Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Transcript of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
11
Phillip J. Finck
August 27, 2007
Joint 8th IEEE Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants and the 13th Annual Conference on Human Performance/Root Cause/ Trending/ Operating Experience/ Self Assessment
Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology, Idaho National Laboratory
GNEP Technical Integration Office Director
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
August 2007
World energy demand is growing substantially
ν World energy consumption to increase by 57 percent through 2030
ν Total energy demand in non-OECD countries will increase by 95 percent compared to 24% in OECD.
ν Uncertainty of supply and price of natural gas and volatility of oil
ν Challenge of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global warming
The world is turning increasingly to nuclear energy for sustainable development
August 2007
Nuclear power is expanding internationally to help meet the burgeoning demand
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0.1518.460011.00.html
August 2007
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership launched in February 2006
ν GNEP is part of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative– GNEP proposed to establish the
foundation for safe and secure expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S. and worldwide
– President’s FY 2007 budget proposes $250M
– FY 2008 budget proposes $405M, including $10M for safeguards technologies
“…my Administration has announced a bold new proposal called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership…we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and newmethods to recycle spent nuclear fuel.”
August 2007
GNEP vision
ν The United States “will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies
ν This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons
ν These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand”
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (March 16, 2006): p. 29
August 2007
GNEP enables safe and secure expansion of nuclear power worldwide
A global partnership and advanced recycling technologies are needed to ensure that nuclear energy expands safely and securely
ν Rising energy demandν Environmental concerns
– Greenhouse gas emissions– HLW/SNF disposal
ν Proliferation concerns– Accumulation of plutonium– Terrorists, rogue states
ν In the longer-term future, uranium resources could be strained
August 2007
GNEP supports global expansion of nuclear power
ν Continue work to encourage new nuclear plants in the U.S.
ν Advanced proliferation resistant technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel
ν Advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel
ν Reliable international fuel supply ν Enhanced nuclear safeguard
technologiesν Advanced exportable reactor
technologies
August 2007
Key international elements of GNEP augment and support nonproliferation efforts
GNEP makes diversion and misuse of fissile materials more difficult, more costly, and acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies more difficult to justify as part of a peaceful nuclear program
ν Fuel Suppliers: Operate reactors and fuel cycle facilities, including fast reactors to transmute the actinides from spent fuel into less toxic materials
ν Fuel Users: Operate reactors, lease and return fuel
ν IAEA: Provide safeguards and fuel assurances, backed up with a reserve of nuclear fuel for states that do not pursue enrichment and reprocessing
August 2007
International support for GNEP is strong
ν GNEP has engaged with advanced fuel cycle countries, reactor andcandidate reactor countries since the February 2006 announcement.– (e.g., Russia, China, France, UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada,
Australia, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines, Ukraine, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Vietnam, Malaysia, Poland, Bahrain, Jordan, and Mexico).
ν US and 5 other supplier nations proposed a reliable fuel supply initiative at the IAEA in September 2006.
ν Co-Sponsored IAEA Workshop on Infrastructure Needs for Developing Countries in December 2006
ν Bi-Lateral Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreements in place with Russia and Japan
ν Japan, France, Russia, and China, with UK and IAEA observers held a Ministerial meeting with the U.S. Secretary of Energy on May 21, 2007 in Washington, DC to state support for GNEP
August 2007
Current fuel cycle approaches
LWR LWR
MA + Reprocessing Losses
Pu + U
Spent Fuel to Repository
LWRU
Interim StorageFor use in FR
FR
Pu
OPENU.S., Finland, …
CLOSEDFrance, Great Britain, Japan, Russia, China …
(To be implemented mid-century in France, Japan, Russia, and elsewhere)
Pu +TRU
U
U
August 2007
Pu +TRU
U
Future options for the ‘back end’ of the fuel cycle
LWR
Pu + U +TRU
FR
Reprocessing Losses
Unat
FR
Reprocessing Losses
U.S. (GNEP)Sustained Recycle
(Breeding)
Pu +TRU
U
U
August 2007
10.1
0.010.001
10.1
0.010.001
225.0
94.0
10.51.0
175.0
91.0
10.31.0
54.044.0
10.01.0
5.75.54.4
1.0
Fraction Pu, Am, & Cmin Waste
Fraction Cs & Srin Waste
Limited by 200 ºC Drift Wall Temp. at Emplacement
Limited by 96 ºCMid-Drift Temp. >1600 yrs Limited by 200 ºC Drift
Wall Temp. at Closure
AssumptionsBurnup: 50 GWd/MT Separation: 25 yearsEmplacement: 25 yearsClosure: 100 years
Potential benefits of closed fuel cycle include improved waste management
ν Spent nuclear fuel is processed to remove the most hazardous radionuclides, i.e., the actinides
– Substantially lowers environmental impact per unit of energy produced
– Enables options for far greater utilization of a repository
– Repository loading is constrained by temperature limits that are reached due to decay heat generation
ν Processing must also remove fission products to limit decay heat
– Plutonium, americium and curium are already removed to reduce dose rate and can be recycled through fast reactors
– Cesium and strontium are removed for separate decay storage before disposal
ν Yucca Mountain is always needed regardless of fuel cycle scenario
Potential Drift Loading Increase Factor for Spent LWR Fuel
GNEP strategy will also enable greater utilization of energy content contained in nuclear fuel.
August 2007
GNEP requires an integrated waste management strategy
ν Aimed at determining and optimizing the waste management benefit of GNEPν To be applied to all GNEP facilities for maximum waste reductionν Systems analysis will determine the appropriate waste form and disposition
pathway, including:– Identify best existing technical approaches and need for further R&D
• UREX+ waste streams have identified waste forms and disposition pathways
– Utilize similar approaches for identical or similar waste streams– Provide input to process and facility designs
ν Transportation issues also addressed – facility siting to minimize transport; advanced remote tracking and monitoring technology development
All waste will have a pathway for permanent disposal and no liquid wastes will be created and stored long-term or disposed
August 2007
Partitioning and transmutation can greatly reduce long-term radiotoxicity
Years
Rel
ativ
e R
adio
toxi
city
Spent Fuel
Spent Fuel with Pu Recycled
Spent Fuel with MA Transmuted
Uranium Ore300 Years
11,000 Years
250,000 Years
Achieved by separationOf Pu
Achieved by Transmutationof minor actinidesin Fast Reactors
August 2007
Integrated WasteStrategyProcess
Scale-UpProcess
Scale-Up
EconomicsEconomicsTransuranicFuel Performance
ProcessLosses
Advanced recycling technology issues
August 2007
24 stage 2-cm Centrifugal Contactor in Hot Cell
ν Experiments with 1-kg batches of spent LWR fuel, 2002-2007
ν Processes are designed for either homogeneous or heterogeneous recycle of actinides
ν UREX+1a process involves the group separation of TRU elements
ν Very high separations efficiencies (>99.99%) and product purities (e.g., 99.999+% for U, 99.99% for TRU) have been achieved
Advanced processes have been successfully demonstrated at laboratory scale
August 2007July 2007
Next generation safeguards require a sustained research and technology development effort
ν Advanced measurement techniques – large throughput facilities challenge current international and domestic safeguards goals, necessitating additional measures
ν Safeguards by Design – early integration of safeguards and physical protection as full and equal partners in the design process
ν Process monitoring – inclusion of real-time operational data in a quantitative way to demonstrate enhanced safeguards effectiveness
ν Data integration, protection, and analysis – combining disparate data (instrument, video, tags/seals, etc.) to achieve an integrated view of facility operations, authentication and protection methods
ν Advanced tools – assess safeguards performance, optimize safeguards design, evaluate proliferation risk reduction from facility, site, region, and global perspective
August 2007
R&D success will require integration of experimental, advanced simulation and fundamental science
Sample/Rodlet Irradiation
FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (years)
FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hot-cell rodlet fabrication capability
Pin Irradiation
Selection of 1st generation fuel type & process
Fabrication Process development & DesignAFCF Available
Process OptimizationLTA fabricationLTA(s) available for ABR
Qualified fuel, process and models
Fuel Simulation Platform AvailableDevelopment of Fundamental Models
Phenomenological Tests
Integration of ModelsVerification & Validation
Analysis of LTA & variants
Irradiation of LTA(s)
Fast-Spectrum TestFacility Available
Input to Secretarial Decision
August 2007
Industry to lead GNEP technology deployment studies
ν Scoping studies completed earlier this yearν Deployment studies to address:
– Business plan– Technology development roadmap– Conceptual design studies– Communications plan
ν 3-6 awards totaling $60M anticipated by September 2007 – Integrated technical and business approaches to receive preferential
consideration– Initial reports to be completed by January 2008
August 2007
Path forward
ν International support for GNEP is strong and moving forward
ν Significant effort over the next year– Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
– Industry deployment studies to be launched this year
– National laboratories will help respond to key technology challenges
– Conceptual design for advanced fuel cycle research facility in progress
ν Moving to a closed fuel cycle is a natural evolution for the U.S. and is necessary