M ARCH 29 – 30 Betts Patterson Mines T owards Global Food Law: 20th Annual NW Dispute Professor of Law Eric Schnapper, Transatlantic Competition and Resolution Conference FALL 2012 VOLUME 66 Installation & Reception Collaboration Conference A PRIL 24 N OVEMBER 1 FEBRUARY 22 NYC Alumni Breakfast Portland Alumni Reception TEI & UW Law Tax Conference A PRIL 25 N OVEMBER 7 Annual Public Interest Law DC Alumni Reception Senior Alumni Student Presentation Association Benefit Auction M AY 31 JA NUARY 11 – 13 & 26 – 27 FEBRUARY 27 Anchorage Alumni Reception Professional Mediation Skills Pendleton Miller Chair in Law Training Program Stewart Jay, Installation & Reception JUNE 9 UW School of Law Commencement JA NUARY 14 M ARCH 6 Garvey Schubert Barer Professor UW Law Foundation Professor Join us on LinkedIn (search for of Law Kathryn A.
    [Show full text]
  • Traveling Wave Reactor
    TRAVELING WAVE REACTOR ©M. Ragheb 3/13/2013 INTRODUCTION In the 2012 USA budget, $853 million is allocated for nuclear research, including small reactors. A 30-person Company, TerraPower LLC, at Bellevue, Washington, with Bill Gates, Microsoft’s founder, as a chairperson, proposes a conceptual design of a reactor that would use spent fuel from Light Water Reactors, LWRs and depleted uranium to run for about 60 years, breeding its own fuel as Pu239 from depleted uranium as U238. Venture capital firms Charles River Ventures and Khosia Ventures invested $35 million into the project in 2010. Contrary to the media-perceived physical movement of the breeding and burn waves in a slab or horizontal cylinder geometry, in the TerraPower latest concept, the fuel is shuffled into the burning region as it breeds enough fissile fuel to keep the reactor critical for long times. The Traveling Wave Reactor, TWR constitutes a reformulation of the Liquid Metal Fast Reactor, LMFBR and the “coupled cores” concepts and a reformulation of “Battery Reactors” based on Naval Propulsion reactors designs. As a function of time, the latest design represents a standing wave or a soliton, rather than a traveling wave. The use of a Th cycle with a solid fuel or a molten salt coolant would present a larger more sustainable resource base alternative, since Th is four times more abundant than U in the Earth’s crust. HISTORY The traveling wave reactor concept has been around for years. The concept dates back to 1958 and was first formulated by Saveli M. Feinberg who envisioned a nuclear reactor that uses depleted U in the form of the fertile isotope U238 as target material and a source of the fissile highly enriched U235 on an end of a long cylinder or parallelepiped, enough to generate a critical mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fuel Cycles Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Clean Power 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 Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Wind Power ENERGY Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Nuclear Fuel Cycles Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Introduction and Background The Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC) is defined as the total set of operations required to produce fission energy and manage the associated nuclear materials. It can have different attributes, including the extension of natural resources, or the minimization of waste disposal requirements. The NFC, as depicted in Figure 4.O.1, is comprised of a set of operations that include the extraction of uranium (U) resources from the earth (and possibly from seawater), uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication, use of the fuel in reactors, interim storage of used nuclear fuel, the optional recycle of the used fuel, and the final disposition of used fuel and waste forms from the recycling processes. Thorium (Th) fuel cycles have been proposed also, but have not been commercially implemented). Figure 4.O.1 Schematic of the uranium based Nuclear Fuel Cycle 1 Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Clean Power TA 4.O: Nuclear Fuel Cycles The nuclear fuel cycle is often grouped into three classical components (front-end, reactor, and back-end): Front End: The focus of the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is to deliver fabricated fuel to the reactor.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • EDI February 2021 Newsletter
    Environmental Defense Institute News on Environmental Health and Safety Issues February 2021 Volume 32 Number 2 INL provides marketing propaganda for TerraPower (and X- energy) and no mention of safety and waste disposal problems The public was welcomed to tune in to an Idaho National Laboratory webinar promoting the recipients of Department of Energy nuclear research funding. But there was no discussion of nuclear waste disposal problems or nuclear reactor accident consequences. And with their stated goal of building reactors for other countries, to somehow solve energy poverty with the most expensive form of energy there is, their answer to nuclear weapons proliferation concerns was basically, “don’t worry, be happy.” Idaho Representative Mike Simpson is a staunch supporter of the handouts of millions of dollars to TerrraPower, with founder Bill Gates, and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) and their Natrium reactor, a “cost-competitive” sodium-cooled fast reactor combined with a molten salt energy storage system. The fast reactors that have been built have been money pits, often spending more time being repaired than operational. 1 The economics of sodium-cooled fast reactors have been awful. The U.S.-built Fast Flux Test Facility operational in 1980 at the Department of Energy’s Hanford site, cost over $10,000 per kilowatt. Japan’s Monju cost over $20,000 per kilowatt, according to IEER. 2 Sodium-cooled reactor promotors are touting the low pressure that the reactor runs at but not mentioning that the sodium metal explodes upon contact with air or water. They also don’t mention that fast reactors are the most inherently unsafe and unreliable reactors available.
    [Show full text]