Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
We Were Once Terrified of Fire, Too
References
Introduction
Acknowledgments
Reference
Contributors
Nuclear Fission: Glossary and Acronyms
Glossary
Acronyms
Nuclear Fusion: Glossary and Acronyms
Glossary
Acronyms
Part I: General Concepts
Chapter 1: Nuclear Energy: Past, Present, and Future
1.1 History
1.2 Radiation
1.3 Waste and Reprocessing
1.4 Safety Record
1.5 The Future of Nuclear Plants
Chapter 2: Benefits and Role of Nuclear Power
2.1 Three Mile Island
2.2 Chernobyl
2.3 Proliferation
2.4 Used Fuel vs. “Nuclear Waste”
2.5 Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel
2.6 The Next Generation of Reactors
2.7 Swords to Plowshares
2.8 A Nuclear Renaissance
Chapter 3: Early History Of Nuclear Energy
Further Reading
Chapter 4: Early Commercial Development of Nuclear Energy
4.1 Tilling the Ground: 1945–1950
4.2 Sowing the Seeds: 1950–1955
4.3 Tending and Thinning: 1955–1960
4.4 Let all the Flowers Bloom, then Cull: 1960–1970
Further Reading
Chapter 5: Basic Concepts of Thermonuclear Fusion
5.1 Basic Principles of Fusion
5.2 Fusion Concepts
5.3 Magnetic Fusion
5.4 Inertial Fusion
5.5 Final Remarks
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 6: Basic Concepts of Nuclear Fission
6.1 Neutron Economy
6.2 Nuclear Fuel Approaches
6.3 Reactor Power, Fuel Burnup, and Fuel Consumption
6.4 Fission Reactor Considerations
6.5 Conclusions
Chapter 7: Oklo Natural Fission Reactor
References
Chapter 8: Electrical Generation from Nuclear Power Plants
8.1 World Energy Needs and the Role of Electricity
8.2 Energy Consumption, Nuclear Power, and Environment
8.3 Nuclear Power Today and Development Trends
8.4 Innovative Nuclear Reactor Technology Development
8.5 Nuclear Fuel Resources
8.6 Long-Term Waste Disposal
References
Further Reading
Chapter 9: Nuclear Energy for Water Desalination
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Nuclear Desalination
9.3 World Scenario of Nuclear Desalination
9.4 Case Study: Nuclear Desalination in India
9.5 Conclusion
Chapter 10: Nuclear Energy for Hydrogen Generation
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Producing Hydrogen
10.3 Competing Non-Thermochemical Hydrogen-Producing Processes
10.4 Conclusion
References
Part II: Nuclear Fission
Chapter 11: Uranium-Plutonium Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Dedication
References
Chapter 12: Global Perspective on Thorium Fuel
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Thorium Resources
12.3 Physics of the Thorium Fuel Cycle [9]
12.4 Thorium-Fueled Reactors
12.5 Thorium Fuel Cycle Aspects
12.6 Utilization of Thorium in India
12.7 Conclusion
References
Chapter 13: Design Principles of Nuclear Materials
13.1 Introduction to Nuclear Technology
13.2 Development of Reactor Materials
13.3 Materials for the Back-End Technologies
13.4 Materials for Fusion Technology
13.5 Role of Modeling in Development of Nuclear Materials
13.6 Conclusions
References
Chapter 14: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
14.1 Bismuth Phosphate Process
14.2 Redox and Trigly Processes
14.3 Butex Process
14.4 Purex Process
14.5 Other Processes
14.6 Pyro-Chemical Processes
References
Chapter 15: Safety of Nuclear Fission Reactors: Learning from Accidents
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Core Damage Accidents in the Early Days
15.3 The Accident at Three Mile Island
15.4 The Accident at Chernobyl
15.5 The Accident at Fukushima-I
15.6 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 16: Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal
References
Chapter 17: Fission Energy Usage: Status, Trends and Applications
17.1 Worldwide Power Reactor Fleet
17.2 Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Power Applications
17.3 Worldwide Statistics of Nuclear Energy Use
Further Reading
Part III: Fission: Broad Application Reactor Technology
Chapter 18: Light-Water-Moderated Fission Reactor Technology
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)
18.3 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)
18.4 Conclusions
References
Chapter 19: CANDU Pressurized Heavy Water Nuclear Reactors
19.1 Introduction
19.2 Historical Events Leading to the CANDU Concept [1–3]
19.3 Nuclear Physics Considerations for Heavy Water Reactors Relative to Light Water Reactors
19.4 The CANDU Reactor System [1, 3, 4, 7–11]
19.5 Steam Generators for CANDU Reactors [12–15]
19.6 Safety and Control of CANDU Reactors [3, 6, 8, 10, 16]
19.7 Next Generation Advanced CANDU Designs [3, 9, 20, 21]
References
Chapter 20: Graphite-Moderated Fission Reactor Technology
20.1 Graphite as Moderator
20.2 History of Graphite-Moderated Fission Reactors
20.3 “Magnox” and AGR Power Plants
20.4 HTGR Power Plant Concept
20.5 VHTR Power Plant Concept
20.6 Boiling Water–Cooled Graphite-Moderated Reactors (RBMK)
Further Reading
Chapter 21: Status of Fast Reactors
21.1 Basic Principles of Fast Neutron Spectrum Reactors
21.2 Potential of Fast Spectrum Reactors
21.3 Generic Safety Features of Fast Reactors
21.4 Major Fast Reactor Options
21.5 Fast Breeder Reactors in the World and Operating Experiences
21.6 FRs Under Construction
21.7 Emerging Designs
21.8 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Further Reading
Chapter 22: Review of Generation-III/III+ Fission Reactors
22.1 Introduction
22.2 Safety Features of Generation III/III+ Fission Reactors
22.3 Economic Features of Generation III/III+ Fission Reactors
22.4 Generation III/III+ Pressurized Water Reactors
22.5 Gen III/III+ Boiling Water Reactors
22.6 Gen III/III+ Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors
22.7 Gen III/III+ High-Temperature, Gas-Cooled Reactors
22.8 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 23: Tomorrow's Hope for a Pebble-Bed Nuclear Reactor
Chapter 24: Hydrogeology and Nuclear Energy
24.1 IAEA International Consensus Nuclear Safety Standards
24.2 U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
24.3 Nuclear Waste Disposal
24.4 U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF), High-Level Waste (HLW), and Transuranic Wastes (TRU)
24.5 U.S. Low-Level Radiological Waste
24.6 U.S. Doe Transuranic Redioactive Waste at WIPP
24.7 U.S. High-Level Radiological Waste
References
Part IV: Fission: Gen IV Reactor Technology
Chapter 25: Introduction to Generation-IV Fission Reactors
25.1 Evolution of Nuclear Power Generation
Further Reading
Chapter 26: The Very High Temperature Reactor
26.1 Introduction
26.2 Technology
26.3 New Designs and Innovations
26.4 Role in Energy Production
References
Chapter 27: Supercritical Water Reactor
27.1 Introduction
27.2 Typical SCWR Reference Design
27.3 Supercritical Operation
27.4 SCWR Research Areas
27.5 Summary
References
Chapter 28: The Potential Use of Supercritical Water-Cooling in Nuclear Reactors
28.1 Definitions of Selected Terms and Expressions Related to Critical and Supercritical Regions
28.2 Thermophysical Properties at Critical and Pseudocritical Pressures
28.3 Historical Note on Use of Supercritical Pressures and Fluids
28.4 Supercritical Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (SCWRs)
28.5 SCWR Fuel-Channel Calculations
Acknowledgments
Nomenclature
References
Chapter 29: Generation-IV Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor
29.1 Introduction
29.2 Overview of GFR Concept
29.3 Future Development
Further Reading
Chapter 30: Generation-IV Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors (SFR)
30.1 Fast Reactor Physics
30.2 Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Background and Experience
30.3 Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor System Description
30.4 Generation–IV SFR Objectives
30.5 Examples of Generation-IV Sodium Fast Reactor Systems
30.6 Summary and Conclusions
References
Part V: Thermonuclear Fusion
Chapter 31: Historical Origins and Development of Fusion Research
Chapter 32: Plasma Physics and Engineering
32.1 Introduction
32.2 The Plasma State
32.3 The Lawson Criterion
32.4 Magnetic Confinement of Particles
32.5 Plasma Equilibrium, Control, and Macroscopic Plasma Stability
32.6 Turbulent Transport
32.7 Coulomb Collisions
32.8 Plasma Heating and Current Drive
32.9 Power and Particle Control
32.10 Plasma Diagnostics
References
Chapter 33: Fusion Technology
33.1 Introduction
33.2 Fusion Power Plant Goals, Requirements, and Technical Environment
33.3 Cross-Cutting Technologies
33.4 First-Wall Technology
33.5 Blanket Technology
33.6 Maintenance Technology
33.7 Divertor Technology
33.8 Shielding Technology
33.9 Vacuum Vessel Technology
33.10 Vacuum Pumping Technology
33.11 Coil Technology
33.12 Plasma Formulation and Sustainment Technology
33.13 Other Fusion Technologies
33.14 Summary
References
Chapter 34: ITER—An Essential and Challenging Step to Fusion Energy
34.1 ITER Technical Objectives
34.2 ITER Research Program
34.3 A Fully Internatonal Project
34.4 Design of the ITER Device and Systems
34.5 ITER Plant Systems
34.6 ITER Safety and Environmental Features
Acknowledgment
Chapter 35: Power Plant Projects
35.1 Key Tokamak Features
35.2 U.S. Tokamaks
35.3 International Tokamaks
35.4 D-He3 Tokamaks
35.5 Roadmap for Developing Fusion Energy
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 36: Safety and Environmental Features
36.1 Safety Aspects of Fusion
36.2 Environmental Aspects of Fusion
36.3 Remarks and Conclusions
References
Chapter 37: Inertial Fusion Energy Technology
37.1 Energy Requirements
37.2 What is Fusion Energy?
37.3 Fusion as Part of Global Energy Strategy
37.4 Approaches to Fusion Energy
37.5 Path to Fusion Energy through Inertial Confinement
37.6 Demonstrating Ignition and High-Energy Gain
37.7 Key Requirements for an IFE Power Plant
37.8 Drivers
37.9 Fast Ignition: An Alternative Approach to IFE
37.10 Other IFE Power Plant Components
37.11 How Much Would IFE Power Cost?
37.12 Fusion–Fission Hybrids
37.13 The Future of IFE
Suggested Reading
Chapter 38: Hybrid Nuclear Reactors
38.1 Introduction and Background: The Concept of Hybrid Nuclear Reactors
38.2 Neutronics of Hybrid Nuclear Reactors
38.3 What Do Hybrids Look Like?
38.4 Neutronic Characterization of a Hybrid Reactor
38.5 Nuclear Energy Sustainability
38.6 Summary and Future Work
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 39: Fusion Maintenance Systems
39.1 Rationale for Remote Maintenance
39.2 Design Process
39.3 Maintenance Process
39.4 Hot Cell Operations
39.5 Maintenance Times and Plant Availability
39.6 Summary
References
Chapter 40: Fusion Economics
40.1 Plant Definition
40.2 Basic Developmental and Physical Plant Site
40.3 Economic Assumptions
40.4 Method of Capital Cost Estimation
40.5 Estimation Method for Indirect Costs
40.6 Contingency
40.7 Financial Assumptions and Cost Methodologies Associated with Plant Construction
40.8 Summary
References
Part VI: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
Chapter 41: Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research
41.1 Introduction
41.2 A Nuclear Chemistry Revolution
41.3 Cold Fusion: Scientific Controversy of The Century
41.4 LENR: The End of Cold Fusion
41.5 Their D-D Fusion Hypothesis
41.6 Development of Experimental Evidence
41.7 The Development of the Cold Fusion Belief
41.8 LENR: What Goes In
41.9 LENR: What Comes Out
41.10 Anomalous LENR Transmutations
41.11 Anomalous Isotopic Abundances
41.12 Energy Release from LENR Transmutations
41.13 LENR Transmutations: Cathode From an Experiment with Lots of Heat
41.14 LENR Transmutations within Dry, Sealed, Hollow-Core Electrolytic Cathode
41.15 Resistance from Advocates of Cold Fusion Hypothesis
41.16 State of the Art
41.17 Nickel-Hydrogen LENR
41.18 The Promise
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 42: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: A Three-Stage Historical Perspective
References
Chapter 43: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: Transmutations
43.1 Introduction
43.2 First Reports of Observation of Pd Isotopic Anomalies
43.3 Miley-Patterson Thin Film Light Water Electrolysis Experiments
43.4 Mizuno and Ohmori: Transmutation Products on Pd Cathodes in D2O Electrolysis Experiments
43.5 Neutron Activation Analysis of Deuterated Pd Samples that had Produced Significant Amounts of Excess Heat
43.6 Anomalies in Trace Element Composition of Newly Formed Structures on Cathode Surface in Co-Deposition Experiments (SPAWAR Group)
43.7 Observations of Trace Element Distribution on Cathode Surfaces Following Electrolysis at Portland State University (John Dash)
43.8 Russian Glow Discharge Experiments (Karabut, Savvatimova, and Others)
43.9 Replication of Glow Discharge Transmutations by Yamada's Group at Iwate University, Japan
43.10 Iwamura (MHI): Transmutation Reactions Observed During D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complexes
43.11 Replication of MHI Permeation Experiment by other Groups
43.12 Carbon ARC Experiments
43.13 Vysotskii's Microbial Transmutation Studies
43.14 Summary and Conclusions
43.15 Appendix: Summary of Experimental Studies in which Nuclear Transmutation Reactions had been Reported as of 2007
References
Chapter 44: Widom–Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs
44.1 Four-Step Widom–Larsen Process
44.2 The Role of Surface Plasmon Polaritons
44.3 Nuclear Processes
References
Chapter 45: Potential Applications of LENRs
45.1 Introduction
45.2 Possible LENR Fuel Combinations and Energy Density
45.3 LENR Radiation and Portability Factors
45.4 Early Applications of LENR not Requiring Significant Heat or Energy Output
45.5 Applications of Research-Stage Energy Devices
45.6 Applications of Low-Grade LENR Heat
45.7 Large-Scale LENR Applications
45.8 Maturing Technologies: Electrical Generation and Combined Heat and Power
45.9 Environmental Remediation Options
45.10 Portable and Fixed Terrestrial Applications
45.11 Space Exploration
References
Part VII: Other Concepts
Chapter 46: Acoustic Inertial Confinement Nuclear Fusion
46.1 Overview of Acoustic Inertial Confinement Nuclear Fusion (AICF/BNF)
46.2 Thermonuclear D/D and D/T Fusion and AICF
46.3 Contrasting AICF Bubble Nuclear Fusion and Single Bubble Sonoluminescence (SBSL) Experimental Approaches
46.4 AICF Setup and Experimentation
46.5 When not to Expect AICF
46.6 Due Diligence Y The AICF Discovery Team
46.7 Summary of Experimental Evidence for AICF
46.8 Theoretical Modeling and Simulation of AICF
46.9 Successful Replications and Confirmations
46.10 Public Demonstrations of Successful AICF
46.11 Other Attempts at Replication
46.12 Flawed Theoretical Speculations by the UCLA Team
46.13 Breakeven Energy Production: Status and Pathway
46.14 Spinoff and Other Potential Applications of AICF Technology
References
Chapter 47: Direct Energy Conversion Concepts
47.1 Direct Energy Conversion
47.2 Direct Fission Fragment Energy Conversion
47.3 Out-Of-Core Direct Fission Fragment Energy Conversion
47.4 Components of the DFFEC-MC System
47.5 Existing Technologies and Potential Feasibility of the DFFEC-MC Concept
References
Index
Preface
Steven B. Krivit
We Were Once Terrified of Fire, Too
The discovery of fire 790,000 years ago must have been terrifying to cave men and women (1). Since that time, many people have died and much property has been destroyed as a result of chemical energy released through fire. Nevertheless, that chemical energy found its place in the world, providing great benefits, and most people take it for granted.
In stark contrast, humankind began to develop and use nuclear energy less than a hundred years ago. According to a 2008 report from the International Energy Agency, nuclear energy provides 13.5% of worldwide electricity (2).
On March 11, 2011, just before we went to press, several of the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power plants were damaged from a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a 10-m tsunami. The event dominated headlines and, with some help from the mass media, re-sparked the public's fears of nuclear energy. Some people may look back at Fukushima and consider it a nuclear disaster; others may consider it a nuclear engineering success story, considering the parts of the reactors that did stand up to natural disasters beyond those for which they were designed.
Some members of the public have the misinformed view that radiation has no place in a safe and healthy world. Radiation has always been around us. It comes from a variety of natural sources, and it is widely used in medicine.
The difference between radiation levels that pose a significant health risk and radiation levels that pose negligible or no risks has everything to do with emission rate, concentration, dispersion, distance from, and duration of exposure. Other key factors include the unique properties of each isotope, such as how it affects the body and how long it remains radioactive.
In light of the public's fear, examining how nuclear energy has fared in terms of safety and environment is useful. Remembering that a perfect energy solution for electricity production and transportation does not exist is also useful. Chemical energy and hydroelectric energy have not been without accidents and deaths. Solar and other renewables may have fewer health and environmental risks, but excluding hydroelectric, they provide only 2.8% of electrical power worldwide; they have not demonstrated greater capacity for baseload electrical production.
The public's fear of nuclear energy is an undercurrent that affects all actions related to this industry. This fear must be addressed. Doing that requires exploring the risks and consequences of nuclear energy and other energy technologies. The perceived relationship between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons also contributes to the public's fear.
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident—by far the worst—is most instructive. In 2006, the Chernobyl Forum, an organization comprising the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and five United Nations organizations working in the areas of food, agriculture, environment, humanitarian affairs, and radiation effects, published an authoritative analysis of the health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of Chernobyl (3).
The report concluded that 31 emergency workers died as a direct consequence of their response to the Chernobyl accident. The Forum was unable to reliably assess the precise numbers of fatalities by radiation exposure. The best they were able to do was speculate and make conjecture based on the experience of other populations exposed to radiation. They also wrote that small differences in their assumptions could lead to large differences in their predictions. By 2002, 15 deaths were reported from among 4000 people exposed to radiation and diagnosed with thyroid cancer. These data are in stark contrast to a number of other poorly referenced sources, which have speculated on large numbers of radiation-related deaths.
Concerning environmental impact, the report said that the majority of the contaminated territories are now safe for settlement and economic activity and that the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and a few limited areas will have restrictions for many decades.
In August 1975, the Banqiao hydroelectric dam in western Henan province, China, failed as a result of Typhoon Nina, which produced floods greater than the dam was designed to withstand. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, 180,000 people died (4).
On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil drilling rig failed and caused 200 million gallons of crude oil to leak into the Gulf of Mexico, according to “PBS News Hour.” The leak was out of control for 3 months and 11 men died.
One billion gallons of oil from 21 disasters have been spilled in the oceans since 1967, according to Infoplease (5).
In the United States alone, 260 workers have lost their lives in 21 coal mining accidents since 1970, according to the United States Mine Rescue Association (6).
In Nigeria, on October 18, 1998, a natural gas pipeline explosion took the lives of 1082 people, according to Agence France-Presse (7).
Members of the public would benefit from scrutinizing the comparative safety and track record of clean, emission-free nuclear energy. They would also benefit from learning the basic concepts and principles of nuclear energy production.
The nuclear industry would know that the public is never going to believe—nor should it—that nuclear accidents can't happen. However, it would do well to hear the public's fears and help people understand that nuclear energy has some risks and hazards.
Governments would also do well to show how they are prepared to protect their citizens with effective regulation to minimize radiological emergencies as well as effective response strategies when they occur.
In the absence of the public's understanding of the facts, fear mongers and sensationalist media will surely fill in.
Nuclear energy is certainly not perfect, but the efforts of researchers and industry are significant and crucial. The innovative scientific research and engineering designs shown in this book reflect decades of technological developments in a variety of nuclear applications that are ready to be put to use.
References
1. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, October 27, 2008 press release. http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge122510374832688760.
2. International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics 2010, Updated February 2011. http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_desc.asp?pubs_ID=1199.
3. The Chernobyl Forum, Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf.
4. Encyclopedia Britannica, Typhoon Nina–Banqiao dam failure. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1503368/Typhoon-Nina-Banqiao-dam-failure.
5. Infoplease, Oil Spills and Disasters. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html.
6. United States Mine Rescue Association, Historical Data on Mine Disasters in the United States. http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/historical.htm.
7. Agence France-Presse, A History of Blasts, in USA Today, Nigerian pipeline blast kills up to 200. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-12-nigeria_x.htm.
Introduction
Jay Lehr
This book marks a significant milestone in the reintroduction of a set of mature nuclear technologies. It also introduces new ideas that expand the frontiers of nuclear science research. It is a timely resource for a world that is awakening to a nuclear renaissance.
Oddly, nuclear energy needs to be reintroduced as if it were a new technology. For a variety of reasons, which vary slightly from nation to nation, the capabilities and capacities of nuclear energy have been under-recognized. In the United States, for example, it supplies 20% of the electric power even though no new nuclear power plant has been designed, approved, and built in the United States in decades.
Nuclear power is a form of terrestrial energy, the same process that heats the center of our earth to 7,000°F. Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon, and indeed, fuel for nuclear power plants comes from natural resources. The concentration of power in the nucleus of the atom is incredible: The disintegration of a single uranium atom produces 2 million times more energy than that produced by breaking a single carbon-hydrogen bond in coal, oil, or natural gas when burned. Nuclear power is an underappreciated marvel of modern technology that harnesses and amplifies a natural process to help satisfy civilization's need for energy.
A 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power plant requires 110 rail cars of coal each day, while an equally powerful nuclear plant requires a single tractor-trailer to deliver new fuel rods once every 18 months. Solar or wind power requires 200 times more land than either coal- or nuclear-powered plants do.
Three decades ago, the average efficiency of nuclear plants was barely 50%, which is to say that they were putting out their rated capacity of energy only half the time. Today, that efficiency has climbed to 94%. Although decades have passed since a nuclear power plant has been constructed in the United States, these reactors produce 25% more power with the same 104 operating plants today than they did 20 years ago.
The real dangers of nuclear power to humans and the environment are vastly different from the propaganda-based exaggerations that have been commonplace in recent decades. Every energy industry has its risks and failures, whether oil spill disasters or coal mine disasters. Prudence and wisdom dictate that decision makers consider the full spectrum of risk and reward in any energy endeavor; this book will help provide sound facts for that purpose.
Future reactors will be even safer than they are today and more cost effective, as well; much has been learned from both successes and failures worldwide.
The United States, at one time a leader in nuclear technology, is lagging in new plant development. The lengthy time required for licensing and construction in the United States remains a significant obstacle to serious investment. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, applications for 26 new nuclear units are pending with federal regulators, but the most optimistic outlook suggests that only four plants may be built by 2020.
On the other hand, the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that 34 nuclear power plants are under construction in 12 countries besides the United States, including seven in Russia, six in China, and six in India. Many more are on their drawing boards.
Many publications have touted a rebirth of nuclear energy in the United States, but a closer reading often reveals that such support and predictions are tepid at best. Often, the greatest opposition to the clean energy of nuclear power has come from people who maintain a philosophy that more available energy and the progress it will allow will have adverse effects on the environment. In fact, we know that when societies increase their standard of living through economic activity, then and only then can they afford to focus on improving their environment.
During the last few decades, significant misinformation has been propagated worldwide about nuclear energy, often unknowingly by people with good intentions and care for the environment, although without access to reliable facts. This book helps to bridge that gap.
For decades, nuclear researchers and engineers have been diligently developing and refining new designs and technology. Future-generation nuclear technology will be more passive, no longer requiring coolant to be pumped into vessels in the event of excessive heat. Instead, coolant will be stored at higher elevations, where gravity can do the work.
New plants will have a life of 60 years, spreading their amortized costs. Modular construction will allow quicker and less-expensive assembly. Inherently safe systems, such as the pebble-bed reactor, require fewer safety features because the systems cannot achieve dangerous levels of heat when malfunctions occur. In the case of the pebble beds, the uranium fuel is encased in ceramic spheres the size of tennis balls, and the melting point of the ceramic is well above the level of any heat that can be generated by the uranium.
Waste disposal is not a problem, although it gets the most headlines. Even most critics agree that existing used fuel rods can stay where they are for another 50 or 100 years until permanent storage is determined. In the United States, recycling used fuel has been significantly at odds with the scientific, technical, and even political reality. It is in great need of overhaul.
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, through a misguided directive, decided that the United States would not reprocess civilian nuclear fuel. According to A. David Rossin, a scholar with the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University, Carter relied on his advisors and put reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel on hold in the United States. The small amount of mistakenly potentially weapon-grade plutonium produced on reprocessing caused Carter to stop the U.S. program (1). This decision had several negative consequences.
According to Rossin, Carter hoped that, by setting this example, the United States would encourage other nations to follow its lead. Carter was naive to think that banning reprocessing in the United States, even if based on substantive technical facts, would make the world safer. Why would rogue nations or terrorist groups follow Carter's example? That peaceful nuclear states would voluntarily follow Carter's example to waste nuclear fuel was unrealistic.
As time has shown, other nations have not followed the United States. On October 12, 2010, India announced it had developed its fast breeder reactor technology sufficiently to export it to the world.
Most countries are far more fuel-efficient than the United States and have a fraction of the waste to manage that the United States does. Thus, while U.S citizens diligently strive to recycle their plastic, papers, and many other natural resources, France, for example, gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and uses 95% of the available fuel, leaving that country with only 5% waste to manage.
The United States pays a double penalty as a result of Carter's directive, because it uses only 5% of the fuel and wastes 95% of it. Thus, the United States is one of the least responsible nations in nuclear fuel recycling.
There is even greater hope for the future with fast reactors, described in this book, that can use nuclear wastes from a variety of sources as fuel. They are able to unlock energy in waste because they can burn plutonium and neptunium and other materials that are byproducts of current nuclear reactors.
Fast reactors under development in the United States could supply all of the nation's energy needs for 70 years using only nuclear waste in storage today. While costs per kilowatt of capacity will exceed all other nuclear plants, they likely will drop significantly after a few fast reactors come on line.
Nuclear power is progressing technologically and socially, but the battle for the future of mankind's energy is far from won. This book aims to fill a crucial role: to educate industry, policymakers, students, and the public that nuclear energy is the safest and most plentiful form of energy to power the future of civilization. This book offers the most up-to-date collection of all we know about the future of nuclear energy around the world, and it is a bright future indeed.
Acknowledgments
The editors would like to thank Bob Esposito and Michael Leventhal for their work in producing this book, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., for publishing it. Steven Krivit would also like to thank the sponsors of New Energy Institute for their support of this project.
We deeply appreciate the contributions of the many experts who, through their work, are helping to advance nuclear science and technology worldwide.
Reference
1. A. David Rossin, U.S. Policy on Spent Fuel Reprocessing: The Issues. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html.
Contributors
Dr. Alberto Abánades, Institute of Nuclear Fusion-UPM, c/José Gutierrez Abascal, 2, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Rokaya A. Al-Ayat, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, L-580, Livermore, CA, USA
Dr. David E. Ames II, Texas A&M University, Department of Nuclear Engineering, 129 Zachry Engineering Center, 3133 TAMU, College Station, TX, USA
Mr. K. Anantharaman, Reactor Design and Development Group Trombay, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Dr. Charles C. Baker, Sandia National Laboratories, Principal Editor-Fusion Engineering and Design, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Mr. Lee Cadwallader, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Carlos H. Castaño, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Nuclear Engineering, 222 Fulton Hall, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, MO, USA
Dr. P. Chellapandi, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, TN, India
Dr. Stephen O. Dean, Fusion Power Associates, 2 Professional Drive Suite 249, Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Dr. Laila A. El-Guebaly, Fusion Technology Institute, 431, Engineering Research Building, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI, USA
Dr. Hans D. Gougar, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Mr. Christopher Grandy, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, USA
Ms. Rose A. Hansen, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, L-471 Livermore, CA, USA
Dr. Roger Henning, Nuclear and Hydrogeologic Support Services, 2120 Crooked Pine Drive, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Dr. Robert N. Hill, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, USA
Dr. Hussein Khalil, Argonne National Laboratory, Nuclear Engineering Division, 9700 S. Cass Avenue; Bldg. 208 Argonne, IL, USA
Mr. Lakshminarayana Venkata Krishnan, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, B6, Madhurima Apartments, 32, Conransmith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai, TN, India
Mr. Steven B. Krivit, New Energy Times, 369-B Third Street; Suite 556, San Rafael, CA, USA
Dr. Antonio Lafuente, Institute of Nuclear Fusion-UPM, c/José Gutierrez Abascal, 2, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Richard T. Lahey Jr., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, MANE - NES Bldg., 110 8th Street, Troy, NY, USA
Dr. Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute, 19 South LaSalle Street #903, Chicago, IL, USA
Dr. J.G. Marques, Instituto Tecnologico, Estrada Nacional 10, Sacavem P-2686-953; Centro de Física Nuclear, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal
Dr. José M Martinez-Val, Institute of Nuclear Fusion-UPM, c/José Gutierrez Abascal, 2 Madrid, Spain
Dr. Harold McFarlane, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Dr. George Miley, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, Fusion Studies Laboratory, 103 S Goodwin, Urbana, IL, USA
Dr. Alistair I. Miller, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., 8 Darwin Crescent, Deep River, ON, Canada
Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., 873 Beatty Street #305, Vancouver BC V6B 2M6, Canada
Dr. Edward I. Moses, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, L-466, Livermore, CA, USA
Dr. Robert I. Nigmatulin, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Ms. Saly T. Panicker, Desalination Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Dr. Mireia Piera, Ingenieria Energetica, UNED ETSII-Dp, c/Juan del Rosal, 12, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Igor Pioro, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Dr. Baldev Raj, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, TN, India
Dr. P.R. Vasudeva Rao, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, TN, India
Dr. Francesco Romanelli, JET-EFDA Culham Research Center, Abingdon OX14 3 DB, UK
Dr. William R. Roy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, 216 Talbot Laboratory, MC-234, 104 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL, USA
Dr. Clifford Singer, Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 216 Talbot Laboratory, MC-234, 104 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL, USA
Dr. Mahadeva Srinivasan, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Retired), 25/15, Rukmani Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai, TN, India
Dr. Edmund Storms, Kiva Labs, 2140 Paseo Ponderosa, Santa Fe, NM, USA
Prof. Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, Purdue University, College of Engineering, 400 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Dr. J'Tia Taylor, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, USA
Dr. P.K. Tewari, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Desalination Division, Trombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Mr. Roger Tilbrook, 86 White Oak Circle, St. Charles, IL, USA
Dr. Pavel V. Tsvetkov, Texas A&M University, Department of Nuclear Engineering, 129 Zachry Engineering Center, 3133 TAMU College Station, TX, USA
Dr. Leonid I. Urutskoev, Moscow State University Of Printing Arts, State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”, Expert Dep. ul. Bolshaya Ordynka, 24/26, Moscow, Russia
Dr. Shoaib Usman, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Mining & Nuclear Engineering, 222 Fulton Hall, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, MO, USA
Dr. M. Vijayalakshmi, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, TN, India
Mr. Lester M. Waganer, 10 Worcester Ct., O Fallon, MO, USA
Dr. Winthrop Williams, U.C. Berkeley, 2615 Ridge Rd. #D, Berkeley, CA, USA
Dr. James R. Wolf, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Dr. Joseph. M. Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center, MS-475, Hampton, VA, USA
Nuclear Fission: Glossary and Acronyms
K. Anantharaman, P.R. Vasudeva Rao, Carlos H. Castaño, and Roger Henning
Glossary
Burn-up
A measure of energy extracted from nuclear reactor fuel. It is defined as the ratio of the thermal energy released by nuclear fuel to mass of fuel material consumed. It is typically expressed as Gigawatt days per ton of fuel (GWd/t).
Capture cross-section
A measure of the probability that an incident particle or photon will be absorbed by a target nuclide.
Chain reaction
Neutron-induced fission is a common example. The fission reaction produces neutrons that can sustain the reaction, thus forming a chain of linked reactions. Gasoline combustion is an example from chemistry. A spark initiates the combustion, resulting in a release of energy that is sufficient to propagate the reaction.
Cross-section of a nuclear reaction
A measure of the probability that a nuclear reaction will occur. It is the apparent or effective area presented by a target nucleus or particle to an oncoming radiation. The barn is the standard unit for the cross section and is equal to 10−24 cm2.
Enrichment
Physical process of increasing the proportion of U235 to U238 material in nuclear fuel element, i.e., increasing the fissile content. It is generally carried out by using high-speed centrifuges or by gaseous diffusion process.
Fast neutron
Neutron released during fission, traveling at high velocity and having high energy (>1 MeV).
Fission cross-section
The probability a reaction will occur that will cause a nuclide to fission.
Fission product
A residual nucleus formed in fission, including fission fragments and their decay products.
Fuel cycle
All steps in the use of nuclear material as fuel for a nuclear reactor, including mining, purification, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, irradiation, storage of irradiated fuel, reprocessing, and disposal.
Fuel cycle—Open
Spent fuel is removed from the reactor, cooled, and transferred to long-term dry storage. No attempt is made to recover the unused fissile material.
Fuel cycle—Closed
Spent fuel is removed from reactor and after a cooling period, it is transferred for reprocessing. The fissile material is recovered for reuse and the fission products are separated for disposal. Reprocessing enables recycling of the fissile isotopes and reduces amount of waste to be disposed.
Half-life
The time period required for half of the atoms of a particular radioactive isotope to decay.
Heavy water
Water containing an elevated concentration of molecules with deuterium (“heavy hydrogen”) atoms. It has chemical properties similar to that of ordinary or light water, but neutronic properties are different. Heavy water absorbs fewer neutrons and is also a better moderator.
Isotope
Different isotopes of an element have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Therefore, the isotopes of an element have different atomic masses. For example, U235 and U238 are isotopes of uranium.
Neutron capture
Absorption of a neutron by an atomic nucleus. A measure of the probability that a material will capture a neutron is given by the neutron capture cross-section, which depends on the energy of a neutron and on the composition of the material.
Nuclear fission
The process of splitting a heavy nucleus into two lighter nuclei, accompanied by the simultaneous release of a relatively large amount of energy and usually one or more neutrons. Fission is induced through the reaction of an incident radiation with the nucleus. Neutron-induced fission of uranium-235 is a common example. Considerable energy is released during the fission reaction, and this energy can be used to produce heat and electricity. Spontaneous fission is a type of radioactive decay for some nuclides.
Nuclear fusion
The process of forming a heavier nucleus from two lighter ones.
Scrub
A substance used to absorb preferentially another in a different phase by providing a preferential chemical reaction or state. Traditionally, the term has been used to designate a liquid to retain gaseous exhausts from a gas stream, but it is applied to other systems as well, including slurries and liquid-to-liquid retention.
Salting
Providing extra ions necessary to carry out or improve a particular chemical process. Usually the addition of a salt with the proper ion is meant, but adding the ion in any form can be equally effective (e.g., providing NO3- ions by addition of NaNO3 or HNO3).
Uranium-233
A fissile, manmade isotope of uranium. It is created when thorium-232 captures a neutron through irradiation. It has a half-life of 160,000 years and decays by emitting alpha particles.
Uranium-235
Only fissile isotope of uranium occurring in nature (0.7% abundance). Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, and it can sustain a chain reaction.
Uranium-238
The most prevalent isotope (>99.3%) of uranium in nature. It has a half-life of about 4,500 million years. Uranium-238 emits alpha particles, which are less penetrating than other forms of radiation. Uranium-238 cannot sustain a chain reaction, but it can be converted by neutron capture to plutonium-239.
Plutonium-239
A heavy, radioactive, manmade fissile isotope of plutonium. It is the most common isotope formed in a typical nuclear reactor formed by neutron capture from U238 and yields much the same energy as the fission of U235. Pu239 has a half-life of 24,400 years and decays by emitting alpha particles. The hazard from Pu-239 is similar to that from any other alpha-emitting radionuclides (Inhalation).
Thorium-232
Th-232 is most stable isotope of thorium, and nearly all natural thorium is Th-232. The isotope thorium-232 is stable, having a half-life of about 14,000 million years, and undergoes alpha decay. Unlike uranium, thorium does not contain any natural fissile isotope. Thorium-232 is not fissile itself, but it can absorb slow neutrons to convert it into U233, which is fissile.
Voloxidation
If tritium (3H) needs to be separated from spent fuel, it is better to do it before the fuel is dissolved, since the tritium would then be isotropically distributed with all the hydrogen in water, solvents, and nitric acid, making its separation much harder. Voloxidation is a process developed by ORNL in which fuel after shearing is then oxidized in a rotating furnace to convert UO2 to U3O8. The latter is less dense, causing the fuel to swell, pulverizing the ceramic fuel and causing the release of occluded gasses. The released gasses (Kr, Xe, etc.) can then be collected, and particularly tritium can then be oxidized and removed as almost pure ultra-heavy water (3H2O), all carried out before the fuel is dissolved [M. Benedict, T. Pigford, and H. W. Levi, Chapter 10: Fuel reprocessing, In Nuclear Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981, pp. 458–459, 476].
Acronyms
| Abbreviation |
Expansion |
| AEA |
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 |
| AECL |
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Canada |
| AHWR |
Advanced Heavy Water Reactor |
| ALARA |
as low as is reasonably achievable |
| BARC |
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India |
| BORAX |
Boiling Reactor Experiment |
| BWR |
Boiling Water Reactor |
| CANDU |
Canada Deuterium Uranium |
| CEA |
Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique |
| CERCLA |
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) |
| CFR |
Code of Federal Regulations (U.S.) |
| CP |
Chicago Pile |
| DOE |
(United States) Department of Energy |
| EBR |
Experimental Breeder Reactor |
| EDF |
Électricité de France |
| EFPD |
Effective Full Power Days |
| EPA |
(United States) Environmental Protection Agency |
| EPRI |
Electric Power Research Institute |
| Euratom |
European Atomic Energy Community (legally distinct from the European Union but has the same membership) |
| FBR |
Fast Breeder Reactor |
| FBTR |
Fast Breeder Test Reactor |
| FEPS |
features, events, and processes |
| FUSRAP |
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program |
| HEU |
Highly Enriched Uranium |
| HLLW |
High Level Liquid Waste |
| HLW |
high-level radiological waste |
| HTGR |
High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor |
| IAEA |
International Atomic Energy Agency (independent organization but related to the United Nations) |
| IGCAR |
Indira Gandhi Centre for Advanced Research, Kalpakkam, India |
| KAMINI |
Kalpakkam Mini Reactor |
| LLW |
low-level radiological waste |
| LWBR |
Light Water Breeder Reactor |
| LWR |
Light Water Reactor |
| MOX Fuel |
Mixed Oxide Fuel |
| MSBR |
Molten Salt Breeder Reactor |
| NEA |
Nuclear Energy Agency |
| NEPA |
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 |
| NRC |
(United States) Nuclear Regulatory Agency |
| NRTS |
National Reactor Testing Station |
| NWPA |
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 |
| ORNL |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA |
| PDRP |
Power Demonstration Reactor Program |
| PHWR |
Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor |
| PIE |
Post Irradiation Examination |
| PRTRF |
Power Reactor Thorium Reprocessing Facility |
| PUREX process |
Plutonium-URanium EXtraction process |
| PURNIMA |
Plutonium based Indian research reactor (now dismantled) |
| PWR |
Pressurized Water Reactor |
| RCRA |
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 |
| SNF |
spent nuclear fuel |
| SSC |
structures, systems, or components |
| TBP |
Tri-n-Butyl Phosphate solvent |
| THOREX process |
THORium-uranium EXtraction process |
| TRU |
transuranic radiological wastes |
| UMTRCA |
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 |
| USAEC |
United States Atomic Energy Commission |
| WIPP |
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (operated by DOE). |
