Nuclear Power Plant Spent Fuel Types

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the types of spent fuel generated by various nuclear power plants, including light water reactors and other reactor designs. Participants explore the implications of spent fuel in terms of its potential for use in nuclear weapons and the characteristics of different reactor types.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants provide detailed statistics on the number and types of nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, including light water reactors, pressurized water reactors, and boiling water reactors.
  • There is a discussion about the conditions under which nuclear fuel is considered "spent," focusing on the depletion of fissile inventory and accumulation of fission products.
  • One participant raises a question regarding the potential for bombs to be made from spent fuel, asking if the remaining fissionable plutonium is sufficient for this purpose.
  • Another participant discusses the isotopic composition of used MOX fuel and compares it to weapon-grade plutonium, noting the differences in plutonium isotopes based on reactor type.
  • Technical details about the geometric characteristics of fuel in different reactor designs are mentioned, highlighting the fixed nature of PWRs and the flexibility of BWRs and CANDUs in their fuel element designs.
  • Discharge burnup rates for various reactor types are discussed, with PWRs typically achieving higher burnups compared to BWRs and CANDUs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the implications of spent fuel for nuclear weapons, with some agreeing on the potential for bomb-making while others provide technical details that complicate the discussion. The conversation remains unresolved regarding the specific relationships between reactor types and the characteristics of their spent fuels.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention several technical aspects, such as discharge burnup and geometric characteristics, but do not resolve the implications of these factors for the potential use of spent fuel in weapons. The discussion also lacks consensus on the adequacy of spent fuel for bomb-making.

average guy
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
nuclear engineers
it does seem like it requires types of
current nuclear power plants.
so what are they and what are
the spent fuels?

Have A Nice Day!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Light water reactors - 359 in operation in the world, of which 104 are in the US.
http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/WCR/LWR/


The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors - 69 pressurized water reactors (PWRs) with combined capacity of about 67 GWe and 35 boiling water reactors (BWRs) with combined capacity of about 34 GWe.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

France has 58 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying 421 billion kWh per year of electricity (net), 78% of the total generated there in 2011.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Russia has 33 reactors: 1 FBR, 11 RBMKs, 17 VVERs, and 4 small graphite moderated reactors.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html

The Republic of Korea (S. Korea) has 4 CANDUs and 17 PWRs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html

Germany has 17 operating nuclear power reactors. Six units are boiling water reactors (BWR), 11 are pressurised water reactors (PWR). All were built by Siemens-KWU.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html

The UK has a fleet of gas-cooled (CO2) reactors, 3 Magnox and 14 AGRs. There is one PWR in the UK.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html

Sweden has 10 LWRs - 7 BWRs (2 BWR units were shutdown, one in 1999 and the other in 2005) and 3 PWRs
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html

Spain has 8 LWRs - 2 BWRs and 6 PWRs
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.html

Switzerland has 5 LWRs - 2 BWRs and 3 PWRs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf86.html

There are a handful of liquid metal (fast) reactors.

More general information - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html


Fuel is spent when the fissile inventory is depleted and fission products have accumulated to the point where is it not economical to continue operation, or the fuel has reached it's technical (licensed) limits, and the fuel is discharged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
asto nuke
this was on computer bright and early.
you certainly had your coffee.
that is a FIRST CLASS answer.
thank you sir.
i will respond soon.

Have A Nice Day!
 
Astronuc's answer was excellent. This is my first post and I hope that I have it in the right place. I believe that this question is related, so I will ask it here. The mods can certainly move it if I have posted in the wrong place.

A friend asked me about a statement he read that bombs could be made from spent fuel from most reactors.

1) Is this because the the amount of the fissionable plutonium, while lower than optimum, is still high enough to build a bomb with sufficient effort?

2) Does anyone know of a source that links the spent fuels results to the type of reactor used?

Thanks.
 
Saurian said:
Astronuc's answer was excellent. This is my first post and I hope that I have it in the right place. I believe that this question is related, so I will ask it here. The mods can certainly move it if I have posted in the wrong place.

A friend asked me about a statement he read that bombs could be made from spent fuel from most reactors.

1) Is this because the the amount of the fissionable plutonium, while lower than optimum, is still high enough to build a bomb with sufficient effort?

2) Does anyone know of a source that links the spent fuels results to the type of reactor used?

Thanks.

(The plutonium isotopic composition of used MOX fuel at 45 GWd/tU burnup is about 37% Pu-239, 32% Pu-240, 16% Pu-241, 12% Pu-242 and 4% Pu-238.)
Ref: http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html

WG-Pu has better than 90% Pu-239.

With respect to 2), the fuel geometric characteristics are general specific to a reactor design. In PWRs (including VVERs), the control element geometry is fixed, so each unit is restricted to a given geometric (lattice) design, unless the upper head and control guide structures are replaced.

BWRs have more flexibility, and we've seen an evolution from 7x7 to 8x8 to 9x9 and 10x10 lattices over the past 40 years.

CANDUs have similar flexibility and more advanced fuel element designs use more fuel rods in the same lateral envelope.

AGRs are pretty much fixed in what they use.

The discharge burnup depends on energy density, batch fraction and cycle length. Discharge burnups for LWRs are typically in the range of 45-55 GWd/tHM, with BWRs lagging PWRs. CANDUs use much lower enrichment, so their discharge burnup is much less.
 

Similar threads

China plans world’s first fusion-fission power plant
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
How is Uranium refined so it can be used in nuclear reactors?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Reactor refrigeration without external power supply
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Chernobyl loses power, spent fuel storage question #Ukraine
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Modeling and Simulation in Nuclear Energy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Fukushima Fukushima -- possible alternate scenario?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Three mile Island Power Plant to be Shut Down
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
Nuclear Power Gets a Big Boost in the US
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Where to find detailed control panel pictures of nuclear plants?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K