Small Modular Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era Daniel Ingersoll Oak Ridge National Laboratory...
-
Upload
alisha-fullilove -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of Small Modular Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era Daniel Ingersoll Oak Ridge National Laboratory...
Small Modular Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era
Daniel IngersollOak Ridge National [email protected]
November 17, 2011ET Section of AIChE
2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Background
3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
The U.S. began developing small nuclear reactors for military applications
USS Nautilus1954-80
Nuclear Test Aircraft1955-57
Camp Century1960-62
4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Navy’s experience spawned nuclear propulsion for merchant shipping
N.S. Savannah1961-71
N.S. Otto Hahn 1968-79
5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
The first commercial power plants were small prototypes
Vallicetos(5 MWe)1957
Dresden 1(200 MWe)
1960
Shippingport(60 MWe)1957
6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Commercial nuclear power plants escalated rapidly in size during the 70s
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Date of Initial Operation
Ele
ctric
al O
utpu
t (M
We)
2000
U.S. plant construction during the first nuclear era
7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Weinberg study* (1985) explored merits of smaller, simpler, safer reactors
Main findings:
– Large light-water reactors pose very low risk to the public but high risk to the investor
– Large reactors are difficult to operate: complex and finicky
– Small inherently safe (highly forgiving) designs are possible if they can be made economically
– Two designs were especially promising:• The Process Inherent Ultimately Safe (PIUS) reactor
• The Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR)
*A. M. Weinberg, et al, The Second Nuclear Era, Praeger Publishers, 1985
Motivated by the dismal performance of the large plants (at that time)
8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Process Inherent Ultimate Safety (PIUS) Safe Integral Reactor (SIR)
Integral LWR designs evolved in the 80s to enhance plant robustness
9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Non-LWR SMR designs also developed during the 80s
Containment Vessel
Reactor Vessel
CORE
Grade
ELEVATION
Air Inlet (8)
Air Outlet
Stack
RVACS Flow Paths
Containment
InletPlenum
Normal Flow Path
Overflow Path
Collector Cylinder
Reactor Silo
InletPlenum
Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module (PRISM)
Modular High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (MHTGR)
10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Current Interests
11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Interest in SMRs is reemerging
Enabled by excellent performance of existing fleet of large nuclear plants
Motivated by carbon emission goals, energy security concerns and economic challenges
• Key Benefits– Enhanced safety and robustness from simplified designs– Enhanced security from below-grade siting– Reduced capital cost—a major barrier for many utilities– Competitive power costs due to factory fabrication and
modularization/standardization– Ability to add new electrical capacity incrementally to match
power demand and growth rate– Domestic supply chain—no large forging bottlenecks– Adaptable to a broader range of energy needs– More flexible siting (access, water impacts, seismic, etc.)
12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Interest in SMRs is reemerging
Enabled by excellent performance of existing fleet of large nuclear plants
Motivated by carbon emission goals, energy security concerns and economic challenges
• Key Benefits– Enhanced safety and robustness from simplified designs– Enhanced security from below-grade siting– Reduced capital cost—a major barrier for many utilities– Competitive power costs due to factory fabrication and
modularization/standardization– Ability to add new electrical capacity incrementally to match
power demand and growth rate– Domestic supply chain—no large forging bottlenecks– Adaptable to a broader range of energy needs– More flexible siting (access, water impacts, seismic, etc.)
13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Interest in SMRs is reemerging
Enabled by excellent performance of existing fleet of large nuclear plants
Motivated by carbon emission goals, energy security concerns and economic challenges
• Key Benefits– Enhanced safety and robustness from simplified designs– Enhanced security from below-grade siting– Reduced capital cost—a major barrier for many utilities– Competitive power costs due to factory fabrication and
modularization/standardization– Ability to add new electrical capacity incrementally to match
power demand and growth rate– Domestic supply chain—no large forging bottlenecks– Adaptable to a broader range of energy needs– More flexible siting (access, water impacts, seismic, etc.)
14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Utility interests in SMRs
• Affordability– Smaller up-front cost– Better financing options
• Load demand– Better match to power needs– Incremental capacity for regions
with low growth rate– Allows shorter range planning
• Site selection– Lower land and water usage – Replacement of older coal plants– Potentially more robust designs
• Grid stability– Closer match to traditional power generators– Smaller fraction of total grid capacity– Potential to offset non-dispatchable renewables
Plants >50 yr old have capacitiesLess than 300 MWe
U.S. Coal Plants
15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Government interests in SMRs
• Carbon Emission− Reduce U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions 17% by 2020…83% by 2050− E.O. 13514: Reduce federal GHG
emissions 28% by 2020
• Defense Mission Surety− Studying SMR deployment at DOD
domestic facilities− Address grid vulnerabilities and fuel
supply needs
• Energy and Economic Security− Pursue energy security through a diversified energy portfolio− Improve the economy through innovation and technology
leadership
2005 U.S. CO2 Emissions (Tg)
16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Safety Considerations
17 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
1200 MWePWR
125 MWemPower
iPWR SMR designs share a common set of design principles to enhance plant safety and robustness
– Elimination of ex-vessel primary piping– Smaller decay heat per unit– More effective decay heat removal– Increased water inventory ratio in the
primary reactor vessel– Increased pressurizer volume ratio– Vessel and component layouts that
facilitate natural convection cooling of the core and vessel
– Below-grade construction of the reactor vessel and spent fuel storage pool
– Enhanced resistance to seismic events
Design features that enhance plant safety for integral LWRs
18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Integral Design: Simple and Robust
Loop-typePrimary System
Core
Pressurizer
ControlRodDrive
SteamGenerator
Pump
IntegralPrimary System
Core
Pressurizer
Pump
SteamGenerator
ControlRodDrive
19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Features of advanced SMRs may further enhance safety
Advanced designs such as gas, metal and molten salt-cooled technologies may offer features that provide additional safety margin, including:
– Low pressure coolants to reduce steamenergetics during loss of forced circulation accidents
– More robust fuel forms that survive extreme temperatures
– Higher burnup fuels that reduce the volume of discharged fuel stored on-site
– Advanced cladding and structural materials that survive extreme temperature conditions
– Strong negative reactivity coefficients toassure safe shutdown
TRISO fuel particle
20 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
• While SMRs offer the potential for enhanced safety and resilience against upset, this must be proven
• Fukushima experience emphasizes the need to fully understand the safety features
– Common-cause upset modes in multi-module plants
– Seismic response of below-grade construction
– Reliability of passive safety systems
– Quantification and demonstration of plant resilience
Fukushima will influence SMR R&D priorities
Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4
21 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Economic Issues
22 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
SMR economics are promising but unproven• Total project cost
– Lower sticker price
– Improved financing options and cost
– Is a go/no-go decision for some customers
• Cost of electricity
– Economy-of-scale works against smaller plants but can be mitigated by other economic factors
• Accelerated learning, shared infrastructure, design simplification, factory replication
• Investment risk
– Maximum cash outlay is lower and more predictable
– Maximum cash outlay can be lower even for the same total generating capacity
23 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Simplified SMR construction should reduce cost and schedule
Stick-builtlarge reactor
Factory fabricated small reactor
24 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Designs and Challenges
25 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
mPower (B&W)125 MWe
NuScale (NuScale)45 MWe
SMR (Westinghouse)225 MWe
U.S. LWR-based SMR designs for electricity generation
HI-SMUR (Holtec)140 MWe
26 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Demonstrating the “M” in “SMR” is a key to economic viability
12-Module (540 MWe)NuScale Plant
4-Module (500 MWe)mPower Plant
27 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Gas-cooled reactor designs can provide high-temperature process heat
MHR (General Atomics) PBMR (Westinghouse) ANTARES (Areva)280 MWe 250 MWe 275 MWe
28 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Fast spectrum reactor designs can provide improved fuel cycles
PRISM (General Electric) EM2 (General Atomics)300 MWe 100 MWe
HPM (Hyperion)25 MWe
29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
SMR Deployment Challenges
• Technical challenges:
– All designs have some degree of innovation in components, systems, and engineering
– Longer-term systems propose new materials and fuels
– New sensors, instrumentation and controls development are critical to reducing capital and operational costs
• Institutional challenges:
– Too many competing designs
– Mindset for large, centralized plants
– Traditional focus of regulator on large LWR plants
– Fear of first-of-a-kind
– “Slash and burn” political environment
30 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Prospects for local SMR
31 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Today: ORNL’s carbon footprint is driven by purchased electricity
DOE GHG emissions, 2008: 4,600,000 metric tons
ORNL GHG emissions, 2008CO2 equivalent
(metric tons)
Scope 1: Direct emissions 53,200
Scope 2: Indirect emissionsfrom electricity production 226,000
Scope 3: Other indirect emissions 52,300
Total 331,500
Electricity: Conventional facilities, 30%
Electricity: Mission facil-ities, 38%
Scope 1: Di-rect emis-
sions, 16%
Scope 3: Other indirect
emissions, 16%
32 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
ORNL’s mission-critical research facilities drive GHG emissions
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20200
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Electricity: Mission-critical facili-tiesElectricity: Conventional facilitiesScope 1 emissionsScope 3 emissions
Me
tric
to
n C
O2
eq
uiv
ale
nt
33 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge SMR projects enables ORNL to meet GHG goals
FY08 FY20with no change
in energy mix
FY20 with SMR
331,500
636,500 −7,000 −40,000−26,000
−550,000
GHG
em
issi
ons,
met
ric to
ns C
O2e
2020 goal:
247,000
Scope 3reduction Scope 1
reduction Scope 2 demandreduction
SMREven aggressive efficiency
improvements and emissionreductions are not sufficient
34 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
DOE’s Oak Ridge Reservationis an attractive demonstration site
• TVA site adjacent to DOE facilities
• Support to both ORNL and Y-12
• Wealth of technical expertise
• Supportive community
Jo Willreplace
Clinch River Site
35 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
TVA is pursuing the mPower SMR
Generation mPower
– 125-150 MWe integral PWR
– Utilizes standard UO2 LWR fuel
– 4-5 year refueling interval
– Reactor vessel: 3.6 m diameter and 22 m tall
– TVA signed Letter of Intent on June 16, 2011 to build up to 6 mPower modules at the Clinch River Site in Oak Ridge, TN
– TVA expects to submit Construction Permit application in 2012
– B&W will follow with a Design Certification application in 2013
Pressurizer
Steam Generator
Reactor Coolant Pumps
Control Rod Drive Mechanisms
Core
36 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Notional implementation scheduleCY CY CY CY CY CY CY CY CY CY CY
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Prepare Design Certification Application
Clinch River Project – 10CFR50 Process
PSAR and Complete DCA
Submit CPA
NRC CPA Review
CP FSER CP Issuance
PSARER
Prepare Operating License Application
Submit OL Application
NRC Review Operating License Applic.
FSER Issued
Pre-Op Testing
OL IssuanceFuel Load
Start-up Testing
Submit DCA
NRC DCA Review
DCA Scope Freeze
DC Rule
COL Issuance
10CFR52 COLA Preparation NRC COLA Review
Final DC Rulemaking
Construction/ITAAC
ASER Issued
COLA Submittal
LWA
1st Unit
Prepare CPA
mPower DCD and COLA – 10CFR52 Process
37 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Bottom Line
• SMRs can extend clean and abundant nuclear power to a wider range of energy demands
• Several technical and institutional challenges must be solved and demonstrated
• Oak Ridge may again be a pioneer in nuclear energy
“If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications.”
- Steven Chu, Wall Street Journal, 3/23/10