A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part Two: Economic Impacts
<p>LCOE breakdown across the nuclear fuel cycle [<a href="#B46-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">46</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Additional cost of electricity for reprocessing and recycling of SNF (TTC) compared to the OTC for selected reprocessing costs as a function of the uranium price [<a href="#B55-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">55</a>].</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Cash flow profile for the TTC “portfolio” strategy (emplacement in Yucca Mountain in 2030, and acceptance of used fuel begins 2010–2020) [<a href="#B43-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">43</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Cash flow profile for once-through strategy (acceptance of used fuel begins 2010–2020) [<a href="#B43-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">43</a>].</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Cost estimates normalised to the OTC for various closed cycle options [<a href="#B4-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">4</a>,<a href="#B59-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">59</a>].</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Cost trends for the DGR in the TTC based on analysis in [<a href="#B62-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">62</a>].</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Reprocessing cost trends in the TTC based on analysis in [<a href="#B62-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">62</a>].</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Comparison of LFCC of the OTC and TTC (TRR—thermal reactor recycle scenarios) from Zhou et al. [<a href="#B37-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">37</a>].</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Probabilistic density functions for LFCC, calculated for fuel cycle scenarios by Ko and Gao [<a href="#B40-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">40</a>].</p> "> Figure 10
<p>HLW interim (ID) and final disposal (FD) costs for various scenarios. SCN-1 is the OTC; SCN-2 is the transition to SFR with Pu fuels by 2100; SCN-3 is the same as SCN-2 but includes MA transmutation in SFR and SCN-4 includes SFR for Pu and ADS for MA [<a href="#B38-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">38</a>].</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Probability functions for LCOE estimates for OTC and closed fuel cycle (PWR and SFR fuels with pyroprocessing) compared [<a href="#B39-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">39</a>].</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Relative contributions of nuclear fuel cycle stages to the total cost of nuclear electricity in France (TTC) [<a href="#B13-energies-15-02472" class="html-bibr">13</a>].</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Summary
2.1. Nuclear Fuel Cycles
- The open or once-through cycle (OTC), where spent uranium oxide (UOX) fuels are stored before direct disposal in a DGR, also known as a geological disposal facility (GDF) in the UK.
- The partially-closed, thermal recycle or twice-through cycle (TTC), based on reprocessing SNF to recover fissile material (i.e., uranium and plutonium) which is then recycled as MOX fuel, sometimes referred to as plutonium mono-recycling.
- The fully-closed cycle (FCC), in which SNF is reprocessed and fissile materials are usually recycled in a fast reactor (FR) multiple times to maximise the energy value of the fuel components, also referred to as plutonium multi-recycling. There are a number of variations on this concept, such as transition scenarios where light water reactors (LWRs) and FRs operate together, or a fleet comprised only of FRs. FRs can be configured to either burn or breed plutonium depending on the nuclear fuel cycle strategy to be followed.
- The partitioning and transmutation (P&T) scenario where minor actinides (MAs) are also recycled for burning (usually) in fast reactors or accelerator driven systems (ADS). This is aimed at minimising the MA waste burden to the DGR, rather than for their energy value.
2.2. Benefits of New Systems and Sustainability
- Sustainability, including more efficient use of natural resources.
- Reduction in either volume, heat load, or in combination, of waste.
- Reduction in the radiotoxicity of waste.
- Economics.
- Enhanced proliferation resistance, inherent physical protection or both.
- Plutonium management.
- Improved public acceptability.
2.3. Spent Nuclear Fuel Arisings and Fuel Cycle Models
2.4. Summary of Conclusions
3. Economic Assessments of Fuel Cycles
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Results from UK Studies
- SC1—OTC based on PWRs
- SC2—OTC based on high temperature reactors
- SC3—TTC based on PWRs
- SC4—as SC3 but spent MOX fuel is recycled in SFRs for burning TRU (Pu, Np, Am)
- SC5—closed cycle based on SFRs (iso-breeders, conversion ratio of 1)
3.3. Results from US Studies
- The reactor dominates the LCOE, around 80% of the cost of electricity generation in the LWR cycles and over 90% for the fast reactor-based fuel cycle.
- The capital and operating costs of the fast reactor are assumed to be 20% higher than the LWR and this cost premium cannot be compensated for by savings in the fuel cycle or increases in uranium prices according to their modelling.
- Nevertheless, the total increase in LCOE is calculated to be only around 2–3% for fuel cycles involving recycle of fissile materials.
- Whatever fuel cycle is adopted, the back-end fuel cycle costs are a small percentage of the overall LCOE (1.6–4.7%).
- However, compared with the OTC, the overall fuel cycle costs have increased by 19 and 33% for the TTC and advanced fuel cycle (AFC) options. This mainly reflects the cost of reprocessing, the cost of MOX fuel disposal (in the TTC) and charges for the recovered TRUs. The premium for the recycling of SNF (the increase in total LCOE) is 21 and 112% for the TTC and AFC when calculated relative to the cost of direct disposal in the OTC (1.3 Mills/kWh).
- A generic greenfield approach with recycling (TTC) and a HLW repository versus an OTC with repository for all SNF.
- An implementation approach specific to the US scenario with recycling (TTC) and the Yucca Mountain repository for legacy fuel and HLW (the “portfolio” strategy), versus an OTC with an expanded Yucca Mountain capacity (120 ktHM) and second repository to meet demand over a 50-year period (2020–2070).
3.4. Results from Other International Studies
3.4.1. Multinational Studies
3.4.2. Other International Reports
- The OTC
- The TTC
- A delayed introduction of fast reactors with multi-recycling of SNF, thus recycle of plutonium as thermal MOX is still needed.
- A prompt introduction of fast reactors such that use of PWR-MOX fuel is not required.
- The OTC.
- Mono-recycling of MOX in PWRs.
- Mono-recycled PWR MOX fuel is recycled in FRs.
- PWR fuels recycled to fast reactors.
- Between 25 and 75 TWh there is a sharp decrease in LCOE for 0% discount.
- The LCOE for the AFC is lowest which disagrees with other studies and is due to calculated savings in the front end of the fuel cycle.
- The TTC is generally lower than the OTC for the 0% rate but higher when the 3% rate is applied.
- The difference between the OTC and closed cycle are <8% which is not discriminating as back-end costs are only about 5% of the overall LCOE.
4. Discussion
4.1. Economics
4.2. Integration of Economic and Environmental Impacts: Issues of Sustainability
- Greenhouse gas emissions;
- The overall environmental footprint (range of environmental indicators assessed by LCA);
- Reductions in HLW volumes, heat generation and radiotoxicity;
- Consequent reductions in DGR size (area, volume) and “lifetime” (longevity of waste); and
- Extension of natural uranium resources (reduced needs for uranium mining).
- “How can we use uranium resources efficiently?
- How can we environmentally-safely manage the generated waste?
- How can we prevent proliferation of nuclear materials and technologies?
- How can we maximise the economic benefits of nuclear energy?”
- “…recognize the long term benefits of developing generation IV (Gen IV) systems in terms of resource utilization and waste management…”
- “…support R&D in advanced recycling technologies to reduce volume and toxicity of high-level waste”.
- “Enhancing the security of energy supply.
- Reducing the volumes of radioactive waste for disposal (to the DGR).
- Reducing the duration that waste stays radioactive and needs to be isolated for from millions year timeframe to thousands of year time frame.
- Simplifying the safety and security and safeguards assessment of the geological disposal facility because of the minimization of the amount of fissile content and thermal load
- Reducing the consumption of mined uranium while preventing the disposal of valuable material such as plutonium and uranium.
- Supporting ongoing scientific progress due to the continuous development of the recycling technologies.
- Providing rare and unique radio-isotopes recovered from reprocessing used nuclear fuel for further application in medicine, space industry, metallurgy etc”.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- BEIS. Energy White Paper: Powering Our Net Zero Future; BEIS (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy): London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945899/201216_BEIS_EWP_Command_Paper_Accessible.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- IAEA. Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020; IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1911_web.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- NEA. Nuclear Energy: Combating Climate Change; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency OECD): Paris, France, 2015; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7208-climate-change-2015.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- EASAC. Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Its Waste; EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council): Halle, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wigeland, R.; Taiwo, T.; Ludewig, H.; Todosow, M.; Halsey, W.; Gehin, J.; Jubin, R.; Buelt, J.; Stockinger, S.; Jenni, K.; et al. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening—Final Report; INL (Idaho National Laboratory): Idaho Falls, ID, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, R.; Bodel, W.; Stamford, L.; Butler, G. A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts. Energies 2022, 15, 1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miguirditchian, M.; Taylor, R. The adaptation of recycling processes to Pu-multi recycling. In Encyclopedia of Nuclear Energy; Greenspan, E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 2, pp. 523–533. ISBN 9780128197257. [Google Scholar]
- Posiva. Procedures for Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel Final Disposal Facility are Progressing; Posiva: Eurajoki, Finland, 2008; Available online: https://www.posiva.fi/en/index/news/pressreleasesstockexchangereleases/2008/procedures_for_expansion_of_spent_nuclear_fuel_final_disposal_facility_are_progressing.181.html (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- SKB. A Repository for Nuclear Fuel that Is Placed in 1.9 Billion Years Old Rock; SKB (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering): Stockholm, Sweden, 2021; Available online: http://www.skb.com/future-projects/the-spent-fuel-repository/ (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Salonen, T.; Lamminmäki, T.; King, F.; Pastina, B. Status report of the Finnish spent fuel geologic repositoryprogramme and ongoing corrosion studies. Mater. Corros. 2020, 72, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vira, J. Geological repository for high-level nuclear waste becoming reality in Finland. In Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste; Apted, M., Ahn, J., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017; pp. 645–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- JRC. Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the ’Do No Significant Harm’ Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’); JRC (Joint Research Centre): Ispra, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Poinssot, C.; Boullis, B.; Bourg, S. Role of recycling in advanced nuclear fuel cycles. In Reprocessing and Recycling of Spent Nuclear Fuel; Taylor, R., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2015; pp. 27–48. ISBN 9781782422174. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, P. (Ed.) The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: From Ore to Waste; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997; ISBN 0198565402. [Google Scholar]
- NEA. Strategies and Considerations for the Back End of the Fuel Cycle; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency OECD): Paris, France, 2021; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-02/7469_best_report_2021-02-19_17-42-24_447.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- The Royal Society. Fuel Cycle Stewardship in a Nuclear Renaissance; The Royal Society: London, UK, 2011; Available online: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/nuclear-non-proliferation/FuelCycleStewardshipNuclearRenaissance.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Butler, G. A Catalyst for Change? Nuclear Engineering International: London, UK, 2012; Available online: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-catalyst-for-change-/ (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- UN. Resolution 42/187: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; UN (United Nations): New York, NY, USA, 1987; Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htm (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- IAEA. Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options; IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Vienna, Austria, 2008; Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1587_web.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Le, T. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Disposal: An Examination of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage and Disposal around the World; Stimson Centre: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.stimson.org/2020/spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-and-disposal/ (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Poinssot, C.; Bourg, S.; Boullis, B. Improving the nuclear energy sustainability by decreasing its environmental footprint. Guidelines from life cycle assessment simulations. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2016, 92, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poinssot, C.; Bourg, S.; Ouvrier, N.; Combernoux, N.; Rostaing, C.; Vargas-Gonzalez, M.; Bruno, J. Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles. Energy 2014, 69, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serp, J.; Poinssot, C.; Bourg, S. Assessment of the Anticipated Environmental Footprint of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. Evidence of the Beneficial Effect of Extensive Recycling. Energies 2017, 10, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paulillo, A.; Dodds, J.M.; Milliken, A.; Palethorpe, S.J.; Lettieri, P. The environmental impacts of reprocessing used nuclear fuels: A UK case study. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2020, 25, e00186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulillo, A.; Dodds, J.M.; Palethorpe, S.J.; Lettieri, P. Reprocessing vs direct disposal of used nuclear fuels: The environmental impacts of future scenarios for the UK. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2021, 28, e00278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poinssot, C.; Bourg, S. Assessment of the relative environmental footprint of nuclear energy and its fuel cycle. In Encyclopedia of Nuclear Energy; Greenspan, E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 2, pp. 675–683. ISBN 9780128197257. [Google Scholar]
- NEA. Transition towards a Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency OECD): Paris, France, 2019; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7133-transition-sustainable-fuel-cycle.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Kazimi, M.; Moniz, E.J.; Forsberg, C.W.; Deutch, J.; Driscoll, M.; Golay, M.; Kadak, A.; Parsons, J.; Regalbuto, M.; Apostolakis, G.; et al. The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle; MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; Available online: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MITEI-The-Future-of-the-Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Nishihara, K.; Nakayama, S.; Morita, Y.; Oigawa, H.; Iwasaki, T. Impact of Partitioning and Transmutation on LWR High-Level Waste Disposal. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2008, 45, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishihara, K.; Oigawa, H.; Nakayama, S.; Ono, K.; Shiotani, H. Impact of Partitioning and Transmutation on High-Level Waste Disposal for the Fast Breeder Reactor Fuel Cycle. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 1101–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dungan, K.; Gregg, R.W.H.; Morris, K.; Livens, F.R.; Butler, G. Assessment of the disposability of radioactive waste inventories for a range of nuclear fuel cycles: Inventory and evolution over time. Energy 2021, 221, 119826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Romero, E.M. Impact of partitioning and transmutation on the high level waste management. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2011, 241, 3436–3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poinssot, C.; Rostaing, C.; Greandjean, S.; Boullis, B. Recycling the actinides, the cornerstone of any sustainable nuclear fuel cycles. Procedia Chem. 2012, 7, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swift, P.N.; Sassani, D.C. Impacts of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Choices on Permanent Disposal of High-Activity Radioactive Wastes; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1640197 (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Greneche, D.; Quiniou, B.; Boucher, L.; Delpech, M.; Gonzalez, E.; Alvarez-Velarde, F.; Cufiado, M.; Serrano, G.; Cormenzana, J.L.; Kuckshinrichs, W.; et al. Impact of Partitioning, Transmutation and Waste Reduction Technologies on the Final Nuclear Waste Disposal; Jülich Forschungszentrum: Jülich, Germany, 2008; Available online: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/39/117/39117966.pdf?r=1 (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Butler, G.; Hesketh, K.; Bodel, W.; McGlynn, G.; Matthews, J. Generic Feasibility Assessment: Helping to Choose the Nuclear Piece of the Net Zero Jigsaw. Energies 2021, 14, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Liu, X.; Gu, Z.; Wang, Y. Economic analysis of two nuclear fuel cycle options. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2014, 71, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, I.M.; Alvarez-Velarde, F.; Martín-Fuertes, F. Analysis of advanced European nuclear fuel cycle scenarios including transmutation and economic estimates. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2014, 70, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, S.; Lee, H.J.; Ko, W., II. Dynamic analysis of once-through and closed fuel cycle economics using Monte Carlo simulation. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2014, 277, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, W., II; Gao, F. Economic Analysis of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options. Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install. 2012, 2012, 293467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Phathanapirom, U.B.; Schneider, E.A. Nuclear fuel cycle transition analysis under uncertainty. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 2016, 182, 502–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bunn, M.; Fetter, S.; Holdren, J.; van der Zwann, B. The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel; Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; Available online: https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/repro-report.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Peters, R.; Seshadri, P.; Aubert, G.; Barracco, T.; Billès-Garabédian, L. Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in the United States; Boston Consulting Group: Boston, MA, USA, 2006; Available online: https://image-src.bcg.com/Images/BCG_Economic_Assessment_of_Used_Nuclear_Fuel_Management_in_the_US_Jul_06_tcm9-132990.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Hesketh, K.; Gregg, R.; Butler, G.; Worrall, A. Key conclusions from UK strategic assessment studies of fast reactor fuel cycles. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2017, 110, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NDA. 2019 UK Radioactive Material Inventory; NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority): Moor Row, UK, 2019; Available online: https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019-Materials-Report-Final.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Butler, G.; Hesketh, K. Choosing the Right Nuclear Power Systems. In Nuclear Future; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 50–56. [Google Scholar]
- Dungan, K. Waste Disposal Drivers for a Range of Nuclear Power Systems; The University of Manchester: Manchester, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/182559187/FULL_TEXT.PDF (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Ansolabehere, S.; Deutch, J.; Driscoll, M.; Gray, P.; Holdren, J.; Joskow, P.; Lester, R.; Moniz, E.; Todreas, N.; Beckjord, E.; et al. The Future of Nuclear Power; MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; Available online: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2003/07/MITEI-The-Future-of-Nuclear-Power.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Dixon, B.; Ganda, F.; Williams, K.; Hoffman, E.; Hanson, J. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis—2017 Edition; US DoE (Department of Energy): Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lyons, P. Lessons Learned from the U.S. National Strategy—A Personal Perspective. Available online: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/SupplementaryMaterials/P1905_Proceedings_Series.zip (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Deutch, J.; Forsberg, C.; Kadak, A.; Kazimi, M.; Moniz, E.; Parsons, J.; Du, Y.; Pierpoint, L. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power; MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; Available online: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/kim-d2/docs/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- US DoE. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: Greater Energy Security in a Cleaner, Safer World; US DoE (Department of Energy): Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/media/GNEPfactsheet.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- De Roo, G.; Parsons, J.E. A methodology for calculating the levelized cost of electricity in nuclear power systems with fuel recycling. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 826–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunn, M.; Holdren, J.; Fetter, S.; van der Zwann, B. The economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Nucl. Technol. 2004, 150, 209–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herbst, R.S.; Baron, P.; Nilsson, M. Standard and advanced separation: PUREX processes for nuclear fuel reprocessing. In Advanced Separation Techniques for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Treatment; Nash, K., Lumetta, G., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2011; pp. 141–175. ISBN 9781845695019. [Google Scholar]
- NEA. State-of-the-Art Report on the Progress of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Chemistry; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency OECD): Paris, France, 2018; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7267-soar_2019-12-20_14-58-19_832.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Lewin, R.G.; Harrison, M.T. International developments in electrorefining technologies for pyrochemical processing of spent nuclear fuels. In Reprocessing and Recycling of Spent Nuclear Fuel; Taylor, R., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 373–413. ISBN 9781782422174. [Google Scholar]
- Till, C.E.; Chang, Y.I.L. Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781466384606. [Google Scholar]
- NEA. Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Radioactive Waste Management; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency OECD): Paris, France, 2006; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/5990-advanced-nfc-rwm.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- NEA. The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency OECD): Paris, France, 2013; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7061-ebenfc.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- NEA (Nuclear Energy AgencyOECD). The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle; NEA: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moratilla Soria, B.Y.; Uris Mas, M.; Estadieu, M.; Villar Lejarreta, A.; Echevarria-López, D. Recycling versus long-term storage of nuclear fuel: Economic factors. Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install. 2013, 2013, 417048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, R.; Choi, S.; Il Ko, W.; Kim, S. Economic potential of fuel recycling options: A lifecycle cost analysis of future nuclear system transition in China. Energy Policy 2017, 101, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, R.; Choi, S.; Zhou, Y.; Ko, W. Il Performance modeling and analysis of spent nuclear fuel recycling. Int. J. Energy Res. 2015, 39, 1981–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baschwitz, A.; Mathonnière, G.; Gabriel, S.; Devezeaux de Lavergne, J.G.; Pincé, Y. When would fast reactors become competitive with light water reactors? Methodology and key parameters. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2017, 100, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez-Penalonga, L.; Soria, B.Y.M.; Ocaña-Pastor, P.; Martín-Cañas, P.; Belda-Sánchez, B.; Cortes-Sanz, N.; Estadieu, M.; Linares-Hurtado, J.I.; Vidal-Bernardez, J.M.; Niño-Serrano, M. Spent nuclear fuel management: Levelized cost of electricity generation and analysis of various production scenarios. Energies 2016, 9, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodríguez-Penalonga, L.; Moratilla-Soria, B.Y. Analysis of the costs of spent nuclear fuel management in Spain: The Mariño model. Energy 2019, 186, 115853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNECE. Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development—Entry Pathways; UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe): Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/UNFC%26amp%3BUNRMSNuclearEntryPathwaysRevised.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Baron, P.; Cornet, S.M.; Collins, E.D.; DeAngelis, G.; Del Cul, G.; Fedorov, Y.; Glatz, J.P.; Ignatiev, V.; Inoue, T.; Khaperskaya, A.; et al. A review of separation processes proposed for advanced fuel cycles based on technology readiness level assessments. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2019, 117, 103091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, B.H.; Gao, F.; Kwon, E.; Ko, W. Il Comparative study of different nuclear fuel cycle options: Quantitative analysis on material flow. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 6916–6924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, F.; Ko, W. Il Modeling and system analysis of fuel cycles for nuclear power sustainability (I): Uranium consumption and waste generation. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2014, 65, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, F.; Ko, W. Il Modeling and system analysis of fuel cycles for nuclear power sustainability (III): An integrated evaluation. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2014, 74, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA; NEA. Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy; IEA (International Energy Agency): Paris, France; NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency): Paris, France, 2015; Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/techroadmap/techroadmap-2015.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
Study | Low (USD/kg) | Nominal (USD/kg) | High (USD/kg) |
---|---|---|---|
Zhou (2014) [37] | 30 | 80 | 360 |
Rodríguez (2014) [38] | EUR 40/kgU3O8 | EUR 100 | EUR 160 |
Shropshire (2009) [39] | 30 | 70 | 85 |
Machiels (2010) [39] | 104 | 169 | 520 |
OECD-NEA (2006) [39] | 20 | 50 | 80 |
Choi (2014) [39] | 50 | 100 | 300 |
Ko and Gao (2012) [40] | 30 | 158 | 354 |
Study | Low (USD/kgHM) | Nominal (USD/kgHM) | High (USD/kgHM) |
---|---|---|---|
Zhou (2014) [37] | 700 | 1000 | 1600 |
Phathanapirom [41] | 1370 | ||
Rodríguez (2014) [38] | EUR 875/kg SF | 1000 | 1125 |
Shropshire (2009) (PWR) [39] | 1800 | 2300 | 2700 |
Shropshire (2009) (SFR) [39] | 3000 | 6000 | 9000 |
OECD-NEA (2006) [39] | 1000 | 2000 | 2500 |
KAERI (2010) [39] | 5511 | ||
Choi (2014) (PWR) [39] | 727 | 832 | 2452 |
Choi (2014) (SFR) [39] | 5267 | 5874 | 7831 |
Bunn (2003) [42] | 500 | 1000 | 2000 |
Ko and Gao (2012) [40] | 700 | 800 | 900 |
Peters/BCG (2005) [43] | 520 |
Front End | Uranium | Enrichment | Conversion and Fabrication | Back End | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of LCOE | 9.6 | 4.8 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 3.2 |
Cost multiple to equal 120% of LCOE | 3.1 | 5.2 | 7.0 | 15.0 | 7.3 |
Fuel Cycle Stage | Unit * | OTC | TTC | AFC |
---|---|---|---|---|
UOX | MOX | FR | ||
Front-end fuel cycle | Mills/kWh | 7.11 | 3.02 | −15.66 |
Capital (reactor) | Mills/kWh | 67.68 | 67.68 | 81.22 |
O&M costs (non-fuel) | Mills/kWh | 7.72 | 7.72 | 9.26 |
Back-end fuel cycle | Mills/kWh | 1.3 | 6.96 | 11.74 |
LCOE (total) | Mills/kWh | 83.81 | 85.38 | 86.56 |
Relative cost (LCOE) | % | 100.0% | ||
% Back end | % | 1.6% | 8.2% | 4.7% |
Parameter | Breakeven/Reference |
---|---|
Disposal | 3.2 |
Interim SNF storage | 3.9 |
Enrichment | 12 |
Reprocessing | 0.42 |
Uranium | 7.4 |
Low (USD/kgHM) | Mode (USD/kgHM) | Mean (USD/kgHM) | High (USD/kgHM) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
COEX reprocessing | 861 | 1055 | 1055 | 1250 |
COEX inc. WM and storage | 1263 | 1562 | 1557 | 1846 |
UREX + 1a | 1030 | 1277 | 1277 | 1526 |
UREX + 1a inc. WM and storage | 1703 | 2109 | 2125 * | 2523 |
UREX + 3a | 1156 | 1482 | 1482 | 1776 |
UREX + 3a inc. WM and storage | 1904 | 2371 | 2371 | 2836 |
Electrochemical | 1000 | 1200 | 1400 | |
Electrochemical inc. remote refabrication | 2000 | 2600 | 3200 |
Scenario | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Reference | [63] | [63] | [63] | [63] |
Reactors | 42.209 | 42.207 | 43.081 | 44.452 |
Front-end fuel cycle | 8.250 | 7.566 | 6.888 | 6.349 |
Back-end fuel cycle | 4.357 | 5.613 | 5.802 | 5.923 |
Total fuel cycle | 54.816 | 55.386 | 55.771 | 56.724 |
OTC | DUPIC | TTC | Pyro-SFR | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | 3.99 | 5.68 | 5.74 | 4.51 |
Maximum | 13.79 | 15.30 | 14.77 | 12.64 |
Mean | 8.35 | 10.06 | 9.83 | 8.31 |
SD | 1.69 | 1.57 | 1.55 | 1.16 |
SCN-1 | SCN-2 | SCN-3 | SCN-4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
LCOE (centEuro/kWhe) | 4.65 | 5.58 | 6.20 | 6.09 |
Investment (%) | 61.3 | 68.8 | 60.4 | 68.1 |
Fuel (%) | 10.9 | 6.4 | 18.0 | 8.8 |
O&M (%) | 22.2 | 21.6 | 19.0 | 20.3 |
DDD (%) | 5.6 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.8 |
Electricity Production | 0% Discount Rate | 3% Discount Rate | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TWh/a | OTC | TTC | Multi-Recycling | OTC | TTC | Multi-Recycling |
25 | 100% | 96% | 71% | 63% | 63% | 54% |
75 | 64% | 58% | 46% | 49% | 51% | 47% |
400 | 50% | 52% | 46% | 44% | 48% | 47% |
800 | 48% | 45% | 40% | 43% | 42% | 42% |
Evaluation Criteria | Indicator | Unit of Measure |
---|---|---|
Resource security | Natural U consumption | tU/TWh |
Environmental effects | SF or HLW for disposal | m3/TWh |
Economics | LCOE | Mills/kWh |
Proliferation resistance | Long-term proliferation resistance (Pu inventory) | kgHM/TWh |
Technological readiness | Technological availability | 0–1 |
Objective | R&D Need |
---|---|
Safety and security | Coupled reprocessing-repository facilities to reduce process risks |
Waste management | Tailored waste forms/advanced fuel designs for disposal Special management of actinides or long-lived fission products Novel separations with waste stream minimization Transmutation—waste destruction Repository with multi-century retrievability Co-located fuel cycle facilities to maximize local benefits |
Resource availability and utilization | Fast spectrum reactors with open, modified or closed fuel cycle |
Non-proliferation and safeguards | Advanced safeguards |
Characteristic | Related to: | Discriminating? | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Technical | Fuel cycle development | Y | Greatest challenge for multi-recycle option |
Financial | N | Small differences but recycle incurs nearer term costs and there are economies of scale for larger nuclear programmes | |
Geology | N | All options require deep geological disposal but recycle reduces challenge (based on improved waste characteristics) | |
Social acceptance | N | All options have similar issues | |
Economic development | Opportunities when implemented | Y | Recycle has opportunities for greater economic benefits |
Natural resources | Y | Recycle improves resource preservation | |
Waste characteristics | Y | Recycle reduces problems with wastes | |
Energy independence | ? | Recycle increases energy independence | |
Future generations | ? | Interests of future generations are inherent in decisions related to all options although multi-recycling can bring highest benefits | |
Proliferation | Risks when implemented | N | Must be controlled (safeguards) whatever option |
Security | N | Location is bigger factor than fuel cycle option | |
Worker safety | N | Must be managed whatever option | |
Public safety | N | Main issues are mining and transport | |
Sustainability | ? | All options are consistent with principle but recycle options relatively more sustainable than OTC |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Taylor, R.; Bodel, W.; Butler, G. A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part Two: Economic Impacts. Energies 2022, 15, 2472. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072472
Taylor R, Bodel W, Butler G. A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part Two: Economic Impacts. Energies. 2022; 15(7):2472. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072472
Chicago/Turabian StyleTaylor, Robin, William Bodel, and Gregg Butler. 2022. "A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part Two: Economic Impacts" Energies 15, no. 7: 2472. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072472