The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Spent nuClear Fuel manaGement Historically the United States has not considered SNF storage as a major component of fuel cycle policy. However, repository programs worldwide have adopted a policy of storing SNF (or the HLW from reprocessing) for 40 to 60 years before disposal in a geological repository to reduce the radioactivity and decay heat. This reduces repository costs and performance uncertainties. Countries such as France with its partly closed fuel cycle and Sweden with its open fuel cycle built storage facilities several decades ago for this purpose. The failure to include long term storage as part of the spent fuel management has had major impacts on the design of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository (YMR). Due to the heat load of SNF, the repository was required to be ventilated to remove decay heat while the SNF cooled. The YMR would have, after 30 years of filling, become functionally an underground storage facility with active ventilation for an additional 50 years prior to closure. Fuel cycle transitions require a half century or more. It is likely to be several decades before the U.S. deploys alternative fuel cycles. Long term interim storage provides time to assure proper development of repositories and time to decide whether LWR SNF is a waste that ultimately requires disposal or whether it is a valuable resource. For multiple reasons, we recommend: Recommendation Planning for long term interim storage of spent nuclear fuel—on the scale of a century—should be an integral part of nuclear fuel cycle design. In recommending century-scale storage, we are not precluding earlier reprocessing or geological disposal of SNF or much longer term managed storage if the technology permits. These options are preserved. The key point is that fuel cycle decisions should be taken over the next decade or two in the context of a century time scale for managed storage. Finding Either distributed storage (at reactor), centralized long-term storage, or storage in a repository is technically sound. planning for long-term managed storage of spent nuclear fuel — for about a century — should be an integral part of nuclear fuel cycle design and preserve options. The choice between these options will be decided by a variety of technical, economic, and political factors. The burden of SNF storage is small at an operating reactor site because SNF storage is required after discharge from the reactor and before shipment off site. However, this is not true for decommissioned sites where there are no longer the normal reactor operations associated with SNF handling, storage, and security; SNF storage limits reuse of these sites (which are often attractive for development because of access to water and transportation infrastructure) for other purposes; and the tax and employment benefits of the reactor no longer exist. Spent nuclear fuel should be removed as soon as possible from decommissioned reactor sites to centralized storage facilities or operating reactor facilities. Today the total quantities at decommissioned sites are small—about equal to a year’s production of SNF in the U.S. Centralized interim storage on a large scale would have the benefit of satisfying federal obligations to remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites. Building upon our recommendation for long-term interim SNF storage: Chapter 1 — The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle — Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations 5
Recommendation We recommend that the U.S. move toward centralized SNF storage sites—starting initially with SNF from decommissioned sites and in support of a long-term SNF management strategy. The Federal government should take ownership of the SNF under centralized storage. spent nuclear fuel should be removed from decomissioned sites. The costs of SNF storage are small because the total quantities of SNF (~2000 tons/year in the United States requiring a total of 5 acres/year if placed in dry-cask storage) are small. Licenses for dry-cask SNF storage have been granted for 60 years at some plants. Managed storage is believed to be safe for a century. Nevertheless, degradation of the spent fuel and storage casks occurs over time due to its heat load, radioactivity and external environmental conditions. Spent fuel in interim storage will need to be shipped either to a reprocessing plant or a repository. The ability of transporting spent fuel after a century of storage will require an understanding of the condition of the spent fuel and storage canisters. At present, limited research and testing on degradation mechanisms of high burnup fuel has been performed and there has been a trend towards higher burnup fuels. High confidence in the integrity of SNF after a century of storage, adequate for transportation and possibly reprocessing, and the possibility for even longer storage times are important considerations for informed fuel cycle decisions. A strong technical basis is essential. Recommendation An RD&D program should be devoted to confirm and extend the safe storage and transportation period. WaSte manaGement Geological disposal is needed for any fuel cycle option. Finding All fuel cycle options create long-lived nuclear wastes that ultimately require geological isolation, and the MIT 2003 report found the science underpinning geologic isolation to be sound. Recommendation Efforts at developing suitable geological repositories for SNF from LWRs and HLW from advanced fuel cycles should proceed expeditiously and are an important part of fuel cycle design. There have been many failures and some successes in the siting, development, licensing, and operation of geological repositories. There are today no operating repositories for disposal of SNF. However, the United States operates one geological repository—the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for defense wastes with small concentrations of transuranic elements (plutonium, etc.). WIPP is in its tenth year of operation. Commercial and defense SNF and HLW were to be disposed of in the Yucca Mountain Repository, and thus are now left without a known destination. Sweden and Finland have sited geological repositories for SNF near existing reactor sites with public acceptance. Both countries are in the process 6 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle
Page 3 and 4: Other Reports in This Series The Fu
Page 5 and 6: MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study Adviso
Page 7 and 8: vi MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 9 and 10: viii MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nuc
Page 11 and 12: Study Findings and Recommendations
Page 13 and 14: Recommendation We recommend that a
Page 15 and 16: p Innovative nuclear energy applica
Page 17 and 18: p In line with many of our R&D reco
Page 19 and 20: The “once through” or open fuel
Page 21: have been implemented slowly. This
Page 25 and 26: oped policies for specific wastes r
Page 27 and 28: nuClear Fuel CyCleS The united Stat
Page 29 and 30: - The primary differences were in t
Page 31 and 32: Recommendation Integrated system st
Page 33 and 34: Table 1.2 Summary of R&D Recommenda
Page 35 and 36: 18 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 37 and 38: the once-through Fuel Cycle for lig
Page 39 and 40: tricity costs. Waste management cos
Page 41 and 42: Figure 2.3 partial recycle of lWr S
Page 43 and 44: history of the nuclear Fuel Cycle B
Page 45 and 46: • What is the impact of timing of
Page 47 and 48: nuclear fuel cycles, the wastes (SN
Page 49 and 50: Because ore demand is closely coupl
Page 51 and 52: eStimatinG Future CoStS oF uranium
Page 53 and 54: Figure 3.3 relative uranium Cost vs
Page 55 and 56: Figure 3.4 100 year price trend for
Page 57 and 58: Stockpiling If supply interruption
Page 59 and 60: CitationS and noteS 1. Uranium 2007
Page 61 and 62: If SNF is to be shipped, typically
Page 63 and 64: a policy that maintains fuel cycle
Page 65 and 66: Dry cask storage is used for short
Page 67 and 68: For decommissioned sites, our econo
Page 69 and 70: with its attractiveness of jobs and
Page 71 and 72: 54 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 73 and 74:
2. The United States should create
Page 75 and 76:
Table 5.1 United States Waste Class
Page 77 and 78:
table 5.3 examples of operational G
Page 79 and 80:
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant The uni
Page 81 and 82:
Successful repository programs are
Page 83 and 84:
designed with limited SNF storage c
Page 85 and 86:
CitationS and noteS 1. A Handbook f
Page 87 and 88:
70 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 89 and 90:
energy spectrum centered at higher
Page 91 and 92:
light Water reactor Fuel technical
Page 93 and 94:
(fertile-free) to CR=1.0 (break-eve
Page 95 and 96:
license. However, fuel reprocessing
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 6.4 densification Factors as
Page 99 and 100:
As expected, the breeder installed
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 6.8 shows the development of
Page 103 and 104:
Table 6.8 Uranium Cost in $/kg, Sta
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 6.11 location of the tru inv
Page 107 and 108:
SenSitivity analySiS: alternative a
Page 109 and 110:
Fast reactor technical Characterist
Page 111 and 112:
cooled fast reactor (SFR) fueled by
Page 113 and 114:
Summary oF ConCluSionS Among the in
Page 115 and 116:
[hoffman et al., 2006] e.a. hoffman
Page 117 and 118:
This chapter reports the cost of th
Page 119 and 120:
Table 7.1 Input Parameter Assumptio
Page 121 and 122:
Twice-Through Cycle Table 7.3 shows
Page 123 and 124:
Table 7.4 The LCOE for the Fast Rea
Page 125 and 126:
higher cost of disposal of the spen
Page 127 and 128:
110 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucl
Page 129 and 130:
power program might be used, as is
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 8.1 Weapons-usability Charac
Page 133 and 134:
inStitutional approaCheS to Fuel Cy
Page 135 and 136:
the iaea additional protocol an Iae
Page 137 and 138:
in technology innovation are likely
Page 139 and 140:
Reprocessing choices Commercial rep
Page 141 and 142:
Table 8.2 Safeguard Technical Objec
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
port for nuclear power over the per
Page 147 and 148:
Those Americans who have an opinion
Page 149 and 150:
who are very concerned with global
Page 151 and 152:
p Waste management must be integrat
Page 153 and 154:
options because we do not know toda
Page 155 and 156:
Nuclear Security. Nonproliferation
Page 157 and 158:
There have been major changes in ou
Page 159 and 160:
There are large financial and polic
Page 161 and 162:
Figure 3A.2 shows the results. As c
Page 163 and 164:
Figure A.3 plots Eq (2), where adva
Page 165 and 166:
Again, assuming that q = 0.29, the
Page 167 and 168:
Note that Eq. [7] suggests employin
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 3b.1 Cumulative probability
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Figure 5a.1 decay of radioactivity
Page 175 and 176:
and 241 Am. For the short term, hea
Page 177 and 178:
Repository Engineering All reposito
Page 179 and 180:
epreSentative repoSitory deSiGnS: u
Page 181 and 182:
orehole diSpoSal There are three me
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
table 7a.1 list of variables , 1 lc
Page 187 and 188:
The Twice-Through Cycle The LCOE fo
Page 189 and 190:
A proper representation of the chai
Page 191 and 192:
In the Twice-Through Cycle, the pai
Page 193 and 194:
table 7a.2 once-through Fuel Cycle
Page 195 and 196:
above ground storage. However, the
Page 197 and 198:
CitationS and noteS 1. The methodol
Page 199 and 200:
Historically, the interest in thori
Page 201 and 202:
p Analogous to plutonium. Plutonium
Page 203 and 204:
In case self-protection of U-232 da
Page 205 and 206:
Figure a.3 Schematic view of Sbu an
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
eaCtor teChnoloGieS Nuclear power e
Page 211 and 212:
via 239 Pu and 240 Pu, and then the
Page 213 and 214:
urnups, but the gap between the nec
Page 215 and 216:
(~700°C) with higher thermal-to-el
Page 217 and 218:
There are several unique consequenc
Page 219 and 220:
performance goals can be achieved.
Page 221 and 222:
is that it will be many decades bef
Page 223 and 224:
system [1]. The nuclear power plant
Page 225 and 226:
The HTRs can be used to provide hig
Page 227 and 228:
[http://nextgenerationnuclearplant.
Page 229 and 230:
CitationS and noteS Brinkmann, H. U
Page 231 and 232:
The analysis is based on the assump
Page 233 and 234:
considerations discussed above. We
Page 235 and 236:
In our analysis we make the explici
Page 237 and 238:
Figure d.4 transmutation Consequenc
Page 239 and 240:
Figure d.5 breeder Consequences LWR
Page 241 and 242:
facilities. These concerns are the
Page 243 and 244:
Technological applicability Geologi
Page 245 and 246:
It must be noted, that net risks an
Page 247 and 248:
p Once-through fast reactor fuel. T
Page 249 and 250:
Table E.1 Recycling Plant Functions
Page 251 and 252:
Table E.3 Conventional Fuel Fabrica
Page 253 and 254:
eactor. A summary of inputs from in
Page 255 and 256:
this page intentionally left blank
Page 257:
this page intentionally left blank
show all

The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?