05.08.2013 Views

ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

L<br />

IC<br />

I<br />

t';<br />

Id<br />

I<br />

I;<br />

2:<br />

f<br />

.-<br />

E<br />

1mO<br />

I I I I 1<br />

CASE BL -THE FBR WITH MAW PLUTONIUM IUNSMVTATION<br />

MAR<br />

Fig. 6.2-33. The Nuclear Contributions<br />

of an LWR-FBR System with Heavy Plutonium<br />

"Transmutation" (High-Cost U308 Supply).<br />

6-45<br />

ImO I<br />

I I 1 I<br />

/f<br />

W E 8L - IHE FER WITH HEAW PLUTONIUM TUMMUTATlON<br />

/<br />

YEAR<br />

Fiq. 6.2-34. Relative Contributions<br />

of Reaciors Located Inside (Pu-Fueled) and<br />

Outside (Denatured LWRs and FBRs) <strong>Energy</strong><br />

Centers (High-Cost U308 Supply).<br />

In this option <strong>the</strong> annual consumption of U308 is approximately 25 ST U308 i n year<br />

2035, decreasing <strong>the</strong>reafter as <strong>the</strong> LWRs loaded with 235U are replaced by <strong>the</strong> LWRs loaded<br />

with 233U. Approximately 430 kg of fissile plutonium per GWe of installed capacity must<br />

be handled as fresh fuel each year within energy centers, somewhat less than <strong>the</strong> 620 kg<br />

that must be handled in Option 6. The ability to maintain a high energy support ratio<br />

while simultaneously adding 15 GWeIyr again requires <strong>the</strong> development of a nuclear industry<br />

capable of reprocessing fuel containing thorium and refabricating fuel containing 232U.<br />

Figure 6.2-35 shows that 65% of <strong>the</strong> reprocessing capacity in year 2025 must be capable of<br />

handling fuel containing thorium and that 31% of <strong>the</strong> refabrication capacity must be capable<br />

of handling fuel containing 232U.<br />

The effect of deleting <strong>the</strong> denatured FBR from <strong>the</strong> system is shown in Figs. 6.2-36 and<br />

6.2-37. Figure 6.2-36 shows that without <strong>the</strong> denatured FBR <strong>the</strong> installed nuclear capacity<br />

reaches a maximum of approximately 840 GWe in about 2035 and declines continuously <strong>the</strong>reafter.<br />

The reason for this, of course, is that without <strong>the</strong> denatured FBR <strong>the</strong> system has<br />

a net breeding ratio of less than unity. Therefore, while <strong>the</strong> system can multiply <strong>the</strong><br />

fissile supply significantly, it cannot continue to grow indefinitely. The nuclear capacity<br />

that must be located in energy centers for <strong>the</strong> modified Case 8L is shown in Fig. 6.2-37.<br />

This capacity does not exceed 140 GWe throughout <strong>the</strong> planning horizon. The amount of<br />

capacity available for location outside <strong>the</strong> secure regions ranges from approximately<br />

300 GWe in <strong>the</strong> year 2000 to approximately 700 GWe in year 2035.<br />

In summary, a strategy based on an FBR with a Pu-Th core and a thorium blanket can<br />

supply a net addition rate of 15 GWe/yr to year 2050 and beyond provided a denatured breeder<br />

is included in <strong>the</strong> system. If <strong>the</strong> denatured breeder is not included, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> maximum<br />

nuclear contribution would be approximately 840 GWe. The amount of nuclear capacity that<br />

must be located in secure regions does not exceed 140 GWe in this case.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!