Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum
http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/

U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement
http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=4666
Page 4 of 4

Author:  jagdish [ Nov 22, 2017 12:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

It is nice if Thor energy is already developing it but it has to be subjected to user trials.
The aim should be a closed cycle, reduce dependence on further mining and reduce used fuel stocks.

Author:  macpacheco [ Nov 23, 2017 2:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

jagdish wrote:
It is nice if Thor energy is already developing it but it has to be subjected to user trials.
The aim should be a closed cycle, reduce dependence on further mining and reduce used fuel stocks.


Thor Energy is a consortium that has companies like Westinghouse and several nuclear operators as its partners. So user testing will take place naturally once commercial usage permission is achieved.
Thor Energy is NOT an academic experiment it is solely meant to obtain the data for commercial solid fuel production using Thorium. Every other benefit is incidental.

They are testing thorium+plutonium MOX fuel, which is part of a possible closed fuel cycle.
It might be possible to indefinitely reprocess the spent fuel from ThPuMOX into ThPuU233MOX (with some minor actinides mixed in) and keep that cycle fully closed.
But as this cycle continues, the Uranium content and minor actinide content of such fuel will vary.
It seems such a variation in fuel formulations would require several testing cycles.
That's expensive and complex.

I think its far wiser to simply stop wanting the perfect instead of the good.
Its likely that after ThPuMOX fuel loads run though their complete burnup cycles and the world has a several extra tons of U233 mixed in spent fuels, then a truly closed cycle testing can begin.

It doesn't seem likely from a political perspective that the only known U233 stockpile (in the USA) would be sold to Norway to do this testing.

But I'm not entirely sure what exactly you hope to see as a closed cycle (so many ways to do it).

Author:  jagdish [ Nov 23, 2017 8:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

Closed cycle would mean minimum waste fuel particularly actinides which can be used for fission, some in more than one step.
Creation of U233 will require use of thorium as part of fuel or as a blanket. In production reactors, only the Indian pfbr is being built to use a thorium blanket. Shippingport reactor was the only one earlier that I know of.

Author:  macpacheco [ Nov 24, 2017 1:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

jagdish wrote:
Closed cycle would mean minimum waste fuel particularly actinides which can be used for fission, some in more than one step.
Creation of U233 will require use of thorium as part of fuel or as a blanket. In production reactors, only the Indian pfbr is being built to use a thorium blanket. Shippingport reactor was the only one earlier that I know of.


See you're mixing up fuel formulations and fuel testing with reactor features.
Thor Energy is only testing fuel formulations that can be put to use quickly.
Doing things the market wants and that have other positive side effects.
You're hoping for something that put the positive side effects above economics.
You gotta do it the other way around.

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Jan 11, 2018 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan questions SRS, MOX futures during federal hearing

Quote:
On Tuesday, Duncan asked Dan Brouillette, the DOE deputy secretary, if he believes MOX construction to be 70 percent along and, if that's really true, why completion is estimated to be 30 years out. A 2016 baseline performance report, handled by the DOE's project management division, estimates MOX completion in 2048.

Author:  jagdish [ Jan 13, 2018 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

Full benefits of reprocessing and of nuclear energy can be availed only by recycling and use of breeders as uranium is 99.3% and thorium 100% fertile material fuel. The reactors run mainly on fissile matter.
The uranium cycle can be a breeder only in fast reactor mode but thorium cycle could be a thermal breeder. The big fissile holders, the US, Europe and Japan are now off fast reactors and only Russia, India and China continue with it. Reprocessing and MOX have to be a part of recycling and breeders. Thorium cycle more so. So, let the areas where cost-benefit equation recommends it work further on it.
Let us not waste any plutonium and let it be used for breeders. Accordingly, only Russia is continuing with plutonium management, wisely so.

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Feb 13, 2018 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

Trump's budget kills MOX in favor of downblending, encourages NNSA modernization

Quote:
The budget request includes $220 million to close MOX safely and orderly, according to the DOE. Approximately $59 million has been requested to pursue dilute and dispose methods, also known as downblending.

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Feb 14, 2018 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

S.C. nuclear project backers thought they had friends in the White House. They were wrong.

Quote:
South Carolina members of Congress have been fighting for years to protect an over-budget, behind-schedule project at a local nuclear facility. The battle to save the effort has gotten even tougher. Not even White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney, who until a year ago was a former South Carolina Republican congressman, is willing or able to intervene. In previous years, the state’s majority-Republican congressional delegation was able to rebuff a Democratic president’s opposition to the mixed-oxide fuel fabrication, or MOX, program at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C. But having a Republican president is proving to be no help. For the second year in a row, President Donald Trump is taking the same stance that the program should end.


Editorial: Aiken County has MOX, we have to stand by it

Quote:
This is where we are as a state… and as a community of Aiken County. We gained MOX, we have MOX and we have to stand by it. We are past the point of no return.

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Feb 28, 2018 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

MOX could be shut down by 2021, DOE documents state

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Mar 23, 2018 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

MOX construction afforded $335M in proposed federal spending bill

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Apr 13, 2018 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

Spar over MOX: U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry debate unfinished facility

Quote:
Duncan, a South Carolina Republican, supports MOX, a currently unfinished facility at the Savannah River Site designed to turn weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for commercial reactors. Perry, the former governor of Texas, does not support MOX – and neither does President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2019 budget request, the topic of Thursday's U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing. Duncan told Perry he believes MOX "is absolutely the right facility" to process surplus plutonium housed at SRS.


I'll bet Duncan's opinion about MOX would change instantly if he didn't live in South Carolina...

Quote:
"We didn't ask for the plutonium to come there," Duncan said, adding that the plutonium was specifically brought to SRS for MOX consumption.


Actually you did. Lots and lots of the weapons-grade plutonium in the United States was born right there in South Carolina, at the Savannah River Site in their heavy-water reactors...

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Apr 17, 2018 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

S.C. governor, attorney general recommend audit of MOX to Energy Department

Quote:
S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster and Attorney General Alan Wilson are interested in a third-party audit of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility as to resolve long-term cost discrepancies, according to a letter obtained by the Aiken Standard. The letter, sent from McMaster to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette in February, states the governor's top concern is President Donald Trump's administration shuttering MOX "with only a conceptual plan, 'Dilute and Dispose,' as the alternative." "It is imperative that this successful MOX program is not stopped based on faulty assumptions," McMaster's letter further reads. The letter then asks if Brouillette, or the U.S. Department of Energy in general, is "willing to have" a "neutral," third-party costs and alternatives audit conducted. The idea was first raised by McMaster and Wilson during a Jan. 31 meeting with Brouillette, according to the letter.

Author:  Kirk Sorensen [ Apr 18, 2018 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreeme

DOE Justified MOX Project Fee Claw-Back With Bad Reading of Contract, Contractor Says

Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/