Characterization of Mechanical Properties of Nuclear Waste Glasses

1981 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Richter ◽  
Peter Offermann
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Waste Disposal ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Safety Barrier

Part of nuclear fuel cycle waste is highly dangerous, and must be safely isolated from people. Although the site of the final waste disposal must be the main safety barrier, the form of the waste and its properties are also important considerations.

scholarly journals Modeling minor actinide multiple recycling in a lead-cooled fast reactor to demonstrate a fuel cycle without long-lived nuclear waste

Nukleonika ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Przemysław Stanisz ◽  
Jerzy Cetnar ◽  
Grażyna Domańska
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Fast Reactor ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Reactor Core ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Minor Actinide ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
European Collaboration ◽  
Multiple Recycling

Abstract The concept of closed nuclear fuel cycle seems to be the most promising options for the efficient usage of the nuclear energy resources. However, it can be implemented only in fast breeder reactors of the IVth generation, which are characterized by the fast neutron spectrum. The lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) was defined and studied on the level of technical design in order to demonstrate its performance and reliability within the European collaboration on ELSY (European Lead-cooled System) and LEADER (Lead-cooled European Advanced Demonstration Reactor) projects. It has been demonstrated that LFR meets the requirements of the closed nuclear fuel cycle, where plutonium and minor actinides (MA) are recycled for reuse, thereby producing no MA waste. In this study, the most promising option was realized when entire Pu + MA material is fully recycled to produce a new batch of fuel without partitioning. This is the concept of a fuel cycle which asymptotically tends to the adiabatic equilibrium, where the concentrations of plutonium and MA at the beginning of the cycle are restored in the subsequent cycle in the combined process of fuel transmutation and cooling, removal of fission products (FPs), and admixture of depleted uranium. In this way, generation of nuclear waste containing radioactive plutonium and MA can be eliminated. The paper shows methodology applied to the LFR equilibrium fuel cycle assessment, which was developed for the Monte Carlo continuous energy burnup (MCB) code, equipped with enhanced modules for material processing and fuel handling. The numerical analysis of the reactor core concerns multiple recycling and recovery of long-lived nuclides and their influence on safety parameters. The paper also presents a general concept of the novel IVth generation breeder reactor with equilibrium fuel and its future role in the management of MA.

A Perspective on the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Rodwell ◽  
Albert Machiels
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Yucca Mountain ◽  
Design Parameters ◽  
Geologic Repository ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Waste Products

There has been a resurgence of interest in the possibility of processing the US spent nuclear fuel, instead of burying it in a geologic repository. Accordingly, key topical findings from three relevant EPRI evaluations made in the 1990–1995 timeframe are recapped and updated to accommodate a few developments over the subsequent ten years. Views recently expressed by other US entities are discussed. Processing aspects thereby addressed include effects on waste disposal and on geologic repository capacity, impacts on the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle and of the overall nuclear power scenario, alternative dispositions of the plutonium separated by the processing, impacts on the structure of the perceived weapons proliferation risk, and challenges for the immediate future and for the current half-century. Currently, there is a statutory limit of 70,000 metric tons on the amount of nuclear waste materials that can be accepted at Yucca Mountain. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project analyzed emplacement of up to 120,000 metric tons of nuclear waste products in the repository. Additional scientific analyses suggest significantly higher capacity could be achieved with changes in the repository configuration that use only geology that has already been characterized and do not deviate from existing design parameters. Conservatively assuming the repository capacity postulated in the EIS, the need date for a second repository is essentially deferrable until that determined by a potential new nuclear plant deployment program. A further increase in technical capacity of the first repository (and further and extensive delay to the need date for a second repository) is potentially achievable by processing the spent fuel to remove the plutonium (and at least the americium too), provided the plutonium and the americium are then comprehensively burnt. The burning of some of the isotopes involved would need fast reactors (discounting for now a small possibility that one of several recently postulated alternatives will prove superior overall). However, adoption of processing would carry a substantial cost burden and reliability of the few demonstration fast reactors built to-date has been poor. Trends and developments could remove these obstacles to the processing scenario, possibly before major decisions on a second repository become necessary, which need not be until mid-century at the earliest. Pending the outcomes of these long-term trends and developments, economics and reliability encourage us to stay with non-processing for the near term at least. Besides completing the Yucca Mountain program, the two biggest and inter-related fuel-cycle needs today are for a nationwide consensus on which processing technology offers the optimum mix of economic competitiveness and proliferation resistance and for a sustained effort to negotiate greater international cooperation and safeguards. Equally likely to control the readiness schedule is development/demonstration of an acceptable, reliable and affordable fast reactor.

Ligands for f-element extraction used in the nuclear fuel cycle

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (23) ◽  
pp. 7229-7273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Leoncini ◽  
Jurriaan Huskens ◽  
Willem Verboom
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Liquid Extraction ◽  
Liquid Liquid Extraction

This review describes the latest advances regarding the development, modification and application of suitable ligands for the liquid–liquid extraction of actinides and lanthanides from nuclear waste.

scholarly journals Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Environmental Impact

MRS Bulletin ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 338-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney C. Ewing
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Weapons Proliferation ◽  
Fuel Cycles

Every energy source has environmental impacts—positive and negative. Nuclear power is a carbon-free source of energy that can reduce CO2 emissions by displacing the use of fossil fuels. The present level of carbon displacement is approximately 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon per year (GtC/year), compared to the nearly 8 GtC/year emitted by the use of fossil fuels. However, there are three major negative environmental impacts of nuclear power: catastrophic accidents, nuclear weapons, and nuclear waste. The last two, weapons and waste, are directly tied to the type of nuclear fuel cycle (Figure 4 in the main nuclear article by Raj et al. in this issue). The different fuel cycles refect different strategies for the utilization of fssile nuclides, mainly 235U and 239Pu, and these different strategies have important implications for nuclear waste management and nuclear weapons proliferation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document