IHLÖ\Aooo^ ASSOCIATIE EURATOM-FOM FOM-ÏNSTITUUT VOOR PLASMAFYSICA RUNHUIZEN - NIEUWEGEIN - NEDERLAND ON FUSION AND FISSION BREEDER REACTORS; THE IIASA REPORT RR-77-8 REVIEWED AND UPDATED by B. Brandt, H.Th. Klippel and W. Schuurman Rijnhuizen Report 81-129 ASSOCIATIE EURATOM-FOM February 1981 FOM-INSTITUUT VOOR PLASMAFYSICA RIJNHUIZEN - NIEUWEGEIN - NEDERLAND ON FUSION AND FISSION BREEDER REACTORS; THE IIASA REPORT RR-77-8 REVIEWED AND UPDATED by B. Brandt, H.Th. Klippel and W. Schuurman Rijnhuizen Report 81 -129 The author H.Th. Klippel is employed by the Slichting Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (FX'N) This work was performed as part of the research programme of the association apreement of Euratom and the "Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie" (FOM (with 'inancial support from the "Nederlandse Organisatie voor Zuiver-Weten­ schappelijk Onderzoek" (ZWO) and Euratom. CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION 3 FUEL RESERVES 3 PRESENT STATUS, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND 6 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIALIZATION 3.1 Present status and development of fast breeder reactors 6 3.2 Present status and development of fusion reactors 10 3.3 Cost aspects 14 3.4 Summary 14 REFERENCE REACTOR DESIGNS 15 4.1 Designs of fast breeder reactors 15 4.2 Design studies for fusion reactors 18 4.3 Reference reactors 18 RADIOACTIVE INVENTORY OF REACTOR SYSTEMS 22 5.1 Problem exposition 22 5.2 The fast sodium-cooled breeder reactor 2 3 5.3 The fusion reactor 30 5.4 Comparison between fast breeder and fusion reactor 35 5.5 Conclusions 39 EMISSION OF RADIOACTIVITY AT NORMAL OPEi^ATION 40 6.1 The fission reactor 40 6.2 The fusion reactor 40 6.3 Conclusions 42 DANGER OF ACCIDENTS 42 7.1 The fast breeder reactor 42 7.2 The fusion reactor 4 4 7.3 Consequences of an improbable hypothetical accident 45 7.4 Summary 46 PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSE 47 8.1 Nuclear explosives 47 8.2 Radiological weapons 48 8.3 Safeguards 50 MATERIALS AND RADIATION DAMAGE 50 9.1 The fast breeder reactor 50 9.2 The fusion reactor 52 9.3 Conclusions 57 9.4 Consumption of materials 58 SUMMARY 62 REFERENCES 65 -1- 1. INTRODUCTION In July 1977 the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis at Laxenburg, Austria, published a detailed report (here­ after called I), in which fission and fusion reactors were compared. 2) Data of fission reactors were mainly taken from the SNR-300 ; as a prototype of the fusion reactor the UWMAK-I Tokamak Design Study of the University of Wisconsin 3) was taken. The D-D fusion reactor, the hybrid reactor,and the laser fusion reactor were briefly described in appendices. The fact that the IIASA-report was composed of the work of several independent groups involved in fission and fusion research led certain points of view to not being tuned in tc each other, especially the treatment of the radioactive inventory of the reactor. In the following considerations we shall summarize the results of I and clarify them on certain points. We shall also consider more recent developments in the field of thermonuclear reactors. In the conclusions, a summarizing table will compare the two ways of energy production qualitatively and sometimes quantitatively. This report was written in Dutch for internal information in 1979. The authors have provided the present version upon repeated suggestions trom abroad. 2. FUEL RESERVES The world fuel reserves for fission and fusion reactors, their energy content and consumption time are assembled in table 2.1. a. The number for lithium was conservatively estimated in 1970 and is valid for a production price up to 0.06 $ per gram metallic lithium. For uranium the number was taken from a OECD/IAEA-report, December 1975. It concerns only uranium inventories producible at a maximum price of 0.07 $ o+; 1975 per gram U,Og. b. The volume of seawater is 1.4 x 1018 m3 . The concentration of D in seawater is 33 g/m3 . The average concentration of Li in f.eawater is 170 mg/m3, that of uranium only 3.4 mg/m3. The price of this uranium and the technology of its winning are uncertain. -3- c. For D the basic reactions are D + T * "He + n + 17.6 MeV and 6 Li + n •* "He + T + 4.8 MeV. For Li v/e assumed a tritium breeding ratio of 1.3 without enrich­ ment of 'Li. For uranium we used the statement in I that 5*1012 kg U in the oceans, if used in fast breeders, have an energy content of 2*10-:" J. d. The load factor is assumed to be 100%. e. The total energy consumption in the world in 1975 was 7*io13 kWh (10% electrical). f. The assumption was made that all energy was produced in reactors. g. By fuel costs are meant the costs of winning of the natural ele­ ment. h. In this row the total cost of the fuel inventory per kWh(e) produced are given. In the case of LiA&O, as breeding material the cost of the neutron-multiplying beryllium have been taken into account. Further included in the costs are those of the first loading of the blanket and of the reprocessing or replacement of breeding material and neutron amplifier once every two years (with depreciation taken into account). For uranium the costs are mainly those of the fabrication of fuel elements, interest costs for the plutonium inventory and the costs of transport, reprocessing and waste disposal. As a comparison: the corresponding costs of the fossile fuels hard coal and oil/gas are 23.2 mill/kWh(e) and 19.2 mill/kWh(e) respectively, the fuel costs of the LWR are 5.5 mill/kWMe) . CONCLUSION The fast breeder and the fusion reactor produce an energy in the order of 1 MW{th)day per gram fuel. The ore costs are relatively low so that also low grade ores can be used. The reserves are not accu­ rately known but will certainly be sufficient on the long run. Thus, the duration of a world economy based on nuclear energy is not limited by the fuel reserves, but possibly by the availability of the other materials (see chapter 9). -4- Table 2.1. Fusion reactor Fission reactor deuterium natural lithium natural uranium a. estimated world reserves - 6xl09 kg 3.5xio9 kg {not in seawater) b. estimated world reserves 4.6*1016 kg 2.4*10llt kg 4.8*10IZ kg in seawater c. energy content per gram 100 MV?h(e) 4 MWh(e; 7 MWh(e) of natural element d. fuel quantity required per yeer for a 1 GW(e)- 90 kg 2300 kg 1300 kg reactor e. fuel quantity required fuel: 7*105 kg fuel: 1.8xl07 kg fuel: l.OxlO7 kg per year for total raw material: raw material: raw material: world energy consumption 8,5*109 kg seawater 4.5*10a kg pegmatite or 3.5*l0y kg Colorado sand 16x10 r/ kg seawater stone or 2 . 3X101 •' kg seawater f. number of years that without seawater: without seawater: fuel is sufficient for 6;-10io years 330 years, with seawater: 350 years, with seawater: world economy 1.3*1Q7 years 4.4*10'' years g. fuel costs (ore) 5xio-3 mill/kWh(e) 4xio-'* mill/kWh(e) 1.5xio"? mill/kWh(e) h. fuel cycle costs 6*10~3 iruil/kwh(e) Li: 0,6 mill/kwh(e) 4 mill/kWh(o) LiA^o3: 6.4 mill/kWh(e) 3. PRESEMT STATUS, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIALIZATION 3.I Present status and development of fast breeder reactors The principle of breeding with fast neutrons was already known when nuclear research began. Fermi and Zinn designed a fast breeder reactor as early as 1944. The first fast breeder experiment was Clementine, that became critical for the first time in 1946. Electric­ ity production was first demonstrated with EBR-I in 1952. According to views of that time uranium or plutonium metal was chosen as a fissile material. The small experiments till 1960, based on this principle, can be designated as the first generation or fast reactor experiments, the most important ones being Clementine (1946), EBR-I (1952), BR-5 (1958), DFR,and EFFBR. The majority of these are no longer operative. Their power did not exceed 60 MW(th). Uranium or plutonium as a fissile macerial made the core compact and the power density high. The coolant was either liquid sodium or mercuy. In relation to the long-term strategy, the achievement of a short doubling time was emphasized rather than a small inventory and low costs of the fuel cycle. In view of the limited power (- 100 HW(e) ) of the power stations of that time one had expected to reach this power level in a single step. After 1960, also based on progress in technology of thermal reactors, stress was laid on economic aspects of the fuel cycle, in particular on the realization of a high burn-up. In comparison with the thermal reactor, the fuel of the fast bleeder reactor has a high enrich­ ment factor, making the economic burn-up of the order of 10s MWday/ton, two or three times as high as in the LWR. The most suitable fuel for this is the ceramic mixture UO-/PuO„. The choice of this fuel ushered in the second generation of fast reactor experiments, with completely different physical aspects (a.o. softer spectrum) and technical aspects (a.o. lower power density). The most important members of this second generation of fast breeders are SEFOR (1969), BOR-60 (1969), Rapsodie (1970), KNK (1977), Joyo (1977) and FFTF (1978).