Investigation of Benefits from U/TRU Recycle - Quantification and Comparison to U/Pu Recycle
The recently completed comprehensive evaluation and screening of nuclear fuel cycle options identified a number of potentially promising fuel cycles for R&D that offer what could be considered by decision-makers as having the potential for significant improvement compared to the current U.S. fuel cycle. The fuel cycles that consistently performed the best were recycle fuel cycles that used self-sustaining fast reactors operating with either U/Pu or U/TRU recycle fuel and also included options where the fast reactors provided fissile materials to support operation of thermal reactors. However, based on the evaluation criteria and metrics used in the study, there was no difference in benefit between recycle of U/Pu and U/TRU (where TRU is plutonium and the minor actinides) while there were differences in the challenges for developing and deploying such fuel cycles, with U/TRU recycle being more challenging. This observation prompted the question as to the desirability of pursuing R&D on U/TRU recycle given that there may not be an increase in benefit. As a result, activities have been pursued to further investigate the performance differences between U/Pu and U/TRU recycle based on considering issues beyond those used in the evaluation and screening study to identify, if possible, areas where there are significant benefits of U/TRU recycle compared to U/Pu recycle. These new considerations focused on several areas, but especially on the impact on disposal of the HLW, which in the case of U/Pu recycle contains all of the minor actinides along with fission products, while in the case of U/TRU recycle only contains the losses of minor actinides from the reprocessing and recycle fuel fabrication operations. This difference in content has several implications. One impact is on the time dependent decay heat which can affect handling and the use of space in a geologic repository. Another impact concerns the HLW form and volume, since presence of minor actinides may adversely affect the ability to reduce HLW volume. The short-term radioactivity and long-term radiotoxicity of the HLW is also affected, which may be of more or less importance depending on the specific geologic disposal environment. To study these potential effects, a range of waste forms and disposal environments were used in the analysis, documenting to what extent the recycle of minor actinides in addition to plutonium may offer further benefit. Another area of investigation concerned the recycle fuel, for the fast reactor and for the thermal reactors they may support. Information to date indicates that U/Pu fuel may be simpler to fabricate and has a much more extensive database than U/TRU fuel, one of the reasons for the increased challenge for developing and deploying a U/TRU fuel cycle, and also indicates that heterogeneous recycle of the minor actinides may be even more difficult as compared to homogeneous recycle. This information was reviewed and updated to reflect the most recent studies for the purpose of informing on all aspects of the differences between U/Pu and U/TRU recycle. The results of all of these investigations will be presented to provide information on the findings concerning the value of U/TRU recycle.
- Research Organization:
- Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC07-05ID14517
- OSTI ID:
- 1356070
- Report Number(s):
- INL/CON-14-33966
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Impact of minor actinide recycling on sustainable fuel cycle options
Radiotoxicity Characterization of Multi-Recycled Thorium Fuel - 12394