The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.2. International Waste Classification system recommended by IAEA* Very low-level Waste Waste that has very low radiological hazards (1-100 Bq/g) and may be disposed at a facility that does not require a nuclear license. It is primarily generated in large volumes from decommissioning activities. no disposal distinction is made based on waste decay time low-level Waste Intermediate level Waste high-level Waste Waste with low radioactive content (100-100,000 Bq/g). Wastes with short-lived radionuclides are primarily large volumes of contaminated paper, plastic and scrap metal. long-lived materials are wastes from mining and milling operations of uranium and other ores that contain naturally occuring radioactive materials. disposal methods are tailored based on half lives. Waste with a higher radioactive content (100,000-100 MBq/g) than llW, but whose heat generation does not limit the design of storage or disposal facilities. Waste is generated primarily from operations and maintenances of nuclear facilities. uS defined Tru waste is an example of long lived IlW. Waste with a high radioactive content (~10 Billion Bq/g), whose heat generation limits must be accounted when designing of storage or disposal facilities. Waste is mainly SnF and fission-product-containing waste from reprocessing operations that have been immobilized in glass. disposal requires significant shielding and remote handling operations. disposal requires a deep geological facility. * nuclear energy agency: organization for economic co-operation and development, nuclear energy outlook 2008 Waste Classification Recommendations We recommend that an integrated risk-informed waste management system be adopted in the U.S. that classifies all wastes according to composition and defines disposal pathways according to risk. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should take the lead in developing the appropriate framework because waste classification is central to the safe management of radioactive wastes. However, Congress will ultimately need to provide the authority for implementation of such a framework. Such a framework can build upon U.S. waste classification studies 5, 6 , and the experiences of other nations 7 . GeoloGiC diSpoSal oF lonG-lived radioaCtive WaSteS In 1957, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission asked the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to recommend methods for the safe disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. The NAS 8 concluded that deep underground geological disposal of wastes was the preferred method for the disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes—a conclusion supported by later NAS studies and accepted by all major scientific advisory boards worldwide. Independent of the choice of a fuel cycle, long-lived radioactive wastes will be generated and a repository for their disposal will be required. Today, geologic disposal is considered the preferred option for the disposal of long-lived wastes that must be isolated from the biosphere for protection of human health and the environment. Both radioactive 9 and chemical wastes are disposed of in geological repositories (Table 5.3). The chemical wastes are primarily those containing elements that are toxic, last forever, and can not be destroyed—such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium. The first operating geologic repository was the Herfa Neurode repository for chemical wastes in Germany. Since then, additional geological repositories have opened elsewhere in Europe for chemical wastes. The only operating repository for long-lived radioactive wastes is WIPP in New Mexico. There is no operating repository for the disposal of HLW and SNF. chapter 5: Waste Management 59
table 5.3 examples of operational Geological Repository Design repositories The development of geological repositories repoSitory ChemiCal radioaCtive worldwide in multiple types of geology provides Facility herfa neurode (Germany) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (u.S.) a strong scientific and technical understanding of what is required for the design, construction, and operational 1975 1999 operation of such facilities. Within the United capacity 200,000 tons/y 175,570 m 3 (lifetime) States, the siting, design, licensing, construction, hazard lifetime Forever >10,000 years and operation of WIPP provides experience in repositories for intermediate-level wastes. In parallel, the Yucca Mountain Project was the first major sustained technical effort by the United States to design and license a geological repository for SNF and HLW. Much of the scientific understanding of repositories and the technology that was developed is applicable to any future repository. There are technical characteristics of geological repositories (See Chapter 5 Appendix) that are important to understand in terms of fuel cycles and policy. p Geologic repositories are located several hundred meters underground to protect the disposal site from natural and man-made events (land erosion, glaciation, war). p Repository capacities are not limited by volume or mass p The primary transport mechanism for radionuclides from the repository to the biosphere is by groundwater and use of that groundwater for drinking or growing food. Local geochemistry determines what radionuclides can be transported by groundwater and thus potentially escape from a repository. In most repository environments, actinides (plutonium, etc.) are not expected to escape from the repository because of their low solubility in groundwater and sorption on rock. p In disruptive events (volcanism, human intrusion, etc.) actinides become significant contributors to risk. p Peak temperatures in a repository must be limited to avoid degradation of repository performance. Radioactive decay produces heat. To reduce the size and cost of a repository, repository programs store SNF and HLW for 40 to 60 years before disposal to reduce the decay heat. Alternatively, a repository can have active ventilation for several decades while the decay heat decreases. p The incentives to burn radionuclides in reactors to improve repository performance are limited. Institutional Aspects of Geological Waste Disposal There have been a few successes and many failures in the siting of repositories. Europe has successfully sited and operates multiple geological repositories for chemical wastes. Finland has sited but not completed a SNF repository with public acceptance of the site. Sweden has two communities that have been competing for a SNF repository in their communities and in June 2009 chose one of those communities to host the repository. France may have a repository site. The United States has successfully sited and now operates WIPP. However, there have been multiple failures. 60 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 73 and 74: 2. The United States should create
Page 75: Table 5.1 United States Waste Class
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 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?