Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Hoffman, Ed

Publications and source records attributed to Hoffman, Ed.

Competitiveness Assessment of Decarbonizing Electricity and Process Heat Supply to a Campus with a Small Nuclear Reactor

This paper analyzes the competitiveness of siting a small nuclear reactor to support decarbonization of sites requiring tens of MW of electricity and/or process heat to support centralized heating and cooling system. This paper focuses on campuses as representative of sites with collections of buildings and research facilities with decarbonization needs represented by buildings heating, and electricity consumption by electrical loads which may include cooling via chilled water (e.g., for air conditioning and to cool down computer clusters). A nuclear reactor can be considered to decarbonize a site’s high-temperature steam generation used mostly for building heating needs, climate control, and hot water, by supplying process heat capabilities, while electricity decarbonization would be achieved mostly by the grid. However, a secondary application can be considered to maximize reactor utilization and avoid ramping down the reactor if the steam demand varies significantly throughout the year. Chilled water generation through steam-driven systems was identified as an attractive secondary option for the site analyzed, due to potential for plant design simplification, while electricity generation could be considered as well to reduce electricity purchases for a wider range of site applications. For a campus with peak 60MW thermal power demand, a small nuclear reactor with similar thermal power rating would almost eliminate CO2 emissions from steam generation and reduce electricity imports for chilled water production. A preliminary techno-economic feasibility study shows that a small nuclear reactor design that is optimized to support process heat can represent an economically feasible option when compared with other decarbonization alternatives.

Stauff, Nicolas E.↗

Economic Impact of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

This report estimates the economic impact of closing the United States nuclear fuel cycle. Several different fuel cycle scenarios are analyzed. These scenarios include a baseline analysis of the existing fuel cycle conditions, a hypothetical scenario where all fuel cycle operations are preformed domestically, a scenario where all reactors are replaced with sodium fast reactors, and finally a scenario that uses a mix of fast reactors and light water reactors operating on mixed oxide fuel. Each scenario modeled is assumed to be operating at equilibrium and producing electricity at a 100 GWe-yr capacity. Impacts are calculated for normal operations and do not include construction or infrastructure expansion impacts.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-2 LWR Pelletized MOX Fuel Fabrication

Nature of this 2021 Module update from previous AFC-CBRs: Use of U,Pu MOX life cycle cost data from late 1970s Non-proliferation Assessment Systems Analysis Program (NASAP). This archived data has been updated in 2018-2019 to reflect today’s regulatory and economic conditions and is presented in 2017. For the lower unit cost MOX fabrication case the PuO 2 from the reprocessed LWR SNF is assumed to be fabricated immediately after aqueous PUREX reprocessing, thus minimizing the time for undesirable actinide radioisotopes, from the standpoint of radiation safety, to build in. Fabricated MOX utilizing separated and multi-year stored Pu from aqueously reprocessed SNF has also been added to this Module as a second LWR MOX fabrication variant, requiring additional and more costly glovebox design and operations to protect personnel. This new NASAP-informed data augments historical data and unit cost projections appearing in the 2009 (Shropshire et al 2009), 2012 (Dixon et al 2012), and 2017 Dixon et al 2017) AFC-CBRs. The “What-it-takes” 2017 unit fabrication cost values based on the updated NASAP studies are escalated to 2020$ for this 2021 Update Report.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 3 Cost Correlations

This chapter provides an overview of the drivers for developing correlation coefficients, status on efforts to develop partial correlation coefficients, and recommended next steps. Mathematical methods for developing and using correlation coefficients were previously documented by the FCO EWG in Chapters 6 and 7 of [Ganda 2014].

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 2 Production Based Costing

The purpose of this section is to outline a method of cost analysis whereby a significantly better representation of “should achieve” costs may be attained for NOAK systems. Based on economists’ notions of producer theory, and grounded in the cost analysts’ and project managers’ tool called the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), this section describes best practices in cost estimation. It then illustrates how the Code of Accounts (COA) structure, developed by the Economic Modeling Working Group (EMWG) of the Generation IV International Forum in “Cost Estimating Guidelines for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems [EMWG 2007] (hereafter “Gen IV Guidelines Document”), can be used to differentiate “should achieve” versus “did experience” costs.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-4 and Module D1-5 Ceramic Pelletized Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Fuel Fabrication Ceramic Vibrocompacted Fuel Fabrication

This is a cost module that is part of the Advanced Fuel Cycle -- Cost Basis Report. Module D1-4: Nature of this module update (Rev 1) from previous advanced fuel cycle cost basis reports (AFCCBRs): new life cycle cost data on U,Pu SFR mixed oxide (MOX) fuels is derived from the Nonproliferation Assessment Systems Analysis Program (NASAP) conducted in the late 1970s. Highassay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) ceramic fuel is also discussed in more detail compared to earlier AFC-CBRs, since some advanced SFR concepts currently under development will require this HALEU fuel type for startup. Module D1-5: Nature of this FY-21 module update from previous AFC-CBRs: this module includes a few new references and a somewhat expanded discussion of vibrocompaction fuel fabrication technology. The WIT values for VIPAC are pegged directly to those for conventional LWR and SFR pelletized U,Pu MOX (note that this module now includes VIPAC MOX fuel for LWRs in addition to SFRs). Based on information from Russia, where VIPAC has been studied extensively, the unit costs are expressed as a percentage of those in the new updated Module D1-2 (pelletized U,Pu MOX) and new updated Module D1-4 (pelletized U,Pu MOX) for large NOAK fabrication facilities of the same production capacity. Since both ceramic pelletized MOX Modules D1-2 and D1-4 benefitted from analysis of 1970s NASAP data, by extension this Module D1-5 also benefits.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-1: Uranium-based Ceramic LWR Fuel Fabrication (Rev.2)

Cost module on LWR fuel fabrication to accompany the Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report. In this update, we are adding detailed life cycle cost data and a calculated, levelized fabrication cost derived from a non-proprietary bottom-up estimate prepared in 1978 by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (Judkins and Olsen 1978a). In 2018, the 1978 ORNL estimate was escalated by SA&I authors to 2017 USD using factors that represent inflation, escalation above inflation typical of nuclear projects, and the effects of more stringent safety and environmental regulations. In this FY-21 document, the $/kgU results in 2017 USD from the unpublished 2018 interim study (Williams and Ganda 2018) can be escalated to 2020 USD using a factor of 1.052. The literature-based unit cost (or price) data from previous (2004–2017) AFC-CBRs are escalated to 2020 USD using factors from Chapter 8 of the main FY-21 AFC-CBR document. This data, in addition to the results of the updated bottom-up estimate, are used to define the “what-it-takes” (WIT) range for the unit fabrication costs for conventional ceramic UOX light-water reactor (LWR) fuel. This FY-23 document also includes calculated unit costs for accident-tolerant LWR fuels (ATFs) of three different types. Some of these fuels constitute a ceramic pelletized form with fuel meat uranium compounds other than UO2 (a.k.a.,. UOX), thus the change in the title of this module in which the word “UO2” is changed to “Uranium-based Ceramic.”

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-7 Contact-Handled Pelletized Pressurized Heavy Water (PHWR) UOX Fuel Fabrication (Rev.1)

In addition to literature-based pressurized heavy-water reactor (PHWR) fuel price information in the 2017 AFC-CBR, the what-it-takes (WIT) unit cost data in this update is informed by new analysis and escalation of the 1978 PHWR-UOX fuel life cycle cost (LCC) data from ORNL reports prepared for the 1977–1980 Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program (NASAP). (These reports are referenced and summarized in detail in Module D1-PR.) The PHWR fuel fabrication LCC data in these reports is scaled from a bottom-up cost estimate for a reference technology pressurized-water reactor (PWR)—uranium oxide (UOX) fuel fabrication plant by using algorithms that consider the manufacturing process complexity, fuel design complexity, plant floor space requirements, and the radiation and health, safety, and environmental (HS&E) regulatory environment of PHWR-UOX fuel production vis-à-vis light-water reactor (LWR)-UOX production (PWR fuel in this case). The module name has been changed from “Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU)” to the more generic PHWR fuel fabrication in recognition that not all power reactors that might use this fuel type are considered. Unfortunately, the detailed algorithms and their design bases were not archived at the end of the NASAP effort of the commercial CANDU concept specifically developed in the middle of the last century by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Demonstration of ACCERT Software for Nuclear Power Plant Techno-Economics

In the past few years, there has been a renewed interest in the deployment of nuclear power for decarbonizing the electricity grid as well as a range of industrial applications. As the demonstrations of advanced nuclear power plants start to begin, there will likely be a further increase in this interest. As nuclear is being considered as a part of the energy mix, understanding the cost of nuclear energy becomes increasingly important for all stakeholders including advanced reactor vendors (for making design decisions and marketing their designs), users of nuclear energy (e.g., to estimate the cost of decarbonization of other industries using nuclear), and government (e.g., in capacity expansion models that are used in framing policy). In this summary, we demonstrate a software tool called ACCERT that is currently being developed with funding from the Systems Analysis and Integration (SA&I) program under the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE NE). ACCERT is a cost estimation and techno-economics tool for nuclear power plant applications that includes a database of (a) cost estimates of various ‘reference’ nuclear power plant designs gathered from existing literature, and (b) algorithms developed from these costs that can be used extrapolate the existing costs and perform a bottom-up cost estimation of other designs. A companion summary describes the software and its design in more detail and this summary presents a demonstration for four different nuclear power plant designs: a pressurized water reactor (PWR), high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR), sodium fast reactor (SFR), and a heat-pipe microreactor. The demonstrations include the reference cost estimates and the cost estimates of a modified design for each reference case.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Module D-PR Fuel Fabrication Preface to the D-Modules

Generic Technical Factors Affecting Fuel Fabrication. Many in-reactor physical, chemical, metallurgical, mechanical, thermodynamic, and nucleonic factors influence the design and functionality of nuclear fuel. Detailed discussion of these technical factors is beyond the scope of this cost-oriented preface document; however, the following three references are suggested for a more comprehensive discussion of fuel design requirements for both commercial and special use (military and remote location) reactors: IAEA-TECDOC-1686 (IAEA 2012), the World Nuclear Association webpage “Nuclear Fuel and its Fabrication (WNA 2020a), and INL/EXT-20-54641 (Mariani 2020). To aid the reader’s understanding of how design affects life cycle costs, a few technical factors are also briefly discussed in the sections below.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗