Results for “Irradiations for Advanced Reactors” — Page 52

DOE OSTI2023

Clean Energy Technology Applications on US Mine Land: Technical Analysis

As the United States transitions toward a clean energy economy, an opportunity exists for redeveloping the more than 17,000 mine land sites located across the nation with clean energy technologies, which have a combined potential for generating more than 85 GW of clean electricity. This report provides an overview of the potential of demonstrating and deploying clean energy projects on current and former mine land. Clean energy project refers to a project that demonstrates one or more of the following technologies: solar; microgrids; geothermal; direct air capture; fossil-fueled electricity generation with carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration; energy storage, including pumped storage hydropower and compressed air energy storage; and advanced nuclear technologies. The report discusses the following technologies and their potential for creating jobs and generating tax revenue that would result in direct and indirect benefits to the local economy: Solar photovoltaics (PV) is being developed on current and former mine land in various parts of the world, including the United States. This approach is attractive because it requires limited infrastructure investment and would utilize the bare surfaces of mines and tailing ponds. Solar resource availability may be greater in the southern regions, including the Interior and Appalachian Basins and the southwestern United States. However, since some mine land sites include areas of significant change in elevation, the deployment of PV on mine land may require sophisticated planning to account for shading and irradiance, or may require regrading of the areas. PV does not create significant environmental risks and generally does not face public resistance; Geothermal systems are often spatially and genetically associated with ore deposits, and in some cases, they have been discovered while in search for epithermal mineral resources. Numerous diverse geothermal applications have been employed at mine land around the world, including power generation, mineral extraction from geothermal brines, process heating, direct use for other mining operations, and direct use for non-mining operations and subsurface energy storage, including geothermal heat pumps. Case studies highlighting these applications provide key lessons relating to identifying drivers and barriers to geothermal resource deployment and can be used to create screening tools for identifying the types and locations of mine land most amenable to utilizing geothermal resources; Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies include direct air capture (DAC) and enhanced weathering. DAC technologies include air contactors, regeneration systems, and CO 2 compression systems. Captured CO 2 can be converted to valuable feedstocks or possibly injected into abandoned subsurface mines where it would be absorbed by alkaline rock waste and mine tailings or by the porous minerals along the walls of the mine. DAC systems can be coupled with energy sources such as wind, solar, grid, or geothermal. Many DAC systems require a source of water or steam; however, some are expected to be net producers of water. Local impacts of DAC systems are expected to be low, and are related to land footprint, material disposal, and upstream impacts of energy and material production; Compressed air energy storage is an established energy storage technology in salt caverns. It has the potential for implementation in underground mines by pressurizing and storing a large amount of air using electrical compressors when excess electricity is available. When a need for discharge emerges, the air is used to spin turbines and produce the necessary volume of electricity. Abandoned or unused mine openings, including shafts, adits, access tunnels, and mined workings of any orientation, offer potential for vast amounts of compressed air energy storage if the site characteristics meet operational requirements; Pumped hydropower storage can be implemented in surface and subsurface mines. In surface mine applications, both reservoirs may be located in a mine pit or artificial reservoirs made of excavated materials. In subsurface mines, the lower reservoir may be implemented by waterproofing and flooding mine shafts and tunnels. The water is then pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low load and high production, and it is discharged through the turbines during periods of peak demand. The potential environmental damages associated with acidity of mine water or the presence of toxic chemicals incentivizes the development of closed-loop technologies, in which water circulates inside the pumped hydropower facility without being discharged into the external water basins; Advanced nuclear energy technologies include small modular reactors, which can be deployed locally to produce electricity and heat. Such units require seismic stability and a supply of cooling water, but population constraints may exist in some areas. Therefore, remote mine land could represent an optimal location for siting advanced nuclear energy technologies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI1993

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 34, No. 1, January-March 1993]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 An Integrated Regional Approach To Risk Management of Industrial Systems, S. Chakraborty and R. Stratton; 9 Annual Technical Meeting of the NRC Cooperative Severe Accident Research Program, E. G. Silver; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 13 Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria as Severe Accident Design Criteria and Policy for the New Production Reactor-Heavy Water Reactor, P. T. Rhoads; 20 Proposed Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria for the Heavy Water Reactor-New Production Reactor Containment, K. D. Bergeron, S. E. Slezak, and C. E. Leach; 33 Quasi-Static Core Liquid Level Depression and Long-Term Core Uncovery During a PWR LOCA, Y. Kukita, R. R. Schultz, H. Nakamura, and J. Katayama; 49 LIRA: An Advanced Containment System to Minimize the Accidental Radioactivity Releases, A. Turricchia; 63 Errata to “A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs,” Vol. 33, No. 4; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 64 The Nuplex 80+™ Advanced Control Complex from ABB Combustion Engineering, F. Ridolfo, D. Harmon, and K. Scarola; DESIGN FEATURES: 76 A Scheme for Passive Isolation of the Containment of a Reactor, A. K. Ghosh, V. V. Raj, and K. Kakodkar; 84 Utility Requirements for Safety in the Passive Advanced Light-Water Reactor, T. U. Marston, W. H. Layman, and G. Bockhold, Jr.; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 91 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 103 Testing Deficiencies in Auxiliary Systems Feedwater Systems, J. D. Kueck; 110 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 113 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 115 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 133 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 145 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 150 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 75 Harvard Short Course on Risk: Science, Assessment, and Management; 102 International Conference on Reactor Physics and Reactor Computations; 102 The Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Waste Management [RECOD ’94]; 132 International Symposium on the Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea [MARINA-MED]; 162 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference ‘Technology Integration—Above and Below”; 154 The Authors; 158 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 33.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing irradiation performance of the Tristructural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in uncertainty of calculated fuel temperature is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance because of fabrication error. A revision to the thermal model was made to examine the most probable offset position for four different dates of interest. The offset position options varied in magnitude and azimuthal direction of offset of the holder top and bottom position. The best-fit offset of the holder is estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of residuals for all operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: 1) During earlier cycles (162A – 164A) when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied in range [0.002 – 0.0035 in.] for both the top and bottom holder while offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the holder bottom. 2) Holder offset led to slightly lower Capsule 1 average temperature, but wider temperature variation (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures). 3) The maximum offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom holder yielded a much higher temperature than the original peak fuel temperature, which increased from 1422 to 1557 ? (or 135 ? increase). This could be one of the reasons for massive particle failure near the end of Cycle 165A. 4) Even though, the highest temperature at the TC-1-7 tip reached slightly higher than 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming a holder offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest. Consequently, at this temperature nickel from this TC wire could cause particle failures in Capsule 1.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

advanced gas reactors↗

DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗