Holger Narrog

23.10.2013

Fast Chloride MCFR vs. Moderated Fluoride MSR

Conclusion: A fast chloride molten salt reactor (MCFR) surpasses a moderated fluoride molten salt reactor significantly. The main difference is the graphite moderator that fills 90% of the reactor vessel of the moderated reactor, reduces the power density, and requires regular replacement. The fast chloride reactor is by far more simple and more compact. Another issue is the internal reprocessing unit. The internal reprocessing is very complex, due to a decay heat that is several kW/g! for fission products fissioned less than a day ago. It requires a very strong cooling if feasible at all. Even if it is feasible it can blow-up any cost calculation. A fast chloride reactor can be operated with a high share of fission products in the fuel and hence requires only degassing plating out noble metal fission products and a replacement of the fuel.

1. Nuclear Evaluation Fast Chloride vs. Moderated Fluoride MSR

Ref. (69)

In opposite to moderated reactors the fast neutron spectrum reactor can use nearly all actinides as 236U, 240Pu, 242Pu as fuel. The build-up of long living high level radioactive waste is by far smaller.

The capture cross sections become very small in the fast neutron spectrum. In the consequence fast breeders can be run with a significant higher fission product concentration as moderated reactors. Actually Fast sodium cooled reactors achieve burn-ups of about 155MWd/Kg hm FBR vs. 55MWd/Kg hm for LWR.

Conclusion: A fast neutron spectrum is an advantage in favor of the fast reactor.

2. Salt Property Evaluation Fast Chloride vs. Moderated Fluoride MSR

Salt Properties
650C

Unit

Moderated Molten Fast Molten Fluoride Salt Reactor Salt Reactor 71.5%LiF, 15.8%BeF2, 11.8%ThF4, 0.4%UF4, 0.5% Fission Product Chlorides Reprocessing is by far the most significant cost 525C 5038 3250 1.1 0.0071 The Fluoride salts are less corrosive. It is expected that nickel based materials work

Chloride

Salt Composition

Mol%

Fuel Costs Liquidus Temperature Heat Capacity cv Density Heat Conductivity Dynamic Viscosity Corrosivity

$/MWh C KJ/m3/K Kg/m3 W/m/K Kg/m/s

43% NaCl, 23% KCl, 25.5%UCl3, 4.5% PuCl3, 4% Fission Prod. chlorides Reprocessing is by far the most significant cost 525-538C 2780 3230 0.69 0.0030 The chloride salts are more corrosive and require more expensive materials as Mo-TZM.

The data for the chloride salts are based on the study Nuclear Power Plant of the Future and ref. 23

Conclusion: The salt properties of the fluoride salts are due to better corrosion properties and a higher cv very much in favor of a Moderated Fluoride Salt Reactor.

2b. Nuclear Reactions of the Salts used

According to the report Reaktorsicherheit und Stahlenschutz in Baden-Wrttemberg (2000), (ref. 371) the yearly tritium emissions of a PWR are about 30 GBq/yr (Philippsburg II) to 70 GBq/yr (GKN I) in Germany. The license allows for example the German nuclear power plant Philipsburg II to emit 48000 GBq/yr ( 4.8 x 10 13) of tritium. According to the IAEA Handbook of Nuclear Data for Safeguards ref. 6 the share of 3H is 0.01% for 238U, 0.0142% for 239U and 0,0141% for 241U per fission.

Tritium Generation Table AD333 Tritium generation/Kg of fissioned actinides: Tritium generation/year (g): Tritium generation/day/Bq: Tritium generation/yr/Bq:

Tritium Generation by Fission

0.0351 g 55 g 5.3722E+12 Bq 1.9609E+15 Bq

238U 239Pu 241Pu Average

%/Fission 0.01 Ref. 6 0.0142 Ref. 6 0.0141 Ref. 6 0.14 Ref. 6

The total yearly tritium production from fission is calculated for a 4444 MWth reactor to 55g or 1.96*1015 Bq/yr. Most of the tritium will form TCl (chloride), TF (fluoride) even if the reactor is run underfluorinated. Some of the tritium will remain as 3H2. It is assumed that 90% of the tritium and 99% of the TCl/TF is extracted in the degassing. It is further assumed that the very most of the remaining tritium is diffused thru the walls of the reactor, the heat exchangers and emitted in the reactor building. This tritium is absorbed in the charcoal filters of the reactor building. It is estimated in accordance with the (ORNL-4541 ref. 42) MSR project of the 60ies that 0.1% of the tritium is passing the primary and secondary heat exchanger and emitted via the condenser in the cooling water. That means a tritium emission of 2 GBq is well within the tritium emissions of current PWR reactors. In a fluoride reactor using enriched lithium (99% 7Li) the 7Li reaction will take place. The tritium creation will be x-fold the tritium creation of a chloride salt reactor. It might become an issue for a fluoride salt reactor. A lithium enrichment is necessary anyway. Another topic is the creation of radioactive chlorine in the MCFR. It is due to the excellent hard neutron spectra not necessary to enrich the chlorine. During the operation the following neutron induced reactions occur.
35
35

Cl + n -> 36Cl 75.8% of the chlorine is 35Cl. The 36Cl is radioactive with a half-time of 301.000yr.

Cl(n,) ->32P[-[14.2days] -> 32S Sulphur is corrosive 36 Cl + n -> 37Cl (stable). The reaction is welcome. 37 Cl + n -> 2n-> 36Cl The 36Cl is radioactive with a half-time of 301.000yr. 37 Cl(n,) -> 34P(-[12.34s] ->34S Sulphur is corrosive 37 Cl + n -> 38Cl -----37.24min 38Ar (stable) In the MCSFR it is foreseen to reuse the salts in the reactor. As the salts needs to be treated protected from the atmosphere to avoid impurities the radioactivity should not increase the costs significantly. The creation of radioactive sulphur in the chlorine salt is (ref. 46) 1/8 of the oxygen creation 19 F[n,] -> 16O reaction in the fluoride system. The tritium removal at the MSFR requires more efforts and costs than the handling of radioactive chlorine in the reactor. The tritium removal at the MSFR requires more efforts and costs than the handling of radioactive chlorine in the reactor. The tritium removal at the MSR requires more efforts and costs than the handling of radioactive chlorine in the reactor.

3. Structure Material
Hastelloy N (ref. 161) Data 700C if available Density (700C) 8860 Kg/m3 Thermal conductivity(700C): 23,6 W/mK Young Modulus Gpa (700C): 169,6 Mechanical yield 217 strength/Mpa (700C): Accepted mechanical stress in 80 definition based on the this design Mpa (700C): data above acc. To (ref. 61) page 41 less Corrosion resistance against than 0.025mm/yr at Flibe salts: temperatures of more than 700C Corrosion resistance chloride acc. To (ref. 61) page 42 salts: 1.1mm/yr at 850C Manufacturing: Very Good Table D Molybdenum TZM (ref. 168) 10070 Kg/m3 (ref. 264) 112W/m/K (acc. To ref 264) 217.9 (acc. To ref. 164) 700 (acc. To ref. 168) 250 definition based on the data above No Corrosion at 1100C (ref. 167) No Corrosion expected
Challenging, limited experience

Modified Hastelloy N is less expensive and easier to weld than Mo-TZM. Thats why it was developed for fluoride MSR. Two unknown issues with Hastelloy N did surface, one was corrosion induced by the fission product tellurium and the other was irradiation damage caused by (n,alpha) reactions in nickel and boron contaminants (ref. 203). The n, alpha reaction is not observed in the radiation tests with molybdenum alloys. Mo-TZM/TZC allows much higher temperatures, has superior corrosion properties and by far superior mechanical properties. Conclusion: The possibility to use Ni-based materials is an advantage in favor of the moderated fluoride salt reactor even when it limit its potential.

4. The Reactor of the Moderated

vs.

Fast Chloride MSR

Reactor Design Power Density T(outlet) Total Height Total Diameter Total zylindric volume Complexity Maintenance

Unit

C m m m3

Moderated Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor 24 MW/m3 (core), Peak 70MW/m3 (ref. 42) 740C 7.57 9.17 500 Medium complex Inserts made of graphite The graphite core needs replacement about every 24years Graphite Salt Hastelloy materials can cause electrolytical carburization and corrosion ORNL-3626
(ref. 34)

Fast Chloride Molten Salt Reactor 492 MW/m3 (fissile zone), 22 MW/m3 (fertile zone) 800C 5.74 4.13 77 No inserts, no complexity No regular maintenance required

Risks

The moderated reactor requires a graphite moderator. The moderator requires nearly 90% of the space in the core. A high neutron flux damages the graphite. It limits the

power density and requires a replacement every 4 years at a peak power density of 70MW/m3 (ref. 42). The combination of graphite and nickel or molybdenum based materials might cause electrolytical carburization and corrosion. The mean thermal expansion coefficient of Hastelloy N is 1,47E-05 vs. 2,50E-06 for graphite that creates some design headaches. Conclusion: Even if molybdenum TZM is more expensive to manufacture the total fast chloride reactor will be by far less expensive. This is a main advantage of the Fast Chloride Molten Reactor.

5. The Primary Heat Exchangers

The heat exchangers of the MSR are designed conventionally as tube and shell heat exchangers. The new MSR concepts are based on using compact heat exchanger designs as micro channel types as HEATRIX, plate design types and others. The advantages are that there is less fissile material in the heat exchangers. The share of delayed neutrons in the circuit is lower. It is more compact.

6. The Power Plant

Due to the bigger reactor the moderated fluoride reactor has a bigger reactor building. It requires space and equipment like a crane to replace the graphite once every 2 4 years.

Ref. 42

The reactor outlet temperature of the fast chloride reactor is 40 higher which compensates slightly the lower cv of the chloride salts. It allows as well a better thermal efficiency. The real advantage is that the fast chloride salt reactor structure material MoTZM gives room for development to significantly higher operation temperatures.

Ref. 42

Both concepts require a 3 - circuit system with its complexity. It is a major disadvantage of most of the MSR concepts. The usage of Mo-TZM in the fast chloride reactor allows the usage of liquid bismuth lead as intermediate coolant. The advantage is the very low m.p. of 125C. Conclusion: The usage of Mo-TZM gives the Fast Chloride Molten Salt Reactor the potential of using higher temperatures and intermediate coolants as Bi/Pb with a low melting point of 125C.

7. The Reprocessing Unit

All MSR concepts need a regular degassing of the fuel. In the moderated MSR it is done by a helium bubbling. It seems a simple method to get out the gaseous fission products. In the fast MCFR it is done by a 10mbar vacuum distillation at 950C. The method is more complex but seems suitable to extract about 35% plus due to further decay of fp to such with a low bp. in total 40% of the fission products. Another 20% of the fission products are extracted as metal by gravity.

The degassing of the fuel takes place in a helium bubbling process. Gaseous fission products as Xe, Kr, I are separated in a helium gas flow. The system is simple and would not create technical or economic challenges.

The fast MCFR does not have a complete and complex reprocessing unit. A fraction of the fuel is taken out and shipped to an external reprocessing unit about 2 years after it is taken from the reactor. The moderated MSR includes a complete and very complex reprocessing unit.

Multistage Processes

Corrosion risk!

Corrosion risk!
Ref. 42

Cooling of the fission products

Conclusion: The gas extraction system is required in all MSR reactors to extract gasses and perhaps even noble metals. The complete reprocessing unit with its challenges of the heat creation and its complexity is part of the political promise to avoid waste. It is complex if feasible and would blow up any cost calculation.

Calculation Moderated MSR:

1970 MSR Recalculation
1 feet/m: 0,3048 1 in/m: Core Diameter: 18ft Total Diameter/m: Core Height: 13ft Total Height Reactor/m Core Volume/m3: Total Mass Graphite/to Density Graphit/Kg/m3 Volume Graphit/m3
Side Reflector Thickness/m

2000 MW Version of this reactor

0,0254 5,49 Acc. To ref. 6,77 Estimate 3,96 Acc. To ref. 6,41 measured 93,63 Calculated 304 Acc. To ref. 1750 Acc. To ref 195 174 Acc. To ref. Core Diameter/m: Total Diameter Core Height (ornl 4541)/m: Total Height Reactor/m: Core Volume/m3 Total Mass Graphite/to Density Graphit/Kg/m3 Volume Graphit/m3 7,22 9,24 5,23 8,23 214 780 1750 445,50
0,76 99,60 1,2 160,85 185,05 551,59 2000 44,00% 4545,45 21,24 1,55 740 20947 3,25 6,45 3 2,15

Side Reflector Volume/m3 Top/Bottom Reflector estimate av./m 0.3 - 0.73m Top/Bottom reflector Volume: Graphit in core/m3: Total cylindric volume/m3: Electrical Power/MW Efficiency% Thermal Power/MW Average Power density W/cm3: Specific heat capacity KJ/Kg/K: T inlet/C: 600 T outlet/C Mass Flow/Kg/s: Density/Kg/L: Volume Flow/m3/s: velocity in the Reactor/m/s: Flow Area/m2:

0,76 Measured Side Reflector Thickness/m 59,07 Calculated from estimatesSide Reflector Volume/m3 Average est.: 0,55 Top/Bottom Reflector av./m 33,69 est.from calc. Top/Bottom reflector Volume: 80,96 est.from calc. Graphit in core/m3: 247,08 Calculated 1000 Acc. To ref. 44,40% Acc. To ref. 2252,25 Calculated 22,00 Acc. To ref. 1,55 ref. (64) 740 10379 calculated 3,25 ref. (64) 3,19 calculated 2,6 Acc. To ref. 1,23 calculated Total cylindric volume/m3: Electrical Power/MW Efficiency% Thermal Power/MW Average Power density W/cm3: Specific heat capacity KJ/Kg/K: T inlet/C: 600 T outlet/C Mass Flow/Kg/s: Density/Kg/L: Volume Flow/m3/s: velocity in the Reactor/m/s: Flow Area/m2:

Ref.: (24) 1 inch fuel channels acc. to ORNL 3626

Ref.: (24)

References:
1. NGATLAS Atlas of neutron capture cross sections Prepared by J.Kopecky, Contributions by J.Ch.Sublet, J.A.Simpson, R.A.Forrest and D.Nierop Web Design and Plots by V.Zerkin (IAEA, Vienna 1997) 6. IAEA INDC(NDS)-0534 Distr. SQ Handbook of Nuclear Data for Safeguards: Database Extensions, August 2008, A.L. Nichols, D.L. Aldama, M. Verpelli 23. INL Flour Chlor ANL-6792 Molten Salt Fast Reactors 24. Reactors with Molten Salts: Options and Missions Charles W. Forsberg Oak Ridge National Laboratory* File Name: France.MoltenSalt.2004 Draft Date: August 3, 2004 Frederic Joliot & Otto Han Summer School on Nuclear Reactors Physics, Fuels, and Systems Cadarache, France August 25September 3, 2004 41. ORNL-TM-3832 Design Studies of a Molten-Salt Reactor Demonstration Plant, E.S. Bettis, L. G. Alexander, H. L. Watts, June 1972 42 ORNL 4541 Conceptional Design Study of a Single Fluid Molten Salt Breeder Reactor, Molten Salt Reactor Program Staff, compiled and edited by Roy C. Robertson, June 1971 46. Transactions Advanced Reactors, ENS Conference 2012, ISBN 978-92-95064-14-0

61. INL/EXT-10-18297 Engineering Database of Liquid Salt Thermophysical and Thermochemical

Properties. Manohar S. Sohal, Matthias A. Ebner, Piyush Sabharwall, Phil Sharpe, March2010 69. Assessment of LIquid Salts for Innovative Applications, ALISIA DELIVERABLE (D-50) REVIEW REPORT ON LIQUID SALTS FOR VARIOUS APPLICATIONS Lead authors: O. Benes, C. Cabet, S. Delpech, P. Hosnedl, V. Ignatiev, R. Konings, D. Lecarpentier, O. Matal, E. Merle-Lucotte, C. Renault, J. Uhlir February 20, 2009 (version V4) Date of issue 161. HASTELLOY N alloyH-2052B 2002, by Haynes International, Inc. 164. http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/PROPS/PANOS/moa.html MOLYBDENUM AND ITS ALLOYS 167 ORNL-TM-2724, Compatibility of Molybdenum base Alloy TZM .. at 1100C, J. W. Koger, A.P. 168 Molybdenum Material Properties and applications, Plansee Company, 530 DE 05.04 (3000) RWF 195. On Graphite Transformations at High Temperature and Pressure Induced by Absorption of the LHC Beam LHC Project Note 78/97, Jan M. Zazula. 203. Molten salt reactors: A new beginning for an old idea, David LeBlanc, Nuclear Engineering and Design, doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.12.033 371. Reaktorsicherheit und Strahlenschutz in Baden Wrttemberg, Ministerium fr Umwelt und Verkehr des Landes Baden-Wrttemberg, Abteilung Reaktorsicherheit, Umweltradioaktivitt, November 2000