Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Fuel cycle”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Radiation Chemistry and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Internal presentation for "UK Professor and PhD Student Visit: Presentation on Separations and Waste Forms along with National Programs."

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2020

Initial Efforts Organizing WPNCS SG-8: Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks

The Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety (WPNCS) under the guidance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has over 20 years of experience addressing concerns related to static and transient configurations encountered within the nuclear fuel cycle: fuel fabrication, transportation, reprocessing, storage, and geological disposal. One of the cornerstone activities of the WPNCS is the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), which was established to identify a comprehensive set of criticality benchmark data, evaluate the data, including quantification of overall uncertainties; compile the data into a standardized format, perform sample calculations utilizing modern nuclear data sets and codes utilized in nuclear criticality safety, and formally document the work into a single source of verified benchmark data. Annually, members of the ICSBEP Technical Review Group (TRG) contribute evaluated benchmark data that undergoes comprehensive technical review prior to publication in the ICSBEP Handbook. In the years since the ICSBEP was established, there has been much work to prepare benchmark data to support validation activities in nuclear criticality safety. The 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook contains acceptable benchmark specifications for 5,053 critical, subcritical, or near-critical configurations in 582 benchmark evaluations. Modern benchmark development benefits from decades of experienced international participants, a well-established handbook format, supplementary guides to deal with uncertainty quantification, and a comprehensive review process based upon independent reviews from international experts. The ICSBEP Handbook also contains 838 configurations deemed unacceptable to support criticality safety efforts. They are recorded, with the reasoning for their rejection, to preserve the experimental data, prevent reevaluation of data that are incomplete or contain known errors, and/or to potentially allow future reevaluation of the experiment pending the identification of sufficient data to resolve identified inconsistencies and errors. Users of the ICSBEP Handbook today might notice that the rigor and quality of modern criticality safety benchmarks is much greater than those prepared within the initial decade of the project. Benchmarks with 1s uncertainties in k eff greater than 1% were traditionally rejected unless they were identified as unique experiment types that encompassed materials, fuels, or designs not available from other benchmark experiments. However, benchmarks developed using modern experimental techniques and practices typically have uncertainties on the order of a few tenths of a percent. There have been ongoing efforts to improve the overall quality of previously published benchmark evaluations. Seventy-eight evaluations, containing approximately 600 configurations, have been revised just within the past decade. An additional eleven benchmarks are under revision for updated release in the 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. If some of the historic benchmarks were resubmitted in their current form to the TRG today, they would be rejected due to lack of data, missing components in the uncertainty analysis, or incomplete benchmark model development. The use of historic criticality safety benchmarks that underestimate the total uncertainty, lack properly quantified biases, or provide inadequate benchmark specifications do not sufficiently support modern criticality safety and nuclear data efforts. Although the ICSBEP Handbook is recognized by regulating bodies to support criticality safety, users are required to justify their reasons to ignore historic benchmark data and include additional safety margins within their designs. Discussions were held at the WPNCS 23rd Annual Meeting in September 2019 regarding the aforementioned issues. The resultant decision was to establish Subgroup 8 (SG-8): Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks. The current activities of SG-8 are discussed herein.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Noble Gas Transport in the MSRE

This study explores the relationship between the physicochemical parameter known as Henry’s gas constant and gas transport across a two-layer film interface. The investigation utilized the Gibbs free energy, incorporating surface and volume terms to elucidate trends in enthalpy and entropy. Notably, our findings align with experimental data and offer predictive insights into the Henry’s gas constants for helium and krypton, which hold significance for future experiments and theoretical developments. Furthermore, this study enhances the Gibbs free energy theory pertaining to the liquid–gas interface. It underscores the substantial contribution of noble gases in this region to volumetric energy as temperature increases. Additionally, we employed Monte Carlo simulations to analyze the effective thermal neutron multiplication factor, denoted as k eff . Our analysis reveals a linear correlation between graphite density and uniform density as a function of temperature. For the 1D Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) system, we employed the Mole code to conduct heat and mass transfer calculations. These computations enable us to ascertain the distribution of fuel temperature based on coefficients and thermal properties. We also studied delayed neutron precursors during fuel cycling, taking into account the drift of cycling fuel through Mole–Griffin coupling. Our model represents k eff and β eff across various volume flow rates and salinity compositions. Finally, this study leveraged xenon-135 for continuous on-line monitoring of fuel salts to investigate the impact of steady-state xenon-135 on the MSRE and to better understand its distribution. These efforts build upon previous research related to removal processes.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Modeling Continuous Online Refueling with SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 in the EIRENE Novel Molten Salt Reactor Design

The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is a Generation IV advanced fission reactor design in which the coolant, and in some cases the fuel itself, is in the form of liquid molten alkali-halide salts with a fluoride or chloride ionic base. In liquid-fueled MSRs, reactor refueling may be performed online, where fresh fuel salt is added to the core during operation without the need for shutdown periods. Refueling for these reactor designs is typically modeled using either a batch or continuous refueling approach, both of which can be simulated with the SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 code systems. However, the specific manner in which they are implemented can vary depending upon the desired rate of refueling, whether the refueling rate is constant or variable, and consideration of salt drainage for systems where the in-core salt volume is kept constant. In a novel MSR fuel cycle concept termed the “Sourdough” fuel cycle, fuel salt is allowed to “grow” within the core, with excess salt either being transferred to an external holding tank to maintain a constant core volume or diverted to an upper plenum within the core to allow for volume growth. In this work, continuous refueling was modeled in a thermal-spectrum, LEU-fueled, small MSR design operating with the Sourdough fuel cycle using the SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 codes. Two different continuous refueling approaches were simulated, with the performance of each being compared to determine which is most suitable for use with the Sourdough fuel cycle concept.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Development of the Well-to-Wake Life Cycle Assessment Model for Marine Fuels in R&D GREET 2025

The Marine analysis capabilities in the 2025 Research and Development Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (R&D GREET) have been updated to incorporate the latest findings from the Fourth International Maritime Organization (IMO) GHG Study.1 To support these updates and enhance user flexibility, the former single marine module used in previous R&D GREET versions has been split into two workbook tabs: The Marine_Fuel tab, which covers the fuel-cycle, and the Marine_Trip tab, which covers the trip-cycle. In the Marine_Fuel tab, fuel cycle results for 39 marine fuels are available—assuming a slow speed diesel engine—and can be seen in Appendix A. However, there are options for changing feedstocks for multiple fuels, ability to view results with or without pilot fuels for fuels such as methanol and ammonia, and carbon capture options. All these combinations make the number of total possible pathways over one hundred. For each pathway, life cycle emission results are divided into feedstock, conversion, and combustion categories, along with pilot fuel supply chain emissions for fuels used in dual fuel engines. In the newly created Marine_Trip tab, users can view the life cycle emissions of using these fuels from a trip perspective. Compared to R&D GREET 2024, 16 new types of vessels are added in R&D GREET 2025. Examples of results assuming the default size for each vessel type are available in Appendix A. Additional information categories on vessels are included such as vessel size, main propulsion type, engine power rating, combustion cycle, etc. based on the Fourth IMO GHG Study. Operational mode of the trip, fuel consumption, and load calculation were updated based on the report. The fuel consumption calculation also incorporates low-load adjustment, speed–power correction, weather correction, and fouling correction factors. Furthermore, fuel consumption in boilers or steam turbines is also added for the first time, besides fuel use in main propulsion engines and auxiliary engines. This effort makes the R&D GREET Marine capabilities more robust than before. Users will be able to estimate fuel consumption more accurately for more diverse choices of vessel categories, vessel sizes, and energy converters.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Benchmark for Fuel Shuffling and Depletion for Pebble-Bed Reactors

Pebble bed reactors have specific operational characteristics when their fuel-cycle and fueling operations are considered. They are specifically distinguished by other type of nuclear reactor designs by their online fuel recycling scheme, where the fuel elements that have not yet reached discharge burnup can be reloaded and recycled continuously during normal operation. The fuel in a pebble bed reactor is not stationary and stochastically moves through the core once or several times during its lifetime, which allows them to operate without requiring a large excess reactivity hold for the burnup. However, this characteristic of pebble bed reactors introduces challenges in simulation, as each pebble can take many different trajectories through the core, its composition depends on the details of the irradiation history that is unique to its aggregated path through the core. For predicting the safety performance characteristics, such as source term, maximum fuel temperatures and fuel failure rates, etc., it is important to accurately incorporate the movement of pebbles through the core during their lifetime in a multi-physics simulation together with other phenomena. The equilibrium core analysis for pebble bed reactors are performed with multi-physics tools including fuel depletion in a multi pass reload coupled to the fuel movement. Currently, there are only a few legacy multi-physics simulation tools that can implement the pebble flow characteristics and perform equilibrium core analysis for pebble bed reactors. However, there are development efforts on-going under Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Advanced Modelling and Simulation program and also in private industry for including these capabilities into their modelling and simulation tools. Any new development in the modelling and simulation tools needs to be validated by using tools such as experiments, analytical solutions or code-to-code benchmarks. In this work, a code-to-code benchmark for the equilibrium core analysis capability of pebble bed reactors was developed. Multiple cases were identified to capture different fuel cycle strategies that can be used in PBRs. The results of each case are presented in terms of overall equilibrium core characteristics: the discharge burnup; spatial burnup distribution; spatial isotopic distributions; axial and radial neutron flux distributions and power history of fuel elements per pass through the core for both a prototypical pebble bed High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor and a prototypical pebble bed Fluoride-salt cooled High temperature Reactor.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Demand Driven Cycamore Archetypes

Future nuclear fuel cycle options may present advantages over today’s once-through fuel cycle. Nuclear fuel cycle simulation tools assess the performance of those fuel cycles as well as the dynamics of long-term technology transitions. In many nuclear fuel cycle simulation tools, it has historically been the responsibility of the user to manually define facility deployment schemes and all facility parameters. While this is straightforward in simple fuel cycles, transitions from one fuel cycle to another can be more complex. In particular, deployment schemes for supportive fuel cycle facilities beyond the reactor become complex if the analyst desires to avoid gaps in the nuclear fuel and power supply chain during those transition scenarios. As nuclear fuel cycle analysis approaches questions regarding the feasibility and performance of the deployment schemes and technology choices during technology transition, automation of this historically manual process is necessary. The main objective of this work was to develop and demonstrate Cyclus automation capabilities toward key nuclear fuel cycle transition scenarios. While deploying reactors to meet power demand is trivial, and existed in the earliest versions of CYCLUS, automated, predictive deployment and decommissioning of other facilities is more complex. These include mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing, and others. For example, a balanced closed fuel cycle may require ensuring that there is enough fast reactor fuel for their operation and may drive deployment of a fleet of light water reactors. This concern comprises the main challenge that drove the project effort. The Demand-Driven Cycamore Archetype project (NEUP-FY16-10512) aimed to develop CYCAMORE demand-driven deployment capabilities and thereby automate transition scenario definition. The developed software package, d3ploy, in the form of a CYCLUS Institution agent, deploys Facilities to meet the front-end and back-end demands of the fuel cycle. The University of South Carolina and the University of Illinois applied multiple algorithmic approaches to this challenge. This project developed an in situ demand-driven development schedule calculation through non-optimizing, deterministic-optimizing, and stochastic-optimizing algorithms as CYCLUS archetypes and demonstrated these new archetypes in program-supporting fuel cycle transition scenarios. Both objectives were achieved. This report documents the results and deliverables obtained toward these achievements in detail.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗