Does neutron embrittlement pose a real threat in this century?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenKlesc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutron
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of neutron embrittlement on the operational lifespan of nuclear reactors, particularly in the context of potential reactor replacements over the next century. Participants explore the technical, economic, and political factors influencing reactor longevity and the necessity of building new reactors.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that neutron embrittlement will necessitate shutting down and rebuilding reactors within the next 100 years.
  • Others note that the DOE has indicated there is no technical limit to reactor operational lifespan, with evaluations suggesting some reactors could operate for up to 80 years.
  • One participant highlights that original reactor designs included material coupons to monitor the effects of neutron fluence on the steel used in reactor vessels over time.
  • There are references to ongoing research and reports from the DOE's Light Water Reactor Sustainability program regarding reactor pressure vessel aging.
  • Concerns are raised about the economic and political challenges of rebuilding aging reactors, suggesting that alternatives may be favored if they become more economically viable.
  • Historical context is provided regarding the premature shutdown of the Yankee Rowe plant due to embrittlement concerns, indicating that similar issues may affect current reactors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether neutron embrittlement will definitively lead to reactor shutdowns and replacements. There are competing views regarding the technical feasibility of extending reactor lifespans versus the economic and political challenges of rebuilding.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainties regarding the long-term effects of neutron embrittlement, the economic viability of nuclear power compared to alternatives, and the regulatory landscape influencing reactor operations and replacements.

BenKlesc
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
I've been reading up on neutron embrittlement lately. However I go onto the DOE's website, and they are now saying that there really is no technical limit to how long a reactor can stay operational.

Eventually I believe in the next 100 years because of embrittlement, reactors will have to be shut down and rebuilt. Does this mean we are going to have to build 100 reactors in this century to keep up?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
BenKlesc said:
I've been reading up on neutron embrittlement lately. However I go onto the DOE's website, and they are now saying that there really is no technical limit to how long a reactor can stay operational.

Eventually I believe in the next 100 years because of embrittlement, reactors will have to be shut down and rebuilt. Does this mean we are going to have to build 100 reactors in this century to keep up?
The original commercial reactors were designed for 40 years and 20% margin to capacity. In the past two decades, as some plants approached 40 years, we've evaluated the materials and determined that reactor vessels can operate to 60 years. Now as some plants pass 40 years, we are looking beyond 60 years to 80 years.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, we did not have 40 years experience. Some of the oldest plants were shutdown and decommissioned well before their full life, since they were essentially uneconomical compared to alternatives, e.g., gas-fired generation. From those that have operated 40+ years, we are still learning about the effects of radiation (dose (dpa) accumulation) and operation at temperature (thermal aging). There have been some efforts at annealing the pressure vessels, if that is necessary.

The pressure vessels operate with some distance from the core, but they still receive some neutron and gamma irradiation, which varies azimuthally around the core. Core internals made of stainless steel receive more irradiation, but they can be replaced, up to a point.

I'll see if I can find some references.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Jestocost
The good news is, this was considered in the original plant design: material coupons of the steel used in the vessel forgings were placed in holders inside the vessel. So now, every ten years or so a coupon can be retrieved and studied and the actual effects of the actual neutron fluence on the actual steel used in that vessel can be determined.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BenKlesc
DOE's Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program hosted at INL the repository for reports on the work being done regarding reactor pressure vessel (RPV) aging and aging of various other components and materials.

https://lwrs.inl.gov/Materials Aging and Degradation/Forms/AllItems.aspx

https://lwrs.inl.gov/Materials Aging and Degradation/LWRS NDE RD Roadmap_9-12-2012.pdf

Relevant to the OP:
https://lwrs.inl.gov/Materials Agin...teel_under_light_water_reactor_conditions.pdf (Despite the title, the report includes some discussion of ferritic alloys used in RPV.

RPV steels include SA508 Cl 2a, SA533 Gr A Cl 2, SA508 Cl 3a and SA533 Gr B Cl 2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Jestocost, BenKlesc and PeterDonis
Astronuc said:
DOE's Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program hosted at INL the repository for reports on the work being done regarding reactor pressure vessel (RPV) aging and aging of various other components and materials.

https://lwrs.inl.gov/Materials Aging and Degradation/Forms/AllItems.aspx

https://lwrs.inl.gov/Materials Aging and Degradation/LWRS NDE RD Roadmap_9-12-2012.pdf

Relevant to the OP:
https://lwrs.inl.gov/Materials Aging and Degradation/Thermodynamic_and_kinetic_model_of_phase_stability_in_austenitic_steel_under_light_water_reactor_conditions.pdf (Despite the title, the report includes some discussion of ferritic alloys used in RPV.

RPV steels include SA508 Cl 2a, SA533 Gr A Cl 2, SA508 Cl 3a and SA533 Gr B Cl 2.

Thanks! As someone who is just entering the industry out of school, I really do worry if we will have the capability or means to replace most of the reactors in the United States that are now nearing 50 years of age. Eventually they will need to be rebuilt, but the question remains will they be rebuilt.

That's also very true! I was reading up on Yankee Rowe and how it was shut down prematurely. It was the first nuclear plant in the country to ask for an extension to their license, and the Union Of Concerned Scientists petitioned the NRC to shut it down because they were concerned about embrittlement. It was shut down, but now we know this is happening to every reactor.

That's also good to hear that we have the coupons, so we can know it's not at risk of melting down while it's operating. We can monitor it closely. That used to be one of the more greater concerns and argument against the technology as they age.
 
I think it is not a technical matter or problem to rebuild an expired power plant but rather an economical and political problem.

Economy wise if something else which is also environmentally acceptable will get much cheaper investors usually go that way as a nuke plant is rather expensive and due to countless regulations and political pressure also a risky business.
Eventually I think maybe not all but some plants will get new ones built in their place because our energy needs don't seem to decrease rather the opposite.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K