Nuclear Energy R

1
Nuclear Energy RD - a view from industry

• Tony Roulstone
• Jan 2010

2
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
• 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.
• The name of the game is collaboration between
  disciplines, with industry internationally.

Education
LWR Devlt
Fuel Resource
Advanced Systems
3
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
• Credit crunch gt UK over reliance on financial
  services new manufacturing?
• Climate Change -gt Expanding and de-carbonising
  electricity supply
• Nuclear Proliferation -gt New fuel cycles that
  avoid creating or protect potential nuclear bomb
  materials.

4
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.
• 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

AREVA EPR
5
Civil Nuclear Power Global Market

• Current capacity
• Nuclear energy currently provides approximately
  15 per cent of the worlds 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
6
RD 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 RD
• Existing near term design - Support and
  Development of Light Water Reactors (BWR PWR)
• Fuel cycles that extend the scope of fission in
  thermal reactors
• Advanced systems - New reactor types, potentially
  with new fuel cycles.

Education
LWR Devlt
Fuel Resource
Advanced Systems
7
Current nuclear overview of areas of study (1)
LWR Devlt

• Existing near term reactors LWRs which make
  up gt80 of world power reactors
  client objectives provide the requirements for
  research development

Major Accident Safety
Increasing Output
Extending Lifetime -gt 60 years
Fuel RadWaste
Project Economics
8
Current nuclear overview of areas of study (2)

• Existing near term reactors LWRs which make
  up gt80 of world power reactors requirements
  for research development

Major Accident Safety
Increasing Output

• Criticality transients
• Loss of coolant
• Internal/external hazards
• Passive safety systems design

• Control protection architecture/systems
• Model validation, errors safety philosophy
• Improved availability thermodynamic efficiency

Extending Lifetime -gt 60 years
Fuel RadWaste
Project Economics

• Fuel burn-up
• Recycling fuel cycles incl. MOX
• Waste disposal/storage

• Materials cracking brittle fracture,
  environmentally assisted hydrogen cracking
• Radiation embrittlement

• Design for construction modules
• Simpler designs/systems/standards including
  safety approvals

9
Some material cracking topics
Control rod motor support tube dis-similar tube
to head welds
Vessel nozzle welds low cycle fatigue
Fracture of neutron embrittled Reactor Vessel
Fuel clad FP corrosion delayed hydrogen
cracking
Issues include 60 year plant life assurance of
safety margins manufacture inspection
standards, effectiveness of enhanced material
testing.
10
External hazards a multi disciplinary approach
Issues include Modelling extreme events
handling uncertainty complexity
extending/validating design codes cost benefit
analysis risk.
Identify external Hazards
Aircraft crash
Flood
Fire explosion
Earthquake
Analyse accident frequencies sequences
Consider primary secondary means of protection
---gt Design basis of structures and safety
systems, including human factors
Probablistic Risk Analysis Low frequency /high
consequence
Design Basis Analysis High frequency Demonstrate
protection including reliability of protection
systems
11
Current nuclear overview of areas of study (3)

• Existing near term reactors LWRs which make
  up gt80 of world power reactors requirements
  for research development

Major Accident Safety
Increasing Output

• Criticality transients
• Loss of coolant
• Internal/external hazards
• Passive safety systems design

• Control protection architecture/systems
• Model validation, errors safety philosophy
• Improved availability thermodynamic efficiency

Extending Lifetime -gt 60 years
Fuel RadWaste
Project Economics

• Fuel burn-up
• Recycling fuel cycles incl. MOX
• Waste disposal/storage

• Materials cracking brittle fracture,
  environmentally assisted hydrogen cracking
• Radiation embrittlement

• Design for construction modules
• Simpler designs/systems/standards including
  safety approvals

12
Potential Fissile Fuel Limits
Fuel Resource

• Uranium (current price 55 per kg)
  Reserves Current consumption
  Growth
• World reserves to be mined _at_ 130 per kg
  4.7 Mtne 64 yrs 11 yrs
• Phosphate reserves                                
               22   Mtne               330
  yrs 55 yrs
• Sea water Uranium    _at_ 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)
• SEWTA D MacKay

Fertile fuels Uranium (reserves 4.7 Mtne
potential years at Growth nuclear energy rate
700) n fast U238 -gt U239 (23 mins)
-gt Np 239 e- (2.3 days) -gt 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 -gt Th232 (22 min) -gt
Pa 233 e- (27 days) -gt U233 e-
(further n capture
to 11 U235)
13
How to provide the additional neutrons?
LWRs with Enriched U or Pu Seed Blanket Th
Heavy Water moderated systems like CANDU SGHWR
1. More fissile material increased
enrichment/added Plutonium
2. Lower losses - more efficient moderation
Heavy Water
Fuel Resource
Thermal neutrons
3. Improved capture v fission prob gt10 in fast
neutron spectrum
4. External supply of neutrons i.e. from an
accelerator
Advanced Systems
Fast neutrons
Accelerator driven Sub-critical Reactor
Fast neutron reactors Liquid metal, Salt or Gas
Cooled
14
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

15
Thorium systems

• Thorium reactors are being considered because of
• 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 lt10,000 years
• Thorium systems require a supply of neutrons
  from
• 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
• 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.

Galperin ARWIF 2001
16
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 Russia Europe East Asia
Past Clementine, EBR-I/II, SEFOR, FFTF BN-350 Dounreay DFR, PFR, Rhapsodie, Superphénix
Cancelled Clinch River, IFR SNR-300
Operating BN-600 Phénix Joyo, FBTR
Under construction BN-800 Monju, PFBR, CEFR
Planned Gen IV (GasSodiumLead) BN-1800 4S, JSFR, KALIMER
17
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
• 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?

• Gen IV Systems
• Super Critical Water Reactor
• Very-High Temp Reactor
• Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor
• Molten Salt Reactor
• Gas-cooled Fast Reactor
• Lead-cooled Fast Reactor

18
A potential approach to System Selection
U/Pu
Th/U
Thermal
Fast
Thermal
Fast
Techn Resource
Cost Prolif
T R
C P
T R
C P
T R
C P
Open Cycle
T R
C P
T R
C P
T R
C P
T R
C P
Closed Cycle

• 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.

19
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.

20
A Possible Strategy?

• Becoming a centre of excellence in post graduate
  teaching of nuclear engineering through the
  proposed M Phil etc. Supported by an enhanced
  research programme
• 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
• 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
• 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
21
End
22
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
C P
T R
C P
Open Cycle
Technology Maturity Resource Value
Cost (TLC) Capital Op Proliferation
T R
C P
T R
C P
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.

Green Amber Red Technology
Mature Develop Problem Resource x100 x10 Once
thru Cost (TLC) LWR x2 x5 Proliferation
x10 LWR OTT /10
23
System Maturity Development cycles

• Development Clock Speed
• System Generation Safety/Conservatism Peri
  od Dev/Capital Cost Comment
• PC systems 15 Low 2 years
  100m Rapid maturity
• Motorcar 15 Mid 6 years 1bn
  100 yr devlt
• Civil Airliner 6-7 High 10 years
  10bn Mil Civ devlt
• Nuclear Power 3 V High 30 years
  5bn
• Level of frustration with nuclear, particularly
  in UK, that after 50 years and billions of RD
  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