Nuclear and Solar Energy

**3**

**Chapter 1**

Fuel Cycle

*Nasser S. Awwad*

**2.1 Uranium exploration and mining**

**2.2 Uranium enrichment**

heat and extra neutrons.

**1. Introduction**

Introductory Chapter: From the

Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear

This chapter will focuses on the brief topics of Nuclear Fuel Cycle. It will provide advanced level for understanding of the complete fuel cycle by following nuclear fuel from its origin and fabrication, through its stay in the reactor with all alterations induced there, and ending with reprocessing options and waste management issues for the spent nuclear fuel. In other words: "Nuclear fuel – from cradle to grave". Moreover, it covers radiation protection issues throughout the nuclear fuel cycle.

**2. Front end of the fuel cycle which includes the following items**

uranium, "yellowcake," which is marketed as U3O8 on the uranium display.

The nuclear fuel used in a nuclear reactor needs to have a higher U235 isotope concentration than that found in natural uranium ore. In light water reactors (the most common reactor design in the USA), U235 is fissionable when concentrated (or 'enriched'). The nucleus of the atom breaks apart during fission, creating both

Uranium mining is the process by which uranium metal is extracted from the earth. In 2019, the worldwide generation of uranium produced 53,656 tons. The top three producers were Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia, which together account for 68 percent of the world's uranium generation. Namibia, Niger, Russia, Uzbekistan and China were other vital uranium-producing nations in excess of 1,000 tons per year [1]. Mining uranium is almost exclusively used as fuel for nuclear power plants. Uranium is extracted by in-situ filtration (57% of the world's generation) or by ordinary underground or open-pit metal mining (43% of the generation). A filtering arrangement is pumped down in the in-situ mining, penetrating holes into the uranium metal store where the mineral minerals are broken up. At that point, the uranium rich liquid is pumped back to the surface and prepared to extract the uranium compounds from the structure in regular mining, metals are treated by pounding the metal materials to a uniform molecule measure and after that treating the mineral to extricate the uranium by chemical leaching [2]. The processing handle usually produces dry powder-form fabric composed of common

#### **Chapter 1**

## Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

*Nasser S. Awwad*

#### **1. Introduction**

This chapter will focuses on the brief topics of Nuclear Fuel Cycle. It will provide advanced level for understanding of the complete fuel cycle by following nuclear fuel from its origin and fabrication, through its stay in the reactor with all alterations induced there, and ending with reprocessing options and waste management issues for the spent nuclear fuel. In other words: "Nuclear fuel – from cradle to grave". Moreover, it covers radiation protection issues throughout the nuclear fuel cycle.

#### **2. Front end of the fuel cycle which includes the following items**

#### **2.1 Uranium exploration and mining**

Uranium mining is the process by which uranium metal is extracted from the earth. In 2019, the worldwide generation of uranium produced 53,656 tons. The top three producers were Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia, which together account for 68 percent of the world's uranium generation. Namibia, Niger, Russia, Uzbekistan and China were other vital uranium-producing nations in excess of 1,000 tons per year [1]. Mining uranium is almost exclusively used as fuel for nuclear power plants. Uranium is extracted by in-situ filtration (57% of the world's generation) or by ordinary underground or open-pit metal mining (43% of the generation). A filtering arrangement is pumped down in the in-situ mining, penetrating holes into the uranium metal store where the mineral minerals are broken up.

At that point, the uranium rich liquid is pumped back to the surface and prepared to extract the uranium compounds from the structure in regular mining, metals are treated by pounding the metal materials to a uniform molecule measure and after that treating the mineral to extricate the uranium by chemical leaching [2]. The processing handle usually produces dry powder-form fabric composed of common uranium, "yellowcake," which is marketed as U3O8 on the uranium display.

#### **2.2 Uranium enrichment**

The nuclear fuel used in a nuclear reactor needs to have a higher U235 isotope concentration than that found in natural uranium ore. In light water reactors (the most common reactor design in the USA), U235 is fissionable when concentrated (or 'enriched'). The nucleus of the atom breaks apart during fission, creating both heat and extra neutrons.

These extra neutrons can cause additional, nearby atoms to fission under controlled conditions and a nuclear reaction can be maintained. Via a controlled nuclear reaction inside the nuclear reactor, the heat energy released can be harnessed to generate electricity. The U235 isotope is commercially enriched to 3 to 5 percent (from the natural state of 0.7 percent) and then further processed for nuclear fuel output.

Uranium oxide is converted to the chemical form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) at the conversion plant to be used in an enrichment facility. UF6 is used for a few reasons; 1) the fluorine portion has only one isotope that occurs naturally, which is an advantage during the enrichment processing the fluorine does not contribute to the weight difference when separating U235 from U238), and 2) UF6 exists as a gas at an optimal operating temperature. There are several enrichment processes utilized worldwide. They are:


The first industrial method used to enrich uranium in the United States was gaseous diffusion. These facilities used large quantities of energy and the existing gaseous diffusion plants became outdated as the centrifuge technology matured. All of them have been replaced worldwide by second-generation technology, which needs much less energy to generate comparable quantities of separated uranium. Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas was injected into the pipes of the plant at a gaseous diffusion enrichment plant, where it was pumped through special filters called barriers or porous membranes.

The holes in the barriers were so small that the UF6 gas molecules barely had enough space to move through. The isotope enrichment occurred because the lighter molecules of UF6 gas (with atoms U234 and U235) spread faster through the barriers than the heavier molecules of UF6 gas containing U238.

However one barrier wasn't enough. Until UF6 gas contained enough U235 to be used in nuclear fuel, several hundreds of barriers were required, one after the other. The enriched UF6 gas was separated from the pipes at the end of the operation and condensed back into a liquid that was then poured into containers. Before it was transported to fuel fabrication facilities, the UF6 was allowed to cool and solidify. The current method by which commercial enrichment is conducted in the United States is gas centrifuge enrichment. UF6 gas is positioned and rotated at a high velocity in a gas centrifuge cylinder. A strong centrifugal force is generated by this rotation so that the heavier gas molecules (UF6 containing U238 atoms) travel towards the outside of the cylinder. Closer to the middle, the lighter gas molecules (containing U235) gather. The slightly enriched stream in U235 is extracted and fed into the next centrifuge; the next higher level. The slightly depleted stream is recycled back into the next lower stage (with a lower concentration of U235).

Long lines of several revolving cylinders are contained in a gas centrifuge factory. In both series and parallel formations, those cylinders are related. To shape trains and cascades, centrifuge machines are interconnected. The UF6 is enriched to the required amount at the final withdrawal stage.

For potential use to enrich uranium, the laser separation technology is under development. By extracting isotopes of uranium with lasers, uranium can be enriched. Laser light can excite molecules; this is called photoexcitation. Lasers will raise the energy in the electrons of a particular isotope, alter its properties and allow it to be separated. Three main systems, which are laser systems, optical systems,

**5**

*Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

pressurized-water reactor depends on the type of light water reactor.

dioxide (PuO2). The MOX fuel will be used in light-water reactors.

tion of uranium and zirconium/hydride.

**3. Nuclear fuel in reactor**

a nuclear reactor.

**4. Back end of the fuel cycle**

MOX fuel differs from low-enriched uranium fuel in that the powder used to form fuel pellets is comprised of both uranium dioxide (UO2) and plutonium

Small reactors that do not produce electrical power but are used for research, testing and training are non-power reactors. Analysis reactors and reactors used to manufacture irradiated target materials may be included in non-power reactors. The configuration of the fuel varies with the kind and manufacturer of the reactor. The plate-type fuel consists of several thin sheets containing an aluminum-clad uranium mixture. Another fuel is in the form of rods and is made up of a combina-

Nuclear fuel is the fuel which is used to support a nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. These fuels are fissile, and the radioactive metals uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the most common nuclear fuels. A cycle known as the nuclear fuel cycle is made up of all the steps involved in collecting, refining, and using this fuel. Many nuclear fuels produce heavy elements of fissile actinide that are able to undergo and sustain nuclear fission. Uranium-233, uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the three most applicable fissile isotopes. As a slow-moving neutron strikes the unstable nuclei of these atoms, they split, forming two daughter nuclei and two or three more neutrons. Then these neutrons go on to split more nuclei. This produces a self-sustaining chain reaction that is regulated or uncontrolled by a nuclear bomb in

For a period of five years or so, the fuel is first placed in a storage pool, the time to let the most active fission products decrease or vanish. After those five years, a decision as to whether or not to reprocess is made. If not, so as it is the fuel must be stockpiled. Research is currently underway on the feasibility of the final disposal of spent fuel deep underground; decisions on such disposals are yet to be made. Meanwhile the

and the separation module system, are used in the enrichment process. In order to deliver highly monochromatic light, tunable lasers can be produced. A particular isotopic species may be photo-ionized by the light from these lasers while not affecting other isotopic species. Chemically, the infected species is then modified, which allows the substance to be isolated. The laser separation technology developed by DOE uses as its feed material a uranium metal alloy, while UF6 is used as the feed material in the Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation process.

Fuel production installations turn enriched uranium into nuclear reactor fuel. Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, which is a mixture of uranium and plutonium, may also be used in fabrication. Usually, the manufacture of fuel for light water reactors (LWR) (regular commercial power reactors) begins with the receipt of lowenriched uranium from an enrichment facility, in the chemical form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6).UF6 is heated to a gaseous state in solid form in tubes, and then the UF6 gas is chemically treated to form a powder of uranium dioxide (UO2). This powder is then pressed into pellets, loaded into Zircaloy tubes, sintered into ceramic form, and constructed into fuel assemblies. If it is a boiling-water reactor or a

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95826*

**2.3 Fuel fabrication**

*Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95826*

and the separation module system, are used in the enrichment process. In order to deliver highly monochromatic light, tunable lasers can be produced. A particular isotopic species may be photo-ionized by the light from these lasers while not affecting other isotopic species. Chemically, the infected species is then modified, which allows the substance to be isolated. The laser separation technology developed by DOE uses as its feed material a uranium metal alloy, while UF6 is used as the feed material in the Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation process.

#### **2.3 Fuel fabrication**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

processes utilized worldwide. They are:

• Gaseous Diffusion

• Gas Centrifuge

• Laser Separation

barriers or porous membranes.

These extra neutrons can cause additional, nearby atoms to fission under controlled conditions and a nuclear reaction can be maintained. Via a controlled nuclear reaction inside the nuclear reactor, the heat energy released can be harnessed to generate electricity. The U235 isotope is commercially enriched to 3 to 5 percent (from the natural state of 0.7 percent) and then further processed for nuclear fuel output. Uranium oxide is converted to the chemical form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) at the conversion plant to be used in an enrichment facility. UF6 is used for a few reasons; 1) the fluorine portion has only one isotope that occurs naturally, which is an advantage during the enrichment processing the fluorine does not contribute to the weight difference when separating U235 from U238), and 2) UF6 exists as a gas at an optimal operating temperature. There are several enrichment

The first industrial method used to enrich uranium in the United States was gaseous diffusion. These facilities used large quantities of energy and the existing gaseous diffusion plants became outdated as the centrifuge technology matured. All of them have been replaced worldwide by second-generation technology, which needs much less energy to generate comparable quantities of separated uranium. Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas was injected into the pipes of the plant at a gaseous diffusion enrichment plant, where it was pumped through special filters called

The holes in the barriers were so small that the UF6 gas molecules barely had enough space to move through. The isotope enrichment occurred because the lighter molecules of UF6 gas (with atoms U234 and U235) spread faster through the

However one barrier wasn't enough. Until UF6 gas contained enough U235 to be used in nuclear fuel, several hundreds of barriers were required, one after the other. The enriched UF6 gas was separated from the pipes at the end of the operation and condensed back into a liquid that was then poured into containers. Before it was transported to fuel fabrication facilities, the UF6 was allowed to cool and solidify. The current method by which commercial enrichment is conducted in the United States is gas centrifuge enrichment. UF6 gas is positioned and rotated at a high velocity in a gas centrifuge cylinder. A strong centrifugal force is generated by this rotation so that the heavier gas molecules (UF6 containing U238 atoms) travel towards the outside of the cylinder. Closer to the middle, the lighter gas molecules (containing U235) gather. The slightly enriched stream in U235 is extracted and fed into the next centrifuge; the next higher level. The slightly depleted stream is recycled back into the next lower stage (with a lower concentration of U235). Long lines of several revolving cylinders are contained in a gas centrifuge factory. In both series and parallel formations, those cylinders are related. To shape trains and cascades, centrifuge machines are interconnected. The UF6 is enriched to

For potential use to enrich uranium, the laser separation technology is under development. By extracting isotopes of uranium with lasers, uranium can be enriched. Laser light can excite molecules; this is called photoexcitation. Lasers will raise the energy in the electrons of a particular isotope, alter its properties and allow it to be separated. Three main systems, which are laser systems, optical systems,

barriers than the heavier molecules of UF6 gas containing U238.

the required amount at the final withdrawal stage.

**4**

Fuel production installations turn enriched uranium into nuclear reactor fuel. Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, which is a mixture of uranium and plutonium, may also be used in fabrication. Usually, the manufacture of fuel for light water reactors (LWR) (regular commercial power reactors) begins with the receipt of lowenriched uranium from an enrichment facility, in the chemical form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6).UF6 is heated to a gaseous state in solid form in tubes, and then the UF6 gas is chemically treated to form a powder of uranium dioxide (UO2). This powder is then pressed into pellets, loaded into Zircaloy tubes, sintered into ceramic form, and constructed into fuel assemblies. If it is a boiling-water reactor or a pressurized-water reactor depends on the type of light water reactor.

MOX fuel differs from low-enriched uranium fuel in that the powder used to form fuel pellets is comprised of both uranium dioxide (UO2) and plutonium dioxide (PuO2). The MOX fuel will be used in light-water reactors.

Small reactors that do not produce electrical power but are used for research, testing and training are non-power reactors. Analysis reactors and reactors used to manufacture irradiated target materials may be included in non-power reactors. The configuration of the fuel varies with the kind and manufacturer of the reactor. The plate-type fuel consists of several thin sheets containing an aluminum-clad uranium mixture. Another fuel is in the form of rods and is made up of a combination of uranium and zirconium/hydride.

#### **3. Nuclear fuel in reactor**

Nuclear fuel is the fuel which is used to support a nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. These fuels are fissile, and the radioactive metals uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the most common nuclear fuels. A cycle known as the nuclear fuel cycle is made up of all the steps involved in collecting, refining, and using this fuel. Many nuclear fuels produce heavy elements of fissile actinide that are able to undergo and sustain nuclear fission. Uranium-233, uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the three most applicable fissile isotopes. As a slow-moving neutron strikes the unstable nuclei of these atoms, they split, forming two daughter nuclei and two or three more neutrons. Then these neutrons go on to split more nuclei. This produces a self-sustaining chain reaction that is regulated or uncontrolled by a nuclear bomb in a nuclear reactor.

#### **4. Back end of the fuel cycle**

For a period of five years or so, the fuel is first placed in a storage pool, the time to let the most active fission products decrease or vanish. After those five years, a decision as to whether or not to reprocess is made. If not, so as it is the fuel must be stockpiled.

Research is currently underway on the feasibility of the final disposal of spent fuel deep underground; decisions on such disposals are yet to be made. Meanwhile the

waste accumulated above ground is accumulating around the power plants. If a reprocessing decision is taken, the spent fuel is transported to a reprocessing plant where it is deposited in a nearby pool for a few more years. Reprocessing requires separating what can be recycled from what can be labeled as actual waste - uranium and plutonium. Usually, 95% of the fuel consists of plutonium, which also contains about 1% of the fissile isotope 235, more than natural uranium. The spent fuel also contains an additional 1% of plutonium, of which 70% of the isotopes are fissile and can generate electricity. It is possible to re-enrich this uranium and recycle the plutonium to join the fresh fuel composition to power other reactors.

Fission products and small actinides make up the remaining 4 percent of the spent fuel. They account for about 98% of their gamma and beta radioactivity. These are the real products of waste. This waste is highly radioactive, but it is conditioned by embedding it in glasses or ceramics that provide fewer long- term environmental risks than the disposal without reprocessing of spent fuel 'in-state.' The final disposition of these vitrified waste is yet to be determined, but their stockpiling in interim storage facilities is less of a concern as their mass is much smaller than the spent fuel.

Over a number of years, the IAEA has developed a comprehensive set of safety series documentation, which addresses, in a structured manner, many of the various nuclear fuel cycle safety needs identified by Member States. Since 1996 the IAEA Safety Standards series of documents has been subject to a process of planned change from its original structure of Safety Fundamentals, Safety Standards, Safety Guides and Safety Practices, to a new structure with a single Safety Fundamentals document supported by Safety Requirements and Safety Guides. The existing IAEA documents cover the safety of nuclear installations (predominantly, but not exclusively, nuclear power plants), radioactive waste management, radiation protection and transport safety [3].

#### **5. Nuclear Power Station at production of energy**

In the 1950s, the first commercial nuclear power plants began operation. Out of about 440 power plants, nuclear energy now generates about 10 percent of the world's electricity. Nuclear power is the world's second largest low-carbon power source (29 percent of the total in 2017). One of condition to be as source of renewable energy. Over 50 countries utilize nuclear energy in about 220 research reactors. In addition to research, these reactors are used for the production of medical and industrial isotopes, as well as for training. In 2018, 12 countries generated at least one quarter of their electricity from nuclear power. About three-quarters of France's energy comes from nuclear power, more than half from Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine, and one-third or more from Belgium, Sweden, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Finland and the Czech Republic.

Normally, South Korea gets more than 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, while about one-fifth of its electricity comes from nuclear power in the USA, UK, Spain, Romania and Russia. For more than one-quarter of its energy, Japan is used to rely on nuclear power and is expected to return to somewhere near that amount.

With a total net capacity of 1.6 GWe, Mexico has two operable nuclear reactors. In 2019, 4.5% of the country's electricity was generated from nuclear power. With a total net capacity of 13.6 GWe, Canada has 19 operable nuclear reactors. In 2019, 15 percent of the electricity generated by nuclear power in the world.

With a total net capacity of 96.8 GWe, the USA has 95 operable nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provided 20% of the nation's electricity in 2019. With a total net capacity

**7**

*Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

of 1.6 GWe, Argentina has three reactors. In 2019, the nation produced 6% of its nuclear

With a total net capacity of 2.8 GWe, Finland has four operable nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provided 35% of the country's electricity in 2019. A fifth-1720 MWe reactor. France has 56 nuclear reactors which are operational, with a total net capacity of 61,4 GWe. Nuclear power provided 71% of the country's electricity in 2019. Germany, with a total net capacity of 8,0 GWe, continues to run six nuclear power

In 2019, 12.5% of the electricity in the country was produced by nuclear power.

Japan has 33 nuclear reactors that are operational, with a total net capacity of 31,7 GWe. Just nine reactors were brought back online at the start of 2020, with a further 17 in the process of restarting the approval process following the Fukushima accident in 2011. In the past, 33% of the country's electricity came from nuclear

There are three main types of fossil fuels consider as nonrenewable energy sources: Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. They are nonrenewable energy sources because they exist in finite quantities. On the other hand, renewable energy means that they can naturally replenish themselves over time. Six main sources of renewable energy:

The researches with the nuclear energy as renewable energy source due to the

**Low-Carbon Emission:** This is the main argument for nuclear energy being renewable. Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or emit greenhouse gases [5]. **It Is Replenishable:** It takes more time than with the other sources, but in the

**Fissile Material:** Uranium supplies existing now can supply nuclear power only

While the against for the nuclear energy is consider the renewable source, due to: **Finite Uranium Deposit:** Uranium deposit found on Earth is finite. Thus this

• Radioactive waste can be extremely toxic, causing burns and increasing the

Example the nuclear disasters that took place over the Chernobyl, Fukushima. So, is nuclear energy renewable? There is no clear answer for that now. There are

With a total net capacity of 45.5 GWe, China has 47 operable nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provided 5% of the country's electricity in 2019. India has 22 nuclear reactors which are operational, with a total net capacity of 6.2 GWe. In 2019, 3% of

In 2019, 3% of the nation's electricity was generated by nuclear power. There are seven operable nuclear reactors in Belgium, with a total net capacity of 5.9 GWe. In

power. There are two reactors in Brazil, with a combined 1.9 GWe net capacity.

2019, 48% of the electricity generated by nuclear power in the world.

the nation's electricity was generated by nuclear power.

**6. Is a nuclear energy renewable or nonrenewable source?**

resources one day will disappear, in addition to the following items:

• Nuclear power reactors give away harmful nuclear waste.

Rain, Wind, Sunlight, Tides, Waves and Geothermal heat.

power; in 2019, the figure was just 8% [4].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95826*

reactors.

following items:

end, they will appear again.

for approximately 1000 years.

risk for cancers, blood diseases

• Storage of nuclear waste is very expensive.

pertinent arguments on both sides of the debate [6, 7].

#### *Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95826*

of 1.6 GWe, Argentina has three reactors. In 2019, the nation produced 6% of its nuclear power. There are two reactors in Brazil, with a combined 1.9 GWe net capacity.

In 2019, 3% of the nation's electricity was generated by nuclear power. There are seven operable nuclear reactors in Belgium, with a total net capacity of 5.9 GWe. In 2019, 48% of the electricity generated by nuclear power in the world.

With a total net capacity of 2.8 GWe, Finland has four operable nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provided 35% of the country's electricity in 2019. A fifth-1720 MWe reactor. France has 56 nuclear reactors which are operational, with a total net capacity of 61,4 GWe. Nuclear power provided 71% of the country's electricity in 2019. Germany, with a total net capacity of 8,0 GWe, continues to run six nuclear power reactors.

In 2019, 12.5% of the electricity in the country was produced by nuclear power. With a total net capacity of 45.5 GWe, China has 47 operable nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provided 5% of the country's electricity in 2019. India has 22 nuclear reactors which are operational, with a total net capacity of 6.2 GWe. In 2019, 3% of the nation's electricity was generated by nuclear power.

Japan has 33 nuclear reactors that are operational, with a total net capacity of 31,7 GWe. Just nine reactors were brought back online at the start of 2020, with a further 17 in the process of restarting the approval process following the Fukushima accident in 2011. In the past, 33% of the country's electricity came from nuclear power; in 2019, the figure was just 8% [4].

#### **6. Is a nuclear energy renewable or nonrenewable source?**

There are three main types of fossil fuels consider as nonrenewable energy sources: Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. They are nonrenewable energy sources because they exist in finite quantities. On the other hand, renewable energy means that they can naturally replenish themselves over time. Six main sources of renewable energy: Rain, Wind, Sunlight, Tides, Waves and Geothermal heat.

The researches with the nuclear energy as renewable energy source due to the following items:

**Low-Carbon Emission:** This is the main argument for nuclear energy being renewable. Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or emit greenhouse gases [5].

**It Is Replenishable:** It takes more time than with the other sources, but in the end, they will appear again.

**Fissile Material:** Uranium supplies existing now can supply nuclear power only for approximately 1000 years.

While the against for the nuclear energy is consider the renewable source, due to:

**Finite Uranium Deposit:** Uranium deposit found on Earth is finite. Thus this resources one day will disappear, in addition to the following items:


Example the nuclear disasters that took place over the Chernobyl, Fukushima. So, is nuclear energy renewable? There is no clear answer for that now. There are pertinent arguments on both sides of the debate [6, 7].

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

smaller than the spent fuel.

and transport safety [3].

waste accumulated above ground is accumulating around the power plants. If a reprocessing decision is taken, the spent fuel is transported to a reprocessing plant where it is deposited in a nearby pool for a few more years. Reprocessing requires separating what can be recycled from what can be labeled as actual waste - uranium and plutonium. Usually, 95% of the fuel consists of plutonium, which also contains about 1% of the fissile isotope 235, more than natural uranium. The spent fuel also contains an additional 1% of plutonium, of which 70% of the isotopes are fissile and can generate electricity. It is possible to re-enrich this uranium and recycle the

Fission products and small actinides make up the remaining 4 percent of the spent fuel. They account for about 98% of their gamma and beta radioactivity. These are the real products of waste. This waste is highly radioactive, but it is conditioned by embedding it in glasses or ceramics that provide fewer long- term environmental risks than the disposal without reprocessing of spent fuel 'in-state.' The final disposition of these vitrified waste is yet to be determined, but their stockpiling in interim storage facilities is less of a concern as their mass is much

Over a number of years, the IAEA has developed a comprehensive set of safety

In the 1950s, the first commercial nuclear power plants began operation. Out of about 440 power plants, nuclear energy now generates about 10 percent of the world's electricity. Nuclear power is the world's second largest low-carbon power source (29 percent of the total in 2017). One of condition to be as source of renewable energy. Over 50 countries utilize nuclear energy in about 220 research reactors. In addition to research, these reactors are used for the production of medical and industrial isotopes, as well as for training. In 2018, 12 countries generated at least one quarter of their electricity from nuclear power. About three-quarters of France's energy comes from nuclear power, more than half from Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine, and one-third or more from Belgium, Sweden, Slovenia, Bulgaria,

Normally, South Korea gets more than 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, while about one-fifth of its electricity comes from nuclear power in the USA, UK, Spain, Romania and Russia. For more than one-quarter of its energy, Japan is used to rely on nuclear power and is expected to return to somewhere near that amount. With a total net capacity of 1.6 GWe, Mexico has two operable nuclear reactors. In 2019, 4.5% of the country's electricity was generated from nuclear power. With a total net capacity of 13.6 GWe, Canada has 19 operable nuclear reactors. In 2019,

With a total net capacity of 96.8 GWe, the USA has 95 operable nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provided 20% of the nation's electricity in 2019. With a total net capacity

15 percent of the electricity generated by nuclear power in the world.

series documentation, which addresses, in a structured manner, many of the various nuclear fuel cycle safety needs identified by Member States. Since 1996 the IAEA Safety Standards series of documents has been subject to a process of planned change from its original structure of Safety Fundamentals, Safety Standards, Safety Guides and Safety Practices, to a new structure with a single Safety Fundamentals document supported by Safety Requirements and Safety Guides. The existing IAEA documents cover the safety of nuclear installations (predominantly, but not exclusively, nuclear power plants), radioactive waste management, radiation protection

**5. Nuclear Power Station at production of energy**

Switzerland, Finland and the Czech Republic.

plutonium to join the fresh fuel composition to power other reactors.

**6**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

#### **Author details**

Nasser S. Awwad Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia

\*Address all correspondence to: nsawwad20@yahoo.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**9**

*Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95826*

[1] Uranium mining in Africa: past, present and future, Conference:

[2] "World Uranium Mining

September 2020.

**References**

8-12 May 2000.

21 May 2009.

51, 75 (1983).

International conference on the nuclear stations of Africa At: Johannesburg, South Africa, November 2015.

Production"*.* London: World Nuclear Association. May 2020*.* Retrieved 2

[3] IAEA-TECDOC-1221 Safety of and regulations for nuclear fuel cycle facilities Report of a Technical Committee meeting held in Vienna,

[4] OECD International Energy Agency,

Renewable Energy," Wall Street Journal,

World Energy Outlook 2020.

[5] Johnson K. "Is Nuclear Power

[6] Cohen B.L. "Breeder Reactors: A Renewable Energy Source," Am. J. Phys.

Renewable," New York Times, 3 Aug 09.

[7] Kanter J. "Is Nuclear Power

*Introductory Chapter: From the Cradle to the Grave for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95826*

#### **References**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**8**

**Author details**

Nasser S. Awwad

Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: nsawwad20@yahoo.com

provided the original work is properly cited.

[1] Uranium mining in Africa: past, present and future, Conference: International conference on the nuclear stations of Africa At: Johannesburg, South Africa, November 2015.

[2] "World Uranium Mining Production"*.* London: World Nuclear Association. May 2020*.* Retrieved 2 September 2020.

[3] IAEA-TECDOC-1221 Safety of and regulations for nuclear fuel cycle facilities Report of a Technical Committee meeting held in Vienna, 8-12 May 2000.

[4] OECD International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2020.

[5] Johnson K. "Is Nuclear Power Renewable Energy," Wall Street Journal, 21 May 2009.

[6] Cohen B.L. "Breeder Reactors: A Renewable Energy Source," Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983).

[7] Kanter J. "Is Nuclear Power Renewable," New York Times, 3 Aug 09.

**11**

**Chapter 2**

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

demand in 2018 was 10.3% [6].

stations by 2030 [7].

Power Plant

Nuclear Power Plant or Solar

*Mostafa Esmaeili Shayan and Farzaneh Ghasemzadeh*

learning-by-doing in the nuclear sector is not good.

Both solar energy and nuclear energy face significant economic challenges. Sustainable energy costs have traditionally been greater than any of those associated with the growth of fossil fuel power generation, although the costs of renewable energy technologies (especially photovoltaic) have dropped. Furthermore, capital costs remain a big challenge in the nuclear generation. In many nations, the cost of building small nuclear power plants is quite large due to time, technology, and environmental and safety challenges for consumers. Such problems might not be as big for state-owned corporations or controlled industries for which utilities have quick access to cheap resources, and this partially explains why the interest for nuclear reactors in Asia is far greater than in the United States or Europe. Learning could help decrease costs for both types of technologies, but the track record for

**Keywords:** solar energy, nuclear energy, renewable, power plants, technology

The sun is a nuclear fusion reactor that contains gravity. It produces unimaginable quantities of energy. Solar energy is a very perfect source of power. It can be captured passively by solar panels or other collectors. When the collectors have been produced, there will be no carbon emissions or waste products [1]. There are no moving parts to hurt wildlife. There is no dependence on foreign entities. The energy is produced and delivered for free by the sun [2]. The uranium division begins progressing with the absorption of the smooth-moving neutron from the non-strong U-235 isotope. The obtained U-236 is split into Ba-139 and Kr-94 as well as three unfastened neutrons. The mass deficiency of approximately 20% of atomic mass units has also been converted into 210 MeV energy units [3, 4]. There were 447 nuclear fission power stations in service globally, 55 in construction and 111 in the design processes [5]. In the United States in 2018, 19.3% of the electricity supply was produced by 97 nuclear power plants. This amounts from zero percent to the other countries, for example, in New Zealand, and 71.7% in the European Union; the total global energy

With 11 new reactors under development, China has the most quickly expanding nuclear power program. Pakistan aims to construct three to four nuclear power

Several countries had nuclear installations in the past, but they still do not have nuclear plants in operation. Italy closed all the nuclear power stations between them by 1990, and, as a consequence of the referendums established by the Italians in 1987,

#### **Chapter 2**

## Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant

*Mostafa Esmaeili Shayan and Farzaneh Ghasemzadeh*

#### **Abstract**

Both solar energy and nuclear energy face significant economic challenges. Sustainable energy costs have traditionally been greater than any of those associated with the growth of fossil fuel power generation, although the costs of renewable energy technologies (especially photovoltaic) have dropped. Furthermore, capital costs remain a big challenge in the nuclear generation. In many nations, the cost of building small nuclear power plants is quite large due to time, technology, and environmental and safety challenges for consumers. Such problems might not be as big for state-owned corporations or controlled industries for which utilities have quick access to cheap resources, and this partially explains why the interest for nuclear reactors in Asia is far greater than in the United States or Europe. Learning could help decrease costs for both types of technologies, but the track record for learning-by-doing in the nuclear sector is not good.

**Keywords:** solar energy, nuclear energy, renewable, power plants, technology

#### **1. Introduction**

The sun is a nuclear fusion reactor that contains gravity. It produces unimaginable quantities of energy. Solar energy is a very perfect source of power. It can be captured passively by solar panels or other collectors. When the collectors have been produced, there will be no carbon emissions or waste products [1]. There are no moving parts to hurt wildlife. There is no dependence on foreign entities. The energy is produced and delivered for free by the sun [2]. The uranium division begins progressing with the absorption of the smooth-moving neutron from the non-strong U-235 isotope. The obtained U-236 is split into Ba-139 and Kr-94 as well as three unfastened neutrons. The mass deficiency of approximately 20% of atomic mass units has also been converted into 210 MeV energy units [3, 4]. There were 447 nuclear fission power stations in service globally, 55 in construction and 111 in the design processes [5].

In the United States in 2018, 19.3% of the electricity supply was produced by 97 nuclear power plants. This amounts from zero percent to the other countries, for example, in New Zealand, and 71.7% in the European Union; the total global energy demand in 2018 was 10.3% [6].

With 11 new reactors under development, China has the most quickly expanding nuclear power program. Pakistan aims to construct three to four nuclear power stations by 2030 [7].

Several countries had nuclear installations in the past, but they still do not have nuclear plants in operation. Italy closed all the nuclear power stations between them by 1990, and, as a consequence of the referendums established by the Italians in 1987, nuclear power already has stopped [8]. A number of nations currently run nuclear power stations but are considering the process of nuclear technology. These countries are Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and Spain [3]. Also according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), solar power increased by 39% in the United States from 2014 to 2017 [4]. Starting at 10 GW and ending at 27, this growth trend for the field is very encouraging. In addition, carbon dioxide emissions have decreased by a few percent, the lowest since 1991 [5]. If it continues down this path, more study is likely to be carried out as a result of the growth in the market for efficient, cheap solar energy, in order to attempt to develop even more carbon-free or low-carbon fuels such as wind and nuclear power [6]. There are two big issues relating to nuclear plants: waste disposal and potential failure. Nuclear power plants produce dangerous wastes; for example, a 1-GW nuclear power plant can produce 300 kg of nuclear waste, with a half-life of almost 24,000 years, and cause environmental issues. The current methods for disposing of these kinds of waste are inadequate. The complete reprocessing of all radioactive waste and the chemical transformation of long fission products will be an ideal option. However, trends in this area have not progressed extensively [7]. The first and most critical problem is its disparity; the amount of solar energy that can be harvested depends widely on the time, location, season, weather, and several other factors. In order to improve this topic, engineers are exploring the development of new storage methods for large quantities of energy generated [5]. One of these storage techniques suitable for mountainous areas is pumped hydroelectric storage (PHES) that also uses excess energy generated during nonpeak hours of the day to pump water from a reservoir in a much high elevation. PHES is just one of the several potential storage methods used by many people, and it is so essential because it provides a clean, efficient use of solar energy when normally none is generated by replacing it with hydroelectricity [8]. Because of the good use and storage of solar energy, it becomes more difficult to determine whether to use solar energy or some other form of renewable energy for power companies and individuals. Despite the obvious cost of installing solar power, this is a higher investment opposed to the use of fossil fuels due to much lower maintenance and occasional overproduction of energy.

Solar energy is a key player in the sustainable power plan. In sunny places, many residents built panels on their roofs to support air-conditioning, heating, and other household needs and the panels were set up by themselves. Study in the collection and storage of solar energy should be a major effort worldwide [9]. But in less sunny areas, there are a few expensive homes which run 100% on solar power, using large battery banks to power them through the nights.

Solar energy has the capacity to boost everything we need; however our ability to turn the energy of the sun into electrical power and also to store energy is simply not fully developed. Energy storage in particular has proven to be challenging, as solar panels have a very irregular energy intake because it depends on season, climate conditions, time of day, and so on. The inability to use all solar power harvested efficiently is an issue that is likely to force even more development in the field to come soon after it has been resolved. The industry is full of possible innovations that have yet to be made and which can be recognized if time is taken to develop the innovative technology. Therefore, when looking at potential ways of storing the energy produced, PHES may not be the most cost-effective, but it is proven to be safe and can be added to some existing infrastructure at the same time as analysis seeks to make it more efficient.

#### **2. Solar energy**

Solar technology, i.e., renewable wind, offers a reliable and stable supply of solar energy during the year. As our natural resources are likely to decline in the years

**13**

**Figure 1.**

*Solar thermal system [10].*

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

photosynthesis.

disperse air.

**2.1 Advantages of solar energy**

simple model of a solar thermal system.

handling radioactive materials.

to come, it is necessary for the entire world to shift toward sustainable sources. Solar power is a reactive electromagnetic sunlight energy that can be used for a wide range of still-evolving applications, such as solar heating, photovoltaics, solar electricity, solar thermal processing, artificial molten, salt power plants, and

Solar energy is a significant source of green energy, and its techniques are generally characterized as either passive solar energy or active solar energy based on whether solar energy is absorbed and transmitted or transformed into solar energy. Strong solar technologies involve the use of photovoltaic devices, concentrating solar power and solar water heaters to harvest electricity. Passive methods include the alignment of a system or building to the sun, the use of products with desirable light properties or thermal mass, and the construction of spaces that automatically

The biggest advantage of solar energy is that it can be quickly installed by both home and business consumers, because it does not involve any major construction, such as in the case of wind and geothermal power stations. Solar energy not only benefits individual owners but also benefits the environment. **Figure 1** shows a

1.**No pollution**: Solar energy is a safe, nonpolluting, efficient, and green energy resource. This does not pollute the environment by producing poisonous pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide. Solar energy does not need power and thus prevents the problems of shipping power or

2.**Long-lasting solar cells**: Solar cells have two special features: first the lack of drive systems and second the minimal maintenance requirements. Then they

3.**Renewable source**: Solar energy is a sustainable energy source that can continue to generate power as long as there is light. While solar energy cannot be generated during the night and rainy days, it can be used again and again throughout the day. Solar energy from the sun is a steady and continuous source of electricity which can be used to harvest strength in remote areas.

have already got a longer life and they're more noticeable.

#### *Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

battery banks to power them through the nights.

Solar energy has the capacity to boost everything we need; however our ability to turn the energy of the sun into electrical power and also to store energy is simply not fully developed. Energy storage in particular has proven to be challenging, as solar panels have a very irregular energy intake because it depends on season, climate conditions, time of day, and so on. The inability to use all solar power harvested efficiently is an issue that is likely to force even more development in the field to come soon after it has been resolved. The industry is full of possible innovations that have yet to be made and which can be recognized if time is taken to develop the innovative technology. Therefore, when looking at potential ways of storing the energy produced, PHES may not be the most cost-effective, but it is proven to be safe and can be added to some existing infrastructure at the same time as analysis seeks to make it more efficient.

Solar technology, i.e., renewable wind, offers a reliable and stable supply of solar energy during the year. As our natural resources are likely to decline in the years

nuclear power already has stopped [8]. A number of nations currently run nuclear power stations but are considering the process of nuclear technology. These countries are Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and Spain [3]. Also according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), solar power increased by 39% in the United States from 2014 to 2017 [4]. Starting at 10 GW and ending at 27, this growth trend for the field is very encouraging. In addition, carbon dioxide emissions have decreased by a few percent, the lowest since 1991 [5]. If it continues down this path, more study is likely to be carried out as a result of the growth in the market for efficient, cheap solar energy, in order to attempt to develop even more carbon-free or low-carbon fuels such as wind and nuclear power [6]. There are two big issues relating to nuclear plants: waste disposal and potential failure. Nuclear power plants produce dangerous wastes; for example, a 1-GW nuclear power plant can produce 300 kg of nuclear waste, with a half-life of almost 24,000 years, and cause environmental issues. The current methods for disposing of these kinds of waste are inadequate. The complete reprocessing of all radioactive waste and the chemical transformation of long fission products will be an ideal option. However, trends in this area have not progressed extensively [7]. The first and most critical problem is its disparity; the amount of solar energy that can be harvested depends widely on the time, location, season, weather, and several other factors. In order to improve this topic, engineers are exploring the development of new storage methods for large quantities of energy generated [5]. One of these storage techniques suitable for mountainous areas is pumped hydroelectric storage (PHES) that also uses excess energy generated during nonpeak hours of the day to pump water from a reservoir in a much high elevation. PHES is just one of the several potential storage methods used by many people, and it is so essential because it provides a clean, efficient use of solar energy when normally none is generated by replacing it with hydroelectricity [8]. Because of the good use and storage of solar energy, it becomes more difficult to determine whether to use solar energy or some other form of renewable energy for power companies and individuals. Despite the obvious cost of installing solar power, this is a higher investment opposed to the use of fossil fuels due to much lower maintenance and occasional overproduction of energy. Solar energy is a key player in the sustainable power plan. In sunny places, many residents built panels on their roofs to support air-conditioning, heating, and other household needs and the panels were set up by themselves. Study in the collection and storage of solar energy should be a major effort worldwide [9]. But in less sunny areas, there are a few expensive homes which run 100% on solar power, using large

**12**

**2. Solar energy**

to come, it is necessary for the entire world to shift toward sustainable sources. Solar power is a reactive electromagnetic sunlight energy that can be used for a wide range of still-evolving applications, such as solar heating, photovoltaics, solar electricity, solar thermal processing, artificial molten, salt power plants, and photosynthesis.

Solar energy is a significant source of green energy, and its techniques are generally characterized as either passive solar energy or active solar energy based on whether solar energy is absorbed and transmitted or transformed into solar energy. Strong solar technologies involve the use of photovoltaic devices, concentrating solar power and solar water heaters to harvest electricity. Passive methods include the alignment of a system or building to the sun, the use of products with desirable light properties or thermal mass, and the construction of spaces that automatically disperse air.

#### **2.1 Advantages of solar energy**

The biggest advantage of solar energy is that it can be quickly installed by both home and business consumers, because it does not involve any major construction, such as in the case of wind and geothermal power stations. Solar energy not only benefits individual owners but also benefits the environment. **Figure 1** shows a simple model of a solar thermal system.


**Figure 1.** *Solar thermal system [10].*


The technology of solar cells is developing, and as our nonrenewable supply decreases, it is necessary for the world to transition into renewable energy sources. There are, though, a range of issues that prohibit solar energy from being used more widely. Solar energy drawbacks are likely to be resolved as technology advances, and their use grows as people continue to realize the benefits of solar energy.

#### **2.2 Disadvantages of solar energy**

Solar energy can either be thermal or photovoltaic. The photovoltaic type is one of the most stable types of converting radiant energy into electrical energy. It really is suitable in many countries with adequate sunlight, such as Iran, and countries close to the equator, in terms of the quantity and availability of this technology. The energy source does not relate to someone and requires permission to use it. This feature has given rise to solar energy becoming special among renewable energy sources. Solar energy from ancient times is used by people using a magnifying glass to light the fire. Throughout this way, the sunlight was concentrated on dark wooden surfaces, and the fire became ignited. Also, solar photovoltaic (SPV) cells convert solar energy directly into DC electricity. This power source may be used to power solar clocks, calculators, or signals. These are also found in areas which are not linked to the power grid. **Figure 2** shows a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant. Solar heat energy (SHE) can be used to heat water or air, which requires ventilation of the room inside the house.

Solar energy can be broadly categorized as active or passive solar energy depending on how they are captured and utilized. For active solar power, specific solar heating equipment is used to transform solar power into thermal energy, but there is no specialized equipment for passive solar power [11]. Active solar requires the use of mechanical devices such as photovoltaic panels, solar trap fans, and solar thermal collectors or reservoirs. Passive solar solutions transform solar energy into thermal energy without the usage of active mechanical devices. It is primarily a method to use curtains, doors, plants, positioning of buildings, and other basic methods to catch or block the sun for usage. Passive solar heating is a smart way to save electricity and optimize its consumption. An example of passive solar heating is what happens to your car on a hot summer day.

#### **2.3 Environmental impacts of solar power systems**

Although solar energy is recognized to be one of the cleanest and most renewable sources of energy today, it also has several environmental impacts.

**15**

warming.

**Figure 2.**

**2.4 Solar energy's potential**

*Concentrated solar power (CSP) plant [10].*

deployment for years [13].

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

Solar energy uses photovoltaic panels to generate solar electricity. Nevertheless, the processing of photovoltaic cells to generate the energy includes silicon and to produce other waste products. Inappropriate handling of such materials can result in hazardous exposure to humans and the environment [12]. Installing solar power plants will entail a significant portion of land that may have an effect on established habitats. Solar energy does not pollute the air when converted to electricity by solar panels. It is found in abundance and does not help in global

Solar power is now expected to play a greater position in the future due to recent developments that will result in lower costs and better efficiency. In fact, the solar photovoltaic industry is preparing to supply half of all future US power generation by 2025. More and more architects understand the importance of active and passive solar power and know how to successfully integrate it into building designs. Solar hot water systems can compete economically with conventional systems in some areas. Shell has predicted that by 2040, 50% of the world's electricity supply would come from sustainable resources. Over recent years, the rate of generating photovoltaic cells has declined by 3% per year while policy subsidies have increased. While certain other information about solar energy is meaningless, this renders solar energy an even more efficient source of electricity. Solar energy is projected to be used by millions of households across the world in the next several years, as seen by developments in the United States and Japan. Aggressive financial incentives in Germany and Japan and China have made these countries global leaders in solar

A renewable resource that can be used to generate power is solar. The sun itself is a source of radiant, daylight, and other energy sources on Earth. Steam engines are a perfect illustration of radiant energy, by having sunrays magnified by mirrors guided to the turbine to heat water and produce steam, which in effect drives the

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

installations are required.

**2.2 Disadvantages of solar energy**

ventilation of the room inside the house.

is what happens to your car on a hot summer day.

**2.3 Environmental impacts of solar power systems**

4.**Low maintenance**: Generally, solar cells do not need upkeep and operate for a long time. More solar panels can be installed from time to time if desired. While solar panels have an initial expense, there are no recurrent costs. The initial expense, which is paid once, may be recovered in the long run. Apart from this, solar panels do not create any noise and do not emit an unpleasant scent.

5.**Easy installation**: There is no need to install equipment such as cables, power supply, pipes, etc.; solar panels make solar tracking simpler. Unlike wind and geothermal energy harvesting systems that need land drilling equipment, solar panels do not need them and can be easily mounted on rooftops to insure that no additional infrastructure is needed, so residential home users can easily use this technology to supply electricity. In addition, they can be installed in a dispersed manner, meaning that no large-scale

The technology of solar cells is developing, and as our nonrenewable supply decreases, it is necessary for the world to transition into renewable energy sources. There are, though, a range of issues that prohibit solar energy from being used more widely. Solar energy drawbacks are likely to be resolved as technology advances, and their use grows as people continue to realize the benefits of solar energy.

Solar energy can either be thermal or photovoltaic. The photovoltaic type is one of the most stable types of converting radiant energy into electrical energy. It really is suitable in many countries with adequate sunlight, such as Iran, and countries close to the equator, in terms of the quantity and availability of this technology. The energy source does not relate to someone and requires permission to use it. This feature has given rise to solar energy becoming special among renewable energy sources. Solar energy from ancient times is used by people using a magnifying glass to light the fire. Throughout this way, the sunlight was concentrated on dark wooden surfaces, and the fire became ignited. Also, solar photovoltaic (SPV) cells convert solar energy directly into DC electricity. This power source may be used to power solar clocks, calculators, or signals. These are also found in areas which are not linked to the power grid. **Figure 2** shows a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant. Solar heat energy (SHE) can be used to heat water or air, which requires

Solar energy can be broadly categorized as active or passive solar energy depend-

ing on how they are captured and utilized. For active solar power, specific solar heating equipment is used to transform solar power into thermal energy, but there is no specialized equipment for passive solar power [11]. Active solar requires the use of mechanical devices such as photovoltaic panels, solar trap fans, and solar thermal collectors or reservoirs. Passive solar solutions transform solar energy into thermal energy without the usage of active mechanical devices. It is primarily a method to use curtains, doors, plants, positioning of buildings, and other basic methods to catch or block the sun for usage. Passive solar heating is a smart way to save electricity and optimize its consumption. An example of passive solar heating

Although solar energy is recognized to be one of the cleanest and most renewable sources of energy today, it also has several environmental impacts.

**14**

**Figure 2.** *Concentrated solar power (CSP) plant [10].*

Solar energy uses photovoltaic panels to generate solar electricity. Nevertheless, the processing of photovoltaic cells to generate the energy includes silicon and to produce other waste products. Inappropriate handling of such materials can result in hazardous exposure to humans and the environment [12]. Installing solar power plants will entail a significant portion of land that may have an effect on established habitats. Solar energy does not pollute the air when converted to electricity by solar panels. It is found in abundance and does not help in global warming.

#### **2.4 Solar energy's potential**

Solar power is now expected to play a greater position in the future due to recent developments that will result in lower costs and better efficiency. In fact, the solar photovoltaic industry is preparing to supply half of all future US power generation by 2025. More and more architects understand the importance of active and passive solar power and know how to successfully integrate it into building designs. Solar hot water systems can compete economically with conventional systems in some areas. Shell has predicted that by 2040, 50% of the world's electricity supply would come from sustainable resources. Over recent years, the rate of generating photovoltaic cells has declined by 3% per year while policy subsidies have increased. While certain other information about solar energy is meaningless, this renders solar energy an even more efficient source of electricity. Solar energy is projected to be used by millions of households across the world in the next several years, as seen by developments in the United States and Japan. Aggressive financial incentives in Germany and Japan and China have made these countries global leaders in solar deployment for years [13].

A renewable resource that can be used to generate power is solar. The sun itself is a source of radiant, daylight, and other energy sources on Earth. Steam engines are a perfect illustration of radiant energy, by having sunrays magnified by mirrors guided to the turbine to heat water and produce steam, which in effect drives the

turbine and causes steam to escape, and this pushes the piston. Calculators often work on solar power by storing light rays and transmitting energy to enable the calculator to function even though no light is present. Trevor Smith1 notes that "solar rays can be used to fuel or cool houses, supply hot water and produce steam for turbines generating energy. Sunlight can be converted directly into energy by photovoltaics, a fast-growing branch of solar technology." This allows people to generate energy from renewable resources. James Bow notes that in 1977, 1 W of solar power costs \$76.67. In 2014, the cost dropped to around \$0.60. This suggests that modern solar power projects are far more economical, which means that renewable energy has come a long way and will continue to grow. One of the greatest declines in solar power is that, first, the sun is still growing and dropping, ensuring that the energy provided and processed is confined to the location of solar panels. Second, the batteries used to store electricity generated by the sun are expensive and produce a large amount of emissions. Third, in order to allow the best of the light, wide quantities of solar panels or mirrors need to be installed, which could be a function of restricted resources. The energy generated by the solar is a type of renewable energy used by today's society.

#### **3. Nuclear energy**

Nuclear power is the energy of an atom. Atoms are very tiny objects which make up a single body in the universe. There is enormous power in the links that connect the nucleus unchanged. Power is generated when the ties are disbanded. Nuclear energy may be used to create electricity, but it must be produced first. Nuclear power can be produced by both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. In nuclear fission, atoms are separated into smaller atoms, which generate steam. Nuclear power stations have been used for electricity generation. Another method of generating nuclear energy is through nuclear fusion. The combination of atoms to each other and the creation of heavier atoms are established. When atoms are coupled, a lot of energy is released. These reactions occur together in the sun to generate thermal energy to radiation. Numerous studies are currently underway, although this technique has not yet been commercialized and it is not known if it is possible to generate electricity from this method. Uranium (U-235) is the most commonly produced nonrenewable material for nuclear fission. Plants use a particular type of U-235, as the atoms are readily isolated. During nuclear fission, the neutron hits and splits the uranium atom, releasing a large sum of energy in the form of heat and radiation. More neutrons are also released as the uranium atom is separated. Some neutrons proceed to hit other uranium atoms, and the process begins over and over again. It's a chain reaction, too. Although uranium is around 100 times more common than silver, U-235 is extremely scarce. Most of the US uranium is extracted in the western United States, but only 17 percent of the plutonium reactors is generated abroad. Uranium provided to US reactors in 2013 arrived from a number of nations, including Russia, Australia, and several other African countries. **Figure 3** displays the map of uranium mines in the world [14].

There are 648 nuclear power stations in the world. There are 61 nuclear power stations and 99 research facilities in the United States. Nuclear plants are found in 30 states, and 46 are situated east of the Mississippi River. After 1990, nuclear power has supplied around one-fifth of US electricity annually. Nuclear power provides as much electricity as all the fuel consumed in California, New York, and Texas together. Nuclear energy plants supply more than 20% of US energy. **Figure 4** shows the map of nuclear power stations in the world.

**17**

burn unit.

**Figure 3.**

**Figure 4.**

*Map of uranium mines in the world.*

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

**3.1 Nuclear power is the result of nuclear fission**

*Map of nuclear power stations in the world.*

equals 1.60 × 10−27J, the radioactive energy unit.

Uranium fission occurs with the capture of the slow neutron by the non-isotope U-235. The resultant U-236 generates three free neutrons and separates into Kr-94 and Ba-139. The mass defect of roughly 0.2 atomic mass units is converted into 210 MeV energy units. *U* = 1.66 × 10−27 gk for the atomic mass unit, and eV

Many power stations, like nuclear power plants, use heat to produce electricity. Power plants rely on steam from hot water to drive massive turbines, which then produce electricity. Because of using fossil fuels to produce electricity, nuclear power plants employ nuclear fission energy. The fission occurs in the nuclear power plant reactors. Nuclear reactors are devices which contain and regulate nuclear chain reactions while releasing heat at a regulated rate. The nucleus of the device, which includes nuclear fuel, is at the top of the plant. The uranium fuel is constructed of ceramic pellets. Each ceramic pellet contains at about the same amount of energy as 150 gallons of gasoline. Such energy-rich pellets are packaged in 12 foot wire fuel pipes. The array of fuel rods, sometimes hundreds of them, is called a

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

energy used by today's society.

the map of uranium mines in the world [14].

shows the map of nuclear power stations in the world.

**3. Nuclear energy**

turbine and causes steam to escape, and this pushes the piston. Calculators often work on solar power by storing light rays and transmitting energy to enable the

"solar rays can be used to fuel or cool houses, supply hot water and produce steam for turbines generating energy. Sunlight can be converted directly into energy by photovoltaics, a fast-growing branch of solar technology." This allows people to generate energy from renewable resources. James Bow notes that in 1977, 1 W of solar power costs \$76.67. In 2014, the cost dropped to around \$0.60. This suggests that modern solar power projects are far more economical, which means that renewable energy has come a long way and will continue to grow. One of the greatest declines in solar power is that, first, the sun is still growing and dropping, ensuring that the energy provided and processed is confined to the location of solar panels. Second, the batteries used to store electricity generated by the sun are expensive and produce a large amount of emissions. Third, in order to allow the best of the light, wide quantities of solar panels or mirrors need to be installed, which could be a function of restricted resources. The energy generated by the solar is a type of renewable

Nuclear power is the energy of an atom. Atoms are very tiny objects which make up a single body in the universe. There is enormous power in the links that connect the nucleus unchanged. Power is generated when the ties are disbanded. Nuclear energy may be used to create electricity, but it must be produced first. Nuclear power can be produced by both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. In nuclear fission, atoms are separated into smaller atoms, which generate steam. Nuclear power stations have been used for electricity generation. Another method of generating nuclear energy is through nuclear fusion. The combination of atoms to each other and the creation of heavier atoms are established. When atoms are coupled, a lot of energy is released. These reactions occur together in the sun to generate thermal energy to radiation. Numerous studies are currently underway, although this technique has not yet been commercialized and it is not known if it is possible to generate electricity from this method. Uranium (U-235) is the most commonly produced nonrenewable material for nuclear fission. Plants use a particular type of U-235, as the atoms are readily isolated. During nuclear fission, the neutron hits and splits the uranium atom, releasing a large sum of energy in the form of heat and radiation. More neutrons are also released as the uranium atom is separated. Some neutrons proceed to hit other uranium atoms, and the process begins over and over again. It's a chain reaction, too. Although uranium is around 100 times more common than silver, U-235 is extremely scarce. Most of the US uranium is extracted in the western United States, but only 17 percent of the plutonium reactors is generated abroad. Uranium provided to US reactors in 2013 arrived from a number of nations, including Russia, Australia, and several other African countries. **Figure 3** displays

There are 648 nuclear power stations in the world. There are 61 nuclear power stations and 99 research facilities in the United States. Nuclear plants are found in 30 states, and 46 are situated east of the Mississippi River. After 1990, nuclear power has supplied around one-fifth of US electricity annually. Nuclear power provides as much electricity as all the fuel consumed in California, New York, and Texas together. Nuclear energy plants supply more than 20% of US energy. **Figure 4**

notes that

calculator to function even though no light is present. Trevor Smith1

**16**

**Figure 3.** *Map of uranium mines in the world.*

**Figure 4.** *Map of nuclear power stations in the world.*

#### **3.1 Nuclear power is the result of nuclear fission**

Uranium fission occurs with the capture of the slow neutron by the non-isotope U-235. The resultant U-236 generates three free neutrons and separates into Kr-94 and Ba-139. The mass defect of roughly 0.2 atomic mass units is converted into 210 MeV energy units. *U* = 1.66 × 10−27 gk for the atomic mass unit, and eV equals 1.60 × 10−27J, the radioactive energy unit.

Many power stations, like nuclear power plants, use heat to produce electricity. Power plants rely on steam from hot water to drive massive turbines, which then produce electricity. Because of using fossil fuels to produce electricity, nuclear power plants employ nuclear fission energy. The fission occurs in the nuclear power plant reactors. Nuclear reactors are devices which contain and regulate nuclear chain reactions while releasing heat at a regulated rate. The nucleus of the device, which includes nuclear fuel, is at the top of the plant. The uranium fuel is constructed of ceramic pellets. Each ceramic pellet contains at about the same amount of energy as 150 gallons of gasoline. Such energy-rich pellets are packaged in 12 foot wire fuel pipes. The array of fuel rods, sometimes hundreds of them, is called a burn unit.

The heat generated during the fission at the center of the reactor is used to boil water to steam, which turns the turbine blades. The energy can be generated while the rotor blades rotate. Afterwards, the steam is pumped back into the atmosphere in a different power plant system called a cooling tower. The product will be collected.

Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide emissions during operation compared to fossil fuel-fired power stations. Methods for the extraction and refining of uranium oxide and the processing of nuclear fuel, however, require a large amount of power. Nuclear power stations supply large quantities of metal and concrete which also require a substantial amount of energy to be produced. When fossil fuels are used for the production and refining of uranium oxide or for the installation of a nuclear power plant, the emissions generated by the burning of these fuels may be associated with the energy emitted by nuclear power plants. The main environmental concerns linked to nuclear power include the processing of toxic waste such as uranium mine tailings, expended reactor fuel, and other nuclear waste. These materials can stay radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Animals are subject to strict laws governing their care, delivery, preservation, and treatment for the protection of human health and the environment. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the operations of nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste is classified as small and large rates of emissions. Radioactivity of these materials may range from just over natural background rates, including in mill tailings, to much higher amounts, such as spent nuclear fuel or sections of a nuclear plant. Radioactivity of toxic waste is decreased as time passes by a process called nuclear decay. The period of time taken to reduce the radioactivity of hazardous material to half of the original level is considered the contaminated half-life of the substance. Short-lived radioactive waste is also treated permanently prior to disposal in order to mitigate the future danger of contamination to staff handling and carrying waste, as well as to the amount of pollution at production sites.

Nuclear waste stored in tanks is very dangerous. These vessels are kept under special conditions in the water with safety shields until their half-life exceeds the standard of security. Various countries have specific laws on the processing of nuclear waste. The United States has set out strict rules on the storage and management of radioactive fuel and waste. Some nuclear power plant fuels can be stored in dry storage tanks. In this way, nuclear fuel tanks are stored in separate rooms with cement or steel air-conditioning devices.

Typically, once a nuclear reactor stops, it shifts. It involves the controlled extraction of the reactor and other devices that have been damaged from operation and the elimination of radioactivity to a degree that permits other uses of the site. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has stringent regulations regulating the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, including the washing up of radioactively polluted reactor processes and equipment, including the disposal of atomic waste.

Uncontrolled nuclear reactions in a nuclear reactor will potentially contribute to extensive pollution of air and water. The probability of this occurring at nuclear power plants in the United States is known to be very low due to the complex and robust safeguards and multiple protection measures in effect at nuclear power plants, the preparation and expertise of reactor workers, the monitoring and service operations, and the legislative standards and oversight of the United States. A wide-field near nuclear power plant is controlled and supervised by trained security forces. Some of the reactors have containment vessels that are designed to withstand extreme weather events and earthquakes.

**19**

purposes only.

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

**3.2 Advantages of nuclear energy**

spread throughout uranium.

enriched uranium-235.

**3.3 Advantages of nuclear energy**

fuel or harvesting uranium oil.

According to the laws of physics, energy is neither produced nor destroyed, but it can be converted from one kind to another, including the transfer of electrical energy into mechanical energy of electric motors. From the structure of the atom, much of its mass exists in a part called the core, and this mass contains protons with a positive electric field and neutrons with an ineffective or neutral electric field. Studies and experiments have indicated that neutrons weigh a lot more than protons. Nuclear energy is the energy generated by a nuclear explosion or a nuclear fusion under the specific conditions of the nucleus of an atom. A lot of energy can be released as nuclear fission or nuclear fusion happens. Once the heavy element, uranium, was exploded with neutrons, it was found that something special occurred instead of causing radioactivity as other materials. This cycle has been called fission. When nuclear fusion or nuclear fission happens as a product of neutron impacts, not only are two lighter elements produced and many radiations released, but more neutrons are generated, as can be seen in **Figure 5**. It is therefore obvious that concurrently released neutrons can start a chain reaction by acting on released light atoms, increasing the intensity of the reaction. This reaction may

A lot of energy would be produced through the fission of the uranium-235 nucleus (see **Figure 5**). To consider the amount of this energy, it's enough to remember that this amount is around 60,000,000 times greater than when a carbon atom burns. During a nuclear fission reaction, the atom decomposes and releases a lot of kinetic energy into the environment. Obviously, kinetic energy is directly related to the generation of heat. The first reactors to generate a functional volume of electricity were installed in the Calder Hall in England. Atomic bombs may be produced of mere fissionable material. Of the two bombs dropped on Japan to end the World War 2, one contained plutonium and the other very highly

1.*Lower greenhouse gas emissions*: As recorded in 1998, the production of greenhouse gasses has been projected to have declined by almost half owing to the success of the usage of nuclear power. Nuclear processing has by far the lowest environmental impacts, because it does not release greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, a fuel that is largely responsible for the greenhouse effect. Thanks to its application, there is no harmful impact on water, soil, or other environment, although certain greenhouse gasses are emitted when shipping

2.*Powerful and efficient*: The other major benefit of having nuclear technology is that it is more effective and efficient than other potential forms of electricity. Technology advances have rendered it more competitive than most. That is one of the reasons that many nations are spending extensively in nuclear power. At

3.*Reliable*: In comparison to conventional energy sources such as solar and

wind, which involve sun or wind to generate electricity, nuclear energy may be generated from nuclear power plants even under extreme weather conditions. They also can provide 24/7 power and need to be shut down for maintenance

least, a tiny part of the world's energy is flowing into it.

#### **3.2 Advantages of nuclear energy**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

collected.

production sites.

posal of atomic waste.

cement or steel air-conditioning devices.

withstand extreme weather events and earthquakes.

The heat generated during the fission at the center of the reactor is used to boil water to steam, which turns the turbine blades. The energy can be generated while the rotor blades rotate. Afterwards, the steam is pumped back into the atmosphere in a different power plant system called a cooling tower. The product will be

Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide emissions during operation compared to fossil fuel-fired power stations. Methods for the extraction and refining of uranium oxide and the processing of nuclear fuel, however, require a large amount of power. Nuclear power stations supply large quantities of metal and concrete which also require a substantial amount of energy to be produced. When fossil fuels are used for the production and refining of uranium oxide or for the installation of a nuclear power plant, the emissions generated by the burning of these fuels may be associated with the energy emitted by nuclear power plants. The main environmental concerns linked to nuclear power include the processing of toxic waste such as uranium mine tailings, expended reactor fuel, and other nuclear waste. These materials can stay radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Animals are subject to strict laws governing their care, delivery, preservation, and treatment for the protection of human health and the environment. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the operations of nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste is classified as small and large rates of emissions. Radioactivity of these materials may range from just over natural background rates, including in mill tailings, to much higher amounts, such as spent nuclear fuel or sections of a nuclear plant. Radioactivity of toxic waste is decreased as time passes by a process called nuclear decay. The period of time taken to reduce the radioactivity of hazardous material to half of the original level is considered the contaminated half-life of the substance. Short-lived radioactive waste is also treated permanently prior to disposal in order to mitigate the future danger of contamination to staff handling and carrying waste, as well as to the amount of pollution at

Nuclear waste stored in tanks is very dangerous. These vessels are kept under special conditions in the water with safety shields until their half-life exceeds the standard of security. Various countries have specific laws on the processing of nuclear waste. The United States has set out strict rules on the storage and management of radioactive fuel and waste. Some nuclear power plant fuels can be stored in dry storage tanks. In this way, nuclear fuel tanks are stored in separate rooms with

Typically, once a nuclear reactor stops, it shifts. It involves the controlled extraction of the reactor and other devices that have been damaged from operation and the elimination of radioactivity to a degree that permits other uses of the site. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has stringent regulations regulating the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, including the washing up of radioactively polluted reactor processes and equipment, including the dis-

Uncontrolled nuclear reactions in a nuclear reactor will potentially contribute to extensive pollution of air and water. The probability of this occurring at nuclear power plants in the United States is known to be very low due to the complex and robust safeguards and multiple protection measures in effect at nuclear power plants, the preparation and expertise of reactor workers, the monitoring and service operations, and the legislative standards and oversight of the United States. A wide-field near nuclear power plant is controlled and supervised by trained security forces. Some of the reactors have containment vessels that are designed to

**18**

According to the laws of physics, energy is neither produced nor destroyed, but it can be converted from one kind to another, including the transfer of electrical energy into mechanical energy of electric motors. From the structure of the atom, much of its mass exists in a part called the core, and this mass contains protons with a positive electric field and neutrons with an ineffective or neutral electric field. Studies and experiments have indicated that neutrons weigh a lot more than protons. Nuclear energy is the energy generated by a nuclear explosion or a nuclear fusion under the specific conditions of the nucleus of an atom. A lot of energy can be released as nuclear fission or nuclear fusion happens. Once the heavy element, uranium, was exploded with neutrons, it was found that something special occurred instead of causing radioactivity as other materials. This cycle has been called fission. When nuclear fusion or nuclear fission happens as a product of neutron impacts, not only are two lighter elements produced and many radiations released, but more neutrons are generated, as can be seen in **Figure 5**. It is therefore obvious that concurrently released neutrons can start a chain reaction by acting on released light atoms, increasing the intensity of the reaction. This reaction may spread throughout uranium.

A lot of energy would be produced through the fission of the uranium-235 nucleus (see **Figure 5**). To consider the amount of this energy, it's enough to remember that this amount is around 60,000,000 times greater than when a carbon atom burns. During a nuclear fission reaction, the atom decomposes and releases a lot of kinetic energy into the environment. Obviously, kinetic energy is directly related to the generation of heat. The first reactors to generate a functional volume of electricity were installed in the Calder Hall in England. Atomic bombs may be produced of mere fissionable material. Of the two bombs dropped on Japan to end the World War 2, one contained plutonium and the other very highly enriched uranium-235.

#### **3.3 Advantages of nuclear energy**


**Figure 5.** *Uranium-235 radioactive fission.*


There is no question that nuclear technology has found its way into the future; however, like most electricity forms, it still suffers from certain significant disadvantages.

#### **3.4 Disadvantages of nuclear energy**

1.*Radioactive waste*: Waste generated by nuclear reactors must be disposed of in a secure location because it is highly dangerous and may leak radiation if it is not properly treated. Any kind of pollution releases radiation from tens to hundreds of years. Collection of toxic waste has become a significant obstacle in the growth of nuclear programs. Nuclear waste includes radioisotopes with

**21**

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

residing nearby.

world.

lengthy half-lives. This ensures that the radioisotopes exist in one shape or another in the atmosphere. Such aggressive radicals pollute the sand or the sea. It's classified as mixed waste. Mixed waste induces toxic chemical reactions, which create harmful problems. Radioactive waste is normally covered beneath sand and is classified as proof, although the material is going to be

2.*Nuclear accidents*: While too many modern measures have been placed in motion to insure that such a tragedy will not arise again as Chernobyl or, more recently, Fukushima, the danger associated with it remains fairly high. Just slight radiation exposure may have disastrous consequences. There are some symptoms that induce fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea, and exhaustion. Many operating in nuclear power plants that live in these areas are at risk of

3.*Nuclear radiation*: There are power reactors that are called breeders. They're making plutonium. It is an element that is not present in nature but is a fissionable product. It is a by-product of a chain reaction which, once added in nature, is very toxic. It is mainly used for the development of nuclear

4.*High cost*: Another realistic drawback to utilizing nuclear technology is that a lot of money is required to put up a nuclear power plant. This is not often feasible for developed nations to support such an expensive renewable energy source. Nuclear power plants usually take 5–10 years to build, because there are a variety of legal formalities to be done, so they are often protested by those

5.*National risk*: Nuclear technology has provided humanity the ability to create more bombs than to generate anything that will render the planet a safer community to stay in. They ought to be more cautious and diligent when utilizing nuclear technology to prevent any big incidents of any sort. They are soft sites for terrorists and extremist groups. Health is a big concern here. A little weak protection will prove to be deadly and barbaric to humans and even to this

6.*Impact on aquatic life*: Eutrophication is another consequence of nuclear waste. There are several workshops and conferences that take place every year to find a common answer. As of yet, there is no result. Studies claim the nuclear waste requires nearly 10,000 years to return to its original state.

7.*Big impacts on health and medicine*: We still remember the horror that

8.*Availability of fuel*: Given the abundance of fossil fuels in most countries around the planet, uranium deposits are so hazardous that they are only available in a few countries, as the map of accessibility to uranium resources depicts in **Figure 3**. Permissions from a variety of foreign bodies are needed before anyone would even conceive about constructing a nuclear power plant.

treatments for that? The response is no.

unfolded during the World War 2, after the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Still after five decades of mishap, children were born with defects. This is partly due to the nuclear influence. Will we have some

used to produce atomic weapons or chemical bombs.

obtaining the toxic radiation on what they are consuming.

weapons. Very definitely, it's considered a dirty gun.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

conditions.

*Uranium-235 radioactive fission.*

**Figure 5.**

countries as well.

**3.4 Disadvantages of nuclear energy**

disadvantages.

4.*Cheap electricity*: Similar to traditional energy sources such as sun and wind, which require solar or wind power production, nuclear electricity may be produced from nuclear power plants even under severe weather

5.*Low fuel cost*: The key factor behind the low cost of fuel is that it takes a

6.*Supply*: There are other economic benefits of building up nuclear power stations and utilizing renewable electricity instead of traditional oil. It's one of the nation's biggest producers of energy. The greatest part of it is that this electricity has a constant availability. This is readily accessible, has large supplies, and is projected to last about 100 years, whereas electricity, oil,

7.*Easy transportation*: Electrical power generation requires much fewer raw contents. This implies that just 28 g of U-235 produces as much energy as 100 metric tons of coal. As it is needed in limited amounts, the transport of fuel is much simpler than that of fossil fuels. Optimal use of natural resources in energy production is a rather careful approach for every country. This not only strengthens the socioeconomic climate but provides a precedent for other

There is no question that nuclear technology has found its way into the future;

1.*Radioactive waste*: Waste generated by nuclear reactors must be disposed of in a secure location because it is highly dangerous and may leak radiation if it is not properly treated. Any kind of pollution releases radiation from tens to hundreds of years. Collection of toxic waste has become a significant obstacle in the growth of nuclear programs. Nuclear waste includes radioisotopes with

however, like most electricity forms, it still suffers from certain significant

and natural gas are small and are likely to disappear early.

limited amount of uranium to generate oil. When a nuclear reaction happens, it produces millions of times more hydrogen than normal energy sources.

**20**

lengthy half-lives. This ensures that the radioisotopes exist in one shape or another in the atmosphere. Such aggressive radicals pollute the sand or the sea. It's classified as mixed waste. Mixed waste induces toxic chemical reactions, which create harmful problems. Radioactive waste is normally covered beneath sand and is classified as proof, although the material is going to be used to produce atomic weapons or chemical bombs.


9.*Nonrenewable*: Nuclear technology requires plutonium, which is a limited resource that has not been produced in many nations. Most countries depend on other countries for the continuous supply of this gasoline. It's extracted and shipped like any other tool. Supply should be secure as long as demand is accessible. Once all the nuclear reactors have been dismantled, they would not be of much benefit. Due to its dangerous effects and restricted availability, it cannot be identified as renewable.

Various nuclear energy projects are ongoing in both developed and emerging countries, such as India. Not to note, the benefits of nuclear technology are well ahead of the drawbacks of fossil fuels. That's why energy generation technology has been the most preferred technology.

#### **4. Conclusions**

By concatenating uranium extraction from seawater, manifestly safe breeding reactor technology, and borehole disposal of nuclear waste, a viable, planetary-scale nuclear energy network can be developed, i.e., another that is capable of supplying such an enormous quantity of energy at such a high degree of intensity that it can be relied on to sustain much—and possibly much—of the human society in virtually much possible scenarios of significant concern. For that way, nuclear technology is qualitatively distinct from other consumable technology options and must be assumed to be completely renewable in other respects. Throughout the immediate future, it is possible that the opportunity to build and demonstrate manifest protection for the latest generation of modern nuclear plants would be necessary to establish the basis for a prosperous future focused on nuclear technology.

Human civilization needs fossil energy because of its current facilities and its basic needs. This need and the high use of fossil fuels in the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors have contributed to major rapid climate change. The challenge of global warming is one of the massive problems confronting governments around the world. Earth heating may change the ecosystems and create many longterm problems. Greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are rising water levels in the oceans. Some droughts are in risk of extinction. These concerns are so significant that crisis analysts have described the modern century as a fuel for sustainability and protection of the planet.

Many countries have adopted official targets for the share of renewable energy in their grids, and others are considering them (**Figure 6**). Now that the governments of the world have a common issue, human beings will take collaborative action. Global organizations have been set up to manage this issue. The usage of renewable resources is one of the proposals created by global organizations to manage this crisis. Those alternative sources of energy include renewable energy and nuclear power. Countries must make decisions based on the long-term future to determine and improve the energy structures of the nation and calculate the various costs. At present, taking into account the cost factor, it is not possible to fulfill all energy demand from clean energy sources. But the good news is that this is possible with the cooperation of nuclear and renewable energy. Several countries have, in their perspective, made the energy demand share dependent on renewable and nuclear energy. Specific planners engage in predicting future projects and their costs. **Figure 6** constitutes some of the OECD-calculated costs. The key competition today is between solar and nuclear energy. The cost of using solar energy over active nuclear energy continues to be substantial and significant. They are also ideal for all levels of challenging electricity. Costs for involvement in the energy

**23**

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

*Costs of combining nuclear technology with renewable energy.*

energy supply on a scale [14].

**Figure 6.**

power is typically gas fired, which is less costly there.)

market are assessed by the OECD per year. In **Figure 6**, the authors made the data comprehensible. Six countries pioneered the use of nuclear energy and renewable energy sources. **Figure 6** shows that the United States has been able to keep the cost

If the nuclear energy program is properly and sustainable way installed and the cost limit is eliminated, supplying electricity from nuclear energy resources will be reasonable and resolve these critical challenges for decades to come. It therefore seems necessary that we, as founders and citizens of a global society, begin to lay down the technological and structural foundations that will enable a viable, fullscale nuclear energy network to become operational in the immediate future while at the same time doing the same with regard to other realistic types of renewable

One of the problems for nuclear power plants, as discussed earlier, is the difficulty of supplying 100 percent of electricity through these power plants. If we allow the setup and control share to be 10 percent and that share is given by solar energy, then the problem will be solved. However, if their share is assumed to be relatively large, then the cost of the system will increase, presenting another challenge. These are rather heroic calculations given the paucity of sources, but they do indicate plausible effects. Increasing the penetration of renewable has small effect on backup costs since they tend to increase in direct proportion to the renewable capacity (MW) that needs backup and the increased capacity adds proportional MWh. However, balancing costs increase because more spinning reserve capacity is required at lower load factors. Since research is lowering the price of the solar-connected grid, the next problem is network costs. When renewable sources of energy such as photovoltaic systems manage to meet a district or village's full demands, then there will be a crisis. Power plants continue to use energy for spending networks indefinitely, and it is not clear how cost-effective these networks are. In this case, it would be illogical to establish and to develop a network [15]. (As a side note, backup and balancing are less costly in the United States because the dispatchable

Another inference can be drawn from these results: the marginal cost of the system will generally increase with increased penetration of renewables, essentially due to their intermittentness and tendency toward remote locations. In addition to marginal system cost per MWH, there is another critical metric: marginal cost per

of participating energy resources low, with the highest level of technology.

#### **Figure 6.**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

cannot be identified as renewable.

been the most preferred technology.

and protection of the planet.

**4. Conclusions**

9.*Nonrenewable*: Nuclear technology requires plutonium, which is a limited resource that has not been produced in many nations. Most countries depend on other countries for the continuous supply of this gasoline. It's extracted and shipped like any other tool. Supply should be secure as long as demand is accessible. Once all the nuclear reactors have been dismantled, they would not be of much benefit. Due to its dangerous effects and restricted availability, it

Various nuclear energy projects are ongoing in both developed and emerging countries, such as India. Not to note, the benefits of nuclear technology are well ahead of the drawbacks of fossil fuels. That's why energy generation technology has

By concatenating uranium extraction from seawater, manifestly safe breeding reactor technology, and borehole disposal of nuclear waste, a viable, planetary-scale nuclear energy network can be developed, i.e., another that is capable of supplying such an enormous quantity of energy at such a high degree of intensity that it can be relied on to sustain much—and possibly much—of the human society in virtually much possible scenarios of significant concern. For that way, nuclear technology is qualitatively distinct from other consumable technology options and must be assumed to be completely renewable in other respects. Throughout the immediate future, it is possible that the opportunity to build and demonstrate manifest protection for the latest generation of modern nuclear plants would be necessary to

establish the basis for a prosperous future focused on nuclear technology.

Human civilization needs fossil energy because of its current facilities and its basic needs. This need and the high use of fossil fuels in the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors have contributed to major rapid climate change. The challenge of global warming is one of the massive problems confronting governments around the world. Earth heating may change the ecosystems and create many longterm problems. Greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are rising water levels in the oceans. Some droughts are in risk of extinction. These concerns are so significant that crisis analysts have described the modern century as a fuel for sustainability

Many countries have adopted official targets for the share of renewable energy in their grids, and others are considering them (**Figure 6**). Now that the governments of the world have a common issue, human beings will take collaborative action. Global organizations have been set up to manage this issue. The usage of renewable resources is one of the proposals created by global organizations to manage this crisis. Those alternative sources of energy include renewable energy and nuclear power. Countries must make decisions based on the long-term future to determine and improve the energy structures of the nation and calculate the various costs. At present, taking into account the cost factor, it is not possible to fulfill all energy demand from clean energy sources. But the good news is that this is possible with the cooperation of nuclear and renewable energy. Several countries have, in their perspective, made the energy demand share dependent on renewable and nuclear energy. Specific planners engage in predicting future projects and their costs. **Figure 6** constitutes some of the OECD-calculated costs. The key competition today is between solar and nuclear energy. The cost of using solar energy over active nuclear energy continues to be substantial and significant. They are also ideal for all levels of challenging electricity. Costs for involvement in the energy

**22**

*Costs of combining nuclear technology with renewable energy.*

market are assessed by the OECD per year. In **Figure 6**, the authors made the data comprehensible. Six countries pioneered the use of nuclear energy and renewable energy sources. **Figure 6** shows that the United States has been able to keep the cost of participating energy resources low, with the highest level of technology.

If the nuclear energy program is properly and sustainable way installed and the cost limit is eliminated, supplying electricity from nuclear energy resources will be reasonable and resolve these critical challenges for decades to come. It therefore seems necessary that we, as founders and citizens of a global society, begin to lay down the technological and structural foundations that will enable a viable, fullscale nuclear energy network to become operational in the immediate future while at the same time doing the same with regard to other realistic types of renewable energy supply on a scale [14].

One of the problems for nuclear power plants, as discussed earlier, is the difficulty of supplying 100 percent of electricity through these power plants. If we allow the setup and control share to be 10 percent and that share is given by solar energy, then the problem will be solved. However, if their share is assumed to be relatively large, then the cost of the system will increase, presenting another challenge.

These are rather heroic calculations given the paucity of sources, but they do indicate plausible effects. Increasing the penetration of renewable has small effect on backup costs since they tend to increase in direct proportion to the renewable capacity (MW) that needs backup and the increased capacity adds proportional MWh. However, balancing costs increase because more spinning reserve capacity is required at lower load factors. Since research is lowering the price of the solar-connected grid, the next problem is network costs. When renewable sources of energy such as photovoltaic systems manage to meet a district or village's full demands, then there will be a crisis. Power plants continue to use energy for spending networks indefinitely, and it is not clear how cost-effective these networks are. In this case, it would be illogical to establish and to develop a network [15]. (As a side note, backup and balancing are less costly in the United States because the dispatchable power is typically gas fired, which is less costly there.)

Another inference can be drawn from these results: the marginal cost of the system will generally increase with increased penetration of renewables, essentially due to their intermittentness and tendency toward remote locations. In addition to marginal system cost per MWH, there is another critical metric: marginal cost per

ton of CO2 emissions reduced by increased deployment of renewables. After all, that is a primary policy driver for renewable targets.

The United States has set ambitious targets for renewable penetration: 33% by 2020, not including hydro. Further consideration (up to 51% in the legislative proposal) has been given for the future. The 33% level is thought to result in an implicit cost of \$50/ton carbon reduction. Some energy companies have carried out important research on target utilization of 50% nuclear power and 50% solar energy. This research includes researching this topic in both scientific and economic terms. It was represented in **Figures 6** and **7**. If the target is 50%, the lowest cost is \$403, and the lowest cost is \$340 for 40%. When energy storage technologies, such as nighttime high-altitude storage, are planned for solar energy, then the scenario will be more complex. This scenario shows that the size of large power plants can be utilized with good systems. For plants larger than 5000 mW, \$636 per ton saves economic power [16]. **Figure 7** shows the costs involved with combining nuclear and renewable energy.

The next challenge is solar and nuclear energy competition. Although solar power plants will fall in price each day, in most countries the price of renewable energy is still higher than in nuclear power plants. The cost of integrating and merging systems is also important. Currently, the value of building nuclear power plants in many countries is very high due to the companies concerns of moment, technology, sanctions, security, and safety hazards. It is possible to eliminate those limitations in solar energy. The same problems may not be as wide for state-owned companies or regulated markets that services have ready access to cheap capital, and that partly explains why Asia's enthusiasm for nuclear reactors is far stronger than it is in the United States or Europe. Researchers are working to reduce the costs of technology, but the nuclear industry is not strong, although that could improve small modular reactors if they can be developed in the process. According to **Figure 7**, given the right facilities, the United States has to pay the lowest costs for involvement in nuclear and solar energy. South Korea also has the right structure to take this scenario forward.

**Figure 7.**

*The cost of getting a combination of nuclear energy and renewable energy paid by different countries.*

**25**

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

emissions equate to 66 gCO2e/kWh.

Nuclear and renewable energies qualify for subsidies that vary from country to region. Some subsidies are direct, such as feed-in imports for renewable energy

1.Comparisons of nuclear and renewables costs should account for systems

The final guidelines would help to better compensate for nuclear and renewable

2.In order to estimate nuclear costs, more attention should be given to the choice sensitivity of discount rate, as the discount rate drastically impacts the relative

3.Findings on problems that may restrict the use of a nuclear reactor in "load-

Priority should be given to new reactor technologies like SMRs and regulatory reform in order to reduce nuclear capital costs. The final results of this section will include the following explanation. These explanations will help in choosing and policy making in the field of solar and nuclear energy. The outlook for these results is for the next 10 years. This outlook may change by changing conditions and creat-

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive, and not carbon-free and encourages nuclear proliferation. The nuclear power plant itself does not release toxic gasses such as CO2. Nevertheless, nuclear power leads to climate change; for any phase in the fuel chain used to produce electricity at the end of the day, a lot more energy is required, such as uranium extraction and uranium enrichment, which are highly energy-intensive methods. The life study of the whole fuel chain clearly indicates the relation to nuclear electricity to climate change. In a pioneering study [17], more than 100 studies have identified important but simple results, analyzing the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to greenhouse gasses produced at nuclear power plants around the world. The results show that if the life expectancy of a plant is equal to the greenhouse gas emission equivalent to that energy production, then the emission equals 1.4 g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour (gCO2e/kWh) up to 288 gCO2e/kWh is variable. The mean greenhouse gas

As a first conclusion, the extensive use of solar energy services for at least the next decade may be out of the issue. Photovoltaic and solar thermal systems, especially large thermal, wind, and biomass systems, will enter and expand energy networks quickly. Other renewable energy systems will be developed and priced to reduce consumption, such as biogas (wastewater, landfills, and livestock), geothermal, and possibly wave and tidal energy. This growth will be high in the next 10 years, but market with conventional systems will still take time [18]. Nuclear power is also an option when contemplating a transition from the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and thus nuclear power should be debated together with renewables. Nuclear time for building, risk, waste, and, in particular, costs must be tracked, because nuclear costs are increasing when solar energy costs are dropping. Small- and large-scale renewable energy projects and emerging storage systems are being increasingly developed by communities and nations. Also China, probably the most ambitious nation in terms of nuclear power, is introducing more wind and solar power relative to nuclear power—and not just nameplate capacity—which is actually produced. Last year alone, China installed 20.72 GW of wind (4.8 GW of production while its power factor is just 23%) and 28 GW of renewable energy

following" phase are important and should be given high priority.

ing critical conditions such as dramatically lower fossil fuel prices.

sources, while others shift the risks from utilities to customers.

integration and differences in capacity factors.

economic attractiveness of a nuclear project.

costs and could help to reduce the costs of both:

#### *Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

that is a primary policy driver for renewable targets.

right structure to take this scenario forward.

and renewable energy.

ton of CO2 emissions reduced by increased deployment of renewables. After all,

The United States has set ambitious targets for renewable penetration: 33% by 2020, not including hydro. Further consideration (up to 51% in the legislative proposal) has been given for the future. The 33% level is thought to result in an implicit cost of \$50/ton carbon reduction. Some energy companies have carried out important research on target utilization of 50% nuclear power and 50% solar energy. This research includes researching this topic in both scientific and economic terms. It was represented in **Figures 6** and **7**. If the target is 50%, the lowest cost is \$403, and the lowest cost is \$340 for 40%. When energy storage technologies, such as nighttime high-altitude storage, are planned for solar energy, then the scenario will be more complex. This scenario shows that the size of large power plants can be utilized with good systems. For plants larger than 5000 mW, \$636 per ton saves economic power [16]. **Figure 7** shows the costs involved with combining nuclear

The next challenge is solar and nuclear energy competition. Although solar power plants will fall in price each day, in most countries the price of renewable energy is still higher than in nuclear power plants. The cost of integrating and merging systems is also important. Currently, the value of building nuclear power plants in many countries is very high due to the companies concerns of moment, technology, sanctions, security, and safety hazards. It is possible to eliminate those limitations in solar energy. The same problems may not be as wide for state-owned companies or regulated markets that services have ready access to cheap capital, and that partly explains why Asia's enthusiasm for nuclear reactors is far stronger than it is in the United States or Europe. Researchers are working to reduce the costs of technology, but the nuclear industry is not strong, although that could improve small modular reactors if they can be developed in the process. According to **Figure 7**, given the right facilities, the United States has to pay the lowest costs for involvement in nuclear and solar energy. South Korea also has the

*The cost of getting a combination of nuclear energy and renewable energy paid by different countries.*

**24**

**Figure 7.**

Nuclear and renewable energies qualify for subsidies that vary from country to region. Some subsidies are direct, such as feed-in imports for renewable energy sources, while others shift the risks from utilities to customers.

The final guidelines would help to better compensate for nuclear and renewable costs and could help to reduce the costs of both:


Priority should be given to new reactor technologies like SMRs and regulatory reform in order to reduce nuclear capital costs. The final results of this section will include the following explanation. These explanations will help in choosing and policy making in the field of solar and nuclear energy. The outlook for these results is for the next 10 years. This outlook may change by changing conditions and creating critical conditions such as dramatically lower fossil fuel prices.

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive, and not carbon-free and encourages nuclear proliferation. The nuclear power plant itself does not release toxic gasses such as CO2. Nevertheless, nuclear power leads to climate change; for any phase in the fuel chain used to produce electricity at the end of the day, a lot more energy is required, such as uranium extraction and uranium enrichment, which are highly energy-intensive methods. The life study of the whole fuel chain clearly indicates the relation to nuclear electricity to climate change. In a pioneering study [17], more than 100 studies have identified important but simple results, analyzing the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to greenhouse gasses produced at nuclear power plants around the world. The results show that if the life expectancy of a plant is equal to the greenhouse gas emission equivalent to that energy production, then the emission equals 1.4 g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour (gCO2e/kWh) up to 288 gCO2e/kWh is variable. The mean greenhouse gas emissions equate to 66 gCO2e/kWh.

As a first conclusion, the extensive use of solar energy services for at least the next decade may be out of the issue. Photovoltaic and solar thermal systems, especially large thermal, wind, and biomass systems, will enter and expand energy networks quickly. Other renewable energy systems will be developed and priced to reduce consumption, such as biogas (wastewater, landfills, and livestock), geothermal, and possibly wave and tidal energy. This growth will be high in the next 10 years, but market with conventional systems will still take time [18]. Nuclear power is also an option when contemplating a transition from the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and thus nuclear power should be debated together with renewables. Nuclear time for building, risk, waste, and, in particular, costs must be tracked, because nuclear costs are increasing when solar energy costs are dropping. Small- and large-scale renewable energy projects and emerging storage systems are being increasingly developed by communities and nations. Also China, probably the most ambitious nation in terms of nuclear power, is introducing more wind and solar power relative to nuclear power—and not just nameplate capacity—which is actually produced. Last year alone, China installed 20.72 GW of wind (4.8 GW of production while its power factor is just 23%) and 28 GW of renewable energy

(10.6 GW of production), with about 90% of its solar installations coming from utilities. In the same year, more than five nuclear plants (5.7 GW output) were added to the existing wind and solar power. China is only one example of how wind and solar power can be installed quickly while producing more electricity. At the period (and if) China finishes its 28 nuclear power plants (many are still behind schedule), with an estimated potential of 34 GW, further wind and solar power would be installed around the same timeframe—again, taking into account efficiency factors [19].

For the coming 10 years, here in the United States, the five US nuclear power facilities are 2 years behind track and have a budget of billions of dollars. Once live, they will produce 5.1 GW while renewables would produce a rather modest 131 GW.

The other two factors are systems for the energy, safety and security systems. In a nuclear power plant, when things go awry, it can be really bad because of accidents, threats, or critical situations that happen. It should be noted that the smallest incident in a nuclear power plant can often incapacitate or destroy a city or a country. Is it likely? Who knows for sure? Could you foresee the next earthquake in Southern California or somewhere else in the United States or Japan or the rest of the world? What about the next wave washing down a coastline? How about the next cyber threat or the Middle East militant organization? Compare a tragedy for a nuclear power plant against a solar power plant. When you ask me why I'm against constructing new reactors, it's about economy, health and protection, and the reality that we can expand on current hydro and nuclear power facilities with all the renewables—and we can do it quicker.

#### **Author details**

Mostafa Esmaeili Shayan1 \* and Farzaneh Ghasemzadeh2


\*Address all correspondence to: mostafa.esmaeili@modares.ac.ir

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**27**

1-362

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

[1] Esmaeili Shayan M, Najafi G, Ahmad BA. Power quality in flexible photovoltaic system on curved surfaces. Journal of Energy Planning and Policy

Applications of Solar Power Systems (In Persian). 1st ed. Tehran: ACECR Publication-Amirkabir University of

[11] Aleixandre-Tudó JL, Castelló-Cogollos L, Aleixandre JL, et al. Renewable energies: Worldwide trends in research, funding and international collaboration. Renewable Energy.

[12] Kerlin TW, Upadhyaya BR. Dynamics and Control of Nuclear Reactors. Elsevier Ltd.; 2019. pp. 95-125

[13] Fundamentals of Thermal and Nuclear Power Generation. Elsevier

[14] Sanders MC, Sanders CE. Nuclear waste management strategies: An international perspective. 2019

[15] Zhong RZ, Cheng L, Wang YQ, et al. Effects of Anthelmintic Treatment

[16] Suman S. Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;**181**:166-177

[17] Lima MA, Mendes LFR, Mothé GA, et al. Renewable energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Reaching the goals of the Paris agreement in Brazil. Environmental Development.

[18] Azadbakht M, Esmaeilzadeh E, Esmaeili-Shayan M. Energy consumption during impact cutting of canola stalk as a function of moisture content and cutting height. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;**14**:147-152

[19] Review and outlook of world energy development. Non-Fossil Energy Development in China. 2019:1-36

on Ewe Feed Intake, Digestion, Milk Production and Lamb Growth. Singapore: Springer Verlag; 2017

Technology Branch; 2020

2019;**139**:268-278

Ltd.; 2020

2020;**33**:105-115

[2] Esmaeili MS, Najafi G. Energyeconomic optimization of thin layer photovoltaic on domes and cylindrical towers. International Journal of Smart

[3] Ogland-Hand JD, Bielicki JM, Wang Y, et al. The value of bulk energy storage for reducing CO2 emissions and water requirements from regional electricity systems. Energy Conversion and Management. 2019;**181**:674-685

[4] Norman C. Nuclear Safety.

Power Plants. UK: Woodhead

[6] Yu Q, Zhang T, Peng X, et al. Cryogenic energy storage and its integration with nuclear power generation for load shift. In: Storage and Hybridization of Nuclear Energy: Techno-economic Integration of

Publishing; 2020

Ltd.; 2018. pp. 249-273

Elsevier Ltd.; 2020

Butterworth Heinemann. Elsevier Ltd.;

[5] Alonso G. Desalination in Nuclear

Renewable and Nuclear Energy. Elsevier

[7] Ojovan MI, Lee WE, Kalmykov SN. An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation. Elsevier Ltd.; 2013. pp.

[8] Biberian J-P. Cold Fusion Advances in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

[9] Murray RL, Holbert KE. Nuclear Energy: An Introduction to the

[10] Esmaeili Shayan M, Najafi G, Gorjian S. Design Principles and

Concepts, Systems, and Applications of Nuclear Processes. Elsevier Ltd.; 2019

Research. 2017;**3**:105-136

Grid. 2019;**3**:84-91

1974

**References**

*Nuclear Power Plant or Solar Power Plant DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92547*

#### **References**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

(10.6 GW of production), with about 90% of its solar installations coming from utilities. In the same year, more than five nuclear plants (5.7 GW output) were added to the existing wind and solar power. China is only one example of how wind and solar power can be installed quickly while producing more electricity. At the period (and if) China finishes its 28 nuclear power plants (many are still behind schedule), with an estimated potential of 34 GW, further wind and solar power would be installed around the same timeframe—again, taking into account effi-

For the coming 10 years, here in the United States, the five US nuclear power facilities are 2 years behind track and have a budget of billions of dollars. Once live, they will produce 5.1 GW while renewables would produce a rather modest 131 GW. The other two factors are systems for the energy, safety and security systems. In a nuclear power plant, when things go awry, it can be really bad because of accidents, threats, or critical situations that happen. It should be noted that the smallest incident in a nuclear power plant can often incapacitate or destroy a city or a country. Is it likely? Who knows for sure? Could you foresee the next earthquake in Southern California or somewhere else in the United States or Japan or the rest of the world? What about the next wave washing down a coastline? How about the next cyber threat or the Middle East militant organization? Compare a tragedy for a nuclear power plant against a solar power plant. When you ask me why I'm against constructing new reactors, it's about economy, health and protection, and the reality that we can expand on current hydro and nuclear power facilities with all the

**26**

**Author details**

ciency factors [19].

Mostafa Esmaeili Shayan1

1 Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

provided the original work is properly cited.

renewables—and we can do it quicker.

2 Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

\*Address all correspondence to: mostafa.esmaeili@modares.ac.ir

\* and Farzaneh Ghasemzadeh2

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

[1] Esmaeili Shayan M, Najafi G, Ahmad BA. Power quality in flexible photovoltaic system on curved surfaces. Journal of Energy Planning and Policy Research. 2017;**3**:105-136

[2] Esmaeili MS, Najafi G. Energyeconomic optimization of thin layer photovoltaic on domes and cylindrical towers. International Journal of Smart Grid. 2019;**3**:84-91

[3] Ogland-Hand JD, Bielicki JM, Wang Y, et al. The value of bulk energy storage for reducing CO2 emissions and water requirements from regional electricity systems. Energy Conversion and Management. 2019;**181**:674-685

[4] Norman C. Nuclear Safety. Butterworth Heinemann. Elsevier Ltd.; 1974

[5] Alonso G. Desalination in Nuclear Power Plants. UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2020

[6] Yu Q, Zhang T, Peng X, et al. Cryogenic energy storage and its integration with nuclear power generation for load shift. In: Storage and Hybridization of Nuclear Energy: Techno-economic Integration of Renewable and Nuclear Energy. Elsevier Ltd.; 2018. pp. 249-273

[7] Ojovan MI, Lee WE, Kalmykov SN. An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation. Elsevier Ltd.; 2013. pp. 1-362

[8] Biberian J-P. Cold Fusion Advances in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Elsevier Ltd.; 2020

[9] Murray RL, Holbert KE. Nuclear Energy: An Introduction to the Concepts, Systems, and Applications of Nuclear Processes. Elsevier Ltd.; 2019

[10] Esmaeili Shayan M, Najafi G, Gorjian S. Design Principles and

Applications of Solar Power Systems (In Persian). 1st ed. Tehran: ACECR Publication-Amirkabir University of Technology Branch; 2020

[11] Aleixandre-Tudó JL, Castelló-Cogollos L, Aleixandre JL, et al. Renewable energies: Worldwide trends in research, funding and international collaboration. Renewable Energy. 2019;**139**:268-278

[12] Kerlin TW, Upadhyaya BR. Dynamics and Control of Nuclear Reactors. Elsevier Ltd.; 2019. pp. 95-125

[13] Fundamentals of Thermal and Nuclear Power Generation. Elsevier Ltd.; 2020

[14] Sanders MC, Sanders CE. Nuclear waste management strategies: An international perspective. 2019

[15] Zhong RZ, Cheng L, Wang YQ, et al. Effects of Anthelmintic Treatment on Ewe Feed Intake, Digestion, Milk Production and Lamb Growth. Singapore: Springer Verlag; 2017

[16] Suman S. Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;**181**:166-177

[17] Lima MA, Mendes LFR, Mothé GA, et al. Renewable energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Reaching the goals of the Paris agreement in Brazil. Environmental Development. 2020;**33**:105-115

[18] Azadbakht M, Esmaeilzadeh E, Esmaeili-Shayan M. Energy consumption during impact cutting of canola stalk as a function of moisture content and cutting height. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;**14**:147-152

[19] Review and outlook of world energy development. Non-Fossil Energy Development in China. 2019:1-36

**29**

**Chapter 3**

**Abstract**

*Akbar Abbasi*

**1. Introduction**

power reactors [2–4].

tive decay [5].

sible strategies are:

Nuclear Fuel Transmutation

Nuclear power plants to generates electric energy used nuclear fuel such as Uranium Oxide (UOX). A typical VVER−1000 reactor uses about 20–25 tons of spent fuel per year. The fuel transmutation of UOX fuel was evaluated by VISTA computer code. In this estimation the front end and back end components of fuel cycle was calculated. The front end of the cycle parameter are FF requirements, enrichment value requirements, depleted uranium amount, conversion requirements and natural uranium requirements. The back-end component is Spent Fuel

**Keywords:** nuclear power plant, nuclear fuel, front end, back end, actinide inventory

VVER −1000 (Water-Water Energetic Reactor-1000) is a type of pressurized water reactor with 1000 MW thermal power planned to generate a 330 MWe [1]. Production actinide consequently of using nuclear power reactors as electric energy source. Actinide Inventory (AI) elements cumulative in spent fuel (SF) and are a part of spent fuel that useable as MOX fuel in nuclear power reactors. Recently, some researchers have been studied the actinide inventory in spent fuel of nuclear

VISTA computer code is available for the calculation of nuclide inventories in spent fuel. The neutron transmutation (fission) of the long-lived actinide isotopes in SF with decay times on the order of millennia into fission products with decay times of a few hundred years would profoundly impact the problem of storing SF that confronts the expansion of nuclear power. For the actinides, the creation comprises of neutron catch or decay of a forerunner nuclide. Evacuation may comprise of neutron-actuated or unconstrained fission; neutron catch and radioac-

The estimation of the response rates requires nuclide fixation and cross-area information, the neutron transition level and vitality range in the fuel. As the energy spectrum in the fuel is subject to the grid structure and arrangement, such counts include rehashed iterative answers for the range and cross-section. The degree to which this is completed relies upon the precision expected of the last arrangement. After every burnup span, the combined range is utilized to get the neutron cross-segments which are accordingly utilized for the count of the nuclide response rates. The focuses to be considered in making an assessment of the acces-

(SF), Actinide Inventory (AI) and Fission Product (FP) radioisotopes.

## **Chapter 3** Nuclear Fuel Transmutation

*Akbar Abbasi*

### **Abstract**

Nuclear power plants to generates electric energy used nuclear fuel such as Uranium Oxide (UOX). A typical VVER−1000 reactor uses about 20–25 tons of spent fuel per year. The fuel transmutation of UOX fuel was evaluated by VISTA computer code. In this estimation the front end and back end components of fuel cycle was calculated. The front end of the cycle parameter are FF requirements, enrichment value requirements, depleted uranium amount, conversion requirements and natural uranium requirements. The back-end component is Spent Fuel (SF), Actinide Inventory (AI) and Fission Product (FP) radioisotopes.

**Keywords:** nuclear power plant, nuclear fuel, front end, back end, actinide inventory

#### **1. Introduction**

VVER −1000 (Water-Water Energetic Reactor-1000) is a type of pressurized water reactor with 1000 MW thermal power planned to generate a 330 MWe [1]. Production actinide consequently of using nuclear power reactors as electric energy source. Actinide Inventory (AI) elements cumulative in spent fuel (SF) and are a part of spent fuel that useable as MOX fuel in nuclear power reactors. Recently, some researchers have been studied the actinide inventory in spent fuel of nuclear power reactors [2–4].

VISTA computer code is available for the calculation of nuclide inventories in spent fuel. The neutron transmutation (fission) of the long-lived actinide isotopes in SF with decay times on the order of millennia into fission products with decay times of a few hundred years would profoundly impact the problem of storing SF that confronts the expansion of nuclear power. For the actinides, the creation comprises of neutron catch or decay of a forerunner nuclide. Evacuation may comprise of neutron-actuated or unconstrained fission; neutron catch and radioactive decay [5].

The estimation of the response rates requires nuclide fixation and cross-area information, the neutron transition level and vitality range in the fuel. As the energy spectrum in the fuel is subject to the grid structure and arrangement, such counts include rehashed iterative answers for the range and cross-section. The degree to which this is completed relies upon the precision expected of the last arrangement. After every burnup span, the combined range is utilized to get the neutron cross-segments which are accordingly utilized for the count of the nuclide response rates. The focuses to be considered in making an assessment of the accessible strategies are:


The treatment of these amounts in the few elective codes has been analyzed [6].

### **2. Nuclear fuel cycle**

Nuclear fuel cycle definition is the set of cycles to utilize nuclear materials and to restore it to conclusive state. The fuel cycle begins with the mining of unused atomic materials from nature and closures with the protected removal of utilized nuclear materials in nature. **Figure 1** shows the nuclear fuel cycle diagram by indicating main processes in a recycle mode.

The first step is mining in a nuclear fuel cycle. After this step the next step is milling prosses. The feed for mining and processing measure is U metal and the item is U3O8 concentrate, which is generally called yellowcake because of its shading and shape [7]. The third step is change term that alludes to the way toward purging the U concentrate and changing over it to the synthetic structure required for the following phase of the nuclear fuel cycle.

**31**

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation*

**Figure 2**).

**Figure 2.**

blies (see **Figure 3**).

legitimate treatment.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

*Main components of a light water reactors (LWR) [8].*

In this stage U element can be produced in three forms of metal, oxide (UO2 or UO3) and uranium hexafluoride (UF6). UF6 is the overwhelming item at this phase of the nuclear fuel cycle since it is handily changed over to gas for the advancement stage, as utilized on the planet's most regular reactor type. (LWRs) (see

The next process after conversion is enrichment step. In general, there are two industrially accessible advancement innovations: vaporous dispersion and rotator. The two strategies depend on the slight mass contrast somewhere in the range of 235U and 238U. Along these lines, the improvement is characterized as the way toward expanding the measure of 235U contained in a unit amount of uranium. The feed for this stage is regular UF6 and the item is enhanced UF6. The other yield of the cycle is the uranium which has lower 235U substance than the regular uranium. It is known as enhancement tail or exhausted uranium. Fuel fabrication is another term that the enrichment fuel was made as pellets. Fuel pellets are loaded into tubes of zircaloy or stainless steel, which are sealed at both ends. These fuel rods are spaced in fixed parallel arrays to form the reactor fuel assem-

The whole process is referred as fuel fabrication. The reactor unit itself is irradiator for nuclear fuel. It burns the fuel, produces energy and spent fuel. The feed for reactor is new fuel containing U or U/Pu, if there should arise an occurrence of blended oxide (MOX) fuel, for existing atomic fuel cycle alternatives. The item is the spent fuel comprising of recently created nuclides, for example, splitting items (I. Cs, Sr, …) minor actinides (Np, Am, Cm) and Pu just as the uranium. The greatest aspect of the spent fuel is still U (over 95% for the most reactor types). Reprocessing process is based on chemical and physical processes to separate the required material from spent nuclear fuel. The feed of this process is spent fuel and

The other unit of nuclear cycle fuel is spent fuel storage, which could be put away briefly for some time later or could be put away uncertainly. Spent fuel could be put away in pools (wet sort, briefly) or in storehouses (dry sort). Likewise, the loss from fuel manufacture and reprocessing offices are delegated HLW and requires cautious treating. HLW is put away in uncommon storerooms after

the products are reusable material and high-level wastes (HLW) [6].

**Figure 1.** *The nuclear fuel cycle diagram.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

• burnup equations numerical solution.

indicating main processes in a recycle mode.

following phase of the nuclear fuel cycle.

• neutron flux level calculation during the irradiation

The treatment of these amounts in the few elective codes has been analyzed [6].

Nuclear fuel cycle definition is the set of cycles to utilize nuclear materials and to restore it to conclusive state. The fuel cycle begins with the mining of unused atomic materials from nature and closures with the protected removal of utilized nuclear materials in nature. **Figure 1** shows the nuclear fuel cycle diagram by

The first step is mining in a nuclear fuel cycle. After this step the next step is milling prosses. The feed for mining and processing measure is U metal and the item is U3O8 concentrate, which is generally called yellowcake because of its shading and shape [7]. The third step is change term that alludes to the way toward purging the U concentrate and changing over it to the synthetic structure required for the

• data of nuclide cross-section

• energy spectrum evaluation

**2. Nuclear fuel cycle**

**30**

**Figure 1.**

*The nuclear fuel cycle diagram.*

*Main components of a light water reactors (LWR) [8].*

In this stage U element can be produced in three forms of metal, oxide (UO2 or UO3) and uranium hexafluoride (UF6). UF6 is the overwhelming item at this phase of the nuclear fuel cycle since it is handily changed over to gas for the advancement stage, as utilized on the planet's most regular reactor type. (LWRs) (see **Figure 2**).

The next process after conversion is enrichment step. In general, there are two industrially accessible advancement innovations: vaporous dispersion and rotator. The two strategies depend on the slight mass contrast somewhere in the range of 235U and 238U. Along these lines, the improvement is characterized as the way toward expanding the measure of 235U contained in a unit amount of uranium. The feed for this stage is regular UF6 and the item is enhanced UF6. The other yield of the cycle is the uranium which has lower 235U substance than the regular uranium. It is known as enhancement tail or exhausted uranium. Fuel fabrication is another term that the enrichment fuel was made as pellets. Fuel pellets are loaded into tubes of zircaloy or stainless steel, which are sealed at both ends. These fuel rods are spaced in fixed parallel arrays to form the reactor fuel assemblies (see **Figure 3**).

The whole process is referred as fuel fabrication. The reactor unit itself is irradiator for nuclear fuel. It burns the fuel, produces energy and spent fuel. The feed for reactor is new fuel containing U or U/Pu, if there should arise an occurrence of blended oxide (MOX) fuel, for existing atomic fuel cycle alternatives. The item is the spent fuel comprising of recently created nuclides, for example, splitting items (I. Cs, Sr, …) minor actinides (Np, Am, Cm) and Pu just as the uranium. The greatest aspect of the spent fuel is still U (over 95% for the most reactor types). Reprocessing process is based on chemical and physical processes to separate the required material from spent nuclear fuel. The feed of this process is spent fuel and the products are reusable material and high-level wastes (HLW) [6].

The other unit of nuclear cycle fuel is spent fuel storage, which could be put away briefly for some time later or could be put away uncertainly. Spent fuel could be put away in pools (wet sort, briefly) or in storehouses (dry sort). Likewise, the loss from fuel manufacture and reprocessing offices are delegated HLW and requires cautious treating. HLW is put away in uncommon storerooms after legitimate treatment.

#### **3. The composition of transuranic in the spent fuel of VVER reactor**

The following nuclides have been studied and the transmutation chain which is given in **Figure 4**. These radionuclides are: 235U, 236U, 238U, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu, 237Np, 241Am, 242mAm, 243Am, 242Cm and244Cm.

The actinide transmutations to each chine are calculated by [10]:

$$\frac{d\mathbf{N}\_i}{dt} = -\sum\_{i \neq j} \left[ \mathcal{J}\_{ji}^d + \sigma\_{ji}^{tr} \boldsymbol{\varphi} \right] \mathbf{N}\_i + \sum\_{j \neq i} \left[ \mathcal{J}\_{ij}^d + \sigma\_{ij}^{tr} \boldsymbol{\varphi} \right] \mathbf{N}\_j \tag{1}$$

where *Ni* is atomic content of *i* th –isotope; *<sup>d</sup>* l *ji* is decay constant, (1/s); *tr* s *ji* transmutation cross section from isotope *i* to isotope *j*, (barn) and j is average neutron flux, (n/s·cm<sup>2</sup> ).

If the neutron flux and cross sections are constant on a time interval, the equation has a simple analytical solution.

An example to solve the transmutation chain starting from 238U up to 240Pu is shown below, using Bateman's Equation.

$$^{1238}\text{U} \rightarrow ^{239}Pu \rightarrow ^{240}Pu \tag{2}$$

$$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{F}\_1...\mathbf{A}\mathbf{F}\_2...\mathbf{A}\mathbf{F}\_3\tag{3}$$

**33**

total flux)

where.

**Figure 4.**

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

3 1

*The actinide transmutation chains [6].*

( ) ( ) ( )


ss

*AF AF initial e*

. . .

*c c e*

. . .

*c c e*

<sup>24</sup> <sup>2</sup> . . .10

*t T*


s

s

*t T*


21 31

 ss

*tt tt*

*e*

*e*

0.693

 s s

.365.24.3600.10 . *decay T*

Φ = Neutron average flux (n/cm/cm/sec). (the energy range of 0 to 10 MeV

. . . .

s s

1 2 . . .10

ù ú úû

*c c T*

<sup>24</sup> 3. . .10

24

<sup>=</sup> <sup>F</sup> (7)

*t c f ex decay* =+ + + (8)

<sup>24</sup> <sup>1</sup>


(6)

*t*

s

( ) ( )

æ ö <sup>+</sup> ç ÷ - - è ø æ ö <sup>+</sup> ç ÷ - - è ø

s s

s s

ss

ss

s

T 1/2 = Half-life (years)

T = Time of irradiation (sec)

AFi = Isotope(i) atomic content in the chain σ c = Cross-section of capture (barns) σ f = Cross-section fission (barns) σ n,2n = Cross-section of (n,2n) (barns) σ ex = Cross-section of excited (barns) σ t = Cross-section totally (barns)

*tt tt*

1 2 32 12 1 2 13 23

 ss

( ) ( )

*tt tt*

 ss

1 2

sss

$$AF\_1 = AF\_1(initial\,).e(-\sigma\_{r1}.\Phi.T.10^{-24}\,)\tag{4}$$

$$AF\_2 = AF\_1(initial).\left[\left(\frac{\sigma\_{c1}}{\sigma\_{t2} - \sigma\_{t1}}\right)\mathcal{E}^{\ -\sigma\_{t1}, \Phi, T, 10^{-34}} + \left(\frac{\sigma\_{c1}}{\sigma\_{t1} - \sigma\_{t2}}\right)\mathcal{E}^{\ -\sigma\_{t2}, \Phi, \tau, 10^{-34}}\right] \tag{5}$$

#### **Figure 4.**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**3. The composition of transuranic in the spent fuel of VVER reactor**

The actinide transmutations to each chine are calculated by [10]:

l sj

transmutation cross section from isotope *i* to isotope *j*, (barn) and

242Pu, 237Np, 241Am, 242mAm, 243Am, 242Cm and244Cm.

*dt*

).

where *Ni* is atomic content of *i*

tion has a simple analytical solution.

2 1

shown below, using Bateman's Equation.

neutron flux, (n/s·cm<sup>2</sup>

**Figure 3.**

*The fuel fabrication [9].*

The following nuclides have been studied and the transmutation chain which is given in **Figure 4**. These radionuclides are: 235U, 236U, 238U, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu,

*i d tr d tr*

th –isotope; *<sup>d</sup>*

If the neutron flux and cross sections are constant on a time interval, the equa-

An example to solve the transmutation chain starting from 238U up to 240Pu is

1 1 1 . . . . 10 *AF AF initial e T*

s

= + ê ú ç÷ ç÷

*AF AF initial e e*

s

s s

*i j j i dN N N*

¹ ¹

*ji ji i ij ij j*

l

( ) ( ) <sup>24</sup>

s*t*

( ) <sup>24</sup> <sup>24</sup> <sup>2</sup> . . . 10 <sup>1</sup> 1 1 . . . 10

2 1 1 2 . . . *<sup>t</sup> <sup>T</sup> c c <sup>t</sup> <sup>T</sup> <sup>e</sup> t t t t*

 l sj

=- + + + é ùé ù å å ë ûë û (1)

*ji* is decay constant, (1/s); *tr*

U ® ® *Pu Pu* 238 239 240 (2)

AF ….AF ….AF 123 (3)

 s

s s


èø èø - - ë û


j

s (5)

s*ji*

is average

**32**

*The actinide transmutation chains [6].*

$$\begin{split} AF\_{3} &= AF\_{1} \left( initial \; \right) \cdot \left[ \left( \frac{\sigma\_{\varepsilon1}, \sigma\_{\varepsilon2}}{\left( \sigma\_{t2} - \sigma\_{t1} \right) . \left( \sigma\_{t3} - \sigma\_{t1} \right)} \right) e^{-\sigma\_{t1} \cdot \Phi . T \cdot 10^{-34}} \\ &+ \left( \frac{\sigma\_{\varepsilon1}, \sigma\_{\varepsilon2}}{\left( \sigma\_{t3} - \sigma\_{t2} \right) . \left( \sigma\_{t1} - \sigma\_{t2} \right)} \right) e^{e^{-\sigma\_{t3} \cdot \Phi . T \cdot 10^{-34}}} \\ &+ \left( \frac{\sigma\_{\varepsilon1}, \sigma\_{\varepsilon2}}{\left( \sigma\_{t1} - \sigma\_{t3} \right) . \left( \sigma\_{t2} - \sigma\_{t3} \right)} \right) e^{e^{-\alpha\_{\mathcal{I}} \cdot \mathbf{a} . \tau \cdot 10^{-34}}} \right] \end{split} \tag{6}$$

where.

AFi = Isotope(i) atomic content in the chain σ c = Cross-section of capture (barns) σ f = Cross-section fission (barns) σ n,2n = Cross-section of (n,2n) (barns) σ ex = Cross-section of excited (barns) σ t = Cross-section totally (barns)

$$
\sigma\_{\text{decay}} = \frac{0.693}{\frac{T\_1}{2}.365.24.3600.10^{24}.\Phi} \tag{7}
$$

$$
\sigma\_{\iota} = \sigma\_{\iota} + \sigma\_{f} + \sigma\_{\epsilon \iota} + \sigma\_{\iota \epsilon \iota \iota y} \tag{8}
$$

T 1/2 = Half-life (years)

Φ = Neutron average flux (n/cm/cm/sec). (the energy range of 0 to 10 MeV total flux)

T = Time of irradiation (sec)


#### **Table 1.**

*Properties of nuclear emission.*

$$T = \frac{1000.E\_d}{3600.KWKG.24} \tag{9}$$

Ed = Burnup discharge (GW·d/t)

KWKG = Specific power (MW/tonne)

The condition solver initially computes the isotopic piece in nuclear division. The acquired nuclear portions at that point are changed over to the weight divisions [6].

Nowadays, it is estimated that >2000 t of actinides has been accumulated as nuclear waste, most of which are plutonium isotopes. **Table 1** shows the composition of transuranic elements in the fresh and spent fuel of a VVER after recycling process [10]. The most significant commitment to the drawn-out radiation peril originates from 239Pu (t½ = 24,110 a), from other Pu isotopes, and from other actinides, i.e., 237Np (t½ = 2.1 × 106 a), 241Am (t½ = 432 a), 243Am (t½ = 7370 a) and 245Cm (t½ = 8500 a) [11]. Pu and MA represent only 1.5% of the waste volume. Nonetheless, their radio toxicity becomes dominant after around 300 years and remains extensively high for a huge number of years, a period too long to even

**35**

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 6.**

*Discharged UOX spent fuel content in VVER-1000 reactor.*

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation*

shown as diagram in **Figure 5**.

were compared in **Figure 6**.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

consider guaranteeing a sheltered disengagement from nature by methods for building obstructions [12]. Besides, actinides present criticality and multiplication concerns. The fission cross-section of numerous actinides is portrayed by edges of a couple of 100 keV. Hence, they do not undergo fission in thermal reactors, rather reduce reactor critically as thermal neutron absorbers. However, they have signifi-

The amount of nuclear materials for a VVER-1000 reactor was calculated and

For VVER-1000 reactor, the fresh fuel, actinide elements and fission product

The total amount of FF is 23.792 t/year with 22.915 t/year of 238U and 0.877 t/year of 235U. The grade of enrichment is 3.6% on average. The actinide martials content in SF of calculated by VISTA are 235U (0.232123 t/year), 236U (0.107850 t/year), 238U (22.177277 t/year), 238Pu(0.004352 t/year), 239Pu(0.156181

t/year), 240Pu(0.047959 t/year), 241Pu(0.049525 t/year), 242Pu(0.017008 t/year), 241Am(0.001297 t/year), 237Np(0.001239 t/year), 242m Am(0.000019 t/year), 243Am(0.003554 t/year), 242Cm(0.000463 t/year) and 244Cm(0.001142 t/year) radioelements. The values of above radioelements except 235U and 238U isotopes

*The actinide elements content in spent fuel of the VVER-1000 reactor calculated by VISTA.*

cantly high fission cross-sections at high neutron energies [13].

values in spent fuel was calculated by VISTA simulation code.

#### **Figure 5.** *The flowchart of nuclear material amounts calculated by VISTA.*

#### *Nuclear Fuel Transmutation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

β 1

**Table 1.**

*Properties of nuclear emission.*

Ed = Burnup discharge (GW·d/t) KWKG = Specific power (MW/tonne)

1000. 3600. .24

**Radiation Mass (u) Charge Range (air) Range (tissue)** α 4 +2 ~3 cm ~40 μm

X or gamma emission 0 0 Very large Through body Fast neutron (n) 1 0 Very large Through body Thermal neutron (n) 1 0 Very large ~15 cm

1840

The condition solver initially computes the isotopic piece in nuclear division. The acquired nuclear portions at that point are changed over to the weight divisions [6]. Nowadays, it is estimated that >2000 t of actinides has been accumulated as nuclear waste, most of which are plutonium isotopes. **Table 1** shows the composition of transuranic elements in the fresh and spent fuel of a VVER after recycling process [10]. The most significant commitment to the drawn-out radiation peril originates from 239Pu (t½ = 24,110 a), from other Pu isotopes, and from other actinides, i.e., 237Np (t½ = 2.1 × 106 a), 241Am (t½ = 432 a), 243Am (t½ = 7370 a) and 245Cm (t½ = 8500 a) [11]. Pu and MA represent only 1.5% of the waste volume. Nonetheless, their radio toxicity becomes dominant after around 300 years and remains extensively high for a huge number of years, a period too long to even

*KWKG* <sup>=</sup> (9)


*Ed <sup>T</sup>*

**34**

**Figure 5.**

*The flowchart of nuclear material amounts calculated by VISTA.*

consider guaranteeing a sheltered disengagement from nature by methods for building obstructions [12]. Besides, actinides present criticality and multiplication concerns. The fission cross-section of numerous actinides is portrayed by edges of a couple of 100 keV. Hence, they do not undergo fission in thermal reactors, rather reduce reactor critically as thermal neutron absorbers. However, they have significantly high fission cross-sections at high neutron energies [13].

The amount of nuclear materials for a VVER-1000 reactor was calculated and shown as diagram in **Figure 5**.

For VVER-1000 reactor, the fresh fuel, actinide elements and fission product values in spent fuel was calculated by VISTA simulation code.

The total amount of FF is 23.792 t/year with 22.915 t/year of 238U and 0.877 t/year of 235U. The grade of enrichment is 3.6% on average. The actinide martials content in SF of calculated by VISTA are 235U (0.232123 t/year), 236U (0.107850 t/year), 238U (22.177277 t/year), 238Pu(0.004352 t/year), 239Pu(0.156181 t/year), 240Pu(0.047959 t/year), 241Pu(0.049525 t/year), 242Pu(0.017008 t/year), 241Am(0.001297 t/year), 237Np(0.001239 t/year), 242m Am(0.000019 t/year), 243Am(0.003554 t/year), 242Cm(0.000463 t/year) and 244Cm(0.001142 t/year) radioelements. The values of above radioelements except 235U and 238U isotopes were compared in **Figure 6**.

**Figure 6.**

*The actinide elements content in spent fuel of the VVER-1000 reactor calculated by VISTA.*

**Figure 7.** *Discharged UOX spent fuel content in VVER-1000 reactor.*

Also, the content of discharged UOX burned fuel in VVER-1000 nuclear power plant is presented in **Figure 7**.

#### **4. Radiation and protection of nuclear fuel cycle**

There are two type radiation sources naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) consist of materials in nuclear industry. The NORM radionuclides like 232Th, 238U, and 40K that occur mostly in minerals such present all over the Earth's crust in varying quantities depending on the ambient geological end geochemical properties of local. NORM radioactive are present in soil [14–19], water [20–23] and building materials [24–30]. The TENORM materials is upset or changed from regular settings or present in a mechanically improved state due to past or introduce human exercises and practices, which may bring about a relative increment in radionuclide fixations, radiation presentations and dangers to people in general, and danger to the open condition above foundation radiation levels.

The properties and ranges of the various nuclear radiations are summarized in **Table 1**. The ranges are only approximate since they depend on the energy of the radiation [31].

The alpha particle has mass higher than beta particle, so these partials travels relatively slowly into matter. Alpha particle interaction is a high likelihood of with iotas along its way and will surrender a portion of its vitality during every one of these cooperation's. As an outcome, α particles lose their vitality quickly and travel without a doubt, extremely short separations in thick media.

Beta particles are a lot of littler than particles and travel a lot quicker. They consequently go through less associations per unit length of track and surrender their vitality more gradually than α particles. This implies β particles travel further in thick media than α particles.

Gamma radiation loses its vitality mostly by interfacing with nuclear electrons. It ventures enormous separations even in thick media and is hard to ingest totally.

Neutrons surrender their vitality through an assortment of collaborations, the general significance of which are reliant on the neutron vitality. Therefore, it is regular practice to separate neutrons into in any event three vitality gatherings: quick, moderate and warm. Neutrons are infiltrating and will travel enormous separations even in thick media.

An office ought to have set up a radiation assurance program that is satisfactory to secure the radiological wellbeing and wellbeing of laborers and the general population and guarantee that the presentations are ALARA. To achieve this, offices assess and describe the radiological hazard and regularly give adequate hearty controls to limit this danger. Potential mishap arrangements are considered in evaluating the ampleness of the controls, which expect to limit radiological danger and sullying.

The fuel cycle office radiation assurance rehearses incorporate [32]:


**37**

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

inward radiation presentations;

nuclear fuel cycle were presented and discussed.

Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology of IAEA.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

in case of an occurrence.

**5. Conclusions**

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

building controls and respiratory insurance;

• Radiation protection preparing for all faculty who approach limited zones;

• A radiation overview and checking program that incorporates prerequisites for control of radioactive sullying inside the office and observing of outside and

• Other projects to look after records, to report radiation introductions to the managing authority, and to restore an adequate in-plant radiological condition

The execution of such projects with respect to coordinate radiation is currently made a lot simpler with the utilization of individual electronic dosimeters of Visa size that can immediately alarm the holder when momentary or cumulated portion reach modified edges, that keep in memory the historical backdrop of presentation and whose information can be downloaded to PCs, for instance each time the administrator enters or leaves the controlled zone, so these information can be naturally recorded and investigated. In this manner, point by point presentation previsions can be checked versus real introductions, permitting improvement of both working techniques and previsions. The improvement of mechanized screens that permit the perception of portion rates is likewise an incredible asset for radiation protection.

The content of this chapter is overall reviewing the nuclear fuel transmutation discussion. For this purpose, the nuclear fuel cycle of UOx type fuel was presented. In the next section the composition of transuranic in the spent fuel of VVER reactor was survived. Also, the amount of minor actinide and fission product in a VVER-1000 reactor was calculated and finally, the radiation protection principles of

The author would like to appreciate from to H. Tulsidas, Division of Nuclear

• A program to control airborne convergence of radioactive material with

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**4. Radiation and protection of nuclear fuel cycle**

and danger to the open condition above foundation radiation levels.

without a doubt, extremely short separations in thick media.

plant is presented in **Figure 7**.

radiation [31].

in thick media than α particles.

separations even in thick media.

radiological danger and sullying.

introductions are ALARA;

insurance work force;

materials;

Also, the content of discharged UOX burned fuel in VVER-1000 nuclear power

There are two type radiation sources naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) consist of materials in nuclear industry. The NORM radionuclides like 232Th, 238U, and 40K that occur mostly in minerals such present all over the Earth's crust in varying quantities depending on the ambient geological end geochemical properties of local. NORM radioactive are present in soil [14–19], water [20–23] and building materials [24–30]. The TENORM materials is upset or changed from regular settings or present in a mechanically improved state due to past or introduce human exercises and practices, which may bring about a relative increment in radionuclide fixations, radiation presentations and dangers to people in general,

The properties and ranges of the various nuclear radiations are summarized in **Table 1**. The ranges are only approximate since they depend on the energy of the

The alpha particle has mass higher than beta particle, so these partials travels relatively slowly into matter. Alpha particle interaction is a high likelihood of with iotas along its way and will surrender a portion of its vitality during every one of these cooperation's. As an outcome, α particles lose their vitality quickly and travel

Beta particles are a lot of littler than particles and travel a lot quicker. They consequently go through less associations per unit length of track and surrender their vitality more gradually than α particles. This implies β particles travel further

Gamma radiation loses its vitality mostly by interfacing with nuclear electrons. It ventures enormous separations even in thick media and is hard to ingest totally. Neutrons surrender their vitality through an assortment of collaborations, the general significance of which are reliant on the neutron vitality. Therefore, it is regular practice to separate neutrons into in any event three vitality gatherings: quick, moderate and warm. Neutrons are infiltrating and will travel enormous

An office ought to have set up a radiation assurance program that is satisfactory to secure the radiological wellbeing and wellbeing of laborers and the general population and guarantee that the presentations are ALARA. To achieve this, offices assess and describe the radiological hazard and regularly give adequate hearty controls to limit this danger. Potential mishap arrangements are considered in evaluating the ampleness of the controls, which expect to limit

The fuel cycle office radiation assurance rehearses incorporate [32]:

• A viable reported program to guarantee that word related radiological

• An association with sufficient capability prerequisites for the radiation

• Approved composed techniques for directing exercises including radioactive

**36**


The execution of such projects with respect to coordinate radiation is currently made a lot simpler with the utilization of individual electronic dosimeters of Visa size that can immediately alarm the holder when momentary or cumulated portion reach modified edges, that keep in memory the historical backdrop of presentation and whose information can be downloaded to PCs, for instance each time the administrator enters or leaves the controlled zone, so these information can be naturally recorded and investigated. In this manner, point by point presentation previsions can be checked versus real introductions, permitting improvement of both working techniques and previsions. The improvement of mechanized screens that permit the perception of portion rates is likewise an incredible asset for radiation protection.

### **5. Conclusions**

The content of this chapter is overall reviewing the nuclear fuel transmutation discussion. For this purpose, the nuclear fuel cycle of UOx type fuel was presented. In the next section the composition of transuranic in the spent fuel of VVER reactor was survived. Also, the amount of minor actinide and fission product in a VVER-1000 reactor was calculated and finally, the radiation protection principles of nuclear fuel cycle were presented and discussed.

### **Acknowledgements**

The author would like to appreciate from to H. Tulsidas, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology of IAEA.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

#### **Author details**

Akbar Abbasi Faculty of Engineering, University of Kyrenia, Kyrenia, Mersin, Turkey

\*Address all correspondence to: akbar.abbasi@emu.edu.tr

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**39**

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation*

DOI: 10.1063/1.5025993

[3] Coates, David J., and

anucene.2010.04.004

anucene.2015.03.024

IAEA, Vienna 2019.

**References**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

[8] http://www.nucleartourist.com/

[9] https://www.world-nuclear.org/ our-association/publications/technicalpositions/how-is-used-nuclear-fuel-

[10] Abbasi, Akbar. "Analysis of uranium oxide fuel transmutation in VVER-1000 reactor using VISTA and WIMS-D4 codes." Nuclear Engineering and Design 328 (2018): 115-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.

type/vver.htm

managed.aspx)

nucengdes.2018.01.005

ch23/modes.php.

10.1039/C0EE00108B

590-637.

[11] Bodner Research Web.

[12] Colonna, N., F. Belloni, E. Berthoumieux, M. Calviani, C. Domingo-Pardo, C. Guerrero, D. Karadimos et al. "Advanced nuclear energy systems and the need of accurate nuclear data: the n\_TOF project at CERN." Energy & Environmental Science 3, no. 12 (2010): 1910-1917. DOI:

Nuclearchemistry.Radioactivedecay. Availablefrom: http://chemed.chem. purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/

[13] Şahin, Sümer, and Yican Wu. "3.14 Fission Energy Production." (2018):

[14] Abbasi, Akbar, and Seyedeh Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Risk

assessment due to various terrestrial radionuclides concentrations scenarios." International journal of radiation biology 95, no. 2 (2019): 179-185. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1539881

[15] Abbasi, A. "210 Pb and 137 Cs based techniques for the estimation of sediment chronologies and sediment rates in the Anzali Lagoon, Caspian Sea." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 322, no. 2 (2019): 319-330. DOI: 10.1007/

s10967-019-06739-8

[1] Mirekhtiary, Seyedeh Fatemeh, and Akbar Abbasi. "Uranium oxide fuel cycle analysis in VVER-1000 with VISTA simulation code." In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1935, no. 1, p. 100005. AIP Publishing LLC, 2018.

[2] Coates, David J., Benjamin A.

Lindley, and Geoffrey T. Parks. Actinide breeding and reactivity variation in a thermal spectrum ADSR–Part 1: Development of a lumped thermal reactor model. Annals of Nuclear Energy 38, no. 10 (2011): 2120-2131. DOI:10.1016/j.anucene.2011.06.028

Geoffrey T. Parks. Actinide evolution and equilibrium in fast thorium reactors. Annals of Nuclear Energy 37, no. 8 2010: 1076-1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[4] Zheng, Meiyin, Wenxi Tian, Dalin Zhang, Suizheng Qiu, and Guanghui Su. Minor actinide transmutation in a board type sodium cooled breed and burn reactor core. Annals of Nuclear Energy 81 (2015): 41-49. DOI:10.1016/j.

[5] Hu, Wenchao, Bin Liu, Xiaoping Ouyang, Jing Tu, Fang Liu, Liming Huang, Juan Fu, and Haiyan Meng. "Minor actinide transmutation on PWR burnable poison rods." Annals of Nuclear Energy 77 (2015): 74-82. DOI:

10.1016/j.anucene.2014.10.036

[6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation System: Improvements and Applications, IAEA-TECDOC-1864,

[7] Ceyhan, M. "Modelling for nuclear material flows in the nuclear fuel cycle." In Fissile material management strategies for sustainable nuclear energy. Proceedings of a technical meeting. 2007.

### **References**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**38**

**Author details**

Faculty of Engineering, University of Kyrenia, Kyrenia, Mersin, Turkey

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: akbar.abbasi@emu.edu.tr

provided the original work is properly cited.

Akbar Abbasi

[1] Mirekhtiary, Seyedeh Fatemeh, and Akbar Abbasi. "Uranium oxide fuel cycle analysis in VVER-1000 with VISTA simulation code." In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1935, no. 1, p. 100005. AIP Publishing LLC, 2018. DOI: 10.1063/1.5025993

[2] Coates, David J., Benjamin A. Lindley, and Geoffrey T. Parks. Actinide breeding and reactivity variation in a thermal spectrum ADSR–Part 1: Development of a lumped thermal reactor model. Annals of Nuclear Energy 38, no. 10 (2011): 2120-2131. DOI:10.1016/j.anucene.2011.06.028

[3] Coates, David J., and Geoffrey T. Parks. Actinide evolution and equilibrium in fast thorium reactors. Annals of Nuclear Energy 37, no. 8 2010: 1076-1088. DOI: 10.1016/j. anucene.2010.04.004

[4] Zheng, Meiyin, Wenxi Tian, Dalin Zhang, Suizheng Qiu, and Guanghui Su. Minor actinide transmutation in a board type sodium cooled breed and burn reactor core. Annals of Nuclear Energy 81 (2015): 41-49. DOI:10.1016/j. anucene.2015.03.024

[5] Hu, Wenchao, Bin Liu, Xiaoping Ouyang, Jing Tu, Fang Liu, Liming Huang, Juan Fu, and Haiyan Meng. "Minor actinide transmutation on PWR burnable poison rods." Annals of Nuclear Energy 77 (2015): 74-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2014.10.036

[6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation System: Improvements and Applications, IAEA-TECDOC-1864, IAEA, Vienna 2019.

[7] Ceyhan, M. "Modelling for nuclear material flows in the nuclear fuel cycle." In Fissile material management strategies for sustainable nuclear energy. Proceedings of a technical meeting. 2007. [8] http://www.nucleartourist.com/ type/vver.htm

[9] https://www.world-nuclear.org/ our-association/publications/technicalpositions/how-is-used-nuclear-fuelmanaged.aspx)

[10] Abbasi, Akbar. "Analysis of uranium oxide fuel transmutation in VVER-1000 reactor using VISTA and WIMS-D4 codes." Nuclear Engineering and Design 328 (2018): 115-120. DOI: 10.1016/j. nucengdes.2018.01.005

[11] Bodner Research Web. Nuclearchemistry.Radioactivedecay. Availablefrom: http://chemed.chem. purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ ch23/modes.php.

[12] Colonna, N., F. Belloni, E. Berthoumieux, M. Calviani, C. Domingo-Pardo, C. Guerrero, D. Karadimos et al. "Advanced nuclear energy systems and the need of accurate nuclear data: the n\_TOF project at CERN." Energy & Environmental Science 3, no. 12 (2010): 1910-1917. DOI: 10.1039/C0EE00108B

[13] Şahin, Sümer, and Yican Wu. "3.14 Fission Energy Production." (2018): 590-637.

[14] Abbasi, Akbar, and Seyedeh Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Risk assessment due to various terrestrial radionuclides concentrations scenarios." International journal of radiation biology 95, no. 2 (2019): 179-185. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1539881

[15] Abbasi, A. "210 Pb and 137 Cs based techniques for the estimation of sediment chronologies and sediment rates in the Anzali Lagoon, Caspian Sea." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 322, no. 2 (2019): 319-330. DOI: 10.1007/ s10967-019-06739-8

[16] Abbasi, Akbar, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "137Cs and 40K concentration ratios (CRs) in annual and perennial plants in the Caspian coast." Marine pollution bulletin 146 (2019): 671-677. DOI: 10.1016/j. marpolbul.2019.06.076

[17] Abbasi, Akbar, Asley Kurnaz, Şeref Turhan, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Radiation hazards and natural radioactivity levels in surface soil samples from dwelling areas of North Cyprus." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2020): 1-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10967-020-07069-w

[18] Abbasi, Akbar, and Seyedeh Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Radiological impacts in the high-level natural radiation exposure area residents in the Ramsar, Iran." The European Physical Journal Plus 135, no. 3 (2020): 1-11. DOI: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00306-x

[19] Abbasi, Akbar, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Heavy metals and natural radioactivity concentration in sediments of the Mediterranean Sea coast." Marine Pollution Bulletin 154 (2020): 111041. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111041

[20] Abbasi, A., and V. Bashiry. "Measurement of radium-226 concentration and dose calculation of drinking water samples in Guilan province of Iran." Int J Radiat Res 14, no. 4 (2016): 361-366. DOI: 10.18869/ acadpub.ijrr.14.4.361

[21] Abbasi, Akbar. "A review of the analytical methodology to determine Radium-226 and Radium-228 in drinking waters." Radiochimica Acta 106, no. 10 (2018): 819-829. DOI:10.1515/ract-2018-2967

[22] Abbasi, A., and F. Mirekhtiary. "Lifetime risk assessment of Radium-226 in drinking water samples." International Journal of Radiation Research 17, no. 1 (2019): 163-169. DOI: 10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.17.1.163

[23] Abbasi, Akbar, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Some physicochemical parameters and 226Ra concentration in groundwater samples of North Guilan, Iran." Chemosphere (2020): 127113. DOI: 10.1016/j. chemosphere.2020.127113

[24] Abbasi, A., and F. Mirekhtiary. "Survey Gamma Radiation Measurementsin Commerciallyused Natural Tiling Rocks in Iran." International Journal of Physical and Mathematical Sciences 5, no. 4 (2011): 561-567.

[25] Asgharizadeh, F., A. Abbasi, O. Hochaghani, and E. S. Gooya. "Natural radioactivity in granite stones used as building materials in Iran." Radiation protection dosimetry 149, no. 3 (2012): 321-326. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncr233

[26] Abbasi, Akbar. "Environmental radiation in high exposure building materials." PhD diss., Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ), 2013.

[27] Abbasi, A. "Calculation of gamma radiation dose rate and radon concentration due to granites used as building materials in Iran." Radiation protection dosimetry 155, no. 3 (2013): 335-342.DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nct003

[28] Abbasi, A., and M. Hassanzadeh. "Measurement and Monte Carlo simulation of γ-ray dose rate in highexposure building materials." Nuclear Science and Techniques 28, no. 2 (2017): 20. 10.1007/s41365-016-0171-x

[29] Abbasi, Akbar. "Levels of radon and granite building materials." Radon (2017): 47.DOI:10.5772/66540

[30] Abbasi, A., and F. Mirekhtiary. "Comparison of active and passive methods for radon exhalation from a high–exposure building material." Radiation protection dosimetry 157, no. 4 (2013): 570-574. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ nct163

**41**

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation*

no. 1 (2005): 18-19.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

[31] Martin, Alan, Sam Harbison, Karen Beach, and Peter Cole. An introduction to radiation protection. CRC Press, 2018.

[32] Kaufer, B., and D. Ross. "Safety of the nuclear fuel cycle." NEA News 23,

*Nuclear Fuel Transmutation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94065*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

[23] Abbasi, Akbar, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Some physicochemical parameters and 226Ra concentration in groundwater samples of North Guilan, Iran." Chemosphere (2020): 127113. DOI: 10.1016/j. chemosphere.2020.127113

[24] Abbasi, A., and F. Mirekhtiary.

[25] Asgharizadeh, F., A. Abbasi, O. Hochaghani, and E. S. Gooya. "Natural radioactivity in granite stones used as building materials in Iran." Radiation protection dosimetry 149, no. 3 (2012): 321-326. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncr233

[26] Abbasi, Akbar. "Environmental radiation in high exposure building materials." PhD diss., Eastern

[27] Abbasi, A. "Calculation of gamma radiation dose rate and radon concentration due to granites used as building materials in Iran." Radiation protection dosimetry 155, no. 3 (2013): 335-342.DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nct003

Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ), 2013.

[28] Abbasi, A., and M. Hassanzadeh. "Measurement and Monte Carlo simulation of γ-ray dose rate in highexposure building materials." Nuclear Science and Techniques 28, no. 2 (2017):

20. 10.1007/s41365-016-0171-x

(2017): 47.DOI:10.5772/66540

nct163

[29] Abbasi, Akbar. "Levels of radon and granite building materials." Radon

[30] Abbasi, A., and F. Mirekhtiary. "Comparison of active and passive methods for radon exhalation from a high–exposure building material." Radiation protection dosimetry 157, no. 4 (2013): 570-574. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/

"Survey Gamma Radiation Measurementsin Commerciallyused Natural Tiling Rocks in Iran." International Journal of Physical and Mathematical Sciences 5, no. 4 (2011):

561-567.

[16] Abbasi, Akbar, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "137Cs and 40K

marpolbul.2019.06.076

10.1007/s10967-020-07069-w

[18] Abbasi, Akbar, and Seyedeh Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Radiological impacts in the high-level natural radiation exposure area residents in the Ramsar, Iran." The European Physical Journal Plus 135, no. 3 (2020): 1-11. DOI: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00306-x

[19] Abbasi, Akbar, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Heavy metals and natural radioactivity concentration in sediments of the Mediterranean Sea coast." Marine Pollution Bulletin 154 (2020): 111041. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111041

[20] Abbasi, A., and V. Bashiry. "Measurement of radium-226 concentration and dose calculation of drinking water samples in Guilan province of Iran." Int J Radiat Res 14, no. 4 (2016): 361-366. DOI: 10.18869/

[21] Abbasi, Akbar. "A review of the analytical methodology to determine Radium-226 and Radium-228 in drinking waters." Radiochimica Acta 106, no. 10 (2018): 819-829. DOI:10.1515/ract-2018-2967

[22] Abbasi, A., and F. Mirekhtiary. "Lifetime risk assessment of

10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.17.1.163

Radium-226 in drinking water samples." International Journal of Radiation Research 17, no. 1 (2019): 163-169. DOI:

acadpub.ijrr.14.4.361

concentration ratios (CRs) in annual and perennial plants in the Caspian coast." Marine pollution bulletin 146 (2019): 671-677. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[17] Abbasi, Akbar, Asley Kurnaz, Şeref Turhan, and Fatemeh Mirekhtiary. "Radiation hazards and natural radioactivity levels in surface soil samples from dwelling areas of North Cyprus." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2020): 1-8. DOI:

**40**

[31] Martin, Alan, Sam Harbison, Karen Beach, and Peter Cole. An introduction to radiation protection. CRC Press, 2018.

[32] Kaufer, B., and D. Ross. "Safety of the nuclear fuel cycle." NEA News 23, no. 1 (2005): 18-19.

**43**

**Chapter 4**

*Victor Kozlov*

fight corruption.

**1. Introduction**

overcome it [1–4].

structures

**Abstract**

Does Russia Have the Possibilities

to Manage the Power Engineering

The article analyzes the current state of power engineering, nuclear power, and their role in ensuring energy independence of Russia. According to the author, the creation of large high-tech integrated companies with active innovation state practice can bring the Russian economy to a higher level of development. To maintain Russia's leading role in the construction of nuclear power plants abroad, according to the author, it is necessary to optimize cost and terms of construction of projects, improve designs, increase scopes and quality of specialists' training, and

**Keywords:** improvement of management structure, national security, energy independence, import substitution, structural transformation, large integrated

The situation in which turned out to be power engineering of Russia in the first decade of the twenty-first century has generated heated debate about the causes of the crisis, which turned out to be a domestic machine building, as well as ways to

The fact that the structural transformation in the Russian machine-building complex, which took place at the time, was associated with a number of assumptions and trends largely determines the prospects for the formation of new and

Meeting the challenges, which national engineering faces, is impossible with outraising capital in the sector, experiencing an investment "hunger." This applies to power engineering as well—a relatively prosperous industry, which was in the period of sharp decline in the domestic demand for machinery and equipment to go out of the crisis of the 1990s due to export orders with less losses than other engineering enterprises. However, the chronic underinvestment caused reducing the

operation of the existing large integrated structure.

technical level of its production facilities.

to Diversify Its Export Potential

(For Example, Nuclear Power

Development)?

#### **Chapter 4**

## Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power Engineering (For Example, Nuclear Power Development)?

*Victor Kozlov*

### **Abstract**

The article analyzes the current state of power engineering, nuclear power, and their role in ensuring energy independence of Russia. According to the author, the creation of large high-tech integrated companies with active innovation state practice can bring the Russian economy to a higher level of development. To maintain Russia's leading role in the construction of nuclear power plants abroad, according to the author, it is necessary to optimize cost and terms of construction of projects, improve designs, increase scopes and quality of specialists' training, and fight corruption.

**Keywords:** improvement of management structure, national security, energy independence, import substitution, structural transformation, large integrated structures

### **1. Introduction**

The situation in which turned out to be power engineering of Russia in the first decade of the twenty-first century has generated heated debate about the causes of the crisis, which turned out to be a domestic machine building, as well as ways to overcome it [1–4].

The fact that the structural transformation in the Russian machine-building complex, which took place at the time, was associated with a number of assumptions and trends largely determines the prospects for the formation of new and operation of the existing large integrated structure.

Meeting the challenges, which national engineering faces, is impossible with outraising capital in the sector, experiencing an investment "hunger." This applies to power engineering as well—a relatively prosperous industry, which was in the period of sharp decline in the domestic demand for machinery and equipment to go out of the crisis of the 1990s due to export orders with less losses than other engineering enterprises. However, the chronic underinvestment caused reducing the technical level of its production facilities.

It is necessary to focus on all resources—financial, industrial, and intellectual ones for implementation of large-scale tasks by the industry, and that in turn will require improving the management structure.

In the 1980s of the last century, the equipment supplies by power engineering provided the annual commissioning of at least 10 million kWh of electric power.

However, since 1991, there has been a sharp production decline in the industry, as evidenced by the data on manufacture of steam turbines and boilers, commissioning of generating facilities at the thermal power plants of Russia in 1990–2000, and the lack of orders for manufacturing NPP and HPP equipments [5].

"The strategy of development of power engineering of Russia," elaborated on the basis of the "Russian Energy Strategy till 2030" approved by the Government of the Russian Federation (hereinafter—the Energy Strategy), reflects the fundamental directions of development of power engineering in Russia and contains the practical measures for their effective implementation.

#### **2. The current problems**

The availability in Russia of its own effective power engineering is one of the pillars of its national security, power independence.

According to the official data, the equipment in the power industry is currently worn by almost 60%. This means that more than half of the thermal and hydropower plants operate under high risk. Given the strategic line of the state for import substitution, it is necessary to organize the process of updating the equipment in the way when orders are placed with the Russian companies, and that is possible if there are investments into domestic engineering.

Describing power engineering competitiveness, we note the peculiar feature of the domestic energy sector, which consists in the fact that almost all power plants in Russia (and CIS) are equipped with the equipment of domestic production. However, modernization and mobilization of resources in the sector can only be based on the policy of concentrating resources, pooling of capital, and formation of the effective management system. In other words, it is about solving the problem of creation of modern organizational structures.

Industrial policy in power engineering should be focused on the process of system management of its activities. Products of this sector meet the needs of other sectors of the economy as a technological component of such specific product as energy. This means that manufacture of machines and mechanisms in the power engineering industry is inseparably linked with construction and engineering works, which provide the necessary conditions for its operation.

The volume of this work is significant even in cases when the equipment is supplied for modernization of the existing facilities, rather than for equipping of new construction projects. And the technological chain of "design—manufacture—construction—installation—commissioning—operation" implies such requirements for all participants of the process of equipment commercial commissioning, the specifics of which do not allow "third-party" participants to participate in this chain (except for civil works at the facilities of power infrastructure).

Thus, the logic of the process of improving quality of the products and activities related to design, manufacture, installation, and commissioning of the equipment, as well as reducing the time for putting power units in operation requires co-operation of specialists of different branches within the same structure.

**45**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power…*

half—in the construction of power facilities. However, in the period of market reforms, the branch management system was destroyed, and privatized enterprises became independent market participants. But no one, even a very large factory, is able to meet the needs in power engineering products, given the specificity of these

The thing is that high technologies require coordination of activities of representatives of different trades, professions, and industries. Especially in the frame of globalization when the tone is set precisely by those companies that represent a major conglomerate that combines research and production structures, as well as structures promoting products on the world market, global high-tech companies. Exactly these companies are able to bring the Russian economy to a different path of development, when export of high-tech products will be no less weighty than export of mineral resources. But none Russian factory, no matter how large it may be, is a global company; therefore, it is not competitive in world markets. Therefore, effective restructuring of production and management is necessary in the conditions of independence of market agents under insufficiency of the branch coordina-

The process of integration of these structures, allowing to centralize development strategies and improve management and technological cooperation, will be inevitably hampered by problems of redistribution of property, as the system of securing property rights existing in Russia can be effective only if the owner is really controlling activities of all participants of the association, provided by significant proportion of ownership of assets. Given the fact that in the process of mass privatization there was no task to create an effective management system of high-tech industries, which are characterized by a high degree of co-ordination and co-operation of complex productions, formation of global companies will inevitably affect the property interests, resulting in a secondary redistribution of property. Thus, corporate conflicts are inevitable in structural

Structural transformations in the Russian machine-building complex are linked with a number of assumptions and trends, largely determining the prospects for formation of new and operation of the existing large integrated structures. First, the experience of formation of large associated industrial structures accumulated in the Soviet times, unfortunately, was not properly developed further. However, foreign large industrial conglomerates were formed not only based on the experience of the Soviet industry but also based on the methodological basics that

Second, the Soviet machinery represented a hypertrophied form of simple cooperation of the universal enterprises but with huge potential unique possibilities for development. However, this potential was not even used, but, in fact, lost, in connection with the influence of accelerated privatization and breaking of the state

process of exchange of goods but also property relations.

were take over and redistribution of property.

Third, the breach of economic ties and collapse of the industry management system in the process of privatization caused dominance of partnerships as a protective reaction, which are based on informal contract practices, affecting not only the

Fourth, the property relations established under incomplete legal frame work, regulating property relations, formed a specific model of partnership based on a system of trust relationships with contractors and the state authorities. At the same time, there were quite wide spread manifestations of economic self-interest in all aspects of the economic life, including the processes of disintegration (integration) of industrial enterprises. The new management was formed, which core competence

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

high-tech goods.

tion system.

transformation.

management.

had been tested in the USSR.

In fact, this principle was previously implemented in the framework of the branch management system. Within the USSR Ministry of Energy, about half the staff was engaged in the manufacture of power equipment, the other

#### *Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

half—in the construction of power facilities. However, in the period of market reforms, the branch management system was destroyed, and privatized enterprises became independent market participants. But no one, even a very large factory, is able to meet the needs in power engineering products, given the specificity of these high-tech goods.

The thing is that high technologies require coordination of activities of representatives of different trades, professions, and industries. Especially in the frame of globalization when the tone is set precisely by those companies that represent a major conglomerate that combines research and production structures, as well as structures promoting products on the world market, global high-tech companies. Exactly these companies are able to bring the Russian economy to a different path of development, when export of high-tech products will be no less weighty than export of mineral resources. But none Russian factory, no matter how large it may be, is a global company; therefore, it is not competitive in world markets. Therefore, effective restructuring of production and management is necessary in the conditions of independence of market agents under insufficiency of the branch coordination system.

The process of integration of these structures, allowing to centralize development strategies and improve management and technological cooperation, will be inevitably hampered by problems of redistribution of property, as the system of securing property rights existing in Russia can be effective only if the owner is really controlling activities of all participants of the association, provided by significant proportion of ownership of assets. Given the fact that in the process of mass privatization there was no task to create an effective management system of high-tech industries, which are characterized by a high degree of co-ordination and co-operation of complex productions, formation of global companies will inevitably affect the property interests, resulting in a secondary redistribution of property. Thus, corporate conflicts are inevitable in structural transformation.

Structural transformations in the Russian machine-building complex are linked with a number of assumptions and trends, largely determining the prospects for formation of new and operation of the existing large integrated structures.

First, the experience of formation of large associated industrial structures accumulated in the Soviet times, unfortunately, was not properly developed further. However, foreign large industrial conglomerates were formed not only based on the experience of the Soviet industry but also based on the methodological basics that had been tested in the USSR.

Second, the Soviet machinery represented a hypertrophied form of simple cooperation of the universal enterprises but with huge potential unique possibilities for development. However, this potential was not even used, but, in fact, lost, in connection with the influence of accelerated privatization and breaking of the state management.

Third, the breach of economic ties and collapse of the industry management system in the process of privatization caused dominance of partnerships as a protective reaction, which are based on informal contract practices, affecting not only the process of exchange of goods but also property relations.

Fourth, the property relations established under incomplete legal frame work, regulating property relations, formed a specific model of partnership based on a system of trust relationships with contractors and the state authorities. At the same time, there were quite wide spread manifestations of economic self-interest in all aspects of the economic life, including the processes of disintegration (integration) of industrial enterprises. The new management was formed, which core competence were take over and redistribution of property.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

require improving the management structure.

practical measures for their effective implementation.

pillars of its national security, power independence.

there are investments into domestic engineering.

creation of modern organizational structures.

**2. The current problems**

It is necessary to focus on all resources—financial, industrial, and intellectual ones for implementation of large-scale tasks by the industry, and that in turn will

In the 1980s of the last century, the equipment supplies by power engineering provided the annual commissioning of at least 10 million kWh of electric power. However, since 1991, there has been a sharp production decline in the industry, as evidenced by the data on manufacture of steam turbines and boilers, commissioning of generating facilities at the thermal power plants of Russia in 1990–2000,

"The strategy of development of power engineering of Russia," elaborated on the basis of the "Russian Energy Strategy till 2030" approved by the Government of the Russian Federation (hereinafter—the Energy Strategy), reflects the fundamental directions of development of power engineering in Russia and contains the

The availability in Russia of its own effective power engineering is one of the

According to the official data, the equipment in the power industry is currently worn by almost 60%. This means that more than half of the thermal and hydropower plants operate under high risk. Given the strategic line of the state for import substitution, it is necessary to organize the process of updating the equipment in the way when orders are placed with the Russian companies, and that is possible if

Describing power engineering competitiveness, we note the peculiar feature of the domestic energy sector, which consists in the fact that almost all power plants in Russia (and CIS) are equipped with the equipment of domestic production. However, modernization and mobilization of resources in the sector can only be based on the policy of concentrating resources, pooling of capital, and formation of the effective management system. In other words, it is about solving the problem of

Industrial policy in power engineering should be focused on the process of system management of its activities. Products of this sector meet the needs of other sectors of the economy as a technological component of such specific product as energy. This means that manufacture of machines and mechanisms in the power engineering industry is inseparably linked with construction and engineering

The volume of this work is significant even in cases when the equipment is supplied for modernization of the existing facilities, rather than for equipping of new construction projects. And the technological chain of "design—manufacture—construction—installation—commissioning—operation" implies such requirements for all participants of the process of equipment commercial commissioning, the specifics of which do not allow "third-party" participants to participate in this chain

Thus, the logic of the process of improving quality of the products and activities related to design, manufacture, installation, and commissioning of the equipment, as well as reducing the time for putting power units in operation requires co-operation

In fact, this principle was previously implemented in the framework of the branch management system. Within the USSR Ministry of Energy, about half the staff was engaged in the manufacture of power equipment, the other

works, which provide the necessary conditions for its operation.

(except for civil works at the facilities of power infrastructure).

of specialists of different branches within the same structure.

and the lack of orders for manufacturing NPP and HPP equipments [5].

**44**

Fifth, the dynamics of development was influenced not only by selfish holders of economic power but also by competitive strategies of foreign companies who sought to oust domestic producers from the world markets using domestic managers. However, where the owners could find a common language, a new type of engineering companies appeared, which competitiveness was high enough not only in the domestic but also in the foreign markets. As for the numerous cases of collapse of structures, those, as a rule, were associated with numerous contradictions just due to the system of partnership [6].

Thus, the corporate conflicts cannot be considered solely from a negative point of view: they are unavoidable in the process of consolidation of the technological chains belonging to different owners; moreover, replacing the owner does not always result in changing mismanagement by even more inefficient.

Implementation of major projects in the Russian power sector solves a whole range of important social and economic problems, provides employment, increases filling of regional budgets, allows to solve strategic tasks of further increase of the installed generating capacity, and increases global competitiveness of Russian equipment in particular and of Russian high-tech in general.

Large integrated structures should be active participants in the process of implementation of integrated innovations. In a sense, they act both as mechanisms of social partnership, on the one hand, expressing consolidated opinion of a large group of people involved in the manufacture of industry products, and on the other—as structures that implement decisions of the central government concerning the interests of large social groups. In addition, the large integrated structures are able to participate in development of complex innovation programs, including initiation of consideration of a number of issues by the state.

In the years 2004–2005 GAZPROM, following the recommendations of the higher state authorities acquired shares of ATOMSTROYEXPORT, actual monopoly in NPP construction abroad, and of the Incorporated Engineering Company (until 2004, a controlling stake in these companies was in the hands of K. Bendukidze, private entrepreneur). These actions of the state demonstrated that the corporation model, similar to that of the firm AREVA (France) was selected, with a majority stake owned by the state, as opposed to the corporation "General Electric," USA, which is owned by private capital [3, 7].

When Sergei Kiriyenko (1998—Prime Minister) came to ROSATOM of RF in 2005, the Agency elaborated a program of accelerated development of nuclear power in Russia [8]. This program was submitted to the government on May 18, 2006, and reported to Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, who approved the program and plan of priority measures for its implementation in June 2006.

In the development of these solutions, more than 6 billion dollars for implementation of this program were allocated in the budget. In accordance with this program, Russian NPPs should produce about 25% of the total electric power by 2030.

The nuclear industry can play an important role in solving the energy problem both in Russia and in the world. It is necessary to build and put into operation 40 GW of nuclear power units on the territory of the Russian Federation by 2030, and in other states, the Russian nuclear specialists will be able to claim the orders of 40–60 GW in the same period of time.

According to the forecasts of ROSATOM of RF by 2030, nuclear power in the world will grow up to 300–600 GW. Up to half of this promising market will be closed for external players, and the Russian nuclear specialist scan actually qualifies for 20–25% of orders (40–60 GW) of the remaining 200–300 GW of available access.

In the global nuclear fuel market, the share of Russia is now 45%. The Russian should be 50% in the markets of the USA and Canada, 42% in Europe, 35% in South Korea,

**47**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power…*

has to increase capacities and implement market reforms in the sector [4].

**3. Main problems that complicate the industry activities**

30% in Latin America, and 10% in China and Japan. To maintain its leadership, Russia

There is no enough qualified personnel for safe operation of commissioned NPPs. The today's current system of personnel training and consolidation in the nuclear industry is clearly insufficient for its large-scale development. Working pensioners make about 25%, young workers and specialists—about 10%.

Acquisition of knowledge and skills should be ahead of programs for designing and development of technologies, construction of nuclear facilities, and their commissioning. The current situation with the staff can be considered critical. With a general decline in the number of researchers (the driving force of innovation development), the share of researchers over the age of 60 years increases. The average age of leading industry experts (PhD) and university professors of "nuclear" profile is higher than the average male life expectancy in the country. Although over the past 6 years, ROSATOM has done much to address the deficiencies in training. The corporate university of 20 schools was formed on the basis of MEPI [9, 10].

**3.2 Long-term construction of nuclear power plants and unreasonably** 

shortcomings in designing and imperfect work organization.

includes not less than 40% of the corruption component.

niques based on large-block equipment supplies to construction sites.

The long-term construction period further increases the cost and opportunities for corruption. Building "from scratch" actually takes at least 7 years, indicating

ROSATOM stated its desire to achieve the construction time of 4–4.5 years. To do this, it is necessary to unify designs and implement innovative construction tech-

The declared cost of 1 GW of nuclear generation has already reached \$4 billion (or \$4.6 billion for power unit of 1.15 GW) and continues to grow. Today the cost of NPP construction in Russia is two times higher than in China and for 30–40%

In the current environment, the economically justified cost of construction of one VVER unit of 1.15 GW capacity is not more than \$2.5 billion with the construction term not more than 5 years. If ROSATOM is not able to meet these indicators, the NPP construction in the country is not competitive compared with modernization of steam turbine power units to combined cycle ones at the existing gas TPP according to the main criteria—volume of replaced gas per year during electricity generation and its net cost. The unreasonably high cost of NPP construction

The current regulated price of electricity at the Russian NPPs on the whole sale market is 3.2 US cents per kW/h (for comparison, in the USA—1.87 cents, in France and Germany—2–2.2 cents in 2008 prices). The price of electricity for economic entities in Russia is 2–3 rubles or 7–10 cents, and a new connection of consumers reaches 4.5–5 rubles or 15–17 cents (for comparison, in the USA—6.5–7.5 cents, the average price in the EU—12 cents, in China—8–9 cents). With regard to nuclear engineering, the situation is ambiguous. On the one hand, at the moment, there is

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

**3.1 Personnel policy and personnel training**

**overpriced construction**

higher than in Europe.

**3.3 Electricity tariffs**

30% in Latin America, and 10% in China and Japan. To maintain its leadership, Russia has to increase capacities and implement market reforms in the sector [4].

### **3. Main problems that complicate the industry activities**

#### **3.1 Personnel policy and personnel training**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

just due to the system of partnership [6].

which is owned by private capital [3, 7].

40–60 GW in the same period of time.

Fifth, the dynamics of development was influenced not only by selfish holders of economic power but also by competitive strategies of foreign companies who sought to oust domestic producers from the world markets using domestic managers. However, where the owners could find a common language, a new type of engineering companies appeared, which competitiveness was high enough not only in the domestic but also in the foreign markets. As for the numerous cases of collapse of structures, those, as a rule, were associated with numerous contradictions

Thus, the corporate conflicts cannot be considered solely from a negative point of view: they are unavoidable in the process of consolidation of the technological chains belonging to different owners; moreover, replacing the owner does not

Implementation of major projects in the Russian power sector solves a whole range of important social and economic problems, provides employment, increases filling of regional budgets, allows to solve strategic tasks of further increase of the installed generating capacity, and increases global competitiveness of Russian

Large integrated structures should be active participants in the process of implementation of integrated innovations. In a sense, they act both as mechanisms of social partnership, on the one hand, expressing consolidated opinion of a large group of people involved in the manufacture of industry products, and on the other—as structures that implement decisions of the central government concerning the interests of large social groups. In addition, the large integrated structures are able to participate in development of complex innovation programs, including

In the years 2004–2005 GAZPROM, following the recommendations of the higher state authorities acquired shares of ATOMSTROYEXPORT, actual monopoly in NPP construction abroad, and of the Incorporated Engineering Company (until 2004, a controlling stake in these companies was in the hands of K. Bendukidze, private entrepreneur). These actions of the state demonstrated that the corporation model, similar to that of the firm AREVA (France) was selected, with a majority stake owned by the state, as opposed to the corporation "General Electric," USA,

When Sergei Kiriyenko (1998—Prime Minister) came to ROSATOM of RF in 2005, the Agency elaborated a program of accelerated development of nuclear power in Russia [8]. This program was submitted to the government on May 18, 2006, and reported to Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, who approved the

In the development of these solutions, more than 6 billion dollars for implementation of this program were allocated in the budget. In accordance with this program, Russian NPPs should produce about 25% of the total electric power

The nuclear industry can play an important role in solving the energy problem both in Russia and in the world. It is necessary to build and put into operation 40 GW of nuclear power units on the territory of the Russian Federation by 2030, and in other states, the Russian nuclear specialists will be able to claim the orders of

According to the forecasts of ROSATOM of RF by 2030, nuclear power in the world will grow up to 300–600 GW. Up to half of this promising market will be closed for external players, and the Russian nuclear specialist scan actually qualifies for 20–25% of orders (40–60 GW) of the remaining 200–300 GW of available access. In the global nuclear fuel market, the share of Russia is now 45%. The Russian should

be 50% in the markets of the USA and Canada, 42% in Europe, 35% in South Korea,

program and plan of priority measures for its implementation in June 2006.

always result in changing mismanagement by even more inefficient.

equipment in particular and of Russian high-tech in general.

initiation of consideration of a number of issues by the state.

**46**

by 2030.

There is no enough qualified personnel for safe operation of commissioned NPPs. The today's current system of personnel training and consolidation in the nuclear industry is clearly insufficient for its large-scale development. Working pensioners make about 25%, young workers and specialists—about 10%. Acquisition of knowledge and skills should be ahead of programs for designing and development of technologies, construction of nuclear facilities, and their commissioning. The current situation with the staff can be considered critical. With a general decline in the number of researchers (the driving force of innovation development), the share of researchers over the age of 60 years increases. The average age of leading industry experts (PhD) and university professors of "nuclear" profile is higher than the average male life expectancy in the country. Although over the past 6 years, ROSATOM has done much to address the deficiencies in training. The corporate university of 20 schools was formed on the basis of MEPI [9, 10].

#### **3.2 Long-term construction of nuclear power plants and unreasonably overpriced construction**

The long-term construction period further increases the cost and opportunities for corruption. Building "from scratch" actually takes at least 7 years, indicating shortcomings in designing and imperfect work organization.

ROSATOM stated its desire to achieve the construction time of 4–4.5 years. To do this, it is necessary to unify designs and implement innovative construction techniques based on large-block equipment supplies to construction sites.

The declared cost of 1 GW of nuclear generation has already reached \$4 billion (or \$4.6 billion for power unit of 1.15 GW) and continues to grow. Today the cost of NPP construction in Russia is two times higher than in China and for 30–40% higher than in Europe.

In the current environment, the economically justified cost of construction of one VVER unit of 1.15 GW capacity is not more than \$2.5 billion with the construction term not more than 5 years. If ROSATOM is not able to meet these indicators, the NPP construction in the country is not competitive compared with modernization of steam turbine power units to combined cycle ones at the existing gas TPP according to the main criteria—volume of replaced gas per year during electricity generation and its net cost. The unreasonably high cost of NPP construction includes not less than 40% of the corruption component.

#### **3.3 Electricity tariffs**

The current regulated price of electricity at the Russian NPPs on the whole sale market is 3.2 US cents per kW/h (for comparison, in the USA—1.87 cents, in France and Germany—2–2.2 cents in 2008 prices). The price of electricity for economic entities in Russia is 2–3 rubles or 7–10 cents, and a new connection of consumers reaches 4.5–5 rubles or 15–17 cents (for comparison, in the USA—6.5–7.5 cents, the average price in the EU—12 cents, in China—8–9 cents). With regard to nuclear engineering, the situation is ambiguous. On the one hand, at the moment, there is

possibility of producing the necessary long lead equipment for no more than three nuclear power units per year, which is obviously not enough for realization of the ambitious plans to build nuclear power plants in Russia and abroad. On the other hand, the large-scale modernization is currently carried out at the key enterprises of the energy sector of the country [6, 11].

In general, our analysis shows that in order to achieve its goals by 2030 at home and abroad, ROSATOM of RF needs to complete all the plans to modernize the machine-building enterprises in a relatively short period of time. This will allow achieving the range and scope of manufactured products to the desired level of 4–5 sets of key equipment for NPP units per year. However, given the fact that currently active negotiations are held or bidding procedures are already ongoing concerning construction of a large number of nuclear power units in a number of countries (Czech Republic, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and others), more significant increase of national nuclear engineering capabilities may be required in the medium term.

To perform such wide-ranging task, it is necessary for ROSATOM of RF, at least, first of all to eliminate the disadvantages mentioned above and to pay special attention to three main areas.

The first main area is the completion of the package of administrative documents, which provide activities of enterprises of the industry and regulate the relations between the industry and the state authorities. The package of administrative documents also includes a set of more than 20 departmental purpose-oriented programs, and, of course, it includes improvement of ROSATOM structure.

The second key area is the knowledge management. It is clear that it is the high-tech industry in that all technological solutions are based on a sufficiently large block of scientific, engineering, and methodological knowledge. And various kinds of dysfunctions and failures take place without some technologization of knowledge generation, handling, and storage. For example, the knowledge is not standardized—it means that different participants of the process are based on different data. The knowledge was generated but not used in practice—hence, there is necrosis of investments in R&D. Developments were made but not commercially used—hence, there are losses in the financial sector and lack of a sufficient set of secondary developments, in which the results of major research programs are applied that have been made previously.

The third major area is the cost management. ROSATOM has been traditionally occupied in collecting data on the economy of enterprises in the industry, their processing, analysis both for planning of ROSATOM activities and in the interests of monitoring economic, financial activities of the enterprises, preparation of balance commissions, and so on. At present, this work must be carried out consistently for a radical reduction in the construction cost.

#### **3.4 Another important**

Substantiation of NPP construction calculation based on needs in power capacities, including the regional context, analysis of the grid condition in order to justify NPP connection to the general layout of power facilities by 2030.

#### **4. Findings**

The state of the national economy significantly affects the nature and methods of corporate management. This suggests the existence of specific corporate management models for each country. Thus, the formation of the corporate management

**49**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power…*

national model in Russia takes place under conditions of incomplete development of the legal framework and uncertainty of ownership of privatized property, with nonexecution of the existing laws on protection of property rights and dominance

Thus, the problem of corporate management, which is not a purely national one, is of particular importance in the global trends. That is because the integration processes in the national high-tech sectors are characterized by the tendency of "winding-down" of internal competition in order to accumulate resources for external expansion. Therefore, the national integrated structures are involved in global competition, in which those benefit who are able to provide customers with the most comprehensive volume of services in comparison with competitors.

With regard to the real possibilities of the modern Russian nuclear power, it must be noted that over the past 15 years, five power units were constructed and put in operation abroad—in China, India, and Iran. After the long years of suspension in construction of nuclear power plants, ATOMSTROYEXPORT became the first company among its competitors, which handed over high power nuclear units complying with all safety requirements to a foreign customer. Thus, ATOMSTROYEXPORT proved to the world that the companies and organizations that make up the core of the nuclear power industry in Russia have sufficient potential and real resources to implement the most complex and demanding nuclear

In 2016, the assets of ASE Group companies (ATOMSTROYEXPORT)—the Engineering division of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, a leading player in the global market for the design and construction of nuclear energy facilities, were finally integrated. The Engineering division is well known to our foreign partners. Since its foundation, it has a reputation as an effective provider of

By decision of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, the Engineering

In addition, ASE Group companies became the first Russian company to receive an international certificate of conformity with the third competency class in the field of project, program, and portfolio management according to the International Project Management Association (IPMA Delta) model. This is another achievement

division became the Industry competence center for the management of capital

For several years, the project management practice has been successfully implemented by ASE. The unique Multi-D technology continues to develop, being a main tool of the project management platform, which allows shortening construction time and improving labor productivity, work quality, and safety while reducing project costs. In 2016, this technology received international recognition as a winner in the WNEAWARDS competition (Le Bourget, France) presenting the "Project Management System Based on Multi-D Technologies," and that is a witness of great recognition from the world energy community. The "Multi-D® Project Management System at the Rostov NPP" won the international CEL AWARD-2016 contest in the "Megaproject" nomination, announced by FIATECH, one of the most respected

the engineering services and has gained trust in the global market.

**6. In 2018, the foreign portfolio exceeded 90 billion US dollars**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

**5. Conclusion**

power projects [6].

construction projects.

industrial associations worldwide.

of the insider control model in joint stock companies.

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

national model in Russia takes place under conditions of incomplete development of the legal framework and uncertainty of ownership of privatized property, with nonexecution of the existing laws on protection of property rights and dominance of the insider control model in joint stock companies.

Thus, the problem of corporate management, which is not a purely national one, is of particular importance in the global trends. That is because the integration processes in the national high-tech sectors are characterized by the tendency of "winding-down" of internal competition in order to accumulate resources for external expansion. Therefore, the national integrated structures are involved in global competition, in which those benefit who are able to provide customers with the most comprehensive volume of services in comparison with competitors.

#### **5. Conclusion**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

of the energy sector of the country [6, 11].

required in the medium term.

applied that have been made previously.

**3.4 Another important**

for a radical reduction in the construction cost.

tion to three main areas.

possibility of producing the necessary long lead equipment for no more than three nuclear power units per year, which is obviously not enough for realization of the ambitious plans to build nuclear power plants in Russia and abroad. On the other hand, the large-scale modernization is currently carried out at the key enterprises

In general, our analysis shows that in order to achieve its goals by 2030 at home and abroad, ROSATOM of RF needs to complete all the plans to modernize the machine-building enterprises in a relatively short period of time. This will allow achieving the range and scope of manufactured products to the desired level of 4–5 sets of key equipment for NPP units per year. However, given the fact that currently active negotiations are held or bidding procedures are already ongoing concerning construction of a large number of nuclear power units in a number of countries (Czech Republic, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and others), more significant increase of national nuclear engineering capabilities may be

To perform such wide-ranging task, it is necessary for ROSATOM of RF, at least, first of all to eliminate the disadvantages mentioned above and to pay special atten-

The first main area is the completion of the package of administrative documents, which provide activities of enterprises of the industry and regulate the relations between the industry and the state authorities. The package of administrative documents also includes a set of more than 20 departmental purpose-oriented programs, and, of course, it includes improvement of ROSATOM structure. The second key area is the knowledge management. It is clear that it is the high-tech industry in that all technological solutions are based on a sufficiently large block of scientific, engineering, and methodological knowledge. And various kinds of dysfunctions and failures take place without some technologization of knowledge generation, handling, and storage. For example, the knowledge is not standardized—it means that different participants of the process are based on different data. The knowledge was generated but not used in practice—hence, there is necrosis of investments in R&D. Developments were made but not commercially used—hence, there are losses in the financial sector and lack of a sufficient set of secondary developments, in which the results of major research programs are

The third major area is the cost management. ROSATOM has been traditionally occupied in collecting data on the economy of enterprises in the industry, their processing, analysis both for planning of ROSATOM activities and in the interests of monitoring economic, financial activities of the enterprises, preparation of balance commissions, and so on. At present, this work must be carried out consistently

Substantiation of NPP construction calculation based on needs in power capacities, including the regional context, analysis of the grid condition in order to justify

The state of the national economy significantly affects the nature and methods of corporate management. This suggests the existence of specific corporate management models for each country. Thus, the formation of the corporate management

NPP connection to the general layout of power facilities by 2030.

**48**

**4. Findings**

With regard to the real possibilities of the modern Russian nuclear power, it must be noted that over the past 15 years, five power units were constructed and put in operation abroad—in China, India, and Iran. After the long years of suspension in construction of nuclear power plants, ATOMSTROYEXPORT became the first company among its competitors, which handed over high power nuclear units complying with all safety requirements to a foreign customer. Thus, ATOMSTROYEXPORT proved to the world that the companies and organizations that make up the core of the nuclear power industry in Russia have sufficient potential and real resources to implement the most complex and demanding nuclear power projects [6].

In 2016, the assets of ASE Group companies (ATOMSTROYEXPORT)—the Engineering division of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, a leading player in the global market for the design and construction of nuclear energy facilities, were finally integrated. The Engineering division is well known to our foreign partners. Since its foundation, it has a reputation as an effective provider of the engineering services and has gained trust in the global market.

#### **6. In 2018, the foreign portfolio exceeded 90 billion US dollars**

By decision of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, the Engineering division became the Industry competence center for the management of capital construction projects.

For several years, the project management practice has been successfully implemented by ASE. The unique Multi-D technology continues to develop, being a main tool of the project management platform, which allows shortening construction time and improving labor productivity, work quality, and safety while reducing project costs. In 2016, this technology received international recognition as a winner in the WNEAWARDS competition (Le Bourget, France) presenting the "Project Management System Based on Multi-D Technologies," and that is a witness of great recognition from the world energy community. The "Multi-D® Project Management System at the Rostov NPP" won the international CEL AWARD-2016 contest in the "Megaproject" nomination, announced by FIATECH, one of the most respected industrial associations worldwide.

In addition, ASE Group companies became the first Russian company to receive an international certificate of conformity with the third competency class in the field of project, program, and portfolio management according to the International Project Management Association (IPMA Delta) model. This is another achievement internationally. Currently, certification in the field of project management according to the international IPMA standards has been passed by all top managers of the company. The division will continue to implement its strategic goals in the difficult situation of growing competition both in the NPP construction market and in the market for construction management services for the complex engineering facilities, using all resources to increase competitiveness.

Based on the successfully constructed five power units (in China, India, and Iran), the following areas of cooperation abroad are being implemented.

#### **6.1 China**

The second phase of the Tianwan NPP (TAES-2), which also includes two units with VVER-1000 reactors under the NPP-91 design, is being constructed in accordance with the General Contract for units 3 and 4 of TAES-2, signed in 2010, and entered into force in 2011. The Russian side has obligations to develop the complete engineering and operation designs of the Nuclear Island (NI) for TAES-2 units 3 and 4, providing the related services. ASE JSC also undertakes the overall technical responsibility for the design of units 3 and 4, is responsible for managing interfaces throughout the project, and provides warranty obligations.

The General Contract provides for commissioning of unit 3 in February 2018 and unit 4 in December 2018. All activities were going on schedule.

On December 30, 2017, power was launched at unit 3.

It is planned to bring the number of Russian power units in China to 8.

#### **6.2 Iran**

The implementation of the Bushehr-1 NPP project made it possible to sign the Protocol to the Intergovernmental Agreement of 08.25.1992 in 2014, which provides for the possibility to construct eight NPP units in Iran.

At the same time, on November 11, 2014, the Contract was signed under which ATOMSTROYEXPORT will construct the second and third power units of the Bushehr NPP. On September 10, 2016, the solemn laying of the "first stone" took place. The start of activities under the Contract was scheduled on December 28, 2016, when the Russian side received an advance from the Iranian customer.

During 2017, work was carried out to prepare the site. On March 14, 2001, the earthworks were started on the Bushehr-2 NPP site. On October 31, 2017, a ceremony was held to begin activities at the foundation pit of the main buildings of power unit 2. In 2018, engineering and geological surveys of the marine area and the site for spillway facilities were planned.

It was planned to coordinate the Bushehr-2 NPP design with the Customer and begin procedures related to the examination and obtaining a license for construction from the Iranian regulator. For 2018, completion of the pit for power unit 3 was scheduled, and for 2019—the "first concrete" at power unit 2. In accordance with the Contract, provisional acceptance of unit 2 is planned in 2026, of unit 3—in 2027.

#### **6.3 India**

Under the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of India on cooperation in the construction of additional nuclear power units at the Kudankulam site, as well as in the construction of nuclear power plants under the Russian designs at new sites in the Republic of India, dated December 5, 2008, the parties started the project realization plan for construction of power units 3 and 4 of the Kudankulam NPP with VVER-1000 MW reactor units each.

**51**

**6.5 Hungary**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power…*

On October 4, 2014, the General Framework Agreement (GFA) was signed for construction of the Kudankulam NPP power units 3 and 4. In June 2017, the first concrete was poured at the second phase of the Kudankulam NPP unit 3, in October

The planned start date for warranty operation of power units 3 and 4 is 2023 and

On June 1, 2017, ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation signed the General Framework Agreement for the construction of the third phase of the Kudankulam NPP, and the Intergovernmental Credit Protocol necessary for implementation of the project was also signed. The Agreement provides for the construction of the third phase of the Kudankulam NPP power units 5 and 6 under the Russian design. On July 31, 2017, Contracts were signed between ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation (IAEC) for the priority design activities and detailed design and supply of basic equipment for the third phase of the Kudankulam NPP. The planned first concrete for power units 5 and 6 is 2019 and 2020, respectively. Planned dates for the start of warranty

On December 25, 2015, ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission signed the General Contract for the construction of the Ruppur NPP consisting of 1200 MW two power units under NPP-2006 design, including a number of Appendices thereto. The signing of the General Contract was a fundamental event that allowed to start activities at the main stage of the plant construction. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the entry into force of the General Contract depended from fulfillment of a number of conditions. The first was signing of a credit intergovernmental agreement for the main construction period of the Ruppur NPP, then signing of Appendices to the General Contract, obtaining a license by the Bangladesh party for the NPP site and approval of the

On July 26, 2016, the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed on allocation of

Simultaneously with the fulfillment of the conditions for the entry into force of the General Contract, in 2016 significant work was done to coordinate and prepare for signing the related integration Contracts for the Ruppur NPP project, in particular, the Contract for supply of nuclear fuel, the Contract for technical assistance for operation, service, and technical maintenance, and repair of the Ruppur NPP. In March 2017, the parties agreed and initialed the Intergovernmental Agreement Draft on spent nuclear fuel management at the Ruppur NPP. It was

ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC is completing the construction and installation activities at the preliminary facilities and construction and installation base. In 2016, under the General Contract, the working documentation for the main construction period was developed, as well as the materials justifying the licenses for location and construction of power units 1 and 2 of the Ruppur NPP. The first concrete is planned for 2017. Commissioning of the first unit of the Ruppur NPP is

History: The Hungarian-Russian cooperation in the field of nuclear energy has more than 60 years. It began in 1955 with signing of the Agreement to make

the state loan to finance, the main stage of the Ruppur NPP construction.

planned to prepare an agreement for signing as soon as possible.

scheduled for 2022, and of the second unit—for 2023.

operation of power units 5 and 6 are 2025 and 2026, respectively.

selected NPP design by the Bangladesh regulatory body.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

2017—unit 4.

2024, respectively.

**6.4 Bangladesh**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

On October 4, 2014, the General Framework Agreement (GFA) was signed for construction of the Kudankulam NPP power units 3 and 4. In June 2017, the first concrete was poured at the second phase of the Kudankulam NPP unit 3, in October 2017—unit 4.

The planned start date for warranty operation of power units 3 and 4 is 2023 and 2024, respectively.

On June 1, 2017, ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation signed the General Framework Agreement for the construction of the third phase of the Kudankulam NPP, and the Intergovernmental Credit Protocol necessary for implementation of the project was also signed. The Agreement provides for the construction of the third phase of the Kudankulam NPP power units 5 and 6 under the Russian design. On July 31, 2017, Contracts were signed between ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation (IAEC) for the priority design activities and detailed design and supply of basic equipment for the third phase of the Kudankulam NPP. The planned first concrete for power units 5 and 6 is 2019 and 2020, respectively. Planned dates for the start of warranty operation of power units 5 and 6 are 2025 and 2026, respectively.

#### **6.4 Bangladesh**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

ties, using all resources to increase competitiveness.

throughout the project, and provides warranty obligations.

for the possibility to construct eight NPP units in Iran.

site for spillway facilities were planned.

and unit 4 in December 2018. All activities were going on schedule. On December 30, 2017, power was launched at unit 3.

**6.1 China**

**6.2 Iran**

internationally. Currently, certification in the field of project management according to the international IPMA standards has been passed by all top managers of the company. The division will continue to implement its strategic goals in the difficult situation of growing competition both in the NPP construction market and in the market for construction management services for the complex engineering facili-

Based on the successfully constructed five power units (in China, India, and

The second phase of the Tianwan NPP (TAES-2), which also includes two units with VVER-1000 reactors under the NPP-91 design, is being constructed in accordance with the General Contract for units 3 and 4 of TAES-2, signed in 2010, and entered into force in 2011. The Russian side has obligations to develop the complete engineering and operation designs of the Nuclear Island (NI) for TAES-2 units 3 and 4, providing the related services. ASE JSC also undertakes the overall technical responsibility for the design of units 3 and 4, is responsible for managing interfaces

The General Contract provides for commissioning of unit 3 in February 2018

The implementation of the Bushehr-1 NPP project made it possible to sign the Protocol to the Intergovernmental Agreement of 08.25.1992 in 2014, which provides

At the same time, on November 11, 2014, the Contract was signed under which

During 2017, work was carried out to prepare the site. On March 14, 2001, the earthworks were started on the Bushehr-2 NPP site. On October 31, 2017, a ceremony was held to begin activities at the foundation pit of the main buildings of power unit 2. In 2018, engineering and geological surveys of the marine area and the

It was planned to coordinate the Bushehr-2 NPP design with the Customer and begin procedures related to the examination and obtaining a license for construction from the Iranian regulator. For 2018, completion of the pit for power unit 3 was scheduled, and for 2019—the "first concrete" at power unit 2. In accordance with the Contract, provisional acceptance of unit 2 is planned in 2026, of unit 3—in 2027.

Under the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of India on cooperation in the construction of additional nuclear power units at the Kudankulam site, as well as in the construction of nuclear power plants under the Russian designs at new sites in the Republic of India, dated December 5, 2008, the parties started the project realization plan for construction of power units 3 and 4 of the Kudankulam NPP with VVER-1000 MW reactor units each.

ATOMSTROYEXPORT will construct the second and third power units of the Bushehr NPP. On September 10, 2016, the solemn laying of the "first stone" took place. The start of activities under the Contract was scheduled on December 28, 2016, when the Russian side received an advance from the Iranian customer.

It is planned to bring the number of Russian power units in China to 8.

Iran), the following areas of cooperation abroad are being implemented.

**50**

**6.3 India**

On December 25, 2015, ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission signed the General Contract for the construction of the Ruppur NPP consisting of 1200 MW two power units under NPP-2006 design, including a number of Appendices thereto. The signing of the General Contract was a fundamental event that allowed to start activities at the main stage of the plant construction.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the entry into force of the General Contract depended from fulfillment of a number of conditions. The first was signing of a credit intergovernmental agreement for the main construction period of the Ruppur NPP, then signing of Appendices to the General Contract, obtaining a license by the Bangladesh party for the NPP site and approval of the selected NPP design by the Bangladesh regulatory body.

On July 26, 2016, the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed on allocation of the state loan to finance, the main stage of the Ruppur NPP construction.

Simultaneously with the fulfillment of the conditions for the entry into force of the General Contract, in 2016 significant work was done to coordinate and prepare for signing the related integration Contracts for the Ruppur NPP project, in particular, the Contract for supply of nuclear fuel, the Contract for technical assistance for operation, service, and technical maintenance, and repair of the Ruppur NPP.

In March 2017, the parties agreed and initialed the Intergovernmental Agreement Draft on spent nuclear fuel management at the Ruppur NPP. It was planned to prepare an agreement for signing as soon as possible.

ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC is completing the construction and installation activities at the preliminary facilities and construction and installation base. In 2016, under the General Contract, the working documentation for the main construction period was developed, as well as the materials justifying the licenses for location and construction of power units 1 and 2 of the Ruppur NPP. The first concrete is planned for 2017. Commissioning of the first unit of the Ruppur NPP is scheduled for 2022, and of the second unit—for 2023.

#### **6.5 Hungary**

History: The Hungarian-Russian cooperation in the field of nuclear energy has more than 60 years. It began in 1955 with signing of the Agreement to make a research reactor in Budapest. On December 28, 1966, the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between Hungary and the Soviet Union on construction of the first nuclear power plant in Hungary. Currently, the Paks NPP with four VVER-440 units is successfully operating, providing more than 50% of the country's electricity.

On January 14, 2014, the Intergovernmental Agreement between Russia and Hungary was signed in Moscow on cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which envisages the construction of two new Paks-2 NPP units.

On December 9, 2014, the Hungarian MVM Paks-2 JSC and the Russian NIAEP JSC (ASE EC JSC since December 2016) signed three Agreements regarding the construction of two NPP units with VVER-1200 Russian reactors:


In April 2015, the approval procedure by the EURATOM Commission for the Contract on supply of nuclear fuel for new units of the Paks-2 NPP was successfully completed.

On February 17, 2015, during the visit of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to Hungary, the Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM and the Ministry of Social Resources of Hungary on training of personnel in the field of nuclear energy and related areas. According to the document, the parties will carry out cooperation in the field of education and training of personnel, educational, and scientific activities, as well as in joint educational programs in nuclear energy and related fields.

In June 2015, NIAEP JSC (ASE EC JSC since December 2016) and MVM Paks-2 JSC signed all necessary Appendices for opening financing for the EPC Contract, which stipulate the time schedule, procedure and terms of payments, and insurance conditions.

Hungary, as a member of the European Union, was obliged to carry out a total of five notification and conciliation procedures with the European Commission in connection with implementation of the Paks-2 NPP expansion project. In November 2016, the European Commission completed the expertise of the Paks-2 nuclear power plant construction project, removing all obstacles to its further development. In March 2017, construction of the new Paks-2 nuclear power units in Hungary was approved by the European Commission (EC).

The parties are developing the construction time schedule. It is planned that the license for construction of the Paks-2 NPP will be ready in 2019, and the first concrete will be poured in 2020. The peak of construction work is expected in 2021–2022. The nuclear island and the primary circuit are the responsibility of the General Contractor, while other works are carried out on procurement.

The main task of 2017 was preparation for the Paks-2 NPP construction. The scope of tasks includes preparation of engineering documentation, cooperation with suppliers, and application for a building license. As a part of the activities related to preparation of the documentation necessary to obtain licenses for the Paks-2 NPP construction, the technical design for 5 and 6 units, the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR), and the probabilistic safety analysis reports are being prepared.

**53**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power…*

ing chapters of the PSAR and sections of the technical design is ongoing.

and competencies) and related services (legal, translation, etc.).

The announcement of the first tender procedures has begun. Competitive information will be available on the specialized platform for ROSATOM tenders. Tender notices will also be widely published on the relevant Hungarian and international sites. All tender documentation will be posted in English. The Hungarian and other European companies can take part in procurement related to almost the entire process of the NPP construction, from design and construction to equipment supplies (except for the primary equipment that requires very specific knowledge

*Prospects for cooperation*. In the future, when implementing the project for the Paks-2 NPP construction, all purchases of the necessary equipment and services will be carried out openly and transparently in accordance with European Union standards. As potential suppliers of equipment and services, all interested companies, including those from EU countries, can equally participate in tenders. The Russian side expects significant participation of the firms from Hungary, so that the

level of localization, i.e., local industry participation, will amount to 40%.

Requirements for suppliers are different, depending on what they supply or

The El Dabaa NPP (Egypt), which includes four units with VVER-1200 reactors, is being constructed in accordance with the EPC Contract, which was signed between ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Department of Nuclear Plants of the Arab Republic of Egypt on December 31, 2016 and entered into force on December 11, 2017. The project provides for construction of four power units of 1.2 GW capacity with VVER-1200 MW reactor (water-to-water power reactor) according to the Russian design. The Russian side will also assist the Egyptian partners in developing nuclear infrastructure, supply the Russian nuclear fuel for the entire life cycle of the nuclear power plant, build a special storage facility and supply containers for storing spent nuclear fuel, increase the level of localization, provide training for national personnel, and support the Egyptian partners in operation and maintenance of the El Dabaa NPP during the first 10 years of the plant's operation.

In accordance with the EPC Contract, the first power unit of the El Dabaa NPP

The Intergovernmental Agreement of the Russian Federation and Turkey on cooperation in the field of construction and operation of the nuclear power plant on the Akkuyu site in the Mersin province on the south coast of Turkey was signed

The Akkuyu NPP project includes four power units of the Russian VVER-1200 3+ generation reactors. The capacity of each NPP unit will be 1200 MW. The design solutions of the Akkuyu NPP meet all modern requirements of the world nuclear community and established by the IAEA safety standards, the International nuclear

The start of commercial operation of the Akkuyu NPP units 1–4 was tentatively

security advisory group, and the requirements of the EUR Club.

scheduled for April 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, respectively.

ATOMPROEKT JSC, the General Designer is completing work on the conceptual design documents that precede development of the design documentation and is also completing adaptation of the VVER-1200 base design, agreed with the Paks-2 MVM Customer, to the specific conditions of the Paks site. The process of develop-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

what services they provide.

will be commissioned in 2026.

**6.6 Egypt**

**6.7 Turkey**

on May 12, 2010.

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

ATOMPROEKT JSC, the General Designer is completing work on the conceptual design documents that precede development of the design documentation and is also completing adaptation of the VVER-1200 base design, agreed with the Paks-2 MVM Customer, to the specific conditions of the Paks site. The process of developing chapters of the PSAR and sections of the technical design is ongoing.

The announcement of the first tender procedures has begun. Competitive information will be available on the specialized platform for ROSATOM tenders. Tender notices will also be widely published on the relevant Hungarian and international sites. All tender documentation will be posted in English. The Hungarian and other European companies can take part in procurement related to almost the entire process of the NPP construction, from design and construction to equipment supplies (except for the primary equipment that requires very specific knowledge and competencies) and related services (legal, translation, etc.).

*Prospects for cooperation*. In the future, when implementing the project for the Paks-2 NPP construction, all purchases of the necessary equipment and services will be carried out openly and transparently in accordance with European Union standards. As potential suppliers of equipment and services, all interested companies, including those from EU countries, can equally participate in tenders. The Russian side expects significant participation of the firms from Hungary, so that the level of localization, i.e., local industry participation, will amount to 40%.

Requirements for suppliers are different, depending on what they supply or what services they provide.

#### **6.6 Egypt**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

electricity.

completed.

fields.

conditions.

a research reactor in Budapest. On December 28, 1966, the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between Hungary and the Soviet Union on construction of the first nuclear power plant in Hungary. Currently, the Paks NPP with four VVER-440 units is successfully operating, providing more than 50% of the country's

On January 14, 2014, the Intergovernmental Agreement between Russia and Hungary was signed in Moscow on cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which envisages the construction of two new Paks-2 NPP units. On December 9, 2014, the Hungarian MVM Paks-2 JSC and the Russian NIAEP JSC (ASE EC JSC since December 2016) signed three Agreements regarding the

• EPC—the Contract (engineering, equipment supply, and construction) for two new power units, in which the tasks for the next 10 years are fixed, taking into account the physical launch of the first unit in 2023, of the second—in 2025;

• the Contract that governs the terms of service for future power units; and

In April 2015, the approval procedure by the EURATOM Commission for the Contract on supply of nuclear fuel for new units of the Paks-2 NPP was successfully

On February 17, 2015, during the visit of the President of the Russian Federation

In June 2015, NIAEP JSC (ASE EC JSC since December 2016) and MVM Paks-2 JSC signed all necessary Appendices for opening financing for the EPC Contract, which stipulate the time schedule, procedure and terms of payments, and insurance

Hungary, as a member of the European Union, was obliged to carry out a total of five notification and conciliation procedures with the European Commission in connection with implementation of the Paks-2 NPP expansion project. In November 2016, the European Commission completed the expertise of the Paks-2 nuclear power plant construction project, removing all obstacles to its further development. In March 2017, construction of the new Paks-2 nuclear power units in

The parties are developing the construction time schedule. It is planned that the license for construction of the Paks-2 NPP will be ready in 2019, and the first concrete will be poured in 2020. The peak of construction work is expected in 2021–2022. The nuclear island and the primary circuit are the responsibility of the

The main task of 2017 was preparation for the Paks-2 NPP construction. The scope of tasks includes preparation of engineering documentation, cooperation with suppliers, and application for a building license. As a part of the activities related to preparation of the documentation necessary to obtain licenses for the Paks-2 NPP construction, the technical design for 5 and 6 units, the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR), and the probabilistic safety analysis reports are being prepared.

General Contractor, while other works are carried out on procurement.

Vladimir Putin to Hungary, the Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM and the Ministry of Social Resources of Hungary on training of personnel in the field of nuclear energy and related areas. According to the document, the parties will carry out cooperation in the field of education and training of personnel, educational, and scientific activities, as well as in joint educational programs in nuclear energy and related

construction of two NPP units with VVER-1200 Russian reactors:

• the Contract on the conditions of long-term fuel supply.

Hungary was approved by the European Commission (EC).

**52**

The El Dabaa NPP (Egypt), which includes four units with VVER-1200 reactors, is being constructed in accordance with the EPC Contract, which was signed between ATOMSTROYEXPORT JSC and the Department of Nuclear Plants of the Arab Republic of Egypt on December 31, 2016 and entered into force on December 11, 2017. The project provides for construction of four power units of 1.2 GW capacity with VVER-1200 MW reactor (water-to-water power reactor) according to the Russian design. The Russian side will also assist the Egyptian partners in developing nuclear infrastructure, supply the Russian nuclear fuel for the entire life cycle of the nuclear power plant, build a special storage facility and supply containers for storing spent nuclear fuel, increase the level of localization, provide training for national personnel, and support the Egyptian partners in operation and maintenance of the El Dabaa NPP during the first 10 years of the plant's operation.

In accordance with the EPC Contract, the first power unit of the El Dabaa NPP will be commissioned in 2026.

#### **6.7 Turkey**

The Intergovernmental Agreement of the Russian Federation and Turkey on cooperation in the field of construction and operation of the nuclear power plant on the Akkuyu site in the Mersin province on the south coast of Turkey was signed on May 12, 2010.

The Akkuyu NPP project includes four power units of the Russian VVER-1200 3+ generation reactors. The capacity of each NPP unit will be 1200 MW. The design solutions of the Akkuyu NPP meet all modern requirements of the world nuclear community and established by the IAEA safety standards, the International nuclear security advisory group, and the requirements of the EUR Club.

The start of commercial operation of the Akkuyu NPP units 1–4 was tentatively scheduled for April 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, respectively.

#### **6.8 Finland**

On October 5, 2011, the construction site of a new nuclear power plant in Finland was announced: it will be Hanhikivi Cape in the community (municipality) of the Pyhäjoki Province, Northern Ostrobothnia (on the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, about 100 km south of Oulu). In the media, there are various names of this plant—the Pyuhäjoki NPP, the Hanhikivi NPP, the Hanhikivi-1 NPP, but the official name is the Hanhikivi-1 NPP. It was originally planned that construction of the plant would begin in 2015, and the plant would be launched in 2020, and its maximum capacity would be 1800 MW. Initially, the negotiations were held with the companies Areva and Toshiba.

On July 3, 2013, the Finnish company Fennovoima Oy and Rusatom Overseas CJSC, a subsidiary of the Russian State Corporation ROSATOM, signed the Agreement to develop the design in order to prepare for signing of the Contract for the plant construction. It was planned that this Contract would be signed before the end of 2013. In September 2014, the Finnish government approved the NPP construction project with the participation of Russia, envisaging the use of the Russian VVER-1200 reactor. The plant should be built by 2024.

#### **6.9 Belarus**

In the Republic of Belarus, at the Ostrovets site near the city of Grodno, the construction of the Belarusian NPP consisting of VVER-1200 two power units with the total capacity of up to 2400 (2 × 1200) MW is underway. The obligations of the General Contractor are assigned to ASE JSC. It is envisaged that the Belarusian NPP is being constructed on the basis of the full "turnkey" responsibility of the General Contractor. The "NPP-2006" design, the General Designer is ATOMPROEKT JSC, was chosen for construction of the first Belarusian NPP.

The Belarusian NPP design complies with all international standards and IAEA recommendations and is characterized by the enhanced safety characteristics, technical, and economic indicators.

The main advantages of the Russian design are a high degree of security provided through the use of the independent channels of active and passive safety systems, the melt trap, and other systems. Unit 1 of the plant is planned to be commissioned in 2019, unit 2—in 2020.

The great prospects imply an even greater responsibility. The previous story, now of the ASE Group companies, allows to hope for successful implementation, I am not afraid of the word, of the grandiose tasks, by the nuclear power industry of Russia!

#### **Author details**

Victor Kozlov Russian University of Economics Named After Plekhanov, Moscow

\*Address all correspondence to: kozlvik@mail.ru

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**55**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power…*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

[1] Magazine. Economist. 2004;**7**:24

[2] Kozlov VV. Corporate Structures.

[3] Paleotyp M. Magazine. Problems of

[5] Nigmatulin B. First Deputy Director of the Institute of Natural Monopolies. Open Letter to Kiriyenko S.V., CEO of SC ROSATOM. Available from: http://www.atom44.ru/component/ content/article/7-novosti-atomnojj-

[6] Atomic Expert. The Global Nuclear Fuel Market—Supply and Demand 2013-2030. 2013. Available from: http:// atomicexpert.com/sitemap [Accessed:

[4] Kozlov V. Personal training in the field of energy and its role in the

economical safety of Russia

ehnergetiki/45-nigmatulin

[7] Magazine. Innovation and Investments, Moscow, #2. 2014

abroad. Monograph. 2018

Atomstroyexport.ru

report 2018

[8] Rosatom of RF annual report for

[9] Kozlov V. Russian nuclear energy

[10] Available from: http://www.

[11] Rosatom engineering division group of the companies ASE, annual

24.02.2014]

2013

Forecasting. 2005;**3**:45

2004

**References**

*Does Russia Have the Possibilities to Diversify Its Export Potential to Manage the Power… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90709*

#### **References**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

the companies Areva and Toshiba.

On October 5, 2011, the construction site of a new nuclear power plant in Finland was announced: it will be Hanhikivi Cape in the community (municipality) of the Pyhäjoki Province, Northern Ostrobothnia (on the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, about 100 km south of Oulu). In the media, there are various names of this plant—the Pyuhäjoki NPP, the Hanhikivi NPP, the Hanhikivi-1 NPP, but the official name is the Hanhikivi-1 NPP. It was originally planned that construction of the plant would begin in 2015, and the plant would be launched in 2020, and its maximum capacity would be 1800 MW. Initially, the negotiations were held with

On July 3, 2013, the Finnish company Fennovoima Oy and Rusatom Overseas

Agreement to develop the design in order to prepare for signing of the Contract for the plant construction. It was planned that this Contract would be signed before the end of 2013. In September 2014, the Finnish government approved the NPP construction project with the participation of Russia, envisaging the use of the Russian

In the Republic of Belarus, at the Ostrovets site near the city of Grodno, the construction of the Belarusian NPP consisting of VVER-1200 two power units with the total capacity of up to 2400 (2 × 1200) MW is underway. The obligations of the General Contractor are assigned to ASE JSC. It is envisaged that the Belarusian NPP is being constructed on the basis of the full "turnkey" responsibility of the General Contractor. The "NPP-2006" design, the General Designer is ATOMPROEKT JSC,

The Belarusian NPP design complies with all international standards and IAEA

The main advantages of the Russian design are a high degree of security provided through the use of the independent channels of active and passive safety systems, the melt trap, and other systems. Unit 1 of the plant is planned to be com-

The great prospects imply an even greater responsibility. The previous story, now of the ASE Group companies, allows to hope for successful implementation, I am not afraid of the word, of the grandiose tasks, by the nuclear power industry of Russia!

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

recommendations and is characterized by the enhanced safety characteristics,

Russian University of Economics Named After Plekhanov, Moscow

\*Address all correspondence to: kozlvik@mail.ru

provided the original work is properly cited.

CJSC, a subsidiary of the Russian State Corporation ROSATOM, signed the

VVER-1200 reactor. The plant should be built by 2024.

was chosen for construction of the first Belarusian NPP.

technical, and economic indicators.

missioned in 2019, unit 2—in 2020.

**Author details**

Victor Kozlov

**6.8 Finland**

**6.9 Belarus**

**54**

[1] Magazine. Economist. 2004;**7**:24

[2] Kozlov VV. Corporate Structures. 2004

[3] Paleotyp M. Magazine. Problems of Forecasting. 2005;**3**:45

[4] Kozlov V. Personal training in the field of energy and its role in the economical safety of Russia

[5] Nigmatulin B. First Deputy Director of the Institute of Natural Monopolies. Open Letter to Kiriyenko S.V., CEO of SC ROSATOM. Available from: http://www.atom44.ru/component/ content/article/7-novosti-atomnojjehnergetiki/45-nigmatulin

[6] Atomic Expert. The Global Nuclear Fuel Market—Supply and Demand 2013-2030. 2013. Available from: http:// atomicexpert.com/sitemap [Accessed: 24.02.2014]

[7] Magazine. Innovation and Investments, Moscow, #2. 2014

[8] Rosatom of RF annual report for 2013

[9] Kozlov V. Russian nuclear energy abroad. Monograph. 2018

[10] Available from: http://www. Atomstroyexport.ru

[11] Rosatom engineering division group of the companies ASE, annual report 2018

**Chapter 5**

*Yasuo Hirose*

**1. Introduction**

**57**

**Abstract**

Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten

Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity

A mixture of NaF-KF-UF4 eutectic and NaF-KF-TRUF3 eutectic containing heavy elements as much as 2.8 g/cc makes a fast-spectrum molten salt reactor based upon the U-Pu cycle available without a blanket. It does not object breeding but a stable operation without fissile makeup under practical contingencies. It is highly integrated with online dry chemical processes based on "selective oxide precipitation" to create a U-Pu cycle to provide as low as 0.01% leakage of TRU and nominated as the FFMSR. This certifies that the radiotoxicity of HLW for 1500 effective full power days (EFPD) operation can be equivalent to 405 tons of depleted uranium after 500 years cooling without Partition and Transmutation (P&T). A certain amount of U-TRU mixture recovered from LWR spent fuel is loaded after the initial criticality until U-Pu equilibrium but the fixed amount of 238U only thereafter. The TRU inventory in an FFMSR stays at an equilibrium perpetually. Accumulation of spent fuel of an LWR for 55 years should afford to start up the identical thermal capacity of FFMSR and to keep operation hypothetically until running out of 238U. Full deployment of the FFMSR should make the

entire fuel cycle infrastructures needless except the HLW disposal site.

the MOX spent fuel, nuclear fuel cycle and associated wastes

**Keywords:** fast-spectrum fluoride molten salt reactor, high-level radioactive waste, structure of fuel salt, density of fuel salt, redox potential control, freezing behavior of fuel salt, selective oxide precipitation process, front-end processing dedicated to

Almost but a few would recognize the relation between fossil fuel burning and the global greenhouse issue. However many of them tend to be in favor of expensive and inefficient but immediately harmless renewable energy than existing nuclear. A major barrier to persuade con-nuclear elements is the nuclear waste issue which should have directly associated with Pu production for the traditional strategy to close fuel cycle to ensure national energy security by using the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). In coping with this circumstance, resolutions to address both issues, i.e., decreasing radiotoxicity of the high-level radioactive waste

Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with

of Nuclear Wastes

#### **Chapter 5**

## Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity of Nuclear Wastes

*Yasuo Hirose*

### **Abstract**

A mixture of NaF-KF-UF4 eutectic and NaF-KF-TRUF3 eutectic containing heavy elements as much as 2.8 g/cc makes a fast-spectrum molten salt reactor based upon the U-Pu cycle available without a blanket. It does not object breeding but a stable operation without fissile makeup under practical contingencies. It is highly integrated with online dry chemical processes based on "selective oxide precipitation" to create a U-Pu cycle to provide as low as 0.01% leakage of TRU and nominated as the FFMSR. This certifies that the radiotoxicity of HLW for 1500 effective full power days (EFPD) operation can be equivalent to 405 tons of depleted uranium after 500 years cooling without Partition and Transmutation (P&T). A certain amount of U-TRU mixture recovered from LWR spent fuel is loaded after the initial criticality until U-Pu equilibrium but the fixed amount of 238U only thereafter. The TRU inventory in an FFMSR stays at an equilibrium perpetually. Accumulation of spent fuel of an LWR for 55 years should afford to start up the identical thermal capacity of FFMSR and to keep operation hypothetically until running out of 238U. Full deployment of the FFMSR should make the entire fuel cycle infrastructures needless except the HLW disposal site.

**Keywords:** fast-spectrum fluoride molten salt reactor, high-level radioactive waste, structure of fuel salt, density of fuel salt, redox potential control, freezing behavior of fuel salt, selective oxide precipitation process, front-end processing dedicated to the MOX spent fuel, nuclear fuel cycle and associated wastes

#### **1. Introduction**

Almost but a few would recognize the relation between fossil fuel burning and the global greenhouse issue. However many of them tend to be in favor of expensive and inefficient but immediately harmless renewable energy than existing nuclear. A major barrier to persuade con-nuclear elements is the nuclear waste issue which should have directly associated with Pu production for the traditional strategy to close fuel cycle to ensure national energy security by using the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). In coping with this circumstance, resolutions to address both issues, i.e., decreasing radiotoxicity of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and sustaining energy using the molten salt reactor (MSR) technology, have been expected.

monoclinic crystal structure. During the freezing process, almost 75% of the fuel salt was solidified at 500°C as the same composition as the liquid phase. Eventually 0.47LiF-0.515BeF2-0.015ThF4 containing very small amount of 233UF4 solidified as eutectic at 370°C [13]. This freezing process was evaluated as nuclear criticality safety in the fuel salt drain tank, and it became as a basis of the technological

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

In serious attempt to use hexagonal PuF3 as a fissile instead of monoclinic 233UF4

The elaborated solubility measurements in FLiNaK by Russian scientists [3–6] should have been more appropriately respected if they had made the chemical composition of alkali fluoride matrix of liquefied samples analytically quantified instead of their customary practice in which the matrix had been always assumed as FLiNaK, even if they have found no UF4 or PuF3 but 2KF-UF4, 7KF-6UF4, KPu2F7, KPuF4, and NaPuF4 in the solidified residue by the X-ray diffractometric analysis. The author tries to interpret the solubility of UF4 and PuF3 in the FLiNaK by producing liquefied components at respective temperatures as shown in **Table 1** based upon the material balance referring from relevant phase diagrams in **Figure 1** [15] and **Figure 2** [16]. The red line in each ternary diagram which starts from the actinide fluoride corner, passes through the eutectic point, and ends in the alkali fluoride edge represents the actinide concentration in a fixed matrix composition. The increasing process of liquefied fraction consists of two types, firstly composing compounds at the eutectic temperature and secondly increasing content of liquefied fraction according to rising temperature. Alkali fluoride compounds of UF4 have a wider range of liquid zone than those of PuF3 in the relevant phase

in 0.72LiF-0.16BeF2-0.12ThF4, it had been treated as the solubility of PuF3. The term "solubility" has been used as a convenient synopsis of "liquefied fraction" on the phase diagram [14]. However they are not the same exactly because "solubility" is defined as the mole fraction of solute in solvent, while "liquefied fraction" is

feasibility.

diagrams.

**Table 1.**

**59**

*Interpretation of solubility upon accumulated liquefied compounds.*

defined as the fraction in total mole value.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

The MSR technology was developed and culminated by successful operation of the molten salt reactor experiment (MSRE) and conceptual design of the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) in Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) by 1975 to make thorium as a naturally available fuel usable in addition to uranium.

Many attempts have been made to realize breeder reactors based on the U-Pu cycle using molten salt fuels; however such endeavors had been limited in the chloride salts, because of the feasibility to obtain high enough energy of neutron flux [1].

In addition to the predicted solubility data from thermodynamic calculations [2], recently actualized high solubility data of various fluorides of actinides and lanthanides specifically in the LiF-NaF-KF eutectic mixture (traditionally named as FLiNaK) [3–6] reportedly could allow utilizing the high enough energy neutrons for the U-Pu breeding cycle aided by a high heavy element inventory (2.8 t/m<sup>3</sup> ) and a small neutron moderating capability [7].

It was reported that a system nominated as a 3.2 GWt U-Pu fast-spectrum molten salt reactor (U-Pu FMSR) of 21.2 m<sup>3</sup> core volume (31.8 m<sup>3</sup> total primary system volume) starting from 68.5 tons of uranium with 15 tons of plutonium solving in FLiNaK to reach an equilibrium state after 10 years with an online chemical processing in which the conversion ratio (CR) became positive with inventory of 68.6 tons uranium, 20.9 tons plutonium, and 1.4 tons miner actinides did not need fissile material in feeding and consumed 238U only [7].

It does not intend to reduce doubling time but can breed fissile to guarantee stable operation without a blanket. It does not deliberately decrease TRU but confines them into the reactor core and isolates them from improper uses indefinitely. It does continuously renew fissionable actinides by the metabolic function with an online processing and produce nearly actinide-free fission product streams to be wasted. This implies that fluoride molten salt reactor technology is being available based upon U-Pu breeding cycle to afford reasonable approach to global task addressed to sustaining natural resources, decreasing stockpile of plutonium as well as depleted uranium, relieving radioactive waste burden from the use of nuclear energy, achieving complete nonproliferation, inheriting safety characteristics of the liquid fuel, and establishing complete stand-alone system associating with only the waste disposal facility.

The author and associates have successfully performed a follow-up calculation not only for FLiNaK but also NaF-KF-UF4 system as a matrix of the fuel salt [8, 9]. Their efforts have borne a fruit as a nuclear reactor plant using a mixture of NaF-KF-UF4 fertile and NaF-KF-TRUF3 fissile as the fuel salt incorporated with designated online chemical processes based upon the oxide selective precipitation process with extremely low heavy element released to the environment which was nominated as the fast-spectrum fluoride molten salt reactor (FFMSR) [10–12].

#### **2. Preliminary survey and study**

#### **2.1 Is FLiNaK the best choice as the matrix for a liquid fuel?**

Composing the fuel salt for a thermal reactor such as the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) had nothing to do with solubility. The fertile salt 0.72LiF-0.16BeF2- 0.12ThF4 had a unique phase relationship in which liquidus was constant at 500°C during ThF4 content was varied between 10 and 20 mol%. The fissile salt 233UF4 was not dissolved in the fertile salt, but displaced 232ThF4, as they had the same

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

monoclinic crystal structure. During the freezing process, almost 75% of the fuel salt was solidified at 500°C as the same composition as the liquid phase. Eventually 0.47LiF-0.515BeF2-0.015ThF4 containing very small amount of 233UF4 solidified as eutectic at 370°C [13]. This freezing process was evaluated as nuclear criticality safety in the fuel salt drain tank, and it became as a basis of the technological feasibility.

In serious attempt to use hexagonal PuF3 as a fissile instead of monoclinic 233UF4 in 0.72LiF-0.16BeF2-0.12ThF4, it had been treated as the solubility of PuF3. The term "solubility" has been used as a convenient synopsis of "liquefied fraction" on the phase diagram [14]. However they are not the same exactly because "solubility" is defined as the mole fraction of solute in solvent, while "liquefied fraction" is defined as the fraction in total mole value.

The elaborated solubility measurements in FLiNaK by Russian scientists [3–6] should have been more appropriately respected if they had made the chemical composition of alkali fluoride matrix of liquefied samples analytically quantified instead of their customary practice in which the matrix had been always assumed as FLiNaK, even if they have found no UF4 or PuF3 but 2KF-UF4, 7KF-6UF4, KPu2F7, KPuF4, and NaPuF4 in the solidified residue by the X-ray diffractometric analysis.

The author tries to interpret the solubility of UF4 and PuF3 in the FLiNaK by producing liquefied components at respective temperatures as shown in **Table 1** based upon the material balance referring from relevant phase diagrams in **Figure 1** [15] and **Figure 2** [16]. The red line in each ternary diagram which starts from the actinide fluoride corner, passes through the eutectic point, and ends in the alkali fluoride edge represents the actinide concentration in a fixed matrix composition.

The increasing process of liquefied fraction consists of two types, firstly composing compounds at the eutectic temperature and secondly increasing content of liquefied fraction according to rising temperature. Alkali fluoride compounds of UF4 have a wider range of liquid zone than those of PuF3 in the relevant phase diagrams.


#### **Table 1.**

(HLW) and sustaining energy using the molten salt reactor (MSR) technology, have

The MSR technology was developed and culminated by successful operation of the molten salt reactor experiment (MSRE) and conceptual design of the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) in Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) by 1975 to make

Many attempts have been made to realize breeder reactors based on the U-Pu cycle using molten salt fuels; however such endeavors had been limited in the chloride salts, because of the feasibility to obtain high enough energy of neutron flux [1]. In addition to the predicted solubility data from thermodynamic calculations [2], recently actualized high solubility data of various fluorides of actinides and lanthanides specifically in the LiF-NaF-KF eutectic mixture (traditionally named as FLiNaK) [3–6] reportedly could allow utilizing the high enough energy neutrons for

) and a

the U-Pu breeding cycle aided by a high heavy element inventory (2.8 t/m<sup>3</sup>

did not need fissile material in feeding and consumed 238U only [7].

It was reported that a system nominated as a 3.2 GWt U-Pu fast-spectrum molten salt reactor (U-Pu FMSR) of 21.2 m<sup>3</sup> core volume (31.8 m<sup>3</sup> total primary system volume) starting from 68.5 tons of uranium with 15 tons of plutonium solving in FLiNaK to reach an equilibrium state after 10 years with an online chemical processing in which the conversion ratio (CR) became positive with inventory of 68.6 tons uranium, 20.9 tons plutonium, and 1.4 tons miner actinides

It does not intend to reduce doubling time but can breed fissile to guarantee stable operation without a blanket. It does not deliberately decrease TRU but confines them into the reactor core and isolates them from improper uses indefinitely. It does continuously renew fissionable actinides by the metabolic function with an online processing and produce nearly actinide-free fission product streams to be wasted. This implies that fluoride molten salt reactor technology is being available based upon U-Pu breeding cycle to afford reasonable approach to global task addressed to sustaining natural resources, decreasing stockpile of plutonium as well as depleted uranium, relieving radioactive waste burden from the use of nuclear energy, achieving complete nonproliferation, inheriting safety characteristics of the liquid fuel, and establishing complete stand-alone system associating with only the

The author and associates have successfully performed a follow-up calculation not only for FLiNaK but also NaF-KF-UF4 system as a matrix of the fuel salt [8, 9]. Their efforts have borne a fruit as a nuclear reactor plant using a mixture of NaF-KF-UF4 fertile and NaF-KF-TRUF3 fissile as the fuel salt incorporated with designated online chemical processes based upon the oxide selective precipitation process with extremely low heavy element released to the environment which was nominated as the fast-spectrum fluoride molten salt reactor (FFMSR) [10–12].

Composing the fuel salt for a thermal reactor such as the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) had nothing to do with solubility. The fertile salt 0.72LiF-0.16BeF2- 0.12ThF4 had a unique phase relationship in which liquidus was constant at 500°C during ThF4 content was varied between 10 and 20 mol%. The fissile salt 233UF4 was not dissolved in the fertile salt, but displaced 232ThF4, as they had the same

small neutron moderating capability [7].

waste disposal facility.

**58**

**2. Preliminary survey and study**

**2.1 Is FLiNaK the best choice as the matrix for a liquid fuel?**

thorium as a naturally available fuel usable in addition to uranium.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

been expected.

*Interpretation of solubility upon accumulated liquefied compounds.*

**2.2 Alternative choice to prepare the liquid fuel**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

systems containing UF4 and PuF3 are listed in **Table 2**.

UF4 and NaF-KF-PuF3 which do not contain enriched <sup>7</sup>

0.720–0.280 623 0.440–0.560 680

0.615–0.385 740 0.460–0.540 735

0.435–0.243–0.322 445 0.245–0.290–0.465 602

0.355–0.120-0.520 650

*Alkali fluoride eutectic mixture containing UF4 or PuF3.*

decreasing viscosity.

*\*Eutectic temperature.*

**Table 2.**

**61**

liquidus temperature apart from the indicated eutectic temperature.

Taking the lessons learned, the liquid fuel has to be a mixture of fertile salt and fissile salt both frozen into eutectic phases. Extensive numbers of phase diagram, which show the relationship between the variation of compositions and the liquidus temperature of mixtures, for alkali fluoride systems containing UF4 and for those containing PuF3 have been defined. The eutectic temperature means that nothing but liquid is stable over this temperature and that nothing but solid is stable under this temperature. The eutectic compositions and temperatures for the alkali fluoride

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

There are various candidates for the combination of fertile salt and fissile salt as shown in **Table 3**. Technologically the liquidus temperature is preferably as low as possible. The lower heavy metal content of a component could imply higher

The author is particularly interested in the fuel system consisting of NaF-KF-

technological reasons associated with tritium control and irradiation defects after being solidified. If there might be a particular reason to contain LiF in the fuel, it is

It is revealed that this combination can provide 0.35NaF-0.29KF-0.28UF4- 0.08PuF3 composed of mixing 0.762 (0.504NaF-0.216KF-0.280UF4) and 0.238 (0.053NaF-0.608KF-0.340PuF3) at the liquidus of 605°C and the solidus of 490°C. This means that nothing but liquid is stable at 605°C or higher and nothing but solid is stable at 490°C or lower according to the phase diagrams **Figures 1** and **2**.

**Alkali fluoride with UF4 [15] Alkali fluoride with PuF3 [16] Compositions Molecular ratio ET\* Compositions Molecular ratio ET\*** LiF-UF4 0.730–0.270 490 LiF-PuF3 0.798–0.212 745

NaF-UF4 0.785–0.215 735 NaF-PuF3 0.779–0.221 726

KF-UF4 0.850–0.150 618 KF-PuF3 0.651–0.349 619

LiF-NaF-UF4 0.600–0.210–0.190 480 LiF-NaF-PuF3 0.429–0.472–0.099 604

LiF-KF-UF4 0.331–0.589–0.080 470 LiF-KF-PuF3 0.431–0.522–0.047 476

NaF-KF-UF4 0.293–0.622–0.085 650 NaF-KF-PuF3 0.285–0.528–0.187 567

0.350–0.370–0.280 480 0.611–0.167–0.222 685

0.267–0.476–0.257 500 0.341–0.471–0.188 513

0.504–0.216–0.280 490 0.053–0.607–0.340 605

LiF for economic as well as

LiF-UF4-PuF3 0.733–0.257–0.010 484

**Figure 1.**

*Phase diagrams for LiF, NaF, KF, and UF4 system [15].*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Phase diagrams for LiF, NaF, KF, and PuF3 system [16].*

Coexistence of UF4 and PuF3 obviously competes each other in the first mechanism. The eutectic formation at lower temperature should have the priority. These results would be summarized as:

1.The liquefied mixture of FLiNaK and heavy metal fluorides is not a solution.


*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

#### **2.2 Alternative choice to prepare the liquid fuel**

Taking the lessons learned, the liquid fuel has to be a mixture of fertile salt and fissile salt both frozen into eutectic phases. Extensive numbers of phase diagram, which show the relationship between the variation of compositions and the liquidus temperature of mixtures, for alkali fluoride systems containing UF4 and for those containing PuF3 have been defined. The eutectic temperature means that nothing but liquid is stable over this temperature and that nothing but solid is stable under this temperature. The eutectic compositions and temperatures for the alkali fluoride systems containing UF4 and PuF3 are listed in **Table 2**.

There are various candidates for the combination of fertile salt and fissile salt as shown in **Table 3**. Technologically the liquidus temperature is preferably as low as possible. The lower heavy metal content of a component could imply higher liquidus temperature apart from the indicated eutectic temperature.

The author is particularly interested in the fuel system consisting of NaF-KF-UF4 and NaF-KF-PuF3 which do not contain enriched <sup>7</sup> LiF for economic as well as technological reasons associated with tritium control and irradiation defects after being solidified. If there might be a particular reason to contain LiF in the fuel, it is decreasing viscosity.

It is revealed that this combination can provide 0.35NaF-0.29KF-0.28UF4- 0.08PuF3 composed of mixing 0.762 (0.504NaF-0.216KF-0.280UF4) and 0.238 (0.053NaF-0.608KF-0.340PuF3) at the liquidus of 605°C and the solidus of 490°C. This means that nothing but liquid is stable at 605°C or higher and nothing but solid is stable at 490°C or lower according to the phase diagrams **Figures 1** and **2**.


#### **Table 2.**

*Alkali fluoride eutectic mixture containing UF4 or PuF3.*

Coexistence of UF4 and PuF3 obviously competes each other in the first mecha-

1.The liquefied mixture of FLiNaK and heavy metal fluorides is not a solution.

2.KF (mp = 865°C) might have been temporally solidified prior to producing 0.445KF-0.555UF4 (735°C) during the ascending temperature process in the

3.KF (mp = 865°C) and NaF (mp = 900°C) might have been temporally solidified prior to producing 0.651KF-0.349PuF3 (619°C) or 0.772NaF-0.228PuF3 (726°C) during the ascending temperature process in the solubility measurement of PuF3.

4.The saturated FLiNaK solution of UF4 and PuF3 is elucidated as the mixture of three types of alkali fluoride compound assumed as 0.321 (0.435LiF-

0.243NaF-0.322UF4)-0.241 (0.730LiF-0.270UF4)-0.438 (0.651KF-0.349PuF3)

5.The liquidus temperature of the FLiNaK mixture might be substantially higher than that of solvent. Any physical favorable properties of FLiNaK should have

with liquidus temperature of 619°C and solidus temperature of 445°C.

nism. The eutectic formation at lower temperature should have the priority.

These results would be summarized as:

*Phase diagrams for LiF, NaF, KF, and PuF3 system [16].*

*Phase diagrams for LiF, NaF, KF, and UF4 system [15].*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**Figure 1.**

**Figure 2.**

**60**

solubility measurement of UF4.

not been directly attributed to the fuel salt.


#### **Table 3.**

*Candidates for the combination of fertile salt and fissile salt.*

#### **2.3 Density of alkali fluoride mixture with heavy metal fluoride**

The density of a liquid mixture has been customarily obtained as a reciprocal of a weighted average of molecular volume of components; though this procedure worked satisfactorily during the MSRE and MSBR project in ORNL [17], concurrently it has been recognized that the results might be significantly erroneous without pertinent information about the respective components, e.g., liquid UF4 or PuF3. If the components would compose a complex compound, e.g., 2KF + UF4 ! K2UF6 or 3KF + PuF3 ! K3PuF6, it might cause a serious deviation from linearity.

Since most molten salt reactors considered during the early stages of MSR project in ORNL were thermal or epithermal, the fluorides of lithium, beryllium, sodium, and zirconium have been given the most serious attention for the carrier salt of liquid fuels. However some alkali fluoride mixtures including potassium with UF4 were also investigated in ORNL during the earlier stage of MSR project although details had been classified [18]; however the density data were perceived as not from additivity calculation as listed in **Table 4**.

However it seems that the density of listed mixtures is approximately expressed by a couple of second-order approximate least square functions according to UF4 molar concentration, one for binary systems and another for ternary (or pseudoternary) systems, regardless of alkali fluoride matrix as shown in **Figure 3**.

Based upon the density data for solid UF4, UF3, PuF4, and PuF3, i.e., 6.72, 8.97, 7.0, and 9.32 g/cm<sup>3</sup> at the room temperature [19], it is hypothetically assumed that PuF3 can be substituted by 1.389 molecules of UF4 and UF3 by 1.335 molecules of UF4 in the sense of density effect. The average temperature coefficients were reported as 0.0008/<sup>o</sup> C in the range of 0–4 mol% and as 0.0011/<sup>o</sup> C in the range higher than 22 mol% [18].

This procedure to estimate the density of fuel salts with substantially high concentration of actinides became a major breakthrough in the whole study; however it should be experimentally verified further (**Table 5** [19]).

#### **2.4 Implication of density of the liquid fuel in the feasibility of reactor**

#### *2.4.1 Effect of density on conversion of inventories to concentrations*

The physical feasibility of the U-Pu FMSR was independently verified by us in the sense of heavy element inventory with small deviations [8]; however there have been drastic differences in mol% concentrations of UF4 and PuF3 to provide the

required inventory as shown in **Table 6**. We have learned that the reported work [7] have applied density of the fuel salt as 5.32 g/cc at 680°C derived from the weighted average process of molecular volume for 0.704 (FLiNaK)-0.21UF4- 0.067PuF3-0.0045MaF3-0.014FP [20], while it was 3.86 g/cc according to our

**Composition of salt MP Liquid density Liquid**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

**viscosity**

**Li Na K U °C (g/cc)(T:°C) (Cp) (cal/g-deg) (W/m-K)** 60 40 710 2.40-0.00060 T –– – 60 40 652 2.42-0.00055 T 4.66 (600°C) 0.58 – 50 50 492 2.46-0.00068 T 4.75 (600°C) 0.44 – 46.5 11.5 42 454 2.53-0.00073 T 4.75 (600°C) 0.45 4.53 72.5 27.5 490 6.11-0.00127 T 12.1 (700°C) – – 66.7 33.3 623 5.51-0.00130 T 16.3 (600°C)\* 0.21 – 50 50 680 6.16-0.00107 T –– – 45 55 735 6.07-0.00115 T –– –

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

38.4 57.6 4 645 2.95-0.00770 T 3.5 (700°C) 0.53\* - 33 45 22 506 4.50-0.00101 T – 0.26 – 48 48 4 560 2.75-0.00073 T 3.2 (700°C) 0.38 – 48.2 26.8 25 558 4.54-0.00110 T 9.8 (700°C) 0.23 – 46.5 26 27.5 530 4.70-0.00115 T 17.3 (600°C) 0.23\* 0.87 50 20 30 575 4.78-0.00104 T 10.0 (700°C) 0.22 – 35 20 45 708 5.60-0.00116 T –– – 44.5 10.9 43.5 1.1 452 2.65-0.00090T\* 4.61 (600°C)\* 0.44\* 4 45.3 11.2 41 2.5 490 2.67-0.00072 T 5.10 (600°C)\* 0.38 – 44.7 11 30.3 4 560 2.80-0.00074 T 5.35 (600°C) 0.41 –

**Specific heat at 700°C**

**Thermal conductivity**

procedure.

**63**

**Figure 3.**

*\*Explicitly marked as experimental value.*

*Density of alkali fluorides containing UF4 [18].*

*Some physical properties of alkali fluorides containing UF4 [18].*

**Table 4.**


*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

#### **Table 4.**

**2.3 Density of alkali fluoride mixture with heavy metal fluoride**

*Candidates for the combination of fertile salt and fissile salt.*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

The density of a liquid mixture has been customarily obtained as a reciprocal of a

weighted average of molecular volume of components; though this procedure worked satisfactorily during the MSRE and MSBR project in ORNL [17], concurrently it has been recognized that the results might be significantly erroneous without pertinent information about the respective components, e.g., liquid UF4 or PuF3. If the components would compose a complex compound, e.g., 2KF + UF4 ! K2UF6

**Case Fertile salt (eutectic temp.) Fissile salt (eutectic temp.)** Li 0.730LiF-0.270UF4 (490°C) 0.788LiF-0.212PuF3 (745°C) Na 0.720NaF-0.280UF4 (623°C) 0.779NaF-0.221PuF3 (726°C) K 0.850KF-0.150UF4 (618°C) 0.651KF-0.349PuF3 (619°C) Li-Na 0.435LiF-0.243NaF-0.322UF4 (445°C) 0.611LiF-0.167NaF-0.222PuF3 (685°C) Li-Na-K 0.435LiF-0.243NaF-0.322UF4 (445°C) 0.341LiF-0.461KF-0.188PuF3 (513°C) Li-K 0.267LiF-0.476KF-0.257UF4 (500°C) 0.341LiF-0.461KF-0.188PuF3 (513°C) Li-K-Na 0.267LiF-0.476KF-0.257UF4 (500°C) 0.611LiF-0.167NaF-0.222PuF3 (685°C) Na-K 0.504NaF-0.216KF-0.280UF4 (490°C) 0.053NaF-0.608KF-0.340PuF3 (605°C)

or 3KF + PuF3 ! K3PuF6, it might cause a serious deviation from linearity. Since most molten salt reactors considered during the early stages of MSR project in ORNL were thermal or epithermal, the fluorides of lithium, beryllium, sodium, and zirconium have been given the most serious attention for the carrier salt of liquid fuels. However some alkali fluoride mixtures including potassium with

UF4 were also investigated in ORNL during the earlier stage of MSR project although details had been classified [18]; however the density data were perceived

However it seems that the density of listed mixtures is approximately expressed by a couple of second-order approximate least square functions according to UF4 molar concentration, one for binary systems and another for ternary (or pseudoternary) systems, regardless of alkali fluoride matrix as shown in **Figure 3**.

Based upon the density data for solid UF4, UF3, PuF4, and PuF3, i.e., 6.72, 8.97, 7.0, and 9.32 g/cm<sup>3</sup> at the room temperature [19], it is hypothetically assumed that PuF3 can be substituted by 1.389 molecules of UF4 and UF3 by 1.335 molecules of UF4 in the sense of density effect. The average temperature coefficients were

C in the range of 0–4 mol% and as 0.0011/<sup>o</sup>

The physical feasibility of the U-Pu FMSR was independently verified by us in the sense of heavy element inventory with small deviations [8]; however there have been drastic differences in mol% concentrations of UF4 and PuF3 to provide the

This procedure to estimate the density of fuel salts with substantially high concentration of actinides became a major breakthrough in the whole study; how-

**2.4 Implication of density of the liquid fuel in the feasibility of reactor**

ever it should be experimentally verified further (**Table 5** [19]).

*2.4.1 Effect of density on conversion of inventories to concentrations*

C in the range

as not from additivity calculation as listed in **Table 4**.

reported as 0.0008/<sup>o</sup>

**62**

**Table 3.**

higher than 22 mol% [18].

*Some physical properties of alkali fluorides containing UF4 [18].*

**Figure 3.** *Density of alkali fluorides containing UF4 [18].*

required inventory as shown in **Table 6**. We have learned that the reported work [7] have applied density of the fuel salt as 5.32 g/cc at 680°C derived from the weighted average process of molecular volume for 0.704 (FLiNaK)-0.21UF4- 0.067PuF3-0.0045MaF3-0.014FP [20], while it was 3.86 g/cc according to our procedure.


0*:*350NaF � 0*:*290KF � 0*:*280UF4 � 0*:*080PuF3 ð Þ *d*928K : 4*:*684 *g=*cc (1)

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

However if [UF3]/[UF4] ratio should have been kept at 5% for the redox buffer control as will be discussed in Section 2.5.2, the chemical composition might have

0*:*350NaF � 0*:*290KF � 0*:*267UF4 � 0*:*013UF3 � 0*:*080PuF3 ð Þ *d*928K : 4*:*714 *g=*cc (2)

This unique temperature unrelated factor (�0.06% of fuel density) on the

The authors have never dared to realize molten salt fast reactors for burning TRU, unless we could have seen a tank-within-tank layout proposed by Forsberg [21] and reproduced in **Figure 4**, to ensure characteristic safety of the unmoderated MSR based on the technology for the fluoride high-temperature reactor (FHR). A unique criticality safety challenge associated with unmoderated MSR is that criticality can occur if the fissile materials leak from the system and come near the neutron moderators, such as concrete. This has to exclude the "catch pan" arrangement to transfer gravitationally the spilled fuel material into the drain tank, which

The combination of the direct reactor cooling system (DRACS), the pool reactor auxiliary cooling system (PRACS), and the buffer-salt pool which includes drain tanks in the bottom and is located in the underground silo can accommodate the decay heat removal and criticality issues under the design basis as well as the beyond-design-basis accident, even including the outer vessel failure.

UF4 molecule in a liquid fluoride mixture intrinsically oxidizes to dissolve Cr as the most vulnerable constitution of the specifically developed structural material Hastelloy N to result in CrF2 and to form UF3 molecule. This challenge to be

been altered as.

reactivity should be evaluated accordingly.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

**2.5 Challenges for realization of FFMSR**

*2.5.2 Redox control of FFMSR*

**Figure 4.**

**65**

*2.5.1 Characteristic arrangement for the unmoderated MSR*

has been traditionally adapted by graphite-moderated MSR.

*Comparison between unmoderated and moderated arrangement [21].*

#### **Table 5.**

*Comparison of properties of PuF3 with ThF4, UF4, PuF4, UF3, and CeF3 [19].*


*\*Weighted average of molecular volume.*

*\*\*Interpolated from the ORNL data.*

#### **Table 6.**

*Results of the follow-up calculations.*

The calculated molar concentration of the heavy elements in the fuel salt is inversely proportional to the density of the fuel salt for the identical inventories. The nuclear characteristics rely on the heavy metal inventory; however the phase relationship and chemical/hydrothermal characteristic solely rely on molecular concentration of heavy metal fluorides. Accordingly the fuel composition for which we have to examine the technological feasibilities should be 0.612 (FLiNaK)- 0.290UF4-0.098TRUF3 instead of 0.704 (FLiNaK)-0.21UF4-0.067PuF3- 0.0045MaF3-0.014FP.

Establishing the standard process to evaluate reliable density value of the fuel salt is an indispensable step of research and development work of the molten salt reactor technology particularly when it is across multiple research parties.

#### *2.4.2 Deviation of density due to UF3 formation*

The physical calculations up to now for the FFMSR are performed for the fuel salt having chemical composition as.

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

0*:*350NaF � 0*:*290KF � 0*:*280UF4 � 0*:*080PuF3 ð Þ *d*928K : 4*:*684 *g=*cc (1)

However if [UF3]/[UF4] ratio should have been kept at 5% for the redox buffer control as will be discussed in Section 2.5.2, the chemical composition might have been altered as.

0*:*350NaF � 0*:*290KF � 0*:*267UF4 � 0*:*013UF3 � 0*:*080PuF3 ð Þ *d*928K : 4*:*714 *g=*cc (2)

This unique temperature unrelated factor (�0.06% of fuel density) on the reactivity should be evaluated accordingly.

#### **2.5 Challenges for realization of FFMSR**

#### *2.5.1 Characteristic arrangement for the unmoderated MSR*

The authors have never dared to realize molten salt fast reactors for burning TRU, unless we could have seen a tank-within-tank layout proposed by Forsberg [21] and reproduced in **Figure 4**, to ensure characteristic safety of the unmoderated MSR based on the technology for the fluoride high-temperature reactor (FHR).

A unique criticality safety challenge associated with unmoderated MSR is that criticality can occur if the fissile materials leak from the system and come near the neutron moderators, such as concrete. This has to exclude the "catch pan" arrangement to transfer gravitationally the spilled fuel material into the drain tank, which has been traditionally adapted by graphite-moderated MSR.

The combination of the direct reactor cooling system (DRACS), the pool reactor auxiliary cooling system (PRACS), and the buffer-salt pool which includes drain tanks in the bottom and is located in the underground silo can accommodate the decay heat removal and criticality issues under the design basis as well as the beyond-design-basis accident, even including the outer vessel failure.

#### *2.5.2 Redox control of FFMSR*

UF4 molecule in a liquid fluoride mixture intrinsically oxidizes to dissolve Cr as the most vulnerable constitution of the specifically developed structural material Hastelloy N to result in CrF2 and to form UF3 molecule. This challenge to be

#### **Figure 4.**

*Comparison between unmoderated and moderated arrangement [21].*

The calculated molar concentration of the heavy elements in the fuel salt is inversely proportional to the density of the fuel salt for the identical inventories. The nuclear characteristics rely on the heavy metal inventory; however the phase relationship and chemical/hydrothermal characteristic solely rely on molecular concentration of heavy metal fluorides. Accordingly the fuel composition for which we have to examine the technological feasibilities should be 0.612 (FLiNaK)- 0.290UF4-0.098TRUF3 instead of 0.704 (FLiNaK)-0.21UF4-0.067PuF3-

Free energy of formation at 1000 K (kcal/F atom) 101 95.3 86.0 99.9 104.3 118 Melting point (°C) 1111 1035 1037 1495 1425 1637 Crystal structure\* MM M H H H Density (g/cc) at 20°C 5.71 6.72 7.0 8.97 9.32 6.16

**U-Pu FMSR [7] Our work [8]**

**UF4-PuF3 in FLiNaK**

*Comparison of properties of PuF3 with ThF4, UF4, PuF4, UF3, and CeF3 [19].*

<sup>1</sup> 1015

**FLiNaK**

Power, MWth 3200 3200 3200 3200 Reactor core H/R ratio, h/r 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 Reactor core volume, m<sup>3</sup> 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 Specific power, W/cm3 150 150 150 150

Initial fuel loading, U/Pu/MA, ton 68.5/15/ 72.1/16.1/ 71.3/15.6/ 71.3/17.1/2.1 Equil. fuel loading, U/Pu/MA, ton 68.6/20.9/1.4 71.9/20.3/1.2 71.2/19.2/1.3 71.2/19.6/1.2

Fuel salt density, g/cc, at 680°C\*\* 3.862 4.442 4.343 4.358 keff in equil. state 1.008 1.008 1.008 1.008 k∞ in equil. state 1.044 1.054 1.051 1.052 Temperature coefficient 2.4–<sup>10</sup><sup>5</sup> 8.0–<sup>10</sup><sup>5</sup> 7.6–<sup>10</sup><sup>5</sup> 7.3–<sup>10</sup><sup>5</sup>

**Fuel salt UF4-PuF3 in**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

Fuel salt density, g/cc, at 680°C\* 5.32

**ThF4 UF4 PuF4 UF3 PuF3 CeF3**

**PuF3 in NaK-KF-UF4**

**TRUF3 in NaF-KF-UF4**

Establishing the standard process to evaluate reliable density value of the fuel salt is an indispensable step of research and development work of the molten salt reactor technology particularly when it is across multiple research parties.

The physical calculations up to now for the FFMSR are performed for the fuel

0.0045MaF3-0.014FP.

*\*M, monoclinic; H, hexagonal.*

Average neutron flux, cm<sup>2</sup> s

*\*Weighted average of molecular volume. \*\*Interpolated from the ORNL data.*

*Results of the follow-up calculations.*

**Table 6.**

**64**

**Table 5.**

*2.4.2 Deviation of density due to UF3 formation*

salt having chemical composition as.

addressed for a UF4-fueled molten salt reactor was overcome by keeping U(IV)/ U(III) ratio no less than 100 with constant monitoring of CrF2 concentration [22].

From 1965 to 1969, a successful operation of the MSRE proved that the fission of 235UF4 as well as of 233UF4 made the fuel salt moderately oxidizing as previously suggested and proven that the absence of metallic uranium deposition or uranium carbide formation incidence due to successive fissioning. The U(IV)/U(III) ratio could be maintained within the projected range by periodic dissolution of beryllium metal bar suspended in the pump bowl. During the post-MSRE work, it was found that the significant intergranular cracks due to the presence of fission product tellurium could be suppressed by adjusting the U(IV)/U(III) ratio no higher than 70 [22].

In 1968, Thoma [19] described that no significant differences were believed to exist in the yield or chemistry of the principal species of fission products which would result from the incorporation of PuF3 in MSR fuels and then the use of a tri-fluoride solute should result in a cation excess and should cause the fuel solution to generate a mild reducing potential, because he had confirmed that the fission of 235UF4 fuel consuming 0.8 is equivalent to UF3 per gram atom of fissioned uranium.

In 1994 Toth [23] ratified Thoma's perception [19] made in 1968 regarding the effect of PuF3 fission on redox potential of the fuel salt however with strong warning that further investigations should be required if Pu fuels were used in future designs.

In November 2017, the ORNL has made an official presentation to the US-NRC staff [24] that the fission of PuF3 releases three fluorine ions, while the fission products require more than three, and thus there will be a fluorine ion deficit with net reducing conditions without showing fission product yield data or chemical status of fission products. The ORNL traditionally has ignored the fact in which fission of 239Pu yields much more rare metals and much less zirconium than those of 235U or 233U which could decrease the required fluorine ions substantially.

NaF-KF-UF4 compound might be less Lewis basic than LiF-BeF2-ThF4; however it will require to make the [U(IV)]/[U(III)] ratio at least 20. This means that UF3 has to be kept as the redox buffer at 1.33 mol% while total uranium fluoride at

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

Neutronic calculations were made taking originally proposed configurations of

Operational features are characterized by annual feed/breed balance of fissile

material as TRU over four zones under a constant U inventory which can be maintained by an appropriate makeup. The effect of U inventory in three levels on TRU feed/breed balance is evaluated in which fuel salt cleaning started after 300 effective full power days (EFPD) with an interval of 300 EFPD and illustrated in **Figure 6**. The larger inventory of U requires larger amount of initial fissile inventory but smaller amount of supplement; however the peak annual supplement is less dependent on the initial U charge. U inventory of 61.4 tons is the lowest threshold limit to make breeding break-even possible, while that of 71.5 tons can provide as much as 100 kg TRU of annual breeding; however it is the highest threshold limit by

factors, such as the actinide isotopic composition (45,000MWD/t-U in BWR, 5 years cooling), neutron leakage (with 30 cm steel reflector), the fuel temperature (627°C), the salt cleanup and makeup condition, etc., were discretely specified to give verified number of heavy element masses and concentrations in the fuel salt to give designated reactivity (keff = 1.007) from the start up to the equilibrium state

) and the power output (3.2GWth) the same as Ref. [7], but other

; primary circuit

28.1 mol%.

**Figure 5.**

volume, 31.8 m<sup>3</sup>

(40 years).

**67**

**2.6 Operational behavior of FFMSR**

U content acceptable by a relevant fuel salt.

*2.6.1 Effect of U inventory on reactor physical properties*

*Dependence of the redox potential on UF4/UF3 ratio [27, 28].*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

the reactor (core height/radius ratio, 1.85; core volume, 21.2 m<sup>3</sup>

The author solicited Dr. Shimazu [25] to take a positive approach to certify the new redox potential control paradigm using the newest computation practice and elucidated free fluorine yield data for 233UF4, 235UF4, and 239PuF3 per unit fission as well as per unit power output under both thermal neutron (MSRE) and fast neutron (FFMSR) environment assuming that the chemical behavior of fission product in molten fluoride environment is identical as evaluated for 235U fission by Baes [26] as shown in **Table 7**.

It was informed by the study [27] with molten LiF-BeF2-ThF4 (75-5-20 mol%) salt mixture fueled by 2 mol% of UF4 and containing additives of Cr3Te4, including 250-h tests with exposure of nickel-based alloy specimens at temperatures from 700 to 750o С and under mechanical loading, that there were no traces of tellurium intergranular cracking on specimens in the fuel salt with [U(IV)]/[U(III)] ratio from 20 to 70 and no nickel-uranium intermetallic film on the specimens with fuel salts characterized by the ratio larger than 3, as shown by the acceptable redox voltage range in **Figure 5** [27, 28].


**Table 7.**

*Free fluorine production rate per fissioning in liquid fluoride fuel [25].*

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

**Figure 5.** *Dependence of the redox potential on UF4/UF3 ratio [27, 28].*

NaF-KF-UF4 compound might be less Lewis basic than LiF-BeF2-ThF4; however it will require to make the [U(IV)]/[U(III)] ratio at least 20. This means that UF3 has to be kept as the redox buffer at 1.33 mol% while total uranium fluoride at 28.1 mol%.

#### **2.6 Operational behavior of FFMSR**

#### *2.6.1 Effect of U inventory on reactor physical properties*

Neutronic calculations were made taking originally proposed configurations of the reactor (core height/radius ratio, 1.85; core volume, 21.2 m<sup>3</sup> ; primary circuit volume, 31.8 m<sup>3</sup> ) and the power output (3.2GWth) the same as Ref. [7], but other factors, such as the actinide isotopic composition (45,000MWD/t-U in BWR, 5 years cooling), neutron leakage (with 30 cm steel reflector), the fuel temperature (627°C), the salt cleanup and makeup condition, etc., were discretely specified to give verified number of heavy element masses and concentrations in the fuel salt to give designated reactivity (keff = 1.007) from the start up to the equilibrium state (40 years).

Operational features are characterized by annual feed/breed balance of fissile material as TRU over four zones under a constant U inventory which can be maintained by an appropriate makeup. The effect of U inventory in three levels on TRU feed/breed balance is evaluated in which fuel salt cleaning started after 300 effective full power days (EFPD) with an interval of 300 EFPD and illustrated in **Figure 6**. The larger inventory of U requires larger amount of initial fissile inventory but smaller amount of supplement; however the peak annual supplement is less dependent on the initial U charge. U inventory of 61.4 tons is the lowest threshold limit to make breeding break-even possible, while that of 71.5 tons can provide as much as 100 kg TRU of annual breeding; however it is the highest threshold limit by U content acceptable by a relevant fuel salt.

addressed for a UF4-fueled molten salt reactor was overcome by keeping U(IV)/ U(III) ratio no less than 100 with constant monitoring of CrF2 concentration [22]. From 1965 to 1969, a successful operation of the MSRE proved that the fission of 235UF4 as well as of 233UF4 made the fuel salt moderately oxidizing as previously suggested and proven that the absence of metallic uranium deposition or uranium carbide formation incidence due to successive fissioning. The U(IV)/U(III) ratio could be maintained within the projected range by periodic dissolution of beryllium metal bar suspended in the pump bowl. During the post-MSRE work, it was found that the significant intergranular cracks due to the presence of fission product tellurium could be suppressed by adjusting the U(IV)/U(III) ratio no higher than 70 [22]. In 1968, Thoma [19] described that no significant differences were believed to exist in the yield or chemistry of the principal species of fission products which would result from the incorporation of PuF3 in MSR fuels and then the use of a tri-fluoride solute should result in a cation excess and should cause the fuel solution to generate a mild reducing potential, because he had confirmed that the fission of 235UF4 fuel consuming 0.8 is equivalent to UF3 per gram atom of fissioned uranium.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

In 1994 Toth [23] ratified Thoma's perception [19] made in 1968 regarding the

In November 2017, the ORNL has made an official presentation to the US-NRC

The author solicited Dr. Shimazu [25] to take a positive approach to certify the new redox potential control paradigm using the newest computation practice and elucidated free fluorine yield data for 233UF4, 235UF4, and 239PuF3 per unit fission as well as per unit power output under both thermal neutron (MSRE) and fast neutron (FFMSR) environment assuming that the chemical behavior of fission product in molten fluoride environment is identical as evaluated for 235U fission by Baes [26] as

It was informed by the study [27] with molten LiF-BeF2-ThF4 (75-5-20 mol%) salt mixture fueled by 2 mol% of UF4 and containing additives of Cr3Te4, including 250-h tests with exposure of nickel-based alloy specimens at temperatures from 700

С and under mechanical loading, that there were no traces of tellurium intergranular cracking on specimens in the fuel salt with [U(IV)]/[U(III)] ratio from 20 to 70 and no nickel-uranium intermetallic film on the specimens with fuel salts characterized by the ratio larger than 3, as shown by the acceptable redox

**Fissionable Materials Mole-F/Fission Mole-F/MWt-y**

233UF4 0.65 0.80 1.13 1.14 235UF4 0.80 0.80 1.35 1.36 239PuF3 0.60 0.60 1.02 1.09

**Fast Thermal Fast Thermal**

effect of PuF3 fission on redox potential of the fuel salt however with strong warning that further investigations should be required if Pu fuels were used in

staff [24] that the fission of PuF3 releases three fluorine ions, while the fission products require more than three, and thus there will be a fluorine ion deficit with net reducing conditions without showing fission product yield data or chemical status of fission products. The ORNL traditionally has ignored the fact in which fission of 239Pu yields much more rare metals and much less zirconium than those of

235U or 233U which could decrease the required fluorine ions substantially.

future designs.

shown in **Table 7**.

voltage range in **Figure 5** [27, 28].

*Free fluorine production rate per fissioning in liquid fluoride fuel [25].*

to 750o

**Table 7.**

**66**

*2.6.3 Effect of initial fissile isotope composition*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

can be comparable after the equilibrium state.

each feed TRU are shown in **Table 8**.

**2.7 Evolution of TRU constitution**

**Figure 8.**

**Table 8.**

**69**

*Isotopic composition of initial feed TRU.*

The effect of isotopic composition of initial feed TRU was evaluated for BWR-UOx fuel and ABWR-MOX fuel as shown in **Figure 8**. The isotopic compositions of

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

It is revealed that the breeding performance of an FFMSR applied on the ABWR-MOX spent fuel is much better than that on the BWR-UOX spent fuel though they

What is more drastic is the capability of accumulated TRU to support deployment of the FFMSR. It is assumed that a 3.3 GWt (1.0 GWe) BWR yields annually 20.4 t of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) (50 GWd/t-U) containing 0.27 t of TRU; meanwhile a 3.93 GWt (1.38 GWe) full MOX ABWR yields annually 34.8 t of SNF (33 GWd/t-HM) containing 1.28 t of TRU. The accumulated SNF from a BWR for 54.6 years will support an FFMSR-UOX, and that of an ABWR's SNF for 17.8 years will support an FFMSR-MOX, with equivalent power output the same as the respective reactor. This means that a full MOX ABWR can be a breeding reactor with 17.8 years doubling time by the combination of FFMSR deployment.

The TRU inventory is almost kept at a constant through FFMSR operation with

The high content of Np is distinct in the TRU from LWR; however it is transmuted effectively. The content of Pu isotopes is getting saturated in both cases. Am isotopes are slowly decreasing until 40 years. The buildup of Cm is over a factor of 3.5; however it tends to be saturated after 20 years. This is a characteristic feature compared with the case of MOSART [29] in which non-fissionable Cm isotopes

**Source of TRU Np/Pu/Am/Cm (wt.%) 238/239/240/241/242Pu (wt.%)** BWR-UOX-45GWd/t-U 5.19/89.22/4.90/0.69 2.80/51.77/25.98/11.07/8.38 ABWR-MOX-33GWd/t-HM 0.35/91.69/7.11/0.85 2.62/38.17/35.33/13.49/10.39

specific trends of isotopic evolution as shown in **Figures 9** and **10**.

*Effect of initial fissile isotope composition on the feed/breed balance.*

**Figure 6.** *Effect of initial U charge on the feed/breed balance.*

#### *2.6.2 Effect of fuel salt cleaning interval on reactor physical properties*

Three hundred EFPD and 1500 EFPD of the fuel salt cleaning interval are evaluated both for an identical initial charge of the fuel salt composition (U: 71 t) as shown in **Figure 7**. No chemical cleaning but only makeup of TRU was made during the designated initial interval. The longer interval requires larger amount of fissile material supplement; however the peak annual supplement is less dependent on the extension of cleaning interval. A longer interval makes the cleaning volume smaller but nevertheless total makeup larger; however the cost of facility is specifically determined by the peak annual makeup value.

The operation of an FFMSR with 1500 EFPD of fuel salt cleaning interval is assumed as barely providing a steady and sustaining operation with an appreciable breeding (10 kg TRU/year) in equilibrium.

**Figure 7.** *Effect of fuel salt cleaning interval on the feed/breed balance.*

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

#### *2.6.3 Effect of initial fissile isotope composition*

The effect of isotopic composition of initial feed TRU was evaluated for BWR-UOx fuel and ABWR-MOX fuel as shown in **Figure 8**. The isotopic compositions of each feed TRU are shown in **Table 8**.

It is revealed that the breeding performance of an FFMSR applied on the ABWR-MOX spent fuel is much better than that on the BWR-UOX spent fuel though they can be comparable after the equilibrium state.

What is more drastic is the capability of accumulated TRU to support deployment of the FFMSR. It is assumed that a 3.3 GWt (1.0 GWe) BWR yields annually 20.4 t of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) (50 GWd/t-U) containing 0.27 t of TRU; meanwhile a 3.93 GWt (1.38 GWe) full MOX ABWR yields annually 34.8 t of SNF (33 GWd/t-HM) containing 1.28 t of TRU. The accumulated SNF from a BWR for 54.6 years will support an FFMSR-UOX, and that of an ABWR's SNF for 17.8 years will support an FFMSR-MOX, with equivalent power output the same as the respective reactor. This means that a full MOX ABWR can be a breeding reactor with 17.8 years doubling time by the combination of FFMSR deployment.

#### **2.7 Evolution of TRU constitution**

The TRU inventory is almost kept at a constant through FFMSR operation with specific trends of isotopic evolution as shown in **Figures 9** and **10**.

The high content of Np is distinct in the TRU from LWR; however it is transmuted effectively. The content of Pu isotopes is getting saturated in both cases. Am isotopes are slowly decreasing until 40 years. The buildup of Cm is over a factor of 3.5; however it tends to be saturated after 20 years. This is a characteristic feature compared with the case of MOSART [29] in which non-fissionable Cm isotopes

#### **Figure 8.**

*2.6.2 Effect of fuel salt cleaning interval on reactor physical properties*

determined by the peak annual makeup value.

breeding (10 kg TRU/year) in equilibrium.

*Effect of fuel salt cleaning interval on the feed/breed balance.*

*Effect of initial U charge on the feed/breed balance.*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**Figure 6.**

**Figure 7.**

**68**

Three hundred EFPD and 1500 EFPD of the fuel salt cleaning interval are evaluated both for an identical initial charge of the fuel salt composition (U: 71 t) as shown in **Figure 7**. No chemical cleaning but only makeup of TRU was made during the designated initial interval. The longer interval requires larger amount of fissile material supplement; however the peak annual supplement is less dependent on the extension of cleaning interval. A longer interval makes the cleaning volume smaller but nevertheless total makeup larger; however the cost of facility is specifically

The operation of an FFMSR with 1500 EFPD of fuel salt cleaning interval is assumed as barely providing a steady and sustaining operation with an appreciable

*Effect of initial fissile isotope composition on the feed/breed balance.*


#### **Table 8.**

*Isotopic composition of initial feed TRU.*

The freezing of NaF-KF-UF4-PuF3 system is dictated by the eutectic point of fissile salt (605°C) to give eutectic of NaF-KF-PuF3 irrespective of the concentration of UF4 as shown in **Table 9**. These values of liquidus temperature are substantially higher than that of the classic fuel salt such as 0.72LiF-0.16BeF2-0.12ThF4 (500°C) for thermal neutron molten salt reactors based upon the Hastelloy N

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

The solidified fuel salt eventually produces a specific stratified structure, a lighter fissile salt on a heavier fertile salt. The density of solidified salt is assumed as

Feasibility of the freeze valve can be controversial because it has originally been developed on the assumption that the fuel salt was a single eutectic mixture which

If the U(IV)/U(III) ratio in the system is fixed at 20 as a redox buffer medium,

1.33 mol% when that of PuF3 is 8.10 mol%. Meanwhile, UF4 inventory is reduced to

It has been suggested thermodynamically that tri-fluorides of fission product lanthanide behave as PuF3 as well as those of minor actinide in the phase relation-

Calculations are made to evaluate the effect of reduction of UF4 to UF3 and buildup of fission product lanthanide tri-fluorides in NaF-KF-0.281UF4-0.081PuF3 fuel salt according to chemical processing intervals for two cases of fissile salt

It is revealed that the effect of UF4 reduction to UF3 does not affect liquidus

technology however near to that of the revised MSFR (594°C) [30].

8% higher than that of liquid at the same temperature.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

a factor of 0.952 by chemical reduction to UF3.

ship and would interfere the freezing behavior.

arrangement and shown in **Tables 10** and **11**.

*Liquid and solid components of fuel salt during freezing.*

*b*

*: PuF3 + UF3 + LaF3 + if any.*

*Option (a): to keep eutectic freezing at 605°C of fuel salt, 0.053NaF-0.607KF-0.340PuF3.*

**2.9 Effect of burnup and tri-fluorides on freezing behavior**

temperature of fuel salt meaningfully irrespective of fissile salt.

71.4 tons-U (300,000 moles) of the total U inventory should consist of 285,700 moles of UF4 and 14,300 moles of UF3. The concentration of UF3 is

solidified congruously.

**Table 9.**

*liq<sup>a</sup>*

**71**

**Table 10.**

*, liquidus temperature; XF3*

**Figure 9.** *Evolution of TRU isotopic composition during burnup (BWR-UOX).*

**Figure 10.** *Evolution of TRU isotopic composition during burnup (ABWR-MOX).*

build up remarkably. Generally favorable features of fast neutron irradiation are represented, though further assessments for several hundred years are inevitable.

#### **2.8 Freezing behavior of fuel salt**

The molten salt reactor is feasible as long as the liquidus temperature of the fuel salt is kept at least 50°C lower than the reactor core inlet temperature. According to the classic design principle of molten salt reactors, the fuel salt should be composed of a single eutectic mixture, and all components of the fuel salt should congruously solidify at the eutectic point.

In the case of the FFMSR, the phase change is incongruous manner as the fuel salt should be composed of a pair of independent eutectic mixtures. It should be qualified by freezing behavior down to the solidus temperature in order to justify any engineering effort particular to the molten salt reactor such as the freeze valve, the fuel drain tank, and the reactor safety evaluation.

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

The freezing of NaF-KF-UF4-PuF3 system is dictated by the eutectic point of fissile salt (605°C) to give eutectic of NaF-KF-PuF3 irrespective of the concentration of UF4 as shown in **Table 9**. These values of liquidus temperature are substantially higher than that of the classic fuel salt such as 0.72LiF-0.16BeF2-0.12ThF4 (500°C) for thermal neutron molten salt reactors based upon the Hastelloy N technology however near to that of the revised MSFR (594°C) [30].

The solidified fuel salt eventually produces a specific stratified structure, a lighter fissile salt on a heavier fertile salt. The density of solidified salt is assumed as 8% higher than that of liquid at the same temperature.

Feasibility of the freeze valve can be controversial because it has originally been developed on the assumption that the fuel salt was a single eutectic mixture which solidified congruously.

#### **2.9 Effect of burnup and tri-fluorides on freezing behavior**

If the U(IV)/U(III) ratio in the system is fixed at 20 as a redox buffer medium, 71.4 tons-U (300,000 moles) of the total U inventory should consist of 285,700 moles of UF4 and 14,300 moles of UF3. The concentration of UF3 is 1.33 mol% when that of PuF3 is 8.10 mol%. Meanwhile, UF4 inventory is reduced to a factor of 0.952 by chemical reduction to UF3.

It has been suggested thermodynamically that tri-fluorides of fission product lanthanide behave as PuF3 as well as those of minor actinide in the phase relationship and would interfere the freezing behavior.

Calculations are made to evaluate the effect of reduction of UF4 to UF3 and buildup of fission product lanthanide tri-fluorides in NaF-KF-0.281UF4-0.081PuF3 fuel salt according to chemical processing intervals for two cases of fissile salt arrangement and shown in **Tables 10** and **11**.

It is revealed that the effect of UF4 reduction to UF3 does not affect liquidus temperature of fuel salt meaningfully irrespective of fissile salt.


**Table 9.**

build up remarkably. Generally favorable features of fast neutron irradiation are represented, though further assessments for several hundred years are inevitable.

The molten salt reactor is feasible as long as the liquidus temperature of the fuel salt is kept at least 50°C lower than the reactor core inlet temperature. According to the classic design principle of molten salt reactors, the fuel salt should be composed of a single eutectic mixture, and all components of the fuel salt should

In the case of the FFMSR, the phase change is incongruous manner as the fuel salt should be composed of a pair of independent eutectic mixtures. It should be qualified by freezing behavior down to the solidus temperature in order to justify any engineering effort particular to the molten salt reactor such as the freeze valve,

**2.8 Freezing behavior of fuel salt**

**Figure 9.**

**Figure 10.**

**70**

congruously solidify at the eutectic point.

the fuel drain tank, and the reactor safety evaluation.

*Evolution of TRU isotopic composition during burnup (ABWR-MOX).*

*Evolution of TRU isotopic composition during burnup (BWR-UOX).*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

*Liquid and solid components of fuel salt during freezing.*


*liq<sup>a</sup> , liquidus temperature; XF3 b : PuF3 + UF3 + LaF3 + if any.*

#### **Table 10.**

*Option (a): to keep eutectic freezing at 605°C of fuel salt, 0.053NaF-0.607KF-0.340PuF3.*


*liq<sup>a</sup> , liquidus temperature; XF3 b : PuF3 + UF3 + LaF3 + if any.*

#### **Table 11.**

*Option (b): to allow liquidus at 610°C of fuel salt, 0.052NaF-0.599KF-0.349PuF3.*

The buildup of lanthanide tri-fluorides does affect the liquidus temperature of fertile salt up to 625°C for the case (a); meanwhile it does not exceed 610°C using the fissile salt (b).

Option (a) should allow 900 EFPD of the chemical process interval if the liquidus temperature of fertile salt at 610°C is acceptable.

Option (b) should allow 1500 EFPD of the chemical process interval if the liquidus temperature of fertile salt at 610°C is acceptable. Option (b) however is against the rule in which no free fissile material is deposited before eutectic freezing. The choice of alternatives is depending upon less than 3% of difference of designated molar composition of tri-fluoride in the fissile salt. Not only the phase behavior of stable tri-fluoride such as PuF3 and LnF3 but also that of fluctuated UF3 should be examined carefully.

#### **3. Chemical processing**

#### **3.1 How fission product stream be free from TRU**

It has been evaluated that the radiotoxicity of the PWR-UOX-SNF of 50GWd/t-U decreases to the reference level represented by that of annually transmuted natural uranium (7.83 t-Unat.) after 130,000 years from discharge. If the HLW contains absolutely no TRU, the radiotoxicity decreases to the reference after 270 years mainly dominated by that of alkali and alkali earth elements (FPalk: Rb, Cs, Sr., Ba) as shown in **Figure 11** [31].

The radiotoxicity of HLW from a reprocessing of UOX fuel with a nominal Pu loss rate of 0.5% and with removing minor actinides (MA; viz., Am and Cm) with a loss rate of 1% will decrease at the reference level in 500 years. It is assumed that the period will decrease to 370 years if Pu and MA are removed simultaneously from the HLW as TRU at the overall loss rate of 0.5%. This represents that the permissible TRU content in the finally disposed fission product (FPalk: Rb, Cs, Sr., Ba) is 65.9 g-TRU/8461 g-FPalk (0.78%) as shown in **Table 12**.

The nuclear fuel of a 3.2 GWt FFMSR supported by 93.6 t-HM reaches the burnup of 51.3 GWd/t-HM in 1500 EFPD by consuming depleted uranium (4.33 t-Udep./50 GWd/t-HM), which might have been discarded as a radioactive waste somehow. If the radiotoxicity of 4.33 t-U instead that of 7.83 t-U is assumed as the reference for the HLW of FFMSR, the period to decrease to the revised reference value might be extended to 500 years after discharge. In order to keep TRU/FPalk at 0.78%, the permissible loss rate of the TRU into the FPalk should be less than 0.036% due to the specific TRU concentration in an FFMSR fuel as high as in an equivalent LMFBR fuel, as shown in **Table 11**. The required loss rate is far less than

0.1% of the target to be achieved by the pyro-processes such as electrochemical

Alkali and alkaline earths 8461 65.9 0.5% 9665 75.3 0.036%

is sufficiently long and provides a small throughput in other words. The online chemical processing facility of α-β-γ-n remote operable capability collocated with

The chemical processing in the FFMSR should be efficient to remove fuel material from the fission product streams but not necessarily efficient to remove fission products to become as neutron poisons if it were operated under the thermal

**PWR-UOX 50GWd/t-U FFMSR 51.3 GWd/t-HM\***

**Mass g/t-U** **Permissible TRU (g)**

**Required loss rate**

**Required loss rate**

To perform this new and perpetual mission, a processing interval of 1500 EFPD

refining or liquid metal extraction currently under development [31].

neutron from the fuel stream.

*Comparison of required loss rate.*

**Figure 11.**

**Table 12.**

**73**

*Ingestion radiotoxicity of 1 t of spent nuclear fuel [31].*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

*\*Burnup at the end of the first 1500 EFPD and thereafter.*

**g/t-U**

Uranium 935,245 730,300 TRU 13,179 212,100 Halogens 358 741 Rare gases 8388 7533 Noble and semi-noble metals 13,306 18,594

Lanthanides 15,621 16,655 Zirconium 5442 4559 FP total 51,576 57,624

**Permissible TRU (g)**

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

**Element Mass**

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

**Figure 11.** *Ingestion radiotoxicity of 1 t of spent nuclear fuel [31].*


#### **Table 12.**

The buildup of lanthanide tri-fluorides does affect the liquidus temperature of fertile salt up to 625°C for the case (a); meanwhile it does not exceed 610°C using

Option (a) should allow 900 EFPD of the chemical process interval if the

Option (b) should allow 1500 EFPD of the chemical process interval if the liquidus temperature of fertile salt at 610°C is acceptable. Option (b) however is against the rule in which no free fissile material is deposited before eutectic freezing. The choice of alternatives is depending upon less than 3% of difference of designated molar composition of tri-fluoride in the fissile salt. Not only the phase behavior of stable tri-fluoride such as PuF3 and LnF3 but also that of fluctuated UF3

It has been evaluated that the radiotoxicity of the PWR-UOX-SNF of 50GWd/t-U decreases to the reference level represented by that of annually transmuted natural uranium (7.83 t-Unat.) after 130,000 years from discharge. If the HLW contains absolutely no TRU, the radiotoxicity decreases to the reference after 270 years mainly dominated by that of alkali and alkali earth elements (FPalk: Rb, Cs, Sr., Ba)

The radiotoxicity of HLW from a reprocessing of UOX fuel with a nominal Pu loss rate of 0.5% and with removing minor actinides (MA; viz., Am and Cm) with a loss rate of 1% will decrease at the reference level in 500 years. It is assumed that the period will decrease to 370 years if Pu and MA are removed simultaneously from the HLW as TRU at the overall loss rate of 0.5%. This represents that the permissible TRU content in the finally disposed fission product (FPalk: Rb, Cs, Sr., Ba) is

The nuclear fuel of a 3.2 GWt FFMSR supported by 93.6 t-HM reaches the burnup of 51.3 GWd/t-HM in 1500 EFPD by consuming depleted uranium (4.33 t-Udep./50 GWd/t-HM), which might have been discarded as a radioactive waste somehow. If the radiotoxicity of 4.33 t-U instead that of 7.83 t-U is assumed as the reference for the HLW of FFMSR, the period to decrease to the revised reference value might be extended to 500 years after discharge. In order to keep TRU/FPalk at 0.78%, the permissible loss rate of the TRU into the FPalk should be less than 0.036% due to the specific TRU concentration in an FFMSR fuel as high as in an equivalent LMFBR fuel, as shown in **Table 11**. The required loss rate is far less than

liquidus temperature of fertile salt at 610°C is acceptable.

*: PuF3 + UF3 + LaF3 + if any.*

*Option (b): to allow liquidus at 610°C of fuel salt, 0.052NaF-0.599KF-0.349PuF3.*

**3.1 How fission product stream be free from TRU**

65.9 g-TRU/8461 g-FPalk (0.78%) as shown in **Table 12**.

the fissile salt (b).

*, liquidus temperature; XF3*

*b*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

*liq<sup>a</sup>*

**Table 11.**

should be examined carefully.

**3. Chemical processing**

as shown in **Figure 11** [31].

**72**

*Comparison of required loss rate.*

0.1% of the target to be achieved by the pyro-processes such as electrochemical refining or liquid metal extraction currently under development [31].

The chemical processing in the FFMSR should be efficient to remove fuel material from the fission product streams but not necessarily efficient to remove fission products to become as neutron poisons if it were operated under the thermal neutron from the fuel stream.

To perform this new and perpetual mission, a processing interval of 1500 EFPD is sufficiently long and provides a small throughput in other words. The online chemical processing facility of α-β-γ-n remote operable capability collocated with

the FFMSR would be the most expensive auxiliary part of the plant to be constructed as well as to be operated. Such cost should be depending upon the nature of process, i.e., process complexity, material compatibility, process wastes, and capacity in particular.

and CaO; solid) as the oxidizer can be feasible under special cautions about selectivity to the FFMSR technology relying on NaF and KF as major constitutes of fuel

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

If it can reduce TRU concentration to 5 <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup> mol% in liquid phase from 8 mol

Intense increase of liquidus temperature should be taken into account during actinide removal treatment from 605°C up to 800°C. Using K2O2 as a precipitator can modify Na/K ratio from 0.55/0.45 to nearly 0.40/0.60 to give eutectic mixture

Elemental fluorine freed from UO2 precipitation reaction would react with TRUF3 to oxidize them into TRUF4 which can be eventually precipitated as TRUO2 by succeeding the use of CaO as a precipitator no more than ca. 20 mol% which may

As actinides are extremely abundant than lanthanides, the separation efficiency of actinides from lanthanides should not be good enough in a practical application; repeated treatments might be required to reduce actinide concentration in the lanthanide stream until permissible level is attained, even though moderate amount of lanthanides are permitted in the actinide stream. Up to 10% of lanthanides would be allowed to leave in the fuel salt stream, but lower than 0.01% of actinide

The process is a small batch scale (e.g., 21.2 l/day) in a pure Ni-made vessel facilitated to eliminate solid handling but performed by liquid phase handling only. The relevant fuel batch contains 12.9 kg of TRU which substantially exceed the significant mass of 8 kg; however it is always accompanied with 47 kg of chemically inseparable uranium. It is anticipated that the heat generation rate of a fuel batch will be 13.4 kW and the radioactivity will be 6MCi at 2 days after being drained. The process is incorporated with He sparge to purge rare gases and halogens as well as noble and semi-noble metal fission products and electroreductive removal of zirconium developed for the MSRE remediation [37] as shown in **Figure 13**. Accumulation of fission product zirconium tetrafluoride in the fuel system would

give stable ternary eutectic at ca. 700°C of the final waste salt.

. The permissible loss rate of 3.6 <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup>

solvent, as shown in **Figure 12**.

at 710°C.

**Figure 12.**

**75**

*Process flowsheet of the oxide selective precipitation.*

%, the available loss rate will be 6.25 <sup>10</sup><sup>5</sup>

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

leak into the waste stream is anticipated.

is six times larger than the available loss rate.

#### **3.2 Requirements to be concerned**

The crucial point in the fuel cleanup process is not the complete removal of neutron-absorbing material such as lanthanides from the fuel but keeping any leak of actinides into waste streams as low as possible. This could justify the use of the selective oxide precipitation process as an absolutely simple choice compared with other pyro-processes such as the electrochemical or the reductive extraction [32].

The fluoride volatile process of UF6 had been perceived as the most practical since the successful operation in MSRE during switch over the fissile from 235U to 233U; however it has been overlooked the fact that metallic Zr scrap in addition to the fuel should be followed by a prolonged H2 sparge to remove metallic corrosion products (Ni, Fe, Cr) caused by F2 treatment. The presence of a certain amount of Pu should require applying a reducing process from PuF4 to PuF3 in order to avoid accidental precipitation of PuO2 and severe material corrosion. Any absence of such treatment after the final removal of 233UF6 might have resulted MSRE remediation in a fruitless and endless trouble by undisclosed reasons of line clogging of the fuel drain tank.

#### **3.3 Selective oxide precipitation process**

In the very early stage of the Molten-Salt Reactor Program (MSR Program) started at ORNL, experimental studies on selective precipitation of oxides had been carried out because it might have been a suitable scheme for the reprocessing of molten salt reactor fuels, though it was abandoned after the discovery of the reductive extraction and metal transfer process associated with the UF6 volatile process, which, though complex and material incompatible, involved handling only liquids and gases. However the ultimately small throughput may allow us to select a solid handling process if the process is simple, fast, and material compatible.

A successful attempt was made to precipitate mixed uranium, plutonium, minor actinides, and rare earths from LiF-NaF molten salt solution by fluor-oxide exchange with other oxides (e.g., CaO, Al2O3) at temperatures 700–800°C. It was found that the following order of precipitation in the system is U-Pu-Am-Ln-Ca. Essentially all U and TRU were recovered from the molten salt till to rest concentration 5 <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup> %, when 5–10 mol% of rare earths are still concentrated in solution [33, 34].

An optional process to be applied to the DMSR fuel was suggested as follows. Treat the melt with a strong oxidant to convert UF3 to UF4, PaF4 to PaF5, and PuF3 to PuF4. Precipitate the insoluble oxides using water vapor diluted in helium. The oxides UO2, Pa2O5, PuO2, CeO2, probably NpO2, and possibly AmO2 and CmO2 should be obtained. Recover the oxides by decantation and filtration. Hydrofluorinate the oxides into the purified melt of LiF-BeF2-ThF4, and reduce the melt with H2 and reconstitute fuel with the desired UF4/UF3 ratio [35].

This could justify the use of the selective oxide precipitation process as an absolutely simple choice compared with other pyro-processes such as the electrochemical or the reductive extraction [36].

#### **3.4 Customization of the process**

Based upon the survey, it is concluded that the application of the selective oxide precipitation process with alkali or alkali earth metal oxides (K2O2; melt at 490°C

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

and CaO; solid) as the oxidizer can be feasible under special cautions about selectivity to the FFMSR technology relying on NaF and KF as major constitutes of fuel solvent, as shown in **Figure 12**.

If it can reduce TRU concentration to 5 <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup> mol% in liquid phase from 8 mol %, the available loss rate will be 6.25 <sup>10</sup><sup>5</sup> . The permissible loss rate of 3.6 <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup> is six times larger than the available loss rate.

Intense increase of liquidus temperature should be taken into account during actinide removal treatment from 605°C up to 800°C. Using K2O2 as a precipitator can modify Na/K ratio from 0.55/0.45 to nearly 0.40/0.60 to give eutectic mixture at 710°C.

Elemental fluorine freed from UO2 precipitation reaction would react with TRUF3 to oxidize them into TRUF4 which can be eventually precipitated as TRUO2 by succeeding the use of CaO as a precipitator no more than ca. 20 mol% which may give stable ternary eutectic at ca. 700°C of the final waste salt.

As actinides are extremely abundant than lanthanides, the separation efficiency of actinides from lanthanides should not be good enough in a practical application; repeated treatments might be required to reduce actinide concentration in the lanthanide stream until permissible level is attained, even though moderate amount of lanthanides are permitted in the actinide stream. Up to 10% of lanthanides would be allowed to leave in the fuel salt stream, but lower than 0.01% of actinide leak into the waste stream is anticipated.

The process is a small batch scale (e.g., 21.2 l/day) in a pure Ni-made vessel facilitated to eliminate solid handling but performed by liquid phase handling only. The relevant fuel batch contains 12.9 kg of TRU which substantially exceed the significant mass of 8 kg; however it is always accompanied with 47 kg of chemically inseparable uranium. It is anticipated that the heat generation rate of a fuel batch will be 13.4 kW and the radioactivity will be 6MCi at 2 days after being drained.

The process is incorporated with He sparge to purge rare gases and halogens as well as noble and semi-noble metal fission products and electroreductive removal of zirconium developed for the MSRE remediation [37] as shown in **Figure 13**. Accumulation of fission product zirconium tetrafluoride in the fuel system would

**Figure 12.** *Process flowsheet of the oxide selective precipitation.*

the FFMSR would be the most expensive auxiliary part of the plant to be constructed as well as to be operated. Such cost should be depending upon the nature of process, i.e., process complexity, material compatibility, process wastes,

The crucial point in the fuel cleanup process is not the complete removal of neutron-absorbing material such as lanthanides from the fuel but keeping any leak of actinides into waste streams as low as possible. This could justify the use of the selective oxide precipitation process as an absolutely simple choice compared with other pyro-processes such as the electrochemical or the reductive extraction [32]. The fluoride volatile process of UF6 had been perceived as the most practical since the successful operation in MSRE during switch over the fissile from 235U to 233U; however it has been overlooked the fact that metallic Zr scrap in addition to the fuel should be followed by a prolonged H2 sparge to remove metallic corrosion products (Ni, Fe, Cr) caused by F2 treatment. The presence of a certain amount of Pu should require applying a reducing process from PuF4 to PuF3 in order to avoid accidental precipitation of PuO2 and severe material corrosion. Any absence of such treatment after the final removal of 233UF6 might have resulted MSRE remediation in a fruitless and endless trouble by undisclosed reasons of line clogging of the fuel drain tank.

In the very early stage of the Molten-Salt Reactor Program (MSR Program) started at ORNL, experimental studies on selective precipitation of oxides had been carried out because it might have been a suitable scheme for the reprocessing of molten salt reactor fuels, though it was abandoned after the discovery of the reductive extraction and metal transfer process associated with the UF6 volatile process, which, though complex and material incompatible, involved handling only liquids and gases. However the ultimately small throughput may allow us to select a solid

A successful attempt was made to precipitate mixed uranium, plutonium, minor actinides, and rare earths from LiF-NaF molten salt solution by fluor-oxide exchange with other oxides (e.g., CaO, Al2O3) at temperatures 700–800°C. It was found that the following order of precipitation in the system is U-Pu-Am-Ln-Ca. Essentially all U and TRU were recovered from the molten salt till to rest concentration 5 <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup>

An optional process to be applied to the DMSR fuel was suggested as follows. Treat the melt with a strong oxidant to convert UF3 to UF4, PaF4 to PaF5, and PuF3 to PuF4. Precipitate the insoluble oxides using water vapor diluted in helium. The oxides UO2, Pa2O5, PuO2, CeO2, probably NpO2, and possibly AmO2 and CmO2

Hydrofluorinate the oxides into the purified melt of LiF-BeF2-ThF4, and reduce the

Based upon the survey, it is concluded that the application of the selective oxide precipitation process with alkali or alkali earth metal oxides (K2O2; melt at 490°C

This could justify the use of the selective oxide precipitation process as an absolutely simple choice compared with other pyro-processes such as the electro-

%,

handling process if the process is simple, fast, and material compatible.

when 5–10 mol% of rare earths are still concentrated in solution [33, 34].

should be obtained. Recover the oxides by decantation and filtration.

melt with H2 and reconstitute fuel with the desired UF4/UF3 ratio [35].

and capacity in particular.

**3.2 Requirements to be concerned**

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**3.3 Selective oxide precipitation process**

chemical or the reductive extraction [36].

**3.4 Customization of the process**

**74**

**4. Chemical engineering of FFMSR**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

An institutional restriction imposed to our task is the fact that no separated plutonium is tolerable in Japan to secure proliferation resistance under the international agreement. Japanese reprocessing plant cannot produce anything but U-Pu

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

process makes solid mixed oxide as makeup material feasible.

In the case of the FFMSR, the preparation work of initial charge does not require a high gamma facility if the source materials come from a conventional reprocessing plant. The oxide precipitation process incorporated with the hydro-fluorination

A typical 3.2 GWt FFMSR requires U-21.23% TRU mixed compound of 90 tons for the initial charge and 3.41 kg-U/EFPD (1245 kg-U/EFPY) of makeup in the equilibrium state compared with the 47.8 kg-U/EFPD of projected throughput of

The FFMSR requires several tons of TRU supplement according to the nuclear characteristics until it reaches to equilibrium. This system is capable of making up 0.92 kg-TRU/EFPD (336 kg-TRU/EFPY), if the same U-TRU mixed compound as

According to the specific nucleonic characteristics, the minimum U makeup is 1115 kg-U/EFPY, and the peak TRU supplement is 720 kg-TRU/EFPY. This means that as high as 39.2% U-TRU mixed compound should be temporally required in this

The nuclear reaction in the FFMSR consists of transformation of UF4 into TRUF3 and fission of TRUF3 into fission products. The annual free fluorine production of 3.2 GWth FFMSR at the equilibrium is 1308 moles (0.25/0.238 mol/kg-U 1245 kg-U/ EFPY) from the transmutation of UF4 and 3264 moles from the fission of TRUF3 based on 1.02 mole-F/MWt/y times 3200 according to **Table 6**. The annual consumption of UF3 is 4572 moles (1088 kg-U). This can be compensated by dissolution of 1524 moles uranium metal (363 kg-U) in the fuel salt containing UF4 as a part of annual U makeup

(1245 kg-U), though any side stream hydro-fluorination is also available.

Taking into account uranium inventory as much as 71.65 tons (28 mol%), assumed U[IV]/U[III] = 20 ratio represents 3.41 tons of U[III] inventory and 1.33 mol% of UF3 concentration. Since the daily supply of U[III] is 3 kg/EFPD, very stable control of U[IV]/U[III] ratio is available. On the other hand, steadiness of UF3 concentration as high as 1.33 mol% represents 26.67 mol% of the UF4 and 9.33 mol% of the total tri-fluoride concentration instead of 8.0 mol% of TRUF3. It should be assumed that the inventory of fission product lanthanide trifluoride at the burnup of 50,000 MWd/t-HM is 6.9% (0.55 mol%) of TRU

tri-fluorides. Any effect of fluctuation as high as 1.33 mol% in UF4 or 1.88 mol% in total tri-fluoride upon the liquidus temperature of fuel salt should be carefully

In the FFMSR, the inventory ratio of fission products to that of TRU is the key factor to guarantee an effectively low concentration of TRU in the waste stream

**4.1 Initial fuel charge**

the chemical processing.

the initial charge is applied.

**4.2 Redox buffer control and burnup effect**

**4.3 Back-end process and radioactive wastes**

mixed oxide.

occasion.

examined.

**77**

**Figure 13.** *Online chemical process in a typical 3.2 GWt FFMSR.*


#### **Table 13.**

*Process parameters of oxide selective precipitation.*

give an adverse effect in the fuel storage tank due to its reducible nature under gamma radiation as well as sublimation. Some detail process parameters are shown in **Table 13**.

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

#### **4. Chemical engineering of FFMSR**

#### **4.1 Initial fuel charge**

An institutional restriction imposed to our task is the fact that no separated plutonium is tolerable in Japan to secure proliferation resistance under the international agreement. Japanese reprocessing plant cannot produce anything but U-Pu mixed oxide.

In the case of the FFMSR, the preparation work of initial charge does not require a high gamma facility if the source materials come from a conventional reprocessing plant. The oxide precipitation process incorporated with the hydro-fluorination process makes solid mixed oxide as makeup material feasible.

A typical 3.2 GWt FFMSR requires U-21.23% TRU mixed compound of 90 tons for the initial charge and 3.41 kg-U/EFPD (1245 kg-U/EFPY) of makeup in the equilibrium state compared with the 47.8 kg-U/EFPD of projected throughput of the chemical processing.

The FFMSR requires several tons of TRU supplement according to the nuclear characteristics until it reaches to equilibrium. This system is capable of making up 0.92 kg-TRU/EFPD (336 kg-TRU/EFPY), if the same U-TRU mixed compound as the initial charge is applied.

According to the specific nucleonic characteristics, the minimum U makeup is 1115 kg-U/EFPY, and the peak TRU supplement is 720 kg-TRU/EFPY. This means that as high as 39.2% U-TRU mixed compound should be temporally required in this occasion.

#### **4.2 Redox buffer control and burnup effect**

The nuclear reaction in the FFMSR consists of transformation of UF4 into TRUF3 and fission of TRUF3 into fission products. The annual free fluorine production of 3.2 GWth FFMSR at the equilibrium is 1308 moles (0.25/0.238 mol/kg-U 1245 kg-U/ EFPY) from the transmutation of UF4 and 3264 moles from the fission of TRUF3 based on 1.02 mole-F/MWt/y times 3200 according to **Table 6**. The annual consumption of UF3 is 4572 moles (1088 kg-U). This can be compensated by dissolution of 1524 moles uranium metal (363 kg-U) in the fuel salt containing UF4 as a part of annual U makeup (1245 kg-U), though any side stream hydro-fluorination is also available.

Taking into account uranium inventory as much as 71.65 tons (28 mol%), assumed U[IV]/U[III] = 20 ratio represents 3.41 tons of U[III] inventory and 1.33 mol% of UF3 concentration. Since the daily supply of U[III] is 3 kg/EFPD, very stable control of U[IV]/U[III] ratio is available. On the other hand, steadiness of UF3 concentration as high as 1.33 mol% represents 26.67 mol% of the UF4 and 9.33 mol% of the total tri-fluoride concentration instead of 8.0 mol% of TRUF3.

It should be assumed that the inventory of fission product lanthanide trifluoride at the burnup of 50,000 MWd/t-HM is 6.9% (0.55 mol%) of TRU tri-fluorides. Any effect of fluctuation as high as 1.33 mol% in UF4 or 1.88 mol% in total tri-fluoride upon the liquidus temperature of fuel salt should be carefully examined.

#### **4.3 Back-end process and radioactive wastes**

In the FFMSR, the inventory ratio of fission products to that of TRU is the key factor to guarantee an effectively low concentration of TRU in the waste stream

give an adverse effect in the fuel storage tank due to its reducible nature under gamma radiation as well as sublimation. Some detail process parameters are shown

in **Table 13**.

**76**

**Table 13.**

**Figure 13.**

*Online chemical process in a typical 3.2 GWt FFMSR.*

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

*Process parameters of oxide selective precipitation.*

with a given TRU leak rate. The inventory of fission product is equal to that of accumulation during 1500 EFPD (51GWd/t-HM).

elaborating partitioning processes. Effective technologies to utilize such recovered

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

The annual loss of TRU due to fuel salt chemical cleaning is 6 kg based upon the assumption 1500 EFPD of interval and 0.1% of nominal loss rate for 22.6 tons-TRU inventory. This can be accounted for in the equilibrium phase indefinitely because the annual TRU surplus is 10 kg. However if a flushing procedure should be required at the maintenance work according to 0.43% of the transfer rate in the MSRE operation experience [34], 97 kg of TRU may be transferred to the flushing salt even if it will be recovered efficiently later. How much TRU should have been given as a dowry at the deployment of a stand-alone FFMSR is a question. The reactivity swing by the chemical process unit outage (halt of the makeup and FP

The dedicated front-end plant might produce U-TRU mixed fluoride from the MOX spent fuel of ABWR for which the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant cannot deal

Full deployment of the FFMSR should make the entire fuel cycle infrastructures from the uranium mining to the spent fuel reprocessing including P&T needless

resources are sincerely expected.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

except the HLW disposal site.

separation) should also be evaluated.

**4.5 Dedicated front-end process for the ABWR**

with technical reasons as shown in **Figure 14**.

**4.4 Contingency plan**

**Figure 14.**

**79**

*Dedicated front-end process for the ABWR-MOX fuel.*

The waste stream consists of gases (He, Kr, Xe, and <sup>3</sup> H), spent charcoal filter absorbing I, solid elements (Zr, rare metals, and semi-rare metals such as Zn, Ga, Ge, As, Se, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Tc, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, and Te), lanthanide oxides, and NaF-KF-CaF2 matrix salt containing alkali/alkali earth fission product fluorides.

Storage of fission product gases in high-pressure cylinders and then transfer to the repository was a standard practice in the MSBR design; however it is impractical in Japan, because of regulative requirement of annual pressure proof test of highpressure cylinders.

Though the fission yield of 85Kr from the FFMSR system is assumed as about 1/3 of that from the graphite-moderated thorium molten salt reactors, special attention was suggested such as underground disposal by geological hydro-fracturing should be paid for radioactive Kr [38] if releasing from a high stack as currently applied in the spent fuel reprocessing plant will not be allowed in the future.

The spent iodine filter such as silver-impregnated matrix is a universal issue in every molten salt reactor as well as in spent solid fuel reprocessing plants.

Zr is electrochemically separated from the fuel salt prior to the oxide precipitation. Zr compounds are not desirable in the waste salt tank because of their reducibility in addition to sublimation capability [34].

Rare and semi-rare metals could possibly be industrially utilized after appropriately separated because they are virtually alpha activity free. They include various very long-lived fission products, such as 99Tc, 126Sn, 79Se, and 107Pd, which are to be disposed in a very compact form.

NaF-KF mixture containing soluble and major heat-generating fission product fluorides (CsF, SrF2, etc.) and the process reagent (KF and CaF2) is the main process waste as far as the online chemical processing is concerned.

Composition of fuel salt is assumed as 0.348NaF-0.284KF-0.280UF4– 0.082TRUF3-0.006LnF3 (Tliq. = 605°C), and that of waste salt is assumed as 0.356NaF-0.580KF-0.060CaF2-0.004FPF1.5 (Tliq = 700°C).

Storage of the waste salt as liquid phase at higher than 700°C should be unpractical. It might be cooled to solidify in a tank shortly after being transferred.

The inventories are assumed as fuel salt, 147.87 tons; HM fluoride, 120.54 tons; and matrix salt, 27.33 tons. The high-level waste salt originated from a 1.5 GWe FFMSR system for 1500 EFPD operation (51.3 GWd/t-HM) is 46.26 tons (20.12 m<sup>3</sup> at 2.3 g/cc of density), and the radiotoxicity of this amount of waste is equivalent to 405 tons of depleted uranium after 500 years cooling.

The throughput of high-level waste salt mixture from the vitrified high-level waste of 1.5 GWe PWR (50 GWd/t-U) after 99.5% Pu by reprocessing and 99% MA removal by P&T is probably 59 tons, and the radiotoxicity of this amount of waste is equivalent to 1163 tons of natural uranium after 500 years cooling.

The selection of the fuel matrix without <sup>7</sup> Li economically allows a direct disposal of the waste matrix salt without recycle; nevertheless the bulk mass is comparable to that of vitrified waste of LWR though public utilization of decay heat before immobilization of cooled waste salt might be feasible.

Furthermore the incomparably favorable fact that the FFMSR system does not produce any fuel cycle-associated wastes, starting from uranium mine tailing all through to alpha-contaminated HEPA filters of MOX fuel fabrication plant, should be taken into account.

The characteristic capability of the oxide selective separation process enables to retrieve alpha contamination-free metals as well as lanthanide oxides without

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

elaborating partitioning processes. Effective technologies to utilize such recovered resources are sincerely expected.

Full deployment of the FFMSR should make the entire fuel cycle infrastructures from the uranium mining to the spent fuel reprocessing including P&T needless except the HLW disposal site.

#### **4.4 Contingency plan**

with a given TRU leak rate. The inventory of fission product is equal to that of

absorbing I, solid elements (Zr, rare metals, and semi-rare metals such as Zn, Ga, Ge, As, Se, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Tc, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, and Te), lanthanide oxides, and NaF-KF-CaF2 matrix salt containing alkali/alkali earth fission product

Storage of fission product gases in high-pressure cylinders and then transfer to the repository was a standard practice in the MSBR design; however it is impractical in Japan, because of regulative requirement of annual pressure proof test of high-

Though the fission yield of 85Kr from the FFMSR system is assumed as about 1/3 of that from the graphite-moderated thorium molten salt reactors, special attention was suggested such as underground disposal by geological hydro-fracturing should be paid for radioactive Kr [38] if releasing from a high stack as currently applied in

The spent iodine filter such as silver-impregnated matrix is a universal issue in

Zr is electrochemically separated from the fuel salt prior to the oxide precipitation. Zr compounds are not desirable in the waste salt tank because of their reduc-

Rare and semi-rare metals could possibly be industrially utilized after appropriately separated because they are virtually alpha activity free. They include various very long-lived fission products, such as 99Tc, 126Sn, 79Se, and 107Pd, which are to

NaF-KF mixture containing soluble and major heat-generating fission product

fluorides (CsF, SrF2, etc.) and the process reagent (KF and CaF2) is the main

Composition of fuel salt is assumed as 0.348NaF-0.284KF-0.280UF4– 0.082TRUF3-0.006LnF3 (Tliq. = 605°C), and that of waste salt is assumed as

Storage of the waste salt as liquid phase at higher than 700°C should be unpractical. It might be cooled to solidify in a tank shortly after being transferred. The inventories are assumed as fuel salt, 147.87 tons; HM fluoride, 120.54 tons; and matrix salt, 27.33 tons. The high-level waste salt originated from a 1.5 GWe FFMSR system for 1500 EFPD operation (51.3 GWd/t-HM) is 46.26 tons (20.12 m<sup>3</sup> at 2.3 g/cc of density), and the radiotoxicity of this amount of waste is equivalent to

The throughput of high-level waste salt mixture from the vitrified high-level waste of 1.5 GWe PWR (50 GWd/t-U) after 99.5% Pu by reprocessing and 99% MA removal by P&T is probably 59 tons, and the radiotoxicity of this amount of waste

of the waste matrix salt without recycle; nevertheless the bulk mass is comparable to that of vitrified waste of LWR though public utilization of decay heat before

Furthermore the incomparably favorable fact that the FFMSR system does not produce any fuel cycle-associated wastes, starting from uranium mine tailing all through to alpha-contaminated HEPA filters of MOX fuel fabrication plant, should

The characteristic capability of the oxide selective separation process enables to

retrieve alpha contamination-free metals as well as lanthanide oxides without

Li economically allows a direct disposal

process waste as far as the online chemical processing is concerned.

is equivalent to 1163 tons of natural uranium after 500 years cooling.

0.356NaF-0.580KF-0.060CaF2-0.004FPF1.5 (Tliq = 700°C).

405 tons of depleted uranium after 500 years cooling.

immobilization of cooled waste salt might be feasible.

The selection of the fuel matrix without <sup>7</sup>

be taken into account.

**78**

H), spent charcoal filter

accumulation during 1500 EFPD (51GWd/t-HM).

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

ibility in addition to sublimation capability [34].

be disposed in a very compact form.

fluorides.

pressure cylinders.

The waste stream consists of gases (He, Kr, Xe, and <sup>3</sup>

the spent fuel reprocessing plant will not be allowed in the future.

every molten salt reactor as well as in spent solid fuel reprocessing plants.

The annual loss of TRU due to fuel salt chemical cleaning is 6 kg based upon the assumption 1500 EFPD of interval and 0.1% of nominal loss rate for 22.6 tons-TRU inventory. This can be accounted for in the equilibrium phase indefinitely because the annual TRU surplus is 10 kg. However if a flushing procedure should be required at the maintenance work according to 0.43% of the transfer rate in the MSRE operation experience [34], 97 kg of TRU may be transferred to the flushing salt even if it will be recovered efficiently later. How much TRU should have been given as a dowry at the deployment of a stand-alone FFMSR is a question. The reactivity swing by the chemical process unit outage (halt of the makeup and FP separation) should also be evaluated.

#### **4.5 Dedicated front-end process for the ABWR**

The dedicated front-end plant might produce U-TRU mixed fluoride from the MOX spent fuel of ABWR for which the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant cannot deal with technical reasons as shown in **Figure 14**.

**Figure 14.**

*Dedicated front-end process for the ABWR-MOX fuel.*

The original fluoride volatility process converts all components into volatile fluorides by using fluorine flame reactor and then separates them into fractions according to their properties [39]. However we were rather interested in the recently developed innovative process using NF3 as a thermally sensitive reagent; it would react with different compounds at different temperatures [40]. For example, NF3 reacts with Tc and Mo oxide near 300°C and Ru and Rh near 400°C, while U oxides required near 500°C to form a volatile fluoride. This process eventually yields the nonvolatile fraction containing all TRU fluorides. Then we intended to apply the oxide selective precipitation process, to provide TRU stream not so much cleaned from fission products but to result very clean fission product stream from TRU contamination.

a fluoride molten salt reactor has not yet been undertaken in spite of a strong warning made by the ORNL scientist in the end of the last century [23].

immediate future.

mens under the fast neutron flux (3.9 <sup>10</sup><sup>19</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>1</sup> <sup>s</sup>

The proposed specimens are:

as the comparative.

specimen up to 750°C.

**6. Conclusions**

2.56 g-TRU/cc as the subject.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

has not yet been optimized, in various factors.

and the simplicity for an indefinitely long term.

temperature of fuel) however it might deserve.

**Acknowledgements**

**81**

In spite of the continued effort by the author to try to stimulate academic discussion on the chemical effect of TRU fissioning controversial against the ORNL since 2015, it seems to the author to become "an inconvenient truth" for which no one dares to discuss. The author seriously concerns that the present situation might jeopardize the technological development of plutonium burning technology in the

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

The author plans to propose a capsule irradiation test of NaF-KF-TRUF3 speci-

experimental fast reactor (JYOYO) located in Oharai, Japan. It plans to measure the freed fluorine ions per a fission of fissile Pu and compare with that of 235U by the weight loss of the pure Zirconium metal specimen immersed in the fuel salt.

2.0.053NaF-0.608KF-0.340CeF3 eutectic mixture (liquidus: 605°C) as the reference.

3.0.528NaF-0.285KF-0.188235UF4 eutectic mixture (liquidus: 490°C) 2.52 g-U/cc

The nominal sample temperature in the test region is at least 600°C; however it

The study on our FFMSR was started from the review of the reference technology and based upon the comprehension of immaturity of the TRU burning technologies using the MSR due to the prejudice of the original design principle of ORNL in which the use of PuF3 had been an exclusively temporary issue.

The various aspects but restricted in chemical technology discussed in this work should be taken into account and reviewed carefully in the imminent future activity although they are in limited scope and hypothetical nature to be verified experimentally. The present neutron physical calculations are preliminary nature in which the direct fission fraction of 238U is not quantified, taking for instances. The system

FFMSR should provide us with a tool to stimulate immediate use of existing LWR by making values to the spent fuel as well as to the depleted uranium and to create nuclear fission energy not relying on the existing fuel cycle infrastructure with the ultimate safety owing to the absence of and eliminating fuel cycle wastes

One of a price in return for these efforts is exclusive challenges to overcome increased reactor core inlet temperature up to 660°C (50°C higher than the liquidus

The author would like to express his thanks to Prof. Dr. Koshi Mitachi and Prof.

Dr. Yoichiro Shimazu for their volunteer dedication to the entire physical

is assumed that the gamma heat of capsule structure should enable to heat the

1.0.053NaF-0.608KF-0.340TRUF3 eutectic mixture (liquidus: 605°C)

1

) during liquid Na cooling in an

The distinguished feature of this process is the capability to separate useful metallic fission products as well as lanthanide oxides free from alpha contamination from other residual materials of fluorination process effectively, without laborious partitioning.

A suite of processes are shown as the flowsheet specifically for the ABWR spent fuel processing; however it can be reasonably modified to the original LWR spent fuel or LWR-MOX spent fuel.

#### **5. Experimental test plans**

#### **5.1 Clarify phase relationship in NaF-KF-UF4-UF3-PuF3 system for the FFMSR**

It is perceived that experimental confirmation of density assessment procedure of molten salt mixtures is inevitable to establish any MSR technology. The liquid fuel of the FFMSR contains UF4, UF3, and PuF3. Currently any performance of experimental activity on the specimens containing Pu as the special nuclear material is not available other than in the Russian Research Laboratories.

We plan the experimental procedure using NaF-KF-nat.UF4 containing in situ prepared nat.UF3 to simulate NaF-KF-nat.UF4-PuF3 taking advantage of identical crystal structure as well as similarity of density between PuF3 and UF3.

Furthermore, the phase relationship (freezing behavior) will be experimentally evaluated in order to justify that the feasibility of the phase structure should be understood.

The plan includes:


#### **5.2 Experimental confirmation of chemical effects of TRU fissioning**

The chemical effects of UF4 fissioning in a fluoride molten salt reactor were confirmed by the successful operation of the MSRE during the end of the 1960s. However any experimental confirmation of the chemical effect of PuF3 fissioning in *Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

a fluoride molten salt reactor has not yet been undertaken in spite of a strong warning made by the ORNL scientist in the end of the last century [23].

In spite of the continued effort by the author to try to stimulate academic discussion on the chemical effect of TRU fissioning controversial against the ORNL since 2015, it seems to the author to become "an inconvenient truth" for which no one dares to discuss. The author seriously concerns that the present situation might jeopardize the technological development of plutonium burning technology in the immediate future.

The author plans to propose a capsule irradiation test of NaF-KF-TRUF3 specimens under the fast neutron flux (3.9 <sup>10</sup><sup>19</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>1</sup> <sup>s</sup> 1 ) during liquid Na cooling in an experimental fast reactor (JYOYO) located in Oharai, Japan. It plans to measure the freed fluorine ions per a fission of fissile Pu and compare with that of 235U by the weight loss of the pure Zirconium metal specimen immersed in the fuel salt.

The proposed specimens are:


The nominal sample temperature in the test region is at least 600°C; however it is assumed that the gamma heat of capsule structure should enable to heat the specimen up to 750°C.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The original fluoride volatility process converts all components into volatile fluorides by using fluorine flame reactor and then separates them into fractions according to their properties [39]. However we were rather interested in the recently developed innovative process using NF3 as a thermally sensitive reagent; it would react with different compounds at different temperatures [40]. For example, NF3 reacts with Tc and Mo oxide near 300°C and Ru and Rh near 400°C, while U oxides required near 500°C to form a volatile fluoride. This process eventually yields the nonvolatile fraction containing all TRU fluorides. Then we intended to apply the oxide selective precipitation process, to provide TRU stream not so much cleaned from fission products but to result very clean fission product stream from TRU contamination. The distinguished feature of this process is the capability to separate useful metallic fission products as well as lanthanide oxides free from alpha contamination from other residual materials of fluorination process effectively, without laborious partitioning. A suite of processes are shown as the flowsheet specifically for the ABWR spent fuel processing; however it can be reasonably modified to the original LWR spent

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**5.1 Clarify phase relationship in NaF-KF-UF4-UF3-PuF3 system for the FFMSR**

is not available other than in the Russian Research Laboratories.

crystal structure as well as similarity of density between PuF3 and UF3.

1.Confirmation of synthetic process of heavy element fluoride.

2.Confirmation of recovery process of heavy element as UO2.

3.Confirmation of synthetic process of NaF-KF-UF4-UF3.

diagram using CeF3 as a surrogate of UF3 and PuF3.

It is perceived that experimental confirmation of density assessment procedure of molten salt mixtures is inevitable to establish any MSR technology. The liquid fuel of the FFMSR contains UF4, UF3, and PuF3. Currently any performance of experimental activity on the specimens containing Pu as the special nuclear material

We plan the experimental procedure using NaF-KF-nat.UF4 containing in situ prepared nat.UF3 to simulate NaF-KF-nat.UF4-PuF3 taking advantage of identical

Furthermore, the phase relationship (freezing behavior) will be experimentally evaluated in order to justify that the feasibility of the phase structure should be understood.

4.Density measurement of liquid NaF-KF-UF4-UF3 to clarify the dependency of heavy element content with different solid densities on density of the liquefied salt.

dependency of UF3 collocation in the NaF-KF-UF4 phase diagram using the solubility measuring practice. Effect of trivalent fission products on the phase

The chemical effects of UF4 fissioning in a fluoride molten salt reactor were confirmed by the successful operation of the MSRE during the end of the 1960s. However any experimental confirmation of the chemical effect of PuF3 fissioning in

5. Investigation of the phase diagrams of NaF-KF-UF4-UF3 to clarify the

**5.2 Experimental confirmation of chemical effects of TRU fissioning**

fuel or LWR-MOX spent fuel.

**5. Experimental test plans**

The plan includes:

**80**

The study on our FFMSR was started from the review of the reference technology and based upon the comprehension of immaturity of the TRU burning technologies using the MSR due to the prejudice of the original design principle of ORNL in which the use of PuF3 had been an exclusively temporary issue.

The various aspects but restricted in chemical technology discussed in this work should be taken into account and reviewed carefully in the imminent future activity although they are in limited scope and hypothetical nature to be verified experimentally. The present neutron physical calculations are preliminary nature in which the direct fission fraction of 238U is not quantified, taking for instances. The system has not yet been optimized, in various factors.

FFMSR should provide us with a tool to stimulate immediate use of existing LWR by making values to the spent fuel as well as to the depleted uranium and to create nuclear fission energy not relying on the existing fuel cycle infrastructure with the ultimate safety owing to the absence of and eliminating fuel cycle wastes and the simplicity for an indefinitely long term.

One of a price in return for these efforts is exclusive challenges to overcome increased reactor core inlet temperature up to 660°C (50°C higher than the liquidus temperature of fuel) however it might deserve.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The author would like to express his thanks to Prof. Dr. Koshi Mitachi and Prof. Dr. Yoichiro Shimazu for their volunteer dedication to the entire physical

calculations in this work, Prof. Dr. L.I. Ponomarev for the courtesy of personally introducing his work, and Standard Power, Co. Ltd. for publishing this chapter. He would like to dedicate this paper to the late Prof. Dr. Yoich Takashima for his guidance in initiating the work associated with MSR technology.

**References**

2761-2771

p. 15/64

**115**(1):11-17

32-37

33-36

**83**

[1] Mourogov A, Bokov P. Potentialities of the fast spectrum molten salt reactor

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

fast breeder reactor. In: Proc. ICAPP 2016, San Francisco, CA, April 17-20.

[10] Hirose Y. Feasibility of using (Li, Na, K)F-UF4-TRUF3 fuels for U-Pu fastspectrum molten-salt reactors. In: Proceedings of ICAPP 2017, Kyoto, Japan, April 28. 2017. p. 17107

[11] Hirose Y. Some chemical aspects of molten-salt reactors specifically in TRU burning applications. In: Proc. ICAPP 2018, Charlotte, NC, US, April 8-11.

[12] Ponomarev L, Lizin A, Tomilin S, Fedorov Y, Hirose Y. Fast spectrum, liquid fueled reactors. In: Dolan T, editor. Molten Salt Reactors and

Thorium Energy. Cambridge, MA, USA: Wood Head Publishing of Elsevier;

[13] Grimes W, Cuneo R, Blankenship F,

Robinson M. In: MacFerson H, editor. Fluid Fuel Reactors. Reading, Mass, USA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.; 1958.

[14] Benes O. Thermodynamics of molten salts for nuclear applications [thesis]. In: JRC Technical Notes, JRC-ITU-TN-2008/40. Prague: Institute

of Chemical Technology; 2008

[15] Thoma R, editor. Phase Diagrams of Nuclear Reactor Materials, ORNL-2548;

[16] Benes O, Kornings R. Actinide burner fuel: Potential compositions based on the thermodynamic evaluation of MF–PuF3 (M = Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs) and LaF3-PuF3 systems. Journal of Nuclear

[17] Canter S. Density and viscosity of several fluoride mixtures. In: ORNL-

Materials. 2008;**377**:449-457

TM-4308; 1973

2016. p. 16124

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

2018. pp. 787-798

2017. pp. 376-433

pp. 569-591

1959

Keilholtz G, Poppendick H,

Conversion and Management. 2006;**47**:

Hosnedl P, Ignatiev V, Kornings R, et al. Review report on liquid salts for various applications. In: ALISIA Project. 2009.

[3] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Gnevashov O, Gazizov A, Osipenko A, Kormilitsin V. PuF3, AmF3, CeF3, NdF3 solubility in LiF\_NaF\_KF melt. Atomic Energy. 2013;

[4] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Gnevashov O, Gazizov A, Osipenko A, Kormilitsin M. UF4 and ThF4 solubility in LiF\_NaF\_KF melt. Atomic Energy. 2013;**115**(1):22-25

[5] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Ignatiev V. Joint solubility of CeF3 and PuF3 in ternary melts of lithium, thorium and uranium fluorides. Radiochemistry. 2015;**57**(1):

[6] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Naumov S, Ignatiev V, Nezgovorov N, Baranov A. The study of joint solubility of UF4 and PuF3 in molten fluorides of lithium, sodium and potassium. Radiochemistry.

[7] Degtyarev A, Pnomarev L. Molten salt fast reactor with U-Pu fuel cycle. Progress in Nuclear Energy. 2015;**82**:

[8] Hirose Y, Mitachi K, Shimazu Y. Feasibility of molten salt fast reactor for emerging national tasks. In: Proc. 2015

(IHLRWM 2015), Charleston, SC; April

[9] Hirose Y, Mitachi K, Shimazu Y. Operation control of molten salt U-Pu

ANS International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management

12–16; ANS. 2015. pp. 608-617

2015;**57**(5):425-429

concept: REBUS-3700. Energy

[2] Benes O, Cabet C, Deloech S,

### **Author details**

Yasuo Hirose Standard Power, Inc., Tokyo, Japan

\*Address all correspondence to: yahirose@mint.ocn.ne.jp

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

#### **References**

calculations in this work, Prof. Dr. L.I. Ponomarev for the courtesy of personally introducing his work, and Standard Power, Co. Ltd. for publishing this chapter. He would like to dedicate this paper to the late Prof. Dr. Yoich Takashima for his

guidance in initiating the work associated with MSR technology.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

**Author details**

Standard Power, Inc., Tokyo, Japan

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to: yahirose@mint.ocn.ne.jp

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Yasuo Hirose

**82**

[1] Mourogov A, Bokov P. Potentialities of the fast spectrum molten salt reactor concept: REBUS-3700. Energy Conversion and Management. 2006;**47**: 2761-2771

[2] Benes O, Cabet C, Deloech S, Hosnedl P, Ignatiev V, Kornings R, et al. Review report on liquid salts for various applications. In: ALISIA Project. 2009. p. 15/64

[3] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Gnevashov O, Gazizov A, Osipenko A, Kormilitsin V. PuF3, AmF3, CeF3, NdF3 solubility in LiF\_NaF\_KF melt. Atomic Energy. 2013; **115**(1):11-17

[4] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Gnevashov O, Gazizov A, Osipenko A, Kormilitsin M. UF4 and ThF4 solubility in LiF\_NaF\_KF melt. Atomic Energy. 2013;**115**(1):22-25

[5] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Ignatiev V. Joint solubility of CeF3 and PuF3 in ternary melts of lithium, thorium and uranium fluorides. Radiochemistry. 2015;**57**(1): 32-37

[6] Lizin A, Tomilin S, Naumov S, Ignatiev V, Nezgovorov N, Baranov A. The study of joint solubility of UF4 and PuF3 in molten fluorides of lithium, sodium and potassium. Radiochemistry. 2015;**57**(5):425-429

[7] Degtyarev A, Pnomarev L. Molten salt fast reactor with U-Pu fuel cycle. Progress in Nuclear Energy. 2015;**82**: 33-36

[8] Hirose Y, Mitachi K, Shimazu Y. Feasibility of molten salt fast reactor for emerging national tasks. In: Proc. 2015 ANS International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management (IHLRWM 2015), Charleston, SC; April 12–16; ANS. 2015. pp. 608-617

[9] Hirose Y, Mitachi K, Shimazu Y. Operation control of molten salt U-Pu fast breeder reactor. In: Proc. ICAPP 2016, San Francisco, CA, April 17-20. 2016. p. 16124

[10] Hirose Y. Feasibility of using (Li, Na, K)F-UF4-TRUF3 fuels for U-Pu fastspectrum molten-salt reactors. In: Proceedings of ICAPP 2017, Kyoto, Japan, April 28. 2017. p. 17107

[11] Hirose Y. Some chemical aspects of molten-salt reactors specifically in TRU burning applications. In: Proc. ICAPP 2018, Charlotte, NC, US, April 8-11. 2018. pp. 787-798

[12] Ponomarev L, Lizin A, Tomilin S, Fedorov Y, Hirose Y. Fast spectrum, liquid fueled reactors. In: Dolan T, editor. Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium Energy. Cambridge, MA, USA: Wood Head Publishing of Elsevier; 2017. pp. 376-433

[13] Grimes W, Cuneo R, Blankenship F, Keilholtz G, Poppendick H, Robinson M. In: MacFerson H, editor. Fluid Fuel Reactors. Reading, Mass, USA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.; 1958. pp. 569-591

[14] Benes O. Thermodynamics of molten salts for nuclear applications [thesis]. In: JRC Technical Notes, JRC-ITU-TN-2008/40. Prague: Institute of Chemical Technology; 2008

[15] Thoma R, editor. Phase Diagrams of Nuclear Reactor Materials, ORNL-2548; 1959

[16] Benes O, Kornings R. Actinide burner fuel: Potential compositions based on the thermodynamic evaluation of MF–PuF3 (M = Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs) and LaF3-PuF3 systems. Journal of Nuclear Materials. 2008;**377**:449-457

[17] Canter S. Density and viscosity of several fluoride mixtures. In: ORNL-TM-4308; 1973

[18] Grines W, Cuneo D. Molten salt as reactor fuels. In: Tipton C, editor. Reactor Handbook. Vol. I. New York: Wiley (Interscience); 1960. pp. 425-473. Chap. 17

[19] Thoma R. Chemical Feasibility of Fueling MSR with PuF3. In: ORNL-TM-2256; 1968

[20] Ponomarev L. Private communication. November 26 2015

[21] Forsberg C. Accident criticality safety for fast spectrum molten salt reactors. In: Transactions of the 2007 ANS Annual Meeting, June 24–28 2007

[22] Grimes W. Molten-salt reactor chemistry. Nuclear Applications & Technology. 1970;**8**:137-155

[23] Toth LM, Del Cul G, Dai S, MetCalf G. Molten fluoride fuel salt chemistry. In: International Conference on ADTTA, Las Vegas, NV, AIP Conference Proceedings 346. 1994. pp. 617-619

[24] Holcomb D. Overview of fuel and coolant salt chemistry and thermal hydraulics. In: Presentation for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, November 7-8, 2017, Washington, DC. 2017. ML17331B115

[25] Shimazu Y, Hirose Y. Evaluation of redox environment in fluoride molten salt reactors based on ENDF-VII. In: Proceedings of AESJ 2015 Autumn Meeting, Shizuoka, Japan, September 10–12. 2015. B-20

[26] Baes C Jr. The chemistry and thermodynamics of molten salt reactor fuels. Journal of Nuclear Materials. 1974; **51**:149-162

[27] Ignatiev V, Feynberg OI, Gnidoi I, Merzlyakov A, Surenkov A, Uglov V, et al. Molten salt actinide recycler and transforming system without and with Th–U support: Fuel cycle flexibility and key material properties. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2014;**64**:408-420

[28] Williams D. REDOX control of MSR fuel. In: GEDEON-Practis Workshop, Cadarache, France, June 19–20. 2002

[37] Peretz J. Identification and evaluation of alternatives for the disposition of fluoride fuel and flush salts from the MSRE at ORNL. In:

[38] Messenger S, Forsberg C, Massie M. Gaseous fission product management for molten salt reactors and vented fuel system. In: ICAPP-2012, Chicago, USA,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity…*

ORNL-ER-380. 1996

June 24–28. 2012. p. 12097

Chemistry. 2009;**130**:89-93

**85**

[39] Uhlir J, Marecek M. Fluoride volatility method for reprocessing of LWR and FR fuels. Journal of Fluorine

[40] McNamara B, Casella A, Scheele R, Kozelisky A. Nitrogen trifluoride-based fluoride-volatility separations process: Initial studies. In: PNNL-20775. 2011

[29] Ignatiev V, Feynberg O, Gnidoi I, Merzlyakov A, Smirnov V, Surenkov A, et al. Progress in development of Li,Be, Na/F molten salt actinide recycler & transmuter concept. In: Proceedings of ICAPP 2007, Nice, France, May 13–18. 2007. p. 7548

[30] EVOL (Project no.249696) Final Report. Available from: http://cordis. europa.eu/docs/results/249/249696/ final1-final-report-f.pdf#search=% 27EVOL%28Project+no.249696%29 Final+Report%27

[31] IAEA. Implications of partitioning and transmutation in radioactive waste management. In: Technical Reports Series No. 435. 2004. p. 5

[32] Shaffer J. Chemical reactions of oxides with fluorides in LiF-KF. In: ORNL-2474. 1958. pp. 99-101

[33] Shaffer J, Watson G, Grime W. Chemical reprocessing of reactor fuels by oxide precipitations. In: ORNL-2931. 1960. pp. 84-90

[34] Gorbunov V. Experimental studies on interaction of plutonium, uranium and rare earth fluorides with some metal oxides in molten fluoride mixtures. Radiochimija. 1976;**17**:109-224

[35] Engel J, Grimes W, Bauman H, McCoy E, Dering J, Rhoades W. Conceptual design characteristics of a denatured molten-salt reactor with once-through fueling. In: ORNL-TM-7207. 1980

[36] Ignatiev V, Gorbunov V, Zakirov R. Fuels and fission products clean up for molten salt reactor of the incinerator type. In: ISTC Task #1606. 2007

*Fast-Spectrum Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (FFMSR) with Ultimately Reduced Radiotoxicity… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90939*

[37] Peretz J. Identification and evaluation of alternatives for the disposition of fluoride fuel and flush salts from the MSRE at ORNL. In: ORNL-ER-380. 1996

[18] Grines W, Cuneo D. Molten salt as reactor fuels. In: Tipton C, editor. Reactor Handbook. Vol. I. New York: Wiley (Interscience); 1960. pp. 425-473.

*Nuclear Power Plants - Processes in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle*

key material properties. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2014;**64**:408-420

[28] Williams D. REDOX control of MSR fuel. In: GEDEON-Practis Workshop, Cadarache, France, June 19–20. 2002

[29] Ignatiev V, Feynberg O, Gnidoi I, Merzlyakov A, Smirnov V, Surenkov A, et al. Progress in development of Li,Be, Na/F molten salt actinide recycler & transmuter concept. In: Proceedings of ICAPP 2007, Nice, France, May 13–18.

[30] EVOL (Project no.249696) Final Report. Available from: http://cordis. europa.eu/docs/results/249/249696/ final1-final-report-f.pdf#search=% 27EVOL%28Project+no.249696%29

[31] IAEA. Implications of partitioning and transmutation in radioactive waste management. In: Technical Reports

[32] Shaffer J. Chemical reactions of oxides with fluorides in LiF-KF. In: ORNL-2474. 1958. pp. 99-101

[33] Shaffer J, Watson G, Grime W. Chemical reprocessing of reactor fuels by oxide precipitations. In: ORNL-2931.

[34] Gorbunov V. Experimental studies on interaction of plutonium, uranium and rare earth fluorides with some metal oxides in molten fluoride mixtures. Radiochimija. 1976;**17**:109-224

[35] Engel J, Grimes W, Bauman H, McCoy E, Dering J, Rhoades W. Conceptual design characteristics of a denatured molten-salt reactor with once-through fueling. In: ORNL-TM-

[36] Ignatiev V, Gorbunov V, Zakirov R. Fuels and fission products clean up for molten salt reactor of the incinerator type. In: ISTC Task #1606. 2007

2007. p. 7548

Final+Report%27

1960. pp. 84-90

7207. 1980

Series No. 435. 2004. p. 5

[19] Thoma R. Chemical Feasibility of Fueling MSR with PuF3. In: ORNL-TM-

communication. November 26 2015

[21] Forsberg C. Accident criticality safety for fast spectrum molten salt reactors. In: Transactions of the 2007 ANS Annual Meeting, June 24–28 2007

[22] Grimes W. Molten-salt reactor chemistry. Nuclear Applications &

Technology. 1970;**8**:137-155

[23] Toth LM, Del Cul G, Dai S, MetCalf G. Molten fluoride fuel salt chemistry. In: International Conference

on ADTTA, Las Vegas, NV, AIP Conference Proceedings 346. 1994.

[24] Holcomb D. Overview of fuel and coolant salt chemistry and thermal hydraulics. In: Presentation for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, November 7-8, 2017, Washington, DC.

[25] Shimazu Y, Hirose Y. Evaluation of redox environment in fluoride molten salt reactors based on ENDF-VII. In: Proceedings of AESJ 2015 Autumn Meeting, Shizuoka, Japan, September

[26] Baes C Jr. The chemistry and thermodynamics of molten salt reactor fuels. Journal of Nuclear Materials. 1974;

[27] Ignatiev V, Feynberg OI, Gnidoi I, Merzlyakov A, Surenkov A, Uglov V, et al. Molten salt actinide recycler and transforming system without and with Th–U support: Fuel cycle flexibility and

[20] Ponomarev L. Private

Chap. 17

2256; 1968

pp. 617-619

2017. ML17331B115

10–12. 2015. B-20

**51**:149-162

**84**

[38] Messenger S, Forsberg C, Massie M. Gaseous fission product management for molten salt reactors and vented fuel system. In: ICAPP-2012, Chicago, USA, June 24–28. 2012. p. 12097

[39] Uhlir J, Marecek M. Fluoride volatility method for reprocessing of LWR and FR fuels. Journal of Fluorine Chemistry. 2009;**130**:89-93

[40] McNamara B, Casella A, Scheele R, Kozelisky A. Nitrogen trifluoride-based fluoride-volatility separations process: Initial studies. In: PNNL-20775. 2011

Section 2

Nuclear Power Plant

**87**

### Section 2
