The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified

Transcription

1 The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified Nuclear Power Committee August 27, 2009 Albert Machiels Senior Technical Executive

2 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 2

3 LWR Power Block Managed Storage Geologic Repository FBR Power Block 3

4 LWR Power Block: U-235 (0.711% of U nat ) Energy Used UOX Storage (Wet) 4

5 Used LWR Fuel Waste or Resource? TRU 5

6 Managed Storage U Rep LLW/TRU Disposal Used UOX Used Storage UOX (& UStorage rep OX) (Dry/Wet) FPs & MAs (Glass) UOX Reprocessing Pu MOX Fab LWR-MOX Used MOX Storage (Wet) U depl 6

7 Decay Heat from Used UOX Assemblies Decay Heat of Spent UOX (W/tHM) as a function of time after irradiation Total Actinides PF Pu Am Cm Sr+Y Cs+Ba Source: EDF (July 2009) 7

8 Decay Heat from Used MOX Assemblies Decay Heat of Spent MOX (W/tHM) as a function of time after irradiation Total Actinides PF Pu Am Cm Sr+Y Cs+Ba Source: EDF (July 2009) 8

9 Closing the Fuel Cycle HLW Repository 9

10 LWR Power Block Managed Storage CLOSED FUEL CYCLE Geologic Repository FBR Power Block 10

11 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

12 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 12

13 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. 13

14 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 14

15 LWR Power Block Managed Storage Geologic Repository FBR Power Block 15

16 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 16

17 Together Shaping the Future of Electricity 17

18 A Selection of EPRI Reports NP-7261 An Evaluation of the Concept of Transuranic Burning Using Liquid Metal Reactors (March 1991) TR Transuranic Burning Issues Related to a Second Geologic Repository (July 1992) TR A Review of the Economic Potential of Plutonium in Spent Nuclear Fuel (February 1996) An Updated Perspective on the US Nuclear Fuel Cycle (June 2006) Program on Technology Innovation: Advanced Fuel Cycles Impact on High-Level Waste Disposal (December 2007) An Economic Analysis of Select Fuel Cycles Using the Steady-state Analysis Model for Advanced Fuel Cycle Schemes (SMAFS) (December 2007) 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) A Strategy for Nuclear Energy Research & Development (January 2009) Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Comparison Between Once-Through and Plutonium Single-Recycling in Pressurized Water Reactors (February 2009) Program on Technology Innovation: Readiness of Existing and New U.S. Reactors for Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel (May 2009) 18

19 From NP-7261, An Evaluation of the Concept of Transuranic Burning Using Liquid Metal Reactors (1991) The evaluation concludes that adoption of a processbefore-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-beforedisposal 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. 19

20 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

21 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 amount From Nuclear Wastes Technologies for Separations and Transmutation, pp

22 EPRI s Findings (EPRI Report ) (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. 22

23 Cooperation with EDF R&D Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Tools Gen. II PWR Gen. III PWR CAPRA Fast Burner Reactors ALWRs Existing Fleet 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 Year Burner Scenario: Assume constant 100 GWe Once-through After 55 years of operation, existing reactors are first replaced by ALWRs Burner Scenario 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) 23

24 Time Required to Achieve TRU Inventory Reductions Deployment Period to Achieve Inventory Redcution (years) % 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% TRU Inventory Reduction (%) 24