Search This Blog

Sunday, September 11, 2022

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the sixth in a series of reports which assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information concerning climate change. Three Working Groups (WGI, II, and III) have been working on the following topics: The Physical Science Basis (WGI); Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII); Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII). Of these, the first study was published in 2021, the second report February 2022, and the third in April 2022. The final synthesis report is due to be finished by late 2022.

The first of the three working groups published its report on 9 August 2021, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. A total of 234 scientists from 66 countries contributed to this first working group (WGI) report. The authors built on more than 14,000 scientific papers to produce a 3,949-page report, which was then approved by 195 governments. The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document was drafted by scientists and agreed to line-by-line by the 195 governments in the IPCC during the five days leading up to 6 August 2021.

According to the WGI report, it is only possible to avoid warming of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) or 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) if massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made. In a front-page story, The Guardian described the report as "its starkest warning yet" of "major inevitable and irreversible climate changes", a theme echoed by many newspapers as well as political leaders and activists around the world.

Production

History

After the IPCC had been founded in 1988, the First Assessment Report (AR1) was published in 1990 and received an update in 1992. In intervals of about six years, new editions of IPCC Assessment Report followed: AR2 in 1995, AR3 in 2001, AR4 in 2007, and AR5 in 2014.

In April 2016, at the 43rd session which took place in Nairobi, Kenya, the topics for three Special Reports (SR) and one methodology report on Greenhouse Gases (GHG) inventories in the AR6 assessment cycle were decided. These reports were completed in the interim phase since the finalisation of the Fifth Assessment Report and the publication of results from the Sixth Assessment Report.

Sequence of release dates:

Structure

The sixth assessment report is made up of the reports of three working groups (WG I, II, and III) and a synthesis report which concludes the assessment in late 2022.

Leaks

During the preparation of the three main AR6 reports, a small group of scientists leaked some information on the results of Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) through the organization Scientist Rebellion. As governments can change the summaries for policymakers (SPM) for IPCC reports, the scientists were afraid that politicians might dilute this information in the summary. According to the leaked information, humanity should cut GHG emissions by 50% by 2030 and completely by 2050 in order to limit warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). These efforts require strong changes in lifestyle and economy.

Geopolitics

Geopolitics has been included in climate models for the first time, in the form of five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: SSP1 "Taking the Green Road", SSP2 "Middle of the Road", SSP3 "A Rocky Road", SSP4 "A Road Divided", and SSP5 "Taking the Highway", which have been published in 2016.

Those pathways assume that international cooperation and worldwide increase in GDP will facilitate adaptation to climate change. The geopolitical pathways served as one of the sources for the formation of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways in the report among with other sources. One of the assumptions is that enough GDP and technology derived from fossil fuels development will permit to adapt even to 5.0 °C (9.0 °F) temperature rise. However, the report that is based on consensus science and was written by hundreds of scientists did not confirm the assumption about adaptation to 5 °C. Some experts assume, that while the odds for a worst-case scenario (5 °C) and the best base-case (1.5 °C) today seem lower, the most plausible outcome is around 3.0 °C (5.4 °F).

The report explicitly says: "Each pathway is an internally consistent, plausible and integrated description of a socio-economic future, but these socio-economic futures do not account for the effects of climate change, and no new climate policies are assumed. ... By design, the evolution of drivers and emissions within the SSP scenarios do not take into account the effects of climate change."

Like other major international scientific processes, the IPCC has been accused of not sufficiently including scholars from the Global South. For example, the biases were highlighted that prevent African scholars from participating, such as publication requirements and being an expert reviewer before joining the panel of contributors. Similarly, the physical sciences report only had 28% women in its team of authors.

The Physical Science Basis (Working Group 1 report)

Variation of annual observed global average temperature (1850–2019) relative to the 1850–1900 average (blue line), as reported in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM)

A total of 234 scientists from 66 countries contributed to the first of three working group reports. Working group 1 (WGI) published Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. The report's authors built on more than 14,000 scientific papers to produce a 3,949-page report, which was then approved by 195 governments. The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document was drafted by scientists and agreed to line-by-line by the 195 governments in the IPCC during the five days leading up to 6 August 2021. It was published on Monday, 9 August 2021.

According to the report, it is only possible to avoid warming of 1.5 °C or 2 °C if massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made. In a front-page story, The Guardian described the report as "its starkest warning yet" of "major inevitable and irreversible climate changes", a theme echoed by many newspapers around the world.

The Technical Summary (TS) provides a level of detail between the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the full report. In addition, an interactive atlas was made "for a flexible spatial and temporal analysis of both data-driven climate change information and assessment findings in the report." Following IPCC protocol adopted in May 2011, errata were and are being compiled. Thirty-four questions were published as part of the FAQs section, with each one related to a chapter of the report. Regional fact sheets were made available for geographic regions of the globe, drawing on facts from the reports. The data for the SPM are being held and visible at the UK Centre for Environmental Data Analysis website. Computer slides were made available as part of the "Outreach Materials" , for press conferences and basic presentations.

Findings

The Working Group 1 (WGI) report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis comprises thirteen chapters and is focused on the foundational consensus of the climate science behind the causes and effects of human greenhouse gas emissions. Compared with previous assessments, the report included much more detail on the regional effects of climate change, although more research is needed on climate change in eastern and central North America. Sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be from half to one metre, but two to five metres is not ruled out, as ice sheet instability processes are still poorly understood.

The report quantifies climate sensitivity as between 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) and 4.0 °C (7.2 °F) for each doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while the best estimate is 3 °C. In all the represented Shared Socioeconomic Pathways the temperature reaches the 1.5 °C warming limit, at least for some period of time in the middle of the 21st century. However, Joeri Rogelj, director of the Grantham Institute and a lead IPCC author, said that it is possible to completely avoid warming of 1.5 °C, but to achieve that the world would need to cut emissions by 50% by the year 2030 and by 100% by the year 2050. If the world does not begin to drastically cut emissions by the time of the next report of the IPCC, then it will no longer be possible to prevent 1.5 °C of warming. SSP1-1.9 is a new pathway with a rather low radiative forcing of 1.9 W/m2 in 2100 to model how people could keep warming below the 1.5 °C threshold. But, even in this scenario, the global temperature peaks at 1.6 °C in the years 2041–2060 and declines after.

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
SSP Scenario
Estimated warming
(2041–2060)
Estimated warming
(2081–2100)
Very likely range in °C
(2081–2100)
SSP1-1.9 very low GHG emissions:
CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2050
1.6 °C 1.4 °C 1.0 – 1.8
SSP1-2.6 low GHG emissions:
CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2075
1.7 °C 1.8 °C 1.3 – 2.4
SSP2-4.5 intermediate GHG emissions:
CO2 emissions around current levels until 2050, then falling but not reaching net zero by 2100
2.0 °C 2.7 °C 2.1 – 3.5
SSP3-7.0 high GHG emissions:
CO2 emissions double by 2100
2.1 °C 3.6 °C 2.8 – 4.6
SSP5-8.5 very high GHG emissions:
CO2 emissions triple by 2075
2.4 °C 4.4 °C 3.3 – 5.7

The IPCC Sixth report did not estimate the likelihoods of the scenarios but a 2020 commentary described SSP5-8.5 as highly unlikely, SSP3-7.0 as unlikely, and SSP2-4.5 as likely.

However, a report citing the above commentary shows that RCP8.5 is the best match to the cumulative emissions from 2005 to 2020. 

According to AR6 coauthors, the probable temperature rise is in the middle of the scenario spectrum that reaches from 1.5 °C to 5 °C, at about 3 °C at the end of the century. It is likely that 1.5 °C will be reached before 2040. The threats from compound impacts are rated higher than in previous IPCC reports. The famous hockey stick graph has been extended.

Extreme weather is expected to increase in line with temperature, and compound effects (such as heat and drought together) may impact more on society. The report includes a major change from previous IPCC in the ability of scientists to attribute specific extreme weather events.

The global carbon budget to keep below 1.5 °C is estimated at 500 billion more tonnes of greenhouse gas, which would need the whole world to be net zero before 2050. Staying within this budget, if counting from the beginning of the year 2020, gives a 50% chance to stay below 1.5 °C. For having a 67% chance, the budget is 400 billion tonnes and for an 83% chance it is 300 billion tonnes. The report says that rapidly reducing methane emissions is very important, to make short-term gains to buy time for carbon dioxide emission cuts to take effect.

Any future warming will increase the occurrence of extreme weather events. Even in a 1.5 °C temperature rise there will be "an increasing occurrence of some extreme events unprecedented in the observational record". The likelihood of more rare events increases more.

The frequency, and the intensity of such events will considerably increase with warming, as described in the following table:

Increase in frequency and intensity of extreme events with global warming
Name of event Climate in 1850–1900 1 °C warming 1.5 °C warming 2 °C warming 4 °C warming
1 in 10 years heatwave Normal 2.8 times more often, 1.2 °C hotter 4.1 times more often, 1.9 °C hotter 5.6 times more often, 2.6 °C hotter 9.4 times more often, 5.1 °C hotter
1 in 50 years heatwave Normal 4.8 times more often, 1.2 °C hotter 8.6 times more often, 2.0 °C hotter 13.9 times more often, 2.7 °C hotter 39.2 times more often, 5.3 °C hotter
1 in 10 years heavy precipitation event Normal 1.3 times more often, 6.7% wetter 1.5 times more often, 10.5% wetter 1.7 times more often, 14.0% wetter 2.7 times more often, 30.2% wetter
1 in 10 years drought Normal 1.7 times more often, 0.3 sd drier 2.0 times more often, 0.5 sd drier 2.4 times more often, 0.6 sd drier 4.1 times more often, 1.0 sd drier

Increase in frequency of extreme events with global warming in the Sixth Assessment Report's Summary for Policymakers

Reception

In science

The publication of the report was during the Northern Hemisphere summer, where there was much extreme weather, such as a Western North America heat wave, flooding in Europe, extreme rainfall in India and China, and wildfires in several countries. Some scientists are describing these extreme weather events as clear gaps in the models used for writing the report, with the lived experience proving more severe than the consensus science.

In politics

After publication of the Working Group 1 report, EU Vice President Frans Timmermans said that it is not too late to prevent runaway climate change. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the next decade will be pivotal to the future of the planet.

Rick Spinrad, administrator of the US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, stated that his agency "will use the new insights from this IPCC report to inform the work it does with communities to prepare for, respond to, and adapt to climate change".

NGO

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg said that the report "confirms what we already know from thousands [of] previous studies and reports—that we are in an emergency".

In media

In a front-page story, dedicated to the report The Guardian described it as "starkest warning yet" of "major inevitable and irreversible climate changes". This message was echoed by many media channels after the release of the report.

According to CTXT, the publication that first posted the leaked materials from the report: "it showed that the global economy must be shifted rapidly away from a reliance on conventional GDP growth, but that the report underplays this."

From the United Nations

The Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres, called the report a "code red for humanity".

Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability (Working Group 2 report)

The second part of the report, a contribution of working group II (WGII), was published on 28 February 2022. Entitled Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability, the full report is 3675 pages, plus a 37-page summary for policymakers. It contains information on the impacts of climate change on nature and human activity. Topics examined included biodiversity loss, migration, risks to urban and rural activities, human health, food security, water scarcity, and energy. It also assesses ways to address these risks and highlights how climate resilient development can be part of a larger shift towards sustainability.

The report found that climate impacts are at the high end of previous estimates, with all parts of the world being affected. At least 3.3 billion people, about 40% of the world population, now fall into the most serious category of "highly vulnerable", with the worst effects in the developing world. If emissions continue on their current path, Africa will lose 30% of its maize cultivation territory and 50% of its land cultivated for beans. One billion people face flooding due to sea level rise. Climate change, together with other factors, also increases the risk of infectious diseases outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also cites evidence that China will pay the highest financial cost if the temperature continue to rise. The impacts will include food insecurity, water scarcity, flooding, especially in coastal areas where most of the population lives due to higher than average sea level rise, and more powerful cyclones. At some point part of the country may face wet-bulb temperatures higher than humans and other mammals can tolerate more than six hours. Overall, the report identified 127 different negative impacts of climate change, some of them irreversible.

People can protect themselves to some degree from the effects of climate change, which is known as adaptation. Overall, progress on adaptation has been made in all sectors and regions, although this progress is unevenly distributed and many initiatives prioritise immediate risks over longer-term transformational changes. Still, there are feasible and effective adaptation options available and many adaption actions have benefits beyond reducing climate risks, including positive effects on the Sustainable Development Goals. For example, the majority of current adaptations address water-related risks; adaptations like improved water management, water storage and irrigation reduce vulnerability and can also provide economic and ecological benefits. Similarly, adaptation actions like agroforestry, farm- and landscape diversification and urban agriculture can increase food availability, while at the same time improving sustainability.

WGII further highlighted the need for conservation in order to maintain biodiversity, and mitigate the effects of climate change. The report reads, "Recent analyses, drawing on a range of lines of evidence, suggest that maintaining the resilience of biodiversity and ecosystem services at a global scale depends on effective and equitable conservation of approximately 30% to 50% of Earth's land, freshwater and ocean areas, including currently near-natural ecosystems." The report was critical of technological approaches to carbon dioxide removal, instead indicating that urbanisation could help drive adoption of mitigation strategies such as public transport and renewable energy. The report also warns there are high risks associated with strategies such as solar radiation management; planting forests in unnatural locations; or "poorly implemented bioenergy, with or without carbon capture and storage".

The report puts considerable emphasis on adaptation limits. It states that some human and natural systems already reached "soft adaptation limits" including human systems in Australia, Small Islands, America, Africa and Europe and some natural systems reach even the "hard adaptation limits" like part of corals, wetland, rainforests, ecosystems in polar and mountain regions. If the temperature rise will reach 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) additional ecosystems and human systems will reach hard adaptation limits, including regions depending on glaciers and snow water and small islands. At 2 °C (3.6 °F) temperature rise, soft limits will be reached by many staple crops in many areas while at 3 °C (5.4 °F) hard limits will be reached by parts of Europe.

In line with the emphasis on adaptation limits, the report also highlights loss and damage, meaning negative consequences of climate change that cannot be avoided through adaptation. The report states that such losses and damages are already widespread: droughts, floods and heatwaves are becoming more frequent, and a mass extinction is already underway. Taking near-term actions to limit warming to below 1.5°C would substantially reduce future losses and damages, but cannot eliminate them all. Previously, rich countries have resisted taking responsibility for these lossess.

The report states that even a temporary overshoot of the 1.5 degree limit will lead to negative effects on humans and ecosystems. According to the report: "Depending on the magnitude and duration of overshoot, some impacts will cause release of additional greenhouse gases (medium confidence) and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced (high confidence)". Climate resilient development will be more difficult if the global temperature will rise by 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, while if it will rise by more than 2 degrees it will become impossible "in some regions and sub-regions". Although the report's outlook is bleak, its conclusion argues that there is still time to limit warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) by drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emission, but such action must be taken immediately. Moreover, climate resilient development can have both adaptation and mitigation benefits, but it requires international cooperation and collaborations with local communities and organisations.

Reactions

Responding to the report, António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, called it "an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership" and "the facts are undeniable ... the world's biggest polluters are guilty of arson of our only home." The United States special presidential envoy for climate, John Kerry, said "We have seen the increase in climate-fuelled extreme events, and the damage that is left behind – lives lost and livelihoods ruined. The question at this point is not whether we can altogether avoid the crisis – it is whether we can avoid the worst consequences."

Environmentalist Inger Andersen commented: "Nature can be our saviour ... but only if we save it first."

The report was published during the first week of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the context of the conflict, the Ukrainian delegation connected the Russian aggression to the global dependency on oil, and a Russian official, Oleg Anisimov, apologized for the conflict despite the possible repercussions. The Ukrainian delegation also called for news reporting on the war not to overshadow the WGII report.

Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group 3 report)

The report was presented on 4 April 2022. The structure of the report was adopted in 2017. Some observers are worried that the conclusions might be watered down, considering the way the reports are adopted. According to The Observer, some countries "have sought to make changes that would weaken the final warnings".

WGIII found that "net anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased since 2010 across all major sectors globally. An increasing share of emissions can be attributed to urban areas. Emissions reductions in CO2 from fossil fuels and industrial processes, due to improvements in energy intensity of GDP and carbon intensity of energy, have been less than emissions increases from rising global activity levels in industry, energy supply, transport, agriculture and buildings."

Areas of focus

Matters covered by the report include:

  • Trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions;
  • Emission reduction pathways that match up with long-term net-zero goals;
  • Shorter-term pathways for emission reductions and their compatibility with “national development objectives” for job creation, competitiveness, poverty, sustainable development, and more;
  • Social aspects of greenhouse gas emission reductions, including objectives to meet human needs under the UN Sustainable Development Goals;
  • Energy systems;
  • Agriculture, forestry, and other land uses;
  • Cities and other human settlements;
  • Buildings;
  • Transportation;
  • Industry;
  • Costs and opportunities across different economic sectors;
  • National and sub-national policies and institutions;
  • International cooperation;
  • Investment and finance;
  • Innovation, technology, and technological transfer;
  • Connections between sustainable development and the response to climate change.

Important findings

The report uses some new approaches like to include different social aspects, the participation of youth, indigenous people, cities, businesses in the solution. It states that "International cooperation is a critical enabler for achieving ambitious climate change mitigation goals." International cooperation has positive and measurable effect on climate mitigation. It provides critical support for many mitigation measures. Participation in international agreements leads to adoption of climate policies. For preventing global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees above the preindustrial level, international cooperation needs to be much stronger than now as many developing countries need support from other countries higher than present for strong climate action.

According to the report demand side mitigation measures can reduce GHG emissions by 40–70% by the year 2050 compared to scenarios in which countries will fulfill its national pledges given before 2020. For being implemented successfully those measures should be linked "with improving basic wellbeing for all".

The report says that for achieving net zero reduction it is necessary to use carbon dioxide removal. The report compares different methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) including agroforestry, reforestation, blue carbon management, restoration of peatland and others.

Cities have big potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without any action cities supposed to emit 65 GtCO2-eq by the year 2050. With full scale mitigation action the emissions will be near zero, in the worst case they will be only 3 GtCO2-eq. City planning, supporting mixed use of space, transit, walking, cycling, sharing vehicles can reduce urban emissions by 23–26%. Urban forests, lakes and other blue and green infrastructure can reduce emissions as directly and indirectly (trough reduce in energy demand for cooling for example).

Buildings received significant attention. Buildings emitted 21% of global GHG emissions in the year 2019. 80–90% of their emissions can be cut while helping to achieve other Sustainable Development Goals. The report introduces a new scheme for reducing GHG emissions in buildings: SER = Sufficiency, Efficiency, Renewable. Sufficiency measures do not need very complex technology, energy supply, maintenance or replacement during the life of the building. Those include, natural ventilation, green roofs, white walls, mixed use of spaces, collective use of devices etc. There are multiple links between emissions from buildings and emissions from other sectors including those discussed in chapters 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Reducing GHG emissions from buildings is linked to sharing economy and circular economy.

The report found that there is no evidence that sustainable development requires fossil fuels. Climate journalist Amy Westervelt reacting to the report, described this finding as one of the most radical, debunking a common refrain by energy poverty advocates, that development requires use of fossil fuels.

The IPCC found that decent living standards need less energy than was thought before. According to the report for reaching well being for all, the needed energy consumption is "between 20 and 50 GJ cap-1 yr-1 depending on the context." More equitable income distribution can lower emissions. Mitigation pathways based on low demand and high efficiency can achieve decent living standards and well being for all. Pathways based on reducing consumption, involving sustainable development have less negative outcomes than pathways based on high consumption and narrow mitigation. Table TS.29 shows that mitigation measures in the urban, buildings, AFOLU, transport sectors have considerably more synergies and less trade offs with sustainable development goals that measures in the energy sector while the second (less trade offs) is true also for the industry sector. According to table TS30 narrow mitigation can increase habitat loss by 600%, while avoiding habitat degradation by around 95%. Mitigation with sustainable development did not harm forest cover and biodiversity.

International cooperation gives the possibility to achieve climate change mitigation without compromising sustainable development goals.

The report mentions some improvement in global climate action. For example, the rate of deforestation slowed after 2010 and the total forest cover increased in the latest years due to reforestation in Europe, Asia and North America.

Responses

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, said the report described "litany of broken climate promises [by policy makers]" and in his remarks called for more action, saying "Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But, the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels."

Saturday, September 10, 2022

Nuclear fuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear Fuel Process
 
A graph comparing nucleon number against binding energy
 
Close-up of a replica of the core of the research reactor at the Institut Laue-Langevin

Nuclear fuel is material used in nuclear power stations to produce heat to power turbines. Heat is created when nuclear fuel undergoes nuclear fission.

Most nuclear fuels contain heavy fissile actinide elements that are capable of undergoing and sustaining nuclear fission. The three most relevant fissile isotopes are uranium-233, uranium-235 and plutonium-239. When the unstable nuclei of these atoms are hit by a slow-moving neutron, they frequently split, creating two daughter nuclei and two or three more neutrons. In that case, the neutrons released go on to split more nuclei. This creates a self-sustaining chain reaction that is controlled in a nuclear reactor, or uncontrolled in a nuclear weapon. Alternatively, if the nucleus absorbs the neutron without splitting, it creates a heavier nucleus with one additional neutron.

The processes involved in mining, refining, purifying, using, and disposing of nuclear fuel are collectively known as the nuclear fuel cycle.

Not all types of nuclear fuels create power from nuclear fission; plutonium-238 and some other elements are used to produce small amounts of nuclear power by radioactive decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators and other types of atomic batteries.

Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of all practical fuel sources.

Oxide fuel

For fission reactors, the fuel (typically based on uranium) is usually based on the metal oxide; the oxides are used rather than the metals themselves because the oxide melting point is much higher than that of the metal and because it cannot burn, being already in the oxidized state.

The thermal conductivity of zirconium metal and uranium dioxide as a function of temperature

Uranium dioxide

Uranium dioxide is a black semiconducting solid. It can be made by heating uranyl nitrate to form UO
3

This is then converted by heating with hydrogen to form UO2. It can be made from enriched uranium hexafluoride by reacting with ammonia to form a solid called ammonium diuranate, This is then heated (calcined) to form UO
3
and U3O8 which is then converted by heating with hydrogen or ammonia to form UO2.

The UO2 is mixed with an organic binder and pressed into pellets, these pellets are then fired at a much higher temperature (in H2/Ar) to sinter the solid. The aim is to form a dense solid which has few pores.

The thermal conductivity of uranium dioxide is very low compared with that of zirconium metal, and it goes down as the temperature goes up.

Corrosion of uranium dioxide in water is controlled by similar electrochemical processes to the galvanic corrosion of a metal surface.

While exposed to the neutron flux during normal operation in the core environment a small percentage of the Uranium-238 in the fuel absorbs excess neutrons and is transmuted into U-239. U-239 rapidly decays into Neptunium-239 which in turn rapidly decays into Plutonium-239. The small percentage of Plutonium-239 has a higher neutron cross section than Uranium-235. As the Plutonium-239 accumulates the chain reaction shifts from pure Uranium-235 at initiation of the fuel use to a ratio of about 70% Uranium-235 and 30% Plutonium-239 at the end of the 18 to 24 month fuel exposure period.

MOX

Mixed oxide, or MOX fuel, is a blend of plutonium and natural or depleted uranium which behaves similarly (though not identically) to the enriched uranium feed for which most nuclear reactors were designed. MOX fuel is an alternative to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors which predominate nuclear power generation.

Some concern has been expressed that used MOX cores will introduce new disposal challenges, though MOX is itself a means to dispose of surplus plutonium by transmutation.

Reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel to make MOX was done in the Sellafield MOX Plant (England). As of 2015, MOX fuel is made in France (see Marcoule Nuclear Site), and to a lesser extent in Russia (see Mining and Chemical Combine), India and Japan. China plans to develop fast breeder reactors (see CEFR) and reprocessing.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, was a U.S. proposal in the George W. Bush Administration to form an international partnership to see spent nuclear fuel reprocessed in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not for nuclear weapons. Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel has not been permitted in the United States due to nonproliferation considerations. All of the other reprocessing nations have long had nuclear weapons from military-focused "research"-reactor fuels except for Japan. Normally, with the fuel being changed every three years or so, about half of the Pu-239 is 'burned' in the reactor, providing about one third of the total energy. It behaves like U-235 and its fission releases a similar amount of energy. The higher the burn-up, the more plutonium in the spent fuel, but the lower the fraction of fissile plutonium. Typically about one percent of the used fuel discharged from a reactor is plutonium, and some two thirds of this is fissile (c. 50% Pu-239, 15% Pu-241). Worldwide, some 70 tonnes of plutonium contained in used fuel is removed when refueling reactors each year.

Metal fuel

Metal fuels have the advantage of a much higher heat conductivity than oxide fuels but cannot survive equally high temperatures. Metal fuels have a long history of use, stretching from the Clementine reactor in 1946 to many test and research reactors. Metal fuels have the potential for the highest fissile atom density. Metal fuels are normally alloyed, but some metal fuels have been made with pure uranium metal. Uranium alloys that have been used include uranium aluminum, uranium zirconium, uranium silicon, uranium molybdenum, and uranium zirconium hydride (UZrH). Any of the aforementioned fuels can be made with plutonium and other actinides as part of a closed nuclear fuel cycle. Metal fuels have been used in water reactors and liquid metal fast breeder reactors, such as EBR-II.

TRIGA fuel

TRIGA fuel is used in TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) reactors. The TRIGA reactor uses UZrH fuel, which has a prompt negative fuel temperature coefficient of reactivity, meaning that as the temperature of the core increases, the reactivity decreases—so it is highly unlikely for a meltdown to occur. Most cores that use this fuel are "high leakage" cores where the excess leaked neutrons can be utilized for research. That is, they can be used as a neutron source. TRIGA fuel was originally designed to use highly enriched uranium, however in 1978 the U.S. Department of Energy launched its Reduced Enrichment for Research Test Reactors program, which promoted reactor conversion to low-enriched uranium fuel. A total of 35 TRIGA reactors have been installed at locations across the US. A further 35 reactors have been installed in other countries.

Actinide fuel

In a fast neutron reactor, the minor actinides produced by neutron capture of uranium and plutonium can be used as fuel. Metal actinide fuel is typically an alloy of zirconium, uranium, plutonium, and minor actinides. It can be made inherently safe as thermal expansion of the metal alloy will increase neutron leakage.

Molten plutonium

Molten plutonium, alloyed with other metals to lower its melting point and encapsulated in tantalum, was tested in two experimental reactors, LAMPRE I and LAMPRE II, at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1960s. "LAMPRE experienced three separate fuel failures during operation."

Non-oxide ceramic fuels

Ceramic fuels other than oxides have the advantage of high heat conductivities and melting points, but they are more prone to swelling than oxide fuels and are not understood as well.

Uranium nitride

This is often the fuel of choice for reactor designs that NASA produces, one advantage is that UN has a better thermal conductivity than UO2. Uranium nitride has a very high melting point. This fuel has the disadvantage that unless 15N was used (in place of the more common 14N) that a large amount of 14C would be generated from the nitrogen by the (n,p) reaction. As the nitrogen required for such a fuel would be so expensive it is likely that the fuel would have to be reprocessed by pyroprocessing to enable the 15N to be recovered. It is likely that if the fuel was processed and dissolved in nitric acid that the nitrogen enriched with 15N would be diluted with the common 14N. Fluoride volatility is a method of reprocessing that does not rely on nitric acid, but it has only been demonstrated in relatively small scale installations whereas the established PUREX process is used commercially for about a third of all spent nuclear fuel (the rest being largely subject to a "once through fuel cycle"). All nitrogen-fluoride compounds are volatile or gaseous at room temperature and could be fractionally distilled from the other gaseous products (including recovered uranium hexafluoride) to recover the initially used nitrogen. If the fuel could be processed in such a way as to ensure low contamination with non-radioactive carbon (not a common fission product and absent in nuclear reactors that don't use it as a moderator) then Fluoride volatility could be used to separate the 14
C
produced by producing carbon tetrafluoride. 14
C
is proposed for use in particularly long lived low power nuclear batteries called diamond battery.

Uranium carbide

Much of what is known about uranium carbide is in the form of pin-type fuel elements for liquid metal fast reactors during their intense study during the 1960s and 1970s. However, recently there has been a revived interest in uranium carbide in the form of plate fuel and most notably, micro fuel particles (such as TRISO particles).

The high thermal conductivity and high melting point makes uranium carbide an attractive fuel. In addition, because of the absence of oxygen in this fuel (during the course of irradiation, excess gas pressure can build from the formation of O2 or other gases) as well as the ability to complement a ceramic coating (a ceramic-ceramic interface has structural and chemical advantages), uranium carbide could be the ideal fuel candidate for certain Generation IV reactors such as the gas-cooled fast reactor. While the neutron cross section of carbon is low, during years of burnup, the predominantly 12
C
will undergo neutron capture to produce stable 13
C
as well as radioactive 14
C
. Unlike the 14
C
produced by using Uranium nitrate, the 14
C
will make up only a small isotopic impurity in the overall carbon content and thus make the entirety of the carbon content unsuitable for non-nuclear uses but the 14
C
concentration will be too low for use in nuclear batteries without enrichment. Nuclear graphite discharged from reactors where it was used as a moderator presents the same issue.

Liquid fuels

Liquid fuels are liquids containing dissolved nuclear fuel and have been shown to offer numerous operational advantages compared to traditional solid fuel approaches.

Liquid-fuel reactors offer significant safety advantages due to their inherently stable "self-adjusting" reactor dynamics. This provides two major benefits: - virtually eliminating the possibility of a run-away reactor meltdown, - providing an automatic load-following capability which is well suited to electricity generation and high-temperature industrial heat applications.

Another major advantage of the liquid core is its ability to be drained rapidly into a passively safe dump-tank. This advantage was conclusively demonstrated repeatedly as part of a weekly shutdown procedure during the highly successful 4 year Molten Salt Reactor Experiment.

Another huge advantage of the liquid core is its ability to release xenon gas which normally acts as a neutron absorber (135
Xe
is the strongest known neutron poison and is produced both directly and as a decay product of 135
I
as a fission product) and causes structural occlusions in solid fuel elements (leading to the early replacement of solid fuel rods with over 98% of the nuclear fuel unburned, including many long-lived actinides). In contrast, Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) are capable of retaining the fuel mixture for significantly extended periods, which not only increases fuel efficiency dramatically but also incinerates the vast majority of its own waste as part of the normal operational characteristics. A downside to letting the 135
Xe
escape instead of allowing it to capture neutrons converting it to the basically stable and chemically inert 136
Xe
, is that it will quickly decay to the highly chemically reactive long lived radioactive 135
Cs
, which behaves similar to other alkali metals and can be taken up by organisms in their metabolism.

Molten salts

Molten salt fuels have nuclear fuel dissolved directly in the molten salt coolant. Molten salt-fueled reactors, such as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), are different from molten salt-cooled reactors that do not dissolve nuclear fuel in the coolant.

Molten salt fuels were used in the LFTR known as the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, as well as other liquid core reactor experiments. The liquid fuel for the molten salt reactor was a mixture of lithium, beryllium, thorium and uranium fluorides: LiF-BeF2-ThF4-UF4 (72-16-12-0.4 mol%). It had a peak operating temperature of 705 °C in the experiment, but could have operated at much higher temperatures since the boiling point of the molten salt was in excess of 1400 °C.

Aqueous solutions of uranyl salts

The aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs) use a solution of uranyl sulfate or other uranium salt in water. Historically, AHRs have all been small research reactors, not large power reactors. An AHR known as the Medical Isotope Production System is being considered for production of medical isotopes.

Liquid metals or alloys

The Dual fluid reactor has a variant DFR/m which works with eutectic liquid metal alloys, e.g. U-Cr or U-Fe.

Common physical forms of nuclear fuel

Uranium dioxide (UO2) powder is compacted to cylindrical pellets and sintered at high temperatures to produce ceramic nuclear fuel pellets with a high density and well defined physical properties and chemical composition. A grinding process is used to achieve a uniform cylindrical geometry with narrow tolerances. Such fuel pellets are then stacked and filled into the metallic tubes. The metal used for the tubes depends on the design of the reactor. Stainless steel was used in the past, but most reactors now use a zirconium alloy which, in addition to being highly corrosion-resistant, has low neutron absorption. The tubes containing the fuel pellets are sealed: these tubes are called fuel rods. The finished fuel rods are grouped into fuel assemblies that are used to build up the core of a power reactor.

Cladding is the outer layer of the fuel rods, standing between the coolant and the nuclear fuel. It is made of a corrosion-resistant material with low absorption cross section for thermal neutrons, usually Zircaloy or steel in modern constructions, or magnesium with small amount of aluminium and other metals for the now-obsolete Magnox reactors. Cladding prevents radioactive fission fragments from escaping the fuel into the coolant and contaminating it. Besides the prevention of radioactive leaks this also serves to keep the coolant as non-corrosive as feasible and to prevent reactions between chemically aggressive fission products and the coolant. (e.g. The highly reactive alkali metal Caesium which reacts strongly with water, producing hydrogen, and which is among the more common fission products)

PWR fuel assembly (also known as a fuel bundle) This fuel assembly is from a pressurized water reactor of the nuclear-powered passenger and cargo ship NS Savannah. Designed and built by the Babcock & Wilcox Company.

PWR fuel

Pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel consists of cylindrical rods put into bundles. A uranium oxide ceramic is formed into pellets and inserted into Zircaloy tubes that are bundled together. The Zircaloy tubes are about 1 centimetre (0.4 in) in diameter, and the fuel cladding gap is filled with helium gas to improve heat conduction from the fuel to the cladding. There are about 179–264 fuel rods per fuel bundle and about 121 to 193 fuel bundles are loaded into a reactor core. Generally, the fuel bundles consist of fuel rods bundled 14×14 to 17×17. PWR fuel bundles are about 4 m (13 ft) long. In PWR fuel bundles, control rods are inserted through the top directly into the fuel bundle. The fuel bundles usually are enriched several percent in 235U. The uranium oxide is dried before inserting into the tubes to try to eliminate moisture in the ceramic fuel that can lead to corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement. The Zircaloy tubes are pressurized with helium to try to minimize pellet-cladding interaction which can lead to fuel rod failure over long periods.

BWR fuel

In boiling water reactors (BWR), the fuel is similar to PWR fuel except that the bundles are "canned". That is, there is a thin tube surrounding each bundle. This is primarily done to prevent local density variations from affecting neutronics and thermal hydraulics of the reactor core. In modern BWR fuel bundles, there are either 91, 92, or 96 fuel rods per assembly depending on the manufacturer. A range between 368 assemblies for the smallest and 800 assemblies for the largest BWR in the U.S. form the reactor core. Each BWR fuel rod is backfilled with helium to a pressure of about 3 standard atmospheres (300 kPa).

CANDU fuel bundles Two CANDU ("CANada Deuterium Uranium") fuel bundles, each about 50 cm long, 10 cm in diameter.

CANDU fuel

CANDU fuel bundles are about 0.5 metres (20 in) long and 10 centimetres (4 in) in diameter. They consist of sintered (UO2) pellets in zirconium alloy tubes, welded to zirconium alloy end plates. Each bundle weighs roughly 20 kilograms (44 lb), and a typical core loading is on the order of 4500–6500 bundles, depending on the design. Modern types typically have 37 identical fuel pins radially arranged about the long axis of the bundle, but in the past several different configurations and numbers of pins have been used. The CANFLEX bundle has 43 fuel elements, with two element sizes. It is also about 10 cm (4 inches) in diameter, 0.5 m (20 in) long and weighs about 20 kg (44 lb) and replaces the 37-pin standard bundle. It has been designed specifically to increase fuel performance by utilizing two different pin diameters. Current CANDU designs do not need enriched uranium to achieve criticality (due to the lower neutron absorption in their heavy water moderator compared to light water), however, some newer concepts call for low enrichment to help reduce the size of the reactors. The Atucha nuclear power plant in Argentina, a similar design to the CANDU but built by German KWU was originally designed for non-enriched fuel but since switched to slightly enriched fuel with a 235
U
content about 0.1 percentage points higher than in natural uranium.

Less-common fuel forms

Various other nuclear fuel forms find use in specific applications, but lack the widespread use of those found in BWRs, PWRs, and CANDU power plants. Many of these fuel forms are only found in research reactors, or have military applications.

A magnox fuel rod

Magnox fuel

Magnox (magnesium non-oxidising) reactors are pressurised, carbon dioxide–cooled, graphite-moderated reactors using natural uranium (i.e. unenriched) as fuel and Magnox alloy as fuel cladding. Working pressure varies from 6.9 to 19.35 bars (100.1 to 280.6 psi) for the steel pressure vessels, and the two reinforced concrete designs operated at 24.8 and 27 bars (24.5 and 26.6 atm). Magnox alloy consists mainly of magnesium with small amounts of aluminium and other metals—used in cladding unenriched uranium metal fuel with a non-oxidising covering to contain fission products. This material has the advantage of a low neutron capture cross-section, but has two major disadvantages:

  • It limits the maximum temperature, and hence the thermal efficiency, of the plant.
  • It reacts with water, preventing long-term storage of spent fuel under water - such as in a spent fuel pool.

Magnox fuel incorporated cooling fins to provide maximum heat transfer despite low operating temperatures, making it expensive to produce. While the use of uranium metal rather than oxide made nuclear reprocessing more straightforward and therefore cheaper, the need to reprocess fuel a short time after removal from the reactor meant that the fission product hazard was severe. Expensive remote handling facilities were required to address this issue.

TRISO fuel

0.845 mm TRISO fuel particle which has been cracked, showing multiple layers that are coating the spherical kernel

Tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel is a type of micro-particle fuel. A particle consists of a kernel of UOX fuel (sometimes UC or UCO), which has been coated with four layers of three isotropic materials deposited through fluidized chemical vapor deposition (FCVD). The four layers are a porous buffer layer made of carbon that absorbs fission product recoils, followed by a dense inner layer of protective pyrolytic carbon (PyC), followed by a ceramic layer of SiC to retain fission products at elevated temperatures and to give the TRISO particle more structural integrity, followed by a dense outer layer of PyC. TRISO particles are then encapsulated into cylindrical or spherical graphite pellets. TRISO fuel particles are designed not to crack due to the stresses from processes (such as differential thermal expansion or fission gas pressure) at temperatures up to 1600 °C, and therefore can contain the fuel in the worst of accident scenarios in a properly designed reactor. Two such reactor designs are the prismatic-block gas-cooled reactor (such as the GT-MHR) and the pebble-bed reactor (PBR). Both of these reactor designs are high temperature gas reactors (HTGRs). These are also the basic reactor designs of very-high-temperature reactors (VHTRs), one of the six classes of reactor designs in the Generation IV initiative that is attempting to reach even higher HTGR outlet temperatures.

TRISO fuel particles were originally developed in the United Kingdom as part of the Dragon reactor project. The inclusion of the SiC as diffusion barrier was first suggested by D. T. Livey. The first nuclear reactor to use TRISO fuels was the Dragon reactor and the first powerplant was the THTR-300. Currently, TRISO fuel compacts are being used in some experimental reactors, such as the HTR-10 in China and the High-temperature engineering test reactor in Japan. Spherical fuel elements utilizing a TRISO particle with a UO2 and UC solid solution kernel are being used in the Xe-100 in the United States.

QUADRISO fuel

QUADRISO Particle

In QUADRISO particles a burnable neutron poison (europium oxide or erbium oxide or carbide) layer surrounds the fuel kernel of ordinary TRISO particles to better manage the excess of reactivity. If the core is equipped both with TRISO and QUADRISO fuels, at beginning of life neutrons do not reach the fuel of the QUADRISO particles because they are stopped by the burnable poison. During reactor operation, neutron irradiation of the poison causes it to "burn up" or progressively transmute to non-poison isotopes, depleting this poison effect and leaving progressively more neutrons available for sustaining the chain-reaction. This mechanism compensates for the accumulation of undesirable neutron poisons which are an unavoidable part of the fission products, as well as normal fissile fuel "burn up" or depletion. In the generalized QUADRISO fuel concept the poison can eventually be mixed with the fuel kernel or the outer pyrocarbon. The QUADRISO concept was conceived at Argonne National Laboratory.

RBMK reactor fuel rod holder 1 – distancing armature; 2 – fuel rods shell; 3 – fuel tablets.

RBMK fuel

RBMK reactor fuel was used in Soviet-designed and built RBMK-type reactors. This is a low-enriched uranium oxide fuel. The fuel elements in an RBMK are 3 m long each, and two of these sit back-to-back on each fuel channel, pressure tube. Reprocessed uranium from Russian VVER reactor spent fuel is used to fabricate RBMK fuel. Following the Chernobyl accident, the enrichment of fuel was changed from 2.0% to 2.4%, to compensate for control rod modifications and the introduction of additional absorbers.

CerMet fuel

CerMet fuel consists of ceramic fuel particles (usually uranium oxide) embedded in a metal matrix. It is hypothesized that this type of fuel is what is used in United States Navy reactors. This fuel has high heat transport characteristics and can withstand a large amount of expansion.

Plate-type fuel

ATR Core The Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory uses plate-type fuel in a clover leaf arrangement. The blue glow around the core is known as Cherenkov radiation.

Plate-type fuel has fallen out of favor over the years. Plate-type fuel is commonly composed of enriched uranium sandwiched between metal cladding. Plate-type fuel is used in several research reactors where a high neutron flux is desired, for uses such as material irradiation studies or isotope production, without the high temperatures seen in ceramic, cylindrical fuel. It is currently used in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory, and the nuclear research reactor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell Radiation Laboratory.

Sodium-bonded fuel

Sodium-bonded fuel consists of fuel that has liquid sodium in the gap between the fuel slug (or pellet) and the cladding. This fuel type is often used for sodium-cooled liquid metal fast reactors. It has been used in EBR-I, EBR-II, and the FFTF. The fuel slug may be metallic or ceramic. The sodium bonding is used to reduce the temperature of the fuel.

Accident tolerant fuels

Accident tolerant fuels (ATF) are a series of new nuclear fuel concepts, researched in order to improve fuel performance under accident conditions, such as loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) or reaction-initiated accidents (RIA). These concerns became more prominent after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, in particular regarding light-water reactor (LWR) fuels performance under accident conditions.

The aim of the research is to develop nuclear fuels that can tolerate loss of active cooling for a considerably longer period than the existing fuel designs and prevent or delay the release of radionuclides during an accident. This research is focused on reconsidering the design of fuel pellets and cladding, as well as the interactions between the two.

Spent nuclear fuel

Used nuclear fuel is a complex mixture of the fission products, uranium, plutonium, and the transplutonium metals. In fuel which has been used at high temperature in power reactors it is common for the fuel to be heterogeneous; often the fuel will contain nanoparticles of platinum group metals such as palladium. Also the fuel may well have cracked, swollen, and been heated close to its melting point. Despite the fact that the used fuel can be cracked, it is very insoluble in water, and is able to retain the vast majority of the actinides and fission products within the uranium dioxide crystal lattice. The radiation hazard from spent nuclear declines as its radioactive components decay, but remains high for many years. For example 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly still exceeds 10,000 rem/hour, resulting in a fatal dose in just minutes.

Oxide fuel under accident conditions

Two main modes of release exist, the fission products can be vaporised or small particles of the fuel can be dispersed.

Fuel behavior and post-irradiation examination

Post-Irradiation Examination (PIE) is the study of used nuclear materials such as nuclear fuel. It has several purposes. It is known that by examination of used fuel that the failure modes which occur during normal use (and the manner in which the fuel will behave during an accident) can be studied. In addition information is gained which enables the users of fuel to assure themselves of its quality and it also assists in the development of new fuels. After major accidents the core (or what is left of it) is normally subject to PIE to find out what happened. One site where PIE is done is the ITU which is the EU centre for the study of highly radioactive materials.

Materials in a high-radiation environment (such as a reactor) can undergo unique behaviors such as swelling and non-thermal creep. If there are nuclear reactions within the material (such as what happens in the fuel), the stoichiometry will also change slowly over time. These behaviors can lead to new material properties, cracking, and fission gas release.

The thermal conductivity of uranium dioxide is low; it is affected by porosity and burn-up. The burn-up results in fission products being dissolved in the lattice (such as lanthanides), the precipitation of fission products such as palladium, the formation of fission gas bubbles due to fission products such as xenon and krypton and radiation damage of the lattice. The low thermal conductivity can lead to overheating of the center part of the pellets during use. The porosity results in a decrease in both the thermal conductivity of the fuel and the swelling which occurs during use.

According to the International Nuclear Safety Center the thermal conductivity of uranium dioxide can be predicted under different conditions by a series of equations.

The bulk density of the fuel can be related to the thermal conductivity

Where ρ is the bulk density of the fuel and ρtd is the theoretical density of the uranium dioxide.

Then the thermal conductivity of the porous phase (Kf) is related to the conductivity of the perfect phase (Ko, no porosity) by the following equation. Note that s is a term for the shape factor of the holes.

Kf = Ko(1 − p/1 + (s − 1)p)

Rather than measuring the thermal conductivity using the traditional methods such as Lees' disk, the Forbes' method, or Searle's bar, it is common to use Laser Flash Analysis where a small disc of fuel is placed in a furnace. After being heated to the required temperature one side of the disc is illuminated with a laser pulse, the time required for the heat wave to flow through the disc, the density of the disc, and the thickness of the disk can then be used to calculate and determine the thermal conductivity.

λ = ρCpα

If t1/2 is defined as the time required for the non illuminated surface to experience half its final temperature rise then.

α = 0.1388 L2/t1/2
  • L is the thickness of the disc

For details see K. Shinzato and T. Baba (2001).

Radioisotope decay fuels

Radioisotope battery

An atomic battery (also called a nuclear battery or radioisotope battery) is a device which uses the radioactive decay to generate electricity. These systems use radioisotopes that produce low energy beta particles or sometimes alpha particles of varying energies. Low energy beta particles are needed to prevent the production of high energy penetrating bremsstrahlung radiation that would require heavy shielding. Radioisotopes such as plutonium-238, curium-242, curium-244 and strontium-90 have been used. Tritium, nickel-63, promethium-147, and technetium-99 have been tested.

There are two main categories of atomic batteries: thermal and non-thermal. The non-thermal atomic batteries, which have many different designs, exploit charged alpha and beta particles. These designs include the direct charging generators, betavoltaics, the optoelectric nuclear battery, and the radioisotope piezoelectric generator. The thermal atomic batteries on the other hand, convert the heat from the radioactive decay to electricity. These designs include thermionic converter, thermophotovoltaic cells, alkali-metal thermal to electric converter, and the most common design, the radioisotope thermoelectric generator.

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator

Inspection of Cassini spacecraft RTGs before launch
 

A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is a simple electrical generator which converts heat into electricity from a radioisotope using an array of thermocouples.

238
Pu
has become the most widely used fuel for RTGs, in the form of plutonium dioxide. It has a half-life of 87.7 years, reasonable energy density, and exceptionally low gamma and neutron radiation levels. Some Russian terrestrial RTGs have used 90
Sr
; this isotope has a shorter half-life and a much lower energy density, but is cheaper. Early RTGs, first built in 1958 by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, have used 210
Po
. This fuel provides phenomenally huge energy density, (a single gram of polonium-210 generates 140 watts thermal) but has limited use because of its very short half-life and gamma production, and has been phased out of use for this application.

Photo of a disassembled RHU

Radioisotope heater unit (RHU)

A radioisotope heater unit (RHU) typically provides about 1 watt of heat each, derived from the decay of a few grams of plutonium-238. This heat is given off continuously for several decades.

Their function is to provide highly localised heating of sensitive equipment (such as electronics in outer space). The Cassini–Huygens orbiter to Saturn contains 82 of these units (in addition to its 3 main RTGs for power generation). The Huygens probe to Titan contains 35 devices.

Fusion fuels

Fusion fuels are fuels to use in hypothetical Fusion power reactors. They include deuterium (2H) and tritium (3H) as well as helium-3 (3He). Many other elements can be fused together, but the larger electrical charge of their nuclei means that much higher temperatures are required. Only the fusion of the lightest elements is seriously considered as a future energy source. Fusion of the lightest atom, 1H hydrogen, as is done in the Sun and stars, has also not been considered practical on Earth. Although the energy density of fusion fuel is even higher than fission fuel, and fusion reactions sustained for a few minutes have been achieved, utilizing fusion fuel as a net energy source remains only a theoretical possibility.

First-generation fusion fuel

Deuterium and tritium are both considered first-generation fusion fuels; they are the easiest to fuse, because the electrical charge on their nuclei is the lowest of all elements. The three most commonly cited nuclear reactions that could be used to generate energy are:

2H + 3H → n (14.07 MeV) + 4He (3.52 MeV)
2H + 2H → n (2.45 MeV) + 3He (0.82 MeV)
2H + 2H → p (3.02 MeV) + 3H (1.01 MeV)

Second-generation fusion fuel

Second-generation fuels require either higher confinement temperatures or longer confinement time than those required of first-generation fusion fuels, but generate fewer neutrons. Neutrons are an unwanted byproduct of fusion reactions in an energy generation context, because they are absorbed by the walls of a fusion chamber, making them radioactive. They cannot be confined by magnetic fields, because they are not electrically charged. This group consists of deuterium and helium-3. The products are all charged particles, but there may be significant side reactions leading to the production of neutrons.

2H + 3He → p (14.68 MeV) + 4He (3.67 MeV)

Third-generation fusion fuel

Third-generation fusion fuels produce only charged particles in the primary reactions, and side reactions are relatively unimportant. Since a very small amount of neutrons is produced, there would be little induced radioactivity in the walls of the fusion chamber. This is often seen as the end goal of fusion research. 3He has the highest Maxwellian reactivity of any 3rd generation fusion fuel. However, there are no significant natural sources of this substance on Earth.

3He + 3He → 2 p + 4He (12.86 MeV)

Another potential aneutronic fusion reaction is the proton-boron reaction:

p + 11B → 3 4He (8.7 MeV)

Under reasonable assumptions, side reactions will result in about 0.1% of the fusion power being carried by neutrons. With 123 keV, the optimum temperature for this reaction is nearly ten times higher than that for the pure hydrogen reactions, the energy confinement must be 500 times better than that required for the D-T reaction, and the power density will be 2500 times lower than for D-T.

Lorentz transformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w...