Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Fast-neutron reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Shevchenko BN350 nuclear fast reactor and desalination plant situated on the shore of the Caspian Sea. The plant generated 135 MWe and provided steam for an associated desalination plant. View of the interior of the reactor hall.

A fast-neutron reactor (FNR) or simply a fast reactor is a category of nuclear reactor in which the fission chain reaction is sustained by fast neutrons (carrying energies above 0.5 MeV or greater, on average), as opposed to thermal neutrons used in thermal-neutron reactors. Such a reactor needs no neutron moderator, but requires fuel that is relatively rich in fissile material when compared to that required for a thermal-neutron reactor.

Introduction

Natural uranium consists mostly of three isotopes: 238
U
, 235
U
, and trace quantities of 234
U
(a decay product of 238
U
). 238
U
accounts for roughly 99.3% of natural uranium and undergoes fission only by fast neutrons. About 0.7% of natural uranium is 235
U
, which undergoes fission by neutrons of any energy, but particularly by lower-energy neutrons. When either of these isotopes undergoes fission, it releases neutrons with an energy distribution peaking around 1 to 2 MeV. The flux of higher-energy fission neutrons (> 2 MeV) is too low to create sufficient fission in 238
U
, and the flux of lower-energy fission neutrons (< 2 MeV) is too low to do so easily in 235
U
.

The common solution to this problem is to slow the neutrons using a neutron moderator, which interacts with the neutrons to slow them. The most common moderator is water, which acts by elastic scattering until the neutrons reach thermal equilibrium with the water. The key to reactor design is to carefully lay out the fuel and water so the neutrons have time to slow enough to become highly reactive with the 235
U
, but not so far as to allow them to escape the reactor core.

Although 238
U
does not undergo fission by the neutrons released in fission, thermal neutrons can be captured by the nucleus to transmute the uranium into 239
Pu
. 239
Pu
has a neutron cross section similar to that of 235
U
, and most of the atoms created this way will undergo fission from the thermal neutrons. In most reactors this accounts for as much as ⅓ of generated energy. Some 239
Pu
remains, and the leftover, along with unreacted uranium, can be recycled during nuclear reprocessing.

Water has disadvantages as a moderator. It can absorb a neutron and remove it from the reaction. It does this just enough that the concentration of 235
U
in natural uranium is too low to sustain the chain reaction; the neutrons lost through absorption in the water and 238
U
, along with those lost to the environment, results in too few left in the fuel. The most common solution to this problem is to slightly concentrate the amount of 235
U
in the fuel to produce enriched uranium, with the leftover 238
U
known as depleted uranium. Other designs use different moderators, like heavy water, that are much less likely to absorb neutrons, allowing them to run on unenriched fuel. In either case, the reactor's neutron economy is based on thermal neutrons.

Fast fission, breeders

Although 235
U
and 239
Pu
are less sensitive to higher-energy neutrons, they still remain somewhat reactive well into the MeV range. If the fuel is enriched, eventually a threshold will be reached where there are enough fissile atoms in the fuel to maintain a chain reaction even with fast neutrons.

The primary advantage is that by removing the moderator, the size of the reactor can be greatly reduced, and to some extent the complexity. This was commonly used for many early submarine reactor systems, where size and weight are major concerns. The downside to the fast reaction is that fuel enrichment is an expensive process, so this is generally not suitable for electrical generation or other roles where cost is more important than size.

Another advantage to the fast reaction has led to considerable development for civilian use. Fast reactors lack a moderator, and thus lack one of the systems that remove neutrons from the system. Those running on 239
Pu
further increase the number of neutrons, because its most common fission cycle gives off three neutrons rather than the mix of two and three neutrons released from 235
U
. By surrounding the reactor core with a moderator and then a layer (blanket) of 238
U
, those neutrons can be captured and used to breed more 239
Pu
. This is the same reaction that occurs internally in conventional designs, but in this case the blanket does not have to sustain a reaction and thus can be made of natural uranium or depleted uranium.

Due to the surplus of neutrons from 239
Pu
fission, the reactor produces more 239
Pu
than it consumes. The blanket material can then be processed to extract the 239
Pu
to replace losses in the reactor, and the surplus is then mixed with uranium to produce MOX fuel that can be fed into conventional slow-neutron reactors. A single fast reactor can thereby feed several slow ones, greatly increasing the amount of energy extracted from the natural uranium, from less than 1% in a normal once-through cycle, to as much as 60% in the best existing fast reactor cycles, or more than 99% in the Integral Fast Reactor.

Given the limited reserves of uranium ore known in the 1960s, and the rate that nuclear power was expected to take over baseload generation, through the 1960s and 1970s fast breeder reactors were considered to be the solution to the world's energy needs. Using twice-through processing, a fast breeder increases the energy capacity of known ore deposits by as much as 100 times, meaning that existing ore sources would last hundreds of years. The disadvantage to this approach is that the breeder reactor has to be fed expensive, highly-enriched fuel. It was widely expected that this would still be below the price of enriched uranium as demand increased and known resources dwindled.

Through the 1970s, experimental breeder designs were examined, especially in the US, France and the USSR. However, this coincided with a crash in uranium prices. The expected increased demand led mining companies to expand supply channels, which came online just as the rate of reactor construction stalled in the mid-1970s. The resulting oversupply caused fuel prices to decline from about US$40 per pound in 1980 to less than $20 by 1984. Breeders produced fuel that was much more expensive, on the order of $100 to $160, and the few units that reached commercial operation proved to be economically disastrous. Interest in breeder reactors were further muted by Jimmy Carter's April 1977 decision to defer construction of breeders in the US due to proliferation concerns, and the terrible operating record of France's Superphénix reactor.

Advantages

Actinides and fission products by half-life
Actinides by decay chain Half-life
range (a)
Fission products of 235U by yield
4n 4n+1 4n+2 4n+3

4.5–7% 0.04–1.25% <0.001%
228Ra


4–6 a
155Euþ
244Cmƒ 241Puƒ 250Cf 227Ac 10–29 a 90Sr 85Kr 113mCdþ
232Uƒ
238Puƒ 243Cmƒ 29–97 a 137Cs 151Smþ 121mSn
248Bk 249Cfƒ 242mAmƒ
141–351 a

No fission products
have a half-life
in the range of
100 a–210 ka ...


241Amƒ
251Cfƒ430–900 a


226Ra 247Bk 1.3–1.6 ka
240Pu 229Th 246Cmƒ 243Amƒ 4.7–7.4 ka

245Cmƒ 250Cm
8.3–8.5 ka



239Puƒ 24.1 ka


230Th 231Pa 32–76 ka
236Npƒ 233Uƒ 234U
150–250 ka 99Tc 126Sn
248Cm
242Pu
327–375 ka
79Se




1.53 Ma 93Zr

237Npƒ

2.1–6.5 Ma 135Cs 107Pd
236U

247Cmƒ 15–24 Ma
129I
244Pu


80 Ma

... nor beyond 15.7 Ma

232Th
238U 235Uƒ№ 0.7–14.1 Ga

Legend for superscript symbols
₡  has thermal neutron capture cross section in the range of 8–50 barns
ƒ  fissile
metastable isomer
№  primarily a naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
þ  neutron poison (thermal neutron capture cross section greater than 3k barns)
†  range 4–97 a: Medium-lived fission product
‡  over 200 ka: Long-lived fission product

Fast-neutron reactors can reduce the total radiotoxicity of nuclear waste  using all or almost all of the waste as fuel. With fast neutrons, the ratio between splitting and the capture of neutrons by plutonium and the minor actinides is often larger than when the neutrons are slower, at thermal or near-thermal "epithermal" speeds. The transmuted even-numbered actinides (e.g. 240
Pu
, 242
Pu
) split nearly as easily as odd-numbered actinides in fast reactors. After they split, the actinides become a pair of "fission products". These elements have less total radiotoxicity. Since disposal of the fission products is dominated by the most radiotoxic fission products, strontium-90, which has a half life of 28.8 years, and caesium-137, which has a half life of 30.1 years, the result is to reduce nuclear waste lifetimes from tens of millennia (from transuranic isotopes) to a few centuries. The processes are not perfect, but the remaining transuranics are reduced from a significant problem to a tiny percentage of the total waste, because most transuranics can be used as fuel.

Fast reactors technically solve the "fuel shortage" argument against uranium-fueled reactors without assuming undiscovered reserves, or extraction from dilute sources such as granite or seawater. They permit nuclear fuels to be bred from almost all the actinides, including known, abundant sources of depleted uranium and thorium, and light-water reactor wastes. On average, more neutrons per fission are produced by fast neutrons than from thermal neutrons. This results in a larger surplus of neutrons beyond those required to sustain the chain reaction. These neutrons can be used to produce extra fuel, or to transmute long half-life waste to less troublesome isotopes, as was done at the Phénix reactor in Marcoule, France, or some can be used for each purpose. Though conventional thermal reactors also produce excess neutrons, fast reactors can produce enough of them to breed more fuel than they consume. Such designs are known as fast breeder reactors.

Disadvantages

The main disadvantage of fast-neutron reactors is that to date they have proven costly to build and operate, and none have been proven cost-competitive with thermal-neutron reactors unless the price of uranium increased dramatically.

Some other disadvantages are specific to some designs.

Sodium is often used as a coolant in fast reactors, because it does not moderate neutron speeds much and has a high heat capacity. However, it burns and foams in air. It has caused difficulties in reactors (e.g. USS Seawolf (SSN-575), Monju), although some sodium-cooled fast reactors have operated safely for long periods (notably the Phénix and EBR-II for 30 years, or the BN-600 still in operation since 1980 despite several minor leaks and fires).

Another problem is related to neutron activation. Since liquid metals other than lithium and beryllium have low moderating ability, the primary interaction of neutrons with fast reactor coolant is the (n,gamma) reaction, which induces radioactivity in the coolant. Neutron irradiation activates a significant fraction of coolant in high-power fast reactors, up to around a terabecquerel of beta decays per kilogram of coolant in steady operation. This is the reason that sodium-cooled reactors have a primary cooling loop embedded within a separate sodium pool. The sodium-24 that results from neutron capture undergoes beta decay to magnesium-24 with a half life of fifteen hours; the magnesium is removed in a cold trap.

A defective fast reactor design could have positive void coefficient: boiling of the coolant in an accident would reduce coolant density and thus the absorption rate; no such designs are proposed for commercial service. This is dangerous and undesirable from a safety and accident standpoint. This can be avoided with a gas-cooled reactor, since voids do not form in such a reactor during an accident; however, activation in the coolant remains a problem. A helium-cooled reactor would avoid both problems, since the elastic scattering and total cross sections are approximately equal, i.e. few (n,gamma) reactions are present in the coolant and the low density of helium at typical operating conditions means that neutrons have few interactions with coolant.

Due to the low cross sections of most materials at high neutron energies, critical mass in a fast reactor is much higher than in a thermal reactor. In practice, this means significantly higher enrichment: >20% enrichment in a fast reactor compared to <5% enrichment in typical thermal reactors.

Reactor design

Coolant

Water, the most common coolant in thermal reactors, is generally not feasible for a fast reactor, because it acts as a neutron moderator. However the Generation IV reactor known as the supercritical water reactor with decreased coolant density may reach a hard enough neutron spectrum to be considered a fast reactor. Breeding, which is the primary advantage of fast over thermal reactors, may be accomplished with a thermal, light-water cooled and moderated system using uranium enriched to ~90%.

All operating fast reactors are liquid metal cooled reactors. The early Clementine reactor used mercury coolant and plutonium metal fuel. In addition to its toxicity to humans, mercury has a high cross section for the (n,gamma) reaction, causing activation in the coolant and losing neutrons that could otherwise be absorbed in the fuel, which is why it is no longer considered as a coolant. Molten lead and lead-bismuth eutectic alloys have been used in naval propulsion units, particularly the Soviet Alfa-class submarine, as well as some prototype reactors. Sodium-potassium alloy (NaK) is popular in test reactors due to its low melting point. All large-scale fast reactors have used molten sodium coolant.

Another proposed fast reactor is a molten salt reactor, in which the salt's moderating properties are insignificant. This is typically achieved by replacing the light metal fluorides (e.g. lithium fluoride - LiF, beryllium fluoride - BeF2) in the salt carrier with heavier metal chlorides (e.g., potassium chloride - KCI, rubidium chloride - RbCl, zirconium chloride - ZrCl4). Moltex Energy proposes to build a fast-neutron reactor called the Stable Salt Reactor. In this reactor design the nuclear fuel is dissolved in a molten salt. The salt is contained in stainless steel tubes similar to those used in solid fuel reactors. The reactor is cooled using the natural convection of another molten salt coolant. Moltex claims that their design is less expensive to build than a coal-fired power plant and can consume nuclear waste from conventional solid fuel reactors.

Gas-cooled fast reactors have been the subject of research commonly using helium, which has small absorption and scattering cross sections, thus preserving the fast neutron spectrum without significant neutron absorption in the coolant.

Fuel

In practice, sustaining a fission chain reaction with fast neutrons means using relatively enriched uranium or plutonium. The reason for this is that fissile reactions are favored at thermal energies, since the ratio between the 239
Pu
fission cross section and 238
U
absorption cross section is ~100 in a thermal spectrum and 8 in a fast spectrum. Fission and absorption cross sections are low for both 239
Pu
and 238
U
at high (fast) energies, which means that fast neutrons are likelier to pass through fuel without interacting than thermal neutrons; thus, more fissile material is needed. Therefore a fast reactor cannot run on natural uranium fuel. However, it is possible to build a fast reactor that breeds fuel by producing more than it consumes. After the initial fuel charge such a reactor can be refueled by reprocessing. Fission products can be replaced by adding natural or even depleted uranium without further enrichment. This is the concept of the fast breeder reactor or FBR.

So far, most fast-neutron reactors have used either MOX (mixed oxide) or metal alloy fuel. Soviet fast-neutron reactors use (high 235
U
enriched) uranium fuel. The Indian prototype reactor uses uranium-carbide fuel.

While criticality at fast energies may be achieved with uranium enriched to 5.5 (weight) percent uranium-235, fast reactor designs have been proposed with enrichments in the range of 20 percent for reasons including core lifetime: if a fast reactor were loaded with the minimal critical mass, then the reactor would become subcritical after the first fission. Rather, an excess of fuel is inserted with reactivity control mechanisms, such that the reactivity control is inserted fully at the beginning of life to bring the reactor from supercritical to critical; as the fuel is depleted, the reactivity control is withdrawn to support continuing fission. In a fast breeder reactor, the above applies, though the reactivity from fuel depletion is also compensated by breeding either 233
U
or 239
Pu
and 241
Pu
from thorium-232 or 238
U
, respectively.

Control

Like thermal reactors, fast-neutron reactors are controlled by keeping the criticality of the reactor reliant on delayed neutrons, with gross control from neutron-absorbing control rods or blades.

They cannot, however, rely on changes to their moderators because there is no moderator. So Doppler broadening in the moderator, which affects thermal neutrons, does not work, nor does a negative void coefficient of the moderator. Both techniques are common in ordinary light-water reactors.

Doppler broadening from the molecular motion of the fuel, from its heat, can provide rapid negative feedback. The molecular movement of the fissionables themselves can tune the fuel's relative speed away from the optimal neutron speed. Thermal expansion of the fuel can provide negative feedback. Small reactors as in submarines may use Doppler broadening or thermal expansion of neutron reflectors.

Shevchenko BN350 desalination unit, the only nuclear-heated desalination unit in the world

History

A 2008 IAEA proposal for a Fast Reactor Knowledge Preservation System noted that:

during the past 15 years there has been stagnation in the development of fast reactors in the industrialized countries that were involved, earlier, in intensive development of this area. All studies on fast reactors have been stopped in countries such as Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the only work being carried out is related to the decommissioning of fast reactors. Many specialists who were involved in the studies and development work in this area in these countries have already retired or are close to retirement. In countries such as France, Japan and the Russian Federation that are still actively pursuing the evolution of fast reactor technology, the situation is aggravated by the lack of young scientists and engineers moving into this branch of nuclear power.

List of fast reactors

Decommissioned reactors

United States

Europe

  • Dounreay Loop type Fast Reactor (DFR), 1959–1977, was a 14 MWe and Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), 1974–1994, 250 MWe, in Caithness, in the Highland area of Scotland.
  • Dounreay Pool type Fast Reactor (PFR), 1975–1994, was a 600 MWt, 234 MWe which used mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.
  • Rapsodie in Cadarache, France, (20 then 40 MW) operated between 1967 and 1982.
  • Superphénix, in France, 1200 MWe, closed in 1997 due to a political decision and high costs.
  • Phénix, 1973, France, 233 MWe, restarted 2003 at 140 MWe for experiments on transmutation of nuclear waste for six years, ceased power generation in March 2009, though it will continue in test operation and to continue research programs by CEA until the end of 2009. Stopped in 2010.
  • KNK-II, in Germany a 21 MWe experimental compact sodium-cooled fast reactor operated from Oct 1977-Aug 1991. The objective of the experiment was to eliminate nuclear waste while producing energy. There were minor sodium problems combined with public protests which resulted in the closure of the facility.

USSR/Russia

  • Small lead-cooled fast reactors were used for naval propulsion, particularly by the Soviet Navy.
  • BR-5 - was a research-focused fast-neutron reactor at the Institute of Physics and Energy in Obninsk from 1959-2002.
  • BN-350 was constructed by the Soviet Union in Shevchenko (today's Aqtau) on the Caspian Sea, It produced 130 MWe plus 80,000 tons of fresh water per day.
  • IBR-2 - was a research focused fast-neutron reactor at the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna (near Moscow).
  • RORSATs - 33 space fast reactors were launched by the Soviet Union from 1989-1990 as part of a program known as the Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite (RORSAT) in the US. Typically, the reactors produced approximately 3 kWe.
  • BES-5 - was a sodium cooled space reactor launched as part of the RORSAT program which produced 5 kWe.
  • BR-5 - was a 5 MWt sodium fast reactor operated by the USSR in 1961 primarily for materials testing.
  • Russian Alpha 8 PbBi - was a series of lead bismuth cooled fast reactors used aboard submarines. The submarines functioned as killer submarines, staying in harbor then attacking due to the high speeds achievable by the sub.

Asia

  • Monju reactor, 300 MWe, in Japan, was closed in 1995 following a serious sodium leak and fire. It was restarted on May 6, 2010 but in August 2010 another accident, involving dropped machinery, shut down the reactor again. As of June 2011, the reactor had generated electricity for only one hour since its first test two decades prior.
  • Aktau Reactor, 150 MWe, in Kazakhstan, was used for plutonium production, desalination, and electricity. It closed 4 years after the plant's operating license expired.

Never operated

Active

  • BN-600 - a pool type sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. It provides 560 MWe to the Middle Urals power grid. In operation since 1980.
  • BN-800 - a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. It generates 880 MW of electrical power and started producing electricity in October, 2014. It reached full power in August, 2016.
  • BOR-60 - a sodium-cooled reactor at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, Russia. In operation since 1968. It produces 60MW for experimental purposes.
  • FBTR - a 10.5 MW experimental reactor in India which focused on reaching significant burnup levels.
  • China Experimental Fast Reactor, a 60 MWth, 20 MWe, experimental reactor which went critical in 2011 and is currently operational. It is used for materials and component research for future Chinese fast reactors.
  • KiloPower/KRUSTY is a 1-10 kWe research sodium fast reactor built at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It first reach criticality in 2015 and demonstrates an application of a Stirling power cycle.

Under repair

  • Jōyō (常陽), 1977–1997 and 2004–2007, Japan, 140 MWt is an experimental reactor, operated as an irradiation test facility. After an incident in 2007, the reactor was suspended for repairing, recoworks were planned to be completed in 2014.

Under construction

  • PFBR, Kalpakkam, India, 500 MWe reactor with criticality planned for 2021. It is a sodium fast breeder reactor.
  • CFR-600, China, 600 MWe.
  • MBIR Multipurpose fast neutron research reactor. The Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (NIIAR) site at Dimitrovgrad in the Ulyanovsk region of western Russia, 150 MWt. Construction started in 2016 with completion scheduled for 2024.
  • BREST-300, Seversk, Russia. Construction started at 8 June 2021.

In design

  • BN-1200, Russia, built starting after 2014, with operation planned for 2018–2020, now delayed until at least 2035.
  • Toshiba 4S was planned to be shipped to Galena, Alaska (USA) but progress stalled (see Galena Nuclear Power Plant)
  • KALIME is a 600 MWe project in South Korea, projected for 2030. KALIMER is a continuation of the sodium-cooled, metal-fueled, fast-neutron reactor in a pool represented by the Advanced Burner Reactor (2006), S-PRISM (1998-present), Integral Fast Reactor (1984-1994), and EBR-II (1965-1995).
  • Generation IV reactor (helium·sodium·lead cooled) US-proposed international effort, after 2030.
  • JSFR, Japan, a project for a 1500 MWe reactor began in 1998, but without success.
  • ASTRID, France, canceled project for a 600 MWe sodium-cooled reactor.
  • Mars Atmospherically Cooled Reactor (MACR) is a 1 MWe project, planned to complete in 2033. MACR is a gas-cooled (carbon dioxide coolant) fast-neutron reactor intended to provide power to proposed Mars colonies.
  • TerraPower is designing a molten salt reactor in partnership with Southern Company, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Vanderbilt University and the Electric Power Research Institute. They expect to begin testing a loop facility in 2019 and is scaling up their salt manufacturing process. Data will be used to assess thermal hydraulics and safety analysis codes.
  • Elysium Industries is designing a fast spectrum molten salt reactor.
  • ALFRED (Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator) is a lead cooled fast reactor demonstrator designed by Ansaldo Energia from Italy, it represents the last stage of the ELSY and LEADER projects.

Planned

  • Future FBR, India, 600 MWe, after 2025

Chart

Fast reactors

U.S. Russia Europe Asia
Past Clementine, EBR-I/II, SEFOR, FFTF BN-350 Dounreay, Rapsodie, Superphénix, Phénix (stopped in 2010)
Cancelled Clinch River, IFR
SNR-300
Under decommissioning


Monju
Operating
BOR-60, BN-600,
BN-800[citation needed]

FBTR, CEFR
Under repair


Jōyō
Under construction
MBIR, BREST-300
PFBR, CFR-600
Planned Gen IV (Gas·sodium·lead·salt), TerraPower, Elysium MCSFR, DoE VTR BN-1200 ASTRID, Moltex 4S, JSFR, KALIMER

See also

Thorium fuel cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A sample of thorium

The thorium fuel cycle is a nuclear fuel cycle that uses an isotope of thorium, 232
Th
, as the fertile material. In the reactor, 232
Th
is transmuted into the fissile artificial uranium isotope 233
U
which is the nuclear fuel. Unlike natural uranium, natural thorium contains only trace amounts of fissile material (such as 231
Th
), which are insufficient to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. Additional fissile material or another neutron source is necessary to initiate the fuel cycle. In a thorium-fuelled reactor, 232
Th
absorbs neutrons to produce 233
U
. This parallels the process in uranium breeder reactors whereby fertile 238
U
absorbs neutrons to form fissile 239
Pu
. Depending on the design of the reactor and fuel cycle, the generated 233
U
either fissions in situ or is chemically separated from the used nuclear fuel and formed into new nuclear fuel.

The thorium fuel cycle has several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle, including thorium's greater abundance, superior physical and nuclear properties, reduced plutonium and actinide production, and better resistance to nuclear weapons proliferation when used in a traditional light water reactor though not in a molten salt reactor.

History

Concerns about the limits of worldwide uranium resources motivated initial interest in the thorium fuel cycle. It was envisioned that as uranium reserves were depleted, thorium would supplement uranium as a fertile material. However, for most countries uranium was relatively abundant and research in thorium fuel cycles waned. A notable exception was India's three-stage nuclear power programme. In the twenty-first century thorium's potential for improving proliferation resistance and waste characteristics led to renewed interest in the thorium fuel cycle.

At Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment used 233
U
as the fissile fuel in an experiment to demonstrate a part of the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor that was designed to operate on the thorium fuel cycle. Molten salt reactor (MSR) experiments assessed thorium's feasibility, using thorium(IV) fluoride dissolved in a molten salt fluid that eliminated the need to fabricate fuel elements. The MSR program was defunded in 1976 after its patron Alvin Weinberg was fired.

In 1993, Carlo Rubbia proposed the concept of an energy amplifier or "accelerator driven system" (ADS), which he saw as a novel and safe way to produce nuclear energy that exploited existing accelerator technologies. Rubbia's proposal offered the potential to incinerate high-activity nuclear waste and produce energy from natural thorium and depleted uranium.

Kirk Sorensen, former NASA scientist and Chief Technologist at Flibe Energy, has been a long-time promoter of thorium fuel cycle and particularly liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs). He first researched thorium reactors while working at NASA, while evaluating power plant designs suitable for lunar colonies. In 2006 Sorensen started "energyfromthorium.com" to promote and make information available about this technology.

A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle, with current or near term light-water reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current nuclear power market, despite the potential benefits.

Nuclear reactions with thorium

"Thorium is like wet wood […it] needs to be turned into fissile uranium just as wet wood needs to be dried in a furnace."

Ratan Kumar Sinha, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India.

In the thorium cycle, fuel is formed when 232
Th
captures a neutron (whether in a fast reactor or thermal reactor) to become 233
Th
. This normally emits an electron and an anti-neutrino (
ν
) by
β
decay
to become 233
Pa
. This then emits another electron and anti-neutrino by a second
β
decay to become 233
U
, the fuel:

Fission product waste

Nuclear fission produces radioactive fission products which can have half-lives from days to greater than 200,000 years. According to some toxicity studies, the thorium cycle can fully recycle actinide wastes and only emit fission product wastes, and after a few hundred years, the waste from a thorium reactor can be less toxic than the uranium ore that would have been used to produce low enriched uranium fuel for a light water reactor of the same power. Other studies assume some actinide losses and find that actinide wastes dominate thorium cycle waste radioactivity at some future periods.

Actinide waste

In a reactor, when a neutron hits a fissile atom (such as certain isotopes of uranium), it either splits the nucleus or is captured and transmutes the atom. In the case of 233
U
, the transmutations tend to produce useful nuclear fuels rather than transuranic waste. When 233
U
absorbs a neutron, it either fissions or becomes 234
U
. The chance of fissioning on absorption of a thermal neutron is about 92%; the capture-to-fission ratio of 233
U
, therefore, is about 1:12 – which is better than the corresponding capture vs. fission ratios of 235
U
(about 1:6), or 239
Pu
or 241
Pu
(both about 1:3). The result is less transuranic waste than in a reactor using the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle.


Transmutations in the thorium fuel cycle

237Np



231U 232U 233U 234U 235U 236U 237U







231Pa 232Pa 233Pa 234Pa






230Th 231Th 232Th 233Th
  • Nuclides with a yellow background in italic have half-lives under 30 days
  • Nuclides in bold have half-lives over 1,000,000 years
  • Nuclides in red frames are fissile

234
U
, like most actinides with an even number of neutrons, is not fissile, but neutron capture produces fissile 235
U
. If the fissile isotope fails to fission on neutron capture, it produces 236
U
, 237
Np
, 238
Pu
, and eventually fissile 239
Pu
and heavier isotopes of plutonium. The 237
Np
can be removed and stored as waste or retained and transmuted to plutonium, where more of it fissions, while the remainder becomes 242
Pu
, then americium and curium, which in turn can be removed as waste or returned to reactors for further transmutation and fission.

However, the 231
Pa
(with a half-life of 3.27×104 years) formed via (n,2n) reactions with 232
Th
(yielding 231
Th
that decays to 231
Pa
), while not a transuranic waste, is a major contributor to the long-term radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel.

Uranium-232 contamination

232
U
is also formed in this process, via (n,2n) reactions between fast neutrons and 233
U
, 233
Pa
, and 232
Th
:

Unlike most even numbered heavy isotopes, 232
U
is also a fissile fuel fissioning just over half the time when it absorbs a thermal neutron.[19] 232
U
has a relatively short half-life (68.9 years), and some decay products emit high energy gamma radiation, such as 224
Rn
, 212
Bi
and particularly 208
Tl
. The full decay chain, along with half-lives and relevant gamma energies, is:

The 4n decay chain of 232Th, commonly called the "thorium series"

232
U
decays to 228
Th
where it joins the decay chain of 232
Th

Thorium-cycle fuels produce hard gamma emissions, which damage electronics, limiting their use in bombs. 232
U
cannot be chemically separated from 233
U
from used nuclear fuel; however, chemical separation of thorium from uranium removes the decay product 228
Th
and the radiation from the rest of the decay chain, which gradually build up as 228
Th
reaccumulates. The contamination could also be avoided by using a molten-salt breeder reactor and separating the 233
Pa
before it decays into 233
U
. The hard gamma emissions also create a radiological hazard which requires remote handling during reprocessing.

Nuclear fuel

As a fertile material thorium is similar to 238
U
, the major part of natural and depleted uranium. The thermal neutron absorption cross sectiona) and resonance integral (average of neutron cross sections over intermediate neutron energies) for 232
Th
are about three and one third times those of the respective values for 238
U
.

Advantages

The primary physical advantage of thorium fuel is that it uniquely makes possible a breeder reactor that runs with slow neutrons, otherwise known as a thermal breeder reactor. These reactors are often considered simpler than the more traditional fast-neutron breeders. Although the thermal neutron fission cross section (σf) of the resulting 233
U
is comparable to 235
U
and 239
Pu
, it has a much lower capture cross section (σγ) than the latter two fissile isotopes, providing fewer non-fissile neutron absorptions and improved neutron economy. The ratio of neutrons released per neutron absorbed (η) in 233
U
is greater than two over a wide range of energies, including the thermal spectrum. A breeding reactor in the uranium - plutonium cycle needs to use fast neutrons, because in the thermal spectrum one neutron absorbed by 239
Pu
on average leads to less than two neutrons.

Thorium is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in Earth's crust, although present knowledge of reserves is limited. Current demand for thorium has been satisfied as a by-product of rare-earth extraction from monazite sands. Notably, there is very little thorium dissolved in seawater, so seawater extraction is not viable, as it is with uranium. Using breeder reactors, known thorium and uranium resources can both generate world-scale energy for thousands of years.

Thorium-based fuels also display favorable physical and chemical properties that improve reactor and repository performance. Compared to the predominant reactor fuel, uranium dioxide (UO
2
), thorium dioxide (ThO
2
) has a higher melting point, higher thermal conductivity, and lower coefficient of thermal expansion. Thorium dioxide also exhibits greater chemical stability and, unlike uranium dioxide, does not further oxidize.

Because the 233
U
produced in thorium fuels is significantly contaminated with 232
U
in proposed power reactor designs, thorium-based used nuclear fuel possesses inherent proliferation resistance. 232
U
cannot be chemically separated from 233
U
and has several decay products that emit high-energy gamma radiation. These high-energy photons are a radiological hazard that necessitate the use of remote handling of separated uranium and aid in the passive detection of such materials.

The long-term (on the order of roughly 103 to 106 years) radiological hazard of conventional uranium-based used nuclear fuel is dominated by plutonium and other minor actinides, after which long-lived fission products become significant contributors again. A single neutron capture in 238
U
is sufficient to produce transuranic elements, whereas five captures are generally necessary to do so from 232
Th
. 98–99% of thorium-cycle fuel nuclei would fission at either 233
U
or 235
U
, so fewer long-lived transuranics are produced. Because of this, thorium is a potentially attractive alternative to uranium in mixed oxide (MOX) fuels to minimize the generation of transuranics and maximize the destruction of plutonium.

Disadvantages

There are several challenges to the application of thorium as a nuclear fuel, particularly for solid fuel reactors:

In contrast to uranium, naturally occurring thorium is effectively mononuclidic and contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233
U
, 235
U
or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication. Oak Ridge National Laboratory experimented with thorium tetrafluoride as fuel in a molten salt reactor from 1964–1969, which was expected to be easier to process and separate from contaminants that slow or stop the chain reaction.

In an open fuel cycle (i.e. utilizing 233
U
in situ), higher burnup is necessary to achieve a favorable neutron economy. Although thorium dioxide performed well at burnups of 170,000 MWd/t and 150,000 MWd/t at Fort St. Vrain Generating Station and AVR respectively, challenges complicate achieving this in light water reactors (LWR), which compose the vast majority of existing power reactors.

In a once-through thorium fuel cycle, thorium-based fuels produce far less long-lived transuranics than uranium-based fuels, some long-lived actinide products constitute a long-term radiological impact, especially 231
Pa
and 233
U
. On a closed cycle,233
U
and 231
Pa
can be reprocessed. 231
Pa
is also considered an excellent burnable poison absorber in light water reactors.

Another challenge associated with the thorium fuel cycle is the comparatively long interval over which 232
Th
breeds to 233
U
. The half-life of 233
Pa
is about 27 days, which is an order of magnitude longer than the half-life of 239
Np
. As a result, substantial 233
Pa
develops in thorium-based fuels. 233
Pa
is a significant neutron absorber and, although it eventually breeds into fissile 235
U
, this requires two more neutron absorptions, which degrades neutron economy and increases the likelihood of transuranic production.

Alternatively, if solid thorium is used in a closed fuel cycle in which 233
U
is recycled, remote handling is necessary for fuel fabrication because of the high radiation levels resulting from the decay products of 232
U
. This is also true of recycled thorium because of the presence of 228
Th
, which is part of the 232
U
decay sequence. Further, unlike proven uranium fuel recycling technology (e.g. PUREX), recycling technology for thorium (e.g. THOREX) is only under development.

Although the presence of 232
U
complicates matters, there are public documents showing that 233
U
has been used once in a nuclear weapon test. The United States tested a composite 233
U
-plutonium bomb core in the MET (Military Effects Test) blast during Operation Teapot in 1955, though with much lower yield than expected.

Advocates for liquid core and molten salt reactors such as LFTRs claim that these technologies negate thorium's disadvantages present in solid fuelled reactors. As only two liquid-core fluoride salt reactors have been built (the ORNL ARE and MSRE) and neither have used thorium, it is hard to validate the exact benefits.

Thorium-fuelled reactors

Thorium fuels have fueled several different reactor types, including light water reactors, heavy water reactors, high temperature gas reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactors, and molten salt reactors.

List of thorium-fueled reactors

From IAEA TECDOC-1450 "Thorium Fuel Cycle – Potential Benefits and Challenges", Table 1: Thorium utilization in different experimental and power reactors. Additionally from Energy Information Administration, "Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges from U. S. Reactors", Table B4: Dresden 1 Assembly Class.

Name Country Reactor type Power Fuel Operation period
Dresden Unit 1 United States BWR 197 MW(e) ThO2 corner rods, UO2 clad in Zircaloy-2 tube 1960–1978
AVR Germany (West) HTGR, experimental (pebble bed reactor) 15 MW(e) Th+235
U
Driver fuel, coated fuel particles, oxide & dicarbides
1967–1988
THTR-300 HTGR, power (pebble type) 300 MW(e) 1985–1989
Lingen BWR irradiation-testing 60 MW(e) Test fuel (Th,Pu)O2 pellets 1968–1973
Dragon (OECD-Euratom) UK (also Sweden, Norway and Switzerland) HTGR, Experimental (pin-in-block design) 20 MWt Th+235
U
Driver fuel, coated fuel particles, oxide & dicarbides
1966–1973
Peach Bottom United States HTGR, Experimental (prismatic block) 40 MW(e) 1966–1972
Fort St Vrain HTGR, Power (prismatic block) 330 MW(e) Th+235
U
Driver fuel, coated fuel particles, Dicarbide
1976–1989
MSRE ORNL MSR 7.5 MWt 233
U
molten fluorides
1964–1969
BORAX-IV & Elk River Station BWR (pin assemblies) 2.4 MW(e); 24 MW(e) Th+235
U
Driver fuel oxide pellets
1963–1968
Shippingport LWBR, PWR, (pin assemblies) 100 MW(e) Th+233
U
Driver fuel, oxide pellets
1977–1982
Indian Point 1 285 MW(e) 1962–1980
SUSPOP/KSTR KEMA Netherlands Aqueous homogenous suspension (pin assemblies) 1 MWt Th+HEU, oxide pellets 1974–1977
NRX & NRU Canada MTR (pin assemblies) 20 MW; 200 MW Th+235
U
, Test Fuel
1947 (NRX) + 1957 (NRU); Irradiation–testing of few fuel elements
CIRUS; DHRUVA; & KAMINI India MTR thermal 40 MWt; 100 MWt; 30 kWt (low power, research) Al+233
U
Driver fuel, ‘J’ rod of Th & ThO2, ‘J’ rod of ThO2
1960–2010 (CIRUS); others in operation
KAPS 1 &2; KGS 1 & 2; RAPS 2, 3 & 4 PHWR, (pin assemblies) 220 MW(e) ThO2 pellets (for neutron flux flattening of initial core after start-up) 1980 (RAPS 2) +; continuing in all new PHWRs
FBTR LMFBR, (pin assemblies) 40 MWt ThO2 blanket 1985; in operation
Petten Netherlands High Flux Reactor thorium molten salt experiment 45 MW(e) ? 2024; planned

See also

Delayed-choice quantum eraser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser A delayed-cho...