Gas-cooled fast reactors

P. Tsvetkov
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States

4.1

Rationale and generational research

and development bridge

The history of gas-cooled fast reactors (GFRs) dates back to the dawn of the nuclear
era. It needs to be noted that GFR technology is being pursued to this day and remains
to be of contemporary interest in many countries worldwide (IAEA-154, 1972; Waltar
et al., 2012).
The biggest potential advantage of GFRs is in their expected technological range of
applicationsdfrom electricity to process heat to waste minimization. Both breeders
and burners were of initial interest, taking advantage of the very nature of this concept
to offer a fast spectrum system that can be tailored to the desired conversion ratios.
Reactors using air, helium, CO2, and dissociating gases as coolants have been explored
(Waltar et al., 2012). General Atomics in the United States originated the initial
conceptual effort. The interests in the design expanded globally after that, including
Germany, France, and Russia. The former Soviet Union explored N2O4 as a coolant
(IAEA-154, 1972; Waltar et al., 2012).
The unique robustness of the technology is unmatched in the engineering domain of
nuclear reactors. There are thermal reactors and fast reactors with various coolants, but
none of them offers the option to t in all anticipated deployment domains supporting
the complete range of energy system applications.
Despite of the great promise of GFRs, thus far these systems have not deployed and
operated. The marketed promise of GFRs does not come without complicating factors.
For GFRs to fully realize their potential and become technically feasible, enabling
engineering solutions are needed to bring the GFR technology to life and ensure its
commercial success (Waltar et al., 2012; A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power
Plants in the United States by 2002, 2010).
The major perceived economic advantages of GFRs are in their promise to operate
at high power densities and with no intermediate loops. The helium-cooled GFRs have
an advantage of using chemically and neurotically inert single-phase gas, although it is
characterized by its extreme mobility and the resulting challenges to contain. It should
be noted that the challenges of using helium are being addressed and resolved not only
in the GFR programs but also in the high-temperature reactor (HTR) programs (Waltar
et al., 2012; Weaver, 2005).
These enabling solutions include materials, fuel, control, instrumentation, and other
design features ensuring reliability and safety in extreme operational conditions of
GFRs over the projected operational lifetimes. The signicant challenges of the needed
Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100149-3.00004-5
Copyright 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

92

Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors

enabling technologies resulted in global GFR research and development (R&D) efforts
to deliver on the GFR promise. Signicant results have been achieved thus far, contributing to the expectation of GFRs to become deployable and commercially viable sometime in the future (Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy
Systems, 2014).
The achieved progress in the development, deployment, and operation of hightemperature helium-cooled thermal reactors brings GFRs closer to the time when
they will be able to cross from being promising paper reactors to the world of real
systems. Some of the needed enabling solutions have already been proposed in the
feasibility programs for GFRs (Waltar et al., 2012).
However, it has also been concluded over the years that further work would be
required to advance the GFR technology to the level of prototypes demonstrating its
performance characteristics and commercial viability. The key research areas of
contemporary GFR R&D efforts include reactor design; fuel; fuel cycles; structural
materials; system optimization; and, most importantly, safety (Technology Roadmap
Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014).
Developments related to GFRs based on the Generation I era accomplishments
advanced the conceptual premise whereas further Generation IIeIII advancements
and subsequent evolving operation and safety considerations allowed for rening
the GFR concept and contributed some of the vital enabling technologies. The Generation IV GFR is the culmination of decades of preceding R&D efforts with an
expectation of its potential deployment and commercialization by 2030 (A Roadmap
to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2002, 2010; Technology
Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014).
The Generation IV GFR concept is being developed with the following objectives
in mind meeting the Generation IV reactor criteria: economic competitiveness,
enhanced safety and reliability, minimal radioactive waste generation, and proliferation resistance. Safety considerations are of the upmost priority for Generation
IV GFRs.
The GFR cores are inherently characterized by higher core neutron leakage than
liquid metals, leading to increased ssile loadings that challenge safety and proliferation resistance characteristics. Higher ssile loadings and harder spectra in GFRs
further reduce the fuel Doppler coefcient relative to other fast reactors. Required
pressures of GFR systems are approximately 7 MPa for helium-cooled congurations
and approximately 20 MPa for supercritical CO2-cooled congurations.
High system pressures are needed to compensate for the low heat capacity of He
and to achieve high thermal efciency for CO2, respectively. Highly pressurized
systems require special design provisions to mitigate the potential for and consequences of rapid depressurization scenarios. Generation IV GFRs have provisions
for heat removal from the core in accident scenarios and in planned maintenance
processes.
At reduced pressures in these systems, natural circulation may not be sufcient for
adequate heat removal. This leads to the use of ceramic high-temperature materials in
Generation IV designs to further substantiate the licensing case for GFRs (Waltar et al.,
2012; Weaver, 2005).

Gas-cooled fast reactors

93

The GFR concept is beyond contemporary nuclear power technologies. The 2002
technology roadmap qualied GFRs on the basis of their potential robust operational
domain. The analysis and recommendations have been deeply rooted in the 2000s era
nuclear renaissance expectations.
The updated 2014 roadmap accounts for the subsequent accomplishments of more
than 10 years of R&D related to the Fukushima Daiichi accident lessons and contemporary economics of the 2010s. Because the required enabling technologies need to
mature to the level of commercial deployment, the GFRs are no longer expected to
reach the demonstration phase within the roadmap projected time range (Technology
Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014).
As already indicated, decades of technology development efforts for GFRs serve as
a foundation for deployment expectations assuming that vital enabling technologies
mature in the coming decades of R&D efforts. Generation IV GFRs are expected to
be the result of international collaborative efforts bringing novel technologies to
energy markets and customizing them according to local conditions.
It is expected that global interests in GFRs will ultimately lead to growing practical
operational experiences and deployments, consequently contributing to establishing
and developing the GFR safety case needed for reactor successful licensing and eventual commercialization (Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear
Energy Systems, 2014). The objectives are for GFRs to be sustainable, safe, reliable,
economically competitive, proliferation resistant, and secure (Waltar et al., 2012;
Weaver, 2005).

4.2

Gas-cooled fast reactor technology

Historical GFR concepts as well as the Generation IV GFRs represent an alternative to

liquid metalecooled fast reactors (LMFRs). The use of gases leads to a harder neutron
spectrum compared with the fast reactor cores of sodium- and lead-cooled fast reactors
(Waltar et al., 2012).
Harder spectra in GFRs allow for a broad range of fast spectrum system applications ranging from historical breeder cores to advanced burner reactors. High breeding
ratios, shorter doubling times, and high power densities are characteristic design features of historical gas-cooled fast breeder reactors (Waltar et al., 2012; Weaver, 2005).
The burner version of GFRs yields higher transmutation efciencies in waste management application scenarios. Unlike LMFRs operating at near atmospheric pressures, GFRs require signicant in-core pressurization, thus complicating reactor
dynamics in transient scenarios during normal and off-normal situations as well
as adding procedures to reactor maintenance schedules compared with LMFRs
(IAEA-154, 1972; Waltar et al., 2012).
The Generation IV GFR design is identied in Generation IV International Forum
documents as the reactor concept with signicant sustainability expectations. This
assertion is based on the reduced core volume and the reactor ability to minimize its
own spent fuel inventory and to manage uranium resources and actinide waste streams

94

Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors

in various future closed fuel cycle scenarios (Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014).
Utilization of gases in GFRs leads to R&D efforts to create power units with GFRs
using direct cycle balance of plant congurations based on Brayton cycle options.
Gas coolants can be pumped directly through the turbine without the need for an intermediate loop (Waltar et al., 2012). Expected elevated in-core temperatures result
in high energy conversion efciencies of power units with GFRs in Brayton cycles
and potential heat utilization for process heat applications. Furthermore, utilization
of high-efciency Brayton cycles minimizes the environmental impact of GFRs
(Weaver, 2005).
The historical GFR concepts include designs of smaller 300- and 1000-MWe rated
units. Generation IV power units with GFRs assume 600 and 2400 MWth. Lower
power unit ratings enable modularity and load-follow operation modes, and they facilitate synergies with very high-temperature reactors. Higher power unit ratings facilitate
neutron economy with consequent reductions of core fuel inventories, and they are
more compatible with base-load operation modes (Waltar et al., 2012).
Metal-clad fuel elements with oxide or carbide fuels are traditionally considered for
GFRs. Table 4.1 summarizes fuel and core conguration options that are being
explored for Generation IV GFRs (Waltar et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2006; Ryu and
Sekimoto, 2000; Dumaz et al., 2007). Of note, the core concepts developed for
GFRs follow the prismatic block/hexagonal lattice path as well as the pebble bed
core path (Weaver, 2005; Ryu and Sekimoto, 2000). The high outlet temperatures
of GFRs eliminate considerations of steel-based alloys as cladding materials. Ceramic
materials and refractory metals are the most feasible in-core materials for GFRs
(Waltar et al., 2012). Silicon carbide composite materials are the potential cladding
choices for future GFRs assuming that sufcient performance characteristics can be
achieved for in-core applications (Waltar et al., 2012).

In-core design options for Generation IV gas-cooled

fast reactors

Table 4.1

Fuel

Fuel element

Core conguration

Dispersion fuels
Cylinders
Hexagons
Spheres
Arbitrary geometry

Coated compacts
Coated plates

Hexagonal lattices with stacks of

compacts
Plate-geometry congurations
Prismatic block arrays

Microparticle,
HTR-type fuels
Single-size particles
Multisize
particles

Microparticles
Spherical pebbles
Compacts with coated
microparticles

Particulate beds
Pebble beds
Hexagonal congurations
Prismatic block array congurations

HTR, high-temperature thermal reactor.

Gas-cooled fast reactors

95

The use of helium in Generation IV GFRs stems from decades of R&D efforts for
HTRs. Alternative gases are also explored, including air, steam, and CO2. Air poses
activation and corrosion concerns, but it is much easier to resupply in loss of coolant
accident scenarios (Advanced Reactor Concepts, 2012). Helium and supercritical CO2
received the most signicant attention as potential coolants for GFRs. For the desired
high thermal efciencies, the use of supercritical CO2 allows for lower outlet temperatures compared with helium-cooled designs while still operating very efciently
(Waltar et al., 2012). Because thermal decomposition of CO2 is accelerated starting
at 700 C, the oxidation/corrosion rates increase signicantly beyond those temperatures, providing further performance limits for maximum operating temperatures in
supercritical CO2-cooled GFR systems not to exceed 600 C (Waltar et al., 2012;
Weaver, 2005).
Steam introduces cladding compatibility challenges, the potential for positive
coolant reactivity effects, and reduced conversion rates. CO2 leads to higher pressure
drops and associated forces across components, increased acoustic loadings, and
economic penalties due to increased primary coolant pumping requirements. The challenges of CO2 are potentially offset by its heat removal and energy conversion advantages (Waltar et al., 2012; Advanced Reactor Concepts, 2012).
The GFR safety case is complicated by the recognized challenges of passive heat
removal during accident scenarios, fuel reliability, and in-core materials under extreme
conditions of high temperature and fast neutron elds (Technology Roadmap Update
for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014; Advanced Reactor Concepts, 2012).
It is recognized that although fully passively safe GFRs are possible at lower power
densities, the economic competitiveness is challenging for those designs. This can
be addressed through the use of guard (or secondary) vessels for GFRs.
The economics of closed fuel cycles with GFRs as well as other reactor options are
not expected to be immediately commercially viable. Closed fuel cycles will be
economical at the end of the 21st century or early in the 22nd century assuming conditions of limited fuel resources (Waltar et al., 2012; Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014; Weaver, 2005). Furthermore, hybrid
systems combining the advantages of GFRs with the advantages of other energy sources as well as integrating power and process heat applications may potentially make
the economic case for Generation IV GFRs more competitive and bring the deployment of these systems closer to reality because it allows fuller realization of their
performance potential. However, deployment of prototype systems to demonstrate
both performance characteristics, including reliability and economics, is of paramount
importance for the viability of GFRs. Construction of a GFR prototype would address
the limited experience challenge that has impeded GFRs.

4.3

Conclusions

The Generation IV GFR is the robust nuclear reactor design offering a broad range
of potential applicationsdfrom electricity to process heat to waste minimization.

96

Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors

The objectives are for GFRs to be sustainable, safe, reliable, economically competitive, proliferation resistant, and secure. Decades of technology development efforts
for GFRs serve as a foundation for deployment expectations assuming vital enabling
technologies mature in the coming decades of R&D efforts.

References
Dumaz, P., Allegre, P., Bassi, C., Cadiou, T., Conti, A., Garnier, J.C., Malo, J.Y., Tosello, A.,
2007. Gas-cooled fast reactors e status of CEA preliminary design studies. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 237, 1618e1627. Elsevier.
GENIV International Forum, January 2014 Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency for the Generation IV
International Forum.
IAEA-154, July 24e28, 1972. Gas-cooled fast reactors. In: Proc. IAEA Study Group Meeting
Sponsored by the USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy. Institute of
Nuclear Energy, Minsk.
Meyer, M.K., Fielding, R., Gan, J., 2006. Fuel Development for Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors. INL/
CON-06e11085.
Ryu, K., Sekimoto, H., 2000. A possibility of highly efcient uranium utilization with a pebble
bed fast reactor. Annals of Nuclear Energy 27, 1139e1145. Elsevier.
Technical Review Panel Report, Evaluation and Identication of Future R&D on eight
Advanced Reactor Concepts, December 2012 Advanced Reactor Concepts, 2012. U.S.
DOE Ofce of Nuclear Energy.
Volumes I and II, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Generation
IV Technology Planning A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United
States by 2010, 2002. U.S. DOE Ofce of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
Waltar, A., Todd, D., Tsvetkov, P. (Eds.), 2012. Fast Spectrum Reactors. Springer, ISBN 978-14419-9572-8.
Weaver, K.D., 2005. Interim Status Report on the Design of the Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor
(GFR). Gen IV Nuclear Energy Systems. INEEL/EXT-05-02662.