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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium Pyroprocessing and Electrometallurgical Treatment at the Fuel Conditioning Facility

Fuel Conditioning Facility (FCF) fulfills part of INL’s mission by reprocessing irradiated sodium-bonded fuel from the EBR-ll reactor and participates in research to further explore the fuel cycle for recovery of fuel from a variety of current reactors in use today. The fuel cycle of a nuclear reactor under the current non-proliferation act, leaves unused fuel in the spent fuel rods. The rods are safely stored until their fuel can be recovered. ? Fuel recovery from the EBR-II fuel pins has several steps to separate the uranium from the salts. The pyroprocessing technology involves high - temperatures, chemical and electrochemical methods for separating the unused uranium from the salts, fission products, and used fuel. The recovered uranium is then remixed and formed into ingots or Regulus with an enrichment of < 20% U-235. This final product is a source to fuel current nuclear reactors as well as research and development for future nuclear reactors

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Advanced Fuels Campaign Execution Plan

The Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) Execution Plan outlines the strategy, mission, scope, near-term and long-term goals, structure, and organization associated with nuclear fuels and materials research, development, and demonstration activities within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (NFCSC) program. NFCSC has been given responsibility to identify and mature advanced fuel technologies for the DOE using a science-based approach, focused on developing a fundamental understanding of nuclear fuels and materials to drive development of integrated nuclear fuel and materials technology. This science-based approach combines theory, experiments, and multiscale modeling and simulation to achieve a predictive understanding of relevant behaviors ranging from fuel fabrication processes (and their resulting fuel microstructures) through fuel/cladding performance under irradiation (in contrast to more empirical, observation-based approaches frequently used in fuel performance modeling and fuel qualification). The traditional scope of AFC includes the evaluation and development of multiple fuel forms to support two fuel cycle options: once-through and full recycle. The word “fuel” is used generically to include conventional fuels, transmutation targets, and any associated cladding or duct materials. The once-through fuel cycle addresses advanced light water reactor fuels with enhanced performance, extended burnup, and reduced waste generation. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, AFC’s scope expanded to include research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for light water reactor (LWR) fuels with enhanced accident tolerance. Fuel fabrication activities include the development of innovative methods to enhance process efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve control over as-fabricated fuel microstructural properties to achieve desired in-reactor performance. Using modern modeling and simulation approaches, the objective is to predict fresh fuel properties given the feedstock characteristics and fabrication process parameters. The performance-related activities include small-scale, in-reactor, and out-of-reactor phenomenological testing (distinct from, but synergistic with, integral prototypic testing) and extensive, quantitative characterization (focusing on characterization of fuel and cladding materials at the scale of microstructure) both before and after testing. Larger-scale, prototypic experiments are conducted in concert with phenomenological testing to drive a Fuel Development and Qualification program, incorporating a fundamental understanding of fuel behavior performance characteristics. Then, using the tools developed under the productive science-based approach, fuels will be optimized to meet specific performance requirements, thereby minimizing the need to repeatedly perform large-scale, integral experiments over a wide parametric range as a means of experimental exploration. Two significant initiatives are underway within AFC. First, a gap analysis completed in early FY 2019 identified critical irradiation testing needs that are lacking within the national light water reactor (LWR) fuels testbed since the shutdown of the Halden Reactor in 2018. The identified gaps are for instrumented, prototypic testing of LWR fuels, especially under boiling water reactor conditions, ramp conditions, and conditions leading to fuel failure; these needs exist for supporting current LWR fuels and their possible extension to higher burnups, but are especially urgent relative to near-term development and qualification of accident-tolerant fuels. Recommendations that resulted from the Halden Gap Analysis focused on enhancements at Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) and Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) to fill gaps in testing capabilities relative to these needs. Second, a concerted effort to develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to accelerating the development, testing, and qualification of new fuel systems has been initiated. This is highlighted by a test strategy that combines the considerable advances in multiscale, mechanistic fuel modeling of recent years with a MiniFuel separate effects test program in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and a Fission Accelerated Steady-state Testing (FAST) semi-integral accelerated test program in ATR. This approach is being tested/demonstrated using the metallic fuel system, but if successful it is expected to be extensible to multiple fuel types and diverse applications. This document includes an overview of the NFCSC program, a definition of science-based development of nuclear fuels, near-term goals for Advanced LWR fuels (ALFs), and longer-term goals for Advanced Reactor Fuels (ARFs) RD&D. This includes the activities that will be conducted to achieve success toward the grand challenge, as well as the goals and milestones to be achieved over the next few decades of research and development. Long-term goals are based on the DOE Office of Nuclear Energ

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Advanced Fuels Campaign Execution Plan

The Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) Execution Plan outlines the strategy, mission, scope, near-term and long-term goals, structure, and organization associated with nuclear fuels and materials research, development, and demonstration activities within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (NFCSC) program. NFCSC has been given responsibility to identify and mature advanced fuel technologies for the DOE using a science-based approach, focused on developing a fundamental understanding of nuclear fuels and materials to drive development of integrated nuclear fuel and materials technology. This science-based approach combines theory, experiments, and multiscale modeling and simulation to achieve a predictive understanding of relevant behaviors ranging from fuel fabrication processes (and their resulting fuel microstructures) through fuel/cladding performance under irradiation (in contrast to more empirical, observation-based approaches frequently used in fuel performance modeling and fuel qualification). The traditional scope of AFC includes the evaluation and development of multiple fuel forms to support two fuel cycle options: once-through and full recycle. The word “fuel” is used generically to include conventional fuels, transmutation targets, and any associated cladding or duct materials. The once-through fuel cycle addresses advanced light water reactor fuels with enhanced performance, extended burnup, and reduced waste generation. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, AFC’s scope expanded to include research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for light water reactor (LWR) fuels with enhanced accident tolerance. Fuel fabrication activities include the development of innovative methods to enhance process efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve control over as-fabricated fuel microstructural properties to achieve desired in-reactor performance. Using modern modeling and simulation approaches, the objective is to predict fresh fuel properties given the feedstock characteristics and fabrication process parameters. The performance-related activities include small-scale, in-reactor, and out-of-reactor phenomenological testing (distinct from, but synergistic with, integral prototypic testing) and extensive, quantitative characterization (focusing on characterization of fuel and cladding materials at the scale of microstructure) both before and after testing. Larger-scale, prototypic experiments are conducted in concert with phenomenological testing to drive a Fuel Development and Qualification program, incorporating a fundamental understanding of fuel behavior performance characteristics. Then, using the tools developed under the productive science-based approach, fuels will be optimized to meet specific performance requirements, thereby minimizing the need to repeatedly perform large-scale, integral experiments over a wide parametric range as a means of experimental exploration. Two significant initiatives are underway within AFC. First, a gap analysis completed in early FY 2019 identified critical irradiation testing needs that are lacking within the national light water reactor (LWR) fuels testbed since the shutdown of the Halden Reactor in 2018. The identified gaps are for instrumented, prototypic testing of LWR fuels, especially under boiling water reactor conditions, ramp conditions, and conditions leading to fuel failure; these needs exist for supporting current LWR fuels and their possible extension to higher burnups, but are especially urgent relative to near-term development and qualification of accident-tolerant fuels. Recommendations that resulted from the Halden Gap Analysis focused on enhancements at Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) and Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) to fill gaps in testing capabilities relative to these needs. Second, a concerted effort to develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to accelerating the development, testing, and qualification of new fuel systems has been initiated. This is highlighted by a test strategy that combines the considerable advances in multiscale, mechanistic fuel modeling of recent years with a MiniFuel separate effects test program in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and a Fission Accelerated Steady-state Testing (FAST) semi-integral accelerated test program in ATR. This approach is being tested/demonstrated using the metallic fuel system, but if successful it is expected to be extensible to multiple fuel types and diverse applications. This document includes an overview of the NFCSC program, a definition of science-based development of nuclear fuels, near-term goals for Advanced LWR fuels (ALFs), and longer-term goals for Advanced Reactor Fuels (ARFs) RD&D. This includes the activities that will be conducted to achieve success toward the grand challenge, as well as the goals and milestones to be achieved over the next few decades of research and development. Long-term goals are based on the DOE Office of Nuclear Energ

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates

In 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed the NRC staff to address climate change issues and consider the impacts of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions (NRC 2009b). To implement this direction from the Commission, the staff issued guidance in 2011 and updated guidance in 2014 in Attachment 1 to Interim Staff Guidance COL/ESP-ISG-026 (NRC 2011; NRC 2014). This guidance provides a simpler method than the method described in RG 4.2 Rev. 3, that an applicant can use to meet the plant parameter envelope (PPE) value from the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NR GEIS). NRC staff estimated the 97-year lifecycle GHG emissions from a reference 1000 megawatt electrical (MWe) light-water reactor (LWR) for various activities associated with construction, operation (including uranium fuel cycle), and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and presented the results in Appendix H of the NR GEIS. Appendix H of the NR GEIS includes estimates of direct emissions from construction equipment and emergency diesel engines in a nuclear facility and indirect emissions from workforce vehicular traffic, fuel transportation and the uranium fuel cycle. The NR GEIS Section 3.3 extended the estimates in Appendix H for the installation of two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors on the same site. Scaling factors were used to extrapolate the GHG emissions of a reference 1000 MWe reactor to a two-unit nuclear reactor plant (each reactor unit generating 1000 MWe). GHG emission estimates for building, operation, decommissioning and safe storage (SAFSTOR) for a two-unit nuclear reactor plant would be based on the plant’s physical size, and therefore estimates for these source categories were assumed to be twice the value of the reference 1000 MWe reactor. However, GHG emissions from the fuel cycle (including fuel transportation) were scaled upward by a factor of 3, based on plant efficiencies greater than the 80 percent assumption in Appendix H. Table 1 below shows the PPE emissions for two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors as provided in NR GEIS. The total GHG emissions for two 1000 MWe reactors were calculated as 2,534,000 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 (e)) based on a 97 year GHG life cycle period. The GHG emissions lifetime of 97 years for a reference nuclear reactor includes a 7-year building phase, 40 years of operation, 10 years of active decommissioning, and 40 years of SAFSTOR operations (NRC 2024). Construction equipment and vehicular traffic from workers commute would contribute to the GHG emissions during a 7-year building phase. Uranium fuel cycle, vehicular traffic, fuel and waste transportation, and testing of standby diesel generators would contribute to GHG emissions during the 40-year operations phase. While NRC’s regulations allow up to 60 years of reactor facility decommissioning, Appendix H estimated that most of the GHGs would occur over an estimated 10-year period during which to the licensee would engage in significant demolition and earth-moving activities, as discussed in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Vehicular traffic by the workforce during a 40-year SAFSTOR period would additionally contribute GHG emissions. The carbon footprint for a 40-year SAFSTOR period was separately analyzed from the decommissioning activities as provided in Table YYYY-2 of the staff issued guidance in 2011 (NRC 2011).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fuel Assembly and Irradiation Parametric Study for Extended-Enrichment and High-Burnup Light-Water Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel in Dry Storage Casks and Transportation Packages

There is an increased interest in operating commercial light-water reactors (LWRs) in the United States with improved economics that would result from longer fuel cycle lengths, fewer and shorter refueling outages, and fewer fuel assemblies requiring storage at the back end of the fuel cycle. To support this, fuel discharge burnups, as well as initial 235 U enrichments, must be higher than those used in current commercial LWRs. The typical upper limit considered for assembly average burnup in this report is 75 gigawatt-days (GWd) per metric ton of uranium (MTU), as opposed to the current typical upper bound of approximately 62 GWd/MTU. The upper limit considered for initial 235 U enrichment is 8 weight percent (8 wt %), as opposed to the current regulatory limit of 5 wt %. The enrichment range from 5 to 8 wt % is referred to in this report as extended enrichment . To investigate the effect of high burnup and extended enrichment conditions on dose rates and burnup credit for dry storage casks and transportation packages, a fuel assembly and irradiation parametric study was performed. The conclusions from this study will assist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in reviewing applications for dry storage casks and transportation packages that contain high-burnup and extended enrichment fuel.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

MPACT Safeguards Modeling: FY25 Update

Sandia National Laboratories develops and maintains several open-source software packages to support material accountancy analyses. This includes the Material Accountancy Performance Indicator Toolkit (MAPIT), the Fissile Facility Flow Modeler (F3M) and the Separation and Safeguards Performance Model Library (SSPM-L). MAPIT is responsible for performing statistical safeguards analyses on bulk and itemized data from nuclear fuel cycle facilities and can operate on real or synthetic data. MAPIT is the only open-source software for such analyses. F3M is a library of modules, built in MATLAB Simulink, that contain pre made blocks to represent different generic fuel cycle processes. These blocks can be used together in a modular fashion to represent and simulate nuclear fuel cycle processes with the goal of improving facility-level accountancy during the design phase. F3M is also an open-source library. Finally, the SSPM-L library is a series of completed models built from F3M. The library includes facility models such as a generic PUREX facility and a fuel fabrication facility. The SSPM-L library is not open source, but is available to collaborators with a relevant use case. These tools include modeling and simulation pipelines to simulate nuclear fuel cycle facilities and the underlying software needed to simulate measurement uncertainty and perform statistical analyses. Together, these tools can perform end-to-end nuclear material accountancy analyses. This report documents the various improvements made to these tools in FY25. Specifically, we added new statistical test, new statistical modeling capabilities, new fuel cycle facility models, and launched a new open-source model component library.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Design and Fabrication Options Trade Study for Metallic Fuel without Internal Sodium Bonding

Nuclear fuels using alloys of uranium, or metallic fuels, have many beneficial properties. The classical metallic fuel design uses a loose fitting cylindrical “slug” of fuel placed inside stainless-steel cladding tubes where the gap is filled with sodium. This sodium bond is liquid at operating temperature and conducts heat from the slug to the cladding, especially in early life before fuel swells into contact with the cladding. Despite the benefits of sodium bonding, there is a desire to develop metallic fuel technologies without it chiefly to reduce chemical reaction hazards in spent fuel storage from sodium fast reactors operating on once-through fuel cycles. Elimination of the sodium bond may also help unlock potential benefits for fuel fabrication, reactor neutronics, and compatibility with other types of reactors. Creating a sodium-free metallic fuel revolves around the problem of manufacturing fuel slug geometries which are in close contact with the cladding at beginning of life to facilitate heat transport while alleviating fuel-cladding chemical interactions (FCCI) at this interface and providing enough free volume to accommodate fuel swelling. Accelerating development and qualification of this fuel system will require careful selection of design and manufacturing options. To this end, a design trade-off study was performed to evaluate candidate options. Several design and manufacturing options were assessed, weighted, scored, and ranked with respect to fabrication, normal reactor operation, off-normal scenarios, and back-end considerations. This effort was performed both for “baseline” needs, which represented a once-through fuel cycle at temperatures and burnups known to be viable for sodium-bonded metallic fuel, and for “enhanced” needs to represent opportunities for closed fuel cycles and/or more aggressive temperatures/burnups. The outcomes of this study prioritized a baseline technology using U-Zr alloy with additives to mitigate FCCI, produced in annular slug geometry by continuous casting, clad in austenitic stainless-steel alloy, and followed by a final step to swage the cladding down to close the gap. This study prioritized an enhanced fuel technology using U-Mo alloy, also produced by continuous casting into an annular geometry, followed by coating/plating with an FCCI barrier on the slug, again with a final step to swage the cladding diameter down using oxide dispersion strengthened steel. It was noted that development of the enhanced fuel technology would entail more risk, thus U-Zr alloy was put forth as a backup to U-Mo if challenges are encountered with FCCI barriers, and advanced ferritic/martensitic steels are put forth as a backup to oxide dispersion strengthened steels if swaging and welding are found unworkable.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Comparative Analysis of Standard and Advanced USL Methodologies for Nuclear Criticality Safety

The American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society national standards 8.1 and 8.24 provide guidance on the requirements and recommendations for establishing confidence in the results of the computerized models used to support operation with fissionable materials. By design, the guidance is not prescriptive, leaving freedom to the analysts to determine how the various sources of uncertainties are to be statistically aggregated. Due to the involved use of statistics entangled with heuristic recipes, the resulting safety margins are often difficult to interpret. Also, these technical margins are augmented by additional administrative margins, which are required to ensure compliance with safety standards or regulations, eliminating the incentive to understand their differences. With the new resurgent wave of advanced nuclear systems, e.g., advanced reactors, fuel cycles, and fuel concepts, focused on economizing operation, there is a strong need to develop a clear understanding of the uncertainties and their consolidation methods to reduce them in manners that can be scientifically defended. In response, the current studies compare the analyses behind four notable methodologies for upper subcriticality limit estimation that have been documented in the nuclear criticality safety literature: the parametric, nonparametric, Whisper, and TSURFER methodologies. Specifically, the work offers a deep dive into the various assumptions of the noted methodologies, their adequacies, and their limitations to provide guidance on developing confidence for the emergent nuclear systems that are expected to be challenged by the scarcity of experimental data. Here, to limit the scope, the current work focuses on the application of these methodologies to criticality safety experiments, where the goal is to calculate a bias, a bias uncertainty, and a tolerance limit for k eff in support of determining an upper subcriticality limit for nuclear criticality safety.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2022

Validation of NEAMS Tools Using MSRE Data

This report documents the benchmarks developed and performed for the tools and codes developed under the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program utilizing the MSRE experiment data. There are three focus areas explored in this work: fuel evolution, CFD, and system transient analyses. Fuel depletion is important for MSR reactor physics and fuel cycle analysis. Fuel depletion capability is currently being developed in the Griffin reactor physics code. To support this, a benchmark problem is developed using the MSRE data and an existing depletion code with flowing fuel analysis functionality (ADDER) to validate this new capability in Griffin. The ADDER calculation is compared with the TRITON-MSR results as well as the MSRE experimental data. This benchmark can be directly used to verify and validate the Griffin fuel depletion capability in future years. For CFD simulation, the MSRE CAD model is obtained from the Copenhagen Atomics and a mesh is generated for the MSRE inlet plenum. The Nek5000 code will be employed to find the flow distribution in the MSRE inlet plenum based on the mesh generated. For system analysis, a simple benchmark problem for three types of MSR system transients is developed. The SAM and SPECTRA codes are used to solve the simple problem, and the results from the two codes agree well. The SAM code is also employed to obtain the frequency response of the MSRE system at the 5 and 8 MWt power levels. The results agree well with the experiment measurements. These verification and validation efforts gives SAM users more confidence in MSR system transient simulations using SAM. Lastly, the SAM-Griffin Multiphysics coupling work is initiated. A simple one-way coupling of evaluating the precursor drift effect on the MSRE k-eff is demonstrated. This preliminary coupling work serves as the basis for future more complex Multiphysics simulation and modelling.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2023

Comparative Analysis of Confidence Metrics for Nuclear Criticality Safety

Nuclear criticality safety standards provide guidance on the requirements and recommendations to establish confidence in computerized model results used to support operation with fissionable materials. By design, the guidance is not prescriptive, leaving the analysts free to determine how various sources of uncertainties are to be statistically aggregated. This report compares the analyses and key assumptions behind four notable methodologies documented in the nuclear criticality safety literature: the parametric, nonparametric, Whisper, and TSURFER methodologies. Because of the involved use of statistics entangled with heuristic recipes, the results of these methodologies are often difficult to interpret. Also, they are augmented by additional large administrative margins, eliminating the incentive to understand their differences. With the new resurgent wave of advanced nuclear systems focused on economizing operation—including advanced reactors, fuel cycles, and fuel concepts—there is a strong need to develop a clear understanding of uncertainties and their fusion methodologies to reduce uncertainties in a scientifically defensible manner. This report offers a deep dive into the various assumptions of the four noted methodologies, their adequacy, and their limitations, to provide guidance on developing confidence for the emergent nuclear systems. These systems are expected to be challenged by the scarcity of experimental data.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Post-irradiation Examination Status for the BSU-269 Project

High-density uranium inter-metallic uranium silicide (U 3 Si 2 ) was initially considered as a potential advanced nuclear fuel for light water reactor (LWR) systems due to several advantages it demonstrated in thermophysical properties, chemical, and irradiation stability. In addition to understanding the basic thermophysical and mechanical properties of U 3 Si 2 under LWR irradiation conditions, it is important to assess its performance with advanced claddings such as FeCrAl, SiC, or conventional Zr-based claddings. Several aspects of the fuel cycle and fuel performance are being evaluated for U 3 Si 2 coupled with different types of claddings. To thoroughly characterize the U 3 Si 2 -cladding system, their chemical compatibilities and the potential for fuel-cladding chemical interaction (FCCI) must be addressed. Interdiffusion studies have been performed between U 3 Si 2 /Zry-4 and U 3 Si 2 /FeCrAl using diffusion couples. For the U 3 Si 2 /Zry-4 system, ZrSi 2 was the primary interdiffusion product observed at 800°C in addition to other secondary phases from the Zr alloying elements such as Fe and Cr. Low melting point U 6 Fe was also observed at 1000°C. For the U 3 Si 2 /FeCrAl system, at temperatures above 500°C, chemical diffusion Fe-U and Fe-U-Si was observed, increasing with rising temperatures. Although information from these non-irradiated tests is a fundamental first assessment, follow-up with focused irradiation tests is necessary. Irradiation can significantly alter the structure and evolution of the FCCI layers compared to the non-irradiated conditions.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Batch Extraction Studies to Evaluate Trace Element Behavior in PUREX Conditions

The multilab Intentional Forensics Venture is working to identify which stable elements (i.e., taggants) at trace concentrations relative to U would persist throughout the nuclear fuel cycle in a voluntary fuel tagging scheme. A taggant would provide the nuclear forensics community with a “barcode” to help identify nuclear materials found outside of regulatory control. A portion of this project was focused on reprocessing effects and determining which, if any, elements would coextract with U(VI) in standard Pu–U reduction extraction (PUREX) conditions. Elements with a propensity to coextract could, in theory, be used as taggants from a PUREX perspective. Although retention is not a performance requirement, the taggant signature would need to partition predictably from the U stream after the PUREX process to maintain forensic utility. This report documents results from several batch extraction studies with numerous trace elements from HNO 3 (1.5–5 M), with and without U(VI), into 30% tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP) in kerosene. Extraction and back-extraction tests were used to evaluate nearly 60 elements in surrogate conditions for PUREX, and distribution coefficients (i.e., D-values) for most species were <0.1, indicating few species are likely to co-extract with U through PUREX. Additional studies are needed to optimize sample volumes and dilutions to dial in these low D-values. The D-values (D) were determined for several of the more promising elements, including Re and Se. Ultimately, we conclude that only a limited number of the ~ 60 elements investigated are extractable in the U stream of PUREX, based on measured D values, meaning most candidate elemental taggants would likely be lost at this stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, even when considering a range of acid concentrations.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2024

SMR Current Status: Development Needs and Global Perspectives

Defined as nuclear reactors with a power output up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and targeted for multipurpose applications, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been recognized as a very promising, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy source by many countries. At present, more than 80 SMRs are under design, development, demonstration, deployment, and beyond (4D+) phases worldwide. This study focuses on the current world status of SMRs and focuses on the necessary developments to accelerate the process of adopting SMRs as a major energy source globally. SMRs are not a new concept, but they do represent a new vision for older concepts if the challenges inherent within them are mitigated with strategic and realistic solution approaches. The major challenges for SMRs 4D+ like any new reactors are: (a) qualifying the advanced fuel-to-reactor design; (b) supporting rapid scaled/prototypic experimentations; (c) maintaining local and global codes, standards, and licensing; (d) supply chain issues;(e) effective cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel cycle and fuel material transportation, and (f) mitigating financial and environmental risks. These upfront challenges can be mitigated with a synergistic solution approach among the various stakeholders: industry, academia, research, government, and international entities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Presentation: SMR Current Status: Development Needs and Global Perspectives

Defined as nuclear reactors with a power output up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and targeted for multipurpose applications, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been recognized as a very promising, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy source by many countries. At present, more than 80 SMRs are under design, development, demonstration, deployment, and beyond (4D+) phases worldwide. This paper focuses on the current world status of SMRs and focuses on the necessary developments to accelerate the process of adopting SMRs as a major energy source globally. SMRs are not a new concept, but they do represent a new vision for older concepts if the challenges inherent within them are mitigated with strategic and realistic solution approaches. The major challenges for SMRs 4D+ like any new reactors are: (a) qualifying the advanced fuel-to-reactor design; (b) supporting rapid scaled/prototypic experimentations; (c) maintaining local and global codes, standards, and licensing; (d) supply chain issues; (e) effective cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel cycle and fuel material transportation, and (f) mitigating financial and environmental risks. These upfront challenges can be mitigated with a synergistic solution approach among the various stakeholders: industry, academia, research, government, and international entities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

SMR Current Status: Development Needs and Global Perspectives

Defined as nuclear reactors with a power output up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and targeted for multipurpose applications, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been recognized as a very promising, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy source by many countries. At present, more than 80 SMRs are under design, development, demonstration, deployment, and beyond (4D+) phases worldwide. This study focuses on the current world status of SMRs and focuses on the necessary developments to accelerate the process of adopting SMRs as a major energy source globally. SMRs are not a new concept, but they do represent a new vision for older concepts if the challenges inherent within them are mitigated with strategic and realistic solution approaches. The major challenges for SMRs 4D+ like any new reactors are: (a) qualifying the advanced fuel-to-reactor design; (b) supporting rapid scaled/prototypic experimentations; (c) maintaining local and global codes, standards, and licensing; (d) supply chain issues;(e) effective cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel cycle and fuel material transportation, and (f) mitigating financial and environmental risks. These upfront challenges can be mitigated with a synergistic solution approach among the various stakeholders: industry, academia, research, government, and international entities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies Model ® (2020 Excel)

To fully evaluate energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels, the fuel cycle from wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal need to be considered. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Argonne has developed a full life-cycle model called GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies). It allows researchers and analysts to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle/vehicle-cycle basis. The first version of GREET was released in 1996. Since then, Argonne has continued to update and expand the model. GREET is developed as a multidimensional spreadsheet model in Microsoft Excel. It provides a comprehensive, life-cycle-based approach to compare the energy use and emissions of conventional and advanced vehicle technologies. It includes two sub-models named Fuel-Cycle Model (GREET 1, contains data on fuel cycles and vehicle operations) and Vehicle-Cycle Model (GREET 2, evaluates the energy and emission effects associated with vehicle material recovery and production, vehicle component fabrication, vehicle assembly, and vehicle disposal/recycling). This public domain model is available free of charge for anyone to use.

Wang, Michael↗
DOE OSTI2021

Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies Model ® (2021 Excel)

To fully evaluate energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels, the fuel cycle from wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal need to be considered. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Argonne has developed a full life-cycle model called GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies). It allows researchers and analysts to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle/vehicle-cycle basis. The first version of GREET was released in 1996. Since then, Argonne has continued to update and expand the model. GREET is developed as a multidimensional spreadsheet model in Microsoft Excel. It provides a comprehensive, life-cycle-based approach to compare the energy use and emissions of conventional and advanced vehicle technologies. It includes two sub-models named Fuel-Cycle Model (GREET 1, contains data on fuel cycles and vehicle operations) and Vehicle-Cycle Model (GREET 2, evaluates the energy and emission effects associated with vehicle material recovery and production, vehicle component fabrication, vehicle assembly, and vehicle disposal/recycling). This public domain model is available free of charge for anyone to use.

Wang, Michael↗
DOE OSTI2022

Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies Model ® (2022 Excel)

To fully evaluate energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels, the fuel cycle from wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal need to be considered. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Argonne has developed a full life-cycle model called GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies). It allows researchers and analysts to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle/vehicle-cycle basis. The first version of GREET was released in 1996. Since then, Argonne has continued to update and expand the model. GREET is developed as a multidimensional spreadsheet model in Microsoft Excel. It provides a comprehensive, life-cycle-based approach to compare the energy use and emissions of conventional and advanced vehicle technologies. It includes two sub-models named Fuel-Cycle Model (GREET 1, contains data on fuel cycles and vehicle operations) and Vehicle-Cycle Model (GREET 2, evaluates the energy and emission effects associated with vehicle material recovery and production, vehicle component fabrication, vehicle assembly, and vehicle disposal/recycling). This public domain model is available free of charge for anyone to use.

Wang, Michael↗