IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

Experience with NESAs

Y.Busurin on behalf of

IAEA/INPRO group

IAEA

IAEA Tools for Newcomers Relationships Among Tools for Newcomers

Preparations to Make an informedDecision for NPP

Preparations tobid for NPP

Construct NPP

Initial Energy Sys. Planning

Time and Progress Towards Nuclear Power Program

Decision Makers –Government, Operators, Industry

LegendRecommended Principal Participants

Continuous Energy Systems Planning

INPRO Methodology: - Awareness Building - Limited Scope NESA

NPP Operation

Full Scope NESA*

Milestone 1 Milestone 2

Milestone 3

* After Significant NPP

Experience Gained

Universities and Research Organizations

Experts, Consultants, and Government

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Infrastructure/

2

IAEA

INPRO Programme 2012-2013

Project 1: National Long Range Nuclear Energy Strategies

http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/activities/project1/index.html

3

IAEA

Introduction - Documentation

• TECDOC 1575 (2008) • Introduction to the Use

of the INPRO Methodology in a NESA • IAEA Nuclear Energy

Series No. NP-T-1.12, STI/PUB/1478

• Arabic edition (2012); English edition (2010); Russian edition (2011)

• Several other publications available

4

IAEA

Introduction • 6 national NESA:

• Argentina, Brazil, India, Republic of Korea (as technology developer).

• Armenia, and Ukraine (as technology user).

• 1 multi national NESA (Joint Study): • Canada, China, France, India, Japan, Rep.

of Korea, Russia, Ukraine • NES: Fast reactors with a closed Fuel

Cycle. • Results documented in IAEA reports

TECDOC-1636 (2009) and -1639 (2010).

5

IAEA

Summary

• Scope of NESAs performed (2009):

INPRO areas Countries

Argentina

Armenia

Brazil (IRIS, FBNR)

India (HTR)

Rep. of Korea

(DUPIC)

Ukraine

Joint Study (CNFC-FR)

Economics x x x x x Infrastructure x x x x Waste Management x x x x Proliferation Resistance x x x x x x Physical Protection x x Environment x x x x Safety of reactors x x x x x Safety of fuel cycle facilities

x x x

6

IAEA

Current NESAs • NESA in Belarus

• Full scope assessment of all INPRO methodology areas • Simplified nuclear energy system consisting of power plant and

waste management facilities • Completed in 2011, Report under publication

• Also on-going are NESAs in • Kazakhstan • Indonesia • Ukraine

• Planned • Jordan, Egypt, • Italy, • South Africa, • Romania ...

7

IAEA

Energy system planning, M

odelling, N

ESA

8 Construction of energy demand scenarios National, regional, global

Specification of the potential role of nuclear power to contribute to mix of energy supply

National, regional, global

Selection of components of INS Modelling of INS

Assessment of INS against all INPRO requirements in all INPRO areas

Economics, infrastructure, environment, waste management, PR, PP, safety.

All INPRO Criteria fulfilled?

YES

Sustainable INS

NO Technology Developer

Define RD&D

Energy system

planning

NE

SA using IN

PRO

M

ethodology

Evaluation of energy supply options National, regional, global

Assembling information

NO Technology

User

Modelling of NES

Modify NES

1

2

3

IAEA

NESA-ITC: An Interactive Online Training Course

on Performing a Nuclear Energy System Assessment

• http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/NESA_ITC/index.html

9

IAEA

Conclusion Lessons learned from NESAs: • Agreement of assessors:

• Application of the INPRO Methodology a worthwhile effort providing valuable insights and clear identification of gaps.

• Need for additional guide how to use the INPRO methodology. • Met by NE series report NP-T-1.12.

• Need for NESA support package. • Under development.

10

IAEA

11

Thank you for your attention

IAEA

NESA Argentina

• Energy System Planning (2009): • Nuclear electricity supply (role of NP in energy

mix)

12

IAEA

NESA Argentina

• Selection of Nuclear Energy System: • New Fuel Cycle Centre with all facilities of

nuclear fuel cycle (front end and back end). • Nuclear reactors as fuel consumers and waste

producers. • Scope of NESA:

• All areas of INPRO Methodology. • Assessment at Criterion level. • Focus on nuclear fuel cycle facilities.

13

IAEA

NESA Argentina • Results in area of Economics:

• Domestically produced nuclear fuel cheaper than purchased fuel from abroad.

• Results in area of Infrastructure • Legal and institutional framework in place. • Industrial and economic infrastructure

established. • Program initiated to address communication

with public. • Need for improvement of professional career.

14

IAEA

NESA Argentina • Results for Waste Management (WM):

• All existing facilities of NES fulfil all INPRO Criteria. • Safety case for depository of SNF and HLW to be

developed. • Results for Proliferation Resistance (PR):

• Several weaknesses regarding PR in NES (HWRs, PWRs) with complete fuel cycle.

• Compensation of weaknesses by increased effort for Safeguards .

15

IAEA

NESA Argentina

• Results for Safety of Fuel Cycle Facilities: • Confirmation that all nuclear facilities of the Fuel Cycle

Centre meet all INPRO Criteria. • Results for Physical Protection (PP):

• Established PP regime meets all INPRO Criteria. • Results for Environment:

• Radiological stressors from Fuel Cycle Centre (FCC) equal or less than existing facilities.

• FCC sufficient to supply 50% of planned national NES. • Global demand of U and Zr matched by supply.

16

IAEA

NESA Armenia

• Energy System Planning (electricity supply) (2004)

17

IAEA

NESA Armenia

• Selection of nuclear energy system: • Replace existing VVER440 in 2017 by new

Nuclear Power Plant (up to 1000 MWe). • Scope of NESA:

• All INPRO areas . • Assessment at User Requirement level. • Use of IRIS reactor (integral PWR, 300 MWe) as

example.

18

IAEA

NESA Armenia

• Results in area of Economics: IRIS reactor in Armenia:

• Cost competitive with hydro plant. • Attractive investment. • Has acceptable risk of investment.

• Results in area of Infrastructure: • Existing infrastructure sufficient.

19

IAEA

NESA Armenia

• Results for Waste Management: • National strategy for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF)

and other radioactive waste is under development.

• Results for Proliferation Resistance (PR): • Legal framework for PR established.

• Results for Physical Protection (PP): • Legal framework for PP established.

20

IAEA

NESA Armenia

• Results for Environment: • Dose of workers in IRIS significant lower that in

operating VVER440. • Results for Safety:

• IRIS reactor fulfils all INPRO safety criteria. • A reference IRIS plant needed - operating

several years outside Armenia - to demonstrate proven technology.

21

IAEA

NESA Brazil • Energy System Planning (Electricity supply)(2008):

22

IAEA

NESA Brazil

• Reactor designs selected: • IRIS reactor design • FBNR design.

• Scope of study: • Assessment (Criterion level) of IRIS in area of

safety and economics. • Assessment (Criterion level) of FBNR in area of

safety and proliferation resistance.

23

IAEA

NESA Brazil

• Results in area of Economics: • Three IRIS reactors cost competitive with ANGRA-3 (1300

MWe PWR). • Investment in IRIS more attractive than in ANGRA-3. • Risk of investment in IRIS acceptable.

• Results in area of Proliferation Resistance: • Concept of Fixed Bed Nuclear Reactor (FBNR) complies

with INPRO requirements. • Sealed core design of FBNR superior to conventional

designs.

24

IAEA

NESA Brazil

• Results in area of Safety of Nuclear Reactors: • IRIS reactor design in full compliance with all

INPRO safety requirements. • Additional experiments needed for licensing of

IRIS. • FBNR concept with potential of high safety

level.

25

IAEA

NESA India

• Energy System Planning: • 1500 to 2100 GWthermal needed for hydrogen

production to replace 25% of fossil fuel for transportation.

• Reactor designs selected: • Concepts of High Temperature Reactors with

different coolants (molten salt, liquid metal, He). • Scope of study:

• Safety of reactor concepts .

26

IAEA

NESA India

• Results in area of Safety: • HTR: Definition of necessary R&D. • HTR: High potential for increased safety level

(passive heat removal, low power density, inherent safety features).

• Co location of hydrogen plant and reactor needs additional safety measures.

27

IAEA

NESA Ukraine • Energy System Planning (electricity supply)

28

IAEA

NESA Ukraine

• Selection of Nuclear Energy System: • 16 new reactors until 2030. • 4 reactor types: VVER-1000/ AES-2006 and V-

392B, AP1000, EPR. • Front end: national fuel supply or leasing. • Back end: direct disposal of SNF or

reprocessing abroad and return of HLW. • In total 14 variants.

• Scope of NESA: • All INPRO areas (not PP) at Criterion level.

29

IAEA

NESA Ukraine

• Results in area of Economics: • Most economical option Nuclear Energy

System with reactors types VVER-1000 + EPR, open fuel cycle, national fuel production.

• Results in area of Infrastructure: • Legal and institutional infrastructure in place. • Lack of:

• Financing. • Policy of public information. • Trained personnel (especially for AP1000 and EPR).

30

IAEA

NESA Ukraine • Results for Waste Management (WM):

• Domestic fuel fabrication needs: • Waste classification system. • Additional resources. • Process description for entire waste cycle.

• All four reactor types meet WM requirements. • Back end options need:

• Development of end state for HLW from reprocessing and for direct disposal of SNF.

• NES with fuel leasing simplest WM option (no fuel fabrication and no disposal of SNF).

31

IAEA

NESA Ukraine

• Results for Environment: • Domestic fuel fabrication meets INPRO Criteria

for impact of stressors and availability of resources.

• All 4 reactors meet all INPRO Criteria. • All backend options meet all INPRO criteria. • NES with fuel leasing least impact of stressors

on environment (no domestic fuel fabrication facility and SNF depository).

32

IAEA

NESA Joint Study

• Joint Study: • China, France, India, Japan, Republic of Korea,

Russia (Canada, Ukraine). • Joint assessment of a future NES based on fast

reactors with a closed nuclear fuel cycle. • Assessment tool: INPRO Methodology in all

areas (but security). • Scope: evaluation mostly at User Requirement

level.

33

IAEA

NESA Joint Study

• Selection of Nuclear Energy System (NES) for assessment: • NES based on reference sodium cooled fast

reactors (1000 MWe) with a closed fuel cycle. • France looked at transition from current NES to

future NES with fast reactors. • Scope of NESA:

• All INPRO areas (but PP) with different level of depth of assessment (mostly User Requirement level).

34

IAEA

NESA Joint Study

• Results in area of Economics: Sodium cooled fast reactor is: • Competitive with gas/coal and advanced LWR

based on R&D to be performed. • Attractive investment (ROI, IRR), and has • Acceptable risk of investment.

• Results in area of Infrastructure: • Participating countries have well established

infrastructure sufficient for FR and closed NFC. • Possible benefit by multinational approaches.

35

IAEA

NESA Joint Study • Results for Proliferation Resistance (PR):

• Increased PR of NES with FR + Closed NFC (e.g., no enrichment) compared to LWR + open NFC.

• Benefit of multinational fuel cycle centres. • Results for Safety:

• Disadvantages of FR (e.g., positive void reactivity, sodium fire) compensated by inherent features (e.g., heat transfer of sodium, stored energy) and engineered measures(e.g., double wall pipes).

36

IAEA

NESA Joint Study

• Results for Environment: • Several NES (LWR + open NFC , Pu mono

recycling, FR + closed NFC) studied regarding resource depletion and impact of stressors.

• NES with FR + closed NFC significant reduction of resource depletion.

• Impact of radioactive stressors for all types of NES far below regulatory limits.

37

IAEA

NESA Joint Study

• Potential for synergy identified: • Large amount of Pu (or U-235) needed for start-

up of fast breeder system. • Globally enough fissile material (Pu) available. • In some countries shortage of Pu for a large

program. • INPRO CPs initiated:

• GAINS, DHR, FINITE, COOL.

38

IAEA

Summary

• Scope of NESAs performed (2009):

INPRO areas Countries

Argentina

Armenia

Brazil (IRIS, FBNR)

India (HTR)

Rep. of Korea

(DUPIC)

Ukraine

Joint Study (CNFC-FR)

Economics x x x x x Infrastructure x x x x Waste Management x x x x Proliferation Resistance x x x x x x Physical Protection x x Environment x x x x Safety of reactors x x x x x Safety of fuel cycle facilities

x x x

39

IAEA

Conclusion Lessons learned from NESAs: • Agreement of assessors:

• Application of the INPRO Methodology a worthwhile effort providing valuable insights and clear identification of gaps.

• Need for additional guide how to use the INPRO methodology. • Met by NE series report NP-T-1.12.

• Need for NESA support package. • Under development.

40

IAEA

NESA-ITC: An Interactive Online Training Course

on Performing a Nuclear Energy System Assessment

• http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/NESA_ITC/index.html

41

IAEA

42

Thank you for your attention

IAEA

NESA-ITC: An Interactive Online Training Course

on Performing a Nuclear Energy System Assessment

43

http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/NESA_ITC/index.html

IAEA

Experience with NESA • 6 national assessments

• Argentina, Brazil, India, Republic of Korea as technology developer.

• Armenia, and Ukraine as technology user.

• Results documented in IAEA report TECDOC-1636

44

IAEA

Experience with NESA • 1 multinational assessment

(“Joint Study”): • Canada, China, France, India,

Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and Ukraine.

• Development of NES of sodium cooled Fast Reactor with Closed NFC.

• Results documented in IAEA report TECDOC-1639

•

45

IAEA

NESA Joint Study Energy System Planning in China (2005)

46

IAEA

NESA Joint Study Energy System Planning in India (2009)

47

IAEA

NESA Joint Study Simulated Nuclear Energy System in France (2009)

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

years

GWe

GEN 2GEN 3 (EPR)GEN 4 (FR)Total

IAEA

NESA Joint Study Simulated Nuclear Energy System in Japan (2009)

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2050 2100 2150 2200

Nucl

ear C

apac

ity (G

We)

Year

Total capacity is about 58 GWe After 2030.

FR(BR. 1.1)

FR(BR. 1.03)

LWR(UO2 fuel)

LWR(MOX fuel)

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2050 2100 2150 2200

Nucl

ear C

apac

ity (G

We)

Year

Total capacity is about 58 GWe After 2030.

FR(BR. 1.1)

FR(BR. 1.03)

LWR(UO2 fuel)

LWR(MOX fuel)

IAEA

NESA Joint Study Simulated NES in Republic of Korea.

50

Increase of total energy consumption: 2.5 % per year.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Time(yr)

Nuc

lear

Ene

rgy

Cap

acity

(G

We)

Total nuclear capacity

FR HWR

PWR

IAEA

NESA Joint Study

Simulated NES in Russia (2009)

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

12019

70

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Inst

alle

d C

apac

ity, G

We

VVER-440 RBMK-1000 VVER-1000

NPP-2006 FR (1,2 GWe/year) FR (3,6 GWe/year)

IAEA

NESA Joint Study • Results for Waste Management:

• FR + closed NFC: Reduced radio toxicity of HLW in comparison with LWR + open NFC.

52

IAEA

NESA Republic of Korea Selection of Nuclear Energy System:

53

DUPIC fuel cycle (spent PWR fuel converted to CANDU fuel)

IAEA

NESA Republic of Korea

• Scope of NESA: • Development of analytical approach to

quantify proliferation resistance of NES (PWR +HWR).

• Development of INPRO Methodology for proliferation resistance

• Quantification of rroliferation resistance of DUPIC fuel cycle.

54

IAEA

NESA Republic of Korea

• Results in area of Proliferation Resistance:

55

P2 P3 T4 D1 D2 D4 C1 C2 C3 C4

IAEA

NESA Ukraine

• Results for Proliferation Resistance (PR): • Legal frame work for PR established. • All 14 NES options meet all INPRO PR Criteria. • NES with fuel leasing marginal higher level of

PR (no national fuel fabrication or storage of SNF) .

56

IAEA

NESA Ukraine

• Results for Safety: • Mining/milling facility and national fuel

fabrication meet all INPRO Criteria. • All 4 reactors: increased safety level compared

to reference design compliance with INPRO Criteria.

57

IAEA

Energy system planning, M

odelling, N

ESA

58 Construction of energy demand scenarios National, regional, global

Specification of the potential role of nuclear power to contribute to mix of energy supply

National, regional, global

Selection of components of INS Modelling of INS

Assessment of INS against all INPRO requirements in all INPRO areas

Economics, infrastructure, environment, waste management, PR, PP, safety.

All INPRO Criteria fulfilled?

YES

Sustainable INS

NO Technology Developer

Define RD&D

Energy system

planning

NE

SA using IN

PRO

M

ethodology

Evaluation of energy supply options National, regional, global

Assembling information

NO Technology

User

Modelling of NES

Modify NES

1

2

3