|
The IAEA Technical Meeting on ‘Country Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Profiles’ in Fukui,
Japan during
1-2 December 2008 was opened by Mr Shigeki Sakurai,
Deputy Director General of Research
and Development Bureau of MEXT (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). In his welcome address,
Mr Sakurai referred to global warming and energy resource security and
mentioned the importance of the FBR cycle technology. He appreciated that
organizing this meeting in Fukui, the base for
Japanese FBR Monju and the domestic centre of next-generation nuclear
R&D, would be a great step for Japan and hoped to confer
significant benefits to all countries.
On behalf of the IAEA, Mr. C. Ganguly served
as a moderator of the meeting. He presented the IAEA’s activities on nuclear
fuel cycle profiles and led the discussion. He explained the IAEA’s
activities on Major programme B (1.2) and INPRO in detail. His presentation
also addressed wide range issues including worldwide review on uranium
resources and production, front end of uranium cycle and nuclear power,
various types of nuclear fuels and variations of open and closed fuel cycle
options based on U238- Pu239, Th232 ? Pu239 and Th232- U233. Mr Ganguly also
mentioned about the coordination between INPRO and GIF. This presentation
provided good introductive information to the audience about the following
topics.
Mr J. Bouchard of France,
representing GIF, made a presentation about the current status and future of
GIF. GIF selected six systems from the view of new requirements for
sustainability such as competitiveness, safety/reliability, waste
minimization, resource preservation and non-proliferation. GIF conducts
internationally shared R&D activities. He also mentioned the relationship
between INPRO.
Ms F. Bazile of France
delivered a presentation about the French programme and one of her focus is
the 2006 Act of France which showed a national waste and radioactive material
plan including related R&D programme with a time schedule and mile
stones. She introduced the 2012 milestone: to assess benefits/costs ratio for
diverse recycling (P&T) options, to design/optimize separation processes,
fuels, fabrication processes, and to gather technical elements for industrial
operation evaluation. She also introduced retrievable sub-surface long term
interim storage demonstrator. She also mentioned reversibility within 300
years is to be considered in the optimization of the design for geological
disposal.
Mr S. Tanaka of Japan
explained the Japan’s
R& D policy on FBR Cycle technology. In the “Feasibility Study on
Commercialized Fast Reactor Cycle Systems (FS)”, the combination of the
sodium-cooled fast reactor with oxide fuel, the advanced aqueous reprocessing
and the simplified pelletizing fuel fabrication was selected as the main
concept of FBR cycle technology. Then a new project named “Fast Reactor Cycle
Technology Development (FaCT) has launched. It is Japanese national policy to
introduce commercial FBR around 2050, watching the situation of uranium
resource and economical improvement. Every related activity in Japan
will be integrated to develop suitable FBR cycle systems.
Mr B. Skala of Sweden
made a presentation about Sweden’s
nuclear fuel cycle policy. He reviewed background and history of Swedish
nuclear activities and focused debate about 1980 referendum which recommended
phasing-out of nuclear energy but has not been implemented for various reasons.
He also explained progress of spent fuel disposal programme.
South Africa
described South African nuclear fuel cycle profile. In order to facilitate
the implementation of additional nuclear power programme the government produced
a Nuclear Energy Policy in 2008, with the main drivers being: 1) energy
security through diversification of energy sources, 2) mitigating global
warming and climate change and 3) alleviating constraints regarding
distribution of coal reserves, mineral resources and demographics in South
Africa. The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation is presently
investigating the options for the re-implementation of the nuclear fuel cycle
in South Africa.
The feasibility of establishing a local uranium conversion, enrichment and
fuel fabrication capability in South Africa is being evaluated.
Mr B. Rhee of the Republic
of Korea made a presentation titled
“the overview of the Korean nuclear fuel cycle development and recycled
Uranium fuel programme in Korea”.
He gave overview on Korean current status and focused current progress about
DUPIC. As alternative proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel technology such as
DUPIC has been developed and a series of irradiation tests are being carried
out. A symbiotic fuel cycle linking PWR and CANDU is quite attractive as a
supplementary option besides the PWR-SFR linkage concept via a pyroprocess.
He also explained about another viable symbiotic option is the use of
recovered uranium (RU), in CANDU.
Mr H. Kamath of India
delivered a presentation about the recycle fuel fabrication in India. He
explained three stages of plutonium bearing MOX fuel fabrication for thermal
& fast reactors. First stage is U-Pu MOX for PHWR and BWR. The second
stage is U-Pu MOX for FBR. The third stage is Th-Pu MOX for AHWR. He
described fuel fabrication in detail for this strategy, including attributes
of thorium and major design objectives of AHWR.
Mr. H. Taboada of Argentina,
unfortunately absent from the meeting, submitted a paper on the status of the
nuclear fuel cycle in Argentina,
and this paper was distributed at the meeting. His paper addressed on the
impact of the “Reactivation of Nuclear Activities in Argentina”
policy and impact of the international trends on future NPP and associated
fuel cycle. In his view, in near future, changes will be most probably
towards the adoption of policies towards about recycling of fissile material,
separating interesting radioisotopes for nuclear medicine and industial
applications and confining radioactive waste for final disposal.
Answer from some of IAEA Member States to the questionnaire on
current status on nuclear fuel cycle activities and social and institutional
infrastructure current status on nuclear fuel cycle activities and social and
institutional infrastructure were also distributed at the meeting.
Mr H. Chayama of IAEA
explained about the next activity on “Country Nuclear Fuel Cycle” regarding
website and future meeting.
|