Upload
austen-parker
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
11
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Phillip J. FinckIdaho National Laboratory
April 2, 2007
April 2, 2007 2
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options
April 2, 2007 3
Objectives of Advanced Fuel Cycles
Objectives Technology Potential Improvements ** Within current repository design boundaries
Management of Usable Isotopes
Denaturing through incremental improvements to the once through cycle
Consumption in Closed Cycles with FRs
Transmute up to 50% fissile
Transmute up to 99% fissile
Repository
Utilization
Improved once through cycles
Closed Cycles with FRs
Store up to 2 times more energy-equivalent-waste
Store orders of magnitude more energy-equivalent
waste
Resource extension
Improved once through cycles
Closed Cycles with FRs
Extract 30% more energy
Extract orders of magnitude more energy
April 2, 2007 4
Waste PackageSurface (average)
Drift Wall
Between Drifts
Water Boiling, 96 C
Heating in Drift
0
40
80
120
160
200
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time after Disposal, years
Te
mp
era
ture
, C
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
De
cay
He
at,
W/m
Airflow Turned Off
15 m3/s Airflow Turned On
51 GWD/MTIHM Spent PWR Fuel, Emplaced 30 Years After Discharge PWR Drift Loading = 1.17 MTIHM/m
Yucca Mountain Reference Case
April 2, 2007 5
Repository Benefits for Limited Recycle in LWRs
Limited LWR recycling of plutonium and americium would allow a drift loading increase of about a factor of 2
Subsequent burning in fast reactor needed to derive large benefits
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total Number of Recycles (11.5 years per recycle)
Rel
ativ
e C
han
ge
in R
epo
sito
ry D
rift
Lo
adin
g
Inert Matrix Fuel (IMF)
CORAIL-PNA
MOX
All LWR fuel processed at 5 years after reactor discharge - maximize loading benefitFuel fabricated and loaded after an additional 2 years
Spent fuel sent to the repository after the last recycle, along with all prior process waste
April 2, 2007 6
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Objectives are Stated in The National Security Strategy
The United States “will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies.
This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons.
These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand.”
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (March, 16, 2006): 29.
April 2, 2007 7
Key Elements of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Strategy Include Domestic Efforts:
Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that do not separate plutonium, with the goal over time of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating excess stocks of civilian plutonium and drawing down existing stocks of civilian spent fuel. Such advanced fuel cycle technologies will substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition, and help to ensure the need for only one geologic repository in the United States through the end of this century.
Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel.
April 2, 2007 8
Supporting the GNEP Strategy Requires New Facilities, Technology Development and R&D
Existing LWR Fleet
ExpandedLWR Fleet
AdvancedRecyclingReactor
ProcessStorage
AdvancedSeparation
FR Fuel
GeologicDisposal
Advanced FuelCycle Facility
TechnologyDevelopment
and R&D
DOE Lab led, NRC, Universities, Industry,International Partners
Industry led,Lab Supported
Addl.RecyclingReactors
Support for Industry-led effort
and R&D for GNEP beyond
2020-2025
2020-2025
Spent Fuel(63,000 MTHM)
April 2, 2007 9
For the Initial GNEP Operation We Envision Three Supporting Facilities
Advanced recycling reactor (ABR)
Nuclear fuel recycling center (CFTC)
Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility
April 2, 2007 10
Key Elements of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Strategy Include International Efforts to:
Establish supply arrangements among nations to provide reliable fuel services worldwide for generating nuclear energy, by providing nuclear fuel and taking back spent fuel for recycling, without spreading enrichment and reprocessing technologies.
Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions.
Develop, in cooperation with the IAEA, enhanced nuclear safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities, to ensure commercial nuclear energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes.
April 2, 2007 11
International Expansion of Nuclear Power is Underway
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460011,00.html
April 2, 2007 12
An International Fuel Service is an Essential Part of Reducing Proliferation Risk
Fuel Suppliers: operate reactors and fuel cycle facilities, including fast reactors to transmute the actinides from spent fuel into less toxic materials
Fuel Users: operate reactors, lease and return fuel.
IAEA: provide safeguards and fuel assurances, backed up with a reserve of nuclear fuel for states that do not pursue enrichment and reprocessing
April 2, 2007 13
International Partnerships are Critical to GNEP Success
Develop the basis for an assured fuel supply concept with other nations
– IAEA or similar international organization administered mechanism to provide supply reliability in cases that could not be resolved in the commercial market, facilitation of new commercial arrangements when supply interrupted for some reason other that safeguards compliance
– Eligibility based on • safeguard compliance, nuclear safety standards, and reliance on international
market without indigenous enrichment and reprocessing
Foster specific R&D and technology collaborations through interactions with National Laboratories to address critical areas U.S. – Russia agreement
Complete international agreement on GNEP Statement of Principles
Hold GNEP meeting for other interested nations thereafter.
April 2, 2007 14
GNEP: Critical Technology Issues
April 2, 2007 15
GNEP – “Why” and ”Why NOW”
There is a rapidly expanding global demand for nuclear power– Without some global regime to manage this expansion many more “Iranian”
situations will likely appear A global regime is forming up with Russia, France, Japan and China
having both the will and the means to participate. – The United States, through GNEP, is leading the formation of this global regime
but we do not have the means to participate in its execution. Unless the United States implements the domestic aspects of the GNEP
program we will suffer significant consequences in our energy security, industrial competitiveness and national security.
There are potential repository benefits, but the international need for GNEP is compelling.
The United States must act decisively and quickly to implement GNEP or face the real possibility of having no influence over the certain future global expansion of nuclear energy.
April 2, 2007 16
ABR, ALWR, and LWR Capacity for 2.4% Nuclear Power Growth Rate
Reactor Capacity
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Year
GW
e
ABR Capacity
ALWR Capacity
LWR Capacity
April 2, 2007 17
Spent Fuel -Recycle Case
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Year
MT
HM Stored SNF
Disposed SNF
Spent Fuel - Once Through Case
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Year
MT
HM Stored SNF
Disposed SNF
Comparison of SNF Storage and Disposal for Once-Through and Recycling scenario
April 2, 2007 18
NEA/OECD Working Party on Scientific Issues of the Fuel Cycle includes studies of User/Supplier scenarios
April 2, 2007 19
Near-term Focus is Input to the Secretarial Decision Package for June 2008
Deployment options. Comparison with partner states Economic and business payoffs Effect of uncertainties in technology development Input to business plan Role of nuclear (with GNEP) in global energy picture Integrated waste management strategy Provide input to NEPA and PEIS activities
April 2, 2007 20
Development of Advanced Spent Fuel Processing Technologies for GNEP
April 2, 2007 21
ABR Technology Development
Addresses Technology Development for ABR Prototype– Performs feasibility studies for select ABR Prototype components
• Steam generator testing, accelerated aging of critical materials and components, passive fission gas monitoring , etc.
– Performs key features testing of ABR Prototype critical component
• pump performance testing, fuel handling machine testing, reactor shutdown system testing, seismic isolation bearing testing, water flow simulation stability testing, etc.
– Performs testing of key ABR Prototype plant components to verify performance characteristics and safety responses in a prototypical environment
• Primary pump testing, control rod drive mechanism testing, fuel handling system operations, testing, and recovery, qualification of structural materials, performance of reliability testing of shutdown systems, etc.
– Ends with ABR Prototype safety tests
Addresses economic issues of fast reactors– Develops and tests advanced fast reactor features that can contribute to improved
economic performance
Requires an infrastructure to support technology testing and development
April 2, 2007 22
Fast Reactor Support Facilities Infrastructure
U.S. lacks the infrastructure to test large sodium components in a prototypic environment– ETEC’s Liquid Metal Engineering Center has been decommissioned
– General Electric no longer has sodium testing facilities
– ANL has some – some active/some inactive – but not for very large components
– France and Japan reportedly have some testing capability but condition is unknown.
ABR Program must support rebuilding of U.S.-based sodium component testing infrastructure to support ABR component development to:– Provide for prototypic testing environment for sodium components
– Provide for personnel training on sodium handling, sodium component operations, and maintenance
April 2, 2007 23
Fast Reactor Support Facilities Infrastructure (Cont’d)
Development of ABR Prototype and successor ABRs may require additional support facilities (examples)– Water loop testing facilities for component testing
– Targeted research and development facilities for lab-scale testing
– Materials Testing Capability
– Driver Core Fuel Manufacturing Facility
April 2, 2007 24
Technical Risk Evaluation
Feasibility Issues 1. U.S. infrastructure is insufficient for manufacturing and testing
2. Need to re-establish the regulatory structure
3. No fabrication capability for driver fuel
Performance Issues
1. New technologies will improve costs and reliability of the ABR
- compact components
- advanced energy conversion systems
- seismic isolation
- fuel handling machines
- in service inspection technologies
- primary design
April 2, 2007 25
The initial post irradiation examination (PIE) of metal and nitride fuels irradiated in ATR is completed.
Essential post-irradiation examinations of the AFC-1 fuels are completed.
ATR irradiation of AFC-1D (metal), AFC-1G (nitride) and AFC-1H (metal) transmutation fuel samples continued.
Comprehensive review of the U.S. fast reactor fuel experience compiled into a white paper.
April 2, 2007 26
Metal and oxide TRU fuels are candidates for the first generation transmutation fuel.
Metal Fuel Successful small-scale fabrication and irradiation on
limited amount of samples Large-scale fabrication without loss of Am must be
demonstrated Fuel-clad interactions at high burnup must be
investigated Effect of lanthanides on FCCI must be addressed
Oxide Fuels (powder processing) Successful small-scale fabrication and irradiation on
limited amount of samples (France, Japan) Effect of group TRU on fabrication process unknown Effect of lanthanides on fabrication Large-scale fabrication amenable to hot-cell
operations must be developed Limitations on linear power
Am recovery and use in moderated targets Fabrication using powder metallurgy Development of advanced clad materials (liners) Driver fuel and MA targets
Sphere-pac or vibro-pac fuel technologyRisk trade-off: fabrication versus performance
Driver fuel and MA targets
Nitride o High TRU loading potentialo Fabrication process requires further worko N-15 enrichment.
Dispersiono High burnup potentialo Fabrication process requires further worko Separations process must be developed
Candidates for First Generation Transmutation ( < 20 years)
Back-up Options for Initial Candidates
Long-Term Options (2nd or 3rd Generation) for Increased Efficiency ( > 20 years)
April 2, 2007 27
To achieve fuel qualification tests using LTAs, considerable developmental testing is required.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Fuel Candidate Selection
Phase II:Concept Definition & Feasibility
Scoping Tests I (screening)
Scoping Tests II (prototypic)Scoping Transient Tests
Phase III:Design
Improvements & Evaluation
PIE
Design Parameters TestsFabrication Variables Tests
High-Power Tests (2 LHGR or Fuel T)Undercooling Tests (2 Clad T)
Transient Response TestsDBA Transients Tests
LTA TestsPhase IV: Qualification
PHASE II• Optimize the fuel design• Fuel Specification and Fuel Safety Case • Fuel properties measurements with variance • Predictive fuel behavior models and codes
PHASE III
• Demonstrate fabrication process
• Validate fuel performance specifications
• Validate predictive fuel performance codes
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (years)
April 2, 2007 28
Transmutation fuel development is considerably more challenging than conventional fuels.
Multiple elements in the fuel U, Pu, Np, Am, Cm
Varying thermodynamic propertiese.g. High vapor pressure of Am
Impurities from separation processe.g. High lanthanide carryover
High burnup requirements
High helium production during irradiation
Remote fabrication & quality control
Fuel must be qualified for a variable range of composition
– Age and burnup of LWR SNF– Changes through multiple passes in FR– Variable conversion ratio for FR
LWRs
Reprocessing
Fuel Fabrication
Fast Burner Reactors
Reprocessing
TRU
TRU
Legacy SNFFrom LWRs
April 2, 2007 29
Fuel performance prediction requires integral understanding of multiple phenomena.
Microstructure Initial distribution of species Initial stoichiometry Thermal conductivity Thermal expansion Specific heat Phase diagrams Fission gas formation, behavior and release Materials dimensional stability
– Restructuring, densification, growth, creep and swelling
Defect formation & migrations Diffusion of species Radial power distribution Fuel-clad gap conductance Fuel-clad chemical interactions Mechanical properties
Dynamic properties:Changes with irradiation, temperature, and time.
Dynamic properties:Changes with irradiation, temperature, and time.
Nonlinear effects: Initial condition dependence (fabrication route).
Nonlinear effects: Initial condition dependence (fabrication route).
April 2, 2007 30
A parallel analytic and experimental development assures implementation shortly after the first LTAs.
Sample/Rodlet Irradiation
FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (years)
FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hot-cell rodlet fabrication capability
Pin Irradiation
Selection of 1st generation fuel type & process
Fabrication Process development & Design
AFCF AvailableProcess Optimization
LTA fabrication
LTA(s) available for ABR
Qualified fuel, process and models
Fuel Simulation Platform AvailableDevelopment of Fundamental Models
Phenomenological Tests
Integration of ModelsVerification & Validation
Analysis of LTA & variants
Irradiation of LTA(s)
Fast-Spectrum TestFacility Available