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, Berkeley16

WORLD VIEW

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, Berkeley47

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, Berkeley51

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