LIFE Materials: Fuel Cycle and Repository Volume 11

The fusion-fission LIFE engine concept provides a path to a sustainable energy future based on safe, carbon-free nuclear power with minimal nuclear waste. The LIFE design ultimately offers many advantages over current and proposed nuclear energy technologies, and could well lead to a true worldwide nuclear energy renaissance. When compared with existing and other proposed future nuclear reactor designs, the LIFE engine exceeds alternatives in the most important measures of proliferation resistance and waste minimization. The engine needs no refueling during its lifetime. It requires no removal of fuel or fissile material generated in the LIFE engine. It leaves no weapons-attractive material at the end of life. Although there is certainly a need for additional work, all indications are that the 'back end' of the fuel cycle does not to raise any 'showstopper' issues for LIFE. Indeed, the LIFE concept has numerous benefits: (1) Per unit of electricity generated, LIFE engines would generate 20-30 times less waste (in terms of mass of heavy metal) requiring disposal in a HLW repository than does the current once-through fuel cycle. (2) Although there may be advanced fuel cycles that can compete with LIFE's low mass flow of heavy metal, all such systems require reprocessing, with attendant proliferation concerns; LIFE engines can do this without enrichment or reprocessing. Moreover, none of the advanced fuel cycles can match the low transuranic content of LIFE waste. (3) The specific thermal power of LIFE waste is initially higher than that of spent LWR fuel. Nevertheless, this higher thermal load can be managed using appropriate engineering features during an interim storage period, and could be accommodated in a Yucca-Mountain-like repository by appropriate 'staging' of the emplacement of waste packages during the operational period of the repository. The planned ventilation rates for Yucca Mountain would be sufficient for LIFE waste to meet the thermal constraints of the repository design. (4) A simple, but arguably conservative, estimate for the dose from a repository containing 63,000 MT of spent LIFE fuel would have similar performance to the currently planned Yucca Mountain Repository. This indicates that a properly designed 'LIFE Repository' would almost certainly meet the proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards for dose to individuals, even though the waste in such a repository would have produced 20-30 times more generated electricity than the reference case for Yucca Mountain. The societal risk/benefit ratio for a LIFE repository would therefore be significantly better than for currently planned repositories for LWR fuel