Other Reports in This Series The Future of Nuclear Power (2003) The Future of Coal (2007) Update of the Future of Nuclear Power (2009) The Future of Natural Gas (2010) Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-9828008-4-3 ii MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Study Participants STUDY Co-ChairS Monica Regalbuto Visiting Scientist, Department of Nuclear Science Mujid Kazimi—Co CHAIR and Engineering Tokyo Electric Professor of Nuclear Engineering Department Head, Process Chemistry and Engineering Director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Argonne National Laboratory Systems Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Ernest J. Moniz—Co CHAIR George Apostolakis Department of Physics Korea Electric Power Company Professor of Cecil and Ida Green Prof of Physics and of Nuclear Engineering Engeering Systems Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Director MIT Energy Initiative Department of Engineering Systems Charles W. Forsberg Pavel Hejzlar Executive Director MIT Fuel Cycle Study Program Director, CANES Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Principal Research Scientist Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering STUDY GROUP Eugene Shwageraus Visiting Associate Professor Steve Ansolabehere Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Professor of Government, Harvard University John M. Deutch STUDENT RESEARCH ASSISTANTS Institute Professor Department of Chemistry Blandine Antoine Guillaume De Roo Michael J. Driscoll Bo Feng Professor Emeritus Laurent Guerin Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Isaac Alexander Matthews Lara Pierpoint Michael W. Golay Behnam Taebi Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Keith Yost Andrew C. Kadak Professor of the Practice Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering John E. Parsons Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management, MIT Executive Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change iii MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study Advisory Committee Members PHIL SHARP, CHAIR President, Resources for the Future Former member of Congress JAMES K. ASSELSTINE Managing Director, Barclays Capital JACQUES BOUCHARD Advisor to the Chairman of the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) MARVIN FERTEL President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute KURT GOTTFRIED Chairman Emeritus of the Union of Concerned Scientists JOHN GROSSENBACHER Director, Idaho National Laboratory JONATHAN LASH President, World Resources Institute RICHARD A. MESERVE President, Carnegie Institution for Science CHERRY MURRAY Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University JOHN W. ROWE Chairman and CEO, Exelon Corporation MAXINE L. SAVITZ Vice President, U.S. National Academy of Engineering STEVEN R. SPECKER President and CEO, Electric Power Research Institute (retired) JOHN H. SUNUNU JHS Associates, Ltd. While the members of the advisory committee provided invaluable perspective and advice to the study group, individual members may have different views on one or more matters addressed in the report. They were not asked to individually or collectively endorse the report findings and recommendations. Daniel Poneman, Scowcroft Group, resigned from the committee upon his Presidential nomination for a government position. iv MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Table of Contents Study Participants iii MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study Advisory Committee Members iv Foreword and Acknowledgments vii Executive Summary ix Postscript xv Chapter 1. The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle— Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations 1 Chapter 2. Framing Fuel Cycle Questions 19 Chapter 3. Uranium Resources 31 Chapter 4. Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 43 Chapter 5. Waste Management 55 Chapter 6. Analysis of Fuel Cycle Options 71 Chapter 7. Economics 99 Chapter 8. Fuel Cycles and Nonproliferation 111 Chapter 9. American Attitudes About Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste 127 Chapter 10. Recommended Analysis, Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs 133 APPENDICES Appendix to Chapter 3: Uranium Resource Elasticity Model 143 Appendix to Chapter 5: Waste Management 155 Appendix to Chapter 7: Economics 167 Appendix A. Thorium Fuel Cycle Options 181 Appendix B. Advanced Technologies 191 Appendix C. High-Temperature Reactors with Coated-Particle Fuel 207 Appendix D. Intergenerational Equity Considerations of Fuel Cycle Choices 213 Appendix E. Status of Fuel Cycle Technologies 229 v vi MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Foreword and Acknowledgments In 2003 the MIT interdisciplinary study some site preparation. However, no license The Future of Nuclear Powerwas published. for new construction has been issued in the The thesis was that nuclear energy is an U.S. as of mid 2010. Elsewhere in the world important option for the marketplace in the construction of new plants has acceler- a low-carbon world. At least for the next ated, particularly in China and India. In ad- few decades, there are only four realistic dition, South Korea joined the traditional options for reducing carbon dioxide emis- global suppliers of nuclear plants by signing sions from electricity generation: increased an agreement to build four reactors in the efficiency in energy utilization, expanded United Arab Emirates. use of renewables such as wind and solar, reducing carbon dioxide emissions at fossil- There have also been major developments in fueled power plants by switching from coal the nuclear fuel cycle. In the U.S., fuel cycle to natural gas or by transitioning to capture policies have been in a state of confusion. and permanent sequestration of the carbon The Bush Administration initiated pro- dioxide, and nuclear power. The study per- grams with the goal of commercially recy- spective was that all options would be need- cling fissile material from spent nuclear fuel ed and it would be a mistake to exclude any (SNF) into new fuel assemblies, but failed of these four options from an overall carbon to attract support in Congress. The U.S. emissions management strategy. The report Department of Energy spent many years in examined the barriers to nuclear power and assessing, and submitted a license applica- made a series of recommendations to enable tion for, a geological repository for SNF and nuclear power as a market place option. high-level waste at Yucca Mountain (YM). However, the Obama Administration has Since that report, there have been major now requested withdrawal of the license ap- changes in the U.S. and the world, as de- plication. Overseas, Japan has started opera- scribed in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future tion of a commercial nuclear fuel reprocess- of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about ing plant. Finland and Sweden, after gaining climate change have dramatically increased, public acceptance, have sited geological re- many countries have adopted restrictions positories for the disposal of SNF. on greenhouse gas emissions, and the U.S. is also expected to adopt limits on carbon diox- Because of the significant changes in the ide releases to the atmosphere sometime in landscape, we have undertaken this study the future. Because nuclear energy provides on the Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to about 70% of the “zero”-carbon electricity bring a sharper focus on the key technical in the U.S. today, it is a major candidate for choices available for an expanded nuclear reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power program in the U.S. and the near- electric sector. Projections for nuclear power term policy implications of those choices. growth in the United States and worldwide have increased dramatically, even if recently We acknowledge generous financial support tempered by the world-wide recession. In from the Electric Power Research Institute the United States this has resulted in various (EPRI) and from Idaho National Laborato- announcements of intent to build new reac- ry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Areva, GE- tors, 27 submittals of license applications, 8 Hitachi, Westinghouse, Energy Solutions, applications for Federal loan guarantees, and and NAC International. vii viii MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Executive Summary Study Context In 2003 MIT published the interdisciplinary study The Future of Nuclear Power. The under- lying motivation was that nuclear energy, which today provides about 70% of the “zero”- carbon electricity in the U.S., is an important option for the market place in a low-carbon world. Since that report, major changes in the U.S. and the world have taken place as de- scribed in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about climate change have risen: many countries have adopted restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and the U.S. is expected to adopt similar limits. Projections for nuclear-power growth worldwide have increased dramatically and construction of new plants has accelerated, particularly in China and India. This study onThe Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has been carried out because of the continuing importance of nuclear power as a low-carbon option that could be deployed at a scale that is material for mitigat- ing climate change risk, namely, global deployment at the Terawatt scale by mid-century. To enable an expansion of nuclear power, it must overcome critical challenges in cost, waste disposal, and proliferation concerns while maintaining its currently excellent