The Experts below are selected from a list of 78558 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David Shropshire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
verifiable Fuel Cycle simulation model vision a tool for analyzing nuclear Fuel Cycle futures
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Robert F Jeffers, Tyler SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that are intended to work together. To support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system such as how the system would respond to each technological change, a series of which moves the Fuel Cycle from where it is to a postulated future state. The system analysis working group of the United States research program on advanced Fuel Cycles (formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative) is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION. For example, VISION users can now change yearly the selection of separation or reactor technologies, the performance characteristics of those technologies, and/or the routing of material among separation and reactor types - with the model still operating on a PC in <5 min.
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Tyler M. SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that work together in unison. In order to support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION.
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 2009Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David ShropshireAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle is a very complex system that includes considerable dynamic complexity as well as detail complexity. In the nuclear power realm, there are experts and considerable research and development in nuclear Fuel development, separations technology, reactor physics and waste management. What is lacking is an overall understanding of the entire nuclear Fuel Cycle and how the deployment of new Fuel Cycle technologies affects the overall performance of the Fuel Cycle. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing and delays in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works and can transition as technologies are changed. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model and some examples of how to use VISION.
-
advanced Fuel Cycle cost basis
2007Co-Authors: David Shropshire, Mary Lou Dunzikgougar, J. D. Smith, Kent Alan Williams, W B Boore, B W Dixon, R D Adams, D Gombert, Erich A SchneiderAbstract:This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating Fuel Cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models. This report contains reference cost data for 26 cost modules—24 Fuel Cycle cost modules and 2 reactor modules. The cost modules were developed in the areas of natural uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium disposition, Fuel fabrication, interim spent Fuel storage, reprocessing, waste conditioning, spent nuclear Fuel (SNF) packaging, long-term monitored retrievable storage, near surface disposal of low-level waste (LLW), geologic repository and other disposal concepts, and transportation processes for nuclear Fuel, LLW, SNF, and high-level waste.
-
Advanced Fuel Cycle economic sensitivity analysis
2006Co-Authors: David Shropshire, J. D. Smith, Kent Alan Williams, Brent BooreAbstract:A Fuel Cycle economic analysis was performed on four Fuel Cycles to provide a baseline for initial cost comparison using the Gen IV Economic Modeling Work Group G4 ECON spreadsheet model, Decision Programming Language software, the 2006 Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis report, industry cost data, international papers, the nuclear power related cost study from MIT, Harvard, and the University of Chicago. The analysis developed and compared the Fuel Cycle cost component of the total cost of energy for a wide range of Fuel Cycles including: once through, thermal with fast reCycle, continuous fast reCycle, and thermal reCycle.
Jacob J Jacobson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Standardized verification of Fuel Cycle modeling
Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2016Co-Authors: Bo Feng, Jacob J Jacobson, Stefano Passerini, Nicholas R. Brown, Brent Dixon, Andrew Worrall, Eva E. Sunny, A. Cuadra, Jeffrey J. Powers, Robert GreggAbstract:A nuclear Fuel Cycle systems modeling and code-to-code comparison effort was coordinated across multiple national laboratories to verify the tools needed to perform Fuel Cycle analyses of the transition from a once-through nuclear Fuel Cycle to a sustainable potential future Fuel Cycle. For this verification study, a simplified example transition scenario was developed to serve as a test case for the four systems codes involved (DYMOND, VISION, ORION, and MARKAL), each used by a different laboratory participant. In addition, all participants produced spreadsheet solutions for the test case to check all the mass flows and reactor/facility profiles on a year-by-year basis throughout the simulation period. The test case specifications describe a transition from the current US fleet of light water reactors to a future fleet of sodium-cooled fast reactors that continuously reCycle transuranic elements as Fuel. After several initial coordinated modeling and calculation attempts, it was revealed that most of the differences in code results were not due to different code algorithms or calculation approaches, but due to different interpretations of the input specifications among the analysts. Therefore, the specifications for the test case itself were iteratively updated to remove ambiguity and to help calibrate interpretations. In addition, a fewmore » corrections and modifications were made to the codes as well, which led to excellent agreement between all codes and spreadsheets for this test case. Although no Fuel Cycle transition analysis codes matched the spreadsheet results exactly, all remaining differences in the results were due to fundamental differences in code structure and/or were thoroughly explained. As a result, the specifications and example results are provided so that they can be used to verify additional codes in the future for such Fuel Cycle transition scenarios.« less
-
verifiable Fuel Cycle simulation model vision a tool for analyzing nuclear Fuel Cycle futures
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Robert F Jeffers, Tyler SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that are intended to work together. To support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system such as how the system would respond to each technological change, a series of which moves the Fuel Cycle from where it is to a postulated future state. The system analysis working group of the United States research program on advanced Fuel Cycles (formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative) is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION. For example, VISION users can now change yearly the selection of separation or reactor technologies, the performance characteristics of those technologies, and/or the routing of material among separation and reactor types - with the model still operating on a PC in <5 min.
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Tyler M. SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that work together in unison. In order to support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION.
-
modeling the nuclear Fuel Cycle
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Christopher A Juchau, Mary Lou Dunzikgougar, Jacob J JacobsonAbstract:A review of existing nuclear Fuel Cycle systems analysis codes was performed to determine if any existing codes meet technical and functional requirements defined for a U.S. national program supporting the global and domestic assessment, development and deployment of nuclear energy systems. The program would be implemented using an interconnected architecture of different codes ranging from the Fuel Cycle analysis code, which is the subject of the review, to fundamental physical and mechanistic codes. Four main functions are defined for the code: (1) the ability to characterize and deploy individual Fuel Cycle facilities and reactors in a simulation, while discretely tracking material movements, (2) the capability to perform an uncertainty analysis for each element of the Fuel Cycle and an aggregate uncertainty analysis, (3) the inclusion of an optimization engine able to optimize simultaneously across multiple objective functions, and (4) open and accessible code software and documentation to aid in collaboration between multiple entities and facilitate software updates. Existing codes, categorized as annualized or discrete Fuel tracking codes, were assessed according to the four functions and associated requirements. These codes were developed by various government, education and industrial entities to fulfill particular needs. In some cases, decisions were made duringmore » code development to limit the level of detail included in a code to ease its use or to focus on certain aspects of a Fuel Cycle to address specific questions. The review revealed that while no two of the codes are identical, they all perform many of the same basic functions. No code was able to perform defined function 2 or several requirements of functions 1 and 3. Based on this review, it was concluded that the functions and requirements will be met only with development of a new code, referred to as GENIUS.« less
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 2009Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David ShropshireAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle is a very complex system that includes considerable dynamic complexity as well as detail complexity. In the nuclear power realm, there are experts and considerable research and development in nuclear Fuel development, separations technology, reactor physics and waste management. What is lacking is an overall understanding of the entire nuclear Fuel Cycle and how the deployment of new Fuel Cycle technologies affects the overall performance of the Fuel Cycle. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing and delays in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works and can transition as technologies are changed. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model and some examples of how to use VISION.
Steven J. Piet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
verifiable Fuel Cycle simulation model vision a tool for analyzing nuclear Fuel Cycle futures
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Robert F Jeffers, Tyler SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that are intended to work together. To support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system such as how the system would respond to each technological change, a series of which moves the Fuel Cycle from where it is to a postulated future state. The system analysis working group of the United States research program on advanced Fuel Cycles (formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative) is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION. For example, VISION users can now change yearly the selection of separation or reactor technologies, the performance characteristics of those technologies, and/or the routing of material among separation and reactor types - with the model still operating on a PC in <5 min.
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Tyler M. SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that work together in unison. In order to support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION.
-
Filling Knowledge Gaps with Five Fuel Cycle Studies
2010Co-Authors: Steven J. Piet, W. Halsey, Jess C Gehin, Temitope A. TaiwoAbstract:During FY 2010, five studies were conducted of technology families’ applicability to various Fuel Cycle strategies to fill in knowledge gaps in option space and to better understand trends and patterns. Here, a “technology family” is considered to be defined by a type of reactor and by selection of which actinides provide Fuel. This report summarizes the higher-level findings; the detailed analyses and results are documented in five individual reports, as follows: • Advanced once through with uranium Fuel in fast reactors (SFR), • Advanced once through (uranium Fuel) or single reCycle (TRU Fuel) in high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR), • Sustained reCycle with Th/U-233 in light water reactors (LWRs), • Sustained reCycle with Th/U-233 in molten salt reactors (MSR), and • Several Fuel Cycle missions with Fusion-Fission Hybrid (FFH). Each study examined how the designated technology family could serve one or more designated Fuel Cycle missions, filling in gaps in overall option space. Each study contains one or more illustrative cases that show how the technology family could be used to meet a Fuel Cycle mission, as well as broader information on the technology family such as other potential Fuel Cycle missions for which insufficient information was availablemore » to include with an illustrative case. None of the illustrative cases can be considered as a reference, baseline, or nominal set of parameters for judging performance; the assessments were designed to assess areas of option space and were not meant to be optimized. There is no implication that any of the cases or technology families are necessarily the best way to meet a given Fuel Cycle mission. The studies provide five examples of 1-year Fuel Cycle assessments of technology families. There is reasonable coverage in the five studies of the performance areas of waste management and uranium utilization. The coverage of economics, safety, and proliferation resistance and physical protection in the five studies was spotty. Some studies did not have existing or past work to draw on in one or more of these areas. Resource constraints limited the amount of new analyses that could be performed. Little or no assessment was done of how soon any of the technologies could be deployed and therefore how quickly they could impact domestic or international Fuel Cycle performance. There were six common R&D needs, such as the value of advanced Fuels, cladding, coating, and structure that would survive high neutron fluence. When a technology family is considered for use in a new Fuel Cycle mission, Fuel Cycle performance characteristics are dependent on both the design choices and the Fuel Cycle approach. For example, the use of the sodium-cooled fast reactor to provide reCycle in either breeder or burner mode has been studied for decades, but the SFR could be considered for once-through Fuel Cycle with the physical reactor design and Fuel management parameters changed. In addition, the sustained reCycle with Th/U-233 in LWR could be achieved with a heterogeneous assembly and derated power density. Therefore, it may or may not be adjustable for other Fuel Cycle missions although a reactor intended for one Fuel Cycle mission is built. Simple parameter adjustment in applying a technology family to a new Fuel Cycle mission should be avoided and, if observed, the results viewed with caution.« less
-
technology insights and perspectives for nuclear Fuel Cycle concepts
2010Co-Authors: S Bays, Steven J. Piet, N Soelberg, M Lineberry, B DixonAbstract:The following report provides a rich resource of information for exploring Fuel Cycle characteristics. The most noteworthy trends can be traced back to the utilization efficiency of natural uranium resources. By definition, complete uranium utilization occurs only when all of the natural uranium resource can be introduced into the nuclear reactor long enough for all of it to undergo fission. Achieving near complete uranium utilization requires technologies that can achieve full reCycle or at least nearly full reCycle of the initial natural uranium consumed from the Earth. Greater than 99% of all natural uranium is fertile, and thus is not conducive to fission. This fact requires the Fuel Cycle to convert large quantities of non-fissile material into fissile transuranics. Step increases in waste benefits are closely related to the step increase in uranium utilization going from non-breeding Fuel Cycles to breeding Fuel Cycles. The amount of mass requiring a disposal path is tightly coupled to the quantity of actinides in the waste stream. Complete uranium utilization by definition means that zero (practically, near zero) actinide mass is present in the waste stream. Therefore, Fuel Cycles with complete (uranium and transuranic) reCycle discharge predominately fission products with some actinide process losses.more » Fuel Cycles without complete reCycle discharge a much more massive waste stream because only a fraction of the initial actinide mass is burned prior to disposal. In a nuclear growth scenario, the relevant acceptable frequency for core damage events in nuclear reactors is inversely proportional to the number of reactors deployed in a Fuel Cycle. For ten times the reactors in a fleet, it should be expected that the fleet-average core damage frequency be decreased by a factor of ten. The relevant proliferation resistance of a Fuel Cycle system is enhanced with: decreasing reliance on domestic Fuel Cycle services, decreasing adaptability for technology misuse, enablement of material accountability, and decreasing material attractiveness.« less
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 2009Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David ShropshireAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle is a very complex system that includes considerable dynamic complexity as well as detail complexity. In the nuclear power realm, there are experts and considerable research and development in nuclear Fuel development, separations technology, reactor physics and waste management. What is lacking is an overall understanding of the entire nuclear Fuel Cycle and how the deployment of new Fuel Cycle technologies affects the overall performance of the Fuel Cycle. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing and delays in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works and can transition as technologies are changed. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model and some examples of how to use VISION.
Kathryn D. Huff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Standardized verification of the Cyclus Fuel Cycle simulator
Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2019Co-Authors: Jin Whan Bae, Joshua L. Peterson-droogh, Kathryn D. HuffAbstract:Abstract Many nuclear Fuel Cycle simulators can analyze transitions from once-through to advanced nuclear Fuel Cycles. Verification studies compare various Fuel Cycle analysis tools to test agreement and identify sources of difference. A recent verification study, Feng et al. (2016) established transition scenario test case specifications and accordingly evaluated national laboratory nuclear Fuel Cycle simulators, DYMOND, VISION, ORION, and MARKAL. This work verifies the performance of C yclus , the agent-based, open-source Fuel Cycle simulator, using the test case specifications in Feng et. al. In this work, C yclus demonstrates agreement with the results from the previous verification study. Minor differences reflect intentional, detailed material tracking in the C ycamore reactor module. These results extend the example results in Feng et al. to further enable future verification of additional nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation tools.
-
rapid methods for radionuclide contaminant transport in nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation
Advances in Engineering Software, 2017Co-Authors: Kathryn D. HuffAbstract:Abstract Nuclear Fuel Cycle and nuclear waste disposal decisions are technologically coupled. However, current nuclear Fuel Cycle simulators lack dynamic repository performance analysis due to the computational burden of high-fidelity hydrolgic contaminant transport models. The Cyder disposal environment and repository module was developed to fill this gap. It implements medium-fidelity hydrologic radionuclide transport models to support assessment appropriate for Fuel Cycle simulation in the Cyclus Fuel Cycle simulator. Rapid modeling of hundreds of discrete waste packages in a geologic environment is enabled within this module by a suite of four closed form models for advective, dispersive, coupled, and idealized contaminant transport: a Degradation Rate model, a Mixed Cell model, a Lumped Parameter model, and a 1-D Permeable Porous Medium model. A summary of the Cyder module, its timestepping algorithm, and the mathematical models implemented within it are presented. Additionally, parametric demonstrations simulations performed with Cyder are presented and shown to demonstrate functional agreement with parametric simulations conducted in a standalone hydrologic transport model, the Clay Generic Disposal System Model developed by the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy.
-
fundamental concepts in the cyclus nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation framework
Advances in Engineering Software, 2016Co-Authors: Kathryn D. Huff, Robert W Carlsen, Robert R Flanagan, Meghan B Mcgarry, Arrielle C Opotowsky, Erich A Schneider, Anthony Scopatz, Matthew J Gidden, Paul P. H. WilsonAbstract:Nuclear Fuel Cycle modeling generality and robustness are improved by a modular, agent based modeling framework.Discrete material and facility tracking rather than fleet-based modeling improve nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation fidelity.A free, open source paradigm encourages technical experts to contribute software to the Cyclus modeling ecosystem.The flexibility of the Cyclus tool from the simulator user perspective is demonstrated with both open and closed Fuel Cycle examples. As nuclear power expands, technical, economic, political, and environmental analyses of nuclear Fuel Cycles by simulators increase in importance. To date, however, current tools are often fleet-based rather than discrete and restrictively licensed rather than open source. Each of these choices presents a challenge to modeling fidelity, generality, efficiency, robustness, and scientific transparency. The Cyclus nuclear Fuel Cycle simulator framework and its modeling ecosystem incorporate modern insights from simulation science and software architecture to solve these problems so that challenges in nuclear Fuel Cycle analysis can be better addressed. A summary of the Cyclus Fuel Cycle simulator framework and its modeling ecosystem are presented. Additionally, the implementation of each is discussed in the context of motivating challenges in nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation. Finally, the current capabilities of Cyclus are demonstrated for both open and closed Fuel Cycles.
-
Fundamental Concepts in the Cyclus Fuel Cycle Simulator Framework.
arXiv: Software Engineering, 2015Co-Authors: Kathryn D. Huff, Robert W Carlsen, Robert R Flanagan, Meghan B Mcgarry, Arrielle C Opotowsky, Erich A Schneider, Anthony Scopatz, Matthew J Gidden, Paul P. H. WilsonAbstract:As nuclear power expands, technical, economic, political, and environmental analyses of nuclear Fuel Cycles by simulators increase in importance. To date, however, current tools are often fleet-based rather than discrete and privately distributed rather than open source. Each of these choices presents a challenge to modeling fidelity, generality, efficiency, robustness, and scientific transparency. The Cyclus nuclear Fuel Cycle simulator framework and its modeling ecosystem incorporate modern insights from simulation science and software architecture to solve these problems so that challenges in nuclear Fuel Cycle analysis can be better addressed. A summary of the Cyclus Fuel Cycle simulator framework and its modeling ecosystem are presented. Additionally, the implementation of each is discussed in the context of motivating challenges in nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation. Finally, the current capabilities of Cyclus are demonstrated for both open and closed Fuel Cycles.
Abdelfatah M Yacout - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Modeling the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Agent Based Approach
2012Co-Authors: Abdelfatah M Yacout, Guilhem Blanchard, Temitope TaiwoAbstract:System dynamics approach was previously used to simulate the dynamics of the nuclear Fuel Cycle and associated infrastructure deployments. It was found to be a useful paradigm that is appropriate for simulations of this system given the nuclear Fuel Cycle’s inherent mass flows, process time delays, and feedback loops. Agent based simulation approach is currently considered as an alternative or complimentary approach to system dynamics for this type of simulations. The move towards agent based simulations is motivated by the needs to expand the options for Fuel Cycle simulation and to explore further synergies between the different components and players that affect the behavior of the Fuel Cycle developments. This paper explores the applicability of both approaches to the nuclear Fuel Cycle simulation and discuss an agent based model of the Fuel Cycle, SINDA model, that can be further developed in the future to explore expanded and more realistic Fuel Cycle deployment scenarios.
-
verifiable Fuel Cycle simulation model vision a tool for analyzing nuclear Fuel Cycle futures
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Robert F Jeffers, Tyler SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that are intended to work together. To support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system such as how the system would respond to each technological change, a series of which moves the Fuel Cycle from where it is to a postulated future state. The system analysis working group of the United States research program on advanced Fuel Cycles (formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative) is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION. For example, VISION users can now change yearly the selection of separation or reactor technologies, the performance characteristics of those technologies, and/or the routing of material among separation and reactor types - with the model still operating on a PC in <5 min.
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Nuclear Technology, 2010Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David Shropshire, Tyler M. SchweitzerAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle consists of a set of complex components that work together in unison. In order to support the nuclear renaissance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of changes and timing of events in any part of the Fuel Cycle system. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing, and changes in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model components and some examples of how to use VISION.
-
VISION: Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model
Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 2009Co-Authors: Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Steven J. Piet, Abdelfatah M Yacout, David ShropshireAbstract:The nuclear Fuel Cycle is a very complex system that includes considerable dynamic complexity as well as detail complexity. In the nuclear power realm, there are experts and considerable research and development in nuclear Fuel development, separations technology, reactor physics and waste management. What is lacking is an overall understanding of the entire nuclear Fuel Cycle and how the deployment of new Fuel Cycle technologies affects the overall performance of the Fuel Cycle. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s systems analysis group is developing a dynamic simulation model, VISION, to capture the relationships, timing and delays in and among the Fuel Cycle components to help develop an understanding of how the overall Fuel Cycle works and can transition as technologies are changed. This paper is an overview of the philosophy and development strategy behind VISION. The paper includes some descriptions of the model and some examples of how to use VISION.
-
vision verifiable Fuel Cycle simulation of nuclear Fuel Cycle dynamics
Waste Management Symposium 2006 Tuscon Arizona 02 26 2006 02 26 2006, 2006Co-Authors: Steven J. Piet, Jacob J Jacobson, Gretchen Matthern, Abdelfatah M Yacout, Chris Laws, David ShropshireAbstract:The U.S. DOE Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative’s (AFCI) fundamental objective is to provide technology options that - if implemented - would enable long-term growth of nuclear power while improving sustainability and energy security. The AFCI organization structure consists of four areas; Systems Analysis, Fuels, Separations and Transmutations. The Systems Analysis Working Group is tasked with bridging the program technical areas and providing the models, tools, and analyses required to assess the feasibility of design and deployment options and inform key decision makers. An integral part of the Systems Analysis tool set is the development of a system level model that can be used to examine the implications of the different mixes of reactors, implications of Fuel reprocessing, impact of deployment technologies, as well as potential "exit" or "off ramp" approaches to phase out technologies, waste management issues and long-term repository needs. The Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation Model (VISION) is a computer-based simulation model that allows performing dynamic simulations of Fuel Cycles to quantify infrastructure requirements and identify key trade-offs between alternatives. It is based on the current AFCI system analysis tool "DYMOND-US" functionalities in addition to economics, isotopic decay, and other new functionalities. VISION is intended to serve as a broad systems analysis and study tool applicable to work conducted as part of the AFCI and Generation IV reactor development studies.
