Gretchen Matthern

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.

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 RD 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.

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.

Fuel Cycle System Analysis Implications of Sodium-Cooled Metal-Fueled Fast Reactor Transuranic Conversion Ratio

If advanced fuel cycles are to include a large number of fast reactors (FRs), what should be the transuranic (TRU) conversion ratio (CR)? The nuclear energy era started with the assumption that they should be breeder reactors (CR > 1), but the full range of possible CRs eventually received attention. For example, during the recent U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, the proposal was burner reactors (CR < 1). Yet, more recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s “Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle” proposed CR [approximately] 1. Meanwhile, the French company EDF remains focused on breeders. At least one of the reasons for the differences of approach is different fuel cycle objectives. To clarify matters, this paper analyzes the impact of TRU CR on many parameters relevant to fuel cycle systems and therefore spans a broad range of topic areas. The analyses are based on a FR physics parameter scan of TRU CR from 0 to [approximately]1.8 in a sodium-cooled metal-fueled FR (SMFR), in which the fuel from uranium-oxide-fueled light water reactors (LWRs) is recycled directly to FRs and FRs displace LWRs in the fleet. In this instance, the FRs are sodium cooled and metal fueled. Generally, it is assumed that all TRU elements are recycled, which maximizes uranium ore utilization for a given TRU CR and waste radiotoxicity reduction and is consistent with the assumption of used metal fuel separated by electrochemical means. In these analyses, the fuel burnup was constrained by imposing a neutron fluence limit to fuel cladding to the same constant value. This paper first presents static, time-independent measures of performance for the LWR [right arrow] FR fuel cycle, including mass, heat, gamma emission, radiotoxicity, and the two figures of merit for materials for weapon attractiveness developed by C. Bathke et al. No new fuel cycle will achieve a static equilibrium in the foreseeable future. Therefore, additional analyses are shown with dynamic, time-dependent measures of performance including uranium usage, TRU inventory, and radiotoxicity to evaluate the complex impacts of transition from the current uranium-fueled LWR system, and other more realistic impacts that may not be intuited from the time-independent steady-state conditions of the end-state fuel cycle. These analyses were performed using the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model VISION. Compared with static calculations, dynamic results paint a different picture of option space and the urgency of starting a FR fleet. For example, in a static analysis, there is a sharp increase in uranium utilization as CR exceeds 1.0 (burner versus breeder). However, in dynamic analyses that examine uranium use over the next 1 to 2 centuries, behavior as CR crosses the 1.0 threshold is smooth, and other parameters such as the time required outside of reactors to recycle fuel become important. Overall, we find that there is no unambiguously superior value of TRU CR; preferences depend on the relative importance of different fuel cycle system objectives.

Use of a paraffin-based grout to stabilize buried beryllium and other wastes

The long-term durability of WAXFIX, a paraffin-based grout, was evaluated for in situ grouting of activated beryllium wastes in the subsurface disposal area (SDA), a radioactive landfill at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, part of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The evaluation considered radiological and biological mechanisms that could degrade the grout using data from an extensive literature search and previous tests of in situ grouting at the INL. Conservative radioactive doses for WAXFIX were calculated from the “hottest” (i.e., highest-activity) Advanced Test Reactor beryllium block in the SDA. These results indicate that WAXFIX would not experience extensive radiation damage for many hundreds of years. Calculation of radiation-induced hydrogen generation in WAXFIX indicated that grout physical performance should not be reduced beyond the effects of radiation dose on the molecular structure. Degradation of a paraffin-based grout by microorganisms in the SDA is possible and perhaps likely, but the rate of degradation will be at a slower rate than found in the literature reviewed. The calculations showed the outer 0.46-m (18-in.) layer of each monolith, which represents the minimum expected distance to the beryllium block, was calculated to require 1000 to 3600 yr to be consumed. The existing data and estimations of biodegradation and radiolysis rates for WAXFIX/paraffin do not indicate any immediate problems with the use of WAXFIX for grouting beryllium or other wastes in the SDA.