Analysis of alternative light water reactor (LWR) fuel cycles

Abstract

Nine alternative LWR fuel cycles are analyzed in terms of the isotopic content of the fuel material, the relative amounts of primary and recycled material, the uranium and thorium requirements, the fuel cycle costs and the fraction of energy which must be generated at secured sites. The fuel materials include low-enriched uranium (LEU), plutonium-uranium (MOX), highlyenriched uranium-thorium (HEU-Th), denatured uranium-thorium (DU-Th) and plutonium-thorium (Pu-Th). The analysis is based on tracing the material requirements of a generic pressurized water reactor (PWR) for a 30-year period at constant annual energy output. During this time period all the created fissile material is recycled unless its reactivity worth is less than 0.2% uranium enri~hment plant tails. i i ; Among the authors, R. L. Aaberg performed the analysis of Cycles A and B as well as programming the routine which computes the separative work, and migration of the minor isotopes in the enrichment cascade. A. J. Boegel performed the analysis of Cycle C, and wrote the fuel cycles description section of the report. He also contributed to the original plan of analysis. C. M. Heeb guided the revisions to the LEOPARD code, and was responsible for the overall analysis effort. U. P. Jenquin studied the effect of resonance interference and evaluated the 232 Th resonance integral measurements and calculations. D. A. Kottwitz created the new 240 pu resonance treatment in LEOPARD. M. A. Lewallen selected the unit cost assumptions and wrote the section on uranium and thorium requirements. E. T. Merrill wrote the original flow diagrams which form the basis of the analysis, did the cash flow analysis for the power costs, and wrote the economics sections of this report. A. M. Nolan performed the analysis of Cycles D, E, G and H, wrote the fissile loading search subroutines in LEOPARD, wrote the introduction, and the section on non-proliferation and diversion resistance.

Environmental control aspects for fabrication, reprocessing and waste disposal of alternative LWR and LMFBR fuels

“…Recent work at PNL has described in some detail nine LWR fuel cycles (Heeb et al 1979) as alternatives to the current once-through cycle that utilizes low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The alternative fuel cycles were developed in response to two needs: to better utilize resources by recycling nuclear fuels, and to discourage the use of the fissile materials for weapons proliferation.…”

“…These values were calculated for the purpose of a general comparison among fuel wastes from varying types, and are useful only for this purpose. 6.16 In a recent PNL study (Heeb et al 1979), nine alternative LWR fuel cycles were analyzed to determine economic characteristics, natural resource requirements, and energy generation. Eight representative steady-state fuel types have been selected from these cycles as a basis for the present study.…”

“…Actinides present only in trace quantities are included. Most of the LWR fuel composition information was taken from the 30-year study (Heeb et al, 1979). Similarly, much of the information for LMFBR fuel regions came from a HEDL study on alternative FBR core designs (Haffner et al 1979).…”

“…The fuel types chosen for this analysis are representative of steadystate alternative LWR and LMFBR fuel cycles. Recent work at PNL (Heeb et ale 1979) was used as the basis for choosing the LWR alternatives, and the LMFBR alternatives are representative of current designs (Haffner et ale 1977).…”