White House Summit Video on Nuclear Energy

NRC Evaluation of the 1986 Chernobyl Accident

First CANDU Utilization of Recycled Uranium from LWR Spent Fuel in China

CANDU Reactor in China first to directly use recovered uranium fuel

Major milestone demonstrates CANDU's fuel cycle flexibility

BEIJING, March 23 /CNW/ - Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) announced today that the first-ever fuel bundle to directly use recovered uranium from light water reactors was successfully placed in the Qinshan CANDU Unit 1 Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) on Monday, March 22.
A ceremony to commemorate the event was held at the Qinshan site and was attended by senior Chinese government officials along with representatives from AECL and its Chinese partners Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Company (TQNPC), Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC) and China North Nuclear Fuel Corporation (CNNFC).
Over the next six months, a total of 24 Natural Uranium Equivalent (NUE) fuel bundles will be inserted into two separate fuel channels at the Qinshan Unit 1 reactor in Haiyan, China. NUE fuel is made by mixing recovered uranium from spent fuel of light water reactors with depleted uranium from enrichment plant tails. The irradiation of all 24 NUE bundles will be completed in approximately 12 months.
"This commercial demonstration of NUE fuel is a first-of-a-kind advanced fuel collaborative effort for the parties and highlights the beginning of the engineering application of CANDU advanced fuel cycles," stated AECL President and Chief Executive Officer, Hugh MacDiarmid. "It establishes CANDU's ability to utilize alternative fuel cycles and demonstrates the strong synergy between CANDU technology and light water reactor technology."
The commercial demonstration of NUE fuel in the CANDU reactor is the final phase of a three-phase joint research project between AECL and its three Chinese partners, TQNPC, NPIC and CNNFC. The project was initiated in 2008 to explore the use of recovered uranium from light water reactors in a CANDU reactor and to prove that it is the simplest, most cost-effective and environmentally-friendly process to utilize alternative fuel sources.
AECL's Chief Technology Officer Dr. Anthony De Vuono added, "As a proven commercial power reactor, our Enhanced CANDU 6 has the highest neutron efficiency compared to other competing technologies and consumes about 30% less natural uranium. Our NUE fuel cycle opens up a sustainable development path leading to an overall extension of uranium fuel resources while, at the same time, reusing the spent fuel from light water reactors."
In December 2009, an expert panel comprised of representatives from China's leading nuclear academic, government, industry and R&D organizations unanimously recommended that China consider building two new CANDU units to take advantage of CANDU's unique capabilities in utilizing alternative fuels.
The existing Qinshan Phase III nuclear power plant includes two 728 MWe CANDU 6 PHWR reactors designed by AECL and built in cooperation with TQNPC. The two CANDU units are ranked among the top performing nuclear power stations in China.


http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/23/c3481.html

Duke energy boss on nuclear energy and jobs

In the November 20 Wall Street Journal Environmental Capital blog, Duke Energy boss, Jim Rogers argues that nuclear power will probably replace coal in the long run in the US by 2050. Additionally, he argues that nuclear power creates more jobs than wind and solar and at a higher level of pay:

"In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business–is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business–and we’re installing solar panels–it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation."


Duke’s Rogers: Why Nuclear Power Will Probably Trump Coal
Environmental Capital blog
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/dukes-rogers-why-nuclear-power-will-probably-trump-coal/

The Nuplex Solution

by Marcel F. Williams

In 1982, the United States Congress passed a law requiring the Department of Energy to find a suitable site to construct a disposal facility for the radioactive spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. In 2005, 52,000 tonnes of spent fuel was being held at nuclear power and military facilities in the US. And it is estimated that by 2015, the nation's nuclear power facilities will be storing over 75,000 metric tons of spent fuel on site. There are laws preventing the expansion of nuclear power within several States in the US until a final storage solution is found for the radioactive spent fuel accumulating at current commercial nuclear reactor sites. And to fund such a permanent storage facility, nuclear utilities have paid nearly $30 billion in fees and interest to a Federal “nuclear waste fund”.

Nuclear Energy Institute map of stored radioactive waste from the commercial and military nuclear industry

Eventually, Yucca Mountain became the Department of Energy's solution to the nations nuclear waste problem. Over 2 billion dollars has been spent studying the Yucca Mountain area in Nevada with an additional 5 to 6 billion dollars to finish the facility by 2010. But there has been strong political and environmental opposition to storing spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain facility. Harry Reid, Senator from Nevada and the current leader of the US Senate, strongly opposes Yucca Mountain as a repository for the nation's nuclear waste material. And President Barack Obama ran in opposition to utilizing the Yucca Mountain facility for radwaste deposition during his campaign for president.

So it now seems unlikely that the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada will be utilized for the deposition of the nation's spent fuel. And the Nuclear Energy Institute has reportedly recently advanced the idea that President Barack Obama convene a blue ribbon nuclear waste commission to find an alternative to burying radioactive power plant fuel at Yucca Mountain.

Despite that fact that there are tens of thousands of tonnes of spent fuel now residing at US commercial nuclear power plants, it should be noted that only 3 or 4% of that spent fuel is actually radioactive waste. After enriched uranium is utilized in a nuclear reactor for fuel, 96% of the remaining mass is in the form of the original fertile uranium 238 with a residual component of fissile uranium 235 composing about 0.83% of the total uranium content. This percentage of uranium 235 is down from its original 3% as fuel, but still higher than the 0.71% natural concentration of uranium. An additional 1% of the spent fuel is in the form of fissile plutonium 239. And the rest is in the form of fission products and minor actinides. Since the uranium and plutonium can be recycled and utilized for fuel, only 3% or 4% of spent fuel can actually be considered as radioactive waste material.

Spent fuel cask stored on site

Spent Fuel Composition

95.6% uranium (0.83% of which is U-235)
2.9% stable fission products
0.9% plutonium (about two thirds fissile plutonium)
0.3% cesium & strontium (fission products)
0.1% iodine and technetium (fission products)
0.1% other long-lived fission products
0.1% minor actinides (americium, curium, neptunium)

So instead of the Federal government using the 30 billion dollars given to them by the utilities to simply throw away the spent fuel, I propose that the Federal government use that money along with additional Federal investment funds to dispose of 96% of the spent fuel by recycling the fissile material and converting it into clean energy.

I propose that a Federal Nuplex Corporation should be established in order to fund the construction of Federal Nuplexes in every State that is currently storing spent fuel at their nuclear power facilities and for every State willing to take in spent fuel from other states.

I envision Federal Nuplex facilities as consisting of:

1. Temporary storage areas for spent fuel cask recently imported from nuclear power facilities within the state

2. On site spent fuel reprocessing facilities to extract uranium and plutonium fuel on site utilization

3. On site uranium enrichment facilities to fabricate uranium fuel for on site reactors

4. 8 to 40 on site nuclear reactors capable of using the recycled uranium and plutonium fuel for base-load electricity production

5. Long term storage cask for housing the reprocessed radioactive spent fuel fission products and minor actinides from nuclear reactors

6. Adjacent site synfuel production facilities for the production of carbon neutral gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, jet fuel, dimethyl ether, hydrogen, oxygen, and ammonia for the transportation and industrial chemical industry

7. Off site (up to 80 kilometers) methanol-oxygen cogeneration and trigeneration power facilities for the production of peak-load electricity

8. On site storage facilities for radioactive waste from hospitals and radioactive research facilities

A State's spent fuel could be transported by rail to the Federal Nuplex facility located within the state. The residual nuclear waste produced after reprocessing would be stored on site for a few hundred years until either transmutation or final out of state deposition. On site reactors could also be decommissioned on site after energy production from a Nuplex has finally ceased. The safest and most economical way to decommission a reactor facility would be to allow the irradiated components of the facility to decay over the coarse of 100 to 200 years. So if you assume that several reactors would be gradually added to a nuplex over the course of the next 30 or 40 years and that these reactors will continue to operate for at least 60 to 80 years then Nuplex facilities would probably not be completely decommissioned and removed from its site until at least 300 years from now, or not until the 24th century. So any residual radioactive waste could remain on site at secured Nuplex facilities for a few hundred years until the material is eventually transmuted into shorter lived elements or permanently deposited in deep sea beds or in some extraterrestrial environment in the 24th century.

Spent fuel cask being transported by rail

A typical Nuplex could contain perhaps four AP 1000 light water reactors plus four ACR 1000 heavy water reactors. The recycled plutonium and uranium could be used inside of a thorium blanket inside of an ACR reactor to reduce plutonium production while producing more uranium 233. A Heavy Water Reactor utilizing thorium could in theory have an 80% conversion ratio or above almost to the point of being self-sustaining. The AP 1000 Light Water Reactor could use the recycled and enriched uranium to produce power or the plutonium as MOX, or the plutonium in a mixture of a thorium-uranium blanket






Federal Nuplexes would contain between 8 to 40 reactors. Concentrating so many reactors at one site could substantially reduce the capital cost of the power facility due to economies of mass production and large concentrated facilities could also reduced labor and security cost. Each Nuplex would also produce thousands of permanent jobs. But because of the heat island effect, it may be necessary to limit the number of nuclear reactors at a site to ten or less. However, if waste it is dissipated by locating several cooling ponds and dry cooling towers in all directions, several kilometers off site, then this effect could be mitigated. Alternatively, the heat island effect could be mitigated by utilizing the waste heat for seawater desalinization, greenhouse and hydroponic agriculture, or aquaculture.

Because the Federal government would be reprocessing domestic spent fuel on Federally protected facilities, there should be no danger of nuclear proliferation. Additionally, the export of Nuplex produced synfuels to other countries for electric power production, transportation, and industrial chemicals would enable foreign nations to benefit from the production of nuclear energy without the need for nuclear facilities or nuclear material.

Federal Nuplexes would eliminate the need for long term storage of spent fuel at commercial nuclear reactors sites. They would also substantially reduce the volume of spent fuel produced by the commercial nuclear industry while also substantially increasing the amount of nuclear energy produce for base-load electricity and synfuel production. As the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has already noted, nuclear power plants already produce 100 times less radioactive material than coal power facilities. Nuplexes could furter reduce radwaste production by more than 1000 times relative coal power production. Finally, Federal Nuplexes would allow regional utilities to increase the number of reactors on existing sites without the long term trouble of managing and storing spent fuel.

References and Links

1. Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2. Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste

3. Experts Weigh In On How The U.S. Should Handle Its Commercial Nuclear "Waste"

4. Public Power & the Future of Nuclear Energy

5. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

6. Green Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November 2007 F.J. Martin and WL Kubic,

7. Gasoline from Air and Water

8. A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors: Reactors, Fuel Cycles, The Issues of Nuclear Power
Anthony V. Nero Jr.

9. Nuclear Decommissioning

10. Technology and Policy Instruments for Mitigating the Heat-island Effect

11. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

New Papyrus

NUCLEAR ENERGY

 

 

Ocean Nuclear Production of Green Methanol in Remote Japanese Territorial Waters- January 10, 2024

Uranium from Seawater as an Unlimited Source of Renewable Energy

 May 25, 2019 

Deploying Ocean Nuclear Energy Flotillas into International Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synthetic Fuels, Industrial Chemicals, and Fertilizers

February 13, 2019

Thor and the Thorium Solution for Plutonium from Commercial Nuclear Reactors

August 6, 2018 

The Case for Remotely Sited Underwater Nuclear Reactors

March 26, 2018

Floating Nuclear Power Plants, Floating Power Barges, and Marine Methanol

 May 7, 2017

Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals

December 20, 2016

Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

February 9, 2016

The Nuclear Synfuel Economy
- April 17, 2009

The Nuplex Solution
- February 26, 2009

Synfuels and the Price of Oil
- February 19, 2009

The Relative Safety of the New Generation of Nuclear Reactors
- January 14, 2009

Energy Independence through Nuclear Re-Industrialization
- December 5, 2008

Gasoline from Air and Water
- November 24, 2008

Public Power & the Future of Nuclear Energy
- November 13, 2008

Natural Radiation
- October 20, 2008

The Cost of Non-Carbon Dioxide Polluting Technologies
- October 15, 2008

Fueling our Nuclear Future
- October 9, 2008

Federal support for non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies
- September 25, 2008

Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste
- August 21, 2008

Gasoline from Nuclear and Renewable Energy
- August 8, 2008