Preliminary Study on Transition to Thorium Fuel Cycle in SD-TMSR
https://doi.org/10.1134/S2304487X20040021
Abstract
Molten salt reactors (MSRs) represent advances in safety, sustainability, proliferation resistance, and economics. Therefore, an MSR has been chosen as one of the promising reactors for next generation by the Generation IV International Forum. The MSR has been designed to operate on the basis of the Th/233U fuel cycle. Hence, 233U does not exist in nature; it is required to investigate commercially available fuel materials to replace 233U in starting fuel. We have analyzed the fuel cycle and neutron performance of the SD-TMSR with three different fissile materials loading at startup: low-enriched uranium (LEU) (19.79 %), reactor-grade Pu, and 233U. Two different feed mechanisms have been applied. Moreover, the MSR burnup routine within SERPENT-2 has been utilized to simulate the online reprocessing and refueling in the SD-TMSR. In conclusion, the continuous flow of Pu reactor-grade offers the transition to a thorium fuel cycle within a relatively short time (≈ 4.5 yr) compared to 26 yr for 233U startup fuel.
Keywords
molten salt reactor,
thorium fuel cycle,
on-line reprocessing,
Monte-Carlo method,
burnup,
reactivity
Supporting agencies: The work was funded by the MEPhI Competitiveness Program
About the Authors
O. Ashraf
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute); Ain Shams University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115409
Moscow
Egyp
11341
Cairo
A. D. Smirnov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115409
Moscow
S. N. Ryzhov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115409
Moscow
G. V. Tikhomirov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115409
Moscow
References
1. U. S. DoE, “A technology roadmap for generation {IV} nuclear energy systems,” in Nuclear {Energy} {Research} {Advisory} {Committee} and the {Generation} {IV} {International} {Forum}, 2002. P. 48–52.
2. Siemer D. D. “Why the molten salt fast reactor (MSFR) is the ‘best’ gen IV reactor,” Energy Sci. Eng. 2015. V. 3. № 2. P. 83–97.
3. Rosenthal M. W., Kasten P. R., Briggs R. B. “Molten-Salt Reactors–History, Status, and Potential,” Nucl. Appl. Technol. 1970. V. 8. № 2. P. 107–117.
4. Pioro I. L. Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors. 2016.
5. Li G. C. et al. “Optimization of Th-U fuel breeding based on a single-fluid double-zone thorium molten salt reactor,” Prog. Nucl. Energy. Sep. 2018. V. 108. P. 144–151.
6. Nuttin A. et al. “Potential of thorium molten salt reactors detailed calculations and concept evolution with a view to large scale energy production,” Prog. Nucl. Energy. 2005. V. 46. № 1. P. 77–99.
7. Rykhlevskii A., Bae J. W., Huff K. D. “Modeling and simulation of online reprocessing in the thorium-fueled molten salt breeder reactor,” Ann. Nucl. Energy. 2019. V. 128. P. 366–379.
8. Betzler R., Powers J. J., Worrall A. “Modeling and simulation of the start-up of a thorium-based molten salt reactor,” in Proc. {Int}. {Conf}. {PHYSOR}, 2016.
9. Zou Y., Cai C. Z., Yu C. G., Wu J. H., Chen J. G. “Transition to thorium fuel cycle for TMSR,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 2018.
10. Heuer D., Merle-Lucotte E., Allibert M., Brovchenko M., Ghetta V., Rubiolo P. “Towards the thorium fuel cycle with molten salt fast reactors,” Ann. Nucl. Energy. Feb. 2014. V. 64. P. 421–429.
11. Ashraf O., Smirnov A. D., Tikhomirov G. V. “Modeling and criticality calculation of the Molten Salt Fast Reactor using Serpent code,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. Mar. 2019. V. 1189. P. 012007.
12. Ashraf O., Smirnov A. D., Tikhomirov G. V. “Nuclear fuel optimization for molten salt fast reactor,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2018. V. 1133. № 1.
13. Fiorina C. “The molten salt fast reactor as a fast spectrum candidate for thorium implementation,” Politecnico Di Milano, 2013.
14. Fiorina C. et al. “Investigation of the {MSFR} core physics and fuel cycle characteristics,” Prog. Nucl. Energy. Sep. 2013. V. 68. P. 153–168.
15. Zou C., Zhu G., Yu C., Zou Y., Chen J. “Preliminary study on TRUs utilization in a small modular Th-based molten salt reactor (smTMSR),” Nucl. Eng. Des., V. 339. № August. 2018. P. 75–82.
16. Leppanen J., Pusa M., Viitanen T., Valtavirta V., Kaltiaisenaho T. “The Serpent Monte Carlo code: Status, development and applications in 2013,” Ann. Nucl. Energy. Aug. 2015. V. 82. P. 142–150.
17. Robertson R. C. “Conceptual {Design} {Study} of a {Single}-{Fluid} {Molten}-{Salt} {Breeder} {Reactor}.,” Jan. 1971.
18. Mark J. C., Hippel F. V. O. N., Lyman E., “Science & Global Security”: The Technical Basis for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation Initiatives Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade Plutonium.” 1972. V. 4. № July 2014. P. 37–41.
19. Aufiero M., Cammi A., Fiorina C., Leppänen J., Luzzi L., Ricotti M. E. “An extended version of the SERPENT-2 code to investigate fuel burn-up and core material evolution of the Molten Salt Fast Reactor,” J. Nucl. Mater. Oct. 2013. V. 441. № 1–3. P. 473–486.
20. Isotalo A. E., Pusa M. “Improving the Accuracy of the Chebyshev Rational Approximation Method (CRAM) by Using Substeps,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 2016. V. 183. № 1. P. 65–77.
21. Ignatiev V., Feynberg O., Gnidoi I. “Progress in Development of Li,Be,Na/F Molten Salt Actinide Recycler & Transmuter Concept.” 2007. V. 13–18. P. 7548.
Review
For citations:
Ashraf O., Smirnov A.D., Ryzhov S.N., Tikhomirov G.V. Preliminary Study on Transition to Thorium Fuel Cycle in SD-TMSR. Vestnik natsional'nogo issledovatel'skogo yadernogo universiteta "MIFI". 2020;9(4):305-314. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.1134/S2304487X20040021
Views:
119
Email this article 