Post on 09-Jun-2018
EPRI Activities Related to Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycles
John KesslerManager, Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management Program
Blue Ribbon Commission, Fuel Cycle Subcommittee Meeting12 July 2010
2© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Outline
• EPRI Nuclear R&D areas
• U.S. Nuclear Fleet Outlook
• Advanced Nuclear Technology
• Fuel Reliability Issues
• Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management
– Advanced fuel cycle studies
– Readiness of U.S. fleet to burn MOX
3© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Electric Power Research Institute
Independent, unbiased, tax-exempt
collaborative research organization
Full spectrum industry coverage
– Nuclear
– Generation
– Environment
– Power Delivery & Utilization
460 participants in more than 40 countries
Major offices in Palo Alto, CA; Charlotte, NC
and Knoxville, TN
RD&D for the Electricity Industry
4© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI Nuclear Research Areas
Risk &
Safety
Radiation Exposure
and Waste
Management
Fuel
Reliability
Inspection
Material
Degradation
Equipment
Reliability
Advanced
Nuclear
Technology
5© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
U.S. Nuclear Fleet Outlook
Source: DOE Life Beyond 60 Workshop February 2008
2025
Opportunity for Economic, Low Carbon Base Load Generation
6© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advanced Light Water Reactor DeploymentHow Do We Achieve This Performance?
6460 58 56
53
47
100%
94%
82% 80%
63%
Construction Cost
(% of First of a Kind)
Construction Duration
(Months)
1995 1998 2002 2004 ~ 2010 ~ 2011
63%
6460 58 56
53
47
100%
94%
82% 80%
63%
Construction Cost
(% of First of a Kind)
Construction Duration
(Months)
1995 1998 2002 2004 ~ 2010 ~ 20111995 1998 2002 2004 ~ 2010 ~ 2011
63%
Efficient Plant Start-Up and
Sustained High Capacity Factors
Reduced Construction Costs
and Schedules…Unit Over Unit
7© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Facilitate
standardization
across the new
nuclear fleet
Ensure top plant
performance from
start of operations
Transfer
technology and
lessons learned
to new plant
designs
Courtesy: TVO Courtesy: TVO
Reduce overall
deployment risk
and uncertainty
Advanced LWR Technology Deployment
8© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Nuclear Fuel Issues
• Fuel reliability guidelines
• Failure root cause investigations
• Fuel reliability margins
• Regulatory issues
• Independent fuel performance codes
• Advanced NDE techniques
9© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
U.S. Industry Fuel Failure Trend
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
EOC Year
Num
ber
of
Fa
iled F
uel A
ssem
blie
s
PWR
BWR
10© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Average U.S. Cycle Length Trends
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
8001
99
0
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Year
Cyc
le L
en
gth
(E
FP
D)
PWR Ave. BWR Ave. PWR Max. BWR Max.
11© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Average U.S. Discharged Assembly Burnup Trends
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
501
99
0
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Year
Dis
ch
arg
e B
urn
up (
GW
d/M
TU
)
PWR
BWR
12© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advanced Fuel Designs Silicon Carbide Fuel Cladding
• Benefits
– Improved safety due to higher-temperature capabilities
– Large power uprate potential
• Challenges
– Modified fuel performance codes
– Transient analyses
– Basic materials properties
– Irradiation performance
– New fabrication and inspection technologies
Silicon Carbide Cladding
Courtesy Westinghouse and
Ceramic Tubular Products
13© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI’s Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management Program
14© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Used Fuel and Hugh-Level Waste ManagementResearch Elements
EARLY
EMERGING
MATURE
APPLIED
Modeling of Advanced Fuel Cycles
(material tracking, health risk,
economics)
Use of MOX in LWRs
Centralized Interim Dry
Storage Economics
Advanced Fuel Cladding
Mechanical Property Data
Yucca Mountain
Performance Modeling
Technical Bases for Very Long-
term Dry Storage
Neutron Absorber
Materials Database
CaskLoader
Technical Bases for
Transportation of High
Burnup Used Fuel
Used Fuel Dry Storage
License Extension
Support for Potential Changes to
U.S. Used Fuel Mgmt. Policy
Technical Bases for Yucca
Mountain Regulations
New Neutron Absorber
Material (Metamic)Wet Storage Criticality Modeling
Benchmarking Boraflex Degradation
Management
15© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI Technical Perspective on Reprocessing
• 1991
– “Adoption of a process-before-disposal policy…would accrue only modest benefits with respect to…national inventory of transuranics…”
– “[A] process-before-disposal policy would incur a large cost penalty.”
• 1995
– “The energy utilization benefits of the ALMR will be realized when uranium becomes more expensive… current reserves are large…”
– “Light water reactor fuel is safe for geologic disposal…”
– “…an integrated spent fuel management system [with] emphasis on interim storage dovetails…with a rational and deliberate process of reconsidering U.S. fuel cycle policy implementation.”
16© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI Technical Perspective on Reprocessing[continued]
• 2006
– “The nation needs a broad consensus on which processing/fast-reactor technology combination is the best choice…”
– “..an acceptable, affordable and reliable fast reactor appears likely to control the overall schedule and should receive appropriate development program emphasis…”
– “Decisions on a possible second repository will not really be necessary until at least mid-century…”
Reprocessing not a clear winner under current conditions and state
of technology; critical to demonstrate fast reactor technology first.
17© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Roadmap
• EPRI role: Provide technically based, independent analysis of fuel cycle options to inform decision-makers.
• Help industry keep options open
– Develop tools to assess nuclear fuel cycle options from an electricity generation viewpoint
– Conduct independent assessments of current state of technology in key areas: reprocessing, fuel re-fabrication, geologic disposal media
18© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Toolbox
1. Decision Analysis Tool
2. Risk Assessment Tool
3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation
4. Economic Modeling
5. Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection
19© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Decision Analysis Tool
• Description
– Tool to compare fuel cycle options based on:
• Economics
• Natural uranium resource amplification
• Institutional policies
• Risks
• Status
– Concept being formulated at MIT
– EPRI will evaluate need for continued development of the MIT tool
20© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2. Risk Assessment Tool
• Description
– Tool to compare economic and radiological risks from different fuel cycles
• Status
– Concept being formulated at MIT
– EPRI will evaluate need for continued development of the MIT tool
– Opportunity to build on EPRI tools and resources for disposal performance assessments (expert team, IMARC)
21© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Code
Sources Cycle Storage
Plutonium
cycle
Minor
Actinides
cycle
U-ore
mine
Imported Pu
Depleted Uranium
Geological disposal
Reprocessing
Uranium
Pu
ENU
MOX
UOX
Waste
Unat
SWU
Pu
Udep
Urep
Waste
Waste
Pu
Pu
Urep
SWU
Udep
1
1
1
PWR
Advanced PWR
FBR
MA
MA
TIRELIRE – STRATEGIE
EQUIVALENCE
EVOLUTION
ECRIN
FBR – ADS
STRAPONTIN Perturbation
Semi-analyt.k∞iBU
iBU
APOLLO2
GENBASE
DATABASE
DATABASE
(t,Wi)Pu9,eq
(fBOL,fEOL)ref
+ Mij
ERANOS
GENMATRICE
PWR – HTR
• Description
– Ability to conduct dynamic (i.e., time-dependent) fuel cycle simulations
• Status
– EPRI engaging multiple stakeholders to develop code and collect model input (EDF, INL, ANL, ORNL, MIT, others)
22© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Code (continued)
Case 3a: LWRs transition to Fast Reactors with Conversion
Ratio of 1 (Electricity generation remains constant)
23© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Transuranics Inventory
TRU NuclideOnce-through
[MT of TRU]
PWRs +Fast
burner
Reactors
[MT of TRU]
Np-237 4.0 5.6
Pu-238 2.3 15
Pu-239 28 75
Pu-240 13.5 87
Pu-241 8.8 16.6
Pu-242 4.6 29.3
Am-241 0.32 11.6
Am-243 1.2 8.3
Cm-244 0.66 8.4
Cm-245 0.05 2.1
Total TRU ~63 ~259
Greater TRU inventories are
maintained in advanced fuel
cycles than in once-through
fuel cycles.
24© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Fast Reactor Fuel Fabrication
Impact of Minor Actinide Content
+1% Np
+1% Am+1% Cm
Fast Reactor
Fuel Fabrication
Heat Release
x 1 +30% x 10
g Dose x 2 x 30 x 200
Neutron Source Term
x 1 +15% x 700
Short-term exposure risks with advanced fuel cycles must be weighed
against long-term exposure risks with once-through fuel cycles.
25© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Deployment Transuranic Inventory Reductions
Impact of Advanced Fuel Cycles on High-
Level Waste Disposal
8 23 70
211
632
1334
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95%
TRU Inventory Reduction (%)
De
plo
ym
en
t P
eri
od
to
Ac
hie
ve
Inv
en
tory
Re
dc
uti
on
(y
ea
rs)
Many decades required to achieve even a modest TRU inventory
reduction across entire fuel cycle.
26© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
4. Economic Modeling
Description
• Tools to translate fuel cycle options to economic
terms for both fixed and variable elements
Status
• Currently using steady-state model; anticipate
moving to a dynamic model
• Results to date published in a series of EPRI
reports
27© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Fuel Cycle Economics at Steady State
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Uranium Unit Cost ($/kg U)
Fu
el C
ycle
Co
st
(mills
/kW
he)
Fuel Cycle 1:
Once-Through
UO2 $500/kgHM
FR MOX $1650/kgHM
UO2 $2000/kgHM
FR MOX $3750/kgHM
UO2 $500/kgHM
UO2 $1500/kgHM
Fuel Cycle 2:
Pu Single-Recyling in
PWRs + PUREX
Fuel Cycle 3:
Pu Multi-Recyling in FRs
+ Advanced PUREX
For scenarios with high uranium prices, recycling of plutonium as MOX becomes
economically feasible as long as reprocessing and fast reactor costs are kept low.
UO2 $1500/kgHM
UO2 $500/kgHM
28© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX Use Drivers, Constraints, and Concerns
• Regulatory environment
• Energy security
• Nonproliferation
• Public opinion
• Resource utilization
• Waste management
• Economics
• Technology
29© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX Irradiation in U.S. Reactors
Reactor PWR/ BWR MOX Lead
Test
Assembly
Start
Total
Number of
Assemblies
Total
Number of
Fuel Rods
Vallecitos BWR 1960s -- ≥ 16
Big Rock Point BWR 1969 16 1248
Dresden-1 BWR 1969 11 103
San Onofre-1 PWR 1970 4 720
Quad Cities-1 BWR 1974 10 48
Ginna PWR 1980 4 716
Catawba-1 PWR 2005 4 full 17 x 17
assemblies
30© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Existing U.S. Reactors as Candidates for MOX
• Assumptions:
– Commercial MOX use no earlier than 2020
– 20-year minimum remaining lifetime
– Greater flexibility in late GEN II reactors
• Result: ~50% of current fleet are potential candidates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
19
65
19
70
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
200
5
201
0
201
5
202
0
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
20
45
2050
2055
2060
Year
Nu
mb
er
of O
pe
ratio
nal R
eac
tors
60 yr reactor lifespan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
19
65
19
70
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
200
5
201
0
201
5
202
0
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
20
45
2050
2055
2060
Year
Nu
mb
er
of O
pe
ratio
nal R
eac
tors
60 yr reactor lifespan
31© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Global MOX Supply
• Existing French and UK production capacity of ~235 MTHM/yr
• U.S. DOE MOX facility under construction ~70 MTHM/yr max
• Planned Japanese Rokkasho facility ~130 MTHM/yr
MOX use in the U.S. is supply limited, NOT reactor limited, for the next 20 – 30 years
32© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX Use Preliminary FindingsExisting Reactors
• No technical barriers identified to partial MOX loading (30% or less) in at least half of existing U.S. fleet
• Some modifications and operational changes possible
– Amendment of reactor license (substantial but manageable)
– Additional reactivity control
• Higher soluble boron concentrations and/or enriched 10B, burnable absorbers, or higher worth control rods
– Plant-wide changes to address security, radiation protection and shielding, increased minimum cooling periods, spent fuel criticality
• No negative impact on return to 100% UOX cores
33© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX Use Preliminary FindingsGEN III/III+ Reactors
• All GEN III/III+ designs should accommodate high MOX core loading (50% to full cores)
– Full MOX core capacity reported for ABWR, AP1000, US-EPR, US-APWR
– 50% MOX core loading target per European Utility Requirements
– Core loadings of 50% or greater generally require MOX-specific design
• MOX use in new reactors may be restricted due to plant specific design aspects (e.g., spent fuel pool capacity)
34© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Decay Heat Impacts Our Ability to Store, Transport, and Dispose of Used fuel and HLW
35© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Decay Heat from Used UOX Assemblies
Decay Heat of Spent UOX (W/tHM)
as a function of time after irradiation
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Total
Actinides
PF
Pu
Am
Cm
Sr+Y
Cs+Ba
Source: EDF (July 2009)
36© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Decay Heat from Used MOX Assemblies
Decay Heat of Spent MOX (W/tHM)
as a function of time after irradiation
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Total
Actinides
PF
Pu
Am
Cm
Sr+Y
Cs+Ba
Source: EDF (July 2009)
37© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conclusions
• Much to be done to develop an industry with advanced fuel cycles
– R&D important to enable well-informed decisions
• Current fuel designs more reliable, but approaching burnup limits
– Need fuel design evolution for much higher burnups (e.g, SiC)
• If desired and available, MOX can be used in existing and next-generation reactors
• Fast reactor technology R&D first, then reprocessing
• Actinide reduction in the entire closed fuel cycle takes decades
38© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
39© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Selection of EPRI Reports on Advanced Fuel Cycle Topics
• NP-7261 “An Evaluation of the Concept of Transuranic Burning Using Liquid Metal Reactors” (March 1991)
• TR-100750 “Transuranic Burning Issues Related to a Second Geologic Repository” (July 1992)
• TR-106072 “A Review of the Economic Potential of Plutonium in Spent Nuclear Fuel” (February 1996)
• 1013442 “An Updated Perspective on the US Nuclear Fuel Cycle” (June 2006)
• 1015129 “Program on Technology Innovation: Advanced Fuel Cycles – Impact on High-Level Waste Disposal” (December 2007)
• 1015387 “An Economic Analysis of Select Fuel Cycles Using the Steady-state Analysis Model for Advanced Fuel Cycle Schemes (SMAFS)” (December 2007)
• 1016643 “Program on Technology Innovation – Impact on High-Level Waste Disposal: Analysis of Deployment Scenarios of Fast Burner Reactors in the U.S. Nuclear Fleet” (December 2008)
• 1018514 “A Strategy for Nuclear Energy Research & Development” (January 2009)
• 1018575 “Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Comparison Between Once-Through and Plutonium Single-Recycling in Pressurized Water Reactors” (February 2009)
• 1018896 “Program on Technology Innovation: Readiness of Existing and New U.S. Reactors for Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel” (May 2009)
40© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2010 Deliverables
• Parametric Study of Front-End Nuclear Fuel Cycle Costs Using Reprocessed Uranium [1020659] – February 2010
• Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Comparison Between Once-Through and Multiple - Plutonium Recycling in Fast Reactors [1020660] - March 2010
• Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles – Main Challenges and Strategic Choices [1020307] – December 2010
• Reprocessing Technology Primer – December 2010