FOR A FUTURE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. International Thorium Energy Conference 2015

Transcription

1 FOR A FUTURE WE CAN BELIEVE IN International Thorium Energy Conference 2015 ( )

2 LFTR: In search of the Ideal Pathway to Thorium Utilization Development Program Update. Current Status Benjamin Soon Chief Business Development Officer 13 Oct 2015

3 OUR MISSION Our Passion To supply the world with energy, water and fuel that is: ** * Safe Reliable $ CO2 Efficient Sustainable Achieved through the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

4 Our advanced society needs reliable and affordable energy Energy is the Master Commodity

5 Fossil fuels have been our primary energy source and they have served us well. Limited Resource Carbon Emissions Unstable Prices of Energy

6 The energies of the nucleus are Millions of times greater than chemical energy.

7 Public Perception

8 Traditional Nuclear Tech is not ideal Current Technology Limitations Probabilistic Safety Use of very rare fuel material Not sustainable A legacy of the cold war.

9 What is the problem? Limited Resources

10 A lifetime of energy The fuel to power the world Thorium is effectively an unlimited resource

11 What is the most ideal?elegant solution?

12 What is desirable? What is possible?

13 Safety Efficiency Reactor Core Economy Sustainability Coolant Heat Exchange System Power Conversion System Working Fluid Electricity Waste heat

14 Safety Deterministic vs Probabilistic Safety Efficiency Elimination of fuel/core damage risk Economy Elimination of dispersion mechanisms Sustainability Minimization of source terms

15 Safety Efficiency Economy Sustainability High fuel utilization High thermal conversion efficiency High volumetric heat capacity - coolant Minimal mechanical complexity Control simplicity

16 Safety Operational simplicity Efficiency Reduce fuel costs Economy Modular fabrication and construction (Standardization) Sustainability System simplicity

17 Low waste volume Safety Minimize/eliminate TRU production Efficiency Fuel efficiency Economy Supply chain sustainability (incl. political) Sustainability Low overall environment impact (incl. resource extract & fabrication)

18 Inherent > Engineered vs

19 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Fuel material Burner vs Breeder Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type 5 Key design choices that differentiate nuclear reactors

20 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Crustal Abundance Fuel material Burner vs Breeder Thorium Natural Thorium(232Th) Thermal vs Fast Plutonium Natural Uranium (238U) Solid vs Liquid fuel Uranium Enriched 235U Coolant type Base Fuel Material

21 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Burner vs Breeder Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type Thorium is desirable due to resource abundance. The Thorium Fuel Cycle has several unique properties that will impact later design choices.

22 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Burner vs Breeder Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type Only Breeders offer a chance for truly sustainable nuclear energy

23 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Fast Spectrum Burner vs Breeder Good breeding capability for all fuels Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type No moderator Difficult to control Needs high fissile inventory Very costly to build and operate

24 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Fast Spectrum Thermal Spectrum Burner vs Breeder Easier Good breeding to controlcapability for all fuels Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type Better No moderator safety characteristics Lower Difficultfissile to control inventory Needs moderator high fissile inventory Cannot Very costly breed to build usingand U oroperate Pu Cycle

25 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Solid Fuel Form Burner vs Breeder Basis for current technology Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type Familiar process Requires expensive fabrication Extremely inefficient Primary safety vulnerability

26 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Solid LiquidFuel FuelForm Form Burner vs Breeder Basis Recognised for current as superior technology approach Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type Familiar No fuel fabrication process Requires 90%+ fuelexpensive utilizationfabrication Extremely Self Homogenization inefficient Primary Eliminates safety primary vulnerability vulnerability

27 Thermally Insular Environment Thermally Rejective Environment (Retains Thermal Energy) (Dissipates Thermal Energy) Thermal Energy (heat) Reactor Core Fuel Fuel Fuel Damage Thermal Barrier Damage Containment breach Potential radiological contaminant escape Fuel Fuel Fuel Temperature increases due to decay heating Solid fuel elements overheat and melt Nuclear meltdown condition Damage to containment Hydrogen formation and explosion risk Risk of radiological escape and contamination Power Conversion System Coolant Cooling capacity External Environment Coolant

28 Thermally Insular Environment Thermally Rejective Environment (Retains Thermal Energy) (Dissipates Thermal Energy) Coolant + Fuel Freeze plug melts Power Conversion System Secondary Coolant LFTR Drain Tank External Environment Coolant +Fuel Thermal Barrier Reactor Core Primary Heat Exchanger Temperature increases due to decay heating Drain Plug melts All fuel drains to Drain Tank Natural passive heat rejection No risk of damage to system No risk of explosions No risk of radiological escape and contamination Secondary Coolant

29 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Burner vs Breeder Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Coolant type

30 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Molten Fluoride Salts Extremely Stable V. Large liquid temp. range (~1000oC) Impervious to radiation damage Freezes at ~400oC Can be used as fuel carrier

31 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Burner vs Breeder Thermal vs Fast Solid vs Liquid fuel Molten Salt coolant The properties of molten fluoride salts make them ideal candidates for the transport of thermal energy in a nuclear reactor core.

32 UNDERSTANDING NUCLEAR CONCEPTS Thorium Breeder Thermal a Liquid Thorium fuel Thermal spectrum Molten Salt Breeder reactor Liquid Molten Salt

33 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY MSRs were developed in the s Alvin Weinberg Harold Urey Eugene Wigner Enrico Fermi Glenn Seaborg

34 1942 Team led by Enrico Fermi conceives the liquid fuelled reactor 1944 World s first liquid fuel nuclear reactor achieves criticality (AHR) 1956 HTRE HTRE-2 PWAR World s first molten salt reactor (ARE) HTRE Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Begins The MSR s cancellation was entirely political There was no technical justification 1955 ARE NEPA 1976 Work on MSRs ceases and will not resume for 4 decades 1960 ART MSRE Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program Molten Salt Reactor Program AHR ARE ART HTRE MSRE MSRP NEPA PWAR Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Aircraft Reactor Experiment Aircraft Reactor Test Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Molten Salt Reactor Program Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Reactor Flibe Energy founded to continue the work in the form of LFTR MSRP 2011

35 The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor A Most Elegant Solution $ ** * Safe Reliable Efficient CO2 Sustainable

36 Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors The turbine drives a generator creating electricity Hot fuel salt Hot coolant salt Hot gas Turbine Salt / Gas Heat Exchanger Salt / Salt Heat Exchanger Clean Water Seawater Compressor Warm coolant salt Warm fuel salt Reactor containment boundary Warm gas Warm gas The gas is cooled and the waste heat is used to desalinate seawater

37 Potential PCS Advantages

38 Modular Design

39 Physical Demonstration of Freeze Plug System

40 LFTR Comparison with Traditional Nuclear Thermally Insular Environment Thermally Rejective Environment (Retains Thermal Energy) (Dissipates Thermal Energy) Thermal Energy (heat) Reactor Core Fuel Fuel Fuel Thermal Barrier Fuel Fuel Fuel Immobile Solid Fuel Elements Power Conversion System Coolant Cooling capacity External Environment Coolant

41 LFTR Comparison with Traditional Nuclear Thermally Insular Environment Thermally Rejective Environment (Retains Thermal Energy) (Dissipates Thermal Energy) Thermal Energy (heat) Reactor Core Fuel Fuel Fuel Damage Thermal Barrier Damage Containment breach Potential radiological contaminant escape Fuel Fuel Fuel Temperature increases due to decay heating Solid fuel elements overheat and melt Nuclear meltdown condition Damage to containment Hydrogen formation and explosion risk Risk of radiological escape and contamination Power Conversion System Coolant Cooling capacity External Environment Coolant

42 LFTR Comparison with Traditional Nuclear Thermally Insular Environment Thermally Rejective Environment (Retains Thermal Energy) Coolant + Fuel Freeze Plug Power Conversion System Secondary Coolant LFTR Drain Tank External Environment Coolant +Fuel Thermal Barrier Reactor Core Secondary Coolant Primary Heat Exchanger Homogenized Liquid Fuel + Coolant (Dissipates Thermal Energy)

43 LFTR Comparison with Traditional Nuclear Thermally Insular Environment Thermally Rejective Environment (Retains Thermal Energy) Coolant + Fuel Freeze plug melts Power Conversion System Secondary Coolant LFTR Drain Tank External Environment Coolant +Fuel Thermal Barrier Reactor Core Secondary Coolant Primary Heat Exchanger Temperature increases due to decay heating Drain Plug melts All fuel drains to Drain Tank Natural passive heat rejection No risk of damage to system No risk of explosions No risk of radiological escape and contamination (Dissipates Thermal Energy)

44 20,000 hours of successful operation There is no doubt about the technical and practical viability of the concept

45 LFTR is the result of MSRE s legacy

46 Thorium in an LFTR Th-232 Chemical separator Fertile Th-232 blanket Fissile U-233 core Chemical separator n n New U-233 fuel Fission products out Heat

47 Concerns with extensive reprocessing Normal U-233 evolution Proliferation Resistant Ultra Low Waste U-232 Contamination Unavoidable U-232 formation pathways prior to separation step Via natural Pa-231 formation Minimization of HLW Technical Zero Threshold With Ionium spiking, the formation of U-232 is assured and regulatable Preferential n absorption FP Immobilization Chemically identical to 232Th and impossible to fully separate Chemically identical to 233Pa and impossible to fully separate

48 original material trans uranic Np 237 U 238 Pu 239 U 235 U 236 Np 237 trans uranic 90% fission U 234 U % fission U 233 trans uranic original material, 85% fission Th 232 original material Thorium Fuel Cycle Ultra Low Waste Uranium Fuel Cycle Proliferation Resistant U 235 Minimization of HLW Theoretical Maximum Transuranic Production 1.5% Technical Zero Threshold FP Immobilization 0.83 Tonnes Valuable Isotopes 1000MWe 1 Tonne Natural Thorium Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor 0.17 Tonnes Waste (Storage <300 years)

49 Proliferation Resistant Ultra Low Waste Invulnerable to Fuel Melt accidents No explosive dispersion mechanisms Minimization of HLW Fuel Immobilization in accident scenario Technical Zero Threshold FP Immobilization Minimal radiological propagation risk

50 LFTR Commercial Feasibility Study LFTR Technology Development Plan LFTR Gap Identification, Analysis and Mitigation Work Done & Achievements LFTR Initial Engineering and Design Specification Integral Core System Concept Chemical Processing & Recycling System Off-Gas Handling System Modular Manufacturing and Deployment Concept LFTR Technology Lead-In Study

51 Strategic Development Plan Begin Project Irradiation Product Experiment Extraction Test (10MWt) Demonstrator (100MWt) Pilot Plant (1000MWt) Stage 2 Deploy Stage 1 Deploy Stage 3 Deploy Commercial Self-Sufficiency Stage I Stage II Stage III

52 Conceptual Layout (Single Unit) sco2 PCS Chemical Recycler S/G HX PHX & Gas Step Reactor Core Offgas System Drain Tank 250MW Type A

53 LFTR Block Diagram (LFTR-250A) Design Philosophy Two-Fluid Design Modular Systems Single Hot-Zone Super-critical CO2 PCS Air or Water External Heat Rejection system

54 Modular Concept LFTR Integral Core Systems CRU Core Chemical Recycler Unit CRU OPU OPU Off-gas Processing Unit

55 Thorium will change the world. LFTRs offer an optimized pathway for its utilization.

56 Only those who dare greatly can ever achieve greatly

57 FOR A FUTURE WE CAN BELIEVE IN Thank You!