GEM*STAR: The Alternative Reactor Technology Comprising Graphite, Molten Salt, and Accelerators

  • Charles D. Bowman
  • R. Bruce Vogelaar
  • Edward G. Bilpuch
  • Calvin R. Howell
  • Anton P. Tonchev
  • Werner Tornow
  • R. L. Walter


The technology of nuclear power could be quite different from today’s if it had been practical in the beginning to supplement fission neutrons with accelerator-produced neutrons. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the possible benefits of implementing supplementary neutrons from accelerators in an optimized reactor. GEMSTAR (Green Energy MultiplierSubcritical Technology for Alternative Reactors developed by Accelerator Driven Neutron Applications (ADNA Corp) is a subcritical thermal-spectrum reactor operating with molten salt fuel in a graphite matrix and in a continuous flow mode initially at keff = 0. 99. The model described is able to use natural uranium as fuel and generate twice as much electric power as a light water reactor (LWR) generates from the same mined uranium. GEMSTAR at keff = 0. 99 also can be fueled with unreprocessed LWR spent fuel, and it can generate as much electricity as the LWR had generated from the same fuel. Because GEMSTAR uses liquid fuel, it can recycle its own fuel at keff = 0. 95 without any operations on the fuel. This recycle can be repeated several more times, always without reprocessing, as accelerator or fusion neutron generation technology development reduces the cost of neutrons. GEMSTAR therefore increases the electricity from mined uranium many times while avoiding the serious problems of current nuclear-power technology arising from enrichment, reprocessing, fast reactor deployment, and near term high-level waste storage. GEMSTAR also offers technology for nuclear energy generation that promises reductions in nuclear electricity cost and eliminates major proliferation concerns. The technology can use a modest source of intermittent “green” electricity such as wind or solar as input power to drive an accelerator that, in effect, multiplies the green energy by a factor of about 30 with 24–7 continuity and without compromising any environmental objectives of green energy sources. This chapter is not a complete history of molten salt, graphite, and accelerator technologies, but a description of how these orphan elements of nuclear power development may be integrated for a GEMSTAR solution to the main barriers that constrain the full deployment of today’s nuclear power technology.


Molten Salt Fission Product Spend Fuel Natural Uranium Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams JW, Lageraaen PR, Kalb PD, Rutenkroger SP (1997) Feasibility study of dupoly to recycle depleted uranium. Formal Report BNL-52597Google Scholar
  2. ANL-5800 (1963) Reactor physics constants, 2nd edn. Argonne National Laboratory, LemontGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold GP, Myers VW, Weber AH (1949) The effect of crystal orientation on the scattering of slow neutrons. Phys Rev 75:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman H (1927) A modification of Gordon’s equation. Phys Rev 30:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckurts KH, Wirtz K (1964) Neutron physics. Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center, Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman CD (1998) Accelerator-driven systems for nuclear waste transmutation. Annu Rev Nucl Part Sci 48:505–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman CD (2000a) Once-through thermal spectrum accelerator-driven light water reactor waste destruction without reprocessing. Nucl Technol 132:66–93Google Scholar
  8. Bowman CD (2000b) Once-through thermal spectrum accelerator-driven light water reactor waste destruction without reprocessing. Nucl Technol 132:79–83Google Scholar
  9. Bowman CD (2001) Apparatus for transmutation of nuclear reactor waste. US Patent US 6,233,298 B1, 15 May 2001Google Scholar
  10. Bowman CD, Magill J (2006) Potential role for lasers for sustainable fission energy production and transmutation of nuclear waste. In: Schwoerer H, Magill J, Beleites B (eds) Lasers and nuclei, applications of ultrahigh intensity lasers in nuclear science. Springer, Berlin, pp 169–189Google Scholar
  11. Bowman C, Arthur E, Lisowski P, Lawrence G, Jensen R, Anderson J, Blind B, Capiello M, Davidson J, England T, Engle L, Haight R, Hughes H III, Ireland J, Krakowski R, Labauve R, Letellier B, Perry R, Russell G, Staudhammer K, Versamis G, Wilson W (1992) Nuclear energy generation and waste transmutation using an accelerator-driven intense thermal neutron source. Nucl Inst Meth Phys Res A 320:336–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman CD, Bowman DC, Hill T, Long J, Tonchev AP, Yornow W, Trouw F, Vogel S, Walter RL, Wender S, Yuan V (2008) Measurements of thermal neutron diffraction and inelastic scattering in reactor grade graphite. Nucl Sci Eng 159:182–198Google Scholar
  13. Bowman CD, Bilpuch EG, Bowman DC, Crowell AS, Howell CR, McCabe K, Smith GA, Tonchev AP, Tornow W, Violet V, Vogelaar RB, Walter RL, Yingling J (2009a) Reducing parasitic thermal neutron absorption in graphite reactors by 30%. Nucl Sci EngGoogle Scholar
  14. Bowman C, Bowman D, Bilpuch E, Crowell A, Howell C, McCabe K, Smith G, Tonchev A, Tornow W, Vylet V, Walter R (2009b) Neutrons from a proton-driven deuterium target as a possible competitor to spallation for nuclear energy applications. Nucl Sci Eng 161: 119–124Google Scholar
  15. Bunn M, Fetter S, Holdren JP, van der Zwann B (2003) The economics of reprocessing vs. direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In: Project on managing the atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
  16. CURE: Clean Use of Reactor Energy (1990) Westinghouse Hanford Company Report WHC-EP-0268Google Scholar
  17. Forsberg CW (2007) Thermal- and fast-spectrum molten salt reactors for actinide burning and fuel production. In: Global 07, advanced nuclear fuel cycles and systems, American nuclear society meeting, Boise, Idaho, 9–13 Sept 2007Google Scholar
  18. Forsberg CW, Peterson PF, Zhao H (2004) An advanced molten salt reactor using high-temperature reactor technology. In: Inter- national congress on advances in nuclear power plants (ICAPP’04), Imbedded international topical meeting, 2004 American nuclear society annual meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 13–16 June 2004Google Scholar
  19. Furukawa K, Kato Y, Chigrinov SE (1994) Plutonium (TRU) transmutation and 233U production by single-fluid type accelerator molten-salt breeder (AMSB). In Accelerator-driven transmutation technology and applications, Las Vegas, 25–29 July 1994Google Scholar
  20. Gat U, Dodds HL (1993) The source term and waste optimization of molten salt reactors with reprocessing. In: GLOBAL ‘99, Seattle, Washington, 12–17 Sept 1993Google Scholar
  21. Gat U, Engel JR, Dodds HL (1992) Molten salt reactors for burning dismantled weapons fuel. Nucl Technol 100:390–394Google Scholar
  22. Glasstone S, Edlund MC (1952) The elements of nuclear reactor theory. D. Van Nostrand Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. von Hipple F (2007) Research report number 3 of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), Managing spent fuel in the U.S.: the illogic of reprocessing.
  24. Lamarsh JR (1983) Introduction to nuclear engineering, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, p 134Google Scholar
  25. Lawrence in the Cold War (2002) Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics, chp@aip.orgGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawrence G et al (1996) Conventional and superconducting RF linac designs for the APT Project. In: Proceedings of 1996 linear accelerator conference, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis WB (1966) Atomic energy of Canada Limited Report No. AECL-2600Google Scholar
  28. Lide DR (ed) (1991) Handbook of chemistry and physics, 72nd edn. CRC Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. McLane V, Dunford CL, Rose PF (1988) Neutron cross sections, volume 2, neutron cross section curves. National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  30. Merle-Lucotte E, Heuer D, Le Brun C, Mathieu L, Brissot R, Liatard E, Meplan O, Nuttin A (2006) Fast thorium molten salt reactors started with plutonium. In: Proceedings of the international congress on advances in nuclear power plants (ICAPP), RenoGoogle Scholar
  31. Moir RW, Teller E (2005) Thorium-fueled underground power plant based on molten salt technology. Nucl Technol 151:334–340Google Scholar
  32. Mughabghab SF (1984) Neutron cross sections, volume 1, neutron resonance parameters and thermal cross sections, pp. 12–16, Part B: Z = 61–100. National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Nightingale RE (1962) Nuclear graphite. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson PF (1996) Long-term safeguards for plutonium in geologic repositories. Sci Glob Secur 6:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poulter DR (ed) (1963) The design of gas-cooled graphite-moderated reactors. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Report to Congress (2006) Spent nuclear fuel recycling program plan, U.S. Department of Energy, May 2006Google Scholar
  37. Rosen L (1973) The Clinton P. Anderson Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shapiro S et al (2003) Accelerator based continuous neutron source (ACNS). BNL – Formal Report 71184 (2003); Ruggeiero A, Ludewig H, Shapiro S (2003) Study of a 10-MW continuous spallation neutron source. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2003 accelerator conference, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith R, Shay M, Short S, Ehrman C, Myers T (1999) Estimated cost of an ATW system. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Report 13018Google Scholar
  40. Stephenson R (1954) Introduction to nuclear engineering. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. US Department of Energy (DOE) (2008) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).
  42. Weinberg AM et al (1970) The status and technology of molten salt reactors – a review of molten salt reactor work at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Nucl Appl Technol 8:105–219Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles D. Bowman
    • 1
  • R. Bruce Vogelaar
    • 2
  • Edward G. Bilpuch
    • 3
  • Calvin R. Howell
    • 3
  • Anton P. Tonchev
    • 3
  • Werner Tornow
    • 3
  • R. L. Walter
    • 3
  1. 1.ADNA CorporationLos PueblosLos Alamos, NMUSA
  2. 2.Virginia TechBlacksburg, VAUSA
  3. 3.Triangle Universities Nuclear LaboratoryDuke UniversityDurham,NC,USA

Personalised recommendations