Journal of Nuclear Science, Engineering and Technology (JONSAT)
In cooperation with the Iranian Nuclear Society

Comparison of different types of fuel cycles based on country's nuclear material capacity and cost for electricity generation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Z. Shahbazi Rad 1
M.J. Safari 2

1 Nuclear Engineering Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, P.O.Box: 1983969411, Tehran - Iran

2 Physics and Energy Engineering Faculty, Amir Kabir University, P.O.Box: 158754413, Tehran - Iran

https://doi.org/10.24200/nst.2024.1607
Abstract
Nowadays, due to the need of all countries to provide sustainable energy, nuclear energy plays a significant role in the energy portfolio of developed countries and developng countries. For this reason, it is very critical to choose the appropriate nuclear fuel cycles for the optimal use of nuclear energy. In addition, it is important to draw the road map of the country's nuclear industry. ; which itself is a function of several parameters (the level of nuclear knowledge, sources and reserves of nuclear materials economic factors, etc.). These factors play a significant role in determining the appropriate cycle). In this research, four main scenarios have been proposed by comparing uranium, plutonium, and thorium fuel cycles. In addition, four scenarios have been examined by examining nuclear material capacity. Suitable and cautious fuel cycles have been introduced for each required nuclear fuel scenario and consumption amount. Among the proposed scenarios, the scenario of "accessing sufficient uranium resources and opening up the enrichment and reprocessing" was introduced as the most likely scenario and based on the suggested axes, the most suitable closed uranium fuel cycles, with a fast sodium reactor and uranium TRU and FP fuel cycle” were selected" with a minimum of 2320 and a maximum of 5296 GW of energy production and total costs of approximately $117 million per GW of energy.

Highlights

  1. McKay D, Miezitis Y. Australia’s uranium resources, geology and development of deposits. Mineral Resource Report. AGSO. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. 2001.

 

  1. Lambert I, Mckay A, Miezitis Y. Australia's uranium resources: trends, global comparisons and new developments. 1996.

 

  1. Lambert I, McKay A, Miezitis Y. Australia’s uranium resources and production in a world context. Bureau of Resources Sciences, Canberra, ANA Conference October. 2001.

 

  1. Nuclear Energy Agency: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation And Development. Uranium 2018, Resources, Production and Demand.

 

  1. Association W.N. International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues. International Atomic Energy Agency (2014).

 

  1. OECD. Introduction of Thorium in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. 2015.

 

  1. Crossland I. Nuclear fuel cycle science and engineering. Elsevier. 2012.

 

  1. Kim S, Ko W, Lee Y.H. Economic viability of metallic sodium-cooled fast reactor fuel in Korea. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2013(1).

 

  1. Ko W.I, Gao F. Economic analysis of different nuclear fuel cycle options. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2012.

 

  1. Kasten P.R, Homan F, Allen E. Assessment of the thorium fuel cycle in power reactors. Oak Ridge National Lab, TN (USA). 1977.

 

  1. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel Cycle Options Campaign. 2017.

 

  1. Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand. Nuclear Energy Agency. 2020.

Keywords

Nuclear fuel cycle
Nuclear material capacitance
Uranium
Plutonium
Thorium
Nuclear electricity
  1. McKay D, Miezitis Y. Australia’s uranium resources, geology and development of deposits. Mineral Resource Report. AGSO. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. 2001.

 

  1. Lambert I, Mckay A, Miezitis Y. Australia's uranium resources: trends, global comparisons and new developments. 1996.

 

  1. Lambert I, McKay A, Miezitis Y. Australia’s uranium resources and production in a world context. Bureau of Resources Sciences, Canberra, ANA Conference October. 2001.

 

  1. Nuclear Energy Agency: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation And Development. Uranium 2018, Resources, Production and Demand.

 

  1. Association W.N. International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues. International Atomic Energy Agency (2014).

 

  1. OECD. Introduction of Thorium in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. 2015.

 

  1. Crossland I. Nuclear fuel cycle science and engineering. Elsevier. 2012.

 

  1. Kim S, Ko W, Lee Y.H. Economic viability of metallic sodium-cooled fast reactor fuel in Korea. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2013(1).

 

  1. Ko W.I, Gao F. Economic analysis of different nuclear fuel cycle options. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2012.

 

  1. Kasten P.R, Homan F, Allen E. Assessment of the thorium fuel cycle in power reactors. Oak Ridge National Lab, TN (USA). 1977.

 

  1. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel Cycle Options Campaign. 2017.

 

  1. Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand. Nuclear Energy Agency. 2020.
Journal of Nuclear Science, Engineering and Technology (JONSAT)
Volume 45, Issue 3 - Serial Number 109
October 2024
Pages 122-135

Home