Estimation of the Spent Fuel and Transuranic Inventories for a Partial and Full Plutonium Recycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generation-IV (Gen-IV) reactor systems are being developed with fuel and coolant materials different from those of a conventional nuclear reactor, with an aim to extensively increase their safety and economical efficiency and drastically minimize their radioactive wastes. Among the proposed Gen- IV reactor concepts, a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) is being widely studied owing to the advantages of fully recycling fissile plutonium and other transuranic (TRU) elements. A full fissile plutonium and TRU recycling is achievable in a fast reactor system through an internal fissile breeding and an external process of the spent fuel. Also, as an option for a partial recycling of TRU, the DUPIC (Direct use of spent pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel in Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors) fuel cycle is being considered. The DUPIC fuel cycle involves a partial or mono recycling of PWR spent fuel (SF) materials in CANDU reactors. The DUPIC cycle is a non-aqueous process that removes only the volatile fission products from the PWR SF. Both fuel cycles are able to extend a natural resources use and to reduce the waste production. In this study, symbiotic fuel cycles between existing nuclear power plants and future reactor systems are analyzed to estimate the benefit of the recycling fuel cycle option from the view point of a waste reduction. The electric power of a currently operating CANDU reactor is 713 MW. The fast reactor considered in this study is a Korea advanced liquid metal reactor (KALIMER) which is a pool-type SFR and with an electric power of 600 MW. For a comparative analysis of the fuel cycle options, the once-through fuel cycle was analyzed initially based on the nuclear power plant construction plan until 2015 and the existing nuclear power plants in Korea. After 2015, two different nuclear power demand growth rates were considered: 0 and 1% growth rates. Then, the DUPIC and SFR scenarios were modeled based on the same nuclear energy demand prediction as was used for the once-through fuel cycle. During the calculation, important fuel cycle parameters such as the amount of SF, plutonium, and minor actinides (MA) were estimated and compared with those of the once-through fuel cycle. The calculation was performed by the DYMOND code, which has been used for an analysis of the Gen-IV roadmap studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".