The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SNF to improve repository performance, perhaps by disposing of small amounts of selected actinides or long-lived fission products in deep boreholes. Repository with Multi-Century SnF Retrievability We do not know today if LWR SNF is a waste or a valuable resource. There is the option of building repositories for disposal of SNF where the SNF can be credibly retrieved if needed for many centuries. The planned French repository 35 has retrievability of waste as an explicit design goal whereas the Swedish repository design would allow long-term retrievability although it is not a design goal. It is an option that minimizes waste burdens to future generations while maintaining options for future generations. Collocation and integration of Repositories with Closed Fuel Cycle Facilities When the U.S. initially tried to implement a closed fuel cycle in the 1960s and 1970s, there was no repository; thus, the closed fuel-cycle model was created of separate siting of reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and repository facilities. If a repository is sited before adoption of a closed fuel cycle, there is the option (Appendix B) for closed fuel cycles to create a single backend fuel-cycle facility that (1) produces fuel elements for reactors using materials recovered from SNF, and (2) locally disposes of all wastes. Such a facility could potentially reduce closed fuel cycle costs and risks, improve repository performance while eliminating the need for long-term repository safeguards, and mitigate proliferation concerns. Collocating reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities with the repository would provide thousands of jobs and other benefits to the community and state hosting the repository—a form of compensation. Alternative Waste isolation Systems There is the option of building a traditional repository for most wastes and specialized facilities for difficult to manage wastes. For example, borehole disposal may offer superior waste isolation but with the restriction that it is not suitable for large waste volumes. It could enable economic small regional repositories for SNF. Enhanced isolation could be used for plutonium disposal without recovery to address proliferation concerns, disposal of high-hazard wastes (minor actinides and certain fission products), or disposal of high-heat wastes ( 90 Sr/ 137 Cs). It is an alternative to selective transmutation of radionuclides. reCommendationS Based on the above findings, we make the following recommendations. p Waste management must become an integral part of the development of any fuel cycle, including an open fuel cycle. The impact of waste management must be included in cost and risk evaluations of alternative fuel cycles. p The U.S. should map out and determine in a broad context the costs and risks of alternative options for integrating fuel cycles with waste management as a basis for future decisions. Alternative disposal options should be developed to provide long-term policy options for management of U.S. wastes and to support nonproliferation and other national security interests of the United States. chapter 5: Waste Management 67
CitationS and noteS 1. A Handbook for Citizens – The Nuclear Waste Primer- The league of Women Voters Education Fund, July 1993 2. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission definition of HLW in 10CFR63.2 is “High-level radioactive waste or HLW means: (1) The highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; (2) Irradiated reactor fuel; and (3) Other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.” 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Background, Status, and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities, ACNW&M White Paper, June 2008 4. The Energy Daily, “NRC Ruling on Enrichment Plant Wastes Draws Protest,” Vol. 37, No.51 March 20, 2009 5. Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-level Radioactive Waste, The National Academic Press Washington, D.C., 2005. 6. Charles W. Powers and David S. Kosson, Making the Case for an Integrated Nuclear Waste Management in the United States: Issues and Options, CRESP Vanderbilt University, Nashville Tenn. 7. IAEA Safety Series, Classification of Radioactive Waste, Report No. 111-G-1.1, VIENNA, 1994 8. U.S. National Academy of Science-National Research Council, Disposal of Radioactive Wastes on Land, Publication 519 (1957) 9. WIPP is the only operating geological repository for radioactive wastes. There have been multiple pilot plants for radioactive waste geological repositories. Russia injected liquid HLW underground and the U.S. has injected highactivity wastes underground in the form of a cement grout. 10. T. F. Lomenick, The Siting Record: An Account of the Programs of Federal Agencies and Events That Have Led to the Selection of a Potential Site for a Geologic Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste, ORNL/TM-12940 (March 1996) 11. J. S. Walker, The Road to Yucca Mountain, University of California Press, 2009 12. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Managing Commercial High-Level Radioactive Wastes (1982) 13. C. McCutcheon, Nuclear Reactions: The Politics of Opening a Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, University of New Mexico Press (2002) 14. The balances of the fund are only available when appropriated – these appropriations count toward total discretionary appropriations. 15. http://www.skb.se/templates/SKBPage____8738.aspx 16. R. B. Stewart, “U.S. Nuclear Waste Law and Policy: Fixing a Bankrupt System”, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 17, 783-825 (2008). 17. www.skb.se/default____24417.aspx 18. Title I, Subtitle F, Sec. 171(a) (1) 19. R. Ewing, C. Singer, and P. Wilson, Plan D for Spent Nuclear Fuel, University of Illinois (2009) 20. www.irsn.fr/FR/Pages/home.aspx 21. http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/52563 22. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires wastes be retrievable for 50 years. 23. National Research Council, One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geological Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Wastes, Washington D.C. (2003) 24. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Partnering for Long-term Management of Radioactive Wastes: Evolution and Current Practice in Thirteen Countries, NEA No. 6823 (2010) 25. Nuclear Waste Management Organization (Canada), Moving Forward Together: Designing the Process for Selecting a Site (August 2008) 26. Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Great Britain (June 2008) 27. France initiated a series of studies on French beliefs and implications for waste management. 28. G. DeRoo, “Institutional and Financial Mechanisms for the Nuclear Back-End: the American Exception,” CEEPR 2010- 007, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 29. United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy (October 2009) 68 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 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: designed with limited SNF storage c
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:
126 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucl
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?