PLENTIFUL ENERGY

eprocessing economics as well. The main difference between the LWR and the fast
reactor spent fuel is in their actinide contents. The LWR spent fuel has a low
actinide content, 12%, depending on discharge burnup. Pyroprocessing is
particularly attractive at low throughput rates. Aqueous reprocessing, on the other
hand, can take advantage of the economies of scale for LWR spent fuel processing.
Therefore, the first question is whether pyroprocessing can achieve the necessary
economies of scale for economic processing of LWR spent fuel.
Pyroprocessing for the fast reactor is compatible with remote refabrication in the
same hot cell. For LWR aqueous reprocessing, this is not practical and the
reprocessing plant is separate from the fabrication facility. Pyroprocessing then
needs to be economically competitive with the stand-alone large-throughput
aqueous reprocessing plants. The currently operating La Hague reprocessing
complex in France consists of the UP2 plant, which was upgraded from 400 to 800
T/yr throughput and a new UP3 plant with an additional 800 T/yr throughput
capacity. The two combined were reported to cost $8.2 billion in 1987 [19], or $16
billion in 2011 dollars. The Rokkasho plant in Japan, with an 800 T/yr throughput,
is estimated to have cost around $20 billion.
Pyroprocessing is fundamentally more amenable to batch processing than to
continuous processing. This does not necessarily imply that scaling up involves
only multiple units. As discussed in Chapter 10, a single electrorefiner
incorporating planar electrode arrangement can be designed for a 500-kg or even
1,000-kg batch size, which leads to an annual throughput rate of a hundred metric
tons. And in fact a pre-conceptual design for a pilot-scale pyroprocessing facility at
the100 ton/yr throughput for LWR spent fuel was developed at Argonne, as was
described in Chapter 10.
Based on this work and the extrapolation of the previous refurbishment work for
the EBR-II Fuel Conditioning Facility, it is estimated that such a facility could be
constructed for about $500 million. A rough breakdown of this estimate is as
follows:
Engineering ................150
Construction ...............130
Equipment systems ....120
Contingencies ...........100
Total
$500 million
Any further scaleup can be achieved by duplicating the process equipment
systems and some economies of scale where they come in. It is plausible that a
pyroprocessing facility with an 800 ton/yr throughput could be constructed at
around $2.5 billion, far below the capital cost experience of large aqueous
reprocessing plants discussed above.
294