Have pulsed fission reactors got any potential in nuclear energy?

AI Thread Summary
Pulsed fission reactors are primarily utilized for research purposes rather than as a viable option for nuclear power generation. The discussion highlights that these reactors operate in short pulses to study transient behaviors of nuclear fuel, especially in hypothetical accident scenarios. Concerns regarding fuel integrity, pressure pulses in cooling systems, and the potential for fuel rupture due to high temperatures limit their application in power generation. Utilities typically prefer constant power operations, avoiding pulsed modes entirely. Overall, while pulsed fission reactors have specific research applications, they are not considered practical for standard nuclear energy production.
DyerMaker
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
How did you find PF?: Searched for some forum about mechanical engineering in Google

Do pulsed nuclear fission reactors have any chances to be used in nuclear power?
If the answer is "no" is that just because of no need in pulsed operation mode while having a common one, are there any more complicated issues like ones with delayed neutrons or both these reasons?

Thank you!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Thank you for you reply.
I am asking about pulsed fission reactors, like ones described here: https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/pulsed-reactor/
It is claimed that's the only reasonable way to use them is to use them in research studies, but not explained why.
 
DyerMaker said:
Thank you for you reply.
I am asking about pulsed fission reactors, like ones described here: https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/pulsed-reactor/
It is claimed that's the only reasonable way to use them is to use them in research studies, but not explained why.
Note in the Euronuclear article, it states "FRMZ, research reactor of the university of Mayence in Germany, type TRIGA-Mark-II; pulse power 250 MW, permanent power 0.1 MW." Pulses are typically in the 10's of ms (milli-seconds) for looking at 'transient behavior' of nuclear fuel, usually in response to a reactivity accident, which is a 'hypothetical' accident. The 'permanent' of 0.1 MW should be 'steady-state' power. After a pulse/test, the fuel is normally inspected to see if integrity is maintained.

Power reactors operate normally at constant power, although a reactor may 'load-follow'. Power maneuvering may be unrestricted, i.e., no restriction on power ascension (ramp) rates, but normally it's a few %/hr to 10-40%/hr, depending on the conditioning of the fuel. Often, if the fuel mechanical integrity is not limiting, the balance of plant (response of turbine/generator) is limiting. Another concern would be pressure pulses in the cooling system and potential for rupture of the piping or coolant boundary, as well as fatigue of the piping/pressure boundary.

There are technical limits on peak fuel enthalpy (stored energy) and temperature. With about 30% of fission products being isotopes of Xe and Kr (noble gases) with another significant fraction being Br, I, Rb, Cs, which are volatile well below the melting point of UO2/MOX fuel, the fuel could potentially balloon or rupture is the fuel temperature became too great, especially near the surface of the fuel.

Pulses in 'pulsed' reactor operation are completed well before the longer-lived delayed neutron precursors release neutrons, but on may observe their effect in the 'tail' after the pulse.

Utilities (power reactor operators) do not pulse their power reactors, nor would they plan to do so.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes berkeman and DyerMaker
Astronuc said:
Note in the Euronuclear article, it states "FRMZ, research reactor of the university of Mayence in Germany, type TRIGA-Mark-II; pulse power 250 MW, permanent power 0.1 MW." Pulses are typically in the 10's of ms (milli-seconds) for looking at 'transient behavior' of nuclear fuel, usually in response to a reactivity accident, which is a 'hypothetical' accident. The 'permanent' of 0.1 MW should be 'steady-state' power. After a pulse/test, the fuel is normally inspected to see if integrity is maintained.

Power reactors operate normally at constant power, although a reactor may 'load-follow'. Power maneuvering may be unrestricted, i.e., no restriction on power ascension (ramp) rates, but normally it's a few %/hr to 10-40%/hr, depending on the conditioning of the fuel. Often, if the fuel mechanical integrity is not limiting, the balance of plant (response of turbine/generator) is limiting. Another concern would be pressure pulses in the cooling system and potential for rupture of the piping or coolant boundary, as well as fatigue of the piping/pressure boundary.

There are technical limits on peak fuel enthalpy (stored energy) and temperature. With about 30% of fission products being isotopes of Xe and Kr (noble gases) with another significant fraction being Br, I, Rb, Cs, which are volatile well below the melting point of UO2/MOX fuel, the fuel could potentially balloon or rupture is the fuel temperature became too great, especially near the surface of the fuel.

Pulses in 'pulsed' reactor operation are completed well before the longer-lived delayed neutron precursors release neutrons, but on may observe their effect in the 'tail' after the pulse.

Utilities (power reactor operators) do not pulse their power reactors, nor would they plan to do so.
Thank you!
 
Well, theres always Project Orion, but we can forget about using it near Earth.
 
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