Integral fast reactor
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (June 2023) |
The integral fast reactor (IFR, originally
The
The proposed
History
Research on IFR reactors began in 1984 at
Argonne previously had a branch campus named "Argonne West" in
Cancellation
With the election of President
Simultaneously, in 1994 Energy Secretary O'Leary awarded the lead IFR scientist with $10,000 and a gold medal, with the citation stating his work to develop IFR technology provided "improved safety, more efficient use of fuel and less radioactive waste."[7]
IFR opponents also presented a report[8] by the DOE's Office of Nuclear Safety regarding a former Argonne employee's allegations that Argonne had retaliated against him for raising concerns about safety, as well as about the quality of research done on the IFR program. The report received international attention, with a notable difference in the coverage it received from major scientific publications. The British journal Nature entitled its article "Report backs whistleblower", and also noted conflicts of interest on the part of a DOE panel that assessed IFR research.[9] In contrast, the article that appeared in Science was entitled "Was Argonne Whistleblower Really Blowing Smoke?".[10]
Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) and Paul Simon (D-IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994, at a greater cost than finishing it. When this was brought to President Clinton's attention, he said "I know; it's a symbol."[citation needed]
Since 2000
In 2001, as part of the Generation IV roadmap, the DOE tasked a 242-person team of scientists from DOE, UC Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stanford, ANL, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Toshiba, Westinghouse, Duke, EPRI, and other institutions to evaluate 19 of the best reactor designs on 27 different criteria. The IFR ranked #1 in their study which was released April 9, 2002.[11]
At present, there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation. However, the BN-800 reactor, a very similar fast reactor operated as a burner of plutonium stockpiles, became commercially operational in 2014.[citation needed]
Technical overview
The IFR is cooled by liquid sodium and fueled by an alloy of uranium and plutonium. The fuel is contained in steel
Basic design decisions
This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Metallic fuel
Metal fuel with a sodium-filled void inside the cladding to allow fuel expansion has been demonstrated in EBR-II. Metallic fuel makes pyroprocessing the reprocessing technology of choice.[citation needed]
Fabrication of metallic fuel is easier and cheaper than ceramic (oxide) fuel, especially under remote handling conditions.[12][citation needed]
Metallic fuel has better
Sodium coolant
The use of liquid metal coolant removes the need for a pressure vessel around the reactor. Sodium has excellent nuclear characteristics, a high heat capacity and heat transfer capacity, low density, low viscosity, a reasonably low melting point and a high boiling point, and excellent compatibility with other materials including structural materials and fuel.[citation needed] The high heat capacity of the coolant and the elimination of water from the reactor core increase the inherent safety of the core.[12][citation needed]
Pool design rather than loop
Containing all of the primary coolant in a pool produces several safety and reliability advantages.[12][citation needed]
Onsite reprocessing using pyroprocessing
Reprocessing is essential to achieve most of the benefits of a fast reactor, improving fuel usage and reducing radioactive waste by several orders of magnitude.[12][citation needed]
Onsite processing is what makes the IFR integral. This and the use of pyroprocessing both reduce proliferation risk.
Pyroprocessing (using an electrorefiner) has been demonstrated at EBR-II as practical on the scale required. Compared to the PUREX aqueous process, it is economical in capital cost, and is unsuitable for the production of weapons material, again unlike PUREX which was developed for weapons programs.[citation needed]
Pyroprocessing makes metallic fuel the fuel of choice. The two decisions are complementary.[12][citation needed]
Summary
The four basic decisions of metallic fuel, sodium coolant, pool design, and onsite reprocessing by
Advantages
Breeder reactors (such as the IFR) could in principle extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by nearly two orders of magnitude compared to traditional once-through reactors, which extract less than 0.65% of the energy in mined uranium, and less than 5% of the enriched uranium with which they are fueled. This could greatly dampen concern about fuel supply or energy used in mining.
What is more important today is why fast reactors are fuel-efficient: because fast neutrons can
"Integral" refers to on-site reprocessing by electrochemical pyroprocessing. This separates spent fuel into 3 fractions: 1. Uranium, 2. Plutonium isotopes and other Transuranium elements, and 3. Nuclear fission products. The uranium and transuranium elements are recycled into new fuel rods, and the fission products are eventually converted to glass and metal blocks for safer disposal. Because fractions 2 and 3 (the combined transuranium elements and the fission products) are highly radioactive, fuel-rod transfer and reprocessing operations use robotic or remote-controlled equipment. This is also claimed to be a feature; not a bug; since fissile material that never leaves the facility (and would be lethal to handle if it did) greatly reduces the proliferation potential of possible diversion of fissile material.
Safety
In traditional
The IFR also has
Liquid sodium presents safety problems because it ignites spontaneously on contact with air and can cause explosions on contact with water. This was the case at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant in a 1995 accident and fire. To reduce the risk of explosions following a leak of water from the steam turbines, the IFR design (as with other sodium-cooled fast reactors) includes an intermediate liquid-metal coolant loop between the reactor and the steam turbines. The purpose of this loop is to ensure that any explosion following accidental mixing of sodium and turbine water would be limited to the secondary heat exchanger and not pose a risk to the reactor itself. Alternative designs use lead instead of sodium as the primary coolant. The disadvantages of lead are its higher density and viscosity, which increases pumping costs, and radioactive activation products resulting from neutron absorption. A lead-bismuth eutectate, as used in some Russian submarine reactors, has lower viscosity and density, but the same activation product problems can occur.
Efficiency and fuel cycle
t½ )
(year |
Yield (%) |
keV )
|
βγ
| |
---|---|---|---|---|
155Eu
|
4.76 | 0.0803 | 252 | βγ |
85Kr | 10.76 | 0.2180 | 687 | βγ |
113mCd
|
14.1 | 0.0008 | 316 | β |
90Sr | 28.9 | 4.505 | 2826 | β |
137Cs | 30.23 | 6.337 | 1176 | βγ |
121mSn
|
43.9 | 0.00005 | 390 | βγ |
151Sm
|
88.8 | 0.5314 | 77 | β |
The goals of the IFR project were to increase the efficiency of uranium usage by
Compared to current light-water reactors with a once-through fuel cycle that induces fission (and derives energy) from less than 1% of the uranium found in nature, a breeder reactor like the IFR has a very efficient (99.5% of uranium undergoes fission[citation needed]) fuel cycle.[15] The basic scheme used pyroelectric separation, a common method in other metallurgical processes, to remove transuranics and actinides from the wastes and concentrate them. These concentrated fuels were then reformed, on-site, into new fuel elements.
The available fuel metals were never separated from the
Another important benefit of removing the long
Comparisons to light-water reactors
Nuclear waste
IFR-style reactors could produce much less waste than LWR reactors, and could even utilize other waste as fuel.
The primary argument for pursuing IFR-style technology today is that it provides the best solution to the existing nuclear waste problem because fast reactors can be fueled from the waste products of existing reactors as well as from the plutonium used in weapons, as is the case in the operating, as of 2014, BN-800 reactor. Depleted uranium (DU) waste can also be used as fuel in fast reactors.
The waste products of IFR reactors either have a short half-life, which means that they decay quickly and become relatively safe, or a long halflife, which means that they are only slightly radioactive. Due to pyroprocessing the total volume of true waste/
Edwin Sayre has estimated that a ton of fission products(which also include the very weakly radioactive
The two forms of IFR waste produced, contain no plutonium or other
The on-site reprocessing of fuel means that the volume of high-level nuclear waste leaving the plant is tiny compared to LWR spent fuel.
The potential complete removal of plutonium from the waste stream of the reactor reduces the concern that presently exists with spent nuclear fuel from most other reactors that arises with burying or storing their spent fuel in a geological repository, as they could possibly be used as a
Efficiency
IFRs use virtually all of the energy content in the uranium fuel whereas a traditional light water reactor uses less than 0.65% of the energy in mined uranium, and less than 5% of the energy in enriched uranium.
Carbon dioxide
Both IFRs and LWRs do not emit CO2 during operation, although construction and fuel processing result in CO2 emissions, if energy sources which are not carbon neutral (such as fossil fuels), or CO2 emitting cements are used during the construction process.
A 2012
"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG [ greenhouse gas ] emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."
Although the paper primarily dealt with data from
Actinides[28] by decay chain | Half-life range (a) |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4n
|
4n + 1
|
4n + 2
|
4n + 3
|
4.5–7% | 0.04–1.25% | <0.001% | ||
228 Ra№
|
4–6 a
|
155 Euþ
|
||||||
244 Cmƒ
|
241Puƒ | 250 Cf
|
227 Ac№
|
10–29 a
|
90Sr | 85Kr | 113m Cdþ
| |
232Uƒ | 238Puƒ | 243 Cmƒ
|
29–97 a
|
137 Cs
|
151 Smþ
|
121m Sn
| ||
248Bk[30]
|
249 Cfƒ
|
242m Amƒ
|
141–351 a |
No fission products have a half-life in the range of 100 a–210 ka ... | ||||
241Amƒ | 251Cfƒ[31]
|
430–900 a | ||||||
226Ra№ | 247 Bk
|
1.3–1.6 ka | ||||||
240Pu | 229 Th
|
246 Cmƒ
|
243 Amƒ
|
4.7–7.4 ka | ||||
245 Cmƒ
|
250 Cm
|
8.3–8.5 ka | ||||||
239Puƒ | 24.1 ka | |||||||
230 Th№
|
231 Pa№
|
32–76 ka | ||||||
236 Npƒ
|
233Uƒ | 234U№ | 150–250 ka | 99Tc₡ | 126 Sn
| |||
248 Cm
|
242Pu | 327–375 ka | 79Se₡ | |||||
1.53 Ma | 93 Zr
| |||||||
237 Npƒ
|
2.1–6.5 Ma | 135 Cs₡
|
107 Pd
| |||||
236U | 247 Cmƒ
|
15–24 Ma | 129I₡ | |||||
244Pu | 80 Ma |
... nor beyond 15.7 Ma[32] | ||||||
232Th№ | 238U№ | 235Uƒ№ | 0.7–14.1 Ga | |||||
|
Fuel cycle
The fertile material in fast reactor fuel can be
Like any fast reactor, by changing the material used in the blankets, the IFR can be operated over a spectrum from breeder to self-sufficient to burner. In breeder mode (using U-238 blankets) it will produce more fissile material than it consumes. This is useful for providing fissile material for starting up other plants. Using steel reflectors instead of U-238 blankets, the reactor operates in pure burner mode and is not a net creator of fissile material; on balance it will consume fissile and fertile material and, assuming loss-free reprocessing, output no
Because the current cost of
Reprocessing nuclear fuel using pyroprocessing and electrorefining has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale, so investing in a large IFR-style plant may be a higher
Passive safety
The IFR uses metal alloy fuel (uranium/plutonium/zirconium) which is a good conductor of heat, unlike the LWR's (and even some fast breeder reactors') uranium oxide which is a poor conductor of heat and reaches high temperatures at the center of fuel pellets. The IFR also has a smaller volume of fuel, since the fissile material is diluted with fertile material by a ratio of 5 or less, compared to about 30 for LWR fuel. The IFR core requires more heat removal per core volume during operation than the LWR core; but on the other hand, after a shutdown, there is far less trapped heat that is still diffusing out and needs to be removed. However, decay heat generation from short-lived fission products and actinides is comparable in both cases, starting at a high level and decreasing with time elapsed after shutdown. The high volume of liquid sodium primary coolant in the pool configuration is designed to absorb decay heat without reaching fuel melting temperature. The primary sodium pumps are designed with flywheels so they will coast down slowly (90 seconds) if power is removed. This coast-down further aids core cooling upon shutdown. If the primary cooling loop were to be somehow suddenly stopped, or if the control rods were suddenly removed, the metal fuel can melt as accidentally demonstrated in EBR-I, however the melting fuel is then extruded up the steel fuel cladding tubes and out of the active core region leading to permanent reactor shutdown and no further fission heat generation or fuel melting.[35] With metal fuel, the cladding is not breached and no radioactivity is released even in extreme overpower transients.
Self-regulation of the IFR's power level depends mainly on thermal expansion of the fuel which allows more neutrons to escape, damping the chain reaction. LWRs have less effect from thermal expansion of fuel (since much of the core is the neutron moderator) but have strong negative feedback from Doppler broadening (which acts on thermal and epithermal neutrons, not fast neutrons) and negative void coefficient from boiling of the water moderator/coolant; the less dense steam returns fewer and less-thermalized neutrons to the fuel, which are more likely to be captured by U-238 than induce fissions. However, the IFR's positive void coefficient could be reduced to an acceptable level by adding technetium to the core, helping destroy the long-lived fission product technetium-99 by nuclear transmutation in the process.[26]
IFRs are able to withstand both a loss of flow without
The flammability of sodium is a risk to operators. Sodium burns easily in air, and will ignite spontaneously on contact with water. The use of an intermediate coolant loop between the reactor and the turbines minimizes the risk of a sodium fire in the reactor core.
Under neutron bombardment,
Proliferation
IFRs and
Unlike PUREX reprocessing, the IFR's electrolytic reprocessing of
An advantage of the IFRs actinides removal and burn up (actinides include plutonium) from its spent fuel, is to eliminate concerns about leaving the IFRs spent fuel or indeed conventional, and therefore comparatively lower
Because reactor-grade plutonium contains isotopes of plutonium with high
Therefore, proliferation risks are considerably reduced with the IFR system by many metrics, but not entirely eliminated. The plutonium from
The U.S. government detonated a nuclear device in 1962 using then defined "
Plutonium produced in the fuel of a breeder reactor generally has a higher fraction of the isotope
"Although some recent proposals for the future of the ALMR/IFR concept have focused more on its ability to transform and irreversibly use up plutonium, such as the conceptual PRISM (reactor) and the in operation(2014) BN-800 reactor in Russia, the developers of the IFR acknowledge that it is 'uncontested that the IFR can be configured as a net producer of plutonium'."[41]
As mentioned above, if operated not as a burner, but as a breeder, the IFR has a clear proliferation potential "if instead of processing spent fuel, the ALMR system were used to reprocess irradiated fertile (breeding) material (that is if a blanket of breeding U-238 was used), the resulting plutonium would be a superior material, with a nearly ideal isotope composition for nuclear weapons manufacture."[42]
Reactor design and construction
A commercial version of the IFR,
Cost assessments taking account of the complete life cycle show that fast reactors could be no more expensive than the most widely used reactors in the world – water-moderated water-cooled reactors.[43]
Liquid metal sodium coolant
Unlike reactors that use relatively slow low energy (thermal) neutrons,
- Low melting temperature
- Low vapor pressure
- High boiling temperature
- Excellent thermal conductivity
- Low viscosity
- Light weight
- Thermal and radiation stability
Other benefits:
Abundant and low-cost material. Cleaning with chlorine produces non-toxic table salt. Compatible with other materials used in the core (does not react or dissolve stainless steel) so no special corrosion protection measures needed. Low pumping power (from lightweight and low viscosity). Maintains an oxygen (and water) free environment by reacting with trace amounts to make sodium oxide or sodium hydroxide and hydrogen, thereby protecting other components from corrosion. Lightweight (low density) improves resistance to seismic inertia events (earthquakes.)
Drawbacks:
Extreme fire hazards with any significant amounts of air (oxygen) and spontaneous combustion with water, rendering sodium leaks and flooding dangerous. This was the case at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant in a 1995 accident and fire. Reactions with water produce hydrogen which can be explosive. Sodium activation product (isotope) 24Na releases dangerous energetic photons when it decays (however it has a very short half-life of 15 hours). Reactor design keeps 24Na in the reactor pool and carries away heat for power production using a secondary sodium loop, adding costs to construction and maintenance.
Study released by University of Chicago, Argonne[44]
See also
- Gas-cooled fast reactor
- Generation IV reactor
- Lead-cooled fast reactor
- Molten salt reactor
- Traveling wave reactor
References
- ^ a b The IFR at Argonne National Laboratory, www.ne.anl.gov, accessed 1 November 2022
- ^ "GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Encourages Congress to Support Development of Recycling Technology to Turn Used Nuclear Fuel into an Asset – GE Energy press release". Genewscenter.com. 2009-06-18. Archived from the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2014-01-24.
- ^ "Natrium". NRC Web. Retrieved 2022-10-28.
- ^ Patel, Sonal (2022-10-27). "PacifiCorp, TerraPower Evaluating Deployment of Up to Five Additional Natrium Advanced Reactors". POWER Magazine. Retrieved 2022-10-27.
- ^ "Dr. Charles Till | Nuclear Reaction | FRONTLINE". PBS. 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2014-01-24.
- ^ "ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995 (Senate – June 30, 1994)". 103rd Congressional Record. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 10 January 2016. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
- ^ "Ax Again Aimed at Argonne (Chicago Tribune – Feb 8, 1994)". Chicago Tribune. 8 February 1994. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
- ^ Report of investigation into allegations of retaliation for raising safety and quality of work issues regarding Argonne National Laboratory's Integral Fast Reactor Project, Report Number DOE/NS-0005P, 1991 Dec 01 OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 6030509,
- ^ Report backs whistleblower, Nature 356, 469 (9 April 1992)
- ^ Science, Vol. 256, No. 5055, 17 April 1992
- ^ Generation IV roadmap. Evaluation Summaries. 2002 18 slides – some illegible
- ^ ISBN 9781466384606, p.114
- ^ a b c "Roger Blomquist of ANL (Argonne National Lab) on IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) @ TEAC6 . Stated at ~ 19–21 minutes". YouTube.
- ^ Nucleus-4-2007 pg 15 see SV/g chart, www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se
- ^ a b c d e "An Introduction to Argonne National Laboratory's INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR) PROGRAM". 2007-10-09. Archived from the original on September 15, 2008. Retrieved 2014-01-24.
- ^ a b c "Roger Blomquist of ANL (Argonne National Lab) on IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) @ TEAC6 . Stated at ~ 13 minutes". YouTube.
- ^ "Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool". Ne.anl.gov. 2013-12-13. Retrieved 2014-01-24.
- ^ a b c "Roger Blomquist of ANL (Argonne National Lab) on IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) @ TEAC6 . Stated at ~ 17:30". YouTube.
- .
- ^ Professor David Ruzic. "Dealing with the Used Fuel (Reprocessing)". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-12.
- ^ a b Janne Wallenius (2007-04-01). "Återanvändning av lång sluten bränslecykel möj" (PDF). Nucleus: 15. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-05-19.
- ^ Value of 1 Metric ton of used fuel.pdf[dead link]
- MWeplant operating at 70% capacity at 1700 pounds/year.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4289-2068-2, page 30
- ^ Radioactivity and its associated dangers are roughly divided by an isotope's half-life. For example, Technetium-99's 213,000-year half-life combines with the IFR's 1/20 volume reduction to produce about 1/4,000,000 of the radiotoxicity of light water reactor waste. The small size (about 1.5 tonnes per gigawatt-year) permits expensive disposal methods such as insoluble synthetic rock. The hazards are far less than those from fossil fuel wastes or dam failures.
- ^ a b Reduction of the Sodium-Void Coefficient of Reactivity by Using a Technetium Layer page 2
- ^ Plus radium (element 88). While actually a sub-actinide, it immediately precedes actinium (89) and follows a three-element gap of instability after polonium (84) where no nuclides have half-lives of at least four years (the longest-lived nuclide in the gap is radon-222 with a half life of less than four days). Radium's longest lived isotope, at 1,600 years, thus merits the element's inclusion here.
- thermal neutron fission of uranium-235, e.g. in a typical nuclear reactor.
- .
"The isotopic analyses disclosed a species of mass 248 in constant abundance in three samples analysed over a period of about 10 months. This was ascribed to an isomer of Bk248 with a half-life greater than 9 [years]. No growth of Cf248 was detected, and a lower limit for the β− half-life can be set at about 104 [years]. No alpha activity attributable to the new isomer has been detected; the alpha half-life is probably greater than 300 [years]." - sea of instability".
- ^ Excluding those "classically stable" nuclides with half-lives significantly in excess of 232Th; e.g., while 113mCd has a half-life of only fourteen years, that of 113Cd is nearly eight quadrillion years.
- ^ Matthew L. Wald, Energy Dept. Told to Stop Collecting Nuclear Waste Fee, The New York Times, November 20, 2013, p. A20 (retrieved April 2, 2014)
- ^ "Historical video about the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept. Uploaded by – Nuclear Engineering at Argonne". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-12.
- ISBN 978-1466384606. Archived from the originalon 2011-06-05. Retrieved 2011-06-23.
- ^ Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union, Matthew Bunn and John P. Holdren, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1997. 22:403–86
- ^ Categorization of Used Nuclear Fuel Inventory in Support of a Comprehensive National Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategy. page 35 figure 21. Discharge isotopic composition of a pressurized water reactor fuel assembly with initial U-235 enrichment of 4.5 wt % that has accumulated 45 GWd/MTU burnup. Isotopic composition of used nuclear fuel as a function of burnup for a generic PWR fuel assembly.
- ^ WNA (March 2009). "Plutonium". World Nuclear Association. Archived from the original on 2010-03-30. Retrieved 2010-02-28.
- ISBN 978-1-4289-2068-2, page 34
- ^ https://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htmBreeder reactors Archived 2013-07-01 at the Wayback Machine
- ISBN 978-1-4289-2068-2, page 32
- ISBN 978-1-4289-2068-2, page 36
- S2CID 96585192.
- ^ "Office of Nuclear Energy | Department of Energy" (PDF). Ne.doe.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-13. Retrieved 2014-01-24.
Further reading
- Tom Blees (2008). Prescription For The Planet: The Painless Remedy for Our Energy & Environmental Crises. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4196-5582-1.
- U.S. Congress, ISBN 978-1-4289-2068-2.
- Charles E. Till; Yoon Il Chang (2011). Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor: The complex history of a simple reactor technology, with emphasis on its scientific bases for non-specialists. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-4663-8460-6.
- William E. Hannum; Gerald E. Marsh; George S. Stanford (December 2005). "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste". Scientific American.
- The Restoration of the Earth, ISBN 978-0060142315
- Sustainable energy – Without the Hot Air, ISBN 978-0954452933
- ISBN 978-0671242572
- The Second Nuclear Era: A New Start for Nuclear Power, ISBN 978-0275901837
- Thorium Fuel Cycle – Potential Benefits and Challenges, IAEA, 105 pages (2005) ISBN 978-9201034052
- The Nuclear Imperative: A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis (More Physics for Presidents), Jeff Eerkens, 212 pages, Springer (2010) ISBN 978-9048186662
External links
- The Integral Fast Reactor at Argonne National Laboratory
- Archived material from a site about the IFR formerly hosted by UC Berkeley:
- (archived) page index
- (archived) Introduction
- (archived) Integral Fast Reactor
- (archived) IFR Metallic Fuel
- (archived) Safety Characteristics
- (archived) Fuel Cycle Facility
- (archived) Fuel Manufacturing Facility
- (archived) The IFR Vision
- (archived) Reactor Burns Waste as Fuel in Nuclear Recycling Experiment
- Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power by George S. Stanford, Ph.D.
- Frontline interview with Dr. Till.
- IFR Q&A with Tom Blees and George Stanford
- Integral Fast Reactors by Tom Blees, part 2 of 3 Interview with author Tom Blees about IFR.
- The IFR's role in global warming