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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

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↗
DOE OSTI2022

Innovative Separations Research and Development Needs for Advanced Fuel Cycles

Deployment of advanced nuclear reactors will inevitably introduce new challenges for devising and implementing an efficient, safe, and economical nuclear fuel cycle that meets society’s need for clean energy and expectations for environmental stewardship. The growing urgency for decarbonizing the US and global economies makes such technological challenges all the more compelling. The Office of Materials and Chemical Technologies within US Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy stewards the capabilities and knowledge relied upon by government policy makers to make informed decisions regarding nuclear fuel cycle options. Such decisions in turn rely on the development of efficient and economical separation methods that can accept the used nuclear fuel containing actinides and fission products (FPs) to recycle selected actinides, recover valuable by-products, and deliver waste streams that are suitable for disposal. To help guide the future direction of fuel cycle separations research, taking into account emerging technologies, the Office of Materials and Chemical Technologies sponsored the Innovative Separations R&D Needs for Advanced Fuel Cycles workshop, held virtually August 30–September 1, 2021. Based upon 60 contributed white papers, 6 plenary lectures, and 3 days of discussions, the outcome of the workshop and subsequent deliberations was the generation of this report identifying seven future research directions (FRDs) plus three crosscutting areas of research.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Economics of Future Fuel Cycle Options

Merits and Viability of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology Options and Waste Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Data

Electricity generated using nuclear power accounted for 18.9% of all electricity consumed in the United States in 2021, putting it in third place behind natural gas (38%) and coal (22%) power plants. Nuclear power plants boast a significantly higher uptime or capacity factor—90% and above—compared to 49.1% for coal fired power plants and 56.6% for natural gas power plants. Renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind electricity, have lower capacity factors: 24.9% and 36.3%, respectively. In addition, nuclear power is cleaner than both coal and natural gas fired power plants. With the passing of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, significant tax credits will be claimed by producers of hydrogen with well-to-gate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 0.45 kg CO 2e /kg H 2 . This has sparked interest in using clean sources of electricity, including nuclear power, to generate H 2 via water electrolysis. As uranium is a primary fuel for modern nuclear power plants, the upstream emissions from nuclear fuel production greatly impact the GHG emissions related to all nuclear power end use. Therefore, it is important to accurately determine the upstream emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle of nuclear power production in the United States. In this analysis, the nuclear fuel cycle was separated into distinct steps to allow better understanding of the chemical and energy inputs at each step of the fuel cycle. This also provides details of the GHG emissions at each step in the nuclear fuel cycle. The transportation distance for each step of the fuel cycle was updated to account for the locations of uranium processing facilities along the supply chain of the current U.S. nuclear power plants. Finally, all the updated values were incorporated into Argonne National Laboratory’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies (GREET) model.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

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↗
DOE OSTI2024

SCALE Analyses of Scenarios in the Molten Salt Reactor Fuel Cycle

In support of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission non-light-water reactor fuel cycle demonstration project, the capabilities of SCALE 6.3.1 for radionuclide characterization, criticality, and shielding were demonstrated through several scenarios in a molten salt reactor (MSR) nuclear fuel cycle. Three scenarios were selected for this study, with the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) serving as the reference design. The original thorium-based fuel salt used in MSBR was replaced with a 235 U-enriched fuel salt to better reflect anticipated future MSR concepts. The first scenario focused on the fuel salt preparation stage. Criticality analyses, using SCALE/CSAS-Shift and SCALE/SAMPLER, examined potential critical configurations in the fresh fuel salt container based on variables such as 235 U enrichment, UF 4 molar fraction, temperature, and container geometry. The second scenario explored the release of fission products during reactor operation in which the tritium buildup in the primary fuel salt was quantified through depletion calculations using SCALE/TRITON with continuous fuel makeup and fractional fission product removal. This scenario also assessed radioactivity levels in the off-gas system (OGS), quantifying radiotoxic nuclides that could be released into the environment. SCALE/SAMPLER was employed to perform uncertainty quantification to identify key operating parameters influencing the buildup of radiotoxic nuclides in the OGS. Additionally, radiation dose rates were calculated using SCALE/MAVRIC to estimate the maximum exposure levels within the reactor cell complex during operation. The final scenario evaluated the decay heat and radioactivity of the primary fuel salt collected in the drain tank, as well as the radiation dose rate outside the building from the presence of the drain tank. Overall, the application of SCALE’s various capabilities for radionuclide inventory generation, criticality analysis, and shielding in MSR fuel cycles was successfully demonstrated across these scenarios.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Structural features of early fuel cycle taggant incorporation for intentional nuclear forensics

To develop strategies for incorporating transition metal taggants (Fe, Cr, and Ni) into oxide fuels and to understand how these taggant candidates persist through early fuel cycle processes, synthetic procedures are modified from established production routes to yield intentionally tagged early fuel cycle intermediates including uranyl nitrate hexahydrate (UNH, UO 2 (NO 3 ) 2 ·6H 2 O), uranyl peroxide tetrahydrate (studtite, UO 2 O 2 ·4H 2 O), and uranyl peroxide dihydrate (metastudtite, UO 2 O 2 ·2H 2 O). First, Fe, Cr, and Ni nitrate solutions are introduced to an aqueous solution of UNH followed by precipitation to produce tagged UNH. Then, studtite is precipitated from UNH followed by dehydration to metastudtite. Structural influences of taggant incorporation within all synthesized phases are investigated using powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) and Raman spectroscopy to provide insight into crystallographic modifications resulting from the addition of tags to these early fuel cycle materials and elucidate the chemical form of taggants introduced at these stages. The possibility of segregation of taggant species into discrete phases within U matrices was examined using scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Taggant concentrations in solid-phase materials were determined using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy. Observations from Raman spectroscopy and PXRD indicate that introducing transition metal tags during uranyl nitrate precipitation results in potential impurity phase segregation in UNH, but transition metal incorporation is suggested by results for tagged uranyl peroxide materials. Further, results from this study will inform strategies for optimizing taggant incorporation in UO 2 .

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Safeguards Technology for Thorium Fuel Cycles: Research and Development Needs Assessment and Recommendations

This report presents Safeguards Technology for Thorium Fuel Cycles: Research and Development Needs Assessment and Recommendations prepared for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development (DNN R&D) Safeguards Program by a multilaboratory team from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Y-12 National Security Complex. It documents key findings of a 2-year scoping study on “Safeguards Technology Needs Assessment for Leading Thorium Fuel Cycles” (project OR18-V-SG Tec Needs Th Fuel Cycles-PD1Lb).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Criticality Safety and Fuel Performance Considerations for Enrichment Above 5 Weight Percent in the Uranium Dioxide Fuel Cycle

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is preparing for anticipated licensing applications requesting fuel enrichments of UO 2 ceramic fuels enriched in excess of 5 weight percent (w/o) 235 U for commercial light-water reactors (LWRs). PNNL has been tasked with providing technical assistance to the NRC related to the review and approval of requests for enrichment increases above the current 5 w/o 235 U enrichment limit. This report will provide the agency with technical assistance to enhance the staff’s knowledge base and to identify developmental needs required to support the licensing of greater than 5 w/o UO 2 ceramic fuels. This report provides a background on increasing enrichment of UO 2 LWR fuel beyond 5 w/o 235 U. The primary concern of increasing enrichment is the impacts to criticality safety. This report will focus on criticality safety as it relates to enrichment, conversion of uranium hexafluoride to UO 2 , fuel assembly fabrication, transportation of fresh/spent fuel assemblies, reactor operations, and storage of fresh/spent fuel assemblies. The report provides a general summary of each of the steps in the UO 2 fuel cycle starting from transportation of enriched UF 6 through dry cask storage of spent fuel assemblies. This report also discusses other impacts of increased enrichment during reactor operation and the surrounding fuel cycle activities. Current needs regarding both data and analytical codes to support the increase above 5 w/o 235 U are identified and discussed.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Reassessing methods to close the nuclear fuel cycle

This paper presents the major takeaways from studies conducted over several years that were focused on transitioning the U.S. nuclear infrastructure from the current once-through fuel cycle to one in which fuel is continuously recycled in fast reactors. Furthermore, these studies involved simulating and analyzing numerous example scenarios of fuel cycle transition with various assumptions on technology, policy, and material utilization strategies. Among the many findings, perhaps the most important is that under certain conditions, the use of high-assay low-enriched uranium to start up a fleet of fast reactors may be more favorable compared to using recycled Pu from thermal reactors since it is less constrained by other technologies and may even be more economical.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Neutron resonance transmission analysis prototype system for thorium fuel cycle safeguards

Emerging thorium-based reactor designs and fuel cycles present challenges to traditional non-destructive assay techniques used in international safeguards. Specifically, assaying the masses of 233 U and 235 U when they are present together in samples with high gamma ray backgrounds is difficult because of similar passive neutron signatures and relatively weak gamma-ray emissions of 233 U. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are developing a compact neutron resonance transmission analysis (NRTA) system as one potential solution to these challenges. The NRTA technique provides isotopic information for a sample via neutron time-of-flight (TOF) measurements that exploit a sample’s epithermal neutron resonance cross-sections. A recently developed portable NRTA system uses a commercially available, pulsed deuterium-tritium neutron generator with a ~2 m flight path and a GS20 lithium glass scintillator detector. Finally, this paper describes the prototype NRTA system design, a refined radiation transport model of the system, preliminary measurements with thorium and uranium sources, and demonstration of a quantitative isotopic estimation algorithm.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗