The accelerator-driven thorium reactor power station€¦ · blematic to deal with owing to their...

Registered charity number 210252 - 1 - Charity registered in Scotland number SC038629

The accelerator-driven thorium reactor power station Erratum An important erratum to the original paper should be noted. As part of Jacobs' acquisition of the majority of the operations within Aker Solutions' Process and Construction business area in 2011, the company took ownership of the ADTR Power Station. Jacobs is one of the world’s largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional, and construction services offering full-spectrum support to industrial, commercial, and government clients across multiple markets. In addition the authors once again acknowledge the work of Professor Rubbia who led much of the physics development for this work and would also like to express their thanks to Jacobs UK Limited for allowing this paper to be published. Jacobs UK Limited has developed the ADTR Power Station since 2009 and owns significant intellectual property relating to the technology. 15 March 2013

EnergyVolume 164 Issue EN3

The accelerator-driven thorium reactorpower stationAshley, Ashworth, Coates and Earp

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Energy 164 August 2011 Issue EN3

Pages 127–135 doi: 10.1680/ener.2011.164.3.127

Paper 1000024

Received 02/12/2010 Accepted 05/05/2011

Keywords: energy/nuclear power/power stations

(non-fossil fuel)

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

The accelerator-driven thoriumreactor power stationg1 Victoria B. Ashley CEng, MEng, MIChemE

Project Manager, Jacobs, Stockton-on-Tees, UK

g2 Roger Ashworth BSc

Technical Manager, Jacobs, Stockton-on-Tees, UK

g3 David J. Coates MSc, CEng, CSci, CEnv, C.WEM, MIMechE,

FIPlantE, FSOE, MCIWEM, AMIChemE

Technology Development Manager, Jacobs, Stockton-on-Tees, UK

g4 John E. Earp BA, CEng, FIMechE FNucI

Associate Director Strategy, Jacobs, Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Aker Solutions conceptually designed the accelerator-driven thorium reactor 600MWe power station, an accelerator-

driven, thorium-fuelled, lead-cooled fast reactor. Project objectives were to demonstrate the technical feasibility of

the design to ensure a viable product. Aims were to apply established technology where possible, minimising

research and development requirements, develop and protect intellectual property and align with Generation IV

strategy. A business case demonstrates economic and market potential to stakeholders, and partners are being

pursued to take the project through to successful completion. Thorium is an attractive alternative to uranium fuel,

being more abundant and avoiding the need for enrichment. Additionally the accelerator-driven thorium reactor can

burn waste actinides generated in uranium-fuelled reactors, providing sustainable energy for future civilisation.

Choosing a sub-critical accelerator-driven system provides safe operating margins for the thorium fuel cycle. The

proposed reactivity coefficient of 0.995 allows selection of an industrial-scale accelerator with commercial benefits

which led to a novel solution for measurement and control of reactivity.

1. Introduction: a call for nuclear to helpmeet the growth in energy demand

Continued growth in world population combined with

increasing longevity of the human species has resulted in a per-

sistent and increasing demand for high-quality and reliable

energy supplies. Today’s leaders and policy makers are faced

with decisions on how to meet this increasing demand while

at the same time dealing with the very serious issue of climate

change and an ever-decreasing supply of fossil fuels.

Alternative methods of energy production are gaining an

increasing share of the market. However, overall contribution

remains small in comparison to that of fossil fuels which con-

tinue to dominate the means of producing energy (IAEA,

2007). Many of the alternatives to fossil fuels are in some way

limited in terms of reliability, security, quantity and environ-

mental impact.

The crisis generated by dwindling fossil fuel reserves and increas-

ing global warming is likely to result in an increased expansion of

the nuclear power share. Nuclear power offers a reliable low-

environmental-impact source of power. However, perceived

issues of safety and waste leave it unpopular with significant

groups within society. If improvements can be made to nuclear

technology to address perceived downsides, it may be possible

to significantly increase contribution of nuclear power in the

world market. The potential for such a technology is very

large, offering the possibility of thousands of new power plants

forming the major contribution to world electricity production.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the worldwide trade

association for the global nuclear industry. Biannually the

WNA publishes its nuclear fuel market report, a view of

potential nuclear expansion over the next 20 years. The 2009

report (WNA, 2009) indicates significant growth in the nuclear

component of energy production related to electricity demand.

It projects three scenarios, with installed global nuclear capacity

growing to 600 GWe (gigawatt electric) by 2030 in the reference

case, 818 GWe in the high case, with only the low case seeing a

decline by 2030 to 371 GWe.

127

WNA has also published its Nuclear Century Outlook (WNA,

2010), a conceptualisation of the potential for worldwide

growth in nuclear energy throughout the twenty-first century,

driven by increasing global demand for energy from low carbon

sources. The boundaries for potential growth, shown in Figure

1, suggest that although at the present time the price of uranium

in the future market is low, given the potential demand it is

likely to rise. Hence the economic case for thorium use is

enhanced. TheWNA acknowledges that, going forward, thorium

is an alternative which could be used in parallel to uranium.

The final shape of the future energy supply market remains

uncertain; however, we can be sure that it will be very different

to the one which exists now. Of current technologies available

there is no obvious alternative to fossil fuels which is acceptable

to all. There is a need for a technology to satisfy requirements

and a potential market exists for a technology which is capable

of occupying the void. The accelerator-driven thorium reactor

(ADTR) offers the potential to contribute significantly to the

occupation of this territory and in doing so, offers environ-

mental benefits and commercial returns.

2. OverviewJacobs is a large and diverse provider of technical, professional

and construction services, not typically recognised as a reactor

vendor. Based on potential investment opportunities in a

thorium mine, the company investigated the optimum use of

thorium. Although it was decided not to pursue with the

mine, thorium as an energy supply deserved further investiga-

tion. This led to development of the ADTR (Figure 2) as a

new power source, in collaboration with ex Cern Director Gen-

eral and Nobel Prize winner Professor Carlo Rubbia, who

patented the energy amplifier (EA) (Rubbia et al., 1995).

Much has been published about the EA concept and accelera-

tor-driven systems (ADS); however, so far designs have required

large-scale accelerators, potentially beyond what is achievable

with current technological know-how to produce reliable

industrial units. Hence a feasibility study was carried out in

Stockton-on-Tees, UK and Geneva, Switzerland, to develop

the physics, engineering and business model for a commercial

600MWe ADTR power station based on a subcritical,

thorium-fuelled, lead-cooled, fast reactor with a proton accel-

erator of proven design (see http://www. jacobspandc.com/en/

Global-menu/Products-and-services1/Energy-and-environ-

mental/Energy-and-environmental1/Nuclear1/Novel-Thorium-

Reactor/).

3. A sustainable thorium fuel cycleBased on the 2006 nuclear energy generation rate, uranium

resources are expected to be sufficient for another 100 years

(OECD, 2008). However, given the potential worldwide

expansion in nuclear generation, in future, demand-led prices

are predicted. Hence the option to utilise alternative fuels

such as thorium will become more attractive. Thorium reserves

are currently estimated to be three to five times more abundant

than uranium. However, more importantly, virtually all thor-

ium mined can potentially be used as fuel, compared with ura-

nium that requires expensive enrichment processes resulting in

significant quantities of depleted uranium waste. In energy

equivalent terms, 1 t of mined thorium is equivalent to 200 t

of mined uranium, which is equivalent to 3.5 million tonnes of

mined coal (Rubbia, 2009).

Proliferation risks are significantly reduced since thorium does

not require enrichment, hence eliminating the need for sophisti-

cated centrifuge technology, which has the potential to be used

to enrich uranium for military use. Additionally, using thorium

in a fuel cycle generates high-energy gamma emitters, making

handling of materials necessary for weapon-making much

more difficult.

The current fleet of uranium-fuelled light water reactors

(LWRs) generate transuranic actinides as a by-product of the



12 000

10 000

8000

6000

4000

2000

02000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

High boundary = maximum nuclear commitment in most nationsLow boundary = minimum global nuclear capability expected

High boundary

Nuc

lear

GW

Low boundary

Likely futurenuclear capacity

Figure 1. WNA Nuclear Century Outlook boundaries (WNA, 2010)

128

operating process, owing largely to the presence of uranium-238

in the initial fuel inventory. These transuranic actinides are pro-

blematic to deal with owing to their high toxicity index, heat

generation and long half-lives. In thorium-fuelled reactors,

uranium-238 is not present in the initial fuel load, resulting in

a very significant reduction in the generation of these trans-

uranic actinides. Furthermore the ADTR can be configured to

burn actinides while producing power, thus reducing the exist-

ing stockpiles of nuclear waste.

Since thorium is fertile and not directly fissionable, a fissile

starter is needed to initiate the reaction. In the ADTR,

plutonium from spent fuel is proposed, although other materials

such as minor actinides (principally americium and curium)

could also be utilised. The ADTR core consists of a series of

fuel pins gathered in hexagonal assemblies. In the initial fuel

loading, each fuel pin contains mixed-oxide (MOX) pellets com-

posed of 15.5% plutonium (Pu) and 84.5% thorium (Th). The

ADTRTM core composition changes considerably as the fissile

plutonium is consumed and replaced by uranium-233 bred

from thorium. Eventually enough uranium-233 is created to

provide the starter material for subsequent cycles of the

reactor following reprocessing. This results in a self-sustained

fuel cycle where no further fissile material is required once the

first cycle is started, and only fresh thorium is added (see

Figure 3).

A 10-year self-sustained fuel cycle is possible thus increasing

availability of the system for power generation. Operational

costs are reduced and safety enhanced since refuelling is

infrequent. Since access to fuel is not needed for extended

periods compared to other nuclear reactor systems, control

and independent monitoring of the system can be carried

out with relative ease. For example, once the reactor is

fuelled, materials safeguards can be implemented by fitting

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard seals

for the fuel cycle period, prohibiting access to fuel.

In common with other nuclear systems, isotopic poisons

accumulate in the ADTR core, reducing the reaction efficiency

with time. It is therefore logical to consider ADTR fuels in

cyclical terms involving fuel fabrication, reprocessing and

separation of the valuable isotopes, removal and disposal of



Figure 2. 3D model of ADTRTM power station site

Figure 3. Thorium breeding reaction

129

the unwanted components and finally recombination of

reclaimed fissile uranium-233 with thorium as a MOX fuel.

Figure 4 shows the development of the fuel mixture over

successive fuel cycles. After each fuel cycle it is assumed that

reprocessing will recover the uranium and plutonium content

then this is used to refabricate new fuel with fresh thorium.

The figure depicts 11 successive cycles, with each cycle

representing approximately 10 years of electricity production.

As can be seen, plutonium is effectively consumed and uranium

content increases until an equilibrium position is reached.

The wastes for disposal contain fission fragments and unused

thorium. This dramatically reduces the long-lived toxic nature

of the material sent for disposal compared to conventional

uranium-based fuels.

4. Unique control system using combinedaccelerator and absorber rods

The fission reaction in the ADTR is sustained using a particle

accelerator which injects high-energy protons into a molten

lead target. The protons collide with the lead atoms, causing

them to fragment releasing neutrons, through a process called

spallation. The power output of the reactor is proportional to

the quantity of neutrons produced by the spallation process,

hence the reactor can load follow by means of adjustments to

the accelerator current. This type of control compares very

favourably with conventional reactor systems that rely solely

on mechanical devices for control and shutdown rod insertion.

Reactor power will reduce virtually instantaneously by cutting

the accelerator current completely, with full shutdown

achieved by use of the more conventional control/shutdown

rods.



Figure 4. Gradual depletion of plutonium and creation of uraniumover successive fuel cycles; the reactor design assumes a closed fuelcycle (Rubbia, 2009)

130

As an industrial company, the challenge is to apply existing

technology to create a reactor for practical and industrial use;

that is, a power station. Perhaps the most radical result of this

approach has been selection of the neutron multiplication

coefficient generally known as k-effective. Current typical

ADSs are based around a keff of 0.95–0.98, a subcritical con-

figuration which provides an intrinsically safe margin from

criticality for significant periods over the core life. This trans-

lates to a nominal energetic gain of at best 120, equating to a

beam power requirement of at least 12MW. Although such

an accelerator can be built with existing technology it would

be expensive both in terms of capital cost and in power

consumption during operation.

For the ADTR, to drive the choice of system gain to a much

higher value and hence an accelerator of less power (3–4MW)

and cost, a keff of 0.995 is proposed. The move to such a high

keff requires the use of control rods as in a conventional nuclear

reactor (Figure 5). However, the choice to operate subcritically

allows the use of fuels with a low delayed neutron fraction.

Practically this means the ability to use fuels with a high pluto-

nium content and to include other highly reactive isotopes. This

novel control technique allows the reactor to be adjusted to

cater for a wide range of fuel choice, opening the door to

allow high rates of actinide destruction.

The raw reactivity characteristics of the fuel mixture

evolving over time has remarkable stability over the required

fuel life cycle (Figure 5). Reactivity must be maintained

throughout the fuel cycle and is achieved in the ADTR by estab-

lishing a core with excess reactivity and suppressing neutron

multiplication by insertion of adjustable neutron-absorbing

control rods. Boron carbide control rods, consisting of 90%

enriched boron 10, are used to depress the core raw reactivity

to the designated subcritical value. A method of measuring

keff is required so that the core condition is known, maintaining

precise control at any instant of reactor operation. A unique

methodology for measuring and controlling reactivity in the

ADTR has been developed that involves the use of fast-acting

shutdown rods, control rods and neutron detectors spread

throughout the fuel assembly (Rubbia, 2010). This work is

fundamental to commercial viability of the ADTR and other

accelerator-driven subcritical reactors.

5. Molten lead coolant allows operation atatmospheric pressure

Molten lead is used as the reactor coolant in the ADTR. Lead-

bismuth eutectic was considered but has the disadvantage of

producing significant quantities of polonium. The high boiling

point of lead allows the ADTR primary circuit to operate at

atmospheric pressure, reducing design demands and conse-

quences from failure scenarios related to pressure containment.

This does not negate consideration of the various pressure

systems codes for the designer. However, it does simplify

aspects of the ADTR vessel design. It also significantly reduces

the cost of the required containment building.

Lead is chemically non-reactive, so will not catch fire or explode

and does not react to generate hydrogen. The reactor has a

negative temperature coefficient which enhances safe response

to thermal transients, and with its large thermal mass, provides

a significant heat sink in the event of any power excursion.



–0·010

–0·005

0

0·005

0·010

0·015

0·020

0·025

0·030

0·035

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Fuel burnup GW day/t

Controlrods

Controlrods

Accelerator

Reac

tivity

Raw reactivity plot

Controlled reactivity keff = 0·995

Figure 5. Evolution of core reactivity over time

131

The reactor vessel consists of three nested tubes (Figure 6). In

the innermost tube, the proton beam travels down to a spalla-

tion target in the centre of the fuel assemblies. Lead heated by

the nuclear reaction rises through the middle tube to the top

of the reactor carrying the lead to heat exchangers. Heat is

then transferred by way of the heat exchangers to a water-

based secondary loop leading to a turbine. Cooled lead returns

to the top of the reactor, flowing down the outermost tube to the

base of the reactor vessel, beneath the core, to which it returns

through perforations in the base of the middle tube. Four axial

flow pumps are included to assist with coolant circulation.

Selection of structural materials for the ADTR requires con-

sideration of reactions between these materials and the liquid

lead coolant. This is further complicated when these structural

materials are subject to sustained neutron flux. However work

continues to improve knowledge in this key area (Abraham

et al., 2000; Schroer et al., 2009), so there is confidence that

suitable known and understood materials can be used.

6. ADTR meeting GenIV goalsTo advance nuclear energy to meet future needs, 12 countries

namely Argentina*, Brazil*, Canada, France, Japan, Korea,

South Africa, UK*, USA, Switzerland, China and Russia

(*non-active member), together with Euratom, have agreed to

work on a framework of international cooperation in research

for a future generation of nuclear energy systems known as

Generation IV (Gen IV).

The objective of the Generation IV international forum (GIF) is

to develop future-generation nuclear energy systems that can be

licensed, constructed and operated in a manner that will provide

competitively priced and reliable electricity and in some cases

heat, while satisfactorily addressing nuclear safety, waste,

proliferation and public perception concerns.

GIF has established a set of goals to serve as a basis for

developing criteria to assess and compare the various systems

on offer. There are eight goals which are defined in four

broad areas of sustainability: economics, safety and reliability

and proliferation resistance. Although the ADTR is not part

of the portfolio of GenIV reactors, the technology was bench-

marked against Generation IV goals to demonstrate a concept

design with great benefits to society.

6.1 Sustainability

Thorium is a highly sustainable fuel; also a ‘waste’ by-product

of rare earth production. The quantity of thorium currently

being disposed of as waste can fuel many ADTR reactors with-

out the need to open new mines.

Thorium-fuelled reactors produce negligible quantities of

transuranic actinide wastes and can be configured as a

system for destroying actinide wastes or spent plutonium

created in other reactors, further reducing the long-term

waste burden. Half of initial 15.5% plutonium content of the

ADTR is burnt in the first 10-year fuel cycle (Figure 4). This



Figure 6. 3D sectional view of reactor complex

132

equates to 0.46 t of plutonium consumed per annum per

reactor loaded with 59 t of fuel. Current pressurised water

reactor (PWR) designs produce approximately 1% plutonium

in a 3-year fuel cycle thereby manufacturing 0.33 t per year

from a typical 100 t fuel load. So one ADTR can consume

plutonium production of approximately 1.4 uranium fuelled

PWRs. This reduction in plutonium is far more efficient than

the MOX fuel solution currently in place. A typical

MOX fuel will contain less than half the 15.5% plutonium

loading of the ADTR and only consume 30% of this

plutonium loading per cycle as compared with 50% for the

ADTR.

6.2 Economics

Assessment work to date indicates an ADTR power station

could be built at costs per MW (megawatt) output equivalent

to conventional nuclear power systems (Ashley et al., 2011).

The ADTR presents at least three key economic benefits

which differentiate it.

(a) An extended fuel cycle increases availability of the system

for power generation and reduces operational costs for

refuelling.

(b) The accelerator provides a simple means of varying power

output of the reactor thus facilitating load following.

(c) The use of thorium negates expensive enrichment

processes.

6.3 Safety and reliability

The concept design has been subjected to a series of safety

reviews, and incorporation of inherent safety within the

design has been central to the design process. Such safety

measure are listed here.

(a) Use of an accelerator with control rods enables operation

to be established with the reactor in a subcritical state at

all times.

(b) Operating the reactor with a keff of 0.995 provides an

additional safety margin against criticality excursions

compared with that present in critical reactors.

(c) Lead coolant being chemically non-reactive so will not

catch fire and provides a large heat sink in the unlikely

event of an accident.

(d ) Operation of the primary system at atmospheric pressure

reducing design demands and consequences from any

failure scenario.

(e) The accelerator providing means of virtually

instantaneously reducing power, compared with the time

lag inherent in use of control rods.

( f ) Use of a more established accelerator technology

improves reliability.

(g) Use of technology to measure keff ensures a reliable

control system.

In the latest evolution of the ADTR design the maximum

credible accident is identified as a guillotine break of the pipe

connecting the heat exchanger and/or coolant pump to the

main vessel. This is essentially the same as for LWRs, although

the consequences are arguably less severe. In an LWR a pipe

break of this sort would result in depressurisation of the reactor

vessel and promote immediate boiling of the coolant. Safety sys-

tems to deal with this scenario are well understood and the latest

reactor designs incorporate features such as emergency water

cooling reliant only on gravity as the motive force. For the

ADTR an accident such as this would result in an immediate

loss of the main heat sink and would trigger a shutdown of

the reactor. Coolant would continue to circulate through the

core by natural circulation although, with the heat exchangers

effectively removed from the circuit, the coolant path would

be restricted to the main vessel. Initial design work has con-

firmed it is possible to remove 7MW of decay heat by radiation

from the surface of the vessel to a series of pipes containing air

which, again using natural circulation, will reject heat to atmos-

phere. Provided control rods are inserted into the core, it is

anticipated that no core damage would be sustained in this

accident event.

6.4 Proliferation resistance and physical protection

The ADTR has several attractive features from a materials

security standpoint.

(a) Long refuelling time means fuel shuffling is not necessary

and so it is possible for fuel to remain in situ for many

years.

(b) The selected fuel cycle is a net consumer of plutonium.

(c) A significant degree of self-protection through radioactive

decay of uranium-232, which over a relatively short

timescale generates a high energy gamma source.

(d ) Thorium fuel does not require enrichment thus reducing

availability of this proliferation linked technology.

In terms of physical protection, the reactor will be built below

ground, which provides resistance to potential aircraft crash

events or other external hazard.

7. Market potentialThe study has demonstrated technical feasibility of the ADTR

design. To be a viable business opportunity, ‘time to market’

for the first operational ADTR power station is planned for

2030 which is in line with Generation IV reactors. This timescale

is made more realistic owing to use of a relatively small accelera-

tor of established design, together with application of existing

technologies throughout the design plus Jacobs’ ability to deli-

ver large capital projects to clients in the global energy market.

A significant market potential exists for nuclear power plants.

The WNA has assessed the potential for growth in nuclear



133

generation capacity throughout the world by 2030 and beyond

(Figure 1). As more countries adopt nuclear as an element of

their generation capacity, the price of uranium fuel will increase,

making use of thorium more attractive.

The 600MWe (megawatt electric) size of the ADTR fills a

market gap between small modular systems (less than

300MWe) and the Generation 3þ systems (which are in

excess of 1000MWe). The 600MWe size and the potential to

load follow using the accelerator means ADTR operation is

flexible and hence could be beneficial for smaller developing

countries where nuclear infrastructure is not already established

and with less mature grid systems not readily capable of

accommodating large generating units.

8. Economic advantageIt is currently estimated that the first ADTR power station can

be operating towards the end of 2030. Economic assessment has

demonstrated that an ADTR power station could be built at

costs per MW output equivalent to conventional nuclear

power systems for the first reactor.

Although the cost of the accelerator is estimated as 10% of the

overall capital cost, savings are made elsewhere such as the

containment building owing to operation at atmospheric

pressure. There will be further benefits of lower operating and

maintenance costs, decommissioning and waste treatment costs.

A key element of the concept study was to ensure the design

achieves a competitive electricity cost. Therefore particular

unit operations will be adequately proven using state-of-the-

art methods. Intellectual property and know-how developed

during the design is a valuable asset and has been managed to

ensure value to potential investors; for instance Jacobs’ owner-

ship of the ‘Energy amplifier for nuclear energy production

driven by a particle beam accelerator’ patent and filing the

invention for measuring keff as a patent (Rubbia, 2010).

9. ConclusionsIn conclusion, this concept study supports technical feasibility

of a commercially viable ADTR power station. Use of

thorium as a prime fuel is an attractive alternative to uranium

and, in the ADTR, supports the closed fuel cycle concept

where fissile materials are recovered and reused.

The approach taken to this concept study has been driven by the

need to establish commercialisation of the ADTR. Use of a

relatively small accelerator of established design together with

application of known technologies, such as vessel and structural

materials, support this. Inherent safety is a feature of the

technology. The subcritical operation of the ADTR provides

enhanced reassurance against criticality excursions and enables

near-instantaneous reductions in reactor power through rapid

reductions in accelerator current. Furthermore, the volume of

lead coolant provides a large heat sink in the event of power

excursion.

A fundamental development of the ADTR has been the

challenge to previously established margins to criticality. The

proposed keff of 0.995 was influenced by the selection of an

accelerator based on commercial considerations. Subsequent

analysis of the system neutronics and safety has led to a

wholly novel solution for measurement and control of reactivity.

The next stage, requiring significant investment, will underpin

ADTR technology with development programmes and

progression of engineering. It is essential that physical testing

commences to provide empirical data necessary for the design

and to prove physical aspects of the design.

Jacobs is interested in discussing this exciting opportunity with

potential financing and expert partners to take the project

forward. Jacobs believes the ADTR has real potential to

develop further as a leading energy source in the twenty-first

century and beyond. The ADTR received recognition, winning

the prestigious Energy Award at the 2010 IChemE

(Institution of Chemical Engineers) Innovations and Excellence

Awards.

AcknowledgementsJacobs is highly appreciative of the contribution of Professor

Rubbia who led the physics development and whose help has

been invaluable in progressing the design.

REFERENCES

Abraham DP, Leibowitz L, Maroni VA, McDeavitt SM and

Raraz AG (2000) Corrosion of Structural Materials by Lead-

based Reactor Coolants. Argonne National Laboratory,

Chemical Technology Division, ANL/CMT/CP-103107.

Ashley V, Ashworth R and Earp JE (2011) The commercially

viable ADTR power station. Nuclear Future 7(3): 41–46.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2007) Energy,

Electricity and Nuclear Power: Developments and

Projections – 25 Years Past and Future. IGJAEA, Vienna.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2008) Uranium 2007:

Resources, Production and Demand. A joint report by the

OECD/NEA. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Rubbia C (2009) Sub-critical thorium reactors. Proceedings of

Energy2050 Stockholm. The Royal Swedish Academy of

Sciences, Stockholm.

Rubbia C (2010) Accelerator Driven Nuclear System with

Control of Effective Neutron Multiplication Coefficient. PCT

Patent, PCT/EP2010/054132.

Rubbia C, Rubio JA, Buono S et al. (1995) CERN/AT/95-44

(ET): conceptual design of a fast neutron operated high

power energy amplifier. Cern, Geneva.



134

Schroer C, Nold E and Konys J (2009) Micro-analysis of 316L

stainless-steel after long-term exposure to lead-bismuth

eutectic at 5508C. Proceedings of Eurocorr 2009, Nice 310.

Paper No. 8026, electronic proceedings.

WNA (World Nuclear Association) (2009) The Global Nuclear

Fuel Market Supply and Demand 2009–2030. WNA,

London. See news article http://www.world-nuclear-

news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id¼ 25950.

WNA (World Nuclear Association) (2010) The WNA Nuclear

Century Outlook, Averting the Danger of Catastrophic

Climate Change: Is the Nuclear Renaissance Essential?

WNA, London.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be

forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered

appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a

discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in

by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.

Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers

should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-

tions and references. You can submit your paper online

via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you

will also find detailed author guidelines.



135

The accelerator-driven thorium reactor power station€¦ · blematic to deal with owing to their...

Documents

Transcript of The accelerator-driven thorium reactor power station€¦ · blematic to deal with owing to their...