Dynamic Analysis of a Pyroprocessing Coupled SFR Fuel Recycling

Abstract

Numerous studies have attempted to solve the problems constraining the sustainable utilization of nuclear power, for example, the already accumulated HLWs, the worsening environment due to greenhouse emissions, the questionable reliability of natural uranium resources, and the argument over nuclear safety, which are certainly top issues to be addressed. A well-organized nuclear fuel cycle system is the basis for nuclear power sustainability. Therefore, which type of reactor to be employed and whether or not to adopt a reprocessing technique for spent fuel are two key issues to be addressed. A Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR), a Generation IV reactor, has gained considerable attention worldwide. SFR recycling coupled to pyroprocessing, a so-called Pyro-SFR Recycling, shows promising advantages, and therefore, this paper focuses on exploring a strategy of how to realize it, which can offer informative procedures for a better use of nuclear power. A dynamic model has been developed to quantitatively analyze a countryspecific case employing two scenarios, a once-through and Pyro-SFR, for a comprehensive comparison, especially focusing on the uranium utilization, the HLW reduction, and the electricity generation cost.

Feasibility Studies on Pyro-SFR Closed Fuel Cycle and Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Line with the Latest National Policy and Strategy of Korea

“…It was also assumed that the metallic SNF discharged from SFRs will be recycled in the Pyro-SFR fuel cycle based upon past reference studies [12,13,31].…”

“…The impact of CR on the SFR was determined by the consumption of TRUs as it is reported that the SFR with higher CR burns less TRUs, while the SFR with lower CR transmutes more. Thus, the minimum number of SFRs to be deployed for transmutation of all the inventory of TRUs can be eventually decided by the value of CR of a specific SFR design [13,[33][34][35]. …”

“…Some investigators have reported different numbers of SFRs (i.e., minimum of 29 to 45 or more) to be deployed in Korea to transmute TRUs based upon their own assumptions, in which two types of SFRs (i.e., break-even reactors with CR of no more than 1 and burners with CR of 0.61 to 0.70) were assumed [8,13,18]. In this study, we have considered two types of SFRs as burners (CR of 0.46 and 0.6) as one of the primary objectives of this study is to simulate the full-scale transmutation of TRUs by deploying SFRs with a minimum of 21-year and maximum of 55-year-long strategic planning as shown in Table 7.…”

“…quantitative and economic studies have been reported on the back-end of fuel cycle options for Korea [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. However, most of the previous studies were conducted based upon the assumptions proposed by the investigators rather than upon the official national policy [6][7][8][14][15][16].…”

“…In addition, neither detailed estimation of the total amount of SNF and TRUs in terms of radioactivity nor relative radiological toxicities of the SNF to be produced from all units of Korean NPPs have been openly reported. Though a few investigators have calculated the anticipated cost for a nuclear fuel cycle in Korea, no detailed economic feasibility studies have been reported on the overall costs and benefits from open or closed fuel cycle nuclear energy systems being considered in Korea [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. In this context, the electricity generation from SFRs as well as NPPs (i.e., PWRs and PHWRs) could be considered as a potential benefit from the fuel cycle.…”