How CANDU Reactors Can Solve The Nuclear Waste Problem

[@AndrooH]

I love the CANDU design!

[@OsamaBaig]

Yes Andrew! Its honestly a phenomenal reactor

[@TheMBAcoach]

Wow, great video. I can't believe that this is possible. Insane that we aren't doing this everywhere

[@OsamaBaig]

I know right! I would love to see this take place across the world! Have countries sign agreements and use our nuclear waste reserves to create clean electricity.

[@Dylan-hh7vo]

Any thoughts on putting together a video on some fast spectrum reactors? Big fan of the closed fuel cycle and massive reduction in HLW they would unlock.

[@OsamaBaig]

Yes Dylan, thats a great suggestion! Closed loop cycle is the best! I'll put that on my to do list!

[@Dylan-hh7vo]

@@OsamaBaig looking forward to it Osama!! Keep up the great work!

[@congoose100]

Great information and presentation! You need more subscribers

[@OsamaBaig]

Appreciate that congoose100! Happy you feel that way. Hope you can share of this content to help get the word out!

[@aravinthsriraj5637]

You explained it great, learned a lot of new things!

[@OsamaBaig]

Glad it was helpful Aravinth! Thanks for watching the video

[@ericderbez2446]

Thank you Osama. Great video as always. At some point can you go into the recycling of the zirconium cladding for fuel bundles? Cheers

[@OsamaBaig]

Typically Zirconium cladding in fuel bundles are not recycled. From my understanding, it would take a lot of resources to do that, and it may not be worth it. Remember there aren't too many bundles out there, in Canada there are around 8 hockey rinks worth of spent fuel bundles. You would need to make a business case to understand if its worth it or not

[@ericderbez2446]

@@OsamaBaig Thank you for your insights. I was wondering if it was worth it (at $23k/tonne). I bet it would be hard to reprocess especially given the high temperatures needed + all the radiological precautions which would be required.

[@stickynorth]

Great video as always! I was wondering if you're going to do a video on the new CANDU Monark 1000 design and why it's even more of an advantageous reactor to build...

[@miantariq1888]

Great vlog as always. Osama you are really hardworking to make your ideas turned into reality. Why not? Every word you say is really calculated and is based on scientific testing of course.

[@OsamaBaig]

Grateful for your kind words Tariq uncle, thank you so much!

[@alonzobrickman7418]

Good video, it gives a concise overview of the heavy water reactor. I've been a CANDU Disciple since the 1980s, they mitigate a lot of the downside associated with nuclear power production. I'm also an advocate for thorium reactors, the stuff is a lot more plentiful than yellow-cake. Also, less waste is generated and zero plutonium.

[@AlldaylongRock]

Could one also reprocess the PWR SNF and «dope» the MOX fuel with a burnable poison like thorium, or downblend with U-238 to 0.7%+ the leftover Pu? Wouldn't the extra reactivity using reprocessed fuel allow for Th-232 to U-233 «breeding»? IIRC India wants to try this but just use Pu-Th MOX. LWR+PHWR seems like a great middle ground until fast reactors come and further burn these «wastes» into materials that just need 300 years of storage.

[@steveirwin8287]

Great Show on a complicated Subject Osama!!! This will need allot of Hot Cell work to fabricate the spent assemblies into CANDU Bundles. But it beats a full blown fuel reprocessing in cost. I believe the reason this idea hasn't caught on is because Uranium is too cheap right now. If the price were to climb into the low hundreds for a few years to catch the interest. Currently Uranium oxideis at ~$40 lb

[@OsamaBaig]

Its the entire lifecycle cost of fuel to consider as well, since disposal and storage of fuel has a cost as well. Thanks for your comment!

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

Thank you for this most informative video. It answered a lot of questions I still had about the Dupic fuel cycle. Some of them I had worked out myself through diligent reading, but some questions were left open which you answered with your video. One small last question; doesn't the increased power output (from 935 -> 1100 to use your example) hurt the reactor? Like extra stress on core materials etc? As an aside, there is another reactor that can do what the CANDU does. The Russian BN-800 (Быстрых Нейтронах = Fast Neutron) can also use the spent fuel from other light water reactors. However, it is a fast breeder reactor, not a thermal reactor. And I have two favourite reactor types. The CANDU obviously, and the RBMK despite its many flaws and weaknesses. Weird combo, I know😅

[@OsamaBaig]

Great question Swoka! Uprating the reactor by increasing power of outer channels won't damage the reactor. The reason why is b/c the outer channels are usually running at a lower power rating (since they are not surrounded by other channels - due to not having as much neutron activation from neighboring channels. Great question though!

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

@@OsamaBaig Thanks for your answer. Another thing learned today. Keep up the good work with your channel! I still think it should get way more views though. Your info is clear, concise and easy to understand, even for those who are not nerdy bookworms like some of us^^

[@AlldaylongRock]

Not that weird, actually. The CANDU and RBMK have some striking similarities. Both are «channel-type reactors»- Allows for online refueling And both can run on natural uranium, because graphite also has a great neutron economy, like heavy water. The problem is that while you can «poison» a CANDU to stop it in an emergency, by doping the moderator with a neutron absorber, you cant do that in a RBMK. Plus, nowadays RBMKs are much safer than they were from proper operator training and several upgrades to the reactors. Basically now operators know -DO NOT YANK OUT ALL CONTROL RODS AFTER XENON POISONING YOUR REACTOR-. I actually wonder if an advanced version of the RBMK could become something like a «discount CANDU» by upgrading safety features, and by actually building containment buildings over the reactors. Graphite is much cheaper than heavy water.

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

@@AlldaylongRock When reading and learning about both reactor types (I started teaching myself about the RBMK first and then came across the CANDU later), I said to myself; "There is no way that these two haven't met at some point, considering just how similar they are." I'm thinking in the direction of the Soviets spying on Canada when they were working on the early CANDU designs. But because the Soviets didn't have access to large quantities of (expensive!) heavy water, they went with graphite as a moderator instead. One cannot use liquid poison in an RBMK because it's a BWR-type reactor. It would gum up the innards of the reactor to the point of it being permanently rendered inoperable. That goes for any "regular" BWR as well. With a PWR/ CANDU you can flush the primary loop after it all is said and done, post-emergency. With the former reactors not so much, due to them producing their steam in situ, instead of in a steam generator via a secondary loop. They have done extensive improvement work on the RBMK. They have cleaned up quite nicely safety-wise, as far as RBMKs go. Of course there is still the not-having-full-containment bit, but apart from that they have become proper, well-behaved reactors. And yes, pulling as many rods as they did is beyond ridiculous. If Xenon has pulled your reactor that deep subcritical, you should let the reactor sleep it off for at least 24 hrs before even considering a restart. But that would have meant they couldn't do their vaunted test. And failure was not really an option in the Soviet Union. "I actually wonder if an advanced version of the RBMK could become something like a «discount CANDU» by upgrading safety features, and by actually building containment buildings over the reactors. Graphite is much cheaper than heavy water." Actually, I might have sort of an answer to that. I stumbled upon this design when asking myself the same question. There has been work done on a successor to the RBMK. It was supposed to be built at Kursk NPP as Unit 5, but eventually got cancelled in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. It is called the MKER (Многопетлевой -> Multi-loop, Канальный -> Channel-type, Энергетический -> Power, Реактор -> Reactor). It would have had full containment; improvement of the plant economics due to an advanced turbine cycle; enhancement of the reactor neutronics; the introduction of passive safety systems not unlike those found on the CANDU; an increased number of independent circulation loops; the possibility of accident localisation in one loop. There is scant information about it, only found one page with the above characteristics and one technical schematic/ drawing. Not going to lie, I really would have loved to see this reactor in action. It would be all that an RBMK could have been, if only they'd sit on the design a bit longer, instead of just plunking it out in the world like they did.

[@AlldaylongRock]

@@swokatsamsiyu3590 I also stumbled upon the MKER when reading about the RBMK. Chernobyl was a big mess up for the world in general. Things would look much better now. For one, many more countries would have gone nuclear, and R&D wouldn't be halted and so focused on LWRs. Fast reactors and CANDU-like reactors (channel-type, NU fueled) are quite the tech. For one, no enrichment necessary. There's leftover Pu in the fuel from these. Reprocess, and throw that Pu into a fast reactor along with NU. In fact THIS was why the RBMK was built. To generate Pu for bombs (or at least heavily based on a military reactor). It's design was totally optimized for the premature removal of fuel rods so there wasn't much Pu-240 and Pu-241,which are a problem for bombs, but no problem for a reactor, especially a fast reactor. The lack of containment was also due to this "optimization".

[@mortennygaard5335]

very informative :) thanks! I heard that when my homecountry of Denmark was going into nuclear in the 70ies before we banned it after public pressure, the CANDU reactor was seriously discussed as a posible choice of reactor. Now more Danes are pro nuclear than against it, and we have 2 Danish MSR companies one of them namely Copenhgan Atomics is planning on using heavy water for their thorium MSR. Hypothetically speaking, do you think it would make sense for Denmark to build out CANDU reactors now to start us up on the path towards using CPH Atomics Heavy Water Thorium MSR (called the Wasteburner)? Or what would you say was the best way for Denmark to proceed if we asume politicians where on board today?

[@OsamaBaig]

Honestly, it depends on the maturity of the technology and the regulatory side of things. Its a complex process to deploy reactor technologies, you need to go through a lengthy regulatory approval process, prototype reactors are to be deployed as well. CANDU reactors have the benefit of having that legacy, however they function very differently than MSR's. I can't answer your question since I don't understand Denmark's socio-political-economic-regulatory situation, but it would be ideal to invest in both technologies

[@petehall1900]

Found the nuclear waste video, thank you

[@801oap]

Can the waste from the candu reactors be further recycled? How long does its waste present radiation dangers and need to be stored?

[@AlldaylongRock]

When fast reactors come, yes. Currently MOLTEX is building their SSR-W (fast MSR) which can take CANDU or PWR fuel and burn it into just fission products. 300 years and its at the same level of radiation as natural U ores

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

@@AlldaylongRock so like Thorium?? They say Thorium will decay to safe levels in 300 years I've heard...

[@AlldaylongRock]

@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 There's just less of the long lived stuff when you fission thorium. But for using thorium, you have to run fast reactors anyway

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

@@AlldaylongRock ok... So every plant that utilizes thorium fuel is a fast reactor?

[@AndrewLambert-wi8et]

I LOVE IT!

[@OsamaBaig]

Thanks Andrew!

[@dodaexploda]

THE MIGHTY CANDU! Thanks for the great video. I have heard about this process before and wondered about it. I'm guessing we would possibly need to build some new CANDUs to figure out the fuelling process. The process might require building in a special pool into the intake end. Which makes me think. Can this be done with fuel that's over 10 years old? That doesn't need water and only needs a special tiny dry cask? Let's figure this out, and build some more CANDUs! Get the US to pay us to take their spent fuel. Win win!

[@sturmantheyounger]

Why aren't more reactors based off of heavy water?

[@OsamaBaig]

Canada was a world leader and still is in heavy water research. The country was lucky enough to get samples of heavy water (which were very rare at the time) during WWII, that lead to development in its heavy water expertise. This in turn lead to producing heavy water on a large scale due, and developing reactors which use both heavy water and natural uranium (which can be found in Canada in abundance). Other countries decided to concentrate on enrichment technologies

[@sturmantheyounger]

@@OsamaBaig why did the world lean towards light water. Seems like more work and increased safety concerns.

[@Rampage0303]

Ok, I have to ask. When you say nuclear waste. Are you referring to what comes out of the reactor? (U238, U235, P239, I131, C134, C137, S90) Or just the new elements and isotopes that are produced (P239, I131, C134, C137, S90)?

[@OsamaBaig]

Rampage0303, I used "Nuclear waste" as a simplified alternative to "Spent nuclear fuel". Moreover, the important elements in spent PWR fuel that can be used by a CANDU are fissionable. This includes a range of biproducts and isotopes such as Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) Plutonium-241 (Pu-241) Uranium-233 (U-233). Hope that makes sense

[@Rampage0303]

@@OsamaBaig Most of the U235 and U238 that went in as fresh fuel, is still usable? What portion of the products have to removed, during reprocessing. Isotopes? Quantity?

[@uzairkhan1249]

Bro can u send me the syllabus of the undergrad program that u persuade. I also want to do nuclear engineering but ist want to see the contents that they teach as i didn't find the syllabus anywhere.

[@OsamaBaig]

Uzair, I've made a few different videos on the nuclear engineering undergrad topic you can check out. Also, of course here is a link to the course map: shared.ontariotechu.ca/shared/faculty/feas/documents/2022-2023-program-maps/nuclear-engineering-2022-2023.pdf

[@mihneaciurea8209]

In Romania we have two CANDU reactors and those are at about 300km from Bulgaria's two PWR.

[@OsamaBaig]

@mihneaciurea didn't know the CANDU reactors in Romania are 200km from PWR's in Bulgaria. That would be a perfect route to transport DUPIC fuel and establish a collaborative effort between those two nations!

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Osama, can you give a video recommendation that gives a good overview of all nuke power tech in use or under development today??

[@OsamaBaig]

Haha that would be a super long video, but definitely a cool topic I can explore!

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

@@OsamaBaig yeah it probably would, and it may already be out there. But thanks much either way. This info is very useful. Until we get to stable functional fusion, and I think we will, I don't see any other way to get off carbon fuels besides a foundation of nuclear. I know people have worries about it but I hope with more education those fears can be dispelled.... A little SMR for every neighborhood or town? Why not?? 😄 Perhaps a large hub and spoke network will be more practical, using regional large reactors idk... Or perhaps many little plants, like small utility stations, will be the preferred model going forward, just like we have gas stations around every corner today.... I'm curious to find out ... Then again we may not really see that much significant change in our lifetime, hard to say ..

[@joncampbell2298]

Great video again, Osama. But you need to come to Decouple Podcast with @Dr_Keefer. He is also Canadian. You all can dive deeper into this topic of DUPIC Fuel. Once again, great video!

[@OsamaBaig]

Appreciate your suggestion Jon, Thanks! I would love to get on the Decouple Podcast! I'm actually filming a video with Chris very soon, its gonna be a tour of a nuclear facility so stay tuned for that!

[@joncampbell2298]

@@OsamaBaig looking forward to it.

[@HexaSquirrel]

It’s a real shame the Advanced CANDU was shelved. Another great video, Osama!

[@josemenchu6764]

Es el único método para bloquear la acelerada contaminación por carbono, otras formas son inrfectivas.

[@DanielBelzil]

I know Korea experimented with OREOX. This is great comtent.

[@josephpiskac2781]

Really interesting. Diagrams of new United States Navy aircraft carrier reactors look like CANDU reactors. Do you know if the U.S. Navy is using them?

[@OsamaBaig]

I can see why they might look like CANDU reactors Joseph, but I doubt it. CANDU Reactors run on natural uranium, which doesn't make sense for aircraft carrier applications. Using a PWR which is running on enriched uranium would be more practical (since aircraft carriers need to be run for long periods of time on the ocean without refueling). But if someone else wants to confirm that would be great

[@DriveCarToBar]

​​@@OsamaBaig US Naval reactors are light water reactors using very highly enriched Uranium as fuel. The biggest downside is that the US Navy stores that waste fuel in Idaho rather than reprocessing it and down blending to make it into MOX fuel. Edit - Source: I took the tour of Idaho National Laboratory and they covered the US Navy fuel and reactors storage.

[@aaroncosier735]

@@DriveCarToBar My understanding is that the US tries to reprocess naval reactor fuel after adequate cooling. Especially the submarine reactors which use very highly enriched fuel, but the surface ships also use somewhat enriched fuel. Presumably the used fuel still contains far more fissile material than natural uranium and is highly desirable for reprocessing and for isotopic separation. The high enrichment also means very little U238 was available to be converted to awkward plutonium or other isotopes, so again, reprocessing and enrichment would be easier than for the products of many other reactor types.

[@DriveCarToBar]

@@aaroncosier735 I could be wrong, but I thought that was the intention, but it stopped happening.

[@aaroncosier735]

@@DriveCarToBar Last I heard was from a recently retired commenter here on KZbin, claimed they were still reprocessing till he retired. I assume it would be very desirable to reprocess, due to the high enrichment and low contamination from other actinides. It's all classified, so they might just be doing a purex to remove the fission products and putting the rest on the shelf for later.

[@ruruog2085]

Why do the conventional LWR's where the spent fuel comes from necessarily need to be nearby or in the same country??....can't a country using spent fuel to power its CANDU just import it from another countries PWR/LWR???

[@ordinal2361]

Just so we're clear, when you say the CANDU reactor solves the waste problem, do you mean the transuranic waste is converted to more fission products?

[@OsamaBaig]

Ordinal, CANDU's don't burn transuranic waste products (like Molten salt reactors do), rather they would use the left over fissile product 0.9% U-235 and 0.6% - Pu which is remaining in spent pressurized water reactor fuel. In turn this helps repurpose spent PWR fuel, which is a sustainable strategy

[@ordinal2361]

@@OsamaBaig ah I see. I guess they can help get some extra use out of the rods, but we'll still want some fast neutron boiz in the energy mix then. :^)

[@samm8500]

Is anyone designing/planning a CANDU SMR?

[@OsamaBaig]

I believe SNC lavalin had a CANDU SMR design, it was a pretty neat concept that can generate radioisotopes alongside electricity

[@aaroncosier735]

This application of CANDU *sounds* good. Certainly you can wring some more energy out of the U235 and the fissile fraction of the plutonium. But: I do not see how DUPIC can reduce the space/volume requirement for subsequent disposal. Spent uranium fuel rods came out with fission products corresponding directly to the original fissile content, plus some fission of the U235 and plutonium produced by bombardment of U238. Let's say about 4%, less decay of short-lived isotopes. Now you take that rod, and subject it to further burn up. Now it contains more fission products than when it went in, plus more products of bombardment, both of the U238 and of the plutonium mixture. Now you let that doubly-spent fuel cool. It now has *more* Caesium and strontium, so it will be hotter longer in deep disposal. It has *more* actinides from bombardment of U238 and more weird ones from bombardment of plutonium. U232 comes especially to mind as a gamma emitter rather than a neutron/alpha emitter, with a half life twice as long as caesium. This stuff will be hotter and for longer than the original spent uranium fuel. It will need a new round of cooling for the shorter lived fission products, and final disposal in a facility with distinctly longer containment periods from two metrics. Firstly: the U232 will double the period otherwise allocated for decay of caesium and strontium, and the increased amount and diversity of plutonium bombardment products will extend the extreme long term actinide containment provision. Or so it seems to me. I also do not clearly see that output is improved. There may be more U235 and Plutonium reactivity, but there is also the poison capacity of the fission products and the large-cross-section actinides. It eats up some of your neutron economy and requires extra fresh fuel to furnish those. Granted, you have lots of moderator, but you still need to furnish neutrons from somewhere. Finally, this stuff is still thermogenic waste, corresponding roughly to spent fuel. When you damp the reactor, it keeps making heat, probably more than from your normal natural uranium fuel. You may get better peak output, but you also have higher cooling requirements at idle and in temporary storage. It sounds good, and historically CANDU is one of my more favoured reactor concepts, admittedly for aesthetic reasons. But I am hard pressed to see that DUPIC is as exciting as all that. DUPIC is only part of the fuel load, requires awkward handling, and produces wastes that are hard to visualise as more tractable than either the original spent uranium fuel, or ordinary CANDU spent fuel.

[@richardking7195]

I like the idea of Cooperation between US and Canada on this. Reduce US waste from our pwrs, provide higher efficiency fuels for Candus, win-win!

[@zainabejaz4997]

Make some videos on nuclear fuel cycle

[@OsamaBaig]

Love the nuclear fuel cycle! Especially reprocessing of materials. Great topic recommendation Zainab

[@sskuk1095]

Question: After a CANDU has consumed DUPIC fuel, what happenes to the spent fuel? And what is the potential in reprocessing it?

[@OsamaBaig]

Same process as fresh fuel, it goes through the exact same waste handling process. It goes into a fuel bay, then to a dry storage after 10 years cooling down in the fuel bays and ultimately into a deep geological repository for permanent disposal (or it can be processed again to produce more fuel) lots of options!

[@sskuk1095]

@@OsamaBaig Ah, interesting! Thank you for sharing some info. My idea was that since in regular spent fuel, valuable metals, for instance Rhodium are present in some quantities, used DUPIC fuel might have significantly higher concentrations since it has spent more time in reactors, thus making reprocessing more lucrative.

[@SuperStrik9]

I live in Ontario, Canada and I think around 50% of the provinces power comes from CANDU reactors. I've driven by the Power Station in Pickering, Ontario countless times over the years.

[@OsamaBaig]

Nice! Glad you've driven by those reactors, Everytime I see them it's inspiring to see how this fleet can continue to generate so much electricity for decades

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@OsamaBaig >>> Even though this is only the second video of yours I have watched, I think you have _"A real_ *CANDU* _attitude"_ when it comes to nuclear energy. {I will see myself to the door now...🤭}

[@OsamaBaig]

Appreciate that Allan! Thank you so much for watchin the video. I hope to continue creating content that informs, entertains, and sparks curiosity in my viewers

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@@OsamaBaig >>> 👍👍

[@davidwilkie9551]

It may sound like magic but it is the opposite, it's simply that good when the dirty politics is cleared away, and the distractions of carbon based resource wars avoided. (We will still have a planet of criminal excessiveness, but the SMR system requires a much tidier approach to management)

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Hells yeah we can just send all our US PWR nuke waste to Canada! Well damn why haven't we done this already!?!?

[@AndrewLambert-wi8et]

ONLY SOUTH KOREA AND CHINA HAVE BOTH REACTORS? INDIA HAS THESE TWO TYPES OF REACTORS AS WELL. SO WHY DIDNT OSAMA B. NOT CARE TO MENTION INDIA THAT NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL THOSE NAMED COUNTRIES INCLUDING CANADA WHEN IT COMES TO HEAVY WATER REACTORS. INDIA HAS RUSSIAN PWR REACTORS AS WELL. EVEN NAVAL. ONE CAN WONDER WHAT IS OSAMA PROBLEM?

[@OsamaBaig]

Technically Indian reactor are PWHR's and not CANDU, as CANDU stands for Canada Deuterium Uranium. There are a lot more PWHR's across the world, such as in Japan and other places too. I just wanted to focus on CANDU technologies here. Hope that makes sense!

[@stanmitchell3375]

Molte x will burn waste for 20 years

[@EvangelionNeonGenesis]

you waste 9:23 without clearly explain How CANDU Reactors Can Solve The Nuclear Waste Problem As you mention, CANDU Reactor was developed in 1960s. It's been 60 years, why isn't it use nowadays? Elina Charatsidou, another KZbinr, did a better job than you

[@NT-ds8ic]

Non stop talking. I am tired when listenning.