Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy

Advanced Fuel Cycles and Repositories

Dr. Phillip Finck

Deputy Associate Laboratory Director

Applied Science and Technology and National Security

2

Advanced fuel cycles can help significantly improverepository utilization . . .

. . . but they cannot replace repositories

Even in the case of very significant expansion of the nuclear option YM could be sufficient to satisfy the US waste management needs beyond the end of this century.

3

A Rich History: Lessons from the Past

Fermi: The vision to close the fuel cycle

50s: First electricity-generating reactor: EBR-I with a vision to close the fuel cycle for resource extension

60-70s: Expected uranium scarcity – significant fast reactor programs

80s: Decline of nuclear – uranium plentiful

USA (& others): once-through cycle and repository

2 paths

France, Japan (& others): closed cycles to solve the waste issue

Late 90s in the U.S.: Rebirth of closed-cycle research and development for improved waste management

Now: Long-term energy security, environment, and the role of nuclear

4

Spent Nuclear Fuel Generation and Accumulation

Cutoff for Current Fleet of Reactors

5

The Nuclear Energy Future

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

1970 1990 2010 2030

TW

-yrs

World Energy Demand Total

Industrial

Developing

U.S.

ee/fsu

2100: 46 TW 2050: 30 TW (Hoffert et al., Nature 395, 883,1998)

0

10

20

30

40

50

%

World Fuel Mix 2001Oil

Gas Coal

Nucl. Renew.

(EIA International Energy Outlook 2004)

85% fossil

Conclusions

• Develop multiple energy sources

• Nuclear energy share must grow

• Major markets in developing nations

12001000 1400 1600 1800 2000

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

Year AD

Atm

osp

he

ric C

O2 (

pp

mv) T

em

pe

ratu

re (°C

)

- 1.5

- 1.0

- 0.5

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-- CO2

-- Global Mean Temp

6

Yucca Mountain Technical Limits Statutory limit needs to be changed to take advantage of closed fuel cycles Dose rate is the basis for licensing; peak dose occurs >100,000 years

– Dominated by major actinides (from plutonium and uranium decay)

Thermal engineering limits have been imposed to increase the reliability of prediction of repository performance over the long term

Waste PackageSurface (average)

Drift Wall

Between Drifts

Water Boiling, 96 C

Heating in Drift

0

40

80

120

160

200

1 10 100 1000 10000

Time after Disposal, years

Te

mp

era

ture

, C

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

De

cay

He

at,

W/m

Airflow Turned Off

51 GWd/MTIHM Spent PWR Fuel, Emplaced 25 Years After Discharge Drift Loading = 58.6 GWd/m (1.15 MTIHM/m)

Container temperature limit (short term fission product)

Drift wall temperature limit (fission products and transuranics)

Between drifts rock temperature limit (transuranics)

7

Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options

8

Advanced Fuel Cycle Architecture

A closed fuel cycle that meets the objectives of reducing the environmental impact of nuclear energy while increasing energy production can be composed of a combination of

– LWRs (or other Fast Reactors)

– Fast Reactors Technology choices must be made for

– LWR fuels and fuel separations technologies

– Fast Reactor technologies, fuels, and fuel separations technologies R&D must be completed for the reference choices

– (MOX fuel)

– UREX separation technologies

– Fast Reactors

– Fuels and separations for closure of the fuel cycle

9

Advanced Separations: Aqueous Spent Fuel Treatment (UREX+)

R & D Objectives• 200-MT capacity at high reliability• Safe and proliferation-resistant• Minimal waste streams

Demonstration Focus Areas• Optimized flowsheet• Plant-scale remote handling and process equipment design• Waste stream solidification and storage form demonstrations• Material control and inventory measurement systems

Clamp

Frame

Block

Chopping Volatilization

Solidification

Dissolution

Concentration

Fuel or Waste Form

10

Advanced Spent Fuel Treatment: Pyroprocessing

Demonstration Focus Areas Remote handling

equipment for high capacity (100 kg TRU) and reliability

Fuel and waste forms Materials control and

inventory measurement systems

R & D Objectives Integrated, closed fast

reactor fuel cycle Safe and proliferation-

resistant Minimized waste streams

Fuel

Fuel Element PreparationU/TRU Electrolysis and

Oxidant Production Equipment

Metal Waste Form Production

U Electrorefiner

U Product Processor

Ceramic Waste Form Production

U/TRU Product Processor

Fission Products

Fission ProductsCladding

U U / TRU

Salt

U/ TRU

Salt

11

Advanced Fast Reactor

Demonstration Focus Areas Prototypical recycled fuel Verification of safety performance Remote handling refueling equipment Economics for deployed power reactors

R & D Objectives 200-MWt demonstration burner Cost reduction design features Co-located with processing facility Fuels and safety testing capability

12

Science Needs

Better understanding of chemical phenomena to dominate losses, waste and costs

Better understanding of materials phenomena to dominate fuel behavior and facility cost and lifetime

Better simulation and modeling to reduce margins, dominate cost, safety and proliferation resistance

Towards a modernized approach to nuclear R&D

To support these ambitious objectives, scientific and engineering research need to work jointly

13

– Existing reactors– Existing repository– New Facilities

• Interim storage• Separation plants• New reactors• Fuel fabrication plants

Logistics: Optimizing a Complex System

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that the cost of electricity for a closed fuel cycle could be up to 10% higher than for a once-through cycle

Benefits include

– 100X improvement in repository waste loading (thermal constraint)

– Potential for expanded nuclear and resource extension Cost reduction should be a major objective Overall system optimization needs to be addressed

– How many of each?– Where?– When?– What materials need to be

stored/transported?