Assessment of National Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Transmutations of High Level Nuclear Waste

  • Taeho Woo
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

The advanced fuel cycle initiative (AFCI) has been investigated for the safe processing of the spent nuclear fuels (SNFs), which has focused mainly on the economic factor. The simulation of the political factor is suggested, which is introduced by the political susceptibility factor (PSF), because the political situation is much more important in the treatment of the SNFs considering the characteristics of the nuclear material. The system dynamics (SD) algorithm is used in the dynamical simulation where the political aspect is emphasized. There are 5 classifications of the PSF as president, party, vote, term, and feedback. The degree of the possibility is impacted by 5 steps. Eventually, the dynamic simulation is quantified for the SNFs. The possibility of the high-level nuclear waste (HLW) repository construction increases slowly in the early stage and fast in the later stage. The importance of the political aspect for the SNFs treatment is shown as the numerical values with easy estimations.

Keywords

Spent nuclear fuels Global nuclear energy partnership Political susceptibility factor Pyroprocessing Non-nuclear proliferation treaty 

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. DOE (2003) Report to congress on advanced fuel cycle initiative: the future path for advanced spent fuel treatment and transmutation researchGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Idaho National Laboratory (2006) Fuel cycle scenario defini tion, evaluation, and trade-offs. INL/EXT-06-11683, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Idaho National Laboratory (2006) Vision-A dynamic model of the nuclear fuelcycle. INL/CON-05-00632, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Idaho National Laboratory (2009) Vision: verifiable fuel cycle simulation model. INL/CON-08-15051, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Idaho National Laboratory (2009) lessons learned from D dynamic simulations of advanced fuel cycles. INL/CON-08-15052, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bays S, Pope M, Forget B, Ferrer R (2008) Transmutation target compositions in heterogeneous sodium fast reactor geometries INL/EXT-07-13643 Rev. 1, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grabaskas D (2010) Analysis of transient overpower scenarios in sodium fast reactors. MS thesis, Nuclear engineering, Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamic. Productivity press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forrester JW (1968) Principles of systems. Productivity press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forrester JW (1969) Urban dynamics. Pegasus Communications, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forrester JW (1971) World dynamics. Wright-Allen Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forrester JW (1975) Collected papers of Jay W. Forrester. Pegasus Communications, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kampmann CE (1996) Feedback loop gains and system behavior. In: Proceedings of the 1996 international system dynamics conference Boston. System dynamics society, Albany, NY, p 260Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liehr M, Grobler A, Klein M, Milling PM (2001) Cycles in the sky: understanding and managing business cycles in the airline market. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4):311Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vensim, Ventana Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    PowerSim, Powersim SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    iTHINK Software, ISEE Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radzicki M, Taylor R (1997) U.S. Department of energy’s introduction to system dynamics, a systems approach to understanding complex policy issues, version 1. Sustainable Solutions, Inc., ComoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taeho Woo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations