| Popis: |
This team aimed to understand the broad implications of changes of operating performance and parameters of a fuel cycle component on the entire system. In particular, this report documents the study of the impact of changing the loss of fission products into recycled fuel and the loss of actinides into waste. When the effort started in spring 2009, an over-simplified statement of the objective was “the number of nines” – how would the cost of separation, fuel fabrication, and waste management change as the number of nines of separation efficiency changed. The intent was to determine the optimum “losses” of TRU into waste for the single system that had been the focus of the Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP), namely sustained recycle in burner fast reactors, fed by transuranic (TRU) material recovered from used LWR UOX-51 fuel. That objective proved to be neither possible (insufficient details or attention to the former GNEP options, change in national waste management strategy from a Yucca Mountain focus) nor appropriate given the 2009-2010 change to a science-based program considering a wider range of options. Indeed, the definition of “losses” itself changed from the loss of TRU into waste to a generic definition that amore » “loss” is any material that ends up where it is undesired. All streams from either separation or fuel fabrication are products; fuel feed streams must lead to fuels with tolerable impurities and waste streams must meet waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for one or more disposal sites. And, these losses are linked in the sense that as the loss of TRU into waste is reduced, often the loss or carryover of waste into TRU or uranium is increased. The effort has provided a mechanism for connecting these three Campaigns at a technical level that had not previously occurred – asking smarter and smarter questions, sometimes answering them, discussing assumptions, identifying R&D needs, and gaining new insights. The FIT model has been a forcing function, helping the team in this endeavor. Models don’t like “TBD” as an input, forcing us to make assumptions and see if they matter. A major addition in FY 2010 was exploratory analysis of “modified open fuel” cycles, employing “minimum fuel treatment” as opposed to full aqueous or electrochemical separation treatment. This increased complexity in our analysis and analytical tool development because equilibrium conditions do not appear sustainable in minimum fuel treatment cases, as was assumed in FY 2009 work with conventional aqueous and electrochemical separation. It is no longer reasonable to assume an equilibrium situation exists in all cases.« less |
