Nuclear Power Reactors – An Example of Improvements in
Reliability and Potential for Improvement
Dr. Jess Gehin Director, Consortium for Advanced Simulation
of Light Water Reactors
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
5th Accelerator Reliability Workshop (ARW 2015) Knoxville, Tennessee
April 26 to May 1, 2015
2 2 2 2
Outline
• Nuclear Energy in the United States
• Availability and Reliability in Nuclear Plants
• Historical Experience on Key Performance Indicators
• Reliability of Nuclear Fuel
• CASL Research to Improve Operations
• Conclusions
3 3 3 3
There are 100 Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors in the
U.S.
4 4 4 4
Five Nuclear Reactors are Currently Under Construction
in the US TVA Watts Bar Unit 2
V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3
5 5 5 5
Several More Reactors have been Previously Proposed
Most of the Plants Delayed Because of Low 2008 Economic Downturn and Low Natural Gas Prices
Source: U.S. NRC
6 6 6 6
New Reactor Designs Being Developed/Certified by NRC
• Westinghouse AP1000® - Design Certified
• General Electric ESBWR - Design Certified (2014)
• NuScale Small Modular Reactor - Certification application to be submitted in 2016
• mPower Small Modular Reactor – Certification application suspended
• AREVA EPR – Design certification suspended
• Mitsubishi USAPWR – Design certification delayed
• Korea APR-1400 – Schedule TBD
Most Schedules Delayed Because Scale Back in Planned Construction
7 7 7 7
Availability and Reliability of Commercial Reactors
• Utilities require high availability and capacity factors for nuclear power plants – Availability Factor – fraction of the of time a reactor is able to produce
electricity
– Capacity Factor – ratio of the actual energy output to the potential output
• Desire for high capacity factors is driven by: – Large capital costs for nuclear plants
– Large cost of replacement power when the plant is shutdown
– Very low production costs compared to other sources
• Factors that affect Availability/Capacity – Planned refueling outages
– Unplanned shutdowns due to mechanical failures or offsite issues
– Major outages for maintenance, upgrades, component replacements
8 8 8 8
Nuclear Energy Has a High Capacity Factor Compared to
Other Energy Sources
Source: NEI, updated 4/14
9 9 9 9
Capacity Factors Have Increased Significantly
2014 Capacity Factor 91%
Source: NEI, updated 4/14
10 10 10 10
The US Nuclear Fleet as a Whole is Performing Well
Source: NEI, updated 4/14
11 11 11 11
Improvements in Capacity Factors Largely Driven by Optimization of Refueling
Outages
Outages are planned for spring/fall – time of low demand
Source: NEI, updated 4/14
12 12 12 12
Significant Power has Been Added Through Uprates
Plant power uprates range from 1 – 20%
Source: NEI, updated 4/14
13 13 13 13
Reliability of Nuclear Power Plants
• Reliability – A measure of plants expected generation when expected to be available.
• Scheduled Outage - The shutdown of a generating unit, transmission line, or other facility for inspection, maintenance, or refueling, which is scheduled well in advance (even if the schedule changes)
• Forced Outage - The shutdown of a generating unit, transmission line, or other facility for emergency reasons, or a condition in which the equipment is unavailable as a result of an unanticipated breakdown. – An outage is considered "forced" if it could not reasonably be delayed beyond 48 hours from
identification of the problem, if there had been a strong commercial desire to do so. In particular, the following problems may result in forced outages
– Any failure of mechanical, fuel handling, or electrical equipment or controls within the generator's ownership or direct responsibility (i.e., from the point the generator is responsible for the fuel through to the electrical connection point)
– A failure of a mine or fuel transport system dedicated to that power station with a resulting fuel shortage that cannot be economically managed
– Inadvertent or operator error
– Limitations caused by fuel quality
14 14 14 14
Several Performance Indicators are used
• U.S. NRC (primarily safety focused, but informs on reliability): – Automatic Reactor Scrams While Critical (IE)
– Significant Events (IE)
– Safety System Actuations (MS)
– Safety System Failures (MS)
– Forced Outage Rate (MS)
– Equipment Forced Outage Rate/1000 Critical Hours (MS)
– Collective Radiation Exposure (OR)
• World Association of Nuclear Operators– performance & safety – Capability factor
– Unplanned capability factor loss
– Fuel reliability
– Thermal performance
– Chemistry performance
– Collective radiation exposure
– Volume of solid radioactive waste
– Forced Loss Rate
– Unplanned automatic scrams
– Industry safety accident rate
– Safety system performance
15 15 15 15
Unplanned Automatic Scrams (Worldwide)
Source: WANO 2013
16 16 16 16
Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (Worldwide)
Source: WANO 2013
17 17 17 17
Forced Loss (of capacity) Rate (Worldwide)
Source: WANO 2013
18 18 18 18
Forced outage rate of U.S. nuclear reactors from FY 2000
to FY 2013 4.24%
3%
1.7%
3.04%
1.88%
2.34%
1.47% 1.41%
1.34%
2.21%
1.74% 1.8%
2.77%
2.98%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
2000* 2001* 2002* 2003* 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Forc
ed
ou
tag
e r
ate
Source: US NRC
Force Outage Rate: Fraction of total generation time that plant is not available
to operate
19 19 19 19
The U.S. Industry has a Focus in Improving Nuclear Fuel
Reliability
• Improving the economics by reducing the requirements to replace failed fuel
• Increase fuel utilization and lifetime
• Reduced unplanned outages to replace fuel avoiding operation and replacement power costs
Fuel Failure – cladding breach and release of fission products into coolant water
20 20 20 20
Anatomy of a Nuclear Reactor Example: Westinghouse 4-Loop Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)
Reactor Vessel and Internals
17x17 fuel assembly
Core • 11.1’ diameter x 12’ high • 193 fuel assemblies • 107.7 tons of UO2 (~3-5% U235)
Fuel Assemblies • 17x17 pin lattice (14.3 mm pitch) • 204 pins per assembly
Fuel Pins • ~300-400 pellets stacked within 12’ high x 0.61
mm thick Zr-4 cladding tube Fuel Pellets • 9.29 mm diameter x ~10.0 mm high
Operating Conditions • 2200°C – max fuel centerline • 350°C – max clad surface) • 300°C, 15 MPa – coolant water • Radiation environment • 6 year residence time
~50,000 fuel pins and over 16M fuel pellets in the core of a PWR
21 21 21 21
Details of a Nuclear Fuel Assembly
US Plants require ~1.5M fuel rods/year (500M pellets)
22 22 22 22
Reported Fuel Failures
23 23 23 23
Causes of Fuel Failures (2000 – 2008)
24 24 24 24
Approaches for Improving Fuel Reliability
• Improve fabrication quality to reduce fuel pellet and cladding defects
• Reactor operations that improve fuel performance – Slower power ramp rates to reduce strain
– Additional of chemicals to coolant reduce corrosion
• Improvements in fuel designs – Add lower nozzle strainers to filter out debris
– Improved grid designs to minimize flow induced vibration
– Improved core designs to minimize power peaking to reduce corrosion
• Research and development – Improved modeling and simulation to predict failures
– Improved materials that are more tolerant of conditions
– Experimental investigations of performance in laboratories
25 25 25
CASL was the first DOE Innovation Hub
Core partners
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Electric Power Research Institute
Idaho National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
North Carolina State University
Sandia National Laboratories
Tennessee Valley Authority
University of Michigan
Westinghouse Electric Company
Contributing Partners
ASCOMP GmbH
CD-adapco
City College of New York
Florida State University
Imperial College London
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Texas A&M University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Florida
University of Wisconsin
University of Notre Dame
Anatech Corporation
Core Physics Inc.
G S Nuclear Consulting, LLC
University of Texas at Austin
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Tennessee – Knoxville
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
A Different Approach
• “Multi-disciplinary, highly collaborative teams ideally working under one roof to solve priority technology challenges” – Steven Chu
• “Create a research atmosphere with a fierce sense of urgency to deliver solutions.” – Kristina Johnson
• Characteristics – Leadership – Outstanding, independent, scientific
leadership – Management – “Light” federal touch – Focus – Deliver technologies that can change the
U.S. “energy game”
26 26 26
CASL Scope: Develop and apply a “Virtual Reactor” to assess fuel design, operation, and safety criteria
26
• Deliver improved predictive simulation of PWR core, internals, and vessel
– Couple Virtual Reactor to evolving out-of-vessel simulation capability
– Maintain applicability to other NPP types
• Execute work in six technical focus areas to:
– Equip the Virtual Reactor with necessary physical models and multiphysics integrators
– Build the Virtual Reactor with a comprehensive, usable, and extensible software system
– Validate and assess the Virtual Reactor models with self-consistent quantified uncertainties
Focus on Addressing Challenge Problems to Drive Development and Demonstration
27 27 27 27
CRUD Predict CRUD Thickness Boron Uptake and Impact
on Core Power Distribution (CIPS) and Cladding
Corrosion (CILC)
Neutronics, Thermal-hydraulics/Fluid Flow, Chemistry
Our Challenge Problems are Focused on Key Industry Reactor
Performance Areas
Pellet-Clad Interaction Predict Core Wide PCI Margin and Missing
Pellet Surface PCI
Neutronics, Thermal-hydraulics, Fuel/Cladding Performance
Core
Operation Environment
Conditions for fuel rod depletion
over operating cycle
Neutronics, Thermal-Hydraulics,
Fuel Performance
Departure from Nucleate Boiling
Predict DNB Margin for Steam Line Break and RIA
and Predict Mixing & DNB
Neutronics, Thermal-hydraulics/Fluid Flow
Grid-to-Rod Fretting Predict Fluid-Structure Excitation Forces,
Grid Gap, and Cladding Wear
Fluid flow, Fuel/Clad Performance, Materials
Performance
Cladding Integrity
Reactivity Insertion Accident
Predict Pellet-Clad Mechanical Interaction
Reactor kinetics, Transient fuel/cladding
Performance
Cladding Integrity
Loss of Coolant Accident Predict Peak Clad Temperature and
Oxidation Margin given Thermal-Hydraulic
Conditions
Fuel/cladding performance
28 28 28 28
CASL Is Developing a High-Fidelity Virtual Environment for
Reactor Applications (VERA)
VERA
Hydra-TH COBRA-TF
Thermal-Hydraulics
Fuel Performance
Bison-CASL
Shift
Neutronics
Insilico
Chemistry
MAMBA Common Input /
Output
front-end & back-end
(workflow / analysis)
Trilinos
DAKOTA
MOOSE
PETSc
Solvers / Coupling / SA / UQ
libMesh
DTK
STK
Geometry / Mesh / Solution
Transfer
Industry Codes
Interoperability with
External Components
Reactor System
Commercial CFD
MPACT
29 29 29 29
CASL is Modeling Watts Bar Unit 1 Cycles 1 and 2
• Benchmark Spec provides data for WBN1 zero power physics tests, first cycle operation and second cycle shuffle
• Watts Bar Unit 1, Cycle 2 BOC – 4 new fuel assembly types – include different IFBA loadings – Tritium Producing Burnable Poison Rods
(TPBARS)
NP M L K J H FG ER D C B A
32
45678
109
11
1
12131415
NP M L K J H FG ER D C B A
32
45678
109
11
1
12131415
EOC1
BOC2
30 30 30 30
90 EFPD
270 EFPD
360 EFPD
We Are Now Focusing on Advanced Multi-Physics Capabilities:
MAMBA capability Integrated with COBRA-TF For CIPS Challenge Problem
31 31 31 31
CILC Requires Coupling Local Flow Conditions with CRUD Deposition
Investigations performed with coupling of Chemistry and CFD
• First high-fidelity, two-way coupled CFD/CRUD simulation of an plant cycle
• Axial and azimuthal thermal hydraulic effects dramatically affect CRUD deposition patterns
• Axial and azimuthal CRUD deposition patterns were consistent with plant data
Now Integrating Chemistry as Subgrid Model in CFD
• CRUD deposition simulated directly on fuel rod surfaces.
• Will be applied for subregion of core using CIPS calculation of power history
32 32 32 32
Technology Deployment We have now deployed 3 Test Stands
• Early deployment to industry for rapid and enhanced testing, use, and ultimate adoption of VERA to support real-world LWR applications Westinghouse (Mar 2013): Test VERA core
simulator’s ability to analyze AP1000 first core startup
EPRI (Nov 2013): Benchmark VERA fuel performance (Peregrine) on PCI applications utilizing new EPRI’s computing platform
TVA (Mar 2014): Test VERA CFD capability (Hydra-TH) on lower plenum flow anomaly observed in operational reactors
• CASL Test Stands have exposed technology gaps, deployment needs, and driven continuous improvement Have become a best practice for us
• More Test Stands on the horizon
33 33 33 33
Conclusions
• Because of economic and safety drivers reliable operation of nuclear plants is essential.
• The nuclear industry has continually improved operation of their plants over time as well.
• Nuclear fuel reliability has also significantly improved resulting in reduce down time and replacement fuel costs
• On-going research has the potential to support continual improvements.
34 34 34
Questions?