DOCSLIB.ORG

Thorium Fuel Cycles – AECL Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Thorium Fuel Cycles & Heavy Water Reactors AECL Experience Energy From Thorium Event – CNS – UOIT B. P. Bromley Advanced Reactor Systems Computational Reactor Physics AECL - Chalk River Laboratories March 22, 2013 UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ Opening Remarks • There’s nothing magical or mysterious about thorium except: –3 times abundant as uranium in the earth’s crust – a large resource. –U-233 (bred from Th-232) has a high 2.2, in both thermal and fast neutron energy spectrum; can be used for a breeder reactor. –Pu, Am, Cm, etc. production with Th-based fuels will much lower. • Any reactor (fast or thermal) can be adapted to use thorium. • Thermal reactors can operate with lower fissile wt%. • For thermal spectrum reactor, we want: –Minimal parasitic neutron absorption; maximum neutron economy. –Maximum burnup for Th-based fuel for a given fissile content. – OTT (Once Thru Thorium) Cycle – SSET (Self-sustaining Equilibrium Thorium) Cycle – Topping fuel cycles: Th (new + recycled) + (U/Pu) (new + recycled) UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 2 Fundamental Advantage of Heavy Water • Heavy water has the highest moderating ratio (s/a). –Slows down neutrons with minimal absorption. – Better than H (in H2O), better than C (in graphite). –Can maximize neutron economy, in a thermal-spectrum reactor. – Save neutrons for fission and breeding new fuel. • HWR can run on natural uranium and achieve good burnup. – ~7,500 MWd/t in a CANDU PT-HWR UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 3 Pressure Tube Heavy Water Reactors (PT-HWR) - Advantages • Pathway Canada Chose – AECL Pursued. • Excellent neutron economy. – High conversion ratios (C.R.>0.8). – Can operate on natural uranium (NU). – High fuel utilization; conservation of resources. • Continuous On-line refuelling. – Low excess reactivity. – Higher fuel burnup for a given enrichment. – 30% more burnup than 3-batch refuelling. – Maximize uranium utilization (kWh/kg-U-mined). – High capacity factors (0.8 to 0.95). – Flexibility in fuel loading – one or more fuel types can be used. • Modular construction. – Short, relatively simple fuel bundle design. – Pressure tubes; replaceable; reactor can be refurbished. – Local fabrication (do not need heavy forgings). UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 4 PT-HWR • Operational Technology. • Future HWR variants. • Potential for further improvements. • Use R&D to find them. UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 5 PT-HWR / CANDU Reactors • Designed to maximizes neutron economy. • Flexible in use of fuel types. • An existing, proven, and operational technology. • Supply chain in place. • Design naturally lends itself to implementation of Th-based fuels. –Thorium-based fuels have been tested in PT-HWR (NPD-2). –Thorium bundles have been used in India (in their PT-HWRs). – Power flattening for start-up cores; alternative to DU. • Practical implementation time should be relatively short. • AECL / CRL has helped develop and prove this technology, and is continually exploring technology improvements to facilitate implementation and expansion of thorium-based fuel cycles. – Emphasis on use of solid fuel forms. UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 6 Overview of AECL Experience • AECL has over 50 years of extensive experience with Thoria-based fuels – Investments made in thorium fuel cycle R&D since the late 1950’s – First irradiation conducted in 1962 and the most recent in 2005 • Experience includes – Fuel Fabrication. – Irradiation testing. – Post Irradiation Examination. – Thorium fuel reprocessing. – Waste management. – Critical experiments. – Reactor physics. – Conceptual design studies. – Economic analyses. – System studies. UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 7 Thorium in CANDU / PT-HWR Evolution PT-HWR Canadian SCWR With U-233 With U-233 Recycle Recycle Build U-233 resource U-233 + Pu U-233 + Once-through Pu Pu/Th Innovation Once-through Once-through LEU/Th Pu/Th Years AECL - OFFICIAL USE ONLY / À USAGE EXCLUSIF - EACL 8 Long-term Impact • Decay heat in spent fuel is a main parameter in determining the capacity of a long term disposal facility 1.6 Current global cycle, LWRs + HWRs 1.4 Transition to once-through thorium in CANDU Transition to fast reactors 1.2 Transition to Th with Once-through thorium gives the 1.0 same reduction as fast reactors U-233 recycle in 0.8 CANDU Once-through thorium gives 50% 0.6 reduction over current cycle 0.4 Decay heat (GW) heat Decay 0.2 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Years since end of scenario Thorium with U-233 gives a 75% reduction over the current cycle AECL - OFFICIAL USE ONLY / À USAGE EXCLUSIF - EACL 9 Fabrication • Generally, AECL has targeted a solid solution of Thoria and the fissile additive. • Many techniques are capable of achieving this and they fall into two main categories: 1. Solution blending – sol gel, co-precipitation – Mixing at the atomic level 2. Mechanical mixing – co-milling, high-intensity mixing – Often not a “perfect” solid solution – Must achieve mixing on the scale of individual particles UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 10 Thorium Pellet Structure Granular Homogeneous UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 11 Thoria Irradiation Experience at AECL • Thoria irradiations ongoing since early 1960s • Irradiations in NRX, NRU and WR-1 research reactors. • Irradiations in NPD-2 –~20 MWe prototype PT-HWR. • Pure ThO2, (U,Th)O2 , and (Pu,Th)O2 • NRU still operational. Irradiation # of experiments Irradiation Time Facility frame NPD 1 1976 NRX 20 1962-1992 NRU 28 1966-2005 WR1 18 1970-1980 UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 12 NRX, NRU, WR-1, NPD • NPD-2 • WP-1 • NRU • NRX UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 13 Critical Experiments • AECL: long history of critical experiments involving thorium-based fuels. • Three sets of experiments, dating back to the 1960’s – HEU/Th (1966-1968) – Pu/Th (1986) – U-233/Th (1990s) • Performed in the ZED-2 (Zero Energy Deuterium) critical facility at Chalk River Laboratories. –Reaction rate / foil data. –Reactivity changes due to X – X = coolant density, temperature, etc. –Verifies physics; validate computer codes. UNRESTRICTED / ILLIMITÉ 14 Alternative Fuel Bundle and Core Design Options Heterogeneous, Homogeneous 1.4 Mixed Bundle Bundle 1.2 1 NU 0.8 0.6 0.4 CANDU 0.2 Checkerboard Annular Seed- Blanket Seed-Blanket 0 Cores Cores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Row\Col 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Row\Col Row\Col 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Row\Col A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B B B B B B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B B B B B B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A B 0 0 0 0 0 B B B S S S S S S B B B 0 0 0 0 0 B B 0 0 0 0 0 B B B S S S S S S B B B 0 0 0 0 0 B Checkerboard Core Designs C 0 0 0 0 B S S B S S B B S S B S S B 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 0 0 C D 0 0 0 B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 0 D Fissile Utilization, Relative to Natural Uranium Uranium Natural to Relative Fissile Utilization, E 0 0 B S S B S S B B S S B B S S B S S B 0 0 E E 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 E Annular Core Designs F 0 0 B S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S B 0 0 F F 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 F G 0 B S B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B S B 0 G G 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 G H 0 B B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B B 0 H H 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 H J B S S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S S B J J B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B J K B S S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S S B K K B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B K L B S B B S S B B S S S S S S B B S S B B S B L L B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B L M B S B B S S B B S S S S S S B B S S B B S B M M B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B M Hafnium Tube N B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B N 3.8% Pu N B S S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S S B N 3 mm thick O B S S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S S B O O B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B O 96.2% Th P 0 B B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B B 0 P P 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 P Q 0 B S B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B S B 0 Q Q 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 Q PT R 0 0 B S B B S S B B S S B B S S B B S B 0 0 R R 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 R Zr Rod S 0 0 B S S B S S B B S S B B S S B S S B 0 0 S S 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 S T 0 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 0 T CT T 0 0 0 B S S B B S S B B S S B B S S B 0 0 0 T U 0 0 0 0 B S S S S S S S S S S S S B 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 B S S B S S B B S S B S S B 0 0 0 0 U V 0 0 0 0 0 B B B S S S S S S B B B 0 0 0 0 0 V V 0 0 0 0 0 B B B S S S S S S B B B 0 0 0 0 0 V W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B B B B B B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B B B B B B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Row\Col 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Row\Col Row\Col 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Row\Col Moderator AECL - OFFICIAL USE ONLY / À USAGE EXCLUSIF - EACL 15 Potential to Increase Utilization • Achieve ~ 20% to 100% higher utilization of fissile fuel than PT-HWR with NU fuel in an OTT cycle.
Recommended publications
  • SAFETY RE-ASSESSMENT of AECL TEST and RESEARCH REACTORS D. J. WINFIELD Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories ATOMIC ENERGY of CANADA

    SAFETY RE-ASSESSMENT of AECL TEST and RESEARCH REACTORS D. J. WINFIELD Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories ATOMIC ENERGY of CANADA

    309 IAEA-SM-310/ 94 SAFETY RE-ASSESSMENT OF AECL TEST AND RESEARCH REACTORS D. J. WINFIELD Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED 310 IAEA-SM-310/94 SAFETY RE-ASSESSMENT OF AECL TEST AND RESEARCH REACTORS ABSTRACT Atomic Energy of Canada Limited currently has four operating engineering test/research reactors of various sizes and ages; a new isotope-production reactor MAPLE-X10, under construction at Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories (CRNL), and a heating demonstration/test reactor, SDR, undergoing high-power commissioning at Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment (WNRE). The company is also performing design studies of small reactors for hot water and electricity production. The older reactors are ZED-2, PTR, NRX and NRU; these range in age from 42 years (NRX) to 29 years (ZED-2). Since 1984, limited-scope safety re-assessments have been underway on three of these reactors (ZED-2, NRX and NRU). ZED-2 and PTR are operated by the Reactor Physics Branch, all other reactors are operated by the respective site Reactor Operations Branches. For the older reactors the original safety reports produced were entirely deterministic in nature and based on the design-basis accident concept. The limited scope safety re-assessments for these older reactors, carried out over the past 5 years, have comprised both quantitative probabilistic safety-assessment techniques, such as event tree and fault tree analysis, and/or qualitative techniques, such as failure mode and effect analysis. The technique used for an individual assessment was dependent upon the specific scope required. This paper discusses the types of analyses carried out, specific insights/recommendations resulting from the analysis and indicates the plan for future analysis.
  • Heu Repatriation Project

    Heu Repatriation Project

    HEU REPATRIATION PROJECT RATIONALE In April 2010, the governments of Canada and the United States (U.S.) committed to work cooperatively to repatriate spent highly- enriched uranium (HEU) fuel currently stored at the Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario to the U.S. as part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, a broad international effort to consolidate HEU inventories in fewer locations around the world. This initiative PROJECT BACKGROUND promotes non-proliferation This HEU is the result of two decades of nuclear fuel use at the by removing existing weapons Chalk River Laboratories for Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) grade material from Canada research reactors, the National Research Experimental (NRX) and and transferring it to the National Research Universal (NRU), and for the production of U.S., which has the capability medical isotopes in the NRU, which has benefitted generations of to reprocess it for peaceful Canadians. Returning this material to the U.S. in its existing solid purposes. In March 2012, and liquid forms ensures that this material is stored safely in a Prime Minister Harper secure highly guarded location, or is reprocessed into other forms announced that Canada and that can be used for peaceful purposes. the U.S. were expanding their efforts to return additional Alternative approaches have been carefully considered and inventories of HEU materials, repatriation provides the safest, most secure, and fastest solution including those in liquid form. for the permanent disposition of these materials, thereby eliminating a liability for future generations of Canadians. For more information on this project contact: Email: [email protected] Canadian Nuclear Laboratories 1-866-886-2325 or visit: www.cnl.ca persons who have a legitimate need to PROJECT GOAL know, such as police or emergency response To repatriate highly-enriched uranium forces.
  • WASH-1097.Pdf

    WASH-1097.Pdf

    WASH 1097 UC-80 THE USE OF THORIUM IN NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS JUNE 1969 PREPARED BY Brookhaven National Laboratory AND THE Division of Reactor Development and Technology WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY BABCOCK & WILCOX GULF GENERAL ATOMIC OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25 FOREWORD This report on "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors" was prepared under the direction of the Division of Reactor Development and Technology, U.S.A.E.C., as part of an overall assessment of the Civilian Nuclear Power Program initiated in response to a request in 1966 by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. It represents the results of the inquiry by the Thorium Systems Task Force whose membership included representatives of Babcock & Wilcox Company, Gulf General Atomic Company, the Argonne National Laboratory, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Publication of this report, which provides information basic to the AEC reactor development program, completes one phase of the evaluation effort outlined in the 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report to the President on Civilian Nuclear Power, issued in February 1967. The 1967 Supplement outlined changes since 1962 in the technical, economic and resource picture and provided background for further study. Specifically, this report represents the consensus of the task force on the potential use of the thorium cycle and the specific thorium fueled reactor designs which have been proposed.
  • A Review of the Benefits and Applications of the Thorium Fuel Cycle Vincent Hall University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    A Review of the Benefits and Applications of the Thorium Fuel Cycle Vincent Hall University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Honors Chemical Engineering Theses 12-2010 A review of the benefits and applications of the thorium fuel cycle Vincent Hall University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cheguht Recommended Citation Hall, Vincent, "A review of the benefits nda applications of the thorium fuel cycle" (2010). Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Honors Theses. 25. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cheguht/25 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Chemical Engineering at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. A REVIEW OF THE BENEFITS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE THORIUM FUEL CYCLE An Undergraduate Honors College Thesis in the Ralph E. Martin Department of Chemical Engineering College of Engineering University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR by Vincent Hall 09-21-2010 1 Abstract This paper aims to inform the reader of the benefits that can be achieved by using thorium as a fuel for nuclear power. Stages of the thorium cycle are directly compared against the current uranium based nuclear fuel cycle. These include mining, milling, fuel fabrication, use of various reactor designs, reprocessing, and disposal. Thorium power promises several key advantages over traditional nuclear power methods, namely a dramatic decrease in long lived radioactive waste, increased fuel efficiency, greater chemical stability during disposal, and higher adaptability for differing reactor designs across a wider range of the thermal neutron spectrum.
  • Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors

    Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors

    0 Department of Nuclear Engineering And Radiation Health Physics DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE FOR INNOVATIVE SMALL LIGHT WATER REACTORS. By Alexey I. Soldatov A DISSERTATION Submitted to Oregon State University March 9, 2009 1 AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Alexey I. Soldatov for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Nuclear Engineering presented on March 9, 2009. Title: Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors. Abstract approved: Todd S. Palmer In order to address the energy needs of developing countries and remote communities, Oregon State University has proposed the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) design. In order to achieve five years of operation without refueling, use of 8% enriched fuel is necessary. This dissertation is focused on core design issues related with increased fuel enrichment (8.0%) and specific MASLWR operational conditions (such as lower operational pressure and temperature, and increased leakage due to small core). Neutron physics calculations are performed with the commercial nuclear industry tools CASMO-4 and SIMULATE-3, developed by Studsvik Scandpower Inc. The first set of results are generated from infinite lattice level calculations with CASMO-4, and focus on evaluation of the principal differences between standard PWR fuel and MASLWR fuel. Chapter 4-1 covers aspects of fuel isotopic composition changes with burnup, evaluation of kinetic parameters and reactivity coefficients. Chapter 4-2 discusses gadolinium self-shielding and shadowing effects, and subsequent impacts on power generation peaking and Reactor Control System shadowing. 2 The second aspect of the research is dedicated to core design issues, such as reflector design (chapter 4-3), burnable absorber distribution and programmed fuel burnup and fuel use strategy (chapter 4-4).
  • NPR81: South Korea's Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel

    NPR81: South Korea's Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel

    JUNGMIN KANG & H.A. FEIVESON Viewpoint South Korea’s Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel Reprocessing JUNGMIN KANG & H.A. FEIVESON1 Dr. Jungmin Kang was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (CEES), Princeton University in 1999-2000. He is the author of forthcoming articles in Science & Global Security and Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology. Dr. H.A. Feiveson is a Senior Research Scientist at CEES and a Co- director of Princeton’s research Program on Nuclear Policy Alternatives. He is the Editor of Science and Global Security, editor and co-author of The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-alerting of Nuclear Weapons (Brookings Institution, 1999), and co-author of Ending the Threat of Nuclear Attack (Stanford University Center for International Security and Arms Control, 1997). rom the beginning of its nuclear power program could reduce dependence on imported uranium. During in the 1970s, the Republic of Korea (South Ko- the 1990s, the South Korean government remained con- Frea) has been intermittently interested in the cerned about energy security but also began to see re- reprocessing of nuclear-power spent fuel. Such repro- processing as a way to address South Korea’s spent fuel cessing would typically separate the spent fuel into three disposal problem. Throughout this entire period, the constituent components: the unfissioned uranium re- United States consistently and effectively opposed all maining in the spent fuel, the plutonium produced dur- reprocessing initiatives on nonproliferation grounds. We ing reactor operation, and the highly radioactive fission review South Korea’s evolving interest in spent fuel re- products and transuranics other than plutonium.
  • National Neutron Strategy-Draft

    National Neutron Strategy-Draft

    DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION A National Strategy for Materials Research with Neutron Beams: Discussion on a “National Neutron Strategy” This consultation draft was updated in February 2021, following the outcomes of the Canadian Neutron Initiative Roundtable: Towards a National Neutron Strategy, organized in partnership with CIFAR on December 15–16, 2020. 1 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION This Canadian Neutron Initiative (CNI) discussion paper and associated Roundtable Meeting are produced in partnership with CIFAR. We also thank the following sponsors: 2 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Contents 1 Executive summary and overview of the national neutron strategy ................................................... 5 2 Consultation on the strategy ................................................................................................................ 9 3 The present: A strong foundation for continued excellence .............................................................. 10 3.1 The Canadian neutron beam user community ........................................................................... 10 3.2 McMaster University ................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Other neutron beam capabilities and interests .......................................................................... 15 4 Forging foreign partnerships ............................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Global renewal of advanced neutron sources ...........................................................................
  • Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Ix X 1.0 INVENTORY of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA OVERVIEW

    Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Ix X 1.0 INVENTORY of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA OVERVIEW

    Inventory of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA 2016 Inventory of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA 2016 Photograph contributors: Cameco Corp.: page ix OPG: page 34 Orano Canada: page x Cameco Corp.: page 47 BWX Technologies, Inc.: page 2 Cameco Corp.: page 48 OPG: page 14 OPG: page 50 OPG: page 23 Cameco Corp.: page 53 OPG: page 24 Cameco Corp.: page 54 BWX Technologies, Inc.: page 33 Cameco Corp.: page 62 For information regarding reproduction rights, contact Natural Resources Canada at [email protected]. Aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Inventaire des déchets radioactifs au Canada 2016. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2018 Cat. No. M134-48/2016E-PDF (Online) ISBN 978-0-660-26339-7 CONTENTS 1.0 INVENTORY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN CANADA OVERVIEW ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1�1 Radioactive waste definitions and categories �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 1�1�1 Processes that generate radioactive waste in canada ����������������������������� 3 1�1�2 Disused radioactive sealed sources ����������������������������������������� 6 1�2 Responsibility for radioactive waste �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 1�2�1 Regulation of radioactive
  • Indian Nuclear Power Programme & Its Linkage To

    Indian Nuclear Power Programme & Its Linkage To

    Indian Nuclear Power Programme & its linkage to ADS S. Banerjee Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Mumbai, India 1 Contents 1. Indian nuclear power programme- present & future. 2. Nuclear fuel-cycle aspects. 3. Gains of Sub-critical reactor operation as ADS. 4. ADS for waste incineration & thorium utilization as nuclear fuel. 5. Indian efforts on ADS R&D- Roadmap, ongoing & future plans. 2 Elements of Indian nuclear programme . Indigenous development of a Reactor Technology (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor- PHWR) - Total technology development - Based on indigenous resources . Adopting Closed-Fuel Cycle - Best use of fissile & fertile materials - Reduction of the waste burden . Three-Stage Programme - Modest uranium reserve - Utilization of large thorium reserve 3 Salient Features of PHWR • Natural Uranium Fuel - Low burn up - Efficient use of 235U per ton of U mined • Heavy Water – moderator and coolant - Development of heavy water technology - Tritium management • On-power fuelling - Fuelling machine development - Daily entry into reactor core • Neutron economy - Excellent physics design - Complex engineering - Careful choice of in-core materials - Neutrons: best utilized in fission & conversion • Large pressure vessel not required - Distributed pressure boundaries 4 Challenges faced in PHWR programme – and successfully met • Indigenous capability in fabrication of fuel and structural materials: - From low grade resources to finished fuel - Perfection in making in-core structural components • Mastering heavy water technology: - Ammonia and
  • Signatures of Weapon-Grade Plutonium from Dedicated Production Reactors Alexander Glaser Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

    Signatures of Weapon-Grade Plutonium from Dedicated Production Reactors Alexander Glaser Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

    Signatures of Weapon-grade Plutonium from Dedicated Production Reactors Alexander Glaser Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University 49th INMM Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN July 16, 2008 Revision 4 available at http://cstsp.aaas.org A. Glaser, Signatures of Weapon-grade Plutonium from Dedicated Production Reactors, 49th INMM Annual Meeting, July 13-17, 2008, Nashville, TN Overview Scope and Objective Quantify the range of isotopic variations that can be expected for plutonium produced with different types of dedicated production reactors Understand the relative importance of predictive versus empirical (isotopic) plutonium signatures (relevant, in particular, for nuclear forensic analysis) Methodology Neutronics calculations for several important production reactor types Using continuous-energy (MCNP) cross-section libraries to generate spectrum-averaged one-group cross-sections for burnup calculations and to assure that differences between results are not due to inconsistent cross-section data A. Glaser, Signatures of Weapon-grade Plutonium from Dedicated Production Reactors, 49th INMM Annual Meeting, July 13-17, 2008, Nashville, TN Isotope Ratio Correlations K. Mayer, M. Wallenius, and I. Ray, “Nuclear Forensics — A Methodology Providing Clues on the Origin of Illicitly Trafficked Nuclear Materials,” Analyst, Royal Society of Chemistry, 130 (2005), pp. 433–441 Production Reactor Types A. Glaser, Signatures of Weapon-grade Plutonium from Dedicated Production Reactors, 49th INMM Annual Meeting, July 13-17, 2008, Nashville, TN Production Reactor Types Graphite moderated Heavy-water moderated Driver fuel with external H2O cooled CO2 cooled H2O cooled D2O cooled DU targets United States Hanford Savannah River Russia “Tomsk-7” U.K. Calder Hall France G-Series Célestin China “Jiuquan” Israel Dimona India Cirus/NRX Dhruva Pakistan Khushab DPRK Yongbyon A.
  • Fuels for Canadian Research Reactors

    Fuels for Canadian Research Reactors

    XA04C1592 FUELS FOR CANADIAN RESEARCH REACTORS M. A. Feraday Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. Chalk River, Ontario INTRODUCTION Originallywhen I was requested to attend the meetingit was to be as an observer. Last Friday David Stahl asked if I would make an informal presenta- tion on the Canadian situation. The remarks I will make will be of a general -nature and should not necessarily be construed as official policy of AECL. They will be personal observations on several aspects of the program. Although my 22 years experience in the nuclear field ranges from reactor operations, fuel development, and now designing of remotely operated fuel plants for gamma active 233U-Th fuels, I am not expert in the fields of reactor physics, reactor safety, and the political implications of changing the enrichment in our two large research reactors. So what I would like to do this morning is: - say a few words on the uranium silicide fuels for which we have significant fabrication, irradiationand defect performance experience. - describe the two Canadian high flux research reactors which use high enrichment uranium (HEU) and the fuels currently used in these reactors. - comment on the limited fabrication work we are doing on Al-U alloys to uranium contents as high as 40 wt%. This work is aimed at our fast neutron program. I will then try and apply this experience in general terms to the NRX and NRU designs of fuel. U3Si PROGRAM For a period of about 10 years AECL had a significant program looking into the possibility of developing U3Si as a high density replacement for the U02 pellet fuel in use in CANDU power reactors.
  • Good Neutron Economy Is the Basis of the Fuel Cycle Flexibility in the CANDU Reactor

    Good Neutron Economy Is the Basis of the Fuel Cycle Flexibility in the CANDU Reactor

    SYNERGISTIC FUEL CYCLES OF THE FUTURE XA9846611 D.A. MENELEY, A.R. DASTUR Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Abstract Good neutron economy is the basis of the fuel cycle flexibility in the CANDU reactor. This paper describes the fuel cycle options available to the CANDU owner with special emphasis on resource conservation and waste management. CANDU fuel cycles with low initial fissile content operate with relatively high conversion ratio. The natural uranium cycle provides over 55 % of energy from the plutonium that is created during fuel life. Resource utilization is over 7 MWd/kg NU. This can be improved by slight enrichment (between 0.9 and 1.2 wt % U235) of the fuel. Resource utilization increases to 11 MWd/kg NU with the Slightly Enriched Uranium cycle. Thorium based cycles in CANDU operate at near-breeder efficiency. They provide attractive options when used with natural uranium or separated (reactor grade and weapons grade) plutonium as driver fuels. In the latter case, the energy from the U233 plus the initial plutonium content amounts to 3.4 GW(th).d/kg Pu-fissile. The same utilization is expected from the use of FBR plutonium in a CANDU thorium cycle. Extension of natural resource is achieved by the use of spent fuels in CANDU. The LWR/CANDU Tandem cycle leads to an additional 77 % of energy through the use of reprocessed LWR fuel (which has a fissile content of 1.6 wt %) in CANDU. Dry reprocessing of LWR fuel with the OREOX process (a more safeguardable alternative to the PUREX process) provides an additional 50 % energy.