red-impact – progress report · red-impact – progress report w. gudowski, r. odoj, e. gonzalez,...
Post on 03-Apr-2019
256 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 1
IMPACT OF PARTITIONING, TRANSMUTATION AND WASTE
REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON THE FINAL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
RED-IMPACT – Progress report
W. Gudowski, R. Odoj, E. Gonzalez, D. Greneche, L. Boucher, J. Marivoet, C. Zimmerman and W. von Lenza
Representing the Red–Impact Project : Impact of Partitioning, Transmutation and Waste Reduction Technologies on the Final Nuclear Waste
Disposal.EC Contract no. FI6W-CT-2004-002408
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 2
Author’s Institutions
• Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm, Sweden
• Centro de Investigaciones EnergeticasMedioambientales y Tecnologicas, Madrid, Spain
• Compagnie Générale de Matières Nucléaires, Paris, France
• Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Cadarache, France
• Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie - Centre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire, Mol, Belgium
• Nexia Solutions, Sellafield, UK• Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH, Germany• + 17 other members of RED-IMPACT
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 3
Outline
• Red-Impact Partners• Objectives of Red-Impact• Project Structure• Studied scenarios• Assumptions• Indicators• Results and Conclusions• Added on values
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 4
Partners of Red-Impact
1. KTH : Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm, Sweden. Contact person: Waclaw Gudowski, wacek@neutron.kth.se
2. FZJ : Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH, Jülich Germany. Contact person: Werner von Lensa, w.von.lensa@fz-juelich.de
3. BN : Belgonucleaire, Belgium. Contact person:Benoit Lance, b.lance@belgonucleaire.be
4. Nexia Solutions: United Kingdom Contact person: Colin Zimmerman, colin.h.zimmerman@bnfl.com
5. CEA: The Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, France. Contact person: Lionel Boucher, boucher@DRNCAD.CEA.FR
6. CIEMAT: Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, Spain Contact person: Enrique Gonzalez, enrique.gonzalez@ciemat.es
7. CITON: The Centre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects, Romania Contact person: Olivia Comsa, comsao@router.citon.ro
8. Cogema: Compagnie General de Matieres Nucleaires, France Contact person: Dominique Greneche, dgreneche@cogema.fr
9. EA: Empresarios Agrupados, Spain. Contact person: Xavier Jardi, xjb@empre.es
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 5
10. KKP: EnBW Kraftwerke AG, Kernkraftwerk Philippsburg, Germany Contact person: Karl Linnenfelser, k.linnenfelser@KKP.EnBw.com
11. ENRESA: Empresa Nacional De Residuos Radioactivos S.A., the Spanish radioactive waste agency, Spain. Contact person: Migual Angel Cunado Peralta, MCUP@enresa.es
12. Framatome ANP: FANP SAS, France. Contact person: Bertrand CARLIER, bertrand.carlier@framatome-anp.com
13. Framatome GmbH: FANP GmbH. Contact person: Gerd Brinkmann, Gerd.Brinkmann@Framatome-ANP.com
14. GRS: The German Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit GmbH, Germany Contact person: Frank Peiffer, pei@grs.de
15. USTUTT - IER: The Institute of Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy, Stuttgart University, Germany. Contact person: Alfred Voss, av@ier.uni-stuttgart.de
16. ITU: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Transuranium Elements, Karlsruhe. Contact person: David Hamilton, david.hamilton@itu.fzk.de
17. NIREX: United Kingdom Nirex Ltd., United Kingdom Contact person: Samantha King, Samantha.King@nirex.co.uk
18. NRG: Dutch ECN/KEMA company Nuclear Research & consultancy Group, TheNetherlands. Contact person: Ronald Schram, schram@nrg-nl.com
Partners of Red-Impact
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 6
19. RAWRA: Sprava ulozist radioaktivnich odpadu , The Czech national radioactive waste agency, The Chech Republic. Contact person: Soňa Konopásková, Konopaskova@rawra.cz
20. SCK-CEN: Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie - Centre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire- The Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK•CEN), Mol, Belgium. Contact person: Jan Marivoet, jmarivoe@sckcen.be
21. SKB : Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co), Sweden Contact person: Fred Karlsson, fred.karlsson@skb.se
22. VUJE: VÚJE Trnava, Inc, Slovakia Contact person: Petr DARÍLEK, Darilek@vuje.sk
23. NRI: The Nuclear Research Institute, Rez- Czech Republic.. Contact person: AntoninVokal, voa@ujv.cz
2 subcontractors:University of Cambridge (UK): William Nuttal, w.nuttall@jims.cam.ac.ukDECOM (Slovakia)
Partners of Red-Impact
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 7
Partners of RED-IMPACT
Participants in RED-IMPACT
Research50%
Waste Agencies
18%
Nuclear Industry &
Utilities32%
A unique consortium of research institutes, waste agencies and industrial partners
23 partners + 2 subcontractors, 11 countries
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 8
RED-IMPACT participants
Red-Impact: 01.03.2005 – 28.02.2007RED-IMPACT website : http://www.red-impact.proj.kth.se/
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 9
The objectives of RED-IMPACT project –Why do we want to do transmutation:
• Assess the effects of P&T on geological disposal and waste management.
• Assess Economic, Environmental and Societal Costs/benefits of P&T.
• Disseminate results of the study to stakeholders (scientific, general public and decision makers) and get feedback during the study.
• Iterate and refine the work based on stake-holders’ feedback to achieve full impact of this study on the implementation of the waste management policy of the European Community.
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 10
Red-Impact: six workpackages
• WP1: Review of waste management and transmutation strategies, selection of fuel cycles scenarios
• WP2: Feasibility of the industrial deployment of selected scenarios and their impact on waste management
• WP3: Assessment of waste streams, waste features, leach resistance, heat generation, reprocessing capability etc for selected fuel cycles.
• WP4: Assessment of the benefits and costs of P&T/C in advanced fuel cycles for waste management and geological disposal.
• WP5: Economic, environmental and societal assessment of fuel cycle strategies
• WP6: Synthesis and dissemination of results to stakeholders
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 11
European Commission
RED-IMPACTCo-ordinator: W. Gudowski
Co-coordinator: R. Odoj
Project Management Team:Coordinator, co-coordinator
WP-leadersMeetings: at least twice a year
WP6 – leaderW. von Lensa
WP1 – leaderE. Gonzalez
WP2 – leaderD. Greneche
WP3 – leaderL. Boucher
W4 – leaderJ. Marivoet
WP5 – leaderC. Zimmerman
WP1Task leaders &
participants
WP2 Task leaders &
participants
WP3Task leaders &
participants
WP4Task leaders &
participants
WP5 Task leaders &
participants
WP6Task leaders &
participants
Project Committee:Project Participant Meeting
(Consortium meeting)At least twice a year, each
participant has one vote
Red-ImpactStructure
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 12
Set of fuel cycles to assess
Starting point: NEA/OECD report: “Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADS) and Fast Reactors (FR) in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles. A Comparative Study” (2002).
The fuel options taken into account were:– the standard reference UO2 fuel with a 235U enrichment 4.2% with a final average burn-up of 50
GWd/tHM;– mixed oxide fuels (UO2/PuO2), with a high burn-up of 50 GWd/tHM;– high Pu content MOX fuel (~ 30 w%) in fast reactors, with a burn-up of 150 GWd/tHM;– mixed Th/Pu fuels with a burn-up of 60 GWd/tHM or inert matrix fuel (IMF)-Pu fuel (instead of
thorium), where the inert matrix can be based in the CER-CER concept (Pu diluted in ceramic material) or in the CER-MET concept (takes advantage of higher conductivity of metallic matrices);
– the mixture of MA inside MOX fuels or the use of target rods diluted into an inert of partially fertile matrix;
– the coated particles, with a fissile kernel and several layers of pyrolitic carbon as pressure resistant envelope and gas diffusion barriers, with a burn-up such as about 600 GWd/tHM.
• The chemical reprocessing options considered were the aqueous partitioning system (PUREX, TRUEX, UREX, THOREX, DIAMEX and SANEX processes) and thepyrochemical partitioning system, able to handle fuels with high content in Pu and MA.
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 13
Six basis scenarios are considered for the evaluations
• Three “industrial” scenarios:– A1. Reference scenario. Open cycle – A2. Near term scenario. Plutonium single recycling in
LWR with standard MOX– A3. Fast reactor with infinite recycling of Plutonium
with “standard” MOX Three long-term scenarios :
– B1. Gen IV scenario: infinite recycling of Plutonium and Minor actinides in fast reactors.
– B2. Simplified double strata: LWR + ADS.– B3. Double strata + Fast reactors + ADS.
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 14
Scenario A1 - Reference
UOXFabrication
EnrichedU
LWR Gen III
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
FinalDisposal
Enriched U 4,2% U 235
Flows for spent fuelUOX : 1476 tHM / cycle1 cycle = 18 months600 TWhe / cycle
UOXFabrication
EnrichedU
LWR Gen III
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
FinalDisposal
Enriched U 4,2% U 235
Flows for spent fuelUOX : 1476 tHM / cycle1 cycle = 18 months600 TWhe / cycle
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 15
Scenario A1: Waste Package for 4 UOX spent fuel assemblies
4.54 m
4.30 m
0.90 m
0.70 m
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 16
Scenario A2: mono-recycligingof plutonium in LWRs
MOXFabrication
UOXFabrication
Enriched U
EPRMOX
EPR UOX
ReprocessingS
T
O
R
A
G
E
Pu
UOX
URT
Wastes
MAFP
0,1%U0,1%Pu
U
4,2 % U235
8,5% Pu
Flows for spent fuelMOX : 148 t / cycleUOX : 1328 t / cycle1 cycle = 18 months600 TWhe / cycle
MOX
MOXFabrication
UOXFabrication
Enriched U
EPRMOX
EPR UOX
ReprocessingS
T
O
R
A
G
E
Pu
UOX
URT
Wastes
MAFP
0,1%U0,1%Pu
U
4,2 % U235
8,5% Pu
Flows for spent fuelMOX : 148 t / cycleUOX : 1328 t / cycle1 cycle = 18 months600 TWhe / cycle
MOX
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 17
Scenario A2: Waste Package for 1 MOX spent fuel assembly
4.54 m
4.30 m
0.65 m
0.45 m
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 18
Universal Canister (scenarios A2, A3, B1, B2 and B3)
MaterialStainless Steel
(C: 0.15%; Cr: 24%; Ni: 13%)
Physical dimensions:
- Length 1 338 mm
- External Diameter 430 mm
- Wall thickness 5 mm
Mass:
- Total 492 Kg
- Empty 80 Kg
Volume:
- External 175 l
- Internal 170 l
- Vitrified Waste 150 l
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 19
A3: “Industrial” scenario, infinite recycling of Plutonium with “standard” MOX.
Fabrication Fast reactors(EFR)
Reprocessing
Wastes :FP
LossesMinor actinides
Pu
Depleted U
STORAGE Flows for spent fuel
Fissil : 348 tons / cycleAxial blankets : 151 tons / cycleRadial blankets : 71 tons / cycle1 cycle = 14,6 months493 TWhe / cycle
Fabrication Fast reactors(EFR)
Reprocessing
Wastes :FP
LossesMinor actinides
Pu
Depleted U
STORAGE Flows for spent fuel
Fissil : 348 tons / cycleAxial blankets : 151 tons / cycleRadial blankets : 71 tons / cycle1 cycle = 14,6 months493 TWhe / cycle
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 20
Scenario B1: Fast Neutron – Gen IV scenario
Fabrication Fast reactors Reprocessing
Wastes :FP
Losses
Pu + Minor actinides
Depleted USTORAGE Flows for spent fuel
Fissil : 348 tonsAxial blankets : 151 tonsRadial blankets : 71 tons1 cycle = 14,6 months493 TWhe / cycle
Fabrication Fast reactors Reprocessing
Wastes :FP
Losses
Pu + Minor actinides
Depleted USTORAGE Flows for spent fuel
Fissil : 348 tonsAxial blankets : 151 tonsRadial blankets : 71 tons1 cycle = 14,6 months493 TWhe / cycle
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 23
Maturity of technologies
Scenario
Description Technologies needed (excepted final repository)
Year of availability
A1 Once through fuel cycle in Gen II & III reactors
None Available
A2 Mono-recycling of Pu in Gen III reactors
None Available
A3 Multi recycling of Pu in Sodium Fast reactor
Fabrication and reprocessing of MOX fuel for FNR
2020
B1 Mono recycling of Pu in Gen III reactor + Burning of Puand MA in ADS
PartitioningADS transmuter and associated fuel cycle
2050(QG)
B2 Mono-recycling of Pu in Gen III reactor + Multi recycling of Pu in Gen IV Reactor + Burning of MA in ADS
PartitioningFNR and associated fuel cycleADS transmuter and associated fuel cycle
2050(QG)
B3 Multi recycling of U, Pu and MA in Gen IV reactors
FNR and associated fuel cycle (including MA)
2050(QG)
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 24
Considered hydro-metallurgical processes, their goal and the state of the art
Objective Process Status
Separation of U, Pu, FP+MA PUREX Industrial-scale process
Separation of U, Pu+FP+MA UREX Industrial feasibilityMA partitioning,one-extraction-cycle process
DIDPA process, SETFICS, PALADIN Scientific feasibility
An+Ln co-extraction TRUEX, DIAMEX, TRPO Technical feasibility
An, Ln separation TALSPEAK, CTH, SANEX,CYANEX, ALINA, BTP Technical feasibility
Am, Cm separation SESAME, Am precipitation Technical feasibility
I, Np, Tc recovery Advanced PUREX Industrial feasibility
Cs and/or Sr recovery Calixarenes, titanic acid Technical feasibility
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 25
Pyroprocessing (necessary mainly for ADS recirculation schemes)
• Involve several techniques such as : volatilization, liquid-liquid extraction using non-miscible metal-metal phases or metal-salt phases, electro-refining in molten salt, fractional crystallization, etc.
• Lack of reliable technical data. Assumptions and qualified guesses needed!
26
SCENARIO
A2 A2.b A3 B1 B2 B3
REPROCESSING TYPE Stand. PUREX
Stand. PUREX
Stand. PUREX
Stand. PUREX, PYRO Adv.
PUREXAdv. PUREX PYRO Adv.
PUREXAdv. PUREX PYRO PYRO
REPROCESSED FUEL UOX (PWR)
UOX (PWR)
MOX (PWR)
Blankets+ Fissile Core(FR)
Blankets+ Fissile Core(FR)
UOX (PWR)
MOX (PWR) ADS UOX
(PWR)MOX (PWR) MOX (FR) ADS
U 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Pu 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
MA 1 1 1 1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Noble Gases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Iodine 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Noble Metals 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
Others, including volatile (Cs, Br) and partially soluble (Mo, Tc and Sb)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ACTIVATION PRODUCTS (Fuel Impurities) to HLW
All, including volatile(H, C, N, F and Cl), etc.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Zr and N (ADS fuel matrix) to HLW - - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
MASS of HLW to Universal Canister 40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
40 Kg +Impu.
FISSION PRODUCTS to HLW
ACTINIDES to HLW
Reprocessiong assumptions
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 27
3 Different Geological Disposal Models
• Granite (e.g. Swedish, Spanish, Czech models)
• Clay (Belgium)• Rock Salt Formation (Germany)
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 29
Granite:
1 10 100 1000time (a)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
max
imum
tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
A1(25x5)(25x6)(25x7)(25x8)(25x9)
1 10 100 1000time (a)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
max
imum
tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
B1(25x2)(25x3)(25x4)(25x5)
Evolution of maximal temperature at the surface of the canisterscalculated for scenarios A1 and B1
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 30
Granite
1.00E-10
1.00E-09
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+ 00
1.00E+ 03 1.00E+ 04 1.00E+ 05 1.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07
T im e (years)
Bio
sphe
re d
oses
(Sv/
yr
A1_g radual_SvB1_g radual_SvLimit
Comparison of biosphere doses from A1 and B1 scenarios (instant failure of canisters)
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 31
Clay: Dose via the river pathway per TWhe
1.0E-16
1.0E-15
1.0E-14
1.0E-13
1.0E-12
1.0E-11
1.0E-10
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Time after canister failure (years)
Dos
e (r
iver
pat
hway
) (Sv
/a/T
Whe
)
Cl36
Se79
Sn126
I129
Th229
TOTAL
1.0E-16
1.0E-15
1.0E-14
1.0E-13
1.0E-12
1.0E-11
1.0E-10
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Time after canister failure (years) D
ose
(riv
er p
athw
ay) (
Sv/a
/TW
he)
Se79
Tc99
Sn126
I129
Th229
TOTAL
A1 B1
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 32
Clay: Total doses via the river pathway per TWh(e) calculated for scenarios A1
and B1
1.0E-16
1.0E-15
1.0E-14
1.0E-13
1.0E-12
1.0E-11
1.0E-10
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Time after canister failure (years)
Dos
e (r
iver
pat
hway
) (Sv
/a/T
Whe
)scenario A1
scenario B1
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 33
Salt: dose rate for possible releases coming from waste of fuel cycle A1 and B1
Calculated Dose Rate fuel cycles A1 and B1
1,00E-15
1,00E-14
1,00E-13
1,00E-12
1,00E-11
1,00E-10
1,00E-09
1,00E-08
1,00E-07
1,00E-06
1,00E-05
1,00E-04
1,00E-03
1,00E+03 1,00E+04 1,00E+05 1,00E+06
Time (years)
Dos
e R
ate
(Sv/
a)
reg, limit
FC A1
FC B1
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 34
Performance indicators
The indicators have been divided into two major groups:• “Technical” indicators partioned into three groups:
– indicators based on the composition of the waste;– indicators related to the size of the repository; – indicators related to the long-term performance of the repository
system:• individual annual dose;• radiotoxicity flux released into the biosphere;• integrated radiotoxicity flux released into the biosphere.
• Economic, environmental and societal/sustainability (EES) indicators
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 35
Sustainability Indicators
Identification
Top-
dow
n
S tro n g S u s ta in a -
b ility
e .G .E c o lo g ic a l F o o tp r in t
W ea k S u s ta in a -
b ility
e .G .C a p ita l
A p p ro a c h
M ix e d a p p ro a ch
In d ic a to r S e t
G u d in g p r in c ip le S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t
G e n e ra l co n c e p ts
Bot
tom
-uo
E c o lo g y
E c o n o m y S o c ie ty
O v e rv ie w o n e x is tin ge n e rg y s ys te m in d ic a to r s e ts
S e le c tio n a n d a d a p tio n o f u se fu l in d ica to rs
R e d Im p a c t In d ic a to r S e t
Top-
dow
n
S tro n g S u s ta in a -
b ility
e .G .E c o lo g ic a l F o o tp r in t
W ea k S u s ta in a -
b ility
e .G .C a p ita l
A p p ro a c h
M ix e d a p p ro a ch
In d ic a to r S e t
G u d in g p r in c ip le S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t
G e n e ra l co n c e p ts
Top-
dow
nTo
p-do
wn
S tro n g S u s ta in a -
b ility
e .G .E c o lo g ic a l F o o tp r in t
W ea k S u s ta in a -
b ility
e .G .C a p ita l
A p p ro a c h
M ix e d a p p ro a ch
In d ic a to r S e t
G u d in g p r in c ip le S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t
G e n e ra l co n c e p ts
G u d in g p r in c ip le S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t
G e n e ra l co n c e p ts
Bot
tom
-uo
E c o lo g y
E c o n o m y S o c ie ty
O v e rv ie w o n e x is tin ge n e rg y s ys te m in d ic a to r s e ts
S e le c tio n a n d a d a p tio n o f u se fu l in d ica to rs
R e d Im p a c t In d ic a to r S e t
Bot
tom
-uo
Bot
tom
-uo
E c o lo g y
E c o n o m y S o c ie ty
O v e rv ie w o n e x is tin ge n e rg y s ys te m in d ic a to r s e ts
S e le c tio n a n d a d a p tio n o f u se fu l in d ica to rs
O v e rv ie w o n e x is tin ge n e rg y s ys te m in d ic a to r s e ts
S e le c tio n a n d a d a p tio n o f u se fu l in d ica to rs
R e d Im p a c t In d ic a to r S e t
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 36
Comparison of different fuel cycle strategies in terms of radiological and disposal aspects
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 (PWR) 2 (PWR,recycl. Pu)
3 (PWR,multi-recycl.
Pu)
4 (PWR +ADS)
5 (Na-cooledFR)
6 (GC FR) 6a (GC FR,separ. Cs,Sr)
U consumptiongallery lengthmaximum dose cumulative released radiotoxicityradiotoxicity after 500 a
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 37
Decay heat per TWhe as a function of time in a repository for different fuel cycles
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 40
All scenarios – Radiological Impact: Normalised Annual Dose (Sv/a TWhe)
1 .E-14
1 .E-13
1 .E-12
1 .E-11
1 .E-10
1 .E-09
1 .E-08
1 .E +03 1.E+0 4 1 .E +05 1 .E+06 1.E +0 7
Tim e (ye ars )
Dos
e (S
v/yr
-TW
h(e)
)
S c e na rio A2
S c e nario A1
S c e na rio B 2
S c e na rio B1
S c en ario A3
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 41
RedImpact Final Goal: Acceptance and Decisions through understanding
• The RED-IMPACT project follows a multi-disciplinary approach by federating different technical and scientific areas such as specialists from reactor technology, fuel cycle evaluation, reprocessing (partitioning), waste management, disposal issues, economical assessment and social sciencewith regard to public and market acceptance aspects. P&T is not understood only as a very future option but as a strategy which can be stepwise implemented already starting:– in the short term by making use of existing reactors and fuel cycle
facilities, – via more advanced reactor systems (Gen III & Gen IV), fuels,
reprocessing & conditioning technologies, in the mid term, – towards very ambitious special waste transmuter systems like ADS
together with the related partitioning techniques, in the long term.
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 42
• Fuel cycle senarios with their boundary conditions have been well defined. Methodology and assessment tools have been agreed and well benchmarked. Most of the calculations are in the final stage and an interim report summarizing the first results has ´been prepared.
• The project provides recommendations for the implementation of pragmatic P&T strategies under different political environments following general sustainability criteria to improve public acceptance
RedImpact Final Goal: Acceptance and Decisions through understanding
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 43
Added on values 1:
• Subtask: Nuclear Spent Fuel Management Scenarios for Sweden:– Phase out with direct disposal– Burning plutonium and minor actinides as MOX in BWR– Burning plutonium and minor actinides as MOX in PWR– Burning plutonium and minor actinides in ADS – Combined LWR-MOX plus ADS
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 44
Cost of electricity comparison for various scenarios with 40, 60, 140, and 200 GWd/tHM of
burnup
MOX40 MOX60 ADS140 ADS200 UOX0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CO
E [c
/kW
h]6.19
4.97
5.72
5.19
3.29
CapInterestOMFuelISGDRep/UnatConvEnr
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006 45
• New Fuel Cycle Anlaysis and OPTIMIZATION (RED-IMPACT)code under development at KTH:– Best possible physics – generation of dedicated one-group data
libraries for each specific case– Matrix method– Simulation of the whole fuel cycle from FRONT-FRONT to Back-
End inluding legacy of existing waste– Regional solutions as an option– Economical calculation– Uncertainty analysis– Very advanced graphical interface
Added on values 2:
top related