skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: An Approach for Assessing Development and Deployment Risks in the DOE Fuel Cycle Options Evaluation and Screening Study

Abstract

Abstract One of the key objectives of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap is the development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles that can improve natural resource utilization and provide solutions to the management of nuclear wastes. Recently, an evaluation and screening (E&S) of fuel cycle systems has been conducted to identify those options that provide the best opportunities for obtaining such improvements and also to identify the required research and development activities that can support the development of advanced fuel cycle options. In order to evaluate and screen the E&S study included nine criteria including Development and Deployment Risk (D&DR). More specifically, this criterion was represented by the following metrics: Development time, development cost, deployment cost from prototypic validation to first-of-a-kind commercial, compatibility with the existing infrastructure, existence of regulations for the fuel cycle and familiarity with licensing, and existence of market incentives and/or barriers to commercial implementation of fuel cycle processes. Given the comprehensive nature of the study, a systematic approach was needed to determine metric data for the D&DR criterion, and is presented here. As would be expected, the Evaluation Group representing the once-through use of uranium in thermal reactors is always the highestmore » ranked fuel cycle Evaluation Group for this D&DR criterion. Evaluation Groups that consist of once-through fuel cycles that use existing reactor types are consistently ranked very high. The highest ranked limited and continuous recycle fuel cycle Evaluation Groups are those that recycle Pu in thermal reactors. The lowest ranked fuel cycles are predominately continuous recycle single stage and multi-stage fuel cycles that involve TRU and/or U-233 recycle.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3];  [4];  [5]
  1. ORNL
  2. Sculley Capital Services, Inc.
  3. Insight Decisions, LLC.
  4. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
  5. Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
OSTI Identifier:
1333061
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-00OR22725
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Global 2015, Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Low-Carbon Future, Paris, France, 20150921, 20150924
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Gehin, Jess C, Oakley, Brian, Worrall, Andrew, Jenni, Karen, Taiwo, Temitope, and Wigeland, Roald. An Approach for Assessing Development and Deployment Risks in the DOE Fuel Cycle Options Evaluation and Screening Study. United States: N. p., 2015. Web.
Gehin, Jess C, Oakley, Brian, Worrall, Andrew, Jenni, Karen, Taiwo, Temitope, & Wigeland, Roald. An Approach for Assessing Development and Deployment Risks in the DOE Fuel Cycle Options Evaluation and Screening Study. United States.
Gehin, Jess C, Oakley, Brian, Worrall, Andrew, Jenni, Karen, Taiwo, Temitope, and Wigeland, Roald. Thu . "An Approach for Assessing Development and Deployment Risks in the DOE Fuel Cycle Options Evaluation and Screening Study". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_1333061,
title = {An Approach for Assessing Development and Deployment Risks in the DOE Fuel Cycle Options Evaluation and Screening Study},
author = {Gehin, Jess C and Oakley, Brian and Worrall, Andrew and Jenni, Karen and Taiwo, Temitope and Wigeland, Roald},
abstractNote = {Abstract One of the key objectives of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap is the development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles that can improve natural resource utilization and provide solutions to the management of nuclear wastes. Recently, an evaluation and screening (E&S) of fuel cycle systems has been conducted to identify those options that provide the best opportunities for obtaining such improvements and also to identify the required research and development activities that can support the development of advanced fuel cycle options. In order to evaluate and screen the E&S study included nine criteria including Development and Deployment Risk (D&DR). More specifically, this criterion was represented by the following metrics: Development time, development cost, deployment cost from prototypic validation to first-of-a-kind commercial, compatibility with the existing infrastructure, existence of regulations for the fuel cycle and familiarity with licensing, and existence of market incentives and/or barriers to commercial implementation of fuel cycle processes. Given the comprehensive nature of the study, a systematic approach was needed to determine metric data for the D&DR criterion, and is presented here. As would be expected, the Evaluation Group representing the once-through use of uranium in thermal reactors is always the highest ranked fuel cycle Evaluation Group for this D&DR criterion. Evaluation Groups that consist of once-through fuel cycles that use existing reactor types are consistently ranked very high. The highest ranked limited and continuous recycle fuel cycle Evaluation Groups are those that recycle Pu in thermal reactors. The lowest ranked fuel cycles are predominately continuous recycle single stage and multi-stage fuel cycles that involve TRU and/or U-233 recycle.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2015},
month = {Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2015}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share: