Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Description

The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) program has both “outcome” and “process” goals because it must address both waste already accumulating as well as completing the fuel cycle in connection with advanced nuclear power plant concepts. The outcome objectives are waste geological repository capacity and cost, energy security and sustainability, proliferation resistance, fuel cycle economics, and safety. The process objectives are readiness to proceed and adaptability and robustness in the face of uncertainties. A classic decision-making approach to such a multi-attribute problem would be to weight individual quantified criteria and calculate an overall figure of merit. This is inappropriate for ... continued below

Creation Information

Piet, Steven J.; Dixon, Brent W.; Herring, J. Stephen; Shropshire, David E. & Dunzik-Gougar, Mary Lou October 1, 2003.

Context

This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided by UNT Libraries Government Documents Department to Digital Library, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. More information about this article can be viewed below.

Who

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this article or its content.

Publisher

Provided By

UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Serving as both a federal and a state depository library, the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department maintains millions of items in a variety of formats. The department is a member of the FDLP Content Partnerships Program and an Affiliated Archive of the National Archives.

Contact Us

What

Descriptive information to help identify this article. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library.

Description

The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) program has both “outcome” and “process” goals because it must address both waste already accumulating as well as completing the fuel cycle in connection with advanced nuclear power plant concepts. The outcome objectives are waste geological repository capacity and cost, energy security and sustainability, proliferation resistance, fuel cycle economics, and safety. The process objectives are readiness to proceed and adaptability and robustness in the face of uncertainties. A classic decision-making approach to such a multi-attribute problem would be to weight individual quantified criteria and calculate an overall figure of merit. This is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the goals are not independent. Second, the importance of different goals varies among stakeholders. Third, the importance of different goals is likely to vary with time, especially the “energy future.” Fourth, some key considerations are not easily or meaningfully quantifiable at present. Instead, at this point, we have developed 16 questions the AFCI program should answer and suggest an approach of determining for each whether relevant options improve meeting each of the program goals. We find that it is not always clear which option is best for a specific question and specific goal; this helps identify key issues for future work. In general, we suggest attempting to create as many win-win decisions (options that are attractive or neutral to most goals) as possible. Thus, to help clarify why the program is exploring the options it is, and to set the stage for future narrowing of options, we have developed 16 questions, as follows: · What are the AFCI program goals? · Which potential waste disposition approaches do we plan for? · What are the major separations, transmutation, and fuel options? · How do we address proliferation resistance? · Which potential energy futures do we plan for? · What potential external triggers do we plan for? · Should we separate uranium? · If we separate uranium, should we recycle it, store it or dispose of it? · Is it practical to plan to fabricate and handle “hot” fuel? · Which transuranic elements (TRU) should be separated and transmuted? · Of those TRU separated, which should be transmuted together? · Should we separate and/or transmute Cs and Sr isotopes that dominate near-term repository heating? · Should we separate and/or transmute very long-lived Tc and I isotopes? · Which separation technology? · What mix of transmutation technologies? · What fuel technology best supports the above decisions?

Source

  • Americas Nuclear Energy Symposium 2004,Miami Beach, Florida,10/03/2004,10/06/2004

Language

Item Type

Identifier

Unique identifying numbers for this article in the Digital Library or other systems.

  • Report No.: INEEL/CON-04-01963
  • Grant Number: DE-AC07-99ID-13727
  • Office of Scientific & Technical Information Report Number: 910828
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metadc881343

Collections

This article is part of the following collection of related materials.

Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports

What responsibilities do I have when using this article?

When

Dates and time periods associated with this article.

Creation Date

  • October 1, 2003

Added to The UNT Digital Library

  • Sept. 22, 2016, 2:13 a.m.

Description Last Updated

  • Nov. 7, 2016, 3:58 p.m.

Usage Statistics

When was this article last used?

Congratulations! It looks like you are the first person to view this item online.

Interact With This Article

Here are some suggestions for what to do next.

Start Reading

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Citations, Rights, Re-Use

Piet, Steven J.; Dixon, Brent W.; Herring, J. Stephen; Shropshire, David E. & Dunzik-Gougar, Mary Lou. Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions, article, October 1, 2003; [Idaho Falls, Idaho]. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc881343/: accessed August 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.