Transcript Thorium for use in Plutonium Disposition, Proliferation

Thorium for Use in Plutonium
Disposition, Proliferation
Resistant Fuels, and Future
Reactors
Brian Johnson
WISE 2006
ANS
[email protected]
This presentation focuses on the following
uses of thorium
Weapons-Grade
Plutonium disposition
Proliferation-resistant
fuels for developing
countries
Reaching long-term
goals of U.S. initiatives
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/images/nnp_bomdstobulb.gif http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/q/qt-p-nb.gif
http://www.usembassy.it/file2006_02/alia/a6022102.jpg http://afci.lanl.gov/images/AFCI_Gold_Logo.jpg
http://gif.inel.gov/images/forum_animation_08.gif
History of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
During the Cold War
the United States and
Soviet Union made
vast arsenals of
nuclear weapons
In 1994 the National
Academy of Science
deemed the stockpiles
a "clear and present
danger to national and
international security."
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/fnss/fulltext/te_1319_31.pdf
U.S./Russia Parallel Disposition
In 2000 the U.S. and Russia formally
agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons
of weapons-grade plutonium each
The final form of the plutonium must meet
the “spent-fuel standard”
Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel using weaponsgrade plutonium was agreed upon as the
best method
MOX Woes
The original goal was to implement MOX
by 2007 and disposition 2 metric tons per
year
This goal will not be reached due to lack of
funding in Russia, management problems,
and delays in the U.S.
The House and Senate have authorized
limited funding until the Secretary of
Energy can make some certifications
Secretary of Energy Must Certify
House Requirements:
Senate Requirements:
1. Given Sunk Costs of
MOX, compared to
other technologies
MOX is still the best
option
2. The Department of
Energy has an action
plan to fix
management
problems
1. An independent cost
estimate of the MOX
project
2. the Department of
Energy intends to use
MOX regardless of
what Russia decides
to do
Thorium as an option
Plutonium Disposition
1200
1000
Plutonium
Discharged at
Spent-Fuel
Standard
800
Kilograms Per Year
Thorium-based fuels
designed for plutonium
disposition are more
than twice as effective
at disposing plutonium
than MOX
Fewer, or no
modifications to current
reactors
Around two to three
years from
implementation
Plutonium
Burned
600
400
200
0
MOX
Thorium
Fuel Type
Recommendation
A $4 million dollar program pursuing thoriumbased fuel design for use in U.S. reactors
should be pursued
This could be sponsored by those who have
supported the funding for the program in
Russia, such as Curt Weldon
http://www.thoriumpower.com/images/elmash%20fuel%20assembly.jpg
Proliferation-Resistant Fuels for
Developing Countries
The U.S. outlines a desire in GNEP to help
developing countries set up nuclear power
These facilities will provide potable water, heat
for industrial processes and electricity
They are in less secure areas and must be
inherently more resistant to proliferation
Small reactors with long fuel lives and low
plutonium output are recommended
Thorium-based fuel designed for proliferation
resistance can meet some of these goals
India, Canada, and Heavy Water
Reactors
If developing nations are not provided with more
proliferation resistant technologies they may
choose heavy water reactors
No need for pressure vessel
No need for enrichment
Spent-fuel from heavy water reactors contains
plutonium between weapons-grade and typical
reactor grade
India used plutonium from their first heavy water
reactor to build their first weapon
Features of Thorium-Based ProliferationResistant Fuels
Annual plutonium output is reduced by a
factor of 7
The fissile percentage in the discharged
plutonium is around 60%, compared to
around 70% in typical spent fuel
Heat generation of plutonium increase
Weapons made of discharged plutonium
are more likely to “fizzle”
Recommendation
While thorium-based fuels aren’t a perfect
answer, it is better to take steps now to
assure some extra level of proliferation
resistance
Since the fuel design is very similar to the
plutonium disposition design, the research
program recommended before could also
include a proliferation resistant design at a
marginal extra cost
Long-Term Goals
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative as a
major part of GNEP
Generation IV Initiative
Basic objectives



Reduce Waste
Improve Economics
Improve Proliferation-Resistance
Molten Salt Reactor: A Possible
Solution
Meets all goals set
forth by both the AFCI
and the Gen-IV
Initiative, notably a
top rating in
sustainability
U.S. operating
experience, yet no
current funding
http://nuclear.inl.gov/gen4/i/msr.gif
Molten Salt Reactor Issues
Technical Barriers
Proliferation resistant
characteristics
Cost to operate
Recent research on
AMSTER in France
shows issues to be
resolvable especially
if optimized for waste
recution
http://nuclear.inl.gov/gen4/i/msr.gif
Recommendations
The United States must do a modern
system-wide analysis comparing the
current GNEP plan to molten salt reactors
If found to be a competitive solution, the
United States should fund some research
to advance molten salt reactor technology
through the AFCI, Gen-IV, or both
Summary
Thorium technologies could help reach
some United States political goals and
should be researched for:



Plutonium Disposition
Proliferation Resistant Fuel
Molten Salt Reactor
Questions?