Future reactors

Fusion (nuclear) The combining or fusing together of lighter elements in the cores of stars and possibly future reactors to produce heavier elements and energy. 

As discussed above, blistering will also occur at the divertor throat and particle bombardment plates, and will therefore be important for future reactors employing these devices. Blistering of neutral beam injector components must also be considered and therefore blistering should be considered a potential problem in a broader sense than has traditionally been accepted. 

The second year costs will be 3 billion to 6 billion. This will include site acquisition, evaluation of proposals, granting contracts, and construction of research and construction facilities. The research and construction facilities will serve as the foundation for the future production capacity for fusion reactors and floating platforms. We must maximize concurrent development, design and construction. The initial development of the Fusion-Hydrogen production equipment and production plants will require 5 to 10 years and cost about 200 billion. The construction sites and equipment will be designed for many years use in construetion of future reactors. The cost for the research and development of the Fusion-Hydrogen equipment and the investment in the reactor construction sites will be spread over all future reactors and ultimately reeovered. 

Most of the present nuclear reactors have been burning solid fuel elements of either normal or enriched uranium. Thus far, it has been necessary to reprocess fuel in order to recover valuable fissionable or fissile material. It is possible that fuel elements will be developed for future reactors which can be burned to the point where it is not economically justifiable to recover fissionable materials. Obviously, this depends upon the value of these materials. Such a procedure would provide an optimum solution to the major part of the waste disposal problem. The fission products would still be locked in the fuel element, simple disposal techniques could be employed, and in fact, spent fuel elements would probably have secondary uses as radiation sources. 

A second and more likely possibility is that fuel from future reactors will have to be reprocessed, resulting in the dilution and dispersal of the fission products into many media. 

Selection of Power Plant Elements for Future Reactor Space Electric Power Systems Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-7858, 1979. 

It was concluded that the type of direct tube-to-tube plate weld adopted initially at PFR, which could not be heat-treated after manufacture, should be avoided in future reactors. The UK specialists consider that austenitic steels are unsuitable for LMFR steam generators because of the high risk of caustic stress corrosion damage following even small leaks. 

JNC considers it extremely important to reflect the lessons learnt from previous experience in the fast reactor field to the operation and maintenance of Monju and the design of future reactors. 

Need for Rdactor. The reactor described in this report is the result of an evolutionary process in the design of a machine conceived for the express purpose of facilitating the conception and design of future reactors... 

The installation of this system has reduced the time necessary for reactor inspections and eliminated the need for man access during these inspections. The computer model can be updated as required with experience or applied to another type of reactor or areas of the reactor. When linked with the proposed teach and repeat system (early 1985) the use of the simulation option of the display system for the pre-planning of future reactor inspections should further reduce the inspection times. 

Passive plant reactors (e.g. the AP600W) are proposed future reactors that use the technology of current reactors, but include also significant changes in plant design and layout. Safety, in the event of an accident, depends on truly passive safety systems and on safety systems which are passive in operation although started up by a simple action such as valves opening. 

Another reaction, the adipic acid reaction (used in the manufacture of nylon), was previously performed in a huge reactor with external circuits for cooling. Today, it is carried out in a smaller integral vessel with internal cooling and agitation, and with a very smaller possibility for leaks. A similar evolution has taken place in nuclear reactors which changed from external to internal recirculation units (or to integral proposals for future reactors). 

In order to comply with this stringent goal, it is understandable that attention has been mainly switched to future reactors which now include substantial design modifications. Moreover, the importance of a perfectly leak-proof containment in case of severe accident is now clear. 

The following sections describe the virtual population dose for a future reactor (an order of magnitude evaluation in the short term, at three days, and in the long term, several years). 

The following summarizes specific advances for future reactors that were described in detail at the TCM. 

This study aims at a comparison of future reactor concepts, paying particular attention to aspects of safety, of the fuel cycle, the economics, the experience-base and the state of development. Representative examples of typical development lines, that could possibly be of interesf within a time horizon of 50 years were selected for comparison. This can be divided into three phases ... 

Note added in proof Recent success in calculations of the Doppler elfect for as compared to accurate experiments at ANL suggest that the total error in the calculation for or Pu, mixtures typical of future reactors may be about 10%. 

One last word on inertial confinement the protection of a future reactor chamber fi-om radiation and debris released in the micro-explosion is a unique and challenging aspect of IGF reactor design. Other challenges of this field include pellet handling and positioning in the chamber, protection of mirrors and other optical elements, etc. 

The PRA demonstrates that the System 80+ Standard Design meets the industry goal of 1.0 x E-5 core damage frequency per reactor year for future reactors and indicates that the initial LCOs are consistent with this goal. The owner-operator may refine the LCOs to achieve further risk reduction or increased operational flexibility provided that the resulting overall risk is shown to be within the results of the PRA. This issue is therefore resolved for the System 80+ Standard Design. 

---