Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “nuclear graphite supply chain”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Assessing the Nuclear Graphite Supply Chain: A negligible risk for future nuclear reactor construction

The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently listed natural graphite as a critical material due to its importance in high-tech and energy applications. A primary source of confusion when addressing graphite supply chain issues are the questions of what is graphite, what applications use graphite, and how much graphite is used for each specific application? The answers are extremely complicated mainly because of the excessive growth in this industry, in both quantity used and new applications finding uses for graphite. While risk from the direct graphite material supply chain is considered minimal, other activities specific to nuclear applications may indirectly affect the supply chain.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Interesting Graphite Facts

Interesting facts about graphite. Graphite within HTRs and how long they will last, potential issues prediction, model building to predict expected behavior, and frequent and thorough inspection and monitoring strategy.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE ART Graphite R&D Program

Graphite overview: Material science, supply chain facts, nuclear material science, licensing thoughts

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Reactor Supply Chain Assessment (GAIN Report)

Several net-zero scenario evaluations predict a rapid ramp up of nuclear energy in the coming decades. If this materializes, it will most likely strain the supply chains associated with the potential advanced reactor concepts awaiting deployment. To help assess the current and potential capacities of the various advanced reactor supply chains, the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) conducted a survey of companies able to produce components for advanced reactors in the near future (namely for sodium, gas-cooled, and molten salt reactors). Using an aggressive nuclear deployment scenario, the objective was to assess the ability of the various supply chains to meet the considerable demand projections for certain key components (vessels, heat exchangers, pumps, graphite, and sensors) and identify potential challenges. While individual companies were unable to meet the most optimistic nuclear deployment rate projections, it was found that on aggregate, a United States-based supply chain projected that expansion could be ramped up to meet a larger future demand of these components. However, meeting projected demand for several more complex items (namely gas or salt heat exchangers) was found to be more challenging. Deploying new reactors at scale necessitates the production of more and more supply chain components, requiring a ramp up in production. Supply chain companies were surveyed, and respondents appeared less able to meet short term demand (next year) versus longer-term demand projections (5 and 10 years). This reflects the need to obtain orders with adequate lead times (can range from 3 to 30 months). Future demand will need to be met by expanding existing capacity. These expansions will require suppliers to raise capital or secure other types of support (federal loans or grants) to invest in facilities, equipment, and workforce. Individual suppliers indicated financial investments could be in the range of $\$ $100 million to $\$ $1 billion for their own facilities (depending on the type of facility). The biggest risk, according to respondents, related to general uncertainties surrounding the future nuclear industry and whether the potential demand projections will materialize into real demand that is actionable from a business perspective. Businesses do not seem willing to take investments risks without clear orders. If businesses are not able to invest to expand the supply, it will either delay the deployment of advanced nuclear technology, or the supply chain will be met by suppliers outside of the United States. This report only focuses on the domestic supply chain’s ability to meet the various projections stipulated here for the specific assessed components (vessels, heat exchangers, pumps, graphite, and sensors). The report does not cover all reactor designs or all components that may ultimately be needed for any one reactor design. It also does not address whether any specific aspect of the supply chain will be cost competitive in the global market, nor how potential state-backed entities could affect the expansion of a United States-based supply chain. The largest challenges in ramping up capacity among respondents appear to be workforce related. This includes workforce availability, experience, training, and turnover. In addition to facility investment, suppliers will also need to invest heavily in long-term workforce training to meet production goals. This issue is not nuclear-specific, and the expansion of any supply chain will likely face similar challenges. While suppliers evaluated expected normal business demand from other markets outside of nuclear, it is possible that other market segments could expand more than predicted and compete for the same suppliers. One potential market that may compete for the same supplier resources is the United States military, as many of these suppliers support both the commercial nuclear sector as well as the Navy with reactors and components. In summary, suppliers in the United States believe that there is a way to increase production in order to begin meeting the demand which will exist for advanced reactors—as long as appropriate investments can be made in the supply chain in an appropriate timeframe. Based on the capacity projections and lead times, investment will be needed to meet the 5-year and 10-year production targets. Therefore, if significant nuclear deployment is to occur in the 2030s, investment and ramp up of the advanced nuclear supply chain will need to begin in the near future for the United States to successfully deploy these advanced reactors with domestic supply chains.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy, greenhouse gas, and water life cycle analysis of synthetic graphite anode production in the United States

This study presents a comprehensive life cycle analysis of potential synthetic graphite battery anode material (BAM) production in the U.S. based on industrial-scale data. The analysis focuses on three impacts: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, total energy use, and water consumption. We also conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of variation in process parameters and energy sources used for synthetic graphite BAM production on its life cycle GHG emissions. A detailed supply chain analysis of graphite BAM in the U.S. was also undertaken, along with a study of its associated GHG emissions. The results show GHG emissions of 29.7 kg CO 2 -eq. per kg BAM, total energy use of 580 MJ kg −1 BAM, and water consumption of 121 L kg −1 BAM for the baseline condition. The graphitization step is a major process hotspot, contributing to over 74% of all impacts. This is attributed to the energy and material input requirements for this step, particularly through the use of crucibles. Across the entire synthetic graphite production process, electricity is the primary contributor, followed by crucibles used in graphite block production, and then calcined petroleum coke. Sensitivity analyses indicate that improvement in micronization yield, reuse of crucibles, and use of low-carbon nuclear energy can significantly reduce GHG emissions of potential domestic graphite production (by ∼70%). Supply chain analysis identified major graphite BAM sources in the U.S. and showed that the U.S. has a competitive advantage in domestic production of synthetic graphite BAM in terms of reduced life cycle GHG emissions compared to present-day imported sources (by ∼20%).

Battery anode↗
DOE OSTI2025

Update on R&D progress by DOE

High temperature materials and graphite and composite program review to include: Baseline for unirradiated material properties, ASTM test development, design and construction rules (ASME-based), new fuel matrix mechanical studies, Irradiation damage studies, vender irradiation capsules, graphite supply chain worries, and ceramic composite activities.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Synthesis Roadmap for Actinide Chloride Salts

Molten salt reactors (MSRs) are among the main advanced nuclear reactor types at the forefront of development by industry, with the support of the US government, for the next fleet of nuclear reactors to support the demand for energy in the coming decades. MSRs are highly unique because they are cooled and typically also fueled by molten salt. This quality brings about safety benefits such as low-pressure operation and self-stabilization of the neutron flux, operational benefits such as high-temperature operation and the ability for online refueling, and fuel and waste management benefits thanks to the flexibility of post-processing of molten salts and reprocessing options that involve removal of fission products and actinide separation. In fact, domestic deployment of molten salt (or molten salt–cooled) reactors is an approaching reality: a handful of molten salt reactor developers are planning to operate demonstration-scale reactors, as a step toward commercial-scale power reactors, within the decade. For example, Natura Resources received a construction permit in September 2024 for the deployment of MSR-1, which is a graphite-moderated thermal spectrum reactor, at Abilene Christian University. Also, TerraPower, in a collaborative effort with Southern Company and Idaho National Laboratory (INL), received approval from DOE in 2023 to proceed with the construction of the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment (MCRE), a homogeneous chloride fast reactor at INL, and has begun assembly of system components. There are several other examples of developers at different stages of development of their own unique MSR designs (Jenet et al., 2025). As developers are in the process of obtaining approvals for their designs, deploying demonstration-scale reactors, and planning for their commercial-scale power reactors, there is a critical supply chain need for the synthesis of fuel for these reactors that must be addressed. The challenge generally is three-fold: (1) the quantity of fueled salt needed for these reactors is extraordinarily high (>100s of kilograms), but demonstrations of scaled-up techniques for fueled salt synthesis are significantly more limited than demonstrations of lab-scale syntheses; (2) each developer has a unique reactor design, which means different actinide halide elements in different carrier salts must be synthesized; and (3) there is a need for particularly high-purity salt so as to ensure the long-term operability of these reactors with minimal degradation to salt-wetted components, which necessitates synthesis techniques with high levels of quality control, repeatability, and well-characterized precursor and reactant materials. It is crucial that this supply chain challenge be addressed by demonstrating synthesis techniques that are scalable, de-risked, and well-documented so that these technologies may be adopted and utilized by industry to support the fueling needs of MSRs that are to come online within the next 10 years. With this supply chain challenge clearly defined for the developing MSR industry, it is important to consider that addressing such a challenge is oftentimes complex and context-dependent. There is not necessarily a single synthesis technique that can be scaled up and adopted to address the needs of all MSR developers; the synthesis approach that may be viable for producing a desired fuel salt will be entirely dependent on the exact salt composition needed, the quantity needed, purity needed, the refueling and waste plans, and the availability of a carrier salt for the fuel. Therefore, it is important to consider more broadly what synthesis techniques are available and have been demonstrated to understand the benefits, challenges, and general nuances that should be considered when evaluating a particular route for efficient production of high-purity fuel salts at scale.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2017

High Temperature Reactor Research and Development Roadmap, Draft for Public Comment

Nuclear power provides clean, reliable energy, contributing about 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. It supplies approximately 60 percent of our non-greenhouse-gas emitting power, making it our nation’s single largest contributor of carbon-free electricity. This vital component of the U.S. energy portfolio avoids hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year and supports hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, and yet is facing unprecedented challenges. Complex market factors, falling alternative generation costs and lower electricity demand forecasts have made operating nuclear power plants uneconomical in some parts of the country. The industry is confronting premature shut downs, a lack of new plants in the pipeline, profound market challenges and intense financing requirements. However, none of these challenges reflect a reduced need for this reliable and clean source of baseload power. Our nation’s nuclear sector urgently needs to adjust to these challenges to ensure continued availability of this vital national energy resource. The Department of Energy and its national laboratories are aggressively working to revive, revitalize, and expand U.S. nuclear energy capacity. We are advancing nuclear energy technologies through targeted early-stage investments to ensure a strong domestic industry now and into the future. By leveraging public-private partnerships and the national laboratory system, we are developing an advanced nuclear infrastructure, encouraging a resilient supply chain, and promoting a strong nuclear pipeline. A key element of this effort is to support the recent and rapid expansion in innovative advanced reactor development already being led by the U.S. nuclear industry. Advanced reactors, particularly non-light water reactor concepts, offer the potential for significant improvements to safety, economics and environmental performance, to help sustain and expand the availability of nuclear power as a clean, reliable and secure power source for our nation. As part of this strategy, the Department of Energy commissioned the development of technology roadmaps for advanced non-light-water reactor concepts. The starting point for the roadmaps is the technical readiness assessment performed as part of an advanced test and demonstration reactor study released in 2016 [ ]. The roadmaps show the Research and Development (R&D) needed to support demonstration of advanced reactor concepts, for either engineering demonstration or commercial demonstration depending on concept maturity, by 2035. The starting point for the roadmaps is the technical readiness assessment performed as part of an advanced test and demonstration reactor study released in 2016. The roadmaps were developed based on a review of technical reports and vendor literature summarizing the technical maturity of each concept and the outstanding R&D needs. Tasks for specific systems were highlighted on the basis of time and resources needed to complete the tasks and the importance of the system to the performance of the reactor concept. The roadmaps are intended to be generic (i.e., not specific to a particular vendor’s design); however, features of the General Atomics Energy Multiplier Module were included to provide specific examples for illuminating needed R&D tasks to be conducted in support of demonstration in the near future.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

2023 Critical Materials Strategy

The global effort to curb carbon emissions is accelerating demand for clean energy technologies and the materials they rely on. Demand for these materials will only continue to grow, especially as some nations aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. While some major materials like steel, copper, and aluminum are already powering the fossil fuel economy, others are more minor materials with potential supply risks. These risks could jeopardize the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the desirable timeframe to avoid significant climate change. In some cases, it may be necessary to take action to improve the resilience of material supply chains and mitigate supply risks. Understanding the importance of individual materials to clean energy and the supply risks associated with them is necessary to identify which materials may serve as potential roadblocks to a clean energy future. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a series of 13 supply chain deep dive assessment reports on various energy technologies in 2022 in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains (E.O. 14017). These reports emphasized that supply chain bottlenecks can occur at any stage of the value chain from mining and refining to component and even sub-system manufacturing. The bottlenecks are a combination of factors such as material availability, equipment availability, work force availability and quality, logistics, regulatory framework, and market conditions. These bottlenecks were worsened during the global Covid-19 pandemic. Its lingering impacts have hindered capacity expansion for material supply chains and prevented product lead-time recovery. One approach to reduce supply chain risks for the United States is to have a strong domestic manufacturing sector with a diverse set of producers. Boosting responsible domestic production would require leveraging the latest science not only in material extraction but also in developing substitutes, recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing. This report is an updated analysis of previous Critical Materials Strategy (CMS) reports published by the DOE in 2010, 2011, and 2019 based on national and global priorities, technology advancement, and technology adoption trends. Like the CMS reports, this analysis presents the results of a formal material criticality assessment to identify which materials are critical to the continued deployment of clean energy technologies globally. The analysis in this report leveraged the DOE supply chain deep dive assessments to develop the initial list of materials to evaluate. This DOE Critical Materials Assessment (CMA) is conducted independently of criticality assessments performed by other U.S. government agencies, such as that conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This analysis complements the USGS critical minerals determination in three aspects. First, the DOE assessment is performed from a global perspective, while the USGS analysis focusses on the importance of minerals to the U.S. economy. Second, this report focuses on the importance of materials to clean energy technologies, rather than to the economy in general. Lastly, this study is forward looking to 2035 based on clean energy deployment scenarios, whereas the USGS assessment is retrospective. Materials evaluated in this report that do not appear in the USGS Critical Minerals List include copper, uranium, electrical steel, and SiC. A draft version of this report received ~80 public comments related to supporting data and methodological improvement. Those comments have been incorporated as much as possible where appropriate. Highlights of findings from this 2023 CMA include: Rare earth materials (neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium) used in magnets in electric vehicle (EV) motors and wind turbine generators continue to be critical. While dysprosium (Dy) and terbium (Tb) are both heavy rare earth elements that serve the same function in magnets, the criticality of Tb is slightly lower than that for Dy in the short term due to the widespread use of Dy in high-grade magnets and Tb’s present role as a substitute. Similarly, praseodymium (Pr) is critical in the medium term but only near critical in the short term because it is more substitutable in magnets than neodymium (Nd); Materials used in batteries for EVs and stationary storage are now considered to be critical. While cobalt (Co) was found to be critical in this and previous reports, lithium (Li) becomes critical in the medium term due to its broader use in various battery chemistries and the rampant growth of the EV industry. Natural graphite is a new addition in this assessment and is also found to be critical; Platinum group metals used in hydrogen electrolyzers, such as platinum (Pr) and iridium (Ir), are critical due to an increased focus on hydrogen technologies to achieve net zero carbon emissions, while those used in catalytic converters, such as rhodium (Rh) and palladium (Pd), were screened out due to the decreased importance of catalytic converters in the medium term; Gallium (Ga) continues to be critical due to its use in light-emitting diodes (LEDs). In addition, the use of Ga has increased in magnet manufacturing and in semiconductor in forms such as gallium arsenide (GaAs) or gallium nitride (GaN); Major materials like Aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and silicon (Si) move from noncritical in the short term to near critical in the medium term due to their importance in electrification; Electrical steel is near critical due to its use in transformers for the grid and electric motors in EVs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗