DOCSLIB.ORG

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2011 the Following States Are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2011 the Following States Are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency Atoms for Peace Atoms for Peace 11-17411_NTR_cover.indd 1 2011-09-05 15:14:02 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2011 The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GHANA NORWAY ALBANIA GREECE OMAN ALGERIA GUATEMALA PAKISTAN ANGOLA HAITI PALAU ARGENTINA HOLY SEE PANAMA ARMENIA HONDURAS PARAGUAY AUSTRALIA HUNGARY PERU AUSTRIA ICELAND PHILIPPINES AZERBAIJAN INDIA POLAND BAHRAIN INDONESIA PORTUGAL BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR BELARUS IRAQ REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BELGIUM IRELAND ROMANIA BELIZE ISRAEL RUSSIAN FEDERATION BENIN ITALY BOLIVIA JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SENEGAL BOTSWANA JORDAN SERBIA BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SEYCHELLES BULGARIA KENYA SIERRA LEONE BURKINA FASO KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BURUNDI KUWAIT SLOVAKIA CAMBODIA KYRGYZSTAN SLOVENIA CAMEROON LATVIA SOUTH AFRICA CANADA LEBANON SPAIN CENTRAL AFRICAN LESOTHO SRI LANKA REPUBLIC LIBERIA SUDAN CHAD LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SWEDEN CHILE LIECHTENSTEIN SWITZERLAND CHINA LITHUANIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC COLOMBIA LUXEMBOURG TAJIKISTAN CONGO MADAGASCAR THAILAND COSTA RICA MALAWI THE FORMER YUGOSLAV CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAYSIA REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA CROATIA MALI TUNISIA CUBA MALTA TURKEY CYPRUS MARSHALL ISLANDS UGANDA CZECH REPUBLIC MAURITANIA UKRAINE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES OF THE CONGO MEXICO DENMARK MONACO UNITED KINGDOM OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONGOLIA GREAT BRITAIN AND ECUADOR MONTENEGRO NORTHERN IRELAND EGYPT MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR MOZAMBIQUE OF TANZANIA ERITREA MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ESTONIA NAMIBIA URUGUAY ETHIOPIA NEPAL UZBEKISTAN FINLAND NETHERLANDS VENEZUELA FRANCE NEW ZEALAND VIETNAM GABON NICARAGUA YEMEN GEORGIA NIGER ZAMBIA GERMANY NIGERIA ZIMBABWE The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’. NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2011 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, 2011 COPYRIGHT NOTICE All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised in 1972 (Paris). The copyright has since been extended by the World Intellectual Property Organization (Geneva) to include electronic and virtual intellectual property. Permission to use whole or parts of texts contained in IAEA publications in printed or electronic form must be obtained and is usually subject to royalty agreements. Proposals for non-commercial reproductions and translations are welcomed and considered on a case-by-case basis. Enquiries should be addressed to the IAEA Publishing Section at: Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna International Centre PO Box 100 1400 Vienna, Austria fax: +43 1 2600 29302 tel.: +43 1 2600 22417 email: [email protected] http://www.iaea.org/books © IAEA, 2011 Printed by the IAEA in Austria September 2011 IAEA/NTR/2011 EDITORIAL NOTE This report does not address questions of responsibility, legal or otherwise, for acts or omissions on the part of any person. Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from its use. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 1 A. POWER APPLICATIONS . 5 A.1. Nuclear power today. 5 A.2. Projected growth for nuclear power . 8 A.3. Fuel cycle . 11 A.3.1. Uranium resources and production . 11 A.3.2. Conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication . 12 A.3.3. Back end of the fuel cycle . 14 A.3.4. Radioactive waste management and decommissioning . 15 A.4. Safety . 18 B. ADVANCED FISSION AND FUSION . 20 B.1. Advanced fission . 20 B.1.1. Water cooled reactors . 20 B.1.2. Fast neutron systems . 22 B.1.3. Gas cooled reactors . 23 B.1.4. INPRO and GIF . 23 B.2. Fusion . 25 C. ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR DATA . 26 D. ACCELERATOR AND RESEARCH REACTOR APPLICATIONS . 29 D.1. Accelerators . 29 D.2. Research Reactors. 30 E. NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE . 34 E.1. Improving livestock productivity and health . 34 E.2. Insect pest control . 35 E.3. Crop improvement . 37 E.4. Soil and water management . 39 E.4.1. New frontiers for assessing soil carbon sequestration in farmlands . 39 E.4.2. Use of oxygen isotopes of phosphate to trace phosphorus sources and cycling in soils . 40 F. HUMAN HEALTH . 42 F.1. Nutrition . 42 F.2. Advances in radiation oncology applications . 42 F.3. New developments in nuclear medicine technology for cardiac studies . 43 G. ENVIRONMENT . 45 G.1. Nuclear technology for early warning of marine harmful algal blooms . 45 G.2. Long lived radionuclides to understand environmental processes . 46 H. WATER RESOURCES . 48 I. RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION AND RADIATION TECHNOLOGY. 49 I.1. Radioisotopes and radiopharmaceuticals . 49 I.1.1. Molecular targeting agents for imaging and therapy . 49 I.1.2. Security of supplies of molybdenum-99 and technetium-99m . 50 I.2. Radiation technology applications . 51 I.2.1. Integrated radiotracer and computer simulation approaches for sediment management . 51 I.2.2. Low energy electron beam (EB) accelerators . 51 ANNEX I: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TECHNOLOGY OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY . 55 ANNEX II: ENHANCING FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY THROUGH ISOTOPIC TECHNIQUES FOR FOOD TRACEABILITY . 68 ANNEX III: USING ISOTOPES EFFECTIVELY TO SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT . 78 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, caused by the extraordinary natural disasters of the earthquake and tsunamis that struck Japan on 11 March 2011, continues to be assessed. As this report focuses on developments in 2010, the accident and its implications are not addressed here, but will be addressed in future reports of the Agency. In 2010, construction started on sixteen new nuclear power reactors, the largest number since 1985. With five new reactors connected to the grid and only one reactor retired during the year, total nuclear power capacity around the world increased to 375 GW(e). Revised projections in 2010 of future nuclear power growth still indicated high expectations for nuclear power expansion. Expansion and near and long term growth prospects remained centred in Asia. Two thirds of the reactors currently under construction are in Asia, as were thirteen of the sixteen construction starts. Of these, ten construction starts were in China alone. Trends of uprates and renewed or extended licences for operating reactors continued in 2010, particularly in some European countries where the trend towards reconsidering policies that restricted the future use of nuclear power continued. Interest in starting new nuclear power programmes remained high, with over 60 Member States having indicated to the Agency their interest in considering the introduction of nuclear power. In the 2010 edition of the OECD/NEA–IAEA ‘Red Book’, estimates of identified conventional uranium resources at less than $130/kg U decreased slightly compared to the previous edition, but uranium production worldwide significantly increased due largely to increased production in Kazakhstan. Uranium spot prices, which declined in 2009, reached at the end of 2010 their highest levels in over two years topping $160/kg U, despite early and mid-year prices fluctuating between $105/kg U and $115/kg U. The Board of Governors, in December 2010, approved the establishment of an IAEA low enriched uranium (LEU) bank, which will be owned and managed by the IAEA, as a supply of last resort, for power generation. Also in December, an LEU reserve under the aegis of the Agency was opened in Angarsk, Russian Federation, comprising 120 tonnes of LEU, which is sufficient for two full cores of fuel for a 1000 MW(e) power reactor. More than 50 Member States are considering alternatives or have begun developing disposal options appropriate for their waste inventories. In January 2010, a decree came into force in Slovenia confirming the site for its low and intermediate level waste repository. In November 2010, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Council Directive on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste that included asking EU Member States to present national programmes, indicating 1 when, where and how they will build and manage final repositories aimed at guaranteeing the highest safety standards. Finland and Sweden are preparing the documentation for construction licences for deep geological facilities designated for spent fuel. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) presented a new edition of the national plan for the management of radioactive material. In the USA, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future was established in January 2010 after the US Government’s 2009 decision not to proceed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulatory Actions in Radiotherapy
    August 10, 2017 CONSIDERATIONS ON POTENTIAL REGULATORY ACTIONS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION IN RADIOTHERAPY: MONITORING UNWANTED RADIATION EXPOSURE IN RADIOTHERAPY A proposal for further discussion drafted by Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear of Argentina and the Secretariat of the International Atomic Energy Agency (Product from the Practical Arrangements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear of Argentina on cooperation in the area of radiation safety and monitoring) Interim Document I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND (1) On September 18, 2015, the Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (ARN) 1 of Argentina and the Secretariat of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)2, hereinafter termed ‘the Parties’, agreed on ‘Practical Arrangements’ setting forth the framework for non-exclusive cooperation between the Parties in the area of radiation safety and monitoring. The agreement was reconfirmed and partially enhanced during ceremony presided by the Chairman of ARN, Néstor Masriera, and the Deputy Director General of the IAEA, Juan Carlos Lentijo, with the presence of the Argentine Ambassador, Rafael Mariano Grossi, in the framework of the 60th Annual Regular Session of the IAEA General Conference, in Vienna, on September 30, 2016. (2) The Practical Arrangements identify activities in which cooperation between the Parties may be pursued subject to their respective mandates, governing regulations, rules, policies and procedures. A relevant activity agreed to be pursued is the ‘development of regulatory guidance
    [Show full text]
  • Institute for Clinical and Economic Review
    INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC REVIEW FINAL APPRAISAL DOCUMENT BRACHYTHERAPY & PROTON BEAM THERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF CLINICALLY-LOCALIZED, LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER December 22, 2008 Senior Staff Daniel A. Ollendorf, MPH, ARM Chief Review Officer Julia Hayes, MD Lead Decision Scientist Pamela McMahon, PhD Sr. Decision Scientist Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc President, ICER Associate Staff Michelle Kuba, MPH Sr. Technology Analyst Angela Tramontano, MPH Research Assistant © ICER, 2008 1 CONTENTS About ICER .................................................................................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5 Evidence Review Group Deliberation.................................................................................. 15 ICER Integrated Evidence Rating.......................................................................................... 21 Evidence Review Group Members........................................................................................ 24 Appraisal Overview.................................................................................................................. 28 Background ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Materials and Fuels Testing Techniques in the Advanced Test Reactor – from Simple to Complex
    Materials and Fuels Testing Techniques in the Advanced Test Reactor – From Simple to Complex Raymond V. Furstenau 1), Frederick W. Ingram 2), John E. Brasier 2), Mark B. Hendrickson 2) 1) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy, USA 2) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, USA ABSTRACT The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is the third generation of test reactors built at the Test Reactor Area (TRA), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), to study the effects of intense neutron and gamma radiation on reactor materials and fuels. ATR has a maximum power of 250MW and can provide maximum thermal neutron fluxes of 1E15 neutrons per square centimeter per second. This allows considerable acceleration of accumulated neutron fluence to materials and fuels over what would be seen in a typical power reactor. Since power operation of the ATR began in 1969, numerous testing methods have been developed to take advantage of the capabilities of the ATR. The wide range of experiment facilities in the ATR and the unique ability to vary the neutron flux in different areas of the core allow numerous experiment conditions to co-exist during the same reactor operating cycle. Simple experiments may involve a non- instrumented sealed capsule containing test specimens with no real-time monitoring and control capabilities. The Irradiation Test Vehicle, installed in 1999, is the newest testing apparatus in the ATR that accommodates up to fifteen separate tests, each with its own temperature control and monitoring capabilities as well as neutron spectral tailoring capability. More sophisticated testing facilities include pressurized water loops that have continuous chemistry, pressure, temperature, and flow control as well as numerous test specimen monitoring capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy: Fission and Fusion
    CHAPTER 5 NUCLEAR ENERGY: FISSION AND FUSION Many of the technologies that will help us to meet the new air quality standards in America can also help to address climate change. President Bill Clinton 1 Two distinct processes involving the nuclei of atoms can be harnessed, in principle, for energy production: fission—the splitting of a nucleus—and fusion—the joining together of two nuclei. For any given mass or volume of fuel, nuclear processes generate more energy than can be produced through any other fuel-based approach. Another attractive feature of these energy-producing reactions is that they do not produce greenhouse gases (GHG) or other forms of air pollution directly. In the case of nuclear fission—a mature though controversial energy technology—electricity is generated from the energy released when heavy nuclei break apart. In the case of nuclear fusion, much work remains in the quest to sustain the fusion reactions and then to design and build practical fusion power plants. Fusion’s fuel is abundant, namely, light atoms such as the isotopes of hydrogen, and essentially limitless. The most optimistic timetable for fusion development is half a century, because of the extraordinary scientific and engineering challenges involved, but fusion’s benefits are so globally attractive that fusion R&D is an important component of today’s energy R&D portfolio internationally. Fission power currently provides about 17 percent of the world’s electric power. As of December 1996, 442 nuclear power reactors were operating in 30 countries, and 36 more plants were under construction. If fossil plants were used to produce the amount of electricity generated by these nuclear plants, more than an additional 300 million metric tons of carbon would be emitted each year.
    [Show full text]
  • NUREG-1350, Vol. 31, Information
    NRC Figure 31. Moisture Density Guage Bioshield Gauge Surface Detectors Depth Radiation Source GLOSSARY 159 GLOSSARY Glossary (Abbreviations, Definitions, and Illustrations) Advanced reactors Reactors that differ from today’s reactors primarily by their use of inert gases, molten salt mixtures, or liquid metals to cool the reactor core. Advanced reactors can also consider fuel materials and designs that differ radically from today’s enriched-uranium dioxide pellets within zirconium cladding. Agreement State A U.S. State that has signed an agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State. Atomic energy The energy that is released through a nuclear reaction or radioactive decay process. One kind of nuclear reaction is fission, which occurs in a nuclear reactor and releases energy, usually in the form of heat and radiation. In a nuclear power plant, this heat is used to boil water to produce steam that can be used to drive large turbines. The turbines drive generators to produce electrical power. NUCLEUS FRAGMENT Nuclear Reaction NUCLEUS NEW NEUTRON NEUTRON Background radiation The natural radiation that is always present in the environment. It includes cosmic radiation that comes from the sun and stars, terrestrial radiation that comes from the Earth, and internal radiation that exists in all living things and enters organisms by ingestion or inhalation. The typical average individual exposure in the United States from natural background sources is about 310 millirem (3.1 millisievert) per year. 160 8 GLOSSARY 8 Boiling-water reactor (BWR) A nuclear reactor in which water is boiled using heat released from fission.
    [Show full text]
  • PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS R12 64E-5.101 Definitions
    64E-5 Florida Administrative Code Index PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS R12 64E-5.101 Definitions ................................................................................................. I-1 64E-5.102 Exemptions ............................................................................................. I-23 64E-5.103 Records ................................................................................................... I-24 64E-5.104 Tests ... ................................................................................................... I-24 64E-5.105 Prohibited Use ........................................................................................ I-24 64E-5.106 Units of Exposure and Dose ................................................................... I-25 64E-5 Florida Administrative Code Index 64E-5 Florida Administrative Code Index PART II LICENSING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS R2 64E-5.201 ...... Licensing of Radioactive Material .............................................................. II-1 64E-5.202 ...... Source Material - Exemptions .................................................................... II-2 R12 64E-5.203 ...... Radioactive Material Other than Source Material - Exemptions ................. II-4 SUBPART A LICENSE TYPES AND FEES R12 64E-5.204 ..... Types of Licenses ..................................................................................... II-13 SUBPART B GENERAL LICENSES 64E-5.205 ..... General Licenses - Source Material .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Depleted Uranium Technical Brief
    Disclaimer - For assistance accessing this document or additional information,please contact [email protected]. Depleted Uranium Technical Brief United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA-402-R-06-011 Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 December 2006 Depleted Uranium Technical Brief EPA 402-R-06-011 December 2006 Project Officer Brian Littleton U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation Protection Division ii iii FOREWARD The Depleted Uranium Technical Brief is designed to convey available information and knowledge about depleted uranium to EPA Remedial Project Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, contractors, and other Agency managers involved with the remediation of sites contaminated with this material. It addresses relative questions regarding the chemical and radiological health concerns involved with depleted uranium in the environment. This technical brief was developed to address the common misconception that depleted uranium represents only a radiological health hazard. It provides accepted data and references to additional sources for both the radiological and chemical characteristics, health risk as well as references for both the monitoring and measurement and applicable treatment techniques for depleted uranium. Please Note: This document has been changed from the original publication dated December 2006. This version corrects references in Appendix 1 that improperly identified the content of Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. The document also clarifies the content of Appendix 4. iv Acknowledgments This technical bulletin is based, in part, on an engineering bulletin that was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), with the assistance of Trinity Engineering Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Fuel Reprocessing
    Spent Fuel Reprocessing Robert Jubin Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is undertaken for several reasons. These include (1) recovery of the valuable fissile constituents (primarily 235U and plutonium) for subsequent reuse in recycle fuel; (2) reduction in the volume of high-level waste (HLW) that must be placed in a geologic repository; and (3) recovery of special isotopes. There are two broad approaches to reprocessing: aqueous and electrochemical. This portion of the course will only address the aqueous methods. Aqueous reprocessing involves the application of mechanical and chemical processing steps to separate, recover, purify, and convert the constituents in the used fuel for subsequent use or disposal. Other major support systems include chemical recycle and waste handling (solid, HLW, low-level liquid waste (LLLW), and gaseous waste). The primary steps are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Aqueous Reprocessing Block Diagram. Head-End Processes Mechanical Preparations The head end of a reprocessing plant is mechanically intensive. Fuel assemblies weighing ~0.5 MT must be moved from a storage facility, may undergo some degree of disassembly, and then be sheared or chopped and/or de-clad. The typical head-end process is shown in Figure 2. In the case of light water reactor (LWR) fuel assemblies, the end sections are removed and disposed of as waste. The fuel bundle containing the individual fuel pins can be further disassembled or sheared whole into segments that are suitable for subsequent processing. During shearing, some fraction of the radioactive gases and non- radioactive decay product gases will be released into the off-gas systems, which are designed to recover these and other emissions to meet regulatory release limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Consideration of Low Enriched Uranium Space Reactors
    AlM Propul~oo aoo Eo«gy Forum 10.25 1416 .20 18~3 Jllly9-11, 2018,0ncinoaoi,Obio 2018 Joi.ot PropuiS;ion Confereoce Chock fof updates Consideration of Low Enriched Uranium Space Reactors David Lee Black, Ph.D. 1 Retired, Formerly Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Washington, DC, 20006. USA The Federal Government (NASA, DOE) has recently shown interest in low enrichment uranium (LEU) reactors for space power and propulsion through its studies at national laboratories and a contract with private industry. Several non-governmental organizations have strongly encouraged this approach for nuclear non-proliferation and safety reasons. All previous efforts have been with highly enriched uranium (HEU) reactors. This study evaluates and compares the effects of changing from HEU reactors with greater than 90% U-235 to LEU with less than 20% U-235. A simple analytic approach was used, the validity of which has been established by comparison with existing test data for graphite fuel only. This study did not include cermet fuel. Four configurations were analyzed: NERVA NRX, LANL's SNRE, LEU, and generic critical HEU and LEU reactors without a reflector. The nuclear criticality multiplication factor, size, weight and system thermodynamic performance were compared, showing the strong dependence on moderator-to-fuel ratio in the reactor. The conclusions are that LEU reactors can be designed to meet mission requirements of lifetime and operability. It ,.;u be larger and heavier by about 4000 lbs than a highly enriched uranium reactor to meet the same requirements. Mission planners should determine the penalty of the added weight on payload. The amount ofU-235 in an HEU core is not significantly greater in an LEU design with equal nuclear requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation
    Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues That Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Jean M. Bahr, Ph.D., Chair University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Steven M. Becker, Ph.D. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia Susan L. Brantley, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania Allen G. Croff, Nuclear Engineer, M.B.A. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Ph.D. University of California Irvine, Irvine, California Tissa Illangasekare, Ph.D., P.E. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Kenneth Lee Peddicord, Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Paul J. Turinsky, Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Mary Lou Zoback, Ph.D. Stanford University, Stanford, California Note: Dr. Linda Nozick of Cornell University served as a Board member from July 28, 2011, to May 9, 2019. During that time, Dr. Nozick provided valuable contributions to this report. iii This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Staff Executive Staff Nigel Mote Executive Director Neysa Slater-Chandler Director of Administration Senior Professional Staff* Bret W.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix
    Re-examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix T. E. G. Nicholasa,∗, T. P. Davisb, F. Federicia, J. E. Lelandc, B. S. Patela, C. Vincentd, S. H. Warda a York Plasma Institute, Department of Physics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK b Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PH c Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GJ, UK d Centre for Advanced Instrumentation, Department of Physics, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LS, UK Abstract Fusion energy is often regarded as a long-term solution to the world's energy needs. However, even after solving the critical research challenges, engineer- ing and materials science will still impose significant constraints on the char- acteristics of a fusion power plant. Meanwhile, the global energy grid must transition to low-carbon sources by 2050 to prevent the worst effects of climate change. We review three factors affecting fusion's future trajectory: (1) the sig- nificant drop in the price of renewable energy, (2) the intermittency of renewable sources and implications for future energy grids, and (3) the recent proposition of intermediate-level nuclear waste as a product of fusion. Within the scenario assumed by our premises, we find that while there remains a clear motivation to develop fusion power plants, this motivation is likely weakened by the time they become available. We also conclude that most current fusion reactor designs do not take these factors into account and, to increase market penetration, fu- sion research should consider relaxed nuclear waste design criteria, raw material availability constraints and load-following designs with pulsed operation.
    [Show full text]