ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

5-24
5.2.2. Research, Development, and Demonstration Cost Ranges and Schedules
While fuel recycle R&D needs can be identified for a variety of alternate fuel
cycles and systems, the launching of a major developmental effort to integrate these
activities into a specific integrated fuel cycle must await a U.S. decision on the fuel
cycle and reactor development strategy that would best support our nonproliferation objec-
tives and our energy needs. Whether it would be more expeditious to develop individual
cycles independently in separate facilities or to plan for an integrated recycle development
facility will depend on the nature and timing of that decision. If a number of related
cycles were developed in the same facilities, the total costs would be only moderately
higher than the costs associated with any one cycle. Since the denatured 23311 cycle implies
a system of symbiotic reactors (233U producers and 233U consumers), such an approach is
likely to be attractive if a decision were made to develop the denatured 233U cycle.
The existence of major uncertainties in the fuel recycle development and demonstration
programs make cost projections highly uncertain. There are, first, difficulties inherent in
projecting the costs of process and equipment development programs which address the resolution
of technical problems associated with particular reactors and fuel cycles. In addition,
there are uncertainties conunon to projecting costs and schedules for all fuel recycle develop-
ment programs; specifically, uncertainties in the future size of the commercial nuclear industry
cause problems in program definition. It is necessary to identify the reactor growth
scenario associated with the fuel cycle system so that fuel loads can be projected and
typical plant sizes estimated. This is critical from the standpoint of establishing the
scale of the technology to be developed and the principal steps to be covered in the
development. For example, if the end use of a fuel cycle is in a secure energy center,
smaller plants are involved and the development could conceivably be terminated with a
plant that would be considered a prototype in a large (1500 MT/yr) commercial reprocessing
facility development sequence. Similarly, growth rates for particular reactor types may be
much smaller than others, or the fuel loads may be smaller because of higher fuel burnup.
Thus, smaller fuel cycle plants would be required.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that the fuel recycle industry has
for a number of years been confronted with uncertain and escalating regulatory requirements.
Permissible radiation exposure levels for operating personnel, acceptable safeguards
systems, and environmental and safety requirements, all of which affect costs, have not
been specified. Nevertheless, based upon experience with previous fuel recycle development
programs, typical fuel recycle R,D&D costs for the fuel cycles of interest can be presented
in broad ranges. In the past, reprocessing costs had been developed for the U/Pu
systems with partitioned and decontaminated product streams. These have been used here to
provide base-line costs. Any institutional consideration, such as a secure fuel service
center, that would permit conventional Purex and Thorex reprocessing to take place would
give more credence to the base-line technology development costs used here.
L;
u
c
li
L
L