The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified - EPRImydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/...The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified • Light-Water Reactor (LWR) Power Block – Used

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified

Nuclear Power Committee August 27, 2009

Albert Machiels Senior Technical Executive

2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Topics

• The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simplified• Light-Water Reactor (LWR) Power Block

– Used (Spent) Fuel Characteristics• Managed Storage

– Recycling in LWRs• Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) Power Block

– Recycling in FBRs– International Developments

• Geologic Disposal– A Solution and a Choice

• EPRI-sponsored Work• Potential EPRI Role/R&D Gaps


LWR Power Block

Managed Storage

Geologic Repository

FBR Power Block


LWR Power Block: U-235 (0.711% of Unat ) Energy

UsedUOX Storage

(Wet)


Used LWR Fuel – Waste or Resource?

TRU


Managed Storage

UsedUOX Storage

(Dry/Wet)

UsedUOX Storage(& UrepOX)(Dry/Wet)

URep

Used MOXStorage(Wet)

UOX Reprocessing

FPs & MAs(Glass)

UdeplMOX Fab

LWR-MOX

Pu

LLW/TRUDisposal


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

TotalActinidesPFPuAmCmSr+YCs+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

TotalActinidesPFPuAmCmSr+YCs+Ba

Source: EDF (July 2009)


HLWRepository

Closing the Fuel Cycle


LWR Power Block

Managed Storage

Geologic Repository

FBR Power Block

CLOSED FUEL

CYCLE


International Developments

• Russian Federation– BN-600 [1470 MWth]: operating since April 1980– BN-800: in construction with planned start-up in 2016

• China– China Experimental Reactor (CEFR) [65 MWth]: first criticality planned

for September 2009• Japan

– Monju reactor: shutdown since 1995 following sodium leak– Expected to re-start in February 2010

• India– 500-MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR): under construction at

Kalpakkam• France:

– Two designs: Helium-cooled fast reactor and Sodium fast reactor– Progress report due this Fall ’09– Preliminary design due in 2012– Detailed design due in 2015– Operating prototype in 2020


Geologic Repository – A Solution and a Choice

• Geologic disposal is the ultimate solution for HLW– Relatively small volumes of wastes– Adequate protection of public and environment– Societal and political acceptance is the limiting factor

• Main solution elements: Who? How? When? Where? What?

• When? Long interim storage times are required before disposal

• Where? Non-technical factors dominate– Main technical factor: document the safety case

• What? Based on RD&D progress related to:– Fast reactors– Separation and partitioning


EPRI-sponsored Work

• Early 1990s“…a process-before-disposal policy for all the spent fuel from the light water reactors (LWRs) would accrue only modest benefits ... would incur a large cost penalty…”“However, plutonium from spent LWR fuel is projected to be substantially more economic … when liquid metal reactor (LMR) deployment becomes economically justified … to protect the nation from diminishing energy resources.”“Development tasks towards defining and developing the most cost-effective LMR and associated fuel cycle remain very important.”


EPRI-sponsored Work (continued)

• 2006 to Present– Re-validated the conclusions reached in early 1990’s– Cooperation with EDF– Economic analyses using OECD/NEA software– Readiness of Existing and New U.S. Reactors for

Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel– Recycling of Reprocessed Uranium– Collaboration with INL on a “A Strategy for Nuclear

Energy Research & Development”– MIT Study on “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”

• Funding support from EPRI Technology Innovation


LWR Power Block

Managed Storage

Geologic Repository

FBR Power Block


Potential Models for EPRI Role

• EPRI’s Performance Assessment of Yucca Mountain Project– Pioneered the use of Total System Performance Assessments

(TSPA)– Input to EPA Standard

• EDF R&D– Integration with an operational perspective

• Maintain technical capability to provide the industry with informed options– Technology assessments

• R&D Gaps– Fuel cycle systems dynamic modeling– Risk assessment to compare fuel cycle options


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity


A Selection of EPRI Reports

• 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)


From NP-7261, “An Evaluation of the Concept of Transuranic Burning Using Liquid Metal Reactors” (1991)

• “The evaluation concludes that adoption of a process- before-disposal policy for all the spent fuel from the light water reactors (LWRs) would accrue only modest benefits with respect to the accumulation of uranium mill tailings, the national inventory of transuranics, and the licensing of a geologic repository. It is likely that this process-before- disposal policy would incur a large cost penalty, encounter major institutional difficulties, multiply licensing hurdles, and amplify political and public opposition to the overall nuclear power program.

• “Transuranic burning would not alleviate the need for a HLW disposal facility.

• “Adoption of a process-before-disposal policy for the current spent fuel would not be economic.”


Industry Statements on SNF Recycling (1995)

• “The promise of the ALMR is a long-term one: another safe and economic baseload electricity option, the promise of extracting full energy value from nuclear fuel (which must be done when world nuclear fuel prices support this step, if we are to remain competitive with other industrialized nations in terms of energy supply costs)…

• “The energy utilization benefits of the ALMR will be realized when uranium becomes more expensive. Current reserves are large, identified deposits for future mining are significant, and both U.S. and Russia are embarked on programs to blend highly enriched uranium (HEU) from excess weapons stockpiles with natural or depleted uranium to make more reactor grade fuel.

• “LWR fuel is safe for geologic disposal, from both a public health and safety standpoint and from a non-proliferation policy standpoint. … criteria for geologic repositories both in the U.S. and elsewhere include “retrievability” (which also has other safety and economic benefits associated with continued ability to inspect and/or reposition fuel canisters). Further, recent direction in the U.S. HLW program that emphasize an “integrated spent fuel management system,” and include greater emphasis on interim storage, dovetail much better with a rational and deliberate process of reconsidering U.S. fuel cycle policy implementation, at a time when fuel supply and economic trends show this to be a prudent course of action.”

“The U.S. Advanced Reactor Development Program: A Report by The U.S. Electric Utility Industry’s Advanced Reactor Corporation” Aug. 1995


National Academy of Sciences (1996)

• There is no evidence that application of advanced S&T (Separations and Transmutation) holds sufficient merit for the United States to delay the development of the first nuclear waste repository to contain commercial fuel. Even with an S&T system, a geologic repository would still be needed

• Application of S&T does not hold sufficient merit to abandon the once-through nuclear fuel cycle

• While the need for a second repository could be delayed by S&T, there are several other ways, both legislative and technical, to increase the capacity of the first repository by a comparable amountFrom “Nuclear Wastes – Technologies for Separations and Transmutation,” pp. 101-102


EPRI’s Findings (EPRI Report 1013442) (2006)

• Near-term US adoption of spent fuel processing would incur a cost penalty. To reap the major benefit possible to uranium conservation and/or the major reduction possible to required repository capacity, processing would have to be accompanied by deployment of fast reactor plants.

• The nation needs a broad consensus on which processing/fast-reactor technology combination is the best choice to take through as far as a demonstration. Developing and demonstrating an acceptable, affordable and reliable fast reactor appears likely to control the overall schedule and should receive appropriate development program emphasis.

• Whether the US adopts processing or not, if an expansion of US nuclear power is to be part of a global expansion, substantially improved international agreements and safeguards provisions will be necessary.

• Decisions on a possible second repository will not really be necessary until at least mid-century, so there are decades available to see whether an escalating uranium ore price will create an incentive to adopt processing and/or whether engineering development can reduce the costs of the processing scenario. All the existing spent fuel will still, of course, be accessible for processing should that be the decision.


Cooperation with EDF R&D – Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation Tools

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1965 1980 1995 2010 2025 2040 2055 2070 2085 2100 2115 2130 2145

Year

Gen. II PWR Gen. III PWR CAPRA

Existing FleetALWRs

Fast Burner Reactors

“Burner” Scenario: Assume constant 100 GWe

• After 55 years of operation, existing reactors are first replaced by ALWRs

• When capacity of ALWRs reaches 65 GWe, existing reactors are then replaced by fast burners reactors with a conversion ratio of 0.5 (or CR = 0.5)

Once-through

“Burner” Scenario

From ~2040 on:

• “Once-through” fuel cycle continues build-up of spent fuel ( repository)

• “Burner” scenario results in a stabilization of the TRU inventory that is continuously recycled


Time Required to Achieve TRU Inventory Reductions

8 23 70211

632

1334

0

200400

600

800

10001200

1400

1600

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

TRU Inventory Reduction (%)

Dep

loym

ent P

erio

d to

Ach

ieve

In

vent

ory

Red

cutio

n (y

ears

)