Transcript Document

Nuclear Energy R&D a view from industry
Tony Roulstone
Jan 2010
Summary
•
After 25 years of retrenchment, nuclear power is firmly on the agenda, both in
UK and around the world – driven by the issues of:
–
–
Climate Change;
Energy Security.
•
UK will replace (at least two times over) the current ~10GWe nuclear capacity;
•
Universities have the opportunity to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Educate the new nuclear engineers required to design, build, operate and develop
new systems;
Contribute to the development of Light Water Reactors;
Layout the ideas for extending the fuel resource available for nuclear fission power in
thermal systems;
Contribute to the development of Advanced Systems.
Education
•
LWR Devlt
Fuel Resource
Advanced Systems
The name of the game is collaboration: between disciplines, with industry &
internationally.
Issues for the 21st century?
•
•
•
•
Response to World Credit Crunch;
Climate Change;
Nuclear Proliferation;
International terrorism.
Gordon Brown Mansion House Nov 2009
Nuclear is (for a good or ill) linked to at least 3 of these issues:
1. Credit crunch –> UK over reliance on financial services – new manufacturing?
2. Climate Change -> Expanding and de-carbonising electricity supply;
3. Nuclear Proliferation -> New fuel cycles that avoid creating or protect potential
nuclear bomb materials.
UK Nuclear Market Background
•
15 years after the last nuclear power station (Sizewell B) was completed and within sight of the
end of life of existing AGRs, UK Government is now committed to enabling the replacement of
nuclear , using private capital and without any subsidies;
•
Government accepts that at least 8 large new stations (10-12GWe) will be built as quickly as
possible with private capital, first in 2017/8 followed by one per year from 2020;
•
Climate change pressures may well triple current UK nuclear capacity to ~30GWe by 2030/35,
providing a massive UK nuclear market: +£60bn capital spend during the next 25 years, plus
operating costs of several £bn pa;
•
UK nuclear capability has been severely eroded – skills lost;
facilities closed & work-force retirement;
•
Nuclear industry has been globalised - with the leadership coming
from France, Japan, US etc.
AREVA EPR
•
Government is working to prepare the ground (through the Office of Nuclear Development):
– Generic design licensing of two new foreign designs: EPR & AP1000;
– Infrastructure Planning Commission/process – to obviate multiple long planning enquiries;
– Provision of committed Waste & Decommissioning funds;
– Stimulating Education & Skills development. Including advanced manufacturing methods
– Developing non-proliferation issues
Civil Nuclear Power Global Market
Current capacity:
• Nuclear energy currently provides approximately 15 per cent of the world’s electricity.
• Currently around 440 nuclear plants, across 30 countries, with a total capacity of over 370 GW.
Future Capacity:
• There may be a global build rate of up to 12 nuclear reactors per year between 2007-2030, which
expected to rise to 23-54 reactors a year between 2030-2050.
Market value:
• A recent assessment by Rolls-Royce estimated that:
• Global civil nuclear market is currently worth around £30bn a year.
• By 2023 market could be worth around £50bn per year.
• Of this, approximately £20bn pa will be new build, £13bn pa in support to existing nuclear
plant, and £17bn pa in support of new build reactors.
The Road to 2010 Cabinet Office July 2009
Westinghouse
AP1000
R&D opportunities are in 3 groups
New nuclear engineering degrees such as the MPhil proposed at Cambridge
would be essential support for and be supported by expanded R&D:
1.
Existing & near term design - Support and Development of Light Water
Reactors (BWR & PWR);
2.
Fuel cycles that extend the scope of fission in thermal reactors;
3.
Advanced systems - New reactor types, potentially with new fuel cycles.
Education
LWR Devlt
Fuel Resource
Advanced Systems
Current nuclear – overview of areas of study (1)
•
LWR Devlt
Existing & near term reactors – LWRs which make up
>80% of world power reactors – client objectives provide the requirements for
research & development:
Major Accident
Safety
Extending
Lifetime -> 60 years
Increasing
Output
Project
Economics
Fuel & RadWaste
Current nuclear – overview of areas of study (2)
•
Existing & near term reactors – LWRs which make up >80% of world power
reactors – requirements for research & development:
Major Accident
Safety
Increasing
Output
• Criticality transients
• Loss of coolant
• Internal/external hazards
• Control & protection architecture/systems
• Passive safety systems design
• Improved availability & thermodynamic efficiency
Extending
Lifetime -> 60 years
• Materials & cracking – brittle
fracture, environmentally
assisted & hydrogen cracking
• Radiation embrittlement
• Model validation, errors & safety philosophy
Project
Economics
• Design for construction – modules
• Simpler designs/systems/standards
including safety approvals
Fuel & RadWaste
• Fuel burn-up
• Recycling fuel cycles incl.
MOX
• Waste disposal/storage
Some material cracking topics
Control rod motor
support tube –
dis-similar tube to
head welds
Fracture of
neutron embrittled
Reactor Vessel
Issues include: 60 year plant life;
assurance of safety margins; manufacture
& inspection standards, effectiveness of
enhanced material testing.
Vessel nozzle welds
– low cycle fatigue
Fuel clad – FP
corrosion & delayed
hydrogen cracking
External hazards – a multi disciplinary approach
Identify external
Hazards
Aircraft crash
Flood
Issues include: Modelling extreme
events; handling uncertainty &
complexity; extending/validating design
codes; cost benefit analysis & risk.
Fire explosion
Earthquake
Analyse accident frequencies & sequences
Consider primary & secondary means of protection
---> Design basis of structures and safety systems, including human factors
Probablistic Risk Analysis
Design Basis Analysis
Low frequency
High frequency
/high consequence
Demonstrate protection including
reliability of protection systems
Current nuclear – overview of areas of study (3)
•
Existing & near term reactors – LWRs which make up >80% of world power
reactors – requirements for research & development:
Major Accident
Safety
•
•
•
•
Criticality transients
Loss of coolant
Internal/external hazards
Passive safety systems design
Extending
Lifetime -> 60 years
• Materials & cracking – brittle
fracture, environmentally
assisted & hydrogen cracking
• Radiation embrittlement
Increasing
Output
• Control & protection architecture/systems
• Model validation, errors & safety philosophy
• Improved availability & thermodynamic efficiency
Project
Economics
• Design for construction – modules
• Simpler designs/systems/standards
including safety approvals
Fuel & RadWaste
• Fuel burn-up
• Recycling fuel cycles
incl. MOX
• Waste disposal/storage
Potential Fissile Fuel Limits
Fuel Resource
Reserves
Current consumption
‘Growth’
World reserves to be mined @ $130 per kg
4.7 Mtne
64 yrs
11 yrs
Phosphate reserves
22 Mtne
330 yrs
55 yrs
Sea water Uranium
@ $300(?) per kg 4500 Mtne
thousands
thousands
Current consumption rate in once through systems utilising U235 i.e. no fast breeders based on current
world-wide 370 GWe nuclear capacity (~16% of world electricity generation)
Nuclear ‘Growth’ consumption – triple the share of a larger electricity market (~2000GWe nuclear)
Uranium (current price $55 per kg)
•
•
•
•
•
SEWTA D MacKay:
Fertile fuels
Uranium (reserves 4.7 Mtne – potential years at ‘Growth’ nuclear energy rate ~ 700)
n fast + U238 -> U239 (23 mins) ->
Np 239 + e- (2.3 days) ->
Pu239 + e-
(further n capture
to Pu240/1/2 etc.)
Thorium (reserves 6 Mtne – potential years at ‘Growth’ nuclear energy rate ~ 400 )
n fast/th + Th232 -> Th232 (22 min) -> Pa 233 + e- (27 days)
->
U233 + e-
(further n capture
to 11% U235)
How to provide the additional neutrons?
LWRs with
Enriched U or Pu
Seed – Blanket Th
Heavy Water moderated
systems like
CANDU & SGHWR
Thermal neutrons
1. More fissile
material – increased
enrichment/added
Plutonium
2. Lower losses more efficient
moderation –
Heavy Water
Fast neutrons
3. Improved capture
v fission prob >10* in
fast neutron spectrum
4. External supply
of neutrons – i.e.
from an accelerator
Fast neutron reactors
Liquid metal, Salt or
Gas Cooled
Fuel Resource
Advanced Systems
Accelerator driven
Sub-critical Reactor
Thermal reactors as Plutonium breeders or burners?
• Thermal reactors (PWR, AGR, BWR) are normally breeders of Pu (~30kg/TWhe),
but can be burners, depending on fuel mix, configuration and neutron spectrum;
for thermal neutrons, fission cross section is 100* capture cross section but U238
abundance *30;
• Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel has ~5-7% Pu (replacing U235) mixed with natural or
depleted U configured in assemblies which are externally identical to normal fuel;
• There are part-loads of MOX in 30 existing LWRs in Europe and Japan, plus
plans to burn military Plutonium in both US and Russia, using conventional LWRs;
• Pu consumption is dependant on the proportion of core that has MOX assemblies:
30%
net zero production
50%
15kg/TWhe consumption
• Higher MOX loadings require modifications to burnable poison and/or control rods - to maintain
adequate reactivity shut-down and hold-down margins;
• In principle, LWRs can operate with 100% MOX with consumption 60kg/TWhe - existing reactors
would require some re-design – more control rods, higher concentration of Boron or use of B10 – perhaps
reactors designed/optimised specifically for MOX fuel;
• Multiple re-cycle brings issues of higher isotopes of Plutonium – which both act as neutron absorbers
and produce higher actinides - MoX fuel is more radioactive, hence more difficult to fabricate & handle.
Ref: NEA 4451
Thorium systems
•
Thorium reactors are being considered because of:
–
–
–
–
•
Thorium systems require a supply of neutrons from:
–
–
•
Galperin ARWIF 2001
Fission in fast or thermal reactors – with a driver fuel enriched U or Pu from reprocessing;
Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor (ADSR) – most likely fast reactor with driver core of either
enriched U or Pu – being studied by THOREA.
Prototype Thorium reactors:
–
–
–
–
•
Larger reserves with potential to convert & burn the whole resource
- compared with 0.7% of Uranium;
Potential proliferation advantages with reprocessing cycles;
Improved ability to burn Plutonium;
Lower radio-toxicity of waste <10,000 years;
Have been operated in Germany (BWR & HTGR), UK & US (HTGR), India (PHWR), Canada
(CANDU) & US (PWR & BWR);
Have been extensively studied (LWR) jointly by Germany & Brazil;
Are being planned in India (complex cycles of FR & AHWR), Russia for burning military Pu (RTR);
Are included in Gen IV - Molten Salt Reactor (Thorium Fluorides with on-site reprocessing)
Thorium systems have been little studied in UK because of:
–
–
–
–
More difficult reprocessing requirements – requires HF for dissolution;
Current availability and low price of Uranium;
Prior commitment to fast reactors;
Open Thorium cycle in LWRs may be feasible but need complex fuel shuffling & long irradiation
cycles.
Fast Neutron Reactors
• Major programs of enriched U and Pu fuelled liquid
cooled fast reactors from 1950/70s were halted by low
Uranium prices and technical difficulties from mid 1980s;
• Only BN 600 (600MWe) & small test reactors (Phénix &
Joyo) are still operating;
• Reactors & fuel operated well (400 reactor years), but
economics, concerns about proliferation & technical
difficulties included: sodium-water leaks, thermal stress in
core structure, fuel handling/fabrication – led to stand-still;
• Plans for new fast reactors as breeders (or burners of
actinides) - in all regions except Europe, though France is
leading the re-launch of fast reactors within EU.
Region
US
Past
Clementine, EBR-I/II,
SEFOR, FFTF
Cancelled
Clinch River, IFR
Russia
BN-350
Europe
East Asia
Dounreay DFR, PFR,
Rhapsodie, Superphénix
SNR-300
BN-600
Under
construction
BN-800
Monju, PFBR,
CEFR
BN-1800
4S, JSFR,
KALIMER
Planned
Gen IV (Gas·Sodium·Lead)
Phénix
Jōyō, FBTR
Operating
Advanced Systems – what are objectives, which system?
Advanced Systems
Advanced systems are being studied under the Generation IV International Forum (GIF):
– Why new systems?
•
•
•
•
•
Economics of smaller/simpler reactors – PBMR, IRIS;
Process heat for chemical eng, including direct hydrogen production;
Making use of the available fertile material – breeders;
Proliferation resistance & trans-uranic burning;
Gen IV Systems
Breaking the energy barriers – fast breeders, fusion & ITER.
– Novel designs – new fuel cycles or configurations – like Liquid or
intrinsically safe fuel, Accelerator driven sub-critical etc.
•
•
•
•
Improved safety;
Burning waste/actinides;
Proliferation resistant cycles;
Facilitate breeding cycles.
• Which system?
•
•
•
•
Fast or thermal neutron?
Gas of liquid cooled?
Solid or liquid fuelled?
High or current temperatures?
• Super Critical Water Reactor
• Very-High Temp Reactor
• Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor
• Molten Salt Reactor
• Gas-cooled Fast Reactor
• Lead-cooled Fast Reactor
A potential approach to System Selection
Thermal
Techn
Reso
U/Pu
Fast
T
R
urce
Cost
Prolif
C
P
T
R
T
R
C
P
C
P
Open
Cycle
Closed
Cycle
Thermal
Th/U
Fast
T
R
T
R
C
P
C
P
T
R
T
R
C
P
C
P
•
Once thru LWRs are dominant because of relatively mature technology & low/dependable costs, but they may
be limited in the medium term by the availability of low cost Uranium resources;
•
MoX fuel cycles enables U/Pu cycle to be extended with little increase costs and low technological risk – more
advanced designs of LWR fuel may enable steady state Pu cycle – but reprocessing separates Pu with
consequential concerns about proliferation;
•
Fast reactors offer scope for greatly extending Uranium resource – technological issues with front runner
Sodium reactors are well known, plus need to reprocess and re-fabricate the progressively more active fuels;
•
Thorium fuel can either extend existing thermal once-thru’ reactors utilising Pu as a seed/driver – with some
development & testing, or greatly increase the resource efficiency with fast reactors but with much higher
development uncertainty & timescales with both higher operating & capital costs.
How? – by Collaboration
•
Within the University:
–
•
•
Nuclear problems are particularly multi-disciplinary – e.g. Thorium fuel systems requires:
Core physics; Thermal hydraulic; Fuel & clad performance; Fuel processing etc;
With Industry/Labs:
–
–
–
New nuclear engineering development require industrial relevance and practical testing;
Expensive facilities such as test rigs and irradiation labs are in industry/NNL.
Rolls-Royce & AMEC both have strong positions in UK nuclear are - Cambridge has the links to build
a nuclear relationship with Rolls-Royce.
–
Involvement in key Government/IAEA committees on nuclear issues.
With other countries;
–
–
–
–
Nuclear is a global market & research must reflect this:
• Market scale – 3-4 leading reactor vendors world-wide;
• Standards & safety – becoming more international;
• Specialised facilities including materials test reactors exist in other countries;
• Funding – new systems development & demonstration will costs many £billions & be
collaborative.
EU capabilities and facilities are largely still in place – France & Germany – plus ambitions in Czech
Republic, Poland etc. to develop nuclear power.
Also, EU has funding & the will to support advanced systems – possible new demonstration fast
reactor;
US, while not being keen on reprocessing and hence fast reactors, will not be left behind in nuclear
development – and is keen to lead international developments.
A Possible Strategy?
1. Becoming a centre of excellence in post graduate teaching of nuclear engineering
through the proposed M Phil etc. Supported by an enhanced research programme;
2. Support major growth in nuclear in the UK (& world-wide) through development of
LWR technology - providing solutions to technical issues that limit the effectiveness
of LWR - where Cambridge has relevant & specific skills;
3. Develop new fuel design & cycles for LWRs to greatly expand the available global
nuclear fuel resource, required to respond to the challenges of Climate Change;
4. Analyse & identify the most promising advanced reactor systems and contribute to
their international development.
By collaboration: within the university, with industry, NNL & UK government/ IAEA and
internationally – EU and US.
Education
LWR Devlt
Fuel Resource
Advanced Systems
20
End
Future system selection – an outline approach
•
System attractiveness depends on many and conflicting priorities – main ones being:
–
Whether Technology is demonstrated in a robust and dependable manner:
–
How will system improve the Resource availability of usable nuclear energy;
–
Costs, both capital & whole life operating costs: fuel fabrication, reactor ops, waste/reprocessing etc.
–
Proliferation considerations.
Thermal
Fast
T
R
T
R
Technology
Maturity
Resource
Value
C
P
C
P
Cost (TLC)
Capital & Op
Proliferation
T
R
T
R
C
P
C
P
Green
Amber
Red
Technology:
Mature
Develop
Problem
Resource:
x100
x10
Once thru
Cost (TLC):
LWR
x2
x5
LWR OTT
/10
Proliferation; x10
Open
Cycle
Closed
Cycle
Baseline:
• LWR reactors Gen III+ ESBWR/ABWR, AP1000, EPR;
• Low enrichment Uranium fuels;
• New reactors spent fuel storage ~50 years no reprocessing;
• Large Plutonium stocks from previous military programs and
existing reprocessing in France, UK, Russia and Japan.
System Maturity & Development cycles
Development Clock Speed
System
Generation Safety/Conservatism
PC systems
15
Low
Motorcar
15
Mid
Civil Airliner
6-7
High
Nuclear Power
3+
V High
Period
2 years
6 years
10+ years
30 years
Dev/Capital Cost
$100m
$1bn
$10bn
$5bn
Comment
Rapid maturity
100 yr devlt
Mil & Civ devlt
• Level of frustration with nuclear, particularly in UK, that after 50 years and £billions of R&D we have
only a handful of large & somewhat inflexible power stations – dependant on limited Uranium supplies;
• What happened to the claim of ‘energy too plentiful & too cheap’ to meter?
• Other mature technologies have been through at least 5 full generations;
• Because of: conservatism; scale; project time; & cost – nuclear has only completed 3 cycles in
50+ years;
• Take more care in what is claimed for a single development cycle – not over-promise;
• New systems must have large advantages over LWRs, which need to be clearly deliverable;
• New types of reactor are being studied Gen IV designs: GCFR; LFR; SFR; MSR; SCWR; VHTR.
• Each will require better materials & more irradiation data and demonstration or test reactors;
• Some new Gen IV designs will (but many will not) be built in the medium term – next 20-30
years;