Assessment of Tools and Data for System-Level Dynamic Analyses PDF Download

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book

Book Description
The only fuel cycle for which dynamic analyses and assessments are not needed is the null fuel cycle - no nuclear power. For every other concept, dynamic analyses are needed and can influence relative desirability of options. Dynamic analyses show how a fuel cycle might work during transitions from today's partial fuel cycle to something more complete, impact of technology deployments, location of choke points, the key time lags, when benefits can manifest, and how well parts of fuel cycles work together. This report summarizes the readiness of existing Fuel Cycle Technology (FCT) tools and data for conducting dynamic analyses on the range of options. VISION is the primary dynamic analysis tool. Not only does it model mass flows, as do other dynamic system analysis models, but it allows users to explore various potential constraints. The only fuel cycle for which constraints are not important are those in concept advocates PowerPoint presentations; in contrast, comparative analyses of fuel cycles must address what constraints exist and how they could impact performance. The most immediate tool need is extending VISION to the thorium/U233 fuel cycle. Depending on further clarification of waste management strategies in general and for specific fuel cycle candidates, waste management sub-models in VISION may need enhancement, e.g., more on 'co-flows' of non-fuel materials, constraints in waste streams, or automatic classification of waste streams on the basis of user-specified rules. VISION originally had an economic sub-model. The economic calculations were deemed unnecessary in later versions so it was retired. Eventually, the program will need to restore and improve the economics sub-model of VISION to at least the cash flow stage and possibly to incorporating cost constraints and feedbacks. There are multiple sources of data that dynamic analyses can draw on. In this report, 'data' means experimental data, data from more detailed theoretical or empirical calculations on technology performance, and assumptions such as the earliest date a technology can be deployed. The only fuel cycles for which we currently have adequate data are those we are sure we will never build, e.g., a PUREX plant in the U.S. For actual candidates, even for once through LWRs, there remain missing data such as how the fuel cycle would be completed with a geologic repository. The most immediate data needs are probably basic reactor physics data for new concepts and data associated with waste management for anything other than current technology. The readiness of tools and data is fluid and depends on what purposes are envisioned to drive upcoming analyses and further definition of the waste-related characteristics of fuel cycle candidates. Tools and data sets evolve as needs evolve. Thus, much of the document explains that if the FCT program wants a certain type of analysis, then the tools and data needs are as indicated. For example, functions can be treated as either commodities or facilities. Reactors, separation, fuel fabrication, repository are treated as facility types. Other functions such as uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, and waste packaging and non-repository disposal are treated as commodities and therefore not modeled as extensively. In summary, the tools are functional and can answer many fuel cycle questions but some analyses will require that the tools be modified to support those analyses.