三种堆型核燃料循环经济性比较

本文详细地分析了压水堆、高温气冷堆、快堆三种堆型核电厂的燃料循环过程,建立了燃料循环费用的计算模型和灵敏度分析模型。对三种堆型的核燃料费用进行了分析比较,指出快堆是燃料费用最经济的堆型。     

“华龙一号”机组核燃料经济性分析

"华龙一号"核电机组的技术特点之一是采用"177堆芯"设计方案,合理评估燃料经济性对研究评价我国自主创新的三代核电机型经济性意义重大,不仅为燃料成本控制与优化指明了方向,更有利于提高"华龙一号"核电机组的经济性与竞争力。本文根据各核电厂燃料管理方案,通过计算、对比"华龙一号"与二代改进型机组以及AP1000核电机组在首循环阶段和换料阶段的发电成本差异,对"华龙一号"机组的燃料经济性进行了分析与研究。通过对影响燃料费用的各燃料制造环节的价格进行敏感性分析,明确了影响核燃料费用的主要因素。分析发现,相比其他核电技术,"华龙一号"在平衡换料阶段优势明显,组件制作和天然铀费用在整体费用中占比较大,是费用控制的重点,另外分离功价格变化对核燃料费用也有一定的影响。     

PWR/CANDU联合核燃料循环研究

根据我国已拥有PWR和CANDU核电站的具体情况 ,提出一种PWR/CANDU联合核燃料循环的策略 ,即把压水堆的乏燃料后处理后的回收铀 (RU)用作为CANDU堆的核燃料 ,既可节约铀资源 ,提高燃料的能量输出 ,又减少了废燃料的处置量 ,可大大降低核电成本。由于CANDU堆对核燃料循环的固有灵活性 ,堆芯结构及运行方式不需作重大改变 ,即可完成从天然铀到RU的过渡。又由于RU较低的放射性活度 ,这对CANDU堆的燃料制造是可以接受的 ,因而只需对现有燃料制造生产线稍加屏蔽措施 ,对运输和运行中燃料管理操作等都勿须改变。因而这一策略是具有重大经济效益和吸引力的     

行波堆平准化发电成本分析

本文通过平准化发电成本的方法,以燃料循环作为研究对象,对行波堆一次通过式燃料循环和二次通过式燃料循环的经济性进行了研究,并选取10个重要的经济和技术参数进行成本敏感性分析。研究结果表明,行波堆的平准化发电成本低于现有压水堆和快堆,其中,行波堆一次通过式燃料循环方式的平准化发电成本最低。敏感性分析表明,贴现率、燃耗深度、隔夜价和反应堆热效率是影响行波堆经济性最重要的参数,而燃料价格和废物处置的价格由于占成本的比例较小,对行波堆经济性的影响不大。     

MOX燃料用于压水堆的经济性分析及回收钚的价值测算

我国采取闭式核燃料循环政策,对压水堆乏燃料进行后处理,提取其中的铀钚等可裂变材料制成混合氧化物燃料(MOX)循环再利用。本文基于法国压水堆使用MOX燃料的经验和相关数据,重点从燃料成本本身,对比分析MOX燃料用于压水堆的经济性。在此基础上,按照与替代燃料等价计算的原则,分别对回收钚用于压水堆和快堆的价值进行测算。结果显示,压水堆使用MOX燃料的成本远高于普通UO2燃料,回收钚用于压水堆中的价值为负,在快堆中利用具有较高价值。     

核能发展途径与快增殖堆在核能中的地位

此文分析了世界能量资源的供求形势。利用核能发展模型,对五个典型的核能发展途径:一次通过循环方案、钚再循环方案、快增殖堆方案、快增殖堆加钚再循环混合方案、钍铀循环先进转换堆方案,计算了核燃料循环关键物料的需要量,并预计了它们的经济性。文章认为:①核能的前景将比现在好,暂时的低潮将会过去;②轻水堆-快堆组合体系将是世界核能发展的主线。     

欧洲核能机构认为一次通过循环比后处理方案便宜57%

【美国《核燃料》1995年2月2日刊报道】欧洲经济合作与发展组织核能机构(OECD/NEA)最近发表了核燃料循环经济性研究报告。该报告未能得出1994年9月12日《核燃料》一篇文章所指出的那样的结论,即后处理和一次通过燃料循环在费用上大约相等的结论。     

核燃料循环“一次通过”情景分析研究

在我国大力发展核电和建立先进闭式燃料循环体系的前提下,为了核燃料循环各环节相互匹配,有机协调地发展核电,需对核燃料循环各环节的规模、布局等开展模拟分析研究。为了综合比较闭式燃料循环在铀资源利用率、环境友好型等方面的优势,还需对核燃料循环的"一次通过"方式进行分析研究。根据我国核电目前和中长期发展规划,假设2050年中国核电装机容量分别达到100GW、200GW和300GW,核电站全部采用压水堆,核燃料循环采用"一次通过"方式,利用简化模型,计算分析了近100年内累计需要的天然铀、每年需要的天然铀、每年需要的分离功、累计产生的乏燃料和需要离堆暂存的乏燃料量等关键数据。     

MOX燃料在CANDU重水堆中应用可行性的研究

针对CANFLEX组件装载MOX燃料在CANDU重水堆中的应用进行了时均和瞬态验证计算。计算结果表明,最大通道功率和最大棒束功率均未超过限值。勿需对堆芯结构和运行模式做重大改变即可完成从天然铀堆芯向MOX堆芯的过渡。提出了应用MOX燃料的PWR／CANDU联合燃料循环策略。估算表明,秦山三期CANDU堆采用先进PWR／CANDU联合燃料循环,将使燃耗提高到13900MW·d／t(U);相对于PWR和CANDU堆各自独立的燃料循环,每年节省天然铀资源180t,减少乏燃料处置量约128t。     

三种核燃料循环方案的综合效益比较

核燃料循环产业发展的最佳状态是消耗最少的核资源,产生最好的经济效益,造成最小的环境危害。本研究从铀资源消耗、废物排放、循环成本三个方面,对开路热堆循环、闭式热堆循环、快热联合循环三种核燃料循环方案的综合效益进行比较。研究表明,在铀资源利用方面,与开路热堆循环比较,闭式热堆循环节省天然铀22.3%,快热联合循环节省天然铀65.2%,闭式热堆循环铀资源利用率提高28.7%,快热联合循环铀资源利用率提高165.5%,闭式热堆循环节省分离功12.5%,快热联合循环节省分离功60.8%。增加后处理环节的闭式核燃料循环能大幅度节约天然铀资源并减少能耗,显著提高铀资源利用率。在经济性方面,与开路热堆循环比较,闭式热堆循环成本平均提高6%,快热联合循环成本平均降低27.3%。开路热堆循环经济性优势随着天然铀价格降低而增强,闭式循环经济性优势随着后处理价格越低而增强,快热联合循环的经济性始终优于闭式热堆循环。本研究确定了三种循环间的经济平衡点,可根据不同天然铀价格和后处理价格比较三种循环方案经济性的优劣,选取经济可行的核燃料循环方案。在环境保护方面,与开路热堆循环比较,闭式热堆循环的废物产生量减少84.1%,体积减少87.7%,快热联合循环的废物产生量减少95.4%,体积减少99.0%。闭式循环的环境效益明显优于开路循环,快热联合循环优势最大。研究结论,快热联合循环的综合效益最好,是核燃料循环产业发展的最佳选择。     

Utilization of spent PWR fuel-advanced nuclear fuel cycle of PWR／CANDU synergism

High neutron economy, on line refueling and channel design result in the unsurpassed fuel cycle flexi-bility and variety for CANDU reactors. According to the Chinese national conditions that China has both PWR and CANDU reactors and the closed cycle policy of reprocessing the spent PWR fuel is adopted, one of the advanced nu-clear fuel cycles of PWR/CANDU synergism using the reprocessed uranium of spent PWR fuel in CANDU reactor is proposed, which will save the uranium resource (-22.5%), increase the energy output (-41%), decrease the quantity of spent fuels to be disposed (-2/3) and lower the cost of nuclear poower, Because of the inherent flexibility of nuclearfuel cycle in CANDU reactor, and the low radiation level of recycled uranium(RU), which is acceptable for CANDU reactor fuel fabrication, the transition from the natural uranium to the RU can be completed without major modifica-tion of the reactor core structure and operation mode.It can be implemented in Qinshan Phase Ⅲ CANDU reactors with little or no requirement of big investment in new design. It can be expected that the reuse of recycled uranium of spent PWR fuel in CANDU reactor is a feasible and desirable strategy in China.     

A sensitivity study on fast reactor scenarios with various conversion ratios

Korean fast reactor scenarios have been analyzed for various kinds of conversion ratios by the DANESS system dynamic analysis code. The once-through fuel cycle analysis was modeled based on the Korean “National Energy Basic Plan” up to 2030 and a postulated nuclear demand growth rate until 2150. The fast reactor scenario analysis has been performed for three kinds of conversion ratios such as 0.3, 0.61, and 1.0. Through the calculations, the nuclear reactor deployment scenario, front-end cycle, back-end cycle, and long-term heat load have been investigated.     

A comparative study on recycling spent fuels in gas-cooled fast reactors

This study evaluates advanced Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) fuel cycle scenarios which are based on recycling spent nuclear fuel for the sustainability of nuclear energy. A 600 MWth GFR was used for the fuel cycle analysis, and the equilibrium core was searched with different fuel-to-matrix volume ratios such as 70/30 and 60/40. Two fuel cycle scenarios, i.e., a one-tier case combining a Light Water Reactor (LWR) and a GFR, and a two-tier case using an LWR, a Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR), and a GFR, were evaluated for mass flow and fuel cycle cost, and the results were compared to those of LWR once-through fuel cycle. The mass flow calculations showed that the natural uranium consumption can be reduced by more than 57% and 27% for the one-tier and two-tier cycles, respectively, when compared to the once-through fuel cycle. The transuranics (TRU) which pose a long-term problem in a high-level waste repository, can be significantly reduced in the multiple recycle operation of these options, resulting in more than 110 and 220 times reduction of TRU inventory to be geologically disposed for the one-tier and two-tier fuel cycles, respectively. The fuel cycle costs were estimated to be 9.4 and 8.6 USD/MWh for the one-tier fuel cycle when the GFR fuel-to-matrix volume ratio was 70/30 and 60/40, respectively. However the fuel cycle cost is reduced to 7.3 and 7.1 USD/MWh for the two-tier fuel cycle, which is even smaller than that of the once-through fuel cycle. In conclusion the GFR can provide alternative fuel cycle options to the once-through and other fast reactor fuel cycle options, by increasing the natural uranium utilization and reducing the fuel cycle cost.     

Impact of PWR spent fuel variations on back-end features of advanced fuel cycles with tru-fueled VHTR

Alternative strategies are being considered as management option for current spent nuclear fuel transuranics (TRU) inventory. Creation of transmutation fuels containing TRU for use in thermal and fast reactors is one of the viable strategies. Utilization of these advanced fuels will result in transmutation and incineration of the TRU. The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of conventional PWR spent fuel variations on TRU-fueled very high temperature reactor (VHTR) systems. The current effort is focused on prismatic core configuration operated under a single batch once-through fuel cycle option. IAEA’s nuclear fuel cycle simulation system (VISTA) was used to determine potential PWR spent fuel compositions. Additional composition was determined from the analysis of United States legacy spent fuel that is given in the Yucca Mountain Safety Assessment Report. A detailed whole-core 3-D model of the prismatic VHTR was developed using SCALE5.1 code system. The fuel assembly block model was based on Japan’s HTTR fuel block configuration. To establish a reference reactor system, calculations for LEU-fueled VHTR were performed and the results were used as the basis for comparative studies of the TRU-fueled systems. The LEU fuel is uranium oxide at 15% ²³⁵U enrichment. The results showed that the single-batch core lifetimes ranged between 5 and 7 years for all TRU fuels (3 years in LEU), providing prolonged operation on a single batch fuel loading. Transmutation efficiencies ranged between 19% and 27% for TRU-based fuels (13% in LEU). Total TRU material contents for disposal ranged between 730 and 808 kg per metric ton of initial heavy metal loading, reducing TRU inventory mass by as much as 27%. Decay heat and source terms of the discharged fuel were also calculated as part of the spent fuel disposal consideration. The results indicated strong potential of TRU-based fuel in VHTR.     

中国快堆及先进核燃料循环体系发展战略思考

中国是世界上最大的发展中国家,能源消耗位列世界第一。为实现社会、经济的可持续发展,确保能源供应安全和降低环境压力,大力发展包括核能在内的清洁能源是能源发展战略的必然选择。目前,中国的核能经过近30年的发展取得了长足进步,但在能源体系中依然占比很小。鉴于中国的铀资源总体储量有限,仅靠热中子反应堆支撑核能作为主力能源发展难以实现。快堆具有资源利用率高、固有安全性好等优点,配以先进核燃料循环系统,可实现核能的大规模、可持续、环境友好的发展。其中,快堆的发展应遵从先增殖、后嬗变的路线,燃料方面在经过氧化物陶瓷燃料后应尽快过渡到金属燃料;后处理方面初期主要通过水法处理压水堆乏燃料,为快堆提供初装料,后续要尽快实现干法后处理,以缩短增殖燃料的倍增时间和提高整个体系的经济性;同时,还需要同步发展高放废物的处理处置技术。在快堆和先进核燃料循环体系的支撑下,我国的核能能实现在千年量级上作为主力能源发展。     

小型模块化钍基熔盐堆防核扩散性能初步定量评估

核能的和平利用一直备受关注,防核扩散性能也是评价4代堆性能的4大指标之一,为建立满足4代堆核能系统标准的钍基熔盐堆核能系统,需对其防核扩散性能进行评价。因此,本文基于美国橡树岭国家实验室等机构提出的多属性效用分析（MAUA）方法,从材料性质、操作需求等14个方面,定量化评估了3种模式下小型模块化熔盐堆卸料的防核扩散性能,并与采用一次通过燃料循环的PWR进行对比,进而为燃料循环方案的优化提供核扩散风险参考。分析结果表明,小型模块化熔盐堆设计防核扩散性能指标--核安全测量值约为0.8,可比拟一次通过燃料循环的PWR,优于闭循环的CANDU堆。此外,本文还针对第3种连续后处理模式堆型的防核扩散性能进行了初步优化。以上分析结果可为进一步合理优化防核扩散性能提供参考,为燃料循环的选择提供合理、透明、可追溯的依据。     

我国先进核燃料循环技术发展战略的一些思考

从核裂变能可持续发展的角度,分析了各种核燃料循环方式的特点,指出了核燃料“一次通过”方式不符合核能可持续发展战略。为了充分利用铀资源并实现核废物的最少化,快堆燃料闭式循环是核裂变能可持续发展的根本出路。本文在介绍了国内外核燃料循环关键技术研究现状和发展趋势的基础上,探讨了我国核燃料循环科技的发展战略,并指出了为实现上述发展战略目标应采取的若干措施。     

快堆和我国核能的可持续发展

我国核能发展战略的第二步——快堆，因其易裂变燃料在堆中可增殖和可嬗变高放长寿命核素的特陛，实现热堆-快堆匹配闭式核燃料循环可保证核能的可持续发展。作为我国快堆工程技术发展的起步，65MW热功率中国实验陕堆已处调试阶段。在当前压水堆发展计划的基础上，加快陕堆及其相关闭式核燃料循环的发展以实现如下三个战略目标：（1）2030年前批量建成示范决堆，增加核电容量；（2）2050年核电容量发展到240GW，约占国家总电力生产的16%；（3）2050—2100年实现核能大规模替代化石能源，大大减少CO2的排放。     

压水堆核燃料循环情景模式初步研究

根据我国核电发展现状和中长期发展规划及中长期（2030、2050）发展战略研究,假设2050年前我国压水堆核电发展规模,基于压水堆乏燃料后处理,回收的钚做成MOX燃料放入压水堆中使用,MOX燃料只使用1次的循环模式,进行核能发展情景研究。基于压水堆可装载30%比例MOX燃料的已有研究结果,考虑我国主要的两种压水堆堆型M310和AP1000,进行压水堆核燃料循环分析。利用核能发展情景动态分析程序DESAE-2,给出了不同情景模式下天然铀需求量、乏燃料累计量等。结果表明：至2050年,B₁和B₂模式较A模式分别节省天然铀4.1万t和2.9万t。     

Radioactive Waste Arisings from Various Fuel Cycle Options

This study examines all kinds of waste volumes from various fuel cycle options including DUPIC (Direct Use of Spent PWR Fuel In CANDU) fuel cycle and compares each other. The fuel cycle option considered the PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) once-through cycle, the PHWR (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor) once-through cycle and the thermal recycling option using an existing PWR with MOX (Mixed Oxide) fuel. This study focuses on the radioactive wastes including mill waste, low-level waste and high-level waste generated by all fuel cycle steps, which can be one of the effectiveness measures of waste management. All waste disposition volume is estimated in terms of m³/GWe-yr. We find in the estimation of radioactive waste volume that PWR-MOX option has the lowest mill tailings and spent fuel volumes among the options, but the option has high volume of ILW and HLW. Mill tailings and spent fuel volumes of the DUPIC fuel cycle are lower than those of other competitive options such as PWR-PHWR once-through cycle. PWR once-through cycle has the lowest LLW and ILW volume among the options, but has high mill tailings and spent fuel volume. The data obtained in this study would be helpful to further estimate environmental effect and/or waste disposition costs in various fuel cycle options.