EPRI Activities Related to Advanced Nuclear Power …cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620211605/http:...EPRI Activities Related to Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycles John

EPRI Activities Related to Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycles

John KesslerManager, Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management Program

Blue Ribbon Commission, Fuel Cycle Subcommittee Meeting12 July 2010

2© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Outline

• EPRI Nuclear R&D areas

• U.S. Nuclear Fleet Outlook

• Advanced Nuclear Technology

• Fuel Reliability Issues

• Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management

– Advanced fuel cycle studies

– Readiness of U.S. fleet to burn MOX


The Electric Power Research Institute

Independent, unbiased, tax-exempt

collaborative research organization

Full spectrum industry coverage

– Nuclear

– Generation

– Environment

– Power Delivery & Utilization

460 participants in more than 40 countries

Major offices in Palo Alto, CA; Charlotte, NC

and Knoxville, TN

RD&D for the Electricity Industry


EPRI Nuclear Research Areas

Risk &

Safety

Radiation Exposure

and Waste

Management

Fuel

Reliability

Inspection

Material

Degradation

Equipment

Reliability

Advanced

Nuclear

Technology


U.S. Nuclear Fleet Outlook

Source: DOE Life Beyond 60 Workshop February 2008

2025

Opportunity for Economic, Low Carbon Base Load Generation


Advanced Light Water Reactor DeploymentHow Do We Achieve This Performance?

6460 58 56

53

47

100%

94%

82% 80%

63%

Construction Cost

(% of First of a Kind)

Construction Duration

(Months)

1995 1998 2002 2004 ~ 2010 ~ 2011

63%

6460 58 56

53

47

100%

94%

82% 80%

63%

Construction Cost

(% of First of a Kind)

Construction Duration

(Months)

1995 1998 2002 2004 ~ 2010 ~ 20111995 1998 2002 2004 ~ 2010 ~ 2011

63%

Efficient Plant Start-Up and

Sustained High Capacity Factors

Reduced Construction Costs

and Schedules…Unit Over Unit


Facilitate

standardization

across the new

nuclear fleet

Ensure top plant

performance from

start of operations

Transfer

technology and

lessons learned

to new plant

designs

Courtesy: TVO Courtesy: TVO

Reduce overall

deployment risk

and uncertainty

Advanced LWR Technology Deployment


Nuclear Fuel Issues

• Fuel reliability guidelines

• Failure root cause investigations

• Fuel reliability margins

• Regulatory issues

• Independent fuel performance codes

• Advanced NDE techniques


U.S. Industry Fuel Failure Trend

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

EOC Year

Num

ber

of

Fa

iled F

uel A

ssem

blie

s

PWR

BWR


Average U.S. Cycle Length Trends

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

8001

99

0

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Year

Cyc

le L

en

gth

(E

FP

D)

PWR Ave. BWR Ave. PWR Max. BWR Max.


Average U.S. Discharged Assembly Burnup Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

501

99

0

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Year

Dis

ch

arg

e B

urn

up (

GW

d/M

TU

)

PWR

BWR


Advanced Fuel Designs Silicon Carbide Fuel Cladding

• Benefits

– Improved safety due to higher-temperature capabilities

– Large power uprate potential

• Challenges

– Modified fuel performance codes

– Transient analyses

– Basic materials properties

– Irradiation performance

– New fabrication and inspection technologies

Silicon Carbide Cladding

Courtesy Westinghouse and

Ceramic Tubular Products


EPRI’s Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management Program


Used Fuel and Hugh-Level Waste ManagementResearch Elements

EARLY

EMERGING

MATURE

APPLIED

Modeling of Advanced Fuel Cycles

(material tracking, health risk,

economics)

Use of MOX in LWRs

Centralized Interim Dry

Storage Economics

Advanced Fuel Cladding

Mechanical Property Data

Yucca Mountain

Performance Modeling

Technical Bases for Very Long-

term Dry Storage

Neutron Absorber

Materials Database

CaskLoader

Technical Bases for

Transportation of High

Burnup Used Fuel

Used Fuel Dry Storage

License Extension

Support for Potential Changes to

U.S. Used Fuel Mgmt. Policy

Technical Bases for Yucca

Mountain Regulations

New Neutron Absorber

Material (Metamic)Wet Storage Criticality Modeling

Benchmarking Boraflex Degradation

Management


EPRI Technical Perspective on Reprocessing

• 1991

– “Adoption of a process-before-disposal policy…would accrue only modest benefits with respect to…national inventory of transuranics…”

– “[A] process-before-disposal policy would incur a large cost penalty.”

• 1995

– “The energy utilization benefits of the ALMR will be realized when uranium becomes more expensive… current reserves are large…”

– “Light water reactor fuel is safe for geologic disposal…”

– “…an integrated spent fuel management system [with] emphasis on interim storage dovetails…with a rational and deliberate process of reconsidering U.S. fuel cycle policy implementation.”


EPRI Technical Perspective on Reprocessing[continued]

• 2006

– “The nation needs a broad consensus on which processing/fast-reactor technology combination is the best choice…”

– “..an acceptable, affordable and reliable fast reactor appears likely to control the overall schedule and should receive appropriate development program emphasis…”

– “Decisions on a possible second repository will not really be necessary until at least mid-century…”

Reprocessing not a clear winner under current conditions and state

of technology; critical to demonstrate fast reactor technology first.


Advanced Fuel Cycle Roadmap

• EPRI role: Provide technically based, independent analysis of fuel cycle options to inform decision-makers.

• Help industry keep options open

– Develop tools to assess nuclear fuel cycle options from an electricity generation viewpoint

– Conduct independent assessments of current state of technology in key areas: reprocessing, fuel re-fabrication, geologic disposal media


Advanced Fuel Cycle Toolbox

1. Decision Analysis Tool

2. Risk Assessment Tool

3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation

4. Economic Modeling

5. Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection


1. Decision Analysis Tool

• Description

– Tool to compare fuel cycle options based on:

• Economics

• Natural uranium resource amplification

• Institutional policies

• Risks

• Status

– Concept being formulated at MIT

– EPRI will evaluate need for continued development of the MIT tool


2. Risk Assessment Tool

• Description

– Tool to compare economic and radiological risks from different fuel cycles

• Status

– Concept being formulated at MIT

– EPRI will evaluate need for continued development of the MIT tool

– Opportunity to build on EPRI tools and resources for disposal performance assessments (expert team, IMARC)


3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Code

Sources Cycle Storage

Plutonium

cycle

Minor

Actinides

cycle

U-ore

mine

Imported Pu

Depleted Uranium

Geological disposal

Reprocessing

Uranium

Pu

ENU

MOX

UOX

Waste

Unat

SWU

Pu

Udep

Urep

Waste

Waste

Pu

Pu

Urep

SWU

Udep

1

1

1

PWR

Advanced PWR

FBR

MA

MA

TIRELIRE – STRATEGIE

EQUIVALENCE

EVOLUTION

ECRIN

FBR – ADS

STRAPONTIN Perturbation

Semi-analyt.k∞iBU

iBU

APOLLO2

GENBASE

DATABASE

DATABASE

(t,Wi)Pu9,eq

(fBOL,fEOL)ref

+ Mij

ERANOS

GENMATRICE

PWR – HTR

• Description

– Ability to conduct dynamic (i.e., time-dependent) fuel cycle simulations

• Status

– EPRI engaging multiple stakeholders to develop code and collect model input (EDF, INL, ANL, ORNL, MIT, others)


3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Code (continued)

Case 3a: LWRs transition to Fast Reactors with Conversion

Ratio of 1 (Electricity generation remains constant)


Transuranics Inventory

TRU NuclideOnce-through

[MT of TRU]

PWRs +Fast

burner

Reactors

[MT of TRU]

Np-237 4.0 5.6

Pu-238 2.3 15

Pu-239 28 75

Pu-240 13.5 87

Pu-241 8.8 16.6

Pu-242 4.6 29.3

Am-241 0.32 11.6

Am-243 1.2 8.3

Cm-244 0.66 8.4

Cm-245 0.05 2.1

Total TRU ~63 ~259

Greater TRU inventories are

maintained in advanced fuel

cycles than in once-through

fuel cycles.


Fast Reactor Fuel Fabrication

Impact of Minor Actinide Content

+1% Np

+1% Am+1% Cm

Fast Reactor

Fuel Fabrication

Heat Release

x 1 +30% x 10

g Dose x 2 x 30 x 200

Neutron Source Term

x 1 +15% x 700

Short-term exposure risks with advanced fuel cycles must be weighed

against long-term exposure risks with once-through fuel cycles.


Advanced Fuel Cycle Deployment Transuranic Inventory Reductions

Impact of Advanced Fuel Cycles on High-

Level Waste Disposal

8 23 70

211

632

1334

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95%

TRU Inventory Reduction (%)

De

plo

ym

en

t P

eri

od

to

Ac

hie

ve

Inv

en

tory

Re

dc

uti

on

(y

ea

rs)

Many decades required to achieve even a modest TRU inventory

reduction across entire fuel cycle.


4. Economic Modeling

Description

• Tools to translate fuel cycle options to economic

terms for both fixed and variable elements

Status

• Currently using steady-state model; anticipate

moving to a dynamic model

• Results to date published in a series of EPRI

reports


Fuel Cycle Economics at Steady State

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Uranium Unit Cost ($/kg U)

Fu

el C

ycle

Co

st

(mills

/kW

he)

Fuel Cycle 1:

Once-Through

UO2 $500/kgHM

FR MOX $1650/kgHM

UO2 $2000/kgHM

FR MOX $3750/kgHM

UO2 $500/kgHM

UO2 $1500/kgHM

Fuel Cycle 2:

Pu Single-Recyling in

PWRs + PUREX

Fuel Cycle 3:

Pu Multi-Recyling in FRs

+ Advanced PUREX

For scenarios with high uranium prices, recycling of plutonium as MOX becomes

economically feasible as long as reprocessing and fast reactor costs are kept low.

UO2 $1500/kgHM

UO2 $500/kgHM


MOX Use Drivers, Constraints, and Concerns

• Regulatory environment

• Energy security

• Nonproliferation

• Public opinion

• Resource utilization

• Waste management

• Economics

• Technology


MOX Irradiation in U.S. Reactors

Reactor PWR/ BWR MOX Lead

Test

Assembly

Start

Total

Number of

Assemblies

Total

Number of

Fuel Rods

Vallecitos BWR 1960s -- ≥ 16

Big Rock Point BWR 1969 16 1248

Dresden-1 BWR 1969 11 103

San Onofre-1 PWR 1970 4 720

Quad Cities-1 BWR 1974 10 48

Ginna PWR 1980 4 716

Catawba-1 PWR 2005 4 full 17 x 17

assemblies


Existing U.S. Reactors as Candidates for MOX

• Assumptions:

– Commercial MOX use no earlier than 2020

– 20-year minimum remaining lifetime

– Greater flexibility in late GEN II reactors

• Result: ~50% of current fleet are potential candidates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

19

65

19

70

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

200

5

201

0

201

5

202

0

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

2050

2055

2060

Year

Nu

mb

er

of O

pe

ratio

nal R

eac

tors

60 yr reactor lifespan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

19

65

19

70

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

200

5

201

0

201

5

202

0

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

2050

2055

2060

Year

Nu

mb

er

of O

pe

ratio

nal R

eac

tors

60 yr reactor lifespan


Global MOX Supply

• Existing French and UK production capacity of ~235 MTHM/yr

• U.S. DOE MOX facility under construction ~70 MTHM/yr max

• Planned Japanese Rokkasho facility ~130 MTHM/yr

MOX use in the U.S. is supply limited, NOT reactor limited, for the next 20 – 30 years


MOX Use Preliminary FindingsExisting Reactors

• No technical barriers identified to partial MOX loading (30% or less) in at least half of existing U.S. fleet

• Some modifications and operational changes possible

– Amendment of reactor license (substantial but manageable)

– Additional reactivity control

• Higher soluble boron concentrations and/or enriched 10B, burnable absorbers, or higher worth control rods

– Plant-wide changes to address security, radiation protection and shielding, increased minimum cooling periods, spent fuel criticality

• No negative impact on return to 100% UOX cores


MOX Use Preliminary FindingsGEN III/III+ Reactors

• All GEN III/III+ designs should accommodate high MOX core loading (50% to full cores)

– Full MOX core capacity reported for ABWR, AP1000, US-EPR, US-APWR

– 50% MOX core loading target per European Utility Requirements

– Core loadings of 50% or greater generally require MOX-specific design

• MOX use in new reactors may be restricted due to plant specific design aspects (e.g., spent fuel pool capacity)


Decay Heat Impacts Our Ability to Store, Transport, and Dispose of Used fuel and HLW


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

Total

Actinides

PF

Pu

Am

Cm

Sr+Y

Cs+Ba

Source: EDF (July 2009)


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

Total

Actinides

PF

Pu

Am

Cm

Sr+Y

Cs+Ba

Source: EDF (July 2009)


Conclusions

• Much to be done to develop an industry with advanced fuel cycles

– R&D important to enable well-informed decisions

• Current fuel designs more reliable, but approaching burnup limits

– Need fuel design evolution for much higher burnups (e.g, SiC)

• If desired and available, MOX can be used in existing and next-generation reactors

• Fast reactor technology R&D first, then reprocessing

• Actinide reduction in the entire closed fuel cycle takes decades


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity


A Selection of EPRI Reports on Advanced Fuel Cycle Topics

• 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)


2010 Deliverables

• Parametric Study of Front-End Nuclear Fuel Cycle Costs Using Reprocessed Uranium [1020659] – February 2010

• Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Comparison Between Once-Through and Multiple - Plutonium Recycling in Fast Reactors [1020660] - March 2010

• Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles – Main Challenges and Strategic Choices [1020307] – December 2010

• Reprocessing Technology Primer – December 2010

Documents

EPRI Activities Related to Advanced Nuclear Power …cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620211605/http:...EPRI Activities Related to Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycles John