IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v53y2013icp205-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The application of systems engineering principles to the prioritization of sustainable nuclear fuel cycle options

Author

Listed:
  • Price, Robert R.
  • Singh, Bhupinder P.
  • MacKinnon, Robert J.
  • David Sevougian, S.

Abstract

We investigate the implementation of the principles of systems engineering in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) Program to provide a framework for achieving its long-term mission of demonstrating and deploying sustainable nuclear fuel cycle options. A fuel cycle “screening” methodology is introduced that provides a systematic, objective, and traceable method for evaluating and categorizing nuclear fuel cycles according to their performance in meeting sustainability objectives. The goal of the systems engineering approach is to transparently define and justify the research and development (R&D) necessary to deploy sustainable fuel cycle technologies for a given set of national policy objectives. The approach provides a path for more efficient use of limited R&D resources and facilitates dialog among a variety of stakeholder groups interested in U.S. energy policy. Furthermore, the use of systems engineering principles will allow the FCT Program to more rapidly adapt to future policy changes, including any decisions based on recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Specifically, if the relative importance of policy objectives changes, the FCT Program will have a structured process to rapidly determine how this impacts potential fuel cycle performance and the prioritization of needed R&D for associated technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Price, Robert R. & Singh, Bhupinder P. & MacKinnon, Robert J. & David Sevougian, S., 2013. "The application of systems engineering principles to the prioritization of sustainable nuclear fuel cycle options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 205-217.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:53:y:2013:i:c:p:205-217
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512009366
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.051?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    3. Pilch, Martin & Trucano, Timothy G. & Helton, Jon C., 2011. "Ideas underlying the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 965-975.
    4. Peter C. Fishburn, 1968. "Utility Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 335-378, January.
    5. John Butler & Douglas J. Morrice & Peter W. Mullarkey, 2001. "A Multiple Attribute Utility Theory Approach to Ranking and Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(6), pages 800-816, June.
    6. James S. Dyer & Thomas Edmunds & John C. Butler & Jianmin Jia, 1998. "A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternatives for the Disposition of Surplus Weapons-Grade Plutonium," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(6), pages 749-762, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosen, Scott L. & Harmonosky, Catherine M. & Traband, Mark T., 2007. "A simulation optimization method that considers uncertainty and multiple performance measures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 315-330, August.
    2. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    3. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    4. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    5. Mikhail Timonin, 2012. "Maximization of the Choquet integral over a convex set and its application to resource allocation problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 543-579, July.
    6. Juergen Branke & Wen Zhang, 2019. "Identifying efficient solutions via simulation: myopic multi-objective budget allocation for the bi-objective case," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 41(3), pages 831-865, September.
    7. He, Ying & Huang, Rui-Hua, 2008. "Risk attributes theory: Decision making under risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 243-260, April.
    8. William K. Klimack & Jack M. Kloeber & Kenneth W. Bauer & Mark E. Oxley, 2015. "An Empirical Examination of Multiple Objective Risk Attitudes," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 96-103, June.
    9. Cohen, Sandra & Doumpos, Michael & Neofytou, Evi & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2012. "Assessing financial distress where bankruptcy is not an option: An alternative approach for local municipalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(1), pages 270-279.
    10. Yonatan Aumann, 2015. "A conceptual foundation for the theory of risk aversion," Discussion Paper Series dp686, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    11. Jana B. Jarecki & Jörg Rieskamp, 2022. "Comparing attribute-based and memory-based preferential choice," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 49(1), pages 65-90, March.
    12. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    13. Bilal Bin Saeed & Wenbin Wang & Rui Peng, 2014. "Diagnosing organisational health: a case study of Pakistani banks," International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 43-69.
    14. Rios Insua, D. & Alfaro, C. & Gomez, J. & Hernandez-Coronado, P. & Bernal, F., 2018. "A framework for risk management decisions in aviation safety at state level," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 74-82.
    15. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    16. John C. Butler & James S. Dyer & Jianmin Jia, 2006. "Using Attributes to Predict Objectives in Preference Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 100-116, June.
    17. Figueira, José Rui & Oliveira, Henrique M. & Serro, Ana Paula & Colaço, Rogério & Froes, Filipe & Robalo Cordeiro, Carlos & Diniz, António & Guimarães, Miguel, 2023. "A multiple criteria approach for building a pandemic impact assessment composite indicator: The case of COVID-19 in Portugal," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 795-818.
    18. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.
    19. Dinis, Duarte Caldeira & Figueira, José Rui & Teixeira, Ângelo Palos, 2023. "A multiple criteria approach for ship risk classification: An alternative to the Paris MoU Ship Risk Profile," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:53:y:2013:i:c:p:205-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.