A companion paper at this conference (Ref. 1) describes the Westinghouse LFR, a Generation IV, ultracompact, highly simplified, passively safe, scalable reactor plant with economics, safety, and scalability as the key elements informing its design. Traditionally, engineering decisions have made the plant more or less safe with an inverse relationship between cost and safety. The LFR breaks this paradigm with design choices aiming at a safer plant while improving economics. The fuel selection is a case in point, as elucidated by this study which illustrates the potential of various fuels to meet various core design objectives and fuel cost metrics. In particular, it is shown that uranium nitride (UN) is the favorite fuel option for the LFR. Metal fuel (U-10Zr) is a suitable alternative, especially for the startup core given the more significant experience in the U.S. which would likely accelerate its qualification relative to UN. This study shows that UN is superior to uranium silicide (U3Si2) with a comfortable margin in the breakeven cost for 15N enrichment. All advanced fuel candidates have significantly superior fuel cycle cost (FCC) performance relative to UO2 and are particularly suitable options for extending the fuel cycle length. © 2018 American Nuclear Society. All rights reserved.
Advanced fuel cost performance assessment for the westinghouse lfr
Grasso, G.
2018-01-01
Abstract
A companion paper at this conference (Ref. 1) describes the Westinghouse LFR, a Generation IV, ultracompact, highly simplified, passively safe, scalable reactor plant with economics, safety, and scalability as the key elements informing its design. Traditionally, engineering decisions have made the plant more or less safe with an inverse relationship between cost and safety. The LFR breaks this paradigm with design choices aiming at a safer plant while improving economics. The fuel selection is a case in point, as elucidated by this study which illustrates the potential of various fuels to meet various core design objectives and fuel cost metrics. In particular, it is shown that uranium nitride (UN) is the favorite fuel option for the LFR. Metal fuel (U-10Zr) is a suitable alternative, especially for the startup core given the more significant experience in the U.S. which would likely accelerate its qualification relative to UN. This study shows that UN is superior to uranium silicide (U3Si2) with a comfortable margin in the breakeven cost for 15N enrichment. All advanced fuel candidates have significantly superior fuel cycle cost (FCC) performance relative to UO2 and are particularly suitable options for extending the fuel cycle length. © 2018 American Nuclear Society. All rights reserved.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
