United States Department of Energy

Energy

Reactors for the Middle East

New designs could decrease the chances that nuclear materials will fall into the hands of terrorists.

  • Wednesday, October 22, 2008
  • By Kevin Bullis

Novel designs for nuclear reactors, being drawn up by researchers at MIT and a new research institute in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), could decrease the risk that nuclear fuel could be diverted for use in nuclear weapons.

When nuclear materials are in use inside a nuclear reactor, they're too hot to steal, says Youssef Shatilla, a professor at the Masdar Institute, in the UAE. The greatest danger comes when fuel is being manufactured, when enrichment facilities can be used to make weapons-grade materials, or when nuclear materials are in transit, during either delivery or waste removal. To lessen the first danger, the government of the UAE plans to lease its fuel from other countries rather than making its own fuel. As a result, it won't have the technology to enrich uranium for making nuclear weapons.

The MIT and Masdar researchers are working on the second problem. They're designing new reactors that would need to be refueled far less often than conventional ones--once every 15 to 30 years rather than every 5 years. This would decrease the frequency of deliveries and the chances that the materials could fall into the wrong hands. "If you look at how you can divert nuclear material so it can be used in a weapons program, it is when the nuclear fuel is outside of the reactor core, when it's relatively cool and people can manipulate it," Shatilla says. "Our strategy is to keep the fuel inside the core as long as we can." The new reactors would have the added benefit of producing at least one-third of the waste of existing plants.

The new designs are part of an effort by the UAE to convince the international community to approve its plans to build nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The UAE and other Middle Eastern countries want to build nuclear power plants as a way to meet fast-growing domestic electricity demand. This would let them export oil and gas rather than burning it to generate electricity. "You cannot stay on course burning your own precious resources to generate electricity," Shatilla says. "In 30 to 40 years, oil and gas will be very expensive commodities--too expensive to burn."

Advertisement

To decrease the frequency of refueling, the researchers at MIT and Masdar are investigating ways to get more energy out of a given amount of fuel. One way to do this, says Mujid Kazimi, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, is to increase the concentration of uranium-235, the isotope of uranium that undergoes fission to create the heat that drives nuclear power plants. Currently, nuclear fuels contain less than 5 percent uranium-235, but this can be enriched to about 20 percent without making the material suitable for use in weapons. However, increasing the enrichment level poses a couple of challenges. Manufacturing plants that make fuel pellets from enriched uranium will require new safety precautions, Kazimi says. What's more, the fuel will need to be modified to ensure that the reactions don't proceed too quickly. The presence of so much "fissionable material," Kazimi says, could lead to a relatively quick chain reaction that would use up fuel too quickly. By incorporating materials known as burnable poison that absorb neutrons emitted during fission to slow down the reactions, the fuel could slowly generate heat over 15 years or more, he says.

Print

Related Articles

Better Control for Fusion Power

A new control process may enable practical fusion reactors.

Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Congress pushes for another look at thorium fuel, saying it could reduce the amount of high-level nuclear waste produced by reactors.

Nuclear Energy for the Developing World

New reactor technologies offer poorer nations cheap, safe, efficient power. Sanctions designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons impede their use. What would a better policy look like?

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

robert.hargraves

39 Comments

  • 1204 Days Ago
  • 10/22/2008

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Another technology to consider is the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. There is extensive information at http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/.

After start-up, the LFTR requires no transport of uranium or plutonium in or out. In its liquid core the LFTR transforms Thorium-232 to U-233 which is the fissile fuel. However this potentially weapons-usable U-233 is contaminated with enough U-232 that gamma rays from its decay chain make the uranium too hazardous for potential bomb makers to work with.

Reply

ms

190 Comments

  • 1204 Days Ago
  • 10/22/2008

< or >

"The new reactors would have the added benefit of producing at least one-third of the waste of existing plants."

Perhaps you meant "less than one-third"?

Reply

Kevin Bullis

177 Comments

  • 1199 Days Ago
  • 10/27/2008

Re: < or >

1/3 or less would be more accurate. Thanks.

Reply

ms

190 Comments

  • 992 Days Ago
  • 05/22/2009

Re: < or >

"1/3 or less" is the same as "at most 1/3", but the article says "at least 1/3".

Reply

Siphon

152 Comments

  • 1178 Days Ago
  • 11/17/2008

Neutron poisons desireable?

The introduction of neutron poisons could be a solution to the problems, but wasting neutrons is a bad thing for the efficiency of the reactor.

Isn't there another way to do this?

Reply

Axil

7 Comments

  • 1067 Days Ago
  • 03/08/2009

LFTR

I like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). The LFTR is a very simple, efficient, and elegant type of reactor. It can use any kind of nuclear fuel, bomb material, or nuclear waste product to produce very high temperature heat and at the same time breed more fuel in the bargain. This thrifty approach to nuclear energy greatly appeals to me, but I became even more interested in the LFTR when the details of a new patent were revealed by Dr LeBlanc (see below @ minute 53). It opens up the possibility of building a reactor that can run for 30 years without refueling in an unattended mode sited underground while it breeds new fuel within the thorium structure of the reactor itself.

In order to get to this U233 that has been produced inside the very walls of this 200 ton reactor containment vessel, a proliferator must destroy and disassemble the reactor, lift its heavy reactor core out of a 100 meter deep reinforced aircraft crash proof hole in the ground, then cut the thorium up into small pieces while enduring heavy gamma radiation exposure, next reprocess these reactor pieces using isotopic separation since the U233 is denatured with enough U238 to make chemical separation of bomb grade U233 impossible, and do all this without being detected. Now, this is a tall order for any proliferator and may just be an impossible assignment.

At the end of the service life of the Lftr, the reactor vessel is sent back to the factory where it is reduced to liquid fluoride salts that become the feedstock of a next new Lftr. This feedstock can only be used by the new Lftr and not for bombs. The waste products are held at the factory for a few hundred years to cool down before they are mined for the many precious elements contained within like platinum and iridium. Now that’s what I call a safe, efficient and thrifty mode of operation!

For more information see the following:

What Fusion Wanted To Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

Liquid Fluoride Reactors: A New Beginning for an Old Idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Printing Parts

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Goldwind Science and Technology

Calxeda

Google

Groupon

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement