Thorium for Use in Plutonium Disposition, Proliferation Resistant Fuels, and Future Reactors

1
Thorium for Use in Plutonium Disposition,
Proliferation Resistant Fuels, and Future Reactors

• Brian Johnson
• WISE 2006
• ANS
• johnsob6_at_onid.orst.edu

2
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/a602
2102.jpg http//afci.lanl.gov/images/AFCI_Gold_Log
o.jpg http//gif.inel.gov/images/forum_animation_0
8.gif
3
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
4
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 weapons-grade
  plutonium was agreed upon as the best method

5
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

6
Secretary of Energy Must Certify
House Requirements
Senate Requirements

• Given Sunk Costs of MOX, compared to other
  technologies MOX is still the best option
• The Department of Energy has an action plan to
  fix management problems

• An independent cost estimate of the MOX project
• the Department of Energy intends to use MOX
  regardless of what Russia decides to do

7
Thorium as an option

• 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

8
Recommendation

• A 4 million dollar program pursuing
  thorium-based 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/elmash20fuel2
0assembly.jpg
9
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

10
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

11
Features of Thorium-Based Proliferation-Resistant
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

12
Recommendation

• While thorium-based fuels arent 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

13
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

14
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
15
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
16
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

17
Summary

• Thorium technologies could help reach some United
  States political goals and should be researched
  for
• Plutonium Disposition
• Proliferation Resistant Fuel
• Molten Salt Reactor

18
Questions?