DOCSLIB.ORG

OSP-76-1 Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: Promises and Uncertainties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OSP-76-1 Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: Promises and Uncertainties ISSUE PAPER TO THE CONGRESS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES lll~Imlllllllll~llllllllllllllllIll LM096953 The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: Promises And Uncertainties Energy Research and Development Administration I’ ” ,-. , ci :__ * . L, ’ ._I . !’ COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548 B-164105 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This is the sixth General Accounting Office study issued since December 1974 concerning the Federal program to develop a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) for use in electrical power generating plants. The earlier studies addressed the history, status, plans, and poten- tial problems of the program. This study identifies and assesses the issues relevant to the Federal Government’s role in the development of the LMFBR. The study looks beyond the managerial and technical aspects of the LMFBR program to assay its economic, environ- mental, and social implications. It contains conclusion5 regarding the program and recommendations concerning actions that can be taken on the part of responsible Federal agen- cies and the Congress to clarify and help resolve key un- certainties. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). We are sending copies of this issue paper to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Administra- tar, Energy Research and Development Administration; the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Administrator, Federal Energy Administration; the Administrator, Environ- mental Protection Agency; and the Director, Office of Technology Assessment. Comptroller General of the United States -----m--w-Contents Page DIGEST i PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 PERSPECTIVE Future energy demand Future energy supplies Energy conservation Future electrical demand and sup- plies 6 Why nuclear power? 8 Why the LMFBR? 10 U.S. LMFBR PROGRAM 15 Program objectives 15 Program expectations 19 FOREIGN LMFBR PROGRAMS 26 NUCLEAR REACTORALTERNATIVES 32 URANIUM RESOURCES 34 ERDA's uranium resource estimates 36 Other uranium studies 38 National uranium resource evaluation program 39 Uranium demand versus supply 40 7 PROGRAMCOSTS AND SCHEDULES 44 LMFBR R&D and demonstration 45 Potential trouble spots 49 LMFBR commercialization 52 ECONOMIC PROMISE OF THE LMFBR 55 LMFBR cost-benefit analyses 55 LMFBR capital costs 59 LMFBR ENVIRONMENTALAND SAFETY ISSUES 63 Core disruptive accidents 65 Plutonium recycle 69 Safeguarding nuclear materials 70 --Page International safeguards and physical security 74 Management of radioactive wastes 75 Nuclear energy versus coal energy 78 10 ALTERNATIVE LMFBR PROGRAMCOURSES 85 Accelerate the program 86 Continue the present course 87 Slow the program 87 Abandon the program 87 Some more specific strategies 88 Narrow the program scope 88 Additional funds and personnel 88 Reassess timing factors 89 Resolve technological uncer- tainties 89 Reduce Federal funding 90 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91 Conclusions 91 Recommendations 93 APPENDIX 1 Description of the LMFBR program 96 2 LMFBR safety program 108 3 Nuclear reactor alternatives 115 4 Letter dated July 22, 1975, from the 127 Administrator, Energy Research and Development Administration 5 Letter dated July 16, 1975, from the 132 Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear Regulator Commission 6 Letter dated July 18, 1975, from the 136 Acting Assistant Administrator for Energy Resource Development, Federal Energy Administration 7 Letter dated July 25, 1975, from the 140 Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management, Environmental Protection Agency APPENDIX ----Page a Principal officials of AEC and ERDA respon- 144 sible for administering the activities dis- cussed in this issue paper GLOSSARY 145 ------ABBREVIATIONS AEC Atomic Energy Commission CRBR Clinch River Breeder Reactor EBR Experimental Breeder Reactor EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ERDA Energy Research and Development Ad- ministration FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility GAO General Accounting Office GCFBR gas-cooled fast breeder reactor GESMO Generic Environmental Statement Mixed Oxide Fuel (Recycle Plutonium in Light Water-Cooled Reactors) HCDA hypothetical core disruptive accident HTGR high temperature gas-cooled reactor HWR heavy water reactor IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency LMFBR liquid metal fast breeder reactor LWBR light water breeder reactor LWR light water reactor MSBR molten salt breeder reactor NCBR Near Commercial Breeder Reactor NEA Nuclear Energy Agency NPC National Petroleum Council NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation Program OMB Office of Management and Budget Q 1 quadrillion R&D research and development TVA Tennessee Valley Authority COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S THE LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER ISSUE PAPER REACTOR: PROMISES AND UNCERTAINTIES Energy Research and Development Administration ------DIGEST Estimated to cost $10.7 billion in current dollars, the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) is one of the Nation's high priority energy research and development projects. It is also highly controversial. GAO identified and assessed the issues rele- vant to key questions facing LMFBR decision- makers. --Does the United States need an LPIF8R and, if so, when? --Should the Federal Government continue to develop the LMFBR? --tu'hat are the benefits, costs, and risks? --What are the options? Because LMFBRs will breed from natural ura- nium more nuclear fuel than they.consume, they offer the promise of substantially ex- tending the life of the Nation's uranium resources and are a key future option for generation of central station electric power. The LMFBR is controversial because --it is the most likely vehicle by which nuclear fission may become an assured energy source through the 21st century and beyond, --key uncertainties persist with respect to the need for and the economics and safety of LMFBRs, and --research and development to resolve the un- certainties is an expensive, and often time consuming, matter. Tear Sheet. Upon removal, the report cover date should be noted hereon. OSP-76-1 __-- __ a- --L-- -._ e a--, Some uncertainties and problems are unique to the LMFBR. However, problems of safeguarding nuclear materials and problems of radioactive waste disposal are already present with exist- ing reactors. Thus, the LMFBR is intimately interwined with the benefits and risks to society from con- tinued use of nuclear fission in any form. .----VWKEY CONCLUSIONS LMFBR uncertainties argue against extreme actions to either expand and accelerate or abandon the program. Given the uncertainties, GAO reached five general conclusions. --The United States clearly should not abandon the nuclear fission option at this time,nor should it abandon the LMFBR re- search and development effort. Uncertainties regarding the scientific, technical, or economic feasibility of poten- tial alternative energy sources; the prob- lems of increased reliance on fossil fuels; and uncertainties regarding the ability and willingness of the Nation to conserve fuel-- all make these unrealistic courses of ac-. tion. --The LMFBR program should be clearly identi- fied and recognized for what it is: a re- search and development program. There has been premature concern and emphasis on commercializing the LMFBR at a time when the Nation is years away from demonstrating that commercial-size LMFBR plants can be operated reliably, economically, and safely. It is unlikely that utilities will make major financial commitments in advance of such proof, which may not be available until the mid-1980s. --Given the history of slippage in this pro- gram and the likelihood that future experi- ence will be similar, it does not appear reasonable to attempt to accelerate the re- search and development schedule. It will be difficult to maintain the current schedule. ii --Whatever action is taken by the United States on nuclear power and the LMFBR, the problems of nuclear safety and safegrards will not go away. Many foreign govern- ments appear likely to rely significantly on nuclear fission power in the future, including LMFBRs. These governments are not concerning themselves initially with commercialization problems but are at- tempting to demonstrate that LMFBRs can operate reliably, economically, and safely. A unilateral descision on the part of the United States to abandon nuclear power or the development of the LMFBR will not change this situation. --The most logical course of action is to pursue the LMFBR program on a schedule which recognizes that the program still is in a research and development stage. Not until some point in the future, per- haps 7 to 10 years from now, need a firm decision be made as to whether the Nation will commit itself to the LMFBR as a basic central station energy source. At that time, many of the uncertainties of today should be reduced or eliminated, partic- ularly if priority efforts are made to resolve as many as possible between now and then. (See PP. 92 and 93.) RECOMMENDATIONS---------1 GAO recommended actions by the heads of the responsible Federal agencies and the Congress to obtain adequate information on domestic uranium resources, resolve environmental and safety questions, improve the Nation's under- standing of and cooperation with foreign LlvlFW. efforts, and improve projections of demand for electrical energy. GAO specifi- cally recommended that: --The Energy Research and Development
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Breeder Reactors: a Renewable Energy Source Bernard L
    Am. J. Phys. 51(1), Jan. 1983 Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source Bernard L. Cohen Department of Physics. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renew- giving an equilibrium Q = S/8. Assuming that equilibrium has been able,” that adjective apparently means that they will be available in reached, 8–1 = Q/S = (4.6×109 tonne)/ (3.2×104 tonne/yr) = 140 000 undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current yr. Since this is such a short time geologically, it is reasonable to relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion assume that equilibrium has been reached, and that the value of Q years. It is the purpose of this note to show that breeder reactors at t = 0 is immaterial to the discussion. Moreover, the fact that 8–1 using nuclear fission fulfill this definition of a renewable energy is so much longer than the time for dilution of material through the source, and in fact can supply all the world’s energy needs at world’s oceans, less than 1000 yr,5 means that nonuniformity of present costs for that time period. uranium concentration is not a long-term problem. The world’s uranium resources are sufficient to fuel light-water If we were to withdraw uranium at a rate R, the differential reactors for only a few tens of years, and since uranium is used equation for Q would become about 100 times more efficiently as an energy source in breeder dQ/dt = S – R – 8Q, 8 reactors than in light-water reactors, it is frequently said that the leading to an equilibrium Q = (S – R)/ = Q00(1 – R/S), where Q is amount of uranium available can support the world’s energy needs the present value of Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor, 2 B.C
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 13 5-1-1972 The nE vironmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor William O. Doub Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation William O. Doub, The Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of the Breeder Reactor, 2 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 237 (1972), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol2/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASPECTS OF THE BREEDER REACTOR By William O. Doub* On January 14,1972, in Washington, D.C., the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Dr. James R. Schlesinger, announced that the Commission had accepted, "as a basis for de­ tailed negotiation, a joint proposal of the Commonwealth Edison Company of Chicago and the Tennessee Valley Authority for the construction and operation of the nation's first demonstration liq­ uid metal fast breeder reactor plant."l The plant, a joint industry­ Government effort, is to be built in Eastern Tennessee at a specific location still to be designated. Work was scheduled to begin within the year. The plant is expected to go on the line by 1980.2 Nationwide attention had been focused on the breeder reactor as a result of the President's Energy Message to Congress on June 4, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Plutonium Chloride Fast Breeder Reactor Cooled by Molten Uranium Chloride
    Annals of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 277 to 281. Pergamon Press 1974. Printed in Northern Ireland MOLTEN PLUTONIUM CHLORIDE FAST BREEDER REACTOR COOLED BY MOLTEN URANIUM CHLORIDE MIECZYSLAW TAUBE and J LIGOU Swiss Federal Institute of Reactor Research, Würenlingen, Switzerland Abstract—A fast breeder reactor of 2000 ~MWt output using molten chlorides as fuel and coolant is discussed. Some of the most significant characteristics are: The liquid fuel contains only PuCl3/NaCl. The coolant is molten UCl3/NaCl and also forms the fertile material along with the blanket system, again UCl3/NaCl: the coolant blanket system is divided into 2 or more independent circuits. The fuel circulates through the core by forced convection; the core is not divided. The thermal stability of the reactor is very good. Power excursions or fuel temperature transients are quickly damped by the phenomena of fuel expansion pushing part of the fissile material out of the critical zone. The loss of coolant accident results in a loss of half (or ⅓, ⅔) of blanket which, without relying on a reactor scram, results in an automatic adjustment of the reactor power level. Corrosion effects form the most difficult problem. Thermodynamic studies suggest the use of molybdenum alloys as structural materials. Breeder reactors differ from other reactor types in that The coolant blanket circuits are in the form of at they are not only power-producing devices but also a least two independent systems: the core vessel is not source of fissile material and therefore should be divided. considered as part of a complex “breeding system” The core is directly connected with: overflow buffer which includes both the power reactor (producing vessel (for thermal expansion of fuel), emergency fuel electricity and heat) and the reprocessing and fuel drainage tank, reprocessing and fuel preparation plant, preparation plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutonium Disposition in the BN-800 Fast Reactor: an Assessment of Plutonium Isotopics and Breeding
    Science & Global Security, 22:188–208, 2014 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0892-9882 print / 1547-7800 online DOI: 10.1080/08929882.2014.952578 Plutonium Disposition in the BN-800 Fast Reactor: An Assessment of Plutonium Isotopics and Breeding Moritz Kutt,¨ Friederike Frieß, and Matthias Englert Interdisciplinary Research Group Science, Technology and Security, Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Alexanderstraße, Darmstadt, Germany According to the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which was signed in 2000 and amended in 2010, Russia and the United States agree to dispose of 34 tons of excess weapon plutonium each. Russia plans to use the plutonium as fuel in its sodium-cooled fast reactors BN-600 and BN-800. This article analyzes BN-800 core models with and without breeding blankets for the plutonium isotopic vector in spent fuel, plutonium production in breeding blankets, breeding ratios for different plutonium concentrations in fuel, and possible annual material throughput. It finds that any spent fuel in the core contains less than 90 wt% plutonium-239, but using breeding blankets the reactor can be configured to be a net producer of plutonium, even with a breeding ratio below one, and that plutonium produced in blankets will be weapon-grade. INTRODUCTION In 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton and Russian president Boris Yeltsin re- leased a joint statement offering to withdraw 50 metric tons (MT) of plutonium each from their respective military stockpiles.1 It was agreed that this pluto- nium should be rendered unusable for nuclear weapons either by irradiation in existing commercial reactors or by immobilization.2 In 2000, Russia and the United States agreed on the “Plutonium Manage- ment and Disposition Agreement” (PMDA).
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium-Plutonium Breeder Systems
    Uranium-plutonium breeder systems Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen Independent consultant member of the Nuclear Consulting Group October 2019 [email protected] Note In this document the references are coded by Q-numbers (e.g. Q6). Each reference has a unique number in this coding system, which is consistently used throughout all publications by the author. In the list at the back of the document the references are sorted by Q-number. The resulting sequence is not necessarily the same order in which the references appear in the text. m01breeders20190922 1 1 October 2019 Contents Introduction Burner reactors Breeder cycle Breeder reactor Reprocessing Fuel fabrication The breeding system Main parameters Plutonium recycling Difficulties Technical hurdles of the breeding system Breeder reactor Process losses Reprocessing Fuel fabrication Uranium recycling Feasibility of the U-Pu breeder system LMFBR as transmuter New names, no new concepts Logistic hurdles Plutonium availability Proliferation and terrorisk risks Safeguards Security issues of the breeder and P&T cycles Thorium fuel cycle Conclusions References TABLES Table 1 Desirable properties of the breeding cycle Table 2 Composition of plutonium generated in an LWR FIGURES Figure 1 Reactor types Figure 2 Distribution world power reactor types Figure 3 Outline of the breeder sytem Figure 4 Symplified outline of reprocessing Figure 5 Partitioning and transmutation (P&T) system m01breeders20190922 2 1 October 2019 Introduction The only fissile nuclide in nature is uranium-235, accounting for 0.7% of the atoms in natural uranium. The remaining 99.3% consists of uranium-238 atoms and traces of uranium-234 atoms, which are not fissile.
    [Show full text]
  • Curium in Space
    ROBIN JOHANSSON Curium in Space KTH Royal Institute of Technology Master Thesis 2013-05-05 Abstract New technology has shown the possibility to use a miniature satellite in conjunction with an electric driven engine to make a spiral trajectory into space from a low earth orbit. This report has done an investigation of the new technique to produce power sources replacing solar panels which cannot be used in missions out in deep space. It is in essence an alternative use of curium among the many proposals on how to handle the intermediate stored used nuclear fuel or once through nuclear fuel as some people prefer to call it. The idea of sending radioactive used nuclear fuel into outer space has been considered before. There was a proposal, for example, to load a space shuttle with radioactive material. This could have serious consequences to the nearby population in the event of a major malfunction to the shuttle. The improvement to this old idea is to use a small satellite with only a fraction of the spent fuel. With this method and other technological advances, it is possible to further reduce the risk of contamination in the event of a crash. This report has looked into the nuclear energy production of Sweden and the current production of transuranium elements (Pu, Np, Am and Cm). The report has also focused on the curium (Cm) part of the transuranium elements, which is the most difficult to recycle in a fast neutron spectra. The physical property of curium reduces many of the safety parameters in the reactor as it is easily transmutated into californium, which is a high neutron emitter.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
    Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: 8 History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials February 2010 Research Report 8 International Panel on Fissile Materials Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel www.fissilematerials.org February 2010 © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM i 1 Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Frank von Hippel 1 2 Fast Breeder Reactors in France Mycle Schneider 17 3 India and Fast Breeder Reactors M. V. Ramana 37 4 Japan’s Plutonium Breeder Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Tatsujiro Suzuki 53 5 The USSR-Russia Fast-Neutron Reactor Program Gennadi Pshakin 63 6 Fast Breeder Reactors in the United Kingdom Walt Patterson 73 7 Fast Reactor Development in the United States Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, and Frank von Hippel 89 Contributors 113 Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Figures Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Figure 1.1 Plutonium breeding. 3 Figure 1.2 History of the price of uranium. 6 Figure 1.3 Funding in OECD countries. 7 Figure 1.4 Dose rate of separated transuranics.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Neutron Reactors Have Portrayed This Design As a New, Promising Technology That Could Resolve the Question of Managing Long-Lived Radioactive Waste
    Fast Reactors Unsafe, Uneconomical, and Unable to Resolve the Problems of Nuclear Power In the push for nuclear power, proponents of fast neutron reactors have portrayed this design as a new, promising technology that could resolve the question of managing long-lived radioactive waste. But the idea of fast neutron reactors is not a new one. Ever since the first experimental fast neutron reactor generated electricity in 1951,1 governments around the world have made huge investments into their development, but the return has been minimal. After decades of research and experimentation, fast neutron reactors remain unsafe, uneconomical, and unable to address the problems of nuclear power. Fast neutron reactors are typically high temperature United States reactors fueled by a plutonium/uranium blend and cooled In the United States, a 94 megawatt-electric (MWe) using an inert gas or liquid metal. They were first sodium-cooled reactor called Fermi 1 operated from 1963 promoted as a way to extend uranium supplies, because as to 1972, but suffered from serious problems, including a they operate, unusable uranium can be converted to fissile partial nuclear meltdown in October 1966,2 and a sodium plutonium that can be used as fuel. It has since become explosion in 1970. The reactor was denied a new license clear that uranium is more abundant than originally and closed in 1972. A second reactor, the Fast Flux Test thought. Now, fast reactors are being advocated as a waste Facility (FFTF), a 400 MWt liquid sodium cooled reactor, solution that would reduce the radioactivity of spent fuel was operated in the United States from 1982 through by converting long-lived plutonium and other radioactive 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Breeder Reactor COMMENT by JAY BOUDREAU Rom Its Inception
    The American Breeder Reactor COMMENT BY JAY BOUDREAU rom its inception. the breeder velopment costs, and partly from the tor, denounced the Clinch River project reactor has been described as politics of nonproliferation of nuclear as “totally incompatible with our free a self-fueling energy machine, weapons. Just the cost of producing market approach to energy policy.” F the answer to our energy plutonium fuel from a breeder is high The politics of nuclear weapons pro- needs in the coming century. The United enough to keep utility companies in the liferation is still another issue in the States started up the world’s first breeder United States from being seriously in- breeder program. Because of grave in- reactor in 1951 and followed with an terested in the breeder at this time. For ternational concern about proliferation, operational pilot plant in 1963, the 20- example, the current market price of President Carter in April 1977 called for megawatt-electric (MWe) Experimental mined, processed uranium fuel (yellow- indefinite deferral of construction of Breeder Reactor II (EBR II). In 1969 we cake), which is $25 per pound, would commercial breeder reactors. Breeders completed the initial design for an inter- have to increase to nearly $165 per are considered hazardous because they mediate size (300-MWe) breeder reactor pound in today’s dollars before the produce rather large quantities of to be built at Clinch River, Tennessee, as breeder would be financially competitive plutonium, the basic material of nuclear the major step toward a commercially with the light-water reactor. cost weapons. However, separation of viable power generation system.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors by Eduard Khodarev
    Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors by Eduard Khodarev 1. Introduction: Why we need fast breeder reactors A study of future energy requirements and of the potential of various energy sources (coal, oil, gas, nuclear power, hydropower and solar energy) indicates that the contribution to be made by nuclear fission, now competitive with conventional energy sources, will grow steadily over the next few decades. Whereas the amount of fuel which has to be fabricated each year for the operation of a nuclear power plant is reckoned in dozens of tonnes, coal- fired power stations generating electricity each consume in a year millions of tonnes of fuel, and the world's reserves of fossil fuel, especially coal, while vast, are not unlimited The potential capability of nuclear power in its present state of development to satisfy the world demand for electricity would depend, to a large extent, on world reserves of natural uranium and the possibility of obtaining uranium-235 as nuclear fuel at reasonable prices. The relatively small percentage of this isotope in natural uranium is however a limitation on the development of nuclear power if it were to be based solely on existing light-water reactors which, with their low conversion ratio, can not utilize more than 2% of the energy potentially available in natural uranium. Thus, the advantages of nuclear power in the long term may not be fully realized unless further sizeable reserves of natural uranium are found or until significant progress is made in more effectively utilizing uranium. Fast breeder reactors afford an opportunity of fundamentally solving this problem in the near future They make more effective use of existing natural uranium resources (including depleted uranium from enrichment plants) and of the plutonium produced in thermal reactor fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances by the Integral Fast Reactor Program De91 011174
    I A // / A / ANL/CP--71374 ADVANCES BY THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR PROGRAM DE91 011174 M. J. Lineberry, D. R. Pedersen, of the EBR-11 reactor reactor with a uranium alloy metallic L. C. Waiters, and J. E. Cahalan fuel. ll Argonne National Laboratory f 9700 S. Cass Avenue The IFR safety approach for the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Argonne, Illinois 60439 concept capitalizes on the characteristics of metallic fuels and of pool-type liquid metal reactors to provide enhanced ABSTRACT safety margins. The fundamental safety approach guiding The advances by the Integral Fast Reactor Program at the IFR program is: Argonne National Laboratory are the subject of this paper. ; 1. A simple, economic, high quality fuel system must The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is an advanced liquid- ', be developed which will allow normal operation of metal-cooled reactor concept being developed at Argonne j reprocessed fuel with minimal fuel failures. National Laboratory. The advances stressed in the paper : 2. The metallic fuel system must be tolerant of fuel include fuel irradiation performance, improved passive , failures and local faults. safety, ^nd the development of a prototype fuel cycle ' 3. The reactor design must be such that for any system facility. failure, including those in the balance of plant, no active systems have to operate to maintain the INTRODUCTION reactor in a safe state. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) (Ref. 1) is an advanced 4. Even though the reactor can achieve passive shut- liquid-metal-cooled reactor concept being developed at down for any system failure, the reactor should be Axgonne National Laboratory.
    [Show full text]