Objectives, Strategies, and Challenges for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
This paper will summarize the objectives, strategies, and key chemical separation challenges for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The major objectives are as follows: Waste management - defer the need for a second geologic repository for a century or more, Proliferation resistance - be more resistant than the existing PUREX separation technology or uranium enrichment, Energy sustainability - turn waste management liabilities into energy source assets to ensure that uranium ore resources do not become a constraint on nuclear power, and Systematic, safe, and economic management of the entire fuel cycle. There are four major strategies for the disposal of civilian spent fuel: Once-through - direct disposal of all discharged nuclear fuel, Limited recycle - recycle transuranic elements once and then direct disposal, Continuous recycle - recycle transuranic elements repeatedly, and Sustained recycle - same as continuous except previously discarded depleted uranium is also recycled. The key chemical separation challenges stem from the fact that the components of spent nuclear fuel vary greatly in their influence on achieving program objectives. Most options separate uranium to reduce the weight and volume of waste and the number and cost of waste packages that require geologic disposal. Separated uranium can also be used as reactor fuel. Most options provide means to recycle transuranic (TRU) elements - plutonium (Pu), neptunium (Np), americium (Am), curium (Cm). Plutonium must be recycled to obtain repository, proliferation, and energy recovery benefits. U.S. non-proliferation policy forbids separation of plutonium by itself; therefore, one or more of the other transuranic elements must be kept with the plutonium; neptunium is considered the easiest option. Recycling neptunium also provides repository benefits. Americium recycling is also required to obtain repository benefits. At the present time, curium recycle provides relatively little benefit; indeed, recycling curium in thermal reactors would significantly increase the hazard (hence cost) of the resulting fuel. Most options separate short-lived fission products cesium and strontium to allow them to decay in separate storage facilities tailored to that need, rather than complicate long-term geologic disposal. This can also reduce the number and cost of waste packages requiring geologic disposal. These savings are balanced by costs for separation and recycle systems. Several long-lived fission products, such as technetium-99 and iodine-129 go to geologic disposal in improved waste forms, recognizing that transmutation of these isotopes would be a slow process; however, the program has not precluded their transmutation as a future alternative.
- Research Organization:
- Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- DOE - NE
- DOE Contract Number:
- DE-AC07-99ID-13727
- OSTI ID:
- 911608
- Report Number(s):
- INL/CON-05-00091; TRN: US0800039
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: Symposium in the Division of Nuclear Engineering entitled “Chemical Engineering Advances in the Nucl,Atlanta, George,04/10/2005,04/14/2005
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
On-Going Comparison of Advanced Fuel Cycle Options
The global nuclear energy partnership and the spent fuel take-back provision
Related Subjects
DEPLETED URANIUM
ENERGY RECOVERY
ENERGY SOURCES
FISSION PRODUCTS
FUEL CYCLE
IODINE 129
ISOTOPE SEPARATION
NON-PROLIFERATION POLICY
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
NUCLEAR FUELS
NUCLEAR POWER
SPENT FUELS
STORAGE FACILITIES
TECHNETIUM 99
THERMAL REACTORS
URANIUM ORES
WASTE FORMS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
AFCI
fuel cycle
recycle