Timothy Ault

Natural thorium resources and recovery: Options and impacts

Abstract This paper reviews the front end of the thorium fuel cycle, including the extent and variety of thorium deposits, the potential sources of thorium production, and the physical and chemical technologies required to isolate and purify thorium. Thorium is frequently found within rare earth element–bearing minerals that exist in diverse types of mineral deposits, often in conjunction with other minerals mined for their commercial value. It may be possible to recover substantial quantities of thorium as a by-product from active titanium, uranium, tin, iron, and rare earth mines. Incremental physical and chemical processing is required to obtain a purified thorium product from thorium minerals, but documented experience with these processes is extensive, and incorporating thorium recovery should not be overly challenging. The anticipated environmental impacts of by-product thorium recovery are small relative to those of uranium recovery since existing mining infrastructure utilization avoids the opening and operation of new mines and thorium recovery removes radionuclides from the mining tailings.

Assessment of the Potential of By-Product Recovery of Thorium to Satisfy Demands of a Future Thorium Fuel Cycle

A long-standing concern about the future implementation of thorium fuel cycles has been the availability of a thorium fuel cycle infrastructure, including thorium mineral recovery. Globally, while thorium is known to be a relatively abundant element, there is currently little commercial demand for thorium, leaving many of the world’s largest thorium deposits unexploited. However, adoption and subsequent expansion of the thorium fuel cycle may not require “thorium mines” because a number of mining operations (notably titanium and uranium) already extract considerable amounts of thorium, which is presently discarded. Nearly 100000 tonnes of thorium per year could be recovered from active mine sites, with most of this coming from titanium mining (˜80000 tonnes/yr of thorium) and uranium mining (˜9000 tonnes/yr of thorium). This output would be sufficient to satisfy even the most optimistic demand for thorium resources in the near future.

Environmental Impacts, Health and Safety Impacts, and Financial Costs of the Front End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

FEFC processes, unlike many of the proposed fuel cycles and technologies under consideration, involve mature operational processes presently in use at a number of facilities worldwide. This report identifies significant impacts resulting from these current FEFC processes and activities. Impacts considered to be significant are those that may be helpful in differentiating between fuel cycle performance and for which the FEFC impact is not negligible relative to those from the remainder of the full fuel cycle. This report: • Defines ‘representative’ processes that typify impacts associated with each step of the FEFC, • Establishes a framework and architecture for rolling up impacts into normalized measures that can be scaled to quantify their contribution to the total impacts associated with various fuel cycles, and • Develops and documents the bases for estimates of the impacts and costs associated with each of the representative FEFC processes.

Applications for Thorium in Multistage Fuel Cycles with Heavy Water Reactors

Abstract Certain characteristics of heavy water reactors (HWRs), such as a more flexible neutron economy compared to light water (due to reduced absorptions in hydrogen), online refueling capability, and having a thermal neutron spectrum, make them potentially attractive for use with a thorium fuel cycle. Three options that combine HWRs with thorium-based fuels are considered in this paper: a Near-Term option with minimal advanced technology requirements, an Actinide Management option that incorporates the recycle of minor actinides (MAs), and a Thorium-Only option that uses two reactor stages to breed and consume 233U, respectively. Simplified, steady-state simulations and corresponding material flow analyses are used to elucidate the properties of these fuel cycle options. The Near-Term option begins with a low-enriched uranium oxide pressurized water reactor (PWR) that discharges spent nuclear fuel, from which uranium and plutonium are recovered to fabricate the driver fuel for an HWR that uses thorium oxide as a blanket fuel. This option uses 28% less natural uranium (NU) and sends 33% less plutonium to disposal than the conventional once-through uranium fuel cycle on an energy-normalized basis. The Actinide Management option also uses spent nuclear fuel from a PWR using enriched uranium oxide fuel (both a low- and high-enrichment variant are considered), but the uranium is recycled for reuse in the PWR while the plutonium and MAs are recycled and used in conjunction with thorium in an HWR with full recycle. Both enrichment variants of this option achieve a more than 95% reduction in transuranic actinide disposal rates compared to the once-through option and a more than 60% reduction compared to closed transuranic recycle in a uranium-plutonium–fueled sodium fast reactor. The Thorium-Only option breeds a surplus of 233U in a thorium-based HWR to supply fissile material to a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, both of which recycle uranium and thorium. This option requires no NU and produces few transuranic actinides at steady state, although it would require a greater technology maturation effort than the other options studied. Collectively, the options considered in this study are intended to illustrate the range of operational missions that could be supported by fleets that integrate thorium and HWRs.