Summary of Generation-IV transmutation impacts.

Taiwo, T. A.; Hill, R. N.

doi:10.2172/843174

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) which is one of six reactor concepts favored by the Gen-IV program has been studied and developed in many countries such as the U.S., Russia, France, U. K. and Japan [10,11]. The SFR system has sodium cooled core, a fast neutron spectrum and a closed fuel cycle for efficient managements of actinides (Np, Cm, Am…).…”

Section: Sfr Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Investigation of Burnup Characteristics Using the Serpent Monte Carlo Code for a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor

Korkmaz

Ağar

2014

Nuclear Engineering and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sfr Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Investigation of Burnup Characteristics Using the Serpent Monte Carlo Code for a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor

Korkmaz

Ağar

2014

Nuclear Engineering and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…14%) requires higher U-235 enrichment because of the considerations noted above, leading to about 15% higher uranium ore required despite the higher thermal efficiency of the VHTR. [Taiwo2005] For example, consider the comparison in Table 2-7.…”

Section: Htgr Study August 23 2010 19mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, direct disposal of the TRISO fuel particles after limited recycle may provide a better waste form than LWR spent fuel." [Taiwo2005] Indeed, full recycle of LWR-MOX and LWR-UOX&IMF have been shown possible from the physics standpoint -whether the recycled TRU is Pu, NpPu, NpPuAm, or all-TRU. [Bays2009] Calculations were taken to 10 recycles and then the equilibrium composition was estimated.…”

Section: Full Recycle Mox-like or Uox/imf-like Fuelsmentioning

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

“…Usually, Gen-IV fast Fission Reactors (FR) [8] are considered the nuclear waste convertors of the future. In fact, several analysis state that a fast neutron flux is the best option for actinides conversion (both Pu and Minor Actinides, MA) in power generation reactors since, for high neutron energies, fission tends to prevail on capture and actinides could be conveniently converted to fission products [9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-group analysis of Minor Actinides transmutation in a Fusion Hybrid Reactor

Murgo,

Ciotti,

Lomonaco

et al. 2023

EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New nuclear technologies are currently being study to face High Level Waste treatment and disposal issues. Generally, GEN-IV fission Fast Reactors (FR) are considered the waste-burners of the future. In fact, a fast flux turns out to be the best choice for actinides irradiation in critical reactors because of favorable cross section conditions. Differently, Fusion Fission Hybrid Reactors (FFHR) are futuristic devices based on the combination of fusion and fission systems and could represent an alternative to FRs. In such systems, the choice spectrum of the neutron flux that irradiates HLW may be non-obvious due to some operational constraints which have to be considered. To design and optimize these systems as waste-burners, one should fully understand the transmutation dynamics occurring into the fission region. A multi-energy-group analysis by FISPACT-II code has been set to analyze the conversion processes in scenarios characterized by different neutron energy spectra and fluences. The results of this study show that, despite fast fluxes are characterized by better behaviors in terms of radiotoxicity treatment, the difficulties of reaching high reaction yields may require solutions involving moderators or broadened neutron fluxes to increase the reactions probabilities and, consequently, actinides mass conversion yield.

show abstract

Summary of Generation-IV transmutation impacts.

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

The Investigation of Burnup Characteristics Using the Serpent Monte Carlo Code for a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor

The Investigation of Burnup Characteristics Using the Serpent Monte Carlo Code for a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor

HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions

Multi-group analysis of Minor Actinides transmutation in a Fusion Hybrid Reactor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About