Beyond the light water reactor

One of the strong interests in examining alternative nuclear fuel cycles is to search for schemes that are more efficient than LWRs in their use of uranium, but that do not carry the additional proliferation hazard associated with widespread plutonium utilization. One possibility is to improve the uranium efficiency of current reactor types by other means than recycling. A second possibility, offering greater potential for improvement, is to utilize thorium-uranium fuel cycles in which uranium-233 is denatured by the addition of uranium-238, making enrichment necessary to yield weapons-usable material. The bulk of the reactor's fuel material would be thorium-232, so that most of the fissile material produced would be uranium-233. It is important to recognize that these two possibilities - once through improvements and denatured thorium-uranium - could be introduced sequentially in reactor types that are currently in use. Fuel cycles may change over time, but it is equally significant from the point of view of non-proliferation that they will also vary from place to place and, most importantly, from country to country. The author argues that alternative nuclear power systems and a slower growth may affect the diversion of nuclear materials to weapons. A real question, though, is whether we have time to explore the possibilities. It has become apparent that predictions made of the growth rate for nuclear power were too high. The 1000 large power plants the US was to have by the year 2000 have been reduced to fewer than 300. This reduces the pressure, resulting from our limited uranium resources, to push the LMFBR. Extra time gives us a chance to examine the possibilities