The Future of Fission Power Evolution or Revolution

1
The Future of Fission Power - Evolution or
Revolution?

• Assuring the UKs Nuclear Skills Base
• Institute of Physics, April 2004
• David R Weaver
• School of Physics and Astronomy
• The University of Birmingham, UK
• d.r.weaver_at_bham.ac.uk

• Introduction Current Teaching and Research
• Analysis of the Future Requirements
• Conclusions

2
1956 Birminghams 1st Reactor Physics MSc Cohort
Scarth Cleeton Hall Amyot
Hoskins Mitchell Haginoya
Barton Fukunaga (not in photo Mirchandani)
3
Origins

• Other universities also started courses, e.g.
• Nuclear Engineering undergraduate course at
  Manchester
• Masters level course at Queen Mary College (QMC)
  in London.
• University Research Reactors established
• Imperial College, East Kilbride, Risley and QMC

4
The passage of time
5
Current University courses and facilities

• There are no longer any nuclear specific
  undergraduate courses in the UK,
• Nuclear engineering is represented simply by
  option courses in general engineering degrees
  e.g. Manchester and Cambridge.
• for a more comprehensive list see the HSE report
  
• Nuclear Education in British Universities
• Reactors - only the one at Imperial College
  survives

6
University of Birmingham Physics and Technology
of Nuclear Reactors MSc. Sponsored by a
Partnering Agreement involving AWE, BE, BNFL
(including Magnox), DML, NIREX, NNC, RR, Serco
Assurance, UKAEA, WSAtkins HSE(NII) and Nuclear
Technologies
Plus Pg Certificate and Diploma
Radioactive Waste Management and
Decommissioning MSC Medical and Radiation
Physics
7
Current MSc level courses
8
Current MSc level courses
9
Current MSc level courses
Research Oriented
10
Current Developments
Information from the April 2004 meeting of
NAILS, the Nuclear Academics Industrial
Liaison Seminar, Liverpool
11
University Research

• BNFL University Research Alliances
• Radiochemistry
• University of Manchester
• Particle Science and Technology
• University of Leeds
• Immobilisation Science
• Sheffield University
• Materials Performance
• UMIST

12
University Research

• Groups identified as Independent Technical
  Capability by the NII
• Manchester Graphite Group
• Imperial College Criticality Safety Group

13
University Research
Other university members of NAILS
Imperial College Reactor (Ascot)

• Bath Birmingham
• Cambridge City
• Hull Lancaster
• Liverpool / Clatterbridge
• Salford SUERA
• Surrey York
• HMS Sultan

14
(No Transcript)
15
Needs for the Future

• Experience tells us
• Expect the unexpected !

16
Needs for the Future

• Examples based on Gen IV
• Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors.
• Thermo-chemical hydrogen production
• Thermodynamics of Brayton cycle
• Actinide recycle
• Lead-Cooled Fast Reactors.
• Liquid metal technology
• Materials (800C)
• Actinide recycle 

17
Needs for the Future

• Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors.
• Ultrasonics
• Delayed Neutrons
• Materials for heat exchangers
• Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)
• Molten salt chemistry/CFD
• Epithermal neutron physics

18
Needs for the Future

• Supercritical water-cooled reactors.
• Supercritical water properties and thermodynamics
• 25 MPa and 510-550C
• Very high-temperature gas reactors.
• Very high temperatures (1000C)
• Materials
• Fuel manufacture microspheres

19
Needs for the Future

• Examples Based on Accelerator Driven
• Systems for Power or Transmutation
• Accelerator Technology
• Reactor Dynamics
• Cross sections
• Actinide Processing

20
Needs for the Future

• Physics
• Chemistry
• Process Chemistry
• Metallurgy
• Materials
• Safety
• Mechanical Engineering
• Instrumentation

• Thermal-Hydraulics/CFD
• Energy Conversion Technology Thermodynamics
• Analysis
• Software Development
• Economics
• Policy
• Public Perception etc.

Tom Lennox, NNC, Research Development for
Generation IV Systems UNTF-2004, University of
Liverpool, April 19-21, 2004
21
Analysis of the Future Requirements
22
SWOT Analysis Strengths

• Existing core of interested University
  Departments
• Mix of skills
• e.g. Physics, Materials, Chemistry, Engineering,
  Computation, Radiobiology, Environmental Science,
  Policy
• Good liaison through NAILS
• with each other
• with industry
• Useful relationships within Europe
• The Frédéric Joliot/Otto Hahn Summer Schools in
  Reactor Physics

23
SWOT Analysis Weaknesses

• Low level of guaranteed funding
• The changing face of the UK nuclear industry,
  e.g. Privatisation, more fragmented industry
• Harder for universities to establish and maintain
  funding routes
• Decreasing Supply of Recruits to Engineering and
  Science Degrees

24
SWOT Analysis Weaknesses

• Changes within the UK university system
• Funding Pressures
• both students and Universities themselves
• 4 year courses, MRes
• greater debt on graduating from 1st degrees
• being encouraged into a research oriented routes
  (hinders vocational MSc recruitment)
• Competition from other Career Paths
• Technical
• Financial

25
SWOT Analysis Opportunities

• BNFLs URA's and Project Dalton at Manchester
• European developments ENEN, NEPTUNO
• Opportunities for Distance Learning and Computer
  Aided Learning
• EPSRC
• Fission RD call
• possible CTA bid for Nuclear Technology Training
  by a consortium of Universities
• Cogent - the Sector Skills Council, recently
  expanded to include the nuclear power area
• World Nuclear University (?)
• Other worldwide collaborations (WUN, IAEA, )

26
SWOT Analysis Threats

• Lack of sufficient funding
• to meet the needs of University managements to
  regard nuclear technology work as viable
• Uncertainty in the Decommissioning funding flows
• directly to Universities
• via Decommissioning organisations e.g. BNFL,
  UKAEA
• Uncertainties in Current Reactors and New Build
  funding flows
• Competition acting destructively
• Too many groups seeking to run similar courses
• Each ending up with insufficient to be viable.
• Distance Learning
• Costs of start up
• IPR

27
Conclusions

• We are in a time of transition
• The Universities can and should have a role in
  providing training for nuclear technology.
• We offer independence and breadth
• But
• Financial flows are not at all clear nor
  guaranteed
• Small numbers of students want nuclear, or even
  just a general technological education
• It is very possible that current enthusiasm for
  new courses and research will be dampened by
  demand which turns out to be more limited than
  promised

28
Conclusions

• There are Positive Signs
• There is an awakening to the concerns
• LMU/NDA is progressing
• COGENT
• KNOO
• (Keeping the Nuclear Option Open)
• European Collaboration
• Gen IV activities

29
Conclusions

• However, it needs to be clearly understood that
• should the universities not perceive viable
  sources of support for their activities in the
  nuclear technology area,
• there is a very real chance that the
  university-based resources could still disappear
  very rapidly.
• And it will be harder to rebuild than to destroy

30
The answer to the Question Evolutionary or
Revolutionary?

• Think Revolutionary
• Do consider non-conventional futures
• New reactor types
• New integrated nuclear and hydrogen economies
• Act Now Evolutionary
• so that future Revolutions can happen
• Act NOW
• Dont say we did not warn you when
• UKs CO2 output goes up as nuclear stations close
• The lead time to New Build means a new nuclear
  station cannot be delivered as fast as one would
  like
• Dependence on imported natural gas bites
• Universities decide nuclear technology income is
  not big enough to sustain the activity

31
(No Transcript)