DUPIC: Direct Use of PWR Waste in CANDU Reactors - Q&A

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldsloguy
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the DUPIC (Direct Use of PWR Waste in CANDU Reactors) process, exploring its feasibility, implications, and current status. Participants raise questions about the differences between PWR and BWR waste, the potential benefits of an abbreviated dry re-processing method, and the overall interest in the topic within the nuclear community.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the implications of using PWR waste specifically, questioning whether there are issues with BWR waste that make it less desirable for CANDU reactors.
  • There is speculation regarding the potential cost implications of the DUPIC process, with some suggesting that the reprocessing might not be worth it given the low cost of CANDU fuel.
  • Participants discuss the physical differences between BWR/PWR fuel assemblies and CANDU fuel bundles, noting that reshaping the fuel might be necessary for compatibility.
  • One participant mentions that the DUPIC cycle could improve uranium utilization by about 25 percent compared to an open cycle, potentially reducing the total quantity of spent fuel produced.
  • There are references to recent developments indicating that DUPIC is still active, with reports of recovered uranium being used in Chinese reactors.
  • Concerns are raised about the practice of down blending uranium, with participants speculating on its purpose and the implications for fissile content and fission products.
  • Some participants express surprise at the lack of interest in the topic, given its potential benefits in reducing spent nuclear fuel waste and generating additional power.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and implications of the DUPIC process, with no consensus reached on its desirability or the reasons for limited discussion in the community.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the specific challenges associated with BWR waste, the details of the dry re-processing method, and the exact outcomes of the blending process mentioned in recent developments.

oldsloguy
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Just curious, has anyone heard anything lately regarding DUPIC, the direct use of PWR waste in CANDU reactors? What is going on?

Also a couple of questions relating to the process:

Since the name DUPIC specifically refers to PWR waste, does that imply that there is some issue with BWR waste that would render it not desirable for use in CANDU’s?

The Canadians were also talking about an abbreviated dry re-processing method. In that process they would simply crush the waste fuel pellets to release gaseous fission products and then re-sinter them into CANDU pellets. I’m assuming that the reason for this is to allow for greater burn-up of the fuel. Is that correct?

How far could a CANDU burn down the fissile content of these LWR wastes?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I don't know much about it and I'm curious if anyone has any links about it. It might have been put on hold because of cost (pure speculation on my part) because CANDU fuel is pretty cheap, the reprocessing and contamination wouldn't be worth it (again, speculation).

Physically BWR/PWR fuel assemblies are very different from CANDU fuel bundles. This would allow them to reshape the fuel so it would be compatible, the release of gaseous fission products might just be a side effect.
 
Hologram0110 said:
I don't know much about it and I'm curious if anyone has any links about it. It might have been put on hold because of cost (pure speculation on my part) because CANDU fuel is pretty cheap, the reprocessing and contamination wouldn't be worth it (again, speculation).

Physically BWR/PWR fuel assemblies are very different from CANDU fuel bundles. This would allow them to reshape the fuel so it would be compatible, the release of gaseous fission products might just be a side effect.

Thanks for the reply. I’m surprised that there has not been more interest in this thread. It would be really interesting to hear from some of the guys who are currently working in the nuclear power business. DUPIC has some significant side benefits according to AECL:
http://www.ccnr.org/advanced_fuel_cycles.html
the DUPIC cycle would improve uranium utilization by about 25 percent, compared to an open cycle in which CANDU was fuelled with natural uranium. In this scenario, the total quantity of spent fuel produced by both CANDU and PWR will be reduced by a factor of three.

Here are a couple of other links:
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
 
It turns out that DUPIC is alive and well:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Chinese_reactor_trials_Candu_fuel_reuse-2403101.html

FTA:
... fuel bundles containing recovered uranium from used fuel had been inserted into Qinshan Phase III unit 1. Over the next six months, another 24 of the 'natural uranium equivalent' (NUE) bundles will be used in two of the reactor's fuel channels...

I'm a little surprised that they are down blending the uranium, however I suspect that it is to reduce the size of a local power peak when you add fresh fuel to the reactor.
 
Hologram0110 said:
It turns out that DUPIC is alive and well:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Chinese_reactor_trials_Candu_fuel_reuse-2403101.html

FTA:


I'm a little surprised that they are down blending the uranium, however I suspect that it is to reduce the size of a local power peak when you add fresh fuel to the reactor.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it Hologram0110.

I also was a little surprised they down blended. My frugal nature makes me cringe a little when I think of down blending. Your argument seems reasonable and I was hoping that others would jump-in with thoughts on what the issues might be.

I wonder what fissile mix and total fissile content they finally ended-up with. Another curiosity is how the blending was done and what fission products may have been removed during the blending process.

This topic seem to be treated as if it were related to space aliens in Roswell NM. Given the potential to significantly reduce the SNF waste volume and generate additional power from currently stored SNF, I would think there would be more interest. Any speculation on why there are so few posts?
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K