Nuclear Power Technical and Institutional Options for the Future (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Federal Research and Development Alternatives
4 Federal Research and Development Alternatives
Pages 161-179
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 161... ...
1 This chapter addresses alternative Department of Energy funding levels to support future civilian nuclear power development. This is consistent with the Senate Appropnations Committee Report 100-381 that formed the basis for this study (see Preface)
|
From page 162... ...
~a Lam, which serves as an irradiation test bed for metallic fuel elements of small modular reactors and as a test bed for safety embedments. Although the fuel element leng~.s are shorter than those envisioned for advanced comn~er c:~al LMRs, EBB s a major element of the integral fast reactor (~)
|
From page 163... ...
-- a hot cells facility for exam mation of irradiated fuel. DOE does not have any major facilities to support exclusively the development of the MHTGR or Canadian heavy water reactor concepts.
|
From page 164... ...
Federal irradiation test facilities contn~uted significantly to the development of materials "ethnology In the naval reactors pro~am.[DOE and DOD, 1988; Hewlett, 1974; Westinghouse, 1958] The naval Radiation test programs primarily utilized the irradiation test facilities of the materials test reactor A)
|
From page 165... ...
However, the ARC research budget has declined substantially in the 1980s, and NRC research funds may not be sufficient to support timely certification, currently scheduled to be 1992 for the large evolutionary LWRs and 1994 to 1995 for the mid-s~zed LWRs with passive safety features. We note that NRC's Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC)
|
From page 166... ...
Reactor Research Research activity is vital to provide fundamental understanding of fuel cycle aspects of technologies already identified and to develop new reactor concepts. For example, research on fuel cycle aspects of the metal fueDed fast later, which could be accomplished by operating HFEF/S and FIEF, including evolution of key prototypic reactor design and safety features, would be funded.
|
From page 167... ...
the number of research reactors on umversi~ cam puses.3tNAS, 19903 Operational Performance Improvement and Plant Life Extension The final common element in each alternative is the recommendation that DOE support research programs to improve the operational performance and investigate the means to achieve plant life extension of emsting nucJ ear plants in the United States. The successful operation of emsdug plants is required to restore public confidence in the nuclear option, and the athievement of life extension win magenta the contribution of electricity production from existing nuclear plants substantially beyond their original licensed penod.
|
From page 168... ...
Whether it should be included In a government program would require an analysis of ~ndustry's ability to fund such work and evaluation of the appropriate role of the federal government In assi~t~g what are basically con~mer~ial products. In addition to the evolutionary LWRs, the mid-sized LWR with passive safety features could serve to retain nuclear power as a U.S.
|
From page 169... ...
Whatever approach is used, the role of the industry and government must be enlist from the beginning. In summary, this first alternative, which has the lowest cost, contains the three common elements, assumes that certification of evoludonary LWRs win not require further DOE flung, limits development to mid-sized LWRs wid1 passive safety features, and manta tile LMR program as a research activity.
|
From page 170... ...
If a later time, toward the end of this decade or early In the next, Is the introduction point, R&D Alternative 1 Is aimed at ensuring that the m~-sizect LWRs with passive safety features also would be available. Were the nuclear option to be Rosen, and large scale, long-term deployment followed, uranium supplies at competitive prices would eventually become exhausted.
|
From page 171... ...
In addition to funding development of the mid-s~zed LWRs and the common research elements embodied in Alternative 1, this alternative adds funding for development of LMRs for commercial deployment by the year 2025. This development program would encompass all conceptual and eng~neer~g design, component development, and testing that would allow the first LMR plant to be built and placed ~ service by the year 2OlS.
|
From page 172... ...
. Alternative Program 3: Alternative 1 Plus Accelerated liquid Metal Reactor Development, Including ~ fight Water Reactor A~hn~de Recycling Studies This alternative continues the mid-~d LWR development program In the previous alternatives as well as the common elements.
|
From page 173... ...
This R&D alternative win require an irradiation reactor facility for testing both fuel assemblies and composite fuel pins at as near to prototypic steady and transient conditions as possible and at accelerated testing times. These factors are most important for the LMR development proposed in this alternative because the development time cycle Is to be accelerated and high fuel element burnup per fuel cycle Is desired for recycling studies.
|
From page 174... ...
Further, as discussed in Chapter 3, the MHIGR does not offer demonstrable cost or safety advantages over the other concepts. Therefore, given the limited funds available for commercial nuclear power development and the desirability to focus and coalesce efforts behind Dot water and liquid metal technologies, no funds should be allocated for development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology within the commercial nuclear power development budget of DOE.
|
From page 175... ...
~o ~o x ~ o o ~ o ct c)
|
From page 176... ...
reactor research using federal facilities; ret~ed for the LMR are EBR-II, HFEF/S, and FIEF. The Committee believes that DOE shoed consider mamt~ng a coated fuel particle research program within that past of DOE focused on space reactors; (23 university research programs; and (3)
|
From page 178... ...
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Research Strategy from the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee, December 21, 1990. Forwarded via letter from David L
|
From page 179... ...
1958. The Shippillgport Pressurized Water Reactor, Naval Reactors Branch, United States Atomic Energy Commission.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.