On the Technological Progressions of Controlled,

Commercialized Uranium Fission for Utilization in

the Betterment of the Human Race

Created By: Brian Hallee

Advisor: Dr. Eric Moore

Submitted in requirements for Physics 490, January 21, 2010

Outline:

I. Introduction

II. Quick History of Fission

a. How it was Discovered

b. Why Fission was Deemed Important
c. The Significance of Uranium (and Plutonium), and its Enrichment
d. The Controversy Surrounding Fission and specifically Sustained Fission
e. The Chicago Pile No. 1

III. Basics of Nuclear Power Plant Design

IV. Antiquated Thermal Reactors

a. The Reason for Thermal Reactors

b. Natural Uranium Graphite-Moderated Reactors
i. Magnox Reactors
c. Enriched-Uranium Graphite-Moderated Reactors
i. Advanced Air-Cooled (AGR’s)
ii. Helium Cooled (HTGR’s)
iii. RBMK’s

V. Modern Thermal Reactors

a. Natural Uranium Deuterium-Oxide-Moderated Reactors

i. The Science and Significance of Heavy Water
ii. CANDU Reactors
b. Boiling Water Reactors
c. Pressurized Water Reactors

VI. Fast Neutron Reactors

a. The Need for Fast-Breeder Reactors

b. Liquid Metal-Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors

VII. Nuclear-Based Prospects for the 21st Century

a. The Advancement of Fission

i. Proliferation Concerns
ii. Advancements in Waste Disposal
iii. Refining Spent Fuel
iv. Cost

Page | 1
Commencing with the discoveries leading up to controlled, commercialized uranium fission,
how have technological progressions impacted nuclear reactor design over the past seven
decades leading up to the nuclear-based energy alternatives presented to the human race
entering 2011?

Page | 2
Abstract

The continuing of investment into the engineering of nuclear fission is of utmost

importance, as its application remains to be one of the only emission-free commercially viable

energy sources in the mid- to long-term future. Researchers remain divided on properties that

bestow greater reliability and feasibility in the core of fission reactors. This report will aim at

briefly describing the progress of such research over the previous decades, and shedding light

on properties such as the moderation techniques and figures, coolant cycles, fuel cladding,

steam generation, and accident protection currently used by the most current and/or

prominent reactors such as the Pressurized Water Reactor, Canadian Heavy Water reactor,

Magnox, and others. The qualitative theory behind the engineering of such reactors and the

significant facts and figures announced through this report are derived from both current and

historic experimental research. Taking into account the widely publicized, fast approaching

energy pinch, and the need for a carbon-free backbone to offset the collection of greenhouse

gases, this report aims to describe the technological progressions that have impacted nuclear

reactor design over the past seven decades to place atomic energy into perspective as a viable

twenty-first century alternative.

Page | 3
Introduction

Owing to the fact that experience is the paramount instructor, how exactly have

technological progressions impacted nuclear reactor design over the past seven decades

leading up to the nuclear-based energy alternatives presented to the human race entering

2011? In a world populated by almost 7 billion people, and with an ever-increasing percentage

of them making the transition to “modern,” Watt-hungry lifestyles, we are in dire need of a

major reform in the technology used to deliver those Watts to the average household. Fossil

fuels performed beautifully when called upon to power the industrial revolution of Western

societies and to combust in relatively small engines to allow individualized transportation to the

average citizen. However, we have been long aware of the detriments of using such fuels in a

wanton manner and have had a relatively long time to make the transition to other forms of

energy. It has been made obvious that burning fossil fuels is not only a finite process in term of

how long supplies will last, it also wreaks havoc on the Earth’s ecosystem via the creation of

greenhouse gases, Carbon “soot,” and accidental spills and leakages, to name a few. While

every realistic form of mass-energy production has its downfalls, one short-to-mid-term

solution seems to be nuclear fission. This solution was palpably realized in the middle 20th

century, and was undertaken quite radically in many countries following World War II.

Unfortunately, as with all technologies, periodic failures or “upsets” occur that are either

unforeseen or mishandled. A mixture of carelessness and lack of operator training led to two

widely publicized reactor accidents, (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island), and practically drove

the industry into the ground in the U.S. and some other nations for almost two decades.

Nevertheless, nuclear-based energy is once again taking center stage as the energy of the

Page | 4
future, and it is a fascinating journey to review the major developments that have come about

from the study of nuclear reactor technology. Likewise, it is interesting to note how countries

have developed their own reactor types after breaking off from an “ancestor” reactor

technology developed long ago. Engineers wishing transform nuclear energy into a prominent

supplier to the world’s grid should aim to study and learn from the lessons both antiquated and

modern reactor technologies have taught us.

The History of Nuclear Fission

While there are multitudes of physical discoveries that can be credited with progressing

humankind’s understanding of nuclear physics dating back to the ages of Greek philosophers 1,

the realization that an atom can “fracture” and separate into elements of smaller atomic mass

did not come until the early 20th century. Arbitrarily speaking, perhaps the most striking

discovery that placed physics on the fast-track to Uranium fission was the discovery of the

transmutation of elements by Ernest Rutherford (alongside Frederick Soddy) in 1902. 2

Rutherford proved that when atoms undergo radioactive decay and emit subatomic matter,

they have the propensity for changing into other elements after a certain amount of matter has

been released. This discovery was so fundamentally ground shaking, in large part due to its

comparison to alchemy, that the work garnered Rutherford the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for

1908.3 Rutherford also takes credit for the next giant leap forward in fission-physics when he

used the inherently radioactive element Radium to bombard Nitrogen with alpha-particles until

the nuclei was said to have “disintegrated.”4 While he was correct in this postulation, his

student Patrick Blackett made use of a cloud chamber to photograph the scene and prove that

Page | 5
the Nitrogen had been converted into Oxygen. This observation proved two principles. First, it

solidified the notion that atoms are made of itinerant subatomic particles (At this point, only

protons and electrons were known to exist, as the neutron was not discovered for over another

decade5). Secondly, subatomic particles were able to mingle and overcome repulsive forces to

form larger elements (namely, fuse the nuclei together). Standing on the shoulders of

Rutherford and James Chadwick with their discovery of atomic transmutation and neutrons,

respectively, Ernest Walton and Jon Cockroft assembled a primitive particle accelerator made

up of common parts found in the Cavendish Laboratory in 1932.6 The apparatus stripped

Hydrogen of its electron (ionizing it), and shot it toward a blanket of Lithium splitting the

individual atoms into Helium atoms. Again, there were two significant consequences stemming

from this discovery. Naturally, it was now obvious that nuclei wielded the power to not only

fuse together but split according to the elements properties. In fact, a standardized technical

term was developed to characterize elements on their ability to split. An atom is deemed

“fissile” if it readily splits into two fission products (elements of smaller mass that nearly add up

to the mass of the original atom) when bombarded with neutrons. However, the more

important realization came after the initial discovery: that two Helium nuclei had more energy

than the Hydrogen and Lithium. Careful measurements proved that this was due to Einstein’s

law of relativity stating that rest mass can be converted to energy, but total energy and mass

are conserved7 via eqn. 1.

(eqn. 1)

Page | 6
The constant of proportionality in eqn. 1 is the speed of light, thereby limiting significant

energy-mass transfer to near-relativistic objects. Because the mass decreased, heat flowed to

the Helium nuclei and this prospect immediately piqued interest in many a scientist and

engineer at that time; so much so that both Walton and Cockroft were awarded the 1951 Nobel

Prize in Physics for their work.8

The reason for Uranium taking center stage in the fission world is thanks to Enrico Fermi

who later became the authority of all things fission-related in the United States. His 1934

Italian team found that bombarding Uranium with neutrons created two smaller elements, and

simultaneously postulated that the neutrons have a higher propensity to react with the nuclei if

they are “thermal” or slowed by a moderator.9 This concept was a monumental achievement,

and went on to be used in almost all reactor types in the following decades. Allegedly

independent of learning about Fermi’s discovery, physicist Leo Szilard wrote about and

patented his postulation that elements who fission and release extra neutrons have the

possibility of starting a chain reaction. Many physicists doubted him at the time. Szilard even

began doubting himself after failing to observe his postulation with many lighter elements.

Even so, his analysis was eventually deemed correct and was quickly applied to Uranium to set

the stage for both controlled and “bomb-quality” chain reactions.10 While the prospect of

obtaining energy from the bonds of atoms was indeed exciting, the international collaboration

involved in its engineering was relatively slim due to its lack of proven commercial viability. The

discoveries that followed took place as the Nazi movement was gaining hold in Germany which

caused physicists to desperately begin working to turn theory into application. It must be

Page | 7
noted that both World War II and the subsequent Cold War catalyzed the research and

engineering of fission technology far beyond where it would be had those wars never occurred.

The next significant advancement, and perhaps the most important, transpired in 1939

between four different groups of physicists stationed in three different countries. The teams

included Frederic Joliot-Curie, Walter Zinn, Leo Szilard, Fermi, and Otto Hahn.11 The

experiments proved that Uranium was the element of choice in chain-reaction fission due to its

propensity to release energetic (fast) neutrons when split. These neutrons could then be

moderated and allowed to react with other Uranium atoms and the process could be continued

indefinitely. It was already known that the fission process released energy, so the prospect of

commercially harnessing that energy was beginning to seem like a dream come true. It was not

until 1939 that physicist Neils Bohr and John Weeler realized that natural Uranium ore was rife

with the particularly unwanted isotope 238U, while it contained only minute quantities of 235U.
238
U is particularly non-fissile, and only absorbs fast neutrons to create more fissile elements.

The act of using fission neutrons to create more fissile isotopes from 238U is called “breeding”,

and this concept is the entire basis of a particular type of modern reactor. Conversely, 235U is

highly fissile, and reacts favorably with slower thermal neutrons to split and produce further

neutrons.12 This simple fact is the reason why most reactors today employ enriched Uranium

or why such materials as weapons-grade Uranium exist. With natural Uranium ore having a
235
U population of roughly 0.3%, physicists have devised methods to chemically alter or enrich

the ore to 2-5% 235U. Enriched Uranium compensates for potential neutron absorbers in the

core, while weapons grade Uranium is enriched finely to ensure as many fission reactions as

possible will occur. Adding a further kink to the pipe dream of usable fission energy was Francis

Page | 8
Perrin’s findings on critical mass of Uranium and the importance on keeping a reactor “critical”

during the operation if usable energy is to be acquired without continuously damaging

equipment or failing to maintain the chain reaction.13 The term “criticality” is perhaps the most

important term in reactor physics as it determines whether the number of fission reactions is

equal to the number of neutrons produced. When a reactor goes critical, the power level is

stable and a very static amount of thermal energy is being produced. As it turns out, keeping

the reaction critical is easier than one would think. This state is achieved by varying the amount

of fuel, the shape of the fuel, the temperature, the density, and the use of neutron reflectors.

However, Perrin’s findings on criticality of fission reactions aided scientists in determining the

amount of fuel necessary to start a reaction and in realizing the need for neutron absorbers

besides moderators (what came to be coined “control rods”) to stop the reaction if it went

supercritical (the neutron economy is increasing faster than can be absorbed). In most

commercial designs, this is a non-issue as automatic neutron-economy sensors drive the rods

into the core before any damage is possible. The core is seen as the hub of all activity in a

nuclear reactor as it is broadly defined as the vessel that contains the fuel elements, moderator,

control rods, and other minute technologies that differ per reactor type. The final major

advancement in nuclear engineering leading up to a reactor was initiated by Edwin McMillan

and Glenn Seaborg in 1940. Due to the non-fissile nature of 238U when bombarded by thermal

neutrons, it was postulated that under certain conditions these abundant atoms would absorb

a neutron, emit an electron, and transform into a new element . Using a cyclotron

(which uses magnets to spin a particle in a circle at a high rate), the element was synthesized

and confirmed to be fissile. Thus, both Seaborg and McMillan proved that the multitude of

Page | 9
“unfavorable” atoms in natural uranium can actually be readily transformed to a new element

and split just as easily as 235U.14 This element (the first to be assembled solely by man) went on

to be named Plutonium.

While the implications of fission have been proven applicable to the technological

progression of humankind, the physicists working on the technology at the time were very

conscious of the alternative ends of their research. Perhaps most famously, after hearing about

the success of fission by Otto Hahn in Germany, Szilard and Fermi devised their own experiment

at Columbia University to observe the phenomenon themselves. He recounts the scene as

follows:

"We turned the switch and saw the flashes. We watched them for a little while and then

we switched everything off and went home. We understood the implications and

consequences of this discovery, though. That night, there was very little doubt in my

mind that the world was headed for grief."15

The implications of nuclear fission for war-time use in weaponry are beyond the scope of this

report. Nonetheless, World War II was perhaps the most prevalent force that drove the work

on chain-reaction fission through initiatives such as the U.S. Manhattan Project and British Tube

Alloys project.16

Finally, after condensing all of the Uranium fission research over the previous decades,

an outstanding team including Szilard, Fermi, Walter Zinn, Seaborg, and Arthur Holly Compton

(including many others) worked on constructing the first reactor (coined “pile” in those days).

They used natural Uranium oxide fuel and high-quality graphite (pure Carbon) as a moderator,

and cooled the reactor with naturally circulating air.17 The research for the reactor began at

Page | 10
Columbia University, but due to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into

the war it was moved to the interior of the country; namely, the University of Chicago. At the

university, an unused squash court under the football field was used to house the first reactor

dubbed the Chicago Pile No. 1. The reactor was primitive, yet very detailed for an initial run.

Overall, the pile consisted of 45,000 graphite blocks with 19,000 holes drilled into them for

placement of the Uranium fuel. Naturally, this reactor was solely designed to prove that

criticality of fission could be sustained. Thus, no turbines or steam generators were present at

the running of this reactor. All of the excess heat from the reaction was removed via the

circulation tubes and emitted to the atmosphere. This apparatus also proved the effectiveness

of control rods, as Enrico Fermi carefully used them to safely reach criticality and quench the

chain reaction. The Chicago Pile meant many things to many people involved in nuclear physics

at the time. Most markedly, it made apparent the possibility of using atomic energy for

mankind’s needs and sparked a slew of technological breakthroughs in reactor types and

technologies to bring that energy to the common household.

Basic Nuclear Power Plant Design

To fully appreciate the advancements made in commercial nuclear power over the

previous half-century, it is important to grasp the basic concepts of how atomic binding energy

is transformed into a usable stream of electrons. The centerpiece of every nuclear design is the

core and what is housed in the containment vessel. The containment vessel has developed into

a concrete “jacket” that houses the fuel elements, control rods, and coolant whose job is to

protect the outside world from radiation and contain any minor meltdown or coolant leak. The

Page | 11
core (labeled “reactor” in Figure 1) is the area where fission takes place and fission products are

accumulated. Most commercial designs use a type of housing or cladding for the fuel that will

contain the fission products once they are created. Naturally, the gain in using a cladding is the

production of a tidy system of radioactive elements that can be removed at will. The fission

reaction itself depends on the “cross-section” of a fuel which, as Fermi proved with his

moderator, has an inverse relationship with neutron speed. 18 The cross section for fissile fuels

increases with moderated neutrons and its quantitative value allows for optimal selection of

fuels for reactors. Certain reactors have been designed to use fissile fuels other than 235U such

as Thorium and 233U. Finally, the control rods are dense tubes of Cadmium or Boron

compounds that heavily absorb neutrons, stifling the neutron economy in the core and bringing

the reaction to a halt. In order to obtain enough thermal energy from the reaction, some cores

are relatively large due to power densities that vary heavily with the reactor type. Typically, a

reactor has a higher power density (amount of energy output per unit of core space) if a single

coolant cycle is used, very few neutron absorbers are present in the core, and enriched

Uranium is used. A second concrete shield, the containment building, is constructed around the

core for further protection against a more catastrophic accident. In the PWR shown in Figure 1,

the containment building houses the entire primary circuit to contain any radioactive spills or

ruptures relating to the cooling system. While all designs typically base themselves around

different thermodynamic cycles, a typical design will lead the coolant out of the containment

building and into a steam generator. Steam generation uses two fluids under different

pressures. If the coolant from the core (primary side) is under very high pressure/temperature

and is allowed to interact with the electricity-generating water (secondary side) which is at low

Page | 12
Figure 1: Basic schematic for Westinghouse Pressurized water reactor displaying a total of three cooling
loops. In the end, the tertiary cooling water is acquired from a natural or man-made body of water
located somewhere near the plant.

pressure/temperature, the secondary side will easily convert to steam. The interaction between

the primary and secondary side is depicted in the center of Figure 1 (red/green cycle

interaction) and the device is simply known as a steam generator. This steam is led upwards,

through a cycle, and through a turbo-generating device (depicted at the end of the green loop

in Figure 1) to create free electricity. Both the primary and secondary cycles are repeated

indefinitely. Even when the reaction has stopped the coolant is cycled due to the decay heat of

radioactive fission products present in the core. Nuclear power reactors are unique in that they

will continue to generate thermal energy over a year after initial shutdown; albeit not much.

Therefore, special care must be given to the spent fuel elements when a reactor is

decommissioned, and this remains one of the most prominent issues barring nuclear energy

from further advancement.

Page | 13
Antiquated Thermal Reactors

As previously mentioned, Enrico Fermi made apparent in 1934 that the slowing of

neutrons increases their reactivity with the 235U nuclei. The use of moderators such as graphite

that are known for their propensity to accept energy from the neutrons was a significant

technological advancement that progressed fission to commercial viability. Practically all

commercial reactors in Western nations use moderators in their core designs. 19 Subsequently,

a slew of reactor types using different moderators have been proposed and developed over the

previous half-century of nuclear development. Some of these core designs, while essential to

the progress of fission engineering, have been phased out over the decades due to concerns

over safety, cost, or power yield. The following sections will focus on the most significant

reactors in terms of relevance to human gain, and will separate them according to moderation

and cooling techniques.

Natural Uranium Graphite-Moderated Reactors

Early Reactors

This particular reactor design is monumental in that it was the first to be constructed

and operated continuously (ex. Chicago Pile No. 1). These reactors employed the most easily

accessible materials to fuel, moderate, and cool the core. The first reactors of this type used

natural Uranium that did not require enrichment, saving both money and work required to

operate the reactor. In fact, the very first reactors did not even contain a proper cooling system

at all!20 The original cores released heat to tubes of air powered by natural convection. This

set-up required great faith in the calculations undertaken by the physicists in charge of the

design. Today, scorn is heaped on the administrators of the Chicago No. 1 for allowing a

Page | 14
potentially explosive and poorly shielded reactor to go into operation in such a densely

populated region of the country. Thankfully, these early reactors were a huge success and

proved that criticality could be sustained and measureable amounts of heat could be

generated. Many countries ran with the natural Uranium design engineering new ways to cool

and fuel the cores. While these designs, including the Magnox, AGR, HTGR, and RBMK, are

considered obsolete and will likely never be re-built, many are still in operation today, and their

use for commercial energy production has taught us very valuable lessons related to safety and

operation of reactors.

Magnox Reactors

The first thermal reactor to see wide use for commercial energy production was the

Magnox design pioneered mainly in the U.K. and Japan. The “Magnox” name refers to the

cladding alloy used to house the fuel inside the core and is made up of Magnesium, Aluminum,

and minute amounts of other metals. It was a significant step up from the earlier reactors

where the fuel was simply placed into a hole drilled into the graphite moderator. The fuel and

cladding are arranged into a rod with fins (dubbed the “herringbone” pattern) as depicted in

Figure 2. The key advantage in designing the cladding in this way is it intentionally swirls the

cooling gas in the core which, in turn, increases the heat transfer between the fuel elements

and the gas. Having been moderated by a solid graphite block in a pre-stressed concrete core,

the engineering involved in moderating the early gas-cooled reactors including the Magnox was

quite minimal. Typically, a simple graphite block was shaped to fit the core and drilled

according to the type of fuel element used. Solid graphite is chosen for its large “moderating

Page | 15
ratio” which takes into account the stopping power and absorption of neutrons as seen in eqn.

2 below:

⁄∑ (eqn. 2)

In eqn. 2, S denotes the “slowing down power” of the

moderator (which is more technically involved), N represents

the number of molecules per unit volume, and ia represents

the cross section of the atoms. The moderating ratio for

graphite is 200, and this is the second-highest moderating ratio

of all commercially-applied moderators. The Magnox cooling

system is more robust than that of the earliest thermal reactors

in that it employs pressurized Carbon dioxide instead of

naturally circulating air. Carbon dioxide was chosen as the gas

due to its low neutron absorption, its lower propensity to

combust (relative to pure air), and its minimal corrosion

properties at lower temperatures.

When the Magnox stations were initially brought to the

Figure 2: Magnox
“Herringbone” fuel element table for commercial production, engineers hailed the inherent

Source: See (Nero, March, 1979) safety of using Carbon dioxide as a coolant for two reasons.

First, in the case of a major loss of coolant accident (LOCA), the Magnox cladding would retain

most of the radioactivity and fission products assuming the reactor was promptly shut down.

Secondly, having the cooling of the core undertaken by gas allows natural circulation to

Page | 16
continue to cool the core even if some of the coolant or pressure is lost. 21 This fact, coupled

with the fact that the core remains at a relatively low temperature naturally due to the limits

for Magnesium cladding made the Magnox reactor particularly safe for commercial production.

Over time, the drawbacks of Magnox reactors have proven to outweigh their benefits.

The principle disadvantage is the chemical properties of the Magnesium alloy. The maximum

safe-operating temperature of Magnox is around 360°C, greatly limiting the temperatures

present in the core, and, hence, the thermal efficiency of the plant. To compensate for low

power density and design a Magnox reactor that is suitable for commercial electricity

generation, the reactors must be scaled up to compensate for the low efficiency making

Magnox reactors space-consuming and costly.22 Another major issue resulting from the use of

Magnesium is the inability of plant operators to store spent fuel rods into spent-fuel pools

containing water for an extended period of time. The Magnox cladding corrodes in water

forming Magnesium Hydroxide, and exposes the fuel elements to the open.23 Naturally, the

deformation of the cladding and the forming of precipitates in the fuel-pool creates an

unsightly and unorganized engineering nightmare. Millions of dollars are currently being

pushed towards cleaning up some of the more degenerated and contaminated Magnox spent-

fuel pools in Britain at this time.24

Enriched-Uranium Graphite Moderated Reactors

Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors

Along with the spent-fuel pool issue, the design flaws inherent in the Magnox including the low

power density of the reactors and lack of standardization in the herringbone pattern for the

Page | 17
cladding have led to a relatively quick phase out of the Magnox design .25 Although a fair

amount were nevertheless constructed, it was not long before the Britons were eying on a new

design that departed from the Magnox reactors that would compete with the North American

high- efficiency of water reactors. While a number of specific reactor types were on the table

at this time, a more advanced version of the basic Magnox schematic was ultimately chosen.

These new reactors were given the name Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGR’s), and they

were the first commercialized reactors of Europe to employ enriched Uranium for use in the

core.26 This resulted from the idea that Carbon Dioxide gas exiting the core should reach

temperatures comparable to those found in traditional coal-fired plants so that similar

generators could be used to create the steam. Enriching the Uranium increases the propensity

for simultaneous fission reactions to occur, thereby increasing core heat. The AGR design

increased the steam-cycle efficiency monumentally due to both the higher steam temperatures

and pressure. In fact, although this reactor-type is now considered obsolete, the AGR steam

cycle efficiencies are roughly 40%, which is the highest efficiency found in any commercialized

fission reactor.27 It was previously mentioned that one of the limiting factors of Magnox

reactors is their inability to tolerate high core temperatures. To circumvent this problem in

AGR’s the Uranium pellets are clad in thin stainless steel machined with ribbed edges as seen in

Figure 3. The reason for the ribbing is comparable to the reason for the herringbone structure

in that increased gaseous turbidity escalates the heat transfer. Due to the inherently high

temperatures of the AGR core, the stainless steel cladding becomes a significant absorber of

neutrons, therein giving rise to the need for thin claddings and enriched Uranium pellets. Thus,

from a cost point of view, the need for the expensive process of enriching Uranium to a said

Page | 18
percentage (roughly 2.3%) was an

initial detraction in using the AGR to

provide electricity commercially to

Britain’s public. However, the offset

came in the average linear fuel rating

or the amount of Kilowatts garnered

from every meter of reactor space.

This rating was over 4 times greater

than that of the more primitive

Magnox designs which allowed

engineers to construct much smaller

buildings to house reactors that

Figure 3: The details of the AGR fuel element
concurrently provided more power to
Source: See 20
28
the public. Nevertheless, the

dramatic increase in core temperatures compared to the Magnox reactor introduced a slew of

engineering difficulties that ultimately plagued the AGR’s from reaching the success of the

American and Canadian reactors to be covered later. The most apparent technical difficulty

arose in using graphite moderation with Carbon dioxide coolant at high temperatures and

radiation fields. With the coolant passing right over the graphite face, the two have the

propensity to chemically interact in the following way:

(eqn. 3)

Page | 19
While carbon monoxide is unnoticeably toxic and not an enviable coolant by any means, the

real issue with eqn. 3 is the loss of integrity in the graphite moderator. Engineers have

observed this corrosion leading to deposition of Carbon on the fuel elements which greatly

inhibits the heat transfer to the coolant. If the reaction is allowed to run like this unchecked, a

very real possibility of overheating the core exists. Increased cooling would only lead to further

moderator degeneration and, thus, the operators must solely rely on the automatic tripping of

the control rods to quench the fission process. It has been found that the addition of methane

in small concentrations has led to the inhibition of eqn. 3. Nevertheless, the last AGR went

critical almost two and a half decades ago and there are no plans to resume construction of this

reactor type.29

High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors

Perhaps the most striking enriched-Uranium concept includes the Pebble Bed Reactor

(PBR) which resides in a family dubbed the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGR’s). It

is particularly difficult to classify PBR’s considering the fact that they have remained

experimental-only for decades. However, the current and ever-increasing energy crisis is giving

those within and outside the nuclear industry the chance to take a second look at these

interesting reactor types. Although they are not a success story in the way of commercial

energy production at this point in time, they do deserve a succinct description at how they

were evolved from the previously described gas-cooled reactors.

The PBR concept was devised in Germany to combat some of the technological issues

plaguing the British gas-cooled reactors.30 The only similarity to the British reactors is the use

Page | 20
of partially-enriched Uranium for fueling. Silicon-carbide coating is applied around the Uranium

pellets to clad the fuel and prevent the release of fission products. Finally, thousands of these

micro-fuel particles are suspended in a near-perfectly spherical ball of graphite (roughly the size

of a tennis ball), which acts as the moderator. These balls, or “pebbles”, are combined to a

number reaching roughly 360,000 and allowed to simply collect on the bottom of a pre-stressed

concrete vessel.

While the set-up of the core may seem arbitrary, or downright haphazard, the benefits

that arise from this arrangement are enormous. A surprising gain from the PBR design is the

lack of a need for control rods to quench or stabilize the fission reaction. A phenomenon

known as Doppler broadening occurs when the temperature of the core increases to a critical

level that is relative to the enrichment of the Uranium fuel. In Doppler broadening, the 238U

atoms increase in vibrational energy, subsequently absorb more neutrons, and quench the

reaction. The broadening creates an automatic “safety net” causing not only the reactor core

to be much less technologically involved to manufacture, but also self-regulating in the event of

a catastrophic LOCA.31 Most PBR’s do not even employ coolant pipes to remove heat from the

pebbles, as cooling achieved by Carbon dioxide in previous gas-cooled reactors is undertaken by

Helium in free convection in PBR’s. The use of this noble gas was a huge technological

achievement for the reason that it will not readily absorb neutrons or impurities, and is virtually

non-corrosive. If engineered correctly to avoid excessive fission product leakage, the very hot

helium gas exiting the core can be used to directly turn the turbine without the need for an

intermediate heat exchanger.

Page | 21
 Although the safety and cooling elements in the PBR design are inherently simple,

scientists and enthusiasts have been critical of a few key aspects that may have led them to be

shelved in the commercial arena. First, while not proven to be significant cause for concern, it

is possible for rogue Oxygen to enter the system and react with the hot graphite pebbles. If the

graphite were to combust even slightly in the core, potentially hazardous radioactive dust could

be swept out of the core and into the resulting coolant flow. Also, the act of storing the fuel in

large pebbles makes the PBR the culprit of generating the largest gross amount of radioactive

waste compared with any other reactor type.32 It is of worth to note that one of the largest

student-planned projects at MIT’s Nuclear Science and Engineering department is the designing

of a small, affordable, and inherently safe pebble bed reactor to be used in countries where

large-scale Western reactors are infeasible. The idea is that the usage of free-flowing Helium as

a coolant. Therefore, it is hoped that the lack of intricate thermodynamic cycles and cladding

inherent in this PBR will make the reactor concept friendlier to countries of developing status. 33

Likewise, the low-impact nature of smaller and easier to construct PBR’s refrains from placing

an overbearing strain on potentially weak or outdated electrical grids. The widespread

acceptance of such a project could easily lead to an international nuclear resurgence so

desperately needed. At the same time, the unorthodox design of the PBR that breaks away

from the same tired old cores and cycles of past reactors could excite scientific communities

and future scientists to take part in its implementation.

High Power Channel-type Reactor

The final thermal reactor-type to have fallen by the wayside in recent decades has

achieved markedly more publicity than any other reactor type listed in this report, and that

Page | 22
reactor type is the Soviet Boiling-Water, Graphite-Moderated Direct-Cycle (with Russian

acronym RBMK) reactor. The RBMK was developed in the Soviet Union in the late 1950’s to

compete with the rapid commercially-viable reactor progress of Western nations. The RBMK

was orders of magnitude more technologically involved than other thermal reactors at the

time. The design introduced a water/steam-mixture cooling system, a graphite block set-up for

moderation, and the use of groups of differently engineered control rods to shape the power

level in multiple ways.34 As with thermal reactors that preceded it, the RBMK used enriched

Uranium fuel to a 235U proportion of roughly 2%. The Soviets opted to use a Zirconium alloy to

clad the fuel for the reason that its melting temperature is roughly that of Uranium Oxide,

eliminating the need for core temperature limitations set specific to the cladding.

The use of boiling ordinary water in the RBMK was a significant milestone due to our

firm understanding on how to convert liquid water to steam and turn turbines with it. Similarly,

water acts as a decent moderator on its own, thereby improving the efficiency of the reaction.

The moderating ratio of water is roughly 58, and its lower value compared to graphite is due to

its tendency to absorb a neutron creating what is known as heavy water (a water molecule with

an extra neutron). Nonetheless, the “stopping power” (the numerator of eqn. 2) of water is

rather high, making it an excellent and cheap source of moderation. Coolant water is held at its

saturation point at high pressure due to the fact that when depressurized in the steam

separator, the high energy steam produced is able to directly generate electricity. The

relatively large amount of control rods present in RBMK’s are used for deeper and more finely-

tuned automatic regulation of thermal energy generation. Overall, the RBMK is designed to

make use of 211 solid absorber rods of which 139 are for typical power control. The remaining

Page | 23
rods are used for emergency protection and a special set of 24 short-absorber rods maintain

axial power management. These special absorber rods operate from below the core, and the

advantage of this is increased safety in micro-managing the power output in the core.35 One of

the major features that Soviet engineers attempted to focus on when designing the RBMK was

accident prevention and mitigation. To achieve this, an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS),

the first of its kind, was added to pump large amounts of cold water to the core in the wake of a

LOCA. The ECCS was engineered to actuate and begin pumping with the power of residual

rotational momentum of the turbine until the diesel generators warmed-up to supply the

backup power. It was during experimental testing of the ECCS system that the Chernobyl

disaster occurred.36

While the ECCS may have been designed to alleviate small coolant pipe ruptures or

turbine trips (a sudden cease of operation due to extreme conditions), a special attribute

stemming from the RBMK design known as a positive void coefficient has caused the reactor to

fall out of favor for commercial use. A positive void coefficient describes an increase in power

(due to the moderation properties of water) and temperature resulting from a reduction in

coolant density. As previously mentioned with the PBR reactor, an increase in temperature will

decrease the neutron population due to Doppler broadening. Consequently, the positive void

coefficient causes a battle between two different phenomena to produce a net effect

depending on the power level. Unfortunately, at power levels below 20%, increasing the power

leads to further boiling of the coolant which further increases the power, leading to an unstable

situation. The Chernobyl reactor No. 4 was at a low power level when an unexpected power

surge led the operators to send the core into emergency shutdown. However, an

Page | 24
uncontrollable thermal energy-output spiked before proper shutdown could be undertaken

leading the core vessel to blow and spew tons of fission products out of the containment

building. Due to the complex, rapidly responding control systems needed to cope with the

positive void coefficients in RBMK’s, the reactor design has been abandoned and international

pressure is being exerted on former U.S.S.R. nations to close the remaining reactors of this type

in operation.37

Modern Thermal Reactors

A large number of commercially viable thermal reactors have been phased out over the

years due to large capital costs and safety. Nonetheless, nearly all reactors being constructed

today continue to employ moderation in some form to slow down the neutron population in

the core. Specifically, liquid moderators have seen the most commercial success. The most

effective of these have been ordinary water or its “heavy” counterpart. Both simple and heavy

water have a net combination of positive and negative attributes in reactor applications.

Natural Uranium Heavy Water-Moderated Reactors

As mentioned many times over, the importance of a moderator lies in its stopping

power and lack of propensity to absorb neutrons. Although light water has been established to

perform particularly well in stopping neutrons, scientists including Harold Urey discovered that

it has a natural tendency to absorb an extra neutron forming a compound dubbed Deuterium

Oxide, or “heavy water”.38 Even more surprisingly, heavy water is naturally prevalent in both

sea and fresh water to the degree of 1 molecule D 2O per 3200 molecules of H2O.39 Upon

isolation of this molecule in tangible amounts, it was discovered that the properties of heavy

Page | 25
water vary closely mimic that of ordinary water. While many methods exist to separate heavy

water, simple distillation techniques are typically used for their cost effectiveness and ability to

operate on relatively large quantities of water. Due to its “overloading” of neutrons, the heavy

water molecule is more apt to reject neutrons than water yet its stopping power remains the

same. In regards to eqn. 2, the moderation ratio for heavy water is roughly 21,000; hundreds

of times that of other popular moderators. The ramifications of these factors was the

realization that a nuclear reactor could be constructed using D 2O as a moderator (and possibly

the coolant as well) hence reducing or removing the need to enrich mined Uranium to

compensate for neutron absorption by light water. The first to put the heavy water-reactor

idea into practice, and ultimately build an industry around it, were the Canadians with their

Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors. Today, this reactor technology is exported to

countries all over the world attempting to develop a sound commercial atomic-energy

infrastructure and is still heavily used in Canada.40

CANDU Reactors

The most striking technological difference of CANDU reactors is their use of horizontally-

oriented fuel elements and coolant tubes. CANDU cores are similar to those of different

reactor types in their use of vertical control rods for power control and large containment

vessels that house the moderator and fuel. The use of horizontal fuel rods stemmed from

economic factors rather than a need for engineered advancement. Following World War II,

Canada lacked the heavy industry to manufacture large steel vessels such as those prevalent in

American-made water reactors. Similarly, the government was unwilling to invest in the capital

cost of Uranium-enrichment.41 Thus, the horizontal set-up coupled with the heavy water

Page | 26
moderation system enabled them to use less material and smaller cladding. The CANDU

design, like the RBMK, uses a Zirconium alloy (coined Zircaloy) for its superior transparency to

neutrons.

Perhaps the most important technological advantage of using horizontal fuel elements is

the ability to circulate the coolant using decreased pressure and temperature. This

characteristic is a marked advantage over American reactors due to the smaller amount of

steam generator issues that surface over the CANDU reactor lifetime.42 These generator issues

are something that has plagued American Pressurized Water Reactors due to the increase in

temperature on the primary side. It is thought that the greater the amount of steam present

on the secondary side (electricity-generating cycle), the higher the propensity there is for

corrosion. The higher temperatures used in more advanced reactor types have caused the steel

present in the generator to weaken, necessitating costly repair and shutdown. Another

significant positive attribute of CANDU reactor is that they can run off spent Uranium fuel from

American reactors and Plutonium fuel from decommissioned warheads. With the advent of

recent disarmament treaties between the U.S. and Russia, a great excess of weapons-grade

Plutonium is available as fuel for CANDU cores. Like some light water reactors, the excellent

moderation properties of CANDU reactors make them compatible with Thorium fuel (if

Uranium is unavailable. The Thorium isotope 232Th will absorb thermal neutrons to produce the

Uranium isotope 233U which has fissile properties comparable to 235U.43 Lastly, the use of heavy

water as both a moderator and coolant allows the core to act as a giant heat sink, greatly

reducing the risk of fuel meltdown. All of these properties add up to make CANDU reactors one

of the most versatile and safest reactors to ever be conceived. Also, the allowance of natural

Page | 27
Uranium ore as fuel keeps recurring costs low. Many countries enrolled in the Commonwealth

of Nations and an increasing number of Eastern-Asian countries have seized opportunities to

purchase CANDU reactors and connect them to their respective grids. The largest consumers of

CANDU reactors outside of Canada are South Korea, India, and Romania.44

Nevertheless, the frustrating kinks or faults that surface in long-term use of nuclear

reactors are still present in CANDU designs. First and foremost, the use of Zircaloy as a

neutron-transparent cladding has come at a financial cost due to the hydriding (reducing the

ore to pure Zirconium at high temperatures) of the metal in many cases. This act of hydriding

greatly increases the risk of corrosion and exposing of fuel elements. While periodic testing of

the fuel elements typically resolve any corrosion issues before they have the potential to

disintegrate, the cost of irregularly replacing and refueling damaged elements can be

expensive. Secondly, massive amounts of expensive heavy water are an enormous capital

investment in constructing a CANDU reactor. Similarly, when using natural Uranium the power

densities of CANDU reactors are roughly 10 times lower than that of American pressurized

water reactors. This lower power density necessitates further capital investment to construct

larger reactors. High capital cost remains the only impedance in constructing more CANDU

reactors, as their sophisticated engineering allows for the versatility and ease of fueling

necessary to keep communities powered.45

Enriched Uranium Light Water-Moderated Reactors

Residents of the United States or Western Europe (excluding the U.K.) are most familiar

with nuclear reactors moderated and cooled by ordinary light water. Many countries have

chosen reactor designs that employ light water due to their relatively simple, familiar layouts

Page | 28
along with the low cost of cooling and moderating the core. Two specific light water designs

conceived in the United States have seen huge commercial success worldwide: the Boiling

Water Reactor (BWR) and the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR).46

Boiling Water Reactors

The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) is the simplest U.S. design, and was conceived in the

mid 1950’s through a joint cooperation between Idaho National Laboratory and General

Electric.47 Unlike the RBMK where the water is allowed to just reach a boiling point in the core,

the BWR completely boils the coolant in the core. The BWR thermodynamic cycle eliminates

the complication of other reactors by allowing the coolant steam to directly turn the turbine

and condense back into liquid coolant. In making use of core steam this way, only one direct

cycle is needed and high efficiency can be achieved. In fact, the BWR (depicted in Figure 4) is

so inherently simple on paper that when faced with the prospect of possibly incorporating

them into their infrastructure in the early 1960’s, the U.K. labeled the design as “boring”.48

Figure 4: A BWR schematic Source: See20

Page | 29
 Another technological advantage of the BWR is its ability to operate at relatively lower

pressures (especially compared to the PWR) so that the coolant boils in the core at a

temperature around 285°C. Similar to the RBMK, the BWR makes use of control rods inserted

from below, however, unlike the RBMK, all of the rods are of a single type and all are inserted

from below the core. Although greatly simplifying the design, having all the control rods

operate from below the core requires active systems to drive the rods upward. This feature

was initially a cause for concern when hypothesizing the event of a power outage to a

commercial BWR plant. Most other reactors use electromagnets to hold the rods in place

above the core and, in the case of a total power outage, immediately release the rods allowing

gravity to naturally drive them down and quench the reaction. This concern was overcome by

engineering a dedicated high-pressure hydraulic accumulator to each control rod to drive the

rods upward if the accumulator is tripped. This accumulator is a device which allows a

hydraulic non-compressible fluid to be stored under pressure by a self-actuating external

mechanical source. Once the pressure source is de-activated as a trip, the hydraulic fluid forces

the rods upward as it spreads out, and they are locked in place.

Perhaps most ingeniously, the BWR was designed to operate on a passive safety system

that changes the moderation properties between water and steam. In the event of a LOCA, the

amount of redundant coolant routes supplying water to the core will diminish, naturally

depriving the core of the usual amount of coolant. The subsequent excess heat in the core will

create a greater steam economy which decreases the amount of moderation available in the

core, effectively slowing the reaction. At that point, operators and automatic assessment

Page | 30
 49
systems can take over to fully stop the reaction and bring the situation under control. The

inherent safety and simplicity of the BWR have brought it to international acclaim.

Nonetheless, the BWR suffers from a number of disadvantages. As with many other

designs, the BWR power density remains relatively low. Perhaps the most widely criticized,

issue plaguing the BWR design is its tendency to boil and carry away radionuclides (radioactive

atoms). A reactor with recurring radioactivity in the coolant is regarded as particularly

troublesome due to the special measures needed to ensure proper shielding. Even worse, no

feasible material can be chosen for steam generation that avoids significant breakdown when

exposed to radiation. This increase in radioactivity coupled with lower power density

necessitates the need for huge reactor cores with gargantuan amounts of shielding in place. 50

A typical BWR core requires roughly 4 meters of reinforced concrete and steel and about and

extra meter or so involved in the wall of the containment building. This specialized building

contains the core, refueling equipment, coolant pipes, and monitoring equipment, and is not

typically populated by personnel during operation. Also, special measures have to be put into

place to protect the power generation equipment (and maintenance crews) against

radioactivity. Fortunately, the typical radioactive substances present in the steam are Krypton

and Xenon which can be removed through an inert-gas removal system, and a radioactive

isotope of Nitrogen. Even with these systems, operators of a BWR will receive greater doses of

radiation over their work-lives than those of a PWR or CANDU, and that fact remains a

significant stumbling block in the acceptance of the BWR.51

Page | 31
 Pressurized Water Reactors

The Pressurized Water Reactor has seen the most prominent use in the United States

and among other nations. Interestingly, the PWR was conceived primarily for application in

nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. The idea was to employ a reactor that used light

water, no “fancy” thermodynamic cycles, and passive cooling techniques that made operation a

breeze at full power. The main proponent of the PWR at the time of conception was Admiral

Hyman Rickover of the U.S. Navy.52 In a PWR, the main technological difference separating it

from that of a BWR is the massive amounts of added pressure to the coolant. Water entering a

PWR core is typically held at around 16 MPa, which is noticeably higher than any other

commercialized reactor. This added pressure causes the coolant to wield a boiling point around

375°C. In the PWR, a device known as a pressurizer is employed at the outlet of the core to

maintain 16MPa throughout the coolant cycle. While revolutionary at the time, the pressurizer

is a simple design consisting of a heating element and a few release valves to maintain a set

steam-water mixture depending on the desired pressure. This pressurizer was the focal point

of the hardware failures leading up to the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island TMI-2

reactor in 1979.53

Another advance pertaining to the coolant system is the use of a steam generator that

requires two light-water sources in its operation. The high-pressure hot coolant is fed through

a pool of low pressure water (with no physical contact between the two) enabling the latter

source to easily boil and produce steam. This subsequent steam is then fed through the turbine

to generate electricity. Owing to the fact that PWR’s suffer from the leakage of minute fission

products into the coolant stream in a similar fashion to BWR’s, generating steam from a second

Page | 32
source of water avoids the issue of radionuclide degeneration of turbine equipment.54 Unlike

the BWR, the lack of boiling in the core has enabled use of drop-in control rods that use the

electromagnetic grip system previously mentioned.

The two properties of a PWR that resulted in such wide use is its inherent ability to

passively monitor power increases when operating near full power. 55 Light water, unlike heavy

water, is not only beneficial in stopping neutrons but also tends to absorb them to create heavy

water. Thus, in the case of a LOCA where boiling may occur, the loss of moderation will cause

the steam and 238U to absorb the faster neutrons, decreasing the power level almost

immediately. The fast-neutron flux (Number of fast neutrons per unit cross section) change

takes place faster than the reaction time of automatic control-rod mechanisms and operators,

and places the core in a more manageable state. If a reactor decreases in power in the wake of

decreased moderation, it is said to wield a negative void coefficient of reactivity which is

something highly sought-after in a design (Opposed to the positive-void RMBK which is

considered unstable). The final notable safety feature engineered into the PWR is the

automatic regulation of Boron-compounds in the coolant stream. Specifically, Boric acid is

typically used due to its supreme ability to absorb neutrons and lack of corrosive or harmful

properties. The acid is typically injected into the coolant when small coolant pipe ruptures,

turbine trips, or pump failures occur. This “neutron-poison” injection, as it has been coined,

occurs through the use of purely liquid coolant throughout the entire cycle. Thus, the poison

and the negative void coefficient are considered a strong selling point for the continuing use of

the PWR.56

Page | 33
 Many consider the use of high pressures in the PWR to be just as much of a hazard as an

advantage.57 Although PWR’s typically make use of redundancy in their coolant systems

(typically 4 separate cooling and steam generating streams), the high pressures, residual

radioactivity, and neutron flux limit the lifetime of the plant considerably if the contractors are

unwilling to re-vamp the steel piping throughout the plant. Similarly, the unexpected,

spectacular, large-area pipe ruptures remain a significant concern for ailing PWR plants due to

the massive pressures present. Like the BWR, the use of light water requires expensive

enrichment of Uranium to fuel the core, so recurring cost remains high in this regard. Lastly,

and perhaps the most negative criticism of the PWR is their inability to undergo refueling while

in operation. If a significant refueling is necessary, which is typical to avoid the need of

repetitive shut-downs, the reactor will typically go offline for 15 days. The impact of these

shutdowns can be lessened by operating more than one PWR on site. 58 Even through these

detriments, the lack of thermodynamic complexity, mixed with the low recurring costs and

inherent safety, has made the PWR the most widely used nuclear reactor in the world. 59

Fast-Neutron Fuel-Breeding Reactors

Although a fast-neutron (un-moderated) type reactor was the first to generate a sizable

amount of electricity in 1951, the intricate technology and material requirements has led these

reactors to continually be deemed a “futuristic” or advanced design.60 Specifically, fast-breeder

reactors (FBR’s) operate on the principle of using a fast-array of neutrons to breed more fuel

than they consume. Over time, scientists have experimentally derived a “perfect” fuel element

for FBR’s consisting of 20% Plutonium Dioxide and 80% natural Uranium Dioxide. The

Page | 34
Plutonium Dioxide is chiefly gathered from the outputs of other reactor types or dismantled

nuclear weaponry. Because of the finite amount of Uranium Oxide present on Earth, the FBR is

beginning to take shape as the future for nuclear fission.61

Liquid Metal-Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors

The most prominently experimented and applied FBR is the Liquid Sodium-Cooled FBR.

The positive and negative technological attributes of this reactor tend to be evenly split. On the

plus side, core safety is one of the inherent features built into the molten metal FBR’s. In

popular pool-type designs, the entire core is immersed in liquid Sodium (or a Sodium-Potassium

alloy) which is an excellent heat conductor and low neutron absorber. When the fission

reaction is at full power, the fast neutrons will bond with the 238U atoms forming 239Pu, which is

fissile. All the while, the slower neutrons, which are much smaller in terms of population

density, will react with both the 239Pu atoms and minute amounts of 235U atoms. Naturally,

greater amounts of 239Pu will pile up giving meaning to the term “Breeder reactor”. Due to the

practically non-existent neutron absorption properties of the metal coolant, the neutron

economy inside the core is very high compared to those of other commercially viable reactors.

This high neutron flux gives the FBR the advantage of having the highest power density of any

commercial reactor (5 times that in a PWR, 1000 times that of a Magnox). To limit radionuclide

transportation, a heat exchanger is located essentially in the core which transfers fission heat to

a second molten Sodium system. Then, a third heat exchanger is present outside the core

which transmits heat from the Sodium system to a light-water steam generator. This heat

exchange design is also the centerpiece of fears relating to large-scale construction of FBR’s.

Special care must be given to the engineering of the molten Sodium or Potassium piping to

Page | 35
ensure no contact with air or, first and foremost, water ever occurs. Both Sodium and

Potassium are alkali metals that, in their pure state, will spontaneously burn in Oxygen and

violently explode when mixed with ordinary light water. Unfortunately, few other metals

exhibit the necessary properties such as low melting point, high boiling point (relative to air

temperature), and low toxicity to be used as a FBR coolant so sealing the coolant off from both

common air and water is a major concern. Lastly, large-scale international use of FBR’s is a

major proliferation concern due to their production of weapons-grade Plutonium. The full

cycles of certain designs (thankfully, the easier ones to construct) inhibit the extraction of this

Plutonium, but some feel that international proliferation committees in their current state are

inadequate to advocate mass construction of FBR’s. 62

The Future of Commercialized Nuclear Fission

A multitude of nuclear-based options are available to countries seeking to lessen their

carbon footprint and fossil-fuel reliance, from basic thermal reactors to breeder reactors. Even

so, many reactor types have been proposed, and even used commercially, that have not been

mentioned in this report. While the minor accident at Three Mile Island’s PWR in 1979 and the

violent explosion at Chernobyl’s RBMK in 1986 markedly dampened international interest in

nuclear energy in the decade that followed, the current energy crunch is brining substantial

amounts of renewed interest to the field. Subsequently, there are a number of technical issues

(both scientific and economic) that must be addressed for nuclear energy to win over the public

and begin forging a carbon-free path to sustained living.

Page | 36
 The advancement of nuclear energy, especially in countries of rogue regimes, presents a

proliferation concern. In the operation and reprocessing involved in the life of a fuel element,

many fear the respective production and extraction of plutonium will give countries incentive

to develop the means to form atomic weaponry with the substance. Currently there are two

routes (one being technical, the other political) that proliferation committees such as the

International Atomic Energy Alliance (IAEA) are taking to deaden the concern of plutonium

weaponry being developed in rogue states. First, the technology to reprocess the spent fuel is

where the focal point of the concern lies, as it remains the primary point in the fuel process at

which Plutonium can be isolated in pure form. A team headed by Glenn Seaborg invented the

initial Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) process as part of the Manhattan Project in

1947.63 Sparing the details, this process is a liquid-liquid extraction process that involves two

immiscible substances to interact with the spent-fuel elements and separate them. While

technologically uninvolved, this process is heavily criticized due to its generation of large

amounts of irradiated liquid waste, and its ability to so easily isolate 239Pu.

To quell this proliferation issue, committees such as the IAEA have employed measures

to ensure that countries are supplied with more modern means to reprocess, such as the UREX

process.64 The Uranium Extraction (UREX) process is the next generation of reprocessing based

off the PUREX design that significantly reduces the size of the waste set for entombment in

high-level sites such as Yucca Mountain. More importantly, the UREX technique involves the

addition of acetohydroxamic acid which acts as a reducing agent to both Neptunium and

Plutonium. The acid donates an electron to these elements and greatly reduces their

Page | 37
extractability. Therefore, if a global up-rise in nuclear-based energy is to occur, it is enviable for

all countries including those in the West to advocate and use UREX processing.

The other means of proliferation currently on the table is the simple act of downplaying

the need for nuclear weaponry. Researchers and those tied to the IAEA insist that a widespread

change of Western attitudes towards the use and creation of nuclear weaponry will cause a

ripple effect that stifles the requirement developing nations feel to develop these weapons. If

countries such as the U.S. dismantle their nuclear warheads and insist on other technologies for

rapid war-time response, developing nations will not be so apt to use nuclear reactors as a ploy

to fuel their pipe-dreams of constructing atomic bombs. The technological advancement of

reprocessing spent fuel mixed with a widespread change of political attitude are key to allowing

nuclear energy to power humanity through the 21st century in a responsible way.65

Observing modern, advanced nuclear reactors in practice will not occur unless Western

governments and investors become keen on subsidizing and licensing these costly plants. Costs

of nuclear reactors today are said to range $2,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of energy out. This

steep cost is relative to a more investor-friendly flat-price of $300 million for a coal-fired plant

which is practically guaranteed to operate without a hitch. Hence, pressure exists on engineers

to develop building layouts for new reactors that curtail unnecessary costs without interfering

with a safety margin.66 Likewise, men and women in high-powered government positions need

to carefully weigh the capital costs of these new plants vs. the long-term costs the whole planet

will pay if Carbon emissions remain at their current levels.

Page | 38
 Overall, many advanced reactors such as the VVER-PWR (Russian-Advanced PWR),

ESBWR (Economic Simplified BWR), and fast reactors (all of which employ further safety

properties and efficiencies than those mentioned earlier) that have implemented the hard

lessons-learned over the previous half-century are lined up ready to supply the ever-increasing

energy needs of the human population. Recently, reactor designers have been pushed to install

passive safety systems into their reactors to enable stable accident control without the need of

human intervention. One such example, the ESBWR, makes use of gravity to allow condensed

water to flow back to a pool in the reactor vessel. Steam is led out of the top of the vessel

through natural convection. Thus, no circulation pumps or associated piping are required for

the primary circuit with the ESBWR67. Considering the accidents at both Three Mile Island and

Chernobyl were entirely advanced through human action, passivity in reactor safety will be a

major factor in the resurgence of such technology. However, further technological

advancement is required in key fields that stem off the use of nuclear energy as a fuel source,

and countries and their governments must be willing to take the financial hit now to implement

more reactors before their descendants pay a much deeper price decades, or even centuries,

down the road.

Page | 39
Cited Bibliography

Employee Communications Springfields Fuels Limited . (n.d.). The Magnox Story. Retrieved January 4,
2011, from Springfield Fuels Limited:
http://www.nuclearsites.co.uk/resources/upload/Magnox%20Brochure2.pdf

Anderson, H. H. (Issued 1960). Patent No. 2924506. United States.

Ball, J. M. (1984). An Atlas of Nuclear Energy: A Non-technical World Portrait of Commercial Nuclear
Energy. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.

Beard, J. A. (2006, September 15). ESBWR Overview. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from U.S. Department
of Energy: http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/pdfs/esbwrOverview.pdf

Bernstien, B. J. (1976, June). The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–
1945. The Western Political Quarterly, pp. 202-230.

Boozer, A. H. (2004). Physics of magnetically confined plasmas. Reviews of Modern Physics, 1071-1138.

Briggs, J. R. (1976). The Discovery of the Structure of the Atom and Nuclear Fission: The Physics of
Nuclear Reactors and the Main Features of Current Design. London, England, United Kingdom.

Cameron, I. R. (1982). Nuclear Fission Reactors. New York: Plenum Press.

Carlson, J. W. (1989). Fifty Years with Nuclear Fission: Articles by Emilio Segre, Edoardo Amaldi, Pavle
Savic, Siegfried Flugge, Bertrand Goldschmidt, Rudolf Peirls, John A. Wheeler, Leslie G. Cook, and
Glenn T. Seaborg. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.

Chadwick, J. (1932). Possible Existance of a Neutron. Nature, 312.

Charpak, R. L. (2001). Megawatts and Megatons. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Cronin, J. W. (2004). Fermi Remembered. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Culham Center for Fusion Energy. (2009). How Fusion Works. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from Culham
Center for Fusion Energy: http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/index.aspx

Department of Energy. (November 2002). Department of Energy Assessment of the Iter Cost Estimate.

Dolan, T. (1982). Fusion Research, Vol. III. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Duderstadt, J. (1979). Nuclear Power. New York: Marcel Dekker.

EFDA (European Fusion Development Agreement). (2007). Plasma Confinement by Magnetic Fields.
Retrieved December 1, 2010, from Fusion Expo: http://www.fusion-
eur.org/fusion_cd/magnetic.htm

Page | 40
Einstein, A. (1916). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. New York: H. Holt and Company.

Evans-Prichard. (2010, August 29). Obama Could Kill Fossil-Fuels Overnight with a Nuclear Dash for
Thorium. The Telegraph.

Failla, H. U. (1935, March 15). Concerning the Taste of Heavy Water. Science, p. 273.

Fitzpatrickq, R. (2008, December 19). The Physics of Plasmas: A Graduate Course. Retrieved December 2,
2010, from University of Texas at Austin:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/lectures.html

G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

Garry McCracken, P. S. (2005). Fusion: The Energy of the Universe. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc.

Glasstone, S. (1960). Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions: An Introduction to Theory and Experiment.

Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

Griffiths, D. J. (1999). Introduction to Electrodynamics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

H. C. Urey, F. G. (1932). A Hydrogen Isotope of Mass 2. Physical Review, pp. 164-165.

Hirsch, P. (1990). The Fast-Neutron Breeder Fission Reactor. London: The Royal Society.

James J. Duderstadt, L. J. (1976). Nuclear Reactor Analysis. New York: Wiley.

Jr., R. G. (1989). Historical Perspectives: Dawn of the Nuclear Age, Reminiscecences of Pioneers in
Nuclear Fission. Remarks from a Symposium of the 1982 Winter Meeting of the American
Nuclear Society. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.

K.J. Dent, e. a. (1982, September 20). Status of Gas Cooled Reactors in the UK. British Nuclear Energy
Society, pp. 247-258.

Kadak, A. C. (2007, March 11). MIT PEBBLE BED REACTOR PROJECT. Retrieved January 9, 2011, from
Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, MIT: http://web.mit.edu/pebble-
bed/papers1_files/MIT_PBR.pdf

Kadak, A. C. (2007, March 1). The Future of Nuclear Energy. (J. Durant, Interviewer)

Kessler, G. (1983). Nuclear Fission Reactors: Potential Role and Risks of Converters and Breeders. New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Knief, R. A. (1992). Nuclear engineering: theory and technology of commercial nuclear power. New York:
Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

Macfarlane, A. (2007, March 1). The Future of Nuclear Energy. (J. Durant, Interviewer)

Page | 41
Marco Ariola, A. P. (2008). Magnetic Control of Tokamak Plasmas (Advances in Industrial Control).
Springer.

Marcus, G. H. (2010). Nuclear Firsts: Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development [Hardcover].
American Nuclear Society.

Marsden, B. J. (n.d.). Reactor Core Design Principles: AGR and HTR. Retrieved January 4, 2011, from
School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Civil Engineering: University of Manchester:
http://web.up.ac.za/sitefiles/file/44/2063/Nuclear_Graphite_Course/B%20-
%20Graphite%20Core%20Design%20AGR%20and%20Others.pdf

Maslak, D. H. (January 2006). Next-Generation Nuclear Energy: The ES-BWR. Nuclear News, a publication
of the American Nuclear Society.

McIntyre, H. C. (1975). Natural Uranium Heavy Water Reactors. Scientific American, pp. 17-27.

MIT. (2010). Alcator C-Mod. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from Plasma Science and Fusion Center:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/

Mosey, D. (1990). Reactor Accidents. Nuclear Engineering International Special Publications.

Nero, A. V. (March, 1979). A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors. University of California.

New Energy and Fuel. (2008, March 18). What is a Stellarator? Retrieved December 5, 2010, from New
Energy and Fuel: NEWS AND VIEWS FOR MAKING AND SAVING MONEY IN NEW ENERGY AND
FUEL: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2008/03/18/what-is-a-
stellarator/

NNC. (March, 1976). The Russioan Graphite Moderated Channel Tube Reactor. National Nuclear
Corporation.

Nuclear Engineering International. (2005, November 10). Crucial UK Cleanup Job Commences. Retrieved
January 5, 2011, from Nuclear Engineering International:
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2032396

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (n.d.). Rickover: Setting the Nuclear Navy's Course. U.S. Department of
Energy.

P.M. Bradford, B. C. (1976). Ion beam analysis of corrosion films on a high magnesium alloy (Magnox Al
80). Corrosion Science, 747-766.

Preus, A. (2001). Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy: Before Plato. New York: SUNY Press.

Professor K.B. Hasselberg, P. o. (December 10, 1908). Award Ceremony Speech: The Nobel Prize in
Chemistry 1908. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1908.

Page | 42
R.C. Dahlberg, R. T. (1974, January). Description, HTGR Fuel and Fuel Cycle Summary. General Atomic
Company Reports.

Rhodes, R. (1995). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon & Schuster.

Rife, P. (1999). Lise Meitner and the Dawn of the Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser Boston.

rosenergoatom. (2010). Generation. Retrieved January 6, 2011, from About the Plant:
http://snpp.rosenergoatom.ru/eng/about/production/

Spinrad, B. I. (November, 1979). Alternative Breeder Reactor Technologies. Annual Review of Energy,
147-179.

Stacey, W. M. (2010). Fusion: An Introduction to the Physics and Technology of Magnetic Confinement
Fusion. Atlanta, GA: Wiley-VCH.

Szilard, L. (1945, December 22). We Turned The Switch. Nation.

Taylor, S. (2007). Privatisation and financial collapse in the nuclear industry: the origins and causes of the
British energy crisis of 2002. Psycology Press.

Technologies, T. S. (1990). Experimental High-Temperature Reactor, 21 Years of Successful Operation for

A Future Energy Technology. Association of German Engineers, pp. 9-23.

The Nuclear Tourist. (2006, February 16). Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). Retrieved January 6, 2011, from
The Virtual Nuclear Tourist ! Nuclear Power Plants Around the World:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm

Thomas Telford. (1987). Chernobyl: A Technical Appraisal. British Nuclear Energy Society.

Tong, L. (1988). Principles of Design Improvement for Light Water Reactors. Hemisphere.

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History. Retrieved January 3,
2011, from Office of History and Heritage Resources:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/cp-1_critical.htm

U.S. Nuclear Reglatory Commission. (1978). Reactor Safety Study. Taiwan: U.S. Reglatory Commission.

U.S. Reglatory Commission. (2009, February). Annual Report on Occupational Radiation Exposure,
NUREG-0713. Retrieved December 20, 2010, from U.S. Reglatory Commission:
http://www.reirs.com/annual.htm

Unofficial ITER Fan Club. (2010). Videos. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from Unofficial ITER Fan Club:
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=7&Itemid=61

Waller, P. I. (1951). Nobel Prize in Physics 1951: Award Ceremony Speech. The Nobel Foundation.

Page | 43
Supplemental Bibliography
Edward Teller, J. S. (2002). Memoirs: A Twentieth-Century Journey in Science and Politics. Basic Books.

Gwyneth Cravens, R. R. (2007). Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy. Knopf.

Haywood, R. (1975). Analysis of Engineering Cycles. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Hamilton, J. J. (n.d.). Nuclear Reactor Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.

Inglis, D. R. (1973). Nuclear Energy: Its Physics and its Social Challenges. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Winterton, R. (1981). The Thermal Design of Nuclear Reactors. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Page | 44
Endnotes
1
Preus, A. (2001). Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy: Before Plato. New York: SUNY Press.

2
Rhodes, R. (1995). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon & Schuster.

3
Professor K.B. Hasselberg, P. o. (December 10, 1908). Award Ceremony Speech: The Nobel Prize in
Chemistry 1908. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1908.

4
Rhodes, R. (1995). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon & Schuster.

5
Chadwick, J. (1932). Possible Existance of a Neutron. Nature, 312.

6
Rife, P. (1999). Lise Meitner and the Dawn of the Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser Boston.

7
Einstein, A. (1916). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. New York: H. Holt and Company.

8
Waller, P. I. (1951). Nobel Prize in Physics 1951: Award Ceremony Speech. The Nobel Foundation.

9
Cronin, J. W. (2004). Fermi Remembered. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

10
Szilard, L. (1945, December 22). We Turned The Switch. Nation.

11
Jr., R. G. (1989). Historical Perspectives: Dawn of the Nuclear Age, Reminiscecences of Pioneers in
Nuclear Fission. Remarks from a Symposium of the 1982 Winter Meeting of the American
Nuclear Society. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.

12
Kessler, G. (1983). Nuclear Fission Reactors: Potential Role and Risks of Converters and Breeders.
New York: Springer-Verlag.

13
Rife, P. (1999). Lise Meitner and the Dawn of the Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser Boston.
14
Carlson, J. W. (1989). Fifty Years with Nuclear Fission: Articles by Emilio Segre, Edoardo Amaldi, Pavle
Savic, Siegfried Flugge, Bertrand Goldschmidt, Rudolf Peirls, John A. Wheeler, Leslie G. Cook,
and Glenn T. Seaborg. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society.

Page | 45
15
Rhodes, R. (1995). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon & Schuster.
16
Bernstien, B. J. (1976, June). The Uneasy Alliance: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Atomic Bomb, 1940–
1945. The Western Political Quarterly, pp. 202-230.

17
Marcus, G. H. (2010). Nuclear Firsts: Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development
[Hardcover]. American Nuclear Society.

18
Hamilton, J. J. (n.d.). Nuclear Reactor Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.

19
Knief, R. A. (1992). Nuclear engineering: theory and technology of commercial nuclear power. New
York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

20
U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History. Retrieved January
3, 2011, from Office of History and Heritage Resources:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/cp-1_critical.htm

21
K.J. Dent, e. a. (1982, September 20). Status of Gas Cooled Reactors in the UK. British Nuclear
Energy Society, pp. 247-258.

22
Employee Communications Springfields Fuels Limited . (n.d.). The Magnox Story. Retrieved January
4, 2011, from Springfield Fuels Limited:
http://www.nuclearsites.co.uk/resources/upload/Magnox%20Brochure2.pdf

23
P.M. Bradford, B. C. (1976). Ion beam analysis of corrosion films on a high magnesium alloy (Magnox
Al 80). Corrosion Science, 747-766.

24
Nuclear Engineering International. (2005, November 10). Crucial UK Cleanup Job Commences.
Retrieved January 5, 2011, from Nuclear Engineering International:
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2032396

25
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.
26
Marcus, G. H. (2010). Nuclear Firsts: Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development
[Hardcover]. American Nuclear Society.

Page | 46
27
Marsden, B. J. (n.d.). Reactor Core Design Principles: AGR and HTR. Retrieved January 4, 2011, from
School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Civil Engineering: University of Manchester:
http://web.up.ac.za/sitefiles/file/44/2063/Nuclear_Graphite_Course/B%20-
%20Graphite%20Core%20Design%20AGR%20and%20Others.pdf

28
Duderstadt, J. (1979). Nuclear Power. New York: Marcel Dekker.

29
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

30
Technologies, T. S. (1990). Experimental High-Temperature Reactor, 21 Years of Successful
Operation for A Future Energy Technology. Association of German Engineers, pp. 9-23.

31
R.C. Dahlberg, R. T. (1974, January). Description, HTGR Fuel and Fuel Cycle Summary. General
Atomic Company Reports.

32
Nero, A. V. (March, 1979). A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors. University of California.

33
Kadak, A. C. (2007, March 11). MIT PEBBLE BED REACTOR PROJECT. Retrieved January 9, 2011, from
Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, MIT: http://web.mit.edu/pebble-
bed/papers1_files/MIT_PBR.pdf

34
rosenergoatom. (2010). Generation. Retrieved January 6, 2011, from About the Plant:
http://snpp.rosenergoatom.ru/eng/about/production/

35
NNC. (March, 1976). The Russioan Graphite Moderated Channel Tube Reactor. National Nuclear
Corporation.

36
Thomas Telford. (1987). Chernobyl: A Technical Appraisal. British Nuclear Energy Society.

37
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

38
H. C. Urey, F. G. (1932). A Hydrogen Isotope of Mass 2. Physical Review, pp. 164-165.

39
Failla, H. U. (1935, March 15). Concerning the Taste of Heavy Water. Science, p. 273.

Page | 47
40
McIntyre, H. C. (1975). Natural Uranium Heavy Water Reactors. Scientific American, pp. 17-27.

41
Marcus, G. H. (2010). Nuclear Firsts: Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development
[Hardcover]. American Nuclear Society.

42
James J. Duderstadt, L. J. (1976). Nuclear Reactor Analysis. New York: Wiley.

43
Evans-Prichard. (2010, August 29). Obama Could Kill Fossil-Fuels Overnight with a Nuclear Dash for
Thorium. The Telegraph.

44
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

45
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

46
Ball, J. M. (1984). An Atlas of Nuclear Energy: A Non-technical World Portrait of Commercial Nuclear
Energy. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.

47
The Nuclear Tourist. (2006, February 16). Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). Retrieved January 6, 2011,
from The Virtual Nuclear Tourist ! Nuclear Power Plants Around the World:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm

48
Taylor, S. (2007). Privatisation and financial collapse in the nuclear industry: the origins and causes of
the British energy crisis of 2002. Psycology Press.

49
Nero, A. V. (March, 1979). A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors. University of California.

50
Maslak, D. H. (January 2006). Next-Generation Nuclear Energy: The ES-BWR. Nuclear News, a
publication of the American Nuclear Society.

51
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

Page | 48
52
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (n.d.). Rickover: Setting the Nuclear Navy's Course. U.S. Department
of Energy.

53
Mosey, D. (1990). Reactor Accidents. Nuclear Engineering International Special Publications.

54
Winterton, R. (1981). The Thermal Design of Nuclear Reactors. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

55
Tong, L. (1988). Principles of Design Improvement for Light Water Reactors. Hemisphere.

56
G.F. Hewitt, J. G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power (Series in Chemical and Mechanical
Engineering)G. Taylor & Francis.

57
Tong, L. (1988). Principles of Design Improvement for Light Water Reactors. Hemisphere.

58
Haywood, R. (1975). Analysis of Engineering Cycles. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

59
Marcus, G. H. (2010). Nuclear Firsts: Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development
[Hardcover]. American Nuclear Society.

60
Spinrad, B. I. (November, 1979). Alternative Breeder Reactor Technologies. Annual Review of
Energy, 147-179.

61
Duderstadt, J. (1979). Nuclear Power. New York: Marcel Dekker.

62
Hirsch, P. (1990). The Fast-Neutron Breeder Fission Reactor. London: The Royal Society.

63
Anderson, H. H. (Issued 1960). Patent No. 2924506. United States.

64
Kadak, A. C. (2007, March 1). The Future of Nuclear Energy. (J. Durant, Interviewer)

65
Macfarlane, A. (2007, March 1). The Future of Nuclear Energy. (J. Durant, Interviewer)

66
Macfarlane, A. (2007, March 1). The Future of Nuclear Energy. (J. Durant, Interviewer)

Page | 49
67
Beard, J. A. (2006, September 15). ESBWR Overview. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from U.S.
Department of Energy: http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/pdfs/esbwrOverview.pdf

Page | 50