Depleted uranium management alternatives

Hertzler, T.; Nishimoto, D.D.

doi:10.2172/10177366

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The author is not aware of any cost studies on this concept. An INL study (Hertzler and Nishimbo 1994) reports that DU use in casks would cost $22.80/kg UF 6 . (Makhijani and Smith 2005b).…”

Section: K1-7 Limitations Of Cost Data and Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

Shropshire¹,

Williams²,

Boore³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: K1-7 Limitations Of Cost Data and Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

Shropshire¹,

Williams²,

Boore³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The cask cost has been estimated to be $22.80/kg UF 6 in 1994 dollars (Hertzler and Nishimoto 1994). This strategy would immobilize nearly all current DU holdings.…”

Section: Fuel Cycle Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Owing to the limited stocks of HEU anticipated to be released by DOE, the same constraints are active if DU is used to dilute HEU. Non-nuclear military applications include the use of DU metal (via reduction of Uranium hexafloride to a uranium metal) in ballistics and armor, and DU has also been considered in energy storage flywheels or counterweights (Diehl 2004, Hertzler andNishimoto 1994). However, the amount of material required to supply these applications is small compared to the current supply of DU.…”

Section: Inl/ext-09-15483 E-49mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advanced Fuel Cycle Economic Tools, Algorithms, and Methodologies

Shropshire¹

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Uranium provides an effective gamma shield, and depleted uranium metal could be utilized in containers for storage and transportation of vitrified HLW (Yoshimura 1993), in metal shielded casks for on-site dry storage and subsequent shipment of SNF (Hertzler and Nishimoto 1994), or incorporated in the shield plug for multi-purpose container designs. It was concluded that these applications could possibly use the entire inventory of depleted uranium.…”

Section: Metal Shielding Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selected papers for global `95 concerning plutonium

Sutcliffe¹

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an informal report intended primarily for internal or limited external distribution. The opinions and conclusions stated are those of the author and may or may not be those of the Laboratory. Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-ENG-48. DISCLAIMERThe following is a compendium of several publications and uncleared presentations that are either in the public domain or published with the permission of the authors. The contents cannot be and have not been verified by the University for security issues or concerning any proprietary information they may contain. The University, thus, makes no representations whatsoever that the material in this publication contains no restricted or classified information or that it has been cleared by the University or that it contains no third-party proprietary data. PrefaceThis report contains selected papers from the Global '95 Conference, "Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems," held in Versailles September 11 through 14, 1995. The conference was sponsored by the French Section of the American Nuclear Society and the Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division. The meeting was organized in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) and co-sponsored by the French Nuclear Society (SFEN), the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ), the Kurchatov Institute, the Russian Nuclear Society, and others.The papers in Part I of this report are from the "Benefits and Risks of Reprocessing" Sessions. At Global '93, in Seattle, there seemed to be an unquestioned assumption that nuclear power in general, and reprocessing (recycling of plutonium) in particular, are essential for the world's energy needs. This assumption is disputed by those who believe that reprocessing poses grave risks for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and is not economical. It was my intent to have both sides of the proliferation and economic questions presented in these sessions in order to examine the reasons for this difference in positions. Co-chairing these sessions with me were: L. F. Durret, COGEMA, France (Session 7); and R. Baschwitz, IAEA, Austria (Session 8). The authors in these sessions were challenged to address the economic and proliferation benefits and risks resulting from reprocessing and recycling of plutonium. Technical, safety, and ecological issues were not called into question, although benefits in conservation of resources and the management of nuclear waste have been asserted by proponents of reprocessing/recycling.After our sessions the basic disagreements remained but I think that each side has a better understanding and appreciation of the other side's view. Although economics of plutonium use (recycling) were debated, I think that most people at the session, and at the conference, concluded that the economic viability will be determined by the marketplace in the long run. In the meantime some countries are pursu...

show abstract

Depleted uranium management alternatives

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

Advanced Fuel Cycle Economic Tools, Algorithms, and Methodologies

Selected papers for global `95 concerning plutonium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About