Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Challenges in the development of high temperature reactors

Piyush Sabharwall ⇑, Shannon M. Bragg-Sitton, Carl Stoots
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3860, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Advanced reactor designs offer potentially significant improvements over currently operating light water
Available online 27 May 2013 reactors including improved fuel utilization, increased efficiency, higher temperature operation (enabling
a new suite of non-electric industrial process heat applications), and increased safety. As with most tech-
Keywords: nologies, these potential performance improvements come with a variety of challenges to bringing
Molten salt advanced designs to the marketplace. There are technical challenges in material selection and thermal
Advanced High Temperature Reactor hydraulic and power conversion design that arise particularly for higher temperature, long life operation
(AHTR)
(possibly >60 years). The process of licensing a new reactor design is also daunting, requiring significant
Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
data collection for model verification and validation to provide confidence in safety margins associated
with operating a new reactor design under normal and off-normal conditions. This paper focuses on
the key technical challenges associated with two proposed advanced reactor concepts: the helium gas
cooled Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) and the molten salt cooled Advanced High Temperature
Reactor (AHTR).
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction uncertainties also remain in regards to the manufacturability of

Nuclear reactors have been developed and operated since the
1950s, and the next generation is currently being developed, dem-
onstrating the technical and industrial vitality of nuclear energy. In
2000, the US Department of Energy convened the Generation IV
International Forum (GIF), which is one of the primary interna-
tional frameworks for the development of future nuclear systems.
The six systems selected for further study include: sodium-cooled
fast reactor, lead-cooled fast reactor, supercritical water-cooled
reactor, very high temperature gas-cooled reactor, gas-cooled fast
reactor, and molten salt reactor.
The next generation advanced nuclear reactors will likely have
an outlet temperature of about 700–850 °C for the first of a kind,
further increased to 900–1000 °C for the nth of a kind. These reac-
tors will not only produce electricity; they will also provide pro-
cess heat for applications such as hydrogen production and coal
gasification, thus contributing to enlarge the range of applications
of nuclear energy.
High Temperature Advanced Reactors are envisioned mostly to
use either low enriched uranium (LEU) or transuranics (TRU)
recovered from used nuclear fuel. Adoption of an LEU design would
require enrichment >5% that is not currently commercially avail-
able in the US and would reduce resource utilization. Many
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 3860, Idaho
Falls, ID 83415-38608, USA. Tel.: +1 208 526 6494; fax: +1 208 526 9683.
E-mail address: Piyush.Sabharwall@inl.gov (P. Sabharwall).
TRISO fuels with TRU.
This paper discusses some of the proposed advanced reactor
concepts currently being researched to varying degrees in the Uni-
ted States and highlights some of the major challenges these con-
cepts must overcome to establish their feasibility and develop a
licensing framework. Primarily, this study focuses on the molten
salt-cooled reactor (AHTR – Advanced High Temperature Reactor)
and gas-cooled reactor (VHTR – Very High Temperature Reactor).
2. Advanced reactor concepts
Advanced reactor development under the GIF seeks to achieve:
(1) sustainability via optimal resource utilization and waste mini-
mization; (2) economic viability by establishing clear life cycle cost
advantages and comparable financial risk relative to other energy
sources; (3) safety and reliability through passive and inherent
safety systems that minimize the likelihood for core damage and
eliminate the need for offsite emergency response; and (4) high
proliferation resistance.
Several advanced reactor concepts specifically focus on closing
the fuel cycle, requiring the development and use of advanced fuels
that would maximize fuel use while minimizing waste and used
fuel disposal needs. Several concepts are designed for transmuta-
tion of fertile transuranics, such that they may be used for deep
burn. This capability would provide profound benefits by better
utilizing uranium resources and reducing long-term proliferation
risk and storage requirements for highly radioactive nuclear
materials.

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.02.021
 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581
While the proposed advanced concepts offer a variety of bene-
fits, they also have various challenges to licensing and eventual
deployment. One challenge shared by many concepts is the need
for high temperature, corrosion resistant nuclear fuels and struc-
tural materials. Demonstrated safety under off-normal transient
conditions must also be accomplished. This paper only briefly ad-
dresses a few of the proposed concepts. Additional information
can be found at the GIF website [1].
For advanced reactor concepts, the following design features are
generally considered important for achieving high margins of
safety relative to currently operating commercial reactors [2]:
 Highly reliable and less complex shutdown and decay heat
removal system.
 Longer time constant.
 Simplified safety system.
 Minimization of potential for severe accidents and their
consequences.
 Reduced radioactive exposure to plant personnel in the normal/
abnormal conditions.
 Multiple barriers against radiation release and reduced poten-
tial for severe accident consequences.
 Negative temperature coefficient.
 Passive decay heat removal system independent of coolant.
 Inherent passive safety system.
 Insensitivity to incorrect operator action.
For the advanced concepts new analytical tools have to be
developed that will reduce uncertainties and improve the capabil-
ity of understanding the behavior and operating margins of the
plant. Review of data from past national/international facilities
operations (such as loops, separate effects tests, integral testing,
and reactors) is required to determine areas of limited knowledge.
Key experiments must then be designed for development and val-
idation purposes to fill those gaps in the database and to reduce
modeling uncertainties. Current knowledge and modeling capabil-
ities can address most of the challenges mentioned in this study,
but more experimental facilities are needed to generate validation
data, to enhance operational knowledge, and to clarify key con-
cepts to satisfy the performance metrics needed for licensing.
Several advanced, often high temperature, reactor concepts
have been proposed. Many of the currently investigated concepts
are not new, but have been investigated to some extent since the
early days of reactor design. The AHTR and the VHTR concepts will
be described in further detail in the following sections.
The fundamental challenge for next generation advanced reac-
tor concepts is to achieve significant advancement in nuclear tech-
nology while setting the stage for an economically viable
deployment of the new technology in the commercial sector which
would enhance public–private partnerships.
2.1. Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
The Very High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor is a helium-
cooled, graphite moderated, thermal neutron spectrum reactor
that would operate at approximately 7 MPa and a reactor outlet
temperature (ROT) of 750 °C for the first of a kind, increasing to
approximately 900–950 °C for the nth of a kind reactor. A sche-
matic diagram of the VHTR, including the Steam Generator (SG)
or Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX), is shown in Fig. 1 for a
non-electric application in which the heat from nuclear fission is
used to drive an industrial process. The high temperature
gas-cooled reactor technology is established by eight previously
constructed reactors that vary in size, outlet temperature, primary
fluid, and purpose [2]: Dragon (Prismatic Reactor; United
Kingdom), Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR; Pebble
575
Bed Reactor; Germany), Thorium Hochtemperatur Reaktor (THTR;
Pebble Bed Reactor; Germany), High Temperature Test Reactor
(HTTR; Prismatic Reactor; Japan), High Temperature Reactor-10
(HTR-10; Pebble Bed Reactor; People’s Republic of China), Peach
Bottom 1 (Prismatic Reactor; United States), and Fort St. Vrain
(FSV; Prismatic Reactor; United States).
Two reactor design concepts are being studied for VHTRs: the
prismatic reactor and the pebble bed reactor. The prismatic reactor
has cylindrical fuel compacts stacked inside channels that are
drilled into hexagonal graphite blocks. The fuel blocks are stacked
firmly against each other in columns that form an annulus between
an inner reflector and an outer reflector, both of which consist of
rings of unfueled graphite blocks. The annular core configuration
ensures inherent safety (annular core design improves conduction
of decay heat to the reactor vessel for passive heat removal) under
all accident and transient conditions. During transients, the graph-
ite reflector mass acts as an important temporal heat sink and stor-
age device to maintain fuel temperatures below the peak fuel
limiting values (1600 °C) that may damage the fuel [2]. Despite
its larger physical size, a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactor
is smaller neutronically (i.e., optically thin core) than a light water
reactor (LWR) for the same power level; hence, it is more stable
against xenon-induced power oscillations.
The pebble bed reactor design consists of an annular vat filled
with fuel spheres or pebbles that are dropped in at the top of the
vat and removed at the bottom. Continuous online refueling re-
duces the required shut-down frequency and allows operation
with very little excess reactivity. Helium coolant is blown through
the interstitial void that makes up about 39% of the pebble bed vol-
ume [3]. There is no direct coolant reactivity feedback (just moder-
ator, fuel, and reflector). The pebble design feature tailored to the
specific reactor is the moderator-to-fuel ratio, which is adjusted
by changing the Tristructural isotropic (TRISO) particles packing
factor.
Both prismatic and pebble bed versions of the VHTR possess the
same general functionality and bulk design. TRISO fuel particles (as
shown in Fig. 2) are embedded in a graphite matrix to form fuel
elements that occupy a tall annular or cylindrical region inside
the vessel and are surrounded by graphite reflector blocks. They
are more robust fuel forms that can survive extreme high temper-
atures and allows operation to higher burnup compared to conven-
tional reactor fuels. In the past, German TRISO fuel has
demonstrated much better performance than US fuel, but recent
fuel development efforts under the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP) program have developed TRISO fuel that performs as well
as German fuel and has twice the burnup (19% FIMA) [6]. Helium is
circulated through cooling pathways in the core to carry off the fis-
sion energy to be converted into the desired energy product. The
behavior of materials, neutronics, and thermal fluids is largely
the same and can thus be addressed with the same general model-
ing approach. However, key differences exist in the fuel geometry,
requiring different heat transfer correlations, fuel management
techniques, and other modeling assumptions that prohibit a pris-
matic core simulator from being used to model a pebble bed core
and vice versa.
2.2. Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR)
The advanced high temperature reactor is part of the fluoride-
salt-cooled high temperature reactor (FHR) class of nuclear reactors
included in the advanced reactor concept program. AHTRs operate at
atmospheric pressure, produce high outlet temperatures (704 °C)
using coated particle fuel (TRISO particles, as discussed in Sec-
tion 2.1) and can potentially improve upon the attributes of other
reactors. An AHTR reactor core consists of coated particle fuel
embedded within graphite fuel elements. Graphite reflectors
576 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581

Fig. 1. Schematic of very high temperature gas-cooled reactor system.

Fig. 2. Schematic of TRISO fuel for pebble bed and prismatic reactor for VHTR [4,5].

provide additional moderation and core structure. Heat removed
from the reactor is transferred to an intermediate salt that, in turn,
is transferred to a tertiary side for power production and/or process
heat applications [7]. The first FHR is still in the early development
stage, but may, of necessity, be a test-scale reactor sized about the
same as the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) in order to val-
idate the system attributes before proceeding to larger-scale sys-
tems [7]. Thus far, FHR analyses have focused mainly on power
production, but, like the VHTR, the AHTR designers are looking into
process heat applications, making them more attractive to industry.
The primary mission for the AHTR is the generation of low-cost
electricity while maintaining full passive safety [7]. Necessary
knowledge for the operation of AHTRs has been gained by the fol-
lowing related research and operational experience [8]:
 Molten salt reactors (MSR) have provided data about appropri-
ate materials, procedures, and components necessary to use
high-heat capacity liquid fluoride salts as primary or secondary
coolants.
 Liquid metal reactors have provided design experience in using
low-pressure liquid coolants, passive decay heat removal, and
hot refueling.
 High temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) have provided
experience with coated particle fuel and graphite components.
 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581 577

 LWRs have shown the potential of transparent, high-heat capac- provides physical separation between the energetic power cycle
ity coolants with low chemical reactivity. processes and the reactor systems [7]. Previous analysis [10] of
 Modern coal-fired power plants have provided design experi- the power conversion system to produce electricity showed that
ence with advanced supercritical-water power cycles. the Rankine subcritical and supercritical cycle with a turbine inlet
temperature of 679 °C (based on a reactor outlet temperature of
The AHTR, which provides high-temperature heat to increase 704 °C) can yield a conversion efficiency of 42% and 44%, respec-
thermal efficiency for power production and process heat applica- tively, with KF-ZrF4 as the secondary salt coolant. The heat
tions, could be scaled to higher thermal power to improve the sys- exchangers are considered key components that need to be exten-
tem economics while still meeting or exceeding the safety sively investigated because they are operated in a severe environ-
performance of other advanced reactor concepts [9]. The AHTR de- ment and their performance is directly related to the overall
sign attributes that promote favorable economics are also summa- system efficiency and safety.
rized in Table 1.
Pebble bed, prismatic, and plate fuel type reactor designs are 2.3. Technical challenges
being considered for an AHTR; all of these designs utilize the TRISO
fuel particles but modify the fuel matrix and configuration. Plate Key technologies for innovative nuclear systems, such as VHTR
fuel requires additional research because of the minimal pressure and AHTR, present various challenges. In this study the main focus
drop advantage of pebble bed cores. A conceptual drawing of a was given to four specific categories:
pebble bed AHTR proposed by the University of California at Berke-
ley is shown in Fig. 3. 1. Material challenges.
Current design efforts focus on maximizing the system’s eco- 2. Thermal hydraulic challenges.
nomic performance by employing modular, open-top construction 3. Computational and modeling challenges.
to minimize cost, and on maintaining full passive safety during se- 4. Power conversion and process heat application challenges.
vere environmental challenges [7]. The primary loop reference salt
for AHTR is currently Li2BeF4, referred to as FLiBe. Key concerns
that still exist with FLiBe as a coolant are: 2.3.1. Material challenges
Materials selected for use in reactor designs should exhibit
1. Requirement to enrich Li to 99.995% Li-7 and the absence of dimensional stability under irradiation, whether under stress (irra-
such infrastructure. diation creep or relaxation) or without stress (swelling growth);
2. Tritium generation in the coolant. exhibit acceptable evolution of the mechanical properties over
3. Beryllium handling requirements. the reactor lifetime; and exhibit good behavior in corrosive envi-
ronments (reactor primary coolant or process fluid) as explained
Heat in an AHTR is transferred from the reactor core by the pri- by Yvon and Carre [11]. These requirements have to be met under
mary liquid-salt coolant to an intermediate heat-transfer loop normal and postulated accident, which is the biggest challenge for
through IHXs. The intermediate heat-transfer loop uses an inter- the development and operation of reactors at higher temperatures.
mediate liquid-salt coolant through a secondary heat exchanger The specifications of advanced/innovative reactor systems make
(SHX) to move the heat to a power conversion system (such as the requirements much more demanding than for currently oper-
Rankine cycle) as shown in Fig. 4. Industrial process applications ating commercial reactors. The toughest challenge is the life expec-
would pull heat from the intermediate loop. The intermediate loop tancy, which has been extended to 60 years for many of the
reduces the required volume of expensive primary coolant salt and currently operating LWRs via license extensions. To meet the strin-
gent specifications, existing commercial materials or materials un-
der development have to be characterized and qualified under the
Table 1 intended operating conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure, radia-
AHTR design attributes [9]. tion, with coolant flow, etc.). The key material challenges are sum-
AHTR attribute Phenomenological Cost implications marized as follows.
impact(s)
High primary Low fluid pumping Compact coolant and heat 2.3.1.1. Characterization of structural materials. AHTR and VHTR de-
coolant requirements transport loops (small pipes,
signs consider a number of structural materials, such as graphite,
volumetric pumps, heat exchangers)
heat capacity nickel-based alloys, and ceramics. Experimental irradiations must
Near constant be carried out for a wide range of structural materials to study
temperature energy microstructural and dimensional evolution and material behavior
transport under stress, as explained by Yvon and Carre [11]. Data on long
Low primary Low probability of pipe Thin-walled reactor vessel and
term aging effects on the mechanical properties need to be gener-
system break/loss of cooling piping
pressure accident (LOCA) ated to ensure adequate performance of the materials over the life-
Low source term Smaller, less complex time of the reactor.
driving pressure containments Some designs face additional challenges in that the data avail-
Transparent Visible refueling Efficient refueling
able from previous reactor tests may not be applicable. For in-
coolant with operations
low chemical stance, data available for graphite grades used in previously
activity operated gas-cooled reactors may not be applicable to the modern
Low probability of pipe Smaller containments designs, as these ‘‘historical grades’’ are no longer available. Hence,
break/LOCA the currently available grades must be characterized relative to
High primary High power conversion Lower fuel costs and hot
those previously available to determine what data may be applica-
system efficiencies refueling
temperatures ble, or they must be fully characterized for modern use.
Tristructural Large fuel temperature Robust operating margins and Structural reactor materials and fuel cladding materials have to
isotropic fuels margins safety case be identified and validated to withstand the combined effects of
Good fission product
high temperatures and corrosive/erosive nature of the reactor
containment
coolants, particularly for the AHTR development. Creep-fatigue
578 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581

Fig. 3. Conceptual design of pebble bed AHTR with power generation cycle [7].

Fig. 4. Thermal energy transfer in AHTR for power production.

characterization along with corrosion data under prototypical con-
ditions is required for further development of potential materials.
2.3.1.2. Nuclear fuel development. The TRISO fuel particles used in
both the VHTR and AHTR advanced reactor concepts have carbon
buffered layers which act as a barrier for fission products (Ag, Cs,
Sr for the graphites). In both normal and off-normal conditions,
most of the radionuclide is retained in the fuel element. In order
for radionuclides to be released from the fuel, it must pass through
multiple barriers: fuel kernel, PyC and SiC fuel coating layers, and
fuel compact/matrix graphite. These fuel coating layers are the
most important barrier. Once the radionuclide is released to the
coolant, it is retained in the reactor pressure boundary consisting
of metallic structures, but the behavior of the TRISO fuel in a liquid
salt environment at high temperatures (>700 °C) is yet to be seen.
Fission product holdup in the graphite fuel matrix material at high
temperatures over time is yet to be analyzed. Analytical models are
being developed to better understand the effect of irradiation and
temperature on dimensional changes of the fuel.
2.3.1.3. Compact heat exchangers. The heat exchanger will be a crit-
ical high temperature component for the reactor overall success, as
it will be subjected to elevated temperatures for long times and
will be designed using ASME Code Section III (subsection NH), as
shown in Fig. 5. At present there is insufficient data for high tem-
perature material alloys (e.g., Alloy 617, Hastelloy N, Alloy 242) to
develop a code case for elevated temperature application, and new
design rules and analyses tools are needed. Further research is
needed to qualify and codify materials per ASME standards and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements before the ad-
vanced reactor concepts can be a success. For compact heat
exchangers, microstructural and mechanical property character-
izations are needed for thin section materials [12]. Ceramics (such
as Carbides-SiC and Nitrides-Si3N4), in general, have superior high
temperature strength relative to metals, but their inherent brittle-
ness makes machining and fabrication of ceramic heat exchangers
a challenge. Additional development is also required to reliably
join metals and ceramics in the heat exchanger construction. Tests
are also needed to verify that the tensile, creep, and creep-fatigue
 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581
Fig. 5. Division of the reactor system as per ASME standards [13].
strengths of the diffusion bonded joints of the alloys in the com-
pact heat exchangers are adequate.
Predictive Modeling will play a vital role in the development of
new materials. In most cases the experimental database will not
cover the entire range of conditions needed for reactor operation,
such that new physical models will be essential to extrapolate with
confidence outside the experimentally known domain.
2.3.2. Thermal hydraulic challenges
Significant challenges also face reactor designers with regard to
thermal hydraulic design and associated modeling for advanced
reactor concepts. Computational thermal hydraulic codes solve
only a piece of the core. There is a need for a whole core solid heat
conduction/gas dynamics transient solver code with local resolu-
tion to investigate and understand bypass flow with all the rele-
vant physics, graphite thermo-mechanics and fluid flow for both
the VHTR and AHTR concepts [14]. Three-dimensional effects are
not easily captured with system codes, and computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) models are too complex for routine transient anal-
yses. Hence, there is significant need for a coupled thermal hydrau-
lics and multiphysics code. The bypass flow in many of the
available thermal hydraulic codes is mostly assumed (i.e., assume
x% of the flow passes through the reflector) and should be ac-
counted for with validated experimental data.
For the VHTR design, flow instability and stagnation in hot
channels can result from increasing helium viscosity with increas-
ing temperature. This effect can be mitigated through careful sys-
tem design, but additional research is needed in this area. Design
enhancements can also be made to the VHTR to improve overall
safety, as indicated by [15], such as: coolant flow distribution
through reactor core channels, enhancing mixing of hot jets in
the reactor core lower plenum (to reduce hot spots, uniform mix-
ing is the key), etc.
As indicated by [12], the ASME code rules were formulated for
shell-type structures in which one of the dimensions (thickness)
is much smaller than the other two. In contrast, the compact IHX
is a three-dimensional honeycombed structure in which there is
no unique way of determining membrane and bending stresses,
the limits on which form the basis of many of the code rules.
Computational techniques with supporting test data may be
needed to address the heat transfer from the fuel to the coolant
during the transition from turbulent to laminar flow, including
the possibility of an early laminarization of the flow (laminariza-
tion is caused when the coolant velocity is theoretically in the
579
turbulent regime, but the heat transfer properties are indicative
of the coolant velocity being in the laminar regime), as explained
by Sabharwall et al. [16].
Experimentally scaled thermal hydraulic data with uncertain-
ties should be developed to support modeling and simulation for
verification and validation activities.
2.3.3. Computational and modeling challenges
Modeling and simulation for advanced reactors is not straight-
forward, due to the following factors:
1. Large heterogeneity exists in the fuel and the core geometry.
2. Unique multiscale-coupled phenomena that are not captured
by traditional analysis methods.
3. Coupling between blocks (unlike LWR assemblies, the spectrum
within a block is strongly affected by its neighbors – one needs
to increase the domain, use more energy groups (>20), and/or
exploit leakage information from the core calculation and iter-
ate) [14].
4. Lattice codes generally do not properly treat TRISO fuel hetero-
geneity, meaning new treatments of heterogeneity have to be
developed.
5. High fidelity simulations are still slow for power reactors;
hence, simulations often omit physics to gain speed [14].
6. Experimental data and programs to validate computational
results are needed.
7. Most of the codes are not able to capture three-dimensional
effects; detailed analysis through current computational fluid
dynamics packages can be only carried out for small section
of the core and only at steady state.
If applied correctly, computational modeling can help research-
ers understand phenomena and capture effects with embedded
physics to assist and improve reactor design and safety analysis.
If not properly validated via experimental verification or if results
are not properly interpreted, computational modeling can lead
designers to incorrect expectations and conclusions regarding
reactor performance.
2.3.4. Power conversion and process heat application challenges
The primary goal for advanced reactor power conversion
systems is to optimize the net efficiency and specific work of the
cycle (J/kg) without complicating or depending on unproven tech-
nology. Component efficiency plays a major role in overall system
580 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581
Fig. 6. Potential process applications for advanced reactors (such as VHTR and AHTR).
efficiency; achieving high component efficiency will be challeng-
ing. For AHTRs, supercritical power cycles offer the highest effi-
ciency but also have the highest pressure difference (23.9 MPa)
across the heat exchanger. The subcritical cycle should be consid-
ered as it has a significantly lower pressure difference of 16.9 MPa,
which would reduce the stress on the heat exchanger while reduc-
ing the efficiency from 44% to 42% [10]. The supercritical Rankine
steam cycle offers high power cycle efficiency and the advantage
of being a current commercial technology, but the high turbine in-
let pressure and potential of freezing of salt (in the return line)
present a challenge to the turbomachinery design. The supercriti-
cal CO2 (S–CO2) cycle has a power cycle efficiency that is nearly
the same as the supercritical steam cycle but can offer reduced sys-
tem size. The S–CO2 cycle requires fewer components and would
have a smaller maximum pipe diameter than for the other power
cycles. The primary challenge for the S–CO2 cycle is the high tur-
bine inlet pressure. The cycle is currently being tested at a small
scale and is not available commercially. The helium Brayton cycle
has the advantage of adjustable pressure to reduce the pressure
difference across the IHX. Brayton cycles have been developed
for gas reactors, but commercial cycles are not currently available.
The economics and technology development of the power cycles
need to be developed and optimized to attain maximum overall
efficiency for the advanced reactor concepts.
The strategic goal of advanced reactor concepts is to broaden
the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear energy from
baseload power production to include market sectors not currently
being served by LWRs. A large number of industrial applications
exist that could be coupled to a reactor system given higher reactor
outlet temperature. Process applications requiring temperature
greater than 650 °C are referred to as long-term applications and
applications requiring temperature less than 650 °C are referred
to as near-term applications, as shown in Fig. 6. Detailed descrip-
tions and requirements for each process is beyond the scope of this
study.
Industrial process applications will have large process energy
requirements and, in the future, represent potential markets for
ARCs. Possible applications include hydrogen production via steam
methane reforming of natural gas and high temperature steam
electrolysis, substitute natural gas production, oil sands recovery
via steam assisted gravity drainage, coal-to-liquid production, nat-
ural gas-to-liquids production, methanol-to-gasoline production,
ammonia production, ex situ oil shale, and in situ oil shale extrac-
tion. To date, most of the proposed applications have been driven
by conventional energy sources for energy/heat, resulting in green
house gas emissions. The challenges that exist for nuclear-driven
industrial process applications are as follows:
1. Economic feasibility for the industry.
2. Additional safety concerns even though process industry will
not be part of the nuclear island.
3. Unknown consequences for transients on either the primary or
secondary side.
4. Liability issues.
5. Infrastructure requirements and coupling challenges.
3. Conclusions
Both the gas-cooled reactor (VHTR) and molten salt-cooled
reactor (AHTR) designs offer promising performance characteris-
tics. If realized, these concepts can provide sustainable energy, of-
fer improved proliferation resistance and are more easily
safeguarded than current LWRs. These designs also promise oper-
ation to high burn-up (i.e., better fuel utilization—more energy
produced per unit mass of uranium) and large margins to fuel
failure with excellent fission product retention via the TRISO fuel
design. The higher temperature of operation for these concepts
can support industrial process applications that cannot be easily
supported via LWR technology.
The gas-cooled reactor is a proven technology (e.g., AVR, HTHR),
but some challenges remain:
 Uncertainty in pebble movement (hard to know the exact posi-
tion of a pebble).
 Large gas plenum above the core and inter-pebble neutron
streaming for the pebble type.
 Validation and benchmarking of power profiles (peaking factor).
 Spatial power oscillations in tall, thin annular cores [17].
 Online refueling could weaken proliferation resistance account-
ability [17].
 P. Sabharwall et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 74 (2013) 574–581
 Coupling between the blocks is difficult in core simulation.
 Helium coolant leads to large gas flow cross-sections in the
core, introducing neutron streaming paths that complicate core
modeling [4].
Remaining challenges for the AHTR include:
 Salt compatibility with high temperature materials.
 Design validation via testing in prototypical conditions.
 Optimized and validated heat exchanger design for high
efficiency.
 Analysis of deep-burn and transmutation capability.
 Fuel performance for normal and off-normal conditions.
Research and development is needed to ensure a sustainable
energy source, with cogeneration of other energy products such
as hydrogen and synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, and control of prolif-
eration risks associated with the front and back end of the fuel cy-
cle. The Advanced Reactor Concepts systems such as VHTR and
AHTR address new objectives, including sustainable development
(waste minimization, optimal use of resources) and provide ther-
mal energy for industrial process application needs.
In addition to the technical challenges discussed in this paper,
many additional issues remain that must be addressed by licensing
[14]. Cogeneration applications of nuclear power systems open
new questions, such as the transport of radionuclides to a process
heat system. Irrespective of the advanced reactor type or design,
start-up predictions and shutdown margin are licensing issues that
need to be addressed by increasing the technical maturity level of a
given concept. Building and operating a scaled prototype advanced
reactor system will provide data for code verification and valida-
tion, will reduce uncertainty in system performance, and will allow
safety and operating margins to be reduced to reasonable levels for
a licensable, commercial reactor system.
Acknowledgments
Suggestions, information provided herein to any specific com-
mercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or im-
ply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the US Gov-
ernment, any agency thereof, or any company affiliated with Idaho
National Laboratory.
581
References
[1] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Generation IV international forum. <www.gen-
4.org>; 2010 [accessed 4.10.12].
[2] Sabharwall P, Kim ES. High temperature gas cooled reactors. In: Petridis G,
Nicolau D, editors. Nuclear power plants. Nova Science Publications Inc.,
Hauppauge, NY, USA; 2011 [ISBN 978-1-61470-150-7].
[3] Gougar HD, Schultz R. Next generation nuclear plant methods technical
program plan. Idaho National Laboratory report PLN-2498, Idaho Falls, Idaho,
USA; 2010.
[4] MacDonald PE et al. NGNP preliminary point design-results of the initial
neutronics and thermal hydraulic assessments. Idaho National Laboratory
report INEEL/EXT-03-00870, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA; 2003.
[5] Shenoy A. Modular helium reactor design, technology and applications. UCSD
Center for Energy Research, General Atomics; 2007.
[6] Sabharwall P. High temperature gas cooled reactor. Nuclear Engineering
Seminar, The Ohio State University; 2011.
[7] Holcomb DE, Cetiner SM, Flanagan GF, Pertz FJ, Yoder GL. An analysis of testing
requirements for fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor components.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-2009/297, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, USA; 2009.
[8] Flanagan GF, Holcomb DE, Cetiner SM. FHR generic design criteria. ORNL/TM-
2012/226, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA; 2012.
[9] Ingersoll DT, Forsberg CW, Ott LJ, Williams DF, Renier JP, Wilson DF, et al.
Status of preconceptual design of the advanced high-temperature reactor
(AHTR). ORNL/TM-2004/104, USA; 2004.
[10] Sabharwall P, Kim ES, Siahpush N, Anderson M, Glazoff W, Phoenix R, et al.
Process heat exchanger options for the advanced high temperature reactor.
INL/EXT-11-21584, USA; 2011.
[11] Yvon P, Carre F. Structural material challenges for advanced reactor systems. J.
Nucl. Mater. 2009;385:217–22.
[12] Natesan K, Moisseytsev A, Majumdar S, Shankar PS. Preliminary issues
associated with the next generation nuclear plant intermediate heat
exchanger design. Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/EXT-06/
46. Illinois, USA: Argonne; 2006.
[13] Sabharwall P, Collins J, Clark D, Siahpush A, Phoenix W, McKellar M, et al.
Technology development roadmap for the advanced high temperature reactor
secondary heat exchanger. External Report, INL/EXT-12-26219, Idaho National
Laboratory, USA; 2012.
[14] Gougar H. Challenges in high temperature reactor modeling and simulation.
Presentation at Idaho National Laboratory, USA; 2011.
[15] McEligot DM et al. Fundamental thermal fluid physics of high temperature
flows in advanced reactor systems – heat transfer/fluid flow in advanced
reactors. Idaho National Laboratory Report INEEL/EXT-2000-1169. USA: Idaho
Falls; 2000.
[16] Sabharwall P, Marshall T, Weaver K. Temperature effect on heated region flow
starvation for gas-cooled reactors. In: Proceedings of the 2005 national
American nuclear society conference, 5–9 June, San Diego, California, USA;
2005.
[17] Driscoll MJ, Hejzlar P. Reactor physics challenges in gen – IV reactor design.
Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2005;37(1).