Integral Fast Reactor/Debate Guide: Difference between revisions
m (change order of topics) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
'''Response:''' | '''Response:''' | ||
The EBR-II fuel design was upgraded during the reactor's 30-year operating life. The metal fuel in the reactor was subjected to prototypical and off-normal conditions, and thoroughly evaluated and documented. The latest DOE-approved driver fuel was Mark III, but Mark V fuel (U-19Pu-9Zr) was tested extensively, including burnups exceeding 18% and run-beyond-cladding-breach. Thorough post-irradiation examinations were completed and and evaluated. The safety case is an Argonne report because the Clinton administration cancelled the entire IFR project in 1994 for political reasons. There are, however numerous open literature publications reporting this work. | |||
EBR-II operated reliably for 30 years. While a the first-of-a-kind larger version might have its teething problems, there is enough experience in hand to take the next step in commercialization: licensing. | |||
Revision as of 20:19, 9 May 2023
Nuclear power is a controversial topic, and some of the controversies remain unsettled, even after the facts in the article are agreed on. This Debate Guide will provide a concise summary from each side of these unsettled issues. Much of this discussion is collected from Internet forums and other unreliable sources. We welcome updates with better sourcing.
Disadvantages of sodium cooled fast reactors
What is a nuclear reactor? By Dr. Nick Touran, Ph.D., P.E., accessed 9-May-2023:
- Sodium coolant is reactive with air and water. Thus, leaks in the pipes result in sodium fires. These can be engineered around but are a major setback for these reactors.
- To fully burn waste, these require reprocessing facilities which can also be used for nuclear proliferation.
- The excess neutrons used to give the reactor its resource-utilization capabilities could clandestinely be used to make plutonium for weapons.
- Positive void coefficients are inherent to most fast reactors, especially large ones. This is a safety concern.
- Not as much operating experience has been accumulated. We have only about 300 reactor-years of experience with sodium cooled reactors.
Response:
Readiness of this design
The National Academy of Sciences has a report Laying the Foundation for New and Advanced Nuclear Reactors in the United States, 2023. They have concluded that this design needs a lot more work.
From the Summary:
P.1) demonstrations of advanced nuclear designs are not expected until the late 2020s or early 2030s,
P.2) SFRs and HTGRs will need to address supply chain and high-assay low-enrichment uranium (HALEU) issues and operational reliability, which have impacted those designs in the past.
... for example, reactor core materials and cladding.
From Chapter 2, Finding 2-5: ... More mature concepts, such as ... small modular sodium fast reactors, and ... might be technically ready for demonstration by the end of this decade.
Response: The EBR-II fuel design was upgraded during the reactor's 30-year operating life. The metal fuel in the reactor was subjected to prototypical and off-normal conditions, and thoroughly evaluated and documented. The latest DOE-approved driver fuel was Mark III, but Mark V fuel (U-19Pu-9Zr) was tested extensively, including burnups exceeding 18% and run-beyond-cladding-breach. Thorough post-irradiation examinations were completed and and evaluated. The safety case is an Argonne report because the Clinton administration cancelled the entire IFR project in 1994 for political reasons. There are, however numerous open literature publications reporting this work.
EBR-II operated reliably for 30 years. While a the first-of-a-kind larger version might have its teething problems, there is enough experience in hand to take the next step in commercialization: licensing.