Hubbry Logo
Experimental Breeder Reactor IIExperimental Breeder Reactor IIMain
Open search
Experimental Breeder Reactor II
Community hub
Experimental Breeder Reactor II
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Experimental Breeder Reactor II
Experimental Breeder Reactor II
Experimental Breeder Reactor II
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

43°35′42″N 112°39′26″W / 43.595039°N 112.657156°W / 43.595039; -112.657156

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) was a sodium-cooled fast reactor designed, built and operated by Argonne National Laboratory at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. It was shut down in 1994. Custody of the reactor was transferred to Idaho National Laboratory after its founding in 2005.

Initial operations began in July 1964 and it achieved criticality in 1965 at a total cost of more than US$32 million ($319 million in 2024 dollars). The original emphasis in the design and operation of EBR-II was to demonstrate a complete breeder-reactor power plant with on-site reprocessing of solid metallic fuel. Fuel elements enriched to about 67% uranium-235 were sealed in stainless steel tubes and removed when they reached about 65% enrichment. The tubes were unsealed and reprocessed to remove neutron poisons, mixed with fresh U-235 to increase enrichment, and placed back in the reactor.

Testing of the original breeder cycle ran until 1969, after which time the reactor was used to test concepts for the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept. In this role, the high-energy neutron environment of the EBR-II core was used for testing fuels and materials for future, larger, liquid metal reactors. As part of these experiments, in 1986 EBR-II underwent an experimental shutdown simulating complete cooling pump failure. It demonstrated its ability to self-cool its fuel through natural convection of the sodium coolant during the decay heat period following the shutdown. It was used in the IFR support role, and many other experiments, until it was decommissioned in September 1994.

At full power operation, which it reached in September 1969, EBR-II produced about 62.5 megawatts of heat and 20 megawatts of electricity through a conventional three-loop steam turbine system and tertiary forced-air cooling tower. Over its lifetime it has generated over two billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, providing a majority of the electricity and also heat to the facilities of the Argonne National Laboratory-West.

Design

[edit]

The fuel consists of uranium rods 5 millimetres (0.20 in) in diameter and 33 cm (13 in) long. Enriched to 67% uranium-235 when fresh, the concentration dropped to approximately 65% upon removal. The rods also contained 10% zirconium. Each fuel element is placed inside a thin-walled stainless steel tube along with a small amount of sodium metal. The tube is welded shut at the top to form a unit 73 cm (29 in) long. The purpose of the sodium is to function as a heat-transfer agent. As more and more of the uranium undergoes fission, it develops fissures and the sodium enters the voids. It extracts an important fission product, caesium-137, and hence becomes intensely radioactive. The void above the uranium collects fission gases, mainly krypton-85. Clusters of the pins inside hexagonal stainless steel jackets 234 cm (92 in) long are assembled honeycomb-like; each unit has about 4.5 kg (9.9 lb) of uranium. Altogether, the core contains about 308 kg (679 lb) of uranium fuel, and this part is called the driver.

Drawing of the reactor vessel of the EBR-II

The EBR-II core can accommodate as many as 65 experimental sub-assemblies for irradiation and operational reliability tests, fueled with a variety of metallic and ceramic fuels—the oxides, carbides, or nitrides of uranium and plutonium, and metallic fuel alloys such as uranium-plutonium-zirconium fuel. Other sub-assembly positions may contain structural-material experiments.

Passive safety

[edit]

The pool-type reactor design of the EBR-II provides passive safety: the reactor core, its fuel handling equipment, and many other systems of the reactor are submerged under molten sodium. By providing a fluid which readily conducts heat from the fuel to the coolant, and which operates at relatively low temperatures, the EBR-II takes maximum advantage of expansion of the coolant, fuel, and structure during off-normal events which increase temperatures. The expansion of the fuel and structure in an off-normal situation causes the system to shut down even without human operator intervention. In April 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted. The same day, this demonstration was followed by another important test. With the reactor again at full power, flow in the secondary cooling system was stopped. This test caused the temperature to increase, since there was nowhere for the reactor heat to go. As the primary (reactor) cooling system became hotter, the fuel, sodium coolant, and structure expanded, and the reactor shut down. This test showed that it will shut down using inherent features such as thermal expansion, even if the ability to remove heat from the primary cooling system is lost.[1]

EBR-II is now defueled. The EBR-II shutdown activity also includes the treatment of its discharged spent fuel using an electrometallurgical fuel treatment process in the Fuel Conditioning Facility located next to the EBR-II.

The clean-up process for EBR-II includes the removal and processing of the sodium coolant, cleaning of the EBR-II sodium systems, removal and passivating of other chemical hazards and placing the deactivated components and structure in a safe condition.

Decommissioning

[edit]

The reactor was shut down in September 1994. The initial phase of decommissioning activities, reactor de-fueling, was completed in December 1996. From 2000, the coolants were removed and processed. This was completed in March 2001. The third and final phase of the decommissioning activity was "the placement of the reactor and non-reactor systems in a radiological and industrially safe condition".[2]

Between 2012 and 2015, some components of the below-ground reactor were removed. The cost for removal actions in the reactor building were about $25.7 million.[3] The basement with the reactor was filled with grout. The three-year decontamination and entombment project cost $730 million. In a later stage, the large concrete dome that surrounds the EBR-II reactor would be removed and a concrete cap placed over the remaining structure.[4]

In 2018, the plans were changed. The removal of the dome was stopped and in 2019, a new floor was poured and the dome got a fresh paint to prepare the building for industrial use.[5] The building will be used for a research facility on top of the entombed reactor. The dome is an integral part of the tomb along with a "Site-Wide Long-Term Management and Control Program". The use of the site will be industrial in nature for a 100-year period and likely in the indefinite future thereafter.[3]

[edit]
The EBR-II and the Fuel Conditioning Facility

The objective of the EBR-II was to demonstrate the operation of a sodium-cooled fast reactor power plant with on-site reprocessing of metallic fuel. In order to meet this objective of on-site reprocessing, the EBR-II was part of a wider complex of facilities, consisting of

  • Fuel Conditioning Facility: facility for reprocessing and treating spent fuel from the EBR-II and other reactors, using an electrorefiner for electrometallurgical treatment of spent fuel
  • Fuel Manufacturing Facility: facility for the manufacturing of metallic fuel elements
  • Hot Fuels Examination Facility: a "hot-cell" complex for handling and examining highly radioactive materials remotely
  • Sodium Processing Facility: facility for processing of reactive sodium into low-level waste

Integral Fast Reactor

[edit]

The EBR-II has served as prototype of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), which was the intended successor to the EBR-II. The IFR program was started in 1983, but funding was withdrawn by U.S. Congress in 1994, three years before the intended completion of the program.

[edit]
  • EBR-II
    EBR-II
  • Electrorefiner
    Electrorefiner
  • Cathode processor
    Cathode processor
  • Control room of the EBR-II in 1986
    Control room of the EBR-II in 1986
  • Schema of the EBR-II
    Schema of the EBR-II
  • Schema of the spent fuel treatment process
    Schema of the spent fuel treatment process

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Experimental Breeder Reactor II

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) was a sodium-cooled, pool-type fast designed to demonstrate breeding of and advanced cycles, operated by at its site from 1964 to 1994. With a thermal power output of 62.5 megawatts, it utilized metallic uranium-plutonium alloy and liquid sodium coolant, achieving a closed fuel cycle through on-site pyrochemical reprocessing. Over its three decades of operation, EBR-II served primarily as a for fuels and materials , supporting development of fast reactor technologies while generating at 20 megawatts electrical. EBR-II's most notable achievements included proving features in a series of 1986 shutdown heat removal tests, where the reactor autonomously reduced power and removed without operator intervention, pumps, or external cooling, even under conditions simulated to challenge meltdown scenarios. It operated with a high exceeding 80% in its final decade and demonstrated a breeding ratio greater than 1, producing more fuel than it consumed. These successes validated the concept, emphasizing self-regulating physics and waste minimization through recycling. The reactor's shutdown in 1994 stemmed from congressional termination of the program amid policy shifts favoring light-water reactors, despite its record of safe, reliable performance without significant incidents. Post-closure, its spent fuel has been earmarked for into high-assay low-enriched for advanced microreactors, underscoring ongoing value in its legacy materials.

Historical Development

Construction and Commissioning

The construction of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) commenced with groundbreaking in June 1958 at the National Reactor Testing Station (now ) in , under the design and oversight of . The project encompassed the reactor vessel, sodium cooling systems, fuel handling facilities, and an integrated steam-electric plant to demonstrate a self-sustaining cycle, with initial funding authorized at $14.85 million in July 1955 and later increased to $29.1 million by August 1957. Construction progressed over five years, incorporating unmoderated fast spectrum components and metallic uranium-plutonium alloy fuel assemblies, and was completed in May 1961 at a total cost of $32.5 million. Key pre-operational milestones included dry criticality on September 30, 1960, which validated core neutronics without , followed by wet criticality in November 1962 after sodium filling and fuel loading. Approach to power operations began on July 16, 1964, marking the transition from testing to controlled fission. On August 14, 1964, EBR-II generated its first electricity at 8,000 kilowatts, powering site facilities and confirming the integrated primary-to-secondary loop functionality. Commissioning proceeded through phased power ascents, reaching 45 MW thermal by May 1965 and incorporating recycled from initial operations, which demonstrated breeding capability. Full power of 62.5 MW thermal (producing 20 MW electric) was attained in September 1969 after extensive safety and performance validations, including sodium void and loss-of-flow simulations. These steps established EBR-II as the first to operate as a complete power plant without external electricity dependence during startups.

Early Operations and Milestones

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) achieved dry criticality on September 30, 1960, during initial low-power testing without sodium coolant, confirming basic neutronics behavior in assembly. Wet criticality followed in November 1962 after sodium filling, enabling validation of the liquid-metal cooling system's interaction with the reactor physics under operational conditions. Approach to power commenced on July 16, 1964, marking the transition to full operational mode as a sodium-cooled fast capable of . By August 1964, power levels reached 30 megawatts thermal (MWt), demonstrating stable and integration for net electrical output of approximately 20 megawatts electric (MWe) at full capacity. This phase verified the reactor's integrated design, including on-site fuel reprocessing, as EBR-II operated continuously as a complete power plant prototype. A key milestone occurred in May 1965 when EBR-II first utilized recycled from its own spent assemblies, operating at 45 MWt and fulfilling its core objective of demonstrating closed-fuel-cycle viability in a configuration. By March 1965, the reactor had successfully completed its initial mission of safe, reliable power production using reprocessed plutonium-uranium , breeding more fissile material than consumed. Power ascension continued, achieving the design rating of 62.5 MWt in September 1969, with over 90% plant availability in early years underscoring the inherent stability of the sodium-cooled system. These operations provided empirical data on fast-spectrum economy and sodium handling, informing subsequent designs without major incidents.

Technical Design

Core and Fuel Assembly

The core of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) was a compact, unmoderated fast-spectrum assembly designed for plutonium breeding, featuring hexagonal subassemblies arranged in a within a pool-type sodium configuration. It comprised 637 subassembly positions, including driver for fission power generation, depleted uranium blankets for and breeding, control rods, safety rods, reflectors, and experimental positions. The driver region occupied central rows 1 through 5 or 7, with an approximate equivalent of 20 inches and active height of 14 inches, enabling a peak thermal power of 62.5 MWt. Driver fuel assemblies utilized metallic fuel pins sodium-bonded within cladding to facilitate and accommodate fuel swelling during . Initial Mark-IA assemblies contained 91 pins of uranium-fissium (U-5 wt% Fs) , with 95 wt% enriched to 45-67 wt% U-235, pin outer diameters of 0.174 inches, and active lengths of 14.22 inches. Subsequent Mark-II assemblies featured 61 pins, typically of U-10 wt% Zr or U-Pu-Zr in later demonstrations, with cladding diameters around 0.44 cm, fuel slugs of 0.33 cm , and active lengths of 62 cm; pins were wire-wrapped for subchannel flow and spaced in hexagonal arrays. Cladding materials included Type 304 or 316 , with sodium bonding filling a small annular gap (e.g., 0.006 inches). Blanket assemblies, numbering 60-66 in the inner region (rows 6-7) and up to 510 in the outer (rows 8-16), employed 19 larger pins per assembly (outer diameter 1.25 cm, length 1.43 m) to maximize economy and produce fissile via U-238 capture. Axial blankets at core ends, when present in early designs, used 18 pins each of 0.3165-inch diameter. These elements were similarly clad in with sodium bonding and wire wraps, but optimized for lower and higher breeding capture. Later core designs omitted axial blankets to simplify fabrication and enhance performance. Reactivity control integrated moveable driver assemblies and dedicated control/safety subassemblies, with 61 pins plus boron carbide absorbers in control types; these could be raised into or lowered from the core to modulate power without external . The overall supported high fuel burnup (up to 19 at% in metallic fuels) and breeding ratios exceeding 1.0, validated through decades of operation from 1964 to 1994.

Sodium Cooling System

The sodium cooling system of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) utilized liquid sodium in a pool-type primary circuit, submerging the reactor core, primary pumps, and intermediate heat exchangers (IHXs) within a large to enable compact and passive heat dissipation. The primary measured 7.9 meters in and 7.9 meters in height, containing approximately 89,000 US gallons (337 m³) of sodium at operating conditions. This configuration leveraged the sodium pool's substantial for natural circulation removal during transients, as demonstrated in tests. Liquid served as due to its thermophysical advantages, including high thermal conductivity (about 80 W/m·K at operating temperatures), adequate specific heat (1.3 kJ/kg·K), of 883°C, and minimal absorption cross-section, preserving the fast spectrum essential for breeding while facilitating efficient at low pressure. The system operated near , with sodium temperatures typically entering the core at around 360°C and exiting at 510°C under full power, yielding a core temperature rise of approximately 150°C. Two centrifugal primary pumps, each rated at 4,500 gallons per minute, circulated sodium at a nominal of 485 kg/s from the pool inlet, through the core's lower plenum, and to the IHXs for to the intermediate loop. The intermediate sodium loop, operating at 315 kg/s, isolated the primary system from the steam generators using three IHXs with double-walled, concentric tube designs to preclude sodium-water reactions in the event of leaks. Sodium purity was maintained via electromagnetic pumps and cold traps to remove impurities like oxides and hydrides, preventing corrosion of components and ensuring long-term operational reliability over the reactor's 30-year lifespan from 1964 to 1994. The system's design emphasized leak-tightness and argon cover gas blanketing to mitigate sodium's reactivity with air and moisture, though handling residual sodium post-shutdown required specialized passivation and processes due to its persistence as a pyrophoric liquid.

Primary and Secondary Loops

The primary cooling loop of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) employed a pool-type design, with the reactor core, primary pumps, and intermediate heat exchangers (IHXs) submerged in a large containing approximately 86,000 gallons (330 m³) of sodium . This configuration minimized external piping and enhanced safety by leveraging the thermal inertia of the sodium pool for passive heat removal during transients. Two vertical centrifugal pumps circulated the sodium at a nominal flow rate of 9,000 gallons per minute (gpm) through the core, achieving an of 700°F (371°C) and an outlet of 883–900°F (473–482°C), corresponding to a 200°F rise. The system operated at low pressures, with the high-pressure plenum at 61 psi and the low-pressure plenum at 22 psi, and featured components such as shutdown coolers using sodium-potassium eutectic and an auxiliary pump for post-shutdown cooling. Heat from the primary sodium was transferred to three parallel secondary sodium loops via shell-and-tube IHXs, with the primary sodium on the shell side and secondary on the tube side to contain potential leaks within the primary system. Each secondary loop used a linear induction electromagnetic pump to circulate non-radioactive sodium at a combined flow rate of approximately 315 kg/s, isolating the radioactive primary coolant from the steam generation system and reducing activation in the secondary sodium due to the IHXs' remote location from the core. Secondary sodium entered the IHX at 588°F (308°C) and exited at 866°F (463°C), flowing to steam generators with duplex tubes for added leak tolerance, requiring dual failures for sodium-water contact. The loops maintained low pressures around 10 psi normally, with relief valves at 100 psi, and included storage tanks for full system drainage. This dual-loop sodium supported EBR-II's 62.5 MWth design power, later operated up to 69 MWth, enabling efficient while demonstrating features like natural circulation capability.

Operational Performance

Power Generation and Efficiency

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) was designed as an integrated fast reactor power plant with a nominal thermal of 62.5 MWth, capable of generating approximately 20 MWe of gross electrical through its steam cycle . This output supported on-site needs at and demonstrated the feasibility of production, with the primary sodium coolant transferring to a secondary sodium loop and then to generators for drive. Operational performance highlighted high reliability, with annual plant capacity factors averaging 70.5% from 1975 to the late 1980s, including a peak of 77.4% in 1980. Over the preceding six years to that period, capacity factors averaged 73.7%, comparable to commercial nuclear and plants, reflecting effective and fuel management that minimized downtime. In its final decade of operation before shutdown in 1994, EBR-II achieved capacity factors of up to 80%, underscoring the robustness of its design for sustained power generation despite experimental testing interruptions. Efficiency in power conversion was influenced by the fast spectrum's higher outlet temperatures compared to light-water reactors, enabling steam conditions suitable for turbine efficiencies around 30-35%, though specific thermodynamic efficiencies were not routinely reported beyond power output ratios. The closed fuel cycle integration further enhanced overall plant efficiency by recycling actinides, reducing fresh fuel needs and supporting extended operational runs at full power.

Fuel Cycle Integration

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) featured an integrated fuel cycle that combined power generation, fuel irradiation, on-site reprocessing, and refabrication within a single facility complex, minimizing external dependencies and enabling closed-loop operation. This approach utilized sodium-bonded metallic , which was designed for high and compatibility with fast spectra to facilitate breeding. The system's design allowed for the demonstration of both and plutonium-uranium metallic cycles, with spent assemblies processed pyrometallurgically to recover actinides for . Central to the integration was the development and application of electrochemical pyroprocessing, particularly electrorefining, where spent fuel was dissolved anodically in electrolytes to separate , , and other transuranics from fission products. Recovered actinides were then cast into ingots and fabricated into new fuel pins using injection casting techniques, achieving rapid turnaround times of weeks to months for reinsertion into the reactor core. This on-site reduced the need for large fuel inventories and supported economic operation by reusing , with blanket assemblies producing that was blended into driver fuel for subsequent cycles. EBR-II's fuel cycle demonstrated closure by over 90% of the content in spent fuel, with irradiated metallic fuel achieving burnups up to 19 atomic percent and recycled fuel performing equivalently to fresh assemblies in terms of swelling and cladding integrity. The process isolated fission products as stable ceramic waste forms, minimizing volume compared to aqueous reprocessing methods. Operational data from 30 years of experience validated the cycle's reliability, including sustained breeding ratios greater than 1.0 in plutonium-fueled configurations, though full commercial scalability was curtailed by program termination in 1994. The integration extended to safety and efficiency, as the compact fuel cycle working inventory—typically subassemblies handled robotically—facilitated inherent safeguards against proliferation by keeping materials under continuous accounting within the reactor site. Post-irradiation examinations confirmed that recycled fuel maintained ductilities and power densities suitable for extended core life, supporting the (IFR) vision of self-sustaining operations without long-term accumulation in waste streams.

Safety Demonstrations

Passive Shutdown Mechanisms

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) featured passive shutdown mechanisms rooted in inherent negative reactivity feedbacks, enabling automatic power reduction without active intervention such as insertion or external power. These feedbacks included the , where rising fuel temperatures broadened neutron absorption resonances in fissile and fertile materials like uranium-plutonium oxide or metal fuels, thereby increasing parasitic and inserting negative reactivity on the order of -0.5 to -1.0 pcm/°C in the core. feedback from sodium similarly reduced coolant density, diminishing neutron moderation and leakage reduction effects, contributing an additional negative reactivity coefficient of approximately -0.1 to -0.2 pcm/°C. Axial expansion of fuel pins and core structural components, such as grid plates, further decoupled the core height from , providing a small but cumulative negative reactivity insertion of about -0.05 pcm/°C. These mechanisms ensured self-regulation during transients like unprotected loss of flow (ULOF), where primary pump failure led to reduced flow rates below 10% of nominal without initiating a ; reactor power decayed exponentially to levels (around 1-5% of full power) within seconds to minutes, preventing fuel melting or cladding breach. Natural circulation in the pool-type primary system, driven by differences in the sodium (with changes of ~0.2% per °C), maintained core inlet temperatures below 600°C even under full-power scrammed conditions, relying on the reactor vessel's thermal and elevated inlet plenum design. For sustained removal post-shutdown, passive air-cooled shutdown heat exchangers (two units penetrating the primary tank) transferred heat directly to the atmosphere via natural convection, achieving removal rates up to 1.5 MWth without auxiliary power or forced airflow. The design's effectiveness stemmed from the fast neutron spectrum and metallic sodium's high thermal conductivity (about 80 W/m·K), which minimized risks compared to water-cooled reactors; sodium voids in the core introduced positive reactivity but were counteracted by upper plenum voiding effects and overall negative feedbacks in EBR-II's configuration. Empirical validation occurred through integral tests simulating anticipated transient without (ATWS) events, confirming that peak fuel temperatures remained under 2000°C—well below the 2500°C of the fuel—solely via these passive responses. This approach prioritized causal chain integrity from neutronics to thermal hydraulics, avoiding reliance on diverse actuation systems prone to common-mode failures.

1986 Inherent Safety Tests

On April 3, 1986, Argonne National Laboratory conducted two landmark inherent safety demonstration tests in the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II), simulating severe accident scenarios without reliance on active safety systems or operator intervention. The first test involved a loss-of-flow (LOF) event without scram, where all primary pump power was abruptly terminated at full reactor power of approximately 62.5 MWth, leading to a rapid reduction in coolant flow. Inherent negative reactivity feedbacks, primarily Doppler broadening from fuel temperature increase and radial thermal expansion of the core, passively shut down the reactor within seconds, reducing power to decay heat levels without fuel melting or cladding breach. The second test simulated a loss-of-heat-sink (LOHS) condition without , achieved by simultaneously ing the intermediate heat exchanger's electromagnetic pumps and initiating a water dump, isolating the from its at full power. Natural circulation in the primary sodium pool and through the reactor vessel wall to the air maintained core temperatures below safety limits, with peak temperatures reaching about 800°C but stabilizing via passive mechanisms. No active components, such as pumps or control rods, were required for shutdown or cooldown, validating the pool-type liquid-metal fast reactor's design for . These tests, part of the broader Shutdown Heat Removal Test series conducted between 1984 and 1986, provided that EBR-II could withstand unprotected transients—accidents without safety system actuation—without core damage, challenging prevailing assumptions about fast reactor vulnerabilities post-Chernobyl. Post-test confirmed subassembly outlet temperatures peaked at around 650°C during LOF and heat removal occurred via buoyancy-driven flows, with the reactor achieving stable natural cooling indefinitely. The results underscored the role of metallic fuel's high thermal conductivity and the sodium coolant's properties in enabling such passive responses, influencing subsequent liquid-metal reactor designs.

Breeding and Waste Management

Pyrometallurgical Reprocessing


The pyrometallurgical reprocessing, or pyroprocessing, developed for the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) formed a key component of its closed fuel cycle, enabling the recycling of metallic uranium-plutonium-zirconium alloy fuel directly at the site. This high-temperature electrochemical process utilized molten salts to separate recoverable actinides from fission products and cladding hulls, contrasting with aqueous methods by avoiding dilution and proliferation risks associated with pure plutonium separation. The core technique involved electrorefining, where spent fuel was anodically dissolved in a LiCl-KCl eutectic salt bath at approximately 500°C, with uranium depositing on a solid cathode for recovery, while transuranic elements co-deposited on a liquid cadmium cathode. Early implementation occurred in EBR-II's Fuel Cycle Facility, which from 1964 to 1969 reprocessed and refabricated approximately 35,000 spent fuel pins using an initial pyrochemical approach, demonstrating feasibility for fast reactor metallic fuels. Under the (IFR) program, the process was refined to require only nine major pieces of equipment for complete recycling, including electrorefining, cathode processing, and injection casting for refabrication, allowing spent fuel to be returned to the reactor after to high levels exceeding 10% fissile atom fraction. researchers treated over four metric tons of EBR-II used fuel through this method, recovering and for reuse while concentrating fission products into stable ceramic waste forms via incorporation and . Post-shutdown in 1994, the Spent Fuel Treatment (SFT) program at Argonne-West (now ) applied pilot-scale electrorefining to condition EBR-II's sodium-bonded driver fuel, successfully recovering metal dendrites from the first operational electrorefiner in the mid-1990s. This MARK-V electrorefiner processed and driver fuels separately, yielding over 99% recovery efficiency and minimizing secondary through the compact, non-aqueous process. The approach addressed by partitioning actinides for potential transmutation, reducing long-lived radiotoxicity, though full-scale commercialization was halted by policy decisions in 1994.
Pyroprocessing's integration with EBR-II highlighted its suitability for sodium-cooled fast reactors, as it handled metallic fuels without oxide conversion and operated compatibly with sodium coolant residues. Independent validations confirmed the process's electrochemical kinetics and material balances, with no evidence of significant salt contamination or noble metal interference in scaled operations. Despite technical successes, including demonstrated breeding ratios above 1.0 when coupled with , the program's termination reflected non-technical factors rather than process limitations.

Breeding Ratio Achievements

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) was designed to achieve breeding ratios greater than unity, enabling the production of more than consumed through in fertile within the regions. Initial core configurations utilized enriched uranium-fissium , targeting a conversion ratio of approximately 1.2, while subsequent plutonium-uranium metallic cycles aimed for higher breeding ratios up to 1.7 to optimize fissile inventory growth. These goals aligned with proving sustainable cycles in sodium-cooled fast reactors, where fast spectra facilitate efficient breeding via plutonium-239 formation. Operational achievements included demonstrating breeding ratios exceeding 1.0 in plutonium-fueled tests, with measurements indicating a value of 1.27 ± 0.08, outperforming uranium-fueled alternatives and validating plutonium's role in enhancing economy. Over its 30-year lifespan, EBR-II integrated pyrometallurgical reprocessing to recycle driver fuel, achieving recovery rates of 99.8-99.9% and enabling up to four recycles per fuel batch at burnups reaching 10 atomic percent. This closed-loop performance processed over 35,000 fuel elements and 418 subassemblies by 1969 alone, sustaining core operations while generating excess in blankets for refabrication, thus realizing net breeding gains without external fissile inputs after initial loading. Equilibrium core analyses confirmed breeding ratios near or above unity under practical conditions, supporting long-term fuel self-sufficiency despite deviations from peak design targets due to testing priorities over optimization. These results underscored EBR-II's role in validating metallic fuel performance for breeders, with minimal losses and compatibility with on-site refabrication, paving the way for scalable fast reactor deployments.

Shutdown and Policy Context

Decision to Terminate Operations

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) mandated the termination of the (IFR) program in January 1994, effective October 1, 1994, which directly precipitated the shutdown of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II). EBR-II, as the principal demonstration facility for the IFR concept, ceased power operations in September 1994 after 30 years of continuous service without a single core damage incident. This decision overrode ongoing experiments in fuel recycling and , despite the reactor's proven operational reliability and breeding performance. The termination aligned with the Clinton administration's broader fiscal and energy policy priorities, articulated in President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address, where he pledged to "terminate unnecessary nuclear programs" amid perceived public aversion to advanced nuclear technologies. Congressional action followed, with the U.S. Senate voting 52-48 in 1994 to eliminate IFR funding, reflecting partisan divides over breeder reactor development versus light-water reactor extensions. Critics within the nuclear engineering community, including IFR principals, attributed the cancellation to ideological opposition rather than technical deficiencies, noting the program's near-completion of commercial-scale demonstrations. The DOE's rationale emphasized budget reallocation toward immediate energy needs, sidelining fast-spectrum reactors despite their potential for resource efficiency. Post-decision, initiated safe storage protocols for EBR-II, including sodium draining and fuel relocation, as outlined in DOE-mandated deactivation plans. This abrupt end halted integrated fuel cycle testing, shifting U.S. fast reactor research into dormancy and redirecting resources to thermal-spectrum alternatives, a policy pivot later critiqued for forgoing proliferation-resistant waste minimization strategies.

Political and Economic Influences

The termination of Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) operations in September 1994 stemmed from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) directives reflecting broader nuclear policy shifts, including heightened emphasis on nuclear nonproliferation following the . The program, which integrated EBR-II's operations with advanced fuel cycle research, faced congressional opposition led by Senator , who argued that plutonium-based breeding technologies posed proliferation risks despite their closed fuel cycle design aimed at minimizing waste and weapons-grade material separation. In late 1993, the Clinton administration halted funding, citing the program's divergence from a policy favoring once-through cycles to avoid reprocessing pathways that could yield fissile materials suitable for weapons. This decision aligned with post-Cold War de-emphasis on breeder reactors, as reduced demand for production for defense purposes eroded the strategic rationale for fast-spectrum systems. Earlier precedents, such as President Carter's 1977 executive order banning commercial reprocessing on proliferation grounds, had already constrained domestic fuel cycle innovation, though EBR-II's pyrometallurgical approach was technically distinct and claimed by proponents to enhance proliferation resistance through electrochemical separation without pure streams. Critics within the community, including EBR-II pioneers, contended that nonproliferation rationales were overstated, given empirical demonstrations of and , but policy prioritized international treaty compliance over domestic technological merits. Economically, EBR-II's shutdown reflected the diminished urgency for fuel breeding amid global uranium surpluses and depressed prices in the 1990s, rendering the reactor's high breeding ratio—achieved at low operational costs of approximately 20 MWe output—less competitive against conventional light-water reactors reliant on inexpensive mined fuel. Development costs for sodium-cooled fast reactors, including EBR-II's infrastructure at Argonne National Laboratory-West, exceeded those of thermal-spectrum alternatives, with total program expenditures in the hundreds of millions by 1994, while market forecasts showed no near-term need for breeders given projected uranium reserves lasting centuries at prevailing consumption rates. A congressional compromise preserved funding for EBR-II's reprocessing research under a renamed Integral Test Assembly, allowing data preservation but curtailing full-scale demonstration, as economic viability hinged on scaling unproven amid regulatory and financing hurdles for advanced cycles. These factors underscored a policy pivot toward cost-minimization in civilian nuclear power, sidelining breeders despite their potential for long-term resource efficiency.

Decommissioning and Site Management

Defueling and Dismantlement

Following the shutdown of EBR-II on September 30, 1994, defueling operations began in October 1994 and concluded in December 1996, ahead of schedule by three months. This phase entailed the removal of 637 fuel assemblies from the reactor core, which were then washed to eliminate sodium coolant residue, dried, processed in a hot-cell facility, and ultimately transferred to interim dry storage casks for the spent fuel. Non-fueled assemblies replaced the removed elements to maintain structural integrity during subsequent deactivation steps. Deactivation proceeded with the management of approximately 653 tonnes of sodium coolant from the primary and secondary systems, as well as ancillary loops including Fermi-1 components. Bulk draining converted this sodium to 1,450 tonnes of , with secondary system processing finalized by late summer 2000 and primary system completion by March 2001. Residual sodium, estimated at 1.1 m³ in the primary tank, underwent passivation via reaction with moist to form stable and layers, inerting surfaces for long-term storage. By August 2005, roughly 60% of this residual primary sodium had been treated, with ongoing methods including potential steam-nitrogen injection or water flushing for full remediation under RCRA permit requirements targeting closure by 2012 or extendable to 2022. Dismantlement avoided full structural disassembly in favor of entombment, selected as the preferred decommissioning alternative to encapsulate residual hazards. The primary tank and cooling systems were filled with a specialized formulation to immobilize any untreated sodium, after which the vessel was sealed, achieving permanent stabilization without excavation or component removal. This process culminated in 2015, placing the EBR-II complex in a condition suitable for indefinite safe storage pending broader site management decisions.

Environmental Monitoring Post-Shutdown

Following the September 1994 shutdown of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II), environmental monitoring emphasized system stabilization during deactivation, including passivation of residual sodium coolant with humidified and subsequent maintenance under a dry CO₂ blanket to prevent reactions and releases. and oxygen sensors continuously monitored these processes, recording no detections of hazardous gases post-treatment, thereby confirming effective of residuals. The U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Assessment for EBR-II closure (DOE/EA-1199, 1997) evaluated these deactivation activities and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact, determining that they posed no substantial risk to air, water, soil, or biota, with projected radiological doses well below regulatory limits. Hazardous materials management complied with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements, including flushing systems and treating effluents, generating limited volumes of low-level waste without documented environmental excursions. Post-deactivation, EBR-II transitioned to long-term safe storage as Institutional Control Site ANL-67 at the National Laboratory's Materials and Fuels Complex, due to grouted basement containment of residual radioactive materials and , which requires restricted access and periodic integrity checks to avert disturbance or migration. surveillance at dedicated CERCLA monitoring wells, such as EBR-II #2, assesses potential radiological migration, integrated with effluent and environmental programs that verify compliance through sampling for , gamma emitters, and other isotopes. Broader site surveillance, conducted quarterly under the Site Environmental Monitoring Plan, includes radiological and chemical analysis of air, , , , and near legacy facilities like EBR-II. Results consistently show contaminant concentrations below applicable standards, with effective public doses near natural background levels (typically <1 mrem/year attributable to operations) and no verified releases linked to EBR-II residuals. Oversight by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality corroborates these findings through independent reviews of monitoring data from the Materials and Fuels Complex.

Controversies and Critiques

Technical Criticisms

One notable technical challenge encountered during EBR-II operations was a major sodium leak in the secondary cooling system on November 8, 1968, when approximately 379 liters of hot sodium spilled onto the reactor building floor, igniting and requiring containment measures, though no radiological release occurred. This incident underscored the reactivity of liquid sodium coolant with air and moisture, which can lead to fires and complicates maintenance, as sodium's chemical properties necessitate specialized handling and inert atmospheres to prevent oxidation or explosions. Despite subsequent improvements, such as enhanced leak detection and secondary circuit isolation, the event highlighted inherent reliability concerns in sodium-cooled designs, contributing to broader critiques of coolant purity management and leak prevention in fast reactors. Material degradation in fuel and cladding elements posed another set of technical limitations, including void swelling, irradiation-enhanced creep, and embrittlement under high , which affected long-term component integrity and required adaptive operational strategies like adjusted limits. These phenomena, observed in EBR-II's metallic uranium-plutonium-zirconium fuels and cladding, stemmed from fast neutron-induced microstructural changes, leading to dimensional instability and reduced ductility over extended periods exceeding 10% . While not causing operational failures, they necessitated frequent inspections, element replacements, and design iterations, such as refined cladding alloys, to mitigate risks of breach, as evidenced by documented in-reactor cladding failures in driver fuel elements during the 1970s. Fuel-cladding chemical interactions (FCCI) further complicated performance, where fission products and fuel constituents diffused into the cladding at elevated temperatures, accelerating and weakening barriers against fission gas release. In EBR-II experiments, particularly with minor actinide-bearing fuels, FCCI contributed to localized thinning and potential breach pathways, limiting achievable burnups and influencing core loading strategies. Probabilistic risk assessments identified these material vulnerabilities as contributors to low but non-negligible core damage frequencies, estimated at 1.6 × 10^{-6} per reactor-year from internal events, emphasizing the need for robust to maintain margins. Early operational phases also revealed capacity factor variability due to maintenance demands, with averages below 70% in the first decade from commissioning in 1964, attributed to sodium system commissioning issues and component wear, though later periods achieved up to 80% through refinements. These factors collectively illustrate technical hurdles in scaling experimental fast breeder concepts, where material endurance under extreme conditions and management imposed ongoing constraints despite the reactor's overall demonstration successes.

Policy and Ideological Debates

The shutdown of EBR-II in September 1994, as part of the broader termination of the (IFR) program by the U.S. Department of Energy under the Clinton administration, exemplified longstanding policy tensions between advancing technology for long-term and prioritizing non-proliferation norms. EBR-II had empirically demonstrated a breeding ratio exceeding 1.0—converting more than it consumed—and passive safety features that allowed removal without external power or intervention during 1986 tests simulating total station blackout. Yet the decision to cancel, articulated as eliminating "unnecessary programs in advanced nuclear development," reflected a policy pivot away from closed fuel cycles toward the once-through approach of light-water reactors, amid assumptions of sufficient domestic uranium reserves post-Cold War. A core ideological debate centered on proliferation risks versus resource security. Fast breeder reactors like EBR-II produce from , extending fuel supplies by up to 60 times conventional utilization, but this raised fears of diversion for weapons, echoing President Carter's 1977 executive order halting commercial reprocessing to curb global nuclear weapons spread. IFR proponents countered that EBR-II's integrated pyrometallurgical reprocessing—conducted on-site without separating pure —mitigated these risks by retaining transuranic elements in fuel matrices unsuitable for bombs, contrasting with aqueous methods that yield weapons-grade . Opponents, including administration officials and non-proliferation advocates, argued that any reprocessing infrastructure incentivized proliferation pathways, prioritizing international safeguards over domestic , even as empirical data from EBR-II showed no inherent safeguards violations over 30 years of operation. The cancellation also highlighted divides between empirical engineering achievements and politically driven caution, influenced by public nuclear skepticism following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and 1986 . Congressional votes in 1994 revealed partisan splits, with more Democrats favoring continuation while Republicans largely supported termination, yet the executive branch prevailed amid budget constraints and shifting priorities toward immediate economic competitiveness rather than speculative long-term breeding gains. Critics of the policy, including reactor pioneers, contended it squandered verified technical successes—such as EBR-II's 19-year fuel cycle without refueling—for ideological aversion to plutonium-based systems, potentially ceding U.S. leadership in sustainable fission to nations like and pursuing fast reactors. This reflected a causal preference for incremental, low-risk nuclear expansion over disruptive innovation, despite breeders' potential to transmute long-lived waste actinides into shorter-lived isotopes, as validated in EBR-II irradiations.

Legacy and Broader Impact

Contributions to Fast Reactor Technology

The Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II), operational from to 1994, advanced fast reactor technology through its pool-type sodium-cooled design, which demonstrated reliable long-term power generation at 62.5 MW and approximately 20 MW , producing over 2 TWh of while serving as a for fuels and materials. This configuration, featuring a compact primary with integrated primary and intermediate sodium loops, minimized piping failures compared to loop-type designs and enabled natural circulation for removal, contributing to features validated in operational testing. A pivotal contribution was the 1986 inherent safety demonstrations under the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program, where EBR-II achieved passive shutdown without scram rods or auxiliary systems during simulated loss-of-flow and loss-of-heat-sink transients. In the April 3, 1986, tests, the reactor's negative reactivity feedback—driven by , axial fuel expansion, and bowing—halted fission within seconds, while natural dissipated , preventing core damage and proving the feasibility of walk-away safety in sodium-cooled fast reactors without reliance on active controls. These experiments informed subsequent designs by quantifying feedback coefficients and heat transfer limits under unassisted conditions, addressing prior concerns from accidents about fast reactor vulnerability. EBR-II's metallic development, particularly U-Pu-Zr alloys, established benchmarks for high- in fast spectra, with Mark-III and later variants achieving up to 19.9 at.% without cladding breach in endurance tests, far exceeding initial 10 at.% goals through refinements like increased smear density and sodium bonding. Over 30 years, it irradiated thousands of fuel pins, generating empirical data on fission gas retention, dimensional stability, and behavior, which validated metallic fuels' superior thermal conductivity and compatibility with sodium coolant relative to alternatives. This supported breeding demonstrations, with core configurations achieving ratios near or above unity, enabling resource-efficient plutonium-uranium cycling. The integrated pyrochemical fuel cycle at EBR-II pioneered on-site reprocessing via molten-salt electrorefining, separating actinides from fission products in spent metallic without aqueous chemistry, thus minimizing waste volume and proliferation risks. From the onward, it processed over 35,000 elements, recycling and for reuse while isolating and for transmutation studies, demonstrating a closed-loop approach that reduced long-lived waste compared to once-through cycles. These advancements provided foundational data for advanced reactors, influencing concepts like sodium-fast systems with integral recycling.

Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy

The shutdown of EBR-II in 1994, alongside the cancellation of the (IFR) program it anchored, underscored a pivotal divergence in U.S. nuclear toward prioritizing short-term fiscal and geopolitical considerations over long-term technological . EBR-II had empirically validated key fast reactor attributes, including passive shutdown without operator action or external power during unprotected loss-of-flow and loss-of-heat-sink transients in 1986 tests, and net breeding with over 95% via pyrochemical methods, yielding waste forms with decay times reduced from millennia to centuries. Yet terminated funding under the administration, citing budget reallocations and diminished post-Cold imperatives for domestic breeding, despite the IFR's design minimizing proliferation risks through integrated, on-site reprocessing that produced in metallic form embedded in matrices unsuitable for rapid weapons use. This decision reflected a broader inertia favoring light-water reactors (LWRs) with the once-through cycle, which consumes inefficiently (utilizing less than 1% of its potential) and generates expanding spent inventories exceeding 80,000 metric tons in the U.S. by 2023. By sidelining breeder technology, U.S. effectively ceded in closed-fuel-cycle systems to nations like , , and , where fast reactors continue development to leverage thorium-uranium breeding and transmutate long-lived actinides. EBR-II's operational record—30 years at an average above 80%, producing 20 GWe-years of while irradiating fuels for —contrasted with policy-driven abandonment, which critics attribute to overstated non-proliferation anxieties and underestimation of relative to LWRs, despite breeders' potential to multiply reserves by 50-100 times via ^{239}Pu production from ^{238}U. The choice perpetuated reliance on finite (with U.S. production at historic lows of under 50 tons in 2022) and foreign enrichment services, amplifying vulnerabilities to supply disruptions and forestalling solutions to waste repository overloads like Yucca Mountain's stalled capacity. Recent policy echoes include the recycling of EBR-II's metallic fuel into high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for next-generation reactors, signaling latent recognition of its closed-cycle merits amid 2020s fuel shortages. However, the 1994 cancellation eroded institutional knowledge and delayed commercialization, as evidenced by the absence of operational U.S. fast reactors today, compared to global prototypes like Russia's BN-800 (operational since 2016). This has fueled arguments for stable, evidence-based frameworks in the Inflation Reduction Act's advanced reactor incentives, emphasizing that empirical successes like EBR-II's must override episodic political reversals to enable nuclear's role in decarbonization without perpetual waste burdens.

References

  1. https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/EBR2-NN-2004-2-2.pdf
  2. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/spent-nuclear-fuel-retired-government-reactor-getting-second-life
  3. https://inl.gov/nuclear-energy/historic-reactor-dome-gets-a-facelift/
  4. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6542410
  5. https://www.anl.gov/nse/argonnes-major-nuclear-energy-milestones
  6. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6534205
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08929880903445514
  8. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/82739
  9. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2004/03/49168.pdf
  10. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2012/06/73647.pdf
  11. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/22/085/22085487.pdf
  12. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1415120
  13. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/11741
  14. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/Reports/ANL-0001.pdf
  15. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1835/ml18353b121.pdf
  16. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/04/068/4068699.pdf
  17. https://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/X-TRT-A-00003.pdf
  18. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/570177
  19. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc869580/m2/1/high_res_d/4129326.pdf
  20. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/25/047/25047601.pdf
  21. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/Reports/ANL-Ebr-500.pdf
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022311598007600
  23. https://www.anl.gov/eof/experimental-breeder-reactorii
  24. https://inis.iaea.org/records/jd1d0-rmh11/files/17007076.pdf
  25. https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/integral-fast-reactor.shtml
  26. https://www.jaea.go.jp/english/news/symposium/RRW2014/shiryo/3-4.pdf
  27. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6815317
  28. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/neacrp-a-1986-0773.pdf
  29. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6174616
  30. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1863E_web.pdf
  31. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/30th-anniversary-experimental-breeder-reactor-ii-heat-removal-tests
  32. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6770302
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002954938790152X
  34. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2003/02/45726.pdf
  35. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6572843
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0149197096000091
  37. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/3931942.pdf
  38. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2024/03/187691.pdf
  39. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2335/ML23353A049.pdf
  40. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/rabbat-neto1/docs/conf-830905-12.pdf
  41. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ICONE/proceedings/ICONE10/35952/857/291802
  42. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1633_web.pdf
  43. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/3394922.pdf
  44. https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/07/NuclearQualms_CWhiteandAHaack_InternPoster-1.pdf
  45. http://www.stableclimate.org/nuclear-ifr
  46. https://atomicinsights.com/sad-ending-story-of-ebr-ii-told-by-three-of-its-pioneers/
  47. https://thebulletin.org/2021/03/bill-gates-bad-bet-on-plutonium-fueled-reactors/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022311518317367
  49. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1412/ML14128A346.pdf
  50. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/kaihatu/022/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/08/23/1393867_01.pdf
  51. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/USA-s-Experimental-Breeder-Reactor-II-now-permanen
  52. https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/cx-023613-experimental-breeder-reactor-ebr-ii-modifications-support-national-reactor
  53. https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/08/DOE-ID-11485_R2_FINAL-1.pdf
  54. https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/08/DOEID-11088-Rev-5-1.pdf
  55. https://www2.deq.idaho.gov/admin/LEIA/api/document/download/23216
  56. https://fissilematerials.org/library/fvh20.pdf
  57. https://www.aalo.com/post/mastering-sodium-reactor-technology
  58. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7255457
  59. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/3901058.pdf
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0951832097001695
  61. https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/rabbat-neto1/
  62. https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/9780/Why-did-the-US-abandon-a-lead-in-reactor-design
  63. https://thebulletin.org/2015/07/plutonium-reprocessing-breeder-reactors-and-decades-of-debate-an-indian-response/
  64. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/4754/chapter/6
  65. https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/10/21/how-the-integral-fast-reactor-was-killed-10214
  66. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors
  67. https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/frt.shtml
  68. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5913652
  69. https://inis.iaea.org/records/hp5sx-grf21
  70. https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Metallic%2520Fuels%2520for%2520Advanced%2520Reactors.pdf
  71. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10118184
  72. https://fipd.ne.anl.gov/about/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149197021003930
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002954938790152X
  75. http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf
  76. https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf
  77. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ICONE/proceedings/ICONE10/35960/943/292082
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993714000086
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.