Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Status of Nuclear Energy in the
United States
Dr. Warren F. Miller, Jr., PhD
Assistant Secretary
For Nuclear Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
22January 2010
Nuclear Power, Present and Future
Where We Are Today
104 Nuclear plants provide about
20% of U.S. electricity generation
High capacity factors above 90%
Provide 70% of low GHG emitting
electricity
Columbia (1)
DiabloCanyon (2)
San Onofre(2)
Palo Verde
(3)
Monticello (1)
Prairie Island
(2)
Ft. Calhoun (1)
Cooper (1)
Wolf Creek (1)
Duane Arnold (1)
Callaway
(1)
ANO (2)
Comanche
Peak (2)
South Texas (2)
River Bend
(1)
TurkeyPoint (2)
St. Lucie(2)
Farley(2)
Hatch (2)
Sequoyah (2)
Catawba (2)H. B. Robinson (1)
Summer (1)
Harris(1)
Brunswick (2)
Surry (2)
Calvert Cliffs (2)
Hope Creek (1)Salem (2)Oyster Creek (1)
Millstone (2)Pilgrim (1)Seabrook (1)
Vermont Yankee (1)
FitzPatrick(1)
Nine Mile Point (2)
Ginna (1)
La Salle (2)
Kewaunee (1)
Point Beach
(2)Palisades
(1)
Fermi (1)
Davis-Besse (1)
Perry(1)
Three Mile Island (1)
Limerick (2)Indian Point (2)
Quad-Cities (2)
Braidwood (2)
CrystalRiver(1)
Grand Gulf
(1)
BrownsFerry (3)
Watts Bar (1)
NorthAnna
(2)
Oconee(3)
Waterford (1)
Dresden (2)
McGuire(2)
BeaverValley
(2)
Peach Bottom (2)
Susquehanna(2)
Byron (2)
Clinton (1)
3
Maximizing the Use of
Existing Nuclear Plants
License Renewal – originally licensed for 40
years
– 59 license renewals approved by NRC to
operate for an additional 20 years
– 20 license renewal applications in NRC
review
– 17 additional license renewal applications
anticipated
Power up-rates continue
– Since 1977, 5726 MWe added to existing
fleet
– Applications have been submitted for an
additional 1145 MWe
– Between now and 2014, applications are
expected for another additional 2419 MWe
4
January 27, 2010: President
Obama’s State of the Union
Speech
“But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more
production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building
a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”
5
Progress Towards New Construction
Early Site Permits
– 4 early site permits approved for Clinton, Grand Gulf, North Anna and Vogtle nuclear sites.
– 2 additional permit applications are under review.
Construction and Operating License (COL) Applications
– 18 COL applications for 28 new reactors have been submitted to the NRC
Reactor Design Certifications
– 2 designs certified by NRC (ABWR and AP1000)
– 3 new designs (ESBWR, EPR, APWR) and 1 amendment (AP1000) under NRC review
New Plant Orders
– 4 plant construction contracts initiated
– 9 power companies have placed orders for forging of large components
Plant Construction
– Site preparation activities started at 4 locations, including Vogtle and Summer
– Tennessee Valley Authority has resumed construction activities at Watts Bar 2, and reinstated construction permits for Bellefonte 1 and 2
Financial Incentives
– Conditional loan guarantee issued for enrichment facility in Idaho
– Conditional loan guarantee issued for 2 reactors in Georgia
66
Locations of Proposed New Units
ABWR – GE Nuclear Energy
AP1000 – Westinghouse Electric Company
EPR – AREVA Nuclear Power
ESBWR – GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
USAPWR - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
7
Office of Nuclear Energy Mission
The primary mission of NE is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of making major contributions in meeting the nation’s energy supply, environmental, and energy security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, security and regulatory issues, through research, development, and demonstration (RD&D).
Objective is to enable the development and deployment of fission power systems for
– Production of electricity (MWh)
– Process heat (BTUs)
8
Nuclear Energy Roadmap
Nuclear energy objectives were developed
to focus resources on national imperatives
for clean energy, economic prosperity, and
national security.
Contribution of nuclear power to U.S.
energy mix must increase significantly to
meet these aggressive objectives.
─ Internal and external studies project growth
on the order of 50 to 100 GWe by 2030.
NE Roadmap outlines an integrated approach to meet objectives.
Roadmap addresses transformation of NE programs to a more science-based approach.
9
Nuclear Energy Objectives
Develop technologies and other
solutions that can improve the
reliability, sustain the safety, and
extend the life of current reactors
Develop improvements in the
affordability of new reactors to
enable nuclear energy to help meet
the Administration's energy security
and climate change goals
Develop sustainable nuclear fuel
cycles
Understand and minimize the risks
of nuclear proliferation and
terrorism
10
Science-Based Approach to
Nuclear Energy Development
Experiments – Physical tests to develop understanding of single effects or integrated system behaviors.
Theory – Creation of models of physical behaviors based on understanding of fundamental scientific principals and/or experimental observations.
Modeling and Simulation – Use of computational models to develop scientific understanding of the physical behaviors of systems. Also used to apply scientific understanding to predict the behavior of complex physical systems.
Demonstrations – New technologies, regulatory frameworks, and business models integrated into first-of-kind system demonstrations that provide top-level validation of integrated system technical and financial performance.
Engineering-Scale Demonstration
Modeling &
Simulation
Experiments Theory
11
Objective 1: Life Extension
Goal is to extend plant life beyond 60 years with improved performance
Challenges
─ Aging and degradation of system structures and components
─ Fuel reliability and performance
─ Obsolete analog instrumentation and control technologies
─ Design and safety analysis tools based on 1980’s vintage knowledge bases and computational capabilities
12
Objective 2: New Builds
Goals
─ Demonstrate 10 CFR Part 52 licensing framework
─ Facilitate accelerated licensing of small modular reactors
─ Facilitate development and demonstration of advanced manufacturing and construction technologies
─ Develop and demonstrate next generation advanced plant concepts and technologies
Challenges
– Financial hurdles associated with new plant
– Deploy small reactors to reduce up front capital costs
– Develop plant designs that address industrial needs
– Develop new regulatory frameworks
13
New Builds to Support Transition from Fossil Fuels
Goals
– Use existing technology to reduce
greenhouse gas emission
– Develop and qualify technologies to
provide process heat
– Develop interfacing systems for
industrial and transportation sectors
– Establish basis for licensing high
temperature reactors
Challenges
– Providing process heat to industry will require: Higher temperature reactors, efficient
heat transport systems, interface systems for control and isolation, and a robust
licensing case.
– Institutional differences exist between transportation, industrial, and electric power
sectors.
– High temperature reactors will generate used fuels that are not in the present fuel
cycle.
14
Objective 3: SustainableFuel Cycles
Goals
─ In the near term, define and analyze fuel cycle technologies to develop options that increase the sustainability of nuclear energy
─ In the medium term, select preferred fuel cycle option for further development
─ By 2050, deploy preferred fuel cycle
Challenges
– Develop high burnup fuel and structural materials to withstand irradiation for longer periods of time
– Develop simplified separations, waste management, and proliferation risk reduction methods
– Develop optimized systems to maximize energy production while minimizing waste
15
Bases for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development Program (FCRD)
Dry cask storage is safe, and used nuclear fuel can be stored for at
least 50 years.
– R&D includes work on long-term storage.
From safety perspective, there is not an urgency to implement a final
fuel cycle.
– There is time to purse R&D to assess better approaches.
The once-through fuel cycle is the baseline.
– Options will be evaluated against the baseline.
– Final choice may include both once-through and reprocessing.
At least one repository will be needed for all options.
Blue Ribbon Commission will provide a policy/planning framework that
will guide FCRD.
1616
Issues Impacting Choices
Technology readiness
Costs of reactor systems
Availability/costs of uranium
Repository issues (capacity, availability, costs, geological media, etc.)
Proliferation risks
Social issues (intergenerational equity, resource stewardship, repository siting, etc.)
Etc.
Contributions to the Costs of Electricity
from Operating Nuclear Power Plants
Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite; Energy Resources
International via NEI, Inc.
•Average cost of operating plants is
approximately 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (NEI).
•Uranium cost will be a smaller fraction of new
plants costs.
Fuel
O&M
Fuel
Uranium
72%
1%2%
4%
9% 12%
28%
Operations and Maintanence
Conversion
Fabrication
Waste Fund
Enrichment
Uranium
Slide Material from Erich Schneider -
University of Texas, ANTT Meeting,
Washington, DC, February 19, 2009
17
Uranium Requirements
Through 2100
World nuclear power demand obtained from WEC/IIASA “Global Energy Perspectives” A-3 Scenario.
Redbook Resources
Redbook Resources
+
Phosphates
The figure* presents cumulative world uranium consumption for scenarios
ranging from once through (30-35 million tons) to a transition to breeders
beginning in 2040 (13 million tons).
*Carre and Delbecq, “French Fuel Cycle
Strategy and Transition Scenario
Studies,” Proc. PHYSOR 2006.
18
Price For Many (34) Minerals vs.
Time…
Gen IV Fuel Cycle Crosscut Group Prediction for U
US Geologic Survey data. Price Ratio = price of the mineral in year 1 (1900 or first
year data are available) divided by current price of the mineral.
Mineral prices have dropped over the past century.
Slide Material from
Erich Schneider -
University of Texas,
ANTT Meeting,
Washington, DC,
February 19, 2009
19
Three Potential Fuel Cycle
Options
Once-Through
– No recycling or conditioning of used fuel
– Low uranium utilization
– Appropriate for a low price uranium future
– Appropriate when repository capacity and/or actinide loadings are not show stoppers
Full Recycle
– Multiple reprocessing steps and transmutation of actinides
– “Complete” uranium utilization (with breeder)
– Appropriate for high price uranium future
– Appropriate when repository capacity and/or actinide loadings are show stoppers
Modified Open Cycle
– Very limited used fuel conditioning or processing (e.g., recladding)
– High uranium utilization and burnup (i.e., used fuel is spent fuel)
– Appropriate for a high price uranium future or intent to better utilize domestic resources
– Appropriate when major constraint is on repository capacity (e.g., heat loading,
geologic media)
– Appropriate when actinide loading is not a show stopper
20
Three Potential Fuel Cycle
Options (cont’d)
Ore recovery, refining and
enrichmentFuel
Reactor Geologic disposal of used fuel
Electricity, process heat
Once-Through (Open)
Full Recycle (Fully Closed) *
Separation
Ore recovery, refining and
enrichmentFuel
Reactor
Electricity, process heat
Geologic disposal of process
waste
Modified Open *
Fuel treatment
Geologic disposal of process
waste
Ore recovery, refining and
enrichmentFuel
Reactor
Electricity, process heat
Geologic disposal of spent
fuel (after at least one
reburn)
*A specific fuel cycle strategy may include more than one fuel design, reactor design, or fuel treatment process.
Modified Open Cycle
Modified open cycles can provide
benefits of both Open and Full
Recycle fuel cycles.
Modified open cycles involve reuse
of fuel which may require some form
of treatment.
Treatment means modification of the
used fuel.
This could be as simple as heat
treating the used fuel cladding or as
complex as chemical processing
and recladding the fuel.
Some separations processes
employed for full recycle may be
used for the modified open cycle.
Modified Open Cycle
Examples
Breed and burn concepts (including
the traveling waves designs) both
with and without fuel conditioning
Deep burn of transuranics in high-
temperature gas reactors (requires
fuel processing)
Deep burn of transuranics in inert
matrix fuels
DUPIC process for recycle of LWR
fuel into CANDU reactors with
thermal treatment of fuel
Fission-fusion systems
Accelerator driven systemsS
tart
er
(In
itia
l a
ctive
co
re)
De
ple
tin
g z
on
e
(De
ple
ted
ura
niu
m)
8.0
m
1.2
m
Core (4.0 m)
Radial reflector
(0.5m)
23
Objective 4: Understand andMinimize Proliferation Risk
Goal is limiting proliferation and security threats by protecting materials, facilities, sensitive technologies and expertise.
Challenges
─ Develop proliferation risk assessment methodologies and tools
─ Minimize potential for misuse of technology and materials
─ Develop highly reliable, remote, and unattended monitoring technologies
─ Design improved safeguards into new energy systems and fuel cycle facilities
─ Develop advanced material tracking methodologies
2424
International Cooperation
Most NE programs have
international components.
International collaborations
enable us to leverage resources,
maximize work, and minimize
duplication.
We have bilateral and multilateral
agreements in place to
investigate advanced reactor
concepts, fuel cycle
technologies, and other areas of
research, development and
demonstration.
25
Generation IV
International Forum (GIF)
Advanced designs offer improvements in
waste management, performance,
economics, and sustainability.
Six advanced reactor concepts are being
developed.
Investment of 10 nations in collaborative
R&D is over $100M per year.
U.S. interest focused on high temperature
gas cooled and sodium fast reactors.
26
International Framework for
Nuclear Energy Cooperation
At Accra, Ghana on June 18, 2010, GNEP was renamed the
International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) and
a new charter was put in place.
IFNEC provides a forum to explore beneficial approaches to ensure
the application of civil nuclear energy proceeds in a manner that is
efficient and meets the highest standards of safety, security and non-
proliferation.
Critical work is performed by Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services Working
Group and Infrastructure Development Working Group
Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services Working Group
established to identify practical measures for
moving towards reliable comprehensive fuel service
arrangements, including cradle-to-grave fuel
services.
Infrastructure Development Working Group
established to facilitate development of
infrastructure needed for worldwide nuclear energy
expansion in a safe, secure and peaceful manner.
27
International Framework for
Nuclear Energy Cooperation
Participants (As of October 23, 2009)
1. Armenia
2. Australia
3. Bulgaria
4. Canada
5. China
6. Estonia
7. France
8. Ghana
9. Hungary
10. Italy
11. Japan
12. Jordan
13. Kazakhstan
14. Republic of Korea
15. Lithuania
16. Morocco
17. Oman
18. Poland
19. Romania
20. Russia
21. Senegal
22. Slovenia
23. Ukraine
24. United Kingdom
25. United States
Observer Organizations
1. International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)
2. Generation IV
International Forum (GIF)
3. Euratom
Observer Countries
1. Algeria 26. Tanzania
2. Argentina 27. Tunisia
3. Bahrain 28. Turkey
4. Bangladesh 29. Uganda
5. Belgium 30. United
Arab
6. Brazil
Emirates
7. Czech Republic 31. Vietnam
8. Egypt
9. Finland
10. Georgia
11. Germany
12. Greece
13. Kenya
14. Kuwait
15. Latvia
16. Malaysia
17. Mexico
18. Mongolia
19. Netherlands
20. Nigeria
21. Slovakia
22. South Africa
23. Spain
24. Sweden
25. Switzerland
28
Crystal Ball Gazing to 2050
Existing plants are operated safely as long as possible.
Six to eight new Generation III+ plants deployed by 2020.
One or more SMRs operating by 2020.
Gen IV high temperature reactors become economically
viable, delivering electricity and process heat, and
reducing the need for fossil fuel plants.
Hybrid plants use nuclear energy to reduce carbon
footprint in the transportation and industrial sectors while
also producing electricity.
29
Major Challenges
Nuclear Energy Challenges
– Managing the interface worldwide between nuclear energy and
nuclear weapons
– Assuring a safety and security culture spreads as nuclear energy
is deployed
– Reducing capital cost of nuclear energy
30
Future Leaders and Personal
Leadership Challenges
Characteristics
– Able to work well in team environments
– Personal Integrity
– Willingness to work hard
Required Preparation
– Experience in an international environment
– Formal education
– Successful experience working in a team environment
– Leadership experience
Personal Leadership Challenges
– “Firing” a non-performing PhD scientist
– “Skeptics” Working Group
