DOCSLIB.ORG

Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Reprocessing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Reprocessing ENERGY AND ENERGY POLICY CLOSING THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE: REPROCESSING MOHAMAD ABDALLAH HUI MIN CHANG DAVID HAMPTON ABDULLA MAHMOOD FAISAL MAHMOOD CALVIN WONG CONTENTS 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………. 4 2. The Appeal of Nuclear Energy………………………………………….. 6 2.1. Growing Energy Demand 2.2. The Role of Nuclear Energy 2.3. Developments in Nuclear Energy 3. Issues Associated With Spent Nuclear Fuel……………………………. 8 3.1. Components of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) 3.2. Fuel Cycles and Strategies 4. An Overview of Direct Disposal………………………………………… 10 4.1. Brief Technological Background of Direct Disposal 4.2. Spent Fuel Inventories 4.3. Interim Storage Methods 4.4. Current Storage Strategy in the US 5. An Overview of Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing…………………….. 15 5.1. Issues Associated with Reprocessing 5.2. Reprocessing Technologies by Stage of Maturity 6. History of Reprocessing in the United States…………………………... 19 6.1. Reprocessing for Military Purposes 6.2. Moving into Commercial Reprocessing 6.3. Growing Proliferation Concerns 6.4. The Mill Fund 7. Technical Overview of Selected Technologies………………………….. 22 7.1. PUREX 7.2. UREX 7.3. COEX 7.4. NUEX 7.5. Pyroprocessing 8. Cost-Benefit Analysis…………………………………………………….. 30 8.1. Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology 8.2. Simplifying Assumptions 8.3. Estimates from the Literature 8.4. Quantitative Benefit Analysis 8.5. Quantitative Cost Analysis 8.6. Conclusions from Quantitative Analysis 8.7. Qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis 8.8. Uncertainty, Distribution, and Other Issues 9. Conclusion………………………………………………………………… 47 10. Works Cited………………………………………………………………. 49 2 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES Table 3.1 - Components of Spent Nuclear Fuel Table 4.1 - Spent Fuel Inventories in Different Countries Table 5.1 - Waste Flows from Different Fuel Cycles Table 8.1 - Cost-Benefit Analysis Matrix Table 8.2 - Characteristics of Nuclear Power Fleet Table 8.3 - Characteristics of Reprocessing Plant Table 8.4 - Discount Rates Table 8.5 - Estimates from the Literature Table 8.6 - Reprocessed U Generated Table 8.7 - Discounted Savings of Uranium Table 8.8 - Average Cost of Direct Disposal Table 8.9 - Costs of Storage with Reprocessing Table 8.10 - Discounted Benefit of Storage Table 8.11 - Total Benefits of Reprocessing Table 8.12 - Example: Storage Benefits for PUREX Table 8.13 - Cost of Construction Table 8.14 - Yearly Repayment Table 8.15 - Discounted Cost of Construction Table 8.16 - Cost of Repro Technology Table 8.17 - Cost of Ops Table 8.18 - Cost of Decommissioning Table 8.19 - Discounted Cost of Operations and Maintenance Table 8.20 - Yearly Refab Costs Table 8.21 - Discounted Cost of Refab Table 8.22 - Total Costs of Reprocessing Table 8.23 - Example: Construction Costs for PUREX Table 8.23 - Conclusions from Quantitative Analysis FIGURES Figure 4.1 - "Too Much Waste, Too Little Storage" Figure 5.1 - Reprocessing Technologies by Stages of Maturity Figure 7.1 - UREX Flowchart Figure 7.2 - COEX Flowchart Figure 7.3 - NUEX Flowchart Figure 7.4 - Pyroprocessing Flowchart Figure 7.5 - Hitachi's Implementation of a Fuel Qualification Reactor 3 1. INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The energy industry today faces significant challenges in meeting rising global demand, fuelled by economic growth in China and India, and in mitigating the effects of global warming. To date, nuclear energy constitutes about 70% of clean energy generated in the United States and represents an important option for the energy market in a low-carbon world. Further, in recent years, projections for nuclear-power growth have increased dramatically and construction of new plants has accelerated particularly in China, India and South Korea. While the recent disaster that occurred in Fukushima forced a reassessment of the safety of nuclear plants, nuclear power is still very much considered a strong candidate for the long-term development of a sustainable clean source of energy. In light of the rising popularity of nuclear power and recent technological advancements, it would be meaningful at this particular juncture to conduct an evaluation of the feasibility of various nuclear reprocessing technologies as a means of closing the fuel cycle. Apart from giving an overview of the five major forms of nuclear reprocessing that we believe hold the highest potential for industrial implementation, this paper will also assess the viability of these particular processes. It is hoped that this study might inform future decisions on whether nuclear reprocessing should be pursued as an alternative to direct disposal in closing the back- end of the nuclear cycle, and if so, which technologies would be most desirable. The five technologies that this study investigates are PUREX, UREX, NUEX, COEX and pyroprocessing. UREX, NUEX and COEX are derivations of PUREX technologies, which each differ from its parent process in the sense that they do not produce pure plutonium streams, thereby representing an amelioration of the older process. PUREX and pyroprocessing are two particular technologies that have been studied extensively and used in various countries such as France. As such, they are considered viable options should the US decide to pursue nuclear reprocessing. As insufficient data and literature exist on the economic feasibility of COEX, UREX and NUEX, the cost-benefit analysis conducted in this paper only examines PUREX and pyroprocessing in depth. The analysis proceeds by quantifying costs and benefits of each reprocessing technology as applied to a single first-generation nuclear plant. Costs studied include the capital costs of building the plant, costs of operation and maintenance, as well as cost of refabrication of spent nuclear fuel. Benefits considered include savings from reduced nuclear fuel usage as well as savings from reduced storage needed to contain spent nuclear fuel. 4 Our analysis then revealed that the net effect of implementing either PUREX or pyroprocessing was a net loss, which can be attributed in part to depressed costs of direct disposal and of uranium. Pyroprocessing was the more expensive of the two, suggesting that PUREX is the more economically viable option. However, in evaluating the various processes, other factors such as environmental concerns and proliferation risks were taken into account. In general, UREX, NUEX and COEX might be more expensive options, due to the higher level of sophistication in chemical processes involved, but they mitigate proliferation risks, which can be considered a significant benefit in assessing the best option for nuclear reprocessing. Upon taking into account further qualitative factors, and weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each of the five technologies, this report recommends COEX and NUEX as technologies with the highest potential for future implementation, subject to the expectation that costs of fossil fuels and of storage might increase in the future, and that sufficient research is conducted to render these technologies implementable on an industrial scale. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank: Professor George Tolley, University of Chicago Professor R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago Jing Wu, University of Chicago Dr. Candido Pereira , Argonne National Laboratory Dr. Roger Blomquist, Argonne National Laboratory for their invaluable advice and assistance throughout the course of this project. 5 2. THE APPEAL OF NUCLEAR ENERGY GROWING ENERGY DEMAND The world today faces significant challenges in meeting its growing energy demand, even as researchers continue to test and explore the sustainability of various energy sources, ranging from fossil fuels to renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass and hydroelectricity) to nuclear power. Between 1980 and 2007, total world primary energy demand grew by 66% and is projected to grow by 40% from 2007 onwards to 2030. Electricity demand, however, is projected to grow at almost twice this rate at 76%, averaging almost 2.5% per year (WEO, 2009), and the challenge to meet this demand is heightened by the investment needed to replace aging power sector infrastructure. Part of this increase in energy demand can be attributed to a bludgeoning world population, which is predicted to grow from 6.6 billion in 2007 to 8.2 billion by 2030 (United Nations, 2009), and also to increasing standards of living in developing countries. Further, growth in oil consumption in emerging economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher (WEO, 2012). In order to meet this growing demand for energy, it is crucial that new sustainable methods for generating more electricity are developed, especially given the scarcity of natural resources left on the planet. Climate change mitigation is another pressing issue that the global energy industry faces today (WEO, 2012). Fossil fuels remain the main source of energy, but the carbon dioxide emissions that accompany its use are causing global warming and will pose a significant environmental threat over the next century, should fossil fuel use persist at its current levels (WEO, 2012). As such, there is an urgent need to find an alternative source of energy that is clean (i.e. does not emit carbon dioxide as a by-product) and sustainable in the long run. Renewables might be clean sources of energy, but the intermittent nature of these sources makes it difficult to increase their overall energy capacity. THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY Given the current issues facing energy generation today, nuclear power appears to be a viable solution that could alleviate the problem of global warming and produce large quantities of energy to meet increasing energy demands. Relative to other forms of generation, nuclear power has high capacity and is also energy-dense. Further, its use does not generate any carbon dioxide emissions, making it a clean source of energy. In fact, every 22 tons of uranium used saves one million tons of carbon dioxide relative to coal (WNO, 2012). Uranium, the main raw material for generating nuclear power, is also relatively abundant and can assure energy security (as opposed 6 to imported oil and gas) (MIT, 2011).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Trends Towards Sustainability in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    Nuclear Development 2011 Trends towards Sustainability in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Executive Summary NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY Nuclear Development Trends towards Sustainability in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Executive Summary Full publication available at: www.oecdbookshop.org © OECD 2011 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Executive summary Over the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the role that civil nuclear power could play in terms of energy security and greenhouse gas reductions, especially if viewed over the long time frames of the expected lifetimes of current reactor technology. Nuclear energy presents a number of attractive features: it generates essentially no greenhouse gas emissions during production (limiting climate change) and no air pollution (avoiding very detrimental health effects); it is largely immune to the intermittency and unpredictability exhibited by wind and solar energy; it uses fuels with very high energy density (easing the establishment of significant strategic stockpiles) with resources and fabrication facilities distributed in diverse and (mostly) geopolitically stable countries. It therefore contributes to security of supply and offers a reliable energy source for countries where demand for electricity is growing rapidly. Such countries, including China and India, have thus been pursuing rapid deployment of nuclear energy and related fuel cycle elements, including reprocessing and recycling. Nuclear energy can be economically competitive, especially if carbon pricing is considered and financing costs are controlled. Certainly the sector still faces a number of challenges: first and foremost the requirement for continuous enhancement of safety and safety culture (reinforced in particular by the accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the more recent accident at Fukushima Daiichi), the need to control the spread of technologies and materials that may be used for non-peaceful purposes and to implement final solutions for radioactive waste disposal and management.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Technology Reivew for 2002
    GC GC(46)/INF/5 16 July 2002 International Atomic Energy Agency GENERAL Distr. GENERAL CONFERENCE Original: ENGLISH Forty-sixth regular session Item 15 of the provisional agenda (GC(46)/1) NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2002 1. In response to requests by Member States, the Secretariat produces a comprehensive Nuclear Technology Review every two years, with a shorter supplement in the intervening years. The present report is the second comprehensive compilation giving a global perspective on nuclear technologies for both power and non-power applications. 2. The NTR-2002 contains an Executive Summary and then reviews the following areas: Fundamentals of Nuclear Development; Nuclear Power, Fuel Cycle and Waste Management; Applications for Food, Water and Health; and Applications for Environment and Sustainable Industrial Processes. 3. The document has been modified to take account, to the extent possible, of specific comments by the Board and other comments received from Member States. For reasons of economy, this document has been printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies of documents to meetings. GC(46)/INF/5 Page 2 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2002 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 PART I. FUNDAMENTALS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT 7 I-1. NUCLEAR, ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR DATA 7 I-2. RESEARCH REACTORS, ACCELERATORS AND RADIOISOTOPES 9 I-2.1. Research Reactors 9 I-2.2. Accelerators 11 I-2.3. Radioisotopes 13 I-3. NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION 14 I-4. NUCLEAR FUSION 15 PART II. NUCLEAR POWER, FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 17 II-1. THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWER PICTURE 17 II-1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reprocessing and Proliferation: Alternative Approaches and Their Implications for the Federal Budget
    BACKGROUND PAPER Nuclear Reprocessing and Proliferation: Alternative Approaches and their Implications for the Federal Budget May 1977 Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office Washington, D.C. NUCLEAR REPROCESSING AND PROLIFERATION: ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET The Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfBce Washington, D.C. 20402 NOTE The Congressional Budget Office has prepared seven other studies on topics related to energy. Copies of these reports can be obtained through CBO's Office of Intergovernmental Relations or, through the U.S. Government Printing Office. Their titles are as follows: Commercialization of Synthetic Fuels: Alternative Loan Guarantee and Price Support Programs Background Paper No. 3 Uranimum Enrichment; Alternatives for Meeting the Nation's Needs and Their Implications for the Federal Budget Background Paper No. 7 GPO Stock No. 052-070-03367-3 Energy Research: Alternative Strategies for Development of New Federal Energy Technologies and Their Implications for the Federal Budget Background Paper No. 10 GPO Stock No. 052-070-03510-2 Financing Energy Development Background Paper No. 12 GPO Stock No. 052-070-03542-1 Petroleum Storage; Alternative Programs and Their Implications for the Federal Budget Background Paper No. 14 GPO Stock No. 052-070-03718-1 Energy Research. Development, Demonstration, and Commercialization Budget Issue Paper GPO Stock No. 052-070-03890-0 Energy Policy Alternatives Budget Issue Paper GPO Stock No. 052-070-03912-4 PREFACE Nuclear Reprocessing and Proliferation analyses and provides background information on the relationship between reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid K-Edge Densitometry As a Method for Materials Accountancy Measurements in Pyrochemical Reprocessing
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2015 Hybrid K-edge Densitometry as a Method for Materials Accountancy Measurements in Pyrochemical Reprocessing Matthew Tyler Cook University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Nuclear Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Cook, Matthew Tyler, "Hybrid K-edge Densitometry as a Method for Materials Accountancy Measurements in Pyrochemical Reprocessing. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2015. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3329 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Matthew Tyler Cook entitled "Hybrid K-edge Densitometry as a Method for Materials Accountancy Measurements in Pyrochemical Reprocessing." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Nuclear Engineering. Steven E. Skutnik, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Howard L. Hall, Joseph R. Stainback, Lawrence Heilbronn, James Ostrowski Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Hybrid K-edge Densitometry as a Method for Materials Accountancy Measurements in Pyrochemical Reprocessing A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Matthew Tyler Cook May 2015 c by Matthew Tyler Cook, 2015 All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutonium and China's Future Nuclear Fuel Cycle Jasper Pandza, International Institute for Strategic Studies [email protected]
    1 Plutonium and China’s Future Nuclear Fuel Cycle Jasper Pandza, International Institute for Strategic Studies [email protected] 13th PIIC Beijing Seminar on International Security: Building a World of Sustainable Peace and Stability Beijing, China October 31 - 3 November, 2012 Introduction Following the March 2011 Fukushima accident, the State Council, China’s highest policy- making body, suspended approvals for new nuclear plants and initiated a range of other measures aimed at improving the country’s nuclear safety provisions. The suspension of new construction approvals is expected to be lifted within the coming months,1 after being in place for longer than initially expected. The State Council’s actions demonstrated a new resolve among China’s leadership to give nuclear safety considerations greater priority compared to the economic benefits of nuclear power. The Fukushima accident apparently gave policy makers a reason to fear that a similar accident in China would put the government-run nuclear programme at serious risk. Throughout the past year, China has not moved away from its long-standing commitment to a closed, plutonium-based nuclear fuel cycle with spent fuel reprocessing and fast-neutron reactors. However, China’s response to Fukushima appears to have delayed progress in that direction. The construction of conventional light water reactors (LWR) will soon gather greater pace, but further delays in China’s fuel-cycle plans can be expected, as resources may need to be diverted towards improving the safety of current and future LWRs and to accelerating the shift from generation II to generation III LWR technology. This cautious approach should be welcomed, because it provides China with further opportunity to reconsider the economic rationale and the security risks associated with reprocessing and fast-reactor technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear High-Level Waste Tank Explosions: Potential Causes and Impacts of a Hypothetical Accident at India's Kalpakkam Repro
    SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY ,VOL.,NO.,– http://dx.doi.org/./.. Nuclear High-level Waste Tank Explosions: Potential Causes and Impacts of a Hypothetical Accident at India’s Kalpakkam Reprocessing Plant M. V. Ramana, A. H. Nayyar, and Michael Schoeppner Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Tanks holding liquid high level waste from reprocessing spent Received July fuel have large inventories of highly radioactive materials. These Accepted July tanks could potentially be damaged by a variety of chemical explosions, leading to the dispersion of a significant fraction of their radioactive contents. This article describes some of the dif- ferent chemical explosions that could occur and examines how such explosions could occur at the Kalpakkam Reprocessing Plant in India, which likely stores a large volume of high level liq- uid waste because vitrification of that waste did not begin until more than 15 years after the plant began operating in 1998. The atmospheric dispersion of the hypothetical radioactive release is modeled using the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model developed by the Air Research Laboratory of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The results suggest that the modeled accident scenario would lead to nearly 97,000 cancers, with roughly 47,000 of these being fatal. Larger radioactive releases are possible and would lead to propor- tionately higher incidence of cancer and cancer-caused mortality. Introduction Reprocessing
    [Show full text]
  • Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel
    Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen independent consultant member of the Nuclear Consulting Group November 2019 [email protected] Note In this document the references are coded by Q-numbers (e.g. Q6). Each reference has a unique number in this coding system, which is consistently used throughout all publications by the author. In the list at the back of the document the references are sorted by Q-number. The resulting sequence is not necessarily the same order in which the references appear in the text. reprocessing20191107 1 Contents Roots of reprocessing Once-through and closed-cycle systems Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel Reprocessing and the Second Law Separation Purification Reprocessed uranium Plutonium Neptunium-237 Americium MOX fuel in LWRs Destruction of HEU and Pu: burning the Cold War legacy Uranium-plutonium breeder systems Reprocessing of FBR fuel Thorium for fission power Uranium-233 Molten-salt reactor Partitioning and transmutation Nuclear terrorism Vitrification Discharges Entropy generation by reprocessing Concluding notes References TABLES Table 1 Reprocessing plants world-wide Table 2 Discharges of radionuclides in the liquid and gaseous effluents of a reprocessing plant Table 3 Discharge limits of reprocessing plants to the sea Table 4 Discharge limits of reprocessing plants at La Hague FIGURES Figure 1 Mass composition of fresh and spent nuclear fuel Figure 2 Mass flows of reprocessing Figure 3 Outline of plutonium recycling in LWRs Figure 4 Outline of uranium-plutonium breeder cycle Figure 5 Principle of a partitioning and transmutation system Figure 6 Redistribution of the radioactive contents of spent fuel by reprocessing Figure 7 Symbolic representation of the entropy production by reprocessing reprocessing20191107 2 Roots of reprocessing Reprocessing technology has been developed during the late 1940s and during the Cold War to recover plutonium from spent fuel from special military reactors for the production of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Nuclear Power
    After a flying start in the 1950s, nuclear power generation faltered in the two decades before 2000, though it did not go away completely. Now the industry is gearing up to offer its servic- es to a world faced with the twin challenges of global warming and energy shortages. How viable is the nuclear option, and what are the lessons of history? James Chater investigates. A history of nuclear power By James Chater “Think of me ten per cent,” says the about global warming and a possible taining uranium, he found the plates nuclear plant engineer to the journal- energy crunch, nuclear is back on the had been exposed by invisible ema- ist in “The China Syndrome”, the agenda. How viable is the nuclear nations from the uranium. 1979 film starring Jack Lemmon and option? What mistakes were made, Becquerel’s accidental discovery was Jane Fonda. This referred to the per- and what lessons have we learnt? By termed “radioactivity” by his succes- centage of energy derived from examining the past and projecting sor, Marie Sklodowska Curie, who nuclear power in the USA at the time into the future, we may hope to together with her husband Pierre the film was released; now it is more attempt some answers. Curie investigated the properties of like 20 per cent. In the rest of world, uranium and discovered other too, reliance on nuclear power has Hidden powers radioactive substances such as polo- been increasing. Several industrial The first nuclear accident was the dis- nium and radium. Marie hypothe- countries have come to depend on it covery of radioactivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Or Fiction – Is There a Future for Nuclear?«
    Science or Fiction © Kenn Kiser, 2005 © Manuere (Morguefile), 2007 © Ökostrom Is there a Future for Nuclear? Content 04 Introduction 04 Do we need nuclear power to meet the challenge of climate change? 06 The Programme »Generation IV« 07 Generation IV and what the nuclear industry tells us about it 09 Generation IV and what the nuclear industry would rather not tell us 16 Fusion 16 Fusion Basics 21 Uncertainties & Risks 24 Conclusions & Outlook 24 Generation IV 25 Fusion 26 Recommendations 28 Technical Specifications 32 References 34 Glossar 35 Abbreviations imprint Publisher: Austrian Institute of Ecology, Seidengasse 13, A-1070 Wien, Web: www.ecology.at, Mail: [email protected], Phone: 0043-1-523 61 05, Fax: 0043-1-523-5843; Editorial Staff: Ingin. Antonia Wenisch, Mag. Richard Kromp, Mag. David Reinberger; Layout, Graphik Design, Production: Ulli Weber; Print: gugler crossmedia; Vienna, November 2007 Sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management and the Viennese Ombudsoffice for Environmental Protection Preface This booklet served as preparation for both participants and speakers at the conference »Science or Fiction – Is there a Future for Nuclear?«. This international conference on fusion energy and new nuclear reactor models was organized by Global 2000/Friends of the Earth Austria and took place 8 November 2007 in Vienna. This booklet contains our contribution to the ongoing discussion about future energy securi- ty and what paths we should take. We focus on the possible future scenarios for nuclear power. The nuclear industry is trying to secure its own future by reintroducing old concepts like nuclear fusion and updating old fission reactors in so-called Generation IV systems.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg This report would have not been possible without the generous support of a diverse group of friends and partners, in particular – listed in alphabetical order – the Altner-Combecher Stiftung, Bäuerliche Notgemeinschaft Trebel, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg e.V., Climate Core and Green/EFA MEPs Group in the European Parliament, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (HBS) and its offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Prague, and Washington DC, KLAR! Schweiz, Annette und Wolf Römmig, and the Swiss Energy Foundation. Thank you all for making this possible! THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT — 2019 3 FOREWORD More than 40 years ago in my home region, the forest near the village of Gorleben was chosen as the location for the German National Nuclear Waste Disposal Center. The site, which is now at the country’s center but at the time was located directly on the border between East and West Germany, was meant to host all facilities for reprocessing, treatment, storage, and a deep geological repository. The company responsible (which has long since closed) intended to open the repository for spent fuel in the salt dome named Gorleben-Rambow in 1999. After Fukushima, the German government decided to phase out nuclear energy for the second time. The experience of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan in 2011 also set in motion the review of the plans for the repository at Gorleben. After around 40 years of debating and fighting over Gorleben, the German government and parliament decided in favor of a new participatory site selection process for the repos- itory for high-level nuclear waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
    Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Daniel Bolgren Jeff Menees Monday, April 30, 2007 CHE 4253 Miguel Bagajewicz Executive Summary A nuclear reprocessing facility takes the spent fuel from nuclear power sources and regenerates the fuel into a usable form once again. There is not a nuclear reprocessing facility currently operating in the United States. However, countries such as France and Japan are developing more and more dependence on reprocessing cycles. With foreseeable increases in the nuclear power market over the next few decades, it will become imperative that the United States develop a spent fuel reprocessing infrastructure. Most reprocessing today uses the PUREX process. This process can be inefficient at times. Another drawback is that it produces high levels of potential weapons grade material. Because of this, it is proposed that a new and more efficient process can be developed for nuclear reprocessing cycles. In order to facilitate the need for a new reprocessing technique, crown ethers were evaluated for their economic feasibility as well as their overall nuclear fuel reprocessing capabilities. Through the use of experimental data, it was determined that crown ethers were indeed capable of extracting uranium out of the spent nuclear fuel. An analysis was done using various crown ethers while varying the hydrobromic acid concentration. Once this data had been evaluated, it was determined that the Dibenzo-24- Crown-8 crown ether with a hydrobromic acid concentration of 7.5M was optimal for the extraction of uranium from the spent fuel. Once the organic phase containing the uranium had been separated from the rest of the fission products, it is shown that using a hydrobromic acid concentration of .45M is optimal for stripping the uranium away from the crown ether.
    [Show full text]