Thorium fuel cycle - potential
benefits for India - IAEA publication (2005)
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
India is perhaps the one of two or three nations in the world which has substantially overcome the technological and scientific challenges posed by the processes in Thorium fuel cycle. It is imperative that India builds up on this advantage to gain automatic recognition as the world's nuclear power.
Excerpts from Thorium fuel cycle - potential benefits and challenges,
International Atomic Energy Agency, May, 2005
http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf
1. SUMMARY
The outlook for nuclear power around the world has generally brightened with
progressive improvement in the operating performance of existing reactors, ensuring
economic competitiveness of nuclear electricity in liberalized electricity markets.
At the end of 2002, some 441 nuclear power plants, with total installed capacity
of 358 GW(e), were in operation worldwide, generating some 16% of global electricity.
In the reference scenario, the annual average rate of growth of world nuclear
capacity is expected to be in the range of 0.9% up to the year 2025 by which
time the total installed nuclear power would be some 438 GW(e).
Thorium is 3 to 4 times more abundant than uranium and is widely distributed in nature as an easily exploitable resource in many countries. Unlike natural uranium, which contains ~0.7% ‘fissile’ 235U isotope, natural thorium does not contain any ‘fissile’ material and is made up of the ‘fertile’ 232Th isotope only. Hence, thorium and thorium-based fuel as metal, oxide or carbide, has been utilized in combination with ‘fissile’ 235U or 239Pu in nuclear research and power reactors for conversion to ‘fissile’ 233U, thereby enlarging the ‘fissile’ material resources. During the pioneering years of nuclear energy, from the mid 1950s to mid 1970s,there was considerable interest worldwide to develop thorium fuels and fuel cycles in order to supplement uranium reserves. Thorium fuels and fuel cycles are particularly relevant to countries having large thorium deposits but very limited uranium reserves for their long term nuclear power programme. The feasibility of thorium utilization in high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR), light water reactors (LWR), pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors (LMFBR) and molten salt breeder reactors (MSBR) were demonstrated. These activities have been well documented in several extensive reviews and conference proceedings published by US Atomic Energy Commission [1], US Department of Energy [2], [3], KfA, Germany [4] and IAEA [5]. More recently, the proceedings of IAEA meetings on Thorium Fuel Utilization: Options and Trends has summarized the activities and coordinated research projects (CRP) of IAEA and the status of thorium fuel cycle option, including ADS, in Member States [9]. The initial enthusiasm on thorium fuels and fuel cycles was not sustained among the developing countries later, due to new discovery of uranium deposits and their improved availability. However, in recent times, the need for proliferation-resistance, longer fuel cycles, higher burnup, improved waste form characteristics, reduction of plutonium inventories and in situ use of bred-in fissile material has led to renewed interest in thorium-based fuels and fuel cycles in several developed countries. The two main international projects, namely Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles Programme (INPRO) initiated by the IAEA and the US-led Generation IV International Forum (GIF), are also considering thorium fuels and fuel cycles. Thorium fuels and fuel cycles have the following benefits and challenges:
Benefits
• Thorium is 3 to 4 times more abundant than uranium, widely distributed in
nature as an easily exploitable resource in many countries and has not been
exploited commercially so far. Thorium fuels, therefore, complement uranium
fuels and ensure long term sustainability of nuclear power.
• Thorium fuel cycle is an attractive way to produce long term nuclear energy
with low radiotoxicity waste. In addition, the transition to thorium could be
done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium.
• The absorption cross-section for thermal neutrons of 232Th (7.4 barns) is
nearly three times that of 238U (2.7 barns). Hence, a higher conversion (to
233U) is possible with 232Th than with 238U (to 239Pu). Thus, thorium is a better
‘fertile’ material than 238U in thermal reactors but thorium is inferior to
depleted uranium as a ‘fertile’ material in fast reactor.
• For the ‘fissile’ 233U nuclei, the number of neutrons liberated per neutron
absorbed (represented as ?) is greater than 2.0 over a wide range of thermal
neutron spectrum, unlike 235U and 239Pu. Thus, contrary to 238U–239Pu cycle
in which breeding can be obtained only with fast neutron spectra, the 232Th–233U
fuel cycle can operate with fast, epithermal or thermal spectra.
• Thorium dioxide is chemically more stable and has higher radiation resistance
than uranium dioxide. The fission product release rate for ThO2–based fuels
are one order of magnitude lower than that of UO2. ThO2 has favourable thermophysical
properties because of the higher thermal conductivity and lower co-efficient
of thermal expansion compared to UO2. Thus, ThO2–based fuels are expected to
have better in–pile performance than that of UO2 and UO2–based mixed oxide.
• ThO2 is relatively inert and does not oxidize unlike UO2, which oxidizes easily
to U3O8and UO3. Hence, long term interim storage and permanent disposal in repository
of spent ThO2–based fuel are simpler without the problem of oxidation.
• Th–based fuels and fuel cycles have intrinsic proliferation-resistance due
to the formation of
232U via (n,2n) reactions with 232Th, 233Pa and 233U. The half-life of 232U
is only 73.6 years and the daughter products have very short half-life and some
like 212Bi and 208Tl emit strong gamma adiations. From the same consideration,
232U could be utilized as an attractive carrier of highly enriched uranium (HEU)
and weapons grade plutonium (WPu) to avoid their proliferation for non-peaceful
purpose.
• For incineration of WPu or civilian Pu in ‘once-through’ cycle, (Th, Pu)O2
fuel is more attractive, as compared to (U, Pu)O2, since plutonium is not bred
in the former and the 232U formedafter the ‘once-through’ cycle in the spent
fuel ensures proliferationresistance.
• In 232Th–233U fuel cycle, much lesser quantity of plutonium and long-lived
Minor Actinides (MA: Np, Am and Cm) are formed as compared to the 238U–239Pu
fuel cycle, thereby minimizing the radiotoxicity associated in spent fuel. However,
in the back end of 232Th–233U fuel cycle, there are other radionuclides such
as 231Pa, 229Th and 230U, which may have long term radiological impact.
Challenges
• The melting point of ThO2 (3 3500C) is much higher compared to that of UO2(2
8000C). Hence, a much higher sintering temperature (>2 0000C) is required
to produce high density ThO2 and ThO2–based mixed oxide fuels. Admixing of ‘sintering
aid’ (CaO, MgO, Nb2O5, etc) is required for achieving the desired pellet density
at lower temperature.
• ThO2 and ThO2–based mixed oxide fuels are relatively inert and, unlike UO2
and (U, Pu)O2 fuels, do not dissolve easily in concentrated nitric acid. Addition
of small quantities of HF in concentrated HNO3 is essential which cause corrosion
of stainless steel equipment and pipings in reprocessing plants. The corrosion
problem is mitigated with addition of aluminium nitrate. Boiling THOREX solution
[13 M HNO3+0.05 M HF+0.1 M Al(NO3)3] at ~393 K and long dissolution period are
required for ThO2–based fuels.The irradiated Th or Th–based fuels contain significant
amount of 232U, which has a half-life of only 73.6 years and is associated with
strong gamma emitting daughter products, 212Bi and 208Tl with very short half-life.
As a result, there is significant buildup of radiation dose with storage of
spent Th–based fuel or separated 233U, necessitating remote and automated reprocessing
and refabrication in heavily shielded hot cells and increase in the cost of
fuel cycle activities.
• In the conversion chain of 232Th to 233U, 233Pa is formed as an intermediate,
which has a relatively longer half-life (~27 days) as compared to 239Np (2.35
days) in the uranium fuel cycle thereby requiring longer cooling time of at
least one year for completing the decay of 233Pa to 233U. Normally, Pa is passed
into the fission product waste in the THOREX process, which could have long
term radiological impact. It is essential to separate Pa from the spent fuel
solution prior to solvent extraction process for separation of 233U and thorium.
• The three stream process of separation of uranium, plutonium and thorium from
spent (Th, Pu)O2 fuel, though viable, is yet to be developed…
Table 1 summarizes the experimental reactors and power reactors where thorium
based ceramic nuclear fuels have been used in the form of ‘coated fuel particles’
(‘microspheres’) in graphite matrix in HTGRs or as Zircaloy/stainless steel
clad fuel pin assemblies containing high density ‘fuel pellets’ or ‘vibratory
compacted’ fuel particles or microspheres. In the past, in the two helium cooled
Pebble Bed HTGRs of Germany, namely AVR 15 MW(e) and THTR 300 MW(e), ‘coated
fuel particles’ of highly enriched uranium (HEU)–thorium, mixed oxide and mixed
di-carbide, embedded in graphite matrix and consolidated in the form of spherical
fuel elements of diameter ~60 mm were successfully utilized. Later, in the wake
of international non-proliferation requirements, the HEU was replaced with low
enriched uranium (LEU: <20% 235U). Coated fuel particles of mixed uranium
thorium oxide and di–carbide, embedded in graphite, were also employed in the
form of prismatic blocks in the helium–cooled HTGRs of USA, namely Peach Bottom
(40 MW(e)) and Fort St. Vrain (330 MW(e)). The HTGR in UK, namely the Dragon
reactor, has also used ‘coated fuel particles’ of mixed thorium uranium oxide
and di–carbide in graphite matrix. Excerpt from Table 1. Thorium utilization
in different experimental and power reactors
…In India, there has always been a strong incentive for development of thorium
fuels and fuel cycles because of large thorium deposits compared to the very
modest uranium reserves. Aluminium clad thorium oxide ‘pellets’ are being regularly
irradiated in CIRUS and DHRUVA research reactors in BARC. Subsequently, the
irradiated thoria were reprocessed by THOREX process and the recovered 233 U
has been utilized in the 30kWt research reactor KAMINI in the form of Al–clad
Al–20% 233U plate fuel element assemblies. Large quantities of high density
sintered ThO2 pellets have been manufactured at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) and
are being used in: (i) fast breeder test reactor (FBTR) as stainless steel clad
blanket pin assemblies and (ii) PHWRs as Zircaloy clad pin assemblies for neutron
flux flattening of initial core during start–up. Several R&D activities
are underway on (Th, U)O2 and (Th, Pu)O2 fuels containing <5% uranium or
plutonium oxide for use in water cooled reactors and (Th, Pu)O2 containing 20–30%
PuO2 and 70–80% PuO2 for use in LMFBR with large and small cores respectively.
Apart from the classical ‘Powder-Pellet’ route, advanced process flowsheets,
based on Sol–Gel Microsphere Pelletization (SGMP) and Impregnation techniques,
amenable to automation and remotisation, have been developed for fabrication
of ThO2–based mixed oxide pellets of controlled density and microstructure.
Essential thermophysical properties of these fuels, including thermal conductivity,
co–efficient of thermal expansion and hot hardness (in turn indentation- creep)
have been evaluated. Several Zircaloy clad (Th, Pu)O2 fuel pins have been successfully
irradiated to burnups in the range of 15 000–18 000 MWd/t in the pressurised
water loop (PWL) of CIRUS reactor. Design and developmental activities are underway
for construction of an advanced heavy water reactor of 300 MW(e) (AHWR 300)
with (Th, Pu)O2 and (Th, 233U)O2 driver fuel. A case study of AHWR 300 is in
progress at the IAEA, to validate the methodology finalized in Phase IA of INPRO
[10].