Results for “AP1000” — Page 2

DOE OSTI2022

Analytic error analysis of cross section interpolation methods in nodal diffusion codes - II: Numerical results

This paper is the second part of a two-part paper that documents the numerical results for the partial derivatives model presented in part I. In this paper, we derive the error bounds for the analytical point-wise error expression and verify our bounds with numerical experiments. The point-wise error expressions make available, and bound, the sources that contribute to the total error of the interpolated cross section in terms of the Lagrange interpolation errors and the model form error. MPACT is used to generate two-group homogenized cross sections for Westinghouse's AP1000 Region 4 lattice to evaluate the accuracy of the bounds. Error bounds calculated over a grid are compared to numerical data for uni-variate and multi-variate interpolation. The point-wise error bounds of a typical case matrix - two branches in each state variable - are displayed for bi-variate interpolation in the state variables: moderator density, fuel temperature, and boron concentration. The error bounds are shown to be highly accurate compared to numerical results, and in accordance with the underlying physics. We then discuss and show how the sources of error contribute to the total error, and consider the improvement of each error source. Finally, we mention future work such as propagating our cross section error bounds through a reactivity calculation. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Opportunities for New Nuclear at Existing/Planned Sites

To meet future energy and environment goals, the U.S. seeks to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Achieving this goal, will require a historic and sustained deployment of nuclear reactors. Opportunities exist to accelerate near-term deployment. This analysis considers opportunities to utilize existing nuclear reactor sites for the deployment of AP1000 reactors, as one opportunity to increase nuclear energy capacity in the near-term.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Data-Informed Evaluation Framework for Integrated Energy Systems: Insights from Power, Process Heat, and Hydrogen Production Applications

The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework provides a systematic evaluation of the diverse preferences and performance metrics associated with alternative solutions. This approach is advantageous over a single-criterion methodology, which are only valid under conditions that assume ceteris paribus or an "apples-to-apples" comparison. However, selecting suitable technologies for integrated energy systems (IES) can be likened to an "apples-to-oranges" comparison, given the heterogeneous factors at stake. These factors include economics and performance parameters, geological compatibility, and environmental impacts. Consequently, past research has often employed a mixture of qualitative and quantitative criteria tailored to the specific interests of each study. While the method proves effective in handling the intricate interplay of criteria, the resulting rankings and scores can vary from study to study. This inconsistency is introduced from the use of subjectively defined thresholds and weights. As a result, decision-makers frequently find it challenging to establish clear connections between specific criteria and the resulting scores, as the transformation of criteria into ordinal scores results in a substantial loss of information. To address this challenge, we introduce a data-informed IES evaluation framework that offers comprehensive, interpretable, and traceable evaluations backed by quantifiable rationale. First, we identified key IES evaluation criteria from a decade of literature, focusing on relevant IES applications in power, process heat, and hydrogen production. We leveraged state-of-the-art cost estimates from the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and technical data from 78 reactor designs from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD-NEA). Lastly, we established thresholds by analyzing the mean, variance, root mean square, and slope of values across alternatives, categorizing the preferences of decision-makers into distinct utility functions, such as linear, saturating, exponential, and stepwise. Our approach yielded two main outcomes: (1) it provided consistent assessments across different stakeholder groups and (2) it visualized uncertainties in the decision-making context via comprehensive sensitivity analysis. To demonstrate the impact of our framework, we conducted case studies on 6 reactor designs (AP1000, NuScale, BWRX-300, Xe-100, eVinci, iMSR) for the three applications. Our data-driven framework proved to be highly effective in addressing heterogenous uncertainties faced by varied decision-makers? preferences and IES applications, as well as cost and technical estimates of advanced reactors.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2024

GRIDCERF - Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility

The Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (GRIDCERF) data package is a high-resolution product to evaluate siting suitability for renewable and non-renewable power plants in the conterminous United States. GRIDCERF offers hundreds of individual suitability layers for use with both renewable and non-renewable power plant technology configurations in a harmonized format that can be easily ingested by geospatially-enabled modeling software. It also provides pre-compiled technology-specific suitability layers and allows for user customization to robustly address science objectives when evaluating varying future conditions. GRIDCERF data can be directly used with the CERF (Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility) model to site power plants at a 1km resolution. GRIDCERF includes composite technology siting suitability raster layers for the following utility scale technology configurations. Note that, in addition to technology sub-types shown below, various cooling types are also included (recirculating, pond, once-through, recirculating-seawater, dry-hybrid, or dry) for various technologies. Biomass Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Coal Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Natural Gas Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Geothermal Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) - Class 1 through Class 5 resource potential Nuclear Gen 2 Light Water Reactor (LWR) Gen 3 Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Gen 3 AP1000 Refined Liquids Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Solar Photovoltaic (PV) - for capacity factors in the range of 6-18% Utility-scale Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) - for capacity factors in the range of 24-46% Tower Wind (Onshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 5-50% 80m hub height 100m hub height 120m hub height 140m hub height Wind (Offshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 25-60% 100m hub height 140m hub height 160m hub height

capacity expansion↗

DOE OSTI2026

GRIDCERF - Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility

The Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (GRIDCERF) data package is a high-resolution product to evaluate siting suitability for renewable and non-renewable power plants in the conterminous United States. GRIDCERF offers hundreds of individual suitability layers for use with both renewable and non-renewable power plant technology configurations in a harmonized format that can be easily ingested by geospatially-enabled modeling software. It also provides pre-compiled technology-specific suitability layers and allows for user customization to robustly address science objectives when evaluating varying future conditions. GRIDCERF data can be directly used with the CERF (Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility) model to site power plants at a 1km resolution. GRIDCERF includes composite technology siting suitability raster layers for the following utility scale technology configurations. Note that, in addition to technology sub-types shown below, various cooling types are also included (recirculating, pond, once-through, recirculating-seawater, dry-hybrid, or dry) for various technologies. Biomass Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Coal Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Natural Gas Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Geothermal Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) - Class 1 through Class 5 resource potential Nuclear Gen 2 Light Water Reactor (LWR) Gen 3 Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Gen 3 AP1000 Refined Liquids Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Solar Photovoltaic (PV) - for capacity factors in the range of 6-18% Utility-scale Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) - for capacity factors in the range of 24-46% Tower Wind (Onshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 5-50% 80m hub height 100m hub height 120m hub height 140m hub height Wind (Offshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 25-60% 100m hub height 140m hub height 160m hub height

capacity expansion↗

DOE OSTI2024

Data-Informed Evaluation Framework for Integrated Energy Systems: Insights from Power, Process Heat, and Hydrogen Production Applications

The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework provides a systematic evaluation of the diverse preferences and performance metrics associated with alternative solutions. This approach is advantageous over a single-criterion methodology, which are only valid under conditions that assume ceteris paribus or an "apples-to-apples" comparison. However, selecting suitable technologies for integrated energy systems (IES) can be likened to an "apples-to-oranges" comparison, given the heterogeneous factors at stake. These factors include economics and performance parameters, geological compatibility, and environmental impacts. Consequently, past research has often employed a mixture of qualitative and quantitative criteria tailored to the specific interests of each study. While the method proves effective in handling the intricate interplay of criteria, the resulting rankings and scores can vary from study to study. This inconsistency is introduced from the use of subjectively defined thresholds and weights. As a result, decision-makers frequently find it challenging to establish clear connections between specific criteria and the resulting scores, as the transformation of criteria into ordinal scores results in a substantial loss of information. To address this challenge, we introduce a data-informed IES evaluation framework that offers comprehensive, interpretable, and traceable evaluations backed by quantifiable rationale. First, we identified key IES evaluation criteria from a decade of literature, focusing on relevant IES applications in power, process heat, and hydrogen production. We leveraged state-of-the-art cost estimates from the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and technical data from 78 reactor designs from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD-NEA). Lastly, we established thresholds by analyzing the mean, variance, root mean square, and slope of values across alternatives, categorizing the preferences of decision-makers into distinct utility functions, such as linear, saturating, exponential, and stepwise. Our approach yielded two main outcomes: (1) it provided consistent assessments across different stakeholder groups and (2) it visualized uncertainties in the decision-making context via comprehensive sensitivity analysis. To demonstrate the impact of our framework, we conducted case studies on 6 reactor designs (AP1000, NuScale, BWRX-300, Xe-100, eVinci, iMSR) for the three applications. Our data-driven framework proved to be highly effective in addressing heterogenous uncertainties faced by varied decision-makers? preferences and IES applications, as well as cost and technical estimates of advanced reactors.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗