tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post6641081496536608131..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Mixing It up Over MOXUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-56695510176374518192014-04-03T18:22:51.806-04:002014-04-03T18:22:51.806-04:00Thanks for the reference link Mark.
Quote:
“In the...Thanks for the reference link Mark.<br />Quote:<br />“In the case of the MOX facility, he said that NRC concerns caused major changes in the facility’s design. The original design was based on AREVA’s MOX facility in La Hague, France.”<br />OK, so this was another one of NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko’s insanities. Great. Congrats to Democratic leader Harry Reid. <br />Jarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08121229160751709239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-59098369216162378482014-04-03T17:23:41.990-04:002014-04-03T17:23:41.990-04:00To Jaro (and anyone else interested): I wrote a st...To Jaro (and anyone else interested): I wrote a story for NEI's news service about a House hearing with Energy Secretary Moniz. He talks about the MOX project at some length. See here:<br /><br />http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Moniz-Expands-on-Halting-MOX-Plant-at-House-Hearin <br /><br />Let me add, too, that MOX fuel is plausible because most reactors can use it. If the MOX facility is completed and if the fuel is commercially competitive (big ifs, I admit), then facilities will respond to that. But if the MOX facility looks dubious, plants will not contemplate the cost of the adaptation to use it. It has a certain chicken and egg quality to it, but it's also early days. MOX has proved plausible in Europe and there's no reason to believe that can't be true here. Moving forward is a good direction for a number of reasons - let's not forget its non-proliferation aspect - and it'd be a disappointment not to finish it.Mark Flanaganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15261889547342452468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-25510034185606929952014-04-03T16:40:14.441-04:002014-04-03T16:40:14.441-04:00What NAS said and what the Plutonium Management an...What NAS said and what the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) with Russia said are two different things.<br /><br />As noted in the reference cited in a previous comment,<br /><br />“It is evident that the eventual repudiation by the American side of the previously agreed upon method of plutonium disposition will have an influence on the implementation of the PMDA Agreement … Immobilization does not guarantee full irreversibility since mixing plutonium with radioactive waste does not change its isotopic composition and does not exclude in principle the possibility of plutonium extraction from the mixture … A deviation from one of the basic provisions of the Agreement would hardly find a positive response from Russian experts who always asserted that a real weapon grade plutonium disposition is possible only through its irradiation in MOX fuel of civilian nuclear reactors thus assuring an irreversible withdrawal from weapon’s program.”<br /><br />http://us.areva.com/home/liblocal/docs/Nuclear/MOXproject/RussiaCACEES.pdf <br /><br />However, I am NOT interested in arguing about this: As I said in my first comment, what I want to know is how the heck did the SRS MOX plant get so expensive, with “300 process systems” ?<br />Is this the result of some ridiculous DoE/NRC requirements ?<br />jaronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-12717784542288692572014-04-03T13:50:39.592-04:002014-04-03T13:50:39.592-04:00The so-called spent fuel standard, originally prop...The so-called spent fuel standard, originally proposed by NAS in studies in the early 1990s and later adopted by DOE in its plutonium disposition record of decision, does NOT require isotopic conversion of plutonium from weapons to reactor grade. <br /><br />Rather, as NAS defined it in a report in 2000, "the spent fuel standard holds that the final plutonium form produced by a disposition option should be approximately as resistant to acquisition, processing, and use in nuclear weapons as is the plutonium in typical spent fuel from once-through operation in a commercial light-water reactor."<br /><br />NAS said that can be accomplished in a variety of ways, not necessarily involving isotopic transformation.<br /><br />http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9999&page=3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-50627326098613361332014-04-03T12:46:38.620-04:002014-04-03T12:46:38.620-04:00Regarding "HLW from US nuclear defense sites,...Regarding "HLW from US nuclear defense sites, which is destined to be vitrified anyway, would be mixed with the plutonium and glass matrix."<br />This idea was rejected AFAIK because the plutonium remains as weapons grade, rather than the "LWR Spent Fuel Standard" agreed to, which turns weapons grade to reactor grade.Jaronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-41177638803662946202014-04-03T11:46:26.757-04:002014-04-03T11:46:26.757-04:00I see nothing in that post demonstrating utility i...I see nothing in that post demonstrating utility interest in irradiating MOX, except a bald assertion that names no utilities. <br /><br />TVA has signed an expression of interest. Duke irradiated a few test assemblies at Catawba but stopped the test early due to issues with fuel rod growth and they don't want to burn it. Who's stepping to the plate, after nearly two decades of pursuing the MOX option?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-4467498758423533902014-04-03T11:43:07.203-04:002014-04-03T11:43:07.203-04:00The immobilization alternative advocated by some d...The immobilization alternative advocated by some does not require additional reprocessing of LWR spent fuel to produce high level waste to mix with the plutonium. HLW from US nuclear defense sites, which is destined to be vitrified anyway, would be mixed with the plutonium and glass matrix. Or some amount of strontium or other high-activity element could be added to the matrix as a radiation barrier. There's no need to reprocess spent fuel to immobilize weapons plutonium.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-65360448367611385472014-04-03T09:07:44.181-04:002014-04-03T09:07:44.181-04:00More information about the MOX Project in this rec...More information about the MOX Project in this recent blog post <a href="http://us.arevablog.com/2014/04/01/five-letters-to-the-obama-administration-and-a-russian-report-raise-concerns-about-stopping-mox-project/" rel="nofollow">Five Letters to the Obama Administration (and a Russian report) Raise Concerns about Stopping MOX Project</a>---including utility customers' interest.AREVAinchttp://us.arevablog.com/?s=MOX+Projectnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-50038247712504908512014-04-02T12:02:36.358-04:002014-04-02T12:02:36.358-04:00I’m no big fan of Areva’s MOX project at the Savan...I’m no big fan of Areva’s MOX project at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, but I find it puzzling that the proponents arguing in favor of it never seem to point out problems with the alternatives: They only talk about noncompliance with the weapons plutonium disposition agreement with Russia.<br />https://www.facebook.com/AikenForNuclear<br /><br />Specifically, as noted by others previously, if the option of using MOX in LWRs is scrapped, along with the SRS plant, then one is left with the alternative of converting the WGPu to “spent fuel standard” by mixing it with LWR spent fuel waste – which implies building an LWR spent fuel processing plant.<br />If the DoE’s Moniz doesn’t already know that, how long will it take him to find out ? ….and then what ?<br /><br />On the technical side, there seems to be very little information available about the design of the SRS plant.<br />A recent article included this interesting statement:<br />“The MOX facility is designed to remove impurities from plutonium feedstock obtained from nuclear weapon pits … <b>to include about 300 separate process systems</b> using approximately 23,000 instruments and 85 miles of process piping.”<br />http://www.powermag.com/s-c-does-hold-of-mox-facility-construction-is-illegal/ <br /><br />….which provides a little hint of why the plant is so costly.<br />Presumably those “impurities” are primarily gallium added to stabilize the metal in weapons.<br /><b>But 300 process systems ?! …that sounds crazy. Someone’s idea of a joke ?</b><br />Is there any more detailed info available somewhere ? ThnxJaronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-52953276833220500692014-04-02T11:39:15.278-04:002014-04-02T11:39:15.278-04:00"Yes, utilities have signed expressions of in..."Yes, utilities have signed expressions of interest..."<br /><br />Any other than TVA? <br /><br />"I am almost 100% sure that several US plants (certainly Catawba) have used some MOX fuel assemblies manufactured in France as part of a proof of concept for the MOX facility in South Carolina."<br /><br />Not "several," just Catawba, and the irradiation was ended early when they experienced unexpected growth in the test assemblies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-88395540626030154952014-04-01T14:00:41.395-04:002014-04-01T14:00:41.395-04:00I am almost 100% sure that several US plants (cert...I am almost 100% sure that several US plants (certainly Catawba) have used some MOX fuel assemblies manufactured in France as part of a proof of concept for the MOX facility in South Carolina. So clearly using MOX in US plants is not impossible, though in the case of Catawba I think the results were not all that great if I recall correctly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-49664009057415585662014-04-01T09:53:29.112-04:002014-04-01T09:53:29.112-04:00Yes, utilities have signed expressions of interest...Yes, utilities have signed expressions of interest but the OE after four years has not signed the terms of a contract that could be reviewed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-51472129584834256632014-03-31T14:37:21.729-04:002014-03-31T14:37:21.729-04:00The government owns its own commercial nuclear rea...The government owns its own commercial nuclear reactors (TVA). They should lead the way in using MOX. <br /><br />Marcel Marcel F. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-35488512427020560012014-03-31T13:56:44.133-04:002014-03-31T13:56:44.133-04:00How many US utilities have expressed willingness t...How many US utilities have expressed willingness to use MOX fuel in their power reactors? Are there any buyers for the product?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com