A Critical Review of the Recent Improvements in Minimizing Nuclear Waste by Innovative Gas-Cooled Reactors

Table 3

Summary of the obtained results.

Case	Reactor	Fuel	LOMBT [y]	EnergygPu	PuoutPuin	TRUoutTRUin	ActoutActin
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
a	HTR	1st g-Pu/Th (1/1)	37982^∗	60.16 GJ	24.14%	31.75%	63.88%
b	HTR	1st g-Pu/Th (1/2)	37547^*	59.40 GJ	27.75%	33.88%	76.25%
c	HTR	1st g-Pu/Th (1/3)	37117^*	58.89 GJ	29.06%	34.37%	81.94%
d	GCFR	1st g-Pu^∗∗/MA/U^238 (10/1/40)	9204^∗∗∗	154.44 GJ	85.66%	86.77%	57.78%
e	GCFR	2nd g-Pu^†/MA/U^238 (10/1/40)	9310^***	155.26 GJ	85.85%	87.77%	57.57%
f	GCFR^‡	2nd g-Pu^†/MA/U^238 (10/1/40)	11860^***	105.57 GJ	98.02%	98.95%	70.64%

^∗ In the case of HTR, we assumed a once-through fuel cycle. Consequently, the waste contains Pu, MA, and FP.
^{∗ ∗} 1st-generation Pu is added to Pu which is already present in the spent fuel of HTR loaded with 1st-generation Pu.
^{∗ ∗∗} In the case of GCFR, we assumed that all the Pu is recycled. Consequently, the waste contains only MA and FP.
^† 2nd-generation Pu is added to Pu which is already present in the spent fuel of HTR loaded with 2nd-generation Pu.
^‡ In this case, we assumed that thickness of the external layer of the CP is 0.003 mm instead of 0.005 mm (like cases d and e). Therefore the spectrum is not so hard as in case e.