What can Recycling in Thermal Reactors Accomplish?

Thermal recycle provides several potential benefits when used as stop-gap, mixed, or backup recycling to recycling in fast reactors. These three roles involve a mixture of thermal and fast recycling; fast reactors are required to some degree at some time. Stop-gap uses thermal reactors only until fast reactors are adequately deployed and until any thermal-recycle-only facilities have met their economic lifetime. Mixed uses thermal and fast reactors symbiotically for an extended period of time. Backup uses thermal reactors only if problems later develop in the fast reactor portion of a recycling system. Thermal recycle can also provide benefits when used as pure thermal recycling, with no intention to use fast reactors. However, long term, the pure thermal recycling approach is inadequate to meet several objectives

Lessons Learned From Dynamic Simulations of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Years of performing dynamic simulations of advanced nuclear fuel cycle options provide insights into how they could work and how one might transition from the current once-through fuel cycle. This paper summarizes those insights from the context of the 2005 objectives and goals of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). Our intent is not to compare options, assess options versus those objectives and goals, nor recommend changes to those objectives and goals. Rather, we organize what we have learned from dynamic simulations in the context of the AFCI objectives for waste management, proliferation resistance, uranium utilization, and economics. Thus, we do not merely describe “lessons learned” from dynamic simulations but attempt to answer the “so what” question by using this context. The analyses have been performed using the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Dynamics (VISION). We observe that the 2005 objectives and goals do not address many of the inherently dynamic discriminators among advanced fuel cycle options and transitions thereof

User Guide for VISION 3.4.7 (Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation) Model

The purpose of this document is to provide a guide for using the current version of the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation (VISION) model. This is a complex model with many parameters and options; the user is strongly encouraged to read this user guide before attempting to run the model. This model is an R&D work in progress and may contain errors and omissions. It is based upon numerous assumptions. This model is intended to assist in evaluating 'what if' scenarios and in comparing fuel, reactor, and fuel processing alternatives at a systems level. The model is not intended as a tool for process flow and design modeling of specific facilities nor for tracking individual units of fuel or other material through the system. The model is intended to examine the interactions among the components of a fuel system as a function of time varying system parameters; this model represents a dynamic rather than steady-state approximation of the nuclear fuel system. VISION models the nuclear cycle at the system level, not individual facilities, e.g., 'reactor types' not individual reactors and 'separation types' not individual separation plants. Natural uranium can be enriched, which produces enriched uranium, which goes into fuel fabrication, and depleted uranium (DU), which goes into storage. Fuel is transformed (transmuted) in reactors and then goes into a storage buffer. Used fuel can be pulled from storage into either separation or disposal. If sent to separations, fuel is transformed (partitioned) into fuel products, recovered uranium, and various categories of waste. Recycled material is stored until used by its assigned reactor type. VISION is comprised of several Microsoft Excel input files, a Powersim Studio core, and several Microsoft Excel output files. All must be co-located in the same folder on a PC to function. You must use Powersim Studio 8 or better. We have tested VISION with the Studio 8 Expert, Executive, and Education versions. The Expert and Education versions work with the number of reactor types of 3 or less. For more reactor types, the Executive version is currently required. The input files are Excel2003 format (xls). The output files are macro-enabled Excel2007 format (xlsm). VISION 3.4 was designed with more flexibility than previous versions, which were structured for only three reactor types - LWRs that can use only uranium oxide (UOX) fuel, LWRs that can use multiple fuel types (LWR MF), and fast reactors. One could not have, for example, two types of fast reactors concurrently. The new version allows 10 reactor types and any user-defined uranium-plutonium fuel is allowed. (Thorium-based fuels can be input but several features of the model would not work.) The user identifies (by year) the primary fuel to be used for each reactor type. The user can identify for each primary fuel a contingent fuel to use if the primary fuel is not available, e.g., a reactor designated as using mixed oxide fuel (MOX) would have UOX as the contingent fuel. Another example is that a fast reactor using recycled transuranic (TRU) material can be designated as either having or not having appropriately enriched uranium oxide as a contingent fuel. Because of the need to study evolution in recycling and separation strategies, the user can now select the recycling strategy and separation technology, by year

VISION User Guide - VISION (Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation) Model

The purpose of this document is to provide a guide for using the current version of the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation (VISION) model. This is a complex model with many parameters; the user is strongly encouraged to read this user guide before attempting to run the model. This model is an R&D work in progress and may contain errors and omissions. It is based upon numerous assumptions. This model is intended to assist in evaluating “what if” scenarios and in comparing fuel, reactor, and fuel processing alternatives at a systems level for U.S. nuclear power. The model is not intended as a tool for process flow and design modeling of specific facilities nor for tracking individual units of fuel or other material through the system. The model is intended to examine the interactions among the components of a fuel system as a function of time varying system parameters; this model represents a dynamic rather than steady-state approximation of the nuclear fuel system. VISION models the nuclear cycle at the system level, not individual facilities, e.g., “reactor types” not individual reactors and “separation types” not individual separation plants. Natural uranium can be enriched, which produces enriched uranium, which goes into fuel fabrication, and depleted uranium (DU), which goes into storage. Fuel is transformed (transmuted) in reactors and then goes into a storage buffer. Used fuel can be pulled from storage into either separation of disposal. If sent to separations, fuel is transformed (partitioned) into fuel products, recovered uranium, and various categories of waste. Recycled material is stored until used by its assigned reactor type. Note that recovered uranium is itself often partitioned: some RU flows with recycled transuranic elements, some flows with wastes, and the rest is designated RU. RU comes out of storage if needed to correct the U/TRU ratio in new recycled fuel. Neither RU nor DU are designated as wastes. VISION is comprised of several Microsoft Excel input files, a Powersim Studio core, and several Microsoft Excel output files. All must be co-located in the same folder on a PC to function. We use Microsoft Excel 2003 and have not tested VISION with Microsoft Excel 2007. The VISION team uses both Powersim Studio 2005 and 2009 and it should work with either

Beryllium Technology Research in the United States

While most active research involving beryllium in the United States remains tied strongly to biological effects, there are several areas of technology development in the last two years that should be mentioned. (1) Beryllium disposed of in soil vaults at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) has been encapsulated in-situ by high-temperature and pressure injection of a proprietary wax based material to inhibit corrosion. (2) A research program to develop a process for removing heavy metals and cobalt from irradiated beryllium using solvent extraction techniques has been initiated to remove components that prevent the beryllium from being disposed of as ordinary radioactive waste. (3) The JUPITER-II program at the INL Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) facility has addressed the REDOX reaction of beryllium in molten Flibe (a mixture of LiF and BeF2) to control tritium, particularly in the form of HF, bred in the Flibe by reactions involving both beryllium and lithium. (4) Work has been performed at Los Alamos National Laboratory to produce beryllium high heat flux components by plasma spray deposition on macro-roughened substrates. Finally, (5) corrosion studies on buried beryllium samples at the RWMC have shown that the physical form of some of the corroded beryllium is very filamentary and asbestos-like. This form of beryllium may exacerbate the contraction of chronic beryllium disease

Fuel Cycle Scenario Definition, Evaluation, and Trade-offs

This report aims to clarify many of the issues being discussed within the AFCI program, including Inert Matrix Fuel (IMF) versus Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, single-pass versus multi-pass recycling, thermal versus fast reactors, potential need for transmutation of technetium and iodine, and the value of separating cesium and strontium. It documents most of the work produced by INL, ANL, and SNL personnel under their Simulation, Evaluation, and Trade Study (SETS) work packages during FY2005 and the first half of FY2006. This report represents the first attempt to calculate a full range of metrics, covering all four AFCI program objectives - waste management, proliferation resistance, energy recovery, and systematic management/economics/safety - using a combination of "static" calculations and a system dynamic model, DYMOND. In many cases, we examine the same issue both dynamically and statically to determine the robustness of the observations. All analyses are for the U.S. reactor fleet. This is a technical report, not aimed at a policy-level audience. A wide range of options are studied to provide the technical basis for identifying the most attractive options and potential improvements. Option improvement could be vital to accomplish before the AFCI program publishes definitive cost estimates. Information from this report will be extracted and summarized in future policy-level reports. Many dynamic simulations of deploying those options are included. There are few "control knobs" for flying or piloting the fuel cycle system into the future, even though it is dark (uncertain) and controls are sluggish with slow time response: what types of reactors are built, what types of fuels are used, and the capacity of separation and fabrication plants. Piloting responsibilities are distributed among utilities, government, and regulators, compounding the challenge of making the entire system work and respond to changing circumstances. We identify four approaches that would increase our ability to pilot the fuel cycle system: (1) have a recycle strategy that could be implemented before the 2030-2050 approximate period when current reactors retire so that replacement reactors fit into the strategy, (2) establish an option such as multi-pass blended-core IMF as a downward plutonium control knob and accumulate waste management benefits early, (3) establish fast reactors with flexible conversion ratio as a future control knob that slowly becomes available if/when fast reactors are added to the fleet, and (4) expand exploration of blended assemblies and cores, which appear to have advantages and agility. Initial results suggest multi-pass full-core MOX appears to be a less effective way than multi-pass blended core IMF to manage the fuel cycle system because it requires higher TRU throughput while more slowly accruing waste management benefits. Single-pass recycle approaches for LWRs (we did not study the VHTR) do not meet AFCI program objectives and could be considered a "dead end". Fast reactors appear to be effective options but a significant number of fast reactors must be deployed before the benefit of such strategies can be observed

User Guide for VISION 3.4.7 (Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation) Model

The purpose of this document is to provide a guide for using the current version of the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation (VISION) model. This is a complex model with many parameters and options; the user is strongly encouraged to read this user guide before attempting to run the model. This model is an R&D work in progress and may contain errors and omissions. It is based upon numerous assumptions. This model is intended to assist in evaluating 'what if' scenarios and in comparing fuel, reactor, and fuel processing alternatives at a systems level. The model is not intended as a tool for process flow and design modeling of specific facilities nor for tracking individual units of fuel or other material through the system. The model is intended to examine the interactions among the components of a fuel system as a function of time varying system parameters; this model represents a dynamic rather than steady-state approximation of the nuclear fuel system. VISION models the nuclear cycle at the system level, not individual facilities, e.g., 'reactor types' not individual reactors and 'separation types' not individual separation plants. Natural uranium can be enriched, which produces enriched uranium, which goes into fuel fabrication, and depleted uranium (DU), which goes into storage. Fuel is transformed (transmuted) in reactors and then goes into a storage buffer. Used fuel can be pulled from storage into either separation or disposal. If sent to separations, fuel is transformed (partitioned) into fuel products, recovered uranium, and various categories of waste. Recycled material is stored until used by its assigned reactor type. VISION is comprised of several Microsoft Excel input files, a Powersim Studio core, and several Microsoft Excel output files. All must be co-located in the same folder on a PC to function. You must use Powersim Studio 8 or better. We have tested VISION with the Studio 8 Expert, Executive, and Education versions. The Expert and Education versions work with the number of reactor types of 3 or less. For more reactor types, the Executive version is currently required. The input files are Excel2003 format (xls). The output files are macro-enabled Excel2007 format (xlsm). VISION 3.4 was designed with more flexibility than previous versions, which were structured for only three reactor types - LWRs that can use only uranium oxide (UOX) fuel, LWRs that can use multiple fuel types (LWR MF), and fast reactors. One could not have, for example, two types of fast reactors concurrently. The new version allows 10 reactor types and any user-defined uranium-plutonium fuel is allowed. (Thorium-based fuels can be input but several features of the model would not work.) The user identifies (by year) the primary fuel to be used for each reactor type. The user can identify for each primary fuel a contingent fuel to use if the primary fuel is not available, e.g., a reactor designated as using mixed oxide fuel (MOX) would have UOX as the contingent fuel. Another example is that a fast reactor using recycled transuranic (TRU) material can be designated as either having or not having appropriately enriched uranium oxide as a contingent fuel. Because of the need to study evolution in recycling and separation strategies, the user can now select the recycling strategy and separation technology, by year

VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model

The nuclear fuel cycle is a very complex system that includes considerable dynamic complexity as well as detail complexity. In the nuclear power realm, there are experts and considerable research and development in nuclear fuel development, separations technology, reactor physics and waste management. What is lacking is an overall understanding of the entire nuclear fuel cycle and how the deployment of new fuel cycle technologies affects the overall performance of the fuel cycle. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing and delays in and among the fuel cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall fuel cycle works and can transition as technologies are changed. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model and some examples of how to use VISION

Fuel Cycle System Analysis Handbook

This Handbook aims to improve understanding and communication regarding nuclear fuel cycle options. It is intended to assist DOE, Campaign Managers, and other presenters prepare presentations and reports. When looking for information, check here. The Handbook generally includes few details of how calculations were performed, which can be found by consulting references provided to the reader. The Handbook emphasizes results in the form of graphics and diagrams, with only enough text to explain the graphic, to ensure that the messages associated with the graphic is clear, and to explain key assumptions and methods that cause the graphed results. Some of the material is new and is not found in previous reports, for example: (1) Section 3 has system-level mass flow diagrams for 0-tier (once-through), 1-tier (UOX to CR=0.50 fast reactor), and 2-tier (UOX to MOX-Pu to CR=0.50 fast reactor) scenarios - at both static and dynamic equilibrium. (2) To help inform fast reactor transuranic (TRU) conversion ratio and uranium supply behavior, section 5 provides the sustainable fast reactor growth rate as a function of TRU conversion ratio. (3) To help clarify the difference in recycling Pu, NpPu, NpPuAm, and all-TRU, section 5 provides mass fraction, gamma, and neutron emission for those four cases for MOX, heterogeneous LWR IMF (assemblies mixing IMF and UOX pins), and a CR=0.50 fast reactor. There are data for the first 10 LWR recycle passes and equilibrium. (4) Section 6 provides information on the cycle length, planned and unplanned outages, and TRU enrichment as a function of fast reactor TRU conversion ratio, as well as the dilution of TRU feedstock by uranium in making fast reactor fuel. (The recovered uranium is considered to be more pure than recovered TRU.) The latter parameter impacts the required TRU impurity limits specified by the Fuels Campaign. (5) Section 7 provides flows for an 800-tonne UOX separation plant. (6) To complement 'tornado' economic uncertainty diagrams, which show at a glance combined uncertainty information, section 9.2 has a new set of simpler graphs that show the impact on fuel cycle costs for once through, 1-tier, and 2-tier scenarios as a function of key input parameters