David Shropshire

Dynamic Systems Analysis Report for Nuclear Fuel Recycle

This report examines the time-dependent dynamics of transitioning from the current United States (U.S.) nuclear fuel cycle where used nuclear fuel is disposed in a repository to a closed fuel cycle where the used fuel is recycled and only fission products and waste are disposed. The report is intended to help inform policy developers, decision makers, and program managers of system-level options and constraints as they guide the formulation and implementation of advanced fuel cycle development and demonstration efforts and move toward deployment of nuclear fuel recycling infrastructure.

VERIFIABLE FUEL CYCLE SIMULATION MODEL (VISION): A TOOL FOR ANALYZING NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FUTURES

Abstract The nuclear fuel cycle consists of a set of complex components that are intended to work together. To support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the fuel cycle system such as how the system would respond to each technological change, a series of which moves the fuel cycle from where it is to a postulated future state. The system analysis working group of the United States research program on advanced fuel cycles (formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative) is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the fuel cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall fuel cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION. For example, VISION users can now change yearly the selection of separation or reactor technologies, the performance characteristics of those technologies, and/or the routing of material among separation and reactor types—with the model still operating on a PC in <5 min.

Vision : Verifiable fuel cycle simulation model

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of a set of complex components that work together in unison. In order to support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the fuel cycle system. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the fuel cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall fuel cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION.

Advanced fuel cycle economic sensitivity analysis

A fuel cycle economic analysis was performed on four fuel cycles to provide a baseline for initial cost comparison using the Gen IV Economic Modeling Work Group G4 ECON spreadsheet model, Decision Programming Language software, the 2006 Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis report, industry cost data, international papers, the nuclear power related cost study from MIT, Harvard, and the University of Chicago. The analysis developed and compared the fuel cycle cost component of the total cost of energy for a wide range of fuel cycles including: once through, thermal with fast recycle, continuous fast recycle, and thermal recycle.

Dynamic Simulations of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Abstract Nothing in life is static, so why compare fuel cycle options using only static, equilibrium analyses? Competitive industry looks at how new technology options might displace existing technologies and change how existing systems work. So too, our years of performing dynamic simulations of advanced nuclear fuel cycle options provide insights into how they might work and how one might transition from the current once-through fuel cycle. This paper summarizes those insights within the context of the 2005 objectives and goals of what was then the U.S. Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The intent here is not to compare options, assess options versus those objectives and goals, nor recommend changes to those objectives and goals. (The specific options change over time; the objective in this paper is to look for more generic insights.) 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; i.e., how do the lessons learned matter relative to goals and objectives not just to technological observations? 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.

Financing Strategies for a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility

To help meet the nation’s energy needs, recycling of partially used nuclear fuel is required to close the nuclear fuel cycle, but implementing this step will require considerable investment. This report evaluates financing scenarios for integrating recycling facilities into the nuclear fuel cycle. A range of options from fully government owned to fully private owned were evaluated using DPL (Decision Programming Language 6.0), which can systematically optimize outcomes based on user-defined criteria (e.g., lowest lifecycle cost, lowest unit cost). This evaluation concludes that the lowest unit costs and lifetime costs are found for a fully government-owned financing strategy, due to government forgiveness of debt as sunk costs. However, this does not mean that the facilities should necessarily be constructed and operated by the government. The costs for hybrid combinations of public and private (commercial) financed options can compete under some circumstances with the costs of the government option. This analysis shows that commercial operations have potential to be economical, but there is presently no incentive for private industry involvement. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) currently establishes government ownership of partially used commercial nuclear fuel. In addition, the recently announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) suggests fuels from several countries will be recycled in the United States as part of an international governmental agreement; this also assumes government ownership. Overwhelmingly, uncertainty in annual facility capacity led to the greatest variations in unit costs necessary for recovery of operating and capital expenditures; the ability to determine annual capacity will be a driving factor in setting unit costs. For private ventures, the costs of capital, especially equity interest rates, dominate the balance sheet; and the annual operating costs, forgiveness of debt, and overnight costs dominate the costs computed for the government case. The uncertainty in operations, leading to lower than optimal processing rates (or annual plant throughput), is the most detrimental issue to achieving low unit costs. Conversely, lowering debt interest rates and the required return on investments can reduce costs for private industry.

Demonstration of Decision Support Tools for Sustainable Development

The Demonstration of Decision Support Tools for Sustainable Development project integrated the Bechtel/Nexant Industrial Materials Exchange Planner and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory System Dynamic models, demonstrating their capabilities on alternative fuel applications in the Greater Yellowstone-Teton Park system. The combined model, called the Dynamic Industrial Material Exchange, was used on selected test cases in the Greater Yellow Teton Parks region to evaluate economic, environmental, and social implications of alternative fuel applications, and identifying primary and secondary industries. The test cases included looking at compressed natural gas applications in Teton National Park and Jackson, Wyoming, and studying ethanol use in Yellowstone National Park and gateway cities in Montana. With further development, the system could be used to assist decision-makers (local government, planners, vehicle purchasers, and fuel suppliers) in selecting alternative fuels, vehicles, and developing AF infrastructures. The system could become a regional AF market assessment tool that could help decision-makers understand the behavior of the AF market and conditions in which the market would grow. Based on this high level market assessment, investors and decision-makers would become more knowledgeable of the AF market opportunity before developing detailed plans and preparing financial analysis.