EnergyVol. 23, No. 7/8, pp. 523–531, 1998 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon PII: S0360-5442(97)00097-2 Printed in Great Britain

0360-5442/98 $19.00+ 0.00

OVERVIEW OF FAST BREEDER REACTORS

MASSOUD SIMNAD†

School of Engineering and Center for Energy and Combustion Research, University of California, SanDiego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0411, USA

(Received 4 August 1997)

Abstract—A brief overview is presented of the history and status of advanced fast breeder reactors(FBRs). The first eight papers of this special issue, from seven countries where FBRs have beenbuilt and operated, are summarized. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

1. INTRODUCTION

In 1945, E. Fermi observed that “The country which first develops a breeder reactor will have a greatcompetitive advantage in atomic energy.” The first experimental fast reactor, Clementine, was developedand operated at Los Alamos from 1946 to 1953. It had a 2.5 l core fuelled with plutonium metal andcooled by mercury. It generated 25 kWt at full power. The world’s first production of practical amountsof useful power from a nuclear reactor was achieved on 22 December, 1951, when 200 kWe wasgenerated from the first experimental fast breeder reactor, EBR-I, at the National Reactor Testing Stationin Idaho. This reactor operated until 1963, when it was replaced by the EBR-II fast breeder reactor(FBR). These reactors were developed at Argonne National Laboratory under the direction of W. Zinn,following discussions with Fermi in 1944. Other early prototype FBRs included the 5 MWt SBR-5 inRussia (1959), the 12 MWe demonstration fast reactor (DFR) at Dounreay in the UK (1959–1980),and the 20–40 MWt Rapsodie in France (1967).

2. INCIDENTS, ACCIDENTS, SAFETY ISSUES AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF FBRS

All nuclear reactors have suffered incidents and accidents and there is widespread public concernabout safety issues, including the facilitation of nuclear weapons proliferation. Zebroski has addressedthese problems in depth in section 3.2. of his paper. The interested reader is referred to this in-depthdiscussion of safety issues by a recognized international authority. Here it suffices to say that incidents,accidents and safety issues have related to non-nuclear components of nuclear reactors in general andFBRs in particular, and that all concerns will be adequately addressed with the successful design ofpassively safe nuclear reactors, which should be immune to the types of failures that occurred at Cherno-byl and at Three Mile Island.

3. DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO COMMERCIALIZATION

We are now at the threshold of large-scale commercial acceptance of FBRs within the next fewdecades in many countries, in order to meet the tremendous increase in energy demand anticipated forthe next century. The combined forces of a doubling of the world’s population and increasing per capitaenergy consumption to achieve economic growth will require a solution to the problem of providingan acceptable and abundant long-term energy supply.

FBRs are capable of generating the world’s electricity supply far into the future for tens of thousandsof years with currently available thorium resources, and perhaps for over a million years as newresources become usable reserves [1,2]. The current generation of thermal reactors (approximately

†Fax: + 1 619 534 5698; e-mail: msimnad@ames.ucsd.edu

523

524 M. Simnad

400 GWe) will deplete the economically acceptable nuclear fuel resources within a century. In FBRs,the burning of 1 kg of uranium gives 22–23 GWh whereas the burning of 1 kg of coal gives 7–8 kWh,i.e. an energy output which is lower by a factor of 3 million for the same mass.

In this journal issue, Rodriguez and Bhoje (India) re-emphasize the well-known fact that per capitaelectrical energy consumption is now recognized as the best index of the standard of living. They pointout that the total electricity generation capacity installed in India has steadily grown from approximately2 GWe in 1950 to 85 GWe in 1996, but this increase falls far short of what is required. The per capitaelectricity consumption in India is only 400 kWh/y or about one-seventh of the world average, and farbelow what obtains in developed countries. The immediate goal in India is to provide an electricitygeneration capacity of approximately 500 GWe, in order to increase the per capita electricity consump-tion to the world average. The combined uranium and thorium resources in India are adequate to providethe required energy if they are utilized in FBRs, as planned. The 50,000 mt of uranium resource inIndia has an energy content equivalent to 1× l09 mt of coal (mtce) in water-cooled thermal reactors,whereas the uranium plus the thorium resource (300,000 mt) in FBRs will have an energy content of1130 × l09 mtce.

FBRs are much less sensitive to fuel cost than water-cooled fission reactors and will have a muchgreater fuel resource base. Energy planners in many other countries have reached the same conclusionas the Indian authors regarding the importance of FBRs, including experts in France, Japan, Russia,Germany, and the UK, all of whom have extensive experience in the development and operation ofFBRs. Unfortunately, the US FBR program was delayed by the Carter Administration, except for theconstruction of the Fast Flux Test Facility in Richland, Washington State, USA, which achieved400 MWt full power in December 1980 and operated very successfully until 1995. Three decades ago,L. H. Roddis made the perceptive remark that “we would have a commercial breeder reactor today hadthe concept been given the same type of persistent and demanding attention that Admiral Rickovergave water reactors”.

Energy experts in large developing countries such as China are greatly interested in FBRs. FBRscan supply high temperature process heat as well as electricity. For example, the 1000 MWt BN-350FBR which is located on the shores of the Caspian Sea in Kazakhstan, has been supplying 150 MWeand also producing about 120,000 tons/day of desalinated water since 1972.

The unique characteristic of FBRs is their capability to create more fissile material than they consume.In FBRs, breeding is possible with neutrons having energies above approximately 0.1 Mev. Breedingmay be accomplished through either the U-235/Th-232 thermal or the fast-neutron cycles, as well asthe Pu-239/U-238 and Pu-239/Th-232 fast-neutron cycles. The isotopes U-233, U-235, Pu-239, andPu-241 are called fissile isotopes, whereas the much more abundant U-238 and Th-232 are called fertileisotopes. In order to achieve breeding, a fertile isotope (U-238, Th-232) is converted via neutron captureinto a fissile isotope (Pu-239 and U-241 from U-238, U-233 from Th-232, and U-235 by isotopicseparation from natural uranium).

The FBRs will increase fuel use to over 80% of the uranium employed, compared with approximately1% in present thermal reactors. The cost of uranium ore will not greatly affect the cost of power fromFBRs. The doubling time for the FBRs (i.e. the time necessary for the reactor to produce a surplusamount of fissile material equal to that required for its initial loading) is relatively short, about 8 years.The science, technology, and performances of FBRs are reviewed in the publications listed in theReferences [1–17].

Higher breeding ratios can be achieved by using mixed carbide fuel (UC-PuC), nitride fuel (UN-PuN) or metal alloy fuel (UPuZr), because these fuels have greater fissile and fertile material densitiesand higher average neutron energy than oxide fuel. Higher breeding gain and lower specific fissileinventory both result in lower doubling times. A factor of two reduction in doubling time will resultfrom an increase of the breeding ratio from 1.2 to 1.4. According to Waltar and Reynolds [3], it mayactually prove to be economical to renew the construction of light water reactors (LWRs) and hightemperature reactors (HTRs) to utilize the excess fissile material bred in FBRs, and to hold the FBRfraction of total electricity capacity at a constant level assuming that thermal reactors will have lowercapital costs. The U-233 bred from thorium FBR blankets will be the lowest cost fissile material foruse in these thermal reactors and will make them practically independent of the cost of uranium.

The history of fuel, cladding, and core structural materials development for the FBRs has been aseries of challenges to materials scientists and engineers to interpret the subtle, unexpected, and often

525Overview of fast breeder reactors

unsettling effects of irradiation damage before providing suitable solutions [4]. The major factors gov-erning the FBR fuel cycle performance are the specific inventory, average burnup, breeding ratio, anddoubling time. The high fuel inventory in the FBR core calls for close control of the cost factor in thedesign of the core. There has also been a strong incentive to shorten the cooling and reprocessing times.The FBR cores require five to six times higher fissile concentrations in the fuel (15–20%) than LWRfuels. The higher burnup possible in the FBR (over 20% burnup) helps to minimize the higher fabri-cation charges. Also, the power densities in the FBR cores are much higher (about four times) than inLWRs, thereby reducing the inventory charges. The FBR, with its high energy neutron spectrum, hasvery small reactivity changes due to fission-product poisoning, and the reactivity swings per cycle ofoperation are about one-quarter of those in LWRs.

Pu-containing fuels have been found to require special shielded facilities for fabrication. Neutronsare produced in Pu by spontaneous fission and by alpha-n reactions with oxygen in the oxide fuel.Also, gamma radiation is emitted from daughter products. In recycled or long-stored Pu, significantamounts of Am-241 are present, which emits gamma radiation.

In April 1969, a US Atomic Energy Report (WASH 1126) presented a cost–benefit analysis of theUS Breeder Reactor Program. The report concluded that “nuclear energy’s full promise for providinga virtually unlimited energy source for future generations could only be realized through the develop-ment and application of the breeder reactor.” Also, it stated that “the Joint Committee on Atomic Energyof the Congress of the United States has observed that the FBR Program Plan (10 volumes) [5] rep-resents one of the most carefully thought-out long-range development efforts ever pursued by the USGovernment”. The report also pointed out that the FBR would make efficient and economical use ofthe more than 200,000 tons of depleted uranium stored at the enrichment plants, would provide a pre-mium market for Pu produced by light water reactors, would give access to virtually limitless sourcesof low-cost electricity, and would result in the virtual elimination of air pollution from electric powerplants. These views were strongly supported by the utility industry, the Congressional Joint Committeeon Atomic Energy, and all of the major reactor manufacturers. Evidently, they were all well ahead oftheir time. Unfortunately, critical decisions were made within a decade to terminate the FBR and fuelreprocessing programs in the USA.

In the following section, I summarize the information on the history and status of advanced FBRs,presented in the first eight papers of this special issue from seven countries where FBRs have beenbuilt and operated, namely, the USA, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, Japan, and India.

4. OPTIONS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF FAST REACTORS

Zaleski and Zebroski have addressed the most important factors that will govern the future develop-ment of FBRs. These include decisions for determining the path of future developments, motivationsfor the goal of preserving the technical capability, factors in the changed economic role for FBRs,timing factors in the introduction of FBRs, reactor designs as influenced by the value of Pu, non-technical factors, options for international programs and their effectiveness, and the possibilities ofharmonizing the interests of participants. The authors point out that strategic and resource considerationsgenerally vary for different countries and regions. The most important factors include: security interests;sizes and types of fuel resources available or capable of development locally; level of concern overproliferation and environmental issues; public perceptions regarding safety and resource allocation andbudget issues; and the availability of development capabilities and infrastructure that can carry out along-term plan successfully.

FBRs are recognized as representing the most technically assured key to a major segment of theworld’s energy assets, unless other long-term assets such as solar or fusion achieve significant break-throughs. FBRs may achieve cost parity with LWRs in the time frame of 2020 to 2040, if a commitmentis made to develop and build a series of 30 reactors, preferably of the modular-type FBR designs,which can provide a closer match between investment schedules and power and revenue production.Zaleski and Zebroski emphasize the importance of diversification in fuel and energy sources.

World capacity of thermal reactors is projected to level off at 550 GWe by 2010 and then declineto approximately 400 GWe by the year 2030. With thermal reactors only, the lifetime consumption ofnatural uranium calculated for this case is approximately 4.6 million tons with no Pu recycle and 4million tons with widespread use of Pu recycle. Zaleski and Zebroski predict that with enhanced conver-

526 M. Simnad

sion ratios and FBRs of approximately 200 GWe capacity by the year 2015, the cumulative uraniumcommitment to the year 2030 drops to 2.8 million tons. The 1.8 million tons of uranium saved willhave a value of $360 billion at $100 per pound.

Zaleski and Zebroski conclude that the most likely of the technical options is an intermediate gener-ation of burner reactors. These reactors use most of the technology of FBRs. They can reduce the initialcapital investment requirements as well as eliminate the investment in fuel reprocessing and recyclefacilities. The benefits of such a policy are assessed in terms of strategic, economic, and environmentalconsiderations that are legitimate and essential elements of prudent national policies. The importanceof international programs in limiting proliferation concerns is linked to bilateral and multilateral agree-ments, plus the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), which can serve as part of a strength-ened safeguards system that is needed.

5. USA

Zebroski has provided a wide-ranging survey of the goals and options for FBR designs from 1948to 1993. He points out that FBR “developments in the USA have narrowed to two basic goals, namely,(a) inherently safe modular designs with passive cooling capability and minimum requirements forsafety grade equipment and (b) an integrated fuel cycle based on pyroprocessing and metal alloy fuelmaterial.” Key technical developments are discussed, along with dramatic changes in the availabilityof uranium and Pu supplies. These changes could lead to an economically driven development in whichPu fuel is extracted from decommissioned nuclear weapons, thereby providing security benefits as wellas usable economics. In addition, the important roles of public perceptions and federal regulations onthe status of nuclear energy in the USA are reviewed.

Zebroski points out that large-scale serial production and installation of commercially viable modularFBR plants could be available for regular commercial use in the time frame 2005 to 2015. This achieve-ment would meet the USA’s need for several hundred GW of new capacity plus replacement base-loadcapacity by the year 2010, when substantial increases may be expected in the costs of natural gas andoil. The modular FBRs are predicted to be capable of having very long refuelling intervals, possibly20 years. This long time window will eliminate the need for recycling the FBR fuel for many decadesand provide low fuel cycle costs.

The effects of public and governmental attitudes are addressed in terms of the overall acceptancelevel for nuclear power. The involvement of FBRs with Pu fuel and the breeding of Pu in its fuel cycleare of special concern to the anti-nuclear lobby. However, the licensing of the LWRs Seabrook in NewHampshire and Comanche Peak-2 in Pennsylvania, 2 and 3 years ago, are encouraging signs. Also,recent polls show a more favorable trend in the role of nuclear power in the future energy mix of theUSA, particularly with the growing concerns over greenhouse effects and air pollution from the combus-tion of fossil fuels. A favorable trend is also evident in the present US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,whose actions are considered to have become more thoughtful and measured in recent years. Currentefforts on FBRs in the USA are limited to basic research programs. Since the shut-down of the EBR-II and FFTF reactors, there are no FBRs operating in the USA.

6. FRANCE

Zaleski makes a strong case for building a significant number of FBRs by the year 2030, when thedepletion of rich uranium resources will result in a significant increase in the price of uranium for thecurrent generation of LWRs. There will then be a need to switch from LWRs to FBRs on a massivescale. It will be prudent to have many years of experience with prototype FBRs by the time the needarises for large-scale deployments of FBRs. This goal may be achieved by promoting near-term appli-cations of FBRs, namely, the CAPRA project (to burn Pu) and the CAPTURE concept (to store Pu).

In the CAPRA FBR program, fertile blankets are eliminated from the reactor cores. There are variousscenarios that can be explored for incorporating Pu into the fuel so as to achieve high burnup of thePu. These include the use of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, mixed nitride fuel, or even an advanced solutionbased on Pu fuel without uranium. The latter allows fuel consumptions of almost up to the theoreticallimit of 110 kg/TWh(e). Preliminary feasibility studies of the CAPRA project were completed in

527Overview of fast breeder reactors

December 1994. The second phase started in 1995 and consists of conceptual design studies of aEuropean fast reactor (EFR) with a CAPRA core. Preliminary studies indicate that a single FBR willburn the Pu from four or five LWRs, or even from 10 LWRs with a better optimized fuel system. Thesuccessful development of the CAPRA program will justify the construction of six to 12 fast neutronreactors when replacing the 60 pressurized water reactors (PWRs) in France, beginning in the year2015. This approach will not only eliminate the Pu produced in the PWRs in France but will also provideexperience in the construction and operation of FBRs before their deployment during the next century.

The CAPTURE concept involves the construction of a small series, eight to 10, of FBRs for burningPu (80–100 mt) from the Russian nuclear weapons complex. The Russian experience with the 600 MWeFBR BN-600 during the past 10 years has been excellent, with an average availability factor of 97.5%and capacity factor of 73%. This result ranks the BN-600 among the most efficient reactors in theworld. The Pu will in effect be stored in these reactors (800 MWe each), which are designed to haveno blankets in their cores and to have breeding ratios close to 1. The low specific power densities inthese reactors (approximately 10–15 kg Pu per MWe) will allow the design of cores with very long(10–20 years) fuel residence times. Hence, the dual functions of burning weapons grade Pu and generat-ing electricity will also increase operating experience with fast neutron power reactors and advanceFBR technology.

Zaleski rightly points out that Pu contributes a very substantial part of the energy produced in LWRs,where it is formed and burned in situ. In several countries, it is recovered through reprocessing ofLWR fuel and incorporated in MOX fuel. Zaleski provides a striking correlation between the energyrecoverable in LWRs from the world’s reasonably assured uranium resources, plus those recoverableat $130/kg, as compared with energy from the world’s oil resources. The LWRs will produce energyequivalent to 350 billion barrels (bbls) of oil, which represents one-third of the world’s proved oilreserves and one-thirtieth of the world’s coal reserves. FBRs are considered to be an essential technologyfor providing future generations with needed energy under environmentally acceptable conditions forFrance and for much of the world community.

7. WESTERN EUROPE

Crete presents a historical survey of the development, operational experience, and current status ofFBRs in Western Europe. He describes the five stages in the FBR program, namely, starting with thedevelopment of the basic science and technology in the 1950s and 1960s, operation of small prototypesin the 1960s and medium-sized prototypes in the 1960s and 1970s, and the operation since 1986 of alarge commercial prototype, namely, the 1200 MWe Superphe´nix reactor in France. The fifth phase,which called for the development and construction of large commercial FBRs, has been delayed.

In 1984, the goal of the Western European community (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and theUK) had been the design of the EFR, which may be scheduled for construction after the year 2010.The preliminary design of the reactor (completed in 1987) was based on the selection of 1500 MWeand 3600 MWt capacities. Particular importance has been attached in the design to provide passivesafety features in case of accidents. The EFR is designed to be significantly cheaper to build than theSuper-Phenix, with optimization of the components. Crete addresses the economics of the EFR in termsof key factors that govern electricity generation costs, namely, investment cost, operation and mainte-nance costs, fuel cycle cost, as well as plant life, availability, and the discount rate. Design studieshave been performed primarily in France since 1988. For a variety of reasons, this project is nowsupported by France, Germany and Belgium only, following recent withdrawals of support by the othercountries. Crete predicts that the inevitable depletion of rich uranium ores by the year 2020 will justifythe rapid and extensive use of FBRs as the only realistic source of energy for the long term.

8. RUSSIA

FBRs have been developed and operated safely and efficiently for over 30 years in Russia. Followingthe research and development work with small prototype units in the 1950s, the commercial FBRs BN-350 and BN-600 were built and have been operating very successfully for 24 and 17 years, respectively.The 350 MWe BN-350 is a dual-purpose reactor that supplies electricity and process heat for desali-

528 M. Simnad

nation of water from the Caspian Sea. Significant improvements in components and fuel elements haveincreased the reliability and efficiencies of these reactors during the past decade.

The modular steam-generator design of the BN-600 has been particularly effective in minimizingleaks. Advanced FBR designs include the use of passive emergency heat removal systems in the cores.These consist of four individual loops, each having a sodium/sodium heat exchanger built into thereactor vessel, a sodium/air heat exchanger, pipelines, air damper, and ventilation stack. The reactorcan be cooled by two channels without exceeding fuel rod damage limits.

The FBR programs in Russia have included the recent design of the advanced 800 MWE BN-800reactor. The Russian Government has approved the construction of four FBRs by 2010–2015, as wellas that of an HTR, 15 PWRs, and four district heating reactors, for a total addition of 16,500 MWe tothe nuclear power capacity.

The search for inherently safe designs of FBRs in Russia has led to some innovative proposals thatmerit special attention. The use of lead as the coolant reduces the risk of local void effects because ofits high density. Its high boiling temperature and heat-transfer properties allow a relatively open-spacedfuel lattice with unducted fuel assemblies. Up to 15% of the nominal power can be removed by naturalconvection. Its chemical stability and low activation under radiation are also important advantages. Fourconcepts of lead-cooled FBRs have been studied, fuelled with a heterogeneous core of oxide fuel andfertile carbide fuel (RB-EC 350 MWe) and also with nitride fuel (BRS-1000, BRS-300, and BREST-300). The results of long-duration corrosion tests in molten lead at 650°C indicate good compatibilitywith the fuel cladding and core structural materials after 4 years of exposure. The 300 MWe BREST-300 design shows the best inherent safety under accident conditions. These FBRs are claimed to becapable of burning their long-lived fission products and to achieve radiologically clean nuclear power.

9. UNITED KINGDOM

Judd and Ainsworth recount the history of the British FBR project, including the remarkable DFRand FBR reactors and the associated fuel cycle plants. Their paper summarizes the major technicalachievements in reactor technology, safety, fuel fabrication, fuel performance, and reprocessing. Inrecent years, British Nuclear Fuels plc. (BNFL) has taken over the directing and funding of the FBRproject in the UK, which has as its goal an optimized nuclear fuel cycle with attractive economics,high safety standards, and low impact on the environment. There has been collaboration with otherWestern European nations on EFR development activities.

The interest in FBRs in the UK started in the late 1940s with the realization that the breeding processcan make available an energy resource far greater than the world’s fossil fuel reserves. By 1954, thedecision was made to construct the small (60 MWt, 15 MWe) experimental Dounreay FBR in the Northof Scotland. In 1959, reactor operation was started, full operation was achieved in 1963 and the reactorwas shut down in 1977. This reactor served as a most productive test-bed that led to many importantadvances in FBR technology and MOX fuel. An especially important discovery was made in the DFRin 1966 relating to the phenomena of irradiation swelling and creep in stainless steel cladding. Thisobservation led to the development of advanced fuel and structural materials for FBR cores.

The 250 MWe prototype fast reactor (PFR) was designed and its construction was approved in 1966.This intermediate size FBR power prototype was large enough to allow demonstration of the maincomponents of the commercial station but small enough to keep expenses within acceptable limits.Criticality was achieved in 1974, but the construction time was stretched by difficulties in welding thelarge reactor roof and in making the tubeplate welds in the steam generators. There were also delaysto accommodate new information on neutron-induced swelling of the stainless steel cladding and corestructural components.

Most of the major problems and difficulties affected the conventional part of the plant. For example,small leaks in the evaporators led to the insertion, brazing and explosive welding of sleeves in the endsof all 3000 tubes, which proved to be a very effective solution. The reactor itself operated almostfaultlessly, with a stable and predictable performance. The irradiation distortion of the fuel assemblieswas minimized by rotating them periodically during their irradiation lives. Fuel burnup targets wereeventually increased to 20% with high nickel cladding. The very few fuel pin failures in the PFRbehaved in a very benign manner, so that operation of the reactor could continue until the next con-venient shutdown. A landmark achievement occurred in 1982, when the fuel cycle was closed for the

529Overview of fast breeder reactors

first time, as fuel assemblies made with Pu recovered from the reactor were delivered to the PFR forre-use.

Contributions made by the PFR included important studies on fast reactor safety. For example, itdemonstrated that radiation posed a very low hazard. It also demonstrated very convincingly that decayheat could be removed safely by natural convection of the primary sodium without excessive tempera-tures in the core, even in the event of complete failure of the coolant pumps. However, in 1994 theUK Government claimed that the technology had been proved and terminated support for the operationof the PFR. The newly privatized utilities were unable to justify it in commercial terms. The performanceof the PFR in its final year of operation was superb, with a load factor of 80%.

The UK contributions to the EFR program since 1984 are described in the context of PFR experience,as well as extensive work in the UK on the design of the commercial demonstration fast reactor (CDFR),a 1320 MWe FBR. The national FBR programs were merged in support of the EFR project. The designof the EFR was completed by 1994, and cost estimates showed that FBR costs fall within the rangeof projected costs of advanced PWR reactors. BNFL now participates in the EFR collaboration andalso collaborates in the CAPRA project. The authors conclude that “after the year 2050 or thereabouts,it seems clear that the main emphasis will be on breeders…. In the intervening period the role to beplayed by fast reactors is less clear. However, the UK with its advanced and profitable nuclear fuelcycle industry will be well placed to support the development of fast reactors to enable the system tofulfill its great potential.”

10. GERMANY

Koehler and Marth provide a historical overview of the German FBR program. They have surveyedthe basic research and technology programs, particularly the work done since 1960 at the KarlsruheNuclear Research Center. The construction and operation of the 20 MWe KNK reactor at Karlsruhe byINTERATOM, and the construction and termination for political reasons of the 300 MWe SNR-300built by a German–Belgian–Netherlands consortium are described. Reactor excursions in fast coreassemblies were studied in a classic series of experiments in the SEFOR fast reactor built by GeneralElectric in Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA, in cooperation with the USDOE. In addition, experiments werelater conducted at Cadarache, France, in cooperation with France and Japan to produce comprehensivesafety codes needed for licensing of the SN-300. Germany has also contributed to the FBR project.

The INTERATOM Company, now a division of Bergisch Gladbach, was responsible for the research,development and construction of the KNK-I and KNK-II prototype reactors in the 1960s. Much of theresearch and development on sodium technology and heat transfer research studies were performed ina 5 MWt facility. The KNK-I sodium-cooled reactor was a 20 MWe prototype reactor which used azirconium hydride moderator in the core. It was commissioned in 1966, completed in 1970, and wasrun at full power satisfactorily until 1974. The State of Baden-Wurttemberg issued a total of five partialconstruction permits and five partial operating permits accompanied by 650 conditions to be met! In1974 KNK-I was converted to KNK-II in order to operate it as a fast reactor by removing the moderatorand using mixed-oxide fuel. First criticality was achieved in late 1977 and power operations began ayear later. In the early 1980s a fuel element with 211 rods attained the remarkably high burnup of175,000 MWd/t and a number of rods achieved a burnup of l00,000 MWd/t. Spent fuel elements werereprocessed successfully into fresh fuel elements. KNK-II was shut down in August 1991, soon afterthe decision had been made to shut down SNR-300.

The 300 MWe SNR-300 was an international project between Germany, Belgium and The Nether-lands to build a FBR at Kalker, Germany. It was commissioned in 1966, but construction did not beginuntil 1973 because of delays caused by the licensing authority. Further delays occurred during construc-tion, such as the stoppage of work from 1978 to 1982 for political reasons involving a parliamentaryenquiry! Construction was completed in May 1985.

Unfortunately, the licensing procedure became the subject of lengthy litigations. The authors presenta scathing commentary on the political and legal impediments to the attempts to obtain the operatinglicence for this plant, including legal actions by the State against the Federal Government! The termkalkarization is now used to define obstructing under the guise of legality. In 1991, the Kalkar projectwas terminated, following the anti-nuclear political storm resulting from the Chernobyl accident, whichbrought an end to the licensing procedure and to the FBR programs in Germany.

530 M. Simnad

11. JAPAN

Kondo gives a detailed account of the activities of the various organizations in Japan involved infast reactor development. Work on FBRs began in 1966, leading to construction of the 100 MWt JOYOexperimental reactor, which went critical in April 1977. This was followed by the prototype 300 MWeMONJU FBR. Construction of MONJU started in 1985 and was completed in 1992. The operation ofthe reactor started in 1994. Future plans call for the development of two types of FBRs, namely, a600 MWe and a 1500 MWe FBR with special emphasis on passive safety design strategies. A largecommercial FBR is planned for operation by 2010. It is also predicted that Japan will have a significantfraction of its nuclear energy mix provided by FBRs by the end of the 21st century. Small and mediumsized FBRs are also to be developed for remote sites and to ease constraints on siting. The JapanAtomic Energy Commission’s view is that FBRs will be an essential element in future world energysupply systems. This is especially true for Japan, whose dependence on energy imports (83% in 1990)is the highest among major industrialized countries.

The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. (NC) started the operation of a prototypereprocessing plant for LWR spent fuel in 1977. The Pu from this plant has been used to build theMOX fuel fabrication capability to its present capacity of 5 tons (heavy metal) fuel per year for MONJU.A prototype reprocessing facility for FBR spent fuel is also available. Extensive tests have been carriedout in JOYO on irradiation effects on FBR fuels and structural materials. PNC has promoted inter-national cooperation in the field of FBR research and development. Kondo states that the developmentof international institutional means for assuring proper storage and utilization of plutonium may providethe most cost effective route to adequate safeguards.

12. INDIA

In a highly informative paper, Rodriguez and Bhoje review the current status of the FBR projectsin India and discuss the relevance and future growth of the ambitious FBR program in India. Theystress the fact that India’s huge growing needs for energy can be met primarily by coal and nuclearpower. In order to increase per capita electricity consumption to the world average level will requirean increase in electricity generation capacity from the present 85 GWe to 500 GWe, and an ultimategoal of 1000 GWe. The latter can be sustained for less than 40 years with the coal reserves. A fuelcycle based on utilization of the uranium (50,000 tons) and thorium (300,000 tons) resources in FBRswill sustain the 1000 GWe capacity for several centuries. The use of lower grade ores will extend thisto many tens of thousands of years.

H. J. Bhabha, the founder of the atomic energy program in India, outlined a three-stage program asearly as 1955. The strategy was to generate enough plutonium from thermal reactors to allow theproduction of the fissionable isotope U-233 from neutron irradiation of thorium. The U-233 is to beused with thorium in a FBR cycle. The construction of the 40 MWt, 13.2 MWe, fast breeder test reactor(FBTR) was started in 1974 in Kalpakkam and completed in 1984, with much of the components andthe fuel elements manufactured in India with know-how from France. A unique achievement was thedevelopment and fabrication of mixed carbide fuel, this being the first use of mixed carbide as thedriver fuel in a FBR. The development of high Pu fuel in India was in response to the inability toimport enriched uranium.

The FBTR is expected to supply electricity to the grid in 1997. The next step in the Indian FBRprogram is the design and development of the 1250 MWt, 500 MWe, pool-type prototype PFBR at theIndira Ghandi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam. The major laboratory activities carried outat this center include reactor engineering, materials development, radiometallurgy and non-destructiveexamination, radiochemistry, reprocessing development, health and safety, and safety research.

Commissioning of the PFBR is expected by the year 2010. Nuclear electricity generation in Indiais planned to reach a capacity of 20 GWe by 2020 A.D., of which 10 GWe will be generated by PHWRsand the rest from the LWR and the FBRs. Fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants are planned to belocated at the reactor sites.

531Overview of fast breeder reactors

REFERENCES

1. Cohen, B.,American Journal of Physics, 1983,51, 75.2. Cohen, B.,The Nuclear Energy Option. Plenum Press, New York, 1990.3. Waltar, A. E. and Reynolds, A. B.,Fast Breeder Reactors, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981.4. Simnad, M.,Fuel Element Experience in Nuclear Power Reactors. American Nuclear Society, La Grange

Park, Illinois, 1971, pp. 479–607.5. Seaborg, G. T. and Bloom, J. L.,Scientific American, 1970,223, 13.6. USAEC, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors, Program Plan. Report WASH-1107, 10 volumes. USAEC,

Washington, DC, 1969.7. INFCE Working Group 5,Fast Breeders. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.8. Judd, A. M.,Fast Breeder Reactors: An Engineering Introduction. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981.9. Ott, K. 0. and Spinrad, B.,Nuclear Energy: A Sensible Alternative. Plenum Press, New York, 1985.

10. Rhodes, R.,Nuclear Renewal. Viking Penguin, New York, 1993.11. Pederson, D. R. and Seidel, B. R.,Nuclear Safety, 1991,31, 443.12. Proceedings of the International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park,

Illinois, 1990.13. Proceedings of the Conference on Fast Reactor Core and Fuel Structural Behavior. British Nuclear Energy

Society, London, 1990.14. Wick, 0. J. (ed.),Plutonium Handbook. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1980.15. Proceedings of the International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles. American Nuclear

Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1991.16. Tang, Y. S., Coffield, R. D. and Markley, R. A.,Thermal Analysis of LMFBRs. American Nuclear Society,

La Grange Park, Illinois, 1978.17. Frost, B. R. T. (ed.), Nuclear materials. InMaterials Science and Technology, Vol. 10, ed. R. W. Cahn, P.

Haasen and E. J. Kramer. VCH Publishers, New York, 1994.