scholarly journals Prospects of creation of the two-component nuclear energy system

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Yu. Petrov ◽  
Alexander V. Shutikov ◽  
Nikolay N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy ◽  
Valery S. Bezzubtsev ◽  
Mikhail V. Bakanov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Materials ◽  
Minor Actinides ◽  
Mox Fuel ◽  
Two Component ◽  
New Business

Possible options of organization of two-component energy system with closed nuclear fuel cycle (CNFC) and new business potential associated with provision of CFC services to foreign customers are examined. Dominating role in the development of nuclear power generation is assigned to VVER reactors with gradually increasing fraction of sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors (FR) incorporated within the joint nuclear fuel cycle operated on MOX-fuel. Components of such energy system perform the following functions: 1. Fast reactors: Generate electric power in base-load mode (possibility of fine tuning of reactor power within limited range (100 – 75 – 100%) is assumed); Utilize waste and/or regenerated uranium for re-fueling power reactors, produce plutonium applicable to the maximum extent for manufacturing MOX-fuel for VVER reactors; Incinerate long-lived highly radioactive wastes – minor actinides separated during reprocessing spent nuclear fuel of FR and VVER reactors. 2. VVER reactors: Generate electricity in compliance with manoeuvrability requirements imposed by the utility company operating the energy system; Utilize MOX-fuel instead of UO2 fuel; Are offered for export with the option of returning SNF back to Russia; Plutonium extracted from VVER spent fuel is used for manufacturing MOX-fuel for SFR. 3. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities: Provide reprocessing of SNF from VVER and SFR with extraction of nuclear materials for recycling; Use depleted or reprocessed uranium and plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel for manufacturing MOX-fuel; Provide partitioning of RAW for subsequent utilization of minor actinides and reduction of risks of proliferation of nuclear materials, conditioning and disposal of RAW. Russia possesses capacities for establishing the two-component system with CNFC, as well as the new business approach to rendering CNFC services to foreign customers.

scholarly journals Optimization models of a two-component nuclear energy system with thermal and fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey A. Andrianov ◽  
Ilya S. Kuptsov ◽  
Tatyana A. Osipova ◽  
Olga N. Andrianova ◽  
Tatyana V. Utyanskaya
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Optimization Models ◽  
Oxide Fuel ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Two Component

The article presents a description and some illustrative results of the application of two optimization models for a two-component nuclear energy system consisting of thermal and fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle. These models correspond to two possible options of developing Russian nuclear energy system, which are discussed in the expert community: (1) thermal and fast reactors utilizing uranium and mixed oxide fuel, (2) thermal reactors utilizing uranium oxide fuel and fast reactors utilizing mixed nitride uranium-plutonium fuel. The optimization models elaborated using the IAEA MESSAGE energy planning tool make it possible not only to optimize the nuclear energy system structure according to the economic criterion, taking into account resource and infrastructural constraints, but also to be used as a basis for developing multi-objective, stochastic and robust optimization models of a two-component nuclear energy system. These models were elaborated in full compliance with the recommendations of the IAEA’s PESS and INPRO sections, regarding the specification of nuclear energy systems in MESSAGE. The study is based on publications of experts from NRC “Kurchatov Institute”, JSC “SSC RF-IPPE”, ITCP “Proryv”, JSC “NIKIET”. The presented results demonstrate the characteristic structural features of a two-component nuclear energy system for conservative assumptions in order to illustrate the capabilities of the developed optimization models. Consideration is also given to the economic feasibility of a technologically diversified nuclear energy structure providing the possibility of forming on its base a robust system in the future. It has been demonstrated that given the current uncertainties in the costs of nuclear fuel cycle services and reactor technologies, it is impossible at the moment to make a reasonable conclusion regarding the greatest attractiveness of a particular option in terms of the economic performance.

Global Developments in Multinational Initiatives at the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles McCombie ◽  
Neil Chapman ◽  
Thomas H. Isaacs
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Nuclear Materials ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Risk Areas

Interest in expanding nuclear power globally continues to grow and various studies are underway to examine all issues associated with much expanded nuclear programmes. The most open questions today are related to the security and non-proliferation implications and to the disposal of radioactive wastes. The security and proliferation concerns have been almost entirely focussed on enrichment technology at the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle and on reprocessing. Although these are the highest risk areas, it is also important that the potential security problems associated with waste management (in particular with the storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive wastes) are not neglected. Furthermore, the costs of national geological repositories imply that, for new or small nuclear programmes, such facilities can be implemented only in the far future, if at all. The international community should continue to strengthen its efforts to highlight the risks and to facilitate solutions that reduce the threats of nuclear materials being distributed widely across the globe. In practice, this challenge has been taken up by a number of organisations that are developing initiatives that can alleviate the potential global security and proliferation problems by promoting multinational approaches to the fuel cycle. This paper addresses those initiatives that are concerned with the storage and final disposal of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.

scholarly journals Optimization models of two-component nuclear energy system with thermal and fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (3) ◽  
pp. 100-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Alekseevich Andrianov ◽  
Ilya Sergeevich Kuptsov ◽  
Tatiana Andreevna Osipova ◽  
Olga Nikolaevna Andrianova ◽  
Tatyana Vladimirovna Utyanskaya
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Optimization Models ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Two Component

scholarly journals The Need for Integrating the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in the United States of America

MRS Advances ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (19) ◽  
pp. 991-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evaristo J. Bonano ◽  
Elena A. Kalinina ◽  
Peter N. Swift
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Dry Storage ◽  
The Us

ABSTRACTCurrent practice for commercial spent nuclear fuel management in the United States of America (US) includes storage of spent fuel in both pools and dry storage cask systems at nuclear power plants. Most storage pools are filled to their operational capacity, and management of the approximately 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel newly discharged each year requires transferring older and cooler fuel from pools into dry storage. In the absence of a repository that can accept spent fuel for permanent disposal, projections indicate that the US will have approximately 134,000 metric tons of spent fuel in dry storage by mid-century when the last plants in the current reactor fleet are decommissioned. Current designs for storage systems rely on large dual-purpose (storage and transportation) canisters that are not optimized for disposal. Various options exist in the US for improving integration of management practices across the entire back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

scholarly journals Elaboration of approach to nuclear energy systems assessment by criterion of sustainable development

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Vladimir I. Usanov ◽  
Stepan A. Kviatkovskii ◽  
Andrey A. Andrianov
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy Systems ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Key Events

The paper describes the approach to the assessment of nuclear energy systems based on the integral indicator characterizing the level of their sustainability and results of comparative assessment of several nuclear energy system options incorporating different combinations of nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The nuclear energy systems are characterized by achievement of certain key events pertaining to the following six subject areas: economic performance, safety, availability of resources, waste handling, non-proliferation and public support. Achievement of certain key events is examined within the time interval until 2100, while the key events per se are assessed according to their contribution in the achievement of sustainable development goals. It was demonstrated that nuclear energy systems based on the once-through nuclear fuel cycle with thermal reactors and uranium oxide fuel do not score high according to the integral sustainable development indicator even in the case when the issue of isolation of spent nuclear fuel in geological formation is resolved. Gradual replacement of part of thermal reactors with fast reactors and closing the nuclear fuel cycle results in the achievement of evaluated characteristics in many subject areas, which are close to maximum requirements of sustainable development, and in the significant enhancement of the sustainability indicator.

Conceptual Study of Neutron Physics of Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Ceramic Fast Reactor

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuesong Yan ◽  
Yaling Zhang ◽  
Yucui Gao ◽  
Lei Yang
Keyword(s):  
High Temperature ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fast Reactor ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Fission Products ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Purification Method ◽  
Neutron Physics ◽  
Conceptual Study

Abstract To make the nuclear fuel cycle more economical and convenient, as well as prevent nuclear proliferation, the conceptual study of a simple high-temperature dry reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) for a ceramic fast reactor is proposed in this paper. This simple high-temperature dry (HT-dry) reprocessing includes the Atomics International Reduction Oxidation (AIROX) process and purification method for rare-earth elements. After removing the part of fission products from SNF by a HT-dry reprocessing without fine separation, the remaining nuclides and some uranium are fabricated into fresh fuel which can be used back to the ceramic fast reactor. Based on the ceramic coolant fast reactor, we studied neutron physics of nuclear fuel cycle which consists operation of ceramic reactor, removing part of fission products from SNF and preparation of fresh fuels for many time. The parameters of the study include effective multiplication factor (Keff), beam density, and nuclide mass for different ways to remove the fission products from SNF. With the increase in burnup time, the trend of increasing 239Pu gradually slows down, and the trend of 235U gradually decreases and become balanced. For multiple removal of part of fission products in the nuclear fuel cycle, the higher the removal, the larger the initial Keff.

The Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Program to Support Disposition of Enriched Uranium-Bearing Materials

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Schutt ◽  
Norman P. Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Material ◽  
Nuclear Materials ◽  
Bearing Materials ◽  
Enriched Uranium

The disposition of surplus nuclear materials has become one of the most pressing issues of our time [1, 2]. Numerous agencies have invoked programs with the purpose of removing such materials from various international venues and dispositioning these materials in a manner that achieves non-proliferability. This paper describes the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc (NFS) Nuclear Material Disposition Program, which to date has focused on a variety of Special Nuclear Material (SNM), in particular uranium of various enrichments. The major components of this program are discussed, with emphasis on recycle and return of material to the nuclear fuel cycle.

scholarly journals Sustainability Features of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. 2377-2398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Passerini ◽  
Mujid Kazimi
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Line ◽  
Energy Potential ◽  
Fuel Cycle Analysis ◽  
The Impact

The nuclear fuel cycle is the series of stages that nuclear fuel materials go through in a cradle to grave framework. The Once Through Cycle (OTC) is the current fuel cycle implemented in the United States; in which an appropriate form of the fuel is irradiated through a nuclear reactor only once before it is disposed of as waste. The discharged fuel contains materials that can be suitable for use as fuel. Thus, different types of fuel recycling technologies may be introduced in order to more fully utilize the energy potential of the fuel, or reduce the environmental impacts and proliferation concerns about the discarded fuel materials. Nuclear fuel cycle systems analysis is applied in this paper to attain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of fuel cycle alternatives. Through the use of the nuclear fuel cycle analysis code CAFCA (Code for Advanced Fuel Cycle Analysis), the impact of a number of recycling technologies and the associated fuel cycle options is explored in the context of the U.S. energy scenario over 100 years. Particular focus is given to the quantification of Uranium utilization, the amount of Transuranic Material (TRU) generated and the economics of the different options compared to the base-line case, the OTC option. It is concluded that LWRs and the OTC are likely to dominate the nuclear energy supply system for the period considered due to limitations on availability of TRU to initiate recycling technologies. While the introduction of U-235 initiated fast reactors can accelerate their penetration of the nuclear energy system, their higher capital cost may lead to continued preference for the LWR-OTC cycle.

scholarly journals A new approach to the recycling of spent nuclear fuel in thermal reactors within the REMIX concept

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Nikita V. Kovalev ◽  
Boris Ya. Zilberman ◽  
Nikolay D. Goletsky ◽  
Andrey B. Sinyukhin
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Natural Uranium ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
High Concentration ◽  
Energy Potential ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Reprocessed Uranium

A review of simulated nuclear fuel cycles with mixed uranium-plutonium fuel (REMIX) was carried out. The concept of REMIX fuel is one of the options for closing the nuclear fuel cycle (NFC), which makes it possible to recycle uranium and plutonium in VVER-1000/1200 thermal reactors at a 100% core loading. The authors propose a new approach to the recycling of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in thermal reactors. The approach implies a simplified fabrication of mixed fuel when plutonium is used in high concentration together with enriched natural uranium, while reprocessed uranium is supposed to be enriched and used separately. The share of standard enriched natural uranium fuel in this nuclear fuel cycle is more than 50%, the share of mixed natU+Pu fuel is 25%, the rest is fuel obtained from enriched reprocessed uranium. It is emphasized that the new approach has the maximum economic prospect and makes it possible to organize the fabrication of this fuel and nuclear material cross-cycling at the facilities available in the Russian Federation in the short term. This NFC option eliminates the accumulation of SNF in the form of spent fuel assemblies (SFA). SNF is always reprocessed with the aim of further using the primary reprocessed uranium and plutonium. Non-recyclable in thermal reactors, burnt, reprocessed uranium, the energy potential of which is comparable to natural uranium, as well as secondary plutonium intended for further use in fast reactors, are sent as reprocessing by-products to the storage area.

Long Term Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel as Key Role of Japan’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Until 2100: Cost and Benefit

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadahiro Katsuta
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Storage Site ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Final Disposal ◽  
Enriched Uranium ◽  
Interim Storage ◽  
Reprocessing Plant

Political and technical advantages to introduce spent nuclear fuel interim storage into Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle are examined. Once Rokkasho reprocessing plant starts operation, 80,000 tHM of spent Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel must be stored in an Away From Reactor (AFR) interim storage site until 2100. If a succeeding reprocessing plant starts operating, the spent LEU will reach its peak of 30,000 tHM before 2050, and then will decrease until the end of the second reprocessing plant operation. Throughput of the second reprocessing plant is assumed as twice of that of Rokassho reprocessing plant, indeed 1,600tHM/year. On the other hand, tripled number of final disposal sites for High Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) will be necessary with this condition. Besides, large amount of plutonium surplus will occur, even if First Breeder Reactors (FBR)s consume the plutonium. At maximum, plutonium surplus will reach almost 500 tons. These results indicate that current nuclear policy does not solve the spent fuel problems but rather complicates them. Thus, reprocessing policy could put off the problems in spent fuel interim storage capacity and other issues could appear such as difficulties in large amount of HLW final disposal management or separated plutonium management. If there is no reprocessing or MOX use, the amount of spent fuel will reach over 115,000 tones at the year of 2100. However, the spent fuel management could be simplified and also the cost and the security would be improved by using an interim storage primarily.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document