Scientists develop more powerful nuclear fuel

[boise1]

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:27pm

By Scott DiSavino

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have designed a reactor fuel that they believe can make nuclear power plants 50 percent more powerful and safer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.

Researchers say their new technology should be ready for commercial use in existing reactors in about 10 years.

In a nuclear reactor, the fission of uranium atoms provides heat used to produce steam for generating electricity.

Already, one pickup truck full of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor can supply a city with enough electricity for a year. The MIT scientists believe they have found a way to make the fuel go even further, boosting output by about 50 percent.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-09-29T192731Z_01_N29401524_RTRUKOC_0_US-UTILITIES-NUCLEAR-FUEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-scienceNews-2

[nealmhughes]

1. I am curious about the gas containment in this design vs. conventionally

clad fuel. The lower temperature design is interesting, to would on the surface tend to reduce stresses in cooldown/heatup cycles to the entire complex, from fuel assemblies to piping.

I'm not really sure this is 'radical' in any way, honestly: just a loss of cladding and new pelletization, now pebble bed reactors are "radical" in comparison. Odd that they only considered PWRs as likely subjects and not BWRs also? BWRs are much more thermally effecient than PWRs, once one negates the heat transfer losses thru the steam generators. Could it be that the lack of cladding makes an additional rad waste issue for the BWR since at prensent N16 is the main component of background radiation in the turbine building?

[phantom power]

2. A BWR design tweak:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=68510&mesg_id=68510

[nealmhughes]

3. I am still a bit worried about radioactive decay gases from the BWRs.

Right now, the cladding keeps the gases in their pellets, the new design would expose it directly to the coolant.

The same goes for the nano tech in the coolant. It would work well for a PWR, but I have to question the irradiation and crud build up in steam generators in PWRs and the tiny radioactive nanos going down the steam pipes and the turbine to the condensor.

But I haven't been in the industry for 13 years now... I haven't even seen a copy of Nuclear News in over ten!

[phantom power]

4. I notice there are no immediate plans to deploy either of these.

so it may be that other people share your concerns. These are clearly not out of the lab yet.