You need JavaScript to view this

Fuel cycle cost comparisons with oxide and silicide fuels

Abstract

This paper addresses fuel cycle cost comparisons for a generic 10 MW reactor with HEU aluminide fuel and with LEU oxide and silicide fuels in several fuel element geometries. The intention of this study is to provide a consistent assessment of various design options from a cost point of view. The status of the development and demonstration of the oxide and silicide fuels are presented in several papers in these proceedings. Routine utilization of these fuels with the uranium densities considered here requires that they are successfully demonstrated and licensed. Thermal-hydraulic safety margins, shutdown margins, mixed cores, and transient analyses are not addressed here, but analyses of these safety issues are in progress for a limited number of the most promising design options. Fuel cycle cost benefits could result if a number of reactors were to utilize fuel elements with the same number or different numbers of the same standard fuel plate. Data is presented to quantify these potential cost benefits. This analysis shows that there are a number of fuel element designs using LEU oxide or silicide fuels that have either the same or lower total fuel cycle costs than the HEU design. Use of these fuels with the  More>>
Authors:
Matos, J E; Freese, K E [1] 
  1. RERTR Program, Argonne National Laboratory (United States)
Publication Date:
Sep 01, 1983
Product Type:
Conference
Report Number:
ANL/RERTR/TM-4; CONF-821155; INIS-XA-C-020
Resource Relation:
Conference: International meeting on research and test reactor core conversions from HEU to LEU fuels, Argonne, IL (United States), 8-10 Nov 1982; Other Information: 4 refs, 6 figs, 8 tabs; PBD: Sep 1983; Related Information: In: Proceedings of the international meeting on research and test reactor core conversions from HEU to LEU fuels, by Travelli, A. [Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL (United States)], 723 pages.
Subject:
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST ESTIMATION; FUEL CYCLE; FUEL ELEMENTS; HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM; SAFETY MARGINS; SLIGHTLY ENRICHED URANIUM; URANIUM OXIDES; URANIUM SILICIDES
Sponsoring Organizations:
US Department of Energy, Washington, DC (United States)
OSTI ID:
20596963
Research Organizations:
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL (United States); University of Chicago, Chicago (United States)
Country of Origin:
IAEA
Language:
English
Other Identifying Numbers:
Other: Contract W-31-109-Eng-38; TRN: XA04C1529043347
Availability:
Available from INIS in electronic form
Submitting Site:
INIS
Size:
page(s) 517-542
Announcement Date:

Citation Formats

Matos, J E, and Freese, K E. Fuel cycle cost comparisons with oxide and silicide fuels. IAEA: N. p., 1983. Web.
Matos, J E, & Freese, K E. Fuel cycle cost comparisons with oxide and silicide fuels. IAEA.
Matos, J E, and Freese, K E. 1983. "Fuel cycle cost comparisons with oxide and silicide fuels." IAEA.
@misc{etde_20596963,
title = {Fuel cycle cost comparisons with oxide and silicide fuels}
author = {Matos, J E, and Freese, K E}
abstractNote = {This paper addresses fuel cycle cost comparisons for a generic 10 MW reactor with HEU aluminide fuel and with LEU oxide and silicide fuels in several fuel element geometries. The intention of this study is to provide a consistent assessment of various design options from a cost point of view. The status of the development and demonstration of the oxide and silicide fuels are presented in several papers in these proceedings. Routine utilization of these fuels with the uranium densities considered here requires that they are successfully demonstrated and licensed. Thermal-hydraulic safety margins, shutdown margins, mixed cores, and transient analyses are not addressed here, but analyses of these safety issues are in progress for a limited number of the most promising design options. Fuel cycle cost benefits could result if a number of reactors were to utilize fuel elements with the same number or different numbers of the same standard fuel plate. Data is presented to quantify these potential cost benefits. This analysis shows that there are a number of fuel element designs using LEU oxide or silicide fuels that have either the same or lower total fuel cycle costs than the HEU design. Use of these fuels with the uranium densities considered requires that they are successfully demonstrated and licensed. All safety criteria for the reactor with these fuel element designs need to be satisfied as well. With LEU oxide fuel, 31 g U/cm{sup 3} 1 and 0.76 mm--thick fuel meat, elements with 18-22 plates 320-391 g {sup 235}U) result in the same or lower total costs than with the HEU element 23 plates, 280 g {sup 235}U). Higher LEU loadings (more plates per element) are needed for larger excess reactivity requirements. However, there is little cost advantage to using more than 20 of these plates per element. Increasing the fuel meat thickness from 0.76 mm to 1.0 mm with 3.1 g U/cm{sup 3} in the design with 20 plates per element could result in significant cost reductions if the reactivity requirements for fuel transportation and storage are satisfied. With LEU silicide fuel in the HEU element geometry, {sup 235}U loadings between 360 and 390 g 4.1 - 45 g U/cm{sup 3}) result in the same or lower total costs than with HEU fuel. In fuel element designs with HEU aluminide, LEU oxide, and LEU silicide fuels that have roughly the same total fuel cycle costs, the contributions of the individual cost components are approximately 38% for fabrication costs, 27% for U costs plus U credit, 20% for reprocessing costs, and 15% for shipping costs. Percentage changes in individual cost components scale the total costs according to these proportions. For example, a 30% increase in fabrication costs results in an 11.4% increase in total costs. The fabrication cost for an HEU standard element was assumed to be $9000 in this analysis. However, the LEU/HEU cost ratios are very nearly the same if a value of $7000 per element had been assumed. A reduction of about 35-40% in plate production costs due to the standardization of fuel plate designs is needed in order to reduce the total fuel cycle costs by 10%. The maximum cost savings due to standardization are in the range of 26-30%.}
place = {IAEA}
year = {1983}
month = {Sep}
}