ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

6-38
be located in energy centers and 368 kg of fissile plutonium in fresh fuel per GWe of installed
capacity must be handled each year in those centers. This is not meant to imply that a
decrease in the amount of nuclear capacity which must be placed in secure regions is
synonymous with an increase in diversion-resistance.
decrease in the amount of fissile plutonium which must be handled as fresh fuel is synonymous
with an increase in proliferation resistance. If either of these items is desirable, however,
this option minimizing the production and use of plutonium does offer a significant increase
in the energy support ratio and a significant decrease in the amount of fresh-fuel plutonium
that must be handled.
Neither is it meant to imply that a
It is important to note that the deployment of the plutonium minimization and
utilization option would require the development of a nuclear industry capable of reprocessing
fuel containing thorium and refabricating fuel containing 232U.
only one>reactor providing 3% o f the installed capacity in year 2035 does not utilize thorium.
Thus, in order to successfully implement this option, 97% of the reprocessing capacity in
year 2035 must be capable of handling fuel containing thorium, and 51% o f the fabrication
capacity must be capable of handling fuel containing 232U.
As Fig. 6.2-24 indicates,
In sumnary, a converter strategy based on the LWR which minimizes the amount of
plutonium produced, but uses that which is produced, could supply a maximum nuclear contribut4on
of 700 GWe with the high-cost U308 supply. This is approximately 100 GWe
greater than the maximum nuclear contribution obtained in the case of plutonium throwaway
and fissile uranium recycle. The strategy does, however, require that approximately
100 GWe be located in an energy center. With the intermediate-cost U308 supply, the system
could make a maximum nuclear contribution of more than 1000 GWe. In either case, the
development of fuel designs capable of minimizing the amount of plutonium produced and also
the development of a nuclear industry capable of hand1 ing thorium-based fuels must be developed.
6.2.5. Converter System with Plutonium Production Not
Minimi zed; P u - ~ o - ~ "Transmutation"
~ ~ U
This option differs from the preceding option in that the dispersed reactors are not
designed to minimize the amount of plutonium produced. Thus more plutonium is handled as
fresh fuel and more is "transmuted" into 233U. Again a converter with a plutonium-thorium
core is located in the energy center, and other reactors are located outside the center (see
Fig. 6.1-3, Option 5T).
Figure 6.2-25 shows that the nuclear contribution for this option using LWRs only
(Case 5TL) reaches a maximum of approximately 640 GWe shortly before year 2025. The maximum
contribution is less than the 700-GWe maximum in the preceding case primarily because of the
different amounts of fissile plutonium utilized in the two systems.
io a thermal reactor than either 235U or 233U, the system which minimizes the amount of plu-
tonium should (and does) make a slightly larger nuclear contribution.
Since 239Pu i s worth less