Description and Proposed Operation of the Fuel Cycle Facility for the Second Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-II)

Hesson, J.C.; Feldman, M.J.; Burris, L.

doi:10.2172/4675689

Cited by 27 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When a fuel batch reaches its radiation damage limit, it undergoes a melt-refining process like that developed for metallic fuel in the Experimental Breeder Reactor II project [13,25]. The melt-refining involves loading the decladded fuel into a zirconia crucible and melting it at ~1300 °C for several hours under argon atmosphere.…”

Section: Neutron Balance Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The gaseous and volatile fission products are released and certain solid fission products are partially removed by oxidation with the zirconia of the crucible. Based on [25] it is assumed that this process can remove 100% of Br, Kr, Rb, Cd, I, Xe and Cs, and 95% of Sr, Y, Te, Ba and the rare earths (lanthanides). Thorium and americium are also oxidized with zirconia, and 95% of these two elements are assumed removed from the fuel.…”

Section: Neutron Balance Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Phased Development of Breed-and-Burn Reactors for Enhanced Nuclear Energy Sustainability

Greenspan

2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several options for designing fast reactors to operate in the Breed-and-Burn (B&B) mode are compared and a strategy is outlined for early introduction of B&B reactors followed by a gradual increase in the fuel utilization of such reactors. In the first phase the fast reactor core will consist of a subcritical B&B blanket driven by a relatively small critical seed. As the required discharge burnup/radiation-damage to both driver and blanket fuel had already been proven, and as the depleted uranium fueled B&B blanket could generate close to 2/3 of the core power and will have very low fuel cycle cost, the deployment of such fast reactors could start in the near future. The second phase consists of deploying self-sustaining stationary wave B&B reactors. It will require development of fuel technology that could withstand peak burnups of ~30% and peak radiation damage to the cladding of ~550 dpa. The third phase requires development of a fuel reconditioning technology that will enable using the fuel up to an average burnup of ~50%-the upper bound permitted by neutron balance considerations when most of the fission products are not separated from the fuel. The increase in the uranium ore utilization relative to that provided by contemporary power reactors is estimated to be 20, 40 and 100 folds for, respectively, phase 1, 2 and 3. The energy value of the depleted uranium stockpiles ("waste") accumulated in the US is equivalent to, when used in the B&B reactors, up to 20 centuries of the total 2010 USA supply of electricity. Therefore, a successful development of B&B reactors could provide a great measure of energy sustainability and cost stability.

show abstract

Section: Neutron Balance Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neutron Balance Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Phased Development of Breed-and-Burn Reactors for Enhanced Nuclear Energy Sustainability

Greenspan

2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Melt refining does remove a majority of neutron-absorbing fission products and also removes 95% of the Am. [Hesson1963] The 95% removal of key elements in melt-refining was due to "formation of oxides at the wetted crucible surfaces, with oxygen contributed by the zirconia crucible. In general, the oxides remain in a reaction layer which is formed on the wetted crucible surfaces.…”

Section: Htgr Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions

Piet¹,

Bays²,

Soelberg³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe acknowledge help from key people in the NGNP Deep Burn study -Dave Petti, Mike Pope, Brian Boer, Francesco Venneri, and Abderrafi Ougouag. They have been helpful in clarifying information and issues. Dave is the lead of Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) technology development for the Next Generation Nuclear Program (NGNP); he reviewed an earlier draft of this report. a Mike and Brian had to do some extra work to create isotopic information suitable for fuel cycle analyses for once through and "deep burn" HTGR cases (both pebble bed and prismatic).Chemical separation experts Roger Henry and Dave Meikrantz were involved in this effort this fiscal year until their retirements in July. Prior to his retirement, Kent Williams was very helpful in suggesting information valuable for eventual economic/cost analyses. We hope all three are happy in retirement.Proliferation resistance and physical protection experts Robert Bean, Richard Metcalf, Fernando Gouveia, and their intern Amanda Rynes helped clarify HTGR proliferation issues.Prof. Mary-Lou Dunzik-Gougar was very helpful in providing information and answering questions regarding graphite and C-14 impurities.The lead author thanks Brent Dixon for his review of the draft report and apologizes for not giving him more time.a VHTR is a subset of HTGR. The NGNP is a specific VHTR/HGTR reactor project. HTGR Study iv August 23, 2010This page intentionally left blank. Several issues are outside the scope of this report, including the following: thorium fuel cycles, gascooled fast reactors, the reliability of TRISO-coated particles (billions in a reactor), and how soon any new reactor or fuel type could be licensed and then deployed and therefore impact fuel cycle performance measures. HTGR Study HTGRs in the context of LWRsAs the HTGR and LWR are both thermal neutron spectrum reactors, the report frequently compares the two as suggested by authors of the Option Study.[Wigeland2009] There are four major LWR-HTGR differences with fuel cycle implications -solid moderator, higher operating temperatures, higher fuel burnup associated with the TRISO fuel coating, and the "pebble bed" design approach (as opposed to the "prismatic" design approach, which is more directly comparable to LWRs).The solid moderator has several effects. First, it means that there is no accident sequence involving voiding of the core's moderator. Thus, there is no void coefficient problem in HTGRs. The void coefficient issue in LWRs constrains TRU loading in recycled fuel (modified open cycle, full recycle).[Youinou2009] The lack of the void coefficient problem in HTGRs suggests MOC or full recycle HTGR could consume transuranics faster than a LWR. Second, carbon is a less effective moderator than hydrogen (or deuterium), leading to neutron energy spectral changes that slightly decrease uranium utilization relative to an LWR. This reactor physics disadvantage is compensated by the higher operating temperatures hence higher thermal efficiency. Third, the solid moderator in an HTGR (grap...

show abstract

“…Spent fuel is recycled through a Fuel Cycle Facility where it is decontaminated and refabricated for return to the reactor. (1,2) Under normal operating conditions, a fuel subassembly is removed from the reactor core after 2 a/0 burnup in 135 days. It is cooled for 15 days in the reactor sodium pool and then transferred to the Fuel Cycle Facility.…”

Section: Temperature Rise In Fuel Subassembly Without Forcedmentioning

confidence: 99%