Post on 19-Mar-2018
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley1
Jasmina VujicProfessor and Chair
Department of Nuclear EngineeringUniversity of California, Berkeley
Power Systems Engineering Research CenterTele-Seminar
April 3, 2007
NUCLEAR ENERGY RENAISSANCE IN THE U.S.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to use some of their slides for this presentations:
Per Peterson, Department of Nuclear EngineeringJohn Kotek, Idaho National LaboratoryDave Hill, Idaho National Laboratory
Andrew D. Paterson, Environmental Business InternationalJim Reinsch, President, American Nuclear Society
Francesco Venneri, General Atomics
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley3
OUTLINE
• CURRENT SITUATION• WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY?• US ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005• RENAISSANCE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN US• US GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY
PARTNRSHIP (GNEP)• SUMMARY - SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR
ENERGY
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley4
SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY of the 21th Century?
• We cannot have SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY without SUSTANIABLE ENERGY which is based on SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY!
• We need Nuclear Energy - to provide an abundant, reliable, affordable, clean, and secure source of energy for our nation and the world.
• Definition of SUSTAINABLE ENERGY:– “A living harmony between the equitable availability of energy services
to all people and the preservation of the earth for future generations.”MIT “Sustainable Energy - Choosing Among Options”
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley5
Climate change due to natural causes (solar variations, volcanoes, etc.)
Climate change due to natural causes
and human generated
greenhouse gases
Can we predict?
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley6
Concentration of Greenhouse gases
1750,the
beginning of the industrial
revolution
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley7
Life-cycle analysis considers construction as well as fuel consumption
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley8
Where does U.S. electricity comes from?
52%
20%
16%
7%3%2%
COALNENatural GasHydroelectricOilRenewables
Source: NEI
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley9
U.S. Sources of Emission-Free Generation (2000)
Source: EIA
26.5%
71.6%
1.3%0.5% 0.1%
HydroNuclearGeothermalWindSolar
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley10
12%more
25%more
35%more
44%more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2005 2010 2015 2020
By 2020, U.S. Electricity Needs Will Increase by 44%
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley11
Electricity Sources within OECD Countries (2001)
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php
And, reactors provide 20-30% of electricity in developed economies.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley12
North American Nuclear Power: 110,000 MWe in 2005103 Nuclear Power Plants in the USA
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley13
Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide (435 NPP):365,000 MWe in 2005
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php
Nuclear power historically has been an OECD advanced economy power source.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley14
United States vs. Global Nuclear Capacity Additions 1960-2008
Rest of World
United States
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
GW
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley15
• 435 nuclear power plants ~367 Gwe, 30 under construction, 222 planned
• 16% of world’s electricity• Displaces 2.5 billion metric tons of CO2/year• 38 GW brought on line/under construction since 2000
World View
BrazilUkraine
China
Czech Republic
Finland
India
Iran
Japan
North Korea
Russia
South Korea
Taiwan
Pakistan
Romania
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley17
Plants and Capacity Factors
788859France
5792Mexico
22886Taiwan
2849China
257052 Japan
2092103United States
409220South Korea
136421Canada
176830Russia
% of Total Generation% CFNumber
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley18
Why Is Nuclear Energy Important?
• Nuclear energy enables:– Air quality improvement– Carbon emission reduction– Waste reduction– Proliferation risk reduction– Increased energy security and independence
Nuclear energy is affordable• Currently operating U.S. nuclear power
plants have achieved low operating costs and are attractive in today’s market
• We are designing new plants that can be built faster and at less cost than today’s reactors (less than $1500/kW)
U.S. Electricity Production Costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Cen
ts/K
Wh
(200
1 do
llars
)
Nuclear Coal Gas Oil
Source: Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan 2000
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley19
U.S. Nuclear Generation & Capacity Improved, 1973 – 2001
• U.S. fleet-wide capacity factor: Rose from 60% in 1987 to over 90% in 2001due to advances in management systems and practices and much shorter fuel outages. Upratings could add another 7 GWebefore 2010.
• Commercial orders were cancelled in the early 1980s, in part due to high interest rates, the TMI accident, and recession. Some units were finished in the mid-1980s, but no net capacity was added after 1989.
Nuclear Generation and Capacity Factor, 1973 - 2001
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Gen
erat
ion
(bill
ion
KW
h)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Cap
acity
Fac
tor
53GW
38GW
80GW
99GW
99GW
97GW
22GW
77 GWe Added During Construction BoomCapacity Factor Rises from 60% to 90%
U.S. Nuclear Capacity
3-Mile Island
Interest rate spikes
RelicensingOrders cancelled
FERC Orders (Rule 888, 889) to stimulate competition
NuclearGeneration
Capacity Factor
Deep recession
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley20
NYMEX Natural Gas 1990 – 2005
http://www.ccstrade.com/quotes/historical/monthly.xsp
1990 2000
California Electricity
crisis, 2000
Supply disruption from Gulf
hurricanes, 2005
Winter demand peaks
2005
$10.00
$5.00
1995
Recent natural gas price volatility and level creates openings for nuclear and coal.
?
?
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley21
Real Cost of Power Sources Affected by Capacity Factor
80% 90% 30% 90% 75% 30% 43% 60% 25% 24%$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Coal-IGCC
Nuclear Gas Geo Biomass Wind Hydro Fuel cells Solar-thermal
PV
$ pe
r KW
e
$/KWe Eff. $/KWe Cap Factor
$12,000 $25,000
Fuel costs, weather affect downtime of some sources, which impacts investment.
Source: NETL, EPRI
Example: An installed KW of wind is not the same as in installed KW of baseload coal and nuclear, which run many more hours regardless of weather. So, the cost per KWe must be adjusted for average capacity factor: red bar is “Effective Capacity”, adjusted for downtime.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley22
Energy from Nuclear Fission
• Fission Fuel Energy Density: 8.2 x 1013 J/kg• Fuel Consumed by 1000-MWe Plant: 3.2 kg/day• Waste:
10-3
10-1
10
Perc
ent Y
ield
60 100 140 180Mass Number
Fission Prod. (3.2 kg/day) Activation ProductsFuel Transuranics, longer
half lives (239Pu, 24,000 yr; 237Np, 2x106 yr; etc.)
Structures Moderate half lives, low-level waste (60Co, 5 yr)
Coolants Low (water) to moderate(metals) half lives
90Sr, 30 yr; 137Cs, 30 yr;99Tc, 2x105 yr; etc.
Transmutation Convert from longto short half life
MiningRadon
from milltails if
not capped
Constructionmaterials
neutron 235U
FISSION PRODUCT
neutron
neutron
fission
235U,
fission
activation
FISSION PRODUCT
ACTIVATIONPRODUCT
CHAINREACTION
239Pu, etc.
200 MeV
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley23
Energy from Fossil Fuels
• Fossil Fuel (Coal) Energy Density: 2.9 x 107 J/kg• Fuel Consumed by 1000-MWe Plant: 7,300,000 kg/day• Waste:
1999 Global Coal Consumption: 3 billion tons
Oxygen( O2)
Coal(2 CH)
combustion
CARBON DIOXIDE
160 eVWATER VAPOR5
2
Coal Combustion ProductsNOx High temperature
combustionSOx Sulfur in coal (0.4% - 5%)Ash (5% - 25% of coal mass)CO2 Global warming
MiningLeachates/dust from
mining
Constructionmaterials
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley24
Energy from Nuclear Fusion
• Fusion Fuel Energy Density: 3.4 x 1014 J/kg• Fuel Consumed by 1000-MWe Plant: 0.6 kg/day• Waste:
MiningConstruction
materials
Activation ProductsStructures Moderate half lives, depends
strongly on material selection(low atomic mass better)
Coolants Short half lives (low atomicmass)
Blanket n + 6Li → 4He + Tn + mM → 2n + m-1M
Deuterium Tritiumneutron
fusionactivation
HELIUM
ACTIVATIONPRODUCT
17.6 MeV
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley25
The Unique Power of Nuclear Energy: e = mc2
Only nuclear power harvests energy by converting mass through fission.The other fuel-based energy sources rely instead on combustion.
For 1 Kg of Uranium Fuel
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Uranium in LWR
Natural gas
Crude Oil
Coal (Eastern bituminous)
Coal (Western PRB)
Dry firewood
Kg of Fuel Equivalent
Source: Nuclear Energy Association
Fuel kg of fuelUranium 1Natural gas 14,000Crude Oil 15,000Coal (East) 22,000Coal (West PRB) 33,000Dry firewood 45,000Solar power 70 Sq. KMWind power 4000 turbines
Feeding a 1000 MWe plant requires a full train load a day of Eastern coal (11,000 tons a day) -- or less than 1 ton a day of Uranium fuel.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley26
Secure Uranium Supplies: North America + Australia
Global Production of Uranium
05,000
10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000
1996 2000 2004
Met
ric T
ons
(U)
N.Amer + Aus. Russia+FSU Africa EU ROW
Global Uranium Reserves - 2004 (3.5M Mt)
45%
25%
14%
1%
15%
N.Amer + Aus. Russia+FSU Africa EU ROW
Most of U.S. supply is from secure and stable allies; plus, the “warhead blending down” effort with Russia (from arms control agreements) will provide half of U.S. fuel through 2015.
Reserves at current consumption rates can provide 50-80 years of supply. As prices rise 2-8x as much supply can be brought to market, without turning to “breeder reactors”.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley27
Uranium Prices 1970-2005 (adjusted for inflation)
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_hist-price.html
The recent upturn in Uranium prices is still low compared to oil and gas prices.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley28
Ux U3O8 Prices
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_price.html
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley29
U.S. Nuclear Drivers
• Safe• Proven performance• Cost effective• Affordable• Energy security/
energy independence• Base load generation/
grid stability• Emission-free
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley30
WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY?
• Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder and environmental activist, testified on April 28, 2005 before the House Government Reform Energy and Resources Subcommittee:
• “Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demands”
• “Energy decisions must be based more on science and less on politics and emotion. There is a great deal of scientific evidence showing NP to be environmentally sound and safe choice.” - Moore at the UN Climate Change Conference, Montreal, Dec 5, 2005
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley31
WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY?
• President Bush on April 27, 2005:
• “The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources of energy is nuclear power.
• It’s time for America to start building again. The Nuclear Power 2010 initiative is a seven-year, $1.1 billion effort by our government and industry to start building new nuclear plants by the end of this decade.”
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley32
Previous Barriers Are Now Current Opportunities
Then (1970s-80s)• Greenfield sites face opposition
after TMI (1979); license renewals not under consideration
• High interest rates (12-15%)• Uncertain regulatory approval
with separate construction, operation licensing
• Varying plant designs; no CAD• Uranium fuel prices at 2x-3x
current price levels• Low capacity factors (<60%)• Regulated gas prices• No resolution on SNF disposal• Concern about urban air pollution,
not greenhouse gases
Now – 2010• Next reactors only on current sites in
supportive communities (~18-24), and often where reactors were renewed.
• Interest rates down to ~5-8%• Combined “Construction and
Operating License” (COL) being defined by NRC (not tested in court)
• Pre-certified designs with CAD/CAM and 4-D modeling
• Low U-fuel prices below $10/MWh• Capacity factors >90% since 2001• Highly volatile gas prices >$6/mBtu• Congressional approval for Yucca
Mountain licensing phase (July 2002)
• Global concern about GHG levels
Shifts on a number of key issues improve the prospects for nuclear power:
Deal-breaker issue, now leaning favorable
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley33
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
7444-3/06-33
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley34
DeliveringInvesting in
Insuring Reliable
Jump Start
Transmission
Infrastructure Diversityof Fuels
NuclearNew Plant
Construction R&D
7444-3/06-34
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley35
Nuclear
New PlantConstruction R&D
Loan guaranteesRisk assuranceProduction tax creditPrice-AndersonDecommissioning funds
Next generation nuclear plantNuclear hydrogen productionAdvanced fuel cycle initiativeNuclear engineering programMedical isotopes
7444-3/06-35
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley36
Nuclear Renaissance in the USA
• July 2002, the U.S. Congress passed legislation giving the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to work on establishment of the Yucca Mountain site as the geological repository for long-term disposal of nuclear spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
• In 2004, average production cost of nuclear electricity 1.7 c/kWhr, average capacity factor 90.7%, NE presents 70% of all non-fossil energy production in USA
• The Department of Energy Nuclear Power 2010 Program, support from the Federal Government - “a joint government/industry cost-sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, evaluate the business case for building new NPPs, and demonstrate untested regulatory process.”
• On March 8, 2007, NRC approved its first-ever early site permit (ESP) for Exelon’s Clinton nuclear plant site in central Illinois, and only few weeks later on March 27, 2007, NRC approved ESP for Entergy’s Grand Gulf nuclear plant site in Mississippi.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley37
Nuclear Renaissance in the USA- after 2005
• August 05 - New US Energy Policy Act Passed (encourages new NPP construction -production tax credits, loan guaranties and risk protection, extension of Price-Anderson Act for 20y, funding to built a demonstration HTR at INL to produce electricity and H)
• NuStart Energy Development LLC (8 utilities, two vendors GE and Westinghouse), Entergy, Dominion, Duke, Progress, Areva (French) started working on Combined Construction and Operation Licenses
• As of Oct 2006, NRC have received declaration of intent for 19 combined construction and operating licenses (COL) applications, covering at least 27 new reactors.
• Three designs: 1,000 MWe AP1000 (Westinghouse) - received final NRC design certification in Jan 2006; 1,500 MWe ESBWR (GE), and 1,600 MWe EPR (Areva-Framatome)
• The most recent NRG announcement that it will build two Gen III ABWRs (Hitachi and General Electric) in Texas Construction is slated to start in 2009 and the facilities are expected to begin operations in 2014.
• Possibility of having new reactors operating by 2014• Shortage of qualified manpower
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley38
Economics will be strong influenced by design optimization to increase power while reducing structures/equipment
Gen II
1970’s PWR1000 MWe
Scaled ComparisonLarge light water reactors with passive safety features will be
difficult to beat for commodity electricity generation
Gen III+ - Passive
ESBWR1550 MWe
AP-10001090 MWe
Gen III - Active
EPR1600 MWe
ABWR1380 MWe
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley39
Timeline to New Nuclear Construction
Best-Case Scenario
Early Site Permit
Design CertificationW—AP 1000
Design CertificationGE—ESBWR
Design CertificationAREVA—EPR
Construction and Operating License (COL)
Construction
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
NRC RulemakingPrep.
Technical NRC Rulemaking
Technical NRC Rulemaking
NRC Application
ConstructionSite Prep
Prep.
Technical
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley40
New Plant Licensing ApplicationsAn Estimated Schedule
20122011201020092008200720062005
AP
100
0 P
rogr
am R
evie
wE
SB
WR
Pro
gram
Rev
iew
Uns
peci
-fi
edA
BW
RP
rogr
am
Rev
iew
EP
RP
rogr
amR
evie
wDesign Cert
Design Certification
Constellation—Calvert Cliffs (MD) Hearing
Constellation—Nine Mile Pt (NY) Hearing
ESP
Design Certification
Dominion—North Anna (VA) Hearing
NuStart—Grand Gulf (MS) Hearing
Entergy—River Bend (LA) Hearing
Unannounced Applicant Hearing
Duke—Cherokee (SC) Hearing
Progress Energy—Harris (NC) Hearing
NuStart—Bellefonte (AL) Hearing
HearingSouth Carolina E&G—Summer
Progress Energy—TBD (FL) Hearing
Southern—Vogtle (GA) Hearing
ESPESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Unannounced ApplicantFPL No Site or Vendor Specified
HearingHearing
Part 50 Unannounced—No schedule specified
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley41
Plans for New NPP Construction
• France - 80 % electricity from NPP, will continue with construction of new NPPs, will built the first GEN IV NPP by 2020
• Japan - 30 % electricity from NPPs• Russia - plans 30-40 new NPPs by 2030• China - plans 30 new NPPs by 2020• India - plans to built more NPPs• UK - discussion about going back to NE
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley42
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Impr
ove
Utilize
RecycleEn
cour
age
Reduce
Dependence onForeign Fuels
Environment
LatestTechnologies
Nuclear Fuel
Prosperity Growthand Clean Development
7444-3/06-42
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley43
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - Goals
Goals of GNEP:• Reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels
and encourage economic growth. • Improve environment.• Recycle spent nuclear fuel using new proliferation-resistant
technologies to recover more energy and reduce waste.• Encourage prosperity growth and clean development around the
world.• Utilize the latest technologies to reduce the risk of nuclear
proliferation worldwide.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley44
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - Strategy
• Build a new generation of nuclear power plants in the US.• Develop and demonstrate new recycling technologies that
enhance proliferation resistance for more energy and less waste.• Develop an aggressive plan to manage spent nuclear fuel in the
US, including permanent geological disposal at Yucca Mountain.• Develop and demonstrate Advanced Burner Reactors that
recycle nuclear fuel.• Develop fuel services program to enable nations to acquire
nuclear energy economically while limiting proliferation risks.• Develop small scale reactors designed for the needs of developing
countries.• Improve nuclear safeguards to enhance the proliferation-
resistance and safety of expanded nuclear power.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley45
WHAT DO WE NEED?
• Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle• Reprocessing of spent fuel• Burning of Pu and minor actinides• Production of electricity and hydrogen• New reactor designs (GEN IV)
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley46
United StatesNuclear Energy Production Schedule
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year
Pow
er (G
We
+ H
ydro
gen
Equi
vale
nt)
Advanced Reactor Hydrogen25% of Transportation Fuel by 2050
Gen IV-ARS
Full Re-licensing
Uprates
Current Plants
Gen III+ ALWRs
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley48
GNEP Technology Demonstration Facilities
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley49
GNEP-TD Facilities
• Engineering-Scale Demonstration (ESD)– Demonstration of the UREX+1a process– Source of supply of transuranic elements for Advanced Burner Test Reactor– Suitable for process optimization– Size is to be determined from performance requirements
• Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF)– Demonstration of transmutation fuel fabrication and processing – Modular research laboratory
» Aqueous separations demonstration at up to 25 metric tons per year» Pyrochemical separations demonstration at 1 metric ton per year» Recycle fuel fabrication development and demonstration» Supporting R&D laboratories
• Advanced Burner Test Reactor (ABTR)– Demonstrate performance of transmutation fuel– Size is to be determined from performance requirements
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley50
GENERATION IV ADVANCED NUCLEAR SYSTEMS
• The Generation IV nuclear energy systems that were chosen to be designed and internationally deployed about the year 2030, include:
– The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor System (GFR), – the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor System (LFR), – the Molten Salt Reactor System (MSR), – the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor System (SFR), – Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor System (SCWR), and – the Very-High-Temperature Reactor System (VHTR).
• The motivation for selecting these six reactor designs was to “identify systems that make significant advances toward the technological goals” .
• Also these systems were selected to “provide some overlapping coverage of capabilities, because not all of the systems may ultimately be viable or attain their performance objectives and achieve commercial”.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley52
Overview of Yucca Mountain repository system
The current performance standard requires that maximum doses be below 2 percent of natural background radiation exposure for at least 10,000 years
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley53
Year2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Spe
nt F
uel,
met
ric to
ns
0
100x103
200x103
300x103
Projected Spent Fuel Accumulation without Reprocessing
Capacity based on limited exploration
Legislated capacity
6-Lab Strategy
MIT Study
EIA 1.5% Growth
Constant 100 GWeSecretarialrecommendation
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley54
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
• Reduce the long-term environmental burden of nuclear energy through more efficient disposal of waste materials
• Enhance overall nuclear fuel cycle proliferation resistance via improved technologies for spent fuel management
• Enhance energy security by extracting energy recoverable in spent fuel, avoiding uranium resource limitations
• Continue competitive fuel cycle economics and excellent safety performance of the entire nuclear fuel cycle system
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley55
Why do we need to reprocess?
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley56
Suite of UREX+ Processes
Process
UREX+1
UREX+1a
UREX+2
UREX+3
UREX+4
Prod #1
U
U
U
U
U
Prod #2
Tc
Tc
Tc
Tc
Tc
Prod #3
Cs/Sr
Cs/Sr
Cs/Sr
Cs/Sr
Cs/Sr
Prod #4
TRU+Ln
TRU
Pu+Np
Pu+Np
Pu+Np
Prod #5
FP
All FP
Am+Cm+Ln
Am+Cm
Am
Prod #6
FP
All FP
Cm
Prod #7
All FP
Notes: (1) in all cases, iodine is removed as an off-gas from the dissolution process.(2) processes are designed for the generation of no liquid high-level wastes
U: uranium (removed in order to reduce the mass and volume of high-level waste)Tc: technetium (long-lived fission product, prime contributor to long-term dose at Yucca Mountain)Cs/Sr: cesium and strontium (primary short-term heat generators; repository impact)TRU: transuranic elements (Pu: plutonium, Np: neptunium, Am: americium, Cm: curium)Ln: lanthanide (rare earth) fission products FP: fission products other than cesium, strontium, technetium, iodine, and the lanthanides
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley57
Advanced Burner Test Reactor
• Fast Sodium Cooled Reactors
• Consumption of Pu
• Consumption of long-lived transuranicelements
• Reduction of toxicity and heat production isotopes in repository
• Generation of electricity
• Test reactor will be 1/10 of the real size reactor
• Should be operational by 2014
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley58
GNEP - Development of Small-Scale Reactors
Required features:
• Long-life fuel loads (one fuel load for the entire life of the reactors - no refueling needed).
• Standardized designs in the range of 50 - 350 Mwe• Fully passive safety systems• Proliferation-resistant, remote monitoring• Simple operation that requires minimal in-country nuclear
infrastructure• Intended for developing countries - district heating, desalination,
electricity production for isolated areas.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley59
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
• Established to identify and evaluate new and innovative concepts for producing hydrogen using nuclear reactors.
The energy from one pound of nuclear fuel could provide the hydrogen equivalent of 250,000 gallons of gasoline without any carbon emissions.
6.2
8.9
0123456789
$ (m
illio
ns)
FY 2004 FY 2005
Program Funding
♦ Conduct laboratory testing of candidate hydrogen production processes
♦ Complete design and initiate construction of two hydrogen production pilot plants - high temperature electrolysis plant and thermochemical plant
♦ Begin operation of the initial pilot plants
♦ Begin system optimization and scaling of thermochemical pilot plant
♦ Complete designs and start construction of engineering scale hydrogen production systems
20092007 2008 2010 20112005-6 20172012 2013
♦ Complete process improvements and scaling of thermochemical pilot plant to MW class
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley60
NGNP “Artist’s Conception”
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) is expected to be the first Gen IV plant constructed
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley61ORNL DWG 2001-102R
High temperature reactors can make hydrogen directly through for thermo-chemical processes
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley62
Producing Hydrogen - The Thermo-chemical Cycles
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley63
SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY
• Emission-free, safe and reliable nuclear energy systems
• Closed fuel cycle - with reprocessing of spent fuel:– expand the nuclear fuel supply into future centuries by
recycling spent fuel to recover its energy content– Allow geologic repositories to accept the spent fuel of many
more plant-years of NP operation through substantial reduction in the amount of spent fuel, and their decay heat
• Proliferation resistant fuel cycles• Economical and affordable Nuclear Energy
– New simplified modular designs– Production of electricity, Hydrogen, water desalination,
district heating
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley64
WHAT DO WE NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY?
New NPP construction with current designs (AP 1000 and ESBWR) to provide base-load emission-free energy at low cost
• Use of NE for efficient production of electricity, heat and hydrogen
• Opening of one permanent repository for retrievable spent fuel storage (spent fuel could be retrieved for reprocessing in the future)
• Development of Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle with reprocessing of spent fuel, and burning of Pu and minor actinides (we do not need to start reprocessing now, until we develop more efficient reprocessing system)
• Long-term: new reactor designs for optimal fuel cycle producing minimum waste