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 country-specific 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. 1. Introduction There are generally two methods used to perform a nuclear fuel cycle system analysis, namely, an equilibrium model and a dynamic model. An equilibrium (or steady-state) model focuses on a batch study built with certain assumptions: the referred reactors and fuel cycle facilities already exist and are in perfect operation regardless of the technological, political, and economic constraints on the reactor and back-end process implementation; the derived nuclear fuel cycles are well balanced and organized by different types of reactors with ideal ratios, and the associated infrastructures are already built. However, inevitably these simplified and ideal-condition assumptions appear optimistic in that they omit several important preconditions, including technological maturity, the time needed to reach equilibrium states, social and political concerns constraining the deployment of fuel-cycle technologies, and the economic competitiveness of the different fuel cycles considered [1–5]. It should be noted that the technology readiness level of each potential option is quite different, for example, the once-through cycling (OT) is currently available, but the components in the sodium fast-reactor-involved recycling require several decades to be fully applicable [1, 2, 6]. When to start building a certain component of the optimal option can be
References
[1]
B. H. Park, F. Gao, E. H. Kwon, and W. I. Ko, “Comparative study of different nuclear fuel cycle options: quantitative analysis on material flow,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 6916–6924, 2011.
[2]
G. Fanxing, Modeling and system analysis of different fuel cycles for nuclear power sustainability, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Quantum Energy and Chemical Engineering, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute Campus, Korea University of Science & Technology, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2012.
B. Dixon, S. Kim, D. Shropshire, S. Piet, G. Matthern, and B. Halsey, “Dynamic systems analysis report for nuclear fuel recycle,” Tech. Rep. INL/EXT-08-15201 Rev.1, 2008.
[5]
W. I. Ko, Model development for quantitative evaluation of nuclear fuel cycle alternatives and its application, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Nuclear Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2000.
[6]
W. I. Ko, H. D. Kim, and M. S. Yang, “Advantages of irradiated DUPIC fuels from the perspective of environmental impact,” Nuclear Technology, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 123–139, 2002.
[7]
Y. Ishiwatari, Y. Oka, and S. Koshizuka, “Breeding ratio analysis of a fast reactor cooled by supercritical light water,” Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 703–710, 2001.
[8]
S. G. Hong, Y. Kim, and F. Venneri, “600？MWe sodium cooled fast reactor core designs for efficient TRU transmutation,” in Proceedings of the The Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea, May 2006.
[9]
M. Cometto, P. Wydler, and R. Chawla, “A comparative physics study of alternative long-term strategies for closure of the nuclear fuel cycle,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 413–429, 2004.
[10]
T. Inoue, “Actinide recycling by pyro-process with metal fuel FBR for future nuclear fuel cycle system,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 40, no. 3-4, pp. 547–554, 2002.
[11]
OECD/NEA, Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2009.
[12]
OECD/NEA, The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France, 1994.
[13]
OECD/NEA, “Advanced nuclear fuel cycles and radioactive waste management,” Tech. Rep. 5990.OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris, France, 2006.
[14]
D. Shropshire, K. A. Williams, W. B. Boore, et al., “Advanced fuel cycle cost basis,” Tech. Rep. INL/EXT-07-12107, 2007.
[15]
D. Shropshire, K. A. Williams, W. B. Boore, et al., “Advanced fuel cycle cost basis,” Tech. Rep. INL/EXT-07-12107 Rev.1, 2008.
[16]
D. Shropshire, K. A. Williams, W. B. Boore, et al., “Advanced fuel cycle cost basis,” Tech. Rep. INL/EXT-07-12107 Rev.2, 2009.
[17]
J. Deutch and E. Moniz, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2003.
[18]
M. Bunn, B. van der Zwaan, J. P. Holdren, and S. Fetter, “The economics of reprocessing vs. direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel,” Tech. Rep. DE-FG-26-99FT4028, 2003.
[19]
H. Khatib, “Review of OECD study into ‘Projected costs of generating electricity-2010 Edition’,” Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 5403–5408, 2010.
