Developments in Nuclear

Power and Radioactive

Kaufui V. Wong
Mechanical and Aerospace Department, Waste Management
University of Miami,

Downloaded from http://www.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/139/6/062001/6149909/jert_139_06_062001.pdf by Malviya National Institute of Technology user on 14 October 2024
Coral Gables, FL 33146 Currently occupying only a small portion of the energy sector, nuclear power is increas-
ingly becoming a promising contender for energy resources of the future. With growing
Sarah Dia concern of climate change and excessive carbon emissions from fossil fuels, nuclear is
Mechanical and Aerospace Department, widely being pursued as an alternative energy resource that does not produce carbon
University of Miami, dioxide. Nuclear power has been the source of environmentally hazardous byproducts of
Coral Gables, FL 33146 its own, however, and issues with radioactive waste have in many ways halted progress
in nuclear power development and implementation. New advances now attempt to solve
the many issues of the past, associated mostly with nuclear fission. Some of these develop-
ments, including the promising use of nuclear fusion, are evaluated as a means of solving
the energy crises as well as the radioactive waste issues. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4037205]

Introduction most recently, a transition to nuclear fusion altogether. The latter

has also shown promise of creating energy without all the radioac-
Developing new ways to sustain the world’s increasing energy
tive waste known to be caused by nuclear fission. Some of these
demands at a decreased cost to the environment has remained a
new developments, including fusion–fission hybrids and radioac-
key global issue for several decades. With the world’s over-
tive waste management approaches, are to be discussed in this
whelming dependence on fossil fuels (85%), CO2 emissions into
paper.
the atmosphere continue to escalate—a dramatic 40% (100 parts
per million) increase since the Industrial Revolution [1]. As the
issue persists, a myriad of possible alternatives has emerged and Nuclear Reactors
continues to be researched in attempt to solve the global energy Nuclear reactor designs have evolved and varied significantly
crisis. One such approach, making a comeback in popularity, is over the years. For the purpose of classification, designs are gener-
nuclear power. ally categorized by “generation.” Thus far, there have been gener-
First developed in the 1940s for use in weaponry, nuclear tech- ations I, II, III, IIIþ, and IV, either in existence or being
nology was not directed to peaceful uses until the 1950s, when developed. Key attributes such as cost-effectiveness, safety, grid
controlled nuclear fission first took place for power generation [2]. viability, commercialization, and fuel cycle, among others, distin-
Though advances in nuclear fusion are increasingly being made guish the reactors between each generation [4].
today, for many years, nuclear fission was the more common and
widely used method. In the many years since, nuclear power has
experienced a dramatic and, at times, an even traumatic history, Past Reactors: Fission
pervaded by power plant disasters, radiation-related illnesses, and The evolution of nuclear power began in the 1950s and 1960s,
even deaths. Most notably among these are the Chernobyl disaster with generation I, which consisted mainly of early prototype reac-
(1986), Three Mile Island (TMI) accident (1979), and, most tors. Reactors of this generation, and the ones pertaining to gener-
recently, the Fukushima disaster (2011). Beyond the immediate ations II, III, IIIþ, are mostly dependent on the energy generated
effects, the radioactive contents released in these incidents have from nuclear fission.
been proven to contaminate nearby food and water sources years
later [3]. Even without any particular disaster, the sheer magni-
tude of radioactive waste produced by nuclear fission reactors has Nuclear Fission. Electricity derived from nuclear fission is
also been a significant source of concern to many. These and more commonly fueled by the use of uranium, which produces two
have played no small part in people’s fears and perceptions of main isotopes, 235U and 238U. Though the latter is a more common
nuclear energy, and, consequently, funding and progress in the isotope, it is also more stable (less fissile), therefore 235U is used.
235
industry was impeded for many years. U undergoes fission when hit by slow-moving neutron of a few
Though faced with many obstacles, past and still to come, the hundred million eV, causing the nucleus to absorb the neutron,
potentials of nuclear power are not to be denied. Today, over 11% become unstable, and decay—splitting it into two to three lighter
of the world’s electricity needs are met with the power generated atoms. It then releases two or three new neutrons which crash into
from nuclear reactors [2]. Though many fears still exist surround- other 235U atoms. The process then repeats itself
ing nuclear power, several advances have been made to resolve 235
most of the issues that pervaded nuclear reactors of the past. U þ n ! fission products þ 2:43n þ 202 MeV (1)
Essentially, at the heart of each of the past disasters were mainly
avoidable culprits, such as equipment malfunctions, unfollowed Isotope 235U is approximately 0.72% natural uranium and is
procedures, and insufficient safety measures. Some of the advan- therefore typically enriched to 3–4%, in order to achieve a self-
ces made include not only increased safety regulations but, in sustaining chain reaction. In a nuclear plant, the perpetual process
some cases, a complete redesign of nuclear fission reactors, and, releases enormous amounts of heat, which becomes steam and
drives turbines to generate electricity [1,4,5].
Today, the majority of nuclear reactors in operation (440 light
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 11,
water reactors (LWRs)) are of generation II and dependent on 235U
2017; final manuscript received June 6, 2017; published online July 18, 2017. Editor: nuclear fission. Others include heavy water reactors, graphite-
Hameed Metghalchi. moderated water-cooled reactors, and gas-cooled graphite reactors.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright V

C 2017 by ASME NOVEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 062001-1
With these older designs, reactors usually rely on the traditional operation of the thorium-breeding molten salt reactor Research
“active safety” features, which require mechanical or electrical Centre prototype (5 MWe MSR) currently under construction in
operations to provide cooling. The problem in these features is Shanghai is 2020 (originally 2015) [2].
what led to the main nuclear disasters of the past, particularly
TMI and Fukushima disasters, recognized to be mainly loss-of- Nuclear Fusion. Though impeded by seemingly insurmount-
coolant accidents. After the 2011 tsunami, the Fukushima power able challenges in the past, nuclear fusion presents a promising
plant was left without electrical power and, consequently, with a nuclear power source for the long-term. In nature, nuclear fusion
loss of cooling function [2,4]. is naturally occurring and the source of all energy radiated by the
Though many of the problems with older generation reactors sun, when hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. Though

Downloaded from http://www.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/139/6/062001/6149909/jert_139_06_062001.pdf by Malviya National Institute of Technology user on 14 October 2024
are improved in the newer designs, the unchangeable fact remains electrostatic forces between positively charged nuclei repel, when
that (1) the 235U isotope supply that is necessary for nuclear fis- brought close enough within range, the attractive nuclear forces
sion is not indefinite and will eventually run out, and (2) nuclear are strong enough to overcome the initial electrostatic repulsion,
fission is a mass producer of radioactive waste, which must be and the atoms then fuse together, turning matter into energy. One
addressed if nuclear fission is to be maintained as a source of of the main difficulties in recreating this natural phenomenon in
energy. The latter is to be further addressed later in this paper. conditions outside the gravitational forces of the sun is creating
the infrastructure capable of inducing enough heat and confine-
ment long enough to cause nuclei to fuse, perpetually—to achieve
New Reactors and Development (Including
“ignition.” Ignition occurs when enough fusion reactions take
Nuclear Fusion) place to create a self-sustaining reaction, maintained only by new
Some of the challenges faced by older generation nuclear reac- added fuel [1,2,7]. The “triple product,” closely associated to the
tors are presently in the works for improvement. Generation III Lawson criteria, shown below, is a figure of measure which speci-
and IIIþ reactors are essentially improved generation II designs, fies that a successful fusion reaction is achieved when the product
enhanced especially in the areas of thermal efficiency, fuel tech- of the three quantities in the criteria reaches a certain value, indi-
nology, and safety systems. Perhaps the most dramatic improve- cating the conditions necessary to create ignition
ment from generation II is in safety, particularly the transition to
passive or inherent systems, instead of active—requiring no n  s  kT  1  1021 m3 s keV (2)
mechanical or electrical controls or intervention in the case of
malfunction. In Eq. (2), n is the particle density of a plasma, s is the confine-
The first accepted generation III reactors have been operating in ment time, k is the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature.
Japan since 1996. Currently, there are approximately ten reactors 1021 m3 s keV is the value given particularly for a deuterium–
in this generation, either in operation or in development. In 2005, tritium (D–T) reaction, which is the reaction most currently
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first generation researched for nuclear fusion. Deuterium and tritium are isotopes
IIIþ reactor design, Westinghouse AP1000, which is expected to of hydrogen, which, upon reaction, produce a neutron (which
become operational later in 2017 [2]. escapes) and an a-particle (two protons and two neutrons bound
Beyond the componential adjustments made to nuclear reactors together). The potential for ignition lies in the local heating that
of the past, nuclear concepts have also been subjected to funda- results from the a-particle, if the energy lost from the plasma is
mental redesign. These novel approaches are most of what consti- overcome. In ignition, fusion would proceed quickly and produce
tute generation IV systems. Nuclear projects in this generation are more energy than that invested in creating the plasma.
mostly still in Research and Development (R&D); however, some The two methods employed to achieve nuclear fusion are mag-
are expected to operate, at least experimentally, by 2027. The netic confinement and inertial confinement. The former uses
most drastic distinction in this generation is the inclusion of strong magnetic fields to contain the heated plasma, while the lat-
approaches in nuclear fusion. These promising advances in ter uses extremely high densities from strong lasers or particle
nuclear power include, though are not limited to, molten salt reac- beams to compress small pellets containing fusion fuel. The for-
tors, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), mer, magnetic confinement, is also the basis of the ITER project,
and fusion–fission hybrid reactors. which makes use of a tokomak (a toroidal near-vacuum experi-
mental machine designed to harness the energy in fusion reac-
tions) [1,2,7–10].
Molten Salt Reactor. Initially developed and operated in the
1960s, by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN,
the molten salt reactor (MSR) is not a new concept in nuclear International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The
technology. However, new concepts of the MSR, known as the ITER presents a major deviation and advance from past reactors
molten salt fast reactor and advanced high-temperature reactor, primarily due to its dependence on the use of nuclear fusion. It is
have come to produce promising alternatives to existing reactors, considered by many to be among the most ambitious energy proj-
making the MSR one of the six generation IV designs selected for ects in the world today and is the leading international fusion
further development, since 2008. The molten salt fast reactor, in research megaproject. It is a generation IV reactor, based on mag-
particular, has shown the potential to widely improve safety coef- netic confinement, enabled using a tokomak (the world’s largest).
ficients, simplify the fuel cycle, remove the need for criticality Currently, the ITER is funded by seven member entities (China,
reserves, and reduce the fissile inventory needs, among others. EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and U.S.) and is being
This reactor is also promising, as it can operate with a wide vari- constructed in France, for anticipated experiments starting in 2027
ety of fuel compositions. Most notably, it can be operated in the [10].
thorium fuel cycle. Thorium (232Th), more abundant in nature
than uranium, cannot on its own split and release energy. Thorium Fusion–Fission Hybrid. Currently, there are several startup
fuels can, however, be used in various kinds of nuclear reactors, companies finding the best approach to be in hybrid reactors.
such as the molten salt reactor, to breed the fissile isotope 233U, These particularly seem promising as a solution to radioactive
upon absorption of a neutron, which can then be used as a useful waste issues associated with nuclear fission. If successful, not
nuclear fission fuel [6]. only will a hybrid produce less radioactive waste itself but it will
As of January 2011, China has launched R&D efforts on a vari- also attempt to reuse the hard-to-reprocess fission wastes, with
ation of the MSR, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, known in fusion mechanisms. A hybrid will also possibly resolve a lot of
the country as the thorium-breeding molten salt reactor, which the shortcomings of fusion alone, such as the low energy when
makes special use of thorium as a nuclear fuel. Target date for compared to fission. Essentially, fission reactors are known to be

062001-2 / Vol. 139, NOVEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

power rich and neutron poor, while fusion reactors are neutron level waste can be dangerous if improperly handled, as it is still
rich and power poor. By combining the respective strengths of contaminated and radioactivity levels can vary greatly [2,11].
each reactor type, the weaknesses are believed to be potentially While many lives were lost due to immediate radioactive expo-
reduced. sure during the accidents of Fukushima and Chernobyl, the effects
Among the most common of fission–fusion designs, the hybrid of radiation are known to cause harm far beyond immediate cir-
device would have a fusion reactor core, which would supply a cumstances. Depending on the level of exposure, radiation has the
steady flux of neutrons to a surrounding layer of fissile materials capability of causing chemical changes in cells, damaging or
(uranium, thorium, etc.). The generation of neutrons supplied by mutating deoxyribonucleic acid, which can result in a variety of
the fusion of hydrogen isotopes in the core is what would drive later developing illnesses, cancer, and death—even years after ini-

Downloaded from http://www.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/139/6/062001/6149909/jert_139_06_062001.pdf by Malviya National Institute of Technology user on 14 October 2024
the fission reactors in the surrounding blanket. The uses of such a tial exposure [12]. Even if not directly exposed to humans,
reactor include electricity generation, fuel production for LWRs, released radioactive content has also been found to affect water
and, most promisingly, the transmutation of long-lived actinides and food sources, which will also eventually impact people in
(found in nuclear waste) into shorter-lived, more easily disposable affected regions. According to a study conducted after the
components. The latter is further discussed later in this paper. Fukushima accident, the effects can even spread beyond particu-
Some of the reactors discussed, along with others, are tabulated in larly affected regions, as radionuclides can be rapidly transported
Table 1 [7]. across great distances by migratory animals. Radionuclide was
found to be transported by Pacific Bluefin tuna, from a point in
Japan to California [3]. This simply illustrates further that when
radioactive content is at hand, the effects could be far-reaching,
Radioactive Waste widespread, and long-lasting.
One significant threat (in addition to the aversion of nuclear Currently, all fission-based light water reactors produce an
weapon propagation) to using nuclear fission as an energy source array of waste byproducts, in addition to the large uranium con-
is that of radioactivity and radioactive waste. With the accidents tent. These include the transuranic elements such as plutonium
of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and TMI, and the negative effects of (Pu), neptunium (Np), americium (Am), curium (Cm), and a vari-
the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World ety of fission products (atomic leftover fragments) that include the
War, the overwhelming effects that radiation could have when not many elements of the periodic table. While the largest proportion
appropriately managed have been a deterrent. While designs have of used fuel comes in the form of uranium, the highest levels of
since attempted to solve some of the issues resulting in these past radioactivity come primarily from the plutonium and minor acti-
accidents (particularly the transition to inherently passive safety nide masses [13]. Distribution of used fuel upon initial discharge
measures), the issue of radioactivity in the waste produced still from LWR, by element and isotope, is shown in Table 2. As
stands as a critical concern. With over 440 nuclear reactors cur- shown, the proportion of used fuel considered to be HLW is
rently in operation worldwide, and an estimated volume of 1600 m3 approximately 3–5% of the total waste. Although proportionately
(56,503 ft3) of waste produced per plant, per year, serious atten- small, its quantity by volume of all waste produced annually is still
tion must be placed on the management aspect of radioactive very large, and only increasing as more waste is produced.
waste.
Radioactive waste can be categorized in four main levels. From Current Storage Methods and Sites
lowest to highest, these are known as very low-level waste, low-
level waste (LLW), intermediate-level waste, and high-level waste U.S. In the U.S., nuclear power plants store all spent nuclear
(HLW). HLW refers to the irradiated fuel, or the highly radioac- fuel in “spent fuel pools” made of thick reinforced concrete, with
tive byproducts produced from the actual burning of uranium fuel steel liners, and water typically about 40 ft deep. The water serves
in a nuclear reactor, which include the fission products and trans- as both a shield for the radiation and cooling mechanism for the
uranic elements. All other levels, including LLW, refer to any- rods. As the pools near capacity, some of the older spent fuel is
thing else that may have become contaminated through exposure then moved into “dry cask” storage. These casks are stainless steel
to the radiation. Typically, LLW includes contaminated protective canisters surrounded by concrete. Fuel is typically cooled at least
clothing and shoe covers, wiping rags, reactor water treatment res- 5 yr in the pool before transferred to cask. These spent fuel sto-
idues, used equipment, tools, and others. While HLW may most rages are typically located in the power plant sites [11].
likely contain the most severe concentrations of radiation, it is In the 1980s, over 30 yr after some of the low-level waste had
important to understand that intermediate-level and even low- been buried in the ground, strange sightings could be recorded in

Table 1 Some current and developing advanced reactors

Name/maker Reactor type Country/site Year Energy output

Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics Liquid fuel thorium reactor/MSR China 2020 5 MWe
Westinghouse AP1000/Toshiba Pressurized water reactor China 2017 1110 MWe
ITER Thermonuclear fusion reactor France 2027 500 MW
BN-800 Sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor (SFR) Russia 2016 789 MWe
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (PRISM) SFR, small modular reactor N/A Mid 2020s 622 MWe
(311 MWe per module)
Transatomic power MSR N/A R&D 520 MWe

Table 2 Distribution of used fuel upon initial discharge from light water reactor [13]

Element % of waste Isotopic distribution and Other

a
Major actinides Uranium 95.5 99% U, 0.8% 235U, 0.5% 236U
238

Plutonium 0.9 59% 239Pu, 24% 240Pu, 11% 241Pu, 4% 242Pu, 2% 238Pu
Minor actinidesa Other byproducts 3.6 Np, Am, Cm, Cf, and others
a
Isotopic distributions in used fuel are subject to change with time/decay.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology NOVEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 062001-3

the surrounding area of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in example of a transmutation reaction is shown below. This process
Oak Ridge, TN. Frighteningly, four and five-leaf clovers were varies and can sometimes require a series of captures and decays
spotted instead of the normal three-leaf, fish with two heads were
found, and, upon further examination, some fish were found to n þ 239 Puð24; 000 yrÞ ! 134 Csð2 yrÞ þ 104 RuðstableÞ þ 2n
have double organs, i.e., bladders, etc. While many factors can con- þ 200 MeV (3)
tribute to irregularities in nature, the correlation between the storage
location and these particular sightings should not be ignored and
Essentially, though still largely in R&D, P&T techniques are
may be treated as a sign that better storage measures are necessary.
said to be able to stabilize and reduce the volume of Pu and minor
actinides for when finally discharged from the fuel cycle. Trans-

Downloaded from http://www.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/139/6/062001/6149909/jert_139_06_062001.pdf by Malviya National Institute of Technology user on 14 October 2024
France. With 58 nuclear reactors supplying 75% of the coun- mutation also allows for a much faster decay-time to original ore
try’s electricity, France has come to be one of the world’s most radiotoxicity levels, by a factor of over 500 (estimated from
prominent nuclear nations. With it, also comes the mass produc- 170,000 to about 330 yr after discharge) [15]. Furthermore,
tion of radioactive waste—some 13,000 m3 annually. For decades, directly disposing of spent fuels safely into any type of storage for
the primary approach to handling high-level radioactive waste has several thousand years is at best unrealistic, as it is impossible to
been to deposit it into four short-term national facilities (located ensure that no repository damage or radiation release will occur so
in La Hague in Normandy, Marcoule and Cadarache in the south, many years ahead. If P&T or other methods can adequately reduce
and Valduc, in the north of Dijon) in temporary structures, the decay-time to at least hundreds of years instead of thousands,
designed to last no more than a few decades. Newer more perma- final disposal options become a lot more safe and predictable.
nent storage methods have since been studied and developed, primar-
ily in the form of deep geological repositories. Such a project, Cigeo,
run by Andra (national agency for radioactive waste management), is Discussion and Conclusion
expected to contain approximately 3% of France’s nuclear waste. No matter the path, all waste must eventually be disposed of.
Though proportionately small, Cigeo is specifically designed for When it comes to radioactive waste, the “disposal” of waste does
wastes with the highest radioactivity levels, namely, HLW and long- not signify the disappearance of waste. Given its nature, it will
lived intermediate-level waste, which cannot safely be disposed of in always be there once produced and will continue to be highly
surface or near-surface disposal sites. toxic for several thousands of years, unless otherwise treated.
As France reprocesses most of its waste, including some of its Projects such as the deep geological repository, Ciego, in France,
neighbors, Cigeo is only intended for spent fuels which can no attempt to contain highly toxic wastes for the long-term. However,
longer be reprocessed and spent fuels that do not have reprocess- some wastes are set to last nearly 100,000 yr or above, which
ing potential, as from the Brennilis heavy water reactor. This pro- makes it highly improbable that any containment method could
ject is expected to bury 80,000 m3 of French-produced radioactive last so long. Partitioning and transmutation approaches attempt to
waste, approximately 500 m below the ground, in an underground reduce decay-time to original radiotoxicity levels. However, even
facility within geological formations of clay, rock salt, and gran- though radioactivity in waste may eventually decay, the waste,
ite, in a geologically favorable area along the border of the Meuse mass-produced, is created perpetually. Therefore, there never is
and Haute-Marne districts, in eastern France. The deep under- an end to it—there is constantly a very high level of radiation
ground disposal is intended to protect the waste from human inter- present, and growing. It must be noted that such a scenario can
ference for the long-term. After 20 yr of research into this project, certainly have its consequences in the long run. Nuclear fusion
waste deposit operations are set to start around 2025–2030 [2,14]. appears to be better as it seems to create energy without all the
radioactive waste caused by fission. If successfully achieved, it
Reprocessing and Advances (Including Partitioning would provide a much better alternative where nuclear power is
possible without the high long-term price of radioactive waste.
and Transmutation) Despite its rugged history, nuclear power has lately seen a
With the increasing volume of radioactive waste produced, comeback as a possible solution to the world’s growing energy
great attention is placed on finding the best waste management demands [16–19]. Significant advances have resolved many of the
approaches. Disposal/storage methods are constantly being past issues, easing many of the concerns related to the past power
researched, with deep geological repositories garnering special plant disasters. Transition to “passively safe” reactors, for
attention as a solution to keeping highly radioactive waste away instance, has resolved the critical issue of loss-of-coolant—largely
from human interference. Reprocessing/recycling methods are responsible for past disasters. Despite the many improvements,
also being explored as a means of extracting as much energy as new concerns now center around the high quantity of radioactive
possible, while potentially reducing radioactive levels, of spent waste produced from nuclear fission reactors. Research and devel-
fuels. While the former denotes an open fuel cycle, where fuel is opment efforts are continuously trying to find better management
disposed regardless of any additional energy potential that might approaches to the waste produced, primarily in disposal methods,
be recovered from irradiated fuel, the latter signifies a closed fuel such as deep geological repositories, and reprocessing techniques,
cycle. After reprocessing is no longer viable, however, spent fuel such as P&T. Nuclear fusion is now also beginning to gain trac-
must also eventually be disposed of in a safe location. tion as perhaps a better, more sustainable alternative. Whichever
While there are debates on the usefulness and security the approach, it is undeniable that there is great potential in
of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, it is believed by many that nuclear power for supplying the world’s energy needs. However,
continued R&D, particularly in the areas of partitioning and trans- unless a practical solution is found in managing the waste for the
mutation (P&T), can one day significantly help reduce the radio- duration of its toxic radioactivity, increasing production should
toxicity of irradiated fuel. Directly disposed of spent fuels are not be an option. It would be morally and environmentally irre-
known to have highly radioactive components with half-lives of sponsible, in the long-term, to continue to produce what still can-
several thousand years or more. However, P&T approaches in not be safely and permanently managed. This would indeed
closed fuel cycles, such as with the accelerator-driven system, aggravate the energy-water nexus problems [20,21]. Therefore,
attempt to target spent fuels’ most radioactive components, pluto- management, not production, should be emphasized first.
nium and minor actinides, in order to reduce radiotoxicity, vol- In 2016, the Chernobyl reactor was covered, more than 31 yr
ume, and heat load, before final disposal of waste. after the accident. Forty countries contributed 1.5 billion dollars
Transmutation has the ability to convert one element or isotope to build this big new shelter, the largest structure to be moved on
into another. The change can therefore also be the transformation land ever. It had been a long time, and the original sarcophagus
from long-living to short-living and more stable in form. An was crumbling and breaking apart. They still have not worked out

062001-4 / Vol. 139, NOVEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

where to bury/shield the crumbling original sarcophagus. [9] EUROfusion, 2014–2018, “European Consortium for the Development
The radioactivity from the fuel is expected to last 20,000 yrs, of Fusion Energy,” EUROfusion, Garching, Germany, accessed Apr. 30, 2017,
www.euro-fusion.org
whereas the new (2016) 1.5 billion cover will last at most 100 yrs. [10] ITER, 2017, “Unlimited Energy,” International Nuclear Fusion Research,
This last statement encapsulates the disparity between man’s Cadarache, France, accessed Apr. 30, 2017, www.iter.org
scientific capabilities at this time and nature’s radioactive durations. [11] NRC, 2017, “Radioactive Waste-Protecting People and the Environment,” U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD, accessed Apr. 30, 2017,
www.nrc.gov
[12] EPA, 2017, “Radiation Health Effects,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
References Washington, DC, accessed Apr. 30, 2017, www.epa.gov
[1] Hoffert, M. I., Caldeira, K., Benford, G., Criswell, D. R., Green, C., Herzog, H., [13] Nash, K. L., and Lumetta, G. J., eds., 2011, Advanced Separation Techniques

Downloaded from http://www.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/139/6/062001/6149909/jert_139_06_062001.pdf by Malviya National Institute of Technology user on 14 October 2024
Jain, A. K., Kheshgi, H. S., Lackner, K. S., Lewis, J. S., and Lightfoot, H. D., for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Treatment, Elsevier,
2002, “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Cambridge, UK.
Greenhouse Planet,” Science, 298(5595), pp. 981–987. [14] Cigeo, 2012, “Cigeo in Brief,” Cigeo, Ch^atenay-Malabry, France, accessed
[2] WNA, 2017, “World Nuclear Performance Report 2017,” World Nuclear Asso- Apr. 30, 2017, http://www.cigeo.com/en
ciation, London, accessed Apr. 30, 2017, http://www.world-nuclear.org [15] Knebel, J. U., 2009, “Partitioning and Transmutation of High Level Nuclear
[3] Madigan, D. J., Baumann, Z., and Fisher, N. S., 2012, “Pacific Bluefin Tuna Waste,” European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, accessed Apr. 30, 2017,
Transport Fukushima-Derived Radionuclides From Japan to California,” Proc. https://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2009/pdf/fisa/knebel.pdf
Natl. Acad. Sci., 109(24), pp. 9483–9486. [16] Misenheimer, C. T., and Terry, S. D., 2017, “Modeling Hybrid Nuclear Systems With
[4] Goldberg, S. M., and Rosner, R., 2011, “Nuclear Reactors: Generation to Gen- Chilled-Water Storage,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(1), p. 012002.
eration,” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA. [17] Stein-Brzozowska, G., Bergins, C., Kukoski, A., Wu, S., Agraniotis, M., and
[5] Marder, J., 2011, “Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Bombs: What Defines the Kakaras, E., 2016, “The Current Trends in Conventional Power Plant Technol-
Differences?,” Public Broadcasting Service, Arlington, VA, accessed Apr. 30, ogy on Two Continents From the Perspective of Engineering, Procurement, and
2017, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-is-the-difference-between- Construction Contractor and Original Equipment Manufacturer,” ASME J.
the-nuclear-material-in-a-bomb-versus-a-reactor/ Energy Resour. Technol., 138(4), p. 044501.
[6] Merle-Lucotte, E., Heuer, D., Allibert, M., Brovchenko, M., Capellan, N., and [18] Wong, K. V., 2016, “Sustainable Engineering in the Global Energy Sector,”
Ghetta, V., 2011, “Launching the Thorium Fuel Cycle With the Molten Salt ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 138(2), p. 024701.
Fast Reactor,” International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants [19] Wong, K., and Dia, S., 2016, “Nanotechnology in Batteries,” ASME J. Energy
(ICAPP), Nice, France, May 2–6, pp. 2–5. Resour. Technol., 139(1), p. 014001.
[7] Freidberg, J. P., and Kadak, A. C., 2009, “Fusion–Fission Hybrids Revisited,” [20] Wong, K. V., 2015, “Energy–Water–Food Nexus and Recommendations for
Nat. Phys., 5(6), pp. 370–372. Security,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(3), p. 034701.
[8] Herrmann, M., 2014, “Plasma Physics: A Promising Advance in Nuclear [21] Wong, K. V., and Pecora, C., 2015, “Recommendations for Energy– Water–Food
Fusion,” Nature, 506(7488), pp. 302–303. Nexus Problems,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(3), p. 032002.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology NOVEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 062001-5