Izvestia Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zawedeniy. Yadernaya Energetika

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

Optimization models of two-component nuclear energy system with thermal and fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle

9/20/2018 2018 - #03 Fuel cycle and nuclear waste management

Andrianov A.A. Kuptsov I.S. Osipova T.A. Andrianova O.N. Utyanskaya T.V.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2018.3.09

UDC: 621.039.003

The article gives a brief description and some illustrative application results for two optimization models of a two-component nuclear energy system consisting of thermal and fast reactors in a closed nuclear fuel cycle. These models correspond to two possible ways of developing Russian nuclear energy system in the future which are discussed in the expert community: (1) thermal and fast reactors using oxide fuel (UOX, MOX), (2) thermal reactors using uranium oxide fuel and fast reactors using mixed nitride uranium-plutonium (MNUP) fuel. Both optimization models have been elaborated in the IAEA energy planning tool MESSAGE, which is recommended for use as a software package, part of the International Project INPRO. The created models were prepared in full compliance with the recommendations for the IAEA’s PESS and INPRO sections, regarding the specification of nuclear energy systems in MESSAGE. The models were verified by comparison with the results obtained using original nuclear material flow codes. The models make it possible to optimize the nuclear energy structures in accordance with the economic criteria (minimum total discounted costs), taking into account multiple resources and infrastructural constraints and restrictions. In addition, they can be used as a basis for developing multi-objective, stochastic and robust optimization models of a two-component nuclear energy system. The work is based on publications of experts from NRC «Kurchatov Institute», JSC «SSC RF-IPPE», ITCP «Proryv», JSC «NIKIET». The presented results demonstrate some characteristic structural features of two-component nuclear energy system models, manifested when applying the optimization approach to the problem of searching for and justifying the most effective and robust structures of nuclear energy systems. It has been demonstrated that, taking into account the existing uncertainties in the nuclear fuel cycle services and reactor technology costs, it is impossible to make a justified conclusion about the greatest attractiveness by the economic criterion (levelized generation cost) between the two options considered.

References

  1. Two-Component Nuclear Power System with Thermal and Fast Reactors in a Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Ed. by N.N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy Moscow. Tekhnosfera Publ., 2016, 160 p. (in Russian).
  2. Alekseev P.N., Asmolov V.G., Gagarinskii A.Y., Kukharkin N.E., Semchenkov Y.M., Sidorenko V.A., Subbotin S.A., Tsibulskii V.F., Shtrombakh Y.I. The strategy for the development of nuclear energy in Russia until 2050. Atomnaya Energiya. 2011, v. 111, no. 4, pp. 183-196 (in Russian).
  3. Alekseev P.N., Asmolov V.G., Gagarinskiy A.Yu., Kukharkin N.E., Semchenkov Yu.M., Sidorenko V.A., Subbotin S.A., Tsibulskiy V.F., Shtrombah Ya.I. On the Russian Nuclear Power Industry Development Strategy until 2050. In Proc. of the VIII-th International Scientific and Technical Conf. «Safety, Efficiency and Economics of Nuclear Power Industry». Moscow, 2012 (in Russian).
  4. Alekseev P.N., Gagarinskii A.Y., Kukharkin N.E., Semchenkov Y.M., Sidorenko V.A., Subbotin S.A., Tsibulskii V.F., Shimkevich A.L., Shtrombakh Y.I. Strategic view on nuclear power in Russia at the present stage, Atomic Energy. 2017, v. 122, no 3, pp. 123-126 (in Russian).
  5. White Book of Nuclear Power Engineering. Ed. by E.O. Adamov. Moscow. JRC «NIKIET» Publ., 2001, 270 p. (in Russian).
  6. Adamov E.O., Dzhalavyan A.V., Lopatkin A.V., Molokanov N.A., Muravyov E. V., Orlov, V.V., Kal’akin S.G., Rachkov V.I., Troyanov V.M., Avrorin E.N., Ivanov V.B., Aleksakhin R.M.. Conceptual framework of a strategy for the development of nuclear power in Russia to 2100. Atomnaya Energiya. 2012, v. 112, no. 6, pp. 391-403 (in Russian).
  7. Adamov E.O., Mochalov Yu.S., Muraviev E.V., Rachkov V.I. Large-scale two-component nuclear power with a closed nuclear fuel cycle on the fast neutron reactors basis. Report to SC «Rosatom». Moscow. SC «Rosatom» Publ., 2017, 67 p. (in Russian).
  8. Muravev E.V. Fuel supply of nuclear power with the fast reactors involving. Izvestiya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Energetika. 2014, v. 5, pp. 75-86 (in Russian).
  9. Messner S., Strubergger M. User’s guide for MESSAGE III, WP-95-69, IIASA, 1995.
  10. MESSAGE – Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impacts. User manual (DRAFT). International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria.
  11. Modelling nuclear energy systems with MESSAGE: a user’s guide, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No NG-T-5.2. Vienna, 2016, 126 p.
  12. Andrianov A., Korovin Yu., Fedorova E. Optimization of nuclear energy systems by means of the energy planning tool MESSAGE. Obninsk. INPE NRNU MEPhI Publ., 2012. 132 p. (in Russian).
  13. Andrianov A. Approaches and software for multi-objective optimization of nuclear power structures. Sustainability. 2012, v. 4, pp.721-739.
  14. Andrianov A., Kuptsov I., Utianskaya T. Application of optimization methods for nuclear energy system performance assessment by the MESSAGE software. Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika, 2016, no. 1, pp. 70-80 (in Russian).
  15. Andrianov A., Korobeinikov V., Poplavskaya E., Rachkova E., Fedorova E. Optimization studies of the Russia’s nuclear power industry structure with thermal and fast neutron reactors by the MESSAGE software. Izvestia Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zawedeniy. Yadernaya Energetika. 2010, no. 2, pp. 156-164 (in Russian).
  16. Andrianov A., Kuptsov I., Utyanskaya T. Some results of multicriterial and robust optimization of nuclear power systems structure. Atomnaya Energiya, 2017, v. 123, no. 1, pp. 9-14 (in Russian).
  17. Andrianov A., Schwenk-Ferrero A. Comparison and screening of nuclear fuel cycle options in view of sustainable performance and waste management. Sustainability. 2017, v.9, no. 9:1623, pp. 1-31.
  18. Gao R., Nam H.O., Ko W.I., Jang H. National options for a sustainable nuclear energy system: MCDM evaluation using an improved integrated weighting approach. Energies. 2017, v.10, no.12, 24 p.
  19. Kagramanyan V. I’m upset for the French. Available at: http://atominfo.ru:17000/hl?url=webds/atominfo.ru/en/news/e0178.htm&mime=text/html&charset=windows-1252 (accessed July 05, 2018).
  20. Ponomarev-Stepnoi N., Tsibul’skii V. Assessment of the effectiveness of mixed uranium-plutonium fuel in VVER. Atomic Energy, 2007, v. 103, no. 5, pp. 833-835.

thermal reactors fast reactors closed nuclear fuel cycle UOX MOX MNUP optimization uncertainty forecasting MESSAGE