scholarly journals Multi-criteria evaluation and ranking of potential scenarios for the development of Russian two-component nuclear energy system with thermal and sodium-cooled fast reactors

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-172
Author(s):  
Vladimir I. Usanov ◽  
Stepan A. Kvyatkovskiy ◽  
Andrey A. Andrianov ◽  
Ilya S. Kuptsov
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Two Component ◽  
Key Indicators

The paper presents the results from a multi-criteria comparative evaluation of potential deployment scenarios for Russian nuclear power with thermal and sodium-cooled fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle (the so-called two-component nuclear energy system). The comparison and the ranking were performed taking into account the recommendations and using the IAEA/INPRO software tools for comparative evaluation of nuclear energy systems, including tools for sensitivity/uncertainty analysis with respect to weighting factors. Ten potential Russian nuclear power deployment scenarios with different shares of thermal and sodium-cooled fast reactors were considered, including options involving the use of MOX fuel in VVER reactors. Eight key indicators were used, estimated as of 2100 and structured into a three-level objectives tree. The comparative evaluation and the ranking were carried out based on the multi-attribute value theory. The model for assessing the key indicators was developed using the IAEA/INPRO MESSAGE-NES energy system planning software tool. The information base for the study was formed by publications of experts from JSC SSC RF-IPPE, NRC Kurchatov Institute and NRNU MEPhI. The presented results show that it is possible to enhance significantly the sustainability of the Russian nuclear energy system, when considering multiple performance indicators, through the intensive deployment of sodium-cooled fast reactors and the transition to a closed nuclear fuel cycle. Tasks have been outlined for the follow-up studies to make it possible to obtain more rigorous conclusions regarding the preferred options for the evolution of a two-component nuclear energy system.

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.

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 A scenario study on the transition to a closed nuclear fuel cycle using the nuclear energy system modelling application package (NESAPP)

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Andrei A. Andrianov ◽  
Olga N. Andrianova ◽  
Ilya S. Kuptsov ◽  
Leonid I. Svetlichny ◽  
Tatyana V. Utianskaya
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
System Modelling ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Sustainability Metrics ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle

The paper presents the results of a case study on evaluating performance and sustainability metrics for Russian nuclear energy deployment scenarios with thermal and sodium-cooled fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle. Ten possible scenarios are considered which differ in the shares of thermal and sodium-cooled fast reactors, including options involving the use of mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel in thermal reactors. The evolution of the following performance and sustainability metrics is estimated for the period from 2020 to 2100 based on the considered assumptions: annual and cumulative uranium consumption, needs for uranium enrichment capacities, fuel fabrication and reprocessing capacities, spent fuel stocks, radioactive wastes, amounts of plutonium in the nuclear fuel cycle, amounts of accumulated depleted uranium, and the levelised electricity generation cost. The results show that the sustainability of the Russian nuclear energy system can be significantly enhanced through the intensive deployment of sodium-cooled fast reactors and the transition to a closed nuclear fuel cycle. The authors have highlighted some issues for further considerations, which will lead to more rigorous conclusions regarding the preferred options for the development of the national nuclear energy system.

scholarly journals Problems of the integrative assessment of the competitive advantages of the economic cross model of closing the nuclear fuel cycle

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Timohin ◽  
Lyubov' Degteva ◽  
Aleksandr Panin ◽  
Evgeniy Strelka
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Social Factor ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Cross Model ◽  
Economic Result ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Two Component

In the article, the authors present a model for making a decision on the introduction of a competitive innovative proposal into the nuclear fuel cycle. The factors of saving on the resource potential of nuclear fuel in the framework of creating a two-component atomic energy are considered. A graphic interpretation of the choice of the technology for closing the fuel cycle in terms of the volume of processing is given. The authors examined the dynamics of the needs of the global economy in energy resources for the period 1865-2015. and market statistics on electricity prices in Russia and the world in 2011-2019. and forecast up to 2024. A mathematical model for determining the optimal ratio between the expected economic result from the development of two-component energy and the costs of its creation is considered. The application of this model gives an economic result, which can be calculated as a synergistic effect of investment for all sectors of the economy over a certain period. The authors calculated the influence of the social factor on the economic result using the formula. Reflected in the article is a nuclear power model formed on the basis of the "economic cross" methodology and a closed nuclear fuel cycle model formed on the basis of the "economic cross" model.

Scenario Analysis on the Benefits of Multi-National Cooperation for the Development of a Common Nuclear Energy System Based on PWR and LFR Fleets

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Ciotti ◽  
Jorge L. Manzano ◽  
Vladimir Kuznetsov ◽  
Galina Fesenko ◽  
Luisa Ferroni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Levelized Cost Of Electricity ◽  
Base Load

Financial aspects, environmental concerns and non-favorable public opinion are strongly conditioning the deployment of new Nuclear Energy Systems across Europe. Nevertheless, new possibilities are emerging to render competitive electricity from Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) owing to two factors: the first one, which is the fast growth of High Voltage lines interconnecting the European countries’ national electrical grids, this process being triggered by huge increase of the installed intermittent renewable electricity sources (Wind and PV); and the second one, determined by the carbon-free constraints imposed on the base load electricity generation. The countries that due to public opinion pressure can’t build new NPPs on their territory may find it profitable to produce base load nuclear electricity abroad, even at long distances, in order to comply with the European dispositions on the limitation of the CO2 emissions. In this study the benefits from operating at multinational level with the deployment of a fleet of PWRs and subsequently, at a proper time, the one of Lead Fast Reactors (LFRs) are analyzed. The analysis performed involves Italy (a country with a current moratorium on nuclear power on spite that its biggest utility operates NPPs abroad), and the countries from South East and Central East Europe potentially looking for introduction or expansion of their nuclear power programmes. According to the predicted evolution of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) a forecast of the electricity consumption evolution for the present century is derived with the assumption that a certain fraction of it will be covered by nuclear electricity. In this context, evaluated are material balances for the front and the back end of nuclear fuel cycle associated with the installed nuclear capacity. A key element of the analysis is the particular type of LFR assumed in the scenario, characterized by having a fuel cycle where only fission products and the reprocessing losses are sent for disposition and natural or depleted uranium is added to fuel in each reprocessing cycle. Such LFR could be referred to as “adiabatic reactor”. Owing to introduction of such reactors a substantive reduction in uranium consumption and final disposal requirements can be achieved. Finally, the impacts of the LFR and the economy of scale in nuclear fuel cycle on the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) are being evaluated, for scaling up from a national to a multinational dimension, illustrating the benefits potentially achievable through cooperation among countries.

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 Achievability of radiological equivalence associated with closed nuclear fuel cycle with fast reactors: impact of uncertainty factors in scenarios of Russian nuclear power development through to 2100. Part 1. Fast and thermal reactors

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-76
Author(s):  
V.K. Ivanov ◽  
◽  
A.V. Lopatkin ◽  
A.N. Menyajlo ◽  
E.V. Spirin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Energy Development ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Power Development ◽  
The Public ◽  
Radiation Risks ◽  
Nuclear Power Development

The Russian Government approved the Energy Strategy of the Russian Federation (Government Decree No.1523-r of June 9, 2020). The Strategy envisages the use of both thermal (TR) and fast (FR) reactors. The Strategy points out that the problems of nuclear power are associated with po-tential high expenses for irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes management. The previously de-signed model of the Russian nuclear energy development suggested that fast reactors only would operate at NPPs after 2010. Radiological equivalence, expressed as the equivalence of lifetime radiation risks to the public from radioactive wastes and from primary uranium ore, was shown to be achieved after 100-year storage. The burnup of 241Am, 237Np и 242Сm in closed nu-clear fuel cycle with fast reactors is a key part in the achievability of radiation risks equivalence. Scenarios of the Russian nuclear energy development through to 2100 with account of uncertain-ty factors in the measurement of contribution of fast and thermal reactors to the electric energy production are considered in the paper. The following three scenarios were developed: uncer-tainty is replaced by FRs; uncertainty is replaced by TRs; 50 per cent of FRs and 50 per cent of TRs replace uncertainty. If the energy is produced by fast reactors only (scenario 1) radiological equivalence was found to be achieved in 412 years. In two other scenarios radiological equiva-lence will be achieved after more than 1000 years. Contribution of main dose-forming radionu-clides and relevant ratios of potential biological hazards is included in models regardless of whether uncertainty in nuclear energy development is taking or not taking into account. Results of the study of conditions for radiological equivalence achievement should be used for amending Strategic plan of Russian nuclear power development through to 2100 that meets requirements of radiation ecology and radiation protection of the public.

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 Multi-criteria analysis of the efficiency of scenarios for the development of the Russian nuclear industry in view of the uncertain prospects for the future

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-305
Author(s):  
Anatoly V. Zrodnikov ◽  
Valery V. Korobeynikov ◽  
Andrey L. Moseev ◽  
Aleksandr F. Egorov
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Natural Uranium ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The Future ◽  
Multi Criteria Analysis ◽  
And Performance

Multi-criteria analysis is used in many areas of research where it is required to compare several alternatives according to a selected set of criteria. Of particular interest is the application of this method for a comparative assessment of the efficiency of scenarios for the development of innovative nuclear systems. The article proposes an approach to the computational substantiation of the step-by-step transfer of the Russian nuclear industry to a two-component nuclear energy system (NES) with a centralized closed nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) based on the multi-criteria analysis method. At the same time, consideration is given to options for the development of the domestic nuclear industry in view of the uncertain prospects for the future. Taking into account various trends in the nuclear energy development, the authors identify the following three groups of possible scenarios. The first group includes ‘growing’ scenarios in which the number of units and their total installed capacity grow over time. The second group assumes that after a certain time of growth of the installed capacities, the stationary level will be reached, in which there will be no time-dependent capacity changes. The third group simulates a decrease in the installed nuclear energy capacities in the country after some growth. To select the most preferable ways of technological development and assess the efficiency of a nuclear energy system, a limited set of selection criteria and performance indicators are used, covering the economy, export potential, competitiveness, efficient SNF and RW management, natural uranium consumption, and innovative development potential. An important part of this work was a detailed analysis of the uncertainties in the weights and input data used to derive the criteria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document