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

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigev234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uranium
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on uranium fuels that are denser than uranium dioxide (UO2), specifically mentioning metal forms such as uranium (U), uranium nitride (UN), uranium carbide (UC), and uranium silicide (U3Si). While these alternatives offer higher density, they are generally more expensive to produce due to conversion processes from uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Key considerations for these fuels include thermal conductivity, melting point, thermal expansion, and fission product retention, particularly in fast reactor applications. The challenges of swelling and fission product migration at high exposure levels are also highlighted, emphasizing the need for careful material selection and processing.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of uranium fuel types and their properties
  • Knowledge of thermal conductivity and its implications in nuclear fuels
  • Familiarity with fission product behavior and retention mechanisms
  • Basic principles of fast reactor design and operation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the thermal properties of uranium nitride (UN) and uranium carbide (UC) for fast reactors
  • Explore the challenges of fission product migration in high-exposure nuclear fuels
  • Investigate the use of cermet fuels and their applications in nuclear reactors
  • Examine the potential of liquid uranium alloys in mitigating fissile buildup
USEFUL FOR

Nuclear engineers, researchers in nuclear fuel technology, and professionals involved in reactor design and safety will benefit from this discussion.

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

Uranium density in fuel meat/kernel
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
What is the best fast reactor fuel and why?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Searching for a single and complete resource about nuclear fuels
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Uranium conversion / reprocessing TRU isotopes
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
MCNP6.2 BURN Problem Uranium Dioxide 4.2% Enrichment
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Why isn't tungsten used in nuclear reactors?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
Breeder fuel efficiency question
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Uranium & Diamonds: Heat Transfer in Nuclear Reactors
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Why Might Beryllium Be Considered for Use in Nuclear Reactor Fuel?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Extracting Uranium from seawater
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K