Content uploaded by Blair Bromley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Blair Bromley on Jan 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE
ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH DEPLOYING THORIUM-BASED
FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN
HEAVY-WATER REACTORS
Alberto D. Mendoza Espa ˜na* and Blair P. Bromley
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, ON K0J 1J0, Canada
Article Info
Keywords: economics, thorium, breeding, heavy-water reactor, fuel cycle.
Article History: Received 10 July 2017, Accepted 22 October 2018, Available online
24 January 2019.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12943/CNR.2017.00021
*Corresponding author: alberto.mendoza@cnl.ca
1. Introduction
The aim of this study is to assess whether the economic factors such as
the costs of alternative fuel cycles, fuel utilization, resources, technology
development, and any other economic factors as well as political view-
points [1,2] may have influenced the development and adoption of
thorium-based fuel cycles in Canada. A review of economic factors that
influence the adoption of thorium-based fuel cycles may then be used
to formulate economic strategies that may overcome the economic chal-
lenges of deploying thorium-based fuel cycles to potentially address
future global energy needs and sustain high standards of living.
Recently [3,4], thorium was considered a potentially viable source of fuel
to address future global energy needs, which are expected to rise 30% by
2040 [5]. As part of the solution proposed to meet this energy need, eco-
nomics should be considered an important factor in assessing thorium
proposed solutions [6]. There are several economic challenges that tho-
rium proposals must solve [3].
Two important economic challenges recognized are the relatively low
price of uranium [7]andthesizeofinvestmentsandtimerequiredto
make progress on the economic and technical feasibility of deploying
thorium-based fuels [3,8]. A number of possible technical solutions to
meet the expected rise in energy demand have been identified [3],
though the proposed solutions were not evaluated in relation to current
economic conditions. Furthermore, some of the proposed solutions add
to the economic challenges. An exception identified was the Canadian-
designed heavy-water reactor [3], which emerged from Canada’s nuclear
power development program [9]. But, if this commercial reactor is a
potential solution, why has Canada not adopted a thorium fuel cycle?
The short answer is that other factors influence the type of fuel cycle to
be developed and adopted.
In addition to meeting energy needs, societies develop different levels of
living standards over time. Historically, societies “with high fixed costs
have high standards of living because they make efficient use of abundant
FULL ARTICLE
To meet future global needs for energy and green
technology, it is prudent to identify energy sources and
technology that may potentially be economically
beneficial. Thorium-based fuels with nuclear technology,
such as the Canadian heavy-water reactor, have been
proposed as a way to meet those global needs, though
economic challenges persist in deploying thorium-based
fuels. Therefore, economic strategies to overcome the
economic challenges in deploying thorium-based fuels are
needed. To identify potential strategies for advancing the
deployment of thorium-based fuels, this paper conducts a
historical examination of the economics of thorium fuel
cycles to identify economic factors that can influence a
country’s development of thorium-based fuel cycles. In
particular, this paper reviews the economic issues
associated with Canada’s experience in deploying
thorium-based fuel cycles. The study finds that the
existence of natural resources and the associated price, a
nuclear fuel cycle’s costs, a country’s international trade
balance position and economic growth policies, the
profitability of the electrical power and nuclear industry,
and the technical and economical characteristics of the
nuclear reactor developed in a country may all influence
the adoption of a thorium-based fuel cycle. Furthermore,
recent advancements in developing thorium-based fuel
cycles are suggested as a possible way of bridging the
technical and economic gap between near-term and long-
term implementation of thorium-based fuel cycles that
may overcome current economic challenges.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 1
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
resources”[10]. Such nations need abundant resources at low
costs for their economies to prosper [10,11]. Nuclear power
generation is considered a high fixed-cost technology [12].
Nations that currently use uranium-based fuel cycles with
nuclear power generation do so at low uranium ore prices.
However, eventually the high-grade uranium ore is likely to
be depleted, and nations would have to resort to paying a
higher price for low-grade uranium ore. To mitigate this risk,
thorium-based fuel cycles may be considered to compliment
uranium-based fuel, since thorium ore is estimated to be 3 to
5 times more abundant than uranium [13] and may potentially
be found in Canada and other nations at a low cost [14,15].
Thorium, thus, potentially offers Canada and other nations a
flexible path to achieve and maintain high living standards.
To clarify the questions that this paper will address, it
may help to re-state Kasten’s[1,2] remarks about factors
influencing the adoption of thorium fuel cycles into a few
general questions:
Does a country’s nuclear power development pro-
gramme and resources influence the adoption of a
thorium-based fuel cycle?
What other economic factors, if any, can influence the
adoption of a thorium-based fuel cycle?
What economic strategy or strategies can a country take
to adopt a thorium-based fuel cycle under current eco-
nomic conditions (and/or future economic conditions)?
This study has been organized to address these questions as
follows. Section 2 identifies the primary economic concerns
that motivated economic studies on using thorium-based
fuels in reactors. Section 3 discusses why thorium and breed-
ing were considered a solution to the primary economic con-
cerns identified in Section 2. Section 4 briefly identifies the
types of economic analyses used to highlight the economic
advantages of any reactor and describes the economic
advantages that were associated with heavy-water reactors.
Section 5 identifies the economic issues associated with
Canada’s progress in deploying thorium fuel cycles. Section 6
discusses some of the recent progress, challenges, and
opportunities emerging in Canada and the rest of the world
that are relevant to advancing thorium programs—such as
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’program outlined in Floyd
et al. [16]. Section 7 provides a conclusion and recommenda-
tion to overcome economic obstacles and build on successes.
2. Primary Economic Motivations for Thorium
Fuel Cycles
Studies that focused on the use of thorium-based fuels in
nuclear reactors began as early as 1944 [8], at the beginning
of what is considered to be the first nuclear era (1942–1995)
[17,18]. During the first nuclear era, questions that led
organizations in the nuclear industry, such as Argonne
National Laboratory [19], Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
(AECL) [20,21] (now Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, CNL),
Babcock and Wilcox [22], Oak Ridge National Laboratory
[23–26], Ontario Hydro [27], and Savannah River National
Laboratory (Du Pont) [28–31] to study thorium fuel cycles
were primarily: (i) whether there were sufficient uranium
resources to ensure the long-term viability of a nuclear
power program [32]; and (ii) whether “advanced nuclear fuel
cycles improve the economic competitiveness of nuclear power,
particularly in the event uranium becomes increasingly expen-
sive”[32]. These primary supply questions led to a series of
other economic-related questions [33–35]. For example, if
Canada’s uranium resources were depleted, how would
Canada replace its exports of uranium to avoid an unfavora-
ble trade balance?
Added to these economic reasons was a primary economic
concern with regard to the long-term demand for electricity
[36]. Figures 1 through 3(using data from WDI Database
FIGURE 1. Historical world electricity consumption.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
2
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
Archives [37]) justify the concern with long-term demand for
electricity, as the figures show an increasing demand for
electricity (measured by kilowatt hours) worldwide and sim-
ilarly for Canada and the United States.
Uranium resource utilization and prices (energy supply
issues [36]), and long-term power needs were the primary
economic concerns for organizations considering alternative
fuel cycles such as thorium, which remain relevant today
[3]—regardless of reactor type.
3. Improved Resource Utilization with Thorium
and Breeding
During the early part of the first nuclear era, when uranium
reserves were small compared with anticipated nuclear
power demand [38], the proposed solution to the problem
of ensuring long-term supplies of nuclear fuel was “to
produce all future fissile needs by breeding rather than by
mining
235
U”, because “an abundant supply of bred fissile
material means an abundant supply of neutrons, which in turn
can be used to produce more fissile material from
238
Uor
thorium”[36]. In the early history of nuclear reactors [39],
it was known that breeding with thorium requires neutron
capture to convert it into fissile fuel (U-233), since thorium is
a fertile material. Breeding with thorium was, thus, considered
a long-term goal in implementing thorium. In addition, breed-
ing with thorium was recognized to have the potential to
reduce natural uranium resource requirements and increase
resource utilization efficiency [36,39]. In general terms, re-
source utilization, which is one measure of fuel utilization,
may be defined as “the ratio of the amount of fuel that fissions
in a given nuclear system to the amount of natural uranium or
thorium input required to provide those fissions”[40]oras
“the ultimate fraction of the fuel that can be fissioned”[41].
Increasing resource utilization efficiency through breeding
with thorium requires a certain type of reactor.
A reactor’s potential for generating new fissile isotopes is
measured by a conversion ratio, sometimes referred to as a
breeding ratio [41–43]. In the nuclear fuel cycle literature
[42], a reactor with a conversion ratio <1 is referred to as a
converter or burner, whereas a reactor with a conversion
ratio >1 is referred to as a breeder. A burner consumes more
FIGURE 2. Historical electricity consumption in Canada.
FIGURE 3. Historical electricity consumption in the United States.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 3
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
fissile material than it produces, whereas in the breeder
more fissile material is produced than is consumed [42].
In assessing the long-term security of a nuclear fuel supply
for deploying nuclear power reactors to meet a rising
demand for electricity, the various reactor types and their
associated fuel cycles proposed were sometimes (and to
some extent) assessed in terms of measuring resource
utilization efficiency (sometimes referred to as fractional
utilization [44,45]) as a function of the conversion ratio
[44–46]. An example of resource utilization as a function of
the conversion ratio is shown in Figure 4 (based on equa-
tions and values in Lamarsh [40]).
In Figure 4, the fraction of fissionable material in the fuel from
natural resources is 4%. Starting with a conversion ratio 0.5,
the fractional utilization is about 0.94%. As the conversion
ratio increases (due to improvements in reactor technology
[47]), the amount of fertile material converted to fissionable
material increases; thus, resource utilization efficiency
increases. However, the increase in resource utilization effi-
ciency reaches a limit at a conversion ratio of about 1.04. At
the limit and beyond, resource utilization efficiency is constant
at approximately 67.6% and is independent of the conversion
ratio, since no external fissile material is required [40]. A
breeder is, thus, considered a necessary technology for mak-
ing progress in adopting a thorium-based fuel cycle to achieve
long-term resource sustainability.
4. Economic Advantages of using Thorium in Heavy
Water Reactors
Breeding with thorium required considering the economic
aspects of each reactor and fuel cycle [1,36,47–53], which
required a set of methods to show the economic advantages
and disadvantages, and to capture the technical aspects rel-
evant to the economics.
4.1. Nuclear economics methods
In some studies, fuel utilization characteristics such as inven-
tory (or specific inventory), breeding (or conversion) ratio,
resource utilization efficiency, burn-up (or net burn-up),
neutron economy, and doubling time [36,43,54–62] were a
focal point of the economic analysis of thorium-based fuels
in a reactor.
In other studies [43,62–64], fuel cycle costing analysis was
used for conducting preliminary analysis in evaluating fuel
concepts. When comparing different thorium-based fuels in
different reactors there were also other studies [26,65,66]
that were more extensive and provided total power genera-
tion costs (and total unit energy costs), which included cost
components such as reactor (or capital) costs, insurance,
andoperationandmaintenancecostsinadditiontofuel
costs—though some studies would only focus on reactor
and fuel costs. More recently, Graves et al. [67] used levelized
unit electricity costing to estimate the abatement cost of
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) when comparing a nuclear
reactor with thorium-based fuel or natural uranium based
fuel to coal-fired and gas-fired plants. Graves et al. estimated
that the abatement cost of GHG for a natural uranium and
thorium-based fuel in a Canadian-designed heavy-water
reactor would be lower than for a coal-fired and gas-fired
plant: “the abatement cost for the nuclear power plant when
compared to the coal-fired and gas-fired plants is −$10.4/
tonne-CO
2
eq and −$15.7/tonne-CO
2
eq, respectively”[67].
Therefore, in past and recent studies of thorium use, any eco-
nomic advantages of a reactor due to technical characteris-
tics were typically incorporated through fuel cycle costs and
total power generation costs.
The discussion on economics methods is applicable to any
reactor, but heavy-water reactors, which could be used as
thermal breeders [58], have potential economic advantages
as a conventional technology for using thorium-based fuels.
4.2. Economic advantages of heavy water reactors
The key technical advantages that provide economic advan-
tages in adopting a heavy-water reactor with a thorium-
based fuel cycle were to some extent historically captured
through the conversion ratio. The approximate equation
used for the conversation ratio [68]is
C=η−1−ða+lÞ(1)
where Cis the conversion ratio, ηis the neutron production
yield, ais the nonproductive absorptions, and lis leakage.
The first technical advantage is the use of heavy water (D
2
O)
as a moderator and coolant, instead of using, for example, light
water (H
2
O) [69]. Heavy water absorbs less thermal neutrons
than light water by about a factor of 500 [70], which means
there are more neutrons available for fission [69]. During
FIGURE 4. Resource efficiency as a function of the
conversion ratio.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
4
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
Canada’s nuclear power development program, a light-water
coolant was compared with heavy water in terms of the
impact on fuelling cost. The use of a heavy-water coolant was
estimated to be about 15% of the fuelling cost, whereas using
light water was estimated to add more than 15% of the fuel-
ling cost due to neutron losses [71].
In addition, the first technical advantage contributes to a
heavy-water reactor design having a conversion ratio of
about 0.8, whereas a light-water reactor achieves a conver-
sion ratio of about 0.6 [72]. The implication of this technical
advantage for resource utilization efficiency for each reactor
is shown in Figure 5.InFigure 5, the resource utilization effi-
ciency curve for the heavy water reactor is estimated by the
equation
UH=0.00711 1
1−C(2)
where Cis the conversion ratio [41]. The resource utilization
efficiency curve for the light-water reactor is calculated using
the equation
UL=xP
F
1
1−C(3)
where x
P
is the fissile mass fractions of product (equal to
0.03) in the separations plant, and Fis the feed factor, equal
to 5.479 [40,73]. Equations (2) and (3) are approximate,
since they do not, for instance, account for processing losses,
and capture-to-fission ratio [44,45,73].
Figure 5 shows that a heavy water reactor has a higher re-
source utilization efficiency than a light water reactor at their
corresponding conversion ratios. The advantage of a heavy-
water reactor would be maintained even if the design of both
technologies were improved in terms of obtaining higher
conversion ratios, since the light-water reactor requires
enrichment. Furthermore, the technical advantage of
achieving a higher conversion ratio enabled the Canadian-
designed heavy-water reactor to achieve a fuelling cost
advantage over the light-waterreactorbyapproximatelya
factor of 2 [74].
A second technical advantage, which is more specific to
Canada, can be attributed to the on-line bi-directional fueling
used by Canadian heavy-water reactors [75,76]. According
to Lewis [76], the principle of bi-directional fueling leads to
lower costs because “irradiation of natural or very low
enriched uranium is carried on far beyond the point at which
it ceases to contribute to the reactivity of the core. The reactiv-
ity is sustained by the excess reactivity of the new fuel at the
other end of the same reactor channel and by the new fuel
in the adjacent channel. This key principle is retained in the
prospective fuel cycles using thorium as it was in the
valubreeder cycle”[76]. The relevant consequences of bi-
directional fueling for economics are neutron economy, high
and constant (or uniform) burnup, and higher station avail-
ability [66,77,78].
The technical advantages offered by Canadian-designed
heavy-water reactors meant that it could provide an efficient
thermal-spectrum breeder with respect to U-233 and com-
pete with fast reactors (such as liquid-metal fast-breeder
reactor, and sodium-cooled fast reactor) [21,79,80].
Table 1 (from Milgram [21]) shows that U-233 has the high-
est value of the neutron yield per neutron absorbed (η)ina
thermal (slow) neutron energy spectrum (η∼2.2 to 2.3),
and is close to that found in a fast spectrum with other fissile
isotopes.
Some thorium and plutonium fuel cycle studies also provided
a diagram to illustrate the neutron yield for U-233, U-235,
and Pu-239. Figure 6 (reproduced from Rubbia [81]) plots
the number of neutrons produced per neutron absorbed (η)
in U-233, U-235, and Pu-239, as a function of neutron kinetic
energy. For breeding to be possible, ηhas to be greater
than 2.0 over some portion of the neutron spectrum [42,81]
as shown by the dashed line in Figure 6.Thevalueofηfor
FIGURE 5. Heavy-water and light-water reactor resource
efficiency.
TABLE 1. Fission neutron yield per neutron absorbed (η)
(for 4 fissile isotopes).
Fissile isotope
Thermal spectrum
(at 2200 m/s) Fast spectrum
U-233 2.28 2.31
U-235 2.07 1.93
Pu-239 2.11 2.49
Pu-241 2.15 2.72
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 5
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
U-233 is greater than for U-235, and Pu-239 in the energy
spectrum <1 eV, but for neutron energies >10
5
eV, Pu-239
has the greatest value of η[81]. Hence, thermal breeders
withU-233arepreferredinanenergyspectrum<1eV,
whereas for neutron energies >10
5
eV, fast breeders with
Pu-239 are preferred [42,72,81–83].
Banerjee et al. [68] used a value of η=2.30 to conclude that a
thorium equilibrium fuel would reach a conversion ratio of
1.00, which was higher than the conversion ratio of 0.785
for the natural uranium equilibrium fuel. An American-
designed heavy-water reactor, which was similar in design
to the Canadian heavy-water reactor, was estimated to reach
a conversion ratio of approximately 1.02 [84]; thus, the
American design, like the Canadian design, could increase re-
source utilization efficiency.
Furthermore, Canadian studies assessed the impact of the
technical advantages of the heavy water reactor on fuel costs.
In general terms, the total (or net) unit fuel cost (c
f
), was
expressed as
cf=cfs +ci+cP(4)
where c
fs
represents the unit cost of fissile fuel supply (also
referred to as the make-up supply or contribution), c
i
repre-
sents charges on inventory of fissile fuel, and c
P
represents
the processing costs (such as, reprocessing and refabrication
costs—the recycling costs), and spent fuel credit value [59,
60,69,75,85–88].
The total unit fuelling cost and cost components in Banerjee
et al’s. [68] study are presented in Table 2.Table 2 indicates
that a thorium fuel cycle in a heavy-water breeder reactor
could achieve a total unit fuelling cost that was about 6.5%
above the natural uranium cycle in a heavy-water converter
reactor. An important assumption for achieving this competi-
tiveness was that spent fuel credit was given for recycling
U-233, which only benefited the thorium fuel cycle. Similar
assumptions were applied in comparing heavy-water reac-
tors to fast reactors and plutonium fuel cycles [60,88,89],
in which case, credit was given for recycled thorium and
plutonium—a similar credit was sometimes assumed for
once through natural uranium and thorium fuel cycles.
However, this assumption did not materialize in Canada dur-
ing the first nuclear era, which made breeders less competi-
tive than converters.
Another key result in Table 2 was that the fuel supply cost
was lower for the thorium fuel cycle than for the natural ura-
nium fuel cycle. But, the fuel inventory was higher for the
thorium fuel cycle than for the natural uranium fuel cycle.
Similar key assumptions and results were reached for the
valubreeder cycle (also referred to as super-converter or
near breeder) [59,75], in which the essence “is to make the
fuel supply predominantly natural uranium, together with a
smaller amount of plain thorium, and as a third component a
small amount of the cheapest available fissile material”[59].
The explanation for these types of results may be illustrated
through an elaboration of Equation (4) as follows.
FIGURE 6. Neutron yield per neutron absorbed for U-235, U-233, and Pu-239. From C. Rubbia, 2016, “A Future for Thorium
Power?”in Thorium Energy for the World, Edited by J.P. Revol, et al. [81]. Reprinted by permission from Springer
International Publishing, copyright 2016.
TABLE 2. Fuel cycle costs (m$1972/kWh) breakdown for
natural uranium and thorium in a heavy-water reactor.
Cost breakdown
Natural uranium
(conversion
ratio =0.785)
Thorium
(conversion
ratio =1.00)
Fuel replacement 0.993 0.965
Fuel inventory cost 0.064 0.388
Spent fuel credit —–0.227
Total 1.057 1.126
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
6
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
Equation (4) may be re-expressed in more detail, which was
used in [59,68,75], by
c=P
24Be
|ffl{zffl}
fuel supply cost
+Pa
8766ure
|fflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflffl}
fuel inventory cost
−
ðCr −ExÞ
24Beð1+iÞn
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
net recycling cost
(5)
where cis the fuelling cost (mill/kWh), Bis burnup (MWd/
kgHE), eis net efficiency for thermal to electrical conversion
(%), Pis the price paid for fuel ($/kgHE), Cr credit value of fuel
($/kgHE), Ex extraction or processing cost of fuel ($/kgHE),
a* is the effective annual charge rate for inventory, uis the
load factor, ris the fuel rating (MWth/kgHE), iannual interest
rate applicable to credits [59]. Equation (5) is equivalent to
c=1
24Be ðV+FÞ1+at
2u−
ðCr −ExÞ
ð1+iÞn(6)
where Vis the value of the fuel ($/kgHE), Fis the fuel fabrica-
tion cost, ais the annual charge rate for inventory, and tis the
duration of irradiation [59]. Equation (6) is derived from
Equation (5) by assuming that
P=V+F(7)
a=a=2(8)
and
B=365.25rt (9)
where all the variables in Equations (7) through (9)havethe
same meaning as those in Equation (5) and (6).
In Banerjee et al.’s[68] study, the burnup for recycling tho-
rium was about 4.4 times higher for the natural uranium fuel
cycle, whereas for a near-breeding thorium fuel cycle, the
burnup was about 3.8 to 4.5 times higher than for a natural
uranium fuel cycle [59,75]. The impact on fuelling costs
would be to lower the fuel supply component cost, and to
some extent the fuel inventory component [90]. But, recycling
thorium required holding extra fissile material in inventory
and longer irradiation time in the reactor, which offset the
advantages of higher burnup in a thorium fuel cycle (whether
breeding or near breeder) [20,59,60,68,75,90–92]. Similar
issues applied to fast reactors (especially fast breeders with
about 20 years doubling time [88]), and recycling plutonium
fuel cycles in heavy water reactors, except that recycling
plutonium fuel had much higher inventory requirements
[55,60,88,89,93],sometimesbyasmuchastwicethatof
recycling thorium [64].
Because of all of these economic advantages, studies on
thorium considered heavy-water reactors as an enabling
technology, flexible for both short-term and long-term imple-
mentation of thorium fuel cycles.
5. Economic Issues Associated with Canada’s Early
Progress (1945–1997) on the Potential use of
Thorium-Based Fuel Cycles
So if a heavy-water reactor had economic advantages and
Canada considered breeding with thorium, what factors pre-
vented Canada from commercially adopting a thorium fuel
cycle during the first nuclear era? To answer this question,
it must be assumed that there were conditions that enabled
the pursuit of adopting a thorium fuel cycle in the first place.
This section will therefore discuss the economic conditions
in Canada that enabled the adoption of a once-through natu-
ral uranium fuel cycle in heavy-water reactors.
Some of the economic conditions that enabled Canada to
adopt a natural uranium fuel cycle were barriers to adopting
thorium-based fuel cycles over time. Some of these barriers
have constantly persisted (for example, re-fabrication and
reprocessing of used fuel), while others persist but fluctuate
over time (for example, the price of natural uranium).
Uranium ore prices would keep the uranium fuel cycle eco-
nomical, but its fluctuation created interest in alternative fuel
cycles, especially when uranium ore prices increased. As prices
and new uranium discoveries fluctuated, so would commercial
interests (on the demand and supply side) and investments for
research and development of alternative fuel cycles. As a con-
sequence, thorium resources would remain commercially
underdeveloped. The required infrastructure for supplying
thorium would affect thorium price estimates and influence
comparison of thorium fuel cycles with alternative fuel cycles.
Therefore, the 4 major factors affecting Canada’searly
progress were: (i) the adoption of the once-through natural
uranium fuel cycle in heavy-water reactors, (ii) re-fabrication
and reprocessing, (iii) the economics of thorium and alterna-
tive fuel cycles, and (iv) thorium resources and prices. All of
these economic factors are related to several more economic
issues. Part of the purpose of this section is to elaborate upon
the details. The other aim is to use the economic issues identi-
fied in this section for establishing recent progress in Section 6
and to determine the status of the economic conditions that
present opportunities and challenges for adopting thorium-
based fuel cycles. For discussion on other national and
international perspectives on thorium fuel cycles, the reader
is referred to Revol [3] and Lung [94].
5.1. Economic conditions in Canada for adopting the
natural uranium fuel cycle in a heavy-water reactor
Canada’s participation in developing and adopting breeding
and thorium fuel cycles began in the latter half of the 1940s
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 7
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
[95], which preceded Canada’s adoption of atomic power.
Canada’s Nuclear Power program, like in the United States
and United Kingdom, arose at a time when the widely
acknowledged view within the nascent nuclear industry
was that using U-235 was a temporary means to sustaining
an atomic energy program, because the primary dominant
fissile material would be U-233 or Pu-239 [95,96].
A heavy-water reactor’s potential to use U-233 or Pu-239
was a consideration in Canada’s Nuclear Power program
[69,97,98]; however, to achieve the objectives of breeding
required adopting atomic energy in the first place, and this
step required other considerations.
The development and adoption of the Canadian-designed
heavy-water reactor, which was characterized as a high
capital and low fuel cost design [99,100], was enabled by
several economic conditions:
1. hydropower was expected to reach full capacity;
2. Ontario’s electric utility had a “large inter-connected sys-
tem that could absorb large blocks of base-load power,
and as a publicly-owned non-profit organization, the
capital charges were low”;
3. the reactor use of heavy water as the moderator, which
allowed the use of natural uranium from a domestic
source (Ontario), avoided importing enriched fuel, and
ease of replacement of equipment; and
4. Canada had research and development experience with
heavy-water research reactors [71,87,98–108].
All of these conditions enabled the adoption of a heavy-
water reactor, but the basic justification for Canada to adopt
a heavy-water reactor was as follows. Ontario had a grow-
ing demand for electricity that was expected to continue.
To meet that demand, Ontario would have to rely on
importing coal from the United States. By relying on a for-
eign fuel source to meet a growing demand for electricity,
it was believed that Ontario would “increase the undesirable
imbalance of trade”[107,108]. The Canadian-designed
heavy-water reactor was, therefore, part of an economic
policy to generate and enable economic growth, and
to secure a long-term supply and maintain domestic
control over energy resources to meet domestic electricity
demand.
During the early phases of Canada Nuclear Power Program
(1960s), a research and development program for breeding
with thorium was considered, but Ontario Hydro, the pri-
mary utility interested in nuclear power reactors, declined
[109] because though thorium was considered more abun-
dant than uranium [110], at prices prevailing in the 1950s,
the uranium ore was more economical than thorium.
Additional reasons are likely the cost of the program and
uncertainty of the outcome [109].
Thus, the reasons for adopting a once-through natural ura-
nium fuel cycle as cost effective were also barriers for adopt-
ing a thorium fuel cycle in heavy-water reactors in Canada.
These barriers would persist over time, and the once-
through natural uranium fuel cycle would become the
default option of economic choice when comparing fuel
cycles in Canada, which made the price of natural uranium
ore an important factor in the economic analysis of tho-
rium-based, plutonium-based, and other uranium-based fuel
cycles.
5.2. Refabrication and reprocessing costs
Major issues identified in past economic studies on thorium
fuel cycles were the long time scale and additional or higher
costs to close the thorium-based fuel cycle (recycling
U-233). Since thorium is a fertile material, the use of thorium
required a fissionable material before the benefits of bred
U-233 could materialize [79,111]. The following issues con-
tributed to higher and uncertainty in costs to closing the tho-
rium fuel cycle: “reprocessing the fuel to recover the U-233”
[79,96,112], remotely fabricating new fuel containing radio-
active U-232 [8,79,96,112,113], and the uncertainties asso-
ciated with fast reactors [36,96,114,115]. The uncertainties
associated with fast reactors were not an issue for Canada,
since Canadian studies relied primarily on using heavy-water
reactors as thermal breeders (discussed in Section 4).
Table 3,fromJames[27], provides an example of a thorium
fuel cycle comparison to a natural uranium fuel cycle. The
table shows that refabrication and reprocessing added costs
to a thorium fuel cycle, which was more expensive than a
natural uranium fuel cycle.
Fabrication, refabrication, andreprocessingcostsfortho-
rium-based and plutonium-based fuel cycle studies, such as
James [27], were estimated by the equation
$=kg =ðCD+CO+CCÞR+O+D
XF (10)
where C
D
is the design and construction cost ($), C
O
is the
owners cost during construction ($), C
C
isthechargeon
direct capital during construction ($), Ris the annual fixed
charge on capital (fraction per year), Ois the annual operat-
ing and maintenance cost ($ per year), Dis the annual pay-
ment to establish a fund for decommissioning ($ per year),
Xis the nominal design capacity of the plant, and Fis the frac-
tion of design capacity achieved [116–121]. Equation (10)
shows that the unit cost of reprocessing and refabrication
is inversely related to the nominal design capacity and the
fraction of design capacity achieved. Figure 7 (data based
on Blahnik [120]) shows the unit cost (Canadian (CAN)
$ per kgHM) of fabricating natural uranium and U-233 for
capacity factors, and depicts the inverse relationship
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
8
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
between unit costs and capacity factors. In addition, like in
James [27], the unit cost of fabricating natural uranium is
more economical than fabricating U-233, and the difference
widens as capacity declines. This relationship holds even if
private financing is used [120].
Reprocessing facilities have typically been used at low capac-
ity [122–124]; however, the economics of reprocessing may
not be the same for all reprocessing facilities, since different
facilities may have different levels of productivity [122,
124]. In regards to fuel fabrication costs, past studies on tho-
rium used costs associated with mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fab-
rication facilities. The cost of this type of facility was about 3
to 4 times more expensive than fabricating uranium dioxide
[125]. A primary reason for the higher cost was attributed
to the small size of the MOX fuel fabrication facilities, which
were usually built for the early stages of commercial devel-
opment [125]. Other aspects that had an economic impact
on reprocessing and fabrication were, for instance, financing,
safety and radiation protection, and licensing associated with
MOX fuel [3,94,112,125–132]. In addition, given past expe-
rience in constructing complex reprocessing and fuel fabrica-
tion plants, it is reasonable to assume a substantial increase
in capital costs to account for start-up costs [117].
Because of the costs associated with reprocessing and fabri-
cation of U-233 fuel, the long-term goals of implementing
thorium-based fuels in a closed fuel cycle have been strategi-
cally approached in terms of a “wait and see”strategy. More
recently, for example, Greneche [8] claimed that “in a few
decades, the emergence of new constraints could change the
current situation and lead to industrial deployment of fuel
cycles based on thorium”. Therefore, this approach advocates
waiting for change rather than changing the deployment or
implementation strategy to suit existing economic conditions
(for example, waiting for the price of reprocessing and ura-
nium enrichment to fall or the price of uranium ore to rise
or both). As will be seen later, even when the latter strategy
was tested, there were still issues associated with the
deployment of thorium in the short term.
In addition to reprocessing and fabrication, uranium enrich-
ment was considered to add a cost to implementing a tho-
rium fuel cycle and was an obstacle to both long-term and
near-term implementation of thorium-based fuels [27].
Despite the accumulated experience with fabrication, reproc-
essing and enrichment facilities [3,16,133–141], the corre-
sponding fuel cycle activities posed economic challenges.
5.3. Economical alternative fuel cycles
As a response to the technical and economic difficulties of
implementing a thorium fuel cycle in the long term, research
shifted to focus on assessing potential options for deploying
thorium on a shorter time scale in a cost-effective manner.
Short-term strategies for implementing thorium-based fuel
cycles are characterized by using prevailing economic
TABLE 3. Fuel cycle costs at equilibrium with U-235 topping (U
3
O
8
at 40 $/lb).
Nuclear fuel cycle activity
Fuel cycle costs $/kg HE
Natural uranium
cycle ($/kg HE)
Thorium with various U-235
topping enrichments (g/kg HE)
012
Natural uranium 91 ———
Thorium —44 44 44
Fuel fabrication 44 160 160 160
U-235 topping ——43 86
Reprocessing —206 206 206
Total unit costs ($) 135 410 453 496
Burn-up (MWd/kg HE) 7.5 13.5 19.0 23.8
Fuel unit cost (m$/kWh) 2.46 4.15 3.26 2.85
FIGURE 7. Unit reprocessing cost with various design
capacity (with industrial type financing).
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 9
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
conditions, as opposed to future possibilities, as a reference
in decision making [36,142]. For example, consideration
was given to using existing reactor technology, combined
with a once-through thorium (OTT) fuel cycle. In regards to
shortening the time scale and cost of deployment, the works
of Lane [36], Lewis [143] (on a valubreeder fuel cycle), and
Milgram [21,79] were indicative of that change in direction
and identified options to address some of the gaps. Galperin
[144] also looked at shortening the fuel cycle, but unlike
Milgram in particular, the fuel cycles evaluated by Galperin
relied on reprocessing. In Milgram’sanalysisofGalperin’s
work, OTT fuel cycles were identified as a strategy that could
enable achieving the long-termobjectivesofimplementing
thorium-based fuels [113].
Milgram [21,79] and AECL continued to study OTT fuel
cycles. Part of the results from that work, according to
Boczar et al. [145–149], was that the “optimal OTT cycle is
economical today, both in terms of money and in terms of ura-
nium resources”—the term “economical”was understood to
include that the alternative was comparable. If this statement
was true, then why was thorium in the form of an OTT fuel
cycle not implemented (or commercialized)?
This question can partially be answered by looking at the
following subsequent developments:
1. After Milgram’s initial OTT studies, AECL’s[146–149]
preliminary analyses and Ontario Hydro’sfuelcycle
economics analysis [150–152] indicated that the use
of slightly enriched uranium (SEU) would be more
economical than the use of natural uranium (NU), and
thorium-based fuels.
2. The price of natural uranium used in Milgram’s analysis
did not reflect ongoing and future trends.
3. The price of natural thorium in Milgram’sanalysis
reflected a different view of the production process for
thorium than that used by Ontario Hydro.
Each of these developments is discussed in more detail
below.
5.3.1. SEU fuel is more economical than NU or
OTT fuels
Table 4 illustrates some of the conclusions from the first sub-
sequent development. For example, the design case concept
40A, which involves 35 elements of 2.822 wt% U-235/U
SEU, and 8 central thorium fuel elements, has front-end fuel
costs that are approximately 26% higher than the 37-
element NU fuel. In regards to natural uranium utilization,
the design case concept 40A used 21% less natural uranium
per annual electrical power generated than the once-through
natural uranium fuel cycle. In contrast to the design case
concept 40A, the pure SEU 43-element fuel concept had
front-end fuel costs that were approximately 4% lower than
a 37-element natural uranium bundle, and uses about 31%
less natural uranium per annual electrical power generated
than the 37-element NU fuel. Therefore, AECL studies con-
cluded that the front-end fuel costs for OTT fuel cycles did
not appear to be more economical than the conventional
37-element NU fuel bundle used in Canadian heavy-water
reactors, or the 43-element/CANFLEX SEU fuel bundle
concept.
A SEU, or low enriched uranium (LEU), fuel concept with 0.9%
enrichment was studied, amongst many other fuel cycles, by
Ontario Hydro in a series of stages starting in the 1970s
[150–152]. In the second stage, which took place in the
1980s, the “major conclusion of the study was that the LEU fuel
cycle was economically attractive immediately and, remarkably,
TABLE 4. Front end OTT fuel cycle costs in the 1990s at AECL.
Case Brief case description
Exit burnup
(MWd/kgHE)
NU feed per electrical
energy (MgNU/GW
e
-a)
Front end fuel cost
(M CAN$/GW
e
-a)
NATU CANFLEX: NU in all elements 7.65 159.2 19.6
C37EL 37-element CANDU fuel bundle; NU in all elements 7.93 153.5 16.6
Th-SEU CANFLEX: Thoria in 8 central elements; 1.2 wt% enr SEU in outer
35 elements
7.52 245.8 38.7
SEU CANFLEX: 1.2 wt% enr SEU in all elements 21.84 109.1 16.0
20A CANFLEX: Thoria in 8 central elements; 1.675 wt% enr SEU in outer
35 elements
19.99 136.4 22.0
20B CANFLEX: 1.675 wt% enr SEU in all elements 31.89 110.2 17.0
40A CANFLEX: Thoria in 8 central elements; 2.822 wt% enr SEU in
outer 35 elements
40.01 121.1 20.9
40B CANFLEX: 2.822 wt% enr SEU in all elements 51.64 121.0 20.4
60A CANFLEX: Thoria in 8 central elements; 4.281 wt% enr SEU in outer
35 elements
60.00 125.8 22.9
60B CANFLEX: 4.281 wt% enr SEU in all elements 73.40 132.5 23.7
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
10
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
that LEU would remain the economically optimum option for
Ontario for many decades, regardless of future trends in nuclear
growth or uranium price. Thus, there was no need to develop an
advanced fuel cycle with high priority”[150].
Favoring the introduction of a SEU fuel cycle would, thus,
delay or impede the implementation of thorium [153]. The
SEU fuel concept was not implemented in Canada, though a
SEU fuel concept was implemented in Argentina [154,155].
There are other economic factors related to the SEU fuel
cycle that may explain why an OTT fuel cycle was not
adopted. First, according to Boczar et al. [151], a key consid-
eration for utilities in adopting a SEU fuel cycle would be to
obtain high capacity factors, in which case “utilities may not
wish to make significant changes to the refuelling methodo-
logy, even if such changes may have distinct advantages with
SEU fuel, such as greater operating margins or lower fuelling
costs. For this reason, Ontario Hydro favours the use of 0.9%
SEU in operating CANDUs with the current 37-element bundle
design, since no changes would be required in the current refu-
elling procedure”. Testing the impact of a SEU fuel concept on
capacity factors in “a large scale irradiation in a commercial
power reactor”[151] was not conducted in Canada. This type
of gap at a full scale posed a similar issue for deploying tho-
rium, since the thorium cycle had not been developed any
further than the SEU fuel cycle in Canada.
Second, implementing LEU fuel cycle could have had a num-
ber of potential consequences for nuclear fuel supply compa-
nies in Canada. The higher burnup of the LEU concept studied
by Ontario Hydro would “lead to about a 50 percent reduction
in the production rate of fuel bundles”[152]. The reduction in
the production of fuel bundles would have had an adverse
effect on Canadian fuel fabrication, though it would have
had positive effects for companies that have or invest in con-
version and enrichment facilities [152]. Acquiring enriched
uranium would have required either purchasing from abroad
or developing a domestic industry [152]. Similar impacts
could apply to nuclear fuel supply companies if a thorium-
based fuel with uranium enrichment were to be adopted.
5.3.2. Declining prices of uranium ore
During a conference in 1992, Michel [156]reportedthatat
the time, spot prices for uranium were “far below the level
which would permit any producer to develop new mines and
achieve a reasonable return on its investment”. Uranium ore
prices were declining—something similar exists now (see
section 6.4)—and the supply of uranium was increasing,
which was made more complicated by the transition from
high-cost reserves to the discovery of lower-cost deposits
and other economic factors affecting the uranium industry
in North America [142,156].
An impact of lower uranium prices was lower expenditures
on uranium exploration. During 1970–1990 there was a
tendency for uranium exploration to follow the direction of
prices (Figure 8, reproduced from Cranstone [157]).
Anotherfactorthataffectedthe uranium industry was the
impact of unrealistic forecasts of the amount of uranium
required and prices, which were made in the past [79,
156–158]. For instance, from the 1980s to early 1990s,
actual uranium ore prices declined from about CAN$90 to
CAN$50 per kilogram [159–162]. Ontario Hydro’s study for
evaluating fuel cycles [158], however, relied on forecasted
prices of uranium ore rising from CAN$50 to CAN$100 per
kilogram over the same period. The impact of these errone-
ous forecasts was investments in fixed capital that were
later underutilized. This impact raised the unit cost of
uranium production since a facility was operating below
maximum capacity. In regards to revenue streams, many
buyers of uranium used fixed-price contracts over long
periods of time, which are still in use in the nuclear industry
[163]. In 1993, Smith [164] claimed that until “recently,
only about 5% of the uranium was sold by short-term ‘spot’
contracts”for the international market. In regards to the
length of contracts, some buyers purchased 2–3yearsof
uranium inventory [156] and some as much as 30 years
[165]. The price of long-term contracts frequently reflected
the spot market price of uranium [156], which would have
a negative impact on profitability during the 1980s and
early 1990s.
The use of long-term contracts was in part motivated by the
perception that there would be a shortage of natural ura-
nium [156]. A second reason for the long-term planning
was the “long lead times required to turn a uranium discovery
into a productive mine”[156], which could be 6–8 years [156,
157]. The Uranium Resource Appraisal Group [162] provides
some national data on the uranium industry’s expenditure on
FIGURE 8. Exploration expenditures follow uranium price.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 11
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
exploration, which locks in companies to exploit existing
mines as much as they can before moving on to alternative
opportunities.
Since uranium-producing companies faced conditions of
reduced profitability, and had made long-term commitments
to uranium mines, the economic conditions did not enable
companies to find alternative sources of revenue for which
they could provide an investment for supplying thorium
(see McClure [166] for the types and costs of investments
needed to supply thorium from a Canadian perspective).
5.4. Thorium resources and raw material costs
A question raised in previous thorium studies [36]was“Are
thorium resources adequate to support a large-scale industry
based on the use of thorium?”A common answer to that ques-
tion is that thorium is about 3 times more abundant than
uranium in the earth’s crust [13]. Thus, the short and simple
answer is “yes”. In one type of study, for instance Kasten [26],
the abundance assumption was taken for granted. In a sec-
ond type of study, for example Lane [36], an estimate of tho-
rium available was provided and compared with the
required thorium for an expected level of power generation.
In a third kind of study [153,166], there was a focus on the
facilities and processes required to produce thorium on a
commercial scale without regard for a specific reactor or
conducting fuel cycle costs analysis. This last type of study
was useful for pointing out the limitations of the infrastruc-
ture that existed for commercial purposes, even if some of
the knowledge to produce thorium did exist. Finally, there
were more comprehensive studies [167] that were a combi-
nation of the last 2 types of studies. The general consensus
in the literature was that there would be sufficient thorium
forcommercialpurposesinthe“long run”,althoughwhat
was meant by the “long run”was rarely discussed or defined
in studies regarding uranium and thorium resources. More
recent studies [14,15] have reached a similar conclusion on
the abundance of thorium.
Milgram [79] used the abundance assumption in determin-
ing the price of thorium. Milgram assumed a priori that the
price of thorium was one-third that of uranium, because it
was assumed that thorium was about 3 times more abundant
than uranium. This assumption in regards to price, however,
ignored all the difficulties that are encountered in extracting
and producing thorium for nuclear grade fuel, which may
increase its raw material cost relative to uranium. This
assumption, as explained by James [27], depends on the view
that thorium could be produced as a by-product rather than
a co-product. Distinguishing between co-products and by-
products leads to different costing formulae for assigning
costs [168] and, therefore, leads to different prices.
James [27] would further explain that “as thorium demand
expands, the thorium sales will presumably be treated as an
integral part of the whole [business] operation. A proportion
of the exploration, mining and overhead expenses may then
be attributed to the thorium recovery operation: the thorium
would have co-product rather than by-product status, and
would be priced accordingly.”In contrast to Milgram’s analy-
sis [79], which implied a price of $29.98 per kilogram of tho-
rium, James [27] used a price of $44.09 per kilogram of
thorium as a base price. In the 1980s, Ontario Hydro would
go on to eliminate thorium fuel cycles from their fuel cycle
studies and gave the SEU fuel cycle a higher priority.
Therefore, different perspectives on how thorium was to be
produced for the market led to different estimates in pricing
natural thorium, which had further ramifications for estimat-
ing fuel cycle costs and led to different conclusions about the
viability of an economical thorium fuel cycle.
About a decade before James’assessment, it was believed that
Canada had potentially low-cost thorium as a by-product of
uranium ore mining [169]. However, at that time uranium
ore production was at approximately two-thirds capacity,
and countries were building reactors for uranium-based fuels
[169]. In the end, thorium was not pursued any further as a
mining product. Based on this discussion and the previous
section, it may be concluded that nuclear demand for thorium
will emerge as the result of a shortage of uranium, higher ura-
nium prices (for instance, as a consequence of using low grade
uranium ore [170]), or when reactors designed for using tho-
rium get built.
6. Recent Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities
to Address Economic Issues for Implementing
Thorium-Based Fuels
The purpose of this section is to identify some of the
progress, gaps, and opportunities in implementing thorium
that are relevant to Canada since the end of the first nuclear
era (1942–1995). Some of the recent progress and opportu-
nities stem from CNL’s Thoria Roadmap Project, which began
in 2011 [16]. The aim of this project was to identify
and address gaps in 11 science and technology areas [16]:
(i) thoria supply, (ii) fabrication technology, (iii) irradiation
testing and postirradiation examination, (iv) materials prop-
erties characterization, (v) modelling thoria fuel behaviour,
(vi) fuel safety (including defected thoria fuel behaviour),
(vii) reactor physics, (viii) radiation protection and dosim-
etry, (ix) waste management, (x) reprocessing, and (xi)non-
proliferation (safeguards). In relation to this project, the
discussion below will discuss the progress on the economic
issues regarding thoria supply, fabrication, and reprocessing.
6.1. Estimating manufacturing costs and time to
fabricate thorium-based fuel in the near-term
Lahoda [171] conducted an assessment of American fuel
manufacturers’capability to manufacture thorium–uranium
dioxide fuel in plants that have manufactured uranium
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
12
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
dioxide (UO
2
)with<5% U-235 enrichment in light-water
reactors. This study included the technological feasibility,
time, and cost estimates for setting up an existing fuel manu-
facture facility and the associated licensing. A key conclusion
of the study was that the incremental fuel fabrication cost for
a thorium-based fuel containing 75% thorium dioxide (ThO
2
)
and 25% UO
2
, when compared with a 100% UO
2
only fuel,
would be about US$ 270/kg to US$ 292/kg depending
on the process option, whereas for a thorium-based fuel
containing 70% ThO
2
and 30% UO
2
the incremental cost
increase was about US$ 519/kg to US$ 542/kg depending
on the process option—roughly, an increase of 28%–53%
when compared with the fabrication of a 100% UO
2
only
fuel. A similar updated study for Canadian heavy-water reac-
tor designs does not yet exist.
6.2. Developing more economical thorium-based
fuel concepts
Based on the review in Section 5, the issue of identifying and
developing thorium-based fuel concepts that enhance re-
source utilization and that are comparable, or lower in cost,
to the use of uranium (natural or enriched) was a gap.
Recent work by Colton et al. [172,173] identified a slightly
enriched uranium fuel concept augmented by small amounts
of thorium for use in generic pressure tube heavy-water
reactors (PT-HWRs) [174]. This concept and others [175,
176], may have fuel costs lower than natural uranium fuel.
Future work can build on these results by providing more
comprehensive estimated life cycle costs and consider a com-
parison to additional fuel concepts, which can also meet
operational safety needs [177–181].
Identifying a fuel concept using thorium that can be compa-
rable or less expensive than an existing uranium fuel cycle
may be of economic importance to countries that deploy
either natural uranium (such as Canada or China) or slightly
enriched uranium (such as Argentina), and nations that have
relatively large thorium reserves, such as India, Turkey,
Brazil, and Australia [13].
6.3. China developing as a target market for selling
thorium-based fuel
In Section 5, Ontario Hydro was identified as a potential cli-
ent for implementing thorium-based fuels in a PT-HWR dur-
ing the first nuclear era; but, since the end of the first nuclear
era, China may be considered a new potential customer [13,
182–185]. The reasons for considering China as a potential
customer for the deployment of thorium stem from consider-
ation of the demand and supply conditions that may prevail
in China.
China’s economic policy on growth has shifted from an
export (external demand) driven economy to a domestic
demand (such as domestic consumption and investment)
led economy [186].Iftheaimsofthispolicyshiftare
successful, this shift could mean household expenditure pat-
terns that increase demand for electricity and place greater
stress on existing electrical grids.
Second, and as part of its industrialization, China has become
a large purchaser of raw material and then processing the
raw material itself to then sell the resulting product in
international markets [187]. As an example of applying this
policy in regards to thorium, China is already extracting tho-
rium from rare earth material mines for nuclear energy
[188]. Furthermore, China has recovered thorium with a
purity of up to 99.999% on a laboratory scale [188].
Third, China’s natural uranium supply is expected to be
insufficient to keep up with the “speed of nuclear power
development because of low production and poor deposits”of
uranium ore [189].
All of these economic factors could affect China’stradebal-
ance position, which has a trade surplus [186]. Given coun-
tries have a rational basis for obtaining and maintaining a
trade surplus [190,191], it is therefore important to show
how the use of thorium-based fuels will impact China’s trade
balance. Towards this end, a new study shows that if China
and India were to adopt some thorium-based fuels for their
heavy-water reactor programs, they could potentially reduce
their net imports of uranium by approximately 19% [192].
However, further assessments are needed to “consider the
resources available, the cost of developing resources (including
fuel fabrication), and the extent to which resources will be
available for a growing nuclear power program”,andthe
impact of uncertainties surrounding the supply and demand
of thorium [14,15,192].
6.4. Recent decline in natural uranium prices
Uranium ore prices (both short and long term) declined from
approximately 2007 to 2016, and since then, prices have
remained low [193]. The decline in uranium ore prices
presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Given the
discussioninSection5,itislikelythatcompaniesinthe
uranium industry will receive less revenue, and reduced
profits. In addition, countries that import uranium will likely
have lower costs and improve their trade balance. Thus, in
evaluating the implementation of thorium-based fuels, the
economic impacts of adopting thorium-based fuels may
incorporate the new challenges posed by declining ore
prices.
A potential future challenge for deploying may be the extrac-
tion of uranium from seawater, which is currently not eco-
nomical when compared with mining uranium [194]or
potentially thorium [195]; however, new methods are cur-
rently under development for reducing the cost of extracting
uranium from seawater [195]. Just as there are challenges for
deploying thorium, there are opportunities.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 13
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
A type of opportunity to consider is the economic condition
of companies that extract thorium as a by-product or co-
product. For example, the majority of thorium production
by Rhône-Poulenc Industries (a large multinational chemical
company that separated rare earth materials), which pro-
vided AECL with thorium for laboratory testing [196] during
the first nuclear era, was not sold and had to be stockpiled.
Since stockpiling is a cost, Rhône-Poulenc considered tho-
rium a problem and wanted to sell a large proportion of their
production [197]—see Holland et al. [168] for costing formu-
lation, which includes inventory as a cost. Rhône-Poulenc
would elaborate further on its position, in particular, the
company viewed new applications of rare earths (including
their co-products such as thorium) as a way of diversifying
risk for both producers and users of rare earths and
co-products [197]. The most recent company seeking a
commercial opportunity with its nuclear grade thorium is
Solvay [198].
In addition, sufficient quantities of thorium as a by-product
extracted from titanium and other minerals may exist to
supply the nuclear industry in the near future [14,15,
199]. The extraction of thorium as a by-product from
existing mining infrastructure could likely sustain low pric-
es of thorium [14,15,192]; hence, the development of tho-
rium fuel cycles would likely reduce ore costs and enable a
relatively shorter deployment period of thorium [192].
However, given the uncertainties associated with supply
[14], more comprehensive studies [14,15,200]are
required, which can then be used in relation to ore pricing,
fuel cycle costs, industrial organization and macroeconomic
conditions [192].
Another opportunity stems from understanding that some
uranium companies, for example, Cameco, also fabricate
nuclear fuels. In this case, the fabrication of thorium-based
fuels may provide a new revenue stream that may help com-
pensate for the reduction in revenue due to low uranium ore
prices. Given the discussion in Section 5, the investments
required for developing thorium-based fuels will likely have
tobekeptataminimum(aswasthecaseforslightly
enriched uranium [201]), in which case, using existing facili-
ties will be important. In addition, the deployment of tho-
rium and its domestic use would enable a greater amount
of uranium to be exported, though a study of such an oppor-
tunity would require an in-depth analysis, which could con-
sider such factors as low uranium prices and net global
demand for uranium.
6.5. Potential ways to overcome the re-fabrication and
reprocessing challenge
The economics of refabrication and reprocessing remains a
challenge today [3], but there are potential options to
consider for overcoming these challenges, which can be
classified into 3 types of options: (i) alternative fuel manage-
ment strategies [144], (ii) alternative fuels that eliminate a
fuel cycle activity [202,203], and (iii) alternative design
strategies of refabrication and reprocessing facilities
[122–124,204–206].
An example of the first type of option is to reconsider the
thorium fuel cycle strategy proposed by Galperin [144],
which still required using reprocessing. According to this
option, different “reload rates for thorium and uranium
make it possible to avoid excessive uranium investment
at the beginning of cycle (BOC) and associated economic
penalty”[144].
An example of the second option is to consider the use of a
dry process technology, which includes the direct use of
spent pressurized water reactor (DUPIC) fuel with thorium
in a Canadian-designed heavy-water reactor [203]. This
option is notable for avoiding the use of reprocessing, though
it would require a remote fabrication facility. In regards to
fabricating DUPIC fuel, which was developed by Canada,
South Korea, and the United States, the latest status report
[207]suggestsfuelelementshave been successfully fabri-
cated on a laboratory scale.
Both options in [144,203] potentially provide opportunities
for using thorium-based fuels that could have lower fuel
cycle costs than a once-through natural uranium fuel cycle
in a Canadian-designed heavy-water reactor. Further studies
will be required to understand the significance of these
optionsinrelationtoobtainingU-233undervaryingeco-
nomic conditions. In addition, understanding differences in
design characteristics and historical performances of reproc-
essing and fabrication facilities in relation to the impact on
economics may prove useful in the future to making long-
term implementation of thorium fuel cycles more economi-
cally competitive.
6.6. Developing a diverse client-base for thorium-based
fuels
China, like Australia, Brazil, and Canada, faces a potential
macroeconomic risk of an economic downturn due to
increasing household debt [208]. Given that countries with
potentially high thorium reserves are facing increasing
macroeconomic risk, it would be prudent to consider devel-
oping thorium-based fuels for nations with different needs.
A market segment to consider for using thorium could be
nations seeking to control excess supply of plutonium, for
example, the United Kingdom and Japan [209–212].
A second market segment to consider is electrical utilities
with aging nuclear reactors. Electrical utilities with aging
reactors are facing the challenge of competing with renew-
ables [12]. In the United States, for example, some nuclear
power plants have early retirements due to unfavourable
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
14
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
economics [213]. However, in the case of Ontario, Canada,
nuclear power generation remains more economical than,
for instance, gas and wind by approximately 51% and 49%,
respectively [214]. In addition, a recent preliminary study
suggests a recycling fuel cycle could be still leave nuclear
power generation potentially more economic than fossil fuel
and renewables [176], which could be important to nations
with limited uranium resources and polices aimed at diversi-
fying their fuel types and sources. The competitive advantage
of nuclear power generation has not impeded companies
such as Bruce Power (in Ontario) from seeking alternatives
revenue streams, such as producing isotopes [215].
Alternative streams of revenue for nuclear power generators
are hydrogen (and other heat production related products)
and potable water [12].
6.7. Inventory & financing of thermal and fast breeders
In past breeding and fuel cycle studies [26,28,50,53,55,58,
68,110,216–221], fuel inventory (and corresponding costs),
and doubling time were considered important economic fac-
tors for developing thorium-based and plutonium-based
fuels in thermal and fast breeders; in addition, financing
charges from private versus public financing of fuel inven-
tory and breeders were also considered. More recent studies
of these related factors do not yet exist. An updated study is
important because, historically, some thermal breeders with
U-233 fuel were considered to have lower inventory and
reactor costs than fast breeders with Pu-239 fuel; but both
kinds of breeders were estimated to have higher inventory
and reactor costs than conventional reactors with once-
through uranium-based fuel cycles even though both types
of breeders were estimated to have higher conversion ratios.
In addition, future economics studies, like in some past stud-
ies [53,55,88,222–227], could consider a synergy of con-
verters and breeders (symbiotic systems) as a way to
address some of the economic issues discussed—and per-
haps proliferation concerns [53,227].
6.8. Economic planning for cycles and uncertainty in
research & development, investments, financing, and
energy and economic growth policies
In light of the discussion in this study, it seems appropriate
to draw some broad lessons for future economic planning
for developing and commercializing thorium-based fuel
cycles.
In 1979, Kasten et al. [228] estimated the cost (US dollars
1978) of developing commercial recycle of bred fuel around
$1.3 to $3.6 billion (not including first-of-a-kind costs for
commercial facilities) and the time to commercialize ranged
from 12 to 20 years, “with thorium fuel cycles considered at
the far end of the development time range”. An assessment
comparing the estimates to actual costs and more recent esti-
mates do not seem to exist for thorium-based fuel cycles.
Second, research and development interests, investments,
and financing ebb and flow in a similar manner. Figure 9
(data from Krahn and Worrell [229]) presents thorium fuel
cycle research and development publications for every de-
cade from before 1961 to the present. If the number of pub-
lications are taken as a proxy for the amount of interest in
thorium research and development, then the interest in tho-
rium goes through cycles, which follows a similar pattern to
investments in uranium exploration and uranium prices
(Figure 8). The peak interest in thorium research and devel-
oped in 1971–1980, for instance, coincides with the same
period that uranium prices and exploration peaked, whereas
the waning of interest in thorium research and development
was at a time when the price of uranium and exploration
declined.
Financing, investment and adoption of technology in general
go through cycles [230,231]—business cycles, so the same
would likely apply to commercial fuel cycle facilities and
reactors. It is, therefore, important to account for the incen-
tives that drive research and development when planning
for future research and development on thorium, so as to
ensure that future projects will have sufficient financing to
complete projects and have an impact on commercialization.
The third observation is that research and development,
financing investments, and adopting technology are activities
undertaken with an element of uncertainty [228,230–232].
As noted in Section 5, proposed new fuel cycles and reactors
are not always adopted. The economic aspects affecting this
type of decision could be taken into account in the future to
improve research and development outcomes. Delays and
progress over time affect the uncertainty and risk under-
taken in each activity. Moreover, there are uncertainties
associated with macroeconomics factors such as financial cri-
ses, which may in turn affect these activities. For instance,
the current state of financing new nuclear power plants is
affected by the historical record of nuclear cost escalation
FIGURE 9. Thorium fuel cycle publications over time.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 15
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
and bank lending restrictions due to the global financial cri-
ses (2007–2008) [233]. To address the issue of macroeco-
nomic risk, certain multi-sectoral macro models may be
used [234], since they were able to predict the global finan-
cial crises.
Fourth, nuclear power programs were historically framed
partially in terms of their ability to achieve energy security.
The2viewsofenergysecuritywere(i) energy independ-
ence (reducing import dependence) and (ii)todiversify
energy sources [235–237]. The other political economic
aspects that nuclear power development has had to contend
with are energy conservation and economic prosperity
[237–239].
Since future economic planning studies for developing and
adopting thorium fuel cycles will need to consider the cycles
and uncertainty associated with research and development,
financing investments, and energy and economic growth pol-
icies, combining multi-sectoral macroeconomic analysis with
recent energy return on investment analysis [240–242]may
offer a new path forward to meet the challenges and build on
progress.
Fifth, given the different typesofeconomicchallengesand
opportunities available today, an economic analysis that
goes beyond the traditional fuel cycle cost and total power
generation cost analysis is needed to provide an overall
assessment of the economic viability of implementing
thorium-based fuels. Economic methods vary depending on
the purpose of an analysis. A brief list of methods commonly
found in the economics literature are project cost manage-
ment and cost minimization [243,244], benefit-cost analysis
[245–247], profitability analysis [248,249], industrial
dynamics [250,251], and multi-sectoral macroeconomic
analysis [252–256] could be used to evaluate the develop-
ment and implementation of thorium-based fuels.
7. Conclusion
A recent international review of thorium by Greneche [8]
concluded that it was unlikely for a majority of countries to
meet the conditions in the near future to justify the research
and development and the heavy industrial investments
needed to deploy thorium fuel cycles on a very large scale,
although such conditions would not preclude the deploy-
ment of various thorium-based fuel cycles at a smaller scale
in prototype and demonstration facilities. Greneche’s conclu-
sion seems to be supported by the decline in uranium ore
prices from 2012 to the present, and the persistent invest-
ment challenges, since such economic conditions have
delayed the implementation of thorium-based fuel concepts
in Canada. Declining uranium ore prices will reduce revenue
to companies and nations (such as Canada, Australia, and
Kazakhstan) that mine and export uranium ore.
However, to counteract the economic challenges in develop-
ing thorium-based fuels, the lessons from the review in this
report may be used to develop a strategy for Canada for
implementing a thorium-based fuel concept in the near term
as follows.
Current research on thorium-based fuel concepts indicates
that there are promising options of deploying OTT fuel cycles
that may be more economical than conventional natural ura-
nium fuel bundles in PT-HWR, which can benefit Canada’s
nuclear fuel supply industry.
These thorium-based fuel concepts build on Canada’s
existing knowledge, people’s experience and skills, technol-
ogy, and facilities. Thus, deploying a once-through thorium-
based fuel could provide a potential means of minimizing
the investments associated with the deployment of tho-
rium-based fuels in the near-term.
Canada’s commitment to address the global need to reduce
greenhouse gas emission, as evidenced by ratification of the
Paris Agreement in 2016 [257], provides an additional incen-
tive for countries such as Canada to develop and implement
technological options to meet that global need. Future
demand for energy, which is expected to rise [5], will, there-
fore, also be accompanied by a demand for green technology.
Canada may contribute to the World Nuclear Association’s
Harmony program to further Canada’sandtherestofthe
world’s goals.
The Harmony program aims to address rising demand for
electricity and the need to reduce GHG and air pollution
through a cooperative effort by the international nuclear
community. To achieve this aim, the Harmony program has
an objective “to support the establishment of a level playing
field in energy markets that recognizes existing low-carbon
energy resources already in place and drives investment in
additional clean energy resources where nuclear energy is
treated on an equal level with other low-carbon technologies
and is recognized for its values in a reliable low-carbon energy
mix”[258]. Ontario’s experience in Canada is an example that
nuclear power generation canbemoreeconomicalthan
natural gas, wind, solar, and biomass energy even without
low-carbon incentives [214]. Canada can, thus, offer its expe-
rience with economically competitive nuclear power genera-
tion and thorium-based fuels with Canadian nuclear
technology to aid the world meet the global need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and demand for electricity and
green technology.
Therefore, there is an opportunity that could benefit Canada
to counteract current adverse economic conditions for the
implementation of thorium-based fuels. Short-term imple-
mentation of thorium-based fuels and international co-
operation may be used to enable further progress in
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
16
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
achieving the long-term objectives of deploying and imple-
menting thorium-based fuel cycles by providing the financial
and knowledge base for solving long-term technical and eco-
nomic challenges that can benefit human well-being.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the following individuals for their assis-
tance: Suzanne Sell, Jo-Anne Festarini, Mathew Leblanc,
Dylan Hoover, Tanya Wright, Samantha Scott, Robin Dennis,
Brittany Haley, Shanda Gimson, Herb Hanke, Megan Moore,
Geoff Edwards, and Daniel Wojtaszek. In addition, the
authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments
and suggestions. This study was funded by Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited, under the auspices of the Federal
Nuclear Science and Technology Program.
REFERENCES
[1] P.R. Kasten, 1982, “Practical Introduction of Thorium Fuel Cycles,”Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, CONF-821082-1.
[2] P.R. Kasten, 1970, “The Role of Thorium in Power-Reactor Development,”
Atomic Energy Review, 8(3), pp. 473–534.
[3] J.P.Revol,M.Bourquin,Y.Kadi,E.Lillestol,J.-C.deMestral,K.Samec,
(eds.), 2016, Thorium Energy for the World, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
[4] D. Greneche, 2016, “ThEC13 Summary and a Look into the Future,”in
ThoriumEnergyfortheWorld,EditedbyJ.P.Revol,etal.,Springer
International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
[5] International Energy Agency (IEA), 2016, “World Energy Outlook 2016:
Executive Summary,”IEA.
[6] B.R. Sehgal, 2016, “Feasibility and Desirability of Employing the Thorium
Fuel Cycle for Power Generation,”in Thorium Energy for the World, Edited
by J.P. Revol, et al., Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland,
pp. 77–87.
[7] H.A. Abderrahim, 2016, “Innovative Thorium Reactor Concepts,”in
ThoriumEnergyfortheWorld,EditedbyJ.P.Revol,etal.,Springer
International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 351–352.
[8] D. Greneche, 2016, “The Thorium Fuel Cycle: Past Achievements and
Future Prospects,”in Thorium Energy for the World, Edited by J.P. Revol,
et al., Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
[9] R. Bothwell, 1988, Nucleus: The History of Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, Canada.
[10] J. Chen and J.K. Galbraith, 2012, “A Common Framework for
Evolutionary and Institutional Economics,”Journal of Economic Issues,
46(2), pp. 419–428. doi: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624460217.
[11] J. Chen and J.K. Galbraith, 2011, Institutional Structures and Policies in
an Environment of Increasingly Scarce and Expensive Resources: A Fixed
Cost Perspective, Journal of Economic Issues, 45(2), pp. 301–308. doi:
10.2753/JEI0021-3624450206.
[12] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2012, “Nuclear Energy and Renewables:
System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems,”OECD, NEA No. 7056.
[13] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency,
2016, “Uranium 2016: Resources, Production and Demand,”OECD, NEA
No. 7301.
[14] T. Ault, S. Krahn, and A. Croff, 2015, “Assessment of the Potential of By-
Product Recovery of Thorium to Satisfy Demands of a Future Thorium Fuel
Cycle,”Nuclear Technology, 189(2), pp. 152–162; doi: 10.13182/NT14-19.
[15] T.Ault,B.V.Gosen,S.Krahn,andA.Croff,2016,“Natural Thorium
Resources and Recovery: Options and Impacts,”Nuclear Technology,
194(2), pp. 136–151; doi: 10.13182/NT15-83.
[16] M. Floyd, B. Bromley, and J. Pencer, 2016, “A Canadian Perspective on
Progress in Thoria Fuel Science and Technology,”CNL Nuclear Review,
6(1), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.12943/CNR.2016.00016.
[17] A.M. Weinberg, 1994, The First Nuclear Era, American Institute of
Physics, Melville, NY, USA.
[18] S.M. Cohn, 1997, Too Cheap to Meter: An Economic and Philosophical
Analysis of the Nuclear Dream, State University of New York Press, Albany,
NY, USA.
[19] C.E. Till, E.M. Bohn, Y.I. Chang, and J.B. van Erp, 1977, “ASurveyof
Considerations involved in introducing CANDU Reactors into the United
States,”Argonne National Laboratory, ANL-76-132.
[20] J. Veeder, 1978, “Thorium Fuel Cycles in CANDU,”Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited, AECL-6254.
[21] M.S. Milgram, 1984, “Thorium Fuel Cycles in CANDU Reactors:
A Review,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-8326.
[22] E.C. Moncrief and G. Schileo, 1968, “Recycle of Thorium Fuel for Heavy-
Water- Moderated Organic-Cooled Reactors,”in Proceedings of Second
International Thorium Fuel Cycle Symposium, Gatlinburg, TN, USA, 3–6
May 1966, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 157–184.
[23] P.R. Kasten, L.G. Alexander, R. Carlsmith, and R. Van Winkle, 1961,
“Economics of Thorium Fuel Cycles,”Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ORNL-CF-61-6-83.
[24] M.W. Rosenthal, R.E. Adams, and L.L. Bennett, 1965, “AComparative
Evaluation of Advanced Converters,”Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ORNL-3686.
[25] J.A. Lane, R.D. Cheverton, and P.R. Kasten, 1968, “Comparative
Evaluation of the Performance and Economics of Heavy-Water-Moderated
Reactors,”in Proceedings of the Symposium on Heavy-Water Power
Reactors held by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna,
Vienna, Austria, 11–15 September 1967, International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, Austria, pp. 563–581.
[26] P.R. Kasten, F.J. Homan, and E.J. Allen, 1977, “Assessment of the
Thorium Fuel Cycle in Power Reactors,”Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ORNL/TM-5565.
[27] R.A. James, 1978, “The Economics of Thorium Fuel Cycles,”Nuclear
Studies & Safety Department, Ontario Hydro, Report No. 77176.
[28] D.F. Babcock, R.R. Hood, and D.S. St. John, 1963, “Thorium-Fueled D
2
O-
Moderated Power Reactors,”E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, DP-864.
[29] R.R. Hood, 1964, “Heavy Water Moderated Power Reactors Progress
Report November–December 1963,”E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
DP-885.
[30] R.R. Hood, 1964, “Heavy Water Moderated Power Reactors Progress
Report May–June 1964,”E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, DP-915.
[31] Engineering Department, 1964, “Large Heavy Water Moderated Power
Reactors: An Engineering Feasibility Study,”E. I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Company, DP-899.
[32] R.A. James, 1980, “Advanced Fuel Cycles: A Rationale and strategy for
Adopting the Low-Enriched-Uranium Fuel Cycle,”Nuclear Studies & Safety
Department, Ontario Hydro, Report No. 80009.
[33] P. Rodriguez and C.V. Sundaram, 1981, “Nuclear and Materials
Aspects of the Thorium Fuel cycle,”Journal of Nuclear Materials, 100(1–3),
pp. 227–249. doi: 10.1016/0022-3115(81)90534-1.
[34] W.J. Penn, 1979, “Alternative Fuel Cycles: Which Options to Develop?”
Ontario Hydro, Report No. 79050.
[35] M. Todosow, A. Galperin, S. Herring, M. Kazimi, T. Downar, and
A. Morozov, 2005, “Use of Thorium in Light Water Reactors,”Nuclear
Technology, 151(2), pp. 168–176. doi: 10.13182/NT151-168.
[36] J.A. Lane, 1966, “Economic Incentive for Thorium Reactor
Development,”in Utilization of Thorium in Power Reactors, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, Technical Reports Series No. 52,
pp. 199–211.
[37] IEA Statistics© OECD/IEA 2014. WDI Database Archives, Electric
power consumption (kWh), Version: 2015 Apr. http://databank.worldbank.
org/data/reports.aspx?source=WDI-Archives [Accessed June 2017.]
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 17
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
[38] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2006, “Forty Years of Uranium
Resources, Production and Demand in Perspective,”OECD, NEA No. 6096.
[39] J.A. Lane, 1978, “Alternative New Energy Options for Brazil,”Instituto
de Energia Atomica, Sao Paulo, Brasil, IEA 064.
[40] J.R. Lamarsh, 1983, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering, 2nd ed.,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, USA.
[41] L.E. Link and W.H. Zinn, 1958, “Economics of Nuclear Power,”in
Nuclear Engineering Handbook, Edited by H. Etherington, McGraw-Hill,
New York City, NY, USA.
[42] L.C. Hebel, E.L. Christensen, F.A. Donath,W.E.Falconer,L.J.Lidofsky,
E.J. Moniz, et al., 1978, “Report to the American Physical Society by the study
group on nuclear fuel cycles and waste management,”Reviews of Modern
Physics, 50(1), pp. S1–S185. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.50.S1.
[43] L.G. Alexander, 1964, “Breeder Reactors,”Annual Review of Nuclear
Science, 14, pp. 287–322. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ns.14.120164.001443.
[44] L.J. Haworth, 1963, “Pertinent Considerations as seen by the AEC,”in
Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Atom Forum 1962: Achievements–
Policies–Goals, 26–28 November 1962, Atomic Industrial Forum, New York
City, NY, USA.
[45] R.J. Creagan and R.J. French, 1963, “Pressurized Water Reactors,”in
Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Atom Forum 1962: Achievements–
Policies–Goals, 26–28 November 1962, Atomic Industrial Forum, New York
City, NY, USA.
[46] G.T. Seaborg, 1967, “Nuclear Power—Two Years After Geneva,”Journal
of the British Nuclear Energy Society, pp. 10–23.
[47] P.R. Kasten, 1963, “An Evaluation of Thermal Breeding,”Nukleonik,
12(5), pp. 299–310.
[48] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2005, “Thorium Fuel
Cycle—Potential Benefits and Challenges,”IAEA, Vienna, Austria,
IAEA-TECDOC-1450.
[49] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2012, “Role of Thorium to
Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems,”IAEA, Vienna,
Austria, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-2.4.
[50] P.R. Kasten, 1968, “Thorium Breeders and Converters: Their Influence
on Fuel-Cycle Economics and Fuel Utilization,”in Thorium Fuel Cycle,
Proceedings of Second International Thorium Fuel Cycle Symposium,
3–6 May 1966, Gatlinburg, TN, USA, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
pp. 185–199.
[51] Oak Ridge National Laboratory andAmericanNuclearSociety,1963,
Proceedings of the Thorium Fuel Cycle Symposium, 5–7 December 1962,
Gatlinburg, TN, USA, United States Atomic Energy Commission.
[52] United States Atomic Energy Commission and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 1968, Thorium Fuel Cycle, Proceedings of Second International
Thorium Fuel Cycle Symposium, Gatlinburg, TN, USA, 3–6 May 1966,
United States Atomic Energy Commission.
[53] J.P. Howe, (ed), 1975, Proceedings of the Wingspread Conference on
Advanced Converters and Near Breeders, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
[54] D.R. Vondy, 1976, “On Nuclear Fuel, Mass Balances, Conversion Ratio,
Doubling Time and Uncertainty,”Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/
TM-5050.
[55] International Atomic Energy Agency, 1979, Status and Prospects of
Thermal Breeders and their Effect on Fuel Utilization, IAEA, Vienna,
Austria, Technical Report Series No. 195.
[56] A.E. Waltar and A.B. Reynolds, 1981, Fast Breeder Reactors, Pergamon
Press, Elmsford, NY, USA.
[57] A.V. Nero, 1979, A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors, University of
California Press, Berkeley.
[58] A.M. Perry and A.M. Weinberg, 1972, “Thermal Breeder Reactors,”
Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 22, pp. 317–354.
[59] W.B. Lewis, 1968, “The Super-Converter of Valubreeder: A Near-
Breeder Uranium-Thorium Nuclear Fuel Cycle,”Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited, AECL-3081.
[60] W.B. Lewis, 1964, “How Much of the Rocks and the Oceans for Power?:
Exploiting the Uranium-Thorium Fission Cycle,”Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited, AECL-1916.
[61] R.R. Hood, 1963, “Heavy Water Moderated Power Reactors Progress
Report July–August 1963,”E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, DP-865.
[62] J.A. Lane, et al., 1965, “Thorium Utilization Systems,”in Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,
Geneva, Switzerland, 31 August–9 September 1964, vol. 6, Nuclear
Reactors–II. Fast Reactors and Advanced Concepts, United Nations, New
York City, NY, USA.
[63] M.F. Duret and M.J. Halsall, 1966, “A Preliminary Assessment of
Thorium as a Fuel for Thermal Reactors,”in Utilization of Thorium in
Power Reactors, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria,
Technical Reports Series No. 52, pp. 55–76.
[64] J. Veeder and R. Didsbury, 1985, “
A Catalogue of Advanced Fuel Cycles
in CANDU-PHW Reactors,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-8641.
[65] M.W. Rosenthal, et al., 1966, “Technical and Economic Characteristics
of Thorium Reactors,”in Utilization of Thorium in Power Reactors,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, Technical Reports
Series No. 52, pp. 353–372.
[66] J. Griffiths, 1983, “Reactor Physics and Economic Aspects of the CANDU
Reactor System,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-7615.
[67] B. Graves, A. Wong, K. Mousavi, C. Canter, and A. Kumar, 2015,“Techno-
Economic Assessment of Thorium Power in Canada,”Annals of Nuclear
Energy, 85, pp. 481–487. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2015.05.028.
[68] S. Banerjee, E. Critoph, and R.G. Hart, 1975, “Thorium as a Nuclear
Fuel for CANDU Reactors,”Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 53(3),
pp. 291–296. doi: 10.1002/cjce.5450530308.
[69] W.B. Lewis, 1956, “The Heavy Water Reactor for Power,”Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited, AECL-319.
[70] R.E. Masterson, 2017, Nuclear Engineering Fundamentals: A Practical
Perspective, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
[71] J.E. Woolston, 1958, “The Canadian Study for a Full-Scale Nuclear
Power Plant,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada,
AECL-557.
[72] R.A. Knief, 1992, Nuclear Engineering, Hemisphere Publishing,
Washington, D.C, USA.
[73] H.W. Graves, Nuclear Fuel Management, John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA.
[74] L.G. McConnell and L.W. Woodhead, 1984, “The Economics of the
CANDU Reactors,”in Economics of Nuclear Energy, Edited by L.F. Brookes
and H. Motamen, Springer, pp. 255–272.
[75] W.B. Lewis, 1978, “Antiproliferation Fuel Cycles: The Low Cost Thorium
Fuel Cycle,”in Nuclear Energy and Alternatives, Edited by O.K. Kadiroglu,
A. Perlmutter, and L. Scott, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA,
USA, pp. 201–217.
[76] W.B. Lewis, 1978, “New prospects for low cost thorium cycles,”Annals
of Nuclear Energy, 5, pp. 297–304. doi: 10.1016/0306-4549(78)90015-4.
[77] W.B. Lewis, 1958, “Cost Comparisons for Enriched versus Natural
Uranium Fuel and for Zirconium versus Stainless Steel Fuel Sheathing in
Bi-directional Slug Fuelled Reactors,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
AECL-651.
[78] J.S. Foster, 1962, “The Douglas Point Nuclear Power Station,”A Paper
Presented at the C. N. A. Conference on Heavy Water Reactors, Canadian
Nuclear Association, May 28th–May 30th 1962.
[79] M.S. Milgram, 1982, “Once-Through Thorium Fuel Cycles in CANDU
Reactors,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL-7516.
[80] W.B. Lewis, 1973, “Why Maximum CANDU Potential Lies with Organic
Coolant and a Thorium Fuel Cycle,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
DM-138.
[81] C. Rubbia, 2016, “A Future for Thorium Power?”in Thorium Energy for
the World, Edited by J.P. Revol, et al., Springer International Publishing,
Cham, Switzerland.
[82] J.R. Lamarsh and A.J. Baratta, 2001, Introduction to Nuclear
Engineering, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
[83] G. Kessler, 1983, Nuclear Fission Reactors, Springer-Verlag, NY, USA.
[84] D.S. St. John and J.W. Wade, 1964, “D
2
O Reactors for Breeding with
Thorium,”Nucleonics, 22(9), pp. 54–57.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
18
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
[85] W.B. Lewis, 1955, “Economic Power Fuelling without U-235
Enrichment,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada,
AECL-265.
[86] W.B. Lewis, 1955, “Some Economic Aspects of Nuclear Fuel Cycles,”in
the United Nations Conference on thePeacefulUsesofAtomicEnergy,
Geneva, Switzerland, 8–20 August 1955.
[87] G.A. Pon, et al., 1965, “Prospective D2O-moderated Power Reactors,”in
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 31 August–9 September 1964, vol. 5,
United Nations, New York City, NY, USA.
[88] W.B. Lewis, 1970, “Economic Relations between Fast and Heavy Water,”
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada, AECL-3066.
[89] W.B. Lewis and O.J.C. Runnalls, 1962, “An Assessment of Plutonium
Use,”Atomic Energy of Canada, Chalk River, ON, Canada, AECL-1608.
[90] J.B. Slater, 1977, “An Overview of the Potential of the CANDU Reactor as a
Thermal Breeder,”in IAEA Consultants Meeting on the Status and Prospects of
Thermal Breeders, Vienna, Austria, 15–17 September 1976, AECL-5679.
[91] W.B. Lewis, 1965, “Heavy Water Reactor Review and Prospect,”Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada, AECL-2274.
[92] S. Banerjee, S. Banerjee, S.R. Hatcher, A.D. Lane, H. Tamm, and
J.I. Veeder, 1977, “Some Aspects of the Thorium Fuel Cycle in Heavy-Water-
Moderated Pressure Tube Reactors,”Nuclear Technology, 34, pp. 58–68.
[93] J.B. Slater, 1982, “Economic Potential of Advanced Fuel Cycles
in CANDU,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada,
AECL-7753.
[94] M. Lung, 1997, “A Present Review of the Thorium Nuclear Fuel Cycles,”
European Commission, EUR 17771.
[95] W.B. Lewis, 1947, “World Possibilities for the Development and Use of
Atomic Power,”National Research Council, Chalk River, ON, Canada, DR-1.
[96] W.B. Lewis, 1963, “Breeders are not Necessary—A Competing Other
Way for Nuclear Electric Power,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk
River, ON, Canada, AECL-1686.
[97] W.B. Lewis, 1957, “Natural Uranium Heavy Water Reactors for Low
Cost Power,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada,
DL-29 (AECL-417).
[98] W.B. Lewis, 1964, “Experience with Canada’s first Nuclear Power
Station (NPD) and the Prospects for Heavy Water Power Reactors,”Journal
of the British Nuclear Energy Society, 3, pp. 162–172.
[99] J.L. Gray, 1960, “A Canadian Approach to Nuclear Power,”Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada, AECL-1155.
[100] J. Davis and W.B. Lewis, 1956, “An Economic Forecast of the Role of
Nuclear Power in Canada,”in Proceedings of the United Nations
International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva,
Switzerland, 8–20 August 1955, vol. 1.
[101] J. Davis, 1956, “Electric Power in Canada: Regional Forecasts in
Relation to Nuclear Power Possibilities,”in Proceedings of the United
Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,
Geneva, Switzerland, 8–20 August 1955, vol. 1.
[102] J.L. Olsen, et al., 1958, “The Economic Environment for Nuclear Power
in Canada,”in Proceedings of the Second United Nations International
Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland,
1–13 September 1958.
[103] D.G. Hurst, 1958, “The Canadian Nuclear Power Program,”Australian
Atomic Energy Symposium, AECL-875.
[104] W.M. Campbell, 1959, “The Canadian Approach to Atomic Power,”
Chemistry and Industry, pp. 206–213.
[105] H.A. Smith, W.M. Walker, N.L. Williams, and E. Critoph, 1958, “A Study
of a Full-Scale, Uranium and Heavy Water Nuclear Power Plant,”in the
Second International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1–13 September 1958.
[106] G.L. Brooks, 2002, “A Short History of the CANDU Nuclear Power
System”.
[107] J.L. Gray, 1958, “A Statement of the Nuclear Power Development
Program,”Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada, AECL
No. 561.
[108] J.L. Gray, 1981, “Nuclear Energy Continuing Benefits to Canada,”in
21st Annual International Conference, 7–9 June 1981, Canadian Nuclear
Association, Toronto, ON, Canada.
[109] J.L. Gray, 1987, “Key Decisions,”in Proceedings of the Nuclear Power
and Fusion Programs of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Montreal, QC,
Canada, 18–22 May 1987, pp. 10–16.
[110] W.K. Ergen, et al., 1958, “The Need for U Breeding,”Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, ORNL-CF-58-12-79.
[111] E. Teller, 1978, “Remarks on the Thorium Cycle,”Annals of Nuclear
Energy, 5, pp. 287–296.
[112] M. Lung and O. Gremm, 1998, “Perspectives of the Thorium Fuel
Cycle,”Nuclear Engineering and Design, 180(2), pp. 133–146.
[113] M. Milgram, 1987, “Comments on ‘Feasibility of Once-Through Thorium
Fuel Cycle for CANDU Reactors,”Nuclear Technology, 76(1), pp. 193–194.
[114] C. Swee, (ed.), 1980, The Fast Breeder Reactor Need? Cost? Risk?
MacMillan Press, London, UK.
[115] C. Sweet, 1982, “Logistical and economic obstacles to a fast reactor
programme,”Energy Policy, 10(1), pp. 15–26.
[116] International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) Working Group
4, 1978, “The Influence of Size of Plant upon Reprocessing Costs,”
International Atomic Energy Agency, INFCE/DEP/WG–4/80.
[117] National Research Council, 1996, Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for
Separations and Transmutation, National Academies Press, Washington,
D.C, USA. doi:10.17226/4912.
[118] R.R. Judkins and A.R. Olsen, 1979, “Nuclear Fuel Fabrication and
Refabrication Cost Estimation Methodology,”Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, ORNL/TM-6640.
[119] A.R. Olsen, et al., 1979, “Fuel Cycle Cost Studies—Fabrication,
Reprocessing, and Refabrication of LWR, SSCR, HWR, LMFBR, and HTGR
Fuels,”Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, ORNL/TM-6522.
[120] C. Blahnik, 1979, “Estimates of Canadian Fuel Fabrication Costs for
Alternate Fuel Cycles and Systems,”Ontario Hydro, Report No. 79114.
[121] International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, 1980, Reprocessing,
Plutonium Handling, Recycle, vol. 4, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria.
[122] C. Bastin, 2008, “We Need to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Can
Do It Safely, At Reasonable Cost,”21st Century Science & Technology.
[123] C. Bastin, 2002, “Nuclear Technology: Need for New Vision,”in The
Challenges to Nuclear Power in the Twenty-First Century, Edited by
B.N. Kursunoglu, S.L. Mintz, and A. Perlmutter, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, New York City, NY, USA.
[124] L.J. Carter, 2016, Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust: Dealing with
Radioactive Waste, Routledge, New York City, NY, USA.
[125] K. Fukuda, J.-S. Choi, R. Shani, L. van den Durpel, E. Bertel, and
E. Sartori, 2000, “MOX fuel use as a back-end option: Trends, main issues
and impacts on fuel cycle management,”in MOX Fuel Cycle Technologies
for Medium and Long Term Deployment, IAEA, IAEA-CSP-3/P.
[126] Advanced Operational Planning Division, 1975, “Assessment of
Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing,”E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
Savannah River Laboratory, DPST-75–448.
[127] J.T. Long, 1978, Engineering for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing, American
Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, USA.
[128] E.R. Merz, C.E. Walter, and G.M. Pshakin, (Eds.), 1995, Mixed Oxide
Fuel (MOX) Exploitation and Destruction in Power Reactors, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
[129] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2005, “Status and trends
in spent fuel reprocessing,”IAEA, IAEA-TECDOC-1467.
[130] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2008, “Spent Fuel
Reprocessing Options,”IAEA, IAEA, IAEA-TECDOC-1587.
[131] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2009, “Use of
Reprocessed Uranium: Challenges and Options,”IAEA, IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series No. NF-T-4.4.
[132] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2012, “Experiences and
Trends of Manufacturing Technology of Advanced Nuclear Fuels,”IAEA,
IAEA-TECDOC-1686.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW 19
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.
[133] H. Hamilton and S. Livingstone, 2007, “Thorium Fuel Fabrication and
Testing at AECL,”Prepared for International Workshop on Thorium
Utilization for Sustainable Development of Nuclear Energy–TU2007,
Beijing, China, 4–6 December 2007, CW-124950-CONF-001.
[134] S. Krahn, A. Croff, T. Ault, and R. Wymer, 2013, “Why Reconsider the
Thorium Fuel Cycle?,”in Conference Proceedings of Global 2013 Nuclear
Energy at a Crossroads, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, September 29–October 3
2013, pp. 367–381.
[135] L.A. Burrill, et al., 1986, “A Survey of Uranium-Enrichment Processes,”
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, CRNL-4043.
[136] C. Blahnik, 1979, “Uranium Enrichment,”Nuclear Studies and Safety
Department, Ontario Hydro, Report No. 79247.
[137] International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, 1980, “Enrichment avail-
ability,”International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
[138] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “List of Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities,”Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System, IAEA, https://
infcis.iaea.org/NFCIS/Facilities [Accessed January 2017.]
[139] Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 1979, “Data Base for a CANDU-PHW
operating on a Once-through, Slightly Enriched Uranium Cycle,”INFCE/WG
8/CAN/DOC 3, AECL-6594.
[140] W. Inch, P. Thompson, and H.C. Suk, 1999, “Demonstration Irradiation
of Canflex in Pt. Lepreau,”in Fuel Cycle Options for Light Water Reactors and
Heavy Water Reactors, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria,
IAEA-TECDOC-1122, pp. 153–162.
[141] R.J. Page, G. Marsh, M.R. Wash, and W.W. Inch, 1999, “Recycled
Uranium: An Advanced Fuel for CANDU Reactors,”in Fuel Cycle Options for
Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-1122, pp. 171–178.
[142] R. Lloyd, 1981, “The Uranium Market Prospect,”Presented at
International Study Meeting on Modern Power Stations, Liege, Belgium,
26–30 October 1981.
[143] W.B. Lewis, 1979, “Thorium—The Major Source of Energy,”Lecture in
Centennial Seminar Series, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied
Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
[144] A. Galperin, 1986, “Feasibility of the Once-Through Thorium Fuel
Cycle for CANDU Reactors,”Nuclear Technology, 73(3), pp. 343–349.
[145] P.G. Boczar, 1998, “Fuel cycle flexibility in CANDU,”in International
Symposium on Evolutionary Water Cooled Reactors: Strategic Issues,
Technologies and Economic Viability, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 30
November–4 December 1998, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
Austria, IAEA-SM-353.
[146] P.G. Boczar, 1999, “CANDU fuel-cycle vision,”in Fuel cycle options for
light water reactors and heavy water reactors, Proceedings of a Technical
Committee, Victoria, BC, Canada, 28 April–1 May 1998, IAEA, Vienna,
Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-1122.
[147] P.G. Boczar, P.S.W. Chan, G.R. Dyck, R.J. Ellis, R.T. Jones, J.D. Sullivan,
et al., 2002, “Thorium fuel-cycle studies for CANDU reactors,”in Thorium
Fuel Utilization: Options and Trends, Proceedings of Three IAEA Meetings
held in Vienna in 1997, 1998 and 1999, IAEA, Vienna, Austria,
IAEA-TECDOC-1319, pp. 25–41.
[148] P.G. Boczar, G.R. Dyck, P.S.W. Chan, and D.B. Buss, 2002, “Recent
Advances in Thorium Fuel Cycle studies for CANDU Reactors,”in Thorium
Fuel Utilization: Options and Trends, Proceedings of Three IAEA Meetings
Held in Vienna in 1997, 1998 and 1999, IAEA, Vienna, Austria,
IAEA-TECDOC-1319, pp. 104–120.
[149] P.G. Boczar, P.S.W. Chan, R.J. Ellis, G.R. Dyck, J.D. Sullivan, P. Taylor,
et al., 1998, “A Fresh Look at Thorium Fuel Cycles in CANDU Reactors,”in
Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, Banff, AB,
Canada, 3–7 May 1998, Canadian Nuclear Society, Toronto, ON, Canada.
[150] P.R. Burroughs and G.H. Archinoff, 1987, “Slightly Enriched Fuel for
CANDU Reactors,”in CNA Proceedings 27th Annual Conference, Saint John,
NB, Canada, 14–17 June 1987, Canadian Nuclear Association, Toronto, ON,
Canada, pp. 172–189.
[151] P.G. Boczar, F.N. McDonnell, A.D. Lane, G.M. Frescura, G.H. Archinoff,
and A.L. Wight, 1988, “Slight Enriched Uranium in CANDU: An Economic
First Step Towards Advanced Fuel Cycles,”in Proceedings of an
International Conference on Nuclear Power Performance and Safety,
Vienna, Austria, 29 September–2 October 1987, vol. 5, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
[152] G.H. Archinoff, 1990, “Low Enriched Uranium Fuel in CANDU
Reactors,”in Some Economic Aspects of the Low Enriched Uranium
Production, International Atomic Energy, Vienna, Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-
555, pp. 161–170.
[153] A.T. Jeffs, et al., 1980, “Development of Thoria-Based Fuels:
A Prospectus for Work at Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories,”Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited, CRNL-1941.
[154] R. Corcuera, 1999, “Activities in Argentina Related to the Use of
Slightly Enriched Uranium in Heavy Water NPPs,”in Fuel Cycle Options for
Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-1122.
[155] B. Rouben, H.C. Chow, L.K.H. Leung, and W. Inch, 2004, “International
Collaboration to Study the Feasibility of Implementing the Use of Slightly
Enriched Uranium Fuel in the Embalse CANDU Reactor,”in Pacific Basin
Nuclear Conference and Technology Exhibition (PBNC 2004), Sheraton
Waikiki Hotel, Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–25 March 2004, American Nuclear
Society, LaGrange Park, IL, USA, 2003, AECL-CONF-1349.
[156] B.M. Michel, 1992, “Uranium Supply, Demand, Pricing,”in 32nd
Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Association Proceedings, Saint
John, NB, Canada, 7–10 June 1992, pp. 191–199.
[157] D. Cranstone, 2002, “A History of Mining and Mineral Exploration in
Canada and Outlook for the Future,”Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa,
ON, Canada, Catalogue No. M37-51/2002E.
[158] R.A. James, 1979, “Uranium Price Trends for Use in Strategy Analyses,”
Ontario Hydro, Report No. 79261.
[159] D.A. Cranstone and R.T. Whillans, 1989, “An Analysis of Uranium
Discovery in Canada, 1930-1983: Rates of discovery, exploration expendi-
tures, discovery costs and geological deposit types,”in Uranium Resources
and Geology of North America, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-500, pp. 29–47.
[160] Uranium Resource Appraisal Group, 1987, “Uranium in Canada 1986
Assessment of Supply and Requirements,”Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Report EP 87–3.
[161] Uranium Resource Appraisal Group, 1989, “Uranium in Canada 1989
Assessment of Supply and Requirements,”Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Report EP 89–3.
[162] Uranium Resource Appraisal Group, 1994, “Uranium in Canada 1994
Assessment of Supply and Requirements,”Natural Resources Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada.
[163] P. Massot and Z. Chen, 2013, “China and the Global Uranium Market:
Prospects for Peaceful Coexistence,”Scientific World Journal, 2013,
pp. 1–11, doi:10.1155/2013/672060.
[164] K.L. Smith, 1994, “The International Uranium Market,”in International
NuclearCongress,Toronto,ON,Canada,3–6 October 1993, vol. 1 of 3,
Canadian Nuclear Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
[165] E.G. Bazeley, 1982, “Planning and Execution of a Comprehensive Fuel
Supply Program,”in The CANDU Fuel Cycle, AECL-Misc-238, September
1982; Based on Presentations to URAMEX, Mexico City, Mexico, 4–5
November 1981, pp. 21–31.
[166] R.J.McClure,1975,“A Preliminary Survey of Canadian Thorium
Resources and Possible Recovery Processes and Costs,”Eldorado Nuclear
Limited, Port Hope, ON, Canada, ETM-50.
[167] Resource Planning Associates, 1978, “The Economics and Utilization
of Thorium in Nuclear Reactors,”Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN, USA, ORNL/TM-6331 and ORNL/TM-6332.
[168] F.A.Holland,F.A.Watson,andJ.K.Wilkinson,1974,“Manufacturing
Costs and How to Estimate Them,”Chemical Engineering, 81, pp. 91–96.
[169] R.M. Williams, H.W. Little, W.A. Gow, and R.M. Berry, 1971, “Uranium
and Thorium in Canada: Resources, Production and Potential,”in Fourth
U.N. International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva,
Switzerland, 6–16 September 1971, AECL-3977.
CNL NUCLEAR REVIEW A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEPLOYING
THORIUM-BASED FUEL CYCLES AND BREEDING IN HEAVY-WATER REACTORS –
A.D. MENDOZA ESPAÑA AND B.P. BROMLEY
20
Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
CNL Nuclear Review Downloaded from pubs.cnl.ca by CANADIAN NUCLEAR LABORATORIES on 01/28/19
For personal use only.