So when talking about recycling spent nuclear fuel (i.e. "waste"), we often like to focus on turning it back into more nuclear since that is an amazing trick! But there are also lots of useful isotopes to recover and if we recycle at scale it could really change things! 🧵 1/17
When atoms fissions, we get a broad range of isotopes with most of them massing either ~95 or ~137 amu, but there is a broad distribution and the exact make-up depends on isotope and neutron energy. 2/17 hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/f…
The first obvious isotopes to recover are the ones we already do at research reactors, medical isotopes! Mo-99 is the most common fission fragment recovered, and it is used as a source of Tc-99m for medical diagnostics. I personally have even had some! 3/17
~6% of fissions make Mo-99, but it has a ~66 hr half-life so recovery is hard to do. Wide scale reprocessing would increase total supply, but the amount would vary. Other, longer lived isotopes will be available in larger amounts though! 4/17
Cs-137 also is made ~6% of the time and has a ~30 yr half-life. As a powerful gamma and beta emitter it has a number of uses in medicine and industry. Similar story for Sr-90, which has even been used as a much cheaper isotope for RTGs! Imagine low(er) cost space probes! 5/17
There also may be industrial applications for lower activity radionuclides like Tc-99 and Zr-93. Tc-99 doped steel is much more corrosion resistant and could be used in nuclear applications without any radiation concerns. 6/17
The Zr-93 generated as well as the leftover activated Zr clad from spent fuel could also be remade into slightly radioactive fresh clad for the recycled nuclear fuel. The industrial processing would be slightly more complex, but it would lower our waste burden. 7/17
But there are also stable isotopes to be recovered, and valuable ones at that! We can recover platinum group elements as well as some noble gases from fission products. Some may need some isotope separation, but others come out effectively ready to use! 8/17
Ruthenium is a very rare metal of which several isotopes are made during fission. The longest lived radioactive isotope is ~100 days, so after a couple years of "cooling" you would get pure, stable Ru for sale! Since it costs ~$475/oz that could be nice! 9/17
Rhodium is similar to Ru, but only has two isotopes and would be non-radioactive after ~10 days! It currently costs >$13000/oz so even tiny amounts are worth extracting! 10/17
Palladium is something many of us may be wearing, but it is a bit harder to justify extracting from fission. Although the yields are good (>0.1%) one of the 6 isotopes has a 6.5E6 yr half-life... Perhaps with good isotope enrichment we can make this make sense! 11/17
We also can extract good old fashioned silver while doing this, and all of it will be stable after just a couple weeks! This would only make sense when extracting the other platinoids though. Yttrium (not a platinoid, but a valuable rare earth) can also be extracted stable. 12/17
Indium can also be extracted, although it is technically radioactive. In-115 is one of the two "stable" isotopes found in natural indium though, and has a half-life longer than the age of the universe. Indium is some very valuable stuff, so I would think hard about this! 13/17
The final thing worth considering would be xenon and krypton. Xe will come out essentially stable, with one isotope technically being radioactive, but so long as to not matter. Kr will need some significant cooling (decades) or we could enrich it. Both are very expensive! 14/17
The various amounts of material recoverable will depend on burn-up, but recovery of some of these stable isotopes has been considered! A group from Russia looked into this and generated the following chart. 15/17
The total production just from current SNF is something worth considering. A future with more nuclear power would make this process even more exciting! We could potentially upend the platinoid and noble gas markets with enough reprocessing as well as lower the total cost. 16/17
A term that is often tossed around in advanced nuclear propulsion circles that drives me nuts is "low radiation". It often isn't even right and NEVER means what people imagine it does (almost no shielding needed). Let's look at how many rads we actually get from reactions. 🧵1/11
Ionizing radiation in this case will be counted as gamma rays and neutrons, since the charged particles are easy to stop and typically very useful. Also we will ignore neutrinos since they aren't a health hazard. 2/11
Let's start with fission since everyone always assumes it is the worst. Looking at the chart we see 7 MeV of prompt gammas, 7 MeV of delayed gammas and 5 MeV of neutrons. Compare that to the 168 MeV of FF ions and 8 MeV of electrons of usable energy! 3/11
A common question people like to ask when it comes to mobile nuclear (fission or fusion) applications is "how much will it weigh". I have some simple math and plots to help answer that! Keep in mind shield mass is almost everything for reactors! 🧵1/12
Now real shielding math is really complex and needs models. I was able to find (and fix the units on) a simple equation used for aircraft reactor studies though! It assumes H2O and DU shields that are all the way around the reactor (4pi) and 0.025 mR/hr on contact. 2/12
Notice how it is dependent on power AND power density! A more power dense reactor has less area that you need to cover with less shielding. I plotted this using typical PWR, some ANP reactors and the Project Pluto (Tory 2C) reactor. Keep in mind this is a spherical approx! 3/12
Many of you know that I absolutely *HATE* the idea of mining the Moon for He3. I even wrote a paper about why it is dumb for energy! Let's also explore why lunar He3 is silly for the current uses, namely neutron detection (although it has other uses). 1/12 space.nss.org/wp-content/upl…
He3 is a really good gas for neutron detection, since it gobbles up thermal neutrons and is very safe compared to the typical alternative (BF3). There are other options out there, but around 2001 those were the top 2 technologies. 2/12
This is important because that is when the He3 shortage began. The US had a huge stockpile of He3 from nuclear weapons waste (tritium decays into He3) and used to even vent it off since demand was so low! Then 9/11 happened and everyone wanted neutron detectors... 3/12
So I have an update to this thread on aircraft nuclear propulsion. There seem to have been some later studies and even fuel testing done and for civilian applications! Big thanks to the people that pointed me towards this stuff! 1/
There were studies on extremely large cargo aircraft using nuclear power as well as nuclear powered hovercraft for rapid cargo transit! These beasts would have hauled hundreds to thousands of tons across the oceans very quickly! 2/
A lot of effort went into designs and trade studies considering 1000 ton and 4000 ton nuclear powered aircraft. As both range and size increased, the nuclear aircraft quickly became the only economic option. Nuclear scales up well, while chemical begins to quickly lose out! 3/
Have you ever wondered about nuclear aircraft propulsion? Boy do I have the thread for you! I spent valuable time reading papers that are not relevant to my thesis, because sometimes I like to procrastinate by doing more work. Enjoy! 🧵1/23
In the US we started looking into nuclear propulsion for aircraft as early as 1948. The USAF wanted nuclear powered nuclear armed bombers to fly deterrent patrols of the USSR. Using nuclear energy they could stay aloft for days, weeks or potentially months! 2/23
Nuclear propulsion also allows for easier supersonic flight since there is no flame to keep lit and no real concerns about fuel consumption. This is very appealing for the sorts of bombers we were considering before the ICBM was developed. 3/23
I wasted an hour today answer a question I had about cost per watt for various sources across the EM spectrum. These are all sources you can actually beam power with (so light bulbs don't count). 1/2
Broadly speaking the higher the frequency, the more expensive per watt. THz and soft x-rays stand out as being extra expensive though. These are both in the range that is very hard to make at high powers, although there may be FELs that generate cheaper beams. 2/2