11

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

Phillip J. FinckIdaho National Laboratory

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007 2

Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options

April 2, 2007 3

Objectives of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Objectives Technology Potential Improvements ** Within current repository design boundaries

Management of Usable Isotopes

Denaturing through incremental improvements to the once through cycle

Consumption in Closed Cycles with FRs

Transmute up to 50% fissile

Transmute up to 99% fissile

Repository

Utilization

Improved once through cycles

Closed Cycles with FRs

Store up to 2 times more energy-equivalent-waste

Store orders of magnitude more energy-equivalent

waste

Resource extension

Improved once through cycles

Closed Cycles with FRs

Extract 30% more energy

Extract orders of magnitude more energy

April 2, 2007 4

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

300

600

900

1200

1500

De

cay

He

at,

W/m

Airflow Turned Off

15 m3/s Airflow Turned On

51 GWD/MTIHM Spent PWR Fuel, Emplaced 30 Years After Discharge PWR Drift Loading = 1.17 MTIHM/m

Yucca Mountain Reference Case

April 2, 2007 5

Repository Benefits for Limited Recycle in LWRs

Limited LWR recycling of plutonium and americium would allow a drift loading increase of about a factor of 2

Subsequent burning in fast reactor needed to derive large benefits

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Total Number of Recycles (11.5 years per recycle)

Rel

ativ

e C

han

ge

in R

epo

sito

ry D

rift

Lo

adin

g

Inert Matrix Fuel (IMF)

CORAIL-PNA

MOX

All LWR fuel processed at 5 years after reactor discharge - maximize loading benefitFuel fabricated and loaded after an additional 2 years

Spent fuel sent to the repository after the last recycle, along with all prior process waste

April 2, 2007 6

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Objectives are Stated in The National Security Strategy

The United States “will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies.

This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons.

These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand.”

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (March, 16, 2006): 29.

April 2, 2007 7

Key Elements of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Strategy Include Domestic Efforts:

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, with the goal over time of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating excess stocks of civilian plutonium and drawing down existing stocks of civilian spent fuel. Such advanced fuel cycle technologies will substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition, and help 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.

April 2, 2007 8

Supporting the GNEP Strategy Requires New Facilities, Technology Development and R&D

Existing LWR Fleet

ExpandedLWR Fleet

AdvancedRecyclingReactor

ProcessStorage

AdvancedSeparation

FR Fuel

GeologicDisposal

Advanced FuelCycle Facility

TechnologyDevelopment

and R&D

DOE Lab led, NRC, Universities, Industry,International Partners

Industry led,Lab Supported

Addl.RecyclingReactors

Support for Industry-led effort

and R&D for GNEP beyond

2020-2025

2020-2025

Spent Fuel(63,000 MTHM)

April 2, 2007 9

For the Initial GNEP Operation We Envision Three Supporting Facilities

Advanced recycling reactor (ABR)

Nuclear fuel recycling center (CFTC)

Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility

April 2, 2007 10

Key Elements of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Strategy Include International Efforts to:

Establish supply arrangements among nations to provide reliable fuel services worldwide for generating nuclear energy, by providing nuclear fuel and taking back spent fuel for recycling, without spreading enrichment and reprocessing technologies.

Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions.

Develop, in cooperation with the IAEA, enhanced nuclear safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities, to ensure commercial nuclear energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes.

April 2, 2007 11

International Expansion of Nuclear Power is Underway

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460011,00.html

April 2, 2007 12

An International Fuel Service is an Essential Part of Reducing Proliferation Risk

Fuel Suppliers: operate reactors and fuel cycle facilities, including fast reactors to transmute the actinides from spent fuel into less toxic materials

Fuel Users: operate reactors, lease and return fuel.

IAEA: provide safeguards and fuel assurances, backed up with a reserve of nuclear fuel for states that do not pursue enrichment and reprocessing

April 2, 2007 13

International Partnerships are Critical to GNEP Success

Develop the basis for an assured fuel supply concept with other nations

– IAEA or similar international organization administered mechanism to provide supply reliability in cases that could not be resolved in the commercial market, facilitation of new commercial arrangements when supply interrupted for some reason other that safeguards compliance

– Eligibility based on • safeguard compliance, nuclear safety standards, and reliance on international

market without indigenous enrichment and reprocessing

Foster specific R&D and technology collaborations through interactions with National Laboratories to address critical areas U.S. – Russia agreement

Complete international agreement on GNEP Statement of Principles

Hold GNEP meeting for other interested nations thereafter.

April 2, 2007 14

GNEP: Critical Technology Issues

April 2, 2007 15

GNEP – “Why” and ”Why NOW”

There is a rapidly expanding global demand for nuclear power– Without some global regime to manage this expansion many more “Iranian”

situations will likely appear A global regime is forming up with Russia, France, Japan and China

having both the will and the means to participate. – The United States, through GNEP, is leading the formation of this global regime

but we do not have the means to participate in its execution. Unless the United States implements the domestic aspects of the GNEP

program we will suffer significant consequences in our energy security, industrial competitiveness and national security.

There are potential repository benefits, but the international need for GNEP is compelling.

The United States must act decisively and quickly to implement GNEP or face the real possibility of having no influence over the certain future global expansion of nuclear energy.

April 2, 2007 16

ABR, ALWR, and LWR Capacity for 2.4% Nuclear Power Growth Rate

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

April 2, 2007 17

Spent Fuel -Recycle Case

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Year

MT

HM Stored SNF

Disposed SNF

Spent Fuel - Once Through Case

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Year

MT

HM Stored SNF

Disposed SNF

Comparison of SNF Storage and Disposal for Once-Through and Recycling scenario

April 2, 2007 18

NEA/OECD Working Party on Scientific Issues of the Fuel Cycle includes studies of User/Supplier scenarios

April 2, 2007 19

Near-term Focus is Input to the Secretarial Decision Package for June 2008

Deployment options. Comparison with partner states Economic and business payoffs Effect of uncertainties in technology development Input to business plan Role of nuclear (with GNEP) in global energy picture Integrated waste management strategy Provide input to NEPA and PEIS activities

April 2, 2007 20

Development of Advanced Spent Fuel Processing Technologies for GNEP

April 2, 2007 21

ABR Technology Development

Addresses Technology Development for ABR Prototype– Performs feasibility studies for select ABR Prototype components

• Steam generator testing, accelerated aging of critical materials and components, passive fission gas monitoring , etc.

– Performs key features testing of ABR Prototype critical component

• pump performance testing, fuel handling machine testing, reactor shutdown system testing, seismic isolation bearing testing, water flow simulation stability testing, etc.

– Performs testing of key ABR Prototype plant components to verify performance characteristics and safety responses in a prototypical environment

• Primary pump testing, control rod drive mechanism testing, fuel handling system operations, testing, and recovery, qualification of structural materials, performance of reliability testing of shutdown systems, etc.

– Ends with ABR Prototype safety tests

Addresses economic issues of fast reactors– Develops and tests advanced fast reactor features that can contribute to improved

economic performance

Requires an infrastructure to support technology testing and development

April 2, 2007 22

Fast Reactor Support Facilities Infrastructure

U.S. lacks the infrastructure to test large sodium components in a prototypic environment– ETEC’s Liquid Metal Engineering Center has been decommissioned

– General Electric no longer has sodium testing facilities

– ANL has some – some active/some inactive – but not for very large components

– France and Japan reportedly have some testing capability but condition is unknown.

ABR Program must support rebuilding of U.S.-based sodium component testing infrastructure to support ABR component development to:– Provide for prototypic testing environment for sodium components

– Provide for personnel training on sodium handling, sodium component operations, and maintenance

April 2, 2007 23

Fast Reactor Support Facilities Infrastructure (Cont’d)

Development of ABR Prototype and successor ABRs may require additional support facilities (examples)– Water loop testing facilities for component testing

– Targeted research and development facilities for lab-scale testing

– Materials Testing Capability

– Driver Core Fuel Manufacturing Facility

April 2, 2007 24

Technical Risk Evaluation

Feasibility Issues 1. U.S. infrastructure is insufficient for manufacturing and testing

2. Need to re-establish the regulatory structure

3. No fabrication capability for driver fuel

Performance Issues

1. New technologies will improve costs and reliability of the ABR

- compact components

- advanced energy conversion systems

- seismic isolation

- fuel handling machines

- in service inspection technologies

- primary design

April 2, 2007 25

The initial post irradiation examination (PIE) of metal and nitride fuels irradiated in ATR is completed.

Essential post-irradiation examinations of the AFC-1 fuels are completed.

ATR irradiation of AFC-1D (metal), AFC-1G (nitride) and AFC-1H (metal) transmutation fuel samples continued.

Comprehensive review of the U.S. fast reactor fuel experience compiled into a white paper.

April 2, 2007 26

Metal and oxide TRU fuels are candidates for the first generation transmutation fuel.

Metal Fuel Successful small-scale fabrication and irradiation on

limited amount of samples Large-scale fabrication without loss of Am must be

demonstrated Fuel-clad interactions at high burnup must be

investigated Effect of lanthanides on FCCI must be addressed

Oxide Fuels (powder processing) Successful small-scale fabrication and irradiation on

limited amount of samples (France, Japan) Effect of group TRU on fabrication process unknown Effect of lanthanides on fabrication Large-scale fabrication amenable to hot-cell

operations must be developed Limitations on linear power

Am recovery and use in moderated targets Fabrication using powder metallurgy Development of advanced clad materials (liners) Driver fuel and MA targets

Sphere-pac or vibro-pac fuel technologyRisk trade-off: fabrication versus performance

Driver fuel and MA targets

Nitride o High TRU loading potentialo Fabrication process requires further worko N-15 enrichment.

Dispersiono High burnup potentialo Fabrication process requires further worko Separations process must be developed

Candidates for First Generation Transmutation ( < 20 years)

Back-up Options for Initial Candidates

Long-Term Options (2nd or 3rd Generation) for Increased Efficiency ( > 20 years)

April 2, 2007 27

To achieve fuel qualification tests using LTAs, considerable developmental testing is required.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Fuel Candidate Selection

Phase II:Concept Definition & Feasibility

Scoping Tests I (screening)

Scoping Tests II (prototypic)Scoping Transient Tests

Phase III:Design

Improvements & Evaluation

PIE

Design Parameters TestsFabrication Variables Tests

High-Power Tests (2 LHGR or Fuel T)Undercooling Tests (2 Clad T)

Transient Response TestsDBA Transients Tests

LTA TestsPhase IV: Qualification

PHASE II• Optimize the fuel design• Fuel Specification and Fuel Safety Case • Fuel properties measurements with variance • Predictive fuel behavior models and codes

PHASE III

• Demonstrate fabrication process

• Validate fuel performance specifications

• Validate predictive fuel performance codes

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (years)

April 2, 2007 28

Transmutation fuel development is considerably more challenging than conventional fuels.

Multiple elements in the fuel U, Pu, Np, Am, Cm

Varying thermodynamic propertiese.g. High vapor pressure of Am

Impurities from separation processe.g. High lanthanide carryover

High burnup requirements

High helium production during irradiation

Remote fabrication & quality control

Fuel must be qualified for a variable range of composition

– Age and burnup of LWR SNF– Changes through multiple passes in FR– Variable conversion ratio for FR

LWRs

Reprocessing

Fuel Fabrication

Fast Burner Reactors

Reprocessing

TRU

TRU

Legacy SNFFrom LWRs

April 2, 2007 29

Fuel performance prediction requires integral understanding of multiple phenomena.

Microstructure Initial distribution of species Initial stoichiometry Thermal conductivity Thermal expansion Specific heat Phase diagrams Fission gas formation, behavior and release Materials dimensional stability

– Restructuring, densification, growth, creep and swelling

Defect formation & migrations Diffusion of species Radial power distribution Fuel-clad gap conductance Fuel-clad chemical interactions Mechanical properties

Dynamic properties:Changes with irradiation, temperature, and time.

Dynamic properties:Changes with irradiation, temperature, and time.

Nonlinear effects: Initial condition dependence (fabrication route).

Nonlinear effects: Initial condition dependence (fabrication route).

April 2, 2007 30

A parallel analytic and experimental development assures implementation shortly after the first LTAs.

Sample/Rodlet Irradiation

FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Time (years)

FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Hot-cell rodlet fabrication capability

Pin Irradiation

Selection of 1st generation fuel type & process

Fabrication Process development & Design

AFCF AvailableProcess Optimization

LTA fabrication

LTA(s) available for ABR

Qualified fuel, process and models

Fuel Simulation Platform AvailableDevelopment of Fundamental Models

Phenomenological Tests

Integration of ModelsVerification & Validation

Analysis of LTA & variants

Irradiation of LTA(s)

Fast-Spectrum TestFacility Available