Advertisement

Atomic Energy

, Volume 92, Issue 5, pp 373–380 | Cite as

Characteristics of Two-Reactor Electronuclear Systems

  • S. A. Bznuni
  • V. M. Zhamkochyan
  • A. G. Khudaverdyan
  • V. S. Barashenkov
  • A. N. Sosnin
  • A. Polyanski
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

The Monte Carlo method is used to simulate electronuclear systems consisting of two-cascade subcritical zones: a liquid-metal fast reactor, which is used as a booster, and a thermal reactor, where most of the energy is released. Reactors of the type VVÉR-1000, MSBR-1000, and CANDU-6 are considered. The systems considered, functioning in the safe regime (keff = 0.94–0.98), possess much higher maximum power in the entire range of keff than similar systems without an intermediate fast booster reactor. At the same time, for high thermal neutron flux and with both fast and thermal zones present nuclear wastes can be efficiently transmuted in them, decreasing the required proton current in the beam by approximately a factor of 10. This is especially important when the liquid-salt thermal breeding reactors are considered as the basic electricity producing zone.

Keywords

Monte Carlo Method Maximum Power Neutron Flux Thermal Neutron Fast Reactor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Proceedings of International Conference AccApp/ADTTA'01, November 12- 15, 2001, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems, September 20, 2000, Petten.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. A. Bznuni, V. S. Barashenkov, V. M. Zhamkochyan, et al., “Monte Carlo simulation of the parameters of a subcritical cascade reactor based on liquid-salt and liquid-metal technologies,” Preprint R2-2001-124, Joint Institute of Nuclear Research (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Borst, “The convergatron, a neutron amplifier,” Phys. Rev., 107, No. 3, 905–906 (1957).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Avery, “Theory of coupled reactors,” in: 2nd Geneva Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (1959), Vol. 3, pp. 321–340.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. G. Dubovskii, “Sectioned reactor systems,” At. Énerg., 7, No. 5, 456–457 (1959).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. F. Kolesov, “Designs of two-section boosters containing 237Np,” ibid., 84, No. 4, 344–353 (1998).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. N. Alekseev, V. V. Ignat'ev, O. E. Kolyaskin, et al., “Cascade subcritical enhanced-safety reactor,” ibid., 79, No. 5, 327–337 (1995).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. A. Bznuni, V. M. Zhamkochyan, and A. G. Khudaverdyan, “Parameters of accelerator-controlled two-reactor systems,” ibid., 88, No. 4, 316–319 (2000).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. A. Bzznuni, V. S. Barashenkov, V. M. Zhamkochyan, et al., “Monte Carlo simulation of electronuclear processes in a cascade subcritical reactor,” Preprint R2-2000/137, Joint Institute of Nuclear Research (2000).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. F. Gromov, Ju. I. Orlov, and V. A. Gylevskiy, “Physicochemical properties of Pb- Bi eutectic used as coolant for liquid metal targets,” in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ADT'A, June 3- 7, 1996, Kalmar, Sweden, Vol. 2, pp. 912–916.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. F. Gromov, Yu. I. Orlov, G. I. Toshinskii, and V. V. Chekunov, “Nuclear power system with lead- bismuth coolant,” At. Énerg., 81, No. 5, 340–347 (1996).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. V. Beznosov, K. B. Veshnyakov, and V. E. Serov, “Basic concepts of the liquid-metal target loop in accelerator-controlled reactors,” ibid., No. 3, 202–206.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Williams, G. Del Cul, and L. Toth, “Molten salt fuel cycle requirements for ADTT applications,” in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on ADTT'A, June 7- 11, 1999, Praha.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. A. Dement'ev, Nuclear Power Reactors, Énergoatomizdat, Moscow (1996).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Pivovarov, “Advanced light water reactors (PWR, BWR) and heavy water reactors core concepts and some aspects of core physics calculations,” Preprint ICTP H4.SMR/1056-31 (1998).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. V. Ignatiev, P. N. Alekseev, L. Menshikov, et al., “Molten salt technology for long-range and wide-scale nuclear energy system,” in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ADTT'A, June 3- 7, 1996, Kalmar, Sweden, Vol. 1, pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Baestle amd Ch. De Raedt, “Comparative assessment of actinide and risk-reduction strategies for P&T versus direct disposal,” in: Proceedings of the Global'95 Conference, 1995, Vol. 1, pp. 149–157.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Venneri, M. Williamson, and L. Ning, “The Los Alamos accelerator-driven transmutation (ATW) of nuclear waste concept development of the ATW target/blanket system,” in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ADTT'A, June 3- 7, 1996, Kalmar, Sweden, Vol. 2, pp. 759–782.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. S. Barashenkov, “Monte Carlo simulation of ionization and nuclear processes initiated by hadron and ion beams in media,” Comp. Phys. Comm., 126, 28–31 (2000).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. S. Barashenkov, W. Gudowski, and A. Polanski, “Integral high-energy nucleon- nucleus cross sections for mathematical experiments with electronuclear facilities,” in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on ADTT'A, June 7- 11, 1999, Praha.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. S. Barashenkov, A. S. Il'inov, N. M. Sobolevskii, and V. D. Toneev, “Interaction of particles and high and ultrahigh energy nuclei with nuclei,” Usp. Fiz. Nauk, 109, 91–137 (1973).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. P. Abagyan, N. O. Bazazyants, M. N. Nikolaev, and A. M. Tsibulya, Group Constants for Calculation of Nuclear Reactors, Atomizdat, Moscow (1981).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu. Briesmeister, “A general Monte Carlo N-particle transport code,” Report LA-12625-M, March 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Bowman, “Sustained nuclear energy without weapons or reprocessing using accelerator-driven systems,” in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on ADTT'A, June 7- 11, 1999, Praha.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Mandrillon, N. Fietier, and C. Rubbia, “A high intensity cyclotron complex for driving the energy amplifier,” in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ADTT'A, June 3- 7, 1996, Kalmar, Sweden,Vol. 2, pp. 984–994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. P. Murin, G. I. Baatskikh, V. M. Belugin, et al., “Superconducting devices used in high current linear proton accelerators for energy purposes,” ibid., pp. 1047–1055.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. A. Tumanyan and A. G. Khudaverdyan, “Medium power accelerator-controlled subcritical nuclear reactor,” At. Énerg., 79, No. 1, 74–76 (1995).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Andriamonje, S. Angelopoulos, A. Apostolsakis, et al., “Experimental determination of energy generated in nuclear cascades by a high energy beam,” Phys. Lett., B 348, 697–709 (1995).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu. M. Ado, D. V. Gorbatkov, V. P. Kryuchkov, and V. N. Lebedev, “Some advantages and disadvantages of electronuclear reactor based on a two-section blanket,” in: 8th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems, ICENES'96, Obninsk, June 24- 28, 1996, Vol. 2, pp. 587–590.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Bznuni
    • 1
  • V. M. Zhamkochyan
    • 1
  • A. G. Khudaverdyan
    • 1
  • V. S. Barashenkov
    • 2
  • A. N. Sosnin
    • 2
  • A. Polyanski
    • 3
  1. 1.Erevan State UniversityArmenia
  2. 2.Joint Institute of Nuclear ResearchRussia
  3. 3.Institute for Nuclear ProblemsPoland

Personalised recommendations