Affiliation:
1. Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
2. School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T1Z2, Canada
Abstract
Small modular reactors (SMRs; i.e., nuclear reactors that produce <300 MW
elec
each) have garnered attention because of claims of inherent safety features and reduced cost. However, remarkably few studies have analyzed the management and disposal of their nuclear waste streams. Here, we compare three distinct SMR designs to an 1,100-MW
elec
pressurized water reactor in terms of the energy-equivalent volume, (radio-)chemistry, decay heat, and fissile isotope composition of (notional) high-, intermediate-, and low-level waste streams. Results reveal that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR designs will increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of 2 to 30. The excess waste volume is attributed to the use of neutron reflectors and/or of chemically reactive fuels and coolants in SMR designs. That said, volume is not the most important evaluation metric; rather, geologic repository performance is driven by the decay heat power and the (radio-)chemistry of spent nuclear fuel, for which SMRs provide no benefit. SMRs will not reduce the generation of geochemically mobile
129
I,
99
Tc, and
79
Se fission products, which are important dose contributors for most repository designs. In addition, SMR spent fuel will contain relatively high concentrations of fissile nuclides, which will demand novel approaches to evaluating criticality during storage and disposal. Since waste stream properties are influenced by neutron leakage, a basic physical process that is enhanced in small reactor cores, SMRs will exacerbate the challenges of nuclear waste management and disposal.
Funder
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference105 articles.
1. Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era
2. International Atomic Energy Agency “Advances in small modular reactor technology developments: A supplement to IAEA advanced reactors information system (ARIS) 2020 Edition” (2020) (Rep. 2020 Edition International Atomic Energy Agency.
3. T. Allen R. Fitzpatrick J. Milko Keeping Up with the Advanced Nuclear Industry. Third Way (2018). https://www.thirdway.org/graphic/keeping-up-with-the-advanced-nuclear-industry. Accessed 10 October 2019.
4. R. Wigeland “Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening—Final Report: Appendix C Evaluation Criteria and Metrics” (Rep. INL/EXT-14-31465 FCRD-FCO-2014-000106 Idaho National Laboratory 2014).
5. Nuclear Energy Agency “Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Radioactive Waste Management. No. NEA—5990. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development” (2006). https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14008/advanced-nuclear-fuel-cycles-and-radioactive-waste-management?details=true. Accessed 26 September 2020.
Cited by
44 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献