Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) program has both “outcome” and “process” goals because it must address both waste already accumulating as well as completing the fuel cycle in connection with advanced nuclear power plant concepts. The outcome objectives are waste geological repository capacity and cost, energy security and sustainability, proliferation resistance, fuel cycle economics, and safety. The process objectives are readiness to proceed and adaptability and robustness in the face of uncertainties. A classic decision-making approach to such a multi-attribute problem would be to weight individual quantified criteria and calculate an overall figure of merit. This is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the goals are not independent. Second, the importance of different goals varies among stakeholders. Third, the importance of different goals is likely to vary with time, especially the “energy future.” Fourth, some key considerations are not easily or meaningfully quantifiable at present. Instead, at this point, we have developed 16 questions the AFCI program should answer and suggest an approach of determining for each whether relevant options improve meeting each of the program goals. We find that it is not always clear which option is best for a specific question and specific goal; this helps identify key issues for future work. In general, we suggest attempting to create as many win-win decisions (options that are attractive or neutral to most goals) as possible. Thus, to help clarify why the program is exploring the options it is, and to set the stage for future narrowing of options, we have developed 16 questions, as follows: · What are the AFCI program goals? · Which potential waste disposition approaches do we plan for? · What are the major separations, transmutation, and fuel options? · How do we address proliferation resistance? · Which potential energy futures do we plan for? · What potential external triggers do we plan for? · Should we separate uranium? · If we separate uranium, should we recycle it, store it or dispose of it? · Is it practical to plan to fabricate and handle “hot” fuel? · Which transuranic elements (TRU) should be separated and transmuted? · Of those TRU separated, which should be transmuted together? · Should we separate and/or transmute Cs and Sr isotopes that dominate near-term repository heating? · Should we separate and/or transmute very long-lived Tc and I isotopes? · Which separation technology? · What mix of transmutation technologies? · What fuel technology best supports the above decisions?
- Research Organization:
- Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- DOE - NE
- DOE Contract Number:
- DE-AC07-99ID-13727
- OSTI ID:
- 910828
- Report Number(s):
- INEEL/CON-04-01963; TRN: US0800560
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: Americas Nuclear Energy Symposium 2004,Miami Beach, Florida,10/03/2004,10/06/2004
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions
Fuel Cycle Scenario Definition, Evaluation, and Trade-offs