Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “nuclear policy”

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 343 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report – 2022 (Data Cutoff Date 12/31/2021)

The purpose of this Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR) – 2022 is to document the inventory estimate of transuranic (TRU) waste reported by the TRU waste generator sites as of December 31, 2021. This report also notes major changes to the inventory since the ATWIR-2021, which had a data cutoff date of December 31, 2020. This updated inventory information is available to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) TRU waste complex, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) stakeholders, and regulators. The TRU waste inventory information is used for strategic planning, and supports the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) input into documents (e.g., WIPP Documented Safety Analysis and National Environmental Policy Act evaluations), performance assessments, planned changes, and other design changes as needed for the WIPP project.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Spent Nuclear Fuel Exploratory Roadmaps - 20054

The U.S. Department of Energy manages nearly 2,500 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) resulting from several decades of research, testing, and production reactors [DOE 1995]. This SNF is managed at the DOE Hanford Site in Washington State (Hanford), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS). From 1995 to 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) made several key programmatic decisions, supported by appropriate documentation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the management of SNF [DOE 1995]. These decisions have provided an overarching framework for SNF management, as well as site-specific and SNF-related management decisions for the past two decades. In the years since these decisions were made, with the notable exception of the successful drying and packaging of the production reactor fuel at Hanford, a majority of the decisions have been largely unimplemented. Also, since these decisions were made, a number of changes that bear on considerations relative to the path forward have occurred. A SNF Exploratory Road map activity, identified reasonable alternate pathways for DoE's inventory of SNF. Three fundamental pathways were identified in this activity for the long-term management and disposition of DOE SNF: Direct Disposal Pathway, Existing Processing Pathway and Alternate Processing Pathway. Further actions would be required (e.g., evaluation of NEPA analysis, technology maturity evaluations, refinement of cost and risks, benefits and advantages relative to other alternate paths) to define and inform many key decisions that will result in the selection of the disposition pathways that are most beneficial to the US Government in dispositioning DoE's SNF inventory. DOE is currently managing all SNF safely; however, the age of DOE-owned SNF and facilities for storing and processing SNF, coupled with the uncertainty of the storage duration, necessitates decisions and actions to ensure that the infrastructure will be in place to ensure continued safe and effective long-term management and eventual disposal. The identification of reasonable alternate pathways took these considerations into account in an effort to proactively manage conditions that could challenge the safety of storing and managing DOE SNF over the time periods now contemplated and also to ensure that flexibility is preserved to ensure that the DOE SNF remains compatible with final disposition pathways when they become available. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Region-Specific Merchant Hydrogen Market Assessment and Techno-Economic Assessment of Electrolytic Hydrogen Generation: Cooperative Research and Development Final Report, CRADA Number CRD-18-00751

Utilities need to recover value from baseload and some renewable assets even when the electricity is curtailed. The declining cost of renewables (particularly solar), the persistently low-cost of natural gas, and the declining electricity demand, have all worked to lower the price of electricity. Furthermore, the baseload assets have a high turndown cost, which is not reflected in the low market electricity prices. One option for utilizing the curtailed electricity is hydrogen generation. One important aspect of this project will be to provide a “go/no-go” recommendation on the economic feasibility of pursuing hydrogen generation vs. other markets that could offtake curtailed electricity or nuclear steam. This project will specifically assess the opportunities for hydrogen production and use in the service territories of Southern Company Services (SCS), Exelon SBC, and Xcel Energy. Each utility partner represents a different mix of generation fleets: Exelon has significant nuclear assets, Xcel is primarily renewables (wind) with some nuclear, and SCS represents both a renewables fleet and a heavily baseload fleet, which includes significant nuclear. The Contractors will conduct the study of hydrogen market opportunities by first considering the approximate electricity demand and price profiles for the year, and power generation capacity that can be used to produce hydrogen. Therefore, a profile for hydrogen generation will also be developed to better understand the quantity and timing of hydrogen production. Once the hydrogen production schedule is estimated, hydrogen storage requirements can be determined. This effort will provide sufficient information to make a go/no-go decision on moving ahead with a detailed regional case study for hydrogen production in any of the three utility areas.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Grid Energy Storage: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment

The report “America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition” lays out the challenges and opportunities faced by the United States in the energy supply chain as well as the Federal Government plans to address these challenges and opportunities. It is accompanied by several issue-specific deep dive assessments, including this one, in response to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. The Executive Order is helping the Federal Government to build more secure and diverse U.S. supply chains, including energy supply chains. To combat the climate crisis and avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, the U.S. is committed to achieving a 50 to 52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution by 2030, creating a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, and achieving net zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recognizes that a secure, resilient supply chain will be critical in harnessing emissions outcomes and capturing the economic opportunity inherent in the energy sector transition. Potential vulnerabilities and risks to the energy sector industrial base must be addressed throughout every stage of this transition. The DOE energy supply chain strategy report summarizes the key elements of the energy supply chain as well as the strategies the U.S. Government is starting to employ to address them. Additionally, it describes recommendations for Congressional action. DOE has identified technologies and crosscutting topics for analysis in the one-year time frame set by the Executive Order. Along with the capstone policy report, DOE is releasing 11 deep dive assessment documents, including this one, covering the following technology sectors: carbon capture materials; electric grid including transformers and high voltage direct current (HVDC); energy storage; fuel cells and electrolyzers; hydropower including pumped storage hydropower (PSH); neodymium magnets; nuclear energy; platinum group metals and other catalysts; semiconductors; solar photovoltaics (PV); and wind. DOE is also releasing two deep dive assessments on the following crosscutting topics: Commercialization and competitiveness; and cybersecurity and digital components. More information can be found at www.energy.gov/policy/supplychains.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

ESnet Requirements Review Program Through the IRI Lens: A Meta-Analysis of Workflow Patterns Across DOE Office of Science Programs (Final Report)

The Department of Energy (DOE) ensures America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. The DOE’s Office of Science (SC) delivers groundbreaking scientific discoveries and major scientific tools that transform our understanding of nature and advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States. The SC’s programs advance DOE mission science across a wide range of disciplines and have developed the research infrastructure needed to remain at the forefront of scientific discovery. The DOE SC’s world-class research infrastructure — exemplified by the 28 SC scientific user facilities — provides the research community with premier observational, experimental, computational, and network capabilities. Each user facility is designed to provide unique capabilities to advance core DOE mission science for its sponsor SC program and to stimulate a rich discovery and innovation ecosystem. Research communities gather and flourish around each user facility, bringing together diverse perspectives. A hallmark of many facilities is the large population of students, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists who contribute as full-fledged users. These facility staff and users collaborate over years to devise new approaches to utilizing the user facility’s core capabilities. The history of the SC user facilities has many examples of wildly inventive researchers challenging operational orthodoxy to pioneer new vistas of discovery; for example, the use of the synchrotron X-ray light sources for study of proteins and other large biological molecules. This continual reinvention of the practice of science — as users and staff forge novel approaches expressed in research workflows — unlocks new discoveries and propels scientific progress. Within this research ecosystem, the high-performance computing (HPC) and networking user facilities stewarded by SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program play a dynamic cross-cutting role, enabling complex workflows demanding high performance data, networking, and computing solutions. The DOE SC’s three HPC user facilities and the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) high-performance research network serve all of the SC’s programs as well as the global research community. Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF), the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), and Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) conceive, build, and provide access to a range of supercomputing, advanced computing, and large-scale data-infrastructure platforms, while ESnet interconnects DOE SC research infrastructure and enables seamless exchange of scientific data. All four facilities operate testbeds to expand the frontiers of computing and networking research. Together, the ASCR facilities enterprise seeks to understand and meet the needs and requirements across SC and DOE domain science programs and priority efforts, highlighted by the formal requirements reviews (RRs) methodology. In recent years, the research communities around the SC user facilities have begun experimenting with and demanding solutions integrated with HPC and data infrastructure. This rise of integrated-science approaches is documented in many community and high-level government reports. At the dawn of the era of exascale science and the acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) innovation, there is a broad need for integrated computational, data, and networking solutions. In response to these drivers, DOE has developed a vision for an Integrated Research Infrastructure (IRI): To empower researchers to meld DOE’s world-class research tools, infrastructure, and user facilities seamlessly and securely in novel ways to radically accelerate discovery and innovation.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sandia National Laboratories Annual Site Environmental Report, 2019: Tonopah Test Range, Nevada and Kaua'i Test Facility, Hawai'i

Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at Sandia National Laboratories, Tonopah Test Range (SNL/TTR) in Nevada and Sandia National Laboratories, Kaua‘i Test Facility (SNL/KTF) in Hawai‘i. Activities at SNL/TTR are conducted in support of DOE weapons programs and have operated at the site since 1957. SNL/KTF has operated as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility since 1962. DOE and its management and operating contractor are committed to safeguarding the environment, assessing sustainability practices, and ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented in this Annual Site Environmental Report. This report summarizes the environmental protection, restoration, and monitoring programs in place at SNL/TTR and SNL/KTF during calendar year 2019. Environmental topics include air quality, ecology, environmental restoration, oil storage, site sustainability, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, water quality, and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. This report is prepared in accordance with and as required by DOE O 231.1B, Admin Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and has been approved for public distribution.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Advancing Fissile Materials Production Modeling with Adaptive Computing Environment and Simulations (ACES)

The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) provides advanced capabilities to simulate the uranium enrichment process to support international negotiations on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Uranium isotope separation centrifuges connected in a cascade configuration can produce the low-enriched uranium needed for nuclear power. However, those same centrifuges connected in a different configuration can also produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Having the capability to assess cascade operations and identify nefarious activities promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy while restricting nuclear weapons proliferation. DNN R&D's Nonproliferation Stewardship Program Adaptive Computing Environment and Simulations (ACES) project is creating a modern, sustainable ecosystem of physics-based models and data-analytics tools that enables analysts to model uranium enrichment systems, simulate operational scenarios, and apply various policy options to explore potential outcomes.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Integration of Safety, Security, and Safeguards During Design and Operations: A Technical Assessment and Regulatory Considerations for Advanced Reactor and Advanced Fuel Fabrication Facilities

This report presents the current state of knowledge, technology, methodologies, and tools that could be implemented to realize the robust integration of safety, security, and safeguards (3S) for advanced nuclear reactors (ARs) and advanced nuclear fuel cycle facilities. This report was motivated by the global development of ARs which are expected to play a key role in meeting domestic energy and climate objectives. Domestically, with many ARs in the early design phase, the integration of 3S provides an opportunity to achieve risk reduction while using less resources than traditional light water reactors by leveraging interdependencies and synergies between each domain. In addition, domestic policy considerations encourage the convergence of each 3S domain through facility design and operations. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the interdependencies and integration between 3S across ARs and advanced reactor fuel cycle facilities’ lifecycles including design, construction, and operational phases.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

The Cost of (In-) Accurate Waste Characterization in the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry - 20066

Proper disposal of waste has never been a human priority. Our history is full of examples of throwing away things with minimal effort or thought to consequence. That is until disease or toxicity become apparent and we realize we need to change. Unfortunately, we almost never have all the information we need at the time we make decisions. In addition to the technical and scientific issues, profits and politics are also factors. Newton's third law also applies to politics and so for every policy (action) put in place, there will be (opposite reaction) forces in play to push back against it. These forces are seldom balanced and so the reaction to the discovery of harm is to over-correct and destroy the benefit to be had. This of course causes those who want the benefit, or profit from it, to work to undermine or repeal those measures put in place to eliminate the harm. The issue is exacerbated when the problem to be solved is highly technical and at the edge of our science so that the harm and benefit cannot be easily or accurately quantified. At these times, reason often goes out the window and our decision makers are influenced by either greed or fear as these emotions are much easier to stoke. Those of us in the middle, with the charge to 'do the right thing for the least cost', are therefore frequently constrained and forced into actions that are neither technically the right thing to do and not cost effective. The cost of radioactive waste disposal is based on the concentrations of various radioisotopes in the waste. Some of these isotopes are relatively easy to quantify and some are not. Most laboratory methods for quantification are limited in the amount of activity that can be present during the measurement process. Current nuclear plants were not designed with the idea that taking truly representative waste samples would be important. The limits used to define waste class and therefore cost are precisely defined but the methods for determining those concentrations are far less precise. Improving the accuracy of radioactivity concentrations in waste and having consistent and reasonable oversight can reduce waste costs through active management of the process. So what can we do about it? Science may provide an answer. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Plan for the Salmon, Mississippi, Site

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) prepared this Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Plan (LTS&M Plan) for the Salmon, Mississippi, Site (the Salmon site) to describe LM’s plan and policy for future site activities. The Salmon site consists of 1470 acres in Lamar County, Mississippi, approximately 10 miles west of Purvis, Mississippi, and about 21 miles southwest of Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The site is located over a large subsurface salt formation referred to as the Tatum Salt Dome. Two nuclear tests (Project Dribble) and two gas explosive tests (Project Miracle Play) were conducted in the salt dome between 1964 and 1970. Salmon, the first nuclear test, was conducted on October 22, 1964, and created a cavity approximately 2700 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs). The second nuclear test, Sterling, was conducted on December 3, 1966. The Sterling test and the two gas explosions—Diode Tube on February 2, 1969, and Humid Water on April 19, 1970—were all conducted in the cavity created by the Salmon test. The four explosions were conducted as part of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC’s) Vela Uniform program. Testing at the site ended in 1970 after the second gas detonation. The tests resulted in residual contamination and postdetonation features that require long-term oversight.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying Socioeconomic Impacts of Electricity Generating Technologies

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and other cost metrics used in energy planning do not account for out-of-market impacts of the technology choice. While a decision-maker at the utility or asset owner level may compare multiple forms of electricity generating technology using LCOE, a decision-maker over energy policy or community stakeholders may be interested in considering impacts beyond those that LCOE measures. This report quantifies economic impacts such as jobs and wage growth across electricity generation technologies then develops an approach to systematically compare socioeconomic metrics across technology choices. To address additional workforce related impacts, this report also compares the typical workforce education requirements and annual income levels for multiple types of electricity generating facilities. The grid scale electricity generating technologies analyzed in this report produce power using conventional hydroelectric dams, coal, natural gas, nuclear reactors, solar PV, land-based wind turbines, geothermal heat, and woody biomass combustion. Although it doesn’t generate electricity itself, the economic impacts associated with battery storage equipment manufacturing and installation were also analyzed.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2023

LANL Interactive Display (LID) - DC Vault Updates and FY24 proposals

The LANL Interactive Display (LID) is an interactive touchscreen with a custom-built application designed to provide a geographic-based, virtual tour of the Laboratory’s organizations, facilities, programs, products, and capabilities. The Display is mounted on a portable stand and displayed in the classified vault of the Forrestal Building in Washington, D.C. The October 2023 updates include the latest inputs, including the addition of Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE) information. Other major upgrades are detailed below.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fostering Nuclear Security Culture through Effective Leadership: An Operational Perspective

Security culture plays a critical role in determining the effectiveness of an organization's security performance, making its significance impossible to overemphasize. It encompasses the collective values, shared perceptions, and habitual actions embraced by all individuals within a nuclear organization—from leadership to frontline staff. When the entire workforce recognizes the reality of potential threats, accepts that security is a shared duty, and integrates security-minded behavior into everyday routines, it fosters an environment where strong security practices are the norm. In such a setting, everyone can take pride and feel reassured in being part of an organization where a strong security culture is deeply embedded. Security culture is based on the broader concept of organizational culture. All organizations—whether families, social clubs, religious institutions, businesses, non-governmental organizations, or governments—possess an underlying culture shaped by core values and beliefs. These values and beliefs influence attitudes and drive behavior throughout the organization. While multiple factors contribute to the development of a strong security culture, leadership plays a particularly pivotal role. In organizations where security culture is well-established, leaders go beyond rhetoric; they demonstrate a genuine commitment to security through their actions. They implement policies and procedures that actively engage all employees, foster open dialogue around security concerns, and encourage teamwork in resolving issues. Furthermore, they reward proactive behavior and ensure that corrective actions are taken promptly. Regular assessments of the organization's security culture allow such leaders to gauge its effectiveness and take strategic steps to strengthen it when necessary. This paper leverages practical, real-world experience to guide leadership and senior management within nuclear organizations through the foundational steps of cultivating a robust, organization-wide culture of nuclear security. It emphasizes the critical importance of early leadership engagement in shaping this culture and outlines a comprehensive approach that includes strategic, tactical, and operational measures. Additionally, it explores methods for fostering a unified vision across all levels of the organization to ensure alignment, commitment, and continuous improvement in nuclear security practices.

Zineddin, Dr. Z. [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000848740725)↗
DOE OSTI2024

A safe reinforcement learning algorithm for supervisory control of power plants

Traditional control theory-based methods require tailored engineering for each system and constant fine-tuning. In power plant control, one often needs to obtain a precise representation of the system dynamics and carefully design the control scheme accordingly. Model-free Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a promising solution for control tasks due to its ability to learn from trial-and-error interactions with the environment. It eliminates the need for explicitly modeling the environment’s dynamics, which is potentially inaccurate. However, the direct imposition of state constraints in power plant control raises challenges for standard RL methods. To address this, we propose a chance-constrained RL algorithm based on Proximal Policy Optimization for supervisory control. Our method employs Lagrangian relaxation to convert the constrained optimization problem into an unconstrained objective, where trainable Lagrange multipliers enforce the state constraints. In conclusion, our approach achieves the smallest distance of violation and violation rate in a load-follow maneuver for an advanced Nuclear Power Plant design.

constrained optimization↗
DOE OSTI2023

Opportunities and Challenges for Remote Microreactor Operations

The nuclear industry is developing new advanced reactor technologies, and many companies are embracing this advancement by pursuing the development of microreactors. The term microreactor generally refers to a nuclear reactor with an operating power of 20 MW or less. The power range of microreactors makes them appealing for many use cases, such as powering remote communities, mining sites, and military bases. Most of the microreactor designs being pursued will incorporate remote facility operations into the final product. However, no framework has yet been developed to determine what remote operations systems require for reliable, resilient, and secure operation of a microreactor. This work identifies the challenges unique to remote operations and monitoring for microreactors specifically regarding instrumentation and control, communication methods, regulatory requirements, and operational policies. The types of commands and sensor measurements that must be transmitted between the facilities as well as methods for verifying the trustworthiness of these signals are assessed. This work evaluates the security, reliability, and performance requirements that must be met when considering the selection of communication hardware and protocols for use in remote operations. Also, an assessment was performed to study how remote operations fit within current regulatory requirements and what may need to be updated in regulatory policy to allow for remote operation. Finally, the operational contingencies unique to remote operations that must be in place for response to abnormal events are identified. This paper details these challenges and research opportunities to provide a foundation for the design of remote operation systems.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 4 and 15: Japan Fukushima Daiichi D and D Update and Technological Challenges at Japan Fukushima Daiichi D and D and Update on Nuclear Overview and Development in Japan - Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Sessions 4 and 15 represent a two-part panel series that discusses progress and challenges associated with cleanup at Fukushima. Severe limitations on availability of original panelists from Japan due to strict restrictions put in place to alleviate the spread of coronavirus necessitated changes to both panels. The result was a significantly modified panel for Session 04 (shown above) and the elimination of all panelists for Session 15. The 4 and 15 Panel Sessions provide an overview of activities related to both the progress and challenges of cleanup and decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (NPS) in Japan. Five panelists discussed perspectives of the cleanup following a Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) video showing the progress on site since the devastating Great East Earthquake and tsunami that caused the explosions at three of the six reactors on the site. Three of the five panelists discussed on-going work being performed for the effort, while the other two provided expert perspectives of on strategic efforts at the site. The panel was attended by over 80 technologists and policy makers spanning the globe and was opened by Dr. Monica Regalbuto of Idaho National Laboratory and a short video provided by TEPCO. The video described changes at the site that spanned the cleanup efforts from stabilizing water intrusion into the contaminated reactor buildings to construction of new administrative facilities. The video explained the processes underway to retrieve spent fuel rods and challenges in retrieval of the compromised fuel debris. The video highlighted working condition improvements that included establishment of rest housing and a small convenience store on the site, and the rollback of protective equipment around the site due to decreases contamination. Panelists with presentations: Revision of 'the Mid-and-Long-Term Road-map towards the Decommissioning of TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station' (Paul Dickman); Sharing UK experience at Fukushima Daiichi (Adrian Simper); SRNL Japan (Andrew Fellinger); ABLE's Initiative to Dismantle the Exhaust Stack (Daniel Walter); JAEA R and D in Fukushima (Tokio Fukahori); TEPCO - Overview and Update of the Fukushima Decommissioning Process (Monica Regalbuto); Toshiba's Involvement in the Decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Yasuhiro Yuguchi); Remote Dismantling of the Exhaust Stack At Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS (Takashi Okutsu)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Midwest Nuclear-based Net-Zero Carbon Steelmaking Demonstration

Globally, the iron and steel industry accounts for around a quarter of GHG emissions from the manufacturing sector , which is about 7% of the 33 gigatonnes (Gt) of global CO 2 emissions . Thus, globally, the steel industry is a 2-3 Gt CO 2 per year emissions challenge. The steel industry is important to the U.S. economy with output equal to $0.5 trillion and domestic production capacity is critical to national defense, infrastructure, energy production, and transportation. President Biden’s executive order on climate identifies actions and policies to put the Nation on a path to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050. To achieve this, deep carbon reductions in the power, transportation, buildings and capital-intensive industrial manufacturing segments such as steel, cement and chemicals need to be addressed. In its recent “Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System” report , the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) stated that, “while technology exists to decarbonize all parts of the energy system, some sectors remain at precommercial or first-of-a-kind demonstration stages and require significant improvement in cost and performance to become commercially viable.” The NAS goes on to state that these hard to decarbonize sectors include “aviation, shipping, and industrial subsectors such as steel, cement, and chemicals manufacturing .” The Administration has proposed a timeline to decarbonize energy, transportation and then industry and manufacturing. From a life-cycle approach, decarbonizing steel and other large industrial inputs are necessary to decarbonize transformations in energy and transportation. DOE’s TRI-Lab Consortium’s Integrated Energy Systems (IES) program is a collaboration amongst DOE’s three applied energy laboratories: the National Energy Technology Laboratory; National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Idaho National Laboratory. The IES approach looks at more tightly integrating low-carbon nuclear energy, renewable electricity, energy storage, load/demand balancing, and biomass (including plastics and other wastes) with one or more industrial processes that utilize heat and/or power from these clean and waste energy sources to produce a low-carbon commodity-scale product.

08 HYDROGEN↗