Although there are many reactor system benchmarks in the literature, they mostly
concentrate on the reactor system in isolation with only a few considering the fuel cycle.
However, there is currently increased emphasis on the performance of reactor systems
linked to their associated fuel cycle (Generation-IV for example). The published
international benchmark studies which relate to burn-up depletion calculations are
restricted to specific aspects of the fuel cycle:

This report presents results from a parametric study of equilibrium fuel cycle costs for a closed fuel cycle with multi-recycling of plutonium in fast reactors (FRs) compared to an open, once-through fuel cycle using PWRs. The study examines the impact on fuel cycle costs from changes in the unit costs of uranium, advanced PUREX reprocessing of discharged uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel and fast-reactor mixed-oxide (FR-MOX) fuel, and FR-MOX fuel fabrication.

Expanding interest in nuclear power and advanced fuel cycles indicate that use of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in the current and new U.S. reactor fleet could become an option for utilities in the coming decades. In light of this renewed interest, EPRI has reviewed the substantial knowledge base on MOX fuel irradiation in light water reactors (LWRs). The goal was to evaluate the technical feasibility of MOX fuel use in the U.S. reactor fleet for both existing and advanced LWR designs (Generation III/III+).

Within the context of long-term waste management and sustainable nuclear fuel supply, there continue to be discussions regarding whether the United States should consider recycling of light-water reactor (LWR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) for the current fleet of U.S. LWRs. This report presents a parametric study of equilibrium fuel cycle costs for an open fuel cycle without plutonium recycling (once-through) and with plutonium recycling (single-recycling using mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel), assuming an all-pressurized water reactor (PWR) fleet.

Ever since the 1950s, plutonium, used in fas reactors, has been seen as the key to unlocking the vast energy resource contained in the the world's uranium reserves. However, the reductions in expected nuclear reactor installation rates, combined with discovery of additional uranium, have led to a lengthening in the perceived time interval before fast reactors, the most effective users of plutonium, will make large demands on plutonium supplies. THere are several options concerning its use or storage in the meantime.

The purpose of this report is to provide an estimate of potential waste inventory and waste form
characteristics for the DOE UNF and HLW and a variety of commercial fuel cycle alternatives in order to
support subsequent system-level evaluations of disposal system performance. This report is envisioned as
a “living document” which will be revised as specific alternative fuel cycles are developed

This report presents the analyses and results for the potential occurrence of external criticality events which could result from plutonium waste forms emplaced in a geologic repository similar to the one being developed at Yucca Mountain. The analyses evaluate both the MOX spent fuel and the immobilized plutonium waste forms in a repository if the waste package has degraded and if the fissile material has migrated to the invert and out into the far-field.

As part of the plutonium waste form development and down-select process, repository analyses have been conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of these forms for repository acceptance. Intact and degraded mode criticality analysis of mixed oxide (MOX) spent fuel is presented in Volume I, while Volume II presents the evaluations of the waste form containing plutonium immobilized in a ceramic matrix.

"This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts, by the year 2050. Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario.

"In 2003 MIT published the interdisciplinary study The Future of Nuclear Power. The underlying motivation was that nuclear energy, which today provides about 70% of the “zero”-carbon electricity in the U.S., is an important option for the market place in a low-carbon world. Since that report, major changes in the U.S. and the world have taken place as described in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about climate change have risen: many countries have adopted restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and the U.S.

"Nuclear power has long been controversial; consequently, the debate about its reemergence requires a fresh assessment of the facts about the technology, its economics and regulatory oversight, and the risks and benefits of its expansion. In the past year, the Keystone Center assembled a group of 27 individuals (see the Endorsement page for a list of Participants) with extensive experience and unique perspectives to develop a joint understanding of the “facts” and for an objective interpretation of the most credible information in areas where uncertainty persists.