Plutonium-power reactors fuel costs

Fuel Costs in Dual-Purpose Plutonium Power Reactors... 

In plutonium-fueled breeder power reactors, more plutonium is produced than is consumed (see Nuclearreactors, reactor types). Thus the utilisa tion of plutonium as a nuclear energy or weapon source is especially attractive to countries that do not have uranium-enrichment faciUties. The cost of a chemical reprocessing plant for plutonium production is much less than that of a uranium-235 enrichment plant (see Uranium and uranium compounds). Since the end of the Cold War, the potential surplus of Pu metal recovered from the dismantling of nuclear weapons has presented a large risk from a security standpoint. 

Cost and Value of Plutonium. The cost of building all U.S. nuclear weapons has been estimated as 378 biUion in 1995 dollars (24). If half of this sum is attributed to U.S. weapons-grade plutonium production (- lOOt), the cost is 1.9 x 10 /kg of weapons-grade Pu. Some nuclear weapons materials (Be, enriched U, Pu) also have value as a clandestine or terrorist commodity. The economic value of reactor-grade plutonium as a fuel for electric power-producing reactors has depended in the past on the economic value of pure 235u... 

Fig. 10-8. Effect of LiaS04 and concentration on fuel cost of a one-region spherical plutonium-producer power reactor. Diameter = 12 ft, avg. reactor temperature = 280°C, electrical power =125 Mw, heat generation = 480 Mw, avg. lithium cross section = 0.2 barn, plutonium credit = 40/g, inventory charge = 4%, molar ratio of Li2S04 to U02S04= 1, processing rate= 1000 g U /day.

On present designs it cannot compete, at UK fuel prices, even with the first civil power stations. Prospects for the development of the design are limited. Nevertheless, for small outputs, and particularly if cheap fuel were available (i.e. enriched uranium at US prices, or cheap civil plutonium) the reactor has certain advantages because of its compactness both for ship propulsion and as a small plutonium burner to meet peak loads. This may make it suitable for development in this country at a later date. The boiling water version of the reactor does not have the same problems of extremely high pressure and large output versions with consequent low capital cost may be possible. 

One of the many problems of nuclear power is the availability of fuel uranium-235 reserves are only about 0.7% those of the nonfissile uranium-238, and the separation of the isotopes is costly (Section 17.12). One solution is to synthesize fissile nuclides from other elements. In a breeder reactor, a reactor that is used to create nuclear fuel, the neutrons are not moderated. Their high speeds result in the formation of not only uranium-235 but also some fissile plutonium-239, which can be used as fuel (or for warheads). However, breeder reactors are more hazardous to operate than nuclear power plants. They run very hot, and the fast reactions require more careful control than a reactor used for nuclear power generation. Because of safety concerns, their use is still controversial. 

Even a change to nuclear energy would help, since the overall cost of the raw material—the uranium ore—would be smaller due to the much smaller quantities required, and the security of supply should be less of a problem since the ore occurs throughout the world, particularly in North America, Southern Africa, Australia and Sweden. The much higher capital costs for the nuclear power station are an important factor which has to be taken into consideration. Prototype fast-breeder reactors have been operated in the U.K. for some years now and when fully developed they could substantially improve the economics of nuclear energy. This is because they enable more energy to be extracted from waste uranium and in addition utilize the plutonium produced in conventional reactors as fuel. 

This section presents an overview of the INEL concept. This concept is not completely defined because of the short duration of this project. Table 1 lists the design parameters that have been chosen. The ranges indicate the design flexibility for minimizing fuel fabrication costs within acceptable safety limits. The INEL selected a power level of 1,000 MW(t) to achieve an acceptable plutonium destruction rate with a low power density over a large, but reasonably sized core. Although the core has a low power density, the fuel is expected to remain in the reactor for several years to achieve high burnup. A few (three to six) reactors of this power level could bum most of the plutonium in a reasonable time frame (30-40 years). 

---