DOE judges IFR best reactor design

AI Thread Summary
The Department of Energy (DOE) evaluated 19 reactor designs against 27 criteria and determined that the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is the best option for future energy needs. There are concerns regarding the maturity of IFR technology and its ability to achieve its theoretical potential. Some participants in the discussion suggest that the CANDU reactor also ranks highly but express a need for more information on the evaluation criteria. The Integrated/Integral Primary System Reactor (IPSR) is mentioned, highlighting that it has never been built or operated, raising questions about its feasibility. Overall, while the IFR is favored, there is a call for further development and operational experience before making definitive decisions.

DOE judges IFR best reactor design


  • Total voters
    2
ensabah6
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
Engineering news on Phys.org
Cool. I read the link, and it seems like a good analysis. Personally, I don't know that the IFR technology is developed enough to be sure that it will be able to reach its theoretical potential. Certainly would be amazing technology.
 
CANDU looks right up there?
 
I would need more information, e.g., the 27 criteria.
 
No one has ever built an IPSR let alone operated it.

Would like to see some OE before deciding.
 
Xnn said:
No one has ever built an IPSR let alone operated it.

Would like to see some OE before deciding.
Definitely, one would have to be constructed - but few a willing to pony up the money.

This might be of interest.
http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/003_r_d_scope_report_for_water-cooled_reactor_systems.pdf

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/121500.pdf

IPSR is Integrated/Integral Primary System Reactor where the steam generator is contained within the pressure vessel, which traditionally contains the core.

The Westinghouse IRIS concept is an example. The NuScale concept is another example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top