Advanced Fuel Cycles and Repositories

1. Advanced Fuel Cycles and Repositories Dr. Phillip Finck Deputy Associate Laboratory Director Applied Science and Technology and National Security

2. Advanced fuel cycles can help significantly improverepository utilization . . . . . . but they cannot replace repositories Even in the case of very significant expansion of the nuclear option YM could be sufficient to satisfy the US waste management needs beyond the end of this century.

3. A Rich History: Lessons from the Past Fermi: The vision to close the fuel cycle 50s: First electricity-generating reactor: EBR-I with a vision to close the fuel cycle for resource extension 60-70s: Expected uranium scarcity – significant fast reactor programs 80s: Decline of nuclear – uranium plentiful USA (& others): once-through cycle and repository 2 paths France, Japan (& others): closed cycles to solve the waste issue Late 90s in the U.S.: Rebirth of closed-cycle research and development for improved waste management Now: Long-term energy security, environment, and the role of nuclear

4. Cutoff for Current Fleet of Reactors Spent Nuclear Fuel Generation and Accumulation

5. 1.5 380 -- CO2 -- Global Mean Temp 25.00 360 1.0 World Energy Demand 340 Total 20.00 0.5 320 Temperature (°C) Atmospheric CO2 (ppmv) 0 15.00 300 TW-yrs - 0.5 280 Industrial 10.00 260 - 1.0 Developing U.S. 240 5.00 - 1.5 ee/fsu 1000 2000 1200 1800 1600 1400 0.00 Year AD 1970 1990 2010 2030 World Fuel Mix 2001 Oil Coal Gas Nucl. Renew. The Nuclear Energy Future 2100: 46 TW 2050: 30 TW (Hoffert et al., Nature 395, 883,1998) Conclusions • Develop multiple energy sources • Nuclear energy share must grow • Major markets in developing nations 85% fossil (EIA International Energy Outlook 2004)

6. Yucca Mountain Technical Limits • Statutory limit needs to be changed to take advantage of closed fuel cycles • Dose rate is the basis for licensing; peak dose occurs >100,000 years • Dominated by major actinides (from plutonium and uranium decay) • Thermal engineering limits have been imposed to increase the reliability of prediction of repository performance over the long term • Container temperature limit (short term fission product) • Drift wall temperature limit (fission products and transuranics) • Between drifts rock temperature limit (transuranics)

7. Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options

8. Advanced Fuel Cycle Architecture • A closed fuel cycle that meets the objectives of reducing the environmental impact of nuclear energy while increasing energy production can be composed of a combination of • LWRs (or other Fast Reactors) • Fast Reactors • Technology choices must be made for • LWR fuels and fuel separations technologies • Fast Reactor technologies, fuels, and fuel separations technologies • R&D must be completed for the reference choices • (MOX fuel) • UREX separation technologies • Fast Reactors • Fuels and separations for closure of the fuel cycle

9. Volatilization Chopping Dissolution Concentration Solidification Fuel or Waste Form Advanced Separations: Aqueous Spent Fuel Treatment (UREX+) • R & D Objectives • 200-MT capacity at high reliability • Safe and proliferation-resistant • Minimal waste streams • Demonstration Focus Areas • Optimized flowsheet • Plant-scale remote handling and process equipment design • Waste stream solidification and storage form demonstrations • Material control and inventory measurement systems

10. Salt U/TRU Electrolysis and Oxidant Production Equipment U Electrorefiner Fuel Element Preparation Salt U/ TRU Fission Products Cladding Metal Waste Form Production U/TRU Product Processor Fission Products U Product Processor Fuel U / TRU U Ceramic Waste Form Production Advanced Spent Fuel Treatment: Pyroprocessing • R & D Objectives • Integrated, closed fast reactor fuel cycle • Safe and proliferation-resistant • Minimized waste streams • Demonstration Focus Areas • Remote handling equipment for high capacity (100 kg TRU) and reliability • Fuel and waste forms • Materials control and inventory measurement systems

11. Advanced Fast Reactor • R & D Objectives • 200-MWt demonstration burner • Cost reduction design features • Co-located with processing facility • Fuels and safety testing capability • Demonstration Focus Areas • Prototypical recycled fuel • Verification of safety performance • Remote handling refueling equipment • Economics for deployed power reactors

12. Science Needs • Better understanding of chemical phenomena to dominate losses, waste and costs • Better understanding of materials phenomena to dominate fuel behavior and facility cost and lifetime • Better simulation and modeling to reduce margins, dominate cost, safety and proliferation resistance • Towards a modernized approach to nuclear R&D To support these ambitious objectives, scientific and engineering research need to work jointly

13. Logistics: Optimizing a Complex System • The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that the cost of electricity for a closed fuel cycle could be up to 10% higher than for a once-through cycle • Benefits include • 100X improvement in repository waste loading (thermal constraint) • Potential for expanded nuclear and resource extension • Cost reduction should be a major objective • Overall system optimization needs to be addressed • Existing reactors • Existing repository • New Facilities • Interim storage • Separation plants • New reactors • Fuel fabrication plants • How many of each? • Where? • When? • What materials need to be stored/transported?