ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Generation-IV nuclear power: A review of the state of the science$

Tim Abram a,, Sue Ion b
a
b

Westinghouse Professor of Nuclear Fuel Technology, University of Manchester, Preston M60 1QD, UK
UK representative on the International Atomic Energy Agency, Standing Advisory Group for Nuclear Energy, UK

a r t i c l e in fo

Keywords:
Fuel cycle
VHTR
SFR

abstract
The Generation-IV consortium seeks to develop a new generation of nuclear energy systems for
commercial deployment by 20202030. These systems include both the reactors and their fuel-cycle
facilities. The aim is to provide signicant improvements in economics, safety, sustainability, and
proliferation resistance. The systems selected for development are the very high-temperature gascooled reactor (VHTR), the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR), the leadcooled fast reactor (LFR), the molten salt reactor (MSR) and the super-critical water-cooled reactor
(SCWR). UK organisations plan to contribute to the rst three of these systems because of its existing
capabilities and experience with gas-cooled systems, graphite cores, and SFRs. The science base for the
VHTR and SFR systems is reasonably established, although there are gaps. For the VHTR, these include
the performance of graphite at high neutron doses, and the performance of the fuel. For the SFR, the
behaviour of fuels containing minor actinides, and processes for their recycling and refabrication into
new fuel, must be established. The GFR presents many technical challenges, because it would need fuel
and structural materials capable of withstanding extremes of fast neutron ux and high temperatures.
Adequate heat removal from the core under fault conditions is likely to determine its feasibility.
& 2008 Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background
The International Generation-IV Initiative was established in
2000 with the aim of fostering the research and development
necessary to underpin the development of a new generation of
nuclear energy systems. The activities are guided by the Generation-IV International Forum (GIF), whose active members are
required to sign or ratify a Framework Agreement. Membership of
the GIF is summarised in Table 1. The Generation-IV systems,
which comprise both the reactors and their associated fuel-cycle
facilities, are intended to deliver signicant advances compared
with current advanced light water reactors (ALWRs, the so-called
Generation-III systems, Fig. 1) in respect of economics, safety,
environmental performance, and proliferation resistance. The
Generation-IV systems are expected to be developed to the point
of commercial deployment by at least 2030, while nearer-term
systems (deployable within the next 15 years) are expected to be
developed by industry, and are therefore excluded from Generation-IV. The initiative was reinforced by the US-led proposals in
early 2006 for a global nuclear energy partnership (GNEP) that

$
While the Government Ofce for Science commissioned this review, the views
are those of the author(s), are independent of Government, and do not constitute
Government policy.
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 773 005 2564.
E-mail address: tim.abram@manchester.ac.uk (T. Abram).

focuses particularly on the research necessary to deliver a

sustainable and proliferation-resistant fuel cycle.
GIF members have identied six reactor systems that offer the
potential for meeting the Generation-IV goals:








very high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (VHTR);

gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR);
sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR);
lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR);
molten salt reactor (MSR); and
super-critical water-cooled reactor (SCWR).

The extent to which each system can address each Generation-IV

goal is indicated in Table 2. Although some systems offer similar
potential capabilities, the rst aim of Generation-IV will be to
study the relative feasibility of all six systems, with the aim of
focusing future activities on perhaps two or three systems.
Each active GIF member intends to pursue the development of
one or more of these systems. In the UK, the VHTR, SFR and GFR
systems were identied as being of the highest priority. Funding
for research into these systems was provided by British Nuclear
Fuels until 2006, supplemented by UK participation in the EUs
Framework programmes, and by funding from the Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council for underpinning science
within the Keeping the Nuclear Option Open programme. Since

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2008 Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.059

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4324

T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

integrated modelling of systems on a holistic basis, and detailed

consideration of the science underpinning future waste management are all essential components of the evolving international
research and development programmes.

2006, there is no UK funded programme, although the UK remains

an inactive member of GIF.

2. Current status of Generation-IV science

2.1. Very high-temperature reactor
All Generation-IV systems have, to some extent, previously
been studied, and in many (although not all) cases experimental
or prototype systems have been operated. However, even those
systems that have enjoyed the most extensive development
cannot currently meet all of the Generation-IV goals. The scientic
and technological status of each of the systems is briey described
below, together with a general section that addresses the status of
fuel-cycle technology, which is particularly important as a crosscutting technology for more than one system. Materials science,

The VHTR (Fig. 2) represents a logical extension of the hightemperature reactor (HTR) systems that were rst proposed at
Harwell during the 1950s, and of which several experimental and
prototype units have operated. The system is characterised by its
unique fuel form, consisting of tiny coated fuel particles
embedded in a graphite matrix and located in a graphite core
cooled by helium. The refractory nature of the fuel and core
materials permits high gas temperatures to be achieved
(9001000 1C) offering highly efcient electricity generation or
the supply of process heat for applications such as hydrogen
production using thermo-chemical cycles. The reference VHTR
concept is a thermal system operating a once-through fuel cycle,
although closed cycles using thorium fuel are possible, as are
burner cores that can efciently transmute plutonium.
The technology for the HTR system is well established, and the
advances required to deliver the VHTR are reasonably well
understood. Nevertheless, the underpinning science base is not
fully understood, and several critical gaps remain, without which
the necessary technological advances will be reliant on a highly
empirical (and consequently expensive) approach. Manufacture of
the coated fuel particles is achieved by chemical vapour deposition and is heavily reliant on established recipes that have been

Table 1
Members of the Generation-IV international forum (GIF)
Signatories to the GIF framework agreement

Non-signatories

Canada
China
EURATOM
France
Japan
South Korea
Switzerland
USA

Argentina
Brazil
Russia
South Africa
UK

Fig. 1. Generations of nuclear energy systems.

Table 2
Potential of each system to meet the different Generation-IV goalsa
Generation-IV goal

VHTR

GFR

SFR

LFR

SCWR

MSR

Efcient electricity generation

Flexibility: availability of high-temperature process heat
Sustainability: creation of ssile material
Sustainability: transmutation of waste
Potential for passive safety
Current technical feasibility

Very high
Very high
Medium/low
Medium
High
High

High
High
High
Very high
Very low
Medium/low

High
Low
High
Very high
Medium/low
High

High
Low
High
Very high
Medium
Medium

High
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Medium/low

High
Low
Medium/low
High
Medium
Low

In the opinion of the authors; not necessarily the view of the GIF.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

4325

Fig. 2. Very high-temperature reactor.

shown to produce acceptable fuel performance under HTR

conditions. The effects of variations in the process parameters
(gas compositions, ow rates, coating times and temperatures) are
not well understood, even from an empirical standpoint, and their
impact on characteristics such as grain morphology and thermophysical properties is not clear. Similarly, although very good
irradiation performance has been demonstrated under HTR
conditions, the behaviour of the coated particles under irradiation
is understood only in a semi-empirical manner. In common with
almost all nuclear fuel, the complicated interactions between fuel
chemistry, ssion gas production and release, mechanical stresses,
and thermal behaviour are not perfectly understood and could
not, in any case, be accurately modelled because of uncertainties
in the materials properties and their evolution throughout the
irradiation. In addition to coated particle fuel, the other essential
technology for the VHTR is structural graphite. The UK has an
internationally recognised expertise in nuclear graphite, and has
more irradiation experience than any other country. However,
despite over 50 years of irradiation experience with graphite
reactor cores, the detailed behaviour of graphite under high
neutron doses is not yet fully understood, especially with respect
to predicting dimensional changes. This is especially important for
the VHTR because the neutron doses in key components such as
the central column and radial reectors is expected to be much
higher than for current materials in the UKs Magnox and
advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) nuclear plants.
Previous HTRs have employed boilers and conventional steam
turbines operating a Rankine cycle. However, many of the current
VHTR concepts feature either direct cycle helium turbines for
electricity generation or an intermediate heat exchanger to
provide process heat. In both cases, high-temperature alloys
capable of extended operation at elevated temperatures will need
to be identied. The UK has a strong capability in hightemperature materials science and in the development of gas
turbine plant, but the economic requirements of Generation-IV

call for the longest possible periods of operation between

maintenance outages. In comparison with current gas turbine
plant, where maintenance intervals are rarely longer than
15,000 h, the VHTR is targeting up to 50,000 h of operation
without major attention to the turbo-machinery. This will place
extreme demands on the creep resistance of the turbine blades
and discs.
2.2. Sodium-cooled fast reactor
In the early days of nuclear power, it was believed that
uranium reserves were limited, so systems that could maximise
the energetic potential of the available uranium were afforded a
high priority. The ability of fast neutron reactors to ssion all
trans-uranic elements, and to convert the non-ssile 238U to ssile
239
Pu, provided a far higher degree of sustainability than was
possible with thermal reactors. The very high-energy densities
necessary in a fast reactor core required either a very efcient
means of heat transfer or the use of highly refractory core and
coolant materials. The difculties in developing fuel and structural materials capable of withstanding extremes of both temperature and neutron uence led to the selection of liquid metals as a
highly efcient heat transfer uid, and sodium was selected
because of its relatively low melting temperature (98 1C), lowcapture cross-section, low abundance of troublesome ssion
products, good ow characteristics, and good compatibility with
fuel and structural materials (both lead and mercury having been
rejected on one or more of these grounds). The chemical reactivity
of sodium was not a problem unless exposed to air or water, and
experience showed that such leaks as occurred from time to time
could be managed without undue difculty. The UK was among
the pioneers of fast reactor development, and operated SFRs at
Dounreay in Scotland from 1959 to 1994. During this time, the
science underpinning the technical feasibility of the SFR system
became well established.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4326

T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

Fig. 3. Sodium-cooled fast reactor.

Although the availability of uranium resources remains a

concern, the discovery of new uranium deposits has reduced the
urgency for fast breeder reactors. However, concerns over the
longevity of nuclear waste have increased, and recent attention
has focused on the ability of fast reactors to burn or transmute
the trans-uranic elements that form the longest-lived components
of nuclear waste. The relative abundance of uranium has helped to
maintain low fuel prices, placing considerably more emphasis on
fast reactor system costs than was expected in the early days.
Therefore, the principal challenges are now to improve on the
economic performance of the SFR, and to re-establish the validity
of a safety approach that was developed several decades ago.
Meeting both of these challenges will require scientic advances
or at least the novel application of existing knowledge. For
example, the opaque coolant hinders in-core inspection and
maintenance, both of which are time-consuming and expensive.
However, recent technologies offer the prospect of performing
improved under-sodium imaging, allowing the conduct of inspections that would otherwise have necessitated the removal of fuel
or even the partial draining of the core. A schematic of the SFR is
shown in Fig. 3.
2.3. Gas-cooled fast reactor
The GFR (Fig. 4) is a variant of the SFR system described above,
but employing a gaseous coolanthelium usually being proposed,
although CO2 and steam have also been suggested. The selection
of a gaseous coolant avoids some of the difculties of a two-phase
uid, most notably the sudden increase in reactivity that
accompanies coolant boiling (known as the void coefcient). If
helium is adopted, the difculties associated with a chemically
reactive coolant are also avoided, as are problems of corrosion and
stress-corrosion. In addition, the absorption cross-section of
helium is lower than liquid metals, providing a harder (higherenergy) neutron spectrum, especially compared with sodium.
Finally, higher coolant temperatures are possible compared with

liquid metals, and a direct-cycle gas-turbine arrangement is

possible, offering high generating efciency or the possibility of
high-temperature process heat (similar to the VHTR above).
Unfortunately, the benets of the GFR also provide some of the
greatest technology challenges. Gases offer relatively poor heat
transfer properties. In thermal reactors this difculty is mitigated
by the massive graphite structures which provide a large thermal
inertia, limiting the heating rates during transient events such as a
loss of coolant. In a fast reactor, where a compact core free from
moderating elements is vital, the poor heat transfer characteristics
of a gaseous coolant place very severe requirements on the ability
of the fuel and structural components to survive extremes of
temperature.
The GFR can benet from the gas-cooled technologies
established as part of the HTR and UK gas-cooled reactor
programmes, and from elements of the SFR fuel technology which
has also already been established. However, it is clear from the
above that the fuel developed for the SFR (or other metal-cooled
fast reactors) will not be adequate for the GFR. In particular, it
seems difcult to imagine that metallic cladding will be adequate
for GFRs, or that the decay heat rejection systems from SFRs will
be appropriate for GFRs. Finally, it must be noted that unlike the
VHTR, SFR, LFR, and MSR, no experimental or prototype GFR has
ever been built.
2.4. Lead-cooled fast reactor
The LFR (Fig. 5) is also very similar in concept to the SFR, except
that the coolant is either lead or a leadbismuth eutectic. Lead has
a rather high melting point (327 1C) and complicated trace heating
of all coolant systems is required to prevent the coolant freezing
during shutdown or maintenance periods. Leadbismuth has a
rather lower melting point (125 1C), but suffers from the
production of the highly active isotope 210Po from bismuth. In
any case, the abundance of bismuth in the earths crust is unlikely
to be sufcient to support a wide-scale deployment of LFRs

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

4327

Fig. 4. Gas-cooled fast reactor.

Fig. 5. Lead-cooled fast reactor.

employing a Pb/Bi coolant. Lead is over 11 times more dense than

sodium and requires signicantly higher pumping power, and it
will be considerably more difcult to achieve a seismically safe
plant design. Finally, the most challenging aspect of lead
technology is its corrosive nature, which requires careful oxygen
control and the use of highly corrosion-resistant materials.
LFRs have never been deployed in the west, but they have
operated in Russia, where a Pb/Bi-cooled version was developed
to power submarines. The early operating experience of these

naval reactors was mixed, with some reportedly suffering

catastrophic reactor failure leading to coolant freezing, although
later experience is reported to be more encouraging. The
technology is of particular interest in the design of sub-critical
accelerator-driven transmutation systems, because the coolant
can also serve as a spallation target, and because the nuclear
cross-sections of lead allow the high-energy neutrons to be
utilised particularly efciently (in a process known as adiabatic
resonance crossing).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4328

T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

2.5. Super-critical water-cooled reactor

2.6. Molten salt reactor

It has been mentioned above that steam has been proposed as

a potential fast reactor coolant. An interesting variation on this
design is the use of super-critical water, which is a way of avoiding
the potential for phase changes, while allowing it to be used in a
direct cycle (Fig. 6). Many fossil-red power stations employ
super-critical water, although the available technology is not
necessarily optimised for a nuclear plant (for example, the
complexities of maintenance provides a strong incentive to extend
the interval between outages, which places more demanding
limits on the creep and corrosion properties of turbine materials).
Several essential elements of the SCWR system have already been
developed for light or heavy water reactors (L/HWRs), and their
designs could in principle be adapted to suit the higher pressures
and temperatures required (typically 25 MPa, and 500 1C). However, super-critical water is considerably more corrosive than
water under LWR conditions, and aspects such as chemistry
control and the suppression of radiolytic dissociation are more
difcult. Several key materials, such as the cladding material
Zircaloy, would not survive SCWR conditions and alternatives will
need to be found. Moreover, there is concern that the thermal
hydraulic conditions in the core (particularly the very highdensity changes along the coolant channels) may lead to nuclear
instabilities, similar to those that can occur in boiling water
reactors (BWRs) away from the recommended operation conditions. Supercially, the SCWR appears to represent only a modest
extension of LWR technology, and has precedents in fossil-red
generating plant. But, in reality, several key technologies will need
to be developed and demonstrated for nuclear application, and
the important question of core power stability will need careful
study.

The MSR (Fig. 7) represents the most ambitious of the

Generation-IV systems in terms of its departure from conventional
reactor technologies. The system dispenses with conventional
solid fuel elements, and instead utilises a halide salt mixture that
contains the ssile materialusually a uraniumthorium mixture,
although plutonium could also be used. The salt, which performs
the role of both fuel and coolant, is continuously circulated
through a graphite core, and then through a heat exchanger, where
it transfers heat to a secondary salt circuit. A fraction of the salt is
then diverted through a processing plant where ssion products
are removed and new ssile material is introduced. This continual
processing of the fuel allows operation without refuelling outages,
and the uid fuel offers a unique safety feature where the entire
fuel inventory can be drained from the reactor in the event of an
accident. The concept has its origins in the US aircraft reactor
experiment that operated for a short time in 1954. Although the
MSR was never used for this purpose (the aircraft were too heavy
to take off!), a further experimental unit operated at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory during the 1960s. The MSR presents several
unique challenges, especially in the area of materials performance,
where the combination of a corrosive and radioactive salt and a
high neutron uence places extreme requirements on the primary
circuit pipework. The core graphite will also receive a high
radiation dose and will almost certainly need to be replaced
throughout the life of the reactor. Finally, the chemical processing
of the highly radioactive salt places extreme demands on the
process equipment. The MSR is considered to be at the boundaries
of what is possible within the Generation-IV timescales, and may
yet be considered too ambitious to achieve a realistic prospect of
commercial deployment by 2030.

Fig. 6. Super-critical water-cooled reactor.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

4329

Fig. 7. Molten salt reactor.

2.7. Fuel-cycle technology

Almost all Generation-IV systems adopt a closed fuel cycle as
the reference concept or, in the case of the VHTR and MSR, offer
the possibility of a closed cycle through the use of thorium fuel.
Fuel recycle technology is therefore key to the success of
Generation-IV systems. However, the currently deployed PUREX
technology, which allows a sharp separation of plutonium, will
not satisfy the Generation-IV requirements for proliferation
resistance. Several alternative technologies are under development that could allow signicant improvements in recycle plant
economics and safety performance. Two main technological
approaches are being pursued: the advanced aqueous process,
similar in concept to PUREX but employing novel extractants in
which some or all of the actinides are removed together; and socalled dry processes in which the fuel is treated using an electrochemical process in a molten salt electrolyte. Aqueous separation
processes have been deployed on an industrial scale for many
years, and advanced process stages, such as the replacement of
pulsed columns with centrifugal contactors, have been demonstrated at pilot scale. However, the novel separation ow-sheets
remain under development and have only been tested at
laboratory scale. Similarly, the electro-chemical processes have
been demonstrated only at laboratory or pilot scales, and many
practical aspects have yet to be resolved, including the treatment
of the resulting waste forms.

3. Future advances in Generation-IV science

Although it will be clear from the above that some GenerationIV systems enjoy a more advanced state of development than
others, all of the systems face several key challenges. Addressing
these challenges will require not only a demonstration of
technical feasibility, but also the development of robust industrial-scale solutions that can meet demanding targets in respect of
economic, safety and environmental performance, while respect-

ing the highest standards of proliferation resistance. Some of the

most important challenges, and their future prospects, are set out
below.

3.1. Materials technology

There can be little doubt that materials technology is key to the
success of Generation-IV nuclear systems. Although each system
presents its own particular challenges, several common themes
emerge, notably: resistance to irradiation damage; dimensional
stability, particularly with respect to high-temperature creep;
corrosion resistance encompassing both uniform corrosion and
localised effects such as stress-corrosion cracking; and highly
predictable responses to extreme levels of both temperature and
neutron damage. Several promising materials have already been
identied in previous programmes. For HTR fuels, it has been
shown that a combination of silicon carbide and pyrolitic carbon
layers can provide outstanding levels of performance, and for SFR
cladding, several materials, including the UKs high nickel alloy
PE16, have achieved doses of 145 displacements per atom without
failure. For future VHTR deployment, even higher temperatures
are envisaged, and alternative coatings such as zirconium carbide,
or even duplex coatings which offer the benets of two or more
materials, are under consideration. Planned and future irradiation
programmes will be aimed at improving the fundamental understanding of the effects of grain structure and composition on the
performance of these coatings, which will be a pre-requisite to
achieving future improvements. Similarly, irradiation programmes are also planned that will enhance the fundamental
understanding of other key materials, such as the structural
graphite, for which the important phenomenon of irradiationinduced dimensional change cannot yet be predicted with any
accuracy, and reactor pressure vessel steels, for which 9Cr1Mo
seems an interesting alternative to the current ASME SA-508 steel
used in LWR pressure vessels. For high-temperature turbomachinery, advanced materials, including single crystal alloys,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4330

T. Abram, S. Ion / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 43234330

have been developed for conventional combined-cycle gas turbine

and aero-engine applications, but the feasibility of the extended
service periods targeted by advanced nuclear plant (450,000 h,
compared with 15,000 h in current applications) is yet to be
demonstrated.
For fast reactors, there is considerable interest in oxide
dispersion strengthened steels as a potential cladding material,
and programmes are planned to investigate their performance at
very high neutron doses and to develop techniques for achieving
satisfactory end-cap joints without creating localised weak areas.
Highly reliable heat exchangers will be particularly important for
the SFR, and several concepts have been proposed that will require
experimental validation. For lead- and super-critical water-cooled
systems, the identication of corrosion-resistant materials will be
essential, and programmes have been proposed that will explore
this problem, although success is by no means assured. Finally,
the MSR system poses materials challenges in almost every aspect
of its design. The MSR may well be able to prot from materials
work done to support other systems (for example, the development of dimensionally stable graphites for the VHTR), but many
challenges remain unique to the MSR system and, weighed
against the other Generation-IV systems, it may be that development of the MSR is judged to be too demanding relative to the
Generation-IV timescales.

3.2. Fuel technology

Together with materials technology, fuel technology is central
to the successful deployment of Generation-IV systems. Almost all
systems require the development of fuel technologies that are
signicantly different form those used in current power reactors,
and for the fast reactor systems, the fuels are likely to contain
signicant quantities of trans-uranium elements, necessitating
remote manufacturing operations. To date, the overwhelming
majority of the worlds nuclear fuel experience has been obtained
with ceramic fuel pellets composed of uranium dioxide or a solid
solution of mixed (U, Pu) oxides. Advanced fuel forms for
Generation-IV systems may consist of nitride or carbide fuels,
because of their higher number density and thermal conductivity,
or of composite fuels in which a ssile component is combined
with a higher conductivity inert matrix. Some experimental
data is already available for such fuels, but far more information
will be required in order to fully evaluate the suitability of
these materials. Fuel microstructure has been shown to play a
major role in determining in-reactor performance, and even
where the fuel composition is settled, changes in microstructure
(e.g. grain size, porosity distribution, etc.) can result in markedly
different behaviour. The effects of manufacturing processes
on fuel microstructure are not yet fully established even for
relatively well-known fuel materials, so carefully designed
experimental programmes to explore this aspect are being
planned. Finally, changes in fuel chemistry throughout the
irradiation will assume a higher signicance in Generation-IV
systems as a result of the elevated temperatures and higher
burnups compared with current experience. The UKs fast reactor
experience could provide a strong platform from which to explore
fuel radiochemistry and, in particular, the behaviour of chemically
aggressive ssion products, which can threaten the integrity of the
cladding.

3.3. Modelling and simulation

Computing power has increased by orders of magnitude over
recent years, and analyses that would once have been impossible
to contemplate can now be performed within a reasonable
timeframe. There is considerable interest in extending current
activities in atomistic modelling to include the effects of radiation
damage, and to establish a reliable link between nano-scale
structure and the macroscopic materials properties needed to
establish and evaluate the in-reactor performance of candidate
materials. Laboratory testing programmes can help to identify
potential candidate materials, but long and expensive irradiation
tests remain the only reliable means of determining in-reactor
performance at high neutron uences. Monte Carlo simulations are
already widely used in nuclear physics analyses, and similar
approaches may also be applied to better understand the effects of
uncertainties in materials properties and fabrication variables in
order that attention can be focused on properties and attributes
that have the greatest effect on performance. However, the ability
to construct and analyse highly detailed models places an even
greater degree of reliance on the fundamental input data on which
the models rely. The theory that describes the nuclear physics of
reactor cores containing signicant quantities of trans-uranium
elements is very well understood, and modelling techniques for
analysing such cores have reached a high degree of renement.
However, the validity of current results is undermined by
signicant uncertainties in the fundamental nuclear cross-sections
of the higher actinides (which describe the probabilities of the
various nuclear reactions occurring). It is therefore important that
progress in our ability to perform more detailed computer
simulations should be matched by a corresponding improvement
in the fundamental data on which these models rely.
3.4. Fuel-cycle technology
The extraction of U and Pu from spent nuclear fuel is well
established on an industrial scale, but processes that comply with
the Generation-IV goals of proliferation resistance have only been
demonstrated under laboratory conditions, and it is not yet clear
whether their deployment on larger scales will be technically or
economically feasible. Similarly, the fabrication of fuels containing
high quantities of minor actinides and possibly long-lived ssion
products, which will necessitate remote procedures in heavily
shielded facilities, poses many technical and economic challenges.
Moreover, the waste forms arising from these new processes are
not well characterised, and new methods for managing these
wastes will need to be developed. All of these activities will need
to be developed within the context of improving the economic
performance of recycling, and this will call for signicant
improvements in materials and components reliability in order
to improve plant reliability and reduce down-time. This will
require strong links to the activities in advanced materials
development and to the advanced modelling and simulation
capabilities described above.
Further information on the Generation-IV initiative may be found
in the following publication:
Generation-IV International Forum, 2002. A technology roadmap for Generation-IV nuclear energy systems. Generation-IV
International Forum/US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.