DOCSLIB.ORG

Stellarator Fusion Reactors –– an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Toki Conf. ITC12, Dec. 2001 STELLARATOR FUSION REACTORS –– AN OVERVIEW BEIDLER Craig D., HARMEYER Ewald, HERRNEGGER Franz, KISSLINGER Johann, IGITKHANOV Yuri, WOBIG Horst1 Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, EURATOM Association D-85740 Garching bei München, Germany. Abstract: The stellarator system offers a distinct alternative to the mainline approaches to magnetic fusion power and has several potentially major advantages. Since the first proposal of the stellarator con- cept many reactor studies have been published and these studies reflect the large variety of stella- rator configurations. The main representatives are the continuous-coil configurations and the mo- dular-coil configurations. As a continuation of the LHD experiment two reactor configurations, FFHR1 and FFHR2, have been investigated, which use continuous helical windings for providing the magnetic field. The modular coil concept has been realized in the MHH-reactor study (USA 1997) and in the Helias reactor. The Helias reactor combines the principle of plasma optimisation with a modular coil system. The paper also discusses the issues associated with the blanket and the maintenance process. Stellarator configurations with continuous coils such as LHD possess a natural helical divertor, which can be used favourably for impurity control. In advanced stella- rators with modular coils the same goal can be achieved by the island divertor. Plasma parameters in the various stellarator reactors are computed on the basis of presently known scaling laws showing that confinement is sufficiently good to provide ignition and self-sustained burn. Keywords: Stellarator, fusion reactor, modular coils, helical system, power balance 1. Introduction Table 1: Main features of a stellarator reactor The main properties of a stellarator reactor are the potential of steady-state operation and the absence of ∑ Steady-state magnetic fields. No induced current disruption; a summary of the main features is eddy currents. No enhanced fatigue of the given in Table 1. The steady-state magnetic fields structure due to pulsed thermal load. simplify superconducting magnet design, remove the ∑ Steady-state operation at high Q , Q –> ∞. need for pulsed superconducting coils, and eliminate ∑ No energy storage and low recirculating energy storage required to drive pulsed coils. Plasma power requirements. confinement during startup and shutdown is aided by ∑ Moderate plasma aspect ratio (8-12) which the presence of magnetic surfaces at all times during offers good access to the reactor core. this phase. Steady-state plasma operation after ignition is an outstanding advantage of the stellarator ∑ Start-up on existing magnetic surfaces concept. with good confinement at all instances. A stellarator can have a relatively high aspect ∑ No positioning or field shaping coils ratio and does not require expensive complicating necessary. auxiliary magnets for field shaping, position control ∑ No major disruptions that could lead to an coils and current drive. Its coil configuration permits energy dump on the first wall or on the access to the device from all sides and facilitates a divertor target plates. modular approach to blanket and shield design. ∑ Several potential methods for impurity Since stellarators and torsatrons can operate free of control and ash removal exist. Magnetic induced toroidal current and do not suffer from islands at the plasma edge can be used for major plasma disruptions, the major concern of an divertor action excessive energy dump on the first wall and plasma ∑ No toroidal current drive is required. facing components can be eliminated. 1 E-mail: [email protected] attempt at an integrated design of a stellarator 2. Stellarator reactors reactor addressing all major components of the Early stellarator reactor designs [1,2,3,4] concluded plant: the physics base, the coil system, the blanket, that the coupled problems of high coil cost and low maintenance, the power balance and, last but not system power density (i.e., low beta) were parti- least, the cost analysis. The magnetic configuration cularly severe for the classical stellarator. A particu- is basically a Heliac including elements of optimi- lar disadvantage of the classical stellarator configu- sation as have been developed in the Helias concept. ration arises from the interaction between the toroidal This explains the name: Modular Helias-like Heliac field coils and the helical windings. The torsatron (MHH). [5,6] and modular-coil configurations [7,8], however, The method to calculate the coil system after the show strong promise for alleviating the coil problem magnetic field has been specified offers the chance per se. to optimize the magnetic field first according to The MIT T-1 torsatron design [6] was the first criteria of optimum plasma performance [15] and study of a torsatron reactor. It reflects an attempt to then to compute the coil system after this procedure reduce the total power output to < 4 GWt under the has come to a satisfying result. Along this line the assumption of conservative beta limits. Helical advanced stellarator [16] has been developed. The reactor design studies are based on the LHD- concept of modular coils and the principle of optimi- concept, which has been developed at the National sation have been combined in the Wendelstein 7-X Institute of Fusion Studies (NIFS) in Toki, Japan. device [17], which will demonstrate the reactor The LHD-experiment is a torsatron with l=2 helical capability of the advanced stellarator line. HSR5/22 windings and 10 field periods [9] and the advantage and HSR4/18 are fusion reactors based on this of the LHD-concept is the natural divertor with two concept. X-points, which helically encircle the plasma. Apart The main criteria in designing stellarator reactors from this helical structure it has many features in are the space needed for a breeding blanket and common with the tokamak divertor. Two versions of shield and the conditions of self-sustained burn. The the LHD-type reactor exist: the Force-Free Helical size of blanket and shield depends on atomic physics Reactor (FFHR [10]) and the Modular Helical and is more or less the same in all fusion devices; it Reactor (MHR). The main feature of the FFHR is is on the order of 1-1.3 m. Any stellarator reactor the arrangement of the helical windings in such a must be large enough to accomodate a blanket. The way that the forces on the helical windings are confinement time must satisfy the Lawson conditon minimized. This requirement leads to an l = 3 nt > 2x1020, which implies that the confinement system with 18 field periods. E The first studies of modular stellarator reactors time must be about 1-2 seconds. Any chance to started from the well-known magnetic field configu- operate the reactor at high density relaxes the rations, which before have been realized by helical requirements on the confinement time. windings and toroidal field coils. The UWTOR-M Table 2: Helical system reactors reactor [11], designed at the University of Wiscon- sin, is one of the first devices utilising the concept of Parameters FFHR1 FFHR2 modular coils. The modular stellarator reactor Major radius [m] 20 10 (MSR) developed at the Los Alamos Laboratories is Av. radius of coils [m] 3.33 2.3 a classical l = 2, m = 6 configuration generated by Coil current [MAturns] 66.6 50 24 modular coils. The thermal output is on the order Plasma radius [m] 2 1.2 of 4000 MW. The study on the modular stellarator Plasma volume [m3] 1579 284 ASRA6C was carried out in 1987 as a joint effort of Magnetic field B(0) [T] 12 10 IPP Garching, KfK Karlsruhe and the University of Max. field on coils [T] 14 13 Wisconsin [12]. This study was based on the Average beta [%] 0.7 1.8 Wendelstein 7-AS configuration and the aim was Density n(0) [m-3] 2 1020 2.8 1020 directed towards the clarification of critical issues of Temperature T(0) [keV] 22 27 an advanced modular stellarator reactor and was not Fusion power [MW] 3000 1000 meant as a point design. Polarity l 32 The MHH is a 4-period modular stellarator reac- Field periods 18 10 tor, which has been designed in a joint effort by a Magnet. energy [GJ] 1290 147 group of fusion laboratories in the USA [13]. The approach is similar to that used in the ARIES- Another design parameter is the magnetic field tokamak reactor studies [14]: an integrated physics, strength, which should be large enough to provide engineering, reactor component and cost optimi- sufficient confinement and high magnetic pressure sation. This stellarator power plant study is the first 2 (small beta values) while on the other hand it should in a radioactive environment. With respect to be small to avoid large mechanical forces in the coils maintenance the continuous helical coil approach is and expensive superconductors. Feasibility of the the ideal one, since sufficiently large gaps between coil system and maintainability of the blanket are helical windings exist and access to the blanket and other important design criteria. Since there is no the divertor is possible nearly everywhere. consensus yet on a priority list among these criteria, stellarator reactor concepts differs appreciably with 3. Blanket in stellarator reactors respect to size, magnetic field and layout of the As in any toroidal fusion device the purpose of the blanket. blanket is to provide sufficient breeding of tritium Table 3: Modular coil reactors and to shield the superconducting coils against neutrons. The size of the blanket and its radial width Parameters MHH HSR4/18 is an absolute figure and any fusion device has to Major radius [m] 14 18 provide enough space to accomodate a blanket with Av. radius of coils [m] 4.75 5.5 about 1.3 m radial build. In contrast to tokamaks the Coil current [MAturns] 13.8 10.8 stellarator, however, requires a 3-dimensional design Number of modular coils 32 40 of the blanket, which must conform to the 3- Plasma radius [m] 1.63 2.1 dimensional shape of the plasma.
Recommended publications
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms

    Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms

    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
  • Recent Tritium Breeding Experiments with Lithium Titanate Mock-Ups Irradiated with DT Neutrons

    Recent Tritium Breeding Experiments with Lithium Titanate Mock-Ups Irradiated with DT Neutrons

    JAP]Rf-Conf 2004-012 III11111 1111111111 11111 11111 11111 11IN JP0450771 7.2 Recent tritium breeding experiments with lithium titanate mock-ups irradiated with DT neutrons Axel Klix", Yury Verz iloVb , Kentaro Ochiai6, Takeo Nishitan b, Akito Takahashi' ' Department of Nuclear Engineering, Osaka nVuersity, Sulta, Japan bFusion Neutronics Source, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Tokaimura, Japan Experiments with breeding blanket mock-ups composed of layers of beryllium, ferritic steel F82H and 6Li enriched lithium titanate, Li2TiO3 are currently under investigation at Fusion Neutronics Source (FNS) of JAERI. Pellets of Li2TiO3 were used as detectors for the tritium production rate inside the tritium breeding layer. A method for direct measurement of low concentrations of tritium in Li2TiO3 was developed. After irradiation, the pellets were dissolved in concentrated hydrochloric acid and the tritium activity in the sample solution was measured by liquid scintillation counting. This method was applied to several mock-up experiments and the experiments analyzed with three-dimensional Monte Carloc calculations. In some cases the tritium production rate was found to be overestimated by the calculations. KEYWORDS: FNS, D-T neutrons, breeding blanket, lithium titanate, tritium I Introduction 100 r -So rce: FENIS_ Tritium is a fuel for fusion reactors based on the E T Deuterium-Tritium (DT) fusion reaction. It must be pro- 1: 10 duced artificially in a lithium compound in the breeding .0 Q) T :7 -7 7-7, blanket which surrounds the fusion zone. A sufficiently U) _ i high tritium production performance is an important de- U3 f sign parameter for the breeding blanket.
  • Inis: Terminology Charts

    Inis: Terminology Charts

    IAEA-INIS-13A(Rev.0) XA0400071 INIS: TERMINOLOGY CHARTS agree INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, AUGUST 1970 INISs TERMINOLOGY CHARTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ... ......... *.* 1 PREFACE 2 INTRODUCTION ... .... *a ... oo 3 LIST OF SUBJECT FIELDS REPRESENTED BY THE CHARTS ........ 5 GENERAL DESCRIPTOR INDEX ................ 9*999.9o.ooo .... 7 FOREWORD This document is one in a series of publications known as the INIS Reference Series. It is to be used in conjunction with the indexing manual 1) and the thesaurus 2) for the preparation of INIS input by national and regional centrea. The thesaurus and terminology charts in their first edition (Rev.0) were produced as the result of an agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). Except for minor changesq the terminology and the interrela- tionships btween rms are those of the December 1969 edition of the Euratom Thesaurus 3) In all matters of subject indexing and ontrol, the IAEA followed the recommendations of Euratom for these charts. Credit and responsibility for the present version of these charts must go to Euratom. Suggestions for improvement from all interested parties. particularly those that are contributing to or utilizing the INIS magnetic-tape services are welcomed. These should be addressed to: The Thesaurus Speoialist/INIS Section Division of Scientific and Tohnioal Information International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 590 A-1011 Vienna, Austria International Atomic Energy Agency Division of Sientific and Technical Information INIS Section June 1970 1) IAEA-INIS-12 (INIS: Manual for Indexing) 2) IAEA-INIS-13 (INIS: Thesaurus) 3) EURATOM Thesaurusq, Euratom Nuclear Documentation System.
  • The Stellarator Program J. L, Johnson, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

    The Stellarator Program J. L, Johnson, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

    The Stellarator Program J. L, Johnson, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. (On loan from Westlnghouse Research and Development Center) G. Grieger, Max Planck Institut fur Plasmaphyslk, Garching bel Mun<:hen, West Germany D. J. Lees, U.K.A.E.A. Culham Laboratory, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England M. S. Rablnovich, P. N. Lebedev Physics Institute, U.S.3.R. Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R. J. L. Shohet, Torsatron-Stellarator Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. and X. Uo, Plasma Physics Laboratory Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uj', Japan Abstract The woHlwide development of stellnrator research is reviewed briefly and informally. I OISCLAIWCH _— . vi'Tli^liW r.'r -?- A stellarator is a closed steady-state toroidal device for cer.flning a hot plasma In a magnetic field where the rotational transform Is produced externally, from torsion or colls outside the plasma. This concept was one of the first approaches proposed for obtaining a controlled thsrtnonuclear device. It was suggested and developed at Princeton in the 1950*s. Worldwide efforts were undertaken in the 1960's. The United States stellarator commitment became very small In the 19/0's, but recent progress, especially at Carchlng ;ind Kyoto, loeethar with «ome new insights for attacking hotii theoretics] Issues and engineering concerns have led to a renewed optimism and interest a:; we enter the lQRO's. The stellarator concept was borr In 1951. Legend has it that Lyman Spiczer, Professor of Astronomy at Princeton, read reports of a successful demonstration of controlled thermonuclear fusion by R.
  • Fusion & High Energy Density Plasma Science

    Fusion & High Energy Density Plasma Science

    Fusion & High Energy Density Plasma Science Opportunities using Pulsed Power Daniel Sinars, Sandia National Laboratories Fusion Power Associates Dec. 4-5, 2018 Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA-0003525. Sandia is the home of Z, the world’s largest pulsed power facility, and its adjacent multi-kJ Z-Beamlet and Z-PW lasers Pulsed power development area Z Periscope ZBL/ZPW Chama ZPW ZBL Chamber Jemez Chamber Chaco Pecos Target Chamber Chaco Chaco Probe Chambers Laser Beam Using two HED facilities, we have demonstrated the scaling of magneto-inertial fusion over factors of 1000x in energy 3 Our fusion yields have been increasing as expected with increased fuel preheating and magnetization Progress since 1st MagLIF in 2014 Demonstrated platform on Omega • Improved laser energy coupling • Improved magnetic field from ~0.3 kJ to 1.4 kJ strength from 9 T to 27 T • Demonstrated 6x improvement • Achieved record MIF yields on in fusion performance, reaching Omega of 5x109 DD in 2018 2.5 kJ DT-equivalent in 2018 4 We believe that Z is capable of producing a fusion yield of ~100 kJ DT-equivalent with MagLIF, though doing it with DT would exceed our safety thresholds for both T inventory & yield Preheat Energy = 6 kJ into 1.87 mg/cc DT § 2D simulations indicate a 22+ MA and 25+ T with 22.6 MA 6 kJ of preheat could produce ~100 kJ 21.1 MA § Presently, we cannot produce these inputs 17.4 MA S.
  • NIAC 2011 Phase I Tarditti Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture Final Report

    NIAC 2011 Phase I Tarditti Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture Final Report

    NASA-NIAC 2001 PHASE I RESEARCH GRANT on “Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture” Final Research Activity Report (SEPTEMBER 2012) P.I.: Alfonso G. Tarditi1 Collaborators: John H. Scott2, George H. Miley3 1Dept. of Physics, University of Houston – Clear Lake, Houston, TX 2NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 3University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Executive Summary - Motivation This study was developed because the recognized need of defining of a new spacecraft architecture suitable for aneutronic fusion and featuring game-changing space travel capabilities. The core of this architecture is the definition of a new kind of fusion-based space propulsion system. This research is not about exploring a new fusion energy concept, it actually assumes the availability of an aneutronic fusion energy reactor. The focus is on providing the best (most efficient) utilization of fusion energy for propulsion purposes. The rationale is that without a proper architecture design even the utilization of a fusion reactor as a prime energy source for spacecraft propulsion is not going to provide the required performances for achieving a substantial change of current space travel capabilities. - Highlights of Research Results This NIAC Phase I study provided led to several findings that provide the foundation for further research leading to a higher TRL: first a quantitative analysis of the intrinsic limitations of a propulsion system that utilizes aneutronic fusion products directly as the exhaust jet for achieving propulsion was carried on. Then, as a natural continuation, a new beam conditioning process for the fusion products was devised to produce an exhaust jet with the required characteristics (both thrust and specific impulse) for the optimal propulsion performances (in essence, an energy-to-thrust direct conversion).
  • Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling

    Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling

    Molten-Salt Technology and Fission Product Handling Kirk Sorensen Flibe Energy, Inc. ORNL MSR Workshop October 4, 2018 2018-10-16 Hello, my name is Kirk Sorensen and I’d like to talk with you today about fission products and their handling in molten-salt reactors. One of the things that initially attracted me to molten-salt reactor technology was the array of options that it gave for the intelligent handling of fission products. It represented such a contrast to solid-fueled systems, which mixed fission products in with unburned nuclear fuel in a form that was difficult to separate, one from another. While my focus will be on our work on molten-salt reactor fission product handling, many of the principles are general to molten-salt reactors as a whole. Fundamental Nuclear Reactor Concept In its simplest form, a nuclear reactor generates thermal energy that is carried away by a coolant. That coolant heats the working fluid of a power conversion system, which generates electricity from part of the thermal energy and rejects the remainder to the environment. coolant working fluid fresh fuel electricity Power Nuclear Heat Conversion Reactor Exchanger System spent fuel heated water or air coolant working fluid The primary coolant chosen for a nuclear reactor determines, in large part, its size and manufacturability. The temperature of the coolant determines the efficiency of electrical generation. Fundamental Nuclear Reactor Concept In its simplest form, a nuclear reactor generates thermal energy that is carried away by a coolant. That coolant heats the working fluid of a power conversion system, which generates electricity from part of the thermal energy and rejects the remainder to the environment.
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies

    A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies

    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
  • 0409-TOFE-Elguebaly

    0409-TOFE-Elguebaly

    BBenenefitsefits ooff RRadadialial BBuuildild MinMinimimizatioizationn anandd RReqequuirirememenentsts ImImposedposed onon AARRIEIESS CComompapacctt SStetellallararatotorr DDeesigsignn Laila El-Guebaly (UW), R. Raffray (UCSD), S. Malang (Germany), J. Lyon (ORNL), L.P. Ku (PPPL) and the ARIES Team 16th TOFE Meeting September 14 - 16, 2004 Madison, WI Objectives • Define radial builds for proposed blanket concepts. • Propose innovative shielding approach that minimizes radial standoff. • Assess implications of new approach on: – Radial build – Tritium breeding – Machine size – Complexity – Safety – Economics. 2 Background • Minimum radial standoff controls COE, unique feature for stellarators. • Compact radial build means smaller R and lower Bmax fi smaller machine and lower cost. • All components provide shielding function: – Blanket protects shield Magnet Shield FW / Blanket – Blanket & shield protect VV Vessel Vacuum – Blanket, shield & VV protect magnets Permanent Components • Blanket offers less shielding performance than shield. • Could design tolerate shield-only at Dmin (no blanket)? • What would be the impact on T breeding, overall size, and economics? 3 New Approach for Blanket & Shield Arrangement Magnet Shield/VV Shield/VV Blanket Plasma Blanket Plasma 3 FP Configuration WC-Shield Dmin Magnet Xn through nominal Xn at Dmin blanket & shield (magnet moves closer to plasma) 4 Shield-only Zone Covers ~8% of FW Area 3 FP Configuration Beginning of Field Period f = 0 f = 60 Middle of Field Period 5 Breeding Blanket Concepts Breeder Multiplier Structure FW/Blanket Shield VV Coolant Coolant Coolant ARIES-CS: Internal VV: Flibe Be FS Flibe Flibe H2O LiPb – SiC LiPb LiPb H2O * LiPb – FS He/LiPb He H2O Li4SiO4 Be FS He He H2O External VV: * LiPb – FS He/LiPb He or H2O He Li – FS He/Li He He SPPS: External VV: Li – V Li Li He _________________________ * With or without SiC inserts.
  • Medical Isotope Production in Liquid-Fluoride Reactors

    Medical Isotope Production in Liquid-Fluoride Reactors

    Medical Isotope Production in Liquid-Fluoride Reactors Kirk Sorensen Flibe Energy Huntsville, Alabama kirk.sorensen@flibe-energy.com 256 679 9985 Flibe Energy was formed in order to develop liquid-fluoride reactor technology and to supply the world with affordable and sustainable energy, water and fuel. Liquid-Fluoride Reactor Concept Reactor Containment Boundary Turbine Coolant LiF-BeF2-UF4 LiF-BeF2 outlet Primary HX Gas Heater Gas Cooler Generator Reactor core Compressor Coolant inlet Drain Freeze valve Tank Electrical Warm Recompressor Main Compressor Turbine Generator Saturated Air Cool Dry Air Gas Heater High-Temp Low-Temp Gas Cooler Recuperator Recuperator Cooling Water Accum Surge Short-Term Gas Holdup Cryogenic Long-Term Gas Holdup Storage Accum Surge ea Fluor Decay Scrub Decay Tank KOH Bi(Th) Bi(Pa,U) Isotopic Quench metallic Th feed H2 ulFluorinator Fuel 2Reduction H2 HF Electro Bi(Th,FP) Bi(Li) Cell metallic HDLi feed F2 Water Water Coolant Coolant Torus Torus Drain Tank Waste Tank 7 Fuel Salt ( LiF-BeF2-UF4) Fresh Offgas UF6-F2 200-bar CO2 7 Blanket Salt ( LiF-ThF4-BeF2) 1-day Offgas F2 77-bar CO2 7 Coolant salt ( LiF-BeF2) 3-day Offgas HF-H2 Water 7 Decay Salt ( LiF-BeF2-(Th,Pa)F4) 90-day Offgas H2 Waste Salt (LiF-CaF2-(FP)F3) Helium Bismuth The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment was an experimental reactor system that demonstrated key technologies. Lanthanide Fission Products Alkali- and Alkaline-Earth Fission Product Fluorides c ORNL-TM-3884 THE MIGRATION OF A CLASS OF FISSION PRODUCTS (NOBLE METALS) IN THE MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT R.
  • Liquid Fluoride Salt Experiment Using a Small Natural Circulation Cell

    Liquid Fluoride Salt Experiment Using a Small Natural Circulation Cell

    ORNL/TM-2014/56 Liquid Fluoride Salt Experiment Using a Small Natural Circulation Cell Graydon L. Yoder, Jr. Dennis Heatherly David Williams Oak Ridge National Laboratory Josip Caja Mario Caja Approved for public release; Electrochemical Systems, Inc., distribution is unlimited. Yousri Elkassabgi John Jordan Roberto Salinas Texas A&M University April 2014 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy (DOE) SciTech Connect. Website http://www.osti.gov/scitech/ Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
  • Fission and Fusion Can Yield Energy

    Fission and Fusion Can Yield Energy

    Nuclear Energy Nuclear energy can also be separated into 2 separate forms: nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is the splitting of large atomic nuclei into smaller elements releasing energy, and nuclear fusion is the joining of two small atomic nuclei into a larger element and in the process releasing energy. The mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together (Figure 1). As figures 1 and 2 below show, the energy yield from nuclear fusion is much greater than nuclear fission. Figure 1 2 Nuclear binding energy = ∆mc For the alpha particle ∆m= 0.0304 u which gives a binding energy of 28.3 MeV. (Figure from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html ) Fission and fusion can yield energy Figure 2 (Figure from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html) Nuclear fission When a neutron is fired at a uranium-235 nucleus, the nucleus captures the neutron. It then splits into two lighter elements and throws off two or three new neutrons (the number of ejected neutrons depends on how the U-235 atom happens to split). The two new atoms then emit gamma radiation as they settle into their new states. (John R. Huizenga, "Nuclear fission", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:3725) There are three things about this induced fission process that make it especially interesting: 1) The probability of a U-235 atom capturing a neutron as it passes by is fairly high.