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, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top