US, France and Japan Increase Cooperation on Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Prototypes
01 February 2008
The US Department of Energy (DOE), the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) have expanded their cooperation to coordinate Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Prototype development through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on 1 February.
 |
| Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (pool layout, in which all primary system components are housed in a single vessel). A compact loop layout is favored in Japan. Click to enlarge. |
The MOU establishes a collaborative framework with the ultimate goal of deploying sodium-cooled fast reactor prototypes. The sodium-cooled fast reactor is one of three fast-spectrum reactor technologies being explored as part of the work of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF).
The sodium-cooled fast reactor uses liquid sodium to transfer heat to a working fluid for power generation. The SFR is designed for management of high-level wastes and, in particular, management of plutonium and other actinides (the radioactive elements that lie between actinium and lawrencium on the periodic table, with atomic numbers 89 - 103).
Important safety features of the system include a long thermal response time, a large margin to coolant boiling, a primary system that operates near atmospheric pressure, and intermediate sodium system between the radioactive sodium in the primary system and the power conversion system. Water/steam and carbon-dioxide are being considered as the working fluids for the power conversion system in order to achieve high-level performances in thermal efficiency, safety and reliability.
According to the GIF, the SFR fuel cycle employs a full actinide recycle with three major options. The first option is a large size (600 to 1,500 MWe) loop-type sodium-cooled reactor using mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel, supported by a fuel cycle based upon advanced aqueous processing at a central location serving a number of reactors. The second option is an intermediate size (300 to 600 MWe) pool-type reactor and the third a small size (50 to 150MWe) modular-type sodium-cooled reactor employing uranium-plutonium-minor-actinide-zirconium metal alloy fuel, supported by a fuel cycle based on pyrometallurgical processing in facilities integrated with the reactor. The outlet temperature is approximately 550° C for all the three concepts. Plant efficiency is projected to range between 38-42%.
The SFR’s lower outlet temperature compared to other Gen IV technologies (the Very-High-Temperature Reactor with an outlet temperature of around 1,000° C or the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor, with outlet temperatures of up to 800° C with special materials) keeps the SFR from expanding its mission from power generation to hydrogen production via thermochemical processes as the higher-temperature reactors can.
The SFR’s fast spectrum makes it possible to use available fissile and fertile materials (including depleted uranium) considerably more efficiently than thermal spectrum reactors with once-through fuel cycles.
The envisaged SFR capability to efficiently and nearly completely consume trans-uranium as fuel would reduce the actinide loadings in the high-level radioactive waste it produces, according to a summary of the technology by the GIF. Such reductions would bring benefits in the radioactive waste disposal requirements associated with the system and enhance its non-proliferation attributes. Reducing the capital cost and improving passive safety, especially under transient conditions, are the major challenges for the SFR system.
The US, Japan and France will work together to establish design goals and high-level requirements for sodium-cooled fast reactor prototypes; identify common safety principles and key technical innovations to reduce capital, operating and maintenance costs. This cooperation will enable important discussion on power levels, reactor types, fuel types and an appropriate timetable for the potential deployment of prototype facilities.
In addition, the participants plan to pursue joint infrastructure development activities to leverage existing, refurbished and new facilities to support development of the prototype reactors. This could include facilities used for component or safety testing, fuel development, or irradiation and evaluation of materials. There also exists the potential for additional countries to participate in this cooperation.
In signing the MOU, each of the parties affirms its intent to develop advanced fast reactor prototypes according to its respective national program’s objectives, and recognizes that each country’s individual development of sodium-cooled fast reactor technology should not be duplicative. This cooperation will utilize the technical expertise and resources required to deploy sodium-cooled fast reactor prototypes.
Resources
This confirms the suspicion that the hydrogen 'Super Highway' cycle always was tied to the gen IV fast breeders of untried and no doubt even riskier design.
It would sound from this that is not going to happen anytime soon.
It shows why many have reasoned the con job.
I would further suggest that the madpersons who pursue this deceptive practice are the same that drive the nuclear arms race through their politics of fear campaigns. Weapons of mass deception and national security.
Thinks? "Who could they be"
These fast breeders may indeed have some role in weapons grade waste disposal etc and be somewhat more appropriate than depleted uranium shells and armour piercing rounds when we cant find any suitable terrorist targets for the willing.
I will concede that point to Stan.
Posted by: Arnold | 01 February 2008 at 07:06 PM
Just maybe there wouldn't be a world wide energy crisis today if this type of nuke reactor had been developed decades ago after Carter's Oil Crisis.
Posted by: gary | 02 February 2008 at 10:18 AM
Doesn't liquid sodium burn when in contact with air?
Posted by: DS | 02 February 2008 at 11:58 AM
Let's hope these reactors are built as fast as possible. This is the only technology that can easily provide all the energy needed to substitute all fossil fuel.
Although we must keep investing in wind, solar, ..., producing the petawatts needed to quit carbon will be much easier with this kind of reactors. It could by itselve even be the answer to the nuclear waste problem of yesterday's reactors.
This kind of reactors could not only produce electricity, but also the hydrogen to produce high-volume organic fuels.
As the nuclear waste problem will be virtually eliminated, it could also be used to power carbon sequestration installations (which by themselves consume a lot of energy).
If within a few years we realise that climate change has already passed the 'point of no return', we may need this technology to power huge carbon sequestration projects to reverse it.
Posted by: Alain | 02 February 2008 at 02:00 PM
"This kind of reactors could not only produce electricity, but also the hydrogen to produce high-volume organic fuels."
Alain, did you even read the article?
"The SFR’s lower outlet temperature compared to other Gen IV technologies... keeps the SFR from expanding its mission from power generation to hydrogen production via thermochemical processes as the higher-temperature reactors can."
re: the sodium issue, yes that is true, but if they use CO2 as the working fluid for the power generation unit and implement multiple inert atmospheric barriers around the core (as any commercial design would) it's not a big a risk as it at first appears. There is a lot of industrial experience using liquid metal coolants and it doesn't have to kept at dangerously high pressures like water does.
Posted by: eric | 02 February 2008 at 02:20 PM
Eric, this specific kind indeed is too cold for direct hydrogen production, but when you follow the link (Generation IV international forum), the other types of Gen IV reactors are described, of whitch some are very suitable for it. Depending on the purpose of the reactor, different designs will be optimal.
Posted by: | 02 February 2008 at 04:04 PM
This type of reactor (like the current conventional power reactors) can be used to generate hydrogen using the mature electrolysis reaction, albeit at a lower thermodynamic efficiency than the higher temperature direct thermochemical reaction.
This reactor is not particularly novel. It is similar in design to the Phoenix reactor currently operating in France. Like any prototype, it would try to push the operational window. A CO2 secondary coolant loop would be new to fast reactors (as far as I know) but was used in the primary loop of the British Magnox reactors at a lower temperature. CO2 in the secondary loop is superior to water from a safety standpoint with sodium on the otherside of the heat exchangers.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | 02 February 2008 at 06:27 PM
This sounds something like the Integral Fast Reactor. It was killed during the Clinton administration.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 02 February 2008 at 06:52 PM
yes, the SFR is a logical extension of the IFR. of course, the IFR project should never have been terminated in the first place, but that's a discussion for another bulletin board...
Posted by: eric | 03 February 2008 at 10:31 AM
Interesting but not surprising. According to most sources, given a 400 GWe scenario, we have about 70 years worth of supply at todays prices in an open cycle.
The world's nuclear reactors have a combined output of 370 GWe and require 68000 tonnes of Uranium per year.
Breeding in some fashion is necessary if we want to use nuclear fission in any long term scenario. The problem is our course is proliferation, waste and cost. MOX fuel has been used in reactors for years from decommisioned warheads. This has in fact, depressed Uranium prices in recent years.
The fuel for a breeder is heavily enriched uranium fuel. Up to the 20% range for some types and even higher for others like 50%. This increases burnup and also increases the breeding rate. For normal reactors this is below 1. As time goes on the original percentage of fissionable Uranium is replaced by fissionable Plutonium. The closer the breeder rate is to 1, the longer the fuel lasts. Above 1, it generates more fissionable material than it uses (Plutonium usually although Thorium-U233 cycle is also being explored). For example a 1.2 breeding rate would mean that in 5 years, it could theoretically fuel another reactor.
It may be used to reduce the amount of "waste" (high level) but i don't think it would reduce the overall amount of irradiated material entering the environment (high & low level). For example the chemicals used in the seperation/enriching process.
Actinides have be shown to be burned up in conventional heavy water plants.
Frankly would rather have helium as a gas coolant. Not only fire suppressent but non reactive and it's isotopes are short lived and release low levels of radiation.
Known sources of Uranium - 4.7Mt of known economic sources - 10Mt with higher prices. Uneconomic. Phosphate deposites 22Mt. Seawater 4000Mt.
Nuclear power has only provided about 2-3% of our energy needs worldwide. Even if there was 3 times as many plants today, look at the way energy is used and where the shortfall lies. It's not in electricity but in oil/gas sector of fossil fuels. It would only help if our socio/economic structures and the processes that support them were more electric.
These plants and the technology needed for them are expensive. The LCOE for new production in 2004 dollars per MWhr is coal - 53.1, NG - 52.5, wind - 55.8, nuclear 59.3 from an eia study in 2006. What would the additional costs be for this recycling of waste nuclear material be.
Some things to note. In an open cycle, it is estimated that the earth has about 17 ZJ of exploitated nuclear power. With a closed cycled, this is magnified and we have over 1000 ZJ of power with breeding. In 2004, world energy consumption was only 0.471 ZJ from all sources. In a single year, the earth receives over 3800 ZJ from the sun.
We will need power that we can control ourselves but let's not forget what is the far more exploitable resource out there.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Uranium_supply
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Fast_neutron_reactors_%28FBR%29
Posted by: aym | 03 February 2008 at 11:51 AM
Addendum,
the 10 Mt for estimated Uranium is for the short term. The 17 ZJ estimate is based on 29 Mt exploitable resource of Uranium. We get about 0.6 ZJ for every Mt of Uranium in an open cycle. In a closed cycle that is magnified by 60 by breeding & reprocessing.
Posted by: aym | 03 February 2008 at 12:36 PM
yes, everyone agrees that breeders are wonderful and basically solve the energy problem for the forseeable future for a lot less money than is currently being thrown at, e.g., fusion (ITER), but the thing is all these Gen IV designs are not slated to come online before 2030, by which time we will have had 20 years+ of renewable energy development; commercially available solar cell efficiencies will probably be in the 40-50% range by then (optimistically). given the high capital costs of new nuclear build, will these fast reactors ever get built?
Posted by: eric | 03 February 2008 at 03:09 PM
aym:
thanks for the 0.471ZJ vs. 3800 solar number. It is a stark reminder of how plausible the vision of solar energy is. With so much of that energy absorbed in oceans it makes a strong argument for wave, tidal and current R&D.
Posted by: gr | 05 February 2008 at 09:41 AM