Post on 11-Jan-2016
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Paul LisowskiGNEP Deputy Program Manager and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle ManagementOffice of Nuclear EnergyU.S. Department of Energy
National Governor’s AssociationFederal Facilities Task Force, Augusta, GAMay 23, 2007
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 2
Outline
Global Energy Demand and GNEP
What is GNEP?
GNEP
GNEP
Approach
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 3
Why do we need a Global Partnership?
Rising Energy Demand
– World energy consumption is projected to increase by 71% (2003-2030)
– U.S. electricity consumption is projected to increase by 40% (2004-2025)
Environmental Concerns
– Climate change
– High Level Waste/Spent Nuclear Fuel disposal
Proliferation Concerns
– Accumulation of plutonium
– Terrorists, rogue states
Source: "Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis," Paul J. Meier, University of Wisconsin-Madison, August, 2002.
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 4
Source: Pasternak, “Global Energy Futures and Human Development: A Framework for Analysis”
Human Development Index:Life expectancyEducationGDP
80% of population is below 0.8 HDI
Electricity and Economic Development go Hand in Hand
Annual per Capita Electricity Use (kWh)
Hu
ma
n D
eve
lop
men
t In
de
x
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 5
Electricity Consumption is Primarily Concentrated in a Few Nation States
Electricity consumption per country in million kWh, (CIA factbook, April 2006)
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 6
There is a Great Opportunity for Civil Nuclear Energy to Make a Difference
Wikimedia®
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 7
Outline
Global Energy Demand and GNEP
What is GNEP?
GNEP
GNEP
Approach
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 8
GNEP is a Strategy to Support Civilian Nuclear Power Expansion Worldwide
Expand use of nuclear power
Minimize nuclear waste
Develop and deploy recycle technology
Develop and deploy advanced recycle reactors
Establish reliable fuel services
Support grid-appropriate exportable reactors
Enhance nuclear safeguards technology
The goal of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner that supports clean development without air pollution or greenhouse gases, while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation. - GNEP Statement of Principles
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 9
Outline
Global Energy Demand and GNEP
What is GNEP?
GNEP
GNEP
Approach
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 10
Key International Elements of GNEP Augment and Support Nonproliferation Efforts
Establish supply arrangements among nations for reliable fuel services to avoid the need for enrichment and reprocessing technologies.
Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors
Develop, in cooperation with the IAEA, enhanced nuclear safeguards
Over time, promote ending separation of plutonium, eventually eliminating excess stocks of civilian plutonium
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 11
GNEP International Engagement Pathways
Policy Engagement– Establish bilateral and multilateral partnerships based on GNEP principles,
including fuel supplier, fuel recipient and prospective recipient countries
Framework Development – International fuel assurance system that includes:
• Reliable fuel leasing mechanisms between fuel suppliers and users;• Emergency fuel banks/reserves in the event of an interruption in supply.
Technical Collaboration – Advanced fuel cycle cooperation (only with established fuel cycle countries)
– Grid-Appropriate Reactors (small and medium size, 10-350 Mwe);
– Infrastructure development for countries interested in nuclear power
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 12
GNEP International Engagement and Partnership Development Activities
Engaged with advanced fuel cycle countries, reactor and candidate reactor countries since 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, Mexico).
US and 5 other supplier nations proposed a reliable fuel supply initiative at the IAEA in September 2006.
Developed and circulated Statement of Principles for GNEP
US, Japan, France, Russia, and China with UK and IAEA observers met in Ministerial meeting with the Secretary of Energy on 5/21/2007 in DC to state commitment to GNEP
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 13
Outline
Global Energy Demand and GNEP
What is GNEP?
GNEP
GNEP
Approach
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 14
Slide from P. Dehmer http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/presentations/
Nuclear Energy Provides 20% of U.S. Electricity
Nuclear Share of Electricity Generation
2005104
Source: NEI http://www.nei.org/
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 15
The Last Permit for U.S. Reactors Was Issued in 1979, but we expect that to Change
Units Ordered
Construction Permits Issued
Full-power Operating Licenses
Operable Units
Shutdowns
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20000
50
100
150
200
250
300
Nu
mb
er o
f U
nit
s
8.23 quads of Nuclear Electric Power is produced by 104 operable nuclear power plants in the U.S. (i.e., average nuclear power plant = 0.08 quads)
Slide from P. Dehmer http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/presentations/
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 16
The Domestic Elements of GNEP and NP2010 Can Advance Nuclear Energy in the U.S.
Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that– Do not separate plutonium, and– Simplify the disposition of nuclear waste, thereby helping to ensure the
need for only one geologic repository in the United States through the end of this century.
Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel.
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 17
At Present the U.S. Has a Once-Through Fuel Cycle
Once-Through Fuel Cycle
Closed Fuel Cycle
Spent Nuclear Fuel disposed after a single pass through nuclear reactors in a geological repository
If nuclear power increases at the anticipated rate, the U.S. will need between 5 and 11 repositories by the end of the century
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 18
GNEP Will Move the U.S. from a Once Through to a Closed or Recycling Fuel Cycle
Once-Through Fuel Cycle
Closed Fuel Cycle
Spent nuclear fuel would be separated into useable and waste materials
Residual waste would go to a geological repository or long-term storage
Useable components would be recycled in fast reactors called Advanced Burner Reactors
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 19
Reactor Capacity
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Year
GW
e ABR Capacity
ALWR Capacity
LWR Capacity
GNEP Baseline Scenario for the U.S. - Nuclear energy provides 33% of electricity by the end of the century
23% of electricity supplyLWR: 198 GWe
FR: 33 GWe
28% of electricity supplyLWR: 344 GWe
FR: 72 GWe
33% of electricity supplyLWR: 588 GWeFR: 122 GWe
Based on Conversion Ratio of 0.5
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 20
GNEP Will Build on Waste Management Technologies Already in Place Worldwide
Reprocessing Waste Storage Facility at La Hague, France
Waste from 1 GWe reactor operating for 1 Year
Fission Products and Minor Actinides in Glass
Compressed fuel bundle cladding and hardware
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 21
Potential Benefits of Closed Fuel Cycle Include Improved Waste Management
Certain elements (plutonium, americium, cesium, strontium, and curium) are primarily responsible for the decay heat that limits repository performance
Large gains in repository space are possible by processing spent nuclear fuel to remove those elements
– The recovered elements must be treated– Cesium and strontium must be stored
separately for 200-300 years– Plutonium, americium, and curium can be
recycled for transmutation and/or fission• Irradiation in reactors
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 22
Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Products
Uranium:Uranium:499 kg499 kg , ,
0.12 m0.12 m33 as oxide as oxide
Gases on Gases on Molecular Molecular
Sieve:Sieve:0.45 kg0.45 kg , ,
0.00026 m0.00026 m33
Technetium/Technetium/TRU Losses/ TRU Losses/
Zr Hulls &Zr Hulls &Structure:Structure:154 kg154 kg , ,0.035 m0.035 m33
Uranium/Uranium/Plutonium/Plutonium/Neptunium:Neptunium:
19.7 kg19.7 kg , ,0.004 m0.004 m33 as oxideas oxide
Americium:Americium:0.64 kg0.64 kg , ,
0.000048 m0.000048 m33
as oxideas oxide
Curium:Curium:0.027 kg0.027 kg , ,
0.0000022 m0.0000022 m33
as oxideas oxide
Cs/SrCs/SrAlumino-Alumino-Silicate:Silicate:14.7 kg14.7 kg , ,0.006 m0.006 m33
Fission Prod./Fission Prod./U/TRU LossesU/TRU LossesIn BorosilicateIn Borosilicate
GlassGlass::50 kg50 kg , ,
0.018 m0.018 m33
Typical Spent PWR Fuel Assembly in the United States today: 50 GWd/MTHM burnupTypical Spent PWR Fuel Assembly in the United States today: 50 GWd/MTHM burnupMass: 460 kg Initial Heavy Metal plus 141 kg cladding and structural materialMass: 460 kg Initial Heavy Metal plus 141 kg cladding and structural materialGeologic Disposal uses about 0.65 mGeologic Disposal uses about 0.65 m33 of available repository volume per assembly of available repository volume per assembly
Structure:141 kg
Recycle as FuelStorage / Permanent Disposal< 10 % of the Repository Space< 1% of the Radiological Hazard
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 23
Radioactive Waste Management with GNEP
Process waste has 1% of the radiological hazard compared to spent nuclear fuel
High Level Waste volume reduced by at least a factor of 10 compared to the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel
All repository design and licensing requirements are still maintained– Process waste disposal greatly reduces heat load on the repository
Enables different options for geologic waste disposal– Reduced potential exposure (~ 1/100 or less) for waste from the same
amount of spent fuel– Same potential exposure, but for waste from a greater amount of spent
fuel (~ waste from 100 times or more spent fuel)– Combinations of both, reduced potential exposure and waste from a
greater amount of spent fuel (e.g., 1/10 of the potential exposure or less and waste from 10 times or more spent fuel)
Opportunity for further improvement with research and development of more robust waste forms
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 24
Outline
Global Energy Demand and GNEP
What is GNEP?
GNEP
GNEP
Approach
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 25
Initially GNEP Envisions Three Facilities
Nuclear fuel recycling center (CFTC)
Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility
(AFCF)
Advanced recycling reactor (ABR)
Transmutatuon Fuel
Industry Led, with Laboratory, University, and International Collaboration Support
Laboratory Led, Industry, University, and International Collaboration Support
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 26
The GNEP R&D Program Uses Resources Across the Nation
R&D mission – Support for technology development needs of GNEP facilities– Long-term development of advanced separations, transmutation fuel and
recycle technologies along with validated simulation and computational techniques to advance the development and approval of fuel cycle technology.
PNNLINL
LBNL
LLNL
SNL
LANLSRNL
ORNL
BNL
ANL
Ten national laboratories are engaged in the GNEP R&D program
A university supporting research program started in FY07
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 27
The GNEP Strategic Plan Calls for Specific Actions for the Near Term
Obtain input from U.S. and international industries and governments on how best to bring the needed GNEP facilities into being, what technology and policy issues must be resolved, and what business obstacles must be overcome.
Develop a detailed GNEP technology roadmap for demonstrating solutions to the remaining technical issues in order to support commercial GNEP facilities.
Pursue industry participation in the development of conceptual design and other engineering studies that support both a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor.
Prepare a programmatic GNEP Environmental Impact Statement.
Prepare a decision package for the Secretary of Energy for a 2008 decision
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 28
National Environmental Policy Act Analysis
GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
–assess reasonable alternatives–analyze potential environmental impacts–assist DOE decision-making
GNEP Siting Studies –Stakeholder interest in hosting one or both commercial-scale facilities
–14 grant applications received
–9 states (ID, IL, KY, NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, WA)
–Both DOE and non-DOE sites proposed
Notice of Intent(NOI)
1/2007
Notice of Intent(NOI)
1/2007
PublicScoping Process1/2007-6/2007
PublicScoping Process1/2007-6/2007
Draft PEISSummer 2007
Draft PEISSummer 2007
Public Comment on Draft PEISFall 2007
Public Comment on Draft PEISFall 2007
Final PEISLate Spring 2008
Final PEISLate Spring 2008
Record of Decision(ROD)
Summer 2008
Record of Decision(ROD)
Summer 2008
Advance Notice of Intent(ANOI)3/2006
Advance Notice of Intent(ANOI)3/2006
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 29
Purpose of the GNEP PEIS
Assess reasonable alternatives that:– encourage expansion of nuclear energy
production; – reduce nuclear proliferation risks; and – reduce the volume, thermal output, and
radiotoxicity of spent fuel before disposal in a geologic repository
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 30
GNEP PEIS Environmental Issues
Land Use
Visual Resources
Air Quality
Water Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Waste Management
Site Infrastructure
Socioeconomics
Environmental Justice
Human Health
Accidents/Terrorism
Transportation
Geology and Soils
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 31
Domestic Programmatic Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action– Continue once-through fuel cycle– Continue status quo in which commercial reactors generate and store
spent fuel until DOE can dispose of it in a geologic repository– Continue ongoing nuclear fuel cycle research and development
Alternative 2: GNEP Proposed Action – Broad implementation of a closed fuel cycle that could include one or
more nuclear fuel recycling centers and one or more advanced recycling reactors
With respect to Alternative 2, DOE is conducting a project-specific analysis to site, construct, and operate any or all of the three GNEP fuel cycle facilities
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 32
GNEP Site Alternatives Examined as Part of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
DOE Sites Argonne National Laboratory (IL) Hanford (WA) Idaho National Laboratory (ID) Los Alamos National Laboratory
(NM) Oak Ridge Reservation (TN) Paducah (KY) Portsmouth (OH) Savannah River National Lab (SC)
Non-DOE Sites Atomic City, ID Barnwell, SC Hobbs, NM Morris, IL Roswell, NM
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 33
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership / Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Budget
(Dollars in thousands)
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008(Request)
AFCI/GNEP $78,408 $167,500 $395,000
May 23, 2007 Federal Facilities Task Force Meeting 34
Our Approach is to:
Engage with industry and form international partnerships
Advance relevant research and development using national laboratories, international collaborations, universities, and industry
Demonstrate competence:– Involve the foremost national and international expertise
Achieve a Secretarial decision that will put in place the cornerstone for the future of nuclear power through approval and continuation of a program that will develop and foster– A vibrant domestic nuclear electrical generation industry with adequate paths to deal with the spent
nuclear fuel and that will over time close the fuel cycle– A successful global collaboration that will address the expansion of nuclear power and nuclear weapons
proliferation