Dynamic assessments on high-level waste and low- and intermediate-level waste generation from open and closed nuclear fuel cycles in Republic of Korea

Abstract

We estimated the generation of low-and intermediate-level waste (LILW) and high-level waste (HLW) from open and closed nuclear fuel cycles. The closed fuel cycle reflects the development and deployment of fast reactors and pyroprocessing from 2013 to 2100, while the open fuel cycle only considers pressurized water reactors. The closed fuel cycle hardly affects short-term spent fuel management but can save nearly 60% space of interim storage compared with the open fuel cycle. Compared with the open fuel cycle, the accumulated volume of HLW can be significantly reduced in the closed fuel cycle up to over 95% in 2100. For this volume reduction, high heat generating fission products should be separated from transuranic waste in pyroprocessing and stored in decay storages for a few hundred years. Mining and milling waste in the closed fuel cycle decreases by about 31%. In contrast, the closed fuel cycle generates 3.0%-4.5% more LILW than the open fuel cycle because fast reactors and pyroprocessing produce more LILW and conversion, enrichment, and fabrication produce less LILW. In the closed fuel cycle, operation and decommissioning wastes from reactor and pyroprocessing, respectively, contribute to 74% and 8% of LILW excluding mining and milling waste.

Dynamic analysis of once-through and closed fuel cycle economics using Monte Carlo simulation

“…The objective of the SFR and pyroprocessing deployment is to reduce the amount of PWR spent fuel accumulated down to about 5000 tHM until 2100. This amount is slightly over the amount of PWR spent fuel generated for 10 years since PWR spent fuel needs to be cooled for 10 years before transportation for pyroprocessing (Choi and Ko, 2014).…”

“…Based on the 5th Basic Plan on Electricity Demand and Supply in 2010 (Ministry of Knowledge Economy, 2010) and the 1st National Energy Basic Plan in 2008 (Office of the Prime Minister, 2008), we developed a reference growth scenario of nuclear electricity demand until 2100 (Choi and Ko, 2014). In the reference scenario, the contribution of nuclear power in the electricity supply will increase from the current 35-59% by 2030 (Office of the Prime Minister, 2008), and remain unchanged.…”

“…In the reference scenario, the contribution of nuclear power in the electricity supply will increase from the current 35-59% by 2030 (Office of the Prime Minister, 2008), and remain unchanged. The 4 different phases are considered until 2100 to obtain the reference growth projection of nuclear electricity demand (Choi and Ko, 2014): (2031)(2032)(2033)(2034)(2035)(2036)(2037)(2038)(2039)(2040)(2041)(2042)(2043)(2044)(2045)(2046)(2047)(2048)(2049)(2050): an increase of total electricity demand at an annual rate of 0.89% while nuclear power keeps supplying 59% of electricity demand. • Phase 4 (2051-2100): a growth rate of total electricity demand gradually decreases down to 0 in 2100 while keeping the share of nuclear power as 59%.…”

Characterization of Waste Generated from Nuclide Management Process in Waste Burden Minimization Technology for Spent Nuclear Fuel

“…e TRU/RE waste/waste form can be classified as high-level waste, as the values of its properties exceed the high-level waste classification criteria (i.e., heat generation rate >2 kW/m 3 and radioactivity concentration >4,000 α-Bq/g) [24]. In addition, due to the long half-life of TRU nuclides, it is expected to exceed the criteria within 1,000 years.…”

Economic evaluation of multi-recycling and once-through fuel cycle considering national plans

“…From the mid-2010s onward, the focus shifted to transition scenario studies employing dynamic system analysis methods for these options [13,14,15,16], and more promising ones, such as OT and pyro-SFR cycles [17,18,19]. Over two decades, KAERI has persistently enhanced and validated its system analysis method, covering mass analysis, economic evaluation, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, and integrated assessment.…”