Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika

The peer-reviewed scientific and technology journal. ISSN: 0204-3327

Application of optimization methods for nuclear energy system performance assessment by the MESSAGE software

3/28/2016 2016 - #01 Modelling processes at nuclear facilities

Andrianov A.A. Kuptsov I.S. Utianskaia T.V.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2016.1.08

UDC: 621.039.003

The future nuclear energy systems should meet the following basic requirements: to be resource-sufficient and produce a low amount of wastes in the long run; to be cost effective; to maintain the necessary level of safety and reliability; to ensure the effective resistance to nuclear weapons proliferation. Considering the significant uncertainty specific to the problem field, the uncertainty analysis is another inevitable step expected to provide better grounds for judgments. Uncertainties may not be ignored in the assessment process and their examination should enable the decision maker to reach a conclusion regarding the stability of results.

This paper delineates the multi-objective optimization and uncertainty treatment modules for the IAEA energy planning software MESSAGE intended for multi-objective optimization and sustainability assessments of innovative nuclear energy systems with account of uncertainty. Some results of implementation of these tools for multi-objective nuclear energy system optimization studies are presented. The developed software allows searching for compromises between the conflicting factors that determine the nuclear energy systems’ effectiveness and calculating corresponding trade-off rates; carrying out comparative multi-criteria analysis of alternatives as well as choosing, ranking, and sorting corresponding options taking into account the evolution dynamics, structure and organization of a nuclear fuel cycle and the most important system constraints and restrictions. The application of the state-of-the-art multi-objective optimization and uncertainty treatment methods for integrated, analytical and foresight studies on a nuclear energy system deployment provide added values to an analysis of possible options and give reasonable stable well-interpreted and decision-making oriented results clarifying the pro and cons of considered alternatives on quantitative methodologically-proven and well-elaborated foundations. Wide application of these techniques allows searching for compromises between the conflicting factors that determine nuclear energy system performance, calculating corresponding trade-off rates as well as carrying out comparative multi-criteria alternative analyses, choosing, ranking, and sorting corresponding options.


  1. Andrianov A.A., Kuptsov I.S., Murogov V.M. Towards sustainable nuclear power development, atw: International journal for nuclear power. 2014, v.59, iss. 5, pp. 287-293.
  2. Andrianov A.A., Kanke V.A., Kuptsov I.S., Murogov V.M. Reexamining the Ethics of Nuclear Technology, Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015, 21(4), pp. 999-1018, DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9578-0.
  3. Andrianov A., Kuznetsov V., Kuptsov I., Fesenko G. INPRO activities on development of advanced tools to support judgement aggregation for comparative evaluation of nuclear energy systems. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2014, v. 2014, Article ID 910162, 15 pages. DOI: 10.1155/2014/910162.
  4. Kuznetsov V., Fesenko G., Schwenk-Ferrero A., Andrianov A., Kuptsov I. Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to Performance Comparison. Energies, 2015, v. 8, pp. 3679-3719.
  5. Messner S., Strubergger M. User’s guide for MESSAGE III, WP-95-69, IIASA, 1995.
  6. MESSAGE – “Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impacts. User Manual” (DRAFT), International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria.
  7. Lotov A.V., Bushenkov V.A., Kamenev G.K. Interactive Decision Maps: Approximation and Visualization of Pareto Frontier, Norwell, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
  8. Ben-Tal A., Nemirovski A. Robust solutions to uncertain programs. Oper. Res., 1999, Lett. 25, pp. 1–13.
  9. Bertsimas D., Sim M. The price of robustness. Operations Research, 2004, 52(1) pp. 35-53.
  10. Andrianov A.A., Korovin Yu.A., Fedorova E.V. Optimization of nuclear energy systems by means of the energy planning tool MESSAGE. Obninsk. INPE NRNU MEPhI Publ., 2012. 132 p. (in Russian).
  11. Andrianov A.A. Approaches and Software for Multi-Objective Optimization of Nuclear Power Structures. Sustainability. 2012, no.4, pp. 721-739. (Special Issue Sustainable Nuclear Energy).
  12. Andrianov A.A., Korovin Yu.A., Fedorova E.V. The Method of Criteria Constraints for Optimization of Global Nuclear Energy System Structures by using MESSAGE. Izvestia vuzov. Yadernaya energetika, 2010, no. 2, pp. 165-175 (in Russian).
  13. Andrianov A., Korovin Yu., Fedorova E. Closed nuclear fuel cycles with fast reactors: scenarios of worldwide nuclear power expansion, Paper 9231. Proceedings of Global 2009. Paris, France, 2009.
  14. Glaeser H. GRS Method for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Evaluation of Code Results and Applications. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2008, v. 2008, Article ID 798901, p. 7, DOI: 10.1155/2008/798901
  15. Golodnikov A., Gritsevskii A., Messner S. A stochastic version of the dynamic linear programming model MESSAGE III., Laxenburg, Austria: IIASA, 1995.
  16. Andrianov A., Korovin Yu., Fedorova E. Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle Modeling – an Expanded MESSAGE V Framework, Proceedings of Global 2011, Paper 392523, Makuhari Messe, Japan, 2011.
  17. Andrianov A.A., Korobeinikov V.V., Poplavskaya E.V., Rachkova E.N., Fedorova E.V. Using Package MESSAGE for Optimization Studies of Nuclear Power Structures. Izvestia vuzov. Yadernaya energetika. 2010, no. 2, pp.156-164 (in Russian).
  18. Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Radioactive Waste Management, OECD and NEA, NuclearDevelopment, OECD Publishing, Paris

Energy planning multi-criteria optimization nuclear energy system nuclear fuel cycle uncertainty