The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

Figure 6.13 hlW in repository in ym equivalent of Spent Fuel (base case)
600,000
MTIhM – uo2 SF in yM equivalent
450,000
300,000
150,000
oTc
MoX
Fr cr=0.5
Fr cr=1.23
0
2008
Time (year)
2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098 2108
note: cr = 0.5 line lies on top of cr = 1.23 line
The comparative advantage of the recycling options is reduced when heat generation is
considered. In 2108, the repository requirements of the twice-through scenario are equivalent
to those of 382,000 tIHM of spent UO 2 fuel (or a gain of only 13% with respect to the
OTC). In both FR cases, the repository requirements in 2108 are equivalent to 84,000 tIHM
of spent UO 2 fuel (1.2 YM, or a gain of 81% with respect to the OTC).
Finally, Figure 6.14 shows the amount of TRU in the repository. In the FR scenarios, the 20
tHM of TRU present in wastes in 2100 are diluted in about 38,000 tIHM of fission products
and therefore do not pose any proliferation concern, until the decay of the fission products.
The twice-through scenario reduces the TRU content in wastes, in 2100, by about35%
(4700tHM vs. 7500tHM). Recall that in this scenario the minor actinides are left with the
fission products during reprocessing of the spent UO 2 fuel, and are eventually disposed of
in a repository. Therefore, the waste contains dilute amounts of fissile materials associated
with high radiation fields, thus posing little proliferation concern.
Figure 6.14 tru Content in Wastes (base case)
8,000
6,000
oTc
MoX
Fr cr=0.5
Fr cr=1.23
MThM
4,000
2,000
0
2008 2031 2054 2077 2100
Time (year)
note: cr = 0.5 line lies on top of cr = 1.23 line
chapter 6: analysis of Fuel cycle options 89