National Technical Reports Library

The National Technical Information Service acquires, indexes, abstracts, and archives the largest collection of U.S. government-sponsored technical reports in existence. The NTRL offers online, free and open access to these authenticated government technical reports. Technical reports and documents in its repository may be available online for free either from the issuing federal agency, the U.S. Government Publishing Office’s Federal Digital System website, or through search engines.

Details

Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions.

DE2005839341

Publication Date	2004
Personal Author	Piet, S. J.; Dixon, B. W.; Bennett, R. G.; Smith, J. D.
Page Count	26
Abstract	Given the range of fuel cycle goals and criteria, and the wide range of fuel cycle options, how can the set of options eventually be narrowed in a transparent and justifiable fashion. It is impractical to develop all options. We suggest an approach that starts by considering a range of goals for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) and then posits seven questions, such as whether Cs and Sr isotopes should be separated from spent fuel and, if so, what should be done with them. For each question, we consider which of the goals may be relevant to eventually providing answers. The 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 geologic 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. We pose the following seven questions: I. How do we address proliferation resistance. II. Which potential energy futures do we plan for. What are the ramifications regarding the number of geologic repositories and use of U resources. III. Should we separate uranium. If we separate uranium, should we recycle it, store it or dispose of it. IV. Which transuranic (TRU) elements should be separated and transmuted. V. Of those TRU separated, which should be transmuted together. VI. Should we separate and/or transmute Cs and Sr isotopes that dominate near-term repository heating. VII. Should we separate and/or transmute very long-lived Tc and I isotopes. For each question, we summarize relevant issues associated with the range of AFCI goals. We emphasize that this analysis is a 'work in progress' and specifically invite comments and suggestions so that this on-going work is more complete, correct, and comprehensive.
Keywords	Fuel cycle Wastes Isotopes Separation Proliferation Uranium Spent fuels Nuclear energy Cesium Strontium Economics Nuclear power plants Capacity Transuranic elements
Source Agency	Technical Information Center Oak Ridge Tennessee
Corporate Authors	Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab., Idaho Falls.; Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Supplemental Notes	Sponsored by Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Document Type	Technical Report
NTIS Issue Number	200603

Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions.

Answering Key Fuel Cycle Questions.
DE2005839341

Publication Date	2004
Personal Author	Piet, S. J.; Dixon, B. W.; Bennett, R. G.; Smith, J. D.
Page Count	26
Abstract	Given the range of fuel cycle goals and criteria, and the wide range of fuel cycle options, how can the set of options eventually be narrowed in a transparent and justifiable fashion. It is impractical to develop all options. We suggest an approach that starts by considering a range of goals for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) and then posits seven questions, such as whether Cs and Sr isotopes should be separated from spent fuel and, if so, what should be done with them. For each question, we consider which of the goals may be relevant to eventually providing answers. The 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 geologic 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. We pose the following seven questions: I. How do we address proliferation resistance. II. Which potential energy futures do we plan for. What are the ramifications regarding the number of geologic repositories and use of U resources. III. Should we separate uranium. If we separate uranium, should we recycle it, store it or dispose of it. IV. Which transuranic (TRU) elements should be separated and transmuted. V. Of those TRU separated, which should be transmuted together. VI. Should we separate and/or transmute Cs and Sr isotopes that dominate near-term repository heating. VII. Should we separate and/or transmute very long-lived Tc and I isotopes. For each question, we summarize relevant issues associated with the range of AFCI goals. We emphasize that this analysis is a 'work in progress' and specifically invite comments and suggestions so that this on-going work is more complete, correct, and comprehensive.
Keywords	Fuel cycle Wastes Isotopes Separation Proliferation Uranium Spent fuels Nuclear energy Cesium Strontium Economics Nuclear power plants Capacity Transuranic elements
Source Agency	Technical Information Center Oak Ridge Tennessee
Corporate Authors	Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab., Idaho Falls.; Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Supplemental Notes	Sponsored by Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Document Type	Technical Report
NTIS Issue Number	200603