Assessment of the Technical Maturity of Generation IV Concepts for Test or Demonstration Reactor Applications, Revision 2

Gougar, Hans David¹ 

[1]Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

关键词: FAST REACTORS;    EVALUATION;    SODIUM COOLED REACTORS;    IRRADIATION REACTORS;    TEST REACTORS;    TEMPERATURE RANGE 1000-4000 K;    LEAD;    MOLTEN SALT REACTORS;    WATER COOLED REACTORS;    DESIGN;    EVALUATION;    GAS COOLED REACTORS;    LIQUID METAL COOLED REACTORS;    FEASIBILITY STUDIES;    HTGR TYPE REACTORS Advanced Gas Reactor;    Argonne National Laboratory;    Fast Flux Test Facility;    Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor;    Nuclear Regulatory Commission;   

DOI  :  10.2172/1236803
RP-ID  :  INL/EXT--15-36427
PID  :  OSTI ID: 1236803
Others  :  TRN: US1600272

美国|英语

来源: SciTech Connect

【 摘 要 】

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) commissioned a study the suitability of different advanced reactor concepts to support materials irradiations (i.e. a test reactor) or to demonstrate an advanced power plant/fuel cycle concept (demonstration reactor). As part of the study, an assessment of the technical maturity of the individual concepts was undertaken to see which, if any, can support near-term deployment. A Working Group composed of the authors of this document performed the maturity assessment using the Technical Readiness Levels as defined in DOE???s Technology Readiness Guide . One representative design was selected for assessment from of each of the six Generation-IV reactor types: gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR), lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), molten salt reactor (MSR), supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR), sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), and very high temperature reactor (VHTR). Background information was obtained from previous detailed evaluations such as the Generation-IV Roadmap but other technical references were also used including consultations with concept proponents and subject matter experts. Outside of Generation IV activity in which the US is a party, non-U.S. experience or data sources were generally not factored into the evaluations as one cannot assume that this data is easily available or of sufficient quality to be used for licensing a US facility. The Working Group established the scope of the assessment (which systems and subsystems needed to be considered), adapted a specific technology readiness scale, and scored each system through discussions designed to achieve internal consistency across concepts. In general, the Working Group sought to determine which of the reactor options have sufficient maturity to serve either the test or demonstration reactor missions.