DOCSLIB.ORG

Spallator and APEX Nuclear Fuel Cycle: a New Option for Nuclear Power

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spallator and APEX Nuclear Fuel Cycle: a New Option for Nuclear Power BNL--32126 BNL 32126 THE §PALLATOR AND APEX NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE DEP3 004593 A SEW OPTION FDR NUCLEAR POWER NOTICE M. Steinberg Department of Nuclear Engineering PORTIONS OFTH|SWEPORTftRE ILLEGIBUE. It Brookhaven National Laboratory fiiTbeVrfreproduced from the bast available Upton, L.I., New York 11973 copy to permit the broadest possible avail- ability. presently, but is oemg stored In pools at the power MNOHLX reactor sites. Eventually these elements will either A new nuclear fuel cycle Is described which have to be reprocessed or disposed of. provides a long term supply of nuclear fuel for the thermal LWR nuclear power reactors and eliminates the Weapons materials require high concentrations need for long-term storage of radioactive waste. (>20Z) of the high grade-high purity fissile material Fissile fuel is produced by the Spallator which (Pu-239, U-235 or U-233). For the thermal fission depends on the production of spallation neutrons by nuclear burner power reactors, for example, the light the interaction of high-energy (1 to 2 GeV) protons water reactors (LWRs), one does not need to concen- on a heavy-metal target. The neutrons are absorbed trate fissile U-235 (natural) or Pu-239 (made from in a surrounding natural-uranium or thorium blanket uranium 238) or even U-233 (made from thorium) to in which fissile Pu-239 to 0-233 is produced. these higher levels for use in the power reactor fuel Advances In linear accelerator technology makes it elements. The fissile fuel concentration in the fuel possible to design and construct a high-beam-current elements need only be in the order of 2Z to 4% to be continuous-wave proton linac for production putpose3. able to function in a light water power reactor LHR. The target is similar to a sub-critical reactor and produces heat which Is converted to electricity for We are proposing an alternate new fuel cycle supplying the linac. The Spallator is a self- which eliminates the radioactive fission product waste sufficient fuel producer, '.;hich can compete with the effluent and thus avoids long-lived geological age 2 fast breeder. The APEX fuel cycle depends on recycl- radioactive waste storage »^ an(j supplies fissile ing the transuranlcs and long-lived fission products fuel for the LWR power reactor. For all intents and while extracting the stable and short-lived fission purposes this fuel cycle does not have any radioactive products when reprocessing the fuel. Transmutation waste effluent. Only non-radioactive stable waste and decay within the fuel cycle and decay of the which does not have to be stored in a waste isolation short-lived fission products external to the fuel facility and can be disposed of in a normal fashion to cycle eliminates the need for long-term geological the environment is produced by the system. age storage of fission-product waste. Apex Fuel Cycle Introduction The fuel cycle consists of chemically reprocess- It is well known that Purex nuclear fuel repro- ing LWR spent fuel which has been aged for 1 to 2 cessing for the civilian power program was primarily years. The reprocessing removes the stable non- derived from the need to produce weapons grade pluto- radioactive (NRFP, e.g. the lanthanldes, etc.) and nium. Thus Pu-239 is solvent extracted with tributyl short-lived fission products (SLFP) with half-lives of phosphate (TBP) from an aqueous nitrate solution of <1 to 2 years and returns, in dilute form, the long- spenc fission fuel and the Pu-239 is then recovered lived transuranics (TU's, e.g., Pu, Am, Cm, Np, etc.) and concentrated for mixing with fresh uranium oxide and long-lived fission products (LLFP's, e.g. mainly to make up the fuel in a thermal nuclear power reac- the 30 year half-life Cs, Sr, and 10 year Kr and 16 tor. Actually no fuel reprocessing has been perform- million year I, etc.) to be refabricated into fresh ed for the civilian power economy 3ince deferment of LWR fuel elements. The fissile transuranics (the odd reprocessing was instituted by the Non-proliferation mass-numbered) will fission and the fertile transura- Act of 1976. Thus, most of the reprocessing that has nics (the even mass-nuabered) will be converted to occurred was for the weapons program. The effluent fissile transuranics in the thermal nuclear power high level waste from these production plants contain reactor. The TU's have large thermal neutron cross- up to about 23! of the Pu-239 originally present in sections and can either be readily fissioned or con- the spent fuel from the convertor reactor together verted from fertile material (FM) to fissile fuel (FF) with che fission products. The high-level waste from In the LWRs. Equilibrium concentrations of these the fuel reprocessing plants have been stored to materials are achieved in the fuel cycle within a date, on-site in large engineered storage tanks. relatively short period of time. Recycling the tran- Much work is now being conducted to solidify this suranics, which actually act as fuel, adds to the high level waste for placement in underground excava- power capacity of the LWRs and does not detract from tions for geological age storage in so-called waste the neutron economy of the reactor. Because of their isolation facilities. Because of the Pu-239 content, ouch lower cross-sections, the long-lived fission which ha.3 a 26,000 year half-life, this waste products (LLFPs) [mainly Cs-137 and Sr-90] are not requires storage for a quarter of a million yeara readily transmuted in the LWRs. For these waste (-10 half-lives) to decay to biologically acceptable products we would be nainly relying on the decay background level, along with other long-lived tran- process by storage within the fuel cycle. Somn trans- suranics (Pu, Am, Cm, Up, etc.). The longest-lived mutation will occur in the Spallacor and the LWRs and biologically aoat hazardous fission products are which will shorten the recycle storage times for decay Cs-137 and Sr-90, both of which have half-lives of of the LLFPs to non-radioactive stable isotopes approximately 30 years, require at least 300 years to (NRFP). It is interesting to note that the main long- decay to background. Actually the bulk of che lived radioactive fission products formed in the present waste consists of 80 million gallons stored fission process are the 30 yr half-life Cs-137 and at che weapons materials production plants. The main Sr-90 isotopes so that no other hazardous long-lived radioactive products, in this aged waste consists of nuclides are expected to be formed on recycling. Over Pu, and Cs and Sr fission products. The civilian the longer period of time the total inventory of Cs fual as mentioned above is not being reprocessed and Sr thus reaches asymptotic equilibrium values. MASTER DISTRIBUTE OF THIS MEHT IS In order to implement the above fuel cycle, it One of the possible chelating agents is organi- say be possible to use conventional Purex reprocess- cally 6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptafluoro-2,2-dimethyl-3,5- ing; however, we are proposing to Improve and design octanedione, briefly referred to as fod. The the reprocessing chemistry to accomplish the goal set chelating reaction of spent U02 fuel can be represent- forth. A fundamental consideration is that the ini- ed as follows: tial purpose of Purex was to produce pure Pu for weapons- Purex was, therefore, operated to allow Pu D02+ FPs + TDs + fod - OO2 + TD(fod) + FP(fod) to spill over into the waste in order to prevent con- tamination of the Pu metal with fission products. In Fod is a stable organic liquid which can be read- the concept proposed herein, the reverse is allowed ily handled in the atmosphere. For process purposes, for the civilian reactor fuel. Fission products are closed reaction vessels are preferred since elevated allowed to contaminate the fissile Pu, but Pu is not temperatures will be necessary. By extraction of the allowed to contaminate the waste. The purpose of U02 and distillation of the organo-aetallic chelate, a this new reprocessing system is to extract the stable separation and partitioning will be obtained, whereby non-radioactive (NRFP) and shorter-lived fission stable (NRFP) and short-lived products (SLFPs) and the products (SLFPs with <2 years half-life) and to allow long-lived fission products (LLFPs) will be distilled the transuranics and long-lived fission products to out from the transuranics (TUs). The vapor pressures remain in che fuel. Furthermore, in order to produce of the lanthanide chelates have values of over 10 ma make up fissile fuel (FF) for fabricating fresh fuel Hg at 200°C while that of che uranium and plutonium elements for use in the thermal burner LWB. power chelates are as low as 10"^ mm Hg,^ thus the relative reactors, it Is proposed to use the Spallator (linear volatility is Large (~104) and a very large separation accelerator apallation-neutron target reactor) to factor becomes possible. The fod reagent may be produce fissile material.2 Isotopic enrichment of recovered by either extraction with another solvent or 0-235 from natural uranium is not needed and the by hydrogen reduction. If these are not efficient, cycle functions in the same sense as a breeder. the chelated organo-metallic compound can be roasted back to oxide and the fluorine gas will be recovered Chelox Reprocessing for reforaing the fod chelating agent. The detailed process chemistry has yet to be worked out in an B. and The new reprocessing chemistry which we call D program.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Breeder Reactors: a Renewable Energy Source Bernard L
    Am. J. Phys. 51(1), Jan. 1983 Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source Bernard L. Cohen Department of Physics. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renew- giving an equilibrium Q = S/8. Assuming that equilibrium has been able,” that adjective apparently means that they will be available in reached, 8–1 = Q/S = (4.6×109 tonne)/ (3.2×104 tonne/yr) = 140 000 undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current yr. Since this is such a short time geologically, it is reasonable to relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion assume that equilibrium has been reached, and that the value of Q years. It is the purpose of this note to show that breeder reactors at t = 0 is immaterial to the discussion. Moreover, the fact that 8–1 using nuclear fission fulfill this definition of a renewable energy is so much longer than the time for dilution of material through the source, and in fact can supply all the world’s energy needs at world’s oceans, less than 1000 yr,5 means that nonuniformity of present costs for that time period. uranium concentration is not a long-term problem. The world’s uranium resources are sufficient to fuel light-water If we were to withdraw uranium at a rate R, the differential reactors for only a few tens of years, and since uranium is used equation for Q would become about 100 times more efficiently as an energy source in breeder dQ/dt = S – R – 8Q, 8 reactors than in light-water reactors, it is frequently said that the leading to an equilibrium Q = (S – R)/ = Q00(1 – R/S), where Q is amount of uranium available can support the world’s energy needs the present value of Q.
    [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]
  • The Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor, 2 B.C
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 13 5-1-1972 The nE vironmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor William O. Doub Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation William O. Doub, The Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor, 2 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 237 (1972), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol2/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASPECTS OF THE BREEDER REACTOR By William O. Doub* On January 14,1972, in Washington, D.C., the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Dr. James R. Schlesinger, announced that the Commission had accepted, "as a basis for de­ tailed negotiation, a joint proposal of the Commonwealth Edison Company of Chicago and the Tennessee Valley Authority for the construction and operation of the nation's first demonstration liq­ uid metal fast breeder reactor plant."l The plant, a joint industry­ Government effort, is to be built in Eastern Tennessee at a specific location still to be designated. Work was scheduled to begin within the year. The plant is expected to go on the line by 1980.2 Nationwide attention had been focused on the breeder reactor as a result of the President's Energy Message to Congress on June 4, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Plutonium Chloride Fast Breeder Reactor Cooled by Molten Uranium Chloride
    Annals of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 277 to 281. Pergamon Press 1974. Printed in Northern Ireland MOLTEN PLUTONIUM CHLORIDE FAST BREEDER REACTOR COOLED BY MOLTEN URANIUM CHLORIDE MIECZYSLAW TAUBE and J LIGOU Swiss Federal Institute of Reactor Research, Würenlingen, Switzerland Abstract—A fast breeder reactor of 2000 ~MWt output using molten chlorides as fuel and coolant is discussed. Some of the most significant characteristics are: The liquid fuel contains only PuCl3/NaCl. The coolant is molten UCl3/NaCl and also forms the fertile material along with the blanket system, again UCl3/NaCl: the coolant blanket system is divided into 2 or more independent circuits. The fuel circulates through the core by forced convection; the core is not divided. The thermal stability of the reactor is very good. Power excursions or fuel temperature transients are quickly damped by the phenomena of fuel expansion pushing part of the fissile material out of the critical zone. The loss of coolant accident results in a loss of half (or ⅓, ⅔) of blanket which, without relying on a reactor scram, results in an automatic adjustment of the reactor power level. Corrosion effects form the most difficult problem. Thermodynamic studies suggest the use of molybdenum alloys as structural materials. Breeder reactors differ from other reactor types in that The coolant blanket circuits are in the form of at they are not only power-producing devices but also a least two independent systems: the core vessel is not source of fissile material and therefore should be divided. considered as part of a complex “breeding system” The core is directly connected with: overflow buffer which includes both the power reactor (producing vessel (for thermal expansion of fuel), emergency fuel electricity and heat) and the reprocessing and fuel drainage tank, reprocessing and fuel preparation plant, preparation plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutonium Disposition in the BN-800 Fast Reactor: an Assessment of Plutonium Isotopics and Breeding
    Science & Global Security, 22:188–208, 2014 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0892-9882 print / 1547-7800 online DOI: 10.1080/08929882.2014.952578 Plutonium Disposition in the BN-800 Fast Reactor: An Assessment of Plutonium Isotopics and Breeding Moritz Kutt,¨ Friederike Frieß, and Matthias Englert Interdisciplinary Research Group Science, Technology and Security, Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Alexanderstraße, Darmstadt, Germany According to the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which was signed in 2000 and amended in 2010, Russia and the United States agree to dispose of 34 tons of excess weapon plutonium each. Russia plans to use the plutonium as fuel in its sodium-cooled fast reactors BN-600 and BN-800. This article analyzes BN-800 core models with and without breeding blankets for the plutonium isotopic vector in spent fuel, plutonium production in breeding blankets, breeding ratios for different plutonium concentrations in fuel, and possible annual material throughput. It finds that any spent fuel in the core contains less than 90 wt% plutonium-239, but using breeding blankets the reactor can be configured to be a net producer of plutonium, even with a breeding ratio below one, and that plutonium produced in blankets will be weapon-grade. INTRODUCTION In 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton and Russian president Boris Yeltsin re- leased a joint statement offering to withdraw 50 metric tons (MT) of plutonium each from their respective military stockpiles.1 It was agreed that this pluto- nium should be rendered unusable for nuclear weapons either by irradiation in existing commercial reactors or by immobilization.2 In 2000, Russia and the United States agreed on the “Plutonium Manage- ment and Disposition Agreement” (PMDA).
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium-Plutonium Breeder Systems
    Uranium-plutonium breeder systems Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen Independent consultant member of the Nuclear Consulting Group October 2019 [email protected] Note In this document the references are coded by Q-numbers (e.g. Q6). Each reference has a unique number in this coding system, which is consistently used throughout all publications by the author. In the list at the back of the document the references are sorted by Q-number. The resulting sequence is not necessarily the same order in which the references appear in the text. m01breeders20190922 1 1 October 2019 Contents Introduction Burner reactors Breeder cycle Breeder reactor Reprocessing Fuel fabrication The breeding system Main parameters Plutonium recycling Difficulties Technical hurdles of the breeding system Breeder reactor Process losses Reprocessing Fuel fabrication Uranium recycling Feasibility of the U-Pu breeder system LMFBR as transmuter New names, no new concepts Logistic hurdles Plutonium availability Proliferation and terrorisk risks Safeguards Security issues of the breeder and P&T cycles Thorium fuel cycle Conclusions References TABLES Table 1 Desirable properties of the breeding cycle Table 2 Composition of plutonium generated in an LWR FIGURES Figure 1 Reactor types Figure 2 Distribution world power reactor types Figure 3 Outline of the breeder sytem Figure 4 Symplified outline of reprocessing Figure 5 Partitioning and transmutation (P&T) system m01breeders20190922 2 1 October 2019 Introduction The only fissile nuclide in nature is uranium-235, accounting for 0.7% of the atoms in natural uranium. The remaining 99.3% consists of uranium-238 atoms and traces of uranium-234 atoms, which are not fissile.
    [Show full text]
  • OSP-76-1 Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: Promises and Uncertainties
    ISSUE PAPER TO THE CONGRESS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES lll~Imlllllllll~llllllllllllllllIll LM096953 The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: Promises And Uncertainties Energy Research and Development Administration I’ ” ,-. , ci :__ * . L, ’ ._I . !’ COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548 B-164105 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This is the sixth General Accounting Office study issued since December 1974 concerning the Federal program to develop a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) for use in electrical power generating plants. The earlier studies addressed the history, status, plans, and poten- tial problems of the program. This study identifies and assesses the issues relevant to the Federal Government’s role in the development of the LMFBR. The study looks beyond the managerial and technical aspects of the LMFBR program to assay its economic, environ- mental, and social implications. It contains conclusion5 regarding the program and recommendations concerning actions that can be taken on the part of responsible Federal agen- cies and the Congress to clarify and help resolve key un- certainties. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). We are sending copies of this issue paper to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Administra- tar, Energy Research and Development Administration; the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Administrator, Federal Energy Administration; the Administrator, Environ- mental Protection Agency; and the Director, Office of Technology Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Curium in Space
    ROBIN JOHANSSON Curium in Space KTH Royal Institute of Technology Master Thesis 2013-05-05 Abstract New technology has shown the possibility to use a miniature satellite in conjunction with an electric driven engine to make a spiral trajectory into space from a low earth orbit. This report has done an investigation of the new technique to produce power sources replacing solar panels which cannot be used in missions out in deep space. It is in essence an alternative use of curium among the many proposals on how to handle the intermediate stored used nuclear fuel or once through nuclear fuel as some people prefer to call it. The idea of sending radioactive used nuclear fuel into outer space has been considered before. There was a proposal, for example, to load a space shuttle with radioactive material. This could have serious consequences to the nearby population in the event of a major malfunction to the shuttle. The improvement to this old idea is to use a small satellite with only a fraction of the spent fuel. With this method and other technological advances, it is possible to further reduce the risk of contamination in the event of a crash. This report has looked into the nuclear energy production of Sweden and the current production of transuranium elements (Pu, Np, Am and Cm). The report has also focused on the curium (Cm) part of the transuranium elements, which is the most difficult to recycle in a fast neutron spectra. The physical property of curium reduces many of the safety parameters in the reactor as it is easily transmutated into californium, which is a high neutron emitter.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
    Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: 8 History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials February 2010 Research Report 8 International Panel on Fissile Materials Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel www.fissilematerials.org February 2010 © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM i 1 Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Frank von Hippel 1 2 Fast Breeder Reactors in France Mycle Schneider 17 3 India and Fast Breeder Reactors M. V. Ramana 37 4 Japan’s Plutonium Breeder Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Tatsujiro Suzuki 53 5 The USSR-Russia Fast-Neutron Reactor Program Gennadi Pshakin 63 6 Fast Breeder Reactors in the United Kingdom Walt Patterson 73 7 Fast Reactor Development in the United States Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, and Frank von Hippel 89 Contributors 113 Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Figures Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Figure 1.1 Plutonium breeding. 3 Figure 1.2 History of the price of uranium. 6 Figure 1.3 Funding in OECD countries. 7 Figure 1.4 Dose rate of separated transuranics.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Neutron Reactors Have Portrayed This Design As a New, Promising Technology That Could Resolve the Question of Managing Long-Lived Radioactive Waste
    Fast Reactors Unsafe, Uneconomical, and Unable to Resolve the Problems of Nuclear Power In the push for nuclear power, proponents of fast neutron reactors have portrayed this design as a new, promising technology that could resolve the question of managing long-lived radioactive waste. But the idea of fast neutron reactors is not a new one. Ever since the first experimental fast neutron reactor generated electricity in 1951,1 governments around the world have made huge investments into their development, but the return has been minimal. After decades of research and experimentation, fast neutron reactors remain unsafe, uneconomical, and unable to address the problems of nuclear power. Fast neutron reactors are typically high temperature United States reactors fueled by a plutonium/uranium blend and cooled In the United States, a 94 megawatt-electric (MWe) using an inert gas or liquid metal. They were first sodium-cooled reactor called Fermi 1 operated from 1963 promoted as a way to extend uranium supplies, because as to 1972, but suffered from serious problems, including a they operate, unusable uranium can be converted to fissile partial nuclear meltdown in October 1966,2 and a sodium plutonium that can be used as fuel. It has since become explosion in 1970. The reactor was denied a new license clear that uranium is more abundant than originally and closed in 1972. A second reactor, the Fast Flux Test thought. Now, fast reactors are being advocated as a waste Facility (FFTF), a 400 MWt liquid sodium cooled reactor, solution that would reduce the radioactivity of spent fuel was operated in the United States from 1982 through by converting long-lived plutonium and other radioactive 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Breeder Reactor COMMENT by JAY BOUDREAU Rom Its Inception
    The American Breeder Reactor COMMENT BY JAY BOUDREAU rom its inception. the breeder velopment costs, and partly from the tor, denounced the Clinch River project reactor has been described as politics of nonproliferation of nuclear as “totally incompatible with our free a self-fueling energy machine, weapons. Just the cost of producing market approach to energy policy.” F the answer to our energy plutonium fuel from a breeder is high The politics of nuclear weapons pro- needs in the coming century. The United enough to keep utility companies in the liferation is still another issue in the States started up the world’s first breeder United States from being seriously in- breeder program. Because of grave in- reactor in 1951 and followed with an terested in the breeder at this time. For ternational concern about proliferation, operational pilot plant in 1963, the 20- example, the current market price of President Carter in April 1977 called for megawatt-electric (MWe) Experimental mined, processed uranium fuel (yellow- indefinite deferral of construction of Breeder Reactor II (EBR II). In 1969 we cake), which is $25 per pound, would commercial breeder reactors. Breeders completed the initial design for an inter- have to increase to nearly $165 per are considered hazardous because they mediate size (300-MWe) breeder reactor pound in today’s dollars before the produce rather large quantities of to be built at Clinch River, Tennessee, as breeder would be financially competitive plutonium, the basic material of nuclear the major step toward a commercially with the light-water reactor. cost weapons. However, separation of viable power generation system.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors by Eduard Khodarev
    Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors by Eduard Khodarev 1. Introduction: Why we need fast breeder reactors A study of future energy requirements and of the potential of various energy sources (coal, oil, gas, nuclear power, hydropower and solar energy) indicates that the contribution to be made by nuclear fission, now competitive with conventional energy sources, will grow steadily over the next few decades. Whereas the amount of fuel which has to be fabricated each year for the operation of a nuclear power plant is reckoned in dozens of tonnes, coal- fired power stations generating electricity each consume in a year millions of tonnes of fuel, and the world's reserves of fossil fuel, especially coal, while vast, are not unlimited The potential capability of nuclear power in its present state of development to satisfy the world demand for electricity would depend, to a large extent, on world reserves of natural uranium and the possibility of obtaining uranium-235 as nuclear fuel at reasonable prices. The relatively small percentage of this isotope in natural uranium is however a limitation on the development of nuclear power if it were to be based solely on existing light-water reactors which, with their low conversion ratio, can not utilize more than 2% of the energy potentially available in natural uranium. Thus, the advantages of nuclear power in the long term may not be fully realized unless further sizeable reserves of natural uranium are found or until significant progress is made in more effectively utilizing uranium. Fast breeder reactors afford an opportunity of fundamentally solving this problem in the near future They make more effective use of existing natural uranium resources (including depleted uranium from enrichment plants) and of the plutonium produced in thermal reactor fuel.
    [Show full text]