Greening Iew 2007

Spent Nuclear Fuel Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposition and The Disposition and The Market Viability of Market Viability of

Nuclear EnergyNuclear EnergyLorna A. GreeningLorna A. Greening

International Energy WorkshopInternational Energy WorkshopStanford UniversityStanford University

June 26, 2007June 26, 2007

June 26, 2007June 26, 2007 Nuclear/GreeningNuclear/Greening

Caveats and AcknowledgementsCaveats and Acknowledgements The conclusions and opinions presented The conclusions and opinions presented

are my own.are my own. All errors of commission or omission are All errors of commission or omission are

mine, and the usual caveats apply.mine, and the usual caveats apply. I owe a tremendous debt to over 200 I owe a tremendous debt to over 200

individuals who provided data and individuals who provided data and expertise in specialized areas of energy expertise in specialized areas of energy technology, supply, and consumption over technology, supply, and consumption over a two year period. Without this “grass a two year period. Without this “grass roots” community contribution, effort and roots” community contribution, effort and support, this work would not have been support, this work would not have been possible.possible.


Today’s DiscussionToday’s Discussion Framing of the issues and the questions.Framing of the issues and the questions.

What technologies could replace existing nuclear capacity, What technologies could replace existing nuclear capacity, and be used to meet growing electricity demand? And at and be used to meet growing electricity demand? And at what cost?what cost?

Will the resource base be sufficient to support the Will the resource base be sufficient to support the replacement capacity required? replacement capacity required?

Is there a strategy for nuclear capacity development that Is there a strategy for nuclear capacity development that minimizes spent nuclear fuel (including the ‘legacy’) to minimizes spent nuclear fuel (including the ‘legacy’) to levels within the current statutory limit of 63,000 metric levels within the current statutory limit of 63,000 metric tons for Yucca Mountain?tons for Yucca Mountain?

Discussion of the means of analysis:Discussion of the means of analysis: Overview of LA-US MARKAL;Overview of LA-US MARKAL; Depiction of the nuclear fuel cycle.Depiction of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Some results.Some results. Factors that could alter this forecast.Factors that could alter this forecast. Some general conclusions from this analysis.Some general conclusions from this analysis.


Issues for US Nuclear Electricity Issues for US Nuclear Electricity GenerationGeneration

In 2001, approximately 20.5% of the electricity generated in the In 2001, approximately 20.5% of the electricity generated in the US was provided by nuclear generation.US was provided by nuclear generation.

Economics, reliability and safety have improved substantially over Economics, reliability and safety have improved substantially over the last 20 years for nuclear electricity generation facilities.the last 20 years for nuclear electricity generation facilities.

Much new technology exists and EPAct 2005 provides financial Much new technology exists and EPAct 2005 provides financial guarantees, but new nuclear generation capacity is not being built. guarantees, but new nuclear generation capacity is not being built.

Currently, well over 31,000 metric tons of “legacy” spent nuclear Currently, well over 31,000 metric tons of “legacy” spent nuclear fuel resides in cooling or interim dry storage. By the expiration of fuel resides in cooling or interim dry storage. By the expiration of the majority of nuclear licenses in 2020, 1.5 Yucca Mountains will the majority of nuclear licenses in 2020, 1.5 Yucca Mountains will be required to store the waste for 10,000 years.be required to store the waste for 10,000 years.

Replacement of the existing nuclear technology with other sources Replacement of the existing nuclear technology with other sources will require substantial investments in new generation capacity, will require substantial investments in new generation capacity, and should result in increases in prices of competing fuels.and should result in increases in prices of competing fuels.

The spent nuclear fuel will still to be be dealt with, and a The spent nuclear fuel will still to be be dealt with, and a potentially useful energy resource will be lost. potentially useful energy resource will be lost.


Comparison of Nuclear in LA US MARKAL Comparison of Nuclear in LA US MARKAL with Other Frameworkswith Other Frameworks

US MARKAL contains all of the steps in the nuclear fuel US MARKAL contains all of the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle including waste disposal. This is more complete than cycle including waste disposal. This is more complete than NEMS (EIA), or any model of this type since Joskow and NEMS (EIA), or any model of this type since Joskow and Baughman, 1976.Baughman, 1976.

Depiction of reprocessing, and permanent disposal capture Depiction of reprocessing, and permanent disposal capture differences in radiotoxicity and heat of materials. This differences in radiotoxicity and heat of materials. This allows the determination of the benefits (e.g., reduced allows the determination of the benefits (e.g., reduced emissions, energy security) of reprocessing, waste emissions, energy security) of reprocessing, waste partitioning and transmutation, and reduced volume and partitioning and transmutation, and reduced volume and radiotoxicity disposal strategies for spent nuclear fuel.radiotoxicity disposal strategies for spent nuclear fuel.

Longer forecast horizon than other models allows the Longer forecast horizon than other models allows the evaluation of “new generation” nuclear technologies and evaluation of “new generation” nuclear technologies and the development of interim strategies for waste disposal in the development of interim strategies for waste disposal in the face of legal caps on permanent disposal depositories.the face of legal caps on permanent disposal depositories.


Attributes of Model of LA-MARKALAttributes of Model of LA-MARKAL All sources of energy represented.All sources of energy represented. Expanded technology choice set of over 4000 technologies.Expanded technology choice set of over 4000 technologies. Nine different emissions types (CONine different emissions types (CO22, SO, SO22, NO, NOxx, N, N22O, CO, VOC, O, CO, VOC,

CHCH44, particulates, and mercury) tracked through the economy, , particulates, and mercury) tracked through the economy, along with depiction of regulations, and mitigation techniques.along with depiction of regulations, and mitigation techniques.

Inclusion of demand response to prices and incomes Inclusion of demand response to prices and incomes incorporates a response that results in a lower total cost of incorporates a response that results in a lower total cost of satisfying energy demand.satisfying energy demand.

Electricity and steam: Representation of centrally dispatched, Electricity and steam: Representation of centrally dispatched, distributed generation, and combined heat and power distributed generation, and combined heat and power (including consumption of direct heat and steam).(including consumption of direct heat and steam).

See article in IAEE Newsletter, Fourth Quarter 2003 (pages12-See article in IAEE Newsletter, Fourth Quarter 2003 (pages12-19), www.iaee.org. Table 1 provides a summary comparison 19), www.iaee.org. Table 1 provides a summary comparison with NEMS (EIA).with NEMS (EIA).


Electricity: Central GenerationElectricity: Central Generation Over 90 centrally dispatched electricity generation Over 90 centrally dispatched electricity generation

technologies are characterized.technologies are characterized. Fuel/technology types represented include:Fuel/technology types represented include:

Fossil (oil, natural gas, coal, MSW) steam.Fossil (oil, natural gas, coal, MSW) steam. Combined cycle (natural gas, coal, biomass).Combined cycle (natural gas, coal, biomass). Conventional and advanced turbines (fossil and methanol).Conventional and advanced turbines (fossil and methanol). Renewables including solar, wind, biomass, and waste.Renewables including solar, wind, biomass, and waste. Nuclear (light water reactors and MOX), and “next generation” including HTGR, Nuclear (light water reactors and MOX), and “next generation” including HTGR,

HTGR-MOX, HTGR-TRU, Fast-spectrum TRU, CR-1, and MOX burners, and HTGR-MOX, HTGR-TRU, Fast-spectrum TRU, CR-1, and MOX burners, and Accelerator-driven TRU and MA burners.Accelerator-driven TRU and MA burners.

Carbon sequestration is depicted where appropriate.Carbon sequestration is depicted where appropriate. Varying annual and daily load profiles are segmented Varying annual and daily load profiles are segmented

by time of day and load-type with competition among by time of day and load-type with competition among appropriate technology types (e.g., base-load may be appropriate technology types (e.g., base-load may be satisfied by nuclear or steam and CC).satisfied by nuclear or steam and CC).

Connection to end-use sector specific grids for Connection to end-use sector specific grids for CHP/distributed generation resulting in competition CHP/distributed generation resulting in competition between sources of electricity.between sources of electricity.


Nuclear Technologies and Materials FlowsNuclear Technologies and Materials Flows

High Heat Release(HHR) FP

Transuranics(TRU)

Minor Actinides(MA)

US SurplusWeapons Grade Pu

Reactor Grade Pu(3 vectors)

Natural U as UF6

US SurplusHEU

LEU from RussianSurplus HEU

RecoveredIrradiated LEU

Depleted U

Natural UMining / Milling(3 cost steps)

ImportsUF6 to UO2

UO2 to UF6 GaseousDiffusion

Gas Centrifuge

Laser Isotope

UOX Fabrication

MOX Fabrication

Other Fuel Forms:Metal, (An)N, (An)C, .. Present-day LWR

(B ~ 38 MWd/kg)ALWR-UOX

(B ~ 55 MWd/kg)ALWR-MOX

(B ~ 49 MWd/kg)

Thermal GCR

Fast ReactorConceptsOn-site wet

On-site dry

Off-site interimSF storage

PUREX

UREX/UREX+

TRUEX orsimilar

Aqueous separationof Cs, Sr, I, Tc

Pyrometallurgicalseparations

HEU downblending(UNH process)

HLWvitrification

SF conditioning /encapsulation

Separated actinide and FP storage

Materials credit atend of forecast

Yucca Mountain

ResourcesMaterials Conversion Enrichment Fabrication

Irradiation

SF Storage

Reprocessing

Waste Management

Planned / Possible

ImplementedTransport costsassessed but not shown.

Gray boxes represent level of resolution of previous MARKAL model.


Disposal Costing Model Based Upon Disposal Costing Model Based Upon Repository Heat Load LimitationsRepository Heat Load Limitations

Unit repository disposal costs for spent fuel, less Unit repository disposal costs for spent fuel, less transportation-related charges, are currently estimated by transportation-related charges, are currently estimated by OMB as ca. $440/kgIHM.OMB as ca. $440/kgIHM.

Disposal costs include vitrification – the glassification of Disposal costs include vitrification – the glassification of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in an inert matrix – as well high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in an inert matrix – as well as emplacement of this waste in Yucca Mountain.as emplacement of this waste in Yucca Mountain.

The capacity of Yucca Mountain is governed not by the mass The capacity of Yucca Mountain is governed not by the mass of material emplaced, but rather by theof material emplaced, but rather by the total decay heat total decay heat productionproduction of that material.of that material.

Comparing the heat production for high level waste of Comparing the heat production for high level waste of various compositions to that of spent nuclear fuel, one can various compositions to that of spent nuclear fuel, one can estimate an ‘effective’ repository capacity and thus arrive at estimate an ‘effective’ repository capacity and thus arrive at a cost estimate.a cost estimate.


Disposal Cost as a Function of Waste Disposal Cost as a Function of Waste ContentContent

The ‘equivalent’ heat load-based repository utilization of The ‘equivalent’ heat load-based repository utilization of HLW is the amount [in kg] of the ca. 63000 tonIHM Yucca HLW is the amount [in kg] of the ca. 63000 tonIHM Yucca Mountain capacity used by HLW of a given composition Mountain capacity used by HLW of a given composition originating from 1 kgHM.originating from 1 kgHM.

This figure, as well as the derived volume of HLW glass, This figure, as well as the derived volume of HLW glass, allows the disposal cost to be formulated based upon:allows the disposal cost to be formulated based upon: $300,000/m$300,000/m33 HLW unit vitrification cost (Source: HLW unit vitrification cost (Source:

Hanford HLW vitrification program),Hanford HLW vitrification program), $332 per ‘equivalent’ kg HLW repository disposal $332 per ‘equivalent’ kg HLW repository disposal

cost, representing $440/kg less the YM cost cost, representing $440/kg less the YM cost component relating to waste package fabrication.component relating to waste package fabrication.


Example Disposal Cost ComparisonExample Disposal Cost ComparisonWaste

Composition Unit vitrification cost [$/ kg waste]

Unit disposal cost [$/ kg waste]

Total [$/ kglHM]

‘Effective’ repository capacity [kglHM]

All Spent Fuel N/ A 440 440 63000 Transuranics (TRU and FP)

3231 6436 498 63000

TRU, Low Heat Rel. FPs (LHRFP)

922 4087 238 107700

Minor Actinides (MA), LHRFP

757 3484 161 158100

MA, all FP 3686 7052 451 70600 LHRFP 480 897 50 636300


Example of Reprocessing: Existing U38Example of Reprocessing: Existing U38

TRUEX Reprocessing

PUREXReprocessing

UREX Reprocessing

U38 Reactor

1.001

1.001

1.001

Pyro-metallurgical separation of

HLW from UREX

Pyro-metallurgical separation of

HLW from UREX

Stockpiles of recovered

Transuranics,Plutonium,

Recycled Uranium,High Heat Release Fission Products,

and Minor Actinides

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

0.057

0.059

0.07

0.059

0.07

0.93

Stockpiles of recovered

Transuranics,Plutonium,

Recycled Uranium,High Heat Release Fission Products,

and Minor Actinides

0.943

0.943

0.0571

0.00460.0502

0.0181

To fabrication

To fabrication

Mass (kgIHM) of SNFgoing to YUCCAMountain


Resource Impacts of Selected Resource Impacts of Selected Nuclear TechnologiesNuclear Technologies

00

00[19.7 tonne DU for [19.7 tonne DU for CR 1 near-breeder]CR 1 near-breeder]

232232[0 for TRU burner][0 for TRU burner]

[20.5 tonne depleted [20.5 tonne depleted uranium (DU)]uranium (DU)]

234 to 198234 to 198

Uranium Resource Uranium Resource Consumption Consumption

[ton U[ton Unatnat / GW-yr (e)] / GW-yr (e)]

-1140-11407.6 to 4.57.6 to 4.5[150 to 250 MWd/kg][150 to 250 MWd/kg]

Accelerator Accelerator Driven SystemDriven System

0 0 [CR 1][CR 1]-450 -450 [CR 0.5][CR 0.5]

21.6 to 4.821.6 to 4.8[CR 1 to CR 0.5][CR 1 to CR 0.5]

Fast Spectrum Fast Spectrum ReactorReactor

167 167 [U fuelled][U fuelled]-759 -759 [TRU burner][TRU burner]

6.4 to 1.76.4 to 1.7[120 to 470 MWd/kg][120 to 470 MWd/kg]

HTGR (Thermal HTGR (Thermal Spectrum)Spectrum)

-389-38922.222.2[49 MWd/kg][49 MWd/kg]

MOX Fuelled MOX Fuelled LWRLWR

343 to 257343 to 25729.8 to 19.829.8 to 19.8[38 to 55 MWd/kg][38 to 55 MWd/kg]

LWR – Uranium LWR – Uranium FuelFuel

Net Transuranic Net Transuranic Production Production

[kg TRU / GWhe][kg TRU / GWhe]

SNF Production SNF Production [tonne SNF / GW-yr [tonne SNF / GW-yr

(e)](e)]


Further Gains from ‘Advanced Further Gains from ‘Advanced Nuclear Technologies’Nuclear Technologies’

Technology Efficiency of generation

Coolant Outlet Temperature (oC)

LWR: 38 MWd /kg (present)

33% 200-300

LWR: 49 to 55 MWd/kg

34% 200-300

HTGR: 121 to 470 MWd/kg

48% 800-900

Fast-spectrum: 127 to 185 MWd/kg

42% 500-1000

Accelerator-driven: 150 to 250 MWd/kg

40%a 500-800

a. Less ~10% of net electric power required to drive the accelerator.


Construction Costs are UncertainConstruction Costs are Uncertain

Highest Highest EstimateEstimate

OECDOECDLowest Lowest EstimateEstimate

4700470088

2100210044

1450145033

FRFR

2300230088

2130213044

1000100033

HTGRHTGR

400040001212

1700170044

1000100033

LWRLWROvernight Costs [$ / kWe]; Overnight Costs [$ / kWe]; Construction Time [yr]Construction Time [yr]

Of the major generation technologies in use today, construction costs for Of the major generation technologies in use today, construction costs for new nuclear facilities are the most difficult to quantify. In a survey of new nuclear facilities are the most difficult to quantify. In a survey of nuclear industry executives, the perceived risk associated with nuclear industry executives, the perceived risk associated with construction costs and times was rated as ‘very high’ – far higher than construction costs and times was rated as ‘very high’ – far higher than plant O&M, fuel cycle costs, or disaster preparedness:plant O&M, fuel cycle costs, or disaster preparedness:


Forecast of Electricity Demand Forecast of Electricity Demand (by Generation Fuel)(by Generation Fuel)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100Year

Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Nuclear Power Renewable Sources

Bill

ion

kWh


Forecast of Nuclear Capacity by TypeForecast of Nuclear Capacity by TypeG

W

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100

Existing U38

HTGRS/ConventionalFuel

Advanced ‘PWRS’

Transmutation/Accelerators


Comparison of Our Capacity Forecast with Comparison of Our Capacity Forecast with EIA Advanced Nuclear, AEO 2006EIA Advanced Nuclear, AEO 2006

GW0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

EIA

Current Fleet

Advanced PWRs

HTGRs – Driver /Transmuter Fuel

HTGRs – UOX Fuel


CommentaryCommentaryFor this scenario, repository capacity is constrained and, after the For this scenario, repository capacity is constrained and, after the repository opens in 2018, the duration of SF interim storage is repository opens in 2018, the duration of SF interim storage is limited.limited.

Therefore, two paths for nuclear power are available:Therefore, two paths for nuclear power are available:1) adopt technologies that close the fuel cycle, or1) adopt technologies that close the fuel cycle, or2) phase out nuclear power.2) phase out nuclear power.

Under these constraints, the model chose HTGRs with two fuel Under these constraints, the model chose HTGRs with two fuel forms:forms: - low enriched uranium oxide fuel (about 75% of HTGR thermal - low enriched uranium oxide fuel (about 75% of HTGR thermal energy production);energy production); - so-called “deep burn” driver and transmutation fuel consisting of - so-called “deep burn” driver and transmutation fuel consisting of transuranic oxides (25% of thermal energy production)transuranic oxides (25% of thermal energy production)11..

1. See C. Rodriguez et. al., “Deep Burn Transmutation of Nuclear Waste,” in Proceedings of the Conference on High Temperature Reactors, Petten, NL, April 22-24, 2002. Available: http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/fulltext/htr2002_207.pdf


Factors That Could Affect Outcome: Factors That Could Affect Outcome: Political/Regulatory FactorsPolitical/Regulatory Factors

Risk Factor(+ = Factor increases likelihood of outcome relative to reference case)(- = Factor decreases likelihood)(o = Factor does not strongly affect likelihood)

Nuclear Phaseout

Constrained Repository

Unconstrained Repository

Constrained Repository, Advanced Fuel Cycle

Unconstrained Repository,

Advanced Fuel Cycle

Delay in Opening of Yucca Mountain

+ o - + -

Regulatory Delays in Licensing of Interim Storage or Expanded Cooling Storage

+ + - + -

Opposition to Licensing or Operation of Reprocessing Facilities

+ + + - -

More Stringent Repository Performance Criteria

+ o - + +

More Efficient NRC Site and Facility Licensing

- o + + +

Implementation of Carbon Taxes or Emission Permits

- o + + +


ConclusionsConclusions Inclusion of the issue of spent nuclear fuel results Inclusion of the issue of spent nuclear fuel results

in a different technology mix.in a different technology mix. Limited permanent disposal capacity requires the Limited permanent disposal capacity requires the

use of reprocessing and transmutation-oriented use of reprocessing and transmutation-oriented nuclear generation technologies.nuclear generation technologies.

HTGR technologies provide greater flexibility by HTGR technologies provide greater flexibility by accepting a greater range of outputs from accepting a greater range of outputs from reprocessing.reprocessing.

HTGR generation is conservatively priced at 21% HTGR generation is conservatively priced at 21% more in over-night costs than LWRs; but HTGRs more in over-night costs than LWRs; but HTGRs provide the potential for recycling of transuranics provide the potential for recycling of transuranics from previously generated SNF.from previously generated SNF.

Advanced nuclear generation technologies provide Advanced nuclear generation technologies provide a sustainable power source through reduction of a sustainable power source through reduction of the quantities of spent nuclear fuel.the quantities of spent nuclear fuel.


BackupBackup


Embedded Assumptions in Linear Embedded Assumptions in Linear ProgrammingProgramming

A linear program is a linear program . . .is a linear program!!A linear program is a linear program . . .is a linear program!! Embedded economic paradigm in a cost minimization framework. Embedded economic paradigm in a cost minimization framework. The economic paradigm includes:The economic paradigm includes:

Homogeneous, linear cost functions.Homogeneous, linear cost functions. Assumption of perfect competition, i.e., large number of Assumption of perfect competition, i.e., large number of

economic agents and everybody is a “price taker.”economic agents and everybody is a “price taker.” Ease of entry and exit.Ease of entry and exit. All markets are in equilibrium, i.e., market clearing assumed, All markets are in equilibrium, i.e., market clearing assumed,

with perfect foresight.with perfect foresight. Factors that drive energy use or consumption are “energy only.” Factors that drive energy use or consumption are “energy only.” Bias introduced through choice of decision variables (e.g., Bias introduced through choice of decision variables (e.g.,

technologies) for inclusion in the model.technologies) for inclusion in the model.


Electricity: Distributed Electricity: Distributed Generation/CHPGeneration/CHP

Each end-use sector has a sector-specific electricity Each end-use sector has a sector-specific electricity and steam grid which is connected to the main grid and steam grid which is connected to the main grid with the option of selling (i.e., inter-sector trade).with the option of selling (i.e., inter-sector trade).

Each sector or end-use has over 40 CHP/DG Each sector or end-use has over 40 CHP/DG technologies using natural gas or renewables or technologies using natural gas or renewables or other fossil fuels.other fossil fuels. Industrial CHP: “pass-out” turbines (flexible heat/power ratios), Industrial CHP: “pass-out” turbines (flexible heat/power ratios),

wind, and fuel cells. wind, and fuel cells. Commercial and residential: microturbines, fuel cells, Commercial and residential: microturbines, fuel cells,

reciprocating engines, and photovoltaic.reciprocating engines, and photovoltaic. Transport: structured for the addition of “mobile” generation Transport: structured for the addition of “mobile” generation

sources.sources. DG and CHP are depicted as the “marginal” DG and CHP are depicted as the “marginal”

producer in the base case, i.e., these technologies producer in the base case, i.e., these technologies compete in a market niche with central generation compete in a market niche with central generation and more efficient end-use technologies.and more efficient end-use technologies.


Distributed Electricity Generation (DG) Distributed Electricity Generation (DG) versus versus Central Electricity Generation (CG)Central Electricity Generation (CG)

Dispatched Central

Generation

Small Distributed Generators

Distributed Generation

Clearinghouse

Local-Use Distributed Generation

To Grid To GridTransmission Losses

Transmission Losses

Central Generation

Consumption

Distributed Generation

Consumption from Grid

Total Consumption

from Grid

Total Consumption

from DG

Total Electricity Consumption


Factors That Could Affect Outcome: Factors That Could Affect Outcome: Market FactorsMarket Factors


Nuclear Phaseout




Unconstrained Repository, Advanced Fuel Cycle

Increased Fossil Fuel Price Volatility

- o + + +

Scarcity of Uranium Resource

+ - - o -

Delay in Availability of Advanced Technologies

o o o - -

Increased Disposal Cost Volatility

+ - - + +

Aggregate Electricity Demand Growth Greater than Expected

- o + + +

Aggressive Growth in Demand for Hydrogen

o o o + +


Factors That Could Affect Outcome: Factors That Could Affect Outcome: Security FactorsSecurity Factors


Nuclear Phaseout




Unconstrained Repository, Advanced Fuel Cycle

Nuclear Materials Dispersed at Generation and Interim Storage Facilities

+ o - + +

Transportation of SNF + o - - -

Security of Separated Actinides + + + - -

Propagation / Dispersion of Advanced Reprocessing or Enrichment Technologies

+ + + - -

Repository Becomes a ‘Plutonium Mine’

o - - + +