1 / 6

Scenario for the transition of the thermal reactor park to the fast reactor park in Belgium

Scenario for the transition of the thermal reactor park to the fast reactor park in Belgium. P. Baeten, H. Aït Abderrahim, G. Van den Eynde. Nuclear power production and fuel management. Installed nuclear power: 7 NPP’s 5.5 GWe Application of MOX in 2 ~900 MWe reactors (Doel 3 & Tihange 2)

lucrece-amadeus
Download Presentation

Scenario for the transition of the thermal reactor park to the fast reactor park in Belgium

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scenario for the transition of the thermal reactor park to the fast reactor park in Belgium P. Baeten, H. Aït Abderrahim, G. Van den Eynde

  2. Nuclear power production and fuel management • Installed nuclear power: 7 NPP’s 5.5 GWe • Application of MOX in 2 ~900 MWe reactors (Doel 3 & Tihange 2) • 660 tons of spent fuel were reprocessed at AREVA (formerly COGEMA) at La Hague • Currently moratorium on reprocessing of fuel from today’s reactors • Wet and dry interim storage of spent fuel at NPP’s sites

  3. Summary of Belgian case • Low level waste: near-surface disposal accepted • about 4235 tons HM spent fuel of which 67 tons of MOX: MA +LLFP remain present, will be produced from the 7 Belgian NPP’s after 40 years of operation • 660 tons of spent fuel were reprocessed => 440 drums of vitrified HLW from reprocessing by AREVA (already returned to Belgium) • Moratorium on reprocessing of fuel coming from today’s reactors  no additional vitrified waste drums • Nuclear phase out (unless economically unfeasible)

  4. Trends in Belgian political viewon the nuclear waste issue • Nuclear energy production with current fleet of reactors is recommended in an energy mix based on a global cost-benefit analysis • The significant added-value of some GEN IV reactor concepts to the sustainability of nuclear energy production is recognised • Due to the spent fuel legacy, the introduction of sustainable GEN IV reactors has to be achieved as soon as possible to limit the accumulation of spent fuel stocks • Current spent fuel stocks are not be recycled with present day techniques since they will result in a less sustainable implementation of nuclear energy production • For the spent fuel stocks one should propose directly a sustainable solution (thus based on fast spectrum systems either Critical FR or sub-critical ADS)

  5. Scenario for sustainable implementation in countries with spent fuel legacy • Continue with LWR, but ASAP introduction of FR • Current spent fuel stocks reduced via P&T in dedicated burner being ADS or Critical FR on basis of economical and risk analysis • Introduction of fast reactors will gradually introduce a self-management of the HLW and spent fuel from FR park or a dedicated management of the MA in dedicated burner in a double-strata scenario • Transition from LWR park to FR park • Shift to a full FR with natural uranium load and self-management of waste • Burning of remaining spent fuel wastes in dedicated systems

  6. Belgian contribution to GAINS • Focus on “double-strata” with dedicated burners • Reduce the burden of the “old” LWR spent fuel • Focus on LFR (ELSY) and LBE-ADS (MYRRHA) • Prepared to perform regional studies (Belgium in Europe) and contribute to more global studies • Use and get acquainted with IAEA simulation codes DESAE, MESSAGE, VISTA

More Related