ORNL-5388 - the Molten Salt Energy Technologies Web Site

7-25
7.3.2. Considerations in Commercializing Reactors Operating
on Alternate Fuels
Although the introduction dates cited above for commercial operation of the various
reactors on alternate fuels are considered to be attainable, they can be realized only if
the first steps toward commercialization are initiated in the near future under strong and
sustained government support. Currently, there is little economic incentive for the
private sector to proceed with such development alone. For example, while recent
evaluations1s2 of LWRs have indicated the feasibility of using thorium-based fuels with
current core and lattice designs, either as reload fuels for reactors already in operation
or as both initial and reload fuels for future LWRs, the resource-savings benefit of such
fuels relative to once-through LEU fuel cannot be realized in the absence of fuel reprocessing
and refabrication services. Moreover, the introduction of thorium into the core
will require high initial uranium loadings, so that the fuel costs for the core would
increase. Obviously, the lack of strong evidence that fuel recycle services would be
available as soon as they were needed would discourage a transition to thorium-based fuels.
Alternatively, such services could not be expected to be available commercially until
utilization of thorium has been established and a market for these services exists.
Thus commercialization of the denatured fuel cycle in LWRs, especially within the time
frame postulated in this study, is unlikely unless major government incentives are provided.
The government incentives could be in the form of guarantees for investment in the
fuel cycle services and/or subsidies for the costs associated with the additional U308 and
separative work required for thorium-based fuels or for partial thorium loadings on the
once-through cycle. This would also encourage the development of the fuel cycle services
by establishing widespread use of thorium-based fuels. The commercial introduction of the
required new LWR fuel cycle services could probably be accomplished by allowing a 7-yr
lead time for construction of demonstration reprocessing and refabrication plants and an
additional 7 yr to construct commercial-size plants. In the meantime, fabrication of
MEU(235)/Th fuel or fuel designs involving partial thorium loadings for LWRs could
probably be accomplished with existing LEU facilities within 2 to 3 yr (Ref. 3) with an
additional 5 to 7 yr required for fuel qualification and/or demonstration. The R&D costs
for demonstrating denatured uranium fuel in commercial reactors would be borne by the
government.
The conercial introduction in the U. S. of the advanced converter concepts (SSCRs,
HTGRs, and HWRs) would be more difficult today than was the past commercial introduction
of the LWR. Although the introduction in 1958 of the first LWR, the Shippingport reactor,
did involve government support, a relatively small investment was required due to its size
(~68 MWe). The largest base-load power plants were about 300 MWe when LWRs initially penetrated
the comnercial market. Also, during the initial years of deployment of nuclear power,
delays due to licensing procedures were considerably shorter, a1 lowing plants to be constructed
and brought on-line more rapidly than the current 10- to 12-yr lead time. The longer
time causes much larger interest payments and much greater risk of licensing difficulties.