# Presentation: 575877

## The Nuclear Renaissance in the U.S.

**The Nuclear Renaissance in the U.S.**
*- Fact or Fiction? -*

- MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems

- PPPL, Princeton, New Jersey
- February 25, 2009

***Jacopo Buongiorno***
- Associate Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering
- _[Jacopo@mit.edu](mailto:Jacopo@mit.edu)_, tel. 617-253-7316

## Renaissance*: ...a renewal of life, vigor, interest... / rebirth, revival...

**Renaissance*****: ****...a renewal of life, vigor, interest... / ****rebirth, revival...**

- *The Random House College Dictionary

## Brief nuclear power primer
Technical features of advanced reactors
Nuclear power and transportation
Outstanding challenges to the expansion of nuclear power
Conclusions

- Technical features of advanced reactors
- Nuclear power and transportation
- Outstanding challenges to the expansion of nuclear power
- Conclusions

**Outline**

## U-235 has 2.5 million times more energy per pound than coal: 37 tons of fuel (3%-enriched uranium) per 1000 MWe reactor per year

- Nuclear provides a _heat source_ that can be converted into multiple products
- Electricity (worldwide)
- Steam for industry (done in Switzerland, Russia, Japan, not in the U.S.)
- Hydrogen (future with development of technology)

## Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)

## Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)

##  Nuclear Energy Today

**104**** ****US reactors, about ****440**** World reactors in ****30 ****countries. World-wide, about ****34**** new reactors are in various stages of construction.**
**99.5**** nuclear GWe is ****13%**** of US installed capacity but provides about ****20%**** of electricity. **
**In 2007 nuclear energy production in the US was ****the highest ever****. **
**US plants have run at ****92% capacity in 2007****, up from ****56% in 1980****.**
**3.5**** GWe of uprates were permitted in the last decade. ****2.0**** GWe are expected ****by 2013**** and more by ****2020****.**
**51 ****reactor ****licenses extended, from 40 years to 60**** years of operation, ****17**** more reactors in process****.**

## Distribution of nuclear plants

## Calvert Cliffs - MD

- Diablo Canyon - CA

- Indian Point - NY

- Prairie Island site - MN

- Robinson - SC

- Surry - VA

## Renewed Interest in Nuclear Power in the US

- Improved economics from experience and incremental improvements over 3 decades
- Plant reliability increased from <60 to >90%
- Better construction methods to lower capital costs
- Concerns about ***climate change*** and rising ***oil imports***
- 2 orders (4 units total) for new reactor construction signed, 17 license applications (26 units total) filed with NRC, 10+ more units expected
- Robust growth of nuclear UG population nationwide

## 5 Advanced Reactor Designs Considered for New Construction in the USGen III+ Plants: Improved Versions of Existing Plant Designs

**ABWR (GE-Hitachi)**

**AP1000 (Toshiba: Westinghouse)**

**ESBWR (GE-Hitachi)**

**US-EPR (AREVA)**

**US-APWR (Mitsubishi)**

## What is Gen III+?

## Advanced Reactors (Gen III+) that initiated discussions with the NRC

| Design | Applicant | Type | Design Certification Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AP1000 | Westinghouse-Toshiba | Advanced Passive PWR
1100 MWe | Certified |
| ABWR | GE-Hitachi | Advanced BWR
1350 MWe | Certified, Constructed in Japan/Taiwan |
| ESBWR | GE-Hitachi | Advanced Passive BWR
1550 MWe | Under review |
| US-EPR | AREVA | Advanced PWR
1600 MWe | Has applied in
2007 |
| US-APWR | Mitsubishi | Advanced PWR
1700 MWe | Has applied in 2007 |

## Improved economics
Increased plant design life (60 years)
Shorter construction schedule (36 months)
Low overnight capital cost ($1000/kWe* for NOAK plant)
Low levelized cost of electricity ( 3¢/kWh*)
*rather unrealistic targets
Improved safety and reliability
Reduced need for operator action 
Expected to beat NRC goal of CDF<10-4/yr
Reduced large release probability

- Increased plant design life (60 years)
- Shorter construction schedule (36 months)
- Low overnight capital cost ($1000/kWe* for NOAK plant)
- Low levelized cost of electricity ( 3¢/kWh*)
- **rather unrealistic targets*
- Improved safety and reliability
- Reduced need for operator action
- Expected to beat NRC goal of CDF<10-4/yr
- Reduced large release probability

**Performance **_**Targets**_** for Gen III+ Reactors**

## Nuclear Safety Primer

- Hazard: fission products are highly radioactive
- Aggravating factor: nuclear fuel can never be completely shut down (decay heat)
- Objective: prevent release of radioactivity into environment
- Safety Pillars:
*Defense-in-depth*: multiple, independent physical barriers (i.e., fuel pin + vessel + containment)
*Safety systems*: prevent overheating of the core when normal coolant is lost

## Some interesting safety-related features of the Gen III+ reactors...

## Higher redundancy (US-EPR ECCS)

- Four identical diesel-driven trains, each 100%, provide redundancy for maintenance or single-failure criterion (N+2)
- Physical separation against internal hazards (e.g. fire)

## Higher redundancy (US-EPR Containment)

**Inner wall pre-stressed concrete with steel liner**
**Outer wall reinforced concrete**
**Protection against airplane crash**
**Protection against external explosions**
**Annulus sub-atmospheric and filtered to reduce radioisotope release**

## Passive safety systems (AP1000 ECCS)

## Passive safety systems (AP1000 Containment)

## Passive safety systems (ESBWR ECCS and PCCS)

## Ex-vessel core catcher concept (passive)- Molten core is assumed to breach vessel- Molten core flows into spreading area and is cooled by IRWST water- Hydrogen recombiners ensure no detonation within container

**IRWST**

**Corium **
**Spreading Area**

- Severe accidents mitigation (EPR core catcher)

## Severe accident mitigation (AP1000 IVR)

- In-Vessel Retention (IVR) / ex-vessel cooling
- Reactor cavity is flooded with water
- Decay heat removed by boiling on outer surface of vessel

- Westinghouse Electric Company

## Overall improved safety (EPR

## Can nuclear energy be used for more than just electricity production?

## ↑

**  **
**Oil is the Challenge**

***U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 Early Release, years 2006 and 2030; world data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2007, years 2005 and 2030***

**(****Primarily**** Hydro)**

**↑**
**Low Carbon**
**↓**

## Oil Is Used for Transportation.What Are the Other Transport Fuel Options?

**Plug-in hybrid electric cars**
**Liquid fuels from fossil sources (oil, natural gas and coal)**
**Liquid fuels from biomass**
- Hydrogen
- Long term option
- Depends upon hydrogen on-board-vehicle storage breakthrough

## Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles(PHEVs)

## PHEVs: Recharge Batteries from the Electric Grid Plus Use of Gasoline

- Electric car limitations
- Limited range
- Recharge time (Gasoline refueling rate is ~10 MW)
- Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
- Electric drive for short trips
- Recharge battery overnight to avoid rapid recharge requirement
- Hybrid engine with gasoline or diesel engine for longer trips
- Connects cars and light trucks to the electrical grid

**Courtesy of the Electric Power Research Institute**

## PHEVs:  Annual Gasoline Consumption Substituting Electricity for Gasoline

-  ** **

**Courtesy of the Electric Power Research Institute**

**Need 150 to 200 Nuclear Plants Each Producing 1000 MW(e)**

**Notes:**
Mid-size sedan HEV 60 meets PNGV  80 mpegg goal w/o diesel, low mass or better aero.
Mid-size HEV 60 on avg. commute saves $5,000 in fuel & maintenance over 100,000 miles

Implication - far fewer refineries and power plants will be needed in California which saves money.  Also HEV 60 = 75 gal/yr = ~ 4 trips per year to gas station

## Liquid Fuels Productionfrom Fossil Sources

## Refineries Consume ~7% of the Total U.S. Energy Demand

- Energy inputs
- Primarily heat at 550°C
- Some hydrogen
- _High-temperature gas reactors could supply heat and hydrogen_
- Market size equals existing nuclear enterprise

## Conversion of Fossil Fuels to Liquid Fuels Requires Energy  Greenhouse Impacts from Vehicle and Fuel Production Cycle

**|→****Nuclear Energy Market**

**Notes:**
The world is rapidly running out of light crude oil and going to heavier feedstocks for production of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. This implies rapidly increasing emissions of carbon dioxide per vehicle mile driven because of carbon dioxide emissions from the refineries and other facilities that convert fossil fuels into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. With the business-as-usual strategy, the greenhouse gas emissions will likely double per vehicle mile in the United States.

## Liquid Fuels Productionfrom Biomass

## Biomass:  1.3 Billion Tons per Year     Available Biomass without Significantly Impacting U.S. Food, Fiber, and Timber

**Logging Residues**

**Agricultural Residues**

**Energy Crops**

**Urban Residues**

- Biomass:  1.3 Billion Tons per Year     **Available Biomass without Significantly Impacting ****U.S. Food, Fiber, and Timber**

## Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels Requires Energy

***Liquid Fuels***

**Atmospheric**
**Carbon Dioxide**

**Fuel Factory**

**Biomass**

**Cars, Trucks, and Planes**

**Energy**
**  **

## Biomass Conversion to Liquid Fuel Requires Energy 

- 07-058

**Energy for ****biomass****conversion**

**Energy Value of 1.3 Billion Tons/year of U.S. Renewable Biomass Measured in Equivalent Barrels of Diesel Fuel per Day**

**U.S. Transport****Fuel Demand**

**Notes:**
The central limitation of biomass is that there is insufficient biomass to meet liquid fuel needs (central bar) if used for (1) feedstock to make liquid fuels and (2) the energy source to operate the biomass-to-liquid-fuel plants. If an outside energy source is available to operate the biomass-to-liquid-fuel plants (far right bar), then there is potentially sufficient biomass to meet the nation's liquid fuel needs. All bars in equivalent barrels of diesel fuel per day. 

## Option Today: Steam From Existing Nuclear Plants to Starch-Ethanol Plants

**Notes:**
Eighty nuclear reactors outside the United States have produced steam for use in district heating, desalting, and industrial applications. In one case, this included sale of steam to an ethanol plant. Russia, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and other countries use steam from nuclear plants. However, this has not been done in the United States historically because there was no demand for large quantities of steam in the locations where nuclear plants were built. What has changed in the United States is that there is now a major demand for steam in rural areas were existing nuclear plants exist. This creates the option to use low-cost low-pressure steam for ethanol production. The challenges are institutional, not technical. There are neither the business models nor the licensing experience.  Economic assessments indicate that the cost of steam from existing nuclear power plants should be less than half that of steam produced using natural gas.

## Now, for the bad news...

## Outstanding issues that could slow the expansion of nuclear power

-   Capital intensity of plant construction projects:
- New plants remain very expensive to build (G$/unit)
- Loan guarantees in 2005 energy bill will help to soften the financial risk (2008 applications totaled $122M vs $18M allocation)
-   Proliferation concerns:
- Technical features of fuel cycle can hinder proliferation (e.g., high burnup, no Pu separation, use of thorium, etc.)
- Ultimately it is an issue of political nature; probably best managed through international oversight (IAEA?)
-   Unresolved issue of spent fuel management (waste)

## Spent fuel management (direct disposal)

- - Underground geological repository is the current approach in the US
- - Yucca Mountain site selected, President approved and license application submitted to NRC in 2008

- However, many think it is unlikely it will open any time soon.
- Interim storage at plants (storage pools and dry casks, successfully implemented for 22 years)

## Spent fuel management (recycling)

- Spent fuel from LWRs is reprocessed and:

- Pu+U recycled in (sodium-cooled) fast reactors (being reconsidered in Russia, Japan, France and US under GNEP umbrella)

- Separated Pu is recycled in LWRs (MOX approach, done in France and Japan)

## Spent fuel management (transmutation)

- “Deep” burning could be done with accelerator-driven subcritical reactors

## New nuclear plants underway in the US for first time in 30 years
New plants feature higher level of safety through increased redundancy and use of passive safety systems
Nuclear could be used (today!) to reduce oil consumption in transportation
Toughest unresolved issue is long-term disposal of spent fuel

- New plants feature higher level of safety through increased redundancy and use of passive safety systems
- Nuclear could be used (today!) to reduce oil consumption in transportation
- Toughest unresolved issue is long-term disposal of spent fuel

***Conclusions***