skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Assessment of transition fuel cycle performance with and without a modified-open fuel cycle

Abstract

The impacts of a modified-open fuel cycle (MOC) option as a transition step from the current once-through cycle (OTC) to a full-recycle fuel cycle (FRC) were assessed using the nuclear systems analysis code DANESS. The MOC of interest for this study was mono-recycling of plutonium in light water reactors (LWR-MOX). Two fuel cycle scenarios were evaluated with and without the MOC option: a 2-stage scenario with a direct path from the current fleet to the final FRC, and a 3-stage scenario with the MOC option as a transition step. The FRC reactor (fast reactor) was assumed to deploy in 2050 for both scenarios, and the MOC reactor in the 3-stage scenario was assumed to deploy in 2025. The last LWRs (using either UOX or MOX fuels) come online in 2050 and are decommissioned by 2110. Thus, the FRC is achieved after 2110. The reprocessing facilities were assumed to be available 2 years prior to the deployment of the MOC and FRC reactors with maximum reprocessing capacities of 2000 tHM/yr and 500 tHM/t for LWR-UOX and LWR-MOX used nuclear fuels (UNFs), respectively. Under a 1% nuclear energy demand growth assumption, both scenarios were able to sustain a full transition to themore » FRC without delay. For the 3-stage scenario, the share of LWR-MOX reactors reaches a peak of 15% of installed capacity, which resulted in 10% lower cumulative uranium consumption and SWU requirements compared to the 2-stage scenario during the transition period. The peak UNF storage requirement decreases by 50% in the 3-stage scenario, largely due to the earlier deployment of the reprocessing plants to support the MOC fuel cycle. (authors)« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL 60526 (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
22107878
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: ICAPP '12: 2012 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, Chicago, IL (United States), 24-28 Jun 2012; Other Information: Country of input: France; 12 refs.; Related Information: In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants - ICAPP '12| 2799 p.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS; CAPACITY; COMPUTER CODES; ENERGY DEMAND; FAST REACTORS; FUEL CYCLE; FUEL REPROCESSING PLANTS; MIXED OXIDE FUELS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; PLUTONIUM; RECYCLING; REPROCESSING; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; URANIUM; WATER COOLED REACTORS; WATER MODERATED REACTORS

Citation Formats

Feng, B., Kim, T. K., and Taiwo, T. A. Assessment of transition fuel cycle performance with and without a modified-open fuel cycle. United States: N. p., 2012. Web.
Feng, B., Kim, T. K., & Taiwo, T. A. Assessment of transition fuel cycle performance with and without a modified-open fuel cycle. United States.
Feng, B., Kim, T. K., and Taiwo, T. A. Sun . "Assessment of transition fuel cycle performance with and without a modified-open fuel cycle". United States.
@article{osti_22107878,
title = {Assessment of transition fuel cycle performance with and without a modified-open fuel cycle},
author = {Feng, B. and Kim, T. K. and Taiwo, T. A.},
abstractNote = {The impacts of a modified-open fuel cycle (MOC) option as a transition step from the current once-through cycle (OTC) to a full-recycle fuel cycle (FRC) were assessed using the nuclear systems analysis code DANESS. The MOC of interest for this study was mono-recycling of plutonium in light water reactors (LWR-MOX). Two fuel cycle scenarios were evaluated with and without the MOC option: a 2-stage scenario with a direct path from the current fleet to the final FRC, and a 3-stage scenario with the MOC option as a transition step. The FRC reactor (fast reactor) was assumed to deploy in 2050 for both scenarios, and the MOC reactor in the 3-stage scenario was assumed to deploy in 2025. The last LWRs (using either UOX or MOX fuels) come online in 2050 and are decommissioned by 2110. Thus, the FRC is achieved after 2110. The reprocessing facilities were assumed to be available 2 years prior to the deployment of the MOC and FRC reactors with maximum reprocessing capacities of 2000 tHM/yr and 500 tHM/t for LWR-UOX and LWR-MOX used nuclear fuels (UNFs), respectively. Under a 1% nuclear energy demand growth assumption, both scenarios were able to sustain a full transition to the FRC without delay. For the 3-stage scenario, the share of LWR-MOX reactors reaches a peak of 15% of installed capacity, which resulted in 10% lower cumulative uranium consumption and SWU requirements compared to the 2-stage scenario during the transition period. The peak UNF storage requirement decreases by 50% in the 3-stage scenario, largely due to the earlier deployment of the reprocessing plants to support the MOC fuel cycle. (authors)},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2012},
month = {7}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share: