The Experts below are selected from a list of 384 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David Shropshire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
economic analyiss of symbiotic light water reactor fast burner reactor fuel cycles proposed as part of the u s advanced fuel cycle initiative afci
2009Co-Authors: Kent Williams, David ShropshireAbstract:A spreadsheet-based 'static equilibrium' economic analysis was performed for three nuclear fuel cycle scenarios, each designed for 100 GWe-years of electrical generation annually: (1) a 'once-through' fuel cycle based on 100% LWRs fueled by standard UO2 fuel assemblies with all used fuel destined for geologic repository emplacement, (2) a 'single-tier recycle' scenario involving multiple fast burner reactors (37% of generation) accepting actinides (Pu,Np,Am,Cm) from the reprocessing of used fuel from the uranium-fueled LWR fleet (63% of generation), and (3) a 'two-tier' 'thermal+fast' recycle scenario where co-extracted U,Pu from the reprocessing of used fuel from the uranium-fueled part of the LWR fleet (66% of generation) is recycled once as full-core LWR MOX fuel (8% of generation), with the LWR MOX used fuel being reprocessed and all actinide products from both UO2 and MOX used fuel reprocessing being introduced into the closed fast burner reactor (26% of generation) fuel cycle. The latter two 'closed' fuel cycles, which involve symbiotic use of both thermal and fast reactors, have the advantages of lower natural uranium requirements per kilowatt-hour generated and less geologic repository space per kilowatt-hour as compared to the 'once-through' cycle. The overall fuel cycle Cost in terms of $ per megawatt-hr ofmore » generation, however, for the closed cycles is 15% (single tier) to 29% (two-tier) higher than for the once-through cycle, based on 'expected values' from an uncertainty analysis using triangular distributions for the unit Costs for each required step of the fuel cycle. (The fuel cycle Cost does not include the levelized reactor life cycle Costs.) Since fuel cycle Costs are a relatively small percentage (10 to 20%) of the overall Busbar Cost (LUEC or 'levelized unit electricity Cost') of nuclear power generation, this fuel cycle Cost increase should not have a highly deleterious effect on the competitiveness of nuclear power. If the reactor life cycle Costs are included in the analysis, with the fast reactors having a higher $/kw(e) capital Cost than the LWRs, the overall Busbar generation Cost ($/MWh) for the closed cycles is approximately 12% higher than for the all-LWR once-through fuel cycle case, again based on the expected values from an uncertainty analysis. It should be noted that such a percentage increase in the Cost of nuclear power is much smaller than that expected for fossil fuel electricity generation if CO2 is Costed via a carbon tax, cap and trade regimes, or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).« less
Kazimi, Mujid S. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Plant Design and Cost Assessment of Forced Circulation Lead-Bismuth Cooled Reactor with Conventional Power Conversion Cycles
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems. Advanced Nuclear Power Program, 2001Co-Authors: Dostal Vaclav, Hejzlar Pavel, Todreas, Neil E., Kazimi, Mujid S.Abstract:Cost of electricity is the key factor that determines competitiveness of a power plant. Thus the proper selection, design and optimization of the electric power generating cycle is of main importance. This report makes an assessment of power generation of the Actinide Burner Reactor (MABR). The reactor is a fast reactor cooled by lead bismuth eutectic. As a reference plant for capital Cost evaluation, the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) reactor was used based on its 1994 capital and Busbar Cost estimates. Two balance of plant schemes have been evaluated - a steam cycle and a helium cycle. For the steam cycle, the reference plant is the ALMR steam cycle and for the helium cycle the power generating side of the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR) was used. To identify the basic core design values, a hot channel analysis of the forced cooled core was performed. A scoping design study of the intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) for the helium cycle and the steam generator (SG) for the steam cycle was also carried out. Both were designed using the ALMR IHX as a base case in order to match the modularity criteria imposed on the reactor design and keep the MABR design as close to the reference plant as possible. The estimated Cost of electricity for the helium cycle varies from 43.3 to 62.2 mills/kWhe, for the steam cycle from 30.5 to 33.3 mills/kWhe. These ranges in Costs reflect the different thermal hydraulic cases.Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laborator
M Miller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nuclear Power and Energy Security: A Revised Strategy for Japan
2020Co-Authors: Lawrence M Lidsky, Marvin M Miller, M MillerAbstract:SUMMARY During the period of nuclear power's rapid growth, shared assumptions regarding uranium resources and technological capabilities led the majority of industrial nations to remarkably similar strategies for nuclear power deployment. These common assumptions motivated the choice, more than 40 years ago, of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) as the near-term power reactor, to be followed, as soon as possible, by the introduction and deployment of the Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR). The FBR, which uses much less uranium than an LWR of the same capacity, was a crucial part of the strategy because uranium was then believed to be a scarce resource. This strategy, based on the LWR producing the startup fuel for the FBR, implicitly included spent fuel reprocessing, plutonium recycle, and disposal of separated wastes in geologic repositories. Nations with limited indigenous energy reserves, most notably France and Japan, made particularly strong commitments to this strategy. This article was originally presented as a paper at the PARES Workshop: Energy Security in Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 13 July 1998. Lidsky, Miller With the passage of time, it has become clear that the technology associated with this strategy has serious problems. More significant, however, has been the gradual realization that uranium is a widely available resource, with large, inexpensive terrestrial reserves and with essentially inexhaustible marine reserves recoverable at prices which would have minimal impact on the Busbar Cost of nuclear electricity. It was the predicted near-term (i.e., before 1990) acute shortage of uranium that was the main justification for the choice of LWR/FBR technology. That choice would not have been made otherwise, because other nuclear reactor designs, and other fuel cycles, were known to have substantial advantages with respect to safety, economy, proliferation resistance, and energy security. The LWR is Costly, necessarily complex in its dependence on the strategy of "defense-in-depth" to minimize the risk of serious accidents, and relatively unforgiving of error. Development of the particular FBR design that was chosen to meet the predicted near-term shortage, the liquid metal (sodium) cooled FBR (LMFBR), encountered numerous unanticipated technological problems and is unable to meet many of its original design goals. The fuel reprocessing and recycling required for the LWR/FBR fuel cycle, is complex and uneconomical in comparison to the LWR once-through fuel cycle, creates multiple waste streams, and significantly increases the risk of misuse of the fuel cycle for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. 1 As a result of these factors, the United States and other countries which have made a major investment in developing and deploying nuclear power have abandoned the LWR/FBR route to energy security, and are de-emphasizing the LWR as a future energy source. Japan has been reluctant to follow this route because of its near total dependence on imported fuels. Even if energy security were not an issue, Japan's considerable investment in nuclear power argues against a sudden change in its long range plans to rely on nuclear power for a significant fraction of its electrical power needs. However, there is a simple and economic multistage strategy that can guarantee the continued contribution of the existing LWR-based nuclear sector to Japan's energy security in the near and intermediate terms, while enhancing long-term energy security and economic gain by adding reactor types which have the potential for easier local deployment and a significant export market. This strategy includes research and development of reactors which could provide high temperature process heat, thus allowing nuclear power to play a greater role in assuring energy security and supply. The proposed near-to-intermediate-term strategy is based on the stockpiling of natural or low enriched (reactor grade) uranium in sufficient quantity to Nuclear Power and Energy Security 129 ensure continued operation of the installed LWR reactor fleet on a once through cycle for a period of at least several decades. The expense of such an "insurance stockpile" could be largely, if not completely, offset by savings made available by redirection of spending from the breeder to research and development of reactors operating on once-through cycles with enhanced safety, reduced long-lived waste generation, higher efficiency, and process heat potential. The need to develop, and eventually to deploy, new reactor designs does not arise only from concerns regarding uranium supply. Even with assured fuel availability, the "monocultural" LWR fleet is itself a source of insecurity because of the impossibility of demonstrating by actual test that safety, based on defense-in-depth, can prevent catastrophic failures. Generic flaws, either real or suspected, can result in reduced availability or even shut-down of the entire fleet. This possibility has become an increasingly important impediment to growth of the nuclear sector. Thus, there is strong incentive to develop fundamentally different reactor types that could be deployed without arousing such safety concerns. Such reactors could better take advantage of the technological progress in reactor design and power conversion systems that has occurred since the choice of LWR technology nearly 50 years ago. The Modular Gas-cooled Reactor with gas turbine power conversion, for example, offers enhanced safety, process heat capability and, the potential of a very profitable export market. 2 A diversified reactor fleet would enhance energy security whether or not external uranium supplies were available. Continued reliance on nuclear power for electricity and process heat in the long term would be assured by the availability of seawater-derived uranium in large quantities at a Cost that would have only marginal effects on the price of nuclear energy production. Although studies on "mining" uranium from seawater were initiated more than 30 years ago in England, 3 it is the R&D carried out in Japan which has established the technical and economic feasibility of the technology
Kent Williams - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
economic analyiss of symbiotic light water reactor fast burner reactor fuel cycles proposed as part of the u s advanced fuel cycle initiative afci
2009Co-Authors: Kent Williams, David ShropshireAbstract:A spreadsheet-based 'static equilibrium' economic analysis was performed for three nuclear fuel cycle scenarios, each designed for 100 GWe-years of electrical generation annually: (1) a 'once-through' fuel cycle based on 100% LWRs fueled by standard UO2 fuel assemblies with all used fuel destined for geologic repository emplacement, (2) a 'single-tier recycle' scenario involving multiple fast burner reactors (37% of generation) accepting actinides (Pu,Np,Am,Cm) from the reprocessing of used fuel from the uranium-fueled LWR fleet (63% of generation), and (3) a 'two-tier' 'thermal+fast' recycle scenario where co-extracted U,Pu from the reprocessing of used fuel from the uranium-fueled part of the LWR fleet (66% of generation) is recycled once as full-core LWR MOX fuel (8% of generation), with the LWR MOX used fuel being reprocessed and all actinide products from both UO2 and MOX used fuel reprocessing being introduced into the closed fast burner reactor (26% of generation) fuel cycle. The latter two 'closed' fuel cycles, which involve symbiotic use of both thermal and fast reactors, have the advantages of lower natural uranium requirements per kilowatt-hour generated and less geologic repository space per kilowatt-hour as compared to the 'once-through' cycle. The overall fuel cycle Cost in terms of $ per megawatt-hr ofmore » generation, however, for the closed cycles is 15% (single tier) to 29% (two-tier) higher than for the once-through cycle, based on 'expected values' from an uncertainty analysis using triangular distributions for the unit Costs for each required step of the fuel cycle. (The fuel cycle Cost does not include the levelized reactor life cycle Costs.) Since fuel cycle Costs are a relatively small percentage (10 to 20%) of the overall Busbar Cost (LUEC or 'levelized unit electricity Cost') of nuclear power generation, this fuel cycle Cost increase should not have a highly deleterious effect on the competitiveness of nuclear power. If the reactor life cycle Costs are included in the analysis, with the fast reactors having a higher $/kw(e) capital Cost than the LWRs, the overall Busbar generation Cost ($/MWh) for the closed cycles is approximately 12% higher than for the all-LWR once-through fuel cycle case, again based on the expected values from an uncertainty analysis. It should be noted that such a percentage increase in the Cost of nuclear power is much smaller than that expected for fossil fuel electricity generation if CO2 is Costed via a carbon tax, cap and trade regimes, or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).« less
T M Carlson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
multi application small light water reactor final report
Other Information: PBD: 1 Dec 2003, 2003Co-Authors: S M Modro, J E Fisher, K D Weaver, J N Reyes, J T Groome, P Babka, T M CarlsonAbstract:The Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) project was conducted under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The primary project objectives were to develop the conceptual design for a safe and economic small, natural circulation light water reactor, to address the economic and safety attributes of the concept, and to demonstrate the technical feasibility by testing in an integral test facility. This report presents the results of the project. After an initial exploratory and evolutionary process, as documented in the October 2000 report, the project focused on developing a modular reactor design that consists of a self-contained assembly with a reactor vessel, steam generators, and containment. These modular units would be manufactured at a single centralized facility, transported by rail, road, and/or ship, and installed as a series of self-contained units. This approach also allows for staged construction of an NPP and ''pull and replace'' refueling and maintenance during each five-year refueling cycle. Development of the baseline design concept has been sufficiently completed to determine that it complies with the safety requirements and criteria, and satisfies the major goals already noted. The more significant features of the baseline single-unit design concept include: (1) Thermal Power--150 MWt; (2) Net Electrical Output--35 MWe; (3) Steam Generator Type--Vertical, helical tubes; (4) Fuel UO{sub 2}, 8% enriched; (5) Refueling Intervals--5 years; (6) Life-Cycle--60 years. The economic performance was assessed by designing a power plant with an electric generation capacity in the range of current and advanced evolutionary systems. This approach allows for direct comparison of economic performance and forms a basis for further evaluation, economic and technical, of the proposed design and for the design evolution towards a more Cost competitive concept. Applications such as cogeneration, water desalination or district heating were not addressed directly in the economic analyses since these depend more on local conditions, demand and economy and can not be easily generalized. Current economic performance experience and available Cost data were used. The preliminary Cost estimate, based on a concept that could be deployed in less than a decade, is: (1) Net Electrical Output--1050 MWe; (2) Net Station Efficiency--23%; (3) Number of Power Units--30; (4) Nominal Plant Capacity Factor--95%; (5) Total capital Cost--$1241/kWe; and (6) Total Busbar Cost--3.4 cents/kWh. The project includes a testing program that has been conducted at Oregon State University (OSU). The test facility is a 1/3-height and 1/254.7 volume scaled design that will operate at full system pressure and temperature, and will be capable of operation at 600 kW. The design and construction of the facility have been completed. Testing is scheduled to begin in October 2002. The MASLWR conceptual design is simple, safe, and economical. It operates at NSSS parameters much lower than for a typical PWR plant, and has a much simplified power generation system. The individual reactor modules can be operated as on/off units, thereby limiting operational transients to startup and shutdown. In addition, a plant can be built in increments that match demand increases. The ''pull and replace'' concept offers automation of refueling and maintenance activities. Performing refueling in a single location improves proliferation resistance and eliminates the threat of diversion. Design certification based on testing is simplified because of the relatively low Cost of a full-scale prototype facility. The overall conclusion is that while the efficiency of the power generation unit is much lower (23% versus 30%), the reduction in capital Cost due to simplification of design more than makes up for the increased Cost of nuclear fuel. The design concept complies with the safety requirements and criteria. It also satisfies the goals for modularity, standard plant design, certification before construction, construction schedule, refueling schedule, operation and maintenance, long plant life-cycle, and economics.
