4.5 Article

A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle-Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en15041433

关键词

radioactive waste; spent nuclear fuel; sustainability; nuclear fuel cycle; closed fuel cycle; open fuel cycle; life cycle analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the literature on environmental assessments of closed and open fuel cycles and aims to provide information for sustainable development of nuclear fuel management. The results show that the impacts of open and closed cycles on the environment include natural resource utilization, characteristics of radioactive waste, and the size of geological repositories.
Globally, around half a million tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) will be in dry or wet storage by around 2050. Continued storage is not sustainable, and this SNF must eventually either be disposed (the open nuclear fuel cycle) or recycled (the closed fuel cycle). Many international studies have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of these options. To inform this debate, a detailed survey of the available literature related to environmental assessments of closed and open cycles has been undertaken. Environmental impacts are one of the three pillars that, alongside economic and societal impacts, must be considered for sustainable development. The aims are to provide a critical review of the open literature in order to determine what generic conclusions can be drawn from the broad base of international studies. This review covers the results of life cycle assessments and studies on waste arisings, showing how the management of spent fuels in the open and closed cycles impact the environment, including the use of natural resources, radioactive waste characteristics (heat loading, radiotoxicity and volume) and the size of the geological repository. In the framework of sustainable development, the next part of this review will consider economic impacts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据