The FutureS of Nuclear Energy Adrien Bidaud, Sylvain David, Olivier Méplan Groupe Physique des Réacteurs Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et Corpusculaire IN2P3/CNRS Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Physique de Grenoble Institut National Polytechnique Grenoble bidaud@lpsc.in2p3.fr A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 1
Paradoxes : A young «old» technology Are the uranium reserves already exhausted? Uranium resources When would breeders be needed? How fast can nuclear energy grow? Waste disposal : can we do something with the Montains of Nuclear Wastes lasting Million of years? What volumes and time period are we talking about? Do we need Undergroud repository? GEN IV ADS Is Civil use of Nuclear Energy linked to nuclear bomb proliferation? A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 2
A nuclear Restart? 1979 TMI (USA) Accident Level 5 1985 1986 Oil Tchernobyl Barrel = 5$ Accident Level 7 1997 2000 SuperPhénix Phénix stop refurbishment Current situation of nuclear Power is very diverse, in particular in Europe World tendance == Oil peak + Climate change = > 400 GWe (*2) proposed for 2030! And after?? A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 3
Potential of Generation II and III? Uranium consumption in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) U fissioned Enriched ( 238 U ~ 96%, 235 U ~ 4%) Natural ( 238 U ~ 99.3%, 235 U ~ 0.7%) /(GWe.y) Efficiency of resource utilization ~ 0.5 % Optimizations 1% reduction of 235 U loss in depleted U, increase the burn-up, re-treatment & re-enrichment of irradiated U 1 t 30 t 200 t è the knowledge of uranium resources should lead to an understanding of the production potential A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 4
Resources consumption World nuclear production World natural U comsumption 285 GWe (full power equiv.) 60,000 t/year (source NEA/OECD, 2006) Should we get prepared to an «uranium peak»? What is the definition of the resources? A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 5
URANIUM RESOURCES 1,00E+14 1,00E+13 Earth crust 1000 MtU/m ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF URANIUM (TONS) 1,00E+12 1,00E+11 1,00E+10 1,00E+09 1,00E+08 1,00E+07 1,00E+06 1,00E+05 1,00E+04 1,00E+03 100000 Conventional resources (identified) (< 130 US$/kg) 4.7 MtU VEIN DEPOSITS 10000 VEIN DEPOSITS PEGMATITES UNCONFORMITY DEPOSITS FOSSIL PLACERS SANDSTONES 1000 FOSSIL PLACERS SANDSTONES VOLCANIC DEPOSITS 100 BLACK SHALES SHALES PHOSPHATES 10 GRANITES AVERAGE CRUST 1 0,0001 A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 6 EVAPORITES SILICEOUS OOZE CHERT OCEANIC IGNEOUS CRUST 0,1 ORE GRADE (PARTS PER MILLION OF URANIUM) 0,01 OCEAN WATER 0,001 Oceans 4500 MtU There will always be uranium. At what cost? FRESH WATER
Where is the Energy Cliff? 285 GWe (full power equiv.) ===== 60,000 t/year Resources U (reserves+rar+infered Resources) 12-25 millions of tons?? Production Potential - at present rate (and use) 200 400 years - scenario «nuclear x 8» & optimizations of U nat use in LWR 50 100 years A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 7
Breeding But the production potential can change because of breeding 238 U + n 239 U 239 Np 239 Pu fertile fissile Also possible from 232 Th mass of Fissile produced Conversion Ratio CR = mass of Fissile destroyed CR 1 è Breeder CR < 1 è Burner (Self-)Breeding the fissioned Pu is regenerated (CR=1) : Pu mass = constant But U is consumed at a rate of 1 ton / (GWe.y) efficiency of resource utilization ~ 100 % More complex technology Higher investment costs è (200 x less than LWR) A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 8
Breeding & resources Price per kwh Breeder LWR Enriched U 130 $/kg >1000 $/kg Price defining U nat price the «ultimate» resources The discussion about resources is complicated The price triggering the economic competitiveness of breeders might be country specific A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 9
Which scenarios to studies? Installed Capacity Installed Capacity 2000 2050 2100 Need for breeders Uranium production time GEN IV (Na-FR? Thorium Molten Salt Fast Reactors?) Paradox : High initial fissile inventories (12t Pu / 1GWe Na- FR) :GEN IV deployment trigered by uranium fissile scarcity but strongly depends on fissile material availability! need for scenario studies Uranium production time 2000 2050 2100 No need for breeders Waste management (ADS?) Fissile material economy, use of Thorium in classical Water Reactors? Need for research on reactors involved in multi-strata scneraii Versatility of each stratum might be a very important issue Is Pu a waste? A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 10
CNPE Chinon (www.edf.fr) -4 REP 900 MWe («GEN II») (close to «Châteaux de la Loire») - «la boule» : UNGG 70 MWe prototype («GEN I») 1963-1973 A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 11
Generation IV Forum: selection of 6 nuclear systems Top-ranking and outsiders? Closed fuel cycle Sodium Fast Reactor Closed fuel cycle Lead Fast Reactor Closed fuel cycle Gas Fast Reactor Open fuel cycle Very High Temperature Reactor Open/Closed fuel cycle Super Critical Water Reactor Closed fuel cycle Molten Salt Reactor A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 12
Sodium cooled Fast Reactor SFR R&D (passive) Safety Design simplification (cost) MA Fuel fabrication Fast Spectrum Coolant: Na Very good coolant (& cheap) Low pressure Industrial experience but Chemically reactions with air/water/upuo 2 opaque Temperature: 550 C Fuel: Oxide or metal fuel Closed fuel cycle Pool layout SFR Compact loop SFR A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 13
Did GEN IV existed before GEN II? EBR I (1951-1964) (Experimental Breeder Reactor) first nuclear reactor connected to the grid! SuperPhénix (1985-1997) France has expericence of dismantling a 1200MWe Sodium breeder reactor but none for PWR!!! Communication is ALWAYS very oriented when energy issue is involved A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 14
thorium cycle using Molten Salt Reactors Concept Molten Salt Fast Reactor (MSFR) Negative reactivity coefficients Various possible fuel : Th/U (equilibrium) BUT also Th/Pu+AM : direct transgition gen3 MSFR Starting inventory for 1 GWe Th : 37 tonnes Pu fissile : 8.4 tonnes taux d'incinération des TRU (%) Th/Pu Th/U Transition GEN III Trans-Uranium incineration 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 année après démarrage A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 15
Scenario A: breeders are needed Is it possible to start breeder reactors? Fissile Inventory/GWe SFR ~ 12t of Pu è mass of Pu produced after 50 years of a 1 GWe LWR LFR ~ 16t of Pu GFR ~ 20t of Pu Fast MSR ~ 6t of 233 U / 8t of Pu Thermal MSR ~ 2t of 233 U Example: 60 GWe of French LWR 60 GWe of breeder (SFR) equilibrium Pu inventory in a SFR fleet = 800 tons available Pu inventory in 2002 = 220 tons è 30% of the needed inventory A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 16
Scenario B without Gen IV (no breeding) Ø Scenario B : the role of ADS Pu in LWR, MA in ADS Proton beam LWR Innovative partitioning Am, Cm ADS 90% 10% Am, Cm U, Pu FP HLW FP +0.1% Pu +0.1% Np, Am, Cm A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 17
Waste management : the french case the «Loi Bataille(30/12/1991)» defined 3 research avenues for 15 years : Axe 1 : «Séparation/Transmutation» Axe 2 : «Deep geological repository» Axe 3: «long-term sub-surface storage» The «new» law claimed these axis to be «complementary» A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 18
Mountains of Nuclear Wastes lasting millions of years? 1 assembly == 500 Kg U == 50 000 T Coal 20t/an/GWe * 60 in France = 120T/years /360 days a year = 330kg/ day of spent fuel arriving La Hague reprocessing plant No mountains close to La Hague A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 19
Accelerator Driven System ADS Fast spectrum Pure MA (Np, Am, Cm) fuels can be used not possible in critical reactors (temperature effect, lack of delayed neutrons) Need an external neutron source to drive the sub-critical core Source RFQ Injector Accelerator Supra cavities Protons beam 1 GeV 10-50 ma 0.1 ev 20 MeV 1 GeV R&D Accelerator reliability Beam window Coupling spallation target/core Design MA Fuel fabrication A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 20
Scenario B with Gen IV (no breeding) Ø Scenario B : FNR burner Pu+MA incineration in FNR LWR Innovative partitioning Pu, MA Burner FNR U depleted FP 80% 20% U, Pu, MA Innovative partitioning HLW +0.1% Pu +0.1% Np, Am, Cm FP A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 21
Transmutation 300 tons 250 200 150 MA in HLW S1: w/o transmutation S3: transmutation in 2080 100 50 0 MA S3 = MA S2 X 2 2000 2050 2100 2150 S2: transmutation in 2040 Transmutation: interesting for the long term Delayed transmutation (or partitioning) reduces the transmutation gain tons tons 300 200 300 200 100 0 MA in HLW scenario S1 scenario S2 MA in fuel cycle 2040 2080 2130 100 0 A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 22
Scenario B to Scenario A: symbiotic fleet Goal: Pu incineration without forbidding a transition to a breeding fleet in a long time Stage 1: enough Uranium, No need of breeding The role of Thorium in solid fuel LWR Pu,MA FP 80% 20% HLW FP FNR U, Pu, MA Stage 2: symbiotic fleet : globally self-breeding Th/ 233 U 233 U (400kg/GWe) FNR Pu+MA burner Evolutive technology High Convertion Ratio reactor ~ 0.9 (BWR, HWR, ) 80% FP 20% HLW FP U, Pu, MA Self-breeder U/Pu core +Th blanket A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 23
Proliferation issue Non proliferation Treaty : only 5 countries have the right to have the bomb The other should open their facilities to IAEA inspectors => NO one complying the Treaty is suspected to possess bombs : big success! Only 4 countries does not signed it (and have the bomb) : India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea Iran does not comply with its obligations Are they building bombs? No reactor or facility build for Civil applications and visited by IAEA has been used for proliferation Conclusion : help public opinion, make Treaty success known, support IAEA!!! A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 24
Conclusion (Nuclear) future is very difficult to forecast! Nuclear power will probably increase very fast in the next decades BUT will probably not fuel our cars in 2050 Nuclear futures are very different depending on each country choices : waste disposal safety regulations (Na-FR?) Research (technology availability) uranium market independence (ex: India) Knowledge management Nuclear Physicist are involved in research (ADS, GEN IV ) and should help in giving scientific arguments to the (policial) debate A. Bidaud European Nuclear Physics Conference March 2009 25