The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

As expected, the breeder installed capacity will over time become greater than that of the
other FR options, and those in turn will reach a larger capacity than LWRs-MOX. Table 6.5
shows the installed capacity of each technology for the once through fuel cycle and the four
main scenarios in 2050 and 2100 for the three cases of growth rates. It is clear that only in
the slow growth scenario would the capacity of fast reactors dominate the nuclear energy
supply system by the end of century. In the higher growth scenarios, the LWR will continue
to play a major role, providing more than 50% of the nuclear capacity even at the end of the
century. This is a result of the traditional assumption that to startup FRs only TRU from
LWR spent fuel and FR spent fuel can be used. For a high growth rate, it takes many more
LWRs to produce the plutonium needed for startup of the fast reactors.
Table 6.5 Installed LWR for the OTC, and Advanced Reactor
Capacities in the Alternative Schemes in 2050 and 2100 (in GWe)
GroWth rate Fuel CyCle by 2050 by 2100
lWr-oTc 166 269
1%
MoX 41 32
Fr* 20;22; 20 234; 236; 234
lWr-oTc 250 859
2.5%
MoX 41 91
Fr* 20; 23; 21 259; 345; 391
lWr-oTc 376 1,001**
4.0%
MoX 41 117
Fr* 20; 23; 21 400; 521; 540
*results for cr=0.75, 1.00 and 1.23
** The maximum allowed capacity per assumptions in this analysis, reached in 2088
However, it is noticeable that in the base growth case and high growth case, the penetration
of a breeder fast reactor at 2100 is close to that of the self-sustaining fast reactor, and both
have a significantly higher installed capacity than that of the fast burner. At first glance this
appears strange, since the added fissile production in the case of the breeder should enable
added FR capacity. However, the fact that the initial core of the breeder reactor requires
more fissile material explains the close penetration rate of the FR with unity conversion
factor and that of a breeder over this period. The burner and self-sustaining fast reactors
minimize the presence of excess fertile material (blankets), whereas the higher breeding
ratio reactor needs such blankets. Thus, it needs more fissile loading to compensate for
neutron absorption in the blanket.
Reprocessing plants
Figure 6.7 shows the development of the thermal reprocessing capacities in the various fuel
cycle schemes, for the 2.5% growth case. Recall that the unit capacity is 1000 tHM/year and
that thermal reprocessing is introduced in 2025 in the MOX scenario vs. 2035 in the FR
scenarios. Each facility is assumed to operate for 40 years before being retired. The need
for thermal recycling capacity is nearly the same for all schemes until 2070, with somewhat
larger capacity needed for the case of a fast burner. However, after 2070, the need for thermal
recycling capacity in the case of MOX goes well above the FR cases, due to the exhaustion
of the spent fuel in interim storage, and the presence of fissile fuel from reprocessing
fast reactor fuel in the FR cases.
82 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle