Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

Conclusion

Fuel Type:

  • A single nuclear fuel is not feasible in the long term due to limited reserves and increasing demand.

Advantages/Disadvantages of Nations using the same Fuel Type

Individual

Availability of Uranium

Summary

Breakdown of the World’s known uranium resources (recoverable at <130 $/kg of uranium)

There are political advantages to operating individually, or as part of a group of nations

Fuel Types

  • Less trust required
  • Look after own interests
  • Can choose most favourable solution for them

Development

Independent Development

Interpretation

Should nations work closer together to develop a single nuclear fuel cycle that is accepted throughout the world?

Political

Gaining Nuclear technology is an important step in the development of a nation

Choice of Fuel Type

  • Maturity of a nation can be judged by a stable economy, good healthcare and by fair elections
  • If countries develop nuclear technology solo it usually means the country is mature enough to possess the power and responsibility which comes with nuclear technology
  • The graph shows that uranium reserves are more widely distributed between countries
  • However, there has not been significant exploration of thorium reserves due to low demand
  • Countries with significant uranium reserves generally also have large thorium reserves

(eg. Australia, Kazakstan, USA)

  • The choice of fuel type is generally governed by the following factors:

- Availability of raw materials

- Reactor type (is the technology established?)

- Existing infrastructure

Joint Development

Independent

  • Costs shared
  • Stronger position
  • Arguably Safer

Each nation is responsible for its own waste and ensuring it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

This requires stricter controls on who has nuclear technology

Countries need to be more mature to guarantee they can be responsible for the waste over the extremely long time periods necessary

  • Countries may be tempted to spend vast amounts of money gaining nuclear knowledge, diverting money which would have been spent solving problems within the country
  • If the possibility exists for countries to join a 'nuclear club' measures need to be in place to ensure the country is actually mature enough before being admitted

Group

Comparison of Reserves

There are of course safety issues related to nations working independently or collaboratively

Proliferation

Background

Nations sharing technology and responsibilities means that they can keep tabs on each other and even share waste repositories if necessary

Since there is a joint responsibility costs will be shared which means security and planning are likely to be better

  • There are three main nuclear fuel types:

- Uranium

- Thorium

- Plutonium

  • Historically, uranium has been the most widely used fuel type

Joint

Availability of Uranium

Trust

Individually

Global Alliances

Alliances

Trust is an important issue when sharing secrets

  • Current reserves of Uranium stand at around 3.3 Mt with an additional 2.1 Mt of presumed reserves
  • Almost two thirds of the uranium resources are located in 5 countries:

Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, South Africa and Canada

  • At current consumption world reserves could last for around 80 years

Trust is not an issue since nations each protect their own research

  • Any alliances formed globally would likely be very difficult to maintain
  • Sensitive information involved
  • Global organisations do exist e.g. UN

Collaboratively

In order for nuclear collaboration to work nations involved need to be able to trust each other.

Weak links may be tempted to sell the information independently, or could lose it devaluing the information and undermining the process.

Regional Alliances

  • Local alliances are generally more stable
  • Several already exist e.g. NATO, EU, SEATO, ANZUS
  • More manageable

Individual

Fuel Sourcing

Combined

Should nations work closer together to develop a single nuclear fuel cycle that is accepted throughout the world?

A separate political issue other than safety or security of assets

Nations who go it alone must have strong political ties with every part of the supply chain to ensure stable fuel sourcing

Once a fuel type has been chosen supplies of it need to be secured and they need to be secured at an economic price.

On the other hand, nations working together will have bigger purchasing power effectively.

They are also able to as a whole provide more security over the supply line.

Introduction...

Topics Covered:

Reactor Type:

  • A single reactor type increases safety due to more knowledge of operations and troubleshooting.
  • Advancements in other types of reactors will be missed.
  • Different reactors are better suited to specific needs.
  • Fuel Type
  • Reactor Type
  • Open Vs Closed Cycle
  • Political Aspects

2040

Gas Cooled Fast Reactor

2030

Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor

Super Critical Water Cooled Reactor

Future Deployment

Generation IV

Very High Temperature Reactor

2020

Disadvantages of a single reactor type

  • Loss of competition
  • Some options might not be viable for newly developing nations
  • Reliance on a single fuel/fewer suppliers
  • Harder to change technology due less breadth of knowledge
  • Gen IV reactors are dissimilar to currently viable reactor types
  • Different Gen IV reactors will offer different advantages depending on circumstances

Scale:

Advanced CANDU Reactor

2010

AP 1000 (PWR type)

European Pressurized Reactor

Near Term Deployment

Generation III+

2000

Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor

1990

Advanced Heavy Water

Reactor (Thorium)

Generation III

Advanced BWR

1980

  • Global
  • Continental
  • Individual nations

BWR

1970

AGR

Reactor Types

Commercial Power Reactors

1960

CANDU

Generation II

Current Reprocessing Countries

PWR/LWR

Shippingport, USA - PWR

1950

Early Prototype Reactors

  • Spent fuel cooled for a period of 4 - 6 years
  • This spent fuel consists of approximately
  • 96% Uranium
  • 1% Plutonium
  • 3% Fission Products (FP's) and Minor Actinides (MA's)
  • Reprocessing is the chemical operation which separates the valuable fissile Uranium and Plutonium from the waste.
  • The Uranium and Plutonium are recycled back into the process as Uranium Oxide (UOX) and Mixed Oxide (MOX).
  • 97% of nuclear waste can be recycled and sent back to customers.

  • Reprocessing one tonne of nuclear fuel saves about 100,000 barrels of oil.

  • It also helps conserve the world's uranium supplies, which are currently estimated to last 80 years.

Generation I

Sizewell A, UK - MAGNOX REACTOR

MAGNOX Fermi 1

Shippingport Dresden

What Is Reprocessing?

  • Increased knowledge of operations and troubleshooting.
  • Quicker optimisation of chosen design.
  • More efficient fuel rod construction.
  • Easier management of nuclear waste.

What are the advantages of reprocessing?

Advantages of using a single reactor type

  • Nuclear Terrorism

  • Nuclear Proliferation

  • Increases the volume of nuclear waste

  • Very expensive

  • Transporting and storage of spent fuels a problem

Open Fuel Cycle

What are the disadvantages of reprocessing?

Open Vs Closed Cycle

Closed Fuel Cycle

Political:

  • There are advantages to collaborating with other nations
  • However alliances which are too big are unmanageable

Highly unrealistic on a global scale, possibilities on a continental basis where technological advances are at a similar position.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi