The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified - EPRImydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/...The...
Transcript of The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified - EPRImydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/...The...
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified
Nuclear Power Committee August 27, 2009
Albert Machiels Senior Technical Executive
2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Topics
• The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified• Light-Water Reactor (LWR) Power Block
– Used (Spent) Fuel Characteristics• Managed Storage
– Recycling in LWRs• Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) Power Block
– Recycling in FBRs– International Developments
• Geologic Disposal– A Solution and a Choice
• EPRI-sponsored Work• Potential EPRI Role/R&D Gaps
3© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
LWR Power Block
Managed Storage
Geologic Repository
FBR Power Block
4© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
LWR Power Block: U-235 (0.711% of Unat ) Energy
UsedUOX Storage
(Wet)
5© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Used LWR Fuel – Waste or Resource?
TRU
6© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Managed Storage
UsedUOX Storage
(Dry/Wet)
UsedUOX Storage(& UrepOX)(Dry/Wet)
URep
Used MOXStorage(Wet)
UOX Reprocessing
FPs & MAs(Glass)
UdeplMOX Fab
LWR-MOX
Pu
LLW/TRUDisposal
7© 2009 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
TotalActinidesPFPuAmCmSr+YCs+Ba
Source: EDF (July 2009)
8© 2009 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
TotalActinidesPFPuAmCmSr+YCs+Ba
Source: EDF (July 2009)
9© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
HLWRepository
Closing the Fuel Cycle
10© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
LWR Power Block
Managed Storage
Geologic Repository
FBR Power Block
CLOSED FUEL
CYCLE
11© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
International Developments
• Russian Federation– BN-600 [1470 MWth]: operating since April 1980– BN-800: in construction with planned start-up in 2016
• China– China Experimental Reactor (CEFR) [65 MWth]: first criticality planned
for September 2009• Japan
– Monju reactor: shutdown since 1995 following sodium leak– Expected to re-start in February 2010
• India– 500-MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR): under construction at
Kalpakkam• France:
– Two designs: Helium-cooled fast reactor and Sodium fast reactor– Progress report due this Fall ’09– Preliminary design due in 2012– Detailed design due in 2015– Operating prototype in 2020
12© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Geologic Repository – A Solution and a Choice
• Geologic disposal is the ultimate solution for HLW– Relatively small volumes of wastes– Adequate protection of public and environment– Societal and political acceptance is the limiting factor
• Main solution elements: Who? How? When? Where? What?
• When? Long interim storage times are required before disposal
• Where? Non-technical factors dominate– Main technical factor: document the safety case
• What? Based on RD&D progress related to:– Fast reactors– Separation and partitioning
13© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI-sponsored Work
• Early 1990s“…a process-before-disposal policy for all the spent fuel from the light water reactors (LWRs) would accrue only modest benefits ... would incur a large cost penalty…”“However, plutonium from spent LWR fuel is projected to be substantially more economic … when liquid metal reactor (LMR) deployment becomes economically justified … to protect the nation from diminishing energy resources.”“Development tasks towards defining and developing the most cost-effective LMR and associated fuel cycle remain very important.”
14© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI-sponsored Work (continued)
• 2006 to Present– Re-validated the conclusions reached in early 1990’s– Cooperation with EDF– Economic analyses using OECD/NEA software– Readiness of Existing and New U.S. Reactors for
Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel– Recycling of Reprocessed Uranium– Collaboration with INL on a “A Strategy for Nuclear
Energy Research & Development”– MIT Study on “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”
• Funding support from EPRI Technology Innovation
15© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
LWR Power Block
Managed Storage
Geologic Repository
FBR Power Block
16© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Potential Models for EPRI Role
• EPRI’s Performance Assessment of Yucca Mountain Project– Pioneered the use of Total System Performance Assessments
(TSPA)– Input to EPA Standard
• EDF R&D– Integration with an operational perspective
• Maintain technical capability to provide the industry with informed options– Technology assessments
• R&D Gaps– Fuel cycle systems dynamic modeling– Risk assessment to compare fuel cycle options
17© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
18© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Selection of EPRI Reports
• 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)
19© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
From NP-7261, “An Evaluation of the Concept of Transuranic Burning Using Liquid Metal Reactors” (1991)
• “The evaluation concludes that adoption of a process- before-disposal policy for all the spent fuel from the light water reactors (LWRs) would accrue only modest benefits with respect to the accumulation of uranium mill tailings, the national inventory of transuranics, and the licensing of a geologic repository. It is likely that this process-before- disposal policy would incur a large cost penalty, encounter major institutional difficulties, multiply licensing hurdles, and amplify political and public opposition to the overall nuclear power program.
• “Transuranic burning would not alleviate the need for a HLW disposal facility.
• “Adoption of a process-before-disposal policy for the current spent fuel would not be economic.”
20© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Industry Statements on SNF Recycling (1995)
• “The promise of the ALMR is a long-term one: another safe and economic baseload electricity option, the promise of extracting full energy value from nuclear fuel (which must be done when world nuclear fuel prices support this step, if we are to remain competitive with other industrialized nations in terms of energy supply costs)…
• “The energy utilization benefits of the ALMR will be realized when uranium becomes more expensive. Current reserves are large, identified deposits for future mining are significant, and both U.S. and Russia are embarked on programs to blend highly enriched uranium (HEU) from excess weapons stockpiles with natural or depleted uranium to make more reactor grade fuel.
• “LWR fuel is safe for geologic disposal, from both a public health and safety standpoint and from a non-proliferation policy standpoint. … criteria for geologic repositories both in the U.S. and elsewhere include “retrievability” (which also has other safety and economic benefits associated with continued ability to inspect and/or reposition fuel canisters). Further, recent direction in the U.S. HLW program that emphasize an “integrated spent fuel management system,” and include greater emphasis on interim storage, dovetail much better with a rational and deliberate process of reconsidering U.S. fuel cycle policy implementation, at a time when fuel supply and economic trends show this to be a prudent course of action.”
“The U.S. Advanced Reactor Development Program: A Report by The U.S. Electric Utility Industry’s Advanced Reactor Corporation” Aug. 1995
21© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
National Academy of Sciences (1996)
• There is no evidence that application of advanced S&T (Separations and Transmutation) holds sufficient merit for the United States to delay the development of the first nuclear waste repository to contain commercial fuel. Even with an S&T system, a geologic repository would still be needed
• Application of S&T does not hold sufficient merit to abandon the once-through nuclear fuel cycle
• While the need for a second repository could be delayed by S&T, there are several other ways, both legislative and technical, to increase the capacity of the first repository by a comparable amountFrom “Nuclear Wastes – Technologies for Separations and Transmutation,” pp. 101-102
22© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI’s Findings (EPRI Report 1013442) (2006)
• Near-term US adoption of spent fuel processing would incur a cost penalty. To reap the major benefit possible to uranium conservation and/or the major reduction possible to required repository capacity, processing would have to be accompanied by deployment of fast reactor plants.
• The nation needs a broad consensus on which processing/fast-reactor technology combination is the best choice to take through as far as a demonstration. Developing and demonstrating an acceptable, affordable and reliable fast reactor appears likely to control the overall schedule and should receive appropriate development program emphasis.
• Whether the US adopts processing or not, if an expansion of US nuclear power is to be part of a global expansion, substantially improved international agreements and safeguards provisions will be necessary.
• Decisions on a possible second repository will not really be necessary until at least mid-century, so there are decades available to see whether an escalating uranium ore price will create an incentive to adopt processing and/or whether engineering development can reduce the costs of the processing scenario. All the existing spent fuel will still, of course, be accessible for processing should that be the decision.
23© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Cooperation with EDF R&D – Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Tools
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1965 1980 1995 2010 2025 2040 2055 2070 2085 2100 2115 2130 2145
Year
Gen. II PWR Gen. III PWR CAPRA
Existing FleetALWRs
Fast Burner Reactors
“Burner” Scenario: Assume constant 100 GWe
• After 55 years of operation, existing reactors are first replaced by ALWRs
• When capacity of ALWRs reaches 65 GWe, existing reactors are then replaced by fast burners reactors with a conversion ratio of 0.5 (or CR = 0.5)
Once-through
“Burner” Scenario
From ~2040 on:
• “Once-through” fuel cycle continues build-up of spent fuel ( repository)
• “Burner” scenario results in a stabilization of the TRU inventory that is continuously recycled
24© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Time Required to Achieve TRU Inventory Reductions
8 23 70211
632
1334
0
200400
600
800
10001200
1400
1600
10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95%
TRU Inventory Reduction (%)
Dep
loym
ent P
erio
d to
Ach
ieve
In
vent
ory
Red
cutio
n (y
ears
)