Transcript Slide 1

Australia and
Nuclear Energy Power
Professor Peter Johnston, RMIT
1
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
2
Mining and Milling
• Uranium is extracted from the ground,
removed from the host rock and daughter
products
• Uranium is made into Uranium Ore
Concentrate “Yellowcake” which is a
hydrated Uranium Oxide of 80-95% purity
depending on the temperature of calcining
the product.
• Yellowcake is often green.
3
Australia has the world’s largest U resources (38%)
but only 2nd largest producer (23%)
1400
30%
low cost resources
production 2005
1200
25%
800
15%
600
10%
% world production
20%
400
5%
200
O
th
er
s
ca
S
ou
th
Af
ri
st
an
er
U
zb
ek
i
N
ig
ia
N
am
ib
R
us
si
an
az
ak
hs
t
K
us
tra
A
a
0%
lia
0
C
an
ad
a
'000 tonnes U3O8
1000
4
Uranium deposits are widespread
5
World uranium market outlook
• Increasing world demand for uranium
Increased NPP duty cycles
Power upgrades of some plants
Increased plant lifetimes
• Uranium price increasing
US$10/lb to $86 in 4 years (Jan 21 2008)
• U resources are plentiful
not expected to constrain development of
new nuclear power capacity
• Timely opportunity for Australia to increase
uranium exports significantly
6
Downstream value-add:
opportunities and challenges
• Uranium exports (presently $0.5 bn) could be
transformed into a further $1.8bn in value
– Conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication activities
• However, the challenges are significant
7
Conversion to UF6 and Enrichment
• Purification of Uranium Ore Concentrate
• Production of UF6 which is a chemical process
involving fluorine. UF6 becomes a gas at 50˚C
• Enrichment takes natural U of 0.7% U-235
abundance and increases U-235 abundance to
approx. 3.5% typically using centrifuges
• USA and France have gaseous diffusion
enrichment plants still operating. Centrifuge
technology is 50 times more efficient.
8
Enrichment is the largest value-add step after
uranium mining
Component cost shares of a kg of uranium as enriched reactor fuel
2500
$US
US$2149
11%
2000
$US1633
1500
1000
15%
29%
US$1255
36%
19%
5%
47%
4%
56%
500
6.8%
44%
27%
0
WNA estimate
U3O8
U3O8
avg 2005 uranium prices
Conversion
Enrichment
mid-2006 spot prices
Fabrication
9
Enrichment challenges
• Enrichment market is highly concentrated – small
number of suppliers worldwide
• High barriers to entry – capital intensive,
technology tightly held, trade restrictions, limited
access to skill base
• Enrichment technology is proliferation sensitive. It
is used for civil and weapons purposes
10
The fuel fabrication market
• Highly customised
products
• Specifications depend on
reactor design and a
utility’s fuel management
strategy
• Forecasts indicate
capacity significantly
exceeds demand
Boiling water reactor fuel assembly
11
Nuclear Power for Australia?
• How quickly?
• How expensive?
• How safe – operations, accidents,
proliferation, waste?
• Environmental benefits?
• Water requirements?
12
13
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
from electricity generation
1600
1400
u shows most
likely value;
bar shows range
brown coal
subcritical
1175
kg CO2-e per MWh
1200
1000
black coal
supercritical
863
800
600
gas
combined
cycle
577
400
200
0
solar PV
106
nuclear
60
wind
21
hydro
15
14
Ingredients to emissions model
• The large range of values for nuclear
contributions to greenhouse gas emissions
come from:- Concentration of U in ore
- Enrichment technology used
- Electricity source for enrichment
15
Retail Electricity prices 2006
300
250
$A/MWh (2006)
200
150
100
50
0
Australia
France
Source: IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2006
Germany
Italy
Japan
Korea
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
16
Nuclear power cost ranges
Indicative Ranges of Nuclear Power Cost
$120
MIT
Levelised Costs ( A$ 2006 / MWh )
$100
Chicago
$80
MIT
$60
RAE
Chicago
Tarjanne
$40
Gittus
$20
$0
Low = 5%
Medium = 7-10%
High = 11-13%
Low
Medium
Discount Rates (capital spend of A$2 - 3 billion)
High
17
Generation cost comparisons
$120
Solar PV
Renewables
Coal - Supercritical
Pulverised Coal
Combustion + CCS
$110
Levelised Cost Estimates ( A$ 2006 / MWh )
$100
Coal - Integrated
Gasification Combined
Cycle + CCS
Gas - Combined
Cycle Gas Turbine
+ CCS
$90
Solar
Thermal /
Biomass
$80
$70
Nuclear
$60
Gas - Combined
Cycle Gas Turbine
$50
High Capacity
Factor Wind /
Small Hydro
Coal
$40
$30
$20
Nuclear costs are for an established industry
CCS estimates are indicative only
Renewables have large ranges and substantial overlaps
18
Generation cost comparisons
• Nuclear is least-cost low emission technology
(LET)
– Renewables, CCS more expensive on average but
will have substantial role to play
• Nuclear power is internationally proven,
least cost option in many countries
– Includes waste disposal and decommissioning
• Without carbon constraint all LETs to remain
uncompetitive
• Nuclear power can be competitive with low to
moderate emissions price
– $15 to $40 /tonne CO2-E (ETS €20 12 Feb 2008)
– Competitiveness of other LETs would also improve
19
Investment in nuclear power
• Potential investors in nuclear power in Australia
require:
– A stable policy environment
– A predictable licensing and regulatory regime
• Time frame is determined by the timing and nature
of this regime.
• Best practice is to establish funds to meet waste
and decommissioning costs
20
Nuclear Waste
• Key issue is the quantity of waste.
• One pellet of NPP fuel (~5 g) yields as
much energy as 1 tonne of coal.
• The disposal of this fuel pellet generates
high level waste, but there are significant
quantities of less radioactive waste at the
mine site and in the use of uranium,
21
Low and intermediate waste
• Safe disposal demonstrated at many sites
across the world, including in Australia
• High standard of management of waste at
Australia’s current uranium mines
22
Radioactive waste and
spent fuel management
• Relatively small waste volume
23
Reprocessing and high-level waste
(HLW) disposal
• Reprocessing is technically complex and is
unlikely to be attractive for Australia
• Technology exists for safe disposal of HLW and
spent fuel and is being applied in several
countries. No HLW yet to operation.
• Areas in Australia are suitable for HLW and
spent fuel disposal
– not required before 2050 if we adopt nuclear power
24
Implementing deep disposal
25
Why do we think HLW disposal is
OK? Natural Analogues
• Ore deposits that have been isolated for millions
of years
• Natural Reactors at Oklo and Bangombé in
Gabon. The remnants of nuclear reactors nearly
two billion years old were found in the 1970s.
• Oklo by-products are being used today to probe
the stability of the fundamental constants over
cosmological time-scales and to develop more
effective means for disposing of humanmanufactured nuclear waste.
26
Health and Safety
• Operational – construction, operation of
the plant and its decommissioning as well
as in the mining of uranium, manufacture
of fuel and waste processing.
• Accidents – rare events of high impact
27
Operational Health and safety
• Nuclear power has fewer health and safety
impacts than fossil fuel generation and hydro
• Ionising radiation and its health impacts are well
understood
• Well established international safety standards
which are reflected in Australian practice
28
Health and safety: Accidents
Fatal accidents in the worldwide energy sector, 1969–2000*
Immediate
No. accidents Immediate
fatalities
fatalities per
GWe year
Coal
1221
25 107
0.876
Oil
397
20 283
0.436
Coal (China excluded)
177
7090
0.690
Natural gas
125
1978
0.093
LPG
105
3921
3.536
Hydro
11
29 938
4.265
Hydro (Banqiao/Shimantan
10
3938
0.561
a
dam accident excluded)
Nuclear reactorb
1
31
0.006
a The Banqiao/Shimantan dam accident occurred in 1975 and resulted in 26 000 fatalities
b See Box 6.2 for information on long-term impacts of nuclear reactor accidents
Source: derived from Burgherr et al[120] and Burgherr and Hirschberg[121]
*These figures do not Include latent or delayed deaths such as those caused by air pollution from fires, chemical exposure or radiatio
exposure that might occur following an industrial accident
29
Chernobyl
• An uncontained steam/chemical explosion
and subsequent fire at Chernobyl in 1986
released radioactive gas and dust
• Wind dispersed material across Finland,
Sweden, and central and southern Europe
• People living within a 30 km radius of the
plant were relocated— approx 116 000.
30
Chernobyl – Immediate Casualties
• 28 highly exposed reactor staff and emergency
workers died from radiation and thermal burns
within four months of the accident (160 had
radiation sickness. 19 more died by the end of
2004 not necessarily as a result of the accident).
• Two other workers were killed in the explosion
from injuries unrelated to radiation
• One person suffered a fatal heart attack.
31
Chernobyl Longer-term
• > 4000 mostly children or adolescents at the time of the accident,
have developed thyroid cancer as a result of the contamination, and
fifteen of these had died from the disease by the end of 2002.
• Possibly 4000 people in the areas with highest radiation levels may
eventually die from cancer caused by radiation exposure. Of the 6.8
million individuals living further from the explosion, who received a
much lower dose, possibly another 5000 may die prematurely as a
result of that dose.
• The small increase in radiation exposure caused by the accident for
the population of Europe and beyond should not be used to estimate
future likely possible cancer fatalities. The ICRP states that this
approach is not reasonable.
• The Chernobyl Forum report in 2006 clearly identifies the extensive
societal disruption in the region as the most significant impact
resulting from the accident, compounded by the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1989.
32
Nuclear’s contribution to
radiation exposure
Source: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
33
Non-proliferation
• Export of Australian uranium takes place within
the international non-proliferation regime
• Australia has the most stringent requirements for
the supply of uranium
• Actual cases of proliferation have involved illegal
supply networks, secret nuclear facilities and
undeclared materials
• An increase in Australian uranium exports would
not increase the risk of proliferation
34
Uranium exports and non-proliferation
• The amount of uranium required for a
nuclear weapon is relatively small
• Uranium is commonplace in the earth’s
crust
• Any country that wished to develop a
weapon need not rely on the import of
uranium
• The greatest proliferation risk arises from
undeclared centrifuge enrichment plants
35
Nuclear security
• Strict physical protection standards apply to
nuclear power plants
• Studies have found that containment structures
at modern power reactors would not be
breached by the impact of a large commercial
airliner
36
Water requirements?
• NPPs usually use water for cooling as do coalfired power plants.
• Current PWRs and BWRs operate at lower
temperatures and are therefore less efficient
(use slightly more water)
• Coal PPs must be located very near the coal
deposit. Transport of ore is a major issue.
• NPPs can be located remote from ore and often
on the coast using seawater.
37
Other Nuclear Power Systems
•
•
•
•
Thorium Fuel Cycle
Gen IV Reactor Systems
Accelerator Driven Systems
Fusion (ITER)
38
Dan’s Questions
• Reactor grade Pu for bombs
• Swedish ‘incident’ of 2007
• Earthquake in Japan
39
Reactor grade Pu for bombs
• Reactor grade Pu contains Pu-239 and Pu-240
is similar quantities.
• Pu-240 is undesirable in weapons manufacture
because of short SF half-life
• Certainly a critical assembly could be produced
by reactor grade Pu.
• US planned a trial in 1962 – I understand it did
not proceed.
• No state player is likely to use such material
because the device could not be reliably stored.
40
2007 Earthquake at
Kashiwazaki Kariwa NPP
• 7965 MWe nuclear power plant
• Earthquake produces ground accelerations to
0.68g at plant – locally 11 killed, 2000 injured
• Design criteria was to withstand 0.27g
• Off-site power fail expected at 0.25g
• Plants shut down automatically without problem
• Radioactivity release – sloshing of water in spent
fuel pond and leak through cable penetrations
(IAEA judged leak trivial)
41
scram of the Forsmark unit 1
reactor on 25 July 2006
• Electricity failure caused by the short
circuit in the switchyard
• Forsmark 1 reactor was scrammed and a
number of safety systems were activated
• Two of four emergency generators failed
to start. This common cause fault resulted
in INES level 2 report.
• Position of the control rods was unclear
due to lack of power supply.
42
Conclusions
• Australia has the opportunity to expand uranium
mining.
• Enrichment may represent an opportunity for
Australia – the business case is not clear.
• Regulation needs review and a new regulatory
system created if nuclear power is pursued.
• Australia must deal with existing and future
nuclear waste, but reprocessing and taking other
countries waste are unlikely to be attractive
• Nuclear Power is the lowest cost low emission
technology for baseload power generation.
43
Potential emission cuts from nuclear build
44
Questions?
The UMPNER report
is available from the National Library Pandora archive website:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/66043
45
Thorium Fuel Cycle
•
•
•
•
•
Thorium is a naturally occurring element
Th is three times more abundant than U
Th like U-238 is fertile, not fissile
U-233 can be bred from Th and used like U-235
Requires reprocessing cycle to extract U-233,
Th much less soluble than U.
• Side product U-232 gives radiation protection
problem.
• Proliferation issues raised by U-233.
46
Gen IV Reactor Systems
• Six reactor concepts judged to be most
promising by collaborating nations.
• Technical goals
Provide sustainable energy generation that meets clean air objectives and promotes
long term availability of systems and effective fuel utilisation for worldwide energy
production
Minimise and manage nuclear waste, notably reducing the long term stewardship
burden in the future and thereby improving protection for the public health and the
environment
Increase assurances against diversion of theft of weapons-usable material
Ensure high safety and reliability
Design systems with very low likelihood and degree of reactor core damage
Create reactor designs that eliminate the need for offsite emergency response
Ensure that systems have a clear life cycle cost advantage over other energy sources
Create systems that have a level of financial risk that is comparable to other energy
projects.
47
Gen IV Reactor Systems
Reactor type
Coola
nt
Tem
p
(oC)
Pre
ssu
re
Waste recycling
Output
Research needs
Gas-cooled fast reactor
(GFR)
Helium
850
Lead-cooled fast reactor
(LFR)
Leadbismut
h
Molten salt reactor
(MSR)
Earliest
delivery
Hig
h
Yes
Electricity
and
hydrogen
Irradiation-resistant materials, helium turbine, new fuels, core
design, waste recycling
2025
550–
800
Low
Yes
Electricity
and
hydrogen
Heat-resistant materials, fuels, lead handling, waste recycling
2025
Fluorid
e salts
700–
800
Low
Yes
Electricity
and
hydrogen
Molten salt chemistry and handling, heat- and corrosionresistant materials, reprocessing cycle
2025
Sodium-cooled fast
reactor (SFR)
Sodiu
m
550
Low
Yes
Electricity
Safety, cost reduction, hot-fuel fabrication, reprocessing cycle
2015
Supercritical-watercooled reactor (SCWR)
Water
510–
550
Ver
y
high
Optional
Electricity
Corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, water chemistry,
ultra strong non-brittle materials, safety
2025
Very-high-temperature
reactor (VHTR)
Helium
1000
Hig
h
No – waste goes
directly to repository
Electricity
and
hydrogen
Heat-resistant fuels and materials, temperature control in the
event of an accident, high fuel burn-ups
2020
48
Accelerator Driven Systems
• The need for fissile material is partly replaced by
using a spallation source of neutrons
• Accelerator-driven systems consist of three main
units — the accelerator, target/blanket and
separation units.
• The accelerator generates high energy (around
1 GeV) charged particles (usually protons) which
strike a heavy material target producing
spallation surrounded by a blanket of fertile
material.
• The system works like a reactor without a critical
assembly and can burn or breed fissile material.
49
Fusion (ITER)
• The experimental fusion reactor ITER is a
major international research collaboration.
• To be built at Cadarache in France
• Cost €10 billion, half to construct the
reactor over the next seven years and the
remainder to operate it for 20 years and
then decommission the facility.
• Power 300 MW for up to 30 minutes.
50