The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative
The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative
The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
p Waste management must be integrated with the design of the fuel <strong>cycle</strong>. This creates<br />
new options such as partitioning/reprocessing of irradiated fuel that may enhance waste<br />
management and public acceptance.<br />
p <strong>The</strong>re are multiple options for advanced reactor/closed fuel <strong>cycle</strong> choices, and these options<br />
need research and analysis that enables timely marketplace decisions.<br />
p End-to-end <strong>nuclear</strong> fuel <strong>cycle</strong> costs must be competitive with the future costs of other<br />
low-carbon options if deployment is to scale appreciably.<br />
p Institutional and technical advances are needed to minimize fuel <strong>cycle</strong> proliferation<br />
risks.<br />
Table 10.1 <strong>Fuel</strong> Cycle Objectives and Potential RD&D Implications<br />
obJeCtiveS<br />
economics<br />
Safety and Security<br />
Waste Management<br />
resource availability<br />
& utilization<br />
non-proliferation &<br />
Safeguards<br />
potential impliCationS<br />
1. reactor life extension beyond 60 years (may be lowest cost option)<br />
2. high efficiency reactors<br />
3. advanced technologies for lWrs with enhanced performance, thus building upon existing<br />
industrial base<br />
4. Modular reactors for specialized markets, more favorable financing conditions, or industrial heat<br />
(displacing fossil fuels).<br />
5. efficient regulatory process for a wider class of reactors than large lWrs<br />
1. Super fuel forms that withstand severe conditions with reduced safety challenges for reactors (but<br />
make re<strong>cycle</strong> more difficult)<br />
2. Wider use of information technology for plant safety and operations<br />
3. coupled reprocessing-repository facilities to reduce process risks<br />
1. Tailored waste forms/ advanced fuel designs for disposal<br />
2. Special management of actinides or long-lived fission products<br />
novel separations with waste stream minimization<br />
Transmutation—waste destruction<br />
Borehole disposal<br />
3. repository with multi-century retrievability<br />
4. collocated fuel <strong>cycle</strong> facilities to maximize local benefits<br />
1. uranium resource assessment<br />
2. uranium from seawater<br />
3. Fast spectrum reactors with open, modified, or closed fuel <strong>cycle</strong><br />
4. repository with retrievable SnF<br />
1. avoidance of high-enriched uranium and separated plutonium<br />
e.g., Fast reactors fueled with natural uranium after startup/no reprocessing<br />
2. Borehole disposal of Tru<br />
3. advanced safeguards<br />
Each of these defines part of the overall high-priority ARD&D agenda. A high level summary<br />
of some of the implications is provided in Table 10.1.<br />
<strong>The</strong> very limited amount of fuel <strong>cycle</strong> R&D carried out in the U.S. over the last quarter<br />
century has centered on technology pathways established early in the <strong>nuclear</strong> power development<br />
program (see Appendix E). In moving forward, a broader set of options needs to<br />
be explored in the spirit of technology tradeoffs within multi-objective fuel <strong>cycle</strong> design.<br />
134 <strong>MIT</strong> STudy on <strong>The</strong> <strong>FuTure</strong> <strong>oF</strong> <strong>nuclear</strong> <strong>Fuel</strong> <strong>cycle</strong>