Accident-tolerant (nuclear) fuels ready for testing

[FBaggins]

Higher performance nuclear fuels could allow use in a reactor for longer periods of time along with enhanced tolerance to severe accident conditions. The summer of 2014 marked an important milestone toward development of nuclear fuel with enhanced accident-tolerant characteristics.

...snip...

The proposed light water reactor (LWR) fuel and cladding improvements center on an increased tolerance to postulated beyond design basis accident scenarios within a nuclear reactor. Several adjustments target fuel and cladding physical integrity under severe accident conditions, including enhanced retention of fission products and resistance to increased temperature. Certain novel compositions look at chemical properties as well.

Desirable performance attributes include increased power density, longer fuel cycle and operation to higher burnup. In other words, in addition to characteristics of enhanced accident tolerance, these new fuels have the potential to last longer and produce more energy. For example, one technology of interest is silicon carbide-based cladding. Shannon Bragg-Sitton, the Deputy National Technical Director for the Advanced Fuels Campaign, explained the possible advantages this cladding could offer.

"In Fukushima, the fuel's zirconium cladding reacted with high temperature steam to produce hydrogen. This ultimately resulted in the explosions that were observed when the hydrogen was combusted," Bragg-Sitton said. "A silicon carbide cladding would still react with high temperature steam, but the reactions would occur at a much slower rate with massively reduced hydrogen production. Responders would have more time to mitigate the problem."

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-accident-tolerant-fuels-ready.html

[leveymg]

1. Sorry, we will not become more nuclear accident-tolerant.

Too late for mitigation. We've already been tested enough by the grotesque risks and costs attendant to nuclear power generation. The commercial nuclear industry simply isn't coming back. Get over it.

[FBaggins]

2. Lol... dream on.

Maybe if you say it enough times it will come true?

There's no question that "the commercial nuclear industry" is "coming back". The only question is which countries will be involved and which new designs will win out. And, of course, whether the new expansion will keep up with the time offset of the original expansions decades ago.

Of course... your response is really misguided anyway. If new fuel designs can make existing reactors (that won't be shut down for decades) a little safer... why would even anti-nuke oppose such a plan?

[leveymg]

3. Gain India, lose Japan. Ukraine could go either way. No come back in the US.

If it makes the first-gen GE light water reactors a little safer, that isn't safe enough and certainly doesn't change the fundamental economics and the ever-mounting costs of decommissions that argue most forcefully against the industry.

There are several curves that are coming together -- escalating costs of subsidizing new construction, continued operation, rising insurance liabilities and resistance to subsidies, the aforementioned decommission of older generating stock, and the continually dropping costs of alternative non-carbon energy sources --that, put together, spell the continued decline and eventual extinction of nuclear fission as a major source of power in the future, at least in most-developed western countries.

[FBaggins]

4. Bad math? Or just lacking information?

India is the only gain? You might want to take another look.

lose Japan.

That's an interesting perspective... considering they don't have any operational reactors now, but have two under construction and at least a couple dozen expected to restart over the next few years.

Ukraine could go either way.

Really? Both sides in the current conflict plan to expand their nuclear generation substantially. The only question is how long the conflict will last, not whether they "could go either way".

No come back in the US.

Did you miss that there are five units currently under construction compared to none for decades? Even up to a couple years ago you were claiming that they would never be built... but surely you're over that opinion by now?

If you think that natural gas prices will stay low for decades and economic growth will never return... then yeah, there won't be many new units. But how many people believe that?