cool_spent_uox

[jbae11]

Dearest @gyutaepark, I am wondering why you'd need the recipe cool_spent_uox, since Cyclus can do decay. Considering that you have the option to choose from various burnups, and perhaps for future implementation purposes, wouldn't it make sense for Cyclus to do decay calculations than manually setting what the 'cooled' composition would be?

I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks

[gyutaepark]

That's a good point. I'ved used the cool_spent_uox recipe because it was available at vision_recipes.csv. I agree with you that letting Cyclus perfrom decay calculations would be benefitial when considering future use.

@jbae11 I could make a fix for this and create a PR. Could you review it once I do so please?

[jbae11]

@gyutaepark Yup. It should probably be just getting rid of the recipe definition in the storage?

[gonuke]

As a separate issue, it would be interesting to compare the results of Cyclus decay to the cool_spent_uox recipe, but probably not important for this PR

[gyutaepark]

Sounds like a great idea! I can make a small section on the comparison between cool_spent_uox and Cyclus decay. Once I have an input file with Cyclus decay, comparison should be straight-forward.

[jbae11]

Do we know the initial enrichment, burnup and the cool time of cool_spent_uox?

[gyutaepark]

Good point @jbae11 . I've checked the recipe's file.

At this moment, the recipe used for cool_spent_uox uses the spent fuel recipe. Thus, implementing enabling Cyclus decay to our spent fuel would not be an addition of a feature but a amendment of a bug.

Sadly, this means that we cannot use the two different input files (with decay enabled/ decay disabled) as a benchmarking tool (@gonuke )

Thanks for pointing this out @jbae11!

[gonuke]

no worries - good to know!

[jbae11]

@gonuke On a similar note, it would be nice to do a benchmarking of the Cyclus decay function with another decay computation

[gyutaepark]

55 enables cyclus decay.

This issue is now closed.