Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Advanced Fuel”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-2 LWR Pelletized MOX Fuel Fabrication

Nature of this 2021 Module update from previous AFC-CBRs: Use of U,Pu MOX life cycle cost data from late 1970s Non-proliferation Assessment Systems Analysis Program (NASAP). This archived data has been updated in 2018-2019 to reflect today’s regulatory and economic conditions and is presented in 2017. For the lower unit cost MOX fabrication case the PuO 2 from the reprocessed LWR SNF is assumed to be fabricated immediately after aqueous PUREX reprocessing, thus minimizing the time for undesirable actinide radioisotopes, from the standpoint of radiation safety, to build in. Fabricated MOX utilizing separated and multi-year stored Pu from aqueously reprocessed SNF has also been added to this Module as a second LWR MOX fabrication variant, requiring additional and more costly glovebox design and operations to protect personnel. This new NASAP-informed data augments historical data and unit cost projections appearing in the 2009 (Shropshire et al 2009), 2012 (Dixon et al 2012), and 2017 Dixon et al 2017) AFC-CBRs. The “What-it-takes” 2017 unit fabrication cost values based on the updated NASAP studies are escalated to 2020$ for this 2021 Update Report.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 3 Cost Correlations

This chapter provides an overview of the drivers for developing correlation coefficients, status on efforts to develop partial correlation coefficients, and recommended next steps. Mathematical methods for developing and using correlation coefficients were previously documented by the FCO EWG in Chapters 6 and 7 of [Ganda 2014].

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 2 Production Based Costing

The purpose of this section is to outline a method of cost analysis whereby a significantly better representation of “should achieve” costs may be attained for NOAK systems. Based on economists’ notions of producer theory, and grounded in the cost analysts’ and project managers’ tool called the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), this section describes best practices in cost estimation. It then illustrates how the Code of Accounts (COA) structure, developed by the Economic Modeling Working Group (EMWG) of the Generation IV International Forum in “Cost Estimating Guidelines for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems [EMWG 2007] (hereafter “Gen IV Guidelines Document”), can be used to differentiate “should achieve” versus “did experience” costs.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 5 Considerations on Learning

Learning refers here to the increased experience associated to each new build of a given type of fuel cycle facility, which results generally in design improvements, increased construction and operational efficiencies and reduced mistakes, and therefore in reduced costs. These are important considerations, for example, when modeling transitions from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) to nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) nuclear facilities and deciding the magnitude of the cost reduction (if any) to be applied to each successive build. Different assumptions on learning can significantly affect the results of the economic analyses during transitions. Other competing electricity-generation technologies, such as wind and solar power for example, have demonstrated substantial cost reductions through learning during the last few decades.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 7 Presentation: Du and RU Disposal Costs [Slides]

Worldwide DU and RU in various chemical forms are some of the largest legacy products of the nuclear industry (defense & power) in both mass and volume. Chemical forms include U metal or alloy, UF6, UO2, UO3, U3O8, and UF4. Most of this material is now in above ground storage. Due to chemical stability and low water solubility oxides are the preferred form for safe storage and ultimate disposal. Long term U disposal in large amounts presents more of a potential radioactivity problem than its conversion and temporary storage. Now a near term problem with freshly-mined uranium ore, radon emanation will eventually be a long-term problem for both DU and RU dispositioned in large quantities at a specific location.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-7 Contact-Handled Pelletized Pressurized Heavy Water (PHWR) UOX Fuel Fabrication (Rev.1)

In addition to literature-based pressurized heavy-water reactor (PHWR) fuel price information in the 2017 AFC-CBR, the what-it-takes (WIT) unit cost data in this update is informed by new analysis and escalation of the 1978 PHWR-UOX fuel life cycle cost (LCC) data from ORNL reports prepared for the 1977–1980 Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program (NASAP). (These reports are referenced and summarized in detail in Module D1-PR.) The PHWR fuel fabrication LCC data in these reports is scaled from a bottom-up cost estimate for a reference technology pressurized-water reactor (PWR)—uranium oxide (UOX) fuel fabrication plant by using algorithms that consider the manufacturing process complexity, fuel design complexity, plant floor space requirements, and the radiation and health, safety, and environmental (HS&E) regulatory environment of PHWR-UOX fuel production vis-à-vis light-water reactor (LWR)-UOX production (PWR fuel in this case). The module name has been changed from “Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU)” to the more generic PHWR fuel fabrication in recognition that not all power reactors that might use this fuel type are considered. Unfortunately, the detailed algorithms and their design bases were not archived at the end of the NASAP effort of the commercial CANDU concept specifically developed in the middle of the last century by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 6 A Proposed Methodology for Transformation of Reactor Cost Data to the ‘What-It-Takes’ Table

Note: This document represents work undertaken to refine the CBR approach for arriving at recommended cost values for the reactor sub-modules. This information is provided to indicate the possible direction of evolution in future CBR updates and encourage comments from CBR users. Since this document was developed concurrent with many of the following R-modules, the methodology was applied only in the analysis of the fast reactor (Module R2) data. In future revisions an attempt will be made to use this methodology uniformly.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Support for Advanced Fuel Fabrication MC&A Approaches

This report summarizes the key activities of the Material Protection, Accounting, and Control Technologies (MPACT) program’s safeguards training work package for FY25. The work focused on two main areas: domestic safeguards training and the development of new technologies for nuclear material accounting and control (NMAC). A key development during this FY was the delivery of NMAC statistics for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements refresher course. The course objective was to assist industry in meeting the MC&A program requirements for fuel cycle facilities; this training focused on front-end bulk fuel cycle processes. At the same time, a report was prepared on the research output of an effort that focused on the benefits of commercial fuel debundling for NMAC and waste management. The MPACT team evaluated various technologies and proposed a fuel debundling detector that integrates gamma spectroscopy and neutron detection as the most practical solution. The scope of activities under this work package for FY26 focuses on developing a fundamental nuclear material control plan, also known as MC&A plan, for tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel fabrication facilities. This plan will address the various NMAC requirements for facilities that handle Category II.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗