61 Search Results

The Systems Analysis and Integration campaign assessed the pros and cons of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) utilization in advanced reactors and associated fuel cycles. The assessment was done for three example fuel cycles at equilibrium states: once-through, limited recycle, and continuous recycle (CR) starting with HALEU. Front- and back-end fuel cycle parameters and the Levelized Cost of Fuel (LCF), which is the Levelized Cost of Electricity excluding reactor cost, of the three example fuel cycles were calculated using a single Analysis Example Reactor. The pros and cons of HALEU utilization were assessed by normalizing the fuel cycle parameters and LCF to a unit of electricity generation (GWe-year) and comparing them with a Basis of Comparison. In this study, a sodium-cooled reactor with sodium-bonded metallic fuel having a burnup of ~100 GWd/t was used as the Analysis Example Reactor because its technology readiness level is high, and the burnup and fuel enrichment are in the middle of those ranges of advanced reactor concepts that are under development. The current once-through Light Water Reactors (OT-LWRs) with <5% low-enriched uranium and 50 GWd/t burnup were used as the Basis of Comparison. In addition, a series of sensitivity analyses was conducted by varying burnup, enrichment, fuel forms, and reactor types to capture the design variations in two once-through Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) reactors, Natrium with sodium-free metallic fuel having a burnup of ~150 GW/t and Xe-100 with Tristructural-Isotropic (TRISO) pebble fuel having a burnup of ~168 GWd/t.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nuclear waste attributes of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) scheduled for deployment within this decade using available data and established nuclear waste metrics, with the results compared to a reference large Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). The current fleet of commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. is composed of 92 large Light Water Reactors (LWR) with an average electricity generating capacity of over 1,000 MWe each. These large LWRs built on-site in massive construction projects have been the mainstay of the industry for the last 50 years. However, new construction soon is expected to include several designs of smaller reactors primarily fabricated in factories and installed in the field in modules. Some of these SMRs will also be LWRs, while some will use other coolants such as liquid metals, molten salts or gases, and different types of fuels. The technologies and economics of SMRs have been the focus of many studies, but there has been only minimal information published on the amount of nuclear waste different types of SMRs are expected to generate and no reports focused on near-term-deployable designs. In this study, the nuclear waste attributes of three small reactors scheduled for near-term-deployment, VOYGR^TM (from NuScale Power), Natrium^{TM ab} (from TerraPower), and Xe-100 (from X-energy), were assessed by comparing nuclear waste metrics with those of a reference large Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR).

A series of fuel cycle scenarios studies were performed to inform on fuel cycle capacities and facilities needed for large-scale deployment of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) reactors and potential future evolutionary fuel cycle scenarios. The reactor deployment and evolutionary fuel cycle scenarios from the present to 2100 were developed based on the following assumptions: 1) achievement of a net-zero emissions economy in the United States by 2050, which requires a nuclear energy generation capacity of ~250 GWe by 2050, 2) the U.S. economic growth of 1% per year from 2051 to 2100, which results in ~340 GWe of nuclear energy capacity in 2100, and 3) commercial-scale recycling and high burnup fuel technologies are available after 2050. Thus, evolutionary fuel cycles with those advanced nuclear technologies start after 2050. A single once-through fuel cycle scenario was assumed from the present to 2050 to achieve a net-zero emissions economy in the United States, and the following four evolutionary fuel cycle scenarios from 2051 to 2100 were considered, 1) Once through fuel cycle with ARDP reactors (Natrium and Xe-100), 2) Once-through fuel cycle with Breed-and-Burn (B&B) fast reactors, 3) Recycling fuel cycle of used metallic fuel in fast reactors, and 4) Recycle fuel cycle of both used uranium oxide and metallic fuels in fast reactors. The projected front-end and back-end fuel cycle capacity demands are compared with the current domestic and global (if needed) fuel cycle capacities.

Long-term energy system models–including electric sector capacity expansion models–are widely used tools for informing planning, technology assessment, and policy analysis. Recent decarbonization goals and rapid technological change have increased the need to appropriately represent economic characteristics and technical details of energy system resources, including variable renewable energy, energy storage technologies, carbon-capture-equipped capacity, and nuclear energy. Nuclear power represents about 20% of electricity generation and 50% of carbon-free electricity in the United States as of 2021. However, there are many perspectives on the role of existing and new nuclear in the future U.S. energy system, which is reflected in the broad range of potential contributions reported in the literature. This project aims to understand how issues central to nuclear energy are represented in long-term energy models. Building on earlier collaborations that focused on variable renewable energy and energy storage, this project convenes four modeling teams that use national-scale long-term energy system models from the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to share methods and data, update models, run coordinated scenarios, and identify research needs. Improving tools can provide more insightful analyses and ensure that methods are more transparent.

Nuclear energy plays an important role in the U.S. energy mix that will likely need to be maintained or strengthened to achieve significant greenhouse gas reduction. However, maintaining the nuclear portfolio becomes increasingly challenging in the current U.S. energy market since the low price of natural gas and the penetration of subsidized and low-marginal cost variable renewable electricity (VRE) are affecting the profitability of nuclear units. In this context, building new nuclear power plants will require increased competitiveness with reduced capital and O&M costs and increased revenues enabled by changes in market policies or increased flexible operation. Within the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, the System Analysis and Integration Campaign has been acquiring the capability to model energy market economics in order to assist decision makers and nuclear utilities. The methods developed and codes acquired are displayed in Figure 1. The objective of this report is to describe the tools acquired for market analysis, and to illustrate their capabilities and complementarities with an example of analysis.

This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the DOE Nuclear Technology Research and Development (NTRD) Program (previously the Fuel Cycle Research and Development (FCRD) and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI)). The report describes the NTRD cost basis development process, reference information on NTRD cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models. This report contains reference cost data for numerous fuel cycle cost modules (modules A-O) as well as cost modules for a number of reactor types (R modules). The fuel cycle cost modules were developed in the areas of natural uranium mining and milling, thorium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium disposition, fuel fabrication, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing, waste conditioning, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packaging, long-term monitored retrievable storage, managed decay storage, recycled product storage, near surface disposal of low-level waste (LLW), geologic repository and other disposal concepts, and transportation processes for nuclear fuel, LLW, SNF, transuranic, and high-level waste. Since its inception, this report has been periodically updated. The last such internal document was published in August 2015 while the last external edition was published in December of 2009 as INL/EXT-07-12107 and is available on the Web at URL: www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4536700.pdf. This current report (Sept 2017) is planned to be reviewed for external release, at which time it will replace the 2009 report as an external publication. This information is used in the ongoing evaluation of nuclear fuel cycles by the NE NTRD program.

This paper discusses the impact of several accident-tolerant fuel (ATF) options on the fuel cycle performance of once-through LWRs compared to current uranium oxide-Zircaloy fueled commercial LWRs. Desirable characteristics of proposed ATF concepts include higher thermal conductivity, enhanced fission product retention, and reduced reaction kinetics and hydrogen generation in loss of coolant conditions. ATF concepts that have been proposed target changes to the fuel and/or cladding. Broadly speaking, the options can be summarized as follows: -) UO{sub 2} pellet fuels with increased thermal conductivity to lower temperatures, -) high-density pellet fuels (e.g., nitrides and/or silicides), -) fully ceramic microencapsulated (FCM) fuels, -) metallic fuel with high fissile density and high thermal conductivity, -) coatings on Zircaloy cladding, -) total elimination of the Zircaloy as cladding and replacement with a ceramic, and -) composite cladding including for instance layered Zircaloy and SiC and molybdenum. We can draw 4 conclusions. First, other than SiC, the other cladding options will result in a reactivity penalty requiring either thinner cladding or increased fissile loading. Secondly, silicide fuels have a higher density than UO{sub 2} and can allow longer cycle lengths for the same enrichment or a reduction in the enrichment for a given cycle length. Thirdly, while the pellet fuels yield very similar results, the FCM fuel is dramatically different due to the low fuel loading. Fourthly, we have to note that in order to achieve the maximum benefit from a particular fuel-clad combination, it requires consideration of the characteristics of each. For example, a cladding with a relatively high absorption (e.g., FeCrAl) would benefit from a high density fuel such as U{sub 3}Si{sub 2}.

A nuclear fuel cycle systems modeling and code-to-code comparison effort was coordinated across multiple national laboratories to verify the tools needed to perform fuel cycle analyses of the transition from a once-through nuclear fuel cycle to a sustainable potential future fuel cycle. For this verification study, a simplified example transition scenario was developed to serve as a test case for the four systems codes involved (DYMOND, VISION, ORION, and MARKAL), each used by a different laboratory participant. In addition, all participants produced spreadsheet solutions for the test case to check all the mass flows and reactor/facility profiles on a year-by-year basis throughout the simulation period. The test case specifications describe a transition from the current US fleet of light water reactors to a future fleet of sodium-cooled fast reactors that continuously recycle transuranic elements as fuel. After several initial coordinated modeling and calculation attempts, it was revealed that most of the differences in code results were not due to different code algorithms or calculation approaches, but due to different interpretations of the input specifications among the analysts. Therefore, the specifications for the test case itself were iteratively updated to remove ambiguity and to help calibrate interpretations. In addition, a few corrections and modifications were made to the codes as well, which led to excellent agreement between all codes and spreadsheets for this test case. Although no fuel cycle transition analysis codes matched the spreadsheet results exactly, all remaining differences in the results were due to fundamental differences in code structure and/or were thoroughly explained. As a result, the specifications and example results are provided so that they can be used to verify additional codes in the future for such fuel cycle transition scenarios.

The following report provides a rich resource of information for exploring fuel cycle characteristics. The most noteworthy trends can be traced back to the utilization efficiency of natural uranium resources. By definition, complete uranium utilization occurs only when all of the natural uranium resource can be introduced into the nuclear reactor long enough for all of it to undergo fission. Achieving near complete uranium utilization requires technologies that can achieve full recycle or at least nearly full recycle of the initial natural uranium consumed from the Earth. Greater than 99% of all natural uranium is fertile, and thus is not conducive to fission. This fact requires the fuel cycle to convert large quantities of non-fissile material into fissile transuranics. Step increases in waste benefits are closely related to the step increase in uranium utilization going from non-breeding fuel cycles to breeding fuel cycles. The amount of mass requiring a disposal path is tightly coupled to the quantity of actinides in the waste stream. Complete uranium utilization by definition means that zero (practically, near zero) actinide mass is present in the waste stream. Therefore, fuel cycles with complete (uranium and transuranic) recycle discharge predominately fission products with some actinide process losses. Fuel cycles without complete recycle discharge a much more massive waste stream because only a fraction of the initial actinide mass is burned prior to disposal. In a nuclear growth scenario, the relevant acceptable frequency for core damage events in nuclear reactors is inversely proportional to the number of reactors deployed in a fuel cycle. For ten times the reactors in a fleet, it should be expected that the fleet-average core damage frequency be decreased by a factor of ten. The relevant proliferation resistance of a fuel cycle system is enhanced with: decreasing reliance on domestic fuel cycle services, decreasing adaptability for technology misuse, enablement of material accountability, and decreasing material attractiveness.

This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models. This report contains reference cost data for 25 cost modules—23 fuel cycle cost modules and 2 reactor modules. The cost modules were developed in the areas of natural uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium disposition, fuel fabrication, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing, waste conditioning, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packaging, long-term monitored retrievable storage, near surface disposal of low-level waste (LLW), geologic repository and other disposal concepts, and transportation processes for nuclear fuel, LLW, SNF, transuranic, and high-level waste.