Plentiful Energy and the IFR Story

[Carlhole]

Sustainable Nuclear

The Republic Magazine extends our appreciation to Dr. Till for helping us and our readers understand how nuclear power technology has evolved as well as wading through some of the myths and related issues involving nuclear power reactors.

Dr. Till was the long-time director of civilian nuclear power reactor development at Argonne National Laboratory. This program, by far the largest in the nation in the last decades of the century, was devoted entirely to research and development of nuclear reactors for electrical power generation. About two thousand engineers, scientists and supporting staff, along with a large complex of the facilities required for such work, were under his direction and guidance. For ten years, from 1984 to 1994, the work of this large team was focused exclusively on development of an Argonne brain-child, the Integral Fast Reactor. This technology promised an inherently safer reactor, a shorter-lived waste, and a limitless fuel supply.

Must reading for anyone concerned about energy.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Integral Fast Reactor is something what have never been built.

Experimental setup was abandoned before completion.

Other fast reactors are not promising as power sources either.
Leaks of liquid sodium and resulting fires seems universal on the top of plenty of other troubles.

There must be a reason why few technologically advanced countries (France, Japan, Russia) have tried and failed to adapt FBR for civilian use (their FBR projects are commercial disasters) despite of their best efforts.
Americans just chickened out (probably due to the mix of political and economical reasons) before working setup was made.

Base on history of failures it is reasonable to assume that FBR power, even if delivered into the market, will be say 5-10 times as expensive as conventional nuclear.
So wide deployment is unlikely.

[Subjectivist]

Russia has two fast reactor operating and several more under construction.

http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_int ... id&qval=12

The system was built to prove that a commercial-size fast reactor could be constructed using the manufacturing methods and materials developed and tested in the BOR-60 program. Experience has shown that the operation and maintenance costs (reliability, availability, capacity factor) of power generation for the BN-350 plant are economically competitive with traditional (fossil-fuel or light water reactor) power plants; however, the capital cost was high for this demonstration plant. The BN-350 reactor system has also been utilized for a wide range of experimental work supporting fast reactor development; and several design improvements were developed for the next generation, BN-600, design. However, in June 1994, the reactor was shut down because of a lack of funds to buy fuel. In addition, the operating license of BN-350 has now expired. It is reported that Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) has proposed a joint project to the Kazakh Atomic Energy Agency for extending operation of the BN-350 by up to 10 years, then decommissioning it and providing replacement power. According to another report, the Kazakh State Corporation for Atomic Energy plans to build a second 135 MW(electric) fast reactor to replace the BN-350.

The BN-600 sodium-cooled fast reactor built at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, designed for 600 MW(electric), produces 560 MW(electric) and has been in operation since 1980. Significant improvements (over BN-350) were applied in the secondary system and the fuel discharge burnup was doubled. These measures significantly decreased the capital investment; however, the BN-600 electrical generation cost is still twice that of a VVER-1000 reactor. Experimental studies were performed in BN-600 to evaluate the safety performance of fast reactor power plants, and to investigate a variety of advanced materials; several design improvements were developed for the next generation, BN-800, design.

The developmental and design work for the BN-800 design was completed and construction started at two sites, Beloyarsk and South Urals in 1986. Construction was suspended between 1990-93 because of economic crises and negative public opinion in the wake of the Chernobyl accident, although the current Russian energy program calls for completion of the first unit in 2000. The BN-800 design incorporates improvements in the secondary system and reactor materials as developed in the BN-600 testing program. Recent changes in the Russian nuclear regulations (zero-void-worth criterion) and increased collaboration with the Western countries have led to recent studies of modified BN-800 core design configurations.

[Carlhole]

Integral Fast Reactor is something what have never been built.

That's bullshit.

The Argonne National Laboratory operated fast reactors for 30 years. The Integral Fast Reactor was closed down 3 years before completion due to politics. It had had a spectacular record of success. This is why Dr. James Hansen of NASA has made the IFR the foundation of his recommended program to phase-out fossil fuels.

IFR Wiki

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR, originally Advanced Liquid-Metal Reactor) is a design for a nuclear reactor using fast neutrons and no neutron moderator (a "fast" reactor). IFR is distinguished by a nuclear fuel cycle that uses reprocessing via electrorefining at the reactor site.

The U.S. Department of Energy built a prototype, begun in 1964 but canceled the project in 1994, three years before completion. The predecessor was the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. The proposed Generation IV Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor is its closest surviving fast breeder reactor design. Other countries have also designed and operated fast reactors.

The goals of the IFR project were to increase the efficiency of uranium usage by breeding plutonium and eliminating the need for transuranic isotopes ever to leave the site. The reactor was an unmoderated design running on fast neutrons, designed to allow any transuranic isotope to be consumed (and in some cases used as fuel).
Compared to current light-water reactors with a once-through fuel cycle that derives energy from less than 1% of the uranium, a breeder reactor like the IFR has a very efficient (99.5% of uranium undergoes fission) fuel cycle.[3] The basic scheme used electrolytic separation to remove transuranics and actinides from the wastes and concentrate them. These concentrated fuels were then reformed, on site, into new fuel elements.

The available fuel metals were never separated from the plutonium, and therefore there was no direct way to use the fuel metals in nuclear weapons. Also, plutonium never had to leave the site, and thus was far less open to unauthorized diversion.

Another important benefit of removing the long half-life transuranics from the waste cycle is that the remaining waste becomes a much shorter-term hazard. ... The result is that within 200 years, such wastes are no more radioactive than the ores of natural radioactive elements.[3]

[pstarr]

Integral Fast Reactor is something what have never been built.

That's bullshit.

The Argonne National Laboratory operated one for nearly 30 years. It was closed down 3 years before completion due to politics. It had had a spectacular record of success. This is why Dr. James Hansen of NASA has made the IFR the foundation of his recommended program to phase-out fossil fuels.coal

They operated it before completion? I hope they put the top on it.

Actually It's a pretty cool device. I like the automatic shutdown, without electricity.

The expansion of the fuel and structure in an off-normal situation causes the system to shut down even without human operator intervention. In April 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted.

Still the IFR would replace natural gas/coal electricity, not liquid-petroleum transport fuel so it is not a mitigation for peak oil. Thusly, you should post this on Peakcoal.com or Peaknaturalgas.com or peakhabitableplanet.com.

[Carlhole]

Still the IFR would replace natural gas/coal electricity, not liquid-petroleum transport fuel so it is not a mitigation for peak oil. Thusly, you should post this on Peakcoal.com or Peaknaturalgas.com or peakhabitableplanet.com.

You can build electric cars/trains/busses, etc. They're very efficient. Plenty of nuclear energy resource is available for that too.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Russia has two fast reactor operating and several more under construction.

http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_int ... id&qval=12

Russian BN-350 and BN-600 are not breeding fast breeders.
They are like an aircraft which have never taken off...
They produce energy twice as expensive as LWR base on burning of enriched uranium and some MOX.
They were never operated in a mode allowing to produce more fissile material than they use.

If you add expenses of reprocessing in proper FBR cycle, price of this energy will go up few times again.
Realistically it may be something like 5 times more than LWR.

FBR-s are working best as 20-100MW military applications directed at plutionium manufacturing.
They cannot compete with LWR for energy production.

The Integral Fast Reactor was closed down 3 years before completion due to politics. It had had a spectacular record of success.

That's illogical.
How something what have never been operated could have spectacular record of success?

Perhaps it was paper success.
We have paper reserves (of oil), paper gold and now paper success...

[Carlhole]

How something what have never been operated could have spectacular record of success?

It is historical record that the IFR at Argonne National Labs operated. Fast reactors operate elsewhere. Dr. James Hansen always uses the Argonne example in his presentations because the design was so well-executed. Are you calling Dr. Hansen a liar?

Wiki

In 2001, as part of the Generation IV roadmap, the DOE tasked a 242 person team of scientists from DOE, UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, ANL, LLNL, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Duke, EPRI, and other institutions to evaluate 19 of the best reactor designs on 27 different criteria. The IFR ranked #1 in their study which was released April 9, 2002.

Other fast reactors exist. Have a look at Toshiba's 4S Compact Fast Reactor, for example. Or India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor core vessel being transported & lowered into Safety vessel

Dr. James Hansen on 4th Generation Nuclear Power

Some discussion about nuclear power is needed. Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions. ...

Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.

The common presumption that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready until 2030 is based on assumption of ‘business-as-usual”. Given high priority, this technology could be ready for deployment in the 2015-2020 time frame, thus contributing to the phase-out of coal plants. Even if the United States finds that it can satisfy its electrical energy needs via efficiency and renewable energies, 4th generation nuclear power is probably essential for China and India to achieve clear skies with carbon-free power.

[EnergyUnlimited]

How something what have never been operated could have spectacular record of success?

It is historical record that the IFR at Argonne National Labs operated.

No, it is not.
IFR was not operated there at all because project was scrapped 3 years before completion of reactor.
So it is a historic record that IFR was never operated on Earth at least.
You are probably confusing IFR with other FBR-s.

EBR II was small scale, research size prototype and not fully operational IFR.

They [IFR-s - EU] operate elsewhere.

So I challange you to name one location where such a reactor is working or was working in the past.

Dr. James Hansen always uses the Argonne example in his presentations because the design was so well-executed. Are you calling Dr. Hansen a liar?

If he claims that there was working IFR reactor at this particular location, then he is a liar.
Reactor was never completed.
However if he is talking about design, then it is theoretical exercise decoupled from reality.

Other fast reactors exist.

Of course they do, but they are not of IFR type and they have plenty of troubles and are also commercial disasters.

Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined.

They cannot work for centuries because construction materials won't take it.

Claims that they might be 300 times more efficient than LWR are plain nonsense because that would entail release of ~ twice more energy than pure U235 or Pu239 contains.

EDIT: link to EBR II added.

[Carlhole]

If he claims that there was working IFR reactor at this particular location, then he is a liar.
Reactor was never completed.

The reactor itself was complete. The formal program was finished all except for the very last part, a formal demonstration.

And if you're calling Dr. James Hansen a LIAR about the IFR, I think I've shown you to be the fool I know you to be. And I'm happy with that result. So thank you.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If he claims that there was working IFR reactor at this particular location, then he is a liar.
Reactor was never completed.

The reactor itself was complete. The formal program was finished all except for the very last part, a formal demonstration.

So we don't know would it work as intended or not.

What about wasting few billions on NIF or LHC and failing to demonstrate it working?

And if you're calling Dr. James Hansen a LIAR about the IFR, I think I've shown you to be the fool I know you to be. And I'm happy with that result. So thank you.

I said that he is a liar if he claims that working IFR was there.

[Tanada]

If he claims that there was working IFR reactor at this particular location, then he is a liar.
Reactor was never completed.

The reactor itself was complete. The formal program was finished all except for the very last part, a formal demonstration.

So we don't know would it work as intended or not.

Yeah we do. The scientific team of some 2,000 scientists sought to perfect their design over a period of 10 years from 1984 - 1994. They were very successful. Anyone can read about the Argonne National Lab's IFR story. Didn't you read anything?

And if you're calling Dr. James Hansen a LIAR about the IFR, I think I've shown you to be the fool I know you to be. And I'm happy with that result. So thank you.

I said that he is a liar if he claims that working IFR was there.

That the Argonne IFR operated is common knowledge for those who read about energy, and this is what James Hansen claims. You are calling the pre-eminent global climatologist and the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies "a liar".

[Tanada]

So we don't know would it work as intended or not.

Yeah we do. The scientific team of some 2,000 scientists sought to perfect their design over a period of 10 years from 1984 - 1994. They were very successful. Anyone can read about the Argonne National Lab's IFR story. Didn't you read anything?

No success in any sort of engineering project can be claimed before working finished structure can be demonstrated, eg before design is experimentally verified.

That is irrespective how many scientists were working on given project for how long.

That the Argonne IFR operated is common knowledge for those who read about energy, and this is what James Hansen claims.

It is a common knowledge that Argonne IFR project was built and abandoned without any practical testing whatsoever.

[pstarr]

Still the IFR would replace natural gas/coal electricity, not liquid-petroleum transport fuel so it is not a mitigation for peak oil. Thusly, you should post this on Peakcoal.com or Peaknaturalgas.com or peakhabitableplanet.com.

You can build electric cars/trains/busses, etc. They're very efficient. Plenty of nuclear energy resource is available for that too.

You seem incapable of giving more than a moments notice to important issues. It is a trivial matter to build millions of solar panels, turbines, and other renewable electric generators, and even possible to commercialize IFR, molten salt, breeders, etc. etc. That is not the issue.

The issue is diminishing returns and specifically in the context of PO, the Law of Receding Horizons. WE COULD GENERATE ALL THE ELECTRICITY WE WANT FROM MYRIAD SOURCES. HOWEVER THAT WOULD NOT BUILD THE ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE WE WOULD NEED TO USE THE DEVICES. IT WOULD COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO REARRANGE OUR OIL DEPENDENT SYSTEM.

Carlhole join the solution, stop lecturing others. Call me when you have placed the solar panels on your roof. When did you last step into a train?

[Carlhole]

It is a common knowledge that Argonne IFR project was built and abandoned without any practical testing whatsoever.

You just haven't read anything about it. You don't know what you're talking about again.

The Argonne was built. It operated. It's entire developmental history consisted of practical testing and design perfection. The program was canceled due to politics, not performance. This is what Dr. James Hansen talks about.

Hansen wants to start up the program again, settle on a design, and build LWRs and IFRs all over the world -- because the contemporary designs have such excellent promise for safety and non-proliferation.

Look, YOU are the one calling Dr. Hansen a liar. It's pretty obvious that you are the ignorant idiot here. You've made it plain. If you have a source whereby you can show that the Argonne IFR never operated, by all means post it. Good luck with that.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If you have a source whereby you can show that the Argonne IFR never operated, by all means post it. Good luck with that.

You could call Argonne IFR experimentally verified if:

1. Fissile nuclear material was loaded into reactor core and ignition in fast neutron mode have taken place with rate of process within design range.

2.Successful on site reprocessing of spent fuel as per proposed scheme have been demonstrated.

3. No incidents questioning ability of the setup to work properly have been found or reasons of any such incidents were rectified.

Then and only then you can call your reactor project working.

[Carlhole]

If you have a source whereby you can show that the Argonne IFR never operated, by all means post it. Good luck with that.

You could call Argonne IFR experimentally verified if:

1. Fissile nuclear material was loaded into reactor core and ignition in fast neutron mode have taken place with rate of process within design range.

For christ sake, it was a 2.5 GW reactor that operated for years. Anyone can read this stuff. It's public domain. The OP link "Plentiful Energy and the IFR Story" was written by the former director of the program, Charles Till. Read it. I can't believe how dense you are.

2.Successful on site reprocessing of spent fuel as per proposed scheme have been demonstrated.

Integral Fast Reactors, by design, reprocess fuel. They utilize 99.5% of the energy contained in nuclear fuel (as compared to less than 1% accomplished by conventional reactors such as LWR). The residual waste remaining after multiple passes through the reactor is then made safe via pyroprocessing, an "integral" part of the Argonne design, hence the name "Integral Fast Reactor".

The Integral Fast Reactor Q&A

The last step of the project that got short-circuited (by politics) was the commercial scale pyroprocessing, but by the time Congress killed it the facilities had already been built and were ready to go. It's a pretty simple technology and had been used over the course of the years of the IFR research to make over 3,400 fuel slugs. We're not talking about large amounts here, either, only about a gallon a day for a 2.5 GW reactor. That's peanuts. I think it's important to stress not that research has to be restarted, which makes this sound undeveloped, but that we have to build them.

3. No incidents questioning ability of the setup to work properly have been found or reasons of any such incidents were rectified. Then and only then you can call your reactor project working.

The IFR worked extremely well by all accounts. There were no accidents or anything.

Wiki

In 2001, as part of the Generation IV roadmap, the DOE tasked a 242 person team of scientists from DOE, UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, ANL, LLNL, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Duke, EPRI, and other institutions to evaluate 19 of the best reactor designs on 27 different criteria. The IFR ranked #1 in their study which was released April 9, 2002

[pstarr]

If you have a source whereby you can show that the Argonne IFR never operated, by all means post it. Good luck with that.

You could call Argonne IFR experimentally verified if:

1. Fissile nuclear material was loaded into reactor core and ignition in fast neutron mode have taken place with rate of process within design range.

For christ sake, it was a 2.5 GW reactor that operated for years.

No. It was/did not. It generated a pittance, 20 megawatts of electricity, and only produced 2.5 GW/H over its lifetime of 30 years

[Carlhole]

If you have a source whereby you can show that the Argonne IFR never operated, by all means post it. Good luck with that.

You could call Argonne IFR experimentally verified if:

1. Fissile nuclear material was loaded into reactor core and ignition in fast neutron mode have taken place with rate of process within design range.

For christ sake, it was a 2.5 GW reactor that operated for years.

No. It was/did not. It generated a pittance, 20 megawatts of electricity, and only produced 2.5 GW/H over its lifetime of 30 years

Oh come on, you pathetic liar. Got a link for that?

[pstarr]

Oh come on, you pathetic liar. Got a link for that?

It was designed to produce about 62.5 megawatts of heat and 20 megawatts of electricity, which was achieved in September 1969 and continued for most of its lifetime. Over its lifetime it has generated over two billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, providing a majority of the electricity and also heat to the facilities of the Argonne National Laboratory-West.

What's with the name-calling? You don't win arguments acting like a petulant little boy or deranged comic-book bad guy. This isn't Batman and Robin