The Polit ically Correct Nuclear Energy Plant Andrew C. Kadak Massachuset t s I nst it ut e of Technology Ford Distinguished Lecture Series October 31, 2001
Politically I ncorrect ! • High Cost • Meltdowns • Reprocessing (f or now) • Breeder Reactors (f or now) • Prolif eration • Waste that Dissolves in Water • Big - Small is Beautif ul • Nuclear Energy - But Getting Better
Politically Correct ! • Natural Safety • No Meltdowns • No Reprocessing • Proliferation Resistant • Competitive with Natural Gas • Waste Forms that are Geologically Stable • Something “New” - no “Baggage”
Common Myt hs • Cont inued Burning of Fossil Fuels is Sust ainable - Coal, Oil and Nat ural Gas • Nat ural Gas is a Clean Fuel - relat ive t o what - coal? • Renewables are “clean and f ree”… • Conservat ion wit h sacrif ice will work • There is no solut ion t o nuclear wast e disposal
Yucca Mount ain Next t o t he Nevada Nuclear Weapons Test Sit e
U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program Our mission is to manage and dispose of the Nation’s spent nuclear Our mission is to manage and dispose of the Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. We will provide leadership in fuel and high-level radioactive waste. We will provide leadership in developing and implementing strategies that assure public and worker developing and implementing strategies that assure public and worker health and safety, protect the environment, merit public confidence, health and safety, protect the environment, merit public confidence, and are economically viable. and are economically viable. Disposition of Surplus Disposition of Surplus Defense Complex Clean-Up Weapons Materials Defense Complex Clean-Up Weapons Materials Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition of Naval Disposition of Naval Support of Nonproliferation Initiatives, Support of Nonproliferation Initiatives, Reactor Spent e.g. Disposal of DOE and Foreign Reactor Spent e.g. Disposal of DOE and Foreign Nuclear Fuel Research Reactor Spent Fuel Nuclear Fuel Research Reactor Spent Fuel
Viability Assessment “Status Report” Science and Engineering Accomplishments Tunnel Tunnel Daylight Surface Daylight Boring Drilling Boring TBM April TBM April Machine Machine 1997 1997 Large Block Large Block Experiment Experiment Drift Scale Drift Scale Heater Test Heater Test Design Construction Construction View of TBM View of TBM Unsaturated Unsaturated Activity At Busted Activity At Busted Launch Launch Zone Niche Zone Niche Butte Butte Chamber Chamber Studies Studies Laboratory Materials Testing (off site)
Viability Assessment: Total System Performance Assessment (Volume 3) Water Movement Through the Geologic Formations
Realit ies • The Calif ornia elect ricit y problem is a capacit y and t ransmission problem • Cont inued dependence on nat ural gas f or new generat ion is a bad idea. • There is no new nuclear energy plant t hat is compet it ive at t his t ime. • De-regulat ion did not creat e t he compet it ive market expect ed • CO 2 is increasing in t he environment .
Today’s Realit y • Nat ionally - 20 % of elect ricit y comes f rom exist ing 104 nuclear plant s • Perf ormance of all nukes improving - f leet capacit y f act or 90% last year. • Product ion Cost s Decreasing - not increasing like nat ural gas • More of our primary energy demand is being f illed by elect ricit y.
What About Transport at ion ? • Fuel Cells ? • Elect ric Cars ? • Solar Elect ric Cars • Nat ural Gas ? • Combo-Cars • Hydrogen Powered Where do we get t he hydrogen ?
Why Nuclear Energy ? Thought it Was Dead ? • Too Expensive • Too Cont roversial • No Solut ion t o Nuclear Wast e Disposal • Too Much Financial Risk, But ... • Exist ing Nuclear Plant s Operat ing Very Well • But , Generat ing Companies not I nt erest ed in New Nuclear Plant s • Except , t his is changing
Tomorrow’s Possibilit ies • I t Depends… … - On a Product t hat is: Cheaper t han Nat ural Gas Cleaner t han gas, oil and coal Saf er t han all of t he above Less environment ally impact f ul t han solar, wind, biomass & hydro
Tot al Lif e Cycle Emissions CO 2 -equivalents [g/kWh] NO X [mg/kWh] 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 PV amorph 400 400 200 200 0 0 l e r y s o a C PM 10 [mg/kWh] a SO 2 [mg/kWh] t l / r o i C o m e d n C l p y g s c 5 i u H a V L , G 5 N P d 300 600 n i W 400 200 PV amorph 200 100 0 o l e C r y s a r t a l / o i C d o m n e C y l p g s c H 5 i a u L V , G 5 N P d n i W From “Energy Supply and Sustainable Development: The Need for Nuclear Power”, A. Voss, Univ. of Stuttgart.
Healt h Risk of Energy Syst ems 80 Risks due to up- and downstream processes 70 Years of Life Lost (YOLL) per TWh Risks due to power plant emissions 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3% Coal Lignite Gas CC Nuclear PV PV Wind Hydro (amorph) (poly) 16.1.2001 From “Energy Supply and Sustainable Development: The Need for Nuclear Power”, A. Voss, Univ. of Stuttgart.
What ’s t he Solut ion ? • Develop a Product t hat : 1. Can compet e wit h Nat ural Gas or Coal 2. Be demonst rably Saf e 3. Has a Wast e Form t hat can be easily disposed 4. Does not creat e Prolif erat ion concerns And… … ... • Prove it t o t he Public, Regulat ors and Polit ical Leaders
To Do So, One must Change • How we: - Design - License - Build - Operat e Nuclear Energy Plant s
I s There Such a Thing ? • Not Yet , but some are working on it . • Sout h Af rica • China • Net herlands • MI T Not exact ly nuclear power houses !
Modular High Temperat ure Pebble Bed React or • Modules added t o • 110 MWe meet demand. • Helium Cooled • No Reprocessing • 8 % Enriched Fuel • High Burnup • Built in 2 Years > 90,000 Mwd/ MT • Fact ory Built • Direct Disposal of • Sit e Assembled HLW • On--line Ref ueling • Process Heat Applicat ions - Hydrogen, wat er
What is a Pebble Bed React or ? • 360, 000 pebbles in core • about 3, 000 pebbles handled by FHS each day • about 350 discarded daily • one pebble discharged every 30 seconds • average pebble cycles through core 10 times • Fuel handling most maintenance- intensive part of plant
FUEL ELEM ENT DESIGN FOR PBM R 5mm Graphite layer Coated particles imbedded in Graphite Matrix Dia. 60mm Pyrolytic Carbon 40/1000mm Silicon Carbite Barrier Coating Fuel Sphere 35/1000 Inner Pyrolytic Carbon 40/1000mm Porous Carbon Buffer 95/1000mm Half Section Dia. 0,92mm Coated Particle Dia.0,5mm Uranium Dioxide Fuel
Equipment Layout
Flowpath Helium Reactor Unit
Fuel Handling & Storage System Fresh Fuel Container Damaged Graphite Return Sphere Fuel Return Container Fuel/Graphite Discrimination system Spent Fuel Tank
Saf et y Advant ages • Low Power Densit y • Nat urally Saf e • No melt down • No signif icant radiat ion release in accident • Demonst rat e wit h act ual t est of react or
15 MWe Research Reactor AVR: Jülich
300 Mwe Demonstration Reactor THTR: Hamm-Uentrop
First Criticality Dec.1, 2000 HTR- 10 China
MI T’s Pebble Bed Proj ect • Similar in Concept t o ESKOM • Developed I ndependent ly • I ndirect Gas Cycle • Cost s 3.3 c/ kwhr • High Aut omat ion • License by Test
MI T’s Proj ect Obj ect ive Develop a concept ual design of a complet e nuclear energy plant t o show t hat it can meet t he obj ect ives of economy, saf et y, non-prolif erat ion and wast e. Then BUI LD one!
Modular Pebble Bed Reactor Thermal Power 250 MW Core Height 10.0 m Core Diameter 3.5 m Fuel UO 2 Number of Fuel Pebbles 360,000 Microspheres/Fuel Pebble 11,000 Fuel Pebble Diameter 60 mm Microsphere Diameter ~ 1mm Coolant Helium
Project Overview • Fuel Performance • Core Power Distribution Monitoring � • Fission Product Barrier • Modeling of Pebble Flow � • Core Physics • Reactor Research/ • Safety Demonstration Facility � • Balance of Plant • License by Test � Design � • Future Research Needs � • Modularity Design �
MI T’s Proj ect I nnovat ions • Advanced Fuels • Tot ally modular - build in a f act ory and assemble at t he sit e • Replace component s inst ead of repair • I ndirect Cycle f or Hydrogen Generat ion f or f uel cells & t ransport at ion • Advanced comput er aut omat ion • Demonst rat ion of saf et y t est s
Coated TRISO Fuel Particles IPyC/SiC/OPyC: structural layers as pressure vessel and fission product barrier Buffer PyC: accommodate fission gases and fuel swelling From Kazuhiro Sawa, et al., J. of Nucl. Sci. & Tech., 36, No. 9, pp. 782. September 1999
Recommend
More recommend
