Preliminary core design studies for the advanced burner reactor over a wide range of conversion ratios.

Hoffman, E. A.; Yang, Won Sik; Hill, R. N.

doi:10.2172/973480

Cited by 59 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not one of the current "breed and burn" fast reactor concepts (for which isotopic data have not been received), but rather a past fast reactor at CR=0.50 [Hoffman2006] with an alternative feed material, namely 29% enriched U235. [Ferrer2007, Ferrer2008] Its burnup is 148 MWth-day/kg-iHM; it has significantly less radiotoxicity between 1e2 and 1e3 years, due to less Pu238 being generated by the chain of U235 (n,Ȗ) U236 (n, Ȗ) U237AENp237 (n, Ȗ) Pu237AEPu238; these (n, Ȗ) reactions are less likely in the fast neutron spectrum.…”

Section: Htgr Study 50mentioning

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

Section: Htgr Study 50mentioning

confidence: 99%

HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions

Piet¹,

Bays²,

Soelberg³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The metal fueled core concept with a conversion ratio (CR=0.5), devised by Hoffman et. al., will be used as the reference ARR in this report [4]. The geometry of this reactor was adopted from Hoffman's CR=0.5 case and the CR was allowed to move with different TRU loadings analyzed in this work.…”

Section: Scenario Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep Burn Fuel Cycle Integration: Evaluation of Two-Tier Scenarios

Bays¹,

Zhang²,

Pope³

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of a deep burn strategy using VHTRs (or DB-MHR), as a means of burning transuranics produced by LWRs, was compared to performing this task with LWR MOX. The spent DB-MHR fuel was recycled for ultimate final recycle in fast reactors (ARRs). This report summarizes the preliminary findings of the support ratio (in terms of MWth installed) between LWRs, DB-MHRs and ARRs in an equilibrium "two-tier" fuel cycle scenario. Values from literature were used to represent the LWR and DB-MHR isotopic compositions. A reactor physics simulation of the ARR was analyzed to determine the effect that the DB-MHR spent fuel cooling time on the ARR transuranic consumption rate.These results suggest that the cooling time has some but not a significant impact on the ARRs conversion ratio and transuranic consumption rate. This is attributed to fissile worth being derived from non-fissile or "threshold-fissioning" isotopes in the ARR's fast spectrum.The fraction of installed thermal capacity of each reactor in the DB-MHR 2-tier fuel cycle was compared with that of an equivalent MOX 2-tier fuel cycle, assuming fuel supply and demand are in equilibrium. The use of DB-MHRs in the 1 st -tier allows for a 10% increase in the fraction of fleet installed capacity of UO2-fueled LWRs compared to using a MOX 1 st -tier. Also, it was found that because the DB-MHR derives more power per unit mass of transuranics charged to the fresh fuel, the "front-end" reprocessing demand is less than MOX. Therefore, more fleet installed capacity of DB-MHR would be required to support a given fleet of UO2 LWRs than would be required of MOX plants. However, the transuranic deep burn achieved by DB-MHRs reduces the number of fast reactors in the 2 nd -tier to support the DB-MHRs "back-end" transuranic output than if MOX plants were used.

show abstract

“…This causes the TRU enrichment to increase and consequently the conversion ratio to decrease for the same fuel cycle. Once again, detailed descriptions of this process and its effects on the thermal performance of the assembly design are available in other reports [2].…”

Section: Assumptions and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reference core design used in this work is derived from the oxide fueled ARR with a CR of 0.75 originally proposed by Hoffman et al in ANL-AFCI-177 [2]. This core was modified from the homogeneous geometry ARR to accommodate a heterogeneous recycling scheme utilizing MA targets located in lieu of the first row of reflector assemblies.…”

Section: Reference Core Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the effects of varying the LWR SNF and fast reactor discharge cooling period was studied in order to quantify their effects reactivity and fuel handling. These past studies will serve as data points for comparison in this work and the reader is directed to other reports [2] in which detailed assumption and main conclusions are presented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation