Physicochemical approach to the description of the distribution of macroquantities of Pu(IV) in extraction by tributylphosphate from nitrate solutions in the presence of complex formers applicable to the regeneration of spent nuclear fuel from fast reactors

1984 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 410-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. S. Solovkin ◽  
V. N. Rubisov
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Physicochemical Approach ◽  
Nitrate Solutions

Extraction of Am(III) by benzyldibutylamine from nitrate solutions of lanthanides

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 194-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Vojtíšková ◽  
Věra Jedináková ◽  
Libor Kuča
Keyword(s):  
Nitric Acid ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Organic Phase ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Optimum Conditions ◽  
Separation Factors ◽  
Nitrate Solutions

Benzyldibutylamine is a suitable extractant for the separation of Am(III) and Ln(III) from the acidic nitrate solutions. The effect of lanthanides and yttrium on the extraction of Am(III) has been followed under the conditions modelling the content of these components in the spent nuclear fuel. The separation factors αAm/Ln were evaluated for the optimum conditions found for the separation of Am(III) from the lanthanides. The coextraction of nitric acid and water into the organic phase is discussed.

A Perspective on the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Rodwell ◽  
Albert Machiels
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Yucca Mountain ◽  
Design Parameters ◽  
Geologic Repository ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Waste Products

There has been a resurgence of interest in the possibility of processing the US spent nuclear fuel, instead of burying it in a geologic repository. Accordingly, key topical findings from three relevant EPRI evaluations made in the 1990–1995 timeframe are recapped and updated to accommodate a few developments over the subsequent ten years. Views recently expressed by other US entities are discussed. Processing aspects thereby addressed include effects on waste disposal and on geologic repository capacity, impacts on the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle and of the overall nuclear power scenario, alternative dispositions of the plutonium separated by the processing, impacts on the structure of the perceived weapons proliferation risk, and challenges for the immediate future and for the current half-century. Currently, there is a statutory limit of 70,000 metric tons on the amount of nuclear waste materials that can be accepted at Yucca Mountain. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project analyzed emplacement of up to 120,000 metric tons of nuclear waste products in the repository. Additional scientific analyses suggest significantly higher capacity could be achieved with changes in the repository configuration that use only geology that has already been characterized and do not deviate from existing design parameters. Conservatively assuming the repository capacity postulated in the EIS, the need date for a second repository is essentially deferrable until that determined by a potential new nuclear plant deployment program. A further increase in technical capacity of the first repository (and further and extensive delay to the need date for a second repository) is potentially achievable by processing the spent fuel to remove the plutonium (and at least the americium too), provided the plutonium and the americium are then comprehensively burnt. The burning of some of the isotopes involved would need fast reactors (discounting for now a small possibility that one of several recently postulated alternatives will prove superior overall). However, adoption of processing would carry a substantial cost burden and reliability of the few demonstration fast reactors built to-date has been poor. Trends and developments could remove these obstacles to the processing scenario, possibly before major decisions on a second repository become necessary, which need not be until mid-century at the earliest. Pending the outcomes of these long-term trends and developments, economics and reliability encourage us to stay with non-processing for the near term at least. Besides completing the Yucca Mountain program, the two biggest and inter-related fuel-cycle needs today are for a nationwide consensus on which processing technology offers the optimum mix of economic competitiveness and proliferation resistance and for a sustained effort to negotiate greater international cooperation and safeguards. Equally likely to control the readiness schedule is development/demonstration of an acceptable, reliable and affordable fast reactor.

Behavior of fission products in the course of dissolution of simulated spent nuclear fuel in iron nitrate solutions and of recovery of uranium and plutonium from the resulting solutions

2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 608-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu. M. Kulyako ◽  
S. A. Perevalov ◽  
T. I. Trofimov ◽  
D. A. Malikov ◽  
M. D. Samsonov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fission Products ◽  
Iron Nitrate ◽  
Nitrate Solutions

Convective processes in spent nuclear fuel canisters

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn E. McCreery ◽  
Keith G. Condie ◽  
Randy C. Clarksean ◽  
Donald M. McEligot
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Convective Processes ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Canisters

A new approach to spent nuclear fuel recycling for light water reactors in the frame of remix concept

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-77
Author(s):  
Nikita Vladimirivich Kovalyov ◽  
Boris Yakovlevich Zilberman ◽  
Nikolay Dmitrievich Goletskiy ◽  
Andrey Borisovich Sinyukhin
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Light Water Reactors ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Light Water ◽  
Water Reactors
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document