NUCLEAR REACTOR
ENGINEERING
TERM PROJECT
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
METU
Kürşad YILMAZOĞLU
1296599
Date: 09/06/2009
INTRODUCTION
URANIUM RESERVES
TABLE 1
France No domestic
59(78)
Germany No domestic
18(30)
Japan No domestic
53(39)
NUCLEAR INNOVATION
Light-Water Reactors
B-500 SKDI Russia PWR 515 MWe RRC-
KI/Hydropress
Heavy-Water Reactors
APHWR India PHWR 200 BARC
CANDU X Canada PHWR 350 – 1150MWe AECL
Atomic Energy
BREST 300 Russia LMR 300 MWe RDIPE
DFBR Japan LMR 660 MWe JAPC
EFR Europe LMR 1,500 MWe EU Consortium
Energy Amplifier Europe Hybrid LMR/ 675 MWe CERN
Accelerator
LFBR Japan LMR 625 MWe JAERI
SAFR USA LMR 450 MWe Rockwell Int./CE
Gas Reactors
GT-MHR USA/Russia HTGR 286 MWe General Atomics
HTGR-MHD Japan HTGR 860 MWe JAERI
HTR-Module Germany HTGR 80 MWe Siemens-KWU
PBMR South Africa HTGR 110 MWe ESKOM
The latest sharp increases in the oil & natural gas prices as well as
the urgent need to reduce the carbon emissions direct states to a
shift from fosil fuels into nuclear power.
Referring to the table presented at the very above uranium reserves
are kept by some certain countries. In other words there are some
monopolies over the resources. Thus it is questionable, whether
shifting from fosil power plants into nuclear plants can really help a
country to strengthen its energy independence. Rather it seems to
depend on the own resources of that country. Canada, USA, South
Africa etc. are the lucky ones from this perspective while Germany,
France or Japan seem to be the losers.
-Radiation protection,
-Decommissioning
The International Atomic Energy Agency has some guidelines to make its member
states establish a broader safety for their nuclear plants. For instance Response
Assistance Network (RANET), is aimed to be a valuable repository of
information about national assistance capabilities. Such that in case
of an accident the victim state would identify which one to call for
help.
There are some researches carried by major nuclear powers like USA
and Canada to find safe and long term waste disposal solutions. The
“Intrusion Resistant Underground Structure “(IRUS) for instance, in
which most of the low-level radioactive waste will be stored, can hold
wastes for up to 500 years and the “Shallow Rock Cavity” can
contain wastes that should be isolated for even longer.
As anticipated the main point here is to extend this term as long as
possible.
The main cons against these technologies is the enormous cost to
construct these infrastructures which readily can not be handled by
the majority the developing countries. In other words cheaper waste
disposal techniques are of paramount importance for developing
states.
One critical issue of reprocessing has been the risk the use of
plutonium for non-peaceful purposes. The leading powers try to
impose strong restrictions on reproccessing facilities due practically
to this reason and they do not seem to change their minds soon as
well.
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-International Atomic Energy Agency, “Uranium Production and Raw Materials for
the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Supply and Demand, Economics, the Environment, and
Energy
Security,” in Proceedings from an International Symposium, Vienna, June 20–24,
2005
(Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005), 11.
- G. W. Grandey, “The Nuclear Renaissance: Opportunities and Challenges,”
presentation
to IAEA international symposium on “Uranium Production and Raw Materials for
the Nuclear
Fuel Cycle: Supply and Demand, Economics, the Environment, and Energy
Security,” Vienna,
June 20–24, 2005, 19–24.