Maximizing Am242m Production from Spent Fuel for RTG Use

  • Thread starter Thread starter smartalek86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isotope
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential production of Americium-242m (Am242m) from spent nuclear fuel for use in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). Participants explore the feasibility of extracting Am242m, its decay properties, and the implications of using it in energy applications, including comparisons with other isotopes like Plutonium-238 (Pu238).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Am242m could be produced from spent fuel that has allowed Plutonium-241 (Pu241) to decay into Americium-241 (Am241), questioning whether reactors can be operated to favor Am242m production.
  • Concerns are raised about the yield of Am242m, with one participant noting that only about 10% of Am242m is produced in light water reactors (LWRs) and questioning the practicality of obtaining large samples.
  • Participants discuss the decay chain of Am242m, including its energy output and the implications of its decay to Curium-242 (Cm242) and Pu238, with some suggesting that Am242m has a positive power curve over time.
  • One participant mentions that producing even 100 grams of Am242m would require handling significant amounts of radiotoxic nuclides and suggests that irradiating thin samples would be necessary.
  • There is a discussion about the fission cross-section of Am242m and the possibility that most produced Am242m would undergo fission before extraction, leading to considerations of alternative uses such as in miniature fission reactors.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of producing Am242m, referencing previous studies that ruled out its feasibility.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and practicality of producing Am242m from spent fuel. There is no consensus on the potential yield, the implications of decay processes, or the overall viability of using Am242m in RTGs.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the assumptions made about decay rates, the handling of radiotoxic materials, and the challenges of isolating Am242m from other isotopes in spent fuel.

smartalek86
I am wondering if anyone has considered this could be used in RTG's? To make Am242m one needs spent fuel that's been sitting around for a while, this has let the Pu241 decay to Am241. The question is, once you separate Am-241, can you run the reactor to favor Am242m production? Am242m is the only isotope that doesn't emit hard gamma rays and has a positive energy curve over its half life. It decays to Curium 242 and Pu238 which give 12Mev energy(double Pu238). Another problem is Curium has a SFx10 of Pu238.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
How much 242m1Am do you get? The poorly known half life suggests that extracting a large amount of that is very difficult.

Let's have a look at the decay chain:
50 keV for the gamma decay
- 17%: EC to long-living isotope (atom is lost)
- 83%: 670 keV for the quick beta decay, 6.3 MeV for the Cm alpha decay (6 months). 5.6 MeV for the subsequent decay to uranium with 88 years half life.

At 140 year half-life, we get an initial power of 360 W/kg after curium accumulated. A bit lower than 238Pu (540 W/kg), but thanks to the plutonium alpha decays the power does not decrease much - 99% after 50 years and 91% after 80 years.
A longer-living version of 238Pu, but I don't think you can get large samples of the required initial state.

Edit: typo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: smartalek86
How much 242m do you get? That is one of the questions I'm wondering if its worth investigating
So considering the design proposed here https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/636900main_Howe_Presentation.pdf It could also be used with Am241(if it where extracted...)

As you said, the yield is only 10% in a LWR for Am242m, but the "waste," decays, relativity quickly to Pu238. There should be large amounts of Am-241 accumulated in nuclear waste by now.
Another problem is Cm242 has a SF 6.33×10−6% while Pu238 is 1.9×10−7% so it will have 33 times the radioactivity? I'm not sure where the cut off for SF would be? My main attraction to this is, as you noticed is, it has a positive power curve(initially, then remains stable) as you pointed out).
Also as Am 242 reaches transient equilibrium with plutonium 238 power should be about 600w/kg?
You wrote w/g when i think you want to write w/kg for pu238, and Curium is Cm, not Cu :kiss:?
Thank you for you input
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I meant W/kg, sure.
Ah, no copper...

Some Considerations on 242mAm Production in Thermal Reactors
They conclude that the production of even 100 g of 242mAm would be a major effort. In particular:
This implies the handling of thousands of curies of the most radiotoxic nuclides. Moreover, the need of irradiating very thin samples, supposing 10 mg / cm 2 at the most, implies that the sample to be irradiated has a surface of 10 m 2 at least.
100 g is 36 W thermal, just a few W electric.

I wouldn't expect the SF probability to be a big issue. Other decay modes and gamma emission should be more problematic.

smartalek86 said:
Also as Am 242 reaches transient equilibrium with plutonium 238 power should be about 600w/kg?
A quick simulation shows that the power never goes notably above the initial power. The peak is ~2.5% above the initial value after ~20 years. You can add plutonium to get a higher initial power, but then the power will go down.
 
Thanks for the fast reply.
When you simulated this did you include Pu238 emitting 6Mev alpha ? Anyway, since those italian scientists ruled out any practicality of production I suppose I should find smth else do dwell upon?
 
smartalek86 said:
When you simulated this did you include Pu238 emitting 6Mev alpha ?
Sure, otherwise the power wouldn't increase at all (I assumed we start with equilibrium of the first three isotopes).

smartalek86 said:
10 tonnes of Am-241? At $1500/g, that would be 15 billion dollars of americium - if the world market would be that large.
Scaling it by a factor 100, we would get 1 kg after 2.5 years. That is probably not so bad, if there is enough americium around.
 
I heard that 242mAm has high fission cross section
  • most 242mAm produced in a nuclear reactor would have been destroyed (undergo fission) before they can be extracted
  • you can use them to build portable miniature fission reactor thus you won't need an RTG if you have the same amount of them
 
smartalek86 said:
I am wondering if anyone has considered this could be used in RTG's? To make Am242m one needs spent fuel that's been sitting around for a while, this has let the Pu241 decay to Am241. The question is, once you separate Am-241, can you run the reactor to favor Am242m production? Am242m is the only isotope that doesn't emit hard gamma rays and has a positive energy curve over its half life. It decays to Curium 242 and Pu238 which give 12Mev energy(double Pu238). Another problem is Curium has a SFx10 of Pu238.
Production of TU isotopes, such as Am242,242m, have been considered. In general, it is impractical to produce individual isotopes, because they do not occur in isolation.

In spent fuel, there are isotopes of Pu, which decay by beta emission to Am, to Cm. It is impractical to separate Am242, from Am241, Am243, and others. In general, TU elements are kept together as mixed oxides.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K