Uranium Fuels that are denser and cheaper to manufacture than uranium dioxide

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigev234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uranium
AI Thread Summary
Denser uranium fuels, such as U, UN, UC, and U3Si, offer specific advantages like higher thermal conductivity but are generally more expensive to produce due to their conversion from UF6. Key considerations for these fuels include thermal conductivity, melting points, chemical compatibility, and fission product retention, particularly under high exposure conditions. Fast reactor designs may benefit from fuels like UN and UC, which are proposed for their improved thermal properties compared to UO2. Challenges such as swelling and fission product migration remain significant, especially in high-exposure scenarios. The discussion highlights the importance of balancing enriched uranium or plutonium with the fuel matrix to optimize performance and safety.
bigev234
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
The title is the question. Cheers.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There are denser fuels - the metal form U (dens = 19.05 g/cm3), UN, UC, and U3Si. They are not necessarily less expensive to produce, and generally a more expensive, considering that they are usually converted from UF6, which is commonly used in the enrichment process.

See - http://www.rertr.anl.gov/ADVFUELS/GHHD.html

Furthermore, one has to consider the properties such as thermal conductivity (particularly as a function of exposure (burnup)), melting point, thermal expansion coefficient (and anisotropy), chemical compatibility with cladding and coolant, fission product retention (particularly with respect to Xe, Kr), swelling as a function of exposure, and how these affect the dimensional and physical stability of the fuel system.
 
Last edited:
I have a little experience with different forms of Uranium fuel. I did a semester of undergraduate research comparing thermal conductivity between the ones Astro mentioned above (except for U3Si). Each has their own quirks (swelling, Hydrogen pickup, dislocations that can arise if you don't form the fuel properly). I didn't look into cost but that's why academia is so great. :biggrin:
 
I should mention that UN and UC have been proposed for fast reactor fuel, espeically high temperature fuel. They have higher thermal conductivity than UO2. In fast reactor designs, voids in the center of the fuel have been allowed, but in commercial LWR fuel, centerline melt (or void) is a no-no.

It appears that most applications of U3Si are as dispersed fuel, where the fuel portion is dispersed in a nonfuel metal matrix, e.g, Al.

Cermet fuels are another possibility.

It's a matter of finding the right balance of enriched U or Pu in the fuel and matrix.

Swelling and fission product migration are the significant challenges, especially at high exposure. Hydrogen pickup (or redistribution) is an issue in aqueous systems, or where the fuel is a metal hydride, e.g., U-Zr-H.
 
fast reactor? Is there a free reactor?

If there are warm or mild molten/liquid uranium alloys (with alkali metals or indium maybe) then maybe there wouldn't be a problem of fissile buildup.
 
alysdexia said:
fast reactor? Is there a free reactor?

If there are warm or mild molten/liquid uranium alloys (with alkali metals or indium maybe) then maybe there wouldn't be a problem of fissile buildup.
Fissile/fissionable nuclides are necessary for 'fission' reactors. There are liquid fueled systems, but one still has to address fission product accumulation - it is inherent/inevitable in the process. The presence of alkali metals or indium does not change that.
 
But would they be lodged in the fuels?
 
alysdexia said:
But would they be lodged in the fuels?
Not if the uranium fuel is liquid. Fission products are gaseous (Xe, Kr), volatile (Cs, I, Br), or otherwise metal with various melting points.

The point of solid fuel is to retain the fission products, which accumulate with time/exposure.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top