RED-IMPACT – Progress report
IMPACT OF PARTITIONING,
TRANSMUTATION AND WASTE
REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON THE
FINAL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
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

1

Author’s Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm,
SwedenCentro de Investigaciones Energeticas
Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, Madrid, Spain
Compagnie Générale de Matières Nucléaires,
Paris, FranceCommissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Cadarache,FranceStudiecentrum 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

2

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

3

Partners of Red-Impact
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

KTH : Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm, Sweden. Contact person: Waclaw
Gudowski, wacek@neutron.kth.se
FZJ : Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH, Jülich Germany. Contact person: Wernervon Lensa, w.von.lensa@fz-juelich.de
BN : Belgonucleaire, Belgium. Contact person:Benoit Lance,b.lance@belgonucleaire.be
Nexia Solutions: United Kingdom Contact person: Colin Zimmerman,
colin.h.zimmerman@bnfl.com
CEA: The Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, France. Contact person: Lionel
Boucher, boucher@DRNCAD.CEA.FR
CIEMAT: Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas,
Spain Contact person: Enrique Gonzalez, enrique.gonzalez@ciemat.es
CITON: The Centre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects, Romania
Contact person: Olivia Comsa, comsao@router.citon.ro
Cogema: Compagnie General de Matieres Nucleaires, France Contact person:
Dominique Greneche, dgreneche@cogema.fr
EA: Empresarios Agrupados, Spain. Contact person: Xavier Jardi,
xjb@empre.es

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

4

Partners of Red-Impact
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

KKP: EnBW Kraftwerke AG, Kernkraftwerk Philippsburg, Germany Contact person: Karl
Linnenfelser, k.linnenfelser@KKP.EnBw.com
ENRESA: Empresa Nacional De Residuos Radioactivos S.A., the Spanish radioactive wasteagency, Spain. Contact person: Migual Angel Cunado Peralta, MCUP@enresa.es
Framatome ANP: FANP SAS, France. Contact person: Bertrand CARLIER,
bertrand.carlier@framatome-anp.com
Framatome GmbH: FANP GmbH. Contact person: Gerd Brinkmann,Gerd.Brinkmann@Framatome-ANP.com
GRS: The German Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit GmbH, Germany
Contact person: Frank Peiffer, pei@grs.de
USTUTT - IER: The Institute of Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy, Stuttgart
University, Germany. Contact person: Alfred Voss, av@ier.uni-stuttgart.de
ITU: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Transuranium Elements,
Karlsruhe. Contact person: David Hamilton, david.hamilton@itu.fzk.de
NIREX: United Kingdom Nirex Ltd., United Kingdom Contact person: Samantha King,
Samantha.King@nirex.co.uk
NRG: Dutch ECN/KEMA company Nuclear Research & consultancy Group, The
Netherlands. Contact person: Ronald Schram, schram@nrg-nl.com

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

5

Partners of Red-Impact
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.be21.
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: Antonin
Vokal, voa@ujv.cz
2 subcontractors:
University of Cambridge (UK): William Nuttal, w.nuttall@jims.cam.ac.uk
DECOM (Slovakia)
19.

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

6

Partners of RED-IMPACT
A unique consortium of research institutes, waste agencies
and industrial partners
23 partners + 2 subcontractors, 11 countries
Participants in RED-IM PACT

NuclearIndustry &Utilities
32%
Research
50%
Waste
A gencies
18%

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

7

RED-IMPACT participants

Red-Impact: 01.03.2005 – 28.02.2007
RED-IMPACT website : http://www.red-impact.proj.kth.se/
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

8

The objectives of RED-IMPACT project –Why do we want to do transmutation:• Assess the effects of P&T on geological disposal andwaste 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 theimplementation of the waste management policy of theEuropean Community.

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

9

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 andtheir 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 fuelcycles 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

10

EuropeanCommission
Project Committee:
Project Participant Meeting(Consortium meeting)
At least twice a year, eachparticipant has one vote

RED-IMPACT
Co-ordinator: W. Gudowski
Co-coordinator: R. Odoj

Red-Impact
Structure

Project Management Team:
Coordinator, co-coordinator
WP-leaders
Meetings: at least twice a year

WP1 – leader
E. Gonzalez

WP2 – leader
D. Greneche

WP3 – leader
L. Boucher

W4 – leader
J. Marivoet

WP5 – leader
C. Zimmerman

WP6 – leader
W. von Lensa

WP1
Task leaders &participants

WP2
Task leaders &participants

WP3
Task leaders &participants

WP4
Task leaders &participants

WP5
Task leaders &participants

WP6
Task leaders &participants

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

11

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 ofthorium), where the inert matrix can be based in the CER-CER concept (Pu diluted in ceramicmaterial) 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 the
pyrochemical partitioning system, able to handle fuels with high content in Pu and MA.

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

12

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

13

Scenario A1 - Reference
S
T
O
UOX
Fabrication

LWR
Gen III

Enriched U
4,2% U 235
EnrichedU

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

R
A

Final
DisposalG
Flows for spent fuel
UOX : 1476 tHM / cycle
1 cycle = 18 months
600 TWhe / cycle

E

14

Scenario A1: Waste Package for 4
UOX spent fuel assemblies
0.70 m4.30 m0.90 m4.54 mNEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

15

Scenario A2: mono-recycligingof plutonium in LWRs
Pu

MOX
Fabrication

8,5% Pu

EPR
MOX

S

EPR
UOX

4,2 % U235

EnrichedU

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

R
A
G

Flows for spent fuel
MOX : 148 t / cycle
UOX : 1328 t / cycle
1 cycle = 18 months
600 TWhe / cycle

Reprocessing

T
O

UOX
Fabrication

UOX

MOX

MA
FP
0,1%U
0,1%PuU

URT

E

Wastes16

Scenario A2: Waste Package for
1 MOX spent fuel assembly
4.30 m0.45 m0.65 m4.54 mNEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

17

Universal Canister (scenarios A2, A3,
B1, B2 and B3)Material

Stainless Steel(C: 0.15%; Cr: 24%; Ni: 13%)

Physical dimensions:- Length

1 338 mm

- External Diameter

430 mm- Wall thickness

5 mm

Mass:
- Total492 Kg- Empty

80 Kg

Volume:- External

175 l- Internal

170 l- Vitrified Waste

150 l

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

18

A3: “Industrial” scenario, infinite recyclingof Plutonium with “standard” MOX.
Wastes :FP
LossesMinor actinides

Depleted US
TFabrication

Fast reactors
(EFR)

O
R
A
G
E

Pu

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

Reprocessing

Flows for spent fuelFissil : 348 tons / cycle
Axial blankets : 151 tons / cycle
Radial blankets : 71 tons / cycle
1 cycle = 14,6 months
493 TWhe / cycle

19Scenario B1: Fast Neutron – Gen IV
scenario
Wastes :FP
Losses
Depleted US
TFabrication

Fast reactors

O
R
A
G
E

Pu + Minor actinides

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

Reprocessing
Flows for spent fuelFissil : 348 tons
Axial blankets : 151 tons
Radial blankets : 71 tons
1 cycle = 14,6 months
493 TWhe / cycle

20

Scenario B2 : Simplified “double strata”
scenario with LWR and ADS

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

21

B3 – Double Strata Scenario
with LWRs, FRs, ADS

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

22

Maturity of technologies
ScenarioDescription

Technologies needed(excepted final repository)

Year ofavailability

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 Pu
and MA in ADS

Partitioning
ADS transmuter and associatedfuel cycle

2050
(QG)

B2

Mono-recycling of Pu in Gen
III reactor + Multi recyclingof Pu in Gen IV Reactor +Burning of MA in ADS

Partitioning
FNR and associated fuel cycle
ADS transmuter and associatedfuel 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

23

Considered hydro-metallurgical processes,
their goal and the state of the art
Objective

Process

StatusSeparation of U, Pu, FP+MA

PUREX

Industrial-scale process

Separation of U, Pu+FP+MA

UREX

Industrial feasibility

MA partitioning,
one-extraction-cycle process

DIDPA process, SETFICS,
PALADIN

Scientific feasibility

An+Ln co-extraction

TRUEX, DIAMEX, TRPOTechnical 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 acidTechnical feasibility

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

24

Pyroprocessing (necessary mainly for
ADS recirculation schemes)• Involve several techniques such as :volatilization, liquid-liquid extraction using
non-miscible metal-metal phases or metalsalt phases, electro-refining in molten salt,
fractional crystallization, etc.
• Lack of reliable technical data. Assumptions
and qualified guesses needed!
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

25

Reprocessiong assumptions
SCENARIO
A2

A2.b

A3

B1

B2

B3

Stand.
PUREX

Stand.
PUREX,

PYRO

Adv.
PUREX

Adv.
PUREX

PYRO

Adv.
PUREX

Adv.
PUREX

PYRO

PYRO

Stand.
REPROCESSING TYPE

Stand.
PUREX

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) andpartially soluble(Mo, Tc and Sb)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

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.

ACTINIDES to
HLW

FISSIONPRODUCTS to
HLW

ACTIVATIONPRODUCTS(Fuel
Impurities) to
HLW

PU
RE
X

26

40 Kg
+Impu.

3 Different Geological
Disposal Models• Granite (e.g. Swedish, Spanish, Czech
models)• Clay (Belgium)• Rock Salt Formation (Germany)

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-200627

Samples of results:

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

28

Granite:
Evolution of maximal temperature at the surface of the canisters
calculated for scenarios A1 and B1
140

140

B1
(25x2)(25x3)(25x4)(25x5)

120

maximum temperature (°C)

maximum temperature (°C)

120

100

80

60

A1
(25x5)(25x6)(25x7)(25x8)(25x9)

40

100

80

60

40

20

20
1

10

100

time (a)NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

1000

1

10

100

1000

time (a)29GraniteComparison of biosphere doses from A1 and B1 scenarios(instant failure of canisters)
1.00E + 00

1.00E- 01

1.00E- 02

Biosphere doses (Sv/yr

1.00E- 03

1.00E- 04
A1_g r adual_S v
B1_g r adual_S v

1.00E- 05

Limit
1.00E- 06

1.00E- 07

1.00E- 08

1.00E- 09

1.00E- 10
1.00E + 03

1.00E+ 04

1.00E+ 05

1.00E + 06

1.00E + 07

T im e ( years)

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

30

Clay: Dose via the river
pathway per TWhe
A1

B1
1.0E-101.0E-10

Se79

Cl36
Se79

Dose (river pathway) (Sv/a/TWhe)

Dose (river pathway) (Sv/a/TWhe)

1.0E-11

1.0E-11Sn126
1.0E-12

I129
Th229
TOTAL

1.0E-13

1.0E-14

1.0E-15

Tc99
Sn126

1.0E-12

I129
Th229
TOTAL

1.0E-13

1.0E-14

1.0E-15
1.0E-16
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Time after canister failure (years)

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E-16
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

Time after canister failure (years)

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

31

Clay: Total doses via the river pathway
per TWh(e) calculated for scenarios A1
and B1
1.0E-10

Dose (river pathway) (Sv/a/TWhe)scenario A1

1.0E-11

scenario B1

1.0E-121.0E-13

1.0E-14

1.0E-15

1.0E-16
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

Time after canister failure (years)

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

32

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-03
1,00E-04

Dose Rate (Sv/a)

1,00E-05
1,00E-06

reg, limit

1,00E-07

FC A1

1,00E-08

FC B1

1,00E-09
1,00E-10
1,00E-11
1,00E-12
1,00E-13
1,00E-14
1,00E-15
1,00E+03

1,00E+04

1,00E+05

1,00E+06

Time (years)

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

33

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

34

Sustainability Indicators
Identification
G u d in g p rin c ip le S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t

Top-down

G e n e ra l c o n c e p ts
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 rin t

W eak
S u s ta in a b ility
M ix e da p p ro a c he .G .
C a p ita lA p p ro a c h

In d ic a to rSet

E c o lo g y

Econom y

S o c ie ty

S e le c tio n a n d a d a p tio n o f u s e fu l in d ic a to rs
O v e rv ie w o n e x is tin ge n e rg y s y s te m in d ic a to r s e ts

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

Bottom-uo

R e d Im p a c t
In d ic a to r S e t

35

Comparison of different fuel cycle strategies interms of radiological and disposal aspects

U consumption

1.0

gallery length
maximum dose

0.8

cumulative released radiotoxicity
radiotoxicity after 500 a

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 (PWR)

2 (PWR,
recycl. Pu)

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

3 (PWR,
multi-recycl.
Pu)

4 (PWR +ADS)

5 (Na-cooledFR)

6 (GC FR)

6a (GC FR,
separ. Cs,Sr)

36

Decay heat per TWhe as a function of timein a repository for different fuel cycles

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

37

Ingestion radiotoxicity after
disposal for different scenarios

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

38

Impact of fuel cyle on
waste quality for disposal

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

39

All scenarios – Radiological Impact:
Normalised Annual Dose (Sv/a TWhe)
1 .E- 08
S c e na rio A2

1 .E- 09

Do s e (Sv /yr-TWh(e ))S c e na rio A1

1 .E- 10S c e na rio B 2

1 .E- 11S c en a rio A3

1 .E- 12S c e na rio B1

1 .E- 13

1 .E- 14
1 .E + 03

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

1.E+ 0 4

1 .E + 05

Tim e (y e a rs )1 .E+ 06

1.E +0 7

40

RedImpact Final Goal: Acceptance andDecisions 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 science
with regard to public and market acceptance aspects. P&T is notunderstood 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

41

RedImpact Final Goal: Acceptance andDecisions through understanding• Fuel cycle senarios with their boundary conditions
have been well defined. Methodology andassessment tools have been agreed and wellbenchmarked. Most of the calculations are in the
final stage and an interim report summarizing thefirst results has ´been prepared.
• The project provides recommendations for the
implementation of pragmatic P&T strategies under
different political environments following generalsustainability criteria to improve public acceptance
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

42

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

43

Cost of electricity comparison for various
scenarios with 40, 60, 140, and 200 GWd/tHM ofburnup
8
7
6.19
6

5.72

COE [c/kWh]

5.19

4.97

5
4

Cap
Interest
OM
Fuel
IS
GD
Rep/Unat
Conv
Enr
3.29

3
2
1
0

NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

MOX40

MOX60

ADS140

ADS200UOX

44Added on values 2:• New Fuel Cycle Anlaysis and OPTIMIZATION (REDIMPACT)code under development at KTH:
– Best possible physics – generation of dedicated one-group datalibraries for each specific case– Matrix method– Simulation of the whole fuel cycle from FRONT-FRONT to BackEnd inluding legacy of existing waste– Regional solutions as an option– Economical calculation– Uncertainty analysis– Very advanced graphical interface
NEA/OECD -9IEMPT, Nimes-2006

45