Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Simplifying the Development of a Reprocessing System for an LFTR

Chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel is at the basis of a closed nuclear cycle. We don't think about it too much in the United States because we just don't reprocess nuclear fuel! Hence, our spent fuel builds up and people wring their hands about the "unsolved problem of nuclear waste". In other countries, like France and Japan, where spent fuel is reprocessed, things aren't too much better. Because thanks to the fact that you can't sustain the "burning" of natural uranium in thermal-spectrum reactors, separated fuel can only get you so far. But they stockpile it waiting for the glorious day of liquid-metal fast breeder reactors that the nuclear industry has been promising for fifty years. (a day I hope will never come!!!)

You just can't choose a nuclear fuel, or a fuel cycle, without thinking about how to reprocess the fuel. That's how we got in the mess we're in in the first place. Fortunately, when the "Oak Ridge boys" were thinking up liquid-fluoride reactors back in the 1950s, reprocessing was a key consideration and they came up with very attractive ways to do it. Their first and fundamental advantage was the fact they were dealing with a fuel already in fluid form. That immediately eliminated all the complicated steps you have to go through with solid fuel: chopping, decladding, dissolution in nitric acid--and that's just the front end--then reconstitution of the fuel, which usually implies remote fuel fabrication because you've still got a lot more radioactivity in the fuel than fresh fuel.

So all those problems were solved from the beginning, just by working with fluid fuel. But you still needed to get through the basic steps of reprocessing, which is, you exploit chemical and physical differences in the materials in the spent fuel to separate out the things you want from the things you don't want.

I've talked previously about the simple steps of fluorination and distillation that liquid-fluoride reprocessing was based on. Fluorination is especially clever--you take advantage of the fact that uranium will absorb more fluorine to go from a tetrafluoride (four fluorine atoms) to a hexafluoride (six fluorine atoms) and in that conversion, will become gaseous. It's an incredibly nice feature for trying to separate uranium out from just about anything else (assuming all the other stuff won't do the same trick).

Fluorination works especially well in our core salt of LiF-BeF2-UF4. When you want to get the uranium out, you bubble fluorine gas through the salt. The lithium won't take any more--it's perfectly happy with its one fluorine atom. Neither will the beryllium--it's happy with two. But the uranium says "more fluorine? I'm outta here!" and converts to the gaseous hexafluoride state, leaving you with just LiF-BeF2.

Now after we run an LFTR for awhile, the core salt will contain not only LiF, BeF2, and UF4, but will contain a number of fission product fluorides generated from the fission of U-233. These fission products are responsible for nearly all the radiation levels in the reactor (when it's shut down) and they are the materials that pose the greatest biological hazard if released. They also can increasingly interfere with continued nuclear operation, because some of them tend to absorb neutrons that would otherwise be going towards fission or conversion of thorium to uranium. So we want then out.

Distillation appears to be the best way to accomplish that. Distillation takes advantage of the fact that the things we want to keep in the salt (the lithium fluoride and beryllium fluorides) tend to vaporize at lower temperatures that the fission product fluorides. Thus by applying heat at reduced pressure, we can get the LiF and BeF2 to separate from the fission product fluorides, leaving them to accumulate in the bottom of the "still".

Recently I realized that through the proper choice of isotopes, we could accurately test this entire reprocessing system in a completely non-nuclear, nearly non-radioactive manner. If we used U-238 to stand in for the U-233 fuel, and used stable isotopes of the fission products (such as zirconium, strontium, and barium) we could test a chemically-accurate liquid-fluoride reactor. In the blanket salt, we could add small amounts of U-238 to the salt, simulating the generation of U-233 from thorium. Then that U-238 would be removed from the blanket by fluorination. The U-238 would then be added to the core salt, simulating the continuous refueling of the real reactor. Stable fluorides of the fission products would also be added to the core salt, simulating the accumulation of fission products. Both the U-238 and the stable fission product fluorides could be removed by fluorination and distillation.

Two basic advantages of this approach are: 1. because the reprocessing steps chosen for the reactor are not significantly affected by radiation, the lack of radiation does not compromise the accuracy of the test. 2. It will be much easier and cheaper to "wring" out LFR reprocessing techniques on non-radioactive or very low radioactivity materials rather than on real fuel and blanket salt.

I believe that taking this approach to the development of the reprocessing systems for the reactor would speed development and ultimate fielding of the reactor system.

9 comments:

Tom Benson said...

Hi Kirk,

I spoke to a nuclear chemist friend of mine and he posed a question: how does your system propose to remove the Protactinium from the liquid during operation, so it can be sequestered until it decays to U233? This was the step that was the hardest to envision.

I know this is described in your literature but alas I was not able to dig it out.

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi Tom,

There are a number of different papers talking about Pa removal in the repository, but they cover a number of different LFR configurations, some one-fluid fissile burners, some two-fluid and one-fluid thorium burners. As you probably know, I feel strongly that the two-fluid LFR is the best and safest way to burn thorium, so I pulled some text from the most relevant document I could find (ORNL-4528: Two-Fluid Molten-Salt Breeder Reactor Design Study). On pages 31 and 32 on the document it says:

4.5.3 Blanket Salt Processing
The 233U in a two-fluid breeder is produced by the reaction

232Th+n -> 233Th (23min) -> 233Pa (27day) -> 233U

All the 233U is produced in the blanket salt. A major objective of the blanket salt processing is to recover the 233U about as rapidly as it is produced in order to make it available for addition to the fuel salt to compensate for burnup. Rapid processing reduces the inventory of 233U in the plant and the amount of fissioning that occurs in the blanket salt. The latter is important because thorium is difficult to separate from the rare-earth fission products except by aqueous processes, and accumulation of fission products in the blanket salt would adversely affect the breeding performance.

The major objective can be achieved by processing the blanket salt to remove 233U alone or to remove 233Pa and 233U. Removal of 233U alone can be accomplished by the proven fluoride volatility process, and this is the method that was proposed for the two-fluid MSBR in ORNL-3996. This choice, however, places certain restrictions on the design of a breeder reactor. The volume of blanket salt in the low-flux region of the reactor blanket, or in tanks outside the reactor vessel, must be large enough so that the average thermal neutron flux seen by the 233Pa, is about 10^13 neutrons/cm2 or less, if the loss by neutron absorption to form 234Pa is to be kept below 0.5%. The 233U in the blanket salt must be removed on about a 20-day cycle in order to keep the fissioning to a very low rate. Removal of the 233Pa as well as the 233U from the blanket salt can reduce the volume of blanket salt required and the thorium inventory by a factor of 2 to 3. Such a process has been conceived, and its basic principles have been demonstrated in the laboratory. This is now the preferred method for processing the blanket salt for the two-fluid MSBR and is included in the flowsheet of Fig. 4.13.

The protactinium removal must be on a short cycle to be fully effective, possibly as rapid as treating the entire blanket inventory once everyy three days, or at a rate of about 3.6 gpm. The salt is continuously withdrawn from the blanket circulating system and enters the bottom of an extraction column to contact a descending stream of liquid bismuth which contains 3000 to 4000 ppm of metallic thorium. The protactinium and the small amount of uranium in the blanket salt are reduced to metal by the thorium and dissolve in the bismuth. The thorium that is oxidized enters the salt. Thorium is an ideal reductant because the removed protactinium is replaced by an equivalent amount of the fertile material. About 96% of the protactinium and uranium are removed by the process. The protactinium and uranium now in the bismuth are extracted into a second salt mixture; the protactinium is allowed to decay to uranium, which is released by fluorination to become the plant product and replacement fissionable material in the fuel salt.

The bulk of the blanket salt with most of the protactinium and uranium removed is returned to the reactor systems, but a small portion is taken off and discarded to remove accumulated fission products. This salt is stored until the residual protactinium decays, and the uranium is recovered by fluorination before the salt is discarded.

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi Tom,

You might also be interested in taking a look at:

ORNL-TM-3579: Design and Cost Study of a Fluorination-Reductive Extraction-Metal Transfer Processing Plant for the MSBR

ORNL-TM-2486: Extraction of U, Th, and Rare Earths from Molten LiF-BeF2 into Liquid Li-Bi Solutions

Both should have much more details on the process the ORNL engineers envisioned.

Juan Suros said...

The ability to test the chemical separation processes without using radioactive isotopes is a very impressive advantage of the LFR design.

Could the development of these processes be done by a commercial company rather than the big government labs?


In reading over your blog I'm a little concerned about the ~300kg of easily extractable and almost pure U233 each reactor would have in its core. Is this as much of a proliferation danger as it seems?

Also, would you please write an article about the chloride reactor design that would be needed to breed U233 to seed the LFR? I'm curious about how they would work.

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi Juan,

Yes, I think that commercial companies could probably do excellent work developing the reprocessing system, especially since most of the original ORNL molten-salt people probably are private consultants now!

There are some strong inherent deterrents that would make fabricating weapons from U-233 rather unattractive. The first would be the fact that the moment you pulled the U-233 from the core, the reactor would be shut down and people would be wondering where their power went. But in U-233 itself would be inevitable contaminants, such as U-234 and U-232. The later is especially important since it has a daughter product (Tl-208) that emits strong gamma radiation that would fry the electronics of any weapon, in addition to tipping off anyone that's looking for it as to its location.

I will get to work on an article about the chloride reactor right away...

Dezakin said...

Hi Kirk.

I'd just like to say how happy I am that someone else has been advocating molten salt reactors recently. When I became interested in molten salt reactors several years ago, it was because of my interest in a closed fuel cycle that made sense, and molten salt reactors are the closest to being viable right now. Since studying their applications, I've become quite a bit of a molten-salt evangelist and even converted several others interested in energy to the cause.

I despair that fast neutron reactors such as the ANL 'Integral Fast Reactor' got so much press just for having a molten salt reprocessing system. Have you considered what role electrorefining might have in processing of molten flouride salts?

Another issue to consider is the potential market value of fission platenoids in a medium that is already very agreeable to extraction.

One thing that I do differ with you however is the desirability of a two fluid breeder reactor at present, mostly because of political concerns about proliferation, though it has obvious advantages from a purely technical standpoint. Most of the neutron leakage could be handled by having a nice big thorium blanket, right? Then all the neutrons do something instead of wandering around to get stuck in the reactor vessel walls when they get too close to the edge, and you get bonus shielding that is less subject to radiation damage over time.

Also how desirable is it that the reactor be breakeven in breeding? Can't we have a single fluid reactor with a breeding ratio in the .9 range and supply the extra fissile load from spent light water reactor fuel? Perhaps separating the transuranics out so that the uranium 235/238 mix can be sent back to light water reactor fuels... but I'm entering areas of seriously sketchy economics.

I realize that transuranics are less soluble in FLiBe, and FLiNaK is more corrosive against hastelloy, and can complicate fuel processing.

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi Desakin!

I'm always so happy to find another enthusiast for molten-salt/liquid-fluoride reactors! And you've made converts too!

As far as electrorefining for the fluoride salts, no, I had not considered that. Do you think it could be used in fluorides as well as chlorides? Doesn't it result in solid material collecting on an electrode?

How desirable is a breakeven breeder? I think it is the central goal, if we want to "burn" thorium--there's really no way to extract the levels of energy out of thorium that we need to without a conversion ratio of 1.0. If we fuel the reactor on spent LWR fuel, a couple of unattractive things happen. The first is that we are still producing the transuranics because of the poor performance of Pu-239 in a thermal spectrum. I really want to stay away from transuranic production because I keep hearing from friends involved in this that the transuranics is what is driving your long-term storage problem in the geologic repositories. Another reason is that it ties the LFR to the LWR fuel approach, which as I've pointed out in previous posts is only extracting a very small amount of the nuclear potential energy in its own fuel. Coupling an LFR to the LWR spent fuel stream means we just extract a little more.

I think that approach has a lot more merit if we consider coupling spent LWR fuel to a liquid-chloride fast reactor that could destroy the transuranics safely (due to its strong negative temperature coefficient). The chloride reactor would not be meant for mass deployment, but could be used in secure locations to essentially eliminate the transuranic waste stream. This could keep us from having to build additional geologic repositiories.

Dezakin said...

Yes, electrorefining results in solid material collecting on an electrode. Yeah, it could probably be used for molten flourides. But I'm not a chemist so I don't know how much it would help.

But I'm usure of the need of any fast reactors. I feel we should be using molten flouride reactors without a moderator to operate in the epithermal range, and then fuel it with thorium and make up the fissile loss with transuranic actinides extracted from spent light water reactor fuel.

In a molten salt reactor the transuranics aren't as much of a problem so long as they're a small percentage of the fuel load. They'll either collect neutrons or they fissile. The important thing to have is a large percentage of U233 so that your delayed neutron component is high enough so you don't have giant reactivity swings.

Now I don't actually have the numbers to know how much of this speculation is workable, but I've been thinking of writing a reactor simulation program someday.

Anonymous said...

I just happen to read this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13048821/ article, one of many in the headlines these days about Iran's continued push for nuclear reactor technology. The debate is always over - is it for electrical power production and technical progress (says Iran) or weapons development (says the US and many other countries)? Both sides get a lot of political boost by arguing it back and forth endlessly, yet there is a very simple solution which I can’t understand why the US has not pursued. The thorium cycle, and particularly the liquid fuel (“molten salt” type idea) nuclear reactor, appears to be far safer and cannot be used for weapons development. If the US were in full swing of converting its reactors to this technology, it would be hard to argue that anyone following the “old technology” is not looking for weapons (perhaps the US could offer Iran a equal partnership in the future propagation of this new technology?). Maybe it would not change the outcome (Iran and other counties are heck bent on getting them – thinking it is their savior somehow), but at least the US would not have the embarrassment every time its sits down at the negotiating table to have to hear “The reason of their opposition is not their claim of concern over nuclear weapons, but Iran's access to the technology that means opening of the way for all independent countries, especially Islamic countries to the advanced technology…" of course only for electric power and other peaceful purposes!