Future perspectives of nuclear power - AK

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES OF NUCLEAR POWER AS PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE. A REVIEW Aakash Kumar1 1

Department of Material Science and Metallurgical Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, aakki1431@gmail.com ABSTRACT This review work details the possibilities of nuclear energy of becoming the primary energy source to meet our demand in a sustainable manner. Economic conditions have always been the considering part before selecting any energy source to meet our ever demanding demands. Nuclear energy has been the most focused part of study in the early twentieth century when scientists began to realize the capability of the nuclear ene rgy. As the development proceeded, the nuclear power growth slowed and almost stopped in the late twentieth century for a variety of different reasons. Among them were the use of nuclear technology in weapons. The advancement in nuclear reactor design and construction has boosted the employment of nuclear energy as the prime substitute in the twenty-first century world. Use of electricity is increasing every second but the resources available for its production is limited so sustainable measures are required to meet this need. One of the most important aspect of using nuclear energy for meeting our needs is that it is found to be the lowest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions, even compared to solar energy and wind energy. Apart from electricity producti on, these nuclear power reactors can be used for the production of hydrogen on a large scale to reduce the load on fossil fuels as they are limited sources available on earth. In the coming century and beyond, nothing will be more important to human beings than electricity, clean water and food and nuclear energy will be the primary option to meet these demands. Though nuclear power creates a primary option in it, but it must meet very critical requirements in order to gain public and political support.

Keywords: Nuclear energy, electricity, sustainable, nuclear reactors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INTRODUCTION Scientific investigations in the 18th century led to the discovery of subatomic particles and both atomic and nuclear structure. These advancement in atomic research led to the introduction of fission reaction. In 19th century USA initiated “The Manhattan Project” to develop an atomic bomb to add the ultimate weapon to its weaponry arsenal. It was just an effort to become a superpower. This accelerated the knowledge of harnessing nuclear energy to produce enormous amount of energy. After the introduction of atomic bomb for mass destruction in World War II, the Atomic Energy Commission was established for controlling and regulating nuclear energy throughout the world. Later the International Atomic Energy Agency was established. Worldwide research and development efforts led to the establishment of the first nuclear power plant [1].

Economic factors have been considered above all other considerations when selecting an energy source for mass utilization. In the late 20th century the development and growth of nuclear energy was slowed for a variety of reasons. In countries like France, United States and Germany, nuclear energy grew rapidly during the 1970s. One of the most prime concerns being the continuous energy demands throughout the world problems confronting mankind is the continuing strong growth in energy demand throughout the world, which must be reconciled with environmental and climate change concerns [2]. But nuclear energy ran into problems in the 1970s because of public concern over the radioactive waste it generates, and this concern suppresse d the further expansion of nuclear power [3]. Besides electricity generation, power reactors can be utilized for large -scale desalination and hydrogen generation [4], [5]. Nuclear energy today avoids the emission of nearly two billion tons of greenhouse ga ses (GHGs) each year, thanks to over 400 reactors operating worldwide [6]. Recent price hikes in fossil fuels and power blackouts also emphasize our need for reliable, safe and cheap power, as is offered by nuclear energy when coupled with effective and secure waste disposal. A particularly important role for nuclear power in the future will be its links to the hydrogen economy [7]. The future could well be the Hydrogen Age. We show that a major reduction in IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

GHGs worldwide can be obtained by nuclear-electric production of hydrogen, thus alleviating their potential effects on future generations. We also demonstrate a potential key synergism with renewable wind power in the hybrid production of distributed hydrogen [8]. The interest is sparked by concerns about global warming and security of energy supplies. Nuclear energy contributes only about 14% of the world‟s electric energy mix today, and as electric energy contributes itself only about 16% to the end energy use, its contribution is essentially negligible [9]. Still, nuclear energy is plagued already with a long list of unsolved problems.

THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER For these reasons, interest in nuclear power around the world is suddenly burgeoning. All the usual indica tions are favourable: 1. Public opinion on nuclear power has shifted from negative or neutral to positive in many countries, as the public recognizes the elephants in the room and the limited options to deal with them.

2. New plants are under construction or on order in several countries.

3. Around the world, more „„predecisional‟‟ activities are underway, including reviews by governments of their nuclear policies, analyses by companies to determine if they want to build new nuclear power plants, and other prelicensing activities; 4. R&D efforts on advanced nuclear power plants and related technologies are increasing.

5. Number of international collaborative efforts, both on R&D and in other areas, has grown.

One of the most interesting phenomena has been the growth in the number of countries expressing interest in nuclear power or taking proactive steps toward the building of new nuclear power plants [12]. There are several distinct categories of countries now considering nuclear power or actively engaged in efforts to develop or increase nuclear power in their countries.

1. Countries, like Japan and France that have always had national policies supporting nuclear power and have continued to build nuclear power plants while interest in other countries stagnated. These countries have not changed their direction, but in some cases, their efforts have gained new vitality; one example is the recent decision in France to move forward with the construction of an EPR at Flamanville [13].

2. Countries, like the United States, where nuclear power development has been stagnant for many years. The passage of the Energy Policy Act in 2005 and other recent actions in the US have generated a significant increase of interest among utilities and other corporations in starting to build new nuclear power plants again, and many activities are now underway to explore new nuclear power plants [14].

3. Countries, like Turkey, that previously considered and rejected the idea of building nuclear power plants. While no decisions have been made to date, the interest in reopening such reviews, which were often controversial, is significant [15].

4. Countries, like Vietnam, that have not seriously explored the use of nuclear power in the past, have now announced their interest in doing so. The countries in the third and fourth categories include a number of countries with characteristics that are very different from the developed economies that have supported most of the world‟s nuclear power plants to date [16].

5. Even countries, like Sweden, that have official phase-out policies applicable to their operating reactors, may now be considering the possible re-examination of those policies. Once again, this suggests a growing willingness to reopen difficult and controversial decisions [17].

At present, it is difficult to provide a definitive list of all the countries contemplating new nuclear power, as some have not as yet made their intentions publicly known, and new countries continue to express their intere sts [18].

THE CHALLENGES FOR NUCLEAR POWER The challenges for nuclear power are fourfold: • Nuclear power must first of all be economically competitive; • Waste products from the nuclear fuel cycle must be manageable; • Public must have confidence in the safety of operating nu clear power plants and associated supporting facilities; • Weapon-usable materials must be properly managed and safeguarded to ensure that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons. I now elaborate on each of these challenges.

IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

Economics: Any power source must make sense in a competitive market. Nuclear power suffers from the fact that each plant built in this country was one of a kind, with only a few exceptions. Further, each one had to be of best possible construction to satisfy safety requirements, requirements which were continually being changed through the early years of development. The designs resulted in increased capital costs and very large staffing requirements, driving up the cost of electricity [19]. The cars of today are vastly superior in every respect, especially safety, to those that preceded them. They are a great value. The same must happen with nuclear power. Smaller, modular plants produced in factories are part of the answer [20]. Standardization of a few designs is another part o f the answer. Surprisingly, cheaper and simpler can also mean safer.

Waste management: Management of nuclear waste is an issue dominated by emotional considerations. There are many intense debate around the globe over employing interim storage instead of permanent burial. Transmutation of the waste, using reactors or accelerators is also being considered in most of the developing countries [21]. One thing is clear: burning less than 1% of the available fuel and discarding the rest, as we currently do, is b ound to create a waste problem [22]. To this end, many nations are considering means to recycle long -lived components of spent LWR fuel i.e., actinides into proliferation resistant reactors and fuel cycles that will fission those isotopes into short lived isotopes. We can expect other international initiatives to develop, such as deep -burn reactors and other concepts that more fully use the fuel without requiring recycling [23].

Safety: The enemy of safety is complexity. Our nuclear plants have become incre asingly complex, in part, ironically, because of the addition of many safety systems. Although it is often more expedient to engineer a safety fix with the addition of a new system, I think we need to return to the fundamental design of the reactor and take advantage of the inherent physics to ensure that it will respond safely [24]. Likewise, it is possible to design a reactor that will inherently decrease power after losing all electrical power, without requiring active safety systems [25]. There are reactors operating in many countries of the former Soviet Union that must be monitored carefully to avoid another accident on the scale of Chernobyl [26].

Proliferation of weapons material: A requirement for substantial growth of nuclear power is to prevent t he proliferation of material that could be diverted to use in nuclear weapons. This is probably the greatest fear of those in the US who strongly oppose nuclear power, especially its use in developing countries. It is such an emotional issue that there is talk about putting the genie back in the bottle, walking away from the technology [27]. The first step is to burn down, to destroy, and to eliminate the excess weapons material that we currently have available.

Reducing the inventories will greatly assist in managing the material that remains. Simply speaking, if the remaining material is locked away in reactor systems to be destroyed, it cannot be used for weapons [28]. And we need the monitoring systems to make any attempt at diversion obvio us to all [29].

REACTOR DESIGNS The nuclear fission reactor produces heat through a controlled nuclear chain reaction in a critical mass of fissile material. They are classified as follows: • Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) [30].

• Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) [31].

• Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) [32].

• High-Power Channel Reactor (RBMK) [33].

• Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) and Advanced Gas -Cooled Reactor (AGCR) [34].

• Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) [35].

• Aqueous Homogeneous Reactor [36].

Advanced reactor designs are under investigation and developmen t. Some of these reactors are: • The Integral Fast Reactor with a recycling spent fuel [37].

• The Pebble Bed Reactor, a High Temperature Gas -Cooled Reactor (HTGCR) [38].

• SSTAR, Small, Sealed, Transportable, Autonomous Reactor [39].

• The Clean and Environmentally Safe Advanced Reactor (CAESAR) [40].

• Subcritical reactors [41].

• Thorium-based reactors [42].

• Advanced Heavy Water Reactor [43].

• KAMINI, a unique reactor using Uranium-233 isotope for fuel [44].

IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

Theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently under research are: • Gas-cooled fast reactor: The gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) system is a nuclear reactor design which is currently in development. Classed as a Generation IV reactor, it features a fast-neutron spectrum and closed fuel cycle for efficient conversion of fertile uranium and management of actinides. The reference reactor design is a helium-cooled system operating with an outlet temperature of 850 °C using a direct Brayton closed-cycle gas turbine for high thermal efficiency [45].

• Lead cooled fast reactor: Molten lead or lead-bismuth eutectic can be used as the primary coolant in a nuclear reactor, because lead and bismuth have low neutron absorption and relatively low me lting points. Neutrons are slowed less by interaction with these heavy nuclei, (thus not being neutron moderators) and therefore help make this type of reactor a fast-neutron reactor. The coolant does however serve as a neutron reflector, returning some escaping neutrons to the core. [46].

• Molten salt reactor: A molten salt reactor (MSR) is a class of nuclear fission reactors in which the primary coolant, or even the fuel itself, is a molten salt mixture. MSRs run at higher temperatures than water-cooled reactors for higher thermodynamic efficiency, while staying at low vapor pressure [47].

• Sodium-cooled fast reactor: The sodium-cooled fast reactor or SFR is a Generation IV reactor project to design an advanced fast neutron reactor. It builds on two clos ely related existing projects, the LMFBR and the Integral Fast Reactor, with the objective of producing a fast-spectrum, sodium-cooled reactor. The reactors are intended for use in nuclear power plants to produce nuclear power from nuclear fuel. [48].

• Supercritical water reactor (SCWR): The supercritical water reactor (SCWR) is a Generation IV reactor concept that uses supercritical water (referring to the critical point of water, not the critical mass of the nuclear fuel) as the working fluid. SCWRs resemble light water reactors (LWRs) but operate at higher pressure and temperature, with a direct once-through cycle like a boiling water reactor (BWR), and the water always in a single, fluid state like the pressurized water reactor (PWR) [49].

• Very high temperature reactor: The very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR), or high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), is a Generation IV reactor concept that uses a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor with a oncethrough uranium fuel cycle. The VHTR is a type of high-temperature reactor (HTR) that can conceptually have an outlet temperature of 1000 °C. The reactor core can be either a "prismatic block" or a "pebble -bed" core. The high temperatures enable applications such as process heat or hydrogen production via t he thermochemical sulfur–iodine cycle. [50].

Other proposed ideas: The goal of these modifications is to achieve a higher power output requiring an excess reactivity of 4% at maximu m expansion of the bed.

• Kloosterman et al. (2001) presented a new type of nuclear reactor that consists of a graphite -walled tube partly filled with TRISO-coated fuel particles. Helium is used as a coolant that flows from bottom to top through the tube, thereby fluidizing the particle bed [51].

• Uchiyama et al. (2000) conceptually designed a multipurpose reactor named „„Nuclear Heat Generator (NHG)‟‟ which could be installed in an energy consuming area. The reactor of 1 MWt output is designed without any needs for fuel exchange and decommis sioning on site [52].

• Gimenez et al. (2003) presented a new methodology to perform nuclear reactor design, balancing safety and economics at the conceptual engineering stage. This integral methodology takes into account safety aspects in an optimization design process where the design variables are balanced in order to obtain a better figure of merit related with reactor economic performance [53].

• Jahshan and Kammash (2005) introduced material and design innovations to reduce the mass and volume of an established safe gas-cooled cermet reactor design so that it can be deployed as a multi-megawatt electric power source for plasma thrusters including the laser accelerated plasma propulsion system [54].

• Mitenkov et al. (2005) presented the results of des ign analysis for improving nuclear plants with fast reactors, specifically, by using cartridge-vessel generators instead of sectional-modular generators. Agung et al. (2006) described several modifications to the design of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor in order to improve its performance [55] [56].

IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES In this regard, it is useful to look at the number and range of multinational programs in place to deal with various nuclear issues. Even looking just at multinational (as opposed to bilateral), government -sponsored (as opposed to private sector) initiatives, at least six major programs can be mentioned. Five of them have started since the year 2000. Briefly, in order of initiation, the six are: • NEA Joint Projects: each of these research projects involves a group of countries that have a desire to work together in an area of research, and usually, to share a research facility located in one of the countries [57]. This obviates the need for each country to duplicate the same type of facility and allows the countries to take advantage of the expertise of all the members of that project [58]. There are over a dozen such projects underway at present, and the oldest of these is about 50 years old. The NEA serves as the Secretariat for these joint projects and helps coordinate the activities of each project. [59].

• Generation IV International Forum (GIF): This program, proposed by the US Department of Energy in 1999 and initiated in early 2000, is aimed at the joint development of a new generation of nuclear power reactors [60]. It includes countries with a significant commitment to nuclear power and to nuclear R&D. NEA serves as the Secretariat for GIF, and research efforts are beginning for several Generation IV design concepts [61].

• International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycle (INPRO): This project, proposed late in 2000 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), involves well over 20 countries representing the full spectrum of nuclear involvement, from active nuclear programs to none at all. Thus, most of INPRO‟s efforts to dat e have addressed decision-making methods and infrastructure needs especially useful for countries adopting nuclear power for the first time [62].

• World Nuclear University (WNU): WNU was inaugurated in 2005 with the first Summer Institute, a 6-week program for nuclear students and young professionals to help broaden their view of nuclear issues. The Summer Institute continued in 2006 and another is planned for 2007. Additional educational activities are anticipated in the future.

• Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP): This initiative was proposed in 2005 by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the purpose of coordinating reviews of new reactor designs. It consists of several phases. The first phase currently involves the US, France and Finlan d and is focused on the EPR. The second phase is a true multinational effort and was kicked off in 2006 with the selection of the NEA as the Secretariat and the identification of several pilot efforts to test the feasibility of working together on licensin g reviews.

CONCLUSION While there are still uncertainties ahead, it seems quite likely at this point that, in the near-term, new nuclear power plants will be built, both in countries that already have substantial nuclear programs and in new countries. Thus, the number of countries with nuclear power plants will increase, and since some of these countries have small grids and limited infrastructures, it is likely that smaller reactors will be used to meet some of these needs. In the near-term, nuclear power growth will likely be met by existing technologies and those technologies for which substantial development has already occurred. Nuclear power development will not be the only source of power to meet growing energy demands and growing concerns about glob al warming.

In the longer term, more advanced nuclear power plants, such as the Generation IV power plants, will likely be deployed. These will be able to meet a more diverse range of energy needs than the current generation of large, centralized electricity-generating power plants can meet. Possible applications include process heat for industrial applications, the generation of fuels such as hydrogen for transportation, and a variety of possible off-grid applications.

However, most experts still would regard such an eventuality as very long term and not assured. Thus, in the foreseeable future, the need for the development and deployment of more advanced versions of today's energy production technologies will continue, and all promising technologies should be pursued. It is likely that different technologies could be favoured in different circumstances. Globally, it appears that the world is likely to need substantial new contributions from all sources, particularly those capable of supplying significant a mounts of clean, low-carbon energy. Nuclear power is one of the most promising of these sources.

IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to thank the Dept. of Material Science and Metallurgical Engineering of MANIT Bhopal.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

[33] [34]

Raymond L. Murray, Keith E. Holbert, The history of nuclear energy Nuclear Energy, Volume null, Issue null, Pages 109-121.

Raymond L. Murray, The History of Nuclear Energy Nuclear Energy, Volume null, Issue null, Pages 217-228.

Brian F. Towler, The Future of Energy, Academic Press, 31-May-2014.

Yong Hun Jung, Yong Hoon Jeong, Jinyoung Choi, Andhika F. Wibisono, Jeong Ik Lee, Hee Cheon No, Desalination Volume 337, 17 March 2014, Pages 83–97.

Markus Wilde, Katsuyuki Fukutani, Surface Science Reports Volume 69, Issue 4, December 2014, Pages 196– 295.

Romney B. Duffey, Progress in Nuclear Energy Volume 47, Issues 1–4, 2005, Pages 535–543.

Gregor Taljana, Michael Fowlera, Claudio Cañizaresa, Gregor Verbičb, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 33, Issue 17, September 2008, Pages 4463–4475.

Azusa Okagawaa, Toshihiko Masuia, Osamu Akashia, Yasuaki Hijiokaa, Kenichi Matsumotoc, Mikiko Kainuma, Energy Economics Volume 34, Supplement 3, December 2012, Pages S391–S398.

G. Kessler, Progress in Nuclear Energy Volume 40, Issues 3–4, April–May 2002, Pages 309–325.

Ehrlich, P.E., Holdren, J.,1971. Impact of population growth. Science 171, 1212–1219.

Medlock, K.B., Soligo, R., 2001. Economic development and end -use energy demand. The Energy Journal 22 (2), 77–105.

Bob van der Zwaan, Energy Strategy Reviews Volume 1, Issue 4, May 2013, Pages 296–301.

Inkeri Ruuskaa, Tuomas Aholaa, Karlos Arttob, Giorgio Locatellic, Mauro Mancinic, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 29, Issue 6, August 2011, Pages 647–660.

Elizabeth Lokey, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 32, Issue 12, August 2007, Pages 1673– 1679.

Erkan Erdogdu, Energy Policy, Volume 35, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages 3061–3073.

Tien Minh Doa, Deepak Sharma, Energy Policy, Volume 39, Issue 10, October 2011, Pag es 5770–5777.

Lorenzo Di Luciaa, Karin Ericsson, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 4, December 2014, Pages 10– 20.

Anis Omri, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 38, October 2014, Pages 951–959.

H.-H. Rogner, Infrastructure and Methodologies for the Justification of Nuclear Power Programmes, A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, 2012, Pages 502–548.

Pedro Linaresa, Adela Conchado, Energy Economics, Volume 40, Supplement 1, December 2013, Pages S119– S125.

M.I. Ojovan, W.E. Lee, An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation (Second Edition) 2014, Pages 65–74.

T.M. Ahn, Radioactive Waste Management and Contaminated Site Clean -Up, Processes, Technologies and International Experience, A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, 2013, Pages 273–300.

B.L. Metcalfe, I.W. Donald, Processes, Technologies and International Experience, A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, 2013, Pages 775–800.

Sam Mannan, Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control, 2014, Pages 525–535.

Matthew S. Hodges , Charlotta E. Sanders, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 76, September 2014, Pages 88–99.

Yasuo Onishi, Procedia IUTAM, Volume 10, 2014, Pages 372–381.

Marvin Baker Schaffer, Energy Policy, Volume 60, September 2013, Pages 4–12.

Ian Hore-Lacy, Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century, 2007, Pages 127–138.

Chauncey Starr, Current Issues in Energy, A Selection of Papers, 1979, Pages 49–55.

Hejzlar, P., Kazimi, M.S., 2007. Annular fuel for high-power-density pressurized, water reactors : motivation and overview. Nuclear Technology 160 (1), 2–15.

Ortiz, J.J., Castillo, A., Montes, J.L., Perusquia, R., 2007. A new system to fuel loadingand control rod pattern optimization in boiling water reactors. Nuclear Science and Engineering 157 (2), 236–244.

Raina, V.K., Srivenkatesan, R., Khatri, D.C., Lahiri, D.K., 20 06. Critical facility for lattice physics experiments for the advanced heavy water Reactor and the 50 0 MWe pressurized heavy water reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 236 (7–8), 758–769.

Ilina, L.I., Nazaryan, V.G., Postnikov, V.V., Yurkin, G.V., 1989. Analysis of an algorithm for optimizing the power distribution in the core of a high-power channel, reactor. Soviet Atomic Energy 66 (3), 200–205.

Sub, S.Y., Young, P.R., Seyun, K., 2007. Development of a new decay heat removal system for a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. Annals of Nuclear Energy 34, (10), 803–812.

IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]

International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering Volume: 1 Issue: 2

e-ISSN: 2394-8299 p-ISSN: 2394-8280

[35] Katsuragawa, M., Kashihara, H., Akebi, M., 1993. Status of liquid -metal fast breeder reactor-fuel development

in Japan. Journal of Nuclear Materials 204, 14–22.

[36] Ehn, E., Tamberg, T., 1970. Degradation kinetics and critical concentration of peroxide (H2O2 þ u04) in fuel

[37] [38]

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

[56] [57] [58]

[59] [60] [61] [62]

solution of an aqueous -homogeneous nuclear reactor. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung Part A – Astrophysik Physik und Physikalische Chemie A 25 (11), 1670.

Hill, R.N., Wade, D.C., Liaw, J.R., et al., 1995. Physics studies of weapons plutonium disposition in the integral fast-reactor closed fuel-cycle. Nuclear Science and Engineering 121 (1), 17–31.

Koster, A., Matzie, R., Matzner, D., 20 04. Pebble-bed modular reactor: a generation IV high-temperature gascooled reactor. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A – Journal of Power and Energy 218 (A5), 309–318.

Koo, G.H., Sienicki, J.J., Moisseytsev, A., 2007. Preliminary structural evaluations of the STAR-LM reactor vessel and the support design. Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (8), 802–813.

Filippone, C., 1998. „„Nuclear Powered Steam Expansion Engine‟‟ and „„Nuclear Power Generators‟‟, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/076,917.

Salvatores, M., 20 02. The physics of transmutation in critical or subcritical reactors. Comptes Rendus Physique 3 (7–8), 999–1012.

Herring, J.S., MacDonald, P.E., Weaver, K.D., 2004. Thorium-based transmuter fuels or light water reactors.

Nuclear Technology 147 (1), 84–101.

Raina, V.K., Srivenkatesan, R., Khatri, D.C., Lahiri, D.K., 20 06. Critical facility for lattice physics experiments for the advanced heavy water Reactor and the 50 0 MWe pressurized heavy water reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (7–8), 758–769.

Usha, S., Ramanarayanan, R.R., Mohanakrishnan, P., Kapoor, R.P., 2006. Research reactor KAMINI. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (7–8), 872–880.

Van Rooijen, W.F.G., Kloosterman, J.L., van der Hagen, T.H.J.J., 20 05. Fuel design and core layout for a gas cooled fast reactor. Nuclear Technology 151 (3), 221–238.

Loewen, E.P., Tokuhiro, A .T., 2003. Status of research and development of the lead -alloy-cooled fast reactor.

Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 40 (8), 614–627.

Mitachi, K., Yamamoto, T., Yoshioka, R., 2007. Three-region core design for 200- MW(electric) molten-salt reactor with thorium–uranium fuel. Nuclear Technology 158 (3), 348–357.

Hishida, M., Kubo, S., Konomura, M., et al., 2007. Progress on the plant design concept of sodium-cooled fast reactor. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 44 (3), 303–308.

Hofmeister, J., Waata, C., Starflinger, J., Schulenberg, T., Laurien, E., 2007. Fuel assembly design study for a reactor with supercritical water. Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (14), 1513–1521.

Katanishi, S., Kunitomi, K., 2007. Safety evaluation on the depressurization accident in the gas turbine high temperature reactor (GTHTR300). Nuclear Engineering and Design 237 (12–13), 1372–1380.

Kloosterman, J.L., Golovko, V.V., Dam, V.H., Hagen, Hagen, T.H., 20 01. Conceptual design of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor. Nuclear Science and Engineering 139 (2), 118–137.

Uchiyama, Y., Ikemoto, I., Shimamura, K., Sasaki, M., 2000. Conceptual design of multi-purpose heat reactor „„nuclear heat generator‟‟. Progress in Nuclear Energy 37 (1–4), 277–282.

Gimenez, M., Grinblat, P., Schlamp, A., 2003. A cost-effective methodology to internalize nuclear safety in nuclear reactor conceptual design. Nuclear Engineering and Design 226 (3), 293–309.

Jahshan, S.N., Kammash, T., 2005. Multimegawatt nuclear reactor design for plasma propulsion systems.

Journal of Propulsion and Power 21 (3), 385–391.

Mitenkov, F.M., Averbakh, B.A., Vasil‟ev, B.A., Kamashev, B.M., Suknev, K.L., 2005. Optimization of the technical and economic performance indicators of nuclear power plants with fast reactors. Atomic Energy 98 (6), 375–383.

Agung, A., Lathouwers, D., Van Der Hagen, T.H.J.J., et al., 2006. On an improved design of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor – I: design modifications and steadystate features. Nuclear Technology 153 (2), 117–131.

H. Henrikssona, , , P. Batistonib, U. Fischerc, R. Forrestd, I. Kodelia, C. Nordborg, Fusion Engineerin g and Design Volume 82, Issues 15–24, October 2007, Pages 2430–2437.

K. Tuček, , H. Tsige-Tamirat, L. Ammirabile, A. Lázaro, A. Grah, J. Carlsson, Ch. Döderlein, M. Oettingen, M.A. Fütterer, E. D‟Agata, M. Laurie3, K. Turba4, C. Ohms, K.-F. Nilsson, P. Hähner, Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 265, December 2013, Pages 1181–1193.

Takeshi Takedaa, Hideaki Asakab, Hideo Nakamuraa, Annals of Nuclear Energy Volume 36, Issue 3, April 2009, Pages 386–392.

John E. Kelly, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 77, November 2014, Pages 240–246.

Luciano Cinottia, Craig F. Smithb, Hiroshi Sekimotoc, Luigi Mansanid, Marco Realed, James J. Sienickie Journal of Nuclear Materials Volume 415, Issue 3, 31 August 2011, Pages 245–253.

Orlando Joao Agostinho Goncalves Filho, Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 241, Issue 6, June 2011, Pages 2329–2338.

IJRISE| www.ijrise.org|editor@ijrise.org [38-44]