The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table D.2 Scorecard and Explanation of Impacts and Rankings a l t e r n a t i v e S Current praCtiCe direCt StoraGe tranSmuter lWr-Fr (breeder) i m p a C t S Gen 1 Gen 2-n Gen 1 Gen 2-n Gen 1 Gen 2-n Gen 1 Gen 2-n Environmental Friendliness/Public Safety Mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication high high Medium low Transport of spent and recycled fuel low Medium high high reactor operation and decommissioning period low low low low high high high high Spent fuel storage high high low low high high high high Final disposal of spent fuel and other waste Indifferent high Indifferent high Indifferent low Indifferent high reprocessing – applying fast reactors × × Indifferent Indifferent Security uranium enrichment high high Medium low reactor operation and decommissioning period low low low low high high high high Spent fuel storage Medium Medium low low low low high high Final disposal of spent fuel and other waste Medium Medium Medium Medium low low high high reprocessing – applying fast reactors × × Medium high Resourse Durability consuming uranium high high Medium low energy production with uranium (benefit) low low low low Medium Medium high high retrievable stored/ disposed of spent fuel (benefit) high high high high Medium Medium low low Economic Viability Safety measures costs until the end of retrieval Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Building reprocessing plants and fast reactors × × Medium high Technological Applicability Geological disposal Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent applying reprocessing and fuel fabrication × × high high applying fast reactors × × high high The explanation of the rankings for Scorecard is provided below: Environmental friendliness/public safety legend least Favorable Intermediate/Indifferent Most Favorable Mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication The two first alternatives are based on enriching uranium and they involve the highest risk in this category. Breeders need no enriched uranium and they therefore carry the lowest risk (alt. 4). The transmuter alternative (3) is based on transmuting the actinides in SF that come out of a lWr; alt. 3 then involves less risk than the first two and more than the breeder alternative. Transport of spent and recycled fuel In alt. 1 there is no recycled fuel; SF is transported to interim storage and eventually to disposal facilities. In alt. 2 there is no recycling either; however the transport risk is higher, as hot and more radioactive spent fuel that has just come out of the reactor is immediately transported to the underground storage appendix d: Intergenerational equity considerations of Fuel cycle choices 223
facilities. These concerns are the highest for the two last alternatives in this category, since recycling involves more transportation in the form of recycled fuel returning to the reactor for irradiation. Reactor operation and decommissioning period There is a difference between the first two alternatives that solely use lWr and the last two that are based on Frs. The latter are generally sodium-cooled reactors that are thought to be relatively more difficult to decommission due to their greater complexity. Spent fuel storage In the last two alternatives that use sodium-cooled Frs it is difficult to store SF, as we need to manage sodium which needs to be stored under an inert cover gas. alt. 1 stores SF above-ground and that also involves higher relative health risks. once SF in alt. 2 is put underground, the safety impacts are reduced. Final disposal of spent fuel and other waste With the first generation there is no difference between the concerns related to final disposal. The designation ‘indifferent’ for first generation waste should not however be read as ‘no concerns’, but the concerns remain fairly similar and cannot be ranked internally. The difference applies to generations 2 and beyond in which alt. 3 scores the lowest, as long-lived actinides are transmuted. Three other alternatives contain long-lived actinides that require isolation from the atmosphere for a very long time. Reprocessing and applying fast reactors The two first alternatives solely use lWr and do not involve reprocessing; therefore there is no such risk involved. The two last alternatives involve some but more or less the same safety concerns. Security Uranium enrichment There is no difference between the two first alternatives, as the need for enriched u is the same. In alt. 3, less enriched u is needed, as the transmuting of actinides also generates energy; alt.3 therefore involves medium security concerns. alt. 4 requires the lowest amount of enriched uranium, as this fuel cycle is based on Pu. The reactor operation and decommissioning period: alts. 1 & 2 are the most favorable ones, as there is no separated Pu involved during operation; lWr work either on enriched u or Mixed oxide fuel (MoX). Fast reactors (alts. 3 & 4) are the least favorable due to the presence of Pu. Spent fuel storage alt. 4 is the least favorable option, as it involves Pu. The best option is alt. 3 as it gets rid of all the actinides (including Pu). alt. 2 involves less security risks as after irradiation the SF is immediately placed underground in physically difficult to reach places. Strictly speaking, there is a difference between the types of risk related to alts. 2 & 3, but for the sake of clarity we regard these two options as equal. In alt. 1 we keep Pu in interim storage and therefore it scores worse than alts. 2 & 3. 224 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 and 22:
have been implemented slowly. This
Page 23 and 24:
Recommendation We recommend that th
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:
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:
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: 190 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucl
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: Figure d.5 breeder Consequences LWR
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?