A Path Forward for the LMFBR

In the mid to later part of the 20th Century, the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor was envisioned by many as the technology that could supply all the nation’s energy needs for the foreseeable future – thousands of years if necessary. The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor failed in the United States in 1983 because it was considered too expensive. This perception was based on the preliminary design of a demonstration plant, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant that was then in the latter stage of construction permit licensing. The purpose of this monograph is to describe how that happened and to propose a different method that could lead to a more favorable outcome. The design and institutional approach in this paper is one of many that could be devised. It is not intended to be a blueprint. It is only intended to show that it is possible to capitalize on the inherent features of liquid metal and breeder reactor technology in such a way that economic outcomes are achievable. There are undoubtedly many other such approaches.
- Summary
- 1. Prelude
- 2. Source of the idea of the breeder reactor and a brief history
- 3. The unique properties of sodium cooled reactors
- 4. Typical design features of LMFBRs
- 5. Cost reduction approach
- 6. Reactor Vessel, Internals, and Refueling
- 7. Heat transport system
- 8. Decay heat removal system
- 9. Containment
- 10. Reactor control and shutdown systems
- 11. Eliminating 1E electric power
- 12. The Devil is in the Details: ALM, SWRPS, IGRP, Rad. Waste and others
- 13. Summary and conclusions
- 14. A Path Forward
- Appendix 1 Fast Spectrum Reactor Neutronic Considerations
- Appendix 2 Reactor Core and Head Port Design
- Appendix 3 Actinide Burning
- Appendix 4 Primary Steam Generators
- Appendix 5 Pool vs. Loop Controversy
- Appendix 6 The hot leg vs. cold leg primary pump controversy
- Appendix 7 LMFBR development in decline
- Appendix 8 Uranium resource picture
- Appendix 9 Opportunities for further analyses or research & development
- Appendix 10 Cost Reduction Measures
- Appendix 11 List of Acronyms Used
figure source: Graevemore
To contact author, email fastbreederrx@gmail.com
This is great! Thanks for putting up this site.
As a nuclear historian, I can’t help but shake my head in dismay that the CRBR site is now being put forward as a location for GE-Hitachi’s BWRX-300. To have an technologically archaic, grossly inefficient (both in terms of thermal efficiency and fuel usage) light water reactor being installed 45+ years after a far more advanced and efficient design was cancelled while under construction on the very spot strikes me as a sad commentary on the absolute, unequivocal failure of the US to move beyond LWR’s.
Why are the Terrapower Natrium or Xe-100 not being considered for the site? Let’s not step backwards, people. The adage that “any nuclear plant is good nuclear plant” has outlived its relevance.
LikeLike