ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

L
L
L
rI i
t
b
c
L
h:
6-35
238U comprises 57%. The principal advantage associated with this option is that all nuclear
units can be located outside the energy centers, which means that the amount of fissile plu-
tonium in fresh fuel that must be handled in this system is zero.
without cost, however; it requires the development of an industry capable of reprocessing
significant quantities of fuel containing thorium and refabricating significant quantities
of fuel containing 232U. In order to successfully implement this option, one must develop a
nuclear industry in which approximately 95% of the reprocessing capacity in the year 2035 is
capable of handling fuel containing thorium and 57% of the fabrication capacity is capable of
handling fuel containing 232U.
This advantage is not
In sumary, if employed judiciously, a converter strategy based on the LWR can be
developed which can discard all fissile plutonium and still supply a maximum nuclear con-
tribution of 590 GWe with a U3O8 supply of 3.0 million ST below $160/lb. This is essentially
identical to that of the classical LWR plutonium recycle with the same U308 supply.
With a U308 supply of 6.0 million ST below $160/lb, the system could supply a maximum
nuclear contribution of 980 GWe; however, as pointed out above, considerable development
work would be required on fuel design and fabrication.
6.2.4. Converter System with Plutonium Production Minimized;
Pu-~o-~ 33U "Transmutation"
An inherent disadvantage in the plutonium throwaway option discussed above is that the
fissile plutonium produced in the system is never utilized. Therefore, it was considered de-
sirable to analyze an option in which fissile plutonium produced in a similar system is used to
produce 233U for the dispersed reactors. The 233U producer would be a converter with a
plutonium-thorium core. This converter would, of course, be located in an energy center,
while the other reactors would be located outside the center as shown in Fig. 6.1-3
(Option 5U). It is important to note that while this option utilizes all the plutoniun produced
in the system, it minimizes the amount of pZutoniwn that is produced. This requires
the development of reactor concepts designed specifically to minimize plutonium production.
The nuclear contribution of this option utilizing LWRs only (Case 5UL) reaches a
maximum of approximately 700 GWe shortly before year 2030 (see Fig. 6.2-20). Thus,
utilizing the plutonium produced in the system increases the maximum nuclear contribution
by approximately 100 GWe over that of the option with plutonium throwaway; it also
produces a delay in the maximum of about eight years (compare with Fig. 6.2-17). The
maximum annual u& and enrichment requirements for this option are 75,000 ST/yr and 65
million SWUlyr, respectively, each being approximately 6% less than that required for
Option 4.
The amount of the system's installed nuclear capacity that must be located in the energy
center is shown in Fig. 6.2-21 as a function of time. This option is distinguished by the
fact that the maximum capacity that must be located in a secure region does not exceed 100
GWe at any time during the planning horizon. The amount that may be located outside the