DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle— Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations 1 Chapter 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle— Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations 1 Chapter 2 Other Reports in This Series The Future of Nuclear Power (2003) The Future of Coal (2007) Update of the Future of Nuclear Power (2009) The Future of Natural Gas (2010) Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-9828008-4-3 ii MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Study Participants STUDY Co-ChairS Monica Regalbuto Visiting Scientist, Department of Nuclear Science Mujid Kazimi—Co CHAIR and Engineering Tokyo Electric Professor of Nuclear Engineering Department Head, Process Chemistry and Engineering Director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Argonne National Laboratory Systems Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Ernest J. Moniz—Co CHAIR George Apostolakis Department of Physics Korea Electric Power Company Professor of Cecil and Ida Green Prof of Physics and of Nuclear Engineering Engeering Systems Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Director MIT Energy Initiative Department of Engineering Systems Charles W. Forsberg Pavel Hejzlar Executive Director MIT Fuel Cycle Study Program Director, CANES Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Principal Research Scientist Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering STUDY GROUP Eugene Shwageraus Visiting Associate Professor Steve Ansolabehere Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Professor of Government, Harvard University John M. Deutch STUDENT RESEARCH ASSISTANTS Institute Professor Department of Chemistry Blandine Antoine Guillaume De Roo Michael J. Driscoll Bo Feng Professor Emeritus Laurent Guerin Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Isaac Alexander Matthews Lara Pierpoint Michael W. Golay Behnam Taebi Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Keith Yost Andrew C. Kadak Professor of the Practice Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering John E. Parsons Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management, MIT Executive Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change iii MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study Advisory Committee Members PHIL SHARP, CHAIR President, Resources for the Future Former member of Congress JAMES K. ASSELSTINE Managing Director, Barclays Capital JACQUES BOUCHARD Advisor to the Chairman of the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) MARVIN FERTEL President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute KURT GOTTFRIED Chairman Emeritus of the Union of Concerned Scientists JOHN GROSSENBACHER Director, Idaho National Laboratory JONATHAN LASH President, World Resources Institute RICHARD A. MESERVE President, Carnegie Institution for Science CHERRY MURRAY Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University JOHN W. ROWE Chairman and CEO, Exelon Corporation MAXINE L. SAVITZ Vice President, U.S. National Academy of Engineering STEVEN R. SPECKER President and CEO, Electric Power Research Institute (retired) JOHN H. SUNUNU JHS Associates, Ltd. While the members of the advisory committee provided invaluable perspective and advice to the study group, individual members may have different views on one or more matters addressed in the report. They were not asked to individually or collectively endorse the report findings and recommendations. Daniel Poneman, Scowcroft Group, resigned from the committee upon his Presidential nomination for a government position. iv MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Table of Contents Study Participants iii MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study Advisory Committee Members iv Foreword and Acknowledgments vii Executive Summary ix Postscript xv Chapter 1. The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle— Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations 1 Chapter 2. Framing Fuel Cycle Questions 19 Chapter 3. Uranium Resources 31 Chapter 4. Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 43 Chapter 5. Waste Management 55 Chapter 6. Analysis of Fuel Cycle Options 71 Chapter 7. Economics 99 Chapter 8. Fuel Cycles and Nonproliferation 111 Chapter 9. American Attitudes About Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste 127 Chapter 10. Recommended Analysis, Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs 133 APPENDICES Appendix to Chapter 3: Uranium Resource Elasticity Model 143 Appendix to Chapter 5: Waste Management 155 Appendix to Chapter 7: Economics 167 Appendix A. Thorium Fuel Cycle Options 181 Appendix B. Advanced Technologies 191 Appendix C. High-Temperature Reactors with Coated-Particle Fuel 207 Appendix D. Intergenerational Equity Considerations of Fuel Cycle Choices 213 Appendix E. Status of Fuel Cycle Technologies 229 v vi MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Foreword and Acknowledgments In 2003 the MIT interdisciplinary study some site preparation. However, no license The Future of Nuclear Powerwas published. for new construction has been issued in the The thesis was that nuclear energy is an U.S. as of mid 2010. Elsewhere in the world important option for the marketplace in the construction of new plants has acceler- a low-carbon world. At least for the next ated, particularly in China and India. In ad- few decades, there are only four realistic dition, South Korea joined the traditional options for reducing carbon dioxide emis- global suppliers of nuclear plants by signing sions from electricity generation: increased an agreement to build four reactors in the efficiency in energy utilization, expanded United Arab Emirates. use of renewables such as wind and solar, reducing carbon dioxide emissions at fossil- There have also been major developments in fueled power plants by switching from coal the nuclear fuel cycle. In the U.S., fuel cycle to natural gas or by transitioning to capture policies have been in a state of confusion. and permanent sequestration of the carbon The Bush Administration initiated pro- dioxide, and nuclear power. The study per- grams with the goal of commercially recy- spective was that all options would be need- cling fissile material from spent nuclear fuel ed and it would be a mistake to exclude any (SNF) into new fuel assemblies, but failed of these four options from an overall carbon to attract support in Congress. The U.S. emissions management strategy. The report Department of Energy spent many years in examined the barriers to nuclear power and assessing, and submitted a license applica- made a series of recommendations to enable tion for, a geological repository for SNF and nuclear power as a market place option. high-level waste at Yucca Mountain (YM). However, the Obama Administration has Since that report, there have been major now requested withdrawal of the license ap- changes in the U.S. and the world, as de- plication. Overseas, Japan has started opera- scribed in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future tion of a commercial nuclear fuel reprocess- of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about ing plant. Finland and Sweden, after gaining climate change have dramatically increased, public acceptance, have sited geological re- many countries have adopted restrictions positories for the disposal of SNF. on greenhouse gas emissions, and the U.S. is also expected to adopt limits on carbon diox- Because of the significant changes in the ide releases to the atmosphere sometime in landscape, we have undertaken this study the future. Because nuclear energy provides on the Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to about 70% of the “zero”-carbon electricity bring a sharper focus on the key technical in the U.S. today, it is a major candidate for choices available for an expanded nuclear reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power program in the U.S. and the near- electric sector. Projections for nuclear power term policy implications of those choices. growth in the United States and worldwide have increased dramatically, even if recently We acknowledge generous financial support tempered by the world-wide recession. In from the Electric Power Research Institute the United States this has resulted in various (EPRI) and from Idaho National Laborato- announcements of intent to build new reac- ry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Areva, GE- tors, 27 submittals of license applications, 8 Hitachi, Westinghouse, Energy Solutions, applications for Federal loan guarantees, and and NAC International. vii viii MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Executive Summary Study Context In 2003 MIT published the interdisciplinary study The Future of Nuclear Power. The under- lying motivation was that nuclear energy, which today provides about 70% of the “zero”- carbon electricity in the U.S., is an important option for the market place in a low-carbon world. Since that report, major changes in the U.S. and the world have taken place as de- scribed in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about climate change have risen: many countries have adopted restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and the U.S. is expected to adopt similar limits. Projections for nuclear-power growth worldwide have increased dramatically and construction of new plants has accelerated, particularly in China and India. This study onThe Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has been carried out because of the continuing importance of nuclear power as a low-carbon option that could be deployed at a scale that is material for mitigat- ing climate change risk, namely, global deployment at the Terawatt scale by mid-century. To enable an expansion of nuclear power, it must overcome critical challenges in cost, waste disposal, and proliferation concerns while maintaining its currently excellent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Waste Primer September 2016 What Is Nuclear Waste?
    The Nuclear Waste Primer September 2016 What is Nuclear Waste? Nuclear waste is the catch-all term for anything contaminated with radioactive material. Nuclear waste can be broadly divided into three categories: • Low-level waste (LLW), comprised of protective clothing, medical waste, and other lightly-contaminated items • Transuranic waste (TRU), comprised of long-lived isotopes heavier than uranium • High-level waste (HLW), comprised of spent nuclear fuel and other highly-radioactive materials Low-level waste is relatively short-lived and easy to handle. Currently, four locations for LLW disposal exist in the United States. Two of them, Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah and Waste Control Specialists in Andrews, Texas, accept waste from any U.S. state. Transuranic waste is often a byproduct of nuclear weapons production and contains long-lived radioactive elements heavier than uranium, like plutonium and americium. Currently, the U.S. stores TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. High-level waste includes spent nuclear fuel and the most radioactive materials produced by nuclear weapons production. Yucca Mountain is the currently designated high-level waste repository for the United States. 1 | What is Spent Nuclear Fuel? Spent nuclear fuel (SNF), alternatively referred to as used nuclear fuel, is the primary byproduct of nuclear reactors. In commercial power reactors in the U.S., fuel begins as uranium oxide clad in a thin layer of zirconium-aluminum cladding. After several years inside of the reactor, around fi ve percent of the uranium has been converted in some way, ranging from short-lived and highly radioactive fi ssion products to long-lived actinides like plutonium, americium, and neptunium.
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR Unwasted NUCLEAR Unwasted NEWS
    N ational Conference of State Legislatures NUCLEAR unWASTEd NEWS A QUARTERLY S UMMARY OF GENERATION, TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL ISSUES JANUARY - MARCH 2008 V OL. 3, NO . 1 Headline CRS Report Assesses Global Access to Nuclear Power 2/29 With the heralding of a coming nuclear renaissance in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Congressional Research Service released a report in January titled, Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power. The 2005 Energy Policy Act outlined provisions authorizing streamlined licensing for new nuclear plants, combining construction and operating permits, and providing tax credits for nuclear power. Thirty new applications or early site permits for reactors have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 150 have been planned or proposed globally. Nearly a dozen are already under construction overseas. With the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) planning to spend billions of dollars to advance nuclear technology in the U.S., other countries have similar ideas and want access to the benefits of nuclear power. Advances in nuclear technologies are attractive to those who seek to add energy options to the mostly fossil fuel genera- tion the world depends on today. Concerns about climate change, however, are complicated by fears that spreading enrichment and reprocessing technologies may lead to proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material. Proposals of global access to nuclear power range from: offering countries access to nuclear power with a formal commit- ment to abstain from enrichment and reprocessing; to a de facto approach where a country does not operate fuel cycle facilities but makes no direct commitment to other nations; to nations having no restrictions at all.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012/054167 Al
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date _ . 26 April 2012 (26.04.2012) 2012/054167 Al (51) International Patent Classification: (74) Agent: SEYMOUR, Michael, J.; Babcock & Wilcox G21C 3/334 (2006.01) G21C 3/32 (2006.01) Nuclear Energy, Inc., Law Dept - Intellectual Property, 20 South Van Buren Avenue, Barberton, OH 44203 (US). (21) International Application Number: PCT/US201 1/052495 (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, (22) International Filing Date: AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BR, BW, BY, BZ, 2 1 September 201 1 (21 .09.201 1) CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DO, (25) Filing Language: English DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, (26) Publication Language: English KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, (30) Priority Data: ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, 12/909,252 2 1 October 2010 (21 .10.2010) US NO, NZ, OM, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, (71) Applicant (for all designated States except US): BAB- TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, COCK & WILCOX NUCLEAR ENERGY, INC. [US/ ZM, ZW. US]; 800 Main Street, Lynchburg, VA 24504 (US).
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Society of Chemistry Input to the Ad Hoc Nuclear
    ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY INPUT TO THE AD HOC NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) was pleased to hear of the instigation of the Ad Hoc Nuclear Research and Development Advisory Board (the Board) following the findings of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry ‘Nuclear Research and Development Capabilities’.1,2 The RSC is the largest organisation in Europe for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of 47,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, its activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public. This document represents the views of the RSC. The RSC has a duty under its Royal Charter "to serve the public interest" by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and it is in this spirit that this submission is made. To provide input to the Board the RSC has performed a wide consultation with the chemical science community, including members of both our Radiochemistry and Energy Sector Interest Groups and also our Environment Sustainability and Energy Division. September 2012 The Role of Chemistry in a Civil Nuclear Strategy 1 Introduction Chemistry and chemical knowledge is essential in nuclear power generation and nuclear waste management. It is essential that a UK civil nuclear strategy recognises the crucial role that chemistry plays, both in research and innovation and in the development of a strong skills pipeline. As the RSC previously articulated in our response to the House of Lords Inquiry, 3 nuclear power is an important component of our current energy mix.
    [Show full text]
  • Ards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle PART 191—ENVIRONMENTAL RADI
    § 190.10 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–11 Edition) period in which he is engaged in car- ance, and the schedule for achieving rying out any operation which is part conformance with the standards. of a nuclear fuel cycle. (l) Regulatory agency means the gov- § 190.12 Effective date. ernment agency responsible for issuing (a) The standards in § 190.10(a) shall regulations governing the use of be effective December 1, 1979, except sources of radiation or radioactive ma- that for doses arising from operations terials or emissions therefrom and car- associated with the milling of uranium rying out inspection and enforcement ore the effective date shall be Decem- activities to assure compliance with ber 1, 1980. such regulations. (b) The standards in § 190.10(b) shall be effective December 1, 1979, except Subpart B—Environmental Stand- that the standards for krypton-85 and ards for the Uranium Fuel iodine-129 shall be effective January 1, Cycle 1983, for any such radioactive materials generated by the fission process after § 190.10 Standards for normal oper- these dates. ations. Operations covered by this subpart PART 191—ENVIRONMENTAL RADI- shall be conducted in such a manner as ATION PROTECTION STANDARDS to provide reasonable assurance that: FOR MANAGEMENT AND DIS- (a) The annual dose equivalent does POSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC 25 millirems to any other organ of any RADIOACTIVE WASTES member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of ra- Subpart A—Environmental Standards for dioactive materials, radon and its Management and Storage daughters excepted, to the general en- Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix
    Re-examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix T. E. G. Nicholasa,∗, T. P. Davisb, F. Federicia, J. E. Lelandc, B. S. Patela, C. Vincentd, S. H. Warda a York Plasma Institute, Department of Physics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK b Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PH c Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GJ, UK d Centre for Advanced Instrumentation, Department of Physics, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LS, UK Abstract Fusion energy is often regarded as a long-term solution to the world's energy needs. However, even after solving the critical research challenges, engineer- ing and materials science will still impose significant constraints on the char- acteristics of a fusion power plant. Meanwhile, the global energy grid must transition to low-carbon sources by 2050 to prevent the worst effects of climate change. We review three factors affecting fusion's future trajectory: (1) the sig- nificant drop in the price of renewable energy, (2) the intermittency of renewable sources and implications for future energy grids, and (3) the recent proposition of intermediate-level nuclear waste as a product of fusion. Within the scenario assumed by our premises, we find that while there remains a clear motivation to develop fusion power plants, this motivation is likely weakened by the time they become available. We also conclude that most current fusion reactor designs do not take these factors into account and, to increase market penetration, fu- sion research should consider relaxed nuclear waste design criteria, raw material availability constraints and load-following designs with pulsed operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Chemistry Card Sort
    Nuclear Chemistry Card Sort Submitted by: Annette Gillespie, Ashely Gilomen, Sarah Johnson, and Stephanie Kimberlin Appalachian Regional Commission/Oak Ridge National Laboratory Summer Math-Science-Technology Institute Grade: 9-12 Lesson Duration: 45-60 minutes Materials Needed: • Media for Venn Diagram (e.g., poster board, white board, butcher paper, electronic devices) • One copy of the list of nuclear chemistry concepts/nuclear chemistry concept cards provided in this lesson plan • Envelope for storing cut-up list/cards Background Information: Students should be able to describe the basic structure of an atom and have a basic understanding of nuclear notation. Lesson Objective: Students will be able to • Describe the basic principles of nuclear chemistry. • Discern between diagrams and representations of nuclear equations and processes. • Use context clues to correctly categorize nuclear events. Instructional Process: All informative resources should be made available to the students so they can categorize the concepts (e.g., notes, text books, Internet). This lesson is best suited as an introduction activity for the beginning of the nuclear chemistry unit and/or as a review activity at the end of the nuclear chemistry unit. Students should be organized into groups of 3-4 to complete this activity. Each student group should create and label a three-circle Venn diagram on the teacher-designated media. (Refer to the examples provided in figure 1 and at the end of this lesson plan.) Each group should receive one copy of the list of nuclear chemistry concepts/nuclear chemistry concept cards, which they will cut up into individual cards. Once students have their diagrams drawn and cards cut out, they should place the nuclear chemistry concepts cards into one of three categories on the diagram: fission, fusion, or nuclear decay.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options
    Order Code RL34579 Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options July 11, 2008 Mark Holt Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options Summary Current U.S. nuclear energy policy focuses on the near-term construction of improved versions of existing nuclear power plants. All of today’s U.S. nuclear plants are light water reactors (LWRs), which are cooled by ordinary water. Under current policy, the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from LWRs is to be permanently disposed of in a deep underground repository. The Bush Administration is also promoting an aggressive U.S. effort to move beyond LWR technology into advanced reactors and fuel cycles. Specifically, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), under the Department of Energy (DOE) is developing advanced reprocessing (or recycling) technologies to extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel, as well as an advanced reactor that could fully destroy long-lived radioactive isotopes. DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is developing other advanced reactor technologies that could be safer than LWRs and produce high-temperature heat to make hydrogen. DOE’s advanced nuclear technology programs date back to the early years of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, it was widely believed that breeder reactors — designed to produce maximum amounts of plutonium from natural uranium — would be necessary for providing sufficient fuel for a large commercial nuclear power industry. Early research was also conducted on a wide variety of other power reactor concepts, some of which are still under active consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    THE COLLECTION > From the uranium mine> toI wNTasRtOeD dUisCpToIsOaN l 1 > The atom 2 > Radioactivity 3 > Radiation and man 4 > Energy 5 > Nuclear energy: fusion and fission 6 > How a nuclear reactor works 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle FROM RESEARCH 8 > Microelectronics 9 > The laser: a concentrate of light TO INDUSTRY 10 > Medical imaging 11 > Nuclear astrophysics 12 > Hydrogen 7 >>TThhee nnuucclleeaarr ffuueell ccyyccllee UPSTREAM THE REACTOR: PREPARING THE FUEL IN THE REACTOR: FUEL CONSUMPTION DOWNSTREAM THE REACTOR: REPROCESSING NUCLEAR WASTE NUCLEAR WASTE © Commissariat à l’’Énergie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, 2005 Communication Division Bâtiment Siège - 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex www.cea.fr ISSN 1637-5408. From the uranium mine to waste disposal 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle From the uranium mine to waste disposal 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle 2 > CONTENTS > INTRODUCTION 3 Uranium ore is extracted from open-pit mines – such as the McClear mines in Canada seen here – or underground workings. a m e g o C © “The nuclear fuel cycle includes an erray UPSTREAM THE REACTOR: of industrial operations, from uranium PREPARING THE FUEL 4 e mining to the disposal of radioactive l Extracting uranium from the ore 5 waste.” c Concentrating and refining uranium 6 y Enriching uranium 6 c Enrichment methods 8 l introduction uel is a material that can be burnt to pro - IN THE REACTOR: FUEL CONSUMPTION 9 Fvide heat. The most familiar fuels are wood, e Preparing fuel assemblies 10 coal, natural gas and oil. By analogy, the ura - e g a nium used in nuclear power plants is called Per unit or mass (e.g.
    [Show full text]