Cover. Ranger Mine in the Australian (ERA)

Hinkley Point B nuclear power station (CEGBl NUCLEAR POWER AND THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

STATUS REPORT 1 c;90

ln accorclance with the ANSTO Act and as a core activity of its Strategic Plan. ANSTO maintains an ongoing assessment of the world's nuclear technology developments including nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle industry. This publication reviews the current status of nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle. It updates a review published in 1985 by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of ANSTO. The Commission had previously included such material as part of its Annual Reports up to the twenty-ninth Report, for 1980-81. 1 believe that a positive reassessment of the benefits of nuclear power is beginning to take place with the growing awareness in the community that all forms of energy usage involve risks and can adversely affect the environment. 's very large uranium resources could be an important factor in any resurgence in the use of nuclear power. Australia and ANSTO can also offer an improved method for the disposal of nuclear waste. This publication has been prepared for readers with a general semi-technical interest in the industry. I would be pleased to receive any comments on the value of the review and on specific items that have been assessed.

David I Cook Executive Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nuclear Power The generation of electricity represents over 30% of the world's primary energy demand and this proportion continues to increase. Primary energy consumption has risen fourfold since 1950 and is forecast to grow due to the world's continuing large population increase. Nuclear power is an established technology. Over 16% of the electricity produced in the world is generated by nuclear power. At the end of September 1989 there were 427 power reactors totalling 321 gigawatts (GWe) in commercial operation in 27 countries. A further 107 reactors were under construction or on order and 121 reactors were planned. Recent authoritative studies show that nuclear power is still economically competitive in many countries. It is likely to prove even more so with the development of newer reactor designs in the late 1990s, when coal and oil prices are expected to rise significantly in real terms. Light water reactors (LWRs) account for over 80% of operating reactors. A new generation of 1350 MWe LWRs is under development. Emphasis is being placed on ease of maintenance and operation, lower construction cost, enhanced safety and standardisation. Meanwhile, several reactor vendors believe a market exists for units that add a smaller (600 MWe) capacity increment to the electrical grid system. They are designing smaller, more simple reactors which rely on passive safety systems rather than the active engineered safety systems of current LWRs. Heavy water reactors (HWRs) represent about 5% of operating reactors, mainly in Canada and developing counries which view the HWR's natural uranium fuel cycle and high availability as off-setting its higher capital cost. High temperature reactors (HTRs) have potential economic advantages and several models (100-600 MWe) have been designed. Two West German designed 100 MWe HTRs are to be built in the USSR and others could be built in China (PRC). Further development could lead to designs for the chemical and steelmaking industries and the gasification of coal. Prototype fast reactors are operating in several countries and others are under construction or being designed. Fast reactors at present are more expensive to build and it is now generally accepted that significant construction will not occur before 2050. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Western world uranium reserves are about 1.55 million tonnes U, with about 2 million tonnes U as additional resources. Production of uranium has remained at about 37,000 tonnes U/year since 1981 and is likely to remain at this level for several years. Demand, however, is about 47,000 tonnes and predicted to rise to 55,000 by the year 2000. The shortfall is being met from inventories ^cumulated in the 1970s. The continues to be influenced by the disposal of surplus inventories on the spot market. The average price for long-term contracts is less than US$80/kg U (US$30/lb U3O8) while the spot price is about US$26/kg U (USS10/lb U3O8). The spot market has incrcused from 10% to 20% of total sales. Conversion capacity is about 60,000 tonnes U/year which exceeds both current requirements and the requirement predicted for the year 2000 of 52,000 tonnes U. Enrichment services demand is expected to increase from about 27 million SWU in 1988 to 33 million SWU in the year 2000. There is currently a 30% oversupply of enrichment capability. Enrichment capacity being installed or planned in Europe, lapan and the USA uses the centrifuge process which requires only about 4% of the power consumed by the older diffusion technology presently providing 90% of enrichment capacity. The next generation of commercial plants will probably be based on atomic vapour laser isotope separation (AVLIS) technology. All countries with a major nuclear power program have domestic fuel fabrication capacity. The use of higher burn-up fuel and uranium recycle can give cost benefits to reactor operators. The use of plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in LV/Rs is expected to increase. The cumulative arisings of spent fuel have been estimated by OECD/NEA and IAEA studies to total 165,000 t heavy metal (HM) by the year 2000, mainly in storage. Spent fuel storage can be considered proven but permanent disposal or reprocessing will eventually be necessary. Although small-scale reprocessing facilities are operating in several countries, in the western world only France and the United Kingdom have commercial facilities. Capacity for LWR fuel reprocessing is being expanded to 1600t HM/year ii Trance and 1200t HM/year in the United Kingdom. A 800t HM/year plant is to be built in .'apan but a 350t HM/year plant has been cancelled in Germany F.R. Compared to most other industrial and toxic wastes, the volume of radioactive waste is small. Wastes from mining and milling uranium, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication are treated and managed at the plant site. The volume of LLW from the nuclear industry, hospitals and laboratories is often reduced by compaction or incineration before disposal. Intermediate level waste (ILW) can be divided into short-lived waste which can be buried in concrete-lined trenches and long-lived waste which needs to be immobilised or fixed in solid form before deep disposal underground. High level waste (HLW) arises from fuel reprocessing or, if not reprocessed, irradiated fuel can be considered as HLW. Vitrification of liquid HLW from reprocessing continues to be the chosen process for solidification before deep geological isolation. Vitrification plants are in operation or under development in France, the United Kingdom, the USA, Japan and India. SYNROC, an Australian invention for immobilising HLW in synthetic rock, is the only other HLW waste form receiving worldwide attention. Nuclear Fusion The large international effort to develop a controlled method of harnessing the energy released by the fusion of hydrogen into its heavier elements is continuing. To demonstrate the feasibility of fusion power, Europe, the USA, lapan and the USSR are collaborating on the design of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (1TER), which is based on the tokamak, the most successful magnetic confinement device to date. Progress has also been made in the field of inertial confinement. A reportedly successful example of cold fusion generating heat using an electro-chemical cell has not been reliably replicated. CONTENTS

1 THE WORLD ENERGY SCENE 6 1.1 Oil 6 1.2 Natural Gas 6 1.3 Coal 6 1.4 Hydroelectric Energy 6 1.5 Alternative Energy Sources 7 1.6 Nuclear Power / 2 THE STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER 9 2.1 Light Water Reactors 9 2.2 Heavy Water Reactors 10 2.3 Gas-Cooled Graphite Moderated Reactors 10 2.4 High Temperature Reactors 10 2.5 Fast Reactors 10 2.6 Small and Medium Power Reactors 11 2.7 Operating Performance 11 2.8 Construction Times 12 2.9 Plant Life Extension 12 2.10 Economics 13 3 URANIUM 14 3.1 World Uranium Resources 14 3.2 Australian Uranium Resources 14 3.3 Uranium Production 14 3.4 Uranium Requirements 15 4. URANIUM MARKET REVIEW 16 4.1 The Contract Market 16 4.2 The Spot Market 16 5. URANIUM CONVERSION 17 6 URANIUM ENRICHMENT 18 6.1 World Enrichment Capacity 19 6.2 The Enrichment Market 19 7. URANIUM FUEL FABRICATION AND TECHNOLOGY 20 7.1 The Impact of High Burn-up Fuel 20 7.2 Uranium Recycle 20 8. PLUTONIUM FUEL FABRICATION AND TECHNOLOGY 21 9. SPENT FUEL TREATMENT 22 9.1 Reprocessing Capability 22 10. RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 25 10.1 Categories of Waste 26 10.2 Sources of Waste 26 10.3 Waste Management Programs 26 10.4 Vitrification 26 10.5 Advanced Waste Forms - SYNROC 26 11. NUCLEAR FUSION 28 increasingly threatened by supply 1. THE WORLD disruptions and sudden price increases. 1.2 Natural Gas ENERGY SCENE Natural gas is an ideal substitute for many uses of oil and. environmentally, is a more acceptable fuel than coal. The use of gas is likely to increase in many western industrialised countries and in eastern European centrally planned economy countries in the short term. Natural gas, having a resource base similar to that of oil, cannot be considered as a long term solution to the world's energy problems. 1.3 Coal World population has doubled in the past forty years to about 5 billion and is forecast to increase Coal reserves are sufficient to last over to between 1 and 8 billion in the next jorty years (Figure 1). Primary energy consumption has 200 years at the present rate of risen fourfold since 1950 (Figure 2) and is forecast to continue lo grow, due mainly to the large consumption. There are, however, increase in population predicted for developing nations and the likely increase in economic and several disadvantages associated with industrial capacity in (dose countries More efficient use of energy and programs to promote an increased use of coal, including the the conservation of energy are important bill will not compensate for the anticipated increase in geographical distribution of reserves world demand and the fact that coal is a solid and less

10- 24-, 1989 9- 1989 22-

8- 20- 18- 7-

(0 16- o 6- 14- 5- o 23 3 4- Q. O s. 8- 3- 6- 2- 4- 1- 2- 0 1900 1950 2000 Year 1900 1960 2000 Year

Figure I Proiected world population Figure 2 Projected world energy consumption

Over 30% of the world's primary energy I.I Ull intensive energy, source. In addition, demand is used for the generation of The world demand for oil is predicted to the burning of fossil fuels is associated electricity and this proportion is grow despite substitution with other with a large number of environmental expected to continue to increase in the energy resources and efforts to issues and many countries are future. Although there are large conserve and use energy more considering, or have already uncertainties concerning the precise efficiently. Barring unforeseeable introduced, stringent regulations level of future electricity growth, the events supplies of oil will meet demand relating to their use. most conservative electrical demand in the 1990s, and oil will play an assumptions, coupled with the important part in meeting the world's 1.4 Hydroelectric Energy necessity to retire older, less efficient energy requirements into the next The most favourable sites for hydro- generating plants will require the century, but its supply is expected to electric power in the industrialised construction of new generating gradually become more critical. Rising countries have already been developed. capacity. However, environmental demand and a steady decline in non- Apart from pumped storage and small concerns influence the use of energy OPEC oil supplies is forecast to lead to hydro units, the possibilities for major and many plans to build new a greater reliance on oil from the development are mainly limited to generating plant (whether it be nuclear, Middle East where 60% of the world's Canada, parts of Asia, Africa and Latin coal or hydro) are being strongly known oil reserves are located. Oil America. A large hydro project can have opposed. consuming nations could then become a serious impact on the local environment and carries the risk of a ANSTO reactor data files for units over major catastrophe. 30 megawatts electrical (MWe) show that 427 units, totalling 321 gigawatts I 5 Alternative Energy Sources electrical (GWe). were in operation at Alternative energy sources include 30 September 1989 (Table 2) According fusion power, synthetic fuels, to IAEA low growth estimates', world geothermal, wind power, ocean (wave installed nuclear capacity will increase power. ocean thermal energy to 430 GWe by the year 2000 and over conversion, tidal power), solar (thermal, 480 GWe by 2005. photovoltaics) and biomass The Nuclear power is an established exploitation of these resources is still technology and has already made a essentially experimental and their use, major contribution to reducing the at least over the next few decades, is world's dependence on oil. There are likely to be restricted by technical and also environmental reasons to prefer economic considerations. In the case of nuclear over fossil-fuel stations. It has some renewable sources there is been estimated that if the electricity growing evidence that their use on a produced by nuclear stations in France large scale may not be as environ- in 1986 had been generated by mentally or socially acceptable as once conventional stations, an additional believed. In addition to aesthetic 220 million tons of CO2 would have considerations wind power, for been released into the atmosphere. example, has drawn criticism on account of its interference with Nuclear energy has the potential to television reception and the havoc contribute to overall energy supplies caused to local birdlife. TABLE I. Commercial fusion power is many decades away from use even on a small Electricity Supplied by Nuclear Power scale. Sufficient conventional oil in 1988 (% of Total Generation) supplies, lower oil prices and poor relative economics continue to slow the development of synthetic fuels from oil shale, tar sands and coal. Geothermal France 69.9 United States 19.5 energy is relatively inexpensive in the gium 65.5 United Kingdom 19.3 few areas where it is readily available, Hungary 48.9 Canada 16.C and presents minimal pollution Korea R.O. 46.9 USSR 12.i problems. However, the high cost of Sweden 46.9 Argentina II.; drilling to find and exploit less accessible sources will discourage its Taiwan 41.0 Germany D.R. 9.9 use on a large scale, at least in the near Switzerland 37.4 South Africa 7.3 term. Of the remaining alternatives, Spain 36.1 Netherlands 5.3 wind and solar are probably the most Finland 36.0 Yugoslavia 5.2 promising, although success has been Bulgaria 35.6 India 3.0 variable. Germany F.R. 34.0 Pakistan 0.6 Solar energy is widely used for the Czechoslovakia 26.7 Brazil 0.3 provision of low grade heat, and there lapan 23.4 are several small villages entirely solar powered. On the other hand, renewable 1 IAEA estimate sources such as wind and solar have two inherent disadvantages when used for large scale electricity generation. They are intermittent and diffuse. Being other than through the generation of diffuse means that a large number of electricity. High temperature reactors arrays are needed for the production of are being developed to supply heat for a relatively small amount of power. industrial processes. In temperate and Despite these problems, wind and solar cold climates a large proportion of power are already contributing to organic fuels, consisting mainly of oil energy needs around the world and and gas, is consumed in the production have further potential, particularly in of low temperature heat supplies to small scale projects in remote areas dwellings and other buildings. that are expensive to connect to grids. Although this branch of nuclear engineering is in its infancy, extensive 1.6 Nuclear Power possibilities exist for the use of nuclear In 1988 nuclear power plants produced energy in district heating schemes over 16% of world electricity. They are producing approximately the same amount of electricity that was generated from all sources in 1957. Table 1 shows the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy in each of the 25 countries that operated nuclear power plants in 1988. I IAEA Yearbook 1989 (IAEA. Vienna, I989| TABLE 2. Nuclear Power Units over 30 MWe in Operation, Under Construction or on order at 30 September 1989

Classification Explanation Planned = Relatively Firm Plans + Letters of Intent Sent + Options Ordered = Firm Order Placed Building = Under Construction Operating = Connected to the Grid

PLANTS-MWe NET PLANNED ORDERED BUILDING OPERATING TOTAL

TOTALWORLD 121 110932 13 11539 94 77892 427 321362 655 521725 WESTERN WORLD 70 65065 6 5860 46 40222 356 278039 478 389186 ARGENTINA 2 700 0 0 1 698 2 935 5 2333 BELGIUM 1 1450 0 0 0 0 7 5449 8 6889 BRAZIL 2 2600 0 0 2 2490 1 626 5 5716 BULGARIA 0 0 2 1906 3 2859 5 2593 10 7358 CANADA 1 300 0 0 4 3443 18 11689 23 15432 CHINA 4 1450 0 0 3 2100 0 0 7 3550 CUBA 2 820 0 0 2 820 0 0 4 1640 CZECHOSLOVAKIA 4 4000 0 0 8 5640 8 2280 20 12920 EGYPT 2 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1800 FINLAND 1 953 0 0 0 0 4 2160 5 3113 FRANCE 3 4350 0 0 8 10630 55 52730 66 67710 GERMANY DR 2 2000 0 0 5 3230 6 2125 13 7355 GERMANY FR 7 8776 2 2468 ! 295 21 22326 31 33865 HUNGARY 2 2000 2 2000 0 0 4 1640 8 5640 INDIA 12 5786 0 0 7 1540 7 1 444 26 8770 INDONESIA 1 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 600 IRAQ 1 410 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 410 ISRAEL 1 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 900 ITALY 0 0 0 0 1 40 2 1098 3 1 138 JAPAN 13 13843 2 1592 14 12819 38 28251 67 56505 KOREA DPR 1 410 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 410 KOREA RO 3 3000 2 1800 0 0 9 7334 14 12134 LIBYA 1 410 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 410 MEXICO 2 2000 0 0 1 654 1 654 4 3308 NETHERLANDS 3 3000 0 0 0 0 2 502 5 3502 PAKISTAN 1 937 0 0 0 0 1 125 2 1062 POLAND 4 4000 2 820 2 820 0 0 8 5640 ROMANIA 4 3459 0 0 4 2400 0 0 8 5859 SOUTH AFRICA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1844 2 1844 SPAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7541 10 7541 SWEDEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9629 12 9629 SWITZERLAND 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2971 5 2971 TAIWAN 4 4120 0 0 0 0 6 4960 10 9080 TURKFY 2 1 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 500 UNITED KINGDOM 4 4630 0 0 1 1 110 40 13930 45 19670 USA 0 0 0 0 6 6503 112 101209 118 107712 USSR 28 27728 1 953 21 19801 48 33685 98 82167 YUGOSLAVIA 3 3000 0 0 0 0 1 632 4 3632 The LWR using pressurised water as coolant (the pressurised water reactor 2. THE STATUS OF or PWR) has continued to gain market share at the expense of the LWR using NUCLEAR POWER boiling water coolant (the boiling water reactor or BWR). Because the construction costs of nuclear power plants are not linear with output, plants have been increased in size to gain from economy of scale. Whereas two decades ago the average capacity/unit in western world countries was 300 MWe. with some 600 MWe units beginning to appear, manufacturers quickly turned to 900 MWe units and followed with 1100-1300 MWe units. Even larger (1400-1500 MWe) units are 2.1 Light Water Reactors now being built. Light water reactors (LWR), fuelled by low enriched uram'um-235 (2.5% lo 5%), account for The LWR, originally developed as a over 80% of the world's installed nuclear generating capacity (Figure 3) propulsion system for submarines because of its compactness and simplicity, has become progressively more complicated as its size has increased. In particular, safety systems and new or amended regulations have led to a variety of modifications over the years. Development of a new generation of simplified, advanced 1350 MWe LWRs (ALWR) with enhanced safety features, is progressing in the USA and lapan. Emphasis is being placed on the development of plants which will be more easy to maintain and operate, less costly to build, have a better margin against a core damaging accident and provide a better basis for standardisation. Among the design goals are an availability of 90%, a construction period of less than six years and a plant life of sixty years. Construction costs are expected to be about 15% to 20% less than those of The Nuclear Generating station at Chinon. France (EdF) existing designs. Development of the advanced BWR (ABWR) began in 1978. An important safety enhancement is the elimination of all large openings in the vessel below the core level. Elimination of the openings is achieved by removal of all the pipes and pumps that are used for recirculating cooling water which, in current designs, are located outside the reactor vessel. In the new design, Other/Unknown cooling recirculation is internal, using 0.3 submersible pumps in a technique that has been thoroughly tested and proved in Sweden. The first ABWR is to be built at Kashiwizaki, in lapan, for operation in 1996. The advanced PWR (APWR) has been under development since 1981. The design includes an increased coolant inventory above the core, GCR rearrangement of the coolant piping to 5.0 a level above the core, and a reduced core power density. The first APWR is expected to be built before the end of BWR the century. 22.3 Several countries have systematically improved and adapted LWR design to Figure 3. Installed Nuclear Generating Capacity by "type of Reactor local requirements. These designs are said to incorporate many of the 2 4 High Temperature Reactors reactor core The leak was contained in features adopted for the ALWR The first Early studies showed an economic the outer vessel (leak jacket) and there unit of an advanced standardised advantage in operating costs and other was no damage to other components or French 1400 MWe PWR series, known as benefits resulting from the use of a high risk to the reactor itself. REP-1400 or N4. is being built at Chooz enriched uranium-thorium fuel cycle Construction of SNR-300, a 300 MWe for commissioning in 1991. The N4 (using thorium as a fertile material) fast reactor at Kalkar (FRG), has been series is expected to carry the French Although significant progress has been essentially complete since mid-1983 program well into the next century A achieved and the thorium fuel cycle has but fuel loading is being delayed by the small (900 MWe) version of the US been demonstrated, with reprocessing licensing authorities in the state of Combustion Engineering System-80 and refabrication to fuel elements North-Rhine Westphalia 1250 MWe design has been selected by carried out on a laboratory scale, a low Construction of the lapanese prototype South Korea for its next two units. enriched uranium fuel cycle will be These units will form the basis of a fast reactor, Monju (250 MWe), is used in future There are various proceeding according to plan with standardised South Korean design In reasons for this but the essential the USSR, the standard 440 MWe PWR initial criticality scheduled for October benefit is the change to a fuel 1992 lapan plans to build two or three (WER-440) has been replaced by the compatible with existing fuel cycles, 1000 MWe PWR (VVER-1000). although demonstration units before introducing rendering the HTR a better commercial commercial fast reactors in 2030. the VVER-440 is still being built in other proposition. Comecon countries Two advanced Construction of the first demonstration Several HTR models, ranging in size reactor (800-1000 MWe) is planned to designs are being developed from the from 100 MWe to 600 MWe. have been start in 1996 VVER-1000. the VVER-88 and the VVER- designed in Germany In 1987, an 92. Construction of the first VVER-88 The prospects for development in the agreement was signed by Innotec United Kingdom suffered a severe (1000 MWe). unit b at the Khmelnisky Energietechnik KG and the USSR State station, is scheduled to start in 1990. setback in 1988 when the Government Committee for the Use of Atomic decided to phase out R and D funding The VVER-92 design will be deployed Energy to develop and construct towards the end of the century for fast reactors over the next few years standardised 100 MWe HTRs Two Funding of the 250 MWe prototype fast The LWR therefore appears likely to HTR-IOO units are to be built at the remain the most important single reactor (PFR) at Dounreay, which has Dimitrograd research facility in the operated successfully since 1974. will component of the worldwide reactor USSR In March 1988. German firms mix for the next 50 or 60 years Further continue until 1994 and of the also agreed with the Chinese Bureau for associated reprocessing plant until development could include high con- Nuclear Industry to co-operate in the 1997 verting designs (enhanced plutonium planning and construction of modular producing reactors) if the cost of HTRs in the People's Republic In the USA, the Department of Energy natural uranium or the need for Further development of the HTR could (DOE) has recently agreed to fund plutonium to fuel fast reactors lead to its application in the chemical development of General Electric increases significantly and steelmaking industries and for the Company's PRISM (Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module), a 465 MWe 2.2 Heavy Water Raiders gasification of coal power block that can be built up, in Heavy water moderated and cooled modular fashion, to larger plant ratings. reactors (HWR) are marketed by 2 5 Fflsl Reactors Prototype fast reactors are operating in Individual power blocks contain three Canada as the Candu reactor. They have 155 MWe reactor modules, each with its about 5% of the reactor market, mainly several countries (eg. France, UK and USSR) and others are either under own steam generator, connected to a in Canada and developing countries single 465 MWe turbine-generator. The (Argentina. India, South Korea and construction or being designed (eg. lapan. USA and India). There are two contract will cover three years Romania). These countries view its conceptual design work with an option natural uranium fuel cycle and high basic design concepts, the pool and the loop. Both concepts have primary and for two additional years of preliminary availability with on-line refuelling, as design. more than offsetting its higher capital secondary sodium coolant systems and Construction of BN-800 (800 MWe. fast cost (reactors with on-line fuelling can sodium to water heat exchangers. The reactor) continues at Beloyarsk in the have a 10 to 15% higher capacity factor advantages and disadvantages of the than other reactors). The possibility of a two concepts appear to be finely USSR, where a 600 MWe fast reactor (BN-600) has operated since 1980. A high local construction content and balanced although preference now 1600 MWe design (the BN-1600) is local fuel manufacture are attractive seems to be turning towards the pool under review additional features. concept which incorporates the reactor core, primary pumps and heat The 40 MWt test reactor (FBTR) at 2 3 Gas-Cooled Graphite Moderated Reactors exchangers within the primary vessel. Kalpakkam, India, achieved initial Carbon dioxide cooled, graphite This provides high integrity against loss criticality in October 1985 using an moderated, natural uranium fuelled of coolant by having vessel indigenously developed mixed carbide reactors (GCR), designated Magnox in penetrations above the sodium level. fuel The conceptual design of a 500 the UK, continue to operate success- The world's largest fast reactor, the MWe prototype fast reactor (PFBR) has fully although they are approaching the 1200 MWe Superphenix at Creys- been completed. end of their economic life and are being Malville in France, achieved initial Fast reactors are at present more phased out. The advanced gas-cooled criticality in September 1985 and expensive to build than other nuclear reactor (AGR), a low enriched uranium reached full power in December 1986. plants. Superphenix took about nine oxide fuelled graphite moderated The reactor restarted in (anuary 1989. years to build at a cost of over twice reactor developed in the UK from the having been closed down in May 1987 that of a French PWR of the same Magnox reactor, has had technical by order of the French nuclear safety generating capacity. Cost optimisation problems in design and development. authorities after it was discovered that is therefore a major concern. The The problems have largely been liquid sodium was leaking from the European Fast Reactor Utility Group resolved but it is unlikely that further vessel containing the fuel storage (EFRUG), representing British, German, AGRs will be built. drum. The drum was designed to house French and Belgian utilities, has elements on their way in or out of the decided to seek a common concept for 10 Europe's next fast reactor (EFR-1) that built before the middle of the next Electric, 600 MWe). AP-600 (Westing- would combine the best features of century. The uncertainty, when estimat- house, 600 MWe) and SIR (Anglo-US current designs and could be licensed ing a timescale for commercialisation, Consortium, 300 MWe). China is con- in all member states. is the amount of natural uranium structing a 300 MWe PWR of indigenous Japan, the USSR and European existing in the world, the size of the design and is planning to introduce a countries have concentrated on the nuclear program to be sustained, and 600 MWe advanced PWR, the AC-600. In development of oxide fuels for fast how long it will be before fast reactors addition, Canada has completed the reactors whereas, in the USA, research are economically competitive with the conceptual design of a 450 MWe Candu, has continued on the use of metal fuel LWR. Nevertheless, the original the Candu-3, and Argentina has and reprocessing using a argument for developing the fast released details of a semi-indigenous pyrometallurgical process. Fuel burnup reactor is still valid. Nuclear energy, as 380 MWe pressurised water design in excess of 150,000 MWd/t has been a long term contributor to the world's called Argos, based on Kraftwerk Union demonstrated with both oxide and energy supply, will eventually need a (FRG) technology. metal fuels and there is a potential for more resource efficient reactor system. The fast reactor would provide the 2.7 Operating Performance burnup in excess of 200,000 MWd/t f (compared with 30,000 to 45,000 MWd/t option of extending the economic use The causes o "navailability of nuclear for LWRs). of nuclear power to many hundreds of power plants have been shown to be years by allowing greater utilisation of very similar to those of fossil fuelled A 20 MWe experimental fast reactor the potential energy of natural plant i.e. failures in heat removal and (EBR-II), which has operated in the USA uranium. transport systems (pumps and heat since 1963, is notable for having an 2.6 Small and Medium Power Readers exchangers) and turbine generators. integral pyrometallurgical reprocessing Nuclear aspects of performance have and refabrication plant to provide an Since the Chernobyl accident, much generally been very good, with fuel integrated fuel cycle. Modifications are publicity has been given to the element failure less than 0.01% and under way to demonstrate this fuel development of smaller, more simple radioactive leakages rare. Significant cycle on a larger scale by the mid 1990s. reactors which rely on passive safety progress in extending fuel burnup, An extension oi the concept is that of svstems, such as gravity feed and together with improved fuel manage- fast reactor 'parks' where a number of natural circulation, rather than the ment procedures, has facilitated the units with a total electrical capacity of active engineered safety systems use of longer operating cycles. A 5-10 GWe would be combined with a required by current LWRs. The more reduction of planned outage time reprocessing plant, a fuel fabrication radical concepts include the Process (shortening of refuelling and mainten- plant and a waste treatment plant. Inherent Ultimate Safety (PIUS) reactor ance outages) and a reduction of un- There would be no necessity for designed by ASEA-ATOM of Sweden, planned outages (increased reliability transport of fresh or spent fuel or waste the modular HTGR designed by of systems and components) are also between plants, and there would be Interatom in West Germany and GA leading to increased plant availability. many other advantages including safety Technologies in the USA, and General and safeguards. Electric Company's Power Reactor When nuclear power plants are Inherently Safe Module (PRISM). operated as 'base load' stations (i.e. Plutonium generation in the fast required to deliver the maximum reactor is a contentious issue yet all These concepts are in a very early stage amount of power whenever on line current thermal reactors which use of development and still have to be while the hourly, daily or seasonal natural or low enriched uranium demonstrated. Meanwhile, several variations in network demand are met produce plutonium. The greater the reactor vendors believe there may be a by oil-fired plants, hydro plants or coal- uranium-238 content of the fuel, the market for units that add a small fired plants), operating performance greater is the amount of plutonium increment of capacity to the grid and can be adequately measured in terms produced per unit of radiation. The core require less investment of utility funds. of plant capacity factor. Capacity factor of a fast reactor can be surrounded by a They are examining the potential of is defined as the amount of electricity 'blanket' of uranium-238 where excess mid-size (600 MWe) and smaller generated over a period of time as a neutrons are absorbed to 'breed' more reactors based on existing technology. percentage of the amount that would plutonium. Thus the reactor can be The issue of a 600 MWe plant as have been generated had the unit been called a breeder fast reactor although it opposed to one twice that size is operating at full power over that period. is usually referred to (incorrectly) as a economy of scale. Past cost analyses of However, in some countries nuclear fast breeder reactor (FBR), which gives LWR plants have shown that the power now constitutes such a high the impression that it breeds specif'c investment costs (per kW proportion of total generating capacity plutonium copiously. Breeding does installed generating capacity) of a 600 that it has become desirable to adapt take place but even with such a MWe LWR is about 40% higher than output to variations in grid demand configuration, the net plutonium that of a 1300 MWe unit. Nevertheless, (load following). Capacity factor is not output is less than that of a thermal the vendors now believe that the an adequate indicator of the technical reactor of the same electrical output. increased use of passive safety systems, performance of a plant which may be Alternatively the fast reactor can be to which the smaller reactor is more available but not Lily utilised. In such operated to consume more plutonium amenable, and shorter construction cases the technical performance can than it produces, keeping the material times would overcome some of the best be measured by the energy in excess of immediate needs to a economic disadvantages of smaller availability of the plant. Unfortunately, minimum. In the extreme case the scale. Although the smaller plant is not energy availability is not reported by blanket could be omitted and replaced expected to be economically com- some countries. Thus, although care with heavy metal reflectors, making the petitive with a large LWR, its generation should be taken in the interpretation fast reactor the supreme plutonium costs may well be competitive with and use of capacity factors, they remain consumer. those of a coal-fired plant of the same the only way of monitoring the size in certain locations. Despite the proven technological technical performance of power feasibility of the concept, it is now Programs to develop smaller and reactors in different countries. generally accepted that there will not greatly simplified BWRs and PWRs are Published generating statistics be a significant number of fast reactors underway e.g. the SBWR (General (Nucleonics Week. 2 February 1989) 11 covering 352 units in 22 countries (USSR, Germany D.R. Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia do not reveal generation figures), show that the overall average capacity factor was 6588% in 1988. Eleven countries achieved over 70% This figure is comparable with fossil fuelled stations of similar size operated in the same countries. Five countries exceeded 80%. They were Finland (4 units, 91.15%). Hungary (4 units, 8697%), Belgium (7 units. 8533%). Switzerland (5 units, 8305%). and the Netherlands (2 units, 82..'.9%). The overall performance in the USA (109 units) was 63.52% This, although low by European standards, was 5% higher than the country's 1987 average 2 8 Construction Times Sequoyah nuclear power station (Tennessee Valley Authority. USA) Reduced construction times are vital to Figure 4 Nmiifvr o/ miclcw power plants reaching an age of 30 year; or IHOIC in ihe penod the economics of nuclear units in 1990-2000 (status as of Dccemlvr 1987) (Sounr IAEA PRIS I competition with fossil fuelled plants. Niiflt'iir Power ami fuel Cycle Stains and Trends IAEA Virinui 1988 Construction times increased in the 1970s and early 1980s, particularly in LEGEND the USA, where the average UK construction time from the first pouring ESI USA of concrete rose from around eight £ZD USSR years for units connected to the grid in Switzerland 1977 to over twelve years for units Spain completed in 1986. Netherlands Several countries have shown that Japan construction times can be reduced by Italy standardising the design of a series of India plants over a number of years, by the Germany, Fed. Rep. of use of multiple unit sites and by E22 German Dem. Rep. freezing licensing requirements during E3 France construction. In 1982. the Federal Republic of Germany introduced the so-called convoy (konvoi) system to streamline the licensing procedures for standardised plants The three plants built under the system were synchronised to the grid within six years from the start of construction. France has consistently demonstrated that a 900 MWe series PWR can be built in approximately five years, and a 1300 MWe PWR in approximately six years, lapan is now able to construct a 900 MWe nuclear power plant in less than five years, comparable to the time taken to construct a coal-fired station of the 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Years same size.

2.9 Plant Life Extension Most nuclear power plants have 25 years and amortized over 20 years. About 160 nuclear power plants will nominal design lifetimes of between 20 Safety reviews of the Bradwell (2 unit) need to be replaced by the year 2000 if a and 40 years but it is now believed that and Berkeley (2 unit) stations in 1988 by service life of 25 years is assumed. If the many major components may have a the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate lifetime is subject to a 30 year limit useful life of at least 40 years and could identified no life-limiting factors which then only 64 plants will have to be last substantially longer. Some major might preclude safe operation up to replaced (Figure 4). components would almost certainly be 1992 (when they will be 30 years old), Because of siting problems due to local uneconomical to replace (pressure but listed 17 key requirements that opposition and the economic vessel, containment building, etc.) but would have to be met if they are to uncertainty applicable to power plant studies show that the replacement of continue to operate. The CEGB has construction, utilities are seeking other components is feasible and could decided it would not be economically means to avoid building large new offer a substantial economic benefit worthwhile to modify the Berkeley central power plants. Extending the over decommissioning and replacement units, and has closed them down. service life of current reactors is one by a new plant. The Bradwell units are to continue possible solution that is receiving Early Magnox reactors in the United operating subject to safety improve- increasing attention. Kingdom were designed for a life of 20- ments and annual inspections. 12 By replacing the pressure tubes on variables, the apparent advantage of Pickering 1 and 2, Canada has demon- one method of generating electricity strated that the service life of Candu over the other depending very much on reactors can be extended. The pressure the validity of the assumptions tubes, which contain the fuel bundles considered appropriate. In addition to under pressure, are a key component variables such as whether the plant is (and the most critical component prone to be built to a standardised design or to deterioration) of the primary circuit at a multiple unit site, other variables of the Candu core. The successful which affect the nuclear choice are- retubing operation cost Cdn$441 Construction Times — (assumptions million for the two reactors. The cost of range from 6 to 16 years for a nuclear replacement coal-fired power during plant). Nuclear prospects improve if the four year outage was an additional lead times (therefore interest charges) Cdn$400 million. This suggests it will are reduced. Construction times be economic to carry out complete fuel increased greatly in the 1970s, channel replacements, including both particularly in the USA. In other the pressure tubes and calandria tubes, countries they have now been stabilised rather than decommission this type of or reduced. reactor after 25-30 years service. Capacity Factors — (assumptions range 2.10 Economics from 60 to 80%). Capacity factors for Generating costs and forecasts of the large nuclear and coal generating costs of new power stations are plants are now similar in most calculated and presented in many industrialised countries, with an edge different ways. Unfortunately, costs are being held by nuclear. Higher capacity often quoted without due reference to factors favour nuclear plants more than the method of calculation or the coal-fired plants because nuclear costs purpose for which they were evaluated. are generally insensitive to fuel costs. This has led to confusion and intense The higher carrying charges associated argument about the economic viability with nuclear can be spread over a larger of nuclear power plants. It has long number of kilowatt hours generated. been recognised that the capital cost of Plant Lifetime — (assumptions range nuclear power plants is significantly from 20 to 40 years). Estimated higher than that of coal/oil-fired plants economic lifetimes of nuclear plants (capital cost of nuclear is ~65% of are gradually being extended. This power costs, whereas for coal it is lowers the cost/unit of electricity over -35%). The initial capital cost the life of the plant. advantage of coal/oil-fired units is Fuel Costs — Although the cost of fuel offset by the lower fuel cost of nuclear for fossil-fuelled plants has now power units. levelled off in response to the low price A comparison of costs between of oil, most forecasts predict that coal countries is not advisable because prices will increase in real terms in the costs depend very much on local 1990s. conditions. For instance, the capital Using a set of standardised costs of nuclear units may differ assumptions and national estimates of because of such factors as design future plant performance, capital and requirements, siting conditions, plant fuel costs, the International Union of size, interest rates, labour productivity Producers and Distributors of Electrical and material costs. The cost of Energy (UN1PEDE), a European electricity generated by a coal-fired organisation, has concluded (in its plant is very sensitive to the price of publication: Electricity Generating delivered coal and therefore to the Costs — Assessments made in 1987 for source of the coal, the siting of the stations to be commissioned in 1995; plant and to transport costs. The cost of UNIPEDE, Paris, 1988) that the coal-fired plant can also be influenced competitiveness of nuclear power is by the extent of measures taken to established for base-load operation in control atmospheric pollution, measures all eight countries studied (lapan, FRG, very likely to be extended in the future. Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Neither nuclear nor coal-fired plants Netherlands and the UK). However, this can be said to provide cheaper elec- is not true in Spain when considering tricity in all circumstances. Individual imported coal or in Italy and the situations need to be assessed and Netherlands if the assumption is that investment decisions made only after the price of imported coal increases consideration of the whole electrical only very slowly in the future. Nuclear system. However, it is important to costs are very likely to become even know whether and under what circum- more competitive with the develop- stances nuclear power can produce ment of advanced reactors which are electricity cheaper than that generated due to start entering service in the late from coal. The comparative economics 1990's, at a time when coal and oil of nuclear and coal-fired stations is prices are expected to rise significantly strongly influenced by several important in real terms. 13 The 1988 production of uranium in the 3. URANIUM western world is shown in Table 5. Since 1981 production has been around 37,000t U/year. The steady uranium production over the last seven years contrasts with the continued rise in demand for uranium in processed form to fuel nuclear power reactors. The shortfall is being met each year from inventories accumulated during the 1970s in expectation of a growth in requirements faster than actually took place. Canada Canada continues to be the western Uranium is not a very rare clement in (lie Earth's crust although it is only present in rocfcs at world's foremost uranium producer. In a mean content of 2-3 furls per million T/ie lei'el is similar lo thai for arsenic, molybdenum and 1988, the Key Lake mine produced tungsten As with other elements, uranium minerals mm/ be concentrated into ore bodies and are 4,600t U, (its nominal output), down sometime found in association with other minerals of economic interest, such as copper, gold and considerably on the peak output in phosphates Uranium also occurs in scairaler. ill a concentration of two parts per billion The i987 of 5,200t and Collins Bay B (Rabbit amount of dissolved uranium is estimated at about 4 billion tonnes Lake) produced 2,500t U. Cluff Lake produced 860t U and when Eagle Point is in production (1990s), the combined 3.1 World Uranium Resources throughput from these two mines will Estimates of major national resources to world-wide programs of exploration be 2,700t U a year. The oie will be of uranium (Table 3) are from the report together with a higher value in US$ per milled at Rabbit Lake. The Rabbit Lake "Uranium - Resources, Production and kg U for tlie low-cost category. uranium mill closed for 6 months on 1 Demand" (OECD-NEA/IAEA Paris, luly 1989 for modifications and March 1988). The estimates exclude 3.2 Australian Uranium Resources improvement to an output of 4,600t a China, certain Eastern European year The Elliot Lake mine produced Estimates of Australia's uranium 1,950t U, and Rio Algom 2,350t U. These Countries and the USSR for which resources at year-end 1988, released by insufficient information is available. two mines will exhaust their reserves in the Australian Bureau of Mineral the 1990s. For international comparison uranium Resources (BMR) in March 1989, differ resources are divided into Reasonably slightly from those in Table 3. According Several new uranium mines could Assured Resources (RAR) and Estimated to the BMR, Australia's uranium begin operating in Canada in the next Additional Resources (EAR). These resources in the RAR category decade. These include Cigar Lake, categories are each divided into two recoverable at less than US$80/kg U which is currently going through the recovery cost ranges. RAR in the lower amount to 480,000t. EAR-1 recoverable licensing process, and Eagle Point. cost range of up to US$80/kg U can be at less than US$80/kg U amount to Both of these projects are scheduled to equated with mining 'reserves'. The 262,000t U. In the RAR category be operating by 1993. Underground cost ranges should not be confused recoverable at between US$80-130/kg U exploration of Midwest Lake began in with market prices. The costs refer to Australia's resources are 58,000t U. 1988. A feasibility study of Kiggavik the marginal cost of production and EAR-1 in the same cost range is in the Northwest Territories is being exclude past expenditures, provision I31,000t U. In addition, the BMR conducted. Mining could begin in for future investment, profit and tax. estimates that there is a 75% 1993/4. In 1970, the estimate of uranium probability that Australia has USA resources was 2.4 million tonnes U. Undiscovered Resources (UDR) Uranium production in 1988 was 5040t The current estimate for resources amounting to more than 2,600,0001 U, U. Although this output was little recoverable at US$ 130/kg U or less is 3.5 and a 50% probability that UDR will different from the average of the last million tonnes. The major increase is in exceed 3,900,000t U five years, significant changes have the low-cost RAR category. This has Australia's major uranium deposits are occurred in US . An more than doubled from 645,000 to 1.55 centred on the area of increasing proportion of US output million tonnes U. The increases are due the Northern Territory, (where four (50% in 1988) is derived from by- major deposits have been outlined), product recovery in processing TABLE 3. South Australia, several localities in phosphate rock to phosphoric acid National Uranium Resources Western Australia and Queensland (30%) and from solution mining of ('000 tonnes) (Figure 5). small high grade deposits (20%). No significant deposits of uranium are Below US SSO/kgU US $80-130 kg U known to exist in the remaining States, South Africa RAR EAR-1 RAR EAR-1 although the geology of certain parts of Uranium deposits in South Africa are Australia 462 257 58 127 New South Wales holds promise of almost all associated with gold mining, Canada 153 112 96 99 uranium occurrence. Some details of and uranium recovery is a marginal Brazil 163 92 0 0 the major deposits are listed in Table 4. operation. South African production of USA 124 0 274 0 uranium is in decline due to Namibia 97 30 16 2: 3.3 Uranium Production international sanctions together with S Africa 247 98 102 27 Uranium production is quoted in a increasing real costs. South Africa's Gabon 15 1 5 8 Niger 173 284 2 17 variety of ways. The product is called production price index rose by an Others 121 17 125 125 yellowcake, uranium concentrates, or average 14% a year between 1981 and U308. One tonne U is equivalent to 1.18 1988, almost tripling recovery costs. Total 1555 891 678 426 tonnes U308 or 1.3 short tons U308. Four uranium recovery plants ceased 14 KOONGARRA

PANOANUS CREEK WESTMORELAND

flEWLOMOND TERRITORY o Tennant Creek A Mount [saa"^ ANDERSONS LODE MARY KATHLEEN KINTYRE . WESTERN MANYINGEE AUSTRALIA TUREE CREEK 'ANGELA QUEENSLAND i L._ LAKE WAY LAKE SOUTH AUSTRALIA MAITLAND LAKE RAESIDE MULGA ROCK • OLYMPIC DAM ± GOULDS DAM HONEYMOON, EAST KALKAROO

NEW SOUTH WALES

ADELAIDE^ SYDNEY

VICTORIA

TABLE 4. • Deposit or prospect Australia's Major Uranium Deposits A Current producer Name State Tonnes U3O8' TASMANIA Beverley SA II 500 A Former producer Koongarra NT 1 1 300 HOBART Natbarlek NT 25001as concentrates! Ranger NT 103700 labiluka NT 1 75 900 Honeymoon SA 2900 Figure 5 Uranium Deposits and Occurrences in Australia Yeehrne WA 39 800 Ben Lomond OLD 3400 Olympic Dam SA 305 000 Kmtyre WA 300 100 • company announced resources and not production in 1988. Production from installed in the mid-1990s. necessarily those adopted by the Australian BMR the remaining seven plants is expected 3.4 Uranium Requirements to be 25% less than in 1988. TABLE 5. Foiecasts of the western world's natural uranium production and demand for Uranium Production by Country in 1988 Namibia Namibia's Rossing uranium mine is an each of the next ten years are shown in Production "..World open-cut mine, producing about 3550t Table 6. A feature of these estimates is (tonnes U] Output U per year, which contributes about one the decrease in inventories of uranium Canada 12440 334 third of the country's export earnings. from over 2 years to about eight months USA 5040 134 forward supply. These decreases in Europe 4 140 II 3 Australia inventories will require expanded S Africa 3805 105 In 1988, the Olympic Dam mine began production in the 1990s. The con- Namibia 3550 98 operating. The first part of a planned tribution that recycling reprocessed Australia 3530 97 extension at Ranger, from the present uranium and plutonium may make to Niger 2970 8 1 level of about 3000t U/year, could raise reduce'demand for natural uranium is Gabon 930 25 not likely to exceed 10% of total nuclear Others 480 1 3 its output to 4,500t U/year by 1991. A second extension to Ranger's capacity, fuel usage by the end of the century. Total 36885 a further I500t U/year, could be 15 4. URANIUM MARKET REVIEW

As with older commodity, market perceptions concerning uranium supply and demand cause large changes in prices In the early 1970s, the uranium industry faced an apparent supply shortage as orders for nuclear reactors and enrichment contracts outpaced projected uranium production capacity Operators of nuclear power reactors sought large quantities of uranium lo assure their future fuel supplies, the market responded with a dramatic rise in uranium prices, and this in turn accelerated exploration and production Over three years from 1972 (lie market price rose from about US$6 lo over US$4046 U3O8 Prices remained high until neu1 reactor orders dropped sharply and future requirements were reassessed

Before 1985, annual western world 4.1 The Contract Market production of uranium exceeded In the USA, the average delivery price Canada is the largest seller in the spot consumption, sometimes by a factor of under all contracts is based on all market. In 1988, the spot market more than two. Uranium in excess of uranium deliveries that take place volume totalled 3,730t U, in 1987 it was actual nuclear reactor requirements during one calendar year. 4,260t, in 1986 it was 5,350t, and in was absorbed in inventory at all stages Prices under -European contracts 1985, the high point of the decade, it of the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly as represent the weighted average price of was 6,300t. yellowcake and enriched UF6. The all deliveries made to members of the Prices in the spot market for natural average delivery price for long-term uranium continued to slide. In lune contracts is now less than US$80/kg U European Community under medium- and long-term contracts in one 1989 the price range for bids and offers, (US$30/lb U308) while the spot price is for the first time since 1973, fell below about US$26/kg U (US$1 Olb U308). calendar year, irrespective of the date of contract conclusion. US$10. The actual range was US$9.80- The division of the uranium market 10.20/Ib U3O8 (USS25.50-26.50/kg U). between contract and spot has been 4.2 Tfie Spot Market This represented a continuation of a subject to many forces over the last two The spot market is mainly in the USA; in regular decline in spot prices since the decades, but the spot market generally 1988 US producers sold half the end of 1987. For almost two years accounted for only 10% of the total uranium offered, and US utilities between 1985-87 spot prices had been tonnage traded between 1981 and 1984. bought almost two thirds of the more or less stable between US$l7-18/lb It has since increased to about 20%. uranium offered. Outside the USA, U3O8 (US$44-47/kgU).

TABLE 6. Estimated Uranium Supply and Demand the Western World ('OOOt)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Production 35.2 35.8 36.6 37.6 39.0 40.4 44.6 44.7 44.3 44.3 Uranium demand (for reactor fuel) 47.0 47.3 48.6 50.0 49.8 50.5 52.6 51.6 52.4 54.2 Consumer Inventories Natural U 102.9 97.9 90.6 84.9 77.0 673 59.3 52.5 42.7 33.1 Enriched U 29.3 27.2 28.1 29.5 32.7 34.4 35.7 37.1 36.6 37.0

TABLE 7. Weighted Average Contract Prices for Natural Uranium (US$/kg U)

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 USA 73.2 83.7 85.7 88.8 73.4 68.5 67.2 62.3 n.a. Europe 93.6 86.5 83.2 80.6 77.4 75.4 80.6 84.5 82.7'

* Preliminary

16 There are several other small 5. URANIUM CONVERSION conversion plants, UCOR - South Africa (700t U/year). PNC - lapan (200t U/year) and Nuclebras - Brazil (90t U/year) BNFL and Comurhex have built demonstration plants of 600t and 300t U/year respectively to convert reprocessed uranium.

The spot market price for conversion service is US$0.66 to US$2 2/kg U against the contract price of US$4.5 to US$7.5/kg U. Western world conversion demand was about 43,000t U in 1989 and is not likely to exceed current Over 80"» of current nudcar power reactors use enriched uranium fuel, but before (minium is conversion capacity until after 2000 enriched it must first be purified and converted to uranium hcwfluoride |UF6) THIS is because Capacity can readily be increased in I'liriclimnil processes at present in commercial use require uranium hc\afluonde as feed material advance of future demands. Uranium hewfluoridc. nonmillu a solid at room temperature, becomes a gas at over 43 degrees TABLE 8. centigrade There are two major steps in comrrsion, first to uranium telrafluonde and then to Western World Commercial uranium hevafluonde For prcsenl purposes conversion refers to the total process Since Conversion Plants conversion SOTICTS are doselij linked to uranium demand and rnnclimcnl, the throughput is similcir, although there is usually a time lag of 6-12 moulds between ijellowcake production and Country Owner Capacity conversion to UF6 (tu/yn USA Allied Chemicals 12700 Sequoyah Fuels 9090 installed capacity is about 60,000t U Canada Eldorado 14500 a year, which substantially exceeds France Comurhex 12500 Conversion services are provided by current requirements of about 35,000t UK BNFL 9000 five major commercial producers in the a year, and even the projected Total 57790 western world as listed in Table 8 Total requirements of 52,000t U in 2000.

URANIUM CONVERSION

Positioning of uranium hcxafluoride (UF6) transit container in the UF<, handling building of the centrifuge enrichment plant at the Capenhurst Works, near Chester of British Nuclear Fuels pic (BNFL) 17 Uranium is enriched in stages by 6. URANIUM ENRICHMENT physical or chemical processes in which the proportion of U235 is increased (the product flow) and decreased (the depleted flow or "tails") in counter flowing streams. An enrichment contract is not based on the tonnage of enriched uranium produced by the enrichment plant, but on the number of separative work units (SWU) involved in producing it The SWU is the result of rather complicated mathematical equations which define the energy theoretically required to produce a specified quantity of uranium enriched to a certain U235 Natural uranium consists of two main isotopes. U235 and U238, in proportions of about 0 72% assay for given feed and tails assays. and 99 28% respectively The controlled chain reaction, by which power is generated in a reactor, There are two industrially mature is sustained by the less abundant fissile isotope U235 For high power densities, as in LWR methods of enriching uranium, the designs, the juel elements must contain uranium enriched in U235 (2-5%) gaseous diffusion and the gas centrifuge process. At present about 90% of the enrichment capacity in the western world is provided by the older diffusion plants, a feature of which is their high power consumption which accounts for 70-80% of the cost. The centrifuge process needs only around 4% of this power. The most likely contender for the next generation of commercial plants will probably be based on atomic vapour laser isotope separation (AVLIS). The AVLIS process has been adopted by the US Department of Energy (DOE) for commercial development. It is also the method now favoured for development in Britain and France. The product cost of AVLIS is expected to increase with decreasing feed assay but much less than in the diffusion and centrifuge processes. This could allow the economic production of a greater quantity of enriched uranium from a given amount of natural uranium. It is also believed that AVLIS will have considerable advantages over the diffusion and centrifuge processes in enriching reprocessed uranium. AVLIS would add complexity to current fuel cycle industries in that two new operations would be required, conversion of yellowcake to uranium metal as feed for AVLIS, and conversion of enriched uranium metal to uranium dioxide for fuel, rather than the existing stages using uranium hexafluoride. An alternative to AVLIS is the molecular laser isotope separation (MLIS) process. Other enrichment processes, with less commercial potential, have been under development for some time. They include the jet-nozzle (FRG and Brazil), the advanced vortex tube (S.Africa). and the chemical exchange process (France and lapan). *!:< URANIUM ENRICHMENT View across the top of a centrifuge cascade in the first Urenco (UK) 200 tonne centrifuge enrichment plant at BNFL Capenhurst (BNFL) 18 TABLE 9 of enrichment services to the western plant is to be built, with its first 150.000 1988 Capacities (MSWU/YEAR) world The three diffusion plants SWU year operational in 1995 The originally had a total capacity of about lapan Atomic Energy Research Institute 17 million SWU

FUEL FABRICATION Inspecting Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) fuel pins after extension piece welding at the Springfields Works near Preston of British Nuclear Fuels pic (BNFL) 20 8. PLUTONIUM FUEL FABRICATION AND TECHNOLOGY

hi addition to unused uranium, spent juel from thermal reactors also contains plutonium Plutonium has long been regarded as Tlif iifmniu! defends not only on the type oj reactor but also on the length and intensity oj the an alternative reactor fuel. More than irradiation Around 30i of spent fuel, inlfi a pluloniuin content o/ almil 200 kg. is discharged 25% of the heat generated in an LWR riu li yrnr jrom a 1000 MWr LWR results from the fissioning of plutonium produced within the fuel during the operation of the reactor. Countries with large thermal reactor programs and without significant uranium resources (such as France, United Kingdom, Germany (FR) and Japan) had planned to use the plutonium arising from the reprocessing of the thermal reactor fuel to fuel a new generation of fast reactors. However, the available plutonium will exceed the amount required for the few fast reactors likely to be built this century. The problems and cost of plutonium storage and safeguarding are therefore important issues. The most expedient solution is to recycle this plutonium in LWRs. Following more than twenty years experience in fabricating, handling and using MOX fuels, there are plans to utilise reprocessed plutonium on a commercial scale in several European countries and Japan. No operational problems have arisen in reactors with MOX fuel making up to 30% of the core. MOX fuel fabrication facilities are in operation at Dessel (35t HM/year) in Belgium and at Hanau (35t HM/year) in the FRG. BNFL (UK) has operated a small facility since the 1960s. The use of MOX fuel in France is planned to increase in the 1990s. A lOOt/year MOX fuel fabrication plant (Melox) is to be built at Marcoule. lapan has announced plans to begin commercial production of MOX fuel in the first half of the 1990s. Claims for and against recycle of plutonium on economic grounds vary according to estimates of the future costs of natural uranium, enrichment and reprocessing. Individual countries are more likely to consider reprocessing and plutonium recycle in relation to waste management policies, national economic balances, indigenous energy resources and safeguards. In the absence of more advanced plutonium- fuelled reactors, the use of plutonium REPROCESSING in LWRs is expected to increase. Part of the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) being built at BNFL's Sellafield site(BNFL) 21 Spent fuel storage comprises at-reactor 9. SPENT FUEL |AR| and away-from-reactor IAFR) storage AR storage is necessary to provide a receptacle for emergency TREATMENT unloading of reactors and also to allow for minimum cooling prior to transporting the discharged fuel away from the site In addition to AR storage some countries are considering, or have L_.ilt. larger centralised APR storage facilities ENRESA. the Spanish national nuclear waste company, has plans to construct a central interim storage facility to store 6.000t of spent fuel until the year 2020 In the USA. legislation enacted at the end of 1987 Spent jitcl is discharged from a reactor and replaced when the combination of neutron absorption conditionally authorises a monitored by fission products and the reduction in fissile content no longer allows the nuclear chain reaction retrievable storage (MRS) facility to to continue efficiently According to NEA and IAEA studies \ NEA-'IAEA. Nuclear Energy and hold I5.000t of spent fuel. Included in its fuel Cycle, Prospects to 202^. OECD. Paris (I987)| Ilii1 lumulalirc arismas of spent fuel APR storage are facilities at central by the year 2000 it'ill total 165.0001 Henry Metal (MM) Nearly all of tin's iril'l be in storage reactor sites such as at Wylfa (UK) and A further 6.0001 HM it'ill accumulate each year from then on. after allmt'iiia for an expected specifically planned APR facilities at reprocessini? of about 4.0001 HM/year reprocessing plants such as Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (France) Spent fuel storage can be considered proven technology and there is no reason to suppose that fuel could not continue to be stored, given the correct conditions, for many decades However, although spent fuel can be stored safely for long periods at relatively low cost, some form of permanent disposal will eventually be necessary Table 10 shows spent fuel management strategies by country Canada, Sweden and the United States are among those countries which are studying permanent disposal of reactor fuel after once- through utilisation (the once-through strategy). A second strategy (the open cycle) consists of interim storage of the fuel and the option for either future retrieval and reprocessing or final storage Proponents of this strategy argue that spent fuel is potentially valuable and it would be premature to bury it permanently now In thirty or more years the world will be in a much better position than at present to decide whether the world situation or the commercial spread of fast reactors would make the reprocessing of spent fuel more desirable A third strategy (the closed cycle) involves reprocessing and subsequent recycling of uranium and plutonium One important technical consideration is that more than 98% of the uranium, plutonium and other elements contained in spent fuel can be extracted and recycled 9.1 Reprocessing Capability Although small-scale reprocessing facilities are operating in several countries, the only commercial facilities operating in the western world are in France and the United Kingdom TRANSPORTOF IRRADIATED FUEL France With the phase-out of the French Unloading an Excellox Flash containing overseas spent nuclear fuel at British Nuclear Fuels Marine Terminal. Barrow-in-Furncss. Cumbria The flasks are then taken to Sellafield natural uranium gas-cooled reactor by rail (BNFL) series, UNGG (called Magnox in the 22 U.K.), the reprocessing of fuel from the LWR fuel starting in 1991/2. The first remaining UNGG reactors has, since stage of UPS. another 800t HM/year 1987, been conducted at the MAR-400 LWR fuel reprocessing unit at La reprocessing plant at Marcoule Hague, began operation in 1989. Full Previously UNGG fuel was reprocessed production is scheduled to begin in at the UP2 unit at the La Hague plant. 1994. The throughput of UPS is to be The UP2 unit will be replaced by dedicated to non-French customers for UP2-800 (800t HM/year) to reprocess the first ten years of operation.

TABLE 10. International Spent-Fuel Storage Management Strategies A Summary by Country

Country Spent-fuel strategy Away-from-reactor storage facilities

Argentina At-reactor (AR) and away-from-reactor None (APR) storage for 10 years minimum, and then reprocessing, with disposal of vitrified high-level waste (HLW) in deep geologic repository. Belgium Reprocess spent fuel and dispose of None vitrified HLW after 50-75 years of storage. Spent fuel is stored in AR pools, with expansion added as needed. Brazil AR storage, followed by reprocessing, with None vitrified wastes placed in geologic repository. Canada Store approximately 50 years, then Dry concrete canisters in prepare for geologic disposal, with a use at Whiteshell, Gentilly. possibility of reprocessing based on and Douglas Point economic indications. Current policy is retrievable storage in AR wet pools and dry concrete canisters. Finland Store for a minimum of 5 years, and then KPA-STORE at TVO station return to foreign suppliers (USSR) or completed in 1987 transport to another foreign country for disposal. Domestic geologic disposal has not been ruled out. AR site expansion using wet pools has fulfilled storage needs. France Store AR for not more than one year and 150-200-MTU vault facility then transport for reprocessing. Vitrified under construction at HLW is stored for 20 years minimum and Cadarache then placed 'n deep geologic disposal. Wet pool storage at La Hague Germany Store AR for 5-10 years, to be followed by Gorleben has operating reprocessing and disposal of vitrified HLW permit for dry cask storage, in geologic repository. Spent fuel is stored but permit under litigation. in AR wet pools and dry casks. Julich has 3 fuel elements stored in a metal cask inside a concrete vault India Interim storage onsite, followed by None reprocessing. Vitrified HLW to be buried in geologic repository. Current near-term needs met by AR pool storage.

Italy Reprocess via a foreign nation, with HLW 12 PWR assemblies in to be returned for internal geologic modular concrete vault site disposal after 50 years of storage. High- atTYinoVercellese density and compact racks have solved near-term storage needs, and demonstration project on dry storage is under way. Japan Reprocess via a foreign nation until Drywall vault storage tested domestic reprocessing capability is in at Tokai, development of dry place. AR pool storage planned, with 30-50 storage casks tested by years of interim storage of HLW planned CP1EP1 before geologic disposal. cont.

23 nominal capacity of I200t HM/year but is expected to attain a throughput of 7000t HM over the first ten years of operation THORP is scheduled for Country Spent-fuel strategy Away-from-reactor operation in 1992 The UKAEA has a storage facilities pilot plant operating at Dounreay, reprocessing fuel from the FBR prototype reactor at that site. Other Capacity South Korea AR storage, fol lowed by central dry storage None for 50 years at a separate facility. Argentina — CNEA has almost Near-term storage needs met through completed construction of a 5t HM/year high-density racks. pilot reprocessing plant at Ezeiza, near Netherlands Reprocess via a foreign nation and then 5000-MTU capacity dry vault Buenos Aires. The plant is expected to return vitrified waste for geologic disposal in planning stages for all be operational in 1990. after 50-100 years of storage. Current types of radioactive waste, Belgium — A 60t HM/year oxide fuel needs are met with AR storage, with plans including spent fuel reprocessing plant operated at Mol to build APR storage facility. from 1966 to 1974 The plant was closed Spain AR storage for lOyears, followed by 10-20 None because it was uneconomic years of dry cask storage. Direct disposal in geologic repository is Germany F.R — A 40t HM/year planned. Current and near-term needs met reprocessing plant has been operating with AR pools. at Karlsruhe since 1970. Plans, to Sweden Storage in APR facility for 40 years and CLAB facility has capacity of construct a 350t HM/year plant at then disposal in geologic repository. 3000 MTU, with expansion Wakersdorf have recently been Current spent fuel stored onsite for six planned to 9000. abandoned. Construction of the months before transport to central facility Assemblies stored in open Wakersdorf plant, financed entirely by (CLAB). canisters in stainless steel- West German utilities, had been lined reinforced concrete delayed by long and stormy public pools approximately hearings. Veba, a West German energy 25-30 m below surface. group, and Cogema have signed a CLAB located near Oskarshamn power plant memorandum of understanding outlining a plan to reprocess German Switzerland Ship to foreign country for reprocessing, Castor IC dry cask tested with HLW to be returned for internal and licensed spent fuel at Cogema's new UP3 plant disposal. for fifteen years, starting in 1999. Under Current needs met with AR high-density the plan Veba would purchase a share racks. in UP3 (up to 49%) and commit to take Taiwan Store AR, to be followed by AR or central None at least 400t HM/year of the plants dry cask storage facility for 50 years. Near- reprocessing capacity. Some German term and current storage capacity met utilities are negotiating with BNFL for through high-density racks. additional reprocessing services at its United Interim storage AR followed by Three modular dry vaults at- new THORP plant after the year 2000. Kingdom reprocessing. Vitrified HLW to be placed Wylfa plant using natural in deep geologic repository after 50 years convection for cooling; India — IDAE has a lOOt HM/year plant of storage. AR pools have met storage capacity is 83 MTU at Tarapur and a I25t HM/year plant at needs. Dry vault storage currently used at Kalpakkam for reprocessing power Wylfa for Magnox fuel. reactor fuel. Phase 2 of the Kalpakkam United Store for a minimum of 5 years, then Castor V/21 casks used at project, now under construction, is States disposal in geologic repository. Surry's ISFSI. NUHOMS planned to have a capacity of 1 OOOt HM/ Current policy is AR wet pools or APR dry dry vault at Robinson year. A 30t HM/year plant at Trombay, casks or dry vaults. which was decommissioned in 1972 USSR Interim storage AR followed by and reopened in 1977, reprocesses fuel reprocessing. Vitrified HLW stored for a from research reactors, minimum period, then buried via deep geologic disposal. Also reprocessing spent lapan — PNC operates a 210t HM/year fuel from Soviet plants sold to other fuel reprocessing plant at Tokai Mura. nations. A 800t HM/year plant for reprocessing LWR fuel is to be built at Rokkashomura for operation in 1997. A second plant of Information obtained from U.S. Department of Energy, the same size could be constructed at Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. the same site by the year 2010. and other sources by Nuclear News. March 1988. USSR — Spent fuel of Soviet origin from Finland and the Comecon TABLE 10. International Spent-Fuel Storage Management Strategies countries is sent to the USSR for A Summary by Country reprocessing. A reprocessing plant, with a nominal capacity of 400t HM/year, is believed to be operating at Kyshtyn. J" However, there are indications that the USSR may be planning to defer large United Kingdom capable of handing AGR and LWR fuel scale reprocessing until the next BNFL has a I500t HM/year plant at under construction at the same site. century. Work has reportedly been Sellafield for reprocessing GCR fuel. The plant, the Thermal Oxide stopped on a 1,5001 HM/year facility BNFL also has a multipurpose plant Reprocessing Plant (THORP), has a being built at Krasnoyarsk. 24 • Delay and decay storage of very 10. RADIOACTIVE WASTE short-lived radioactive waste to permit its decay into non-radioactive species. MANAGEMENT • Dilution and dispersion of short- lived or very dilute radioactive wastes. • Concentration and containment of iong-lived radioactivity. Containment technology for disposal is based on a system involving the use of multiple barriers. The form of the waste itself provides the first barrier. It is possible to treat raw waste both to reduce its volume (e.g. by ion-exchange or chemical precipitation), and to give av it'iistf produced durnui the opeialion of nudi'iir powei ('diiils and mide\ir/nd cycle it physical integrity and chemical ii's am be in gas, liquid or solid form stability. This treatment can involve II is managed by applying Him principles irlndi may be applied separately or in combination vitrifying the waste, incorporating it into synthetic rock or simply enclosing

SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT Flask handling operations in the THORP Receipt and Storage Facility, at the Sellafleld Site, in Cumbria, of British Nuclear Fuels pic (BNFL) 25 it within cement or bitumen, providing The wastes from the mining and milling being, achieved in Europe (Table 11). protection against the ingress of water ! of uranium are treated and managed at 10.4 Vitrification that may occur n an underground site. the site, i e. these wastes, which contain Vitrification was first demonstrated on The next barrier is a corrosion-resistant the radioactive decay products an industrial scale in France at the AVM container which should remain intact associated with uranium ore, are (Atelier de Vitrification de Marcoule) at for a reasonable period of time; separated from the uranium in the Marcoule. Two additional plants are between 100 years to allow retrieval if milling process and are retained in the being constructed at La Hague. They required, and 1000 years to allow decay mill tailings. Wastes from UF6 are to vitrify the solutions generated by of some of the more mobile nuclides conversion, enrichment and fuel the UP3 and UP2-800 reprocessing such as caesium 137 and strontium 90. fabrication, are mainly chemical in plants when they begin operating. The ultimate barrier is geological form, contain little radioactivity and Although the United Kingdom isolation provided by rock, at isolation are also treated and managed at the developed its own vitrification depths of 500-1000 metres for high- plant site. technology in the 1960s and 1970s, it level waste. In the nuclear industry a relatively large was decided in 1981 to use French 10.1 Categories of Waste volume of solid LLW is generated from technology under licence. A vitrification the disposal of contaminated paper, plant is being built at Sellafield to Although there is no unified plastic, protective clothing, etc. LLW international categorisation of commence operation in 1990. radioactive wastes, there are many also arises from industry, hospitals and Pamela, a vitrification process scientific laboratories. Short-lived ILW developed by Germany F.R., has been similarities among the classifications arises mainly from nuclear power adopted in different countries to reflect demonstrated at pilot plant scale at operational requirements (transport, stations and research institutions, Mol in Belgium. whereas long-lived ILW is produced In the United States, and at the disposal, etc.). There are three main almost exclusively from fuel categories of radioactive waste-, high, reprocessing operations. lapanese plant which PNC is building at intermediate and low. Tokai Mura, the joule-heated ceramic High Level Waste (HLW) — contains HLW arises only from the first part of melter (|CM) process will be used. the chemical separation phase of fuel A pilot plant to vitrify HLW generated high concentrations of activity such reprocessing or, if the fuel is not that radioactive decay heating may reprocessed, irradiated fuel can be by the Trombay reprocessing plant has cause the temperature to rise to such considered as HLW. been operating at Tarapur since 1985. an extent that this factor has to be Its capacity is 120/125 kg (glass)/day. A taken into account in designing 10.3 Wasle Management Programs second plant, at Trombay, is scheduled storage, transport or disposal facilities. • Some very low-level liquid and gaseous for operation in 1990. A third facility, at Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) — wastes can be dispersed into the Kalpakkam, is scheduled for operation environment under the terms of in 1993. (sometimes called medium level waste) authorisations issued by government is less radioactive than HLW and regulatory departments. The volume of 10.5 Advanced Waste Forms — SYNROC generally does not generate a SYNROC, an Australian invention, is significant amount of heat. ILW may be LLW is often reduced by compaction or incineration before transport to the the only waste form receiving subdivided into long-lived and short- burial site. ILW can be divided into worldwide attention as an alternative to lived waste. In the United States the short-lived waste, which can be buried borosilicate glass. While borosilicate short-lived ILW is grouped with the in concrete lined trenches (often called glass is generally considered to be an LLW and the long-lived ILW is called engineered burial), and long-lived adequate first generation waste form, it TRU (transuranic waste). waste which, like HLW, will need to be is recognised that the requirement for Low Level Waste (LLW) — is not as immobilised or fixed in a solid form the best practicable technology will radioactive as ILW but still exceeds the before disposal (e.g. by burial in deep demand continuing attention. SYNROC limits set for disposal on conventional geologic formations). The HLW from immobilises the high level radioactive municipal landfill sites. LLW does not reprocessing contains almost all of the products inside a synthetic rock which require shielding during normal non-gaseous fission products and is mimics minerals known to have handling and transport. stored as a liquid in steel tanks for immobilised naturally occurring radioactive uranium and thorium over 10.2 Sources of Waste further cooling (decay) before being incorporated within a borosilicate glass geological time scales. Typically it Compared to most other types of (vitrification) or ceramic form. Current comprises several titanate phases and industrial and toxic wastes, the volume plans are that the immobilised waste minor amounts of metal alloys trapped of radioactive waste is small. will then be stored for 30-50 years in an as microscopic specks by the titanate Nevertheless, the sources of radioactive air-cooled store before final disposal. matrix. These components can take into waste are very diverse and include: The first commercial demonstration of solid solution in their crystal lattices • the mining of uranium ore (in 21 final disposal for conditioned HLW and most of the elements in high level countries), spent fuel is expected early in the next nuclear waste. The mineral structure of • uranium enrichment and the century. For example, Germany F.R. is SYNROC adjusts in response to changes manufacture of nuclear fuel (20 planning a repository for the year 2000, in waste loading and composition. countries), the USA has scheduled repository Various SYNROC formulations have • the operation of reactors, mainly for operations by 2003, Sweden and Spain been developed to meet specific waste generating electricity (27 countries) are planning for around 2020 and requirements. Most work is now on but also for research (56 countries), Switzerland soon after 2020. In the SYNROC C, designed to immobilise • the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel meantime, tests and safety assessment HLW from LWRs. (9 countries), studies are being intensified to improve The advantages claimed for SYNROC • the decommissioning of nuclear knowledge about the long term are its much greater resistance to facilities. behaviour of repositories, waste leaching by water especially at high • the separation of radioactive containment and selection of suitable temperatures, its higher density, isotopes and their use in medicine, disposal sites. Progress in waste thermal conductivity, higher melting manufacturing industry, universities management can be judged by the point, and its potential for allowing and research establishments. extent to which disposal has been, or is greater flexibility in disposal schemes. 26 TABLE 11. Who is doing what the status of radioactive waste disposal in Western Europe

Short-lived low and Country Long-lived intermediate intermediate level wastes and high-level wastes

Austria Interim storage at a central facility No nuclear power programme — (Seibersdorf) pending deep no wastes produced. disposal. Site to be available by mid-1990s. Preliminary site investigations complete. Belgium Sea disposal for ceitain wastes Stored pending deep disposal in used until 1982. Interim storage at clay. Preliminary repository safety a central facility (Mol) pending report available by mid-1990s to disposal by mid-1990s. Preliminary obtain agreement on final site and site investigations for a shallow design. Underground laboratory at repository for LLW under way. Mol conducting research on disposal. Finland Interim storage pending disposal Spent fuel from Loviisa power about 100m underground at two plant sent to USSR. Remaining sites. Detailed geological material stored pending deep investigations completed disposal. Repository for HLW from Repositories could be available by Olkiluoto power plant to be the end of 1992. available by 2020. Preliminary investigations of 5-10 sites under way. France Waste disposed of by shallow Stored pending deep disposal. burial at La Manche. Presently Detailed investigations at four developing a second site at sites, one of which will be Soulaine, expected to be operating developed as an underground by 1990. laboratory. First stage of repository (for ILW) available by 2000. Germany. FR Interim storage. Deep disposal Stored pending deep disposal. anticipated at Konrad iron-ore Detailed geological investigations mine starting in the early 1990s at Gorleben salt formation with the intention of developing it as a long- lived ILW repository by 2000. Repository engineering research has been conducted at the Asse salt mine since 1955 Italy Interim storage pending disposal, Stored pending deep disposal. possibly by shallow burial. Undertaking research and preliminary site investigations into the disposal of all types of waste, with emphasis on clay geology. Netherlands Sea disposal for certain wastes Long-term storage pending deep used until 1982. Waste stored disposal. temporarily pending availability of a long-term storage facility (Borssele) available by 1990. Intended to dispose of all types of waste, probably into salt formations, after conducting further research. Spain Interim storage pending disposal Stored pending deep disposal in in a shallow land burial facility to crystalline rock starting around be operating by 1990 2015. Sweden Underground repository at a depth Long-term storage pending of 60m constructed I km offshore at disposal. Internationally Forsmark. started up in 1988. sponsored underground research laboratory at Stripa studying long- term disposal in granite formations Intends to establish second underground lab at Oskarshamn, operational in 1993. Repository to be available by 2020 Preliminary site investigations underway Switzerland Sea disposal for certain wastes Stored pending deep disposal. used until 1982 Interim storage Underground research laboratory pending disposal underground at Grimsel is in operation Repository to be available by 1998. Repository available by around Detailed geological investigations 2020. Preliminary identification of underway at four sites suitable areas being undertaken. UK Sea disposal for certain wastes HLW stored for at least 50 years used until 1982. LLW disposed of pending deep disposal. Research by shallow burial at Drigg being conducted on hydrogeology of granite rocks. Short- and long-lived ILW stored pending development of an underground repository to be available around 2002, Source: Nuclear Engineering International. August, 1988.

27 11. NUCLEAR FUSION

Tne essentially inexftausli&le supply of energy generated in (lie sun and older stars comes from the fusion of hydrogen into heavier elements. If such a process could be harnessed on earth, (here are enough of the hydrogen isotopes (hydrogen and deuterium) present in sea-water to supply the earth's energy requirements for the next 10 billion years. This goal has led to a large international effort over the last three decades to find methods of producing controlled fusion. Significant advances have been made in the past five years but a great deal of research and development is still needed to esta&lisfi (lie viability of a commercial fusion reactor.

The fusion process only takes place at a under the auspices of the IAEA, the overcoming the 'sticking' problem or on useful rate when the hydrogen nuclei major nations are collaborating on the the development of more energy can be forced closely together against design of the International Thermo- efficient muon production. the electrostatic forces of repulsion nuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), The cold fusion technique which arising from the nuclear charge. There which is based on the tokamak. ITER is generated a great deal of scientific and are various ways in which this may be being designed to demonstrate the media attention in March 1989 involved achieved. They may be broadly feasibility of fusion power and to the claims by Drs Pons and Fleischmann categorised as magnetic confinement, produce 1000 MW of fusion power for that they had achieved excess heat inertial confinement and cold fusion. In testing physics and technology issues. generation using an electro-chemical all the methods it is envisaged that the Research is also being carried out on cell in which a palladium cathode was fuel used in the first generation fusion other forms of magnetic bottles such as saturated with deuterium. Although reactors will be the naturally occurring stellarators, reverse field pinches and there were immediate questions about hydrogen isotope deuterium and the compact torus devices. the lack of radiation usually associated radioactive hydrogen isotope tritium Inertial confinement involves the with fusion, the ease with which this which must be bred as part of the compression of small spherical fuel energy seemed to be generated led to fusion fuel cycle. pellets to very high densities and considerable excitement and to a Magnetic confinement involves the use temperatures by a pulse of laser light or large number of experiments. Some of magnetic fields to isolate the very of charged particles. Impressive laboratories initially reported positive hot (about 100 million degrees), very progress has also been made in this results, but careful research at many diffuse fuel away from the vessel walls. field over the past few years and others failed to detect fusion at any At these temperatures, electrons are scientific break-even has been level that would be of use for energy knocked off the atoms and the approached. production. hydrogen fuel consists of a gas of Australia is contributing to the fusion electrons and ions (called a plasma). Cold fusion involves attempts to bring effort with magnetic confinement The plasma particles move predomin- the hydrogen nuclei together by means related research at the University level. antly along the magnetic field lines and that do not involve high temperatures. Programs include heating of tokamak not across them, so that the shaping of One method that has been researched plasma using plasma waves, and the field lines into closed surfaces during this decade involves muon- studies of plasma confinement in results in 'magnetic bottles' which catalysed fusion. Muons are like heavy magnetic configurations called heliacs prevent the plasma from contacting electrons and they bind molecules of and rotamaks. There is also University solid materials and cooling down. The deuterium and tritium sufficiently close research on laser-plasma interactions, most successful device to date is the together so that a fusion reaction in support of the inertial confinement tokamak, in which the plasma has a rapidly occurs, leaving the muon free to program. toroidal or doughnut shape. The large form another molecule. Unfortunately, tokamaks of Europe, the USA, lapan mupns require iarge energy input for and the USSR are now approaching the their formation and it appears that they level of 'scientific break-even' at which can only catalyse a few hundred fusion the energy released by fusion equals reactions before they 'stick' to an alpha the energy needed to heat and confine particle produced in the fusion reaction the plasma. Because of the large costs and effectively cease their catalysing involved, the development of the next action (a few thousand fusion events generation of tokamaks may well rest are needed for energy breakeven). The on international projects. For example, feasibility of this approach depends on 28 5g^1S^*^;.»^T^ttri*:5«^^ ^^^5*fett«^v^- v

Canada's latest nuclear power plant at Darlington (Ontario Hydro Canada)