skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Power generation versus fuel production in light water hybrid reactors

Abstract

The economic potentials of fissile-fuel-producing light-water hybrid reactors (FFP-LWHR) and of fuel-self-sufficient (FSS) LWHR's are compared. A simple economic model is constructed that gives the capital investment allowed for the hybrid reactor so that the cost of electricity generated in the hybrid based energy system equals the cost of electricity generated in LWR's. The power systems considered are LWR, FSS-LWHR, and FFP-LWHR plus LWR, both with and without plutonium recycling. The economic potential of FFP-LWHR's is found superior to that of FSS-LWHR's. Moreover, LWHR's may compete, economically, with LWR's. Criteria for determining the more economical approach to hybrid fuel or power production are derived for blankets having a linear dependence between F and M. The examples considered favor the power generation rather than fuel production.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Princeton Univ., N.J. (USA). Plasma Physics Lab.
OSTI Identifier:
7086253
Report Number(s):
PPPL-1319
TRN: 77-020036
DOE Contract Number:
EY-76-C-02-3073
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY; HYBRID REACTORS; BREEDING; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; POWER GENERATION; COST; ECONOMICS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NUCLEAR FUELS; PRODUCTION; WATER MODERATED REACTORS; ENERGY SOURCES; FUELS; NUCLEAR FUEL CONVERSION; REACTOR MATERIALS; REACTORS; 700200* - Fusion Energy- Fusion Power Plant Technology

Citation Formats

Greenspan, E. Power generation versus fuel production in light water hybrid reactors. United States: N. p., 1977. Web. doi:10.2172/7086253.
Copy to clipboard
Greenspan, E. Power generation versus fuel production in light water hybrid reactors. United States. doi:10.2172/7086253.
Copy to clipboard
Greenspan, E. Wed . "Power generation versus fuel production in light water hybrid reactors". United States. doi:10.2172/7086253. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7086253.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_7086253,
title = {Power generation versus fuel production in light water hybrid reactors},
author = {Greenspan, E.},
abstractNote = {The economic potentials of fissile-fuel-producing light-water hybrid reactors (FFP-LWHR) and of fuel-self-sufficient (FSS) LWHR's are compared. A simple economic model is constructed that gives the capital investment allowed for the hybrid reactor so that the cost of electricity generated in the hybrid based energy system equals the cost of electricity generated in LWR's. The power systems considered are LWR, FSS-LWHR, and FFP-LWHR plus LWR, both with and without plutonium recycling. The economic potential of FFP-LWHR's is found superior to that of FSS-LWHR's. Moreover, LWHR's may compete, economically, with LWR's. Criteria for determining the more economical approach to hybrid fuel or power production are derived for blankets having a linear dependence between F and M. The examples considered favor the power generation rather than fuel production.},
doi = {10.2172/7086253},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 1977},
month = {Wed Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 1977}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (1.87 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/7086253
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • ; ; ; ...
    The first part of the study consists of a thorough investigation of the properties of subcritical thermal lattices for hybrid reactor applications. Light water is found to be the best moderator for (fuel-self-sufficient) FSS hybrid reactors for power generation. Several lattice geometries and compositions of particular promise for LWHRs are identified. Using one of these lattices, fueled with natural uranium, the performance of several concepts of LWHR blankets is investigated, and optimal blanket designs are identified. The effect of blanket coverage efficiency and the feasibility of separating the functions of tritium breeding and of power generation to different blankets aremore » investigated. Optimal iron-water shields for LWHRs are also determined. The performance of generic types of LWHRs is evaluated. The evolution of the blanket properties with burnup is evaluated and fuel management schemes are briefly examined. The feasibility of using the lithium system of the blanket to control the blanket power amplitude and shape is also investigated. A parametric study of the energy balance of LWHR power plants is carried out, and performance parameters expected from LWHRs are estimated. Discussions are given of special features of LWHRs and their fuel cycle.« less

  • ;
    The classification of water-cooled nuclear reactors offers a number of fuel cycles that present inherently low risk of weapons proliferation while making power available to the international community. Eight fuel cycles in light water reactor (LWR), heavy water reactor (HWR), and the spectral shift controlled reactor (SSCR) systems have been proposed to promote these objectives in the International Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) program. Each was examined in an effort to provide technical and economic data to INFCE on fuel fabrication, refabrication, and reprocessing for an initial comparison of alternate cycles. The fuel cycles include three once-through cycles that require onlymore » fresh fuel fabrication, shipping, and spent fuel storage; four cycles that utilize denatured uranium--thorium and require all recycle operations; and one cycle that considers the LWR--HWR tandem operation requiring refabrication but no reprocessing.« less

  • ; ; ; ...
    The supercritical water reactor (SCWR) has been the object of interest throughout the nuclear Generation IV community because of its high potential: a simple, direct cycle, compact configuration; elimination of many traditional LWR components, operation at coolant temperatures much higher than traditional LWRs and thus high thermal efficiency. It could be said that the SWR was viewed as the water counterpart to the high temperature gas reactor.

  • ; ; ; ...
    The overall objective of this project is to evaluate the feasibility of supercritical light water cooled reactors for electric power production. The use of light water at supercritical pressures as the coolant in a nuclear reactor offers the potential for considerable plant simplification and consequent capital and O&M cost reduction compared with current light water reactor (LWR) designs. Also, given the thermodynamic conditions of the coolant at the core outlet (i.e. temperature and pressure beyond the water critical point), very high thermal efficiencies for the power conversion cycle are possible (i.e. up to about 45%). Because no change of phasemore » occurs in the core, the need for steam separators and dryers as well as for BWR-type re-circulation pumps is eliminated, which, for a given reactor power, results in a substantially shorter reactor vessel and smaller containment building than the current BWRs. Furthermore, in a direct cycle the steam generators are not needed. If no additional moderator is added to the fuel rod lattice, it is possible to attain fast neutron energy spectrum conditions in a supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR). This type of core can make use of either fertile or fertile-free fuel and retain a hard spectrum to effectively burn plutonium and minor actinides from LWR spent fuel while efficiently generating electricity. One can also add moderation and design a thermal spectrum SCWR that can also burn actinides. The project is organized into three tasks:« less

  • The supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR) is one of the six reactor technologies selected for research and development under the Generation-IV program. SCWRs are promising advanced nuclear systems because of their high thermal efficiency (i.e., about 45% vs. about 33% efficiency for current Light Water Reactors, LWRs) and considerable plant simplification. SCWRs are basically LWRs operating at higher pressure and temperatures with a direct once-through cycle. Operation above the critical pressure eliminates coolant boiling, so the coolant remains single-phase throughout the system. Thus the need for recirculation and jet pumps, a pressurizer, steam generators, steam separators and dryers is eliminated. Themore » main mission of the SCWR is generation of low-cost electricity. It is built upon two proven technologies, LWRs, which are the most commonly deployed power generating reactors in the world, and supercritical fossil-fired boilers, a large number of which is also in use around the world.« less