LIFE vs. LWR: End of the Fuel Cycle
The worldwide energy consumption in 2003 was 421 quadrillion Btu (Quads), and included 162 quads for oil, 99 quads for natural gas, 100 quads for coal, 27 quads for nuclear energy, and 33 quads for renewable sources. The projected worldwide energy consumption for 2030 is 722 quads, corresponding to an increase of 71% over the consumption in 2003. The projected consumption for 2030 includes 239 quads for oil, 190 quads for natural gas, 196 quads for coal, 35 quads for nuclear energy, and 62 quads for renewable sources [International Energy Outlook, DOE/EIA-0484, Table D1 (2006) p. 133]. The current fleet of light water reactors (LRWs) provides about 20% of current U.S. electricity, and about 16% of current world electricity. The demand for electricity is expected to grow steeply in this century, as the developing world increases its standard of living. With the increasing price for oil and gasoline within the United States, as well as fear that our CO2 production may be driving intolerable global warming, there is growing pressure to move away from oil, natural gas, and coal towards nuclear energy. Although there is a clear need for nuclear energy, issues facing waste disposal have not been adequately dealt with, either domestically or internationally. Better technological approaches, with better public acceptance, are needed. Nuclear power has been criticized on both safety and waste disposal bases. The safety issues are based on the potential for plant damage and environmental effects due to either nuclear criticality excursions or loss of cooling. Redundant safety systems are used to reduce the probability and consequences of these risks for LWRs. LIFE engines are inherently subcritical, reducing the need for systems to control the fission reactivity. LIFE engines also have a fuel type that tolerates much higher temperatures than LWR fuel, and has two safety systems to remove decay heat in the event of loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow. These features of LIFE are expected to result in a more straightforward licensing process and are also expected to improve the public perception of risk from nuclear power generation, transportation of nuclear materials, and nuclear waste disposal. Waste disposal is an ongoing issue for LWRs. The conventional (once-through) LWR fuel cycle treats unburned fuel as waste, and results in the current fleet of LWRs producing about twice as much waste in their 60 years of operation as is legally permitted to be disposed of in Yucca Mountain. Advanced LWR fuel cycles would recycle the unused fuel, such that each GWe-yr of electricity generation would produce only a small waste volume compared to the conventional fuel cycle. However, the advanced LWR fuel cycle requires chemical reprocessing plants for the fuel, multiple handling of radioactive materials, and an extensive transportation network for the fuel and waste. In contrast, the LIFE engine requires only one fueling for the plant lifetime, has no chemical reprocessing, and has a single shipment of a small amount of waste per GWe-yr of electricity generation. Public perception of the nuclear option will be improved by the reduction, for LIFE engines, of the number of shipments of radioactive material per GWe-yr and the need to build multiple repositories. In addition, LIFE fuel requires neither enrichment nor reprocessing, eliminating the two most significant pathways to proliferation from commercial nuclear fuel to weapons programs.
- Research Organization:
- Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE
- DOE Contract Number:
- W-7405-ENG-48
- OSTI ID:
- 945511
- Report Number(s):
- LLNL-TR-408781; TRN: US0901207
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Fuel Cycle Study to Developing a Viable Long Term Nuclear Power Scenario for the UK
Technical requirements for the control of 129I in a nuclear fuels reprocessing plant