Skip to main content

INL Reached a Milestone on Nuclear Fuel Performance

From ScienceDaily:
The research to improve the performance of coated-particle nuclear fuel met an important milestone by reaching a burnup of 9 percent without any fuel failure. Raising the burnup level of fuel in a nuclear reactor reduces the amount of fuel required to produce a given amount of energy while reducing the volume of the used fuel generated, and improves the overall economics of the reactor system.

The [Idaho National Lab] team studied the very successful technology developed by the Germans for this fuel in the 1980s and decided to make the carbon and silicon carbide layers of the U.S. particle coatings more closely resemble the German model. The changes resulted in success that has matched the historical German level.

INL's Advanced Test Reactor was a key enabler of the successful research. The ATR was used to provide the heating of the fuel to watch the fuel's response. The fuel kernel is coated with layers of carbon and silicon compounds. These microspheres are then placed in compacts one-half-inch wide by two inches long and then placed in graphite inside the reactor for testing. The fuel element is closely monitored while inside the test reactor to track its behavior.


The team has now set its sights on reaching its next major milestone -- achievement of a 12-14 percent burnup* expected later this calendar year.


*A burnup is a measure of the neutron irradiation of the fuel. Higher burnup allows more of the fissile 235U and of the plutonium bred from the 238U to be utilised, reducing the uranium requirements of the fuel cycle.
Pretty exciting stuff.


Kirk Sorensen said…
Thank you for posting this, David, but to me it just points out the inherent limitations of solid nuclear fuel forms. They are inherently compromised by their covalent bonds.

Liquid-fluoride forms of nuclear fuel have ionic bonding that is impervious to radiation damage, and can achieve essentially unlimited radiation exposure. Which means fuels in fluoride form (like UF4 or ThF4) can achieve essentially 100% burnup. All of this was demonstrated in ORNL test reactors back in the 50s and 60s, but has been almost entirely forgotten by today's nuclear engineering community.
Rod Adams said…

Keep reminding us. In the meantime, the high temperature solid fuel does have some useful advantages over conventionally available light water reactor fuel in zircalloy cladding.

As you know, I really like the idea of using that fuel in simple gas turbine machines that can make the "high capital" cost disadvantage of nuclear power an obsolete concept in certain markets.

Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Pete said…
Has anyone run the numbers to convert this 9% burnup to megawatt-days per metric tonne? Since plutonium is being produced at the same time, is it 9% of initial fissile material or 9% of total uranium?
Alessandro said…

It' s 9% of burn-up of all heavy metals. If you consider that the fission of one gram of HM produces about 1 MWday of thermal enenrgy, that 9% means about 85-90 MWd per kg of strarting low enriched uranium

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…