Department of Science and Technology - Energy Neutral … · 2015. 11. 2. · comprises an ammonium...

Energy Neutral Phosphate Fertilizer Production Using High Temperature Reactors: A Philippine Case Study

Philippine Journal of Science144 (1): 69-79, June 2015ISSN 0031 - 7683Date Received: ?? ???? 2014

Nils Haneklaus1, Rolando Reyes2, Wendy G. Lim2, Estrellita U. Tabora2, Botvinnik L. Palattao2, Christina Petrache2,

Edmundo P. Vargas2, Kazuhiko Kunitomi3, Hirofumi Ohashi3, Nariaki Sakaba3, Hiroyuki Sato3, Minoru Goto3, Xing Yan3, Tetsuo Nishihara3, Harikrishnan Tulsidas4,

Frederik Reitsma4, Sandor Tarjan5, Karthikkeyan Sathrugnan5, Radojko Jacimovic6, Nahhar Al Khaledi7, Brian K. Birky8, and Ewald Schnug9

1University of California, Department of Nuclear Engineering, 4118 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1730 USA

2Department of Science and Technology- Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, Nuclear Materials Research, Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines

3Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Hydrogen and Heat Application Research Center, 4002 Narita-cho, Oarai-machi, Higashi-ibaraki-gun, Ibaraki 311-1393 Japan

4International Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Nuclear Power, VIC, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria5International Atomic Energy Agency, Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, 2444 Seibersdorf, Austria

6Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamovacesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia7Radiation Protection Department, Mubarak Al Kabir Street,

PO Box 16087, 35851 Qadeseyah, Kuwait8Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute, 1855 West Main Street, Bartow, FL 33830-7718 USA

9Braunschweig University of Technology, Department of Life Sciences, Pockelstraße 14, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany

Key Words: Energy neutral,high temperature reactors (HTRs), Philippines, phosphate fertilizer production, uranium extraction, wet acid process

The Philippines may profit from extracting uranium (U) from phosphoric acid during fertilizer production in a way that the recovered U can be beneficiated and taken as raw material for nuclear reactor fuel. Used in a high temperature reactor (HTR) that provides electricity and/or process heat for fertilizer processing and U extraction, energy-neutral fertilizer production, an idea first proposed by Haneklaus et al.,is possible. This paper presents a first case study of the concept regarding a representative phosphate fertilizer plant in the Philippines and exemplary HTR designs (HTR50S and GTHTR300C) developed by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). Three different arrangements (version I-III), ranging from basic electricity supply to overall power supply including on site hydrogen production for ammonia conversion, are introduced and discussed.

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

69

INTRODUCTIONThe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently proposed a Coordinated Research Project (CRP) that among other issues aims to assess whether or not energy neutral mineral processing is technically and economically feasible (Haneklaus et al. 2014a). Phosphate rock contains considerable amounts of naturally occurring uranium (U) (Schnug & Haneklaus 2013). Therefore, processing phosphate rock is one of the mineral development processes planned for study within the scope of the CRP. In fact, a first brief analysis to present the idea of energy neutral mineral development processing has been carried out using phosphate fertilizer processing as an exemplary process (Haneklaus et al. 2015). This paper presents a first case study using measured data from phosphate rock, phosphoric acid and phosphogypsum obtained from a representative phosphate fertilizer plant in the Philippines. Deploying high temperature reactors (HTRs) for electricity/hydrogen production as well as process heat application as described here may be of advantage as this process fosters energy security, uses resources (e.g. U) that are otherwise lost and reduces emissions if compared to energy production from presently predominant fossil fuels. The two JAEA high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) designs, developed for multiple heat applications, included in this study are: the HTR50S (High Temperature Reactor 50S) (Ohashi et al. 2013) and the GTHTR300C (Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor 300-Cogeneration) (Kunitomi et al. 2007). Three different arrangements (version I-III) are presented using three HTR50S units (version I), two GTHTR300C units (version II) or four GTHTR300C units (version III) as power supply. The reactor types were chosen due to the availability of open source technical data. Other HTR designs may in a similar way be used as potential power sources for the processes discussed in this paper.

METHODSOpen source data are used to determine the energy requirements of the regarded phosphate fertilizer plant, the power production and natural U demands of the exemplary HTGRs. The phosphate rock, the phosphoric acid and the phosphogypsum entering or exiting the regarded plant wereanalyzed to determine its U content using one or more of the following analytical measurement techniques: Fluorescence Spectroscopy (FS), Gamma Spectroscopy (GS), k0-Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (k0-INAA), Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS).

Present phosphate fertilizer production in Isabel, Leyte, Philippines

OverviewThe Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PHILPHOS) produces around 1.17 million tons of diammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizer annually at its facility in Isabel, Leyte (PHILPHOS 2014). The facility comprises an ammonium sulfate plant, a granulation plant, a phosphoric acid plant and two (a new and an older) sulfuric acid plants. Phosphate rock, elemental sulfur and ammonia, the raw materials used for DAPfertilizer production, are shipped to the facility (PHILPHOS 2014). Figure 1 shows a brief schematic overview of the material flows at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant in Isabel, Leyte. Material flows that were not given were estimated and are marked with an asterisk (*). The estimates use(IAEA 2013, IPNI 2011, Johnson et al. 2013)and are based on the given amount of annually produced fertilizer. The facilities storage systems: 120,000 t phosphate rock storage, 130,000 t fertilizer storage, etc. (PHILPHOS 2014)are for the sake of simplicity not considered in Fig. 1. (The pictures are courtesy of PHILPHOS and were provided for this paper).

If applicable and if values were not openly accessible additional material flows were estimated using the suggestions of Johnson et al. (2013). The reference was prefered since it compares a number of sources. The overall estimated amount of material shipped to and from the plant (3.86 million t/yr) corresponds well to the estimated 3.5 million t/yr provided by PHILPHOS (2014).It is further assumed that for every ton P2O5 equivalent produced using the wet acid process that is applied here, 4-6 t of phosphogypsum (dry mass) accrue (IAEA 2013). In practice, the material mass is much higher since phosphogypsum contains at least 20% of free water by weight when exiting the plant (UNIDO/IFDC 1998).

Uranium measurementsPHILPHOS imports all the phosphate rock it processes so that in contrast to a mining facility that may be depleted after some time a long term investment into a HTR could be reasonable. In 2005 most of the imported phosphate rock came from China, Nauru and Togo (PHILPHOS 2005). At present phosphate rock from Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Peru is processed(correspondence between PNRI and PHILPHOS). Table 1 shows the measured U content of the phosphate rock and the phosphoric acid at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant in Isabel.

The PHILPHOS fertilizer plant has several storage systems (e.g. 120,000 t phosphate rock storage, 53,000 t phosphoric acid storage, etc.) where materials are stored (and therefore to some extend mixed or blended) due to

Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 144 No. 1, June 2015

Haneklaus et al.: HTRs for Fertilizer Production

70

Figure 1. Brief schematic overview of the material flows at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant in Isabel, Leyte, Philippines.

Table 1. Measured uranium content in phosphate rock and phosphoric acid at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant

OriginUranium content [mg/kg]

Phosphate rock Phosphoric acidAlgeria 57.9a n.a.Egypt 65.7a 104.6b

Jordan 93.9a n.a.Morocco n.a. 80.6c

Peru I 74.8a 79.3b

Peru II n.a. 57.9a

Obtained using: aFS, bGS, cICP-MS; n.a. – not analyzed

arriving schedules and the desire to process consistent grades.The measured U concentrationswell agree with published estimates for phosphate rock from these countries (IAEA 2013; UNIDO/IFDC 1998; Ulrich et al. 2014). Generally the U concentration is increased when phosphate rock is processed to phosphoric acid (UNIDO/IFDC 1998).Using the arithmetic meanfor the given U concentrations approximately44.97 tUreports to the phosphoric acidat the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant annually. The U in the phosphoric acid is further processed to fertilizer that is dispersed on agricultural soils where the U is prone to leaching and contamination of water bodies (Knolle et al. 2011; Kratz and Schnug 2006; Rogasik et al. 2008).

Alternative phosphate fertilizer production using high temperature reactors

OverviewExtracting U from phosphoric acid produced by the wet acid process during fertilizer processing is a well-developed and understood process (IMPHOS 2009). It may result in cleaner final products that reach higher market

Table 2. Overview of the introduced alternative configurations for the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant.

Version Power Source Description

I 3xHTR50S (Phase I)

– Provide basic electric power required for the present phosphate fertilizer plant andphosphogypsum processing

II 2xGTHTR300C (Hydrogen Production Plant)


– Produce sufficient amounts of hydrogen to cover on site ammonia production

III 4xGTHTR300C (Cogeneration Plant)


– Produce sufficient amounts of hydrogen to cover on site ammonia production

– Substitute fossil fuel sources required for phosphogypsum processing by nuclear process heat



71

values and is beneficial from a resource conservation point of view (Schnug & Haneklaus 2012). In addition the extracted U could be used as raw material for nuclear reactor fuel providing energy for additional processing steps such as phosphogypsum processing(Haneklaus et al. 2014b). The following three different configurations with different premises are introduced to demonstrate how higher purity phosphate fertilizer may be produced without accruing phosphogypsum at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant using HTRs as anuclear power source.

Two HTGR designs, the HTR50s (Phase I design) and the GTHTR300C (Two variants, the Hydrogen Production Plant in version II and the Cogeneration Plant in version III), are introduced as possible power sources. Theinnovative reactor designs are based onthe high temperature engineering test reactor (HTTR) that is employed byJAEA (Kunitomi et al. 2007; Ohashi et al. 2013).

Version I – basic electricity supplyUnder the premise that no new phosphogypsum may be accumulated but all occurring phosphogypsum is further processed,an alternative design for the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant has been developed. Here the OSW-Krupp process is suggested for phosphogypsum processing. The process converts phosphogypsum with additional clay, sand, coke and natural gypsum to equal amounts of sulfuric acid and Portland cement (Kouloheris 1981) and was for instance used by the Fedmis plant in South Africa in the 1980s (Kent 2012). Relatively large amounts of oil (2.772 MWh equivalent/t cement/sulfuric acid produced) were used for the OSW-Krupp process in the past (Kouloheris 1981). Kouloheris indicated that the relatively large amount of fossil fuel was used to dry the phosphogypsum and the previously listed additives before both were processed in a rotary kiln (Kouloheris 1981). In the future the fossil fuel may be substituted by process heat from an HTGR (version III). Figure 2 provides a brief

Figure 2. Brief schematic overview of the first alternative design of the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant in Isabel, Leyte, Philippines.



72

schematic overview of the processing steps and material flows to be found in version I.

In addition to the present plant, the alternative system comprises three HTR50S units as power source for electricity. The reactors can be used to produce potable water from “waste heat” without efficiency losses (Yan et al. 2014). Since water is needed for fertilizer production, the amount of potable water that can be produced from seawater without energy losses isgiven in all alternative designs presented here. Furthermore, a sulfur recovery plant used for phosphogypsum processing, a cement plant and a plant for uranium recovery from phosphoric acid are added to the present design.An annual phosphogypsum production of 2.691 million twas calculated based on the assumption that 5 tphosphogypsumaccrue per t P2O5equivalent. The amount of sulfuric acid that may be produced using the OSW-Krupp process exceeds the amount needed for phosphate rock processing by 18,000 t/yr. This (relatively small) surplus may be used to cover losses that are not considered in the underlying calculation (Kouloheris 1981)or be sold as indicated in Fig. 2.

Natural U is recovered from the phosphoric acid. Taking the mean U concentrations of the measurements given previously 40.48 t U can be extracted annually assuming a (rather conservative) U recovery rate of 90 % (IAEA 1987). Approximately 23.71 t natural U are needed annually as raw material for the reactor fuel of the three HTR50S employed (assuming a feed of 0.711 235U and tails of 0.3 235U) (Goto et al. 2012). The three reactors employed generate a surplus of approximately 100 GWh annually that may be fed to the electricity grid of the Leyte industrial complex located next to the fertilizer plant. Table 3 provides further data on the electricity

consumption/production of the different components introduced in Fig. 2.Note that in this and later tables positive electricity consumption has been rounded up, negative electricity consumption has been rounded down.

Electricity needed for the reactor fuel enrichment and other less energy intensive processes such as fuel manufacturingwere not included as these steps will most likely not happen on site but at established enrichment-/fuel manufacturing facilities.

Version II – basic hydrogen supplyIn version II sufficient amounts of hydrogen for ammonia production shall be supplied by the power source.At present, most ammonia is produced by converting methane from natural gas to hydrogen which is then synthesized with nitrogen from air to ammonia (Haber-Bosch process, Eq. 1) (IIP 2009).

N2 + 3H2 → 2NH3 Eq. 1

HTRs have long been considered for hydrogen production(Yan and Hino 2011) and the previously introduced HTR50S offers the possibility of integrated hydrogen production in one of its designs(Ohashi et al. 2013). Due to the large number ofHTR50S that would be needed to provide sufficientamounts of hydrogen for the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant a larger reactor design the GTHTR300C specifically developed for large scale hydrogen productionis chosen as power source here.Given that an additional 15.4 % of hydrogen is needed to generate nitrogen from air for ammonia production (INL 2010), two GTHTR300C units would provide sufficient amounts of hydrogen and electricity for the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant. Figure 3 provides a brief schematic overview of the processing steps and material flows to be found in version II.

The additional hydrogen produced may be used on site (e.g. as substitute for oil if applicable) or sold as indicated in Figure 3. In this configuration the amount of natural U that is needed to operate the reactors exceeds the amount of U recovered. The amount of natural U needed to operate the GTHTR300C units is estimated on the basis of the natural U requirements of the GTHTR300 (IAEA 2012). Table 4 provides further data on the electricity consumption/production of the different components introduced in Fig. 3.

In version III the fossil fuel used for the sulfur recovery and cement plant (for better understanding separate units are shown in the overview but in reality the sulfur recovery, the sulfuric acid and the cement plant may be one unit (Kouloheris 1981)) is substituted by nuclear heat from the HTRs employed. The amount of energy is derived from the electricity generation of these reactors

Table 3. Electricity consumption of the components used in the first alternative plant design.

Component

Electricity consumption [GWh/year] Ref.

Sulfuric recovery plantCement plant 217 (Kouloheris 1981)

Phosphoric acid plantAmmonium sulfate plantGranulation plant

144 (PHILPHOS 2005)

Sulfuric acid plant (old and new)1 -72 (PHILPHOS 2005)

Uranium recovery 20 (IAEA,1987)

3xHTR50S (Phase I)2 -407 (Ohashi et al. 2013)

Sum -981The new sulfuric acid plant uses cogeneration to provide electricity to the fertilizer plant. Based on the information provided (PHILPHOS 2005) an availability factor of 82 % is assumed. 2An availability factor of 90 % is assumed.



73

and may be smaller if heat is used directly (another option not considered here would be the use of hydrogen as substitute). Figure 4 provides a brief schematic overview of the processing steps and material flows to be found in version III.

Four GTHTR300C (cogenerations plants) provide sufficient amounts of electricity and hydrogen for the processes. In fact three plants would be sufficient to cover the electricity demand, but a fourth one was added to meet the hydrogen demand of the ammonia plant. Again the U demand exceeds the amount of U that can be recovered from the phosphoric acid. Table 5 provides further data on the electricity consumption/production of the different components introduced in Fig. 4.

Since another reactor is added to meet the hydrogen demands, a considerable surplus in electricity generation is achieved. The electricity may be fed to the electricity grid of the Leyte industrial complex next to the fertilizer plant as indicated in Fig. 4. Alternative configurations that put emphasis on hydrogen production and include purchasing

Figure 3. Brief schematic overview of the second alternative design of the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant in Isabel, Leyte, Philippines.

Table 4. Electricity consumption of the components used in the second alternative plant design

Component


Sulfuric recovery plantCement plant 217 (Kouloheris 1981)


144 (PHILPHOS 2005)


Uranium recovery 20 (IAEA 1987)

Ammonia plant2 9 (INL 2010)

2xGTHTR300C (Hydrogen Production Plants)3 -686

(Kunitomi et al. 2007)

Sum -3681The new sulfuric acid plant uses cogeneration to provide electricity to the fertilizer plant. Based on the information provided (PHILPHOS 2005) an availability factor of 82 % is assumed.2Electricity needed for compressors and refrigerators during ammonia synthesis.3An availability factor of 90 % is assumed.



74

Figure 4. Brief schematic overview of the third alternative design of the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant in Isabel Leyte, Philippines.

Table 5. Electricity consumption of the components used in the third alternative plant design.

Component


Sulfuric recovery plantCement plant

217(Kouloheris 1981)

4,264


144 (PHILPHOS 2005)


Uranium recovery 20 (IAEA 1987)

Ammonia plant2 9 (INL 2010)

4xGTHTR300C (Cogeneration Plants)3 -6,374

(Kunitomi et al. 2007)

Sum -1,7921The new sulfuric acid plant uses cogeneration to provide electricity to the fertilizer plant. Based on the information provided (PHILPHOS 2005) an availability factor of 82 % is assumed. 2Electricity needed for compressors and refrigerators during ammonia synthesis. 3An availability factor of 90 % is assumed.

electricity from the existing local grid may be considered and thus may reduce the number of GTHTR300C plants. HTRs in cogeneration configurations are also flexible to switch between applications (electricity, heat, hydrogen) and will thus support these alternative configurations.

DISCUSSION

Uranium measurementsPhosphate rock, even when mined from one location, shows varying characteristics in its U content and other impurities (Abouzeid 2007; Kauwenbergh 2010). At the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant the situation is even more complex since phosphate rock from various locationsis treated. Based on the limited number of measurements the quantity of natural U in the phosphate rocks and theirintermediate products (phosphoric acid and phosphogypsum) were determined as shown in table 6. The results suggestsignificantU ‘losses’ that may be



75

explained with further measurements. (The 40.48 t natural U recovered are extracted from the 44.975 t natural U in the phosphoric acid. Mostnatural U coming from the phosphate rock accumulates in the phosphoric acid).

Economic feasibilityThe economic feasibility of the GTHTR300 has been evaluated by JAEA. The evaluation was approved by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (Takei et al. 2006). This report however considers the electricity generation of the GTHTR300 in Japan. The situation may be different in the Philippines in many ways of which some are listed here: (1) concerning the operational costs, cheap alternatives such as electricity from the nearby 650 MW Unified Leyte Geothermal Power Plant (currently not fully operational due to maintenance work) (Olchondra 2014) may be available; (2) there are presently no commercial Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) operated in the Philippines so that additional start-up costs, e.g. for licensing,would occur that have not been considered in the Japanese study where a HTGR can relatively easy be integrated in well-established existing nuclear infrastructure. Furthermore, the discount rate may be different in the Philippines resulting in additional costs for construction.

Besides relatively large uncertainties about the costs of such a project, additional revenues that may be gained from selling higher quality fertilizer products, saving considerable costs for phosphogypsum storage (maintaining phosphogypsum reservoirswas estimated to be as high as US$ 25 per ton in 2010 (Hilton 2010) in the USA) or selling Rare Earth Elements (REEs) obtained from the phosphogypsum during processing are equally difficult to predict. Table 7 provides an overview of REEs measured in phosphogypsum from the PHILPHOS plant and potential revenues that may be gained annually if the REEs are sold.

It is assumed that 50 % of the REEs can be recovered from the phosphogypsum(Habashi 1985). Recovery rates may vary for different metals and innovative processes promise considerably higher (30 % higher) (Kouraim et al. 2014) recovery ratesin the near future. In addition, phosphogypsum currently stacked next to the plant may be considered for processing and REEs recovery as well.

Whether or not energy neutrality is reached via U recovery seems to be of little economic relevance since the operational costs for U purchase and conversion account for less than 4 % of the total costs for power generation in case of the GTHTR300 in Japan (Takei et al. 2006).

CONCLUSIONSFirst estimates based on U measurements in phosphate rock and phosphoric acidfrom the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant presented here show that the amount of U that could be recovered during wet acid phosphate rock processing

Table 6. Brief uranium balance for the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant

Raw Material Intermediate Products

Phosphate Rock

Phosphoric Acid Phosphogypsum

Estimated amount at PHILPHOS plant [Mt/yr]

1.967 0.558 2.691

Average U content [mg/kg] 73.075 80.600 9.295

a

Overall U yield [t/yr] 143.731 44.975 25.013

143.7 70.0aObtained using: GS, ICP-MS and k0-INAA

The U content measured in the phosphate rock used at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant and the phosphogypsum found at this plant agree well with previous measurements for phosphate rock and phosphogypsum from the regarded regions (IAEA 2013,Ulrich et al. 2014, UNIDO/IFDC 1998). The presently inaccurate U balance may be explained by the unavailable ratio of the different phosphate rocks used as feed material or higher average amounts of U in the phosphoric acid that could not be inferredfrom the three data sets available for this assessment. A more systematic procedure to establish the material balance and more measurements may be required to explain the differences and to establish a more accurate U balance.

Technical feasibilityAll conventional components and processes introduced in this paper have been operated on an industrial scale in the past and are described in more detail in the given references. The introduced nuclear components (HTR50S and GTHTR300C) as well as processes (e.g. hydrogen production) associated with these components are based on past experience from operated HTGRs in the UK (Dragon 1963-76), the US (Peach Bottom 1967-74, Fort St. Vrain 1976-89) and Germany (AVR 1967-88, THTR, 1986-89) as well as experimental data from the HTR-10 (a 10 MWth research reactor operated since 2000 in China) and experimental data obtained from the HTTR (a 30 MWth research reactor employed since 1998 byJAEA in Oarai-Machi, Ibaraki-ken, Japan).



76

Table 7. Potential annual revenues from REEs obtained from phosphogypsum at the PHILPHOS fertilizer plant.

Rare Earth Element1

Content [mg/kg]2

Market value

[US$/kg]

for PHILPHOS plant3 [US$/yr]

Cerium (Ce) 79.5 12a 1,283,607

Europium (Eu) 2.1 1,000a 2,825,550

Lanthanum (La) 53.2 10a 715,806

Neodymium (Nd) 50.0 85a 5,718,375

Praseodymium (Pr) 12.8 150a 2,583,360

Scandium (Sc) 1.13 5,000b 7,602,075

Samarium (Sm) 8.83 29a 344,542

Terbium (Tb) 1.16 830a 1,295,447

Ytterbium (Yb) 2.73 1400c 5,142,501

Total 211.45 - 27,511,809

Total (rounded) 210 - 27,5 million1As defined by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC),2Obtained using:k0-INAA,3Assuming 2.691 Mt phosphogypsum per year and a recovery rate of 50%.Price obtained from:a(Metal-Pages 2014) on the 11th of August 2014, b(Duyvesteynand Putnam 2014), c(Stewart 2014).

in Isabel (Philippines) isafter enrichment and nuclear fuel manufacture sufficient to operate three small sized HTGRs (HTR50S) that can cover the basic electricity needs of the phosphate fertilizer plant (version I). Two further arrangements in which larger HTGRs (2-4 GTHTR300C) are used as a) the power source for ammonia production using the Haber-Bosch process (version II) and b) entire energy supply, ammonia production and substitution of main fossil fuels with nuclear process heat (version III) may not reach energy neutrality.However, these options provide an overview of the possibilities for the use of HTGRs for higher quality phosphate fertilizer production,which promotes greenhouse gas lean energy production in general and enhances sustainability in the fertilizer industry through higher resource conversion compared to current practices and cleaner final products on our soils.

Further analysisof total environmental impacts,i.e. waste of the employed greenhouse gas lean energy sources, comparison of dose from naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in the processed phosphate rock as well as licensing of such a coupled system will have to be performed to better understand the proposed system beyond its technical and economic feasibility.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) that made this cooperation as a whole possible. Furthermore, the authors thank PHILPHOS for the information and materials provided as well as Manfred Gröning (IAEA-SEI) and Vladimir Radulovic (JSI) for their assistance with the laboratory work conducted. The views expressed have not been endorsed by the sponsoring agencies. Any remaining errors, omissions, or inconsistencies are the authors’ alone.

REFERENCESABOUZEID. 2007. Physical and thermal treatment of

phosphate ores - An overview. International Journal of Mineral Processing 85 (2008): 59-84.

DUYVESTEYN WPC, PUTNAM GF. 2014. Scandium - A review of the element, its characteristics, and current and emerging commercial applications. EMC Metals Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.emcmetals.com/i/pdf/Scandium-White-PaperEMC-Website-June-2014-.pdf. on 08 11, 2014.

GOTO M, SEKI Y, INABA Y, OHAHSI H, SATO H, FUKAYA Y, TACHIBANA Y. 2012. 小型高温ガス炉システムの概念設計（Ⅱ）－核設計－Conceptual Design of Small-sized HTGR System (II). Oarai, Japan: Japan Atomic Energy Agency - JAEA-Technology. p. 2012-017 (in Japanese).

HABASHI, FATHI. 1985. The recovery of the lanthanides from phosphate rock. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 35A: 5-14.

HANEKLAUS N, REITSMA F, TULSIDAS H, TYOBEKA B, SCHNUG E, ALLELEIN HJ, BRIAN BK, PETERSON PF, DYCK G, KOSHY T. 2014a. Using High Temperature Reactors for Energy Neutral Mineral Development Processes - A proposed IAEA coordinated research project. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on uranium raw material for the nuclear fuel cycle: Exploration, mining, production,supply and demand, economics and environmental issues (URAM 2014); 2014 June 23-27; Vienna, Austria: Springer International Publishing.(in press).

HANEKLAUS N, TULSIDAS H, REITSMA F, SCHNUG E. 2014b. Using high temperature reactors for energy neutral phosphate fertilizer and phosphogypsum



77

processing. In: Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Uranium Mining and Hydrogeology (UMH VII); 2014 September 21-25; Freiberg, Germany: Springer International Publishing. p. 785-791.

HANEKLAUS N, SCHNUG E, TULSIDAS H, TYOBEKA B. 2015. Using high temperature gas-cooled reactors for greenhouse gas reduction and energy neutral production of phosphate fertilizers. Annals of Nuclear Energy 75 (2015): 275-285.

HILTON J. 2010. Phosphogypsum (PG) Uses and current handling practices worldwide. 25th Annual Lakeland Regional Phosphate Conference, October 13-14, 2010.

[IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 1987. IAEA TECDOC 533 - The Recovery of Uranium from Phosphoric Acid. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. p. 41.

[IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2012. TECDOC-1674 - Advances in High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Fuel Technology. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. p. 21-22.

IAEA. 2013. Radiation Protection and Management of Norm Residues in the Phosphate Industry. Safety Reports Series No. 78. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. p. 111.

[IIP] Institute for Industrial Productivity. 2009. Ammonia. Institute for Industrial Productivity. Accessed 2014 August 5. http://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/ammonia.

[IMPHOS] Institut Mondiale du Phosphate. 2009. Newsletter Uranium recovery from phosphoric acid. Retrieved from http://www.imphos.org/download/imphos_news_special26_web.pdf. on 2013

[INL] Idaho National Laboratory. 2010. Technical Evaluation Study Project No. 23843 Nuclear-Integrated Ammonia Production Analysis. Idaho National Laboratory. p. 27.

[IPNI] International Plant Nutrition Institute. 2011. Nutrient Source Specific - Diammonium Phosphate. International Plant Nutrition Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ipni.net/publication/nss.nsf/0/66D92CC07C016FA7852579AF00766CBD/$FILE/NSS-17%20Diammonium%20Phosphate.pdf. 08 01, 2014

JOHNSON MC, PALOU-RIVERA I, FRANK ED. 2013. Energy consumption during the manufacture of nutrients for algae cultivation. Algal Research Vol. 2, 214: 426-436.

KAUWENBERGH. 2010. World Phosphate Rock Reserves and Resources. Muscle Shoals, Alabama: International Fertilizer Development Center. p. 3-5.

KENT JA. 2012. Handbook of Industrial Chemistry and Biotechnology. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-4259-2_1, Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

KNOLLE F, BIRKE M, HASSOUN R, JACOBS F, SCHNUG E. 2011. Uranium in German mineral water – occurrence and origins. In: Merkel B, Schipek M., The New Uranium Mining Boom 749 DOI 10.1007/978-3642-22122-4. p. 749-754

KOULOHERIS AP. 1981. Evaluation of potential commercial processes for the production of sulfuric acid from phosphogypsum. Bartow, Florida: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. p. 18-22.

KOURAIM MN, FAWZY MM, HELALY OS. 2014. Leaching of Lanthanides from Phosphogypsum Waste using Nonyl Phenol Ethoxylate Associated with HNO3 and HCl. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) 16 (2): 31-44.

KRATZ S, SCHNUG E. 2006. Rock phosphates and P fertilizers as sources of U contamination in agricultural soils. In: Uranium in the Environment, by Merkel BJ, Hasche-Berger A., Berlin: Springer. p. 57-67.

KUNITOMI K, YAN X, NISHIHARA T, SAKABA N, MOURI T. 2007. JAEA’s VHTR for hydrogen and electricity cogeneration: GTHTR300C. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 39(1): 9-20.

METAL-PAGES. 2014. Metal Pages. Metal-Pages Ltd 2000 - 2014. August 11. Accessed 08 11, 2014. http://www.metal-pages.com/.

OHASHI H, SATO H, GOTO M, YAN X, SUMITA J, TAZAWA Y, NOMOTO Y, AIHARA J, INABA Y, FUKAYA Y, NOGUCHI H, IMAI Y, TACHIBANA Y. 2013. A Small-sized HTGR system design for multiple heat applications for developing countries. International Journal of Nuclear Energy Volume 2013: Article ID 918567 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/918567).

OLCHONDRA RT. 2014. Business Inquirer. Leyte plants back in operation by Q3, says EDC. 01 19. Accessed 08 11, 2014. http://business.inquirer.net/160819/leyte-plants-back-in-operation-by-q3-says-edc.

[PHILPHOS] Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. 2005. Plant Production Units. Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.philphos.com.ph/philphos/plant.aspx. on 07 31, 2014.

[PHILPHOS] Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. 2014. Plant Production Units. Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/sulphuric-acid-on-the-web/acid%20plants/Philippine-Phosphate-Fertilizer.htm. on 0621, 2015.



78

ROGASIK J, KRATZ S, FUNDER U, PANTEN K, SCHNUG E, BARKUSKY D, BAUMECKER M, GUTSER R, LAUSEN P, SCHERER HW, SCHMIDT L. 2008. Uranium in soils of German long-term fertilizer trials. In: Loads and fate of fertilizer-derived uranium. De Kok LJ, Schnug E (Eds). Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers. p. 135-146.

SCHNUG E, HANEKLAUS N. 2012. Environmental Prospects of Uranium from Mineral Phosphates. International Journal for Nuclear Power. 57(12): 750-752.

SCHNUG E, HANEKLAUS N. 2014. “Uranium the hidden treasure in phosphates”, Conf. Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Innovation and Technology in the Phosphate Industry (Symphos 2013). Procedia Engineering 83: 265-269. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.001.

STEWART D. 2014. Ytterbium Element facts, Accessed 15.10.2014. http://www.chemicool.com/elements/ytterbium.html.

TAKEI M, KOSUGIYAMA S, MOURI T, KATANISHI S, KUNITOMI K. 2006. 高温ガス炉ガスタービン発電システム(GTHTR300)の経済性評価 - Economical Evaluation on Gas-Turbine High Temperature Reactor 300 (GTHTR300) (in Japanese).“ 日本原子力学会和文論文誌 5 (2): 109-117.

ULRICH AE, SCHNUG E, PRASSER HM, FROSSARD E. 2014. Uranium endowments in phosphate rock. Science of the Total Environment 478(2): 226-234.

[UNIDO/IFDC] United Nations Industrial Development Organization/International Fertilizer Development Center. 1998. Fertilizer Manual. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 535-537.

YAN X, NOGUCHI H, SATO H,TACHIBANA Y, KUNITOMI K, HINO R. 2014. A hybrid HTGR system producing electricity, hydrogen and such other products as water demanded in the Middle East. Nuclear Engineering and Design 271: 20-29.

YAN X, HINO R. 2011. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor&Francis Group. p. 211-213.



79

Department of Science and Technology - Energy Neutral … · 2015. 11. 2. · comprises an ammonium...

Documents

Transcript of Department of Science and Technology - Energy Neutral … · 2015. 11. 2. · comprises an ammonium...