The United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Fuel Cycle Technology Program sponsors nuclear fuel cycle research and development. As part of its Fuel Cycle Options campaign, the DOE has established the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options Catalog. The catalog is intended for use by the Fuel Cycle Technologies Program in planning its research and development activities and disseminating information regarding nuclear energy to interested parties. The purpose of this report is to document the improvements and additions that have been made to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options Catalog in the 2015 fiscal year.

"In this analysis we have presented a method that provides insight into future fuel cycle alternatives by clarifying the complexity of choosing an appropriate fuel cycle in the context of the distribution of burdens and benefits between generations. The current nuclear power deployment practices, together with three future fuel cycles were assessed."--Page 227.

The United States has deployed commercial nuclear power since the 1950s, and as of 2021, nuclear power accounts for approximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation. The current commercial nuclear fleet consists entirely of thermal-spectrum, light water reactors operating with low-enriched uranium dioxide fuel in a once-through fuel cycle. In recent years, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Department of Energy, and private sector have expressed considerable interest in developing and deploying advanced nuclear reactors to augment, and possibly replace, the U.S. operating fleet of reactors, nearly all of which will reach the end of their currently licensed operating lives by 2050. Much of this interest stems from the potential ability of advanced reactors and their associated fuel cycles - as claimed by their designers and developers - to provide a number of advantages, such as improvements in economic competitiveness, reductions in environmental impact via better natural resource utilization and/or lower waste generation, and enhancements in nuclear safety and proliferation resistance. At the request of Congress, this report explores merits and viability of different nuclear fuel cycles, including fuel cycles that may use reprocessing, for both existing and advanced reactor technologies; and waste management (including transportation, storage, and disposal options) for advanced reactors, and in particular, the potential impact of advanced reactors and their fuel cycles on waste generation and disposal.

"More demand for electricity and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions have increased interest in nuclear power, which does not rely on fossil fuels. However, concerns remain about the radioactive spent fuel that nuclear reactors generate. The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a research and development (R&D) plan to select nuclear fuel cycles and technologies, some of which reprocess spent fuel and recycle some nuclear material, such as plutonium. These fuel cycles may help reduce the generation of spent fuel and risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. GAO was asked to review (1) DOE's approach to selecting nuclear fuel cycles and technologies, (2) DOE's efforts to reduce proliferation and terrorism risks, and (3) selected countries' experiences in reprocessing and recycling spent fuel. GAO reviewed DOE's plan and met with officials from DOE, the nuclear industry, and France and the United Kingdom. "

The Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Center for Strategic and International Studies joined to launch the New Approaches to the Fuel Cycle project. This project sought to build consensus on common goals, address practical challenges, and engage a spectrum of actors that influence policymaking regarding the nuclear fuel cycle. The project also tackled one of the toughest issues—spent nuclear fuel and high level waste—to see if solutions there might offer incentives to states on the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle and address the inherent inertia and concerns about additional burdens and restrictions that have stalled past efforts to improve the robustness of the nonproliferation regime. This report presents the group’s conclusions that a best-practices approach to the nuclear fuel cycle can achieve these objectives and offer a path to a more secure and sustainable nuclear landscape.

The so-called nuclear renaissance has increased worldwide interest in nuclear power. This potential growth also has increased, in some quarters, concern that nonproliferation considerations are not being given sufficient attention. In particular, since introduction of many new power reactors will lead to requiring increased uranium enrichment services to provide the reactor fuel, the proliferation risk of adding enrichment facilities in countries that do not have them now led to proposals to provide the needed fuel without requiring indigenous enrichment facilities. Similar concerns exist for reprocessing facilities. Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle summarizes key issues and analyses of the topic, offers some criteria for evaluating options, and makes findings and recommendations to help the United States, the Russian Federation, and the international community reduce proliferation and other risks, as nuclear power is used more widely. This book is intended for all those who are concerned about the need for assuring fuel for new reactors and at the same time limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. This audience includes the United States and Russia, other nations that currently supply nuclear material and technology, many other countries contemplating starting or growing nuclear power programs, and the international organizations that support the safe, secure functioning of the international nuclear fuel cycle, most prominently the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A wealth of technical information exists on nuclear fuel cycle options-- combinations of nuclear fuel types, reactor types, used or spent nuclear fuel (SNF) treatments, and disposal schemes-- and most countries with active nuclear power programmes conduct some level of research and development on advanced nuclear fuel cycles. However, perhaps because of the number of options that exist, it is often difficult for policy makers to understand the nature and magnitude of the differences between the various options. This report explores the fuel cycle options and the differentiating characteristics of these options. It also describes the driving factors for decisions related to both the development of the fuel cycle and the characteristics resulting from implementing the option. It includes information on the current status and future plans for power reactors, reprocessing facilities, disposal facilities, and the status of research and development activities in several countries. It is designed for policy makers to understand the differences among the fuel cycle options in a way that is concise, understandable, and based on the existing technologies, while keeping technical discussions to a minimum.