The effectiveness of full actinide recycle as a nuclear waste management strategy when implemented over a limited timeframe – Part II: Thorium fuel cycle

Full recycling of transuranic (TRU) isotopes can in theory lead to a reduction in repository radiotoxicity to reference levels in as little as ～500 years provided reprocessing and fuel fabrication losses are limited. However, over a limited timeframe, the radiotoxicity of the ‘final’ core can dominate over reprocessing losses, leading to a much lower reduction in radiotoxicity compared to that achievable at equilibrium. In Part I of this paper, TRU recycle over up to 5 generations of light water reactors (LWRs) or sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs) is considered for uranium (U) fuel cycles. With full actinide recycling, at least 6 generations of SFRs are required in a gradual phase-out of nuclear power to achieve transmutation performance approaching the theoretical equilibrium performance. U-fuelled SFRs operating a break-even fuel cycle are not particularly effective at reducing repository radiotoxicity as the final core load dominates over a very long timeframe. In this paper, the analysis is extended to the thorium (Th) fuel cycle. Closed Th-based fuel cycles are well known to have lower equilibrium radiotoxicity than U-based fuel cycles but the time taken to reach equilibrium is generally very long. Th burner fuel cycles with SFRs are found to result in very similar radiotoxicity to U burner fuel cycles with SFRs for one less generation of reactors, provided that protactinium (Pa) is recycled. Th-fuelled reduced-moderation boiling water reactors (RBWRs) are also considered, but for burner fuel cycles their performance is substantially worse, with the waste taking ～3–5 times longer to decay to the reference level than for Th-fuelled SFRs with the same number of generations. Th break-even fuel cycles require ～3 generations of operation before their waste radiotoxicity benefits result in decay to the reference level in ～1000 years. While this is a very long timeframe, it is roughly half that required for waste from the Th or U burner fuel cycle to decay to the reference level, and less than a tenth that required for the U break-even fuel cycle. The improved performance over burner fuel cycles is due to a more substantial contribution of energy generated by ²³³U leading to lower radiotoxicity per unit energy generation. To some extent this an argument based on how the radiotoxicity is normalised: operating a break-even fuel cycle rather than phasing out nuclear power using a burner fuel cycle results in higher repository radiotoxicity in absolute terms. The advantage of Th break-even fuel cycles is also contingent on recycling Pa, and reprocessing losses are significant also for a small number of generations due to the need to effectively burn down the TRU. The integrated decay heat over the scenario timeframe is almost twice as high for a break-even Th fuel cycle than a break-even U fuel cycle when using SFRs, as a result of much higher ⁹⁰Sr production, which subsequently decays into ⁹⁰Y. The peak decay heat is comparable. As decay heat at vitrification and repository decay heat affect repository sizing, this may weaken the argument for the Th cycle.