ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

5-26
program, including hot testing, may require 5-12 years.
struction might require 8-12 years.
for a given fuel cycle the total lapsed time from initial development to commercialization of
fuel recycle ranges from about 12-20 years. The total time would depend upon the initial
technology status, the degree to which the R&D program steps are telescoped to save time, and
the stage to which the development program must be carried.
the far end of the development time range.
Reference facility design and con-
There can be considerable overlapping of phases so that
The tHqrium cycles would be at
Table 5.2-3 presents the R&D cost ranges in terms of reactor types and fuel recycle
systems. For all fuel cycles, the uncertainty in the R&D costs should be emphasized. Thus,
in water reactors, the estimated range of R&D costs is $1.3-2.3 billion for U/Pu recycle
development, and $1 -8-3.3 billion for DUTH recycle development. For HTGRs, the corresponding
ranges are $1.4-2.6 billion and $1.8-3.3 billion for U/Pu and DUTH recycle development,
respectively; for FBRs, the corresponding ranges are $1.6-3.0 billion and $2.0-3.6 billion,
respectively. Although there is a significant cost uncertainty for each reactor type and
fuel cycle, for a given reactor type the trend in costs as a function of fuel cycle is
significant. Generally, the reference U/Pu cycle would be least expensive and the DUTH
cycle the most expensive, with the Pu/Th and HEU/Th cycles intermediate.
Table 5.2-3. Estimated Range of Fuel Recycle R&D Costs*
Billions of Dollars
Reactor Type
U/PU PuITh DUTH HEU/Th
Water Reactors 1.3-2.3 1.6-3.0 1.8-3.3 1.6-2.9
HTGRs 1.4-2.6 1.6-3.0 1.8-3.3 1.6-2.9
FBRs 1.6-3.0 1.8-3.2 2.0-3.6 1.7-3.1
*Includes costs for developing reprocessing and refabrication
technologies and a portion of the waste treatment technology
development costs.
5.2.3. Conclusions
A decision to develop reactor systems operating on denatured fuel cycles requires a
government commitment to spend $0.5 billion to $2 billion more on a fuel recycle development
program than would be required to develop reactors operating on the reference
(partitioned, uncontaminated products) U/Pu cycles. The differential is even larger when
reactors operating on DUTH cycles are compared with reactors operating on once-through
cycles. No comparison has been made with the costs of developing diversion-resistaht U/Pu
cycles (using co-processing, spiking, etc.).
Expenditures to develop recycle systems for DUTH fuels would span a period of
20 years from initial development to commercialization. The principal expenditures would
occur in the second half of this period, when large facilities with high operating costs
are needed.
t