Key conclusions from UK strategic assessment studies of fast reactor fuel cycles

Hesketh, Kevin; Gregg, Robert; Butler, Gregg; Worrall, Andrew

doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2017.06.053

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is also a general consensus that the reductions in thermal loading achievable with radionuclide separations in a closed cycle enables closer packing of wastes in a repository [17,41,49,66,68,72,73,75]. This can be of utility by requiring a smaller size for the repository footprint, or by emplacing more waste in the same total area; both have the same consequence of more low-carbon nuclear electricity generated per m 2 of repository space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hesketh et al [75] calculated reductions in decay heat and radiotoxicity for a closed fast reactor cycle (of 75 GWe) compared to an OTC, and estimated a reduction in the overall footprint of the repository by a factor of three, quoting an earlier paper. Bunn and coworkers [17] cite a number of US studies where the increase in the YM repository capacity has been calculated to be factors of around three, but up to nine or even greater in some strategies.…”

Section: Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, around half a million tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) will be in dry or wet storage by around 2050. Continued storage is not sustainable, and this SNF must eventually either be disposed (the open nuclear fuel cycle) or recycled (the closed fuel cycle). Many international studies have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of these options. To inform this debate, a detailed survey of the available literature related to environmental assessments of closed and open cycles has been undertaken. Environmental impacts are one of the three pillars that, alongside economic and societal impacts, must be considered for sustainable development. The aims are to provide a critical review of the open literature in order to determine what generic conclusions can be drawn from the broad base of international studies. This review covers the results of life cycle assessments and studies on waste arisings, showing how the management of spent fuels in the open and closed cycles impact the environment, including the use of natural resources, radioactive waste characteristics (heat loading, radiotoxicity and volume) and the size of the geological repository. In the framework of sustainable development, the next part of this review will consider economic impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the energy scenario modelling, and accompanying fuel cycle assessments, performed to date (not only in the UK) have focused solely on nuclear power plants being used for electricity supply [1][2][3]. The scenarios also consider varying amounts of demand for electricity from nuclear; for example, in the UK, fuel cycles between 16 GWe and 75 GWe have been investigated [1,4]. This analysis suffers from a key drawback: It is not always clear how a particular scenario has been derived, for example what is driving the increase demand in electricity and the deployment of nuclear power plants?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For these reasons, fuel cycle codes are employed [1]. In this investigation the fuel cycle implications for the scenario with direct nuclear heat used within industry are considered in detail, using the UK fuel cycle code ORION [1,4,6], based on scenarios relating to degrees of uranium scarcity and potential policy drivers relating to the management of spent fuel. Given the recent motivations to target GHG emission reductions of around 95% [7], pathways to further reductions in GHG emission are also outlined to build on the original analysis and highlight the potential role for hydrogen and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to further limit GHG emissions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fuel Cycle Implications of Nuclear Process Heat

Peakman

Gregg

2020

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International and UK fuel cycle scenario analyses performed to date have focused on nuclear plants producing electricity without considering in detail the other potential drivers for nuclear power, such as industrial process heat. Part of the reason behind the restricted applications of nuclear power is because the assumptions behind the future scenario are not fully captured, for example how big are demands from different sectors? Here we present a means to fully capture the potential opportunities for nuclear power using Sankey diagrams and then, using this information, consider for the first time in the UK the fuel cycle implications of decarbonising industrial heat demand in the year 2050 with nuclear power using the ORION fuel cycle code to study attributes related to spent fuel, uranium demand and decay heat from the spent fuel. We show that even in high industrial energy demand scenarios, the sensitivity of spent fuel masses and decay heat to the types of reactor deployed is relatively small compared to the greater fuel cycle demands from large-scale deployment of nuclear plants for electricity production. However, the sensitivity of spent fuel volumes depends heavily on the extent to which High Temperature Reactor and Light Water Reactor systems operating on a once-through cycle are deployed.

show abstract

Scenarios of nuclear energy for countries with different options of nuclear fuel cycle: Utilization and perspective

Velasquez

Estanislau

Costa

et al. 2021

Progress in Nuclear Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key conclusions from UK strategic assessment studies of fast reactor fuel cycles

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts

A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts

The Fuel Cycle Implications of Nuclear Process Heat

Scenarios of nuclear energy for countries with different options of nuclear fuel cycle: Utilization and perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About