| dc.description.abstract | The deployment of fuel recycling through either CONFU (COmbined Non-Fertile and UO[subscript 2]
fuel) thermal water-cooled reactors (LWRs) or fast ABR (Actinide Burner Reactor) reactors is
compared to the Once-Through LWR reactor system in terms of accumulation of actinides over
the next 100 years under the assumption of a growing worldwide demand for nuclear energy. It is
assumed that the growth rate is about 2.1% per year up to 2053, with alternative scenarios after
that date. The transuranics (TRU) stored in temporary repositories, the TRU sent to permanent
repositories, the system cost and a vulnerability index toward proliferation are calculated by the
CAFCA code and taken as key figures of merit.
Deployment of the ABRs is assumed to occur later (2028) than the CONFU LWRs (2015),
whose technology requires less extensive additional R&D. Through 2050 the CONFU strategy
performs better than the ABR strategy. The CONFU LWRs in our model yield zero net TRU
incineration while the ABRs have a net consumption of TRU. Compared to the Once-Through
strategy, by 2050 the CONFU (respectively ABR) strategy reduces by about 35% (respectively
9%) the total inventory of TRU in the system. This reduction corresponds to the TRU production
being avoided by CONFU LWRs or being incinerated in ABRs compared to the TRU produced
in the traditional LWRs used in the Once-Through strategy. By 2100, the CONFU and the ABR
strategies would have reduced the worldwide TRU inventory by 62% compared to the Once-
Through case with the CONFU strategy incinerating more TRU than in the ABR strategy.
The three strategies are also discussed with regard to uranium ore availability, repository
need, and processing plants need. It is interesting to note that with either recycling strategies the
total capacity for separation of spent UO2 constituents need 10 to 12 separation plants with a
capacity of 2000 MTHM/year. Furthermore, only one TRU recycling plant from fertile-free fuel
would be needed at a capacity of 250 MTHM/year up to 2050.
The economic analysis shows that both closed fuel cycles are more expensive than the
reference Once-Through scheme. The total cost of electricity production is expected to be 3
mills/kWhe, or about 10%, larger than the Once-Through cycle case, if the spent fuel separation
is paid off by the electricity sales from the resulting fuel. The timing of collection of fuel cycle
costs significantly affects the cost of electricity. Paying for fuel separation by the sales of the
electricity producing the spent fuel to be reprocessed later has a smaller effect on the cost of
electricity in the advanced fuel cycles (between 1 and 2 mills/kWhe or between 3 and 6%)
compared to the cost of electricity in the Once-Through strategy.
From a policy point of view, an index of vulnerability toward proliferation is defined and
gives an advantage to the advanced fuel cycles. The large amount of heavy metal in the
repository and the long life time of this repository penalize the Once-Through strategy. However
the results are sensitive to the accessibility factor assigned to the repository which is, as all
accessibility factors, a subjective value that is not precisely defined. Moreover, worldwide
cooperation to implement the two advanced strategies and the challenges this implementation
could face are discussed. The use of a single behaviour mode throughout the world implies an
unlikely perfect cooperation between countries that do not have the same capabilities or
incentives to choose among the advanced fuel cycle strategies. | en_US |
