Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of...
-
Upload
frederick-brumitt -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of...
Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy
Advanced Fuel Cycles and Repositories
Dr. Phillip Finck
Deputy Associate Laboratory Director
Applied Science and Technology and National Security
2
Advanced fuel cycles can help significantly improverepository utilization . . .
. . . but they cannot replace repositories
Even in the case of very significant expansion of the nuclear option YM could be sufficient to satisfy the US waste management needs beyond the end of this century.
3
A Rich History: Lessons from the Past
Fermi: The vision to close the fuel cycle
50s: First electricity-generating reactor: EBR-I with a vision to close the fuel cycle for resource extension
60-70s: Expected uranium scarcity – significant fast reactor programs
80s: Decline of nuclear – uranium plentiful
USA (& others): once-through cycle and repository
2 paths
France, Japan (& others): closed cycles to solve the waste issue
Late 90s in the U.S.: Rebirth of closed-cycle research and development for improved waste management
Now: Long-term energy security, environment, and the role of nuclear
5
The Nuclear Energy Future
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
1970 1990 2010 2030
TW
-yrs
World Energy Demand Total
Industrial
Developing
U.S.
ee/fsu
2100: 46 TW 2050: 30 TW (Hoffert et al., Nature 395, 883,1998)
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
World Fuel Mix 2001Oil
Gas Coal
Nucl. Renew.
(EIA International Energy Outlook 2004)
85% fossil
Conclusions
• Develop multiple energy sources
• Nuclear energy share must grow
• Major markets in developing nations
12001000 1400 1600 1800 2000
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
Year AD
Atm
osp
he
ric C
O2 (
pp
mv) T
em
pe
ratu
re (°C
)
- 1.5
- 1.0
- 0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-- CO2
-- Global Mean Temp
6
Yucca Mountain Technical Limits Statutory limit needs to be changed to take advantage of closed fuel cycles Dose rate is the basis for licensing; peak dose occurs >100,000 years
– Dominated by major actinides (from plutonium and uranium decay)
Thermal engineering limits have been imposed to increase the reliability of prediction of repository performance over the long term
Waste PackageSurface (average)
Drift Wall
Between Drifts
Water Boiling, 96 C
Heating in Drift
0
40
80
120
160
200
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time after Disposal, years
Te
mp
era
ture
, C
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
De
cay
He
at,
W/m
Airflow Turned Off
51 GWd/MTIHM Spent PWR Fuel, Emplaced 25 Years After Discharge Drift Loading = 58.6 GWd/m (1.15 MTIHM/m)
Container temperature limit (short term fission product)
Drift wall temperature limit (fission products and transuranics)
Between drifts rock temperature limit (transuranics)
8
Advanced Fuel Cycle Architecture
A closed fuel cycle that meets the objectives of reducing the environmental impact of nuclear energy while increasing energy production can be composed of a combination of
– LWRs (or other Fast Reactors)
– Fast Reactors Technology choices must be made for
– LWR fuels and fuel separations technologies
– Fast Reactor technologies, fuels, and fuel separations technologies R&D must be completed for the reference choices
– (MOX fuel)
– UREX separation technologies
– Fast Reactors
– Fuels and separations for closure of the fuel cycle
9
Advanced Separations: Aqueous Spent Fuel Treatment (UREX+)
R & D Objectives• 200-MT capacity at high reliability• Safe and proliferation-resistant• Minimal waste streams
Demonstration Focus Areas• Optimized flowsheet• Plant-scale remote handling and process equipment design• Waste stream solidification and storage form demonstrations• Material control and inventory measurement systems
Clamp
Frame
Block
Chopping Volatilization
Solidification
Dissolution
Concentration
Fuel or Waste Form
10
Advanced Spent Fuel Treatment: Pyroprocessing
Demonstration Focus Areas Remote handling
equipment for high capacity (100 kg TRU) and reliability
Fuel and waste forms Materials control and
inventory measurement systems
R & D Objectives Integrated, closed fast
reactor fuel cycle Safe and proliferation-
resistant Minimized waste streams
Fuel
Fuel Element PreparationU/TRU Electrolysis and
Oxidant Production Equipment
Metal Waste Form Production
U Electrorefiner
U Product Processor
Ceramic Waste Form Production
U/TRU Product Processor
Fission Products
Fission ProductsCladding
U U / TRU
Salt
U/ TRU
Salt
11
Advanced Fast Reactor
Demonstration Focus Areas Prototypical recycled fuel Verification of safety performance Remote handling refueling equipment Economics for deployed power reactors
R & D Objectives 200-MWt demonstration burner Cost reduction design features Co-located with processing facility Fuels and safety testing capability
12
Science Needs
Better understanding of chemical phenomena to dominate losses, waste and costs
Better understanding of materials phenomena to dominate fuel behavior and facility cost and lifetime
Better simulation and modeling to reduce margins, dominate cost, safety and proliferation resistance
Towards a modernized approach to nuclear R&D
To support these ambitious objectives, scientific and engineering research need to work jointly
13
– Existing reactors– Existing repository– New Facilities
• Interim storage• Separation plants• New reactors• Fuel fabrication plants
Logistics: Optimizing a Complex System
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that the cost of electricity for a closed fuel cycle could be up to 10% higher than for a once-through cycle
Benefits include
– 100X improvement in repository waste loading (thermal constraint)
– Potential for expanded nuclear and resource extension Cost reduction should be a major objective Overall system optimization needs to be addressed
– How many of each?– Where?– When?– What materials need to be
stored/transported?