Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.01.036

Assessment of the material attractiveness and reactivity feedback coefficients of various fuel cycles for the Canadian concept of Super-Critical Water Reactors  

Ibrahim, Remon (McMaster University)
Buijs, Adriaan (McMaster University)
Luxat, John (McMaster University)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.54, no.7, 2022 , pp. 2660-2669 More about this Journal
Abstract
The attractiveness for weapons usage of the proposed fuel cycle for the PT-SCWR was evaluated in this study using the Figure-of-Merit methodology. It was compared to the attractiveness of other fuel cycles namely, Low Enriched Uranium (LEU), U/Th, Re-enriched Reprocessed Uranium (RepU), and Pu/Th/U. The optimal content of natural uranium, which can be added to Pu/Th to render the produced U-233 unattractive, was found to be 9%. A ranking system to compare the attractiveness of the various fuel cycles is proposed. RepU was found to be the most proliferation resistant fuel cycle for the first 100 years,while, the least proliferation resistant fuel cycle was the originally proposed Pu/Th one. The reactivity feedback coefficients were calculated for all proposed fuel cycles. All studied reactivity coefficients have the same sign implying that all the fuel cycles will behave neutronically in a similar way. The Pu/Th/U fuel was found to have the most negative value of the Coolant Void Reactivity which will help to restore the core to a safe status faster in case of a loss-of-coolant accident. The fuel and moderator temperature coefficients did not show significant differences between the fuels studied.
Keywords
Proliferation resistance; Material attractiveness; PT-SCWR; Nuclear fuel cycles; Reactivity coefficients;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 W.S. Charlton, R.F. Lebouf, C. Gariazzo, D.G. Ford, C. Beard, S. Landsberger, M. Whitaker, Proliferation resistance assessment methodology for nuclear fuel cycles, Nucl. Technol. 157 (2007) 143-156, https://doi.org/10.13182/NT07-A3809.   DOI
2 C.G. Bathke, B.B. Ebbinghaus, B.A. Collins, B.W. Sleaford, K.R. Hase, M. Robel, R.K. Wallace, K.S. Bradley, J.R. Ireland, G.D. Jarvinen, M.W. Johnson, A.W. Prichard, B.W. Smith, The attractiveness of materials in advanced nuclear fuel cycles for various proliferation and theft scenarios, Nucl. Technol. 179 (2012) 5-30, https://doi.org/10.13182/NT10-203.   DOI
3 E.M. Glanfield, in: Lattice Physics Calculations for Alternative Fuels for the Canadian SCWR, MA.Sc Thesis, McMaster University, 2017.
4 C.G. Bathke, R.K. Wallace, K.R. Hase, B.W. Sleaford, B.B. Ebbinghaus, B.W. Collins, K.S. Bradley, A.W. Prichard, B.W. Smith, An assessment of the attractiveness of material associated with thorium/uranium and uranium closed fuel cycles from a safeguards perspective, in: Annual Meeting of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM), 2010. Baltimore, United States, 11-15, July.
5 W. Peiman, I. Pioro, K. Gabriel, Thermal-hydraulic and neutronic analysis of a reentrant fuel-channel design for pressure-channel supercritical water-cooled reactors, J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci. 1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026393.   DOI
6 A. Moghrabi, D.R. Novog, Investigation of reactor physics phenomena in the Canadian pressure tube supercritical-water reactor, CNL Nucl. Rev. 5 (2016) 253-268, https://doi.org/10.12943/CNR.2016.00031.   DOI
7 J. Pencer, A. Colton, Progression of the lattice physics concept for the Canadian supercritical water reactor, in: 34th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, 2013. Toronto, Canada, June 9-12.
8 Goorley, J.T., James, M.R., Booth, T.E., Brown, F.B., Bull, J.S., Cox, L.J., Durkee Jr, J.W., Elson, J.S., Fensin, M.L., Forster III, R.A. and Hendricks, J.S. Initial MCNP6 release overview-MCNP6 version 1.0 (No. LA-UR-13-22934). Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States). https://doi.org/10.2172/1086758.   DOI
9 C. Lloyd, B. Goddard, Proliferation resistant plutonium: an updated analysis, Nucl. Eng. Des. 330 (2018) 297-302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.02.012.   DOI
10 H.R. Trellue, C.G. Bathke, P. Sadasivan, Neutronics and material attractiveness for PWR thorium systems using Monte Carlo techniques, Prog. Nucl. Energy 53 (2011) 698-707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2011.04.007.   DOI
11 C. Lloyd, B. Goddard, R. Witherspoon, The effects of U-232 on enrichment and material attractiveness over time, Nucl. Eng. Des. 352 (2019) 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110175.   DOI
12 R. Moir, U232 Nonproliferation Features, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), 2010. LLNL-TR-438648.
13 J. Kang, F.N. von Hippel, U-232 and the proliferation-resistance of U-233 in spent fuel, Sci. Global Secur. 9 (2001) 1-32, https://doi.org/10.1080/08929880108426485.   DOI
14 Generation IV International Forum, Evaluation methodology for proliferation resistance and physical protection of Generation IV nuclear energy systems, Rev. E. 6 (2011).
15 C.H.M. Breeders, G. Kessler, Fuel cycle options for the production and utilization of denatured plutonium, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 156 (2007) 1-23, https://doi.org/10.13182/nse07-a2681.   DOI
16 A.L. Nichols, M. Verpelli, D.L. Aldama, Handbook of Nuclear Data for Safeguards: Database Extensions, IAEA, 2008. August.
17 B.T. Rearden, M.A. Jessee, SCALE Code System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2018. ORNL/TM-2005/39, Version 6.2.3.
18 A. Kuperman, Plutonium for Energy?: Explaining the Global Decline of MOX : a Policy Research Project of the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, 2018.
19 D.O.E. Us, A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002. https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_40481/technology-roadmap.
20 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems, IAEATECDOC-1575 Rev.1, IAEA, Vienna, 2009, https://www.iaea.org/publications/8158/guidance-for-the-application-of-an-assessment-methodology-forinnovative-nuclear-energy-systems.
21 T. Aoki, H. Sagara, C.Y. Han, Material attractiveness evaluation of inert matrix fuel for nuclear security and non-proliferation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 126 (2019) 427-433, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.10.063.   DOI
22 Y. Kimura, M. Saito, H. Sagara, Evaluation of proliferation resistance of plutonium based on decay heat, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 48 (2011) 715-723, https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711754.   DOI
23 Y. Kimura, M. Saito, H. Sagara, C.Y. Han, Evaluation of proliferation resistance of plutonium based on spontaneous fission neutron emission rate, Ann. Nucl. Energy 46 (2012) 152-159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2012.03.032.   DOI
24 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Safeguards Glossary, International Nuclear Verification Series No. 3, IAEA, Vienna, 2003.
25 R. Ibrahim, A. Buijs, J. Luxat, A simplified core model of the SCWR, in: 39th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society and 43rd Annual CNS/CAN Student Conference, 2019. Ottawa, Canada, June 23-29.
26 Nuclear Data Center at KAERI, Table of Nuclides. http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/.