THE IMPORTANCE OF ADS IN NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
H. H. Xia, D. J. Liu, Q. Y. Zhu, H. L. Li
State Nuclear Power Research Institute, Beijing, China
Abstract
China, as a developing country with a great population
and relatively less energy resources, actively emphasizes
the development of nuclear energy. After Fukushima
nuclear accident, nuclear energy is still one of the best
solutions to fulfill the increasing demand for energy and
at the same time control the emission of CO2. The total
capacity of operating Nuclear Power plants in 2012 is
12.92GW, about 1.2% of the total electricity capacity in
China. It estimated that in 2020 the total capacity of
operating Nuclear Power plants will reach 58GW, and
30GW in construction. To develop nuclear power in such
a large scale, long-lived radioactive nuclear wastes have
to be safely disposed to reduce the impact on the
environment and to eliminate public fear of nuclear power.
Considering MA (Minor Actinide) and LLFP (Long Life
Fission Products) transmutation with more efficiency and
non-criticality risk for new nuclear application, the
accelerator-driven sub-critical system (ADS) have been
started to develop as a national research projects in China.
As one project of the National Basic Research Program of
China (973 Program) in energy domain, which is
sponsored by the China Ministry of Science and
Technology (MOST), a five-year-program of fundamental
research of ADS physics and related technology was
launched in 2000 and passed national review at the end of
2005. From 2007, another five-year 973 Program, Key
Technology Research of Accelerator Driven Sub-critical
System for Nuclear Waste Transmutation, started and
ended in 2011. After that, a large program of ADS has
been launched. The reactors and fuel reprocessing
technology are two key technologies to determine a
nation’s nuclear fuel cycle policy. The importance of ADS
in the nuclear fuel cycle is studied with a quantitative
material flow analysis and a rough cost analysis. In the
material flow analysis, the investigation covers from the
front-end of the fuel cycle to the final disposal. In the cost
analysis, the levelized fuel cycle cost and levelized
generation costs have been derived. Due to the
unavoidable uncertainties, a cost range has been applied
to each unit cost as well as the discount rate, and an
uncertainty study has been performed accordingly.
INTRODUCTION
The operation of nuclear power plants will produce
three classes of radioactive waste according to the level of
radioactivity. Low-level radioactive waste comprises 80%
of the waste volume and only 1% of the total radioactivity.
Intermediate-level radioactive waste comprises 19% of
the waste volume and 3% of the total radioactivity. The
most important high-level waste (spent fuel) containing
fission products and elements generated in reactor core
accounts for 95% of the total radioactivity, despite of only
1% of total volume. The spent fuel from a standard PWR
with a burn-up of 33 GWd/t and after 10-year cooling
contains approximately 95.5 % uranium, 0.9 % plutonium,
0.1% minor actinides (the actinide elements in spent fuel
other than U and Pu, including Np, Am and Cm), and 3.5 %
fission products (0.2 % short-lived Cs and Sr, 0.1 % longlived I and Tc, 0.1 % other long-lived fission products,
and 3.1 % stable fission products) [1]. However, minor
actinides and long-lived fission products impose the
potentially serious threat to human and environment and
it is key issue to dispose of these wastes safely.
As a greatest population country, China still wants to
develop nuclear energy actively after Fukushima and it is
estimated that in 2020 the total capacity of operating
Nuclear Power plants will reach 58GW, and 30GW in
construction in China. However, the great challenge
facing the nuclear industry is the management of toxic
waste generated in operation of the plants. Thus, the new
reactors are necessary to be designed to incorporate the
new technologies that can help to reduce or eliminate the
nuclear waste generated from commercial pressurized
water reactor (PWR). In many countries the synergy
between neutron science, accelerator technology, nuclear
physics and transmutation research has been recognized
and common research and development programs have
been formulated and launched. One of the new
technologies, Accelerator Driven Sub-critical System
(ADS), was developed to transmute the spent fuel to
incinerate Minor Actinide (MA) and long life fission
products (LLFP), to reduce the radioactivity of spent fuel
from PWR. As one project of the National Basic Research
Program of China (973 Program) in energy domain,
which is sponsored by the China Ministry of Science and
Technology (MOST), a five-year-program of fundamental
research of ADS physics and related technology was
launched in 2000 and passed national review at the end of
2005. From 2007, another five-year 973 Program, Key
Technology Research of Accelerator Driven Sub-critical
System for Nuclear Waste Transmutation, started and
ended in 2011. At 2011，Chinese Academy of Sciences
(CAS) started the ‘Strategic Priority Research Program’
named ‘Future Advanced Nuclear Fission Energy’．As
one of the two parts of this program ， ADS part will
strive for the self-development of the series key
technology from test facility to demonstrate facility，and
make greater contributions to the national energy supply
and sustainable development of nuclear fission energy.
ADS works under the principle that spallation reaction
is carried out between high-energy protons accelerated by
accelerators and heavy target nuclei. During the spallation
reaction dozens of neutrons can be generated by every
proton and these neutrons then serve as neutron sources to
drive the sub-critical blanket system, so as to obtain
energy through maintaining chain reactions of the subcritical blanket system. Meanwhile, the remained
neutrons can be applied to nuclear material proliferation
and nuclear waste transmutation. Three major units
constitute the transmutation system driven by accelerators,
i.e., the accelerator unit, target unit, and the reactor unit.
The reaction heat in ADS can be used to produce
electrical energy of course. The main purpose of
developing ADS lies in transmuting spent fuel.
Transmutation means the transformation of a minor
actinide or long-lived fission product into another nuclide
which is either stable or has a shorter half-life than the
original radionuclide. Transmutation involves using
nuclear reactions and processes such as neutron capture or
neutron induced fission (thermal or fast) to achieve the
desired
transformation.
Transmutation
can
be
accomplished through a combination of PWR
(pressurized water reactor), FR (fast reactor) and
accelerator-based transmutation devices. In this context,
the objective of this paper is to evaluate the importance of
ADS in nuclear fuel cycle from the standpoint of
economy with a quantitative material flow analysis
(equilibrium model) and a rough cost analysis.
Pyroprocess-SFR(TRU fuel); PWR-PUREX-PWR(MOX
fuel)-Pyroprocess-SFR(TRU fuel) ; PWR-PUREXPWR(MOX fuel)-PUREX-SFR(MOX fuel). However, the
main difference of nuclear fuel cycle options is how to
manage Pu and MA. The first option is that Pu is
separated and used to create energy and MA are treated
and managed as waste products. The second option is that
TRU (Pu and MA) are not separated and managed as a
transmutation unit of ADS or FR, so the proliferation of
Pu is also prohibited. The importance of ADS in nuclear
fuel cycle, especially the transmutation of MA, will be
assessed and compared with SFR, so once-through cycle,
PWR-PUREX-SFR(TRU) cycle, and PWR-PUREXADS(MA) cycle are selected and evaluated in this study.
Only one-time recycle is considered for fast reactor and
ADS to simplify our calculation, as shown in Fig.1 (a, b
and c). The characteristics of the reactors and the
specifications for three options are shown in table 1 and 2.
Table 1: Characteristics of the reactors
Reactor parameters
Thermal power（MWt）
Electric power（MWe）
Thermal efficiency
Load factor
Cycle length(year)
No.of batches
Burnup（MWd/kgHM）
PWR
3300
1000
33%
85%
1
3
55
Parameters
The Advanced Fuel Cycle is an option that not only
closes the fuel cycle but also allows significant reduction
of the inventory of long-lived radionuclides in the waste.
It requires coupling and integration of all of the processes
and steps in the fuel cycle from fuel fabrication through
disposal. Many countries are moving toward increasing
the amount of energy produced by nuclear reactors and
closing the fuel cycle with various adaptations of fuel
cycle. Reprocessing is the chemical separation of U and
Pu from spent fuel and then U and Pu will be used as fuel
and loaded into PWR again. Comparing reprocessing and
direct deposition of spent fuel, there are some advantages
to reprocessing since the long term radio-toxicity is
reduced. The reprocessing reduces long term concerns for
the repositories and long term heat production, simplifies
designs and increases public acceptance and capacity of
storage of waste. Several kinds of the reactors, i.e., PWR
and SFR (sodium fast reactor), and several kinds of
reprocessing methods, i.e., PUREX (Plutonium Uranium
Recovery by Extraction) and pyroprocess, could be
coupled and integrated together and accordingly, different
fuel cycle options could be assumed, including oncethrough cycle; PWR-PUREX-PWR(MOX fuel); PWR-
FR(ADS)
1000
400
40%
80%
1
3
100
Table 2: Specifications for three options
METHODOLOGY
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options
FR
1358
600
39%
85%
1.9
3
100
Lead time for ore purchase
Lead time for conversion
Lead time for enrichment
Lead time for fabrication
Loss during each processing in lead
time
Enrichment of UOX
Optimum tails assay
Reactor life
Spent fuel pool storage
Value
s
2
1.5
1
0.5
Unit
years
years
years
years
0.20%
4.50%
0.29%
60
5
years
years
Model
•
•
There are several different models to analyze
nuclear fuel cycle options and indicate the
predominant cycle option, including equilibrium
(or steady-state) model and dynamic-state model.
The referred fuel cycle option was assumed to
perform in ideal operation regardless of the
technological, political, and economic constrains
on reactor and back-end process implementation
in an equilibrium model. In this paper,
The quantitative material flow analysis
is
considered since its advantage allowing a
quantitative comparison of the options with
respect to resource utilization and waste
production.
The quantitative material flow analysis consists of four
parts, (1) material flow of fuel cycle; (2) cost of a certain
component by multiplying mass with the unit cost; (3)
overall evaluation of each fuel cycle with uranium
consumption, waste generation, technology readiness
level, costs, and proliferation resistance etc.; (4)
indication of a predominant fuel cycle.
We calculate the levelized cost of the electricity (LCOE)
[2-3]
for three options: (1) the once-through cycle, (2)
PWR-SFR cycle, and (3) PWR-ADS cycle. The formulas
as follows:
L=
L=
A
−Rt dt
B Ct e
B
−Rt dt
A Qt e
(1)
A1
−Rt dt + A 2 C e −Rt dt
B 1 C 1t e
B 2 2t
Bj
n
−Rt dt
j=1 A Q jt e
j
(2)
Equation (1) is used to calculate the LCOE for the
once-through cycle, while (2) for the PWR-SFR cycle or
PWR-ADS cycle. In formula (1) Ct denotes the full set of
the realized cost, Qt denotes the time profile of the
electricity produced, and R denotes the continuously
compounded discount rate. In formula (2) C1t denotes the
full set of the realized cost happened as the fuel passes
through PWR, C2t denotes the full set of the realized cost
incurred as the reprocessed fuel passes through a SFR or
ADS.
The LCOE of the once-through cycle is a sum of
four elements: (1) the cost associated with the front-end
of the fuel cycle, including the raw ore, conversion,
enrichment and fuel fabrication, (2) the capital cost, (3)
the operation and maintenance cost and, (4) the cost
associated with the back-end of the fuel cycle. For the
once-through cycle the fourth element include five years
above-ground storage in dry casks and final disposal. In
the PWR-SFR cycle, the LCOE is composed of two parts,
the cost associated with the PWR and the cost with the
SFR, each of them also include four elements above, so is
the LCOE of PWR-ADS. For the PWR part in PWR-SFR
cycle or PWR-ADS cycle, it includes the cost of
reprocessing, the cost of disposal for high level waste
stream and the value of the transuranics/ MA.
The main sources of the unit cost data used in this
paper were from the literatures [3-5]. The cost date is
converted into the 2013 US dollars by an escalation rate
of 2%. The cost data of the accelerator is from a market
survey. The cost data used in the LCOE calculation are
shown in Table 3.
In this study, the O&M cost include the variable cost
varying with the power and fixed cost. The final net
electricity output of the PWR-ADS cycle has been
adjusted according to the efficiency of the accelerator, so
the additional costs arising from the power consumed by
the accelerator no longer incorporate into the O&M cost
of the ADS.
Table 3: Cost data used in LCOE calculation
Discount rate
Natural uranium
Depleted uranium
Conversion
Enrichment
Fabrication of UOX fuel
Fabrication of SFR fuel
LWR capital cost
FR capital cost
Accelerator capital cost
LWR O&M cost
SFR O&M cost
Accelerator O&M cost
premium
PRUEX
Disposal of UOX
Disposal of HLW from SFR
5%
$/kgHM
$/kgHM
$/kgHM
$/SWU
$/kgHM
$/kgHM
$/kW
$/kW
$/kW
$/kW
$/kW
2007
2013
80
10
10
160
250
2400
4000
4800
90
11
11
180
282
2703
4505
5406
86021
64
76.3
56.44
67.7
$/kW
$/kgHM
$/kgHM
$/kgHM
215
1600
185
3200
1802
208
3603
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Transmuting MA of ADS in Fuel Cycle
(a) once-through cycle
(b) PWR-PUREX-ADS(MA) cycle
(c) PWR-PUREX-SFR(TRU) cycle
Fig. 1 Summary of mass flow of the fuel cycle options
The front-end and back-end of uranium cycle is also
included to better understand the importance of ADS in
complete nuclear fuel cycle, as shown in Fig.1. Breeding
ratio (BR) is widely employed to evaluate the breeding
performance of a reactor while selecting a SFR. The
definition of BR is the ratio of fissile materials in end of
cycle and fissile materials in beginning of cycle [6]. For
SFR involved cycles, only BR (breeding ratio) = 1.0 is
considered [7]. MA extracted from PUREX process should
Table 4: Composition data on key actinides in UO2 spent
fuel for commercial PWR [7]
Radion
uclides
234
U
U
236
U
235
238
237
U
Np
Pu
239
Pu
238
PWR
fuel
4.50%
95.50%
-
PWR
spent
fuel
0.02%
0.75%
0.68%
97.10
%
0.09%
0.04%
0.66%
Radio
nuclid
es
PWR
fuel
PWR
spent
fuel
-
0.32%
0.16%
0.11%
241
-
0.05%
243
-
0.03%
0.00%
0.01%
240
Pu
Pu
242
Pu
241
Am
Am
Cm
244
Cm
242
Spent fuel from a commercial nuclear power reactor
contains a number of radionuclides (table 4), most of
which (notably fission products) decay rapidly, so that
their collective radioactivity is reduced to less than 0.1%
of the original level 50 years after being removed from
the reactor. However, a significant proportion of the
wastes contained in used nuclear fuel is long-lived
radionuclides, particularly MA (Np, Am and Cm). The
new technology, partitioning and transmuting (P&T) the
long-lived MA waste from spent fuel into shorter-lived
radionuclides, could make the management and eventual
disposal of wastes easier and less expensive. The main
purpose of ADS lies in transformation of the long-lived
MA and FP into stable element or short-lived
radionuclide.
It is important to calculate the waste reduction
produced by PWR-ADS cycle and PWR-SFR cycle
comparing to once-through cycle. The percentage in Fig.1
indicates the mass flow after each fuel cycle process. The
high level waste and/or spent fuel produced in three
cycles could be calculated from the electricity of PWR,
ADS, and SFR and mass flow of each cycle, as shown in
table 5. It is concluded from table 5 that Once-Through
cycle produces most HLW/SF comparing to PWR-ADS
cycle and PWR-SFR cycle, i.e. Once-Through cycle
producing HLW/SF 260 times more than PWR-ADS
cycle and 15 times more than PWR-SFR cycle for same
amount of electricity produced. PWR-SFR cycle will give
about 18 times more HLW/SF than PWR-ADS cycle. It
could be concluded apparently from our calculation that
PWR-ADS could reduce the volume of HLW produced
better than Once-Through and PWR-SFR cycles and the
use of ADS could reduce the radioactivity and long term
concerns for the geological repositories, which is very
important for the public acceptance of nuclear energy.
However, transmutation of MA and LLFP will not
eliminate or replace geological disposal but could lead to
a considerable reduction in the quantity of long-lived
isotopes. It is concluded from the waste management
point of view that PWR-ADS cycle has super advantages
compared to Once-Through and PWR-SFR.
Table 5: Comparison of high level waste produced in
three cycles
Cycle
Once-Through
PWR-ADS
PWR-SFR
Electricity
(Kwh/Kg HM)
405220 (PWR)
893048 (ADS)
826405 (SFR)
HLW
(g/1000Kwh)
2.3271
0.0089
0.1591
Economic Analysis of ADS in Fuel Cycle
Given the 5% discount rate, the calculation results of
the breakdown LCOE for three options are shown in
Figure 2. Compared with the once-through cycle, the
LCOE of the PWR-ADS is higher, which is due to the
high capital charge required to build fast reactor and the
accelerator and the extra electricity which is used to
support the operation of accelerator. In our study the
specific cost of the ADS is twice higher than that of PWR,
and the O&M cost of the ADS is approximately 6 times
higher than that of PWR due to the high annual O&M of
accelerator. In both PWR-SFR cycle and PWR-ADS
cycle, the negative cost of front-end fuel cycle is due to
the negative value of transuranics/MA we calculated. The
value of the transuranics/MA is just an intermediate
variable, and does not reflect the real price.
Transuranics/MA can be seen as the waste, which needs
to be disposed of. The negative value of the
transuranics/MA has an implication that ADS and SFR
have to be paid to as incinerators producing electricity
from waste which could turn into potential dangers of
environment. When the MA is paid more than
$80557/kgHM from the calculation results, ADS can
compete with the PWR.
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
0.00
-30.00
-60.00
-90.00
-120.00
$/MWh
be mixed with Pu in a ratio of Pu:MA = 1:2 to run ADS
and similarly, additional U is added as fuel to SFR in a
ratio of U:TRU = 4.86:1 to support SFR with BR of 1.0.
In PWR-ADS fuel cycle option, only 0.1% Pu is used to
run ADS and 1.2%Pu from PWR SF reprocessing will be
stored and used to fabricate MOX fuel of fast reactor,
which agrees to our attitude to Pu in China, i.e. Pu will be
used as fast reactor fuel and it is also a base of our fast
rector development.
Back-end fuel cycle
O&M cost
Decommissioning cost
Through Through Through Through Through
PWR
PWR
SFR
PWR
ADS
Once-though
cycle
PWR-SFR
cycle
Capital charge
Front-end fuel cycle
PWR-ADS
cycle
Fig. 2 Comparison of LCOE with three nuclear fuel cycle
options
The relative high value of the front-end fuel cycle in
PWR-ADS cycle is due to the composition of the fuel for
ADS. In our study we assume that the ADS fuel is made
of 67%MA and 33% plutonium, while the FR (PWR-SFR
cycle) fuel is made of 83% recycled uranium and 17%
transuranics. The value of the recycled uranium is tiny,
and the value of the front-end fuel cycle is dependent on
the value of the transuranics (or MA), which indicated the
larger portion of the transuranics (or MA), the higher cost
of the front-end fuel cycle. Compared with the PWR-SFR
cycle, where the capital charge is 106.8mills/kWh, the
capital charge, O&M cost(50.55 mills/kWh, including
O&M cost of reactor and accelerator) and, lower load
factor of ADS is also a push to a higher LCOE.
Due to the large uncertainty about the cost of the
accelerator, we make a sensitivity analysis. When the
price of the accelerator rise from $645 million to $1613
million, the capital charge of the ADS increase by 29%,
and the price of the MA will increase more than 1.9 times.
The strongest argument against nuclear reprocessing is
the fact that currently it is not a competitive process to
generate electricity. Reprocessing is certainly more
expensive than once-through cycle. This happens because
of relatively low price of natural uranium. Temporarily,
we could not examine the impact on the cost of the fuel
cycle caused by changes in unit costs of uranium,
plutonium and uranium recovered by extraction (PUREX
reprocessing method). However, it is reported that unit
cost of uranium ore concentrates and PUREX
reprocessing have great impact on the overall fuel cycle
costs of the cycles evaluated. There are some
uncertainties in this study such as technologies of SFR,
the cost of the SFR and reprocessing which is not
provided by the market survey, the design and material
problem arising from the installation of the ADS, and the
government regulations for disposal of spent fuel. The
importance of ADS system in nuclear fuel cycle should be
explained from the standpoint of environment and longterm waste management.
From the safety point of view, PWR-ADS cycle contain
many other advantages compared to Once-Through and
PWR-SFR. On one hand, ADS operates in a subcritical
state (keff of ADS ranging from 0.9 to 0.98), which
minimizes the risk of the critical accident. On the other
hand, the accelerator in ADS can provide a mechanism of
controlling the system in an accident, which is achieved
by the use of control rods in a critical reactor like SFR.
Comparing to SFR, the safety features of ADS lend a
possibility of reducing the amount of control rods, or even
eliminating the use of control rods completely,
simplifying the design of ADS and enhance the structure
of the corresponding equipment.
The capital cost and the operating and maintenance cost
of the accelerator is the most uncertain parameter in this
study, as there isn’t historical experience with it. The
accelerator capital cost and O&M cost would be
decreased significantly with the development of advanced
nuclear technology. With the occurrence of new
separation technology, MA separation from spent fuel
would become easier technically. All of the technical
progress would make ADS much more important in
future nuclear energy system.
CONCLUSIONS
The development of nuclear energy on a large scale
will produce high level radioactive wastes rapidly. The
reactors and reprocessing technology are two key
technologies to determine a nation’s nuclear fuel cycle
policy. The importance of ADS in the nuclear fuel cycle
is studied by selecting three different nuclear fuel cycle
options, including once-through cycle, PWR-PUREXSFR(TRU) cycle, and PWR-PUREX-ADS(MA) cycle,
with a quantitative material flow analysis (equilibrium
model) and a rough cost analysis.
In the material flow analysis, the investigation covers
from the front-end of the fuel cycle to the final disposal.
Once-Through cycle gives HLW/SF 260 times more than
PWR-ADS cycle and 15 times more than PWR-SFR
cycle for same amount of electricity. It is concluded that
ADS could reduce the radioactivity and long term
concerns for the geological repositories more effectively
than SFR. ADS is a powerful tool to reduce the HLW in
nuclear fuel cycle.
In the cost analysis, the levelized fuel cycle cost and
levelized generation costs have been derived. The LCOE
of PWR-ADS is higher than others. ADS is expensive as
an energy provider, but not so expensive as a burner of
MA. The importance of ADS system in nuclear fuel cycle
should be explained from the standpoint of environment
and long-term waste management. When the MA is paid
more than $80557/kgHM, ADS can continue its nonprofit operation. If we take into account the total amount
of MA produced in one year operation of 1 NPP is about
25kg, the payment is less than 2 days output of a 1GW
NPP. The ADS has a higher support ratio than SFR and
the deployment of ADS will minimize the fraction of fast
reactor for specialized transmutation in nuclear systems,
which is possible to reduce the whole investment. With
the development of accelerator technology etc., the
economy of ADS could be better.
Further study is in progress. For further study, we will
take energy efficiency, environmental friendliness, and
public acceptance into account to assess of the importance
of ADS in nuclear fuel cycle. The sensitivity analysis is
also necessary to minimize the error and more advanced
fuel cycle options will be taken into account for the
optimization.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank Mr. Su Wang for his contributions to
the mass flow of ADS. The fruitful discussions with Mr.
Feng Shen, Mr. Ziguan Wang, and Mr. Xiang Liu are
very much appreciated. Financial support is provided by
Chinese Academy of Science (XDA03010100).
REFERENCES
[1] OECD, Physics and Safety of Transmutation
Systems----A Status Report, NEA No. 6090, 2006. ISBN
92-64-01082-3.
[2] Guillaume De Roo, John E. Parson, Nuclear Fuel
Recycling, the Value of the Separated Transuranics and
the Levelized Cost of Electricity. MIT Center for Energy
and Environment Policy Research (CEEPR) Working
Paper. 2009 (09-008).
[3] MIT. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study, 2011.ISBN 9789828008-4-3
[4] B. H. Park, F. Gao, E.H. Kwon, and W. I. Ko.
Comparative Study of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Options: Quantitative Analysis on Material Flow, Energy
Policy , 2011, vol. 39, no. 11, 6916-6924
[5] Guillaume De Roo, Economics of Nuclear Fuel
Cycles: Option Valuation and Neutronics Simulation of
Mixed Oxide Fuels, MIT M.S. Thesis, 2009
[6] Ishiwatari Y., Oka, Y., Koshizuka S., Breeding
Ratio Analysis of a Fast Reactor Cooled by Supercritical
light Water. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology.
2001, Vol. 38, 703-710.
[7] Gao F., Modeling and System Analysis of Different
Fuel Cycle for Nuclear Power Sustainability. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Science and Technology, Korea, 2011.
[8] XuMi, Fast Reactor Technology and the Sustainable
Development
of
Nuclear
Energy
in
China.
Science(ShangHai). 2011, 2: 7-10.
[9] Zhao Zhixiang, Xia Haihong. Research on ADS and
the Sustainable Development of the Nuclear Energy.
Engineering Science, 2008,10(3): 248-258