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 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 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 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 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 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 Analysis of system characteristics of a reactor with supercritical coolant parameters

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-247
Author(s):  
Anton S. Lapin ◽  
Aleksandr S. Bobryashov ◽  
Victor Yu. Blandinsky ◽  
Yevgeny A. Bobrov
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Energy Production ◽  
Nuclear Energy ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Reactor System ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Light Water ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle

For 60 years of its existence, nuclear energy has passed the first stage of its development and has proven that it can become a powerful industry, going beyond the 10% level in the global balance of energy production. Despite this, modern nuclear industry is capable of producing economically acceptable energy only from uranium-235 or plutonium, obtained as a by-product of the use of low enriched uranium for energy production or surplus weapons-grade plutonium. In this case, nuclear energy cannot claim to be a technology that can solve the problems of energy security and sustainable development, since it meets the same economic and ‘geological’ problems as other technologies do, based on the use of exhaustible organic resources. The solution to this problem will require a new generation of reactors to drastically improve fuel-use characteristics. In particular, reactors based on the use of water cooling technology should significantly increase the efficiency of using U-238 in order to reduce the need for natural uranium in a nuclear energy system. To achieve this goal, it will be necessary to transit to a closed nuclear fuel cycle and, therefore, to improve the performance of a light-water reactor system. The paper considers the possibility of using a reactor with a fast-resonance neutron spectrum cooled by supercritical water (SCWR). The SCWR can be effectively used in a closed nuclear fuel cycle, since it makes it possible to use spent fuel and discharge uranium with a small amount of plutonium added. The authors discuss the selected layout of the core with a change in its size as well as the size of the breeding regions (blankets). MOX fuel with an isotopic plutonium content corresponding to that discharged from the VVER-1000 reactor is considered as fuel. For the selected layout, a study was made of the reactor system features. Compared with existing light-water reactors, this reactor type has increased fuel consumption due to its improved efficiency and nuclear fuel breeding rate up to 1 and above.

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.

Prospects for Using Nitride Fuel in Fast Reactors with a Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Atomic Energy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. M. Troyanov ◽  
A. F. Grachev ◽  
L. M. Zabud’ko ◽  
M. V. Skupov
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nitride Fuel
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document