DOCSLIB.ORG

Molten Salt Reactor: Sustainable and Safe Reactor for the Future?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Molten Salt Reactor: Sustainable and Safe Reactor for the Future? WIR SCHAFFEN WISSEN –HEUTE FÜR MORGEN Jiří Křepel :: MSR activity coordinator :: Paul Scherrer Institut Molten Salt Reactor: sustainable and safe reactor for the future? NES colloquium 14.09.2016 [email protected] INTRODUCTION Page 2 History of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) Illustration, not MSR started at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1950s • Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE)* 1960s • Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)* 1970s • Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR)* 1970s • EIR (PSI) study (report nr. 411, 1975) fast spectrum, chlorides 1980s • Denatured Molten Salt Reactor (DMSR)* * ORNL <= <= <= Page 3 History of MSR: revival 100 90 80 1990s • Accelerator-driven transmutation 70 keff=0.95 [mA] of Nuclear Waste - ATW (LANL) 60 keff=0.97 curent 2000s • Generation IV, Amster, Sphinx, … 50 keff=0.98 40 2010s • MSFR, Mosart, … fast spectrum, fluorides Accelerator 30 keff=0.99 FHR (fluorides cooled HTR) 20 keff=0.995 2015+ • MCFR, Breed & Burn (TerraPower, PSI, …) 10 keff=0.997 WR at PSI 2.3mA 0 keff=1 fast spectrum, chlorides 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 ADS reactor power [GWth] <= <= <= Page 4 Classification of MSR MSR is a class of reactors with two groups Type of: Molten salt Application Molten salt fueled reactors cooled reactors Reactor Thermal reactors Fast reactors Fission reactors Fusion reactors Salt Fluorides Fluorides or Chlorides Fluorides Fluorides Core Graphite moderated “Empty” cylinder Graphite based fuel Blanket of the core (ZrH, H2O, D2O, Be, … (TRISO particles) (coolant and/or needs barrier) tritium production) Page 5 Anions in the salts Fluorides Chlorides 19 35 37 100% F 76% Cl + 24% Cl ] 1000 ‐ 1 [ 35Cl 37Cl 19F 0.1 100 interaction 0.01 [b] per XS 10 0.001 Total 0.0001 probabilty 1 0.00001 Capture 35Cl 37Cl 19F 0.1 0.000001 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000 Incident neutron energy [eV] Incident neutron energy [eV] Number of collision to slow-down fast neutron (2MeV->1eV) 19F 35Cl 37Cl 142 (+big inelastic XS) 258 273 For instance: Iodine as the fission product is the next possible anion. Page 6 Cations in the salts Lithium ] ‐ 1 [ 6 7 5% Li + 95% Li 0.1 interaction 0.01 Beryllium per 9 0.001 100% 6Li Be 0.0001 probabilty 7Li Sodium 0.00001 9Be Capture 23Na 23 0.000001 100% Na 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000 Incident neutron energy [eV] Potassium, Rubidium, … Number of collision to slow-down fast neutron (2MeV->1eV) 6Li 7Li 9Be 23Na 49 56 70 172 For instance: Cesium as the fission product is the next possible cation. Page 7 What are the salt mixtures o Typically eutectic mixture of carrier salts (LiF, BeF2, NaF, LiCl, NaCl, …) and actinides salts (ThF4, UF4, PuF3, PuCl3, ThCl4, …) o MSRE salt, Tmelt.=432°C 65%LiF‐29.1BeF2‐5%ZrF4‐0.9%UF4 o MSBR , Th‐U equilibrium cycle, Tmelt.=500°C 71.7%LiF‐16%BeF2‐12%ThF4‐0.3%UF4 o MSFR, Th‐U equilibrium cycle, Tmelt.=560°C 78%LiF ‐ 17.6%ThF4 ‐ 4%UF4 ‐ 0.2%PuF3 o MSFR, Pu started Th‐U cycle, Tmelt.=625°C 78%LiF ‐ 16%ThF4 ‐ 6%PuF3 o MCFR, Pu started U‐Pu cycle, Tmelt.=565°C 60%NaCl ‐ 35%UCl3 ‐ 5%PuCl3 o MCFR, Pu started Th‐U cycle, Tmelt.=425°C LiF‐ThF4‐PuF3 ternary phase diagram 55%NaCl ‐ 39%ThCl ‐ 6%PuCl w/ fixed 1% mol UF4 concentration 4 3 E. CAPELLI et al., “Thermodynamic Assessment of the LiF–ThF4–PuF3–UF4 System,” J. Nucl. Mater., 462, 43 (2015). Page 8 Why MSR? Motivation & appealing features I. Neutronics advantages, excellent neutron efficiency. (parasitic absorptions of carrier salt (and graphite) are small; in U‐Th cycle also the capture of 233U is low) II. Fuel in liquid state does not need fabrication. (it enables TRU recycling, on‐line refueling, on‐line gaseous and volatile fission products removal) III. MSR can be operated with flexible fuel cycle. (as thermal, epithermal, or fast breeder and/or burner in Th‐U cycle and as fast breeder (breed & burn) and/or burner in U‐Pu cycle) IV. MSR can be designed as an inherently safe reactor with reduced risk. (low inventory of gaseous and volatile fission products, negative temperature feedbacks, possibility to “reshape” the liquid fuel for decay heat removal ‐ passive fuel drainage) Page 9 Key MSR challenges I. Structural materials temperature, corrosion, and embrittlement. (redox potential must be controlled to prevent corrosion, nickel alloys suffer from irradiation embrittlement.) II. Thermal‐Hydraulics, dynamics, and limited graphite lifespan. (molten salt is specific volumetrically heated medium, delayed neutrons are drifted out of the core, and if applied, graphite mechanical stability suffers by irradiation) III. Missing safety guidelines, complicated reprocessing techniques. (combined regulations for reprocessing plants and reactors?, fluoride volatilization techniques, Electro‐separation processes, Molten salt / liquid metal reductive extraction) IV. Fuel salt selection, chemical treatment, and proliferation risk. (melting temp., tritium production, solubility of PuF3, on‐line refueling, He bubbling to remove gaseous and volatile fission products, proliferation risk related to 233Pa or 233U relatively easy separation) Page 10 Who is interested in MSR o Russia (LWR‐>SFR‐>MSR strategy, fluorides MA burner but also breeder), o USA (coolant for FHR, graphite moderated or chlorides fast MSR), o China (TMSR program with a plan to rebuild MSRE like demonstrator), o India is considering MSR Th breeder, but the program is at initial stage, o The EU research is coordinated by a Horizon 2020 project SAMOFAR (MSFR safety) o Evolution in Europe in last few years => (Russia, France, and even Czechia had national programs.) Page 11 MSR national programs today Russian MOSART Program IHTE JRC KI US FHR Program U of Edinburgh TU Delft VNIITF UW Madison EdF IRSN KIT IMR (CAS) Harbin Eng. Univ. INL MIT Areva NP PSI RIAR ICC (CAS) Harbin Inst. of Tech. CEA CNRS CIRTEN UC Berkeley ORNL OSU UNIST UNM Xi’an Jiaotong UTK Georgia Tech SINAP (CAS) Texas A&M EU SAMOFAR Shangai Jiaotong TMSR Center (CAS) CINVESTAV (Horizon 2020) Chinese TMSR Program BARC ANSTO (w/ SINAP) Page 12 MSR start-ups field illustration Page 13 MSR start-ups field illustration Company name Location Reactor name Description of design Waste‐Annihilating Molten Salt TransatomicPower Boston, USA ZrH‐moderated SNF/LEU burner Reactor (WAMSR) Integral Molten Salt Reactor Terrestrial Energy Toronto, Canada Graphite‐moderated integral LEU burner (IMSR) Molten Chloride Fast Reactor TerraPower Washington,USA Chloride‐based fast U‐Pu cycle reactor (MCFR) Liquid Fluoride Thorium FLiBe Energy Alabama, USA Graphite‐moderated two‐fluid Th breeder Reactor (LFTR) Graphite‐moderated Th+LEU burner, deployed ThorCon Power Florida, USA ThorCon by ship Elysium Industries Boston, USA TBA TBA Copenhagen Copenhagen, Copenhagen Atomics Waste Graphite‐moderated Pu+MA+Th burner Atomics Denmark Burner Seaborg Copenhagen, Seaborg Technologies Graphite‐moderated Pu+MA+Th burner Technologies Denmark Wasteburner (SWaB) Chloride‐fuelled Pu breeder, internal fluoride Moltex Energy London, UK Stable Salt Reactor (SSR) salt cooling Chloride or metallic‐fuelled Pu breeder, IFK Berlin Berlin, Germany Dual Fluid Reactor (DFR) internal lead cooling Thorium Tech Graphite‐moderated single‐fluid Thorium Tokyo, Japan FUJI, miniFUJI Solutions breeder Summary: Predominance of graphite‐moderated burners (simple!) Page 14 Justification of the MSR research at PSI o MSR technology bears many innovative and multidisciplinary features that could be used in the frame of the division‐level project and provide framework for PhDs and PostDocs projects and for funding from alternative financial sources, e.g. SNF, KTI, and attract the students. o MSR may be acceptable for public: high resources utilization, low waste production, and risk reduction and/or exclusion of severe accidents. In long term it can have a potential to be cheaper that current technology. o MSR allows for cooperation with international partners: • In 2015, Switzerland joined the GIF Molten Salt Reactor Project. • Bilateral cooperation with ITU, POLIMI, CTU Prague, Terrestrial Energy, … • NES Division Project on Gen‐IV MSR (umbrella for several project). • There are already 5 financed national and international projects related to MSR at NES. Page 15 SUSTAINABILITY Page 16 Sustainability = natural resources utilization o 1 neutron for fission o Illustrative size o 1 neutron for breeding of actinides o 0.5‐0.9 neutrons remain for leakage & absorption reserves: o 235U o 238U fuel o 232Th catalyzer Page 17 Ideal reactor burns 238U or 232Th Works only if emissions (FPs) o Catalyzer is not in nature o Initial fuel only 235U..? are (continuously) removed o FPs removal = fuel reprocessing outside of the core Fuel: 238U or 232Th Energy Efficient reactor (“catalyzed” by 239Pu or 233U) Page 18 Any 235U fueled reactor has low sustainability Natural uranium 235 Depleted uranium 235 0.72% of U 0.25% of U 238U 235U Enriched U Depleted U Enriched U 235 235 235 100% 90% 5% of U 0.25%of U 20% of U = Enrichment = 2.4% 10% Enrichment 7.6% Moderator Moderator Moderator D2 O or C H2 O or other none = = = CANDU PWR, BWR SFR, LFR, GFR Burn-up of the fuel in FIMA % (GWd/thm): 0.65-0.75 (6.5-7.5) 3.3-7.0 (33-70) 10-15 (100-150) Burn-up in % of the original mass of natural uranium: 0.65-0.75 0.33-0.7 0.24-0.36 Sustainability: Any 235U fueled reactor has low fuel utilization. Page 19 Initial fuel & open versus closed cycle Uranium‐Plutonium cycle Initial stage: 235U based Secondary stage:MOX based Natural U U U or Reactor with Reactor with enriched Pu Pu Uranium fuel Uranium fuel Uranium MA cycle MA cycle FP Pu FP Nat. U utilization: ~0.75% Nat.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Potential Impact of Molten Salt Reactors on the UK Electricity Grid
    The Potential Impact of Molten Salt Reactors on the UK Electricity Grid Charles Denbowa,b, Niccolo` Le Bruna, Niall Mac Dowella, Nilay Shaha, Christos N. Markidesa aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ bDepartment of Materials, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ Abstract The UK electricity grid is expected to supply a growing electricity demand and also to cope with electricity generation variability as the country pursues a low-carbon future. Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) could offer a solution to meet this demand thanks to their estimated low capital costs, low operational risk, and promise of reliably dispatchable low-carbon electricity. In the published literature, there is little emphasis placed on estimating or modelling the future impact of MSRs on electricity grids. Previous modelling efforts were limited to quantifying the value of renewable energy sources, energy storage and carbon capture technologies. To date, no study has assessed or modelled MSRs as a competing power generation source for meeting decarbonization targets. Given this gap, the main objective of this paper is to explore the cost benefits for policy makers, consumers and investors when MSRs are deployed between 2020 and 2050 for electricity generation in the UK. This paper presents results from electricity systems optimization (ESO) modelling of the costs associated with the deployment of 1350 MWe MSRs, from 2025 onwards to 2050, and compares this against a UK grid with no MSR deployment. Results illustrate a minimum economic benefit of £1.25 billion for every reactor installed over this time period. Additionally, an investment benefit occurs for a fleet of these reactors which have a combined net present value (NPV) of £22 billion in 2050 with a payback period of 23 years if electricity is sold competitively to consumers at a price of £60/MWh.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics and Finance of Molten Salt Reactors
    Progress in Nuclear Energy 129 (2020) 103503 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Progress in Nuclear Energy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene Economics and finance of Molten Salt Reactors Benito Mignacca, Giorgio Locatelli * University of Leeds, School of Civil Engineering, Leeds, United Kingdom ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: There is a long-standing and growing interest in Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) mainly because of their potential Molten salt reactor advantages in terms of safety, sustainable fuel cycle, and the high melting and boiling points of salt which allow Economics operations at high temperatures and atmospheric pressure with potential merits in terms of cost. A key objective Finance of MSRs is to have a life-cycle cost advantage over other energy sources. Leveraging a systematic literature LCOE review, this paper firstly provides an overview of “what we know” about MSR economics and finance following Modularisation “ ” GEN IV reactor two main streams: scientific and industrial literature. Secondly, this paper highlights what we should know about the economics and financeof MSRs, suggesting a research agenda. The literature is very scarce and focuses on MSR overnight capital cost estimations and the comparison between MSR cost of electricity and other energy sources. Cost estimations need to be more transparent and independently assessed. Furthermore, there is no peer- reviewed literature on MSR financing, only claims from vendors. 1. Introduction - SCWR (Supercritical-Water-cooled Reactor) is a thermal/fast reactor technology cooled by supercritical water. It is considered as an The evolution of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) is usually divided into evolution of the actual boiling water reactor because of its compa­ four generations (GIF, 2014): rable plant layout and size, same coolant and identical main appli­ cation, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Salt Reactors
    Stable Salt Reactors A new platform technology in nuclear fission October 15th, 2020 Ian Scott, M.A., Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Scientist Moltex Energy Ltd 13 The Courtyard Timothy’s Bridge Road Stratford-upon-Avon Warwickshire United Kingdom CV37 9NP [email protected] www.moltexenergy.com Moltex mission • To reduce the cost of nuclear fission energy so that it economically beats burning coal and gas and the world is powered with renewables and nuclear 2 Copyright @ 2020 Moltex Energy Ltd www.moltexenergy.com The real challenge for nuclear • Nuclear energy with low enough capital and fixed operating costs to be profitable at 30-50% capacity factor in unsubsidised competition with fossil fuels • Radical innovation needed to slash costs of nuclear • SSR achieves that cost objective, comfortably, through a single minded focus on intrinsic safety and simplicity 3 Copyright @ 2020 Moltex Energy Ltd www.moltexenergy.com Two ways to use molten salt fuel Conventional MSRs Stable Salt Reactor platform Heat exchanger Reaction chamber Emergency dump tank • Intensely radioactive fuel salt pumped at • Fuel salt placed in fuel assemblies pressure round an engineered system which • New concept, patent now granted worldwide can never be approached by a human being 4 Copyright @ 2020 Moltex Energy Ltd www.moltexenergy.com Why is this a new idea? • “Static” molten salts in fuel pins Aircraft reactor experiment which led rejected by ORNL because to molten salt reactor experiment convection of fluids would be unreliable in an aircraft – but convection
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments
    Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments Technology in Small Modular Reactor Advances A Supplement to: IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) 2018 Edition For further information: Nuclear Power Technology Development Section (NPTDS) Division of Nuclear Power IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna International Centre PO Box 100 1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone: +43 1 2600-0 Fax: +43 1 2600-7 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.iaea.org Printed by IAEA in Austria September 2018 18-02989E ADVANCES IN SMALL MODULAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS 2018 Edition A Supplement to: IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org DISCLAIMER This is not an official IAEA publication. The material has not undergone an official review by the IAEA. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the International Atomic Energy Agency or its Member States and remain the responsibility of the contributors. Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from its use. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Salt Reactors
    1 Molten Salt Reactors Thomas J. Dolan, Member, IEEE Fig. 1. MSRE core. Liquid fuel flowed upwards through Abstract— Nuclear power is advancing slowly because of public channels in the graphite. [ORNL] concerns about nuclear accidents, radioactive waste, fuel supply, cost, and nuclear proliferation. The development of molten salt reactors could alleviate most of these concerns and prevent water-cooled The MSRE demonstrated that the issues of control, reactor accidents like those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and pumping, heat removal, radioactivity containment, and Fukushima. The purpose of this article is to provide information about corrosion could be managed. Oak Ridge also designed a the potential advantages and problems of molten salt reactors. The coolants could be either fluorides or chlorides, operated above their Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) that would produce melting temperatures, to avoid solidification, and well below their more fuel than it burned, using Flibe salt with dissolved ThF4 233 boiling temperatures, to prevent evaporation losses. “Fast” reactors use and UF4. It would have had a breeding ratio (BR) of 1.06 energetic fission neutrons, while “thermal” reactors use graphite to and a fuel doubling time of 22 years but funding was slow the neutrons down to thermal energies. We describe four reactor i types: solid fuel thermal, liquid fuel thermal, liquid fuel fast, and terminated in the 1970s. “stable salt” fast reactors (liquid fuel in tubes). We discuss load following, reactor design projects, and development problems. Liquid II. LIQUID AND SOLID FUEL MSRS fuel reactors will require a chemical processing plant to adjust fissile fuel inventory, fission products, actinides, and corrosivity in a hot, Neutrons emitted by fission start at high energies, called highly-radioactive environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Quantitative Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Thorium-Based Nuclear Reactor
    IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Preliminary quantitative feasibility analysis of proposed Thorium-based nuclear reactor To cite this article: Anas Muhamad Pauzi et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 555 012006 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 43.130.79.121 on 08/10/2021 at 08:30 International Nuclear Science, Technology and Engineering Conference 2018 IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 555 (2019) 012006 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/555/1/012006 Preliminary quantitative feasibility analysis of proposed Thorium-based nuclear reactor Anas Muhamad Pauzi1,a), Azril Wasim Abdul Wahid1, Juniza Md Saad1 1College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, 43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia [email protected] Abstract. In the beginning of the 21st century, several research institutions and also private companies had proposed various design of thorium-based nuclear reactor, ranging from solid fuel to molten fuel, fast and thermal neutron spectrum and also various path of waste management. This paper studies 10 of the proposed reactor designs by 10 different organizations, three key aspects analysed quantitatively namely price per kilowatt, safety features and spent fuel managements. Corresponding factors contributing to the key aspects mentioned above were gathered, weighted based on evidence available and analysed using decision matrix. Based on the information collected, preliminary ranking were constructed based on trends between various factors. 1. Introduction 1.1. Thorium reactor developer of the 21st century Thorium fuel reactor was first developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 1950s, under the Aircraft Reactor Experimental (ARE) by Alvin Weinberg, then director of ORNL.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects for Small Modular Reactors in the UK & Worldwide
    Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Submission 277 - Attachment 2 Prospects for Small Modular Reactors in the UK & Worldwide STEVE THOMAS, PAUL DORFMAN, SEAN MORRIS & M.V. RAMANA AUGUST 2019 Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Submission 277 - Attachment 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 2. The Economic Failure of Large Reactors ...................................................................... 5 3. Small Modular Reactors.................................................................................................. 7 4. Main SMR Designs .......................................................................................................... 9 4.1. A Short History of Small Reactors .......................................................................... 9 4.2. Light Water Reactors (LWRs) ............................................................................... 10 4.2.1. NuScale SMR .................................................................................................... 11 4.2.2. Holtec SMR-160 ............................................................................................... 12 4.2.3. CNNC ACP100 ................................................................................................. 12 4.2.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Salt Reactors History
    Molten Salt Reactors By Thomas J. Dolan The accidents at Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi were caused by evaporation of coolant, steam explosion, and hydrogen generation. They would not have occurred in a molten salt reactor (MSR), which can operate at low pressure without generating steam or hydrogen. MSRs with solid fuels, such as ceramic pebbles developed for HTGRs, could operate safely at high temperature and low pressure. Liquid fueled MSRs could process the fuel online to adjust reactivity and remove some fission products, reducing core radioactivity, avoiding solid fuel clad damage, and extending core life. Either the U-239Pu fuel cycle or the Th-233U fuel cycle could breed additional fissile fuel. MSRs could burn actinides from used light water reactor (LWR) fuel, reducing the need for geological high-level waste disposal. We will discuss MSR history, solid and liquid fuel reactors, tritium, salt processing systems, nonproliferation, reactor design projects, international cooperation, and development issues. 1 History Alvin M. Weinberg, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), led the development of liquid fuel MSRs. ORNL built the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) that used liquid fuel of NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 in mol%), flowing through fuel tubes, with BeO moderator, Inconel structure, and liquid Na coolant. It operated successfully at 860 °C, 2.5 MWth, for 100 hours in 1954. ORNL operated the 8 MWth Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) burning liquid 7LiF- BeF2-ZrF4- (65-29-5-1 mol%) fuel at 650 °C from 1965-1969. The molten salt flowed vertically upwards through graphite moderator tubes, Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Program
    PRELIMINARY PROGRAM 55th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society 22nd Biennial Campus Radiation Safety Officers Meeting (American Conference of Radiological Safety) 27 June - 1 July 2010 Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City, Utah Key Dates Current Events/Works-In-Progress Deadline . .28 May Social/Technical Preregistration Deadline . .31 May HPS Annual Meeting Preregistration Deadline . 31 May PEP Preregistration Deadline . .31 May Hotel Registration Deadline . 5 June AAHP Courses . 26 June Professional Enrichment Program . 27 June - 1 July HPS 55th Annual Meeting . 27 June - 1 July American Board of Health Physics Written Exam . 28 June Registration Hours and Location Registration at the Salt Palace Convention Center - Foyer of Exhibit Hall A Saturday, 26 June . 2:00 - 5:00 pm Sunday, 27 June . 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday, 28 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Tuesday, 29 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Wednesday, 30 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Thursday, 1 July . 8:00 - 11:00 am Saturday Saturday AAHP Courses will take place in the Hilton Hotel Sunday - Thursday All PEPs, CELs and Sessions will be at the Salt Palace Convention Center HPS Secretariat 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd. Suite 402 McLean, VA22101 (703) 790-1745; FAX: (703) 790-2672 Email: [email protected]; Website: www.hps.org 1 Table of Contents Important Events . 6 General Information . 7 Hotel Reservation Information . 7 Tours and Events Listing . 9 Scientific Program . 12 Placement Information . 32 AAHP Courses . 33 Professional Enrichment Program . 34 Continuing Education Lecture Abstracts . 46 Annual Meeting Registration Form . 48-49 CURRENT EVENTS/WORKS-IN-PROGRESS The submission form for the Current Events/Works-in-Progress poster session is on the Health Physics Society Website at www .hps .org under the Salt Lake City Annual Meeting section .
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSLETTER Issue No. 10 October 2020
    NEWSLETTER October 2020 Issue no. 10 https://www.iop.org/physics-community/special-interest-groups/nuclear-industry-group Nuclear Industry Group Newsletter October 2020 Contents Notes from the Editor..................................................................................................... 3 New Committee Members ............................................................................................. 4 Committee Elections ...................................................................................................... 5 Nuclear Industry Group Prizes 2020 ............................................................................... 6 Learning from Canada’s Waste Management Organisation ............................................ 8 Event – The Safest Long-Term Solution: The Case for Geological Disposal .................... 14 2020 Webinar Series .................................................................................................... 18 Nuclear Industry Supplement ....................................................................................... 22 Continued Professional Development .......................................................................... 22 Upcoming Events .......................................................................................................... 23 Nuclear Industry Group on Social Media ...................................................................... 23 Letters to the Group ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]