IEA ETSAP Workshop on Energy Modelling and Applications ... Introduction V3.pdf · Nuclear power...
Transcript of IEA ETSAP Workshop on Energy Modelling and Applications ... Introduction V3.pdf · Nuclear power...
Undarmaa Baatarkhuu
The University of Tokyo
FUJII-KOMIYAMA Laboratory
ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGYSTRATEGY WITH OPTIMAL NUCLEAR FUELCYCLE MODEL
1
Research Overview
Current Work: Competitiveness with Coal-fired Power
Results
Future Work
IEA ETSAP Workshop on Energy Modelling and Applications | 2016/12/14
2
2
Consideration of Future Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Generation III and IV reactors, FBRs …
Undiscovered resources
Unconventional uranium resource: phosphates, seawater uranium
Alternative fuel cycles based on thorium
Future Challenges in Nuclear Power
Stability of fuel supply
Economics
Nuclear non-proliferation
Nuclear safety
Objective of this studyAnalysis of the optimal nuclear power generation and the flow of the
nuclear material, using a nuclear fuel cycle model.
Nuclear power capacity increases by almost 60%, from 392 GW in 2013 to 624 GW in 2040
Current policies and policy proposals: World Energy Outlook 2014.New Policies Scenario
Transition of nuclear power capacity by region
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Background
2.3%/ year
3
Determines the economically rational optimal operation through minimization of the
total expenses for electricity generation within the target period, expressed in present value of money.
Target processes Uranium/thorium procurement Uranium enrichment UOX/MOX fuel fabrication Heavy water production Electricity generation Storage Reprocessing (U/Pu cycle) Vitrification Direct disposal
Features
Analysis of long-term operation-100 years
Transition of Pu isotopic composition-due to radioactive decay
Consideration of technology trends-Advanced LWRs, recycling, seawater Uranium, Thorium utilization
Resource limitation
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Model
Power Generation Existing Reactors: IAEA. World Nuclear
Reactors(2015)
Advanced LWR (GEN III, III+) Fast Breeder Reactor High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Thorium fuel: HWR, LWR
4
Linear Programming
Minimize the object function(linear) while satisfying the given constraints(linear).
Overall cost of nuclear fuel cycle (Economy)
𝑶𝒃𝒋 =
𝒚
𝝈 × (𝒇𝒄𝒚
+ 𝒗𝒄𝒚)
𝜎 term of discount rate, 𝑓𝑐𝑦
fixed cost, 𝑣𝑐𝑦
variable cost, y time point Fixed cost: capital cost of facilities Variable cost: fuel and operation costs
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Method
Objective function
Costs in the lifecycle of a nuclear power plant World Energy Outlook 2014
5
Various constraints on operation
Electricity supply-demand
balance
Capacity constraints of facilities
Sf storage capacity(AR,AFR)
Mass balance of materials
(U, Pu, Th)
Resource limit of uranium
Pu enrichment limitation etc..
at each stage
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
MethodLinear Programming
Minimize the object function(linear) while satisfying the given constraints(linear).
Constraints
6
Transition of Isotopic Composition Ratio of Plutonium
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Method
Nuclide Fissile Half-life238Pu × 87.74
239Pu ○ 24110
240Pu × 6564
241Pu ○ 14.29
242Pu × 373300
Spent Fuel Cooling/Storage
Change in Pu composition ratio
Mass balance in
Reprocessing/MOX fabrication
Mass balance of Plutonium
𝑖 fuel,f spent fuel,sPu separated Pu,NFI isotopic composition of fuel, Fuelamount of fuel fabricated, Lfr time lag from reprocessing to fuel fabrication , EFPefficiency of fabrication for fuel 𝑖 , VT Pu isotopic composition after y-y0 years, RPF amount of spent fuel to reprocess, Spuamount of separated Pu for fuel
𝑵𝑭𝑰𝒊,𝑷𝒖 × 𝑭𝒖𝒆𝒍𝒊,𝒚+𝑳𝒇𝒓= 𝑬𝑭𝑷𝒊 × (𝑽𝑻𝒚−𝒚𝟎,𝒇,𝑷𝒖 × 𝑹𝑷𝑭𝒚,𝒚𝟎,𝒊,𝒇+ 𝑽𝑻𝒚−𝒚𝟎,𝒔𝑷𝒖,𝑷𝒖 × 𝑺𝑷𝒖𝒚,𝒊)
7
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Scenario Settings: Resource and Demand
Annual O&M Cost Rate 0.03
Life Time [year] 15
Electricity Consumption [GWh/t] 0.5
Variable Cost [$/kg SWU or HM] 1230
Construction Cost[$/kg /year] 1775
Resource category
IdentifiedUndiscover
edTotal
<40$/㎏U 0.68 - 0.68
<80$/㎏U 1.96 0.67 2.62
<30$/㎏U 5.90 3.86 9.77
<260$/㎏U 7.63 4.70 12.33
World uranium resources Mt by end-2013. WEO 2014.
Seawater Uranium
ThoriumOECD/NEA Uranium 2014
Initial price 80$/kg ThAnnual increase rate 0.5%
Natural UraniumCost increases with the supply, according to resource grade
Science & Global Security, 21:134–163, 2013
Nuclear Power DemandOutlook for Nuclear Power. WEO 2014
2461 TWh(2012) + 2.3%/year until 2040
Increase rate assumed to remain constant during the calculation period.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105
World Nuclear Power Demand (TWh)
2.3%
8
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Scenario Settings: Cost
Reactor Capital Costs
Cycle cost [$/kg SWU・HM]
Uranium enrichment 118
UOX fuel fabrication 275
MOX fuel fabrication 325
Heavy water production 300
UOX reprocess 800
MOX reprocessing U235, Pu 800
Spent fuel transport 160
Vitrification 90
Direct disposal 350
• IAEA. Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. (2012)• OECD NEA. Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. (2016)• 電力事業連合会. コスト等検討小委員会. (2003)
Reactor type Construction cost [$/kW]
Decommissioning cost [$/kW]
BWR, PWR 2000 500
ABWR, APWR 2000 500
FBR 2500 500
FR, HTGR 2000 500
HWR 2200 500
Fuel Cycle Costs
9
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Scenario Settings: Other
Global spent fuel in AR and AFR interim storage 258,700 t HM IAEA. Nuclear Technology Report. 2015
• Subject to reprocessing
• Considered as LWR spent fuel at AFR site
Separated Plutonium 505 tIPFM. Global Fissile Material Report. 2015
• Subject to MOX fuel Fabrication
• Storage cost 1000$/kg-Pu/year
𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚+𝟏 ≤ 𝟏 + 𝑳𝑼 × 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚(𝟏 − 𝑳𝑳) × 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚−𝟏 ≤ 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚
𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 Natural uranium supply in year y, 𝐿𝑈: growth rate upper, 𝐿𝐿: growth rate lower
16
-6 -10
0
10
20
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
World Uranium Production 2004-2014 [tU]
Production Change %
WNA Information Library 2015
Growth rate Constraint for Natural Uranium demand
10
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
ResultsPower Generation
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
Electricity Generation [TWh]
LWR UOX LWR MOX ALWR UOX ALWR MOX FBR
FR UHWR ThHWR ThPWR HTGR
FBR MOX
ALWR MOX
LWR UOX
ALWR UOX
ThPWR
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
Total Capacity [GW]
LWR ALWR FBR FR UHWR ThHWR ThPWR HTGR
FBR
ALWRLWR
ThPWR
• Current LWR fleet was replaced with advanced LWRs
• Uranium price increases and MOX generation becomes economically
competent → Large scale deployment of FBRs in the second half
• LWR reactor with Thorium MOX fuel also becomes economical, however
the proportion was small, due to relatively low efficiency and availability
of plutonium.
11
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
ResultsUranium Supply
0
500
1000
1500
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Uranium Supply [t/year]
Natural U Seawater U
Reused Depleted U Avg.Cost [$/kg U]
0
500,000
1,000,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Spent Fuel Storage and Reprocessing [t/year]
Past SF Storage On-site StorageOff-site Storage MOX Fabrication MFBReprocess (UOX) REPU Reprocess (MOX) REPM
Spent Fuel and Reprocessing Plutonium
• Reprocessing and MOX fabrication
increase as Uranium price grows
• Spent fuel storage decreases as
reprocessing increase
• Spent fuel from the past was not
reprocessed because of lower rate of
Pu, compared to discharged fuel
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Nat.Th [t]
12
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
Pu Balance [t/year]
Pu240 Pu239
FBR-MOX
Th-MOX
LWR-MOX
Pu supply
Pu consumption
Pu242Pu238
Pu241
Plutonium Balance
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Results
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Pu Supply [t/year]
Pu from Stockpile Pu from reprocessing
• Plutonium balance stabled around 2500 t/year at the end
• Current Plutonium stockpile was used up in early stage
13
Cost Structure
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Results
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Cost Structure [Million $/year]
Natural Uranium Thorium
Nuclear Power Plant Fixed Chemical Plant Fixed
Chemical Variable Storage
Seawater U Fixed Seawater U Variable
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Electricity Cost [$/MWh]
Marginal Cost[mil$/kWh] Average Cost[mil$/kWh]
OECD/IEA-NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015
• About 80% is fixed cost of NPPs
• Fuel cost proportion grows with U
from seawater
• Electricity price within the period is
consistent with projection by IEA
14
Base Load Share: Nuclear power demand is decided by competitiveness
with thermal power generation
Estimate the impact of measures against global warming on use of nuclear energy in the model :CO2 tax, CO2 emission limit etc.
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Competitiveness with Coal-fired Power Plants
Coal PriceIEA. Resources 2013
Increases with the supply, according to resource category.
Base Load DemandWorld Energy Outlook 2014. New Policies Scenario
6438
11665
13620
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
1990 2012 2020 2040
Base Load: Nuclear+Coal [TWh]
Coal Nuclear Total
1.08%
1.96%
2.73%
Electricity demand-supply balance
p: nuclear power plant, cp: coal power plant, Xi electricity
consumption of chemical plants, Load: electricity
demand
𝜎 term of discount rate, 𝑓𝑐𝑦
fixed cost, 𝑣𝑐𝑦variable
cost, y time point, CO2tax carbon tax, STC carbonstorage cost
𝒑
𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒑 +
𝒄𝒑
𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒑 = 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 + 𝑿𝒊 × 𝒔𝒘𝒖
𝑶𝒃𝒋 =
𝒚
𝝈 × (𝒇𝒄𝒚
+ 𝒗𝒄𝒚 + 𝑪𝑶𝟐𝒕𝒂𝒙 + 𝑺𝑻𝑪)
Objective Function
15
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Competitiveness with Coal-fired Power Plants
Result Example: Carbon Budget Scenario
IPCC: to have 50% chance of meeting the internationally agreed goal oflimiting the temperature increase to 2OC, the world cannot emit more than a total of around 1000 Gt of CO2 from 2014 onwards. IEA WEO 2014
Limit of total carbon emission from coal-fired within the calculation period: 120 Gt-C (44% of total carbon budget)
Coal CCS Coal IGCC-CCS
Efficiency 0.39 0.39 0.431
Annual O&M cost rate 0.048 0.048 0.048
Own consumption rate 0.06 0.06 0.06
Life time [year] 40 40 40
Heat content [GWd/t] 3.08E-04 3.08E-04 3.08E-04
Carbon intensity [kg C/kWh] 2.28E-01 2.28E-01 2.28E-01
Capital cost [$/kW] 1500 1625 1950
Capture rate 0 0.9 0.9
Electricity for capture/storage 0 0.815 0.269
Carbon storage cost [$/kg-C] 0 0.05 0.05
Power Plant Parameters
Overview Current Work Result Future Work
Effect of Carbon Budget (Example)
16
Power Generation
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
Total Capacity [GW]
LWR ALWR FBR FR UHWR ThHWRThPWR HTGR COAL CCS Coal IGCC
ThPWR
ALWRLWR
COAL
IGCC
FBR
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
1 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
Electricity Generation [TWh]
LWR UOX LWR MOX ALWR UOX ALWR MOX FBR
FR UHWR ThHWR ThPWR HTGR
FBR MOX
ALWR MOX
LWR MOX
ALWR UOX
COAL
LWR
IGCC
ThPWR
• Due to the carbon emission constraint, proportion of nuclear was large
• Coal-fired power plant was used due to it’s cost competitiveness
• Carbon budget was used up about in 80 years
• Coal fired IGCC-CCS power generation starts growing afterwards, due
to low emission and economic competitiveness
Overview Current Work Result Future Work
Effect of Carbon Budget (Example)
17
Uranium Supply
Carbon Emission
0
500
1000
1500
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Uranium Supply [t/year]
Natural U Seawater U
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
1 5 91
31
72
12
52
93
33
74
14
54
95
35
76
16
56
97
37
78
18
58
99
39
7Carbon Emission [Mt C]
Cumulative net emission [Gt] IGCC captureCCS capture Gross carbon emission MtNet carbon emission Mt
• Total carbon emission remains
under budget with
deployment of Carbon
Capture and Storage.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1 7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
Nat.Th [t]
Overview Current Work Result Future Work
Effect of Carbon Budget (Example)
18
Cost Structure
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Cost Structure [Million$/year]
CO2 Storage Seawater U VariableSeawater U Fixed CO2 TaxCoal Power Plant Fixed CoalStorage Chemical VariableChemical Plant Fixed Nuclear Power Plant FixedThorium Natural Uranium
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Electricity Cost [$/MWh]
Marginal Cost[mil$/kWh] Average Cost[mil$/kWh]
• Average cost decreases as
proportion of coal power increases
• Electricity cost remains low despite
the use of seawater uranium, with
the contribution of IGCC-CCS
Overview Current Work Result Future Work
Effect of Carbon Budget (Example)
19
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
1 6
11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96
Chemical Plant Output
Enrichment ENR UOX Fabrication UFB
MOX Fabrication MFB Reprocess (UOX) REPU
Reprocess (MOX) REPM Heavy Water Production HWP
Uranium from Seawater SWUR Vitrification VIT
SF Transportation TRA SF Direct Disposal DDS
Other Fuel Cycle Activities
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Pu Balance [t/year]
Pu240
Pu239
FBR-MOX
Th-MOX
LWR-MOX
Pu supply
Pu consumption
Pu242Pu238
Pu241
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
Storage [t]
Past SF On-site Off-site
Overview Current Work Results Future Work
Tasks
Sensitivity analysis:- Fuel/Cycle Cost- Plutonium consumption etc.
Calculations for various scenarios- BAU only etc.
Consideration of Recovered Uranium and Thorium recycle
Advanced analysis on back-end:- Volume of fuel for direct disposal- MA content etc.
20
APPENDIX 1
21
Coal Price
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1 4 7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
10
0
Coal Supply [mill t/year]
Coal [mill t] Avg.Coal Cost [$/kg C]
APPENDIX 2
22
Parameters of Nuclear Reactors
EfficiencyOperating
periodBurnup
GWd/tBoiling Water Reactor BWR 0.33 40 30
Pressurized Water Reactor PWR 0.33 40 30
Advanced BWR ABWR 0.33 60 45
Advanced PWR APWR 0.33 60 48
Fast Breeder Reactor FBR 0.406 40 75
Fast Reactor FR 0.42 40 90
HWR Nat.U UHWR 0.29 60 8.5
HWR Th/Pu MOX ThHWR 0.32 60 20.2
PWR Th/Pu MOX ThPWR 0.324 60 40.5
High Temperature Gas Reactor HTGR 0.45 40 651
• IAEA. Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. (2012)
• Hirohide Kofuji, Kiyoshi Ono. Transition of Plutonium Isotopic Composition by multi-recycling.(1997)
APPENDIX 3
23
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
FBR HTGR FR ThPWR BWR ABWR PWR APWR ThHWR
Pu Isotope Composition in MOX Fuel
Pu239 Pu240 Pu242 Pu238 Pu241
93%
6%
Military Pu [150 t]
Pu239 Pu240 Pu242 Pu238 Pu241
AEC Introduction to Nuclear Weapons 1972
60%25%
5%1%
8%
Civilian Pu [271 t]
Pu239 Pu240 Pu242 Pu238 Pu241
Separated from BWR-UOX
APPENDIX 4
24
SF Storage
Depleted
Uranium
Storage
Recoverd
Uranium
Storage Pu Storage
Loss Rate of Material 0 0 0 0
Annual O&M Cost Rate 3.00E-02 0.03 0.03 0.03
Life Time [year] 100 100 100 100
Usage Rate 1 1 1 1
Legal Durable Period [year] 15 15 15 15
Loan Period [year] 15 15 15 15
Construction cost [$/kg HM] 63 1 63 63
Cost per year [$/kg HM or Pu] 2.4 1 1 1000
Enrichme
nt
UOX
Fabricati
on
MOX
Fabricati
on
Reproces
s (UOX)
Reproces
s (MOX)
Heavy
water
prodocti
on
Seawate
r
Uranium
Recovery
Vitrificati
on
SF
Transport
ation
SF Direct
Disposal
ENR UFB MFB REPU REPM HWP SWUR VIT TRA DDS
Loss Rate of Material 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0
Annual O&M Cost Rate 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05
Life Time [year] 40 40 40 40 40 40 15 40 40 40
Usage Rate 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
Electricity Consumption [GWh/t or tSWU] 0.05 0 0 0 0 2.4 0.5 0 0 0
Legal Durable Period [year] 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Loan Period [year] 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Variable Cost [$/kg SWU or HM] 118 275 325 800 800 300 1230 90 160 600
Construction Cost[$/kg SWU or HM/year] 1 1 6000 3600 6000 6000 2610 1 1 1