Home

A Path Forward for the LMFBR

The idea of a breeder reactor was born somtime in the early 1940s and resulted in an operating liquid metal cooled reactor, Clementine, in 1945. Its importance was recognized by Enrico Fermi in 1946 with his statement, “The country which first develops the breeder reactor will have a great competitive advantage in atomic energy.” Fermi likely knew the breeder was the pathway for nuclear power to supply the world’s energy requirements for thousands of years.

At least seven nations have initiated LMFBR design and build programs. Including critical test facilities, 20 plants have been built worldwide. Nonetheless, commercialization has not been achieved. Since the concept has many features that would promise a safer, more reliable, and economic outcome than existing water cooled reactors, why has commercialization of the LMFBR failed after 80 years?

A different approach than has been tried in the past is needed. The approach must involve all parties that can make meaningful contributions, particularly those motivated most by finding design approaches that are economic, and that best capitalize on the LMFBR’s unique inherent features.

The objective of this site is to stimulate action that advances the LMFBR. The site puts forward a design and institutional approach that is straightforward and promising enough to be a basis for further action. All comments are welcomed. Constructive criticism is welcomed. The author will modify the site to correct areas that have been identified and substantiated as being erroneous or which could be improved upon and will give attribution to the originator (with the originator’s permission) of any such comments. Any analyses that are performed to support or propose alternatives to the core design or any other feature of the “design approach” would be most welcomed.

• Abstract
• 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

http://ans.org/news/article-4154/revive-the-lmfbr/

To contact author, email fastbreederrx@gmail.com

Clark Gibbs is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who served on nuclear submarines, then obtained a Ph.D. in nuclear science and engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He spent his career in managerial positions divided between electric utility companies, EPRI, industry, and the Department of Energy, which included 16 years of assignments in LMFBR development.