03 494.we-heraeus-seminar dec 2011 finck

7/30/2019 03 494.WE-Heraeus-Seminar Dec 2011 Finck

1/39

Phillip FinckChief Nuclear Research Officer

December 5, 2011

Small Modu lar Reacto rs and VeryHigh Temperature Reactors


2/39

Part 1: Small Modular Reactors

2


3/39

Some Basic Term inology

IAEA definition of SMR (small and medium reactor):

Small: < 300 MWe

Medium: 300-700 MWe

Large: > 700 MWe

}

DOE definition SMR (small

modular reactor): Less than 300 MWe output

Factory fabrication andrail/road transportable to site

Operated as multi-module

plant

Small and Medium

Reactors

Ft. Belvo ir

3


4/39

The First Commercial Plants Were Smal l Proto types

Vallecitos5 MWe

1957

Dresden 1200 MWe

1960

Shippingport60 MWe

1957 4


5/39

Commercial Pow er Plant Size Inc reased Rapid lyDuring the 1970s

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Date of Initial Operation

Ele

ctricalOutput(M

We)

2000

U.S. plant construction

during the first nuclear era

5


6/39

Weinberg Stud y* (1985) Explo red Meri ts o fSmaller, Simp ler, Safer Reacto rs

Main findings:

Large light-water reactors pose very low risk to the public but highrisk to the investor

Large reactors are difficult to operate: complex and finicky

Small inherently safe (highly forgiving) designs are possible if theycan be made economically

Two designs were especially promising:

The Process Inherent Ultimately Safe (PIUS) reactor

The Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR)

*A. M. Weinberg, et al, The Second Nuclear Era, Praeger Publishers, 1985

Motivated by the dismal performance ofthe large plants (at that time)

6


7/39

Interest in SMRs is Reemerging

Enabled by excellent performance of existing fleet oflarge nuclear plants

Motivated by carbon emission and energy securityconcerns

Key Benefits: Enhanced safety and robustness from simplified designs

Enhanced security from below-grade siting

Reduced capital costa major barrier for many utilities

Competitive power costs due to factory fabrication and

modularization/standardization Ability to add new electrical capacity incrementally to match power

demand and growth rate

Domestic supply chainno large forging bottlenecks

Adaptable to a broader range of energy needs

More flexible siting (access, water impacts, seismic, etc.) 7


8/39

Small Reactor Designs Share a Common SafetyPhi losophy

Eliminate potential accident initiators ifpossible

EXAMPLE: Integral system to eliminate large pipeloss-of-coolant accident

Reduce probability of an accidentoccurring

EXAMPLE: Lower radiation exposure of reactor vesselreduces likelihood of pressurized thermal shock

accident Mitigate consequences of potentialaccidents

EXAMPLE: Increased volume of primary coolant slowsdown heat-up transient

8


9/39

While SMRs offer the potential for enhanced safetyand resilience against upset, performance must beproven

Fukushima experience emphasizes the need to fully

understand safety features Common-cause upset modes

in multi-module plants

Seismic response ofbelow-grade construction

Reliability of passive safetysystems

Quantification anddemonstration of plant

resilience

Fukush ima Wil l Inf luence SMR R&D Priori t ies

Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4 9


10/39

Fabrication and Construct ion Benef i ts

Eliminate large forgings from foreign suppliers

Substantial in-factory fabrication; less site-assemblyReduces schedule uncertainty

Improves safety/quality

Reduces cost

Reduced size and weight for

easier transport to site

Access to a greater numberof sites

Allows parallel construction of nuclear plant and balance of plant

10


11/39

Operat ional f lexib i l i t ies

Site selectionSimplified emergency

planning zoneBroader seismic conditionsLower land and water usage

Load demand

Better match to power needsRepowering of coal plants

Demand growthAdd (and pay for) smaller

increments of new capacity

Grid stabilityCloser match to traditional power generatorsSmaller fraction of total grid capacity

99% of plants > 50 years old have

less than 300 MWe capacity

U.S. Coal Plants

11


12/39

Econom ic benefi ts

Total project cost Smaller plants should be cheaper

Improved financing options and reduced financing cost

May be the driving consideration for some customers

Cost of electricity Economy-of-scale works against smaller plants but can be mitigated

by other economic factors

Accelerated learning, shared infrastructure, design simplification, factoryreplication

Investment risk Maximum cash outlay is lower and more predictable

Maximum cash outlay can be lower even for the same generatingcapacity

12


13/39

U.S. LWR Based SMR Designs for Electr ic i tyGenerat ion

Pressurizer

Steam Generator

Reactor Coolant

Pumps

Control Rod Drive

Mechanisms

Core

ContainmentVessel

Reactor

Vessel

Core

Steam

Generator

Westingho use SMR NuScale (NuScale)mPow er (Babcock & Wi lcox)

200 MWe class 125 MWe 45 MWe

Pressurizer

Steam Generator

Reactor Coolant

Pumps

Control Rod

Drive Mechanisms

Core

13


14/39

Gas-Coo led Reactor Designs Can Provide HighTemperature Process Heat

MHR (General Atom ics ) PBMR (Westin gh ou se) ANTARES (Areva)

280 MWe 250 MWe 275 MWe 14


15/39

Fast Spectrum Design s Can Provide ImprovedFuel Cycles

PRISM (General Electr ic) EM2 (General Atom ics )

311 MWe 100 MWeHPM (Hyperion )

25 MWe 15


16/39

SMR Challenges Technical

All designs have some degree of innovation in components,systems, and engineering, e.g.

Integral primary system configuration

Internal control rod drive mechanisms and pumps

Multiplexed control systems/interface

Longer-term systems strive for increased utility/security

Long-lived fuels and materials for extended operation

Advanced designs for load-following and co-generation

Sensors, instrumentation and controls development are likelyneeded for all designs

Power and flow monitoring in integral systems

Advance prognostics and diagnostics for remote operations

Control systems for co-generation plants

16


17/39

SMR Challenges Inst i tut ional

Too many competing designs

Mindset for large, centralized plants

Fixation on economy-of-scale

Economy-of-hassle drivers

Perceived risk factors for nuclear plants

Traditional focus of regulators on large, LWR plants

Standard 10-mile radius EPZ (in the U.S.)

Staffing and security force size

Plant vs module licensing

Fear of first-of-a-kind

New business model as well as new design must be compelling

17


18/39

Part 2: Very High Temperature

Reactors

18


19/39

HTGR Techno logy Well Establ ished

PROTOTYPE PLANTS

PEACH BOTTOM 1 115 MWt

(U.S.A.)

1967 1974

AVR 46 MWt

(FRG)

1967 1988

DRAGON 20 MWt

(U.K.)

1964 1975

HTR-10 10 MWt

(CHINA)

2000 - present

HTTR 30 MWt

1999 - present

(JAPAN)

THTR 750 MWt

(FRG)

1986 1989

FORT ST. VRAIN 842 MWt

(U.S.A.)

1976 1989

DEMONSTRATION PLANTS

Photos courtesy of GA

19


20/39

Two vers ions o f HTGRs: Prismatic and Pebb le

Bed Designs Dependent On Fuel Form

Pebble-bed

(AVR, THTR, SA PBMR, China, etc.)

Prismatic

(Dragon, Peach Bottom, FSV, etc.)

Photos and figures courtesy of GA and PBMR-Pty 20


21/39

High thermal efficiency

Reduced emergencyplanning costs

Simplified safety systems Lower component

contamination levels

Inc reased pu bl ic acceptance

HTGRs Offer Econom ic Advantages

Figure courtesy of GA 21


22/39

HTGRs Feature Pass ive Safety

Inert single-phase heliumcoolant

Massive graphite core

moderator

High temperature Large heat capacity

Low power density

slow heatup

Coated particle fuel

High temperature Fission particle retention

Large negative temperature

coefficient

Figure courtesy of GA

Courtesy Global Virtual LLC 22


23/39

Advan tages o f VHTRs: Safety Advantages

Courtesy Global Virtual LLC

23


24/39

Possib le Residual Heat Removal Pathswhen Norm al Forced Coo l ing System Is Unavai lable

Defense-in-Depth B uttressed b y Inh erent

Character ist ics

A)Active ShutdownCooling System

B)Passive Reactor CavityCooling System

C)Passive radiationand conduction of

residual heat to

reactor building

(Beyond Design

Basis Event)

Air Blast

Heat Exchanger

Reactor

Cavity

Cooling

System

Panels

Natural Draft,Air Cooled

Passive System

Shutdown

Cooling System

Heat Exchanger

and Circulator

24


25/39

TRISO-Coated Part icle Fuel is at the Heart o f theHigh Temperature Gas Reactor Concept

(pro vides technical basis for co -locat ion)

Key aspects of TRISO Fuel:

German industrial

experience demonstrated

that TRISO -coated particlefuel can be fabricated to

achieve high quality levels

with very low defects

This fuel is very robust with

no failures anticipated

during irradiation and under

accident conditions

Fuel form retains fission

products resulting in a high

degree of safety

25


26/39

Advantages o f HTGRs: Robus t HighPerform ance Fuel

High burnup fuel

Less waste

More energy produced per unit massof uranium

Better fuel utilization

Robust

Ultra high quality, very low fabricationdefects

Large margins to fuel failure

High fission product retentiveness

Flexible fuel cycle

U, Th, or Pu

26


27/39

Control Rods Shut Reactor Down by Gravity Also Can Shut Down by Negative Temperature Coefficient

OUTER NEUTRON

CONTROL ASSEMBLY(12)

INNER NEUTRON

CONTROL ASSEMBLY

(6)

REACTOR VESSEL

CONTROL ROD DRIVE

SUPPORT SURFACE

GAMMA SHIELDING

CONTROL ROD GUIDE

TUBE

INSULATION

FLOATING SEAL RING

NEUTRON SHIELDING

CONTROL ROD GUIDE

TUBES

CONTROL ROD DRIVE

MECHANISM

RESERVE SHUTDOWN

STORAGE HOPPER

RESERVE SHUTDOWN

STORAGE HOPPER

31' 9"

GATE (CLOSED)

HOPPER

RESERVE SHUT

DOWN TUBE

PELLETS SIZED TO

PRECLUDE BRIDGING

GATE (OPEN)

NEUTRON

SHIELDING

RESERVE SHUTDOWN

CONTROL EQUIPMENT

Drives located in Reactor

Vessel Head

Neutron shielding protects

drive

Control rods suspended by

cables

Guide tubes connect rod to

top- of-core

Reserve shutdown pellets

in hoppers

Dropped into core when

needed

Safety Feature:

Automatic Scram on

loss of power

27


28/39

Several Facto rs Motivate Recent U.S. HTGRInterest

High temperature applications Process heat

Hydrogen production (as a chemical feedstock)

Inherent safety

Simplified licensing and emergency planning requirements Reduced safety requirements

More flexible siting requirements

Political Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)

Energy independence

Grow US nuclear infrastructure

Increased public acceptance

28


29/39

Addressing the Energy Challenge

Volatile prices for oil and naturalgas

Dependence on foreign sources

Increased risk of climate change

with burning of fossil fuels

Net Oil Imports and

Price of Oil

ThousandsofBarrelsp

erDay

60% of oil and 16% of

natural gas used in U.S.

is imported

NYMEX Natural Gas Futures Close(Front Month)

3/08 l l l l l 9/08 l l l l l 3/09

Close

$

/MMBTU

29


30/39

Energy Produ ct ion and Consumpt ion in U.S.the Poten tial Market

U.S. Industry is responsible for 26% of U.S. carbon footprint

U.S. Primary Energy Flow by Source and Sector, 2009

(Quad -- Quadrillion (110 ) Btu)

Transportation

1845 Mt

Industrial

1434 Mt

Residential

1194 Mt

Commercial

1034 Mt

5,507 Mt Total

15

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

by Sector

(million metric ton equivalent)(AEO 2010, May 2010)

30


31/39

Beyond Electr ic i ty App l ications of HTGRs

High Temperature Reactors can provide energy

production that supports the spectrum of industrial applications,

including the petrochemical and petroleum industries

31


32/39

Indus tr ial Appl icat ions the Princ ipal Market

The Opportunity Providing High Temperature Process Heatand Electricity Without Burning Hydrocarbon Fuels

*Quad = 11015 Btu (293 MM MWth) annual energy consumption

Hydrogen Production(60 600 MWt HTGR Modules)

Coal-to-Liquids(24 100,000 bpd new plants)

Project 250 GW HTGR application

Petrochemical

(170 plants in U.S.

6.7 quads*)

Fertilizers/Ammonia

(23 plants in U.S. 0.3 quads

NH3 production)

Petroleum Refining

(137 plant in U.S.

3.7 quads)

Oil Sands/Shale(43 600 MWt HTGR Modules)

32


33/39

92% of coal goes to product

117 TPDCO2

Urea

1 HTGR(600MWt)

3 HTGRs(600MWt ea)

92% of coal goes

to product614 TPD CO2

Natural Gas

Thermal Cracking

>95% of

carbon goes

to product

8,950 BPDNaphtha

19,129 BPDDiesel

+

Hydrogen and

oxygen production,

co-electrolysis, coal

drying, tail gas

steam reformer,

product upgrading,

power generation

11 TPDCO2

8 HTGRs(600MWt ea)

A. Petrochemical Plant Co-generationCO2

Emissions

(Mt/day)A B C

Technology

Today5868

1283

(1983)

235

(1646)

Limited

HTGR

supply of

energy only

1534117

(1953)

11

(742)

HTGR

supply of

steam,

electricity

and hot gas

614 28 11

(sequestered values)

Impact o f HTGRson End UserCO

2Emission

Feedstock

Hot Gas

330 MWe

600K lb/hr stream

Ethylene

Feedstock,Power

Natural Gas70 millionSCF/day

B. Ammonia and Derivatives Production

2,940 TPD

3,780 TPD Ammonium Nitrate

Steam

C. Coal to Diesel and Naphtha

Feedstock

Heat + power

4,891 TPD

Coal

O2H2

Syngas

33


34/39

Steam and HotGas Cycle

Steam and HotGas Cycle

Electricity and HotGas Cycle

Nuclear Heat

Supply

System(s)

Steam

Generator

Intermediate

Heat

Exchanger

Return Feed

Steam

Primary

Helium

Primary

Helium

Gas Return

Gas Supply

Secondary

Circulator

Primary

Circulator

Primary

Circulator

Steam to Steam

Turbine

Generator and

indust r ial

processes

High Temperature

Fluid to Indust r ial

Processes

NuclearHeat

Supply

System(s)

Steam

Generator

Return Feed

Steam

Primary

Helium

Primary

Circulator Steam to

Steam Turbine

Generator and

indust r ial

processes

Intermediate

Heat

Exchanger

High

Temperature

Fluid to

Industrial

Processes

Supply

Return

Mult iple Configurat ion s Developed by HTGR Supp l iers

Steam CycleElectricity Only(Brayton Cycle)

Process Heat Options 34


35/39

Electr ic i ty and Steam Product ion

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

ElectricityProductionPrice,$

/MWhe

Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu

Electricity Production Price Versus

Price of Natural Gas, $/Mwhe, and Carbon Credits, $/metric ton CO2eqComparison of Production Pricing for HTGR and CCGT Plants

$50/MTCO2 Cost

CCGT

HTGR

CCGTNo CO2 Cost

~$4/MMBtu

~$8.5/MMBtu

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

PriceofSteam,

$/1000lbs

Price of Natural Gas, $/MMBtu

Comparing Price of Steam Generated by an HTGR and a CCGT versus

Price of Natural Gas and Cost of GHG Emissions

HTGR

CCGT, No CO2Emissions Cost

CCGT, $50/MT

CO2 Emissions Cost

~$4/MMBtu

~$7/MMBtu

Economic Factors

HTGR Plant Capital Cost $1,700/KWtCCGT Capital Cost $625/KWtDebt 80%Internal Rate of Return 15%

Financing Interest 8%

Financing Term 20 years

Tax Rate 38.9%

35


36/39

HTGR Techno logy Development and Quali f icat ionNeeds

Graphite Characterization,

Irradiation Testing,

Modeling and Codification

Fuel Fabrication,

Irradiation, and Safety

Testing

Design and Safety Methods

Development and

Validation

High Temperature Materials

Characterization, Testing and

Codification

36


37/39

High Temperature

Steam Electro lys isEfficient production of H2 or syngas

(2H2+CO) using nuclear heat and electricity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

T (C)

Overa

llthermalto

hydrogenefficiency(%)

65% of max possibleINL, HTE / He Recup BraytonINL, LTE / He Recup BraytonINL, HTE / Na-cooled RankineINL, LTE / Na-cooled RankineINL, HTE / Sprcrt CO2

INL, LTE / Sprcrt CO2SI Process (GA)MIT - GT-MHR/HTEMIT AGR -SCO2/HTE

HTSE stacks arecompact and

simple, using SOFC

technology

INL has established itself as the world

leader in developing and demonstrating

HTSE and co-electrolysis technologies

H2 is needed to upgrade carbon

sources to gasoline, diesel or jet fuel

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

light

sweet

crude

heavy oil

or

bitumen

oil shale Biomass

(woody)

coal Fisher-

Tropsch

H2

kgofH2perbarrel

Carbon Feedstock

HTSE was selectedas the most

promising way to

produce H2 using

nuclear energy.July 2009

Co-electrolysis of

H2O and CO2produces syngas,

which can be

catalytically

combined to form

lubricants, motor

fuels and a wide

variety of

hydrocarbons.


38/39

Summary

SMR

SMRs can extend clean and abundant nuclear power to a wider

range of energy demands

Emerging SMR designs are based on decades of experience

Several technical and institutional challenges must be

addressed and demonstrated VHTR

High temperature gas-cooled reactors can enable nuclearenergy to enter the non-electrical applications market helping toreduce the large carbon footprint in that sector

Passive safety characteristics of the technology make it an idealreactor to co-locate with industrial installations

Technology development is underway and is demonstrating theoutstanding attributes of VHTRs

38


39/39

39

U.S. and China are the largest consumers of energyand producers of carbon dioxide

China operates 11 nuclear power plants, representing 2percent of electricity supply, and 14 units underconstruction, and 10 planned to start construction thisyear.

The U.S. has 104 operating plants, 1 under construction(TVA Watts Bar 2), 17 applications for 26 new plantsfiled with NRC

China technology provided initially by France andRussia; US developed original PWR technology thatwas exported to France and around the world

Sanmen 1, 1100 AP1000PWR, under construction,China

Diablo Canyon, 2Westinghouse PWRsoperating, U.S.

China and U.S. share sim i lar pat terns of demand,supply g row th, and sus tainabi l i ty

Rapid growth, reliance on coal forelectricity and heat, need andpursuing everything

Both countries heavily reliant on oil,and this will not change; both seekto green coal

China slow to start its civil nuclearprogram but with ambitious plans 70 GWe operating by 2020 and 30more GW in construction

US grew its civil nuclear program ina short burst , slowed in 1979, and

today, a resurgence/ US developedthe PWR technology that is in use inmost of the world today

Nuclear cooperation agreementagreement approved by Congress in1998, 13 years after proposed

03 494.we-heraeus-seminar dec 2011 finck

Documents