A New Fuel Material for Once-Through Weapons Plutonium Burning

Akie, Hiroshi; Muromura, Tadasumi; Takano, Hideki; Matsuura, Shojiro

doi:10.13182/nt107-182

Cited by 122 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the IMF kernel of YSZ cannot be solved in ordinary nitrate solution owing to chemically inert characteristics [15]. To solve the YSZ kernel, it is inevitable to add the hydrogen fluoride [16].…”

Section: Estimation Of Proliferation Resistance For Current Purex Promentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposal of a plutonium burner system based on HTGR with high proliferation resistance

Fukaya

Goto

Ohashi

et al. 2014

Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Estimation Of Proliferation Resistance For Current Purex Promentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposal of a plutonium burner system based on HTGR with high proliferation resistance

Fukaya

Goto

Ohashi

et al. 2014

Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…24 NFF is a revolutionary new fuel type proposed within the last decade and typically consists of plutonium stabilized in an inert matrix (such as ZrO 2 , CeO 2 , MgO, Al 2 O 3 ) with burnable poison (most commonly erbium) to control reactivity and power peaking. 25 The partial use of NFF in typical LWR assemblies has also been examined for plutonium destruction. One design contains assemblies with NFF (PuO 2 mixed with CeO 2 ) within thick (larger than average) annular fuel rods surrounded by standard UO 2 rods (the Advanced Plutonium Fuel Assembly concept).…”

Section: Mox Fuel Irradiation and Multiple Recyclingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of the Radiotoxicity of Spent Nuclear Fuel Using a Two-Tiered System Comprising Light Water Reactors and Accelerator-Driven Systems

Trellue

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similar results reported by the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute and others also confirmed the feasibility of these fuels' partial LWR cores. 6,7 Lombardi and Mazzola examined heterogeneous assemblies with 20-30% PRF rods uniformly distributed in UO 2 assemblies. 8,9 Ebia's 0.3 eV resonance peak was found to be helpful in providing temperature feedback; gadolinia provided beginning-of-cycle excess reactivity control while minimizing end-of-cycle reactivity penalties.…”

Section: Feasibility Of Burning Prfs In Lwrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Proliferation-Resistant Fuels to Manage Global Plutonium Inventories: Going Beyond the Spent-Fuel Standard

Chodak¹

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Academy of Sciences has stated that the growing global stocks of civil and weapons plutonium represent a "clear and present danger." Proliferation-resistant fuels (PRFs) have been proposed by researchers in several countries including France, Italy, Switzerland, Japan and the United States (US) as an effective sink for this plutonium. In place of the UO 2 in mixed uranium-plutonium dioxide (MOX), PRFs blend a nonfertile-oxide-diluant and burnable poisons with PuO 2 . The resultant ceramic is more chemically durable than MOX; consequently, the plutonium cannot be recovered by standard Plutonium-Uranium Reduction Extraction (PUREX) processing and is a more durable waste form than MOX. In the absence of the in situ production of 239 Pu or 233 U found in MOX and thorium fuels, respectively, an extremely deep burn of the plutonium is possible, producing a spent fuel that goes well beyond the spent-fuel standard. Calculations have shown that the reactivity behavior of these fuels can be tailored through the appropriate incorporation of burnable poisons to enable their use in existing lightwater reactors without hardware or operational modifications. Depending on the fuel management strategy employed, PRFs destroy 60-80 wt % of their total plutonium charge, more than twice the consumption possible with MOX fuel. In addition, the isotopics of the residual spent plutonium are >50 wt % 242 Pu, <20 wt % fissile plutonium, and >3 wt % 238 Pu as compared with <15 wt % 242 Pu, >70 wt % fissile plutonium, and <1 wt % 238 Pu for spent MOX. Spent PRF is, therefore, a substantially less attractive source for weapons material than spent MOX. A once-through, one-third PRF core consumes 90 kg of plutonium, whereas a one-third MOX core produces 70 kg. Thus, PRFs can be used to reduce plutonium inventories and the overall proliferation risk posed by commercial fuel cycles. It is recommended that the US Department of Energy develop PRFs on a not-to-interfere basis with the ongoing Material Disposition MOX program. Development of PRFs as a follow on to MOX for burning excess weapons plutonium could be leveraged to promote PRF consumption of global separated civilplutonium stocks. Thus, the US could take an active leadership role to enhance the proliferation resistance of commercial nuclear fuel cycles.

show abstract

A New Fuel Material for Once-Through Weapons Plutonium Burning

Cited by 122 publications

References 8 publications

Proposal of a plutonium burner system based on HTGR with high proliferation resistance

Proposal of a plutonium burner system based on HTGR with high proliferation resistance

Reduction of the Radiotoxicity of Spent Nuclear Fuel Using a Two-Tiered System Comprising Light Water Reactors and Accelerator-Driven Systems

Using Proliferation-Resistant Fuels to Manage Global Plutonium Inventories: Going Beyond the Spent-Fuel Standard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About