Economic Analyiss of "Symbiotic" Light Water Reactor/Fast Burner Reactor Fuel Cycles Proposed as Part of the U.S. Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI)
- ORNL
- Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
A spreadsheet-based 'static equilibrium' economic analysis was performed for three nuclear fuel cycle scenarios, each designed for 100 GWe-years of electrical generation annually: (1) a 'once-through' fuel cycle based on 100% LWRs fueled by standard UO2 fuel assemblies with all used fuel destined for geologic repository emplacement, (2) a 'single-tier recycle' scenario involving multiple fast burner reactors (37% of generation) accepting actinides (Pu,Np,Am,Cm) from the reprocessing of used fuel from the uranium-fueled LWR fleet (63% of generation), and (3) a 'two-tier' 'thermal+fast' recycle scenario where co-extracted U,Pu from the reprocessing of used fuel from the uranium-fueled part of the LWR fleet (66% of generation) is recycled once as full-core LWR MOX fuel (8% of generation), with the LWR MOX used fuel being reprocessed and all actinide products from both UO2 and MOX used fuel reprocessing being introduced into the closed fast burner reactor (26% of generation) fuel cycle. The latter two 'closed' fuel cycles, which involve symbiotic use of both thermal and fast reactors, have the advantages of lower natural uranium requirements per kilowatt-hour generated and less geologic repository space per kilowatt-hour as compared to the 'once-through' cycle. The overall fuel cycle cost in terms of $ per megawatt-hr of generation, however, for the closed cycles is 15% (single tier) to 29% (two-tier) higher than for the once-through cycle, based on 'expected values' from an uncertainty analysis using triangular distributions for the unit costs for each required step of the fuel cycle. (The fuel cycle cost does not include the levelized reactor life cycle costs.) Since fuel cycle costs are a relatively small percentage (10 to 20%) of the overall busbar cost (LUEC or 'levelized unit electricity cost') of nuclear power generation, this fuel cycle cost increase should not have a highly deleterious effect on the competitiveness of nuclear power. If the reactor life cycle costs are included in the analysis, with the fast reactors having a higher $/kw(e) capital cost than the LWRs, the overall busbar generation cost ($/MWh) for the closed cycles is approximately 12% higher than for the all-LWR once-through fuel cycle case, again based on the expected values from an uncertainty analysis. It should be noted that such a percentage increase in the cost of nuclear power is much smaller than that expected for fossil fuel electricity generation if CO2 is costed via a carbon tax, cap and trade regimes, or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
- Research Organization:
- Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
- DOE Contract Number:
- DE-AC05-00OR22725
- OSTI ID:
- 964710
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: GLOBAL 2009/The Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Paris, France, 20090906, 20090911
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Deep Burn Fuel Cycle Integration: Evaluation of Two-Tier Scenarios
Systems Analysis of an Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle Based on a Modified UREX+3c Process
Related Subjects
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS
29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
ACTINIDES
BURNERS
CAPITALIZED COST
CARBON
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
ELECTRICITY
FAST REACTORS
FOSSIL FUELS
FUEL ASSEMBLIES
FUEL CYCLE
LIFE CYCLE
NATURAL URANIUM
NUCLEAR FUELS
NUCLEAR POWER
REPROCESSING
economics
nuclear fuel cycle
actinide burning
recycle
reprocessing