Search NASA⌕ Search

DOE OSTI · 2474881

An Assessment of Nuclear Fuel Options for Microreactors

Abstract

A design options trade-off study was conducted for various nuclear fuel system options. This study developed requirements for ideal fuel system characteristics and weighted ranking criteria specifically for microreactor designs. A semiquantitative method of consensus ranking on a numeric scale was used with input from several nuclear fuel experts. The purpose of this study was to assess options and provide recommendations for further nuclear fuel technology development to better support small reactor cores. Modern microreactor designs have only recently begun emerging and have little in common except their diminutive size. The purpose of this study was not to determine which reactor type is best (e.g., coolant type and/or neutron energy spectrum), but rather to assess fuel system options within five broad categories of reactor types inspired by: 1) Very High Temperature Reactors (VHTR), 2) Sodium Fast Reactors (SFR), 3) System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) reactors, 4) Gas Fast Reactor (GFR), and 5) Molten Salt Reactors (MSR). The order in which these reactor types were listed generally represents the amount of current interest and technological maturity in the microreactor development community (in descending order). As such, the conclusions drawn for each reactor type category have varying levels of certainty, but there is confidence in the general conclusion that known fuel technologies can support small reactors, but that microreactors will be able to maximize their performance potential if these fuel systems were further optimized. These optimization opportunities were found to revolve around increasing uranium loading and improving behaviors/understanding for long time-at-temperature conditions. Further details about these recommendations can be found in the concluding section of this report.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Woolstenhulme, Nicolas E.. 2023-05-30. An Assessment of Nuclear Fuel Options for Microreactors. https://doi.org/10.2172/2474881

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

Evaluating transient fission gas release in high burnup light water reactor fuel during loss of coolant accident conditions via new capabilities

In this work, the role of transient fission gas release (tFGR) in the cladding burst behavior of high burnup fuel during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in commercial light water reactors was further investigated via the use of a new apparatus. During the LOCA-related temperature ramps of high burnup fuel, the release of fission gases exceeds the steady-state release observed under normal operating conditions. An enhancement was made to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Severe Accident Test Station (SATS) to probe the various factors influencing tFGR. Experiments were performed on commercially irradiated, zirconium-clad uranium dioxide fuel, and this paper details the design of the experimental setup, the initial test results, and the subsequent post-test analyses. Notably, the first test on high burnup fuel demonstrated a LOCA-relevant tFGR of 5.3% from an unpressurized fuel segment. The ultimate tFGR was 10.7% for beyond LOCA conditions. A follow-up test on similar fuel revealed a tFGR of 12.6% under comparable conditions. Microstructural analysis and an analysis of the released gas provide some insight regarding the source of tFGR in the fuel. Finally, a grain boundary bubble model may aid in the interpretation of the results and offer a guide for future work.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Characterization of ceramic fuel powder packing fractions to support INFLUX

Triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS)-based structures show marked potential in novel nuclear reactor fuel designs, as their high surface area-to-volume ratio increases the efficiency of heat transfer out of the fuel, enabling safer, more innovative reactor designs. This milestone report addresses the role of dUO 2 powder processing route on the fill behavior of TPMS-based cladding shells to understand and advance the feasibility of manufacturing TPMS-based nuclear fuel forms. dUO 2 powder was processed through either a dry granulation route, varying consolidation pressure, or through milling, varying milling time, milling method and milled size distribution. The lowest tapped bulk densities (TBD), but best powder flowabilities, were obtained when testing unprocessed dUO 2 powder which was prone to self-agglomeration and formed low-density spheroids. The highest TBD and lowest flowabilities were obtained when using powder produced by hammer-milling dUO 2 powder to pass through a 200-mesh sieve, which led to particles with angular morphologies. Powder produced by dry granulation exhibited TBD that varied according to the consolidation pressure used to form the initial pellets and exhibited improved flowabilities when compared to hammer-milled material. Because of the large span of granule sizes formed as well as the irregular shape associated with the granules, a packing fraction of 0.69 was achieved, exceeding the analytical solution for random close packing of mono-sized spheres. TPMS polymer shells were loaded with unprocessed, granulated, and hammer-milled dUO 2 powders, and their qualitative packing behaviors were analyzed using x-ray computed tomography (xCT). TBDs calculated after loading TPMS polymer shells were 10-20% lower when compared to tapped bulk density measurements taken in a glass graduated cylinder, indicating a non-trivial impact on the tapped bulk density of either the TPMS channel size, TPMS channel surface material, powder cohesiveness, or a combination of the two parameters. A metallic zircaloy-4 TPMS shell will be loaded with hammer-milled dUO 2 powder upon receipt of the shell from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and shipped to Idaho National Labs (INL) for subsequent hot isostatic pressing (HIP) densification experiments.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗