Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP
i
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms iii
Executive Summary v
1. Introduction 1
2. Background 3
2.1 The Energy Landscape 3
2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach 7
2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio 8
3. Mission and Goals of the Office of Nuclear Energy 11

3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission 11
3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in Achieving Them 11
3.2.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can Improve
the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of Current Reactors 12
3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New Reactors
to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the Administration's Energy Security and
Climate Change Goals 12
3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles 13
3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation
and Terrorism 13
4. An Integrated Nuclear Energy Roadmap 15

4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can
Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of
Current Reactors 16
4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet 17
4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement 18
4.1.3 Key Activities 20
4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of
New Reactors to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the
Administration's
Energy Security and Climate Change Goals 20
4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments 22
4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds 22
4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles 27
4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options 30
4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options 31


4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear
Proliferation and Terrorism 34
4.4.1 Challenges 36
4.4.2 R&D for Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation and
Terrorism 37
4.4.3 Key Activities and Milestones 39
5. R&D Approach 41
5.1 Solution-Driven, Goal-Oriented, Science-Based Approach to Nuclear
Energy Development 41
5.2 Enabling Technologies 42
5.3 R&D Facilities and Infrastructure 44
5.4 Interfaces and Coordination 44
6. Summary and Conclusions 47
Figures
Figure 1. Major Elements of a Science-Based Approach viii
Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3
Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption 4
Figure 4. U.S. Primary Energy Use in 2008 5
Figure 5. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007 6
Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980 – 2008 8
Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies 15
Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions 17
Figure 9. Key Activities for R&D Objective 1 21
Figure 11. Constituents of Used LWR Fuel 28
Figure 14. Major Elements of Science-Based Research, Development & Demonstration 42
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BTU British Thermal Units
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DOE Department of Energy
EE DOE–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIA Energy Information Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FE DOE–Office of Fossil Energy
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWe Gigawatt (electric)
GWe-yr Gigawatt-year (electric)
HTGR High-temperature gas-cooled reactor
HTR High-temperature reactor
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
II&C Instrumentation, information and control
IPSR Integral primary system reactor
ITAAC Inspections, test, analyses and acceptance criteria
kW-hr Kilowatt-hour
LWR Light-water reactor
MPACT Materials Protection, Accounting and Control for Transmutation
MT Metric ton
MWe Megawatt (electric)
MWh Megawatt-hour
NDE Nondestructive evaluation
NE DOE–Office of Nuclear Energy
NEA Nuclear Energy Agency
NGNP Next Generation Nuclear
Plant
NGSI Next Generation Safeguards Initiative
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
R&D Research and development
RISMC Risk-informed safety margin characterization
SC DOE–Office of Science
SMR Small, modular reactor
UNF Used nuclear fuel
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To achieve energy security and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction objectives, the United
States must develop and deploy clean, affordable, domestic energy sources as quickly as
possible. Nuclear power will continue to be a key component of a portfolio of technologies that
meets our energy goals. This document provides a roadmap for the Department of Energy’s
(DOE’s) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) research, development, and demonstration activities that
will ensure nuclear energy remains viable energy option for the United States.
Today, the key challenges to the increased use of nuclear energy, both domestically and
internationally, include:
● The capital cost of new large plants is high and can challenge the ability of electric utilities
to deploy new nuclear power plants.
● The exemplary safety performance of the U.S. nuclear industry over the past thirty years
must be maintained by an expanding reactor fleet.
● There is currently no integrated and permanent solution to high-level nuclear waste
management.
● International expansion of the use of nuclear energy raises concerns about the proliferation
of nuclear weapons stemming from potential access to special nuclear materials and
technologies.
In some cases, there is a necessary and appropriate federal role in overcoming these challenges,
consistent with the primary mission of NE to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of
making major contributions to meeting the nation’s energy supply, environmental, and energy
security needs. This is accomplished by resolving technical, cost, safety, security and
proliferation resistance barriers, through research, development, and demonstration, as
appropriate. NE’s research and development (R&D) activities will help address challenges and
thereby enable the deployment of new reactor technologies that will support the current fleet of
reactors and facilitate the construction of new ones.
Research and Development Objectives

NE organizes its R&D activities along four main R&D objectives that address challenges to
expanding the use of nuclear power: (1) develop technologies and other solutions that can
improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors; (2) develop
improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the
Administration's energy security and climate change goals; (3) develop sustainable nuclear fuel
cycles; and (4) understanding and minimization of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
R&D OBJECTIVE 1: Develop technologies and other solutions that can

improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current
reactors
The existing U.S. nuclear fleet has a remarkable safety and performance record, and today these
reactors account for 70 percent of the low greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting domestic electricity
production. Extending the operating lifetimes of current plants beyond sixty years and, where
possible, making further improvements in their productivity will generate near-term benefits.
Industry has a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existing plants, and as such,
activities will be cost shared. Federal R&D investments are appropriate to answer fundamental
scientific questions and, where private investment is insufficient, to help make progress on
broadly applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits. The DOE role in this
R&D objective is to work in conjunction with industry and where appropriate the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed to inform
major component refurbishment and replacement strategies, performance enhancements, plant
license extensions, and age-related regulatory oversight decisions. DOE will focus on aging
phenomena and issues that require long-term research and are generic to reactor type.
R&D OBJECTIVE 2: Develop improvements in the affordability of new

reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy
security and climate change goals
If nuclear energy is to be a strong component of the nation’s future energy portfolio, barriers to
the deployment of new nuclear plants must be overcome. Impediments to new plant deployment,
even for those designs based on familiar light-water reactor (LWR) technology, include the
substantial capital cost of new plants and the uncertainties in the time required to license and
construct those plants. Although subject to their own barriers for deployment, more advanced
plant designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and high-temperature reactors (HTRs),
have characteristics that could make them more desirable than today’s technology. SMRs, for
example, have the potential to achieve lower proliferation risks and more simplified construction
than other designs. The development of next-generation reactors could present lower capital
costs and improved efficiencies. These reactors may be based upon new designs that take
advantage of the advances in high performance computing while leveraging capabilities afforded
by improved structural materials. Industry plays a substantial role in overcoming the barriers in
this area. DOE provides support through R&D ranging from fundamental nuclear phenomena to
the development of advanced fuels that could improve the economic and safety performance of
these advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from electricity production
and possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of process heat for
applications including refining and the production of fertilizers and other chemical products.
R&D OBJECTIVE 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

Sustainable fuel cycle options are those that improve uranium resource utilization, maximize
energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and limit proliferation risk. The
key challenge is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make
informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. The Administration has
established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to inform this waste-
management decision-making process. DOE will conduct R&D in this area to investigate
technical challenges involved with three potential strategies for used fuel management:
● Once-Through – Develop fuels for use in reactors that would increase the efficient use of
uranium resources and reduce the amount of used fuel requiring direct disposal for each
megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate the inclusion of
non-uranium materials (e.g., thorium) as reactor fuel options that may reduce the long-lived
radiotoxic elements in the used fuel that would go into a repository.
● Modified Open Cycle – Investigate fuel forms and reactors that would increase fuel
resource utilization and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements in the used
fuel to be disposed (per MWh), with limited separations steps using technologies that
substantially lower proliferation risk.
● Full Recycling – Develop techniques that will enable the long-lived actinide elements to be
repeatedly recycled rather than disposed. The ultimate goal is to develop a cost-effective
and low proliferation risk approach that would dramatically decrease the long-term danger
posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties associated with its disposal.
DOE will work to develop the best approaches within each of these tracks to inform waste
management strategies and decision making.
R&D OBJECTIVE 4: Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear

proliferation and terrorism
It is important to assure that the benefits of nuclear power can be obtained in a manner that limits
nuclear proliferation and security risks. These risks include the related but distinctly separate
possibilities that nations may attempt to use nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon
and that terrorists might seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device.
Addressing these concerns requires an integrated approach that incorporates the simultaneous
development of nuclear technologies, including safeguards and security technologies and
systems, and the maintenance and strengthening of non-proliferation frameworks and protocols.
Technological advances can only provide part of an effective response to proliferation risks, as
institutional measures such as export controls and safeguards are also essential to addressing
proliferation concerns. These activities must be informed by robust assessments developed for
understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state proliferation and physical
security for nuclear technologies. NE will focus on assessments required to inform domestic fuel
cycle technology and system option development. These analyses would complement those
assessments performed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to evaluate
nation state proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. NE will work with other
organizations including the NNSA, the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further
defining, implementing and executing this integrated approach.
R&D Areas
The Department expects to undertake R&D in a variety of areas to support its role in the
objectives outlined above. Examples Figure 1. Major Elements of a
include: Science-Based Approach
● Structural materials
● Nuclear fuels
● Reactor systems
● Instrumentation and controls
● Power conversion systems
● Process heat transport systems
● Dry heat rejection
● Separations processes
● Waste forms
● Risk assessment methods
● Computational modeling and
simulation
R&D Approach
A goal-driven, science-based approach is essential to
achieving the stated objectives while exploring new technologies and seeking transformational
advances. This science-based approach, depicted in Figure 1, combines theory, experimentation,
and high-performance modeling and simulation to develop the fundamental understanding that
will lead to new technologies. Advanced modeling and simulation tools will be used in
conjunction with smaller-scale, phenomenon-specific experiments informed by theory to reduce
the need for large, expensive integrated experiments. Insights gained by advanced modeling and
simulation can lead to new theoretical understanding and, in turn, can improve models and
experimental design. This R&D must be informed by the basic research capabilities in the DOE
Office of Science (SC).
NE maintains access to a broad range of facilities to support its research activities. Hot cells and
test reactors are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by smaller-scale radiological facilities,
specialty engineering facilities, and small non-radiological laboratories. NE employs a multi-
pronged approach to having these capabilities available when needed. The core capabilities rely
on DOE-owned irradiation, examination, chemical processing and waste form development
facilities. These are supplemented by university capabilities ranging from research reactors to
materials science laboratories. In the course of conducting this science-based R&D,
infrastructure needs will be evaluated and considered through the established planning and
budget development processes.
There is potential to leverage and amplify effective U.S. R&D through collaboration with other
nations via multilateral and bilateral agreements, including the Generation IV International
Forum. DOE is also a participant in Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) initiatives that bear directly on the development and deployment of new reactor systems.
In addition to these R&D activities, international interaction supported by NE and other
government agencies will be essential in establishment of international norms and control
regimes to address and mitigate proliferation concerns.
1. INTRODUCTION
Access to affordable, abundant energy – chiefly from fossil fuel sources – has been a key enabler
of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. However, as the first decade of the 21st
century draws to a close, the United States finds itself confronted with economic, environmental,
and national security challenges related in part to the manner in which our society produces,
distributes, and uses energy. Continued access to plentiful, secure, and environmentally benign
energy is fundamental to overcoming these challenges.
Nuclear power is a proven
Nuclear energy is an important element of the diverse
clean, affordable, domestic
energy portfolio required to accomplish our national
objectives. NE conducts research and development, energy source that is part of
and demonstrations, as appropriate, that will help the current U.S. energy
enable the benefits of clean, safe, secure and affordable portfolio.
nuclear energy to continue and expand.
This document identifies opportunities and challenges associated with continued and increased
use of fission energy to enhance our nation’s prosperity, security, and environmental quality;
outlines the NE role and mission in enabling the benefits of nuclear energy for our nation; and
presents a strategy and roadmap to guide the NE scientific and technical agenda. The report
presents a high-level vision and framework for R&D activities needed to keep the nuclear energy
option viable in the near term and to expand its use in the decades ahead.
Section 2 describes the current energy production and utilization landscape in the United States.
Section 3 articulates NE’s fundamental mission and role in enabling nuclear energy solutions and
presents the four R&D objectives for nuclear energy development that are the focus of NE
activities. The details of the roadmap are presented in Section 4. The R&D approach presented
in Section 5 embodies a goal-oriented, science-based R&D portfolio that includes both
evolutionary and transformational, high-risk–high-payoff R&D, including those research areas
that encompass multiple objectives. Finally, Section 6 provides a summary of the objects
presented in this report.
This report is not an implementation plan, but rather provides a basis that will guide NE’s
internal programmatic and strategic planning for research going forward.
The report focuses on R&D activities sponsored by NE.

The U.S. nuclear industry plays a central role in To achieve its energy
overcoming barriers and is ultimately responsible for security and GHG reduction
the commercial deployment of the resulting objectives, the U.S. must
technologies. NE intends to proceed in a manner that develop and deploy clean,
supports a strong and viable nuclear industry in the
affordable, domestic energy
United States and preserves the ability of that industry
to participate in nuclear projects here and abroad. sources as quickly as
possible.
Finally, it should be noted that in some limited cases,
NE’s mission extends beyond terrestrial deployment of nuclear energy into other arenas, such as
space applications of both fission and radioisotope power systems. Some technology
development needs identified in this document also benefit space applications, but these mission
arenas are not addressed in this roadmap. Educational programs, while vital, are interwoven
through the technical programs and are not discussed as separate entities.
2. BACKGROUND
All governments of the world share a common challenge to ensure their people have access to
affordable, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has
reiterated the Administration’s position that nuclear is an important part of the energy mix. He
has recognized the importance of nuclear energy in meeting this challenge and supports R&D
that can help increase the benefits of nuclear energy. A key objective that will shape the energy
landscape of the United States is the transition to clean energy sources with reductions in GHG
emissions (with a quantitative goal of 83% reduction below 2005 emissions levels by 2050,
shown in Figure 2).
Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions1
2.1 The Energy Landscape

The Human Development Index2 is a commonly used measure of quality of life. Figure 3
illustrates that a nation’s standard of living depends in part on energy consumption. Access to
adequate energy is now and will continue to be required to achieve a high quality of life.
Economic development, combined with efforts to limit carbon emissions, will likely lead to a
1 2007 GHG emissions reported in EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2007 EPA
430-R-09-004, April 15, 2009. Administration emission goals taken from the “Testimony of Peter R. Orszag,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of
Representatives” on March 3, 2009.
2
The index was developed by the United Nations to enable cross-national comparisons of development and is
updated in an annual report. The derivation of the index was introduced in United Nations Development
Programme, Human Development Report 1990, Oxford University Press, 1990.
significant expansion of nuclear power. The U.S., in concert with the international community,
must develop the technologies and systems to accomplish such expansion while limiting
proliferation risks.
Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption (Per

Capita Kilograms Oil Equivalent)
As we move forward, efficiency and conservation will become ever-increasing components of

energy policy. However, conservation and energy efficiency alone will not be sufficient to
maintain a desirable quality of life.
The United States currently consumes roughly 100 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTU), or
100 quads, of primary energy.3 This represents 25% of world’s energy consumption in a country
that produces 30% of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Figure 4 shows energy
consumption in the United States as a function of sectors and energy sources. At present, 40% of
the total energy consumed is in the form of electricity, of which about 20 percent is generated by
nuclear power. With 6 billion metric tons (MT) of emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) as a result of
fossil fuel usage (see Figure 5), the United States contributes 25 percent of global GHGs emitted.
3 The data in Figures 5 and 6 are reported by the U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency “An Updated Annual
Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case,” 2009.
NUCLEAR
ENERGY
RESEARCH
AND
DEVELOPMENT
ROADMAP
Figure 4. U.S.
Primary
Energy Use in
2008
Figure 5. U.S.
Carbon
Dioxide
Emissions in
2007
APRIL 2010
The Administration’s clean energy and climate change objectives are ambitious and
achievable. Successful achievement of these objectives will require solutions to technical
challenges associated with various energy sectors, including:
● Electricity Sector GHG Production – As seen in Figures 4 and 5, the U.S. electricity
production sector annually consumes 40 quadrillion BTU of primary energy, producing
4,150 million MWh of electricity, and emitting 2,400 million MT of CO2. The average
carbon intensity of the U.S. electric-generating sector is 0.58 MT–CO2/MWh of electricity
produced. While far from the world’s highest carbon intensity (China produces 0.87 MT-
CO2/MWh of electricity), U.S. electric-generating-sector carbon intensity is far higher
than some industrialized countries. For instance, France emits only 0.09 MT–CO2/MWh
of electricity produced. There is clearly both the need for, and the real potential for,
significant improvement in U.S. electric-generating-sector carbon intensity and GHG
emissions.
● Transportation Sector Energy Use and GHG
Emissions – The transportation sector is currently
responsible for 33% of GHG emissions (Figure The driver for the new
5). In addition to more energy-efficient internal energy policy is to continue
combustion engines, electrification of the to generate energy, mostly
transportation sector using new low-carbon
from domestic sources, at
electricity-generation technologies will assist in
reducing these emissions. Successful an affordable price. The
electrification of the transportation sector is also policy must meet increasing
dependent on improvements in battery demand, with considerably
technology to enable high-density energy storage reduced GHG emissions,
to meet vehicle service range requirements.
and without stifling GDP
● Industrial Sector Energy Use and GHG Emissions
– Industrial use of energy is responsible for 16
growth.
percent of the country’s GHG emissions
(Figure
5). About half of these emissions come from chemical facilities and oil refineries. The
development of GHG-free technologies that can generate and deliver significant
thermal and chemical energy to industry is needed.
2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach

Given the issues noted in Section 2.1, an effective energy policy will almost certainly rely on
the development and use of a portfolio of domestic clean energy sources. This is true not only
because of resource limits at various points in the energy supply chain but also because all
energy sources face economic, technical, and societal risks to their successful deployment.4
R. Socolow and S. Pacala, in “A Plan To Keep Carbon In Check,”5 have demonstrated the
potential for energy portfolio approaches to enhance U.S. energy security and reduce the threat
of global warming. The following section discusses the role of nuclear energy as an element of
the U.S. energy portfolio.
2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio

In 2007, the 104 light-water reactors (LWRs)
currently operating in the United States Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980
– 2008
generated 806 billion kilowatt-hours (kW-hrs),
equivalent to 92 gigawatt- years (GWe-yrs). As (EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008)
shown in Figure 6, even though the generating

capacity of the nuclear fleet has been
essentially flat for almost twenty years, the
production of nuclear electricity continued to
grow largely as
a result of increased capacity factors. The fleet’s average capacity factor improved from 56.3%
in 1980 to 91.9% in 2008.6 This improvement was driven by reactor operators and the efforts of
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), spurred by NE-sponsored R&D into high-burnup
fuels that allowed utilities to shift from 12-month operating cycles to 18- or 24-month operating
cycles that reduced downtime. Additionally, some growth can be attributed to power uprates
that increased capacity at existing plants.
While in operation, nuclear power plants do not emit GHGs. Every MWh of electricity
produced with nuclear energy avoids the emission of approximately 1.0 MT of CO2 if the same
amount of energy had been generated with conventional coal-fired technologies or
approximately 0.6 MT of CO2 if the energy had been produced with natural gas. Since the per
capita electricity consumption in the United States is approximately 14 MWh of electricity per
year per person, nuclear energy offers the prospect of avoiding what could otherwise be an
annual personal carbon footprint from electricity production of up to 14 MT of CO2. In addition,
nuclear power
4
R. Socolow and S. Pacala, "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with
Current Technologies." Science, August 13, 2004: 968-972.
5 Scientific American, September 2006
6 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 9.2.
is dependable. It is available day or night, when the wind is blowing and when it is not. After
more than three decades of outstanding safety performance, the public acceptance of nuclear
energy has turned in favor of its deployment.7 However, continued and increased use of nuclear
energy faces several key challenges:
● Capital Cost – The current fleet of nuclear power plants produces electricity at a very low
cost (approximately 2–3 cents/kilowatt-hour) because these plants have already repaid the
initial construction investments. However, the capital cost of a large new plant is high and
can challenge the ability of electric utilities to deploy new nuclear reactors. Thus, it is
important to reduce the capital cost by innovative designs. The introduction of smaller
reactors might reduce capital costs by taking advantage of series fabrication in centralized
plants and may reduce financial risk by requiring a smaller up-front investment.
● Waste Management – At present, no permanent solution to high-level nuclear waste
management has been deployed in the United States. Innovative solutions will be required
to assure that nuclear waste is properly managed. The Administration has initiated the
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to conduct a review of policies for
managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage,
processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
results will inform the Government’s process to establish a policy for used fuel and waste
management. Ultimately, while the need for permanent waste disposal can never be
eliminated, transition to nuclear energy technologies that significantly reduce the
production of long-lived radioactive waste – rather than deal with it after it is produced –
is a desirable goal.
● Proliferation Risk – There is considerable interest in the global expansion of nuclear
energy. However, such expansion raises concerns about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, including nuclear explosive devices, stemming from access to enrichment and
reprocessing activities that might produce weapons-usable materials. Development of
innovative technologies and international policies are essential to prevent nuclear
proliferation by nation-states as well as nuclear terrorism by rogue entities. Furthermore, a
more robust capability to evaluate and compare proliferation and terrorism risks is needed.
In addition, it is in the U.S. interest to engage nations contemplating civil nuclear power
for the first time in order to help them develop an indigenous infrastructure designed to
deploy the technology in a safe and secure manner.
● Safety and Reliability – As existing plants continue to operate and new plants and new
types of plants are constructed, it is vital that the excellent safety and reliability record
of nuclear energy in the United States be maintained. It is also important that the U.S.
share its experience with other countries and work with them to ensure safe operation of
their plants.
7 Ref. http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx.
3. MISSION AND GOALS OF THE
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
The analysis presented in Section 2 supports the conclusion that increased greenhouse gas-
free electricity production is necessary to achieve the transition to a clean-energy economy.
3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission

The primary mission of NE is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the
nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety,
security, and proliferation resistance, through R&D and demonstrations, as appropriate. Progress
in these areas should promote the deployment of fission power systems in a socially acceptable,
environmentally sustainable, and economically attractive manner.
Four specific research and development objectives for nuclear energy development outline
NE’s approach to delivering progress in the areas noted above. The objectives are:
● R&D Objective 1 – Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve
the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.
● R&D Objective 2 – Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable
nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy security and climate change
goals.
● R&D Objective 3 – Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles.
● R&D Objective 4 – Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation
and terrorism.
The four objectives are discussed more fully in the following sections.
3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in

Achieving Them
This section presents a description of the four R&D objectives and NE’s role in making
progress in these areas.
3.2.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can
Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of
Current Reactors
The existing U.S. nuclear fleet has a remarkable safety and performance record, and today
these reactors account for 70 percent of the low GHG-emitting domestic electricity production.
Extending the operating lifetimes of current plants beyond sixty years and, where possible,
making further improvements in their productivity will generate near-term benefits. Industry has
a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existing plants, and as such, activities will
be cost shared. Federal R&D investments are appropriate to answer fundamental scientific
questions and, where private investment is insufficient, to help make progress on broadly
applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits.
The DOE role in this R&D objective is to work with industry and, where appropriate, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed
to inform major component refurbishment and replacement strategies, performance
enhancements, plant license extensions, and age-related regulatory oversight decisions. The
DOE R&D role will focus on aging phenomena and issues that require long-term research and
are generic to reactor type.
3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New

Reactors to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the Administration's
Energy Security and Climate Change Goals
If nuclear energy is to be a strong component of the nation’s future energy portfolio, barriers to
the deployment of new nuclear plants must be overcome. Impediments to new plant deployment,
even for those designs based on familiar light-water reactor technology, include the substantial
capital cost of new plants and the uncertainties in the time required to license and construct
them. More advanced plant designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and high-
temperature reactors (HTRs), will have additional barriers for deployment. These reactors have
characteristics that could make them more attractive than today’s technology. SMRs, for
example, have the potential to achieve lower proliferation risk and more simplified construction
than other designs. The development of next-generation reactors could present lower capital
costs and improved efficiencies. These reactors may be based upon new designs that take
advantage of the advances in high performance computing while leveraging capabilities afforded
by improved structural materials. Industry’s role in overcoming the barriers in this area is
substantial. DOE supports R&D ranging from fundamental nuclear phenomena to the
development of advanced fuels that could improve the economic and safety performance of
these advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from electricity production
and possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of process heat for
applications including refining and the production of fertilizers and other chemical products.
3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and complement institutional
measures in limiting proliferation risk. The key challenge for the government in this R&D
objective is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make
informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. DOE will conduct
R&D in this area to investigate the technical challenges involved with three potential
strategies for used fuel management.
● Once-Through – Develop fuels for use in reactors that would increase the efficient use of
uranium resources and reduce the amount of used fuel for direct disposal for each MWh
of electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate the inclusion of non-uranium materials
(e.g., thorium) in reactor fuel options that may reduce the long-lived radiotoxic elements
in the used fuel that would go into a repository.
● Modified Open Cycle – Investigate fuel forms and reactors that would increase
utilization of the fuel resource and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements
in the used fuel to be disposed (per MWh), with limited separations steps using
technologies that substantially lower proliferation risk.
● Full Recycling – Develop techniques that will enable the long-lived actinide elements to
be repeatedly recycled rather than be disposed. The ultimate goal is to develop a cost-
effective and low proliferation risk approach that would dramatically decrease the long-
term danger posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties associated with its disposal.
DOE will work to develop the best approaches within each of these tracks to inform
waste management strategies and decision making.
3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of

Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism
It is important to assure that access to the benefits of nuclear power can be enabled while
limiting nuclear proliferation and security risks. This goal requires an integrated approach that
incorporates simultaneous development of nuclear fuel cycle technology, safeguards and
security technologies and systems, new proliferation risk assessment tools, and non-proliferation
frameworks and protocols. These activities must be informed by robust assessments that identify
potential approaches for limiting risks of specific technologies and nuclear fuel cycle system
options. NE will work with other organizations such as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further defining,
implementing and executing this integrated approach. Aspects of this research may help to
inform the exploration of concepts such as international fuel service arrangements.
4. AN INTEGRATED
NUCLEAR ENERGY
ROADMAP
This section presents an objective-focused roadmap to advance nuclear energy technologies. As
depicted in Figure 7, the activities described here ultimately “unpack” to a suite of science and
technology development activities, many of which will support more than one R&D objective.
Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies
The approach incorporates a portfolio of long-term R&D objectives and a balanced focus on
evolutionary, innovative, and high-risk–high-payoff R&D in many diverse areas. The
organization and coordination of the science and technology thrusts (“Enabling Technologies”
in
Figure 7) will be a focus of program and strategic planning follow-on implementation plants,
but is briefly addressed in Section 5.2 of this document.
In laying out the activities in each of the R&D objectives described below, we must remain
goal- oriented to avoid falling into the trap of doing a great deal of work that, while interesting,
fails to address the challenges to the deployment of nuclear energy. The following sections
highlight areas in which NE may undertake future R&D. These R&D activities have been
considered with the end in mind to ensure that the linkage between research and solution is
clear. To that end, in depicting the timelines of activity for the R&D objectives below, the charts
show a distinction between near-term milestones toward which the NE R&D plan is designed to
progress, represented as triangles, and longer-term potential outcomes that provide a framework
for the milestones, which are shown as ovals. The milestone charts attempt to depict the stages
of development so as not to leave a sense that new technologies can be immediately deployed at
a commercial level. Not every milestone or potential outcome outlined in these charts represent
actions that are within DOE’s roles and responsibilities, and research paths will include many
decision points that require choosing the most promising options for continued R&D. Especially
as technology matures, industry has a role and a responsibility to share the costs of making
progress. It is ultimately industry’s decision which commercial technologies will be deployed.
The federal role falls more squarely in the realm of R&D.
These long-term milestones and potential outcomes are not set in stone, and in some cases the
following sections outline multiple competing paths within an objective, knowing that
ultimately only one direction will be chosen. In all cases, the activities, milestones, and plans
outlined in this document will be reconsidered and revised periodically to ensure that NE R&D
is consistent with priorities and reflects what we have learned from these efforts. Activities will
be reviewed and modified as necessary through the established budgetary and decision-making
processes.
Although some smaller component or process “demonstration” activities are mentioned, these
are largely field tests and other actions to provide proof or validation of system elements. They
are not large-scale demonstrations like the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). Any
decisions to embark on such large-scale demonstrations will be the result of decision-making
processes that include the relevant stakeholders in the Executive Branch and Congress and will
be made in accordance with NEPA and DOE Order 413 requirements. This R&D will enable
these stakeholders to understand the potential tradeoffs embodied in these decisions.
4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions

that Can Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and
Extend the Life of Current Reactors
The current fleet of 104 nuclear power plants has reliably and economically contributed almost
20 percent of electricity generated in the United States over the past two decades. However, by
2030, even those current nuclear power plants that have received 20-year extensions from the
NRC authorizing 60 years of life will begin reaching the end of their licensed periods of
operation. Figure 8 shows projected nuclear energy contribution to domestic generating capacity
from those plants that have already received 20-year license extensions. If current plants do not
operate beyond 60 years, the total fraction of generated electricity from nuclear power could
begin to decline, even with the addition of new nuclear-generating capacity.
Replacing the current fleet would require hundreds of billions of dollars. Replacement of this
100 GWe-generating capacity with traditional fossil plants would lead to significant increases
in CO2 emissions. Extending operating licenses beyond 60 to perhaps 80 years would enable
existing plants to continue providing safe, clean and economic electricity without significant
GHG emissions. The objective of this R&D objective is to provide a comprehensive technical
basis for extending the life of today’s LWRs that could be used to inform licensing and
managing the long-term safe and economical operation.
Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions
4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet

The following are the major challenges facing the current fleet:
● Aging and degradation of system structures and components, such as reactor core
internals, reactor pressure vessels, concrete, buried pipes, and cables.
● Fuel reliability and performance issues.
● Obsolete analog instrumentation and control technologies.
● Design and safety analysis tools based on 1980s vintage knowledge bases
and computational capabilities.
Industry’s economic incentive to meet these challenges in order to continue the safe and reliable
operation of existing plants is tremendous. As such, federal activities undertaken in this area will
be cost-shared with industry. Industry, working through EPRI or through the various owners’
groups, will engage some of these problems directly. Federal R&D investments are appropriate
to answer fundamental scientific questions and where private investment is insufficient, to help
make progress on broadly-applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits. The
government holds a great deal of theoretical, computational, and experimental expertise in
nuclear R&D that is not available in industry. The benefits of assisting industry with R&D on
life-extension apply not only to current plants but also to the next generation of reactor
technologies still in development.
4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement

The overall focus of the R&D activities will be to improve a power plant operator’s ability to
manage the effects of the aging of passive components and increase operational efficiency and
economics. In selecting projects for federal investment, it is vital that due consideration be given
not only to how each of the R&D activities support achievement of safety and economic
sustainability for existing LWRs, but also to how the R&D results will be more broadly
applicable to the next generation of reactor technologies. These activities should also be
integrated with outside sources of information and parallel R&D programs in industry, the NRC,
universities, and other laboratories, both domestic and international. Close coordination with the
NRC as appropriate is needed to assure that R&D programs focus on issues relevant to
licensing.
The following are R&D topics where NE will focus its efforts to help provide solutions to the
challenges listed above, thereby helping enable reactor life extension beyond 60 years with
improved performance. Progress on this long-term and high-risk–high-reward R&D, which
supports the current nuclear power plant fleet, will provide the scientific underpinnings for
plant owners to make billion-dollar investment decisions to prolong the economic lifetime of
these assets. R&D findings will also inform improvements in the lifetime of future-generation
reactor designs.
● Nuclear Materials Aging and Degradation – Develop a scientific basis for understanding
and predicting long-term environmental degradation behavior of materials in nuclear
power plants. Provide data and methods to assess performance of systems, structures, and
components essential to safe and sustained nuclear power plant operation.
● Advanced LWR Nuclear Fuel Development – Improve the scientific knowledge basis
for understanding and predicting fundamental nuclear fuel and cladding performance in
nuclear power plants. Apply this information to the development of high-performance,
high-burnup fuels with improved safety, cladding, integrity, and economics.
● Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control (II&C) System Technologies –

Research to address long-term aging and obsolescence of existing instrumentation and
control technologies and to develop and test new technologies. Establishing a strategy to
implement long-term modernization of II&C systems will be the focus of federal R&D,
while industry will focus on the more immediate benefits of adapting existing digital
technologies to current plants. NE will work with industry to develop advanced condition-
monitoring technologies for reliable plant operation, improved understanding of physical
methods of degradation, and the means to detect and characterize these processes.
● Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization (RISMC) – Bring together risk-informed,
performance-based methodologies with fundamental scientific understanding of critical
phenomenological conditions and deterministic predictions of nuclear plant performance
to provide an integrated characterization of public safety margins in aging nuclear power
plants. Such an approach will better characterize safety margins and should improve the
reliability and efficiency of plant operations. RISMC will also be applicable to future
generations of nuclear power plants.
● Efficiency Improvement – Improve the efficiency of the current fleet while maintaining
excellent safety performance is one of the primary objectives of life extension. Power
uprates have contributed to improving the current fleet’s economic performance. This
activity focuses on developing methodologies and scientific bases to enable more
extended power uprates.
● Advanced Modeling and Simulation Tools – Conduct R&D needed to create a new set of
modeling and simulation capabilities that will be used to better understand the safety
performance of the aging reactor fleet. These tools will be fully three-dimensional, high-
resolution, modeling integrated systems based on first-principle physics. To accomplish
this, the modeling and simulation capabilities will have to be run on modern, highly
parallel processing computer architectures.
The sustainability of light water reactors will benefit enormously from advanced modeling and
simulation capabilities. The NE Modeling and Simulation Hub will integrate existing nuclear
energy modeling and simulation capabilities with relevant capabilities developed by the Office
of Science, the NNSA, and others. The results will leapfrog current technology to provide a
multi- physics, multi-scale predictive capability that is a revolutionary improvement over
conventional codes. A key challenge will be to adapt advanced computer science tools to an
applications environment. The hub is intended to create a new state-of-the-art in an engineering-
oriented multi-physics computational environment that can be used by a wide range of
practitioners to conduct ultra-high fidelity predictive calculations of reactor performance.
4.1.3 Key Activities

The following chart outlines potential milestones and future national industry aims for this
objective. It presents a distinction between near-term milestones toward which the NE R&D
plan is designed to progress, represented as triangles, and longer-term potential outcomes that
provide a framework for the milestones, shown as ovals. The milestone charts attempt to depict
the stages of development so as not to leave a sense that new technologies can be immediately
deployed at a commercial level. Not every milestone or potential outcome outlined in these
charts represents actions that are within DOE’s roles and responsibilities, and research paths
will include many decision points that require choosing the most promising options for
continued R&D. All DOE R&D activities will be evaluated and revisited regularly and
modified as necessary through the budget process to ensure the portfolio reflects past progress
and current priorities.
are not costly, large-scale demonstrations like NGNP. Any consideration to embark on such
large-scale demonstrations will be the result of decision-making and budget development
processes.
4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability

of New Reactors to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the
Administration's Energy Security and Climate Change Goals
The previous 30-year U.S. hiatus in new nuclear plant orders presents a number of
immediate hurdles for the construction of new plant designs. Utility investors are still wary
of the new regulatory framework, which will not be fully exercised until the first new plant
begins operation. There are also concerns regarding the large capital costs of plants and
associated difficulties in financing their construction.
NE’s objective is to assist in the revitalization of the U.S. industry through R&D. By advancing
technologies through R&D, NE can help accelerate deployment of new plants in the short term,
support development of advanced concepts for the medium term, and promote design of
revolutionary systems for the long term. Work will be done in partnership with industry to the
maximum extent possible. Elements of NE’s strategy in this area include:
● Assist industry to improve light water reactors using existing technologies and designs.
● Explore advanced LWR designs with improved performance.
● Research and develop small modular reactors that have the potential to achieve
lower proliferation risks and more simplified construction than other designs.
Figure 9. Key Activities for R&D Objective 1
● In the longer term, support R&D of advanced reactor technologies that offer lower
costs and waste generation.
● Investigate revolutionary reactor concepts that promise to significantly reduce costs
and improve performance of nuclear energy.
● Support R&D of nuclear energy’s potential to displace fossil fuels in the production
of process heat.
Implementing this strategy will require that DOE work in partnership with the nuclear
industry and, to the degree appropriate, the NRC.
4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments

There are several new plant designs, often referred to as Gen III+, that have been certified or are
being reviewed by the NRC for immediate deployment in the United States. Potential owners of
these Gen III+ plants must overcome serious financial hurdles. All near-term options for new
plants are large LWR designs that are optimized for baseload electricity production. Smaller
reactors that could be deployed in modules might help reduce the up-front capital costs
associated with large plants by allowing utilities to incrementally “step up” to larger electrical
capacities while generating revenue and repaying initial debts. New reactor designs beyond Gen
III+ may also be deployed. In many cases, new technologies will be needed to enable these new
designs, and innovative features will need to be fully demonstrated. Certain aspects of the
regulatory framework need to accommodate these new technologies and design features,
especially for designs that differ significantly from the large LWR plants in operation today.
Economic competitiveness will remain the major hurdle for all novel concepts, including
smaller reactors and reactors for non-electric applications.
During the 30-year hiatus from new plant orders in the United States, some nations have
continued to grow their nuclear industries. As a result, some other countries have advanced the
state-of-the art in manufacturing of nuclear plant components and have made progress in
applying more efficient construction techniques. The domestic industry can learn from these
international experiences.
4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds

In the United States, it is the responsibility of industry to design, construct, and operate
commercial nuclear power plants. However, DOE has statutory authority under the Atomic
Energy Act to promote and support nuclear energy technologies for commercial applications. In
general, appropriate government roles include researching high-potential technologies beyond
the investment horizon of industry and also reducing the technical risks of new technologies. In
the case of new commercial reactor designs, potential areas of NE involvement could include:
● Enabling new technologies to be inserted into emerging and future designs by
providing access to unique laboratory resources for new technology development and,
where appropriate, demonstration.
● Working through the laboratories and universities to provide unique expertise and
facilities to industry for R&D in the areas of:
o Innovative concepts and advanced technologies.
o Fundamental phenomena and performance data.
o Advanced modeling and simulation capabilities.
o New technology testing and, if appropriate, demonstration.

o Advanced manufacturing methods.
Representative R&D activities that support each of the roles stated above are presented below.
The level of DOE investment relative to industry investment will vary across the spectrum of
these activities, with a generally increasing trend in DOE investment for longer-term
activities. Finally, there is potential to leverage and amplify effective U.S. R&D through
collaborations with other nations through multilateral and bilateral agreements including the
Generation IV International Forum, which is investigating multiple advanced reactor
concepts. DOE is also a participant in OECD/NEA and IAEA initiatives that bear directly on
the development and deployment of new reactor systems.
4.2.2.1 Accelerate Advancements in LWR Designs

Given the maturity of the Gen III+ LWR designs, R&D needs are necessarily limited, as the
design of these plants is well underway or already complete, some of them are being built
overseas, and many have been ordered in the United States and elsewhere. Nevertheless the
R&D topics identified jointly with industry for R&D Objective 1 are all applicable to this
task.
R&D of more advanced LWR concepts, including novel materials, fuels, and innovative system
architectures, is a legitimate role for DOE and its laboratories in partnership with industry. This
R&D will help address long-term trends in the capital cost of large LWR plants. Much of this
research is also expected to be applicable to non-LWR technologies.
4.2.2.2 Accelerate the Development of SMR Designs

Several U.S.-based companies are seeking to bring new SMR designs to market, including some
with potential for deployment within the next decade. Many of these designs use well-
established light-water coolant technology to the fullest extent possible to shorten the timeline
for deployment. As such, R&D needs for these technologies are minimal. However, these
designs may include new features, such as the use of an integral primary system reactor (IPSR)
design and components that are not currently used in commercial plants, such as helical-coil
steam generators. DOE will hold workshops with LWR SMR vendors and suppliers, potential
utility customers, national laboratory and university researchers, DOE, NRC, and other
stakeholders to identify potential priorities to enable their commercialization and development.
The Administration will evaluate potential priorities in the context of the appropriate federal
role to identify the most cost-effective, efficient, and appropriate mechanisms to support further
development.
SMR designs that are not based on LWR technology have the potential to offer added
functionality and affordability. In this area, NE will support a range of R&D activities, such as
basic physics and materials research and testing, state-of-the-art computer modeling and
simulation of reactor systems and components, probabilistic risk analyses of innovative safety
designs and features, and other development activities that are necessary to establish the
concept’s feasibility for future deployment. For SMRs that are based on concepts with lower
levels of technical maturity, the Department will first seek to establish the R&D activities
necessary to prove and advance innovative reactor technologies and concepts. The Department
will support R&D activities to develop and prove the proposed design concepts. Emphasis will
be on advanced reactor technologies that offer simplified operation and maintenance for
distributed power and load-following applications and increased proliferation resistance and
security.
Activities will focus on showing that SMRs provide an innovative reactor technology that is
capable of achieving electricity generation and performance objectives that meet market
demands and are comparable, in both safety and economics, to the current large baseload
nuclear power plants.
NE may also support the development of new/revised nuclear industry codes and standards
necessary to support licensing and commercialization of innovative designs and, consistent
with NRC guidance and regulations, identify activities for DOE funding to enable SMR
licensing for deployment in the United States.
4.2.2.3 Develop Advanced Reactor Technologies

Future-generation reactor systems will employ advanced technologies and designs to improve
performance beyond what is currently attainable. Moving beyond LWR technology, for
example, may enable reactors to operate at higher temperatures and improved efficiencies
resulting in improved economics. Advanced materials may make reactors easier to construct
while also enabling better performance. Improved designs utilizing these advances could reduce
the capital costs associated with the current set of reactors being considered. Two prominent
examples of advanced reactor technologies worthy of further investigation include:
● The high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), a graphite moderated thermal-spectrum
reactor operated at high temperature for efficient generation of electricity and heat
delivery for non-electric applications.
● Fast-spectrum reactors that could provide options for future fuel cycle management
and could also be used for electricity generation (see R&D Objective 3).
The U.S. is also a member of the Generation IV International Forum, which is investigating
additional advanced reactor systems that employ comparatively less mature technologies
while offering significant potential for performance, safety, and economic advances.
Key areas of R&D for future systems could include:

● High-performance materials compatible with the proposed coolant types and capable
of extended service at elevated temperatures.
● New fuels and cladding capable of irradiation to high burnup.

● Advanced heat delivery and energy conversion systems for increased efficiency
of electricity production.
● Advanced modeling and simulation tools that can reduce uncertainties in predicted
performance, improve characterization of uncertainties, and streamline the design of
new reactor technologies.
● Systems design for revolutionary new reactor concepts.
4.2.2.4 Develop Technologies Consistent with Both Electric and Non-

Electric Applications
An additional potential benefit from nuclear power could be realized through new plant designs
that would be used to displace GHG-emitting fuels in the industrial sector while also generating
electricity. Some industrial process heat applications require temperatures substantially above
the 300–325°C outlet temperature of today’s LWRs. Petroleum refining, for example, requires
temperatures in the range of 250-500°C while steam reforming of natural gas requires process
heat in the 500-900°C range. Achieving higher output temperatures requires switching to a new
coolant technology such as gas, liquid metal, or molten salt. With these coolants, it may be
possible to achieve outlet temperatures ranging from over 500°C for liquid metal coolants to
over 900°C for helium or molten salt coolants. Achieving these temperatures, however, will
require the development and qualification of fuels, materials and instrumentation, particularly
at the higher end of the temperature range. Also, the use of coolants other than water will
require the development of a variety of plant components and systems such as electromagnetic
pumps for liquid metal coolants, compact heat exchangers for gas coolants, and chemical
purification systems for molten salt coolants. These coolants will also require the development
of new licensing requirements and codes and standards. While the economic market for
dedicated process heat from nuclear power may be limited, reactors that could produce
electricity as well as industrial process heat may have broader applications.
Key areas of R&D for future systems could include:

● Develop interfacing heat transport systems – Supply process heat with minimal losses
to industrial users within several kilometers of the reactor.
● Develop modeling and simulation capabilities – These tools would improve
understanding of interactions between the kinetics of the various reactor types and the
kinetics of the chemical plants or refineries, which they would serve. Modeling may also
be used to understand the long-term performance of catalysts and solid-oxide cells at an
atomistic level.

processes.
4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and limit proliferation risk. The
principal challenge for the government in this objective is to develop a suite of options that will
enable future decision makers to make informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel
from reactors. The Administration has established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future to inform this waste management decision-making process. The Commission
will review policies for managing the back end of the fuel cycle including alternatives for the
storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. All
research and development activities and plans outlined here will be revisited and revised as
needed to reflect the Commission’s findings and associated Administration decisions.
An expansion of nuclear power in the United States will result in a growth of the used nuclear
fuel inventories. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 gave the U.S. government the mission
to safely manage the used fuel from these nuclear power plants. Research and development of
sustainable nuclear fuel cycles and waste management activities is important to support the
expansion of nuclear energy. Some of the attributes of the sustainable fuel cycle, including
waste management and disposal technologies, include the responsible use of natural resources,
preservation of the environment for future generations, safety, security, public acceptance, and
cost effectiveness.
The constituents of current used nuclear fuel Figure 11. Constituents of

(UNF) after discharge from LWRs are shown in Used LWR Fuel
Figure 11. As this figure shows, the vast

majority of the material in the used fuel is
uranium that is generally unchanged from the
fuel that went into the reactor to produce
energy.
Uranium is considered an element in the
category
called “actinides,” along with the “transuranic” elements of plutonium and the “minor”
actinides: neptunium, americium, and curium, principally. These elements generally are long-
lived and must be isolated from the environment for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Actinides are also of interest because uranium and plutonium could be recycled to produce more
energy in reactors, as could the minor actinides in fast-spectrum reactors. The remaining class of
elements in the used fuel is fission products, many of which are stable and pose little concern.
The short- lived fission products – primarily cesium and strontium – generate most of the hazard
for the first hundreds of years of disposal. There are also fission products, notably iodine and
technetium, that last for hundreds of thousands of years and must be isolated from the
environment.
NE will research and develop nuclear fuel and waste management technologies that will enable
a safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The NE R&D strategy will be to investigate the
technical challenges that would be encountered in each of three potential methods and perform
R&D within each of these tracks:

● Once-Through – Nuclear fuel makes a single pass through a reactor after which the used
fuel is removed, stored for some period of time, and then directly disposed in a geologic
repository for long-term isolation from the environment. The used fuel will not undergo
any sort of treatment to alter the waste form prior to disposal in this approach,
eliminating
the need for separations technologies that may pose proliferation concerns. Less than one
percent of the mined uranium is utilized in the present once-through fuel cycle.
● Modified Open Cycle – The goal of this approach is to develop fuel for use in reactors
that can increase utilization of the fuel resource and reduce the quantity of actinides that
would be disposed in used fuel. This strategy is “modified” in that some limited
separations and fuel processing technologies are applied to the used LWR fuel to create
fuels that enable the extraction of much more energy from the same mass of material and
accomplish waste management goals.
● Full Recycle – In a full recycle strategy, all of the actinides important for waste
management are recycled in thermal- or fast-spectrum systems to reduce the radiotoxicity
of the waste placed in a geologic repository while more fully utilizing uranium resources.
In a full recycle system, only those elements that are considered to be waste (primarily the
fission products) are intended for disposal, not used fuel. Implementing this system will
require extensive use of separation technologies and the likely deployment of new
reactors or other systems capable of transmuting actinides.
The R&D approach will be to understand what can be accomplished in each of these strategies
and then to develop the promising technologies to maximize their potential. One element that
crosscuts all potential approaches is disposal and R&D activities will include a focus on those
technologies. Additionally, storage will be an important part of any strategy, and R&D will be
needed to assess the performance of storage technologies with higher-burnup used LWR fuels,
as well as any potential new fuels that may be deployed in the future.
The discussion above is primarily focused on the uranium fuel cycle that is the norm throughout
the world. An alternative that could be considered would be the use of thorium to replace at least
part of the uranium in the system. Thorium could be used as part of a once-through, modified
open, or full recycle fuel cycle. The appeal of thorium is two-fold. First, thorium is more
abundant in nature than uranium and can be used to extend or replace uranium in the fuel cycle.
Second, the use of thorium enables reduced production of transuranic elements that end up in
used fuel. However, there are still technical and economic challenges facing thorium-based
fuels. Thus some R&D to address related challenges may be considered. Significant R&D in the
use of thorium has been performed previously in the United States and is currently being
considered in other parts of the world (particularly in India).
Unlike R&D Objectives 1 and 2, management of UNF and development of fuel cycle
technologies are primarily the government’s responsibilities because the government is legally
responsible for UNF. Thus, the necessary research, development, and demonstration, if
appropriate, will be led primarily by the government. However, early and continuous industrial
involvement is important because any technologies that are developed will ultimately be
implemented by the commercial entities.
4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options

Each of the potential fuel cycle strategies faces challenges, some of which may be shared with
other approaches. Similarly, the R&D needed to overcome these challenges may support more
than one strategy.
● Once-Through – Improving the sustainability of a once-through approach to used fuel
management begins with increasing the burnup of the fuel – the amount of energy that can
be extracted from fuel in the reactor – which may also have the effect of consuming more
actinides in the fuel, leaving less to be disposed. Increasing the burnup of a fuel will
require ensuring that both the fuel itself and the structural material designed to keep it in
place in the reactor will be able to withstand extended irradiation in the reactor and
maintain its integrity when being stored after removal. Deploying advanced fuels will
require that they first undergo a qualification process that can take a great deal of time, as
researchers must irradiate and conduct examinations on test samples to assure their
performance. Also, fuels that are notably different from those currently used in LWRs may
drive changes in the fuel processing infrastructure that has evolved to meet current needs.
To the extent that the deployed once-through fuel cycle is built upon enriched uranium
fuels, the proliferation concerns associated with enrichment technologies will need to be
addressed.
● Modified Open Cycle – A modified open cycle faces some of the same challenges as the
once-through, along with some encountered in a full recycle approach. The modified open
cycle introduces the possibility of a used fuel separations step to enable more options for
producing fuels. This flexibility enables the inclusion of transuranic elements – notably
plutonium – at concentrations capable of supporting ultra-high burnup, along with the
attendant difficulties of developing these fuels. The challenges of developing high-burnup
fuels discussed in the previous paragraph are applicable to this strategy. The use of
separations technology to prepare the ultra-high-burnup fuel introduces difficulties in
separations as well as managing proliferation concerns. A key element of this fuel cycle is
the likely need to introduce advanced reactors that can utilize these new fuels. The
overarching challenge in making a modified open cycle worthwhile is to determine if the
improvement in fuel resource utilization and in the waste to be disposed is sufficient to
justify the additional complication, potential proliferation concerns, and expense this
approach would entail.
● Full Recycle – In a full recycle approach, used fuel is not directly disposed in a repository;
rather, those elements of the used fuel that are deemed appropriate for recycling are
reintroduced into reactors or other systems while the remaining elements are stabilized in a
waste form and disposed. This strategy offers the potential of waste forms that pose far
less long-term concern, although the approach would require overcoming not only
technical challenges but also economic, proliferation, and public perception concerns. This
system would rely on multiple separations processes that must minimize process losses
and
waste generation while addressing proliferation concerns. Furthermore, fuels must be

developed that will allow for the inclusion of all of those elements that are to be recycled
in concentrations that vary over time. This is a central tradeoff in the full recycle approach:
the more elements that are recycled, the better the waste form will be; however, more
separation of elements in the fuel increases the technical and other challenges. Elements
that are recycled must be capable of transmutation in a system – likely, but not necessarily,
a fast reactor – to eventually eliminate them. In order for a full recycle strategy to be
considered, the waste benefits and improved resource utilization produced by such a
system must outweigh the complication, expense and potential proliferation concerns
associated with it.
4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options

There are major R&D needs to understand how best to overcome the challenges posed by each
of the fuel cycle approaches being considered. The potential R&D efforts that DOE would
undertake would have a long-term view and would be science-based. It would take considerable
time before the issues in the modified open and the full recycle alternatives would be overcome.
Many R&D areas will be applicable to multiple strategies. Prior to beginning major R&D work
in these areas, analyses will be performed to gauge the likely value of the efforts.
● Fuel Resource Exploration and Mining – The availability of fuel resources for each
potential fuel cycle and reactor deployment scenario must be understood. Extended use of
nuclear power may drive improvements in defining resource availability and on fuel
resource exploration and mining. Primarily, this is work that the private sector would
undertake, and how and when this would occur would depend on price and other market
conditions. This is most relevant for a once-through approach, but even modified open
cycles and full recycle systems may require comparable levels of natural sources of fuel
for the foreseeable future. Most appropriate for federal involvement in this area would be
R&D to support investigation of long-term, “game-changing” approaches such as
recovering uranium from seawater.
● Used Fuel Disposition – All radioactive wastes generated by existing and future fuel
cycles will need to be safely stored, transported, and disposed. This R&D will identify
options for performing these functions, including research into disposal in a variety of
geologic environments. This R&D will consider used fuel and high-level waste inventories
arising from the current reactor fleet and any additional new builds, including the potential
for changing used fuel characteristics from enhanced operations (e.g., increased fuel
burnup) and the projected inventories from advanced reactor and fuel cycle systems (e.g.,
HTRs and SMRs). This research is important to all of the potential fuel cycle approaches.
● Reduce Transuranic Production In Reactors – One thrust in developing sustainable fuel
cycles will be the exploration of nuclear fuels and reactors that significantly reduce the
long-lived actinide content of the used fuel per MWh of energy produced. Exploration of
avenues both to reduce actinide production in present and near-term LWRs and to
develop future non-LWR systems that produce lower actinide inventories in their used
fuel is important. This research area is central to developing the high burnup fuels that
will improve the attractiveness of a once-through or modified open fuel cycle.
● Separation and Partitioning – The development of processes to recycle used fuel is
needed, as well as an evaluation of the feasibility and risks associated with recycling. The
objective is to use a predictive approach to evaluate separation chemistry and processes to
achieve the desired performance in terms of product purity, environmental impact, and
losses. Though not applicable in a once-through system, this topic would be germane to a
modified open cycle approach and central to a full recycle strategy.
● Waste Forms – It is necessary to develop understanding of waste form behavior over time
to help inform decisions on recycle and disposal options. This understanding must extend
over a broad range of potential waste chemistry and disposal environments so waste forms
can be adapted and implemented when specific repository conditions are known. This
R&D area may be somewhat relevant to strategies that rely on the direct disposal of
certain used fuels (such as disposal of high-temperature gas reactor fuels) but the
development of improved waste forms is a key component in enabling a full recycle
strategy to achieve its promise.
● Fuel Forms – The science-based approach will combine theory, experiments, and multi-
scale modeling and simulation aimed at a fundamental understanding of the fuel
fabrication processes and fuel and clad performance under irradiation. The objective is to
use a predictive approach to design future fuels and cladding to enable the development of
ultra- high-burnup fuels in a modified open cycle and to demonstrate the inclusion of
recovered actinides in transmutation fuels under a full recycle approach. In the early
phases of the program, the major fuel fabrication activities include development of
innovative processes to enhance the process efficiency and to improve the control of fuel
microstructure for enhanced performance, including tailored fuel forms designed to limit
excess actinides across the complex.
● Material Reuse – The research will focus primarily on recovered uranium for reuse in
reactors to obviate the need to dispose of this material once separated from the rest of
the used fuel. The critical areas that require process or equipment modifications will be
identified, and technologies will be developed to enable the reuse (and in some cases the
re-enrichment) of recycled uranium. Efforts will also investigate the potential recycling
and reuse of other constituents of used fuel, such as the zirconium cladding, that are
potentially useful but not currently being considered by industry because of uncertainties
about material characteristics.
● Transmutation Systems – Transmutation is a process to change the characteristics of
waste by turning recycled elements into elements with more desirable disposal
characteristics. While the focus of most recent work has been on fast-spectrum
transmutation reactors, thermal-spectrum transmutation can offer some waste
management benefits. R&D would
focus on broadly applicable issues including areas such as materials and energy
conversion. In addition, studies may be conducted to review the technical and economic
aspects of external neutron source-driven transmutation systems to inform whether future
investigation in this approach is warranted.

NE’s science-based R&D program will provide a more complete understanding of the
underlying science supporting the development of advanced fuel cycle and waste management
technologies and, therefore, help provide a sound basis for future decision making. The program
will also conduct scientific research and technology development to enable storage,
transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and all radioactive wastes generated by existing
and future nuclear fuel cycles. Over the next decade, the R&D program will mainly be geared to
ensuring that the needed breakthroughs and advancements are available and ready when needed.
Examples of such technologies would include ultra-deep-burn LWR, HTR, or fast reactor fuel;
reactor technologies to support optimized once-through fuel cycles; and advanced fast reactor
concepts to support closed fuel cycles. These technologies would encompass all of the known
and anticipated advances that could be expected to be available in areas including materials,
design methods, components, and energy conversion.
In keeping with Secretary Chu's vision of using science to provide technological breakthroughs
to solve America's grand challenges, the program will include long-term, high-risk–high-
payoff R&D. This part of the program will seek revolutionary and transformational
breakthroughs in systems, materials and components of the fuel cycle that can better meet the
program's objectives. Examples of this could include novel reactor concepts such as molten-
salt fuel reactors or thorium fuel cycles. Thus while evolutionary advancements are being
made, revolutionary advancements will also be pursued such that, if successful, they could
replace all or part of existing or near-term technologies. The roadmap includes milestones for
selection of technologies as the program matures. Each approach has a set of reference
technologies associated with these milestones:
● Once-Through – Develop higher-burnup fuel for LWRs.
● Modified Open Cycle – Develop ultra-high-burnup fuel for high-temperature gas-cooled
reactors using transuranic elements from used LWR fuel. It is assumed that the NGNP or a
comparable reactor will be available for fuel testing. Alternative approaches may require
access to a fast-spectrum test reactor and nuclear fuel research capabilities.
● Full Recycle – Develop technologies to allow repeated recycling of transuranic elements
in fast-spectrum reactors. The initial fuel for the fast reactors will come from separated
used LWR fuel with successive reloads made from used fast reactor fuel. Access to a fast-
spectrum test reactor will be essential for this research, as will nuclear fuel research
capabilities.
processes.
4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks

of Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism
The final R&D objective for nuclear energy is to enable secure nuclear energy expansion by
developing and demonstrating options that limit proliferation and physical security risks
associated with nuclear power while also achieving economic, public health and safety, and
environmental goals. These risks include not only the possibility that nations may attempt to use
nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but also the concern that terrorists might
seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device. This requires NE
advocacy for, and participation in, an integrated program to develop technologies, frameworks,
and policy options for the future nuclear enterprise, cutting across all aspects of the fuel cycle.
The United States has extensive experience protecting nuclear materials, from the weapons
program that has produced significant quantities of plutonium-239 and highly enriched
uranium, to 104 commercial reactors in the U.S. today that handle, use, and store nuclear
materials.
Internationally, the U.S. has also contributed extensively to the development of technologies
now used in the application of international safeguards to monitor used fuel recycling activities
in England, France, and Japan. Going forward, safeguards and physical security will become
even more integral components in the domestic and global expansion of nuclear power,
including the development of future fuel cycle and reactor technologies that further increase the
barriers against proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
An integrated U.S. safeguards program provides an opportunity to design improved safeguards

and physical security directly into the planning and deployment of new energy systems and
fuel cycle facilities. Incorporating safeguards and physical security into the early design phase
for new facilities will allow the international community to monitor and verify nuclear material
more effectively and efficiently.
DOE has three programs that are collaborating to address safeguards and nonproliferation
challenges. The NE Fuel Cycle R&D Materials Protection, Accounting, and Control for
Transmutation (MPACT) campaign develops advanced nuclear material management
technologies and methods in support of the future domestic U.S. nuclear fuel cycle. The Next
Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) within the NNSA Office of Nonproliferation and
International Security is designed to leverage U.S personnel, technology, and R&D to add
new capacity and significantly strengthen international nuclear safeguards. The third program,
the NNSA Office of Nonproliferation Research and Development’s Global Nuclear
Safeguards R&D Program, whose mission is to support long-term nonproliferation R&D,
rounds out the
U.S. safeguards R&D efforts for nuclear energy. The work described in this section reflects
NE’s aspect of the integrated safeguards and nonproliferation work being performed within
DOE.
This work will be performed in direct collaboration or close coordination with NNSA activities.
In addition to addressing technical safeguards R&D needs, successful integration of these

programs would develop revolutionary new tools for proliferation risk assessments and
subsequent optimization of advanced nuclear energy systems from nonproliferation and
physical security perspectives. The ultimate goal of this crosscutting effort would be to develop
and use new analytical tools that could revolutionize our ability to compare proliferation and
physical security risk of nuclear energy system options, including aspects of policy and human
behavior as well as technical attributes.
As civilian nuclear power expands across the globe, it becomes more important that high
standards of safety and security be implemented around the world. Looking only at how the
R&D can improve nuclear technologies without considering who is to use these technologies,
and the national and international frameworks under which they are operating, will provide an
overly narrow perspective of proliferation risks. NE, in cooperation with other DOE offices and
national agencies and in partnership and collaboration with other nations, must implement
collaborative programs with civilian nuclear power programs in both experienced and
inexperienced states in order to minimize proliferation and physical security risks, enhance
reactor safety, maximize resource utilization through cooperative R&D, and encourage methods
to minimize the dispersion of enrichment and reprocessing facilities worldwide.
4.4.1 Challenges
A key challenge facing the expanded use of nuclear energy and associated fuel cycles is
minimizing the potential for the misuse of the technology and materials for weapons purposes.
International treaties such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, combined with transparency
in the use of technology and materials, provide the basic building blocks to assure the peaceful
use of nuclear energy. Fuel cycle infrastructure built upon these tenets while enabling the
economic provision of fuel cycle services can help prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear
technology and materials.
Today’s key challenges are to take the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists within
the international safeguards and physical security communities and to deploy advanced,
affordable techniques to immediately detect the diversion of nuclear materials or the
modification of systems. The key technical challenges that must be addressed include:
● Incorporation of nuclear safeguards and physical security technology into designs for
fuel cycle facilities, advanced fast reactors, and associated nuclear materials storage and
transportation systems.
● Development of proliferation risk assessment methodologies and tools that allow for
an integrated view of fuel cycle options to be studied, optimized, and compared.
● Development of advanced containment and surveillance, smart safeguards
information management systems, nuclear facility use-control systems, and next-
generation nondestructive analysis and process-monitoring systems.
● R&D of advanced material tracking methodologies, process-control technologies, and
plant engineering.
● Remote sensing, environmental sampling, and forensic verification methods.
Addressing these challenges will enable the use and expansion of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes to proceed in a safe and secure manner.
4.4.2 R&D for Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear

Proliferation and Terrorism
Some potential R&D areas for Objective 4 are:
● Proliferation Risk Assessments – Any fuel cycle technologies deployed in the U.S. must
be considered in light of how other nations might choose to incorporate them into their
own nuclear enterprises. Towards this end, it is important for NE to develop a means of
understanding how these new technologies would be viewed by other countries in the
context of their national goals. This research effort would develop the tools and
approaches for understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state
proliferation and physical security for fuel cycle options. NE will focus on assessments
required to inform domestic fuel cycle technology and system option development. These
analyses would complement those assessments performed by NNSA to evaluate nation-
state proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. Taken in conjunction,
these comprehensive proliferation risk assessments will provide important information for
discussions and decisions regarding fuel cycle options. These assessments will:
o Exploit science-based approaches, to the extent possible, for analyzing difficult-to-
quantify proliferation risk factors or indicators (e.g., capabilities, motivations, and
intentions); address issues identified in several National Academy of Sciences
studies
related to risk assessment; and leverage current state-of-the-art academic social

science research in this field.
o Integrate the diverse decision factors (including economics, public health and safety,
environmental benefits, and proliferation and terrorism risk reduction) for different fuel
cycle options to understand the tradeoffs and potential synergies between these
decision criteria.
o Apply these tools to study nuclear energy system options, and display the results in
a useful format for decision makers.
● Safeguards and Physical Security Technologies and Systems – The NE focus is on the
development of safeguards technologies and integrated systems for current and potential
future domestic fuel cycle options. These technologies and systems contribute significantly
to limiting proliferation and physical security risks while also achieving economic, public
health and safety, and environmental goals. This requires that these activities be performed
in an integrated program with the fuel cycle technology development activities.
Opportunities exist to collaborate with other organizations (e.g. NNSA, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense) and will be utilized. NNSA will be
responsible for evaluating the nation-state proliferation risks of deploying new fuel cycle
technologies – particularly recycling technologies – outside of the United States.
o Advanced Instrumentation – Many advanced fuel cycle processes, such as advanced
aqueous reprocessing, electrochemical separations, and recycle fuel fabrication pose
new challenges for safeguards and nuclear material management. The safeguards state-
of-the-art will be advanced through a developmental program to improve the precision,
speed, sampling methods, and scope of nuclear process monitoring and accountancy
measurements, and innovative approaches for containment and surveillance. This
effort supports the development of advanced safeguards instrumentation such as active
interrogation methods based on neutron and photon drivers and advanced passive
detectors, such as ultra-high resolution spectrometer and neutron multiplicity counting.
Additionally, existing nuclear data is evaluated for the identification of gaps or needed
improvements.
o Advanced Concepts and Integration – Early integration of safeguards concepts into
nuclear facility design is optimal to meet U.S. and international standards with
minimum impact on operations. This requires development of a framework to codify
the safeguards-by-design concept, applicable for both international safeguards and
physical security for U.S. fuel cycle facilities. It also includes the evaluation of
material attractiveness of relevant fuel cycle materials. A monitoring and control
system must be developed that is secure and can rapidly authenticate and investigate
summary and raw data to unequivocally distinguish process deviations, maintenance
problems, and calibration and component failures from actual diversion events.
o Modeling and Simulation – Development of modeling and simulation tools to
enable new technology development, elucidation of high-impact R&D priorities,
and approaches that optimize effectiveness and efficiency of the overall system will
be
essential for the integration of new safeguards technologies and techniques into
nuclear energy systems.
● Nuclear Energy Technologies and Systems – This element includes developing and
assessing a sufficiently wide and innovative range of options (in concert with R&D
Objectives 1–3) to achieve Objective 4. This includes, for example, options that enable
decreasing the attractiveness and accessibility of used fuel and intermediate materials,
transmuting materials of potential concern, optimizing safeguards and physical security
systems approaches, and minimizing the number of needed enrichment and recycle
facilities. In conjunction with NNSA, NE will lead the development of these options and
implement mechanisms that tightly link and inform both this R&D and other elements
of R&D Objective 4.
4.4.3 Key Activities and Milestones

processes.

5. R&D APPROACH
Section 4 of this roadmap presents NE’s four R&D objectives. These objectives show the
connection between how nuclear energy will contribute to meeting the nation’s energy goals
and the R&D that needs to be performed to enable that contribution. This section describes the
approach that will be taken to perform this R&D, provides brief descriptions of the key areas of
technological development that will be undertaken, presents a brief description of the facilities
needed to perform this research, and describes the interfaces with stakeholders that will be
required for success.
5.1 Solution-Driven, Goal-Oriented, Science-Based Approach

to Nuclear Energy Development
Nuclear power systems were initially developed during the latter half of the 20th century. Their
development was greatly facilitated by the nation’s ability and willingness to conduct large-
scale experiments. The federal government constructed 52 reactors at what is now Idaho
National Laboratory, another 14 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a few more at other
national laboratory sites. By today’s standards, even large experiments and technology
demonstrations were relatively affordable. While relying heavily on the Edisonian approach in
the 1950s and 1960s, the nuclear energy community was a rapid adopter of high-end
computational modeling and simulation during the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, nuclear
power plant designers and regulators developed and deployed many of the most demanding
simulation models and tools on the most advanced computational platforms then available. Still,
the United States embraced a regulatory process that relied, and still relies, heavily on the use of
experiments to confirm the ultimate safety of nuclear power systems. Building upon the
scientific advances of the last two decades, our understanding of fundamental nuclear science,
improvements in computational platforms, and other tools can now enable a new generation of
nuclear power plant designers, fabricators, regulators, and operators to develop technological
advancements with less of a reliance on large-scale experimentation. The developmental
approach employed in this roadmap embodies four elements, as depicted in Figure 14:
Experiments – These are generally small-scale experiments aimed at observation of isolated

phenomena or measurements of fundamental properties. However, targeted integral experiments
also will be needed in some cases.
Theory – Based either on first principles or observations made during phenomenological

testing, theories are developed to explain fundamental physical phenomena.
Modeling and Simulation – A range of Figure 14. Major Elements of Science-Based

mathematical models for diverse phenomena at Research, Development & Demonstration
much different time and spatial scales are
developed and then integrated to predict the
overall behavior of the system. Key objectives
of the modeling and simulation effort are to
reduce the number of prototypes and large-
scale experiments needed before demonstration
and deployment and to quantify uncertainties
and design and operational parameters.
Demonstrations – While the state of

knowledge can be significantly advanced
through the combination of experiments,
theory, and modeling and simulation, there
may be instances where it is appropriate to
work with the private sector to further
develop and validate laboratory findings.
Demonstrations can be a useful element in proving viability of new technologies, but their high
cost must be considered in the context of a variety of other factors. There must be sufficient
industry commitment for deployment of commercial technologies before such demonstrations
would be considered. Any potential future demonstration activities will be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis through the established decision-making procedures of the Department and
budget formulation.
5.2 Enabling Technologies

A set of enabling technologies has been identified that support progress on multiple
objectives. Where NE has an R&D role in these technology areas, coordination of NE’s
activities across these technologies must be implemented. For example, the NE “owner” of the
fuel cycle objective in such a case will be responsible for coordination of all nuclear fuel work
across objectives.
● Structural Materials – Advanced radiation and corrosion-resistant materials with
extension to high-temperature applications benefit many of the R&D objectives,
especially when conducted using a science-based development approach without relying
heavily on empirical experiments. Thus, a synergistic R&D program can be developed to
support all the objectives.
● Nuclear Fuels – The development of improved and advanced nuclear fuels is clearly a
major objective for both existing LWRs and the entire spectrum of advanced nuclear
energy systems discussed throughout this document. The short list of potentially needed
fuels include high-burnup LWR, fast reactor, and gas-reactor fuels; coated-particle
fuels; fast-spectrum and thermal-spectrum transmutation fuels and targets; thorium
fuels; and molten-salt fuels. A tightly coordinated and well integrated nuclear fuels
R&D program must be developed to support all of the R&D objectives.
● Reactor Systems – The development of advanced reactor concepts and supporting
technologies is a core function of NE. Advanced technologies and reactor concepts are
needed to improve the economics of electricity production. Multiple advanced reactor
concepts (LWR, small modular, gas-cooled, liquid metal-cooled, molten salt-cooled,
etc.) may play a role in our nuclear future. The development of a robust advanced reactor
system concept definition capability will be an important element of NE strategy
development.
● Instrumentation and Control – The development and implementation of digital
instrumentation and control systems will benefit current reactors as well as future
reactors. Advanced instrumentation and control systems will also benefit future fuel cycle
facilities. Safeguards technology development also relies on advanced instrumentation
and plant control systems through safeguards-by-design.
● Power Conversion Systems – Advanced power conversion systems will lead to
increased efficiency for the future reactors and facilitate the use of nuclear power in
markets requiring process heat.
● Process Heat Transport Systems – The development of process heat transport systems that
can be combined with multiple reactor technologies will enable the use of nuclear power to
deliver needed process heat to the industrial sector.
● Dry-Heat-Rejection Systems – Advanced dry-heat-rejection systems will improve the
environmental friendliness of the nuclear power plants and enable the deployment of
nuclear energy in areas where water constraints might otherwise preclude its use.
● Separations Processes – This report has noted the wide variety of fuel cycle options that
may be needed in the future to address U.S. energy security, economic, and sustainability
goals. Our future ability to sustainably and economically recycle LWR fuels, fast reactor
fuels, gas-cooled reactor fuels, molten salt fuels, etc. will depend, in part, on our ability
to separate key elements from the waste that will not be disposed in a repository.
● Waste Forms – The ability to engineer, produce, and manage fuel cycle waste forms that
are chemically and structurally stable over relevant periods of time from decades to
hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the radioisotope) is critical to achieving a
sustainable fuel cycle and must be closely integrated with both radiochemical research
and repository systems research.
● Risk Assessment Methods – Advanced methods for risk assessment based on mechanistic
modeling of system behavior will benefit the safety assessments of the new nuclear
energy systems and fuel cycle technologies. State-of-the-art computational and
experimental
techniques will benefit not only novel reactor concepts but other nuclear facilities
needed for the fuel cycle.
● Advanced Modeling and Simulation – The science-based approach relies heavily on
fundamental experiments combined with associated theories for predictive capabilities.
However, a comprehensive use of the science-based approach for predictive tools with
multiple interrelated phenomenologies requires advances in computational sciences
where phenomena at different time and length scales can be bridged into an engineering
code using modern computational platforms.
5.3 R&D Facilities and Infrastructure

Ultimately all design and safety tools for nuclear systems must be validated with underpinning
experimental data. Without such a foundation in reality, licensing these systems would be
virtually impossible. Experiments also provide essential waypoints for guiding the development
of technology. Having such an experimental capability requires that nuclear energy R&D
maintain access to a broad range of facilities from small-scale laboratories potentially up to full
prototype demonstrations. Hot cells and test reactors are at the top end of the hierarchy,
followed by smaller-scale radiological facilities, specialty engineering facilities, and non-
radiological small laboratories.
Nuclear energy R&D employs a multi-pronged approach to having these capabilities

available when needed. The core capabilities rely on DOE-owned irradiation, examination,
chemical processing and waste form development facilities. These are supplemented by
university capabilities ranging from research reactors to materials science laboratories. Future
infrastructure requirements will be considered through the established budget development
processes as needs arise.
The high cost of creating and maintaining physical infrastructure for nuclear R&D, including
the necessary safety and security infrastructure, requires creativity and periodic realignment of
infrastructure planning with programmatic direction. NE successfully employs a solid approach
to maintaining infrastructure. The approach concentrates the high-risk nuclear facilities at the
remote Idaho site, maintains unique capabilities at other sites if required, supports vital
university infrastructure, negotiates equitable capability exchanges with trusted international
partners, refurbishes and reequips essential facilities if required, addresses maintenance
backlogs to ensure safe operation, and makes efficient use of modeling, simulation, and single-
effect experiments.
5.4 Interfaces and Coordination

In order to achieve the objectives under each R&D objective, NE must closely coordinate
its activities with other agencies, the nuclear industry, and international partners.
Other Department of Energy Offices –The use of a “science-based” approach to develop

innovative nuclear energy systems and components requires a strong collaboration between NE
and the Office of Science (SC) to employ the tools developed for science in engineering
applications. Such tools include advanced experimental techniques, a fundamental
understanding of materials behavior, and advanced computational sciences. R&D on storage and
disposal of nuclear waste will be performed in coordination with the Office of Environmental
Management (EM) and the Office of Naval Reactors (NR), as there are salient similarities in the
disposition challenges facing each.
NNSA – Technology development for safeguards is a crosscutting tool that is applicable for
both domestic and international uses. NNSA and NE are implementing a coordinated effort to
address the safeguards R&D needs for domestic and international applications. These
collaborative efforts address the assessment of proliferation risks, accountancy, and control
(domestic) and verification (international) by contributing new safeguards technologies;
recruiting a new generation of safeguards specialists into the U.S. national laboratories,
universities, and industry; and informing the development of safe and secure nuclear facilities.
NNSA will be responsible for evaluating the international nation state proliferation risks of
deploying new fuel cycle technologies, particularly recycling technologies, outside of the
United States.
NRC – Appropriate collaboration between DOE and the NRC will help assure that nuclear
energy remains a viable option for the United States. The development of science-based tools to
inform licensing paradigms is one key goal of this collaboration.
Nuclear Industry – The decision to deploy nuclear energy systems is made by industry and the
private sector in market-based economies. However, it is important that industry is engaged
during the definition and execution of the R&D phase and that industry participate in joint
demonstration activities if such demonstration is deemed necessary and appropriate to
facilitate commercialization and deployment of the resulting technologies and systems. As
technologies are developed, cost-sharing with industry is an integral part of NE’s agenda. DOE
will proceed in a manner that recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong and viable
nuclear industry.
International Community –Strong participation and leadership by the United States in

international nuclear R&D, safety and nonproliferation programs is essential. Nuclear energy
worldwide must be deployed with safety and security of paramount importance. In addition,
several countries have established strong nuclear R&D programs and specialized expertise from
which the United States can benefit, such as the leadership position of Russia, France, and
Japan in fast reactor technology. Collaborations in nuclear technology R&D will be
implemented through bilateral and multilateral agreements and through international
organizations such as the Generation IV International Forum.
In order for nuclear power to continue to be a viable energy option in any country, including the
United States, nuclear safety, security, and safeguards must be maintained at the highest levels
on a global scale. DOE will help to achieve consensus criteria for safe reactor operation through
international organizations, such as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, and seek to
enhance safety standards for nuclear power, promote appropriate infrastructure at the national
and international levels, and minimize proliferation risks from the expansion of nuclear power
through its participation with the IAEA and related organizations.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This document presents an integrated strategy and R&D framework for the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy. In order to meet the Administration’s goals of energy security and greenhouse
gas reductions, nuclear energy must play an important role in the national energy portfolio. NE’s
derived missions in support of these national goals are to enable the development and
deployment of fission power systems for the production of electricity and process heat. Four
research and development objectives have been identified, which will guide NE’s program and
strategic planning. Progress in these areas will help ensure that nuclear energy continues to be
among the suite of available U.S. energy options throughout the 21st century. These objectives
are:
● R&D Objective 1 – Develop technology and other solutions that can improve the
reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.
● R&D Objective 2 – Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable
nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy security and climate change
goals.
● R&D Objective 3 – Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles.
● R&D Objective 4 – Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation
and terrorism.

Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP

3. Mission and Goals of the Office of Nuclear Energy 11

4. An Integrated Nuclear Energy Roadmap 15

4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options 31

4.3.3 Key Activities 33

6. Summary and Conclusions 47

Research and Development Objectives

R&D OBJECTIVE 1: Develop technologies and other solutions that can

R&D OBJECTIVE 2: Develop improvements in the affordability of new

R&D OBJECTIVE 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

R&D OBJECTIVE 4: Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear

The report focuses on R&D activities sponsored by NE.

Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions1

2.1 The Energy Landscape

Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption (Per

As we move forward, efficiency and conservation will become ever-increasing components of

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP

2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach

2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio

equivalent to 92 gigawatt- years (GWe-yrs). As (EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008)

shown in Figure 6, even though the generating

3. MISSION AND GOALS OF THE

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission

3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in

3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New

3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of

Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies

4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions

Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions

4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet

4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement

● Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control (II&C) System Technologies –

4.1.3 Key Activities

4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability

Figure 9. Key Activities for R&D Objective 1

4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments

4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds

o New technology testing and, if appropriate, demonstration.

4.2.2.1 Accelerate Advancements in LWR Designs

4.2.2.2 Accelerate the Development of SMR Designs

4.2.2.3 Develop Advanced Reactor Technologies

Key areas of R&D for future systems could include:

● New fuels and cladding capable of irradiation to high burnup.

4.2.2.4 Develop Technologies Consistent with Both Electric and Non-

Key areas of R&D for future systems could include:

4.2.3 Key Activities

Figure 10. Key Activities for R&D Objective 2

4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

The constituents of current used nuclear fuel Figure 11. Constituents of

Figure 11. As this figure shows, the vast

R&D within each of these tracks:

4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options

waste generation while addressing proliferation concerns. Furthermore, fuels must be

4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options

4.3.3 Key Activities

4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks

Figure 12. Key Activities for R&D Objective 3