Search - OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

Cases
Table 3. Heterogeneous recycling of Am, Cm in targets.
Actinide streams (kg/TWhe).
In-core streams
(kg/TWhe)
Pu Am Cm TRU
Actinide wastes
(kg/TWhe)
U +
TRU Pu Am Cm 1) Total
Scenario
44% REP UO 2
and
2) 89 89 394 0.089 0.035 0.005
56% EFR
+ + +
Targets:
a) Am, Cm reprocessed
and recycled 3.5 0.8 0.014 – 0.029
b) Am + Cm up to
90% burn-up
c) Am alone to
90% burn-up
3.5 0.5 0.125 0.038 0.235
3.5 – 0.086 0.032 0.690
1) In case a, for Cm: 0.465 are rejected from the fuel and 0.230 from the targets.
2) Figures on this line correspond to the core basic fuel; figures of the following lines to the targets.
Wastes
reduction
factor
0.172 160
0.527 50
0.937 30
6. Discussion
The discussion will concern successively: the envisaged scenario, the heterogeneous option, the
reduction of waste toxicity, the flexibility of target irradiation and the way to effectively reach 90%
burn-up in targets.
6.1 The envisaged scenario
The mixed PWR/FR scenario envisaged above obviously relies on a revival of the fast reactor
option. This assumes that fast reactors will be largely deployed, at the time uranium resources will
become scarce, and thus more expensive. This was the subject of many studies in the past, and will
not be discussed here again.
It will simply be recalled that for the introduction of fast reactors of the EFR type, cost estimates
were published by the EFR associates [5]. They essentially set the EFR kWhe cost at a level about
10% higher than for the PWR, and the part of the EFR kWhe cost due to the fuel cycle was estimated
to be also about 10%. Such estimates were supposed to apply when EFR type reactors would have
largely been deployed.
6.2 Homogeneous or heterogeneous option
Inserting Am or Am + Cm into the MOX fuel itself of the FR in the homogeneous option brings
additional difficulties in the re-fabrication plant, so that the fuel cycle cost will increase.
441