Magnox is an obsolete type of nuclear reactor; when operated on a short fuel cycle (which is uneconomic) they can also produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. In all 11 power stations totalling 26 units were built in the United Kingdom where the design originated. In addition one was exported to Japan and one to Italy. North Korea also developed their own Magnox reactors based on the UK design, which was made public at an Atoms for Peace conference. At the end of 2003 eight UK Magnox power stations remained in operation, all were planned to be closed by 2010. Two (Chapelcross and Calder Hall) were owned by the UKAEA and were once used to produce weapons-grade plutonium in their early life before being used for commercial electricity generation; The rest were owned by CEGB and were operated on commercial fuel cycles. Magnox is also the name of the alloy mainly of magnesium with small amounts of aluminium and other metals used for cladding the unenriched uranium metal fuel, as a non-oxidising covering to contain fission products. Magnox is short for Magnesium non-oxidising. This material had the advantage of a low neutron capture cross-section, but it had two big disadvantages: *It limited the maximum temperature and hence thermal efficiency of the plant. *It reacted with water, making storage of spent fuel under water a short-term solution only. Magnox fuel incorporated cooling fins to provide maximum heat transfer despite the low operating temperatures, making it expensive to produce. While the use of uranium metal rather than oxide made reprocessing more straightforward and therefore cheaper, the need to reprocess a short time after removal from the reactor meant that the fission product hazard was severe and expensive remote handling facilities were required. The term magnox is also sometimes loosely used to refer to: *Three North Korean reactors, all based on the declassified blueprints of the Calder Hall Magnox reactors: **A smaller 5 MWe experimental reactor at Yongbyon, operated from 1986 to 1994, restarted 2003. Plutonium from the spent fuel may have been used in a North Korea nuclear weapons program. **A 50 MWe reactor also at Yongbyon, construction commenced in 1985 but halted in 1994 and never operated. **A 200 MWe reactor at Taechon, construction also halted in 1994. *Nine UNGG power reactors built in France, all now permanently shut down. These were carbon dioxide cooled graphite reactors with natural uranium metal fuel, very similar in design and purpose to the British Magnox reactors with one notable exception: The fuel cladding in the French reactors was magnesium-zirconium alloy, not magnox! The accepted term for all of these first-generation carbon dioxide cooled graphite moderated reactors, including the Magnox and UNGG, is GCR for Gas cooled reactor. The Magnox was replaced in the British power station program by the Advanced gas-cooled reactor or AGR, which was derived from it. A key feature of the AGR was the replacement of magnox cladding to allow higher temperatures and greater thermal efficiency. Stainless steel cladding was adopted after many other alloys had been tried and rejected. ==General description== The Magnox reactors were pressurised carbon dioxide cooled, graphite moderated reactors using natural (unenriched) uranium metal as fuel and magnox alloy as fuel cladding. The design was continuously refined, and very few units were identical. Early reactors had steel pressure vessels, later units (Oldbury & Wylfa) were of reinforced concrete; some were cylindrical but most spheres. Working pressure varied from 6.9 to 19.35 Bar (unit) for the steel pressure vessels, and the two reinforced concrete designs operated at 24.8 and 27 bar. On-load refuelling was an essential part of the design, to maximise power station availability by eliminating refueling downtime. The Magnox reactors have many benign features because of their low power densities and gas coolant, so do not have secondary containment. Loss of coolant accidents considered in the design would not cause largescale fuel failure, so the Magnox cladding would retain the bulk of the radioactive material, assuming the reactor was rapidly shutdown (a SCRAM). As the coolant is already a gas, pressure buildup from coolant boiling is not a risk. ==List of Magnox reactors in the UK== *Calder Hall near Whitehaven, Cumbria - 4 units 50 MWe each, first grid connection 1956, shut down 2003 () *Chapelcross near Annan, Dumfriesshire, 4 units 50 MWe each, first grid connection 1959, shut down 2003 () *Berkeley, Gloucestershire in Gloucestershire, 2 units 138 MWe each, first grid connection 1962, shut down 1989. () *Bradwell near Southminster, Essex, 2 units 121 MWe each, first grid connection 1962, shut down 2002 () *Hunterston "A" between West Kilbride and Fairlie, Ayrshire 2 units 160 MWe each, first grid connection 1964, shut down 1990 () *Hinkley Point near Bridgwater, Somerset, 2 units 235 MWe each, first grid connection 1965, shut down 1999 () *Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd, 2 units 195 MWe each, first grid connection 1965, shut down 1991 () *Dungeness Power Station "A" in Kent, 2 units 219 MWe each, first grid connection 1966 () *Sizewell "A" near Leiston, Suffolk, 2 units 210 MWe each, first grid connection 1966 () *Oldbury, South Gloucestershire near Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, 2 units 217 MWe each, first grid connection 1968, planned to be shut down in 2008. () *Wylfa on Anglesey, 2 units 490 MWe each, first grid connection 1971 () ==List of Magnox reactors exported from the UK== *Latina, Italy, 1 unit 160 MWe, first grid connection 1963, shut down 1987 following Italian referendum on nuclear power *Tokai (or Tokaimura), Japan, 1 unit 166 MWe, first grid connection 1966, shut down 1998 ==See also== *List of nuclear reactors ==External links== *[http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/magnox.pdf Magnox Safety Reviews] - HSE Nuclear Installations Inspectorate *[http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/reprocess/16.htm Disposal of Magnox spent fuel] - BNFL *[http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/abstracts_c/abst_iwggcr19_17.html Operating experience with the Latina Magnox reactor] - Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica Alloys Nuclear technology
==Military Plutonium production== On load refuelling and miltary use. I strongly believe this linkage is NOT correct, and so I've deleted it. The issue of military use of material from the civil programme was checked out with the then chairman of CEGB many years ago - there was a special short-dwell facility at Hinckley (???) but it was never used. The two AEA reactors (Chapel Cross & Calder) where military Pu production was more of an issue, were not designed to be fuelled on load, I recollect... Overall, on-load refuelling was a special requirement of CEGB to enable commercial operation. User:Linuxlad 09:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) It's a moot point whether non-commercial and uneconomic are the same thing - some people will pay a lot for weapons grade plutonium! User:Linuxlad 21:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) You are correct that Chapel Cross & Calder don't have on-load refueling capability [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/chapelx.pdf], so I will remove the sentence I added: "This was particularly useful for short fuel cycles used to produce weapons-grade plutonium-239". But on the more general point of military use of Plutonium from CEGB power stations, Ross Hesketh (ex-CEGB) said that 5.4 tons of plutonium was supplied to the US between 1960 and 1970 under the Mutual Defence Agreement: :"This included the entire production of plutonium from all the UK civil nuclear power stations, up to April 1969, according to official sources.". See "Nuclear safeguards in Britain" in [http://www.sgr.org.uk/newsletters/NL19.pdf Scientists for Global Responsibility Newsletter No. 19]. See also Ross Hesketh's [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1091224,00.html Times obitury]. Given these contrary views I'd suggest not saying anything about which reactors were used for military plutonium. I don't think this is very central to the article anyway. There was the 1962 "Nuclear Weapon Test of Reactor-Grade Plutonium" using Magnox produced plutonium: "The plutonium was provided by the United Kingdom under the 1958 United States/United Kingdom Mutual Defense Agreement" [http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html]. Would have come from Chapel Cross or Calder of course being a 1962 test. Is it worth including this rather interesting item in the article? NB A side issue: [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/magnox.pdf HSE NII Safety Review report - Table 1] says Hunterston A is licensed by BNFL (like Chapel Cross & Calder) unlike the other ex-CEGB units licensed by Magnox Electric. Anyone know why? - User:Rwendland 00:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Lack of secondary containment== Lack of any secondary containment on UK's gas cooled reactors is an obvious major criticism, and should be covered in the article. I'm interested in the detailed justification for no secondary containment, but it seems hard to track down. Here are the the relevant references I've found so far, mostly too detailed to link from in the article: * George Jenkins from Nuclear Electric's testimony in [http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/nla/day27.htm Canadian Nuclear Liability Act Trial Transcript - Day 27] * Section 6.4 of [http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/announce_pubs/conspubs/third_national_report.pdf?nourl=www.dti.gov.uk/publications/pdflink/&pubpdfdload=04%2F1830 THE UNITED KINGDOM's THIRD NATIONAL REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY OBLIGATIONS] * [http://www.british-energy.com/media/factfiles/mn_item43.html British Energy Fact File] - AGR can maintain cooling by natural convection (in "Fast Reactors" section!) * Brief [http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja03alvarez criticism of North Korea's Magnox reactor] for lack of secondary containment, by US Energy Department senior policy adviser Be nice to track down a detailed safety case discussion, but I can't find one on the http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ HSE/NSD website; anyone know where one can be found? - User:Rwendland 14:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I can't see that it is such a big issue - the later gas-cooled reactors had Reinforced concrete pressure vessels, with boilers enclosed in the RPV. The maximum breach size was quite small, and the loss of CO2 can usually be made good. Provided the reactor trips, and the boilers are fed, natural circulation will take heat away if the system remains at presure - and in the Magnox designs natural convection will also suffice at atmospheric pressure IIRC. These reactors have many benign features because of their relatively low power densities.User:Linuxlad 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Magnox:
Magnox
Magnox
Magnox
Magnox is an obsolete type of nuclear reactor; when operated on a short fuel cycle (which is uneconomic) they can also produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. In all 11 power stations totalling 26 units were built in the United Kingdom where the design originated. In addition one was exported to Japan and one to Italy. North Korea also developed their own Magnox reactors based on the UK design, which was made public at an Atoms for Peace conference. At the end of 2003 eight UK Magnox power stations remained in operation, all were planned to be closed by 2010. Two (Chapelcross and Calder Hall) were owned by the UKAEA and were once used to produce weapons-grade plutonium in their early life before being used for commercial electricity generation; The rest were owned by CEGB and were operated on commercial fuel cycles. Magnox is also the name of the alloy mainly of magnesium with small amounts of aluminium and other metals used for cladding the unenriched uranium metal fuel, as a non-oxidising covering to contain fission products. Magnox is short for Magnesium non-oxidising. This material had the advantage of a low neutron capture cross-section, but it had two big disadvantages: *It limited the maximum temperature and hence thermal efficiency of the plant. *It reacted with water, making storage of spent fuel under water a short-term solution only. Magnox fuel incorporated cooling fins to provide maximum heat transfer despite the low operating temperatures, making it expensive to produce. While the use of uranium metal rather than oxide made reprocessing more straightforward and therefore cheaper, the need to reprocess a short time after removal from the reactor meant that the fission product hazard was severe and expensive remote handling facilities were required. The term magnox is also sometimes loosely used to refer to: *Three North Korean reactors, all based on the declassified blueprints of the Calder Hall Magnox reactors: **A smaller 5 MWe experimental reactor at Yongbyon, operated from 1986 to 1994, restarted 2003. Plutonium from the spent fuel may have been used in a North Korea nuclear weapons program. **A 50 MWe reactor also at Yongbyon, construction commenced in 1985 but halted in 1994 and never operated. **A 200 MWe reactor at Taechon, construction also halted in 1994. *Nine UNGG power reactors built in France, all now permanently shut down. These were carbon dioxide cooled graphite reactors with natural uranium metal fuel, very similar in design and purpose to the British Magnox reactors with one notable exception: The fuel cladding in the French reactors was magnesium-zirconium alloy, not magnox! The accepted term for all of these first-generation carbon dioxide cooled graphite moderated reactors, including the Magnox and UNGG, is GCR for Gas cooled reactor. The Magnox was replaced in the British power station program by the Advanced gas-cooled reactor or AGR, which was derived from it. A key feature of the AGR was the replacement of magnox cladding to allow higher temperatures and greater thermal efficiency. Stainless steel cladding was adopted after many other alloys had been tried and rejected. ==General description== The Magnox reactors were pressurised carbon dioxide cooled, graphite moderated reactors using natural (unenriched) uranium metal as fuel and magnox alloy as fuel cladding. The design was continuously refined, and very few units were identical. Early reactors had steel pressure vessels, later units (Oldbury & Wylfa) were of reinforced concrete; some were cylindrical but most spheres. Working pressure varied from 6.9 to 19.35 Bar (unit) for the steel pressure vessels, and the two reinforced concrete designs operated at 24.8 and 27 bar. On-load refuelling was an essential part of the design, to maximise power station availability by eliminating refueling downtime. The Magnox reactors have many benign features because of their low power densities and gas coolant, so do not have secondary containment. Loss of coolant accidents considered in the design would not cause largescale fuel failure, so the Magnox cladding would retain the bulk of the radioactive material, assuming the reactor was rapidly shutdown (a SCRAM). As the coolant is already a gas, pressure buildup from coolant boiling is not a risk. ==List of Magnox reactors in the UK== *Calder Hall near Whitehaven, Cumbria - 4 units 50 MWe each, first grid connection 1956, shut down 2003 () *Chapelcross near Annan, Dumfriesshire, 4 units 50 MWe each, first grid connection 1959, shut down 2003 () *Berkeley, Gloucestershire in Gloucestershire, 2 units 138 MWe each, first grid connection 1962, shut down 1989. () *Bradwell near Southminster, Essex, 2 units 121 MWe each, first grid connection 1962, shut down 2002 () *Hunterston "A" between West Kilbride and Fairlie, Ayrshire 2 units 160 MWe each, first grid connection 1964, shut down 1990 () *Hinkley Point near Bridgwater, Somerset, 2 units 235 MWe each, first grid connection 1965, shut down 1999 () *Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd, 2 units 195 MWe each, first grid connection 1965, shut down 1991 () *Dungeness Power Station "A" in Kent, 2 units 219 MWe each, first grid connection 1966 () *Sizewell "A" near Leiston, Suffolk, 2 units 210 MWe each, first grid connection 1966 () *Oldbury, South Gloucestershire near Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, 2 units 217 MWe each, first grid connection 1968, planned to be shut down in 2008. () *Wylfa on Anglesey, 2 units 490 MWe each, first grid connection 1971 () ==List of Magnox reactors exported from the UK== *Latina, Italy, 1 unit 160 MWe, first grid connection 1963, shut down 1987 following Italian referendum on nuclear power *Tokai (or Tokaimura), Japan, 1 unit 166 MWe, first grid connection 1966, shut down 1998 ==See also== *List of nuclear reactors ==External links== *[http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/magnox.pdf Magnox Safety Reviews] - HSE Nuclear Installations Inspectorate *[http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/reprocess/16.htm Disposal of Magnox spent fuel] - BNFL *[http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/abstracts_c/abst_iwggcr19_17.html Operating experience with the Latina Magnox reactor] - Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica Alloys Nuclear technology
Magnox
==Military Plutonium production== On load refuelling and miltary use. I strongly believe this linkage is NOT correct, and so I've deleted it. The issue of military use of material from the civil programme was checked out with the then chairman of CEGB many years ago - there was a special short-dwell facility at Hinckley (???) but it was never used. The two AEA reactors (Chapel Cross & Calder) where military Pu production was more of an issue, were not designed to be fuelled on load, I recollect... Overall, on-load refuelling was a special requirement of CEGB to enable commercial operation. User:Linuxlad 09:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) It's a moot point whether non-commercial and uneconomic are the same thing - some people will pay a lot for weapons grade plutonium! User:Linuxlad 21:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) You are correct that Chapel Cross & Calder don't have on-load refueling capability [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/chapelx.pdf], so I will remove the sentence I added: "This was particularly useful for short fuel cycles used to produce weapons-grade plutonium-239". But on the more general point of military use of Plutonium from CEGB power stations, Ross Hesketh (ex-CEGB) said that 5.4 tons of plutonium was supplied to the US between 1960 and 1970 under the Mutual Defence Agreement: :"This included the entire production of plutonium from all the UK civil nuclear power stations, up to April 1969, according to official sources.". See "Nuclear safeguards in Britain" in [http://www.sgr.org.uk/newsletters/NL19.pdf Scientists for Global Responsibility Newsletter No. 19]. See also Ross Hesketh's [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1091224,00.html Times obitury]. Given these contrary views I'd suggest not saying anything about which reactors were used for military plutonium. I don't think this is very central to the article anyway. There was the 1962 "Nuclear Weapon Test of Reactor-Grade Plutonium" using Magnox produced plutonium: "The plutonium was provided by the United Kingdom under the 1958 United States/United Kingdom Mutual Defense Agreement" [http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html]. Would have come from Chapel Cross or Calder of course being a 1962 test. Is it worth including this rather interesting item in the article? NB A side issue: [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/magnox.pdf HSE NII Safety Review report - Table 1] says Hunterston A is licensed by BNFL (like Chapel Cross & Calder) unlike the other ex-CEGB units licensed by Magnox Electric. Anyone know why? - User:Rwendland 00:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Lack of secondary containment== Lack of any secondary containment on UK's gas cooled reactors is an obvious major criticism, and should be covered in the article. I'm interested in the detailed justification for no secondary containment, but it seems hard to track down. Here are the the relevant references I've found so far, mostly too detailed to link from in the article: * George Jenkins from Nuclear Electric's testimony in [http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/nla/day27.htm Canadian Nuclear Liability Act Trial Transcript - Day 27] * Section 6.4 of [http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/announce_pubs/conspubs/third_national_report.pdf?nourl=www.dti.gov.uk/publications/pdflink/&pubpdfdload=04%2F1830 THE UNITED KINGDOM's THIRD NATIONAL REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY OBLIGATIONS] * [http://www.british-energy.com/media/factfiles/mn_item43.html British Energy Fact File] - AGR can maintain cooling by natural convection (in "Fast Reactors" section!) * Brief [http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja03alvarez criticism of North Korea's Magnox reactor] for lack of secondary containment, by US Energy Department senior policy adviser Be nice to track down a detailed safety case discussion, but I can't find one on the http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ HSE/NSD website; anyone know where one can be found? - User:Rwendland 14:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I can't see that it is such a big issue - the later gas-cooled reactors had Reinforced concrete pressure vessels, with boilers enclosed in the RPV. The maximum breach size was quite small, and the loss of CO2 can usually be made good. Provided the reactor trips, and the boilers are fed, natural circulation will take heat away if the system remains at presure - and in the Magnox designs natural convection will also suffice at atmospheric pressure IIRC. These reactors have many benign features because of their relatively low power densities.User:Linuxlad 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Magnox:
Magnox
Magnox
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
