Safer nuclear fuels

Exploratory research on revolutionary new types of nuclear fuel pellets that would be safer in the event of a nuclear disaster has yielded promising results, according to a team of scientists from the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The scientists, who will present their work at the AVS 60th International Symposium and Exhibition in Long Beach, Calif. next week, investigated that could be used to encase uranium-bearing as an alternative to zirconium alloys, which have been used as the outer layer of nuclear fuel pellets for the last 50 years.

Using sophisticated computer analyses, the UT and ORNL team identified the positive impact of several possible materials that exhibit resistance to high-temperature oxidation and failure, on reactor core evolution, thereby buying more time to cope in the event of a nuclear accident.

"At this stage there are several very intriguing options that are being explored," said Steven J. Zinkle, the Governor's Chair in the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. There is evidence that some of the new materials would reduce the oxidation by at least two orders of magnitude.

"That would be a game-changer," he said. The materials that have been examined include advanced steels, coated molybdenum and nuclear-grade silicon carbide composites (SiC fibers embedded in a SiC matrix).

The next step, he added, involves building actual fuel pins from these laboratory-tested materials and exposing them to irradiation inside a fission reactor. Once it is established that they perform as desired, the new fuel concepts would likely be tested in a limited capacity in commercial reactors to then enable larger deployment possibilities.

Though it would take years before any new fuel concepts are widely used commercially, given the rigorous and conservative qualification steps required, Zinkle said, these new materials may eventually replace the existing zirconium alloy cladding if they prove to be safer.

Nuclear Safety, Post-Fukushima

The typical core of a nuclear plant uses the heat generated by fission of uranium and plutonium in fuel rods to heat and pressurize water. Steam is then generated that is utilized to drive steam turbines for electricity production. Water is continuously circulated as a coolant to harness the thermal energy from the fuel and to keep the core from overheating.

The cooling pumps are a critical part of the reactor design because even when a is shut down, the power it generates from radioactive decay of fission products remains at 1 percent of its peak for hours after shutdown. Given that plants generate a staggering sum of energy under their nominal operating conditions (~4 GW of thermal energy), even 1 percent power levels after shutdown prove substantial. That's why it's essential to have cool water circulating continuously even after the shutdown occurs. Otherwise you risk overheating and ultimately melting the core – like leaving a pot boiling on the burner.

That's basically what happened at Fukushima. On March 11, 2011, engineers at the plant managed to initially safely shut down the plant following a massive earthquake, but then a large tsunami knocked out the backup generators running the water pumps an hour later. What followed were explosions associated with hydrogen generated from the reduction of steam during high temperature oxidation of core materials, and releases of radioactive fission products. The accident displaced the local population and is expected to take years and require a significant cost to clean-up.

Fukushima has had a profound impact on the safety culture of the industry, said Zinkle. Despite the fact that not a single U.S. was found to be unsafe or shut down in the wake of the accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a number of new requirements to enhance their safety, including increasing the requirements for backup power generation on site (above and beyond the previously elevated requirements after 9/11/2001).

For instance, U.S. nuclear plants are now required to have enough onsite electrical battery capacity to keep their pumps going full tilt for 24 hours in the event of a total power failure. Prior to Fukushima, plants were only required to have 8 hours of battery power with additional portable power sources.

The events in Japan have also spurred new research into other ways of increasing safety, including the search for new ways to construct fuel pellets that could replace existing ones and survive longer in the case of a severe accident.

What Nuclear Fuel Looks Like

Nuclear fuel pellets are something like jawbreakers with a core made out of one kind of candy surrounded by layers of tougher candy. In most of the world's nuclear reactors, the center contains a brittle uranium blend, and the solid outside shell ("fuel cladding") is made of a metallic alloy containing the element zirconium.

Zirconium alloy was selected as the material of choice more than 50 years ago by the U.S. Navy because it has many desirable properties, such as low neutron absorption, which means that it does not interfere with the nuclear . It has become so reliable over the past decade that U.S. reactors typically run almost all the time and only shut down for a couple weeks once every two years or so to reshuffle and replace old fuel and for routine maintenance.

"It's a great technology and works well under normal operating conditions," Zinkle said.

But in the event the water pumps fail and the core overheats, this type of cladding is susceptible to oxidation and rupture, which can increase the burden on the safety systems for the nuclear reactor and push it over the cliff earlier. Changing the cladding may help make the fuel pins survive longer – a relatively straightforward fix, like retrofitting a classic car with modern airbags.

The major advantage of this approach is that it would allow nuclear plants to achieve greater safety without making major capital investments to modify the mechanical operations of the plant. It would only require operators to swap out the old for new ones when they shut down the plant for routine refueling, which they do every two years or so.

Explore further

New nuclear fuel-rod cladding could lead to safer power plants

More information: Presentation AC+AS+EN-TuA1, "Prospects for Accident Tolerant Fuels in Light Water Reactors," is at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013.
Citation: Safer nuclear fuels (2013, October 29) retrieved 18 July 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 29, 2013
The residual heat wouldn't be such a problem if the reactors were smaller and the powerplants more modular and more dispersed. That however is politically infeasible because it's a tough sell to have more reactors, even if they were safer.

Oct 30, 2013
Despite the fact that not a single U.S. nuclear power plant was found to be unsafe or shut down in the wake of the accident

That sounds weird - as if the US reactors somehow 'withstood' some sort of stress during the tsunami in Japan. That none of them have been found to be unsafe or had to be shut down since should be a matter of course when nothing unusual has been happening in all that time, shouldn't it?

It's only when (natural) disaster strikes that stuff goes wrong.

That however is politically infeasible

It's also economically unfeasible. Nuclear reactors are already, by far, the most expensive power source (if you add all hidden subsidies). The safety features and infrastructure needed per powerplant don't scale down with the size of the reactor itself. Smaller powerplants would rack up even more expenses per kWh produced.

Oct 31, 2013
It's also economically unfeasible.

Only because it's politically decided so. Any industry that can secure maybe one permit to build per decade has to build big and expensive to make any profit.

There's very little market for new reactors, so, each new reactor is a custom made individual like cars in the late 19th century. With each powerplant they're starting from scratch and re-designing and re-engineering the whole thing.

(if you add all hidden subsidies)

Oh, right, like the waste disposal "subsidy" that is also a political decision to not permit the re-processing of fuel.

The safety features and infrastructure needed per powerplant don't scale down with the size of the reactor itself.

I would argue that they do. You don't need e.g. a core catcher underneath the reactor when the core is too small to melt its way out of the reactor - nor do you need double triple quadruple redundant cooling systems to prevent such a disaster because it can't happen.

Oct 31, 2013
It's also economically unfeasible.

Only because it's politically decided so

If you look at the subsidies nuclear is getting that's absurd. In the first years they got 70 cent per kWh in susbisides - not even counting waste management. (For comparison: renewables don't even get a tenth of that)

A 'political decision' would just be "make it artificially cheap" - via taxpayer money (read subsidies). The permits aren't the things that up the price (and economy of scale doesn't lower it - as there are only half a dozen companies woprldwide that can even build nuclear reactors)

not permit the re-processing of fuel.

Reprocessing is done in various countries: and it's not inexpensive(but not included in the 'official' EUR/kWh cost). Waste for long term storage remains in any case. It's not only the fuel that is radioactive waste (by volume thats FAR the smallest part)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more