Performance modeling and analysis of spent nuclear fuel recycling

Abstract

SUMMARYThe rapid expansion of nuclear energy in China has intensified concerns regarding spent fuel management. However, the consequences of failure or delay in developing approaches to managing spent fuel in China have not yet been explicitly analyzed. Thus, a dynamic analysis of transitions in nuclear fuel cycles in China to 2050 was conducted. This multidisciplinary study compares the environmental, security, and economic consequences of choices among ongoing technology development options for spent fuel management. Four transition scenarios were identified: the direct disposal of PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) spent fuel, the recycling of PWR spent fuel through PWR-MOX (Mixed Oxides), the PWR-MOX followed by fast reactors, and the recycling of PWR spent fuel using fast reactors. Direct disposal would have the lowest cost of electricity generation under the current market conditions, while the reprocessing and recycling of PWR spent fuel would benefit the Chinese nuclear power program by reducing the generation of high level waste (67-82%), saving natural U resources (9-17%), and reducing Pu management risk (24-58%). Moreover, a fast reactor system would provide better performance than one-time recycling through PWR-MOX. The latter also poses high risks in managing the build-up of separated Pu.

National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach

“…In our previous studies [7,8], we developed a dynamic model to analyze the quantitative performance of China's future nuclear fuel cycle transition from the existing to future advanced energy systems through 2100. The MCDM case study herein is based on the previous performance data combined with an integrated evaluation of the most promising nuclear energy system option for sustainable development in China.…”

“…Herein, we simplified the concept of technological readiness by evaluating the time necessary to deploy the involved nuclear technologies underlying the technology-neutral and market-preference assumptions. Thus, to maintain consistency with the selected criteria and overall evaluation metrics, the same deployment years for the corresponding FOAK commercial-scale facilities associated with the four fuel cycle options were likewise adopted (2015, 2020, 2040, and 2030, respectively) [7,8].…”

A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies

“…The cost of the twice-through cycle is usually higher than for the once-through cycle. However, the magnitude of the difference between these costs depends on the methodology and the adopted hypothesis and assumptions [20,27,28,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40].…”

“…The cost of the twice-through cycle is usually higher than for the oncethrough cycle. However, the magnitude of the difference between these costs depends on the methodology and the adopted hypothesis and assumptions [20,27,28,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the nuclear fuel cycle strategies costs with time, in mill/kWh, for different international studies [27,28,[30][31][32][33]38,40], which have been updated to 2016.…”

“…Thus, MOX is composed of about 3% [58] to 5% or 8% [39] of extracted Pu and uranium, which can either be low-enriched uranium, depleted uranium from enrichment plants [27] or even separated uranium [19,25].…”