WO2015094450A1 - Réacteur à sels fondus - Google Patents

Réacteur à sels fondus Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2015094450A1
WO2015094450A1 PCT/US2014/057655 US2014057655W WO2015094450A1 WO 2015094450 A1 WO2015094450 A1 WO 2015094450A1 US 2014057655 W US2014057655 W US 2014057655W WO 2015094450 A1 WO2015094450 A1 WO 2015094450A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
reactor
fuel
molten salt
salt
reactors
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2014/057655
Other languages
English (en)
Other versions
WO2015094450A9 (fr
Inventor
Leslie C. Dewan
Mark Massie
Original Assignee
Transatomic Power Corporation
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Transatomic Power Corporation filed Critical Transatomic Power Corporation
Priority to CN201480059366.4A priority Critical patent/CN105684090A/zh
Priority to CA2925576A priority patent/CA2925576A1/fr
Priority to US15/025,121 priority patent/US20160217874A1/en
Priority to AU2014367185A priority patent/AU2014367185A1/en
Publication of WO2015094450A1 publication Critical patent/WO2015094450A1/fr
Publication of WO2015094450A9 publication Critical patent/WO2015094450A9/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G21—NUCLEAR PHYSICS; NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
    • G21C—NUCLEAR REACTORS
    • G21C1/00—Reactor types
    • G21C1/02—Fast fission reactors, i.e. reactors not using a moderator ; Metal cooled reactors; Fast breeders
    • G21C1/03—Fast fission reactors, i.e. reactors not using a moderator ; Metal cooled reactors; Fast breeders cooled by a coolant not essentially pressurised, e.g. pool-type reactors
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G21—NUCLEAR PHYSICS; NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
    • G21C—NUCLEAR REACTORS
    • G21C1/00—Reactor types
    • G21C1/04—Thermal reactors ; Epithermal reactors
    • G21C1/06—Heterogeneous reactors, i.e. in which fuel and moderator are separated
    • G21C1/22—Heterogeneous reactors, i.e. in which fuel and moderator are separated using liquid or gaseous fuel
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G21—NUCLEAR PHYSICS; NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
    • G21C—NUCLEAR REACTORS
    • G21C3/00—Reactor fuel elements and their assemblies; Selection of substances for use as reactor fuel elements
    • G21C3/42—Selection of substances for use as reactor fuel
    • G21C3/44—Fluid or fluent reactor fuel
    • G21C3/54—Fused salt, oxide or hydroxide compositions
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G21—NUCLEAR PHYSICS; NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
    • G21C—NUCLEAR REACTORS
    • G21C5/00—Moderator or core structure; Selection of materials for use as moderator
    • G21C5/02—Details
    • Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
    • Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
    • Y02E—REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS [GHG] EMISSIONS, RELATED TO ENERGY GENERATION, TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION
    • Y02E30/00—Energy generation of nuclear origin
    • Y02E30/30—Nuclear fission reactors

Definitions

  • This disclosure relates to nuclear reactors, and more particularly to molten salt reactors.
  • Thermal-spectrum molten salt reactors have long interested the nuclear engineering community because of their many safety benefits - passive shutdown ability, low pressure piping, negative void and temperature coefficients, and chemically stable coolants - as well as their scalability to a wide range of power outputs. They were originally developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, and working versions were shown to operate as designed [1].
  • An advanced molten salt reactor that generates clean, passively safe, proliferation- resistant, and low-cost nuclear power. This reactor can consume the spent nuclear fuel
  • Transatomic Power has greatly improved the molten salt concept, while retaining its significant safety benefits.
  • the main technical change we make is to combine a moderator and fuel salt that have not previously been used together in molten salt reactors: a zirconium hydride moderator with a LiF-(Heavy metal)F4 fuel salt. Together, these components generate a neutron spectrum that allows the reactor to run using fresh uranium fuel with enrichment levels as low as 1.8% U-235, or using the entire actinide component of spent nuclear fuel (SNF).
  • Previous molten salt reactors such as the ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) relied on high-enriched uranium, with 33% U- 235 [1]. Enrichments this high are no longer permitted in commercial nuclear power plants.
  • Transatomic Power's design also enables extremely high burnups - up to 96%> - over long time periods.
  • the reactor can therefore run for decades and slowly consume the actinide waste in its initial fuel load.
  • our neutron spectrum remains primarily in the thermal range used by existing commercial reactors. We therefore avoid the more severe radiation damage effects faced by fast reactors, as thermal neutrons do comparatively less damage to structural materials.
  • a neutron strikes a fissile atom, such as U-235, at the right speed, the atom can undergo "fission” or break into smaller pieces, which are called fission products, and produce free neutrons. Fission breaks bonds among the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and therefore releases vast amounts of energy from a relatively small amount of fuel. Much of this energy is in the form of heat, which can then be converted into electricity or used directly as process heat.
  • Light- water nuclear reactors the most prevalent kind of reactor in use today - are fueled by rods filled with solid uranium oxide pellets.
  • the fuel rods are submerged in water.
  • Water is a moderator that slows neutrons to the correct speed to induce fission in the uranium, thereby heating up the rods.
  • the water also carries heat away from the rods and into a steam turbine system to produce electricity.
  • a key problem with water is risk of steam explosion if the reactor's pressure boundary or cooling fails.
  • a radioactive fuel such as uranium or thorium is dissolved into fluoride or chloride salts to form a solution that we call a "fuel salt.”
  • the fuel salt is normally an immobile solid material, but when heated above approximately 500°C, it becomes a liquid that flows. Thus it is the liquid fuel salt, rather than water, that carries the heat out of the reactor.
  • the plant can operate near atmospheric pressure with a coolant that returns to a solid form at ambient temperatures. This feature simplifies the plant and assures greater safety for the public.
  • Molten salt reactors are quite different from sodium fast reactors, even though many people think of sodium when they hear of salt.
  • the sodium metals used by those reactors can release a hydrogen byproduct that is combustible in the presence of air or water.
  • Our fluoride salts remove this fire risk, while further simplifying and increasing the safety of the plant design.
  • a version of our reactor can also operate using thorium fuel.
  • Thorium has special merit as a nuclear fuel due to its generally shorter-lived waste and higher potential burn- up.
  • the TAP reactor can also achieve the same benefits from uranium, which has an existing industrial base. Using uranium also lets us create a reactor that can slowly consume the world's existing stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel and, potentially, stockpiles of plutonium as well, thereby providing a great benefit to society.
  • Figure 1 is a schematic of the TAP reactor, showing the reactor vessel, primary loop, intermediate loop, and drain tanks.
  • Figure 2 is a simplified reactor schematic, showing the primary loop, intermediate loop, drain tank, and outlet to the fission gas processing system.
  • Figure 3 is a temperature profile of a light water reactor's solid fuel pin, from center to edge.
  • Figure 4 shows decay heat density in an LWR and a TAP reactor.
  • Figure 5 is a cooling curve for fuel salt in auxiliary tank with 25 MW of cooling.
  • Figure 6 compares temperature progression effects for a light water reactor (LWR) and a TAP reactor.
  • Figure 7 compares the neutron spectrum in a zirconium hydride moderated TAP reactor, a graphite moderated molten salt reactor, and a fast spectrum molten salt reactor.
  • Figure 8 compares electricity production per metric ton of natural uranium in a light water reactor and a TAP reactor.
  • Figure 9 compares mass percentages of important actinides as a function of time in a TAP reactor.
  • Figure 10 plots the multiplication factor of an infinite lattice of varying moderator and fuel-salt volume fractions.
  • Figure 11 shows the effect of enrichment (fissile concentration) on burnup as a function of conversion ratio.
  • Figure 12 plots conversion ratio as a function of fuel-salt volume fraction.
  • Figure 13 is a schematic of a two-region reactor core.
  • Figure 14 is a schematic of a two-region core with central unmoderated region.
  • Figure 15 is a schematic of a three region core with two distinct ratios of fuel-salt to moderator volumes.
  • Figure 16 is a schematic of a three region core with three distinct ratios of fuel- salt to moderator volumes.
  • FIG 1 shows a rendering of the TAP reactor seated in a concrete nuclear island structure for a 520 MWe nuclear power plant incorporating a TAP reactor.
  • the reactor's primary loop contains the reactor vessel (including the zirconium hydride moderator), pumps, and primary heat exchanger. Pumps continuously circulate the LiF-(Heavy metal)F4 fuel salt through the primary loop.
  • the pumps, vessels, tanks, and piping are made of modified Hastelloy-N, which is highly resistant to radiation and corrosion in molten salt environments.
  • the fuel salt is in a critical configuration and steadily generates heat.
  • the heat generated in the primary loop is transferred via heat exchangers into intermediate loops filled with molten LiF-KF-Na-F (FLiNaK) salt, which does not contain radioactive materials.
  • the intermediate loops in turn transfer heat to the steam generators.
  • the intermediate loops therefore physically separate the nuclear material from the steam systems, adding an extra layer of protection against radioactive release.
  • the steam generators use the heat from the intermediate loop to boil water into steam, which is then fed into a separate building that houses the turbine.
  • the reactor runs at a higher temperature than conventional reactors—the salt exiting the reactor core is approximately 650°C,whereas the core exit temperature for water in a light water reactor is only about 330°C (for a pressurized water reactor) or 290°C (for a boiling water reactor).
  • the thermal efficiency when connected to a standard steam cycle is 44%, as compared to 34% in a typical light-water reactor. The higher efficiency directly reduces cost because it permits smaller turbines - turbines are a major expense for nuclear power plants.
  • the nuclear island also contains fission product removal systems.
  • the majority of fission product poisons are continuously removed via an off-gas system (not shown in Figure 1).
  • a small amount of fuel (either SNF or low-enriched fresh fuel) is regularly added to the primary loop. This process maintains a constant fuel mass, and allows the reactor to remain critical for decades.
  • uranium oxide As fuel, the uranium oxide, which is in the form of solid pellets, is surrounded by a metal cladding that helps the fuel retain its shape within the reactor.
  • Transatomic Power's reactor uses liquid fuel instead of solid fuel pins. We dissolve uranium (or SNF) in a molten fluoride salt, which acts as both fuel and coolant.
  • Liquid fuel offers significant advantages during normal operation. Primarily, it allows for higher reactor outlet temperatures, which lead to higher overall thermal efficiency for the plant.
  • a liquid-fueled reactor does not have these problems, because the fuel and coolant are the same material.
  • the fuel salt is a good heat conductor, and therefore can have both a lower peak temperature and a higher outlet temperature than a solid fueled reactor.
  • the TAP reactor's lower decay heat density makes it easier to contain and cool the liquid fuel during an accident.
  • Solid fueled reactors must bring coolant to their fuel in an accident scenario. If either coolant or cooling power is lost, decay heat production can quickly raise the reactor core temperature to levels high enough to severely damage its structure.
  • liquid fueled reactors can drain fuel directly out of the core. This drainage can happen quickly, without pumping, through the use of passive safety valves and the force of gravity.
  • One such passively safe drainage mechanism called the freeze valve, was tested repeatedly with success during the ORNL MSRE [1].
  • a freeze valve consists of a drain in the reactor leading to a pipe that is plugged by a solid core of salt. The salt remains solid via electric cooling. If the reactor loses external electric power, the cooling stops, the plug melts, and fiuoride salt drains out of the reactor core into an auxiliary containment vessel. Fission ceases because the fuel is separated from the moderator and because of the relatively high surface area geometry of the auxiliary tank.
  • the high surface area to volume ratio in the auxiliary tank allows molten salt reactors to effectively change their fuel geometry to speed cooling after an accident.
  • the decay heat of the auxiliary tank is low enough to be removed by natural convection via a cooling stack, thereby eliminating the need for electrically-pumped coolant.
  • a NaK cooling loop in the auxiliary tank is connected to a stack and allows for 25 MW of passive cooling to the fuel, adequate to air-cool the entire fuel salt inventory from liquid to solid state within 1.5 to 3 hours without outside power or coolant.
  • Figure 5 shows the temperature of the fuel salt inventory in the auxiliary tank as a function of time with 25 MW of cooling. The upper and lower bounds for the cooling curve are shown as dashed lines. Thermal data for the salt is based on molecular dynamics simulations [3] and extrapolated experimental data [4].
  • Figure 6 shows the different consequences of unchecked fuel heating in an LWR and a TAP reactor. As shown in the "LWR" column of Figure 6, partial cooling is helpful but not sufficient in an accident scenario. Even after the reactor becomes subcritical, the fuel pins continue to generate heat from delayed neutron interactions.
  • a molten salt reactor operates at a peak temperature of 650-700°C, far below the salt's boiling point of approximately 1200°C.
  • the reactor's steady-state operation is already in the "green” zone.
  • the thermal mass of the fuel is now an asset instead of a challenge, because it serves to resist any sudden heat increase. If the reactor temperature were to climb, temperatures greater than 700°C passively melt a freeze valve (discussed in the "Better Inherent Safety" section of this paper), which drains fuel from the reactor and allows it to flow into a subcritical configuration with a high surface area.
  • the subcritical molten salt still generates decay heat, but the high surface area allows it to readily cool down via natural convection and conduction.
  • the salt safely freezes in place if temperatures drop below 500°C. Unlike water, the salt becomes denser after it freezes, so this condition does not increase system pressure. As the TAP reactor operates at atmospheric pressure and has few conditions that could create strong driving forces, the solid salt is likely to remain safely in containment and within the exclusion zone of the plant.
  • the TAP plant design has additional safety features and containment strategies for defense in depth. These safety features and strategies are discussed further below.
  • FLiBe contains beryllium. A small fraction of the population is hypersensitive to this material, and even trace amounts of beryllium can induce the chronic lung disease berylliosis in these people. We therefore choose a fuel salt that does not contain beryllium.
  • LiF-(Heavy metal)F4 is capable of containing a higher concentration of uranium than FLiBe salt. Therefore, each liter of our fuel salt has a higher amount of uranium than would be possible using FLiBe. This salt composition thus helps us operate using low-enriched fuels, as well as spent nuclear fuel.
  • a key difference between Transatomic Power's reactor and other molten salt reactors is its zirconium hydride moderator, which we use instead of a conventional graphite moderator.
  • the reactor's critical region contains zirconium hydride rods. These rods are surrounded by cladding to extend the life of the moderator in the corrosive molten salt.
  • zirconium hydride's high hydrogen density allows it to achieve the same amount of thermalization as graphite in a much smaller volume.
  • the zirconium hydride moderator therefore allows us to significantly reduce the reactor core volume, thereby reducing the size and cost of the reactor vessel and the volume of fuel salt.
  • only about 50% of the core volume is moderator, which gives us room for five times more fuel salt in the same size core, allowing better performance, reduced enrichment, and lower cost.
  • zirconium hydride moderator One of the factors we examined in selecting a zirconium hydride moderator is the stability of hydrogen in zirconium hydride at high temperature and under irradiation. The available data are extensive, and show that zirconium hydride is stable at the
  • Modest hydrogen redistribution may occur within the moderator, because there exists a temperature gradient within the moderator rod.
  • the moderator is internally heated through gamma heating and neutron scattering, and the centerline temperature of the moderator rod will therefore be approximately 50°C higher than the wall temperature.
  • Some experimental data are available for temperature gradient-driven hydrogen diffusion in zirconium hydride. Huangs et al. tested a temperature gradient of 140°C in a ZrH1.6 rod, with a centerline temperature of 645°C and a surface temperature of 505°C [8]. Their steady-state result showed ZrH1.7 on the surface and ZrH1.5 at the centerline [8]. Our research indicates that this hydrogen concentration gradient, or even a gradient several times larger than this, would not be detrimental to reactor function.
  • Zirconium on its own essentially does not moderate neutrons. Free hydrogen diffuses through the cladding and into the salt, where it bubbles out and is removed continuously by the outgas system. This feature bears some similarity to the inherent safety of uranium-hydrogen fuel used in TRIGA reactors, and represents an added safety benefit over previous molten salt reactors. Even in an extreme accident scenario, including failure of the off-gas removal, the system is designed so that the hydrogen concentration is never high enough to lead to a hydrogen explosion.
  • the reactor's primary loop piping, reactor vessel, valves, pumps, and heat exchangers are made with modified Hastelloy-N. This alloy is corrosion-tolerant in molten salt environments.
  • Hastelloy-N and modified Hastelloy-N were developed specifically for molten fluoride systems, and have generally good corrosion resistance in molten fluoride salt environments [12].
  • the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded that modified Hastelloy-N is a suitable material for molten salt reactors from a corrosion standpoint [12].
  • MSBR research concluded that modified Hastelloy-N suffers much less radiation embrittlement than unmodified Hastelloy-N, the previous formulation of the alloy used in the MSRE [12]. Aside from the reduced radiation embrittlement, the material properties of modified Hastelloy-N are, according to MSBR research, "generally better" than those of Hastelloy- N [12].
  • the first is the possibility of mechanical fatigue and subsequent crack initiation due to thermal striping, in which temperature fluctuation occur at the interface between two fluid jets at different temperatures. Fluid dynamics simulations of the reactor vessel can partially predict these effects, and they will be further tested via experiment in the early stages of the work.
  • the second concern relates to welding and joining issues in the primary loop.
  • the piping joints are the weakest links in the primary loop, and it is important to make sure that they retain their mechanical and material integrity throughout reactor operation. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that the metal used in brazing or other joining techniques is compatible with the molten salt, and doesn't exacerbate corrosion effects.
  • Prior research shows that nickel-based brazing alloys are compatible with high- temperature molten salts [13].
  • molten salt reactor piping and vessel walls are thinner than those of a light water reactor (because of the lower-pressure piping in a molten salt reactor), which reduces the possibility of inadvertently stressing the metal while welding. Welding and joining issues will be tested experimentally in small-scale test loops.
  • the reactor may be adapted to use high-temperature ceramics, such as SiC-SiC fiber composites, in place of Hastelloy components. These ceramics are not yet being manufactured on an industrial scale, but will likely be available within 5 to 10 years. Moving from metals to ceramics will allow us to further increase the reactor's operating temperature, thereby increasing the system's thermal efficiency and enabling a broader range of process heat applications. Neutronics, Fuel Capacity, and Waste Stream
  • Molten salt reactors are versatile in terms of fuel: they can be powered by a range of different fissionable materials, including uranium, plutonium, and thorium. Although Transatomic Power's approach could potentially be used with thorium, we are initially focused on the uranium-plutonium cycle. This fuel cycle allows us to power the reactor with either uranium from an existing industry supply chain or, ideally, to use a fleet of TAP reactors to consume and substantially eliminate the nation's stockpiles of SNF.
  • thermal-spectrum CANDU reactors are able to run on spent nuclear fuel by using on-line refueling and a more efficient moderator (heavy water instead of light water) to reduce neutron capture.
  • burnup in CANDUs is also limited by the accumulation of fission product poisons that are trapped in the fuel rods.
  • the TAP reactor circumvents this limitation by continuously removing fission products from its liquid fuel.
  • the Transatomic Power reactor burns the same fuel for decades.
  • the combination of the TAP reactor's particularly efficient neutron economy, which allows it to run on fuel with very low enrichment levels, and molten salt reactors' general ability to continuously remove fission products from the fuel are what together enable us to destroy SNF. More generally, they allow us to achieve high efficiency for a clean and complete burn with very little waste.
  • Figure 7 compares the neutron energy spectra in an unmoderated molten salt reactor, one moderated with ZrH1.6, and one moderated with graphite.
  • the reactor moderated with ZrHl .6 has significantly more neutrons in the thermal region, defined as neutrons with energies less than approximately 1 eV, thereby allowing it to generate power from low-enriched uranium or spent fuel using the U-Pu fuel cycle.
  • the epithermal (approximately 1 eV - 1 MeV) spectrum is lower than that of graphite, but still sufficient to contribute to waste burning.
  • the fast spectrum (greater than 1 MeV) for the zirconium hydride moderated reactor is greater than that of the graphite moderated reactor, and therefore contributes strongly to waste burning.
  • the TAP reactor When running on fresh fuel, the TAP reactor is able to generate up to about 75 times more electricity than a light water reactor per kilogram of natural uranium ore, as shown in Figure 8.
  • TAP reactors have an outlet temperature over 650°C with a gross thermal efficiency of about 44%. This is a factor of 1.3X more for the TAP reactor.
  • Proven world reserves of uranium are estimated to be about 6 million metric tons if the market price were $250 per kilogram (current prices are about $130 per kilogram - at a higher price more mines are viable). Using light-water reactors, these reserves are only enough for about three million terawatt-hours of electricity. However, the world consumes about 20,000 terawatt-hours of electricity annually, and this rate is set to triple by 2030 as we climb toward a steady global population of ten billion people. LWRs can therefore only fully supply world electricity needs for about 50 years, even at twice today's uranium prices.
  • the TAP reactor generates enough electricity per kilogram of fuel that it remains commercially viable even with extremely high uranium prices.
  • the TAP reactor can therefore enable a greater degree of energy dependence for nations without significant domestic uranium production, such as France, Japan, South Korea, UK, Spain, Argentina, and India. (Key uranium exporters today are Australia,
  • the TAP reactor enables known uranium reserves to be civilization's long- term solution to an abundant, cheap supply of clean electricity.
  • the TAP reactor greatly reduces waste as compared to conventional LWRs, whether it is running on SNF or low-enriched fresh fuel.
  • Figure 9 shows the time evolution of the actinides present in the TAP reactor starting from an initial load of SNF. As shown, the majority of the isotopes remain essentially in a steady state across many decades. The increases in U-236 and Pu-240 are welcome from an anti-proliferation standpoint, because these isotopes tend to capture neutrons in a nuclear weapon, retarding detonation.
  • a 520 MWe light-water reactor would contain approximately 40 tons of fuel and generate 10 metric tons of SNF each year.
  • the SNF contains materials with half-lives on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
  • reprocessing methods are available for partially reducing the waste mass, they are currently cost prohibitive and accumulate pure plutonium as a byproduct.
  • a basic mass flow and waste composition for a 520 MWe TAP reactor are as follows: The reactor starts with 65 tons of actinides in its fuel salt. Each year, 0.5 tons of fission products are filtered from the system and a fresh 0.5 tons of fuel is added, keeping the fuel level steady. At reactor end of life, the inventory of fuel remaining in the reactor may be transported for use in another TAP reactor. Alternately, it may be casked and stored in a repository.
  • the fission products krypton and xenon are removed in the form of a gas, via an off-gas system, and are compressed and bottled on site. Trace amounts of tritiated water vapor are removed and bottled via the same process. A small fraction of the noble fission products are removed directly via the off-gas system.
  • Solids Noble and semi-noble metal solid fission products, as well as other species that form colloids in the salt, are removed from the salt as they plate out onto a nickel mesh filter located in a sidestream in the primary loop.
  • Dissolved lanthanides While they are less serious factors than krypton and xenon, it is desirable to remove lanthanides from the fuel salt for best operation. We have several options here. Our current approach is to remove lanthanide fission products via a liquid- metal/molten salt extraction process being developed by others in the USA and France. This process can ultimately convert the dissolved lanthanides into an oxide waste form. This waste form is fairly well understood, because spent nuclear fuel from LWRs is in oxide form. This oxide waste comes out of the processing facility in ceramic granules and can be sintered into blocks or any other form convenient for storage. Table 1. Fission product removal methods arsd approximate average remova! rate. Adapted in part from [14].
  • the annual waste stream is reduced from 10 to 0.5 metric tons - which is 95% less waste.
  • the vast majority of our waste stream - the lanthanides, krypton, xenon, tritiated water vapor, noble metals, and semi-noble metals - has a relatively short half-life decay, on the order of a few hundred years or less.
  • the TAP reactor compared to a light- water reactor, the TAP reactor emits 95% less waste, with an overall waste storage time of a few centuries instead of hundreds of thousands of years.
  • Molten salt reactors are a win for public safety.
  • the main concern in a nuclear emergency is to prevent wide-spread release of radioactive materials.
  • the TAP reactor's materials and design greatly reduce the risk of reactor criticality incidents, shrink the amount of radioisotopes in the primary loop, eliminate driving forces that can widen a release, and provide redundant containment barriers for defense in depth.
  • molten salt reactors Like light- water reactors, molten salt reactors have a strong negative void coefficient and negative temperature coefficient. In molten salt reactors, these negative coefficients greatly aid reactor control and act as a strong buffer against temperature excursions. As the core temperature increases, the salt expands. This expansion spreads the fuel volumetrically and slows the rate of fission. This stabilization occurs even without operator action and does not require control rods to function.
  • Control rods are included in our design to aid in power-up and can be used to SCRAM the core.
  • Molten salt reactors are operator-controlled primarily via the turbine and not by control rods. Slowing the turbine extracts less heat from the salt, thereby increasing its temperature, which in turn decreases reactivity. Once the reactor reaches the lower power level where heat produced is equal to the turbine heat draw, the system re-stabilizes. It is not possible to have a runaway reaction due to increasing the cooling level too rapidly via the turbine - drawing too much heat from the core too freezes the salt. These dynamics provide tight negative feedback loops and give the system inherent stability.
  • TAP reactor is meant for baseload operation, the ability to control heat output via the turbine enables load following operation.
  • a typical 1 GWe light-water reactor core has an inventory of 2 to 7 tons of radionuclides that may conceivably escape during accident conditions. By convention, these core inventory numbers do not include uranium. These are core inventories that are used to calculate source terms for radionuclude releases in various accident scenarios. However, some accidents such as Fukushima
  • radionuclide inventory may exceed 30 tons.
  • a 520 MWe TAP reactor maintains far less source material on hand, because it is much more fuel-efficient than an LWR. Furthermore, noble gases, noble metals, and
  • LBU indicates an average burnup of 28 GWd per MTHM and HBU indicates an average burnup of 59 GWd per MTHM.
  • BWR, PWR, and TAP reactor accident analyses are adapted from [15].
  • Foilowing [15] LBU indicates an average burnup of 28 GWd per MTHM and HBU indicates an average burnup of 59 GWd per MTHM.
  • light- water reactors can experience enormous driving forces during accident scenarios. These forces can come from a hydrogen explosion, a steam explosion, or in some reactors, a high system pressure of 150 atmospheres.
  • a significant vulnerability common to all currently operating commercial light- water reactors is that they require a continuous supply of electricity to pump coolant over their core to prevent a meltdown.
  • a passively safe nuclear reactor is one that does not require operator action or electrical power to shut down safely in an emergency. It is a further goal that the reactor be able to safely cool during a station blackout without any outside emergency measures.
  • An inherently safe reactor will be able to achieve these goals even in the face of an unanticipated or beyond-design basis event.
  • the TAP reactor is a major advance over light-water reactors because it is passively safe (primarily due to its freeze valve) and can passively cool its drained core via cooling stacks connected to its auxiliary tank, as described above. If the freeze valve fails, the control rods may be inserted by operator action or passively via an electromagnetic failsafe, thereby making the reactor subcritical. If the control rods or other active measures cannot be used, the hot fuel salt will simply remain in the reactor vessel. Heat will cause the salt to expand, thereby reducing reactivity. If the freeze valve fails and the salt continues to increase in temperature, the zirconium hydride moderator rods will decompose. The lack of neutron moderation brings the reactor to a sub-critical state.
  • the salt increases in temperature enough to induce material failure in the vessel, then the salt will flow via gravity into a catch basin, shown in Figure 2, located immediately below the vessel.
  • the catch basin in turn drains via gravity into the auxiliary tank.
  • the reactor and its catch basin are sealed within a concrete chamber only accessible by hatch. Thus, even in this worst-case accident scenario, the system is confined, nonflammable, and shuts down passively.
  • An intermediate loop creates a buffer zone between the radioactive materials in the reactor and the non-radioactive water in the steam turbine.
  • the steam is at a higher pressure than the intermediate loop and the intermediate loop is at a higher pressure than the primary loop, so that any leaks in heat exchangers will cause a flow toward the core rather than out of the core. Any small counter-pressure flow across the primary heat exchanger is trapped in the intermediate loop.
  • the intermediate loop feeds into a steam generator, and both are also within the concrete secondary containment structure. If the fuel salt, despite all existing safety mechanisms in the system, escapes the containment structure, it will return to solid form once it cools below approximately 500°C.
  • Table 3 summarizes how fundamental material choices affect key safety aspects for light- water and TAP reactors. TAP reactors have greater inherent safety, which is particularly important for unanticipated and beyond design-basis accidents.
  • Peak fuel temperature is 500°C Coolant 1900°C above coolant below boiling point; wide safety boiling point; steam margin
  • Driving Force / Peak fuel temp is 800°C Peak fuel temperature is 500°C Runaway Exothermic above exothermic generation below exothermic generation Hydrogen Generation point; fire explosion risk point; wide safety margin; no water in core
  • Table 4 compares the physical barriers for a light- water reactor and a TAP reactor.
  • the TAP reactor has no fuel cladding because it uses liquid fuel.
  • Auxiliary support to the vessel and cooling boundary is provided by a passive freeze plug, which drains the fuel from the vessel into an underground auxiliary tank during emergency conditions.
  • An additional boundary is provided around the vessel and cooling system with a catch basin and an intermediate cooling loop.
  • Fuel Material Barrier Oxide matrix Salt carrier solidifies ⁇ 500°C
  • Auxiliary Tank Freeze plug passively drains fuel to underground auxiliary tank
  • Such a plant would serve a gap in the market - today's most modern light-water reactors are typically large units aimed at 1000 MWe and above; a recent push to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) is aimed primarily at 300 MWe and below.
  • SMRs small modular reactors
  • the 520 MWe size may be particularly attractive to utilities because it is sized similarly to aging coal plants.
  • the overnight cost for an nth-of-a-kind 520 MWe size was estimated at $2.0 billion with a 3 -year construction schedule.
  • the TAP reactor can realistically achieve these overnight costs because the outlet temperature of 650°C allows for higher thermal efficiency than current LWR
  • the $2 billion price point can greatly expand the demand for nuclear energy, because it is a lower entry cost than large-sized nuclear power plants, which are usually well above $6 billion and take longer to construct than the smaller TAP reactor.
  • a lower price for a smaller unit will expand the number of utilities that can afford to buy nuclear reactors, better match slow changes in demand, allow greater site feasibility, and reach cashflow breakeven faster.
  • the speed of construction and faster payback also reduce financing costs.
  • TAP reactors will also deliver a low levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). While most observers assume nuclear fuel costs are near zero, the Nuclear Energy Institute estimates the 2011 cost was actually 0.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. As the above fuel cycle figures illustrate, we expect to produce far more electricity per ton of ore than the current fuel cycle, driving these costs down toward zero. The TAP reactor is refueled
  • the United States has set aside a $30 billion trust for a repository and has 64,000 tons of SNF to store - approximately $500 per kilogram of SNF. However, our country has not been able to agree on a location or final design for the repository.
  • the TAP reactor can use fresh uranium fuel or SNF. Utilities can buy fresh uranium from commercial suppliers.
  • SNF fresh uranium fuel
  • the business case for a utility using SNF is somewhat more complicated, because the SNF requires additional handling costs as compared to fresh fuel.
  • the plant must (1) transport and receive the radioactive spent fuel rods, (2) remove the cladding physically, and (3) dissolve the uranium oxide into the molten salt or convert it to a gas that can be injected into the molten salt.
  • the techniques are well known because the same three initial steps must be employed in reprocessing plants such as at Le Havre in France or similar facilities existing at the Idaho National Laboratory [8]. We avoid, however, all of the remaining chemical steps that are the main cost drivers of the work.
  • the TAP reactor represents a major victory for non-proliferation, because it cuts future production of SNF while slowly reducing SNF stockpiles from the past.
  • the first is from a continuously-operating off-gas system that removes contaminants, including fission products, fission product daughters, water, oxygen, and small amounts of tritiated water vapor, from the primary loop.
  • the second waste stream is composed of the noble and semi-noble metals that plate onto a mesh filter located in the primary loop. Neither contains any source material useful for atomic weapons.
  • the third waste stream is made up of lanthanide fission products.
  • We use this method because it is highly effective at removing lanthanides with minimal actinide contaminants in the waste stream, and never separates pure plutonium or uranium.
  • most of the separation steps occur in counter-flow columns that would be complex to modify.
  • the two final steps use electrochemistry: one removes minor actinides from a liquid metal stream, and the other removes lanthanides from the liquid metal stream.
  • the lanthanide waste stream ultimately emerges an as oxide that can be sintered into blocks or other solid shapes suitable for storage.
  • the lanthanide waste stream of 200 kilograms per year is contaminated by detectable levels of actinides, approximately 20 kilograms total, including small amounts of uranium and plutonium.
  • the uranium contaminant is at 1.8% enrichment, and is therefore not a proliferation concern.
  • Less than 0.1% of the lanthanide waste stream is plutonium contaminants - a factor of 10 reduction compared to LWR spent fuel, which is approximately 1% plutonium.
  • the lanthanide fission product waste stream would therefore not be a practical source of weapons materials for a rogue state.
  • Fast reactors also face proliferation concerns because they can produce excess plutonium during operation. Some fast reactors handle this issue by sealing the reactor so that there is no external access to the core, but this lack of access increases the materials challenges of the design even further. Additionally, some fast reactors have a fire risk due to their sodium metal coolant. Molten salt does not have this risk. Molten salt reactors can also be built at considerably lower cost than gas fast reactors.
  • the TAP reactor aims to close the fuel cycle with a commercially viable and scalable technology.
  • the fundamental principles of the design have already been demonstrated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We modify this previous design to yield exciting benefits without demanding dramatically new materials. Our improvements can also be demonstrated at a small scale, reducing development costs. For these reasons, the TAP reactor is the best and most practical concept for closing the nuclear fuel cycle.
  • Transatomic Power believes that the thorium fuel cycle holds theoretical advantages over uranium in the long run due to its generally shorter half-life waste, its elimination of plutonium from the fuel cycle, and its greater natural supply.
  • Thorium reactors do not contain plutonium, but they do have a potential proliferation vulnerability due to the protactinium in their fuel salt.
  • Protactinium has a high neutron capture cross section and therefore, in most liquid thorium reactor designs, it must be removed continuously from the reactor. The process for doing this yields relatively pure protactinium, which then decays into pure U-233. By design, the pure U- 233 is sent back into the reactor where it is burned as its primary fuel.
  • the drawback is that U-233 is a weapons-grade isotope that is much easier to trigger than plutonium. It is possible to denature the U-233 by mixing it with other uranium isotopes, or modify the design to further reduce diversion risk, but further research is required to implement these anti-proliferation measures in thorium molten salt reactors.
  • Molten salt reactors are inherently better able to load-follow than solid-fueled reactors, because the off-gas system prevents the neutron poison xenon from building up in the primary loop.
  • solid-fueled reactors decreasing the power level causes an increase in xenon, because xenon is not a direct fission product.
  • light water reactors require on the order of several days for the xenon to decay enough to allow for restart.
  • Boiling water reactors and advanced boiling water reactors are capable of overnight load following, but this xenon instability can reduce their load following performance by inducing local power peaking in the core.
  • Molten salt reactors do not experience xenon instability, because the off-gas system quickly removes xenon from the primary loop, regardless of power level.
  • the power plant consists of an array of reactors in the range of 50 - 200 MWe, and the individual units are turned off and on depending on power demand.
  • a major drawback of this system is that the multiple stop and restart cycles may damage the reactor components.
  • molten salt reactors like the TAP reactor are capable of much more precise and continuous load following.
  • Transatomic Power's molten salt reactor generates clean, passively safe, and low cost nuclear power from SNF or low-enriched fresh uranium fuel.
  • the most significant differences between this reactor and previous molten salt designs are our zirconium hydride moderator and LiF-(Heavy metal)F4 fuel salt, which allow us to achieve a very high actinide burnup in a compact, cost-effective design.
  • the reactor has a thermal spectrum, which reduces neutron damage to the moderator and other plant components as compared to a fast spectrum, and
  • the reactor is highly proliferation resistant: it requires minimal fuel processing, and never purifies special nuclear materials. Furthermore, this plant possesses the appealing safety benefits common to most molten salt fueled reactor designs. It does not require any external electric power to shut down safely.
  • the TAP reactor solves some of the most pressing problems facing the nuclear industry - safety, waste, materials proliferation, and cost - and can allow for more widespread growth of safe nuclear power.
  • the moderator is comprised of zirconium hydride and a cladding to separate the moderator from the fuel-salt.
  • Zirconium hydride is a very efficient moderator, meaning that it can create a thermalized neutron energy spectrum with a smaller volume than most other moderators.
  • Lithium fluoride actinide fluoride has the advantage of having a higher actinide solubility than most other fuel salts. This combination of moderator and fuel salt enables criticality with a smaller core volume than typical molten salt reactors.
  • the moderator may be graphite, beryllium oxide, metal hydrides, or metal deuterides like zirconium deuteride, amongst others, or any combination thereof.
  • the solid moderator may be in the form of rods, annular rods, finned rods, wire-wrapped rods, spheres or pebbles, large blocks with fuel-salt channels going through the block, plates, assemblies of plates, or any other suitable geometry, or any combination of suitable geometries.
  • the fuel-salt is comprised of lithium fluoride and actinide fluorides, where actinide fluorides can be a combination of actinide elements, as long as the fuel-salt includes at least one fissile isotope.
  • the fuel-salt may be comprised of actinide fluorides, lithium fluorides, beryllium fluorides, zirconium fluorides, amongst others, or any combination of two of more these salts.
  • Figure 10 illustrates how the multiplication factor varies as a function of moderator-to-fuel-salt volume fraction in one implementation using a lithium fluoride and actinide fluoride fuel-salt and a zirconium hydride moderator. This figure was generated from simulation of an infinite lattice of fuel-salt and moderator. Pitch is the center-to-center spacing between adjacent rods of moderator. The simulations were performed with MCNP6.
  • the conversion ratio is typically defined as the ratio of the rate of fissile production to the rate of fissile loss. When the conversion ratio equals one, the rates of fissile production and destruction are exactly equal.
  • the fissile concentration can be kept constant over time by continuously feeding a stream of fertile nuclei into the reactor at a rate equal to the rate of fission. (This and subsequent examples assume that all fission products are immediately removed from the system.) If the conversion ratio is greater than one, the fissile concentration will increase over time if fertile nuclei are continuously fed into the reactor. When greater than one, the conversion ratio is called the breeding ratio.
  • the concentration of fissile nuclei will decrease over time if only fertile nuclei are fed into the reactor.
  • the fissile concentration in the reactor will remain approximately constant if the fissile content of the feed (ffeed) is equal to one minus the conversion ratio (CR):
  • the conversion ratio varies as a function of fuel-salt and moderator volume fractions.
  • Figure 12 illustrates how the conversion ratio varies as a function of fuel-salt volume fraction in one exemplary implementation.
  • the entire volume is comprised of either fuel-salt or moderator, so the moderator volume fraction is equal to one minus the fuel-salt volume fraction.
  • the multiplication factor is greatest when the ratio of fuel-salt to moderator is approximately one, meaning there are approximately equal volumes of fuel-salt and solid moderator present in the core.
  • the disclosed reactor incorporates within the core multiple distinct regions with varying volume fractions of solid moderator such that the conversion ratio of the combined regions is greater than that of a core comprised of a uniform lattice of solid moderator and fuel-salt while maintaining a multiplication factor equal to or greater than one.
  • One exemplary embodiment, illustrated in Figure 13 is comprised of a central, moderated region surrounded by an outer, unmoderated region. The inner region has fuel- salt and solid moderator volume fractions at or near the combination that maximizes the multiplication factor.
  • Figure 10 shows that reactivity is maximized when fuel-salt and solid moderator volumes are approximately equal. Therefore, the central, moderated region of this embodiment is comprised of equal volumes of fuel-salt (lithium fluoride, actinide fluoride) and solid zirconium hydride moderator. The outer region is
  • unmoderated in that it does not substantially contain any solid moderator.
  • the addition of the outer, unmoderated region decreases the multiplication factor of the core, but also increases the overall conversion ratio of the combination of the two regions.
  • Improvements to the conversion ratio are likely possible by increasing the total diameter of the core while also increasing the volume of the unmoderated zone relative to the moderated zone.
  • inventions may be comprised of a central unmoderated region and an outer, moderated region. Additional embodiments may be comprised of two or more regions, with at least two distinct volume fractions of fuel-salt and solid moderator.
  • Figure 14 illustrates a variation of a two region core, with the unmoderated region in the center and surrounded by the moderated region. This configuration may offer a higher conversion ratio than the core in Figure 13, because the higher scalar neutron flux in the center of the core may increase the rate of fertile-to-fissile transmutation.
  • Figure 15 expands upon this concept by adding a second unmoderated region along the periphery of the core.
  • the outer unmoderated region acts as a neutron- absorbing blanket that increases overall conversion ratio, reduces neutron leakage out of the core, and reduces neutron fluence and damage to the vessel wall.
  • Increased neutron absorption in the outer unmoderated region is caused primarily by the increased concentration of U-238, which is a strong neutron absorber in the epithermal energy range.
  • the central region can be designed to have volume fractions of fuel-salt and moderator between fully unmoderated to the configuration that maximizes the multiplication factor (approximately 50% fuel-salt, 50% moderator).
  • Figure 16 illustrates one implementation of this design, which has an outer unmoderated region, and central slightly moderated region, and a moderated middle region.

Landscapes

  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Plasma & Fusion (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • High Energy & Nuclear Physics (AREA)
  • Structure Of Emergency Protection For Nuclear Reactors (AREA)

Abstract

Un réacteur à sels fondus comprend : un sel combustible à base de fluorure; et un modérateur d'hydrure métallique.
PCT/US2014/057655 2013-09-27 2014-09-26 Réacteur à sels fondus WO2015094450A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (4)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN201480059366.4A CN105684090A (zh) 2013-09-27 2014-09-26 熔盐反应堆
CA2925576A CA2925576A1 (fr) 2013-09-27 2014-09-26 Reacteur a sels fondus
US15/025,121 US20160217874A1 (en) 2013-09-27 2014-09-26 Molten Salt Reactor
AU2014367185A AU2014367185A1 (en) 2013-09-27 2014-09-26 Molten salt reactor

Applications Claiming Priority (4)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US201361883834P 2013-09-27 2013-09-27
US61/883,834 2013-09-27
US201461945004P 2014-02-26 2014-02-26
US61/945,004 2014-02-26

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2015094450A1 true WO2015094450A1 (fr) 2015-06-25
WO2015094450A9 WO2015094450A9 (fr) 2015-10-22

Family

ID=52815258

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2014/057655 WO2015094450A1 (fr) 2013-09-27 2014-09-26 Réacteur à sels fondus

Country Status (4)

Country Link
CN (1) CN105684090A (fr)
AU (1) AU2014367185A1 (fr)
CA (1) CA2925576A1 (fr)
WO (1) WO2015094450A1 (fr)

Cited By (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2017070791A1 (fr) * 2015-10-30 2017-05-04 Terrestrial Energy Inc. Réacteur nucléaire à sels fondus
CN108511088A (zh) * 2018-06-13 2018-09-07 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 重水慢化熔盐堆堆芯及重水慢化熔盐堆系统
JP2020091178A (ja) * 2018-12-05 2020-06-11 株式会社 トリウムテックソリューション プルトニウム消滅型の熔融塩原子炉、それを用いた発電システム、及び、プルトニウム消滅型の熔融塩原子炉の運転方法
CN111627570A (zh) * 2020-05-14 2020-09-04 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 液态熔盐堆超铀燃料运行固有安全性的改善方法
CN114111070A (zh) * 2021-11-24 2022-03-01 东方电气集团东方锅炉股份有限公司 一种熔盐吸热器的出口缓冲罐
CN114137006A (zh) * 2021-11-04 2022-03-04 散裂中子源科学中心 一种用于小角散射实验的高温炉
US11931763B2 (en) 2019-11-08 2024-03-19 Abilene Christian University Identifying and quantifying components in a high-melting-point liquid

Families Citing this family (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10867710B2 (en) 2015-09-30 2020-12-15 Terrapower, Llc Molten fuel nuclear reactor with neutron reflecting coolant
CN106710643B (zh) * 2015-11-13 2018-08-14 环境保护部核与辐射安全中心 核反应堆堆芯
WO2018140117A2 (fr) * 2016-11-15 2018-08-02 Terrapower, Llc Gestion thermique de réacteurs nucléaires à combustible fondu
CA3092142A1 (fr) 2018-03-12 2019-11-28 Terrapower, Llc Reflecteurs pour reacteurs rapides a chlorure fondu
US11881320B2 (en) 2019-12-23 2024-01-23 Terrapower, Llc Molten fuel reactors and orifice ring plates for molten fuel reactors
WO2022046726A1 (fr) * 2020-08-24 2022-03-03 Eisenhaure David B Centrale électrique efficace utilisant une source de chaleur à haute température

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20130083878A1 (en) * 2011-10-03 2013-04-04 Mark Massie Nuclear reactors and related methods and apparatus
WO2013116942A1 (fr) * 2012-02-06 2013-08-15 Ottawa Valley Research Associates Ltd. Réacteur intégré à sels fondus

Family Cites Families (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
DE69407459T2 (de) * 1993-03-24 1998-08-06 Kazuo Furukawa Plutonium zerstörender Kernreaktor mit Verwertung flüssigen Kernbrennstoffes
CN103219052B (zh) * 2013-04-25 2016-04-13 中国科学院上海有机化学研究所 一种高纯度的氟化物熔盐及其制备方法
CN103280247B (zh) * 2013-05-21 2016-02-10 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 一种氟盐冷却高温堆的非能动余热排出系统

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20130083878A1 (en) * 2011-10-03 2013-04-04 Mark Massie Nuclear reactors and related methods and apparatus
WO2013116942A1 (fr) * 2012-02-06 2013-08-15 Ottawa Valley Research Associates Ltd. Réacteur intégré à sels fondus

Non-Patent Citations (16)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
"US DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum, A technology roadmap for generation IV nuclear energy systems", GIF-002-00, 2002
D. HOLCOMB; G. FLANAGAN; B. PATTON; J. GEHIN; R. HOWARD; T. HARRISON, FAST SPECTRUM MOLTEN SALT REACTOR OPTIONS, 2011
D. POWERS; M. LEONARD; R. GAUNTT; R. LEE; M. SALAY: "SAND2011-0128", 2011, ALBUQUERQUE: SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, article "Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants Using High-Burnup or MOX Fuel"
H. MACPHERSON: "Molten Salt Reactors, Reactor Handbook", 1964, pages: 4
J. BUONGIORNO; J.W. STERBENTZ; P.E. MACDONALD: "Study of solid moderators for the thermal-spectrum supercritical water-cooled reactor", NUCL TECHNOL., vol. 153, 2006, pages 282 - 303
J. HUANGS; B. TSUCHIYA; K. KONASHI; M. YAMAWAKI: "Estimation of hydrogen redistribution in zirconium hydride under temperature gradient", J NUCL SCI TECHNOL., vol. 37, 2000, pages 887 - 892
K. MOORE: "Phase relationships in the a + 8 region of the Zr-H system", J. NUCL. MATER, vol. 32, 1969, pages 46 - 56
K. TERRANI; M. BALOOCH; D. WONGSAWAENG; S. JAIYEN; D. OLANDER: "The kinetics of hydrogen desorption from and adsorption on zirconium hydride", J. NUCL. MATER, vol. 397, 2010, pages 61 - 68
L. DEWAN: "Molecular Dynamics Simulation and Topological Analysis of the Network Structure of Actinide-Bearing Materials, MIT Doctoral Dissertation", DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2013
M. SIMNAD: "The UZrHx alloy: Its properties and use in TRIGA fuel", NUCL. ENG. DES., vol. 64, 1981, pages 403 - 422
M.S. EL-GENK: "Deployment history and design considerations for space reactor power systems", ACTA ASTRONAUT, vol. 64, 2009, pages 833 - 849
N. PONOMAREV-STEPNOI; V. BUBELEV; E. GLUSHKOV; V. GARIN; N. KUKHARKIN; G. KOMPANIETS; V. NOSOV; E. CHUNYAEV: "Estimation of the hydrogen emission from a hydride moderator by measuring the reactivity and using mathematical statistics", ATOMIC ENERGY, vol. 102, 2007, pages 87 - 93
O. BENES; R.J.M. KONINGS; MOLTEN SALT: "Reactor Fuel and Coolant", COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR MATERIALS, vol. 3, 2012, pages 359 - 389
P.N. HAUBENREICH: "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment", ORNL-4449, 1970
R.C. ROBERTSON: "Conceptual Design Study of a Single-Fluid Molten Salt Breeder Reactor", ORNL-4541, 1971
T.B. TAYLOR, NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS, ANNU. REV. NUCL. SCI., vol. 25, 1975, pages 407 - 421

Cited By (13)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2017070791A1 (fr) * 2015-10-30 2017-05-04 Terrestrial Energy Inc. Réacteur nucléaire à sels fondus
US11200991B2 (en) 2015-10-30 2021-12-14 Terrestrial Energy Inc. Molten salt nuclear reactor
CN108511088A (zh) * 2018-06-13 2018-09-07 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 重水慢化熔盐堆堆芯及重水慢化熔盐堆系统
CN108511088B (zh) * 2018-06-13 2023-07-28 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 重水慢化熔盐堆堆芯及重水慢化熔盐堆系统
JP7136449B2 (ja) 2018-12-05 2022-09-13 株式会社 トリウムテックソリューション プルトニウム消滅型の熔融塩原子炉、それを用いた発電システム、及び、プルトニウム消滅型の熔融塩原子炉の運転方法
JP2020091178A (ja) * 2018-12-05 2020-06-11 株式会社 トリウムテックソリューション プルトニウム消滅型の熔融塩原子炉、それを用いた発電システム、及び、プルトニウム消滅型の熔融塩原子炉の運転方法
US11931763B2 (en) 2019-11-08 2024-03-19 Abilene Christian University Identifying and quantifying components in a high-melting-point liquid
CN111627570A (zh) * 2020-05-14 2020-09-04 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 液态熔盐堆超铀燃料运行固有安全性的改善方法
CN111627570B (zh) * 2020-05-14 2022-06-21 中国科学院上海应用物理研究所 液态熔盐堆超铀燃料运行固有安全性的改善方法
CN114137006A (zh) * 2021-11-04 2022-03-04 散裂中子源科学中心 一种用于小角散射实验的高温炉
CN114137006B (zh) * 2021-11-04 2024-03-26 散裂中子源科学中心 一种用于小角散射实验的高温炉
CN114111070B (zh) * 2021-11-24 2023-08-18 东方电气集团东方锅炉股份有限公司 一种熔盐吸热器的出口缓冲罐
CN114111070A (zh) * 2021-11-24 2022-03-01 东方电气集团东方锅炉股份有限公司 一种熔盐吸热器的出口缓冲罐

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN105684090A (zh) 2016-06-15
WO2015094450A9 (fr) 2015-10-22
CA2925576A1 (fr) 2015-06-25
AU2014367185A1 (en) 2016-04-21

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US20160217874A1 (en) Molten Salt Reactor
WO2015094450A9 (fr) Réacteur à sels fondus
US9368244B2 (en) Hybrid molten salt reactor with energetic neutron source
EP2766909B1 (fr) Réacteur nucléaire et procédé associé
CA2883966A1 (fr) Reacteurs nucleaires et procedes et appareil associes
Cerullo et al. Generation IV reactor designs, operation and fuel cycle
Forsberg Reactors with molten salts: options and missions
Forsberg Thermal-and fast-spectrum molten salt reactors for actinide burning and fuel production
Ho et al. Molten salt reactors
Poullikkas An overview of future sustainable nuclear power reactors.
Penner et al. Steps toward passively safe, proliferation-resistant nuclear power
Yoshioka Nuclear energy based on thorium molten salt
Zohuri Molten Salt Reactors and Integrated Molten Salt Reactors: Integrated Power Conversion
Saraf et al. Molten salt reactors and their development over the years-a review
Dolan Molten Salt Reactors
Furukawa et al. Thorium cycle implementation through plutonium incineration by thorium molten-salt nuclear energy synergetics
Vaidyanathan Nuclear Reactor Engineering (Principle and Concepts)
Lee et al. Thorium fuel cycle for a molten salt reactor: State of Missouri feasibility study
Houghton Molten Salt Reactors: Overview and Comparison of Uranium and Thorium Fuel Cycles
Sabharwall et al. High temperature gas-cooled reactors
Wright ASEAN Symposium: SMR Nuclear Technologies Overview: Strategic Considerations.
Cumo et al. Next Generation Nuclear Reactors 1
Sevini et al. Proliferation resistance and physical protection robustness characteristics of innovative and advanced nuclear energy systems
Cumo et al. Nuclear Power
Majumdar Nuclear Power in the 21 st Century: Status & Trends in Advanced Nuclear Technology Development

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 14853169

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 2925576

Country of ref document: CA

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 2014367185

Country of ref document: AU

Date of ref document: 20140926

Kind code of ref document: A

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 14853169

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1