modified apex reactor as a fusion breeder

Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1497–1512www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Modified APEX reactor as a fusion breeder

S€umer S�ahin *, Mustafa €Ubeyli

Teknik E�gitim Fak€ultesi, Gazi €Universitesi, Teknikokullar, Ankara 06503, Turkey

Received 1 May 2003; received in revised form 9 September 2003; accepted 12 September 2003

Abstract

An advanced fusion reactor project, called APEX, with improved effectiveness has been developed using

a protective flowing liquid wall for tritium breeding and energy transfer. In the modified APEX concept, the

flowing molten salt wall is composed of Flibe as the main constituent with increased mole fractions of heavy

metal salt (ThF4 or UF4) for both fissile and fusile breeding purposes and to increase the energy multi-plication. Neutron transport calculations are conducted with the help of the SCALE4.3 SYSTEM by

solving the Boltzmann transport equation with the code XSDRNPM. By preserving a self sufficient tritium

breeding ratio (TBR>1.05) for a mole fraction up to 6% of ThF4 or 12% of UF4, the modified APEX

reactor can produce up to �2800 kg of 233U/year or �4950 kg of 239Pu/year, assuming the same baseline

fusion power production of 4000 MWth, as in the original APEX concept. With 6% ThF4 or 12% UF4 in the

coolant, the total energy output will increase to 5560 MWth or 8440 MWth, respectively. For a plant ope-

ration period of 30 full power years, the atomic displacement and helium production rates remain well

below the presumable limits. The additional benefits of fissionable metal salt in the flowing liquid in afusion reactor can be summarized as breeding of high quality fissile fuel for external reactors and increase of

total plant power output.

� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fusion breeder; Liquid wall; Molten salt; High power density; Radiation damage

1. Introduction

Fusion reactors must be economically competitive for energy market penetration. For thisreason, they must compete primarily with fission reactors. Requirements for a commerciallycompetitive power plant with low cost of electricity are high power density (HPD), high power

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +90-312-212-43-04 (Office); Tel.: +90-312-490-63-09 (Home), +90-542-633-77-68

(Mobile).

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. S�ahin).

0196-8904/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2003.09.014

mail to: [email protected]

1498 S. S�ahin, M. €Ubeyli / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1497–1512

conversion efficiency (>40%), higher availability (lower failure rate, faster maintenance) and,finally, simpler technological and material constraints. The two most important requirements forobtaining practical HPD systems are high power production per unit volume of the plasma, afusion power technology having in-vessel components that can handle the high surface heat fluxand high neutron wall load (NWL) on the first wall in such HPD systems. Therefore, the neutronflux load on the first wall becomes a key issue.

The average core power density for a pressurized water reactor, a high temperature gas cooledreactor and a liquid metal fast breeder reactor is higher than that in the International Thermo-nuclear Experimental Reactor [1] by a factor of �80, 7.5 and 200, respectively. For a fusion re-actor, the NWL will need to be in the range 22–600 MW/m2 in order to achieve the same averagepower density. Nevertheless, such high wall loads may be impossible to achieve and handle incurrent magnetic fusion concepts.

High neutron fluxes can be tolerated, either by a liquid wall adjacent to the plasma or withrefractory metals as the first wall material. In an extensive study, Abdou and his team haveevaluated the key elements for a competitive fusion reactor [2]. They have developed an advancedmagnetic fusion reactor, called APEX, using a flowing liquid wall to improve the performance of apure fusion reactor. In the present work, a modified APEX concept as a fusion breeder will beoutlined for the purpose of power amplification as well as supplying fissile fuel to external fissionreactors in a synergetic energy system.

2. Liquid wall concept

In fusion blankets, the highest material damage occurs in the first wall because it is exposed tothe highest neutron, gamma-ray, X-ray, and charged particle currents, which are produced in thefusion chamber. The major damage mechanisms will be displacements of the atoms from theirlattice sites as a result of collisions with highly energetic fusion neutrons and gas production in themetallic lattice resulting from diverse nuclear reactions, mainly through helium production. Thesereactions will limit the lifetime of the first wall structural wall of the fusion reaction chamber.

Design concepts for fusion energy reactors indicate, in general, a lifetime of 1 full power year(FPY) for the first wall structural wall. On the other hand, different workers have suggested theuse of a protective, flowing liquid zone to protect the first wall of a fusion reactor from directexposure to the fusion reaction products. This could extend the lifetime of the first wall to theexpected lifetime of the fusion reactor, namely, to 30 FPYs [3–6]. Furthermore, it would allow awider choice in selection studies for first wall materials in relaxing the material requirements andreducing the development costs for the first wall significantly. This would have a direct impact onthe reduction of the cost of the electricity [3–5].

A realization of liquid walls for inertial fusion reactors appears easier to accomplish within thepossibilities of present day technology. Advanced design concepts have emerged with sound en-gineering prospects, such as HYLIFE-II [7]. On the other hand, extensive research is required todemonstrate the feasibility of a liquid wall protected chamber for magnetic fusion and on thefeasibility of a conducting liquid metal flowing along field lines. Much work is needed on themagnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effects on the liquid flow. The behavior of conducting walls be-hind nonconducting Flibe needs to be investigated [5]. Extensive studies on a liquid wall for

Table 1

Pertinent advantages of liquid walls, Ref. [8]

1. Improvements in plasma stability and confinement

• Enable high b, stable physics regimes if liquid metals are used

2. High power density capability

• Eliminate thermal stress and wall erosion as limiting factors

• Smaller and lower cost components (chambers, shield, vacuum vessel, magnets)

3. Increased potential for disruption survivability

4. Reduced volume of radioactive waste

5. Reduced radiation damage in structural materials

• Makes difficult structural material problems more tractable

• Simplicity

6. Potential for higher availability

• Increased lifetime and reduced failure rates

• Faster maintenance (design-dependent)

S. S�ahin, M. €Ubeyli / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1497–1512 1499

magnetic fusion have been conducted by the APEX team [2,8]. Pertinent advantages of the liquidwall protection are listed in Table 1. Extensive analysis on the thermohydraulics and MHD effectsof different types of liquid protection have been conducted. Also, the APEX team has found that amolten salt called Flibe (Li2BeF4) gives the best damage protection for the first wall because it iscapable of attenuating both the high and low energy components of neutrons reaching thebacking solid wall.

Different liquid wall concepts have emerged from applying various forces to drive the liquidflow and restrain it against a backing solid wall. One of these forces is the gravity-momentumdriven (GMD) method for moderate aspect ratio tokamaks that uses the liquid at the top of thechamber with an angle tangential to the curved backing wall, schematically shown in Fig. 1,adopted from Ref. [8]. The fluid adheres to the backing wall by means of centrifugal force and iscollected and drained at the bottom of the chamber. The criterion for continuous attachment ofthe liquid layer is simply that the centrifugal force pushing the liquid layer towards the wall isgreater than the gravitational force [8].

Another useful method for restraining the liquid against a backing solid wall is a GMD methodwith a swirl flow concept that is obtained by giving the fluid an azimuthal velocity to produce

Fig. 1. Schematic view of principles of GMD liquid wall concept (~V ¼ fluid velocity, ~g¼ gravitational acceleration,

Rc ¼ radius of curvature).

Fig. 2. (a) Illustration of the swirl flow mechanism in the main field reverse configuration (FRC) section with con-

verging inlet and outlet sections, (b) the three-dimensional fluid distribution of FRC swirl flow.


rotation, schematically shown in Fig. 2, adopted from Ref. [8]. The swirl flow causes a substantialincrease in the centrifugal acceleration toward the back wall and better adherence to the wall,while the backing wall curvature in the poloidal direction is large and the toroidal curvature iscomparable to the poloidal curvature. In this method, the fluid enters the main chamber zonethrough a convergent nozzle and is discharged to a divergent outlet after one rotation. The fluidfaces different net forces along the circumferential direction due to the different relative orienta-tions of gravity, which result in nonuniform hydrodynamic characteristics along the flow axis.Although swirl flow may not be needed for moderate aspect ratio tokamaks, it appears to benecessary in the highly elongated, very low aspect ratio spherical torus [8].

The optimum thickness of the different flowing liquid walls must be determined, especially forextending the lifetime of the first wall material to the plant lifetime of 30 FPYs. A series of workshave been conducted to estimate the wall thickness requirement for candidate protective coolantlayers on either the IFE (inertial fusion energy) or MFE (magnetic fusion energy) reactors. Thestudies on IFE reactors using liquid walls are reported in Refs. [9–13], while MFE reactors withprotective coolant layers were investigated in Refs. [14–16]. They found comparable values tothose of IFE reactors for wall protection, namely, with a liquid wall thickness of 60 cm for Flibe,160 cm for natural lithium and 170–180 cm for Li17Pb83 for a 1 GWel fusion power output (1021 n/s) to extend the lifetime of the first wall made of SS-304 and graphite to 30 FPYs with respect tomaterial damage and shallow burial criteria.

3. Blanket geometry

A fusion–fission (hybrid) reactor may have realistic chances for a relatively earlier introductionof fusion power plants for electricity production [17,18]. In previous work, the hybrid versions ofmajor design concepts, namely the hybrid HYLIFE-II (IFE) reactor [19], the hybrid PROME-THEUS (IFE) reactor [20] and the hybrid ARIES-RS (MFE) reactor [21], were studied. In thepresent work, the fusion–fission (hybrid) version of the APEX, as one of the major design con-

Fig. 3. Cross sectional view of the APEX fusion reactor design concept.


cepts of an MFE reactor, will be investigated. A multi-purpose flowing heavy metal molten saltlayer, containing Flibe as the main constituent with increased mole fractions of heavy metal saltwith ThF4 or UF4, has been used as an energy carrier in APEX to breed fissile and fusile fuel andto increase energy multiplication. A general cross sectional sketch and the main components ofthe blanket structure of the APEX reactor design concept are depicted in Fig. 3, adopted fromRef. [8]. The numerical calculations are conducted in consistency with the one dimensionalmodeling of the blanket structure in Ref. [22], illustrated in Fig. 4. The compositions and densitiesof the materials used in the blanket are given in Table 2.

It can be seen in Fig. 4 that at the inboard and outboard builds of the model, the liquid first wall(FW) has a thickness of 2 cm and represents a fast flowing layer, while the slow flowing layerconstitutes the blanket and is 40 cm thick. Then, a backing solid wall of 4 cm thickness follows theliquid FW/blanket zone again for the inboard and outboard builds. A shielding zone of 50 cmthickness and 49 cm thickness is located behind the backing solid wall for the outboard and in-board builds, respectively, and is assumed to have the structure to breeder (coolant) ratio of 60/40.In the shielding zone, ferritic steel is chosen for the structure and heavy metal molten salt is chosenas the coolant. The vacuum vessel walls are 2 cm thick and made of ferritic steel, and the interior is16 cm thick (inboard) and 26 cm thick (outboard) with ferritic steel cooled with water by astructure to water ratio of 80/20.

4. Numerical calculations

Neutron transport calculations for evaluation of the neutron spectra are conducted withthe help of the SCALE4.3 SYSTEM by solving the Boltzmann transport equation in S8-P3

Fig. 4. Schematic view of one-dimensional model of the GMD liquid FW/blanket for calculation (a) inboard,

(b) outboard.


approximation with Gaussian quadratures [23] using the code XSDRNPM [24] and the 238groups library, derived from ENDF/B-V [25]. The resonance calculations in the fissionable fuelelement cell are performed with

• BONAMI [26] for the unresolved resonances and• NITAWL-II [27] for the resolved resonances.

The CSAS control module [28] is used to produce the resonance self shielded weighted crosssections for XSDRNPM.

Figs. 5 and 6 show the neutron spectra in the selected regions of the blanket with ThF4 and UF4

content, respectively. The primary neutrons coming from the fusion plasma dominate on the leftside of the flowing liquid zone, while the secondary neutrons (collided neutrons+ fission neutrons)begin to dominate by deeper penetration into the liquid zone, where a gradual softening of theneutron spectrum is clearly observed. The neutron attenuation through the liquid zone reaches sixto seven orders of magnitude at intermediate and high energies. The great reduction of neutronflux in the liquid eliminates a replacement of the first wall and extends its life to a presumableplant lifetime of �30 years. The increase of the heavy metal component along with the decrease of

Table 2

Composition and atomic density of the blanket materials

Material Nuclide Nuclei density (1024/cm3)

Molten salt 0.98(Li2BeF4) � 0.02(ThF4)6Li 1.7705E)037Li 2.1830E)02Be 1.1804E)02F 4.8179E)02Th 2.4089E)04



Molten salt 0.98(Li2BeF4) � 0.02(UF4)6Li 1.7730E)037Li 2.1870E)02Be 1.1820E)02F 4.8245E)02235U 1.6890E)06238U 2.3950E)04




Molten salt 0.9(Li2BeF4) � 0.1(UF4)6Li 1.6364E)037Li 2.0183E)02Be 1.0910E)02F 4.8488E)02

(continued on next page)


Table 2 (continued)

235U 8.4853E)06238U 1.2037E)03


Ferritic steel C 8.3060E)06V 2.0765E)04Cr 7.4754E)03Fe 7.3575E)02Ta 5.8142E)05W 1.6612E)03

H2O H 6.6920E)02O 3.3460E)02

Fig. 5. Blanket neutron spectrum at selected locations (with ThF4 in the flowing liquid wall). On the left side of the

flowing liquid wall; in the middle of the flowing liquid wall; on the right side of the flowing liquid wall; leakage

spectrum. (––) 2% ThF4 and (� � �) 6% ThF4.


lithium has mutually compensating effects on neutron absorption with very minor effects on thespectrum, keeping the latter practically unchanged for the investigated coolant compositions.

Fig. 6. Blanket neutron spectrum at selected locations (with UF4 in the flowing liquid wall; legend as Fig. 5). (––) 2%

UF4; (. . .) 6% UF4 and (- - -) 12% UF4.


After calculation of the neutron spectra, the numerical output of XSDRNPM is further pro-cessed with XSCALC [29] to evaluate the integral nuclear data.

4.1. Tritium breeding

A commercial fusion reactor must have a tritium breeding ratio of (TBR)> 1.05 to be selfsustaining. Fig. 7 shows the variation of TBR with the heavy metal content in mol% in the flowingliquid. As expected, the TBR decreases with increased heavy metal content. Tritium self suffi-ciency has been maintained in the range of molten salt mixtures (Flibe with up to 6% ThF4 orFlibe with up to 12% UF4). These molten salt mixtures would make the highest level of fissilebreeding possible. Uranium has a higher neutron multiplication than thorium. On the other hand,the excess tritium gain for external fusion reactors is reduced significantly with the introduction ofheavy metal into the coolant.

4.2. Fission power production

The heavy metal component in the flowing liquid wall undergoes nuclear fission. The rightordinate in Fig. 8 indicates the integral fission reaction in the blanket per fusion source neutron.The fission occurs at a relatively low level, but the energy release per fission is considerably higher

Fig. 7. Tritium production in the blanket. : with ThF4 in the flowing liquid wall and : with UF4 in the flowing liquid

wall.


than that per fusion event. Therefore, the fission has a certain contribution to the total plantpower production depending on the heavy metal content in the coolant.

The energy multiplication factor, M , is defined as the ratio of the total energy release in theblanket to the incident fusion neutron energy. A pure fusion reactor of APEX design using Flibeas a liquid wall has a fusion power of 4000 MWth, a blanket energy multiplication of M ¼ 1:22and produces�4880 MWth total power. The change in energy multiplication with respect to heavymetal content is illustrated in Fig. 8 at the left ordinate. M has a very similar shape to the fissionrate. The ThF4 content has a very minor effect on energy multiplication, whereas UF4 can lead toremarkable energy amplification. The nuclear heat production in the ThF4 and lithium are fairlycomparable so that a gradual replacement of lithium by ThF4 does not vary the gross plant powerremarkably.

The main components of the volumetric neutron heat release density in the flowing liquid wall,namely in fissionable isotopes and in lithium are shown in Fig. 9 in W/g coolant mass. As fastfission dominates, fission heating has a distinct exponentially decreasing character for this externalsource driven blanket. On the other hand, lithium heating remains fairly flat throughout the liquidwall zone. The exponential neutron flux decrease is accompanied by spectrum softening so thatthe main component of lithium heating, namely U � Rðn;aÞ in

6Li can remain nearly constant over a

Fig. 8. Energy multiplication factor versus heavy metal content with ThF4, UF4 and integral fission reaction rate

versus heavy metal content with ThF4, UF4 (per incident fusion neutron).


long range in the liquid zone. Most of the volumetric nuclear heat is produced in the first �15 cmof the liquid region. There is a very sharp heat peak on the left side of the liquid wall for >4 mol%UF4 content.

In addition to the volumetric neutron heating, the internal plasma facing regions of the liquidwall are also directly exposed to charged particles (a�s as reaction products and unburned fuel),X-rays, Bremstrahlung and debris from the target, all of which cause an intense heat flux at theinternal wall surface. Hence, the heat peak on the left side will be much sharper than in Fig. 9.Excessive heat flux at the internal surface could increase the local temperatures dramatically,which could be intolerable for holding the vacuum conditions in the fusion chamber. The localtemperature rise can be controlled with a fast flowing internal layer [2,8]. On the other hand, aglobal high temperature of the liquid under consideration of vapor pressure limits is requiredfor a high plant thermodynamic efficiency. This can be accomplished with a relatively longerexposure time of the bulk of the liquid region to neutron flux with a slow velocity. Also,reasonable pumping power requirements dictate a slow coolant velocity for the main liquidmass [2,8].

Fig. 9. Components of the nuclear power density in the liquid flowing wall versus radial distance. Fission heat density

in the liquid flowing wall with 12% UF4, 2% UF4, 6% ThF4 and 2% ThF4 content. Heat release density in

lithium in the liquid flowing wall with 12% UF4, 2% UF4, 6% ThF4 and 2% ThF4 content.


4.3. Fissile fuel breeding

Fissile fuel breeding and radiation damage calculations are done for a NWL of 10 MW/m2.Fissile fuel breeding rates of [238U(n,c)239Pu] and [232Th(n,c)233U] increase almost linearly withincreased heavy metal content as can be seen in Fig. 10. A substantial amount of fissile fuel wouldbe produced by using heavy metal molten salt. New fissile fuel can be extracted continually.Previous long term plant operation calculations on hybrid blankets with a fixed fissile zone in-dicate that the high fissile fuel production rate would decrease rapidly due to the steady burn-upof the new fissile fuel in the blanket in situ [30–32]. As a further advantage of the present reactorconcept, such a reduction in fissile fuel production will not occur in the case of a flowing liquidblanket. In concrete terms, the extra revenue can be estimated as follows:

Utilization of the molten salt mixture Flibe +ThF4 produces a precious nuclear fuel 233U with aconservative value of 300,000 $/kg. The additional revenue through fuel production can become360, 600 and 825 M$/a for 2% ThF4, 4% ThF4 and 6% ThF4 content, respectively, reducing thetotal electricity cost per kWh significantly. In the case of the molten salt mixture Flibe +UF4 andfor a market value of 80,000 $/kg for 239Pu, the additional revenue through fuel production be-comes 90,000,000 $/a for 2% UF4 and can increase up to 400,000,000 $/a for 12% UF4 content.The lower fuel revenue with UF4 is amply compensated through the significant energy amplifi-cation and more electricity generation for the same fusion power production.

Fig. 10. Fissile fuel breeding in flowing liquid wall versus heavy metal content 232Th(n,c)233U and 238U(n,c)239Pu.


4.4. Radiation damage

The highest material damage under neutron irradiation is expected at the outer first wall, wherelow activation ferritic steel is used. At present, there is no consensus on a displacement per atom(DPA) limit backed up by experimental data due to the lack of an intense fusion neutron source atpresent. Earlier work has assumed higher limits for fusion reactors, namely DPA¼ 300–1000 [33].Refs. [34,35] suggested a lower damage limit as DPA¼ 165. In the present work, a very conser-vative limit of DPA¼ 100 is assumed. Utilization of a flowing liquid wall reduces the neutron fluxsignificantly, depressing material damage at the first wall to very low levels. For the coolant with 2mol% UF4 or ThF4, the DPA rate at the outer first wall is calculated as �65 DPA over 30 FPYs,and it remains practically around the same level with increased heavy metal content.

In fusion reactor structures, another serious damage mechanism will be gas production in themetallic lattice resulting from diverse nuclear reactions, mainly through (n,p) and (n,a) and tosome extent through (n,d) and (n,t) reactions above a certain threshold energy. The hydrogenisotopes will diffuse out of the metallic lattice under high operation temperatures, but the aparticles will remain in the metal and generate helium gas bubbles. Therefore, the production ofhelium gas bubbles in the metal crystal lattice will play an important role. It will cause swelling


and embrittlement of the structure. These reactions will limit the lifetime of the first wall to a fewyears. For stainless steel, a helium limit of 500 appm is suggested by Refs. [34,35]. In the presentwork, helium production at the outer first wall is obtained as 245 appm over 30 FPYs for thecoolant with 2 mol% UF4, and it decreases slowly down to 220 appm with 12 mol% UF4, while itremains around 245 appm/30 FPYs for 2–12 mol% ThF4. Helium production remains below thepresumable limit values. Therefore, a replacement of the first wall during the lifetime of the re-actor will not be needed.

5. Conclusions and discussion

Fissionable metal salt in the flowing liquid enables one to breed high quality fissile fuel bymaintaining the tritium self sufficiency condition (TBR>1.05) for the DT fusion driver. Sub-stantial amounts of fissile fuel can be produced for the LWRs, widely in use at present. This givesextra revenue and reduces the unit electricity cost.

Inclusion of a heavy metal component into the flowing liquid in the form of ThF4 and UF4 hasno negative effects on material damage on the first wall with respect to displacement per atom andhelium gas production in the metal lattice due to spectrum softening and increased absorption inthe coolant. The radiation damage level of the first wall at the end of the 30 FPYs is lower than thelimit values in the related literature so that this structure would be used during the lifetime of thereactor without replacement.

Inclusion of heavy metal into the Flibe brings out some engineering problems, such as increasedpumping power requirements and metallic erosion. Heavy metal in the coolant leads to theproduction of gaseous fission products with additional problems in the same direction. However,the fission rate in the coolant remains at low levels, as shown in Fig. 8, and the flowing coolant isremoved continuously from the reactor chamber. This gives a very short residence time for thegaseous fission products in the chamber and a very low probability for diffusion through the bulkcoolant mass.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Research Fund of the Gazi University, Project # 07/2003-14, and the State Planning Organization of Turkey, Project # DPT-2003K 120470-08.

References

[1] International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor: ITER Concept Definition. ITER Documentation Series, No.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency, 1989.

[2] Abdou MA. The APEX team, exploring novel high power density concepts for attractive fusion systems. Fusion

Eng Des 1999;45:145–67.

[3] Moir RW. Rotating liquid blanket for a toroidal fusion reactor. Fusion Eng Des 1987;5:269.

[4] Moir RW. The logic behind thick, liquid-walled, fusion concepts. Nucl Eng Des 1995;29:34.


[5] Moir RW. Liquid first walls for magnetic fusion energy configurations. Nucl Fusion 1997;37:557.

[6] Christofilos NC. Design for a high power-density Astron reactor. J Fusion Energy 1989;8:97.

[7] Moir RW et al. HYLIFE-II, a molten-salt inertial fusion energy power plant design––final report. Fusion Technol

1994;25:5.

[8] Abdou MA, Ying A, et al. The APEX Team. On the exploration of innovative concepts for fusion chamber

technology. Fusion Eng Des 2001;54:181–247.

[9] S�ahin S, Moir RW, S�ahinaslan A, S�ahin HM. Radiation damage in liquid-protected first wall materials for IFE-

reactors. Fusion Technol 1996;30(3):1027–35.

[10] Moir RW et al. HYLIFE-II, a molten-salt inertial fusion energy power plant design––final report. Fusion Technol

1994;25:5.

[11] Tobin MT. Neutronics analysis for HYLIFE-II. Fusion Technol 1991;19:763–9.

[12] Lee JD. Waste disposal assessment of HYLIFE-II structure. Fusion Technol 1994;26:74–8.

[13] Perlado JM, Guinan MW, Abe K. Radiation damage in structural materials. In: Energy from inertial fusion.

Vienna: IAEA; 1995.

[14] S�ahin S, S�ahinaslan A, Kaya M. Neutronic calculations for a magnetic fusion energy reactor with liquid protection

for the first-wall. Fusion Technol 1998;34(2):95–108.

[15] S�ahin S, S�ahinaslan A, S�ahin HM. Elimination of the coil shielding for MFE-reactors through a liquid-protected

first-wall. Arabian J Sci Eng 2002;27(2A):173–86.

[16] S�ahin S, S�ahinaslan A, Kaya M, Yılmaz S. Radiation damage in liquid-protected first-wall materials for MFE-

reactors. In: Transactions of the American Nuclear Society 1997 Winter Meeting, vol. 77. Albuquerque, November

16–20, 1997. p. 158–60.

[17] S�ahin S. Physics of the fusion–fission (hybrid) reactors. In: 8th International Summer College on Physics and

Contemporary Needs, Islamabad, Pakistan, 23 July–11 August, 1983.

[18] S�ahin S. Mainline fusion–fission (hybrid) reactors. In: 8th International Summer College on Physics and

Contemporary Needs, Islamabad, Pakistan, 23 July–11 August, 1983.

[19] S�ahin S, Yalc�ın S�, S�ahin HM, €Ubeyli M. Fissile fuel breeding in an inertial fusion energy reactor with HYLIFE-II

blanket. Ann Nucl Energy 2003;30(6):669–83.

[20] Yapıcı H, €Ubeyli M, Yalc�ın S�. Neutronic analysis of Prometheus reactor fueled with various compounds of

thorium and uranium. Ann Nucl Energy 2002;29(16):1871–89.

[21] S�ahin S, Yalc�ın S�, S�ahin HM, €Ubeyli M. Neutronic investigation of a hybrid version of the ARIES-RS fusion

reactor. Ann Nucl Energy 2003;30(2):245–59.

[22] Ying A et al. Thick liquid blanket concept. APEX Interim Report, UCLA-ENG-99-206, UCLA-FNT-107,

University of California, Los Angeles, USA, 1999.

[23] S�ahin S. Radiation shielding calculations for fast reactors (in Turkish). Gazi University, Publication # 169, Faculty

of Science and Literature, Publication number 22, Ankara, Turkey, 1991.

[24] Greene NM, Petrie LM. XSDRNPM, a one-dimensional discrete-ordinates code for transport analysis.

NUREG/CR-0200, Revision 5, 2, Section F3, ORNL/NUREG/CSD-2/V2/R5, Oak Ridge Nationasl Laboratory,

1997.

[25] Jordan WC, Bowman SM. Scale cross-section libraries. NUREG/CR-0200, Revision 5, 3, Section M4, ORNL/

NUREG/CSD-2/V3/R5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1997.

[26] Greene NM. BONAMI, resonance self-shielding by the bondarenko method. NUREG/CR-0200, Revision 5, 2,

Section F1, ORNL/NUREG/CSD-2/V2/R5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1997.

[27] Greene NM, Petrie LM, Westfall RM. NITAWL-II, scale system module for performing resonance shielding and

working library production. NUREG/CR-0200, Revision 5, 2, Section F2, ORNL/NUREG/CSD-2/V2/R5, Oak

Ridge National Laboratory, 1997.

[28] Landers NF, Petrie LM. CSAS, control module for enhanced criticality safety analysis sequences. NUREG/CR-

0200, Revision 5, 1, Section C4, ORNL/NUREG/CSD-2/V1/R5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1997.

[29] Yapıcı H. XSCALC for interfacing output of XSDRN to calculate integral neutronic data. Erciyes University,

Kayseri, Turkey, 2001.

[30] S�ahin S, Baltacıo�glu E, Yapıcı H. Potential of a catalyzed fusion driven hybrid reactor for the regeneration of

CANDU spent fuel. Fusion Technol 1991;20:26.


[31] S�ahin S, Yapıcı H, Baltacıo�glu E. Rejuvenation of LWR spent fuel in a catalyzed fusion hybrid blanket.

Kerntechnik 1994;59:270.

[32] S�ahin S, Yapıcı H. Rejuvenation of LWR spent fuel in fusion blankets. Ann Nucl Energy 1998;25:1317.

[33] Duderstadt JJ, Moses GA. Inertial confinement fusion. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1982.

[34] Blink A et al. High-yield lithium-injection fusion energy (HYLIFE) reactor. In: Essary KL, Lewis KE, editors.

UCRL-53559, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1985.

[35] Perlado M, Guinan MW, Abe K. Radiation damage in structural materials. Energy from Inertial Fusion,

International Atomic Energy Agency, 272, Vienna, 1995.

modified apex reactor as a fusion breeder

Documents