generation iv roadmap: fuel cycles
Post on 01-Jun-2022
12 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Generation IV Roadmap:Fuel CyclesFuel Cycle Cross Cut Group (FCCG)
Generation IV Roadmap SessionANS Winter Meeting Reno, NVNovember 13, 2001
FCCG Presentation
22001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
FCCG Members– Arden Bement Purdue University– Charles Boardman General Electric (Retired)– Bernard Boullis Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique– Doug Crawford Argonne National Laboratory– Charles Forsberg * *** Oak Ridge National Laboratory– Kosaku Fukuda IAEA– Jean-Paul Glatz European Commission – Dominique Greneche Cogema – Steve Herring Idaho National Engineering Laboratory – Maurice Leroy Euratom/JRC Karlsruhe – Dave Lewis Argonne National Laboratory– Hiroshi Noda JNC – Per Peterson U. of California (Berkeley)– Luc Van Den Durpel Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD) – Dave Wade * Argonne National Laboratory
* Co-chair *** Presenter
FCCG Presentation
32001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Fuel Cycle Crosscut Group CharterCharter: Examine fuel resource inputs and waste outputs for the range of
potential Generation IV fuel cycles, consistent with projected energy demand scenarios. The span of fuel cycles will include currently deployed and proposed fuel cycles based on uranium and/or thorium.
Responsibilities:• Define energy demand projections• Project ore resource base• Survey of cycle types: Identify technology gaps & Recommend R&D• Determine range of energy supply achievable by Gen IV concepts
within ore availability & waste arising constraints (Scenarios)• Recommend fuel cycle parameters for all GenIV activities
FCCG Presentation
42001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
The FCCG Examined Implications Of A Global Nuclear Energy Enterprise• World demand growth projections for nuclear energy (Midcase)
Now: 350 GWe2050: 2000 GWe World Energy Council/IIASA Case B2100: ~6000 GWe Growth at ~20-25 year doubling time
• Mainline projections exclude other applications of nuclear power(hydrogen, heat, etc.)
• Time Frame to 2100– GenIV considers reactors deployable by 2030– Reactor lifetime projected to be 60 years– Fuel cycle must consider lifetime fuel demand and waste
generation
FCCG Presentation
52001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
The Fuel Cycle in the Abstract
TechnicalFacilities
Burner
Spent Nuclear FuelConventional Mining
High-Level WasteSecondary Recovery
Low-Actinide,Reduced-Long-Lived-Fission-Product, Waste
Seawater Uranium
BreederWasteTransmutation
Flow
Flow
Capital andOperating
Funds
Energy
FlowFlow
ResourceBase
OptionsWaste
ArisingsOptions
ORNL DWG 2001-42
FCCG Presentation
62001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Four Alternative Fuel Cycles Have Been Defined
ORNL DWG 2001-125
Once Through
Spent Nuclear Fuel
SpentNuclear
Fuel
High-LevelWaste With
MinorActinides
High-LevelWaste Without
MinorActinides/Some
Fiss ion Products
Partial Recycle
All Actinide Recycle
Resource Base(Thorium and Uranium)
Waste Arisings
FissileMaterial
Ful l (Pu, U) Recycle233
Pu and U233
All FissileMater ia l
FCCG Presentation
72001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
The Key Fuel Cycle Issues Are Associated With Long-Term Sustainability
• Sustainability I: Uranium/Thorium Resources
• Sustainability II: Waste Management
• Sustainability III: Non-proliferation
FCCG Presentation
82001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Sustainability I: Cost and Environmental Impacts, Not Resource Availability, Limit Uranium And Thorium Resources• Two Periods of Ore Exploration
– 1950’s (Cold War Driven)– 1970’s (Oil Shock Driver)– Current Glut of Uranium – Negligible Prospecting Going On
• Three components in current estimates of ore– Redbook Known + Speculative Reserves:
4.5 + ~10 •15 million tonnes U– Geologic estimates to crustal abundance (see Figure)– U in Seawater in parts per billion (Billions of tonnes)
• Harvesting Ore of 10 fold reduction in assay: – 300 fold increase in reserves– 10 fold increase in mining per kg of uranium– Cost and impacts determined by economics of scale and technological advances
• Sustainable ore availability is not the issue: Cost and ecological disruption are the issues and both will be impacted by:
– Long-term competition between lower grade ores and recycle of discharged SNF– Differences in repositories with wastes from once-through and recycle fuel cycles
FCCG Presentation
92001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Distribution of Uranium in the Earth’s Crust
104
100,000
VEIN
DEP
OSIT
SVE
IN D
EPOS
ITS,
PEG
MATI
TES,
UNCO
NFOR
MIT
Y DE
POSI
TSFO
SSIL
PLAC
ERS,
SAN
DSTO
NES
FOSS
IL PL
ACER
S, S
ANDS
TONE
S
VOLC
ANIC
DEP
OSIT
S
BLAC
K SH
ALES
SHAL
ES, P
HOSP
HATE
S
GRAN
ITES
AVER
AGE
CRUS
T
EVAP
ORAT
ES, S
ILIC
EOUS
OOZ
E, C
HERT
OCEA
NIC
IGNE
OUS
CRUS
T
OCEA
N W
ATER
FRES
H W
ATER
1,000
CurrentMines
Average Crust
OceanWater
10
Ore Grade (Parts per Million of Uranium).1 .001
106
108
Estim
ated
Am
ount
of U
rani
um (t
ons)
1010
1012
1014
FCCG Presentation
102001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Sustainability II: Repository Availability May Be The Major Constraint To Nuclear Energy: Choice of Fuel Cycle Impacts The Repository
• Technical waste characteristics strongly impact repositories– Decay heat (size and costs)– Radio-toxicity (licensing and public acceptance)– Volume and waste form (requirements and cost of waste packages)– Fissile mass (safeguards and nuclear criticality)
• Example: Once-through versus P/T repository options– Decay heat controls repository size
» Repository temperatures limited to reduce potential for radionuclide releases
» Waste packages spread-out over large distances to reduce temperatures
» P/T destroys actinides—the long-lived heat generators– SNF and P/T repository designs would be very different
» SNF repository design decay heat controlled» P/T repository design option to store wastes or separate 90Sr/137Cs
before disposal and use low-heat repository
FCCG Presentation
112001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Conventional Repository Size Is Controlled By Decay Heat
• High temperatures degrade repository performance
• Temperature limited by limiting the density of waste– >10,000 waste packages– >100 km of tunnels
• Repository size can be reduced by long-term waste storage– Surface storage– Ventilated repository
FCCG Presentation
122001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Lower Decay Heat Loads From Some Fuel Cycles May Allow Much Smaller Repositories
• The key is to reduce decay heat from 137Cs, 90Sr, and actinides
• If actinides are destroyed (P/T), long-term decay-heat eliminated
• Many options for cesium and strontium management– Separate and store– Store waste until cool
• A few underground silos replace kilometers of tunnel and thousands of waste packages
• A design without 137Cs, 90Sr, and actinides is not decay-heat controlled
WasteShippingContainer
Transporter
Silo Crane
TransportedWaste Package
ClayBarrier
Silo(Final WastePackage)
Greater Than 50 MTo Surface
RockCavern
FCCG Presentation
132001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Sustainability III: Different Fuel Cycles Have Different Non-proliferation Strategies• Three strategies have been proposed
– Once-through (LWR, HTGR)» No processing
– Conventional Recycle (LWR-OX, LM)» No clean plutonium» Hot fuel
– Low weapons-usable inventory (Molten salt and gas core reactors)» 233U/232Th denatured fuel cycle; 242Pu primary weapons-
usable isotope» Hot fuel with no off-site fissile materials
• Basis for comparing cycles is not well established
FCCG Presentation
142001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Nuclear Energy Scenarios Are Being Evaluated To Understand
The Impacts Of Different Fuel Cycles • Dynamic scenarios from year 2000 to year 2100• Scenarios run for generic fuel cycle types• Performance is being evaluated against sustainability
Goals (I to III)• Idealized cases to serve as indicators of physically
achievable performance against Gen-IV sustainability goals– Model transitions from current deployments– Model symbiotic energy parks of multiple Gen-IV
concepts filling different market niches/functions
FCCG Presentation
152001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Fuel Cycles Being Examined• Once Through
– LWR– LWR and PBMR– LWR/thorium– LWR/PBMR with electricity
and hydrogen production• Partial Recycle
– LWR to LWR (OX)– LWR to Candu (DUPIC)
• Conventional Recycle (plutonium and 233U Recycle)– LWR/FR with excess fissile
to LWR– LWR/FR with excess fissile
to PBMR• Recycle Including Higher
Actinides– LWR/FR– LWR/FR/MSR– LWR/MSR
FCCG Presentation
162001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
LWR/Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Deployment With Ultimately A 50/50 Mixture
0
1200
2400
3600
4800
6000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100Time, yr
GW
e
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Demand Total deployed capacity LWR % PBMR %
PBMR %
Total deployed capacity
LWR %Demand
FCCG Presentation
172001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Relative Mass Flows For LWR/Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Deployment Versus Once-Through LWR Cycle Shows Small Global Fuel Cycle Impacts
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100Time, yr
Normalized cost SF index Pu index MA index Ore index
Ore index
MA indexPu indexNormalized cost
SF index
FCCG Presentation
182001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
The Small Impact Of The Fuel Cycle On Nuclear Economics Provides A Degree Of Freedom For Future Nuclear Systems
Investment57%
Back-End5%
Fuel Fabrication3%
Enrichment6%
Conversion1%
Uranium5%
O&M23%
Fuel cycle19%
FCCG Presentation
192001 ANS Winter Meeting Reno, NV November 13, 2001
Summary• Long-term sustainability will determine the choice of fuel
cycles– Uranium/thorium resources
» Significant resources available
» Environmental and economic factors, not availability, limit quantities
– Waste management
» Major public acceptance issues
» Many options but some of the options are only partly understood– Partitioning and transmutation of wastes
– Long-term storage before disposal– Non-proliferation
• Economics do not strongly constrain the choice of the fuel cycle—other factors may impact choices
top related