Technology Insights and Perspectives for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Concepts

The following report provides a rich resource of information for exploring fuel cycle characteristics. The most noteworthy trends can be traced back to the utilization efficiency of natural uranium resources. By definition, complete uranium utilization occurs only when all of the natural uranium resource can be introduced into the nuclear reactor long enough for all of it to undergo fission. Achieving near complete uranium utilization requires technologies that can achieve full recycle or at least nearly full recycle of the initial natural uranium consumed from the Earth. Greater than 99% of all natural uranium is fertile, and thus is not conducive to fission. This fact requires the fuel cycle to convert large quantities of non-fissile material into fissile transuranics. Step increases in waste benefits are closely related to the step increase in uranium utilization going from non-breeding fuel cycles to breeding fuel cycles. The amount of mass requiring a disposal path is tightly coupled to the quantity of actinides in the waste stream. Complete uranium utilization by definition means that zero (practically, near zero) actinide mass is present in the waste stream. Therefore, fuel cycles with complete (uranium and transuranic) recycle discharge predominately fission products with some actinide process losses.more » Fuel cycles without complete recycle discharge a much more massive waste stream because only a fraction of the initial actinide mass is burned prior to disposal. In a nuclear growth scenario, the relevant acceptable frequency for core damage events in nuclear reactors is inversely proportional to the number of reactors deployed in a fuel cycle. For ten times the reactors in a fleet, it should be expected that the fleet-average core damage frequency be decreased by a factor of ten. The relevant proliferation resistance of a fuel cycle system is enhanced with: decreasing reliance on domestic fuel cycle services, decreasing adaptability for technology misuse, enablement of material accountability, and decreasing material attractiveness.« less

[1]  Richard R. Metcalf,et al.  New Tool for Proliferation Resistance Evaluation Applied to Uranium and Thorium Fueled Fast Reactor Fuel Cycles , 2010 .

[2]  Steve Fetter,et al.  Long-term radioactive waste from fusion reactors: Part II , 1990 .

[3]  Bd Murphy.  ORIGEN-ARP Cross-Section Libraries for Magnox, Advanced Gas-Cooled, and VVER Reactor Designs , 2004 .

[4]  Robert Hill,et al.  Preliminary core design studies for the advanced burner reactor over a wide range of conversion ratios. , 2008 .

[5]  David H. Saltiel,et al.  Strengthening the foundations of proliferation assessment tools. , 2007 .

[6]  Michael A. Pope,et al.  Transmutation Dynamics: Impacts of Multi-Recycling on Fuel Cycle Performances , 2009 .

[7]  Charles G. Bathke,et al.  The Attractiveness of Materials in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles for Various Proliferation and Theft Scenarios , 2012 .

[8]  A. Introduction,et al.  AN APPROACH FOR USING PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT IN RISK-INFORMED DECISIONS ON PLANT- SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE LICENSING BASIS , 2009 .

[9]  Tom Burr,et al.  AFCI Safeguards Enhancement Study: Technology Development Roadmap , 2008 .

[10]  Robert Hill,et al.  Fuel Cycle Scenario Definition, Evaluation, and Trade-offs , 2006 .

[11]  J. E. O’Brien,et al.  THERMODYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THERMAL WATER SPLITTING PROCESSES AND HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS , 2008 .

[12]  Samuel E. Bays,et al.  Description of Transmutation Library for Fuel Cycle System Analyses , 2010 .

[13]  Steve Fetter,et al.  Long-term radioactivity in fusion reactors , 1988 .

[14]  L. C. Cadwallader,et al.  Summary of Off-Normal Events in US Fuel Cycle Facilities for AFCI Applications , 2005 .

[15]  Edwin S. Lyman,et al.  Public health risks of substituting mixed‐oxide for uranium fuel in pressurized‐water reactors , 2001 .

[16]  David B. Reister,et al.  Net energy from nuclear power , 1975 .

[17]  E. A. Hoffman.  Preliminary report on blending strategies for inert-matrix fuel recycling in LWRs. , 2005 .

[18]  T. R. Thomas,et al.  Recycling of nuclear spent fuel with AIROX processing , 1992 .

[19]  P N Haubenreich,et al.  MSRE DESIGN AND OPERATIONS REPORT. PART V. REACTOR SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT , 1964 .

[20]  Baldev Raj,et al.  Lessons Learned from Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Operation and Their Ramifications for Future Reactors with Respect to Enhanced Safety and Reliability , 2008 .

[21]  Roel Hammerschlag,et al.  Ethanol's energy return on investment: a survey of the literature 1990-present. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  William S. Charlton,et al.  Proliferation Resistance Assessment Methodology for Nuclear Fuel Cycles , 2007 .

[23]  Gabriele Bandt,et al.  FINAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GERMANY: PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS OF KONRAD MINE AND ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS , 2003 .

[24]  S. Bays,et al.  A Neutronic Analysis of TRU Recycling in PWRs Loaded with MOX-UE Fuel (MOX with U-235 Enriched U Support) , 2009 .

[25]  R.Y. Lee,et al.  Accident source terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants. Final report , 1995 .

[26]  James Saling,et al.  Radioactive Waste Management , 1990 .

[27]  T. A. Taiwo,et al.  Fuel cycle analysis of once-through nuclear systems. , 2010 .

[28]  Robert S. Cherry,et al.  System Losses Study - FIT (Fuel-cycle Integration and Tradeoffs) , 2010 .

[29]  James K Sprinkle,et al.  A Nonproliferation Impact Assessment of the GNEP Alternatives , 2009 .

[30]  Samuel E. Bays,et al.  Fast Reactor Alternative Studies: Effects of Transuranic Groupings on Metal and Oxide Sodium Fast Reactor Designs , 2007 .

[31]  Samuel E. Bays,et al.  HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions , 2010 .

[32]  Michael D. Zentner,et al.  Evaluation Methodology for Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems: An Overview. , 2006 .