Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NUCLEAR POWER”

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 343 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

The Modeling of the Synfuel Production Process: Process models of Fischer-Tropsch production with electricity and hydrogen provided by various scales of nuclear plants

Synthetic fuels (synfuels), also known as electro-fuels (E-fuels), are hydrocarbon fuels produced from waste CO2 streams and water electrolysis, with electricity as the primary source of energy. To achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity sources must release zero carbon or near-zero carbon, as is the case with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Nuclear power is one of the largest and steadiest domestic sources of clean energy in the United States. Moreover, nuclear power has the potential to produce hydrogen economically for less than $2/kg, reaching the DOE near-term target price. Thus, using nuclear power to produce synfuels has the unique potential to significantly reduce the GHG emissions of hydrocarbon fuels production and end-use applications. Fisher-Tropsch or FT fuel (a mixture of naphtha, jet fuel, and diesel) is of great interest because it is a drop-in fuel that can be blended with conventional petroleum counterparts and is compatible with existing infrastructure. By using the ASPEN Plus model, this report develops FT fuel production models on three scales, corresponding to nuclear plants with capacities of 1000 MWe, 437 Mwe, and 100 MWe, respectively. The FT model case with energy from a 437-MWe nuclear plant is used as a baseline case. This report summarizes the baseline ASPEN Plus model results with a detailed mass and energy analysis. Our modeled facility produces 507 MT/day (185,000 gal/day) of FT fuel by converting 255 MT/day of hydrogen and 1,580 MT/day of CO2. The FT fuel production energy efficiency from hydrogen and electricity energy inputs is 70% (lowerheating-value or LHV-based). Including the high-temperature electrolyzer in the system boundary, the FT fuel production LHV efficiency from electricity and thermal energy inputs is 51%, considering 39.8 kWh/kg of electricity and 6.86 kWh/kg of thermal energy use from a nuclear plant for hydrogen production. The FT production efficiency can potentially be increased by further integrating the heat exchange between nuclear plant and FT process, and this study is underway. The carbon conversion ratio in the baseline case is 99%, with process CO2 capture and recirculation and oxy-combustion using the oxygen by-product from water electrolysis. The hydrogen consumption is 1.38 kg/gal-FT fuel and the CO2 consumption is 8.56 kg/gal-FT fuel in the baseline case. With different FT production scales determined by the nuclear plant capacity, the FT model was scaled using the same operating parameters, which led to the same conversion efficiency regardless of scale. However, the different FT plant scales will impact the economics of FT fuel production; this impact will be examined in the next phase of this study.

Zang, Guiyan↗
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 OSTI2022

Controlling a power output of a nuclear reaction without control rods

A nuclear power system includes a reactor vessel that includes a reactor core that includes nuclear fuel assemblies configured to generate a nuclear fission reaction. A representative nuclear power system further includes a riser positioned above the reactor core and a primary coolant flow path that extends from a bottom portion of the reactor vessel, through the reactor core, and through an annulus between the riser and the reactor vessel. A primary coolant circulates through the primary coolant flow path to receive heat from the nuclear fission reaction and release the heat to a power generation system configured to generate electric power. The nuclear power system further includes a control rod assembly system positioned in the reactor vessel and configured to position control rods in only two discrete positions.

Callaway, Allyson↗
DOE OSTI2024

Controlling a power output of a nuclear reactor without using control rods

A nuclear power system includes a reactor vessel that includes a reactor core that includes nuclear fuel assemblies configured to generate a nuclear fission reaction. A representative nuclear power system further includes a riser positioned above there actor core and a primary coolant flow path that extends from a bottom portion of the reactor vessel, through the reactor core, and through an annulus between the riser and the reactor vessel. A primary coolant circulates through the primary coolant flow path to receive heat from the nuclear fission reaction and release the heat to a power generation system configured to generate electric power. The nuclear power system further includes a control rod assembly system positioned in the reactor vessel and configured to position control rods in only two discrete positions.

Callaway, Allyson↗