Fuel cycle cost studies: fabrication, reprocessing, and refabrication of LWR, SSCR, HWR, LMFBR, and HTGR fuels

Olsen, A.R.; Judkins, R.R.; Carter, W.L.; Delene, J.G.

doi:10.2172/6420741

Cited by 11 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While a linear relation may not be completely appropriate, it does illustrate the need for a correction in the Monte Carlo sampling algorithm. In the both the worst case, where all fixed costs are at the maximum, and the best case, where all fixed costs are at the minimum, the algorithm predicts a much higher cost of electricity than estimated by the EMWG [32, 34,35,36,37,38]. Partially, this is due to the requirement of an equilibrium cycle, where all LWR fuel is reprocessed, which is not the case for the EMWG reports.…”

Section: Optimization Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty Analyses of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Miller¹,

Preston²,

Sweder³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative fuel cycles, 3) Impact of Time-of-implementation of alternative fuel cycles. 4) Use high burnup fuel (i.e. 70 GWth-d/tonne), 5) Reprocessing of LWR fuel, 6) Use Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, 7) Introduction of FRs in to the LWR fleet, 8) Inventories of Plutonium (Pu) and other actinides in and out of reactors, 9) Economic impact of alternative fuel cycles, and 10) Uncertainties of parameters and outcomes. Salient issues associated with these topics are addressed in the main body of this report and details are presented in the appendices. The MIT Report on the Future of Nuclear Energy 2 claims that the availability of uranium is not the limiting constraint for expanding the use of nuclear energy. Instead, economics, waste management, proliferation, and public acceptance are more important than uranium resources. Wineberg 1 claims that the use of breeder reactors is necessary for nuclear power to have a long-term impact on human energy consumption; where "longterm" is several thousand years. The MIT article appears to be focused of electrical energy usage during the relatively near future, such as the next hundred years. Thus, there is not a real contradiction, but only a difference in perspective. The Department of Energy (DOE) recognizes the need for the development of advanced reactors and advanced fuel cycles to assure that the use of nuclear fission remains a viable option for production of electrical power. In particular, it supports the Generation IV reactor development program, and it supports the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative of alternative fuel cycles with a focus on Generation IV systems 3. Sustainability is an important issue relative to choices for fuel cycles and for reactor systems. In particular, the following conditions should be satisfied for sustainability: 1) The fuel supply should last for several thousand years, 2) The radioactive materials produced from operation should be effectively managed and not exceed the original activity of ore after about one thousand years, 3) Materials required to construct and operate reactors should be in adequate supply, and 4) Byproducts of operation should not create a significant risk, which includes proliferation of nuclear weapons. Sustainability issues considered to be important are as follows: 1) Resources, 2) Environmental Effects, 3) Economics, 4) Societal Impacts, 5) Proliferation, 6) Infrastructure Commitments, 7) Waste Management, and 8) Vulnerability for Disruptions. These topics are discussed in Appendix B. Fuel Cycles of Interest and Repository Issues The transuranics and minor actinides (MA) in spent fuel from reactors use the Pu/U fuel cycle may be disposed of directly with the spent fuel, or they can be separated for subsequent disposition or use in reactor facilities. Implementation of practices that manage these transuranics require investments in support facilities and infrastructure that competes with the much more straightforward practice of direct disposal of spent fuel. Some of the generic fuel cycle concepts under consideration t...

show abstract

Section: Optimization Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty Analyses of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Miller¹,

Preston²,

Sweder³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the cost-related sections below a unit cost ($/kgU) versus capacity (MTU/yr) relationship will be derived by analogy from the 1978 NASAP study (Olsen et al 1979). This will be useful for selecting a WIT unit cost range for HALEU TRISO produced in an Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK), NRC Category II facility of 100 MTU/yr capacity.…”

Section: D1-35 Scaling Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some recently found older literature sources; however, may shed light on HTR fuels. In 1979, as part of the U.S. NASAP, ORNL prepared a cost study (Olsen et al 1979) on the life cycle costs of manufacturing and reprocessing several types of nuclear fuel. The same group of fuels R&D experts, design engineers, and cost estimators prepared preconceptual level estimates for the capital, O&M, and decommissioning costs of large (several hundred MTHM/yr) NOAK (Nth-of-kind) fuel fabrication facilities.…”

Section: D1-362 2012 Afc-cbd Update Cost Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This unit cost falls in the upper range of the PWR fuel unit price distribution for Module D1-1. Since the upper range would represent new plants with full amortization, the escalated (Olsen et al 1979) PWR fuel fabrication value seems to be valid. Using a unit cost ratio based on the complexity of the fuels technology a value of $2,132/kgU results for fabrication of HTGR fuels.…”

Section: D1-362 2012 Afc-cbd Update Cost Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advanced Fuel Cycle – Cost Basis Report: Module D1-3 Uranium-based Ceramic Particle Fuel Fabrication

Williams,

Hansen,

Hoffman

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Module D1-3 Uranium-Based Ceramic Particle Fuel Fabrication INL/EXT-21-64514 (September 2021) D1-3-iii Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis REVISION LOG Rev. Date Affected Pages Revision Description 2004 Version of AFC-CBR in which this module first appeared: 2004 as Module D1-3 2021 All Latest version of module in which new technical data was used to establish unit cost ranges: 2021 New technical/cost data which have recently become available and may benefit next revision: -China is building an MHR production facility to support a small fleet of gas-cooled reactors. A search of trade press and international nuclear publications might yield some useful cost data. -X-Energy in the United States is working on MHR development. They may have done some of their own economic analyses; however, these are likely to be proprietary information. Two U.S. corporations, CENTRUS Corporation (Oak Ridge, TN) and Global Nuclear Fuels (Wilmington, NC), are now partnering with X-Energy on TRISO fuel development in both the United States and Japan (CENTRUS 2017; WNN 2019b; WNN 2020b). -BWX Technologies (or BWXT) of Lynchburg, VA is planning a small production line for TRISO fuel for modular and microreactors intended for defense, aerospace, and special industrial applications. Any cost information is likely to be proprietary (WNN 2019a; WNN 2020a; WNN 2020c; WNN 2020e). -Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp plans to use TRISO-coated particles for its fully ceramic encapsulated fuel. This fuel type has possible application as an accident tolerant fuel for water reactors. Their development center will be located in Salt Lake City, UT (Patel 2021). Again any cost information is likely to be proprietary. -HOLOS-GEN has prepared a TRISO-based fuel cartridge design for a portable microreactor for use by the military in remote locations. INL/EXT-21-64514 (September 2021) D1-3-vii Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

show abstract

“…where C D is the design and construction cost ($), C O is the owners cost during construction ($), C C is the charge on direct capital during construction ($), R is the annual fixed charge on capital (fraction per year), O is the annual operating and maintenance cost ($ per year), D is the annual payment to establish a fund for decommissioning ($ per year), X is the nominal design capacity of the plant, and F is the fraction of design capacity achieved [116][117][118][119][120][121]. Equation (10) shows that the unit cost of reprocessing and refabrication is inversely related to the nominal design capacity and the fraction of design capacity achieved.…”

Section: Refabrication and Reprocessing Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Canadian Perspective of the Economic Issues Associated With Deploying Thorium-Based Fuel Cycles and Breeding in Heavy-Water Reactors

España

Bromley

2019

CNL Nuclear Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To meet future global needs for energy and green technology, it is prudent to identify energy sources and technology that may potentially be economically beneficial. Thorium-based fuels with nuclear technology, such as the Canadian heavy-water reactor, have been proposed as a way to meet those global needs, though economic challenges persist in deploying thorium-based fuels. Therefore, economic strategies to overcome the economic challenges in deploying thorium-based fuels are needed. To identify potential strategies for advancing the deployment of thorium-based fuels, this paper conducts a historical examination of the economics of thorium fuel cycles to identify economic factors that can influence a country’s development of thorium-based fuel cycles. In particular, this paper reviews the economic issues associated with Canada’s experience in deploying thorium-based fuel cycles. The study finds that the existence of natural resources and the associated price, a nuclear fuel cycle’s costs, a country’s international trade balance position and economic growth policies, the profitability of the electrical power and nuclear industry, and the technical and economical characteristics of the nuclear reactor developed in a country may all influence the adoption of a thorium-based fuel cycle. Furthermore, recent advancements in developing thorium-based fuel cycles are suggested as a possible way of bridging the technical and economic gap between near-term and long-term implementation of thorium-based fuel cycles that may overcome current economic challenges.

show abstract

Fuel cycle cost studies: fabrication, reprocessing, and refabrication of LWR, SSCR, HWR, LMFBR, and HTGR fuels

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Uncertainty Analyses of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Uncertainty Analyses of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Advanced Fuel Cycle – Cost Basis Report: Module D1-3 Uranium-based Ceramic Particle Fuel Fabrication

A Canadian Perspective of the Economic Issues Associated With Deploying Thorium-Based Fuel Cycles and Breeding in Heavy-Water Reactors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About