Nuclear Energy R&D - a view from industry

1. Nuclear Energy R&D - a view from industry Tony Roulstone Jan 2010

2. Summary After 25 years of retrenchment, nuclear power is firmly on the agenda, both in UK and around the world – driven by the issues of: Climate Change; Energy Security. UK will replace (at least two times over) the current ~10GWe nuclear capacity; Universities have the opportunity to: Educate the new nuclear engineers required to design, build, operate and develop new systems; Contribute to the development of Light Water Reactors; Layout the ideas for extending the fuel resource available for nuclear fission power in thermal systems; Contribute to the development of Advanced Systems. The name of the game is collaboration: between disciplines, with industry & internationally. Education LWR Devlt Fuel Resource Advanced Systems

3. Issues for the 21st century? Response to World Credit Crunch; Climate Change; Nuclear Proliferation; International terrorism. Gordon Brown Mansion House Nov 2009 Nuclear is (for a good or ill) linked to at least 3 of these issues: Credit crunch –> UK over reliance on financial services – new manufacturing? Climate Change -> Expanding and de-carbonising electricity supply; Nuclear Proliferation -> New fuel cycles that avoid creating or protect potential nuclear bomb materials.

4. UK Nuclear Market Background 15 years after the last nuclear power station (Sizewell B) was completed and within sight of the end of life of existing AGRs, UK Government is now committed to enabling the replacement of nuclear , using private capital and without any subsidies; Government accepts that at least 8 large new stations (10-12GWe) will be built as quickly as possible with private capital, first in 2017/8 followed by one per year from 2020; Climate change pressures may well triple current UK nuclear capacity to ~30GWe by 2030/35, providing a massive UK nuclear market: +£60bn capital spend during the next 25 years, plus operating costs of several £bn pa; UK nuclear capability has been severely eroded – skills lost; facilities closed & work-force retirement; Nuclear industry has been globalised - with the leadership coming from France, Japan, US etc. Government is working to prepare the ground (through the Office of Nuclear Development): Generic design licensing of two new foreign designs: EPR & AP1000; Infrastructure Planning Commission/process – to obviate multiple long planning enquiries; Provision of committed Waste & Decommissioning funds; Stimulating Education & Skills development. Including advanced manufacturing methods Developing non-proliferation issues AREVA EPR

5. Civil Nuclear Power Global Market Current capacity: Nuclear energy currently provides approximately 15 per cent of the world’s electricity. Currently around 440 nuclear plants, across 30 countries, with a total capacity of over 370 GW. Future Capacity: There may be a global build rate of up to 12 nuclear reactors per year between 2007-2030, which expected to rise to 23-54 reactors a year between 2030-2050. Market value: A recent assessment by Rolls-Royce estimated that: Global civil nuclear market is currently worth around £30bn a year. By 2023 market could be worth around £50bn per year. Of this, approximately £20bn pa will be new build, £13bn pa in support to existing nuclear plant, and £17bn pa in support of new build reactors. The Road to 2010 Cabinet Office July 2009 Westinghouse AP1000

6. R&D opportunities are in 3 groups New nuclear engineering degrees such as the MPhil proposed at Cambridge would be essential support for and be supported by expanded R&D: Existing & near term design - Support and Development of Light Water Reactors (BWR & PWR); Fuel cycles that extend the scope of fission in thermal reactors; Advanced systems - New reactor types, potentially with new fuel cycles. Education LWR Devlt Fuel Resource Advanced Systems

7. Current nuclear – overview of areas of study (1) Existing & near term reactors – LWRs which make up >80% of world power reactors – client objectives provide the requirements for research & development: LWR Devlt Major Accident Safety Increasing Output Extending Lifetime -> 60 years Fuel & RadWaste Project Economics

8. Current nuclear – overview of areas of study (2) Existing & near term reactors – LWRs which make up >80% of world power reactors – requirements for research & development: Major Accident Safety Increasing Output • Criticality transients • Loss of coolant • Internal/external hazards • Passive safety systems design • Control & protection architecture/systems • Model validation, errors & safety philosophy • Improved availability & thermodynamic efficiency Extending Lifetime -> 60 years Fuel & RadWaste Project Economics • Fuel burn-up • Recycling fuel cycles incl. MOX • Waste disposal/storage • Materials & cracking – brittle fracture, environmentally assisted & hydrogen cracking • Radiation embrittlement • Design for construction – modules • Simpler designs/systems/standards including safety approvals

9. Some material cracking topics Control rod motor support tube – dis-similar tube to head welds Vessel nozzle welds – low cycle fatigue Fracture of neutron embrittled Reactor Vessel Fuel clad – FP corrosion & delayed hydrogen cracking Issues include: 60 year plant life; assurance of safety margins; manufacture & inspection standards, effectiveness of enhanced material testing.

10. External hazards – a multi disciplinary approach Issues include: Modelling extreme events; handling uncertainty & complexity; extending/validating design codes; cost benefit analysis & risk. Identify external Hazards Aircraft crash Flood Fire explosion Earthquake Analyse accident frequencies & sequences Consider primary & secondary means of protection ---> Design basis of structures and safety systems, including human factors Probablistic Risk Analysis Low frequency /high consequence Design Basis Analysis High frequency Demonstrate protection including reliability of protection systems

11. Current nuclear – overview of areas of study (3) Existing & near term reactors – LWRs which make up >80% of world power reactors – requirements for research & development: Major Accident Safety Increasing Output • Criticality transients • Loss of coolant • Internal/external hazards • Passive safety systems design • Control & protection architecture/systems • Model validation, errors & safety philosophy • Improved availability & thermodynamic efficiency Extending Lifetime -> 60 years Fuel & RadWaste Project Economics • Fuel burn-up • Recycling fuel cycles incl. MOX • Waste disposal/storage • Materials & cracking – brittle fracture, environmentally assisted & hydrogen cracking • Radiation embrittlement • Design for construction – modules • Simpler designs/systems/standards including safety approvals

12. Potential Fissile Fuel Limits Uranium (current price $55 per kg)Reserves Current consumption ‘Growth’ World reserves to be mined @ $130 per kg 4.7 Mtne 64 yrs 11 yrs Phosphate reserves                                             22   Mtne               330 yrs 55 yrs Sea water Uranium    @ $300(?) per kg   4500 Mtne  thousands thousands Current consumption rate in once through systems utilising U235 i.e. no fast breeders based on current world-wide 370 GWe nuclear capacity (~16% of world electricity generation) Nuclear ‘Growth’ consumption – triple the share of a larger electricity market (~2000GWe nuclear) SEWTA D MacKay: Fuel Resource Fertile fuels Uranium(reserves 4.7 Mtne – potential years at ‘Growth’ nuclear energy rate ~ 700) n fast + U238 -> U239 (23 mins) -> Np 239 + e-(2.3 days)-> Pu239 + e-(further n capture to Pu240/1/2 etc.) Thorium(reserves 6 Mtne – potential years at ‘Growth’ nuclear energy rate ~ 400 ) n fast/th + Th232 -> Th232 (22 min) -> Pa 233 + e-(27 days) -> U233 + e-(further n capture to 11% U235)

13. How to provide the additional neutrons? LWRs with Enriched U or Pu Seed – Blanket Th Heavy Water moderated systems like CANDU & SGHWR 2. Lower losses - more efficient moderation – Heavy Water 1. More fissilematerial – increased enrichment/added Plutonium Fuel Resource Thermal neutrons 3. Improved capturev fission prob>10* in fast neutron spectrum 4. External supply of neutrons – i.e. from an accelerator Advanced Systems Fast neutrons Fast neutron reactors Liquid metal, Salt or Gas Cooled Accelerator driven Sub-critical Reactor

14. Thermal reactors as Plutonium breeders or burners? Thermal reactors (PWR, AGR, BWR) are normally breeders of Pu (~30kg/TWhe), but can be burners, depending on fuel mix, configuration and neutron spectrum; for thermal neutrons, fission cross section is 100* capture cross section but U238 abundance *30; Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel has ~5-7% Pu (replacing U235) mixed with natural or depleted U configured in assemblies which are externally identical to normal fuel; There are part-loads of MOX in 30 existing LWRs in Europe and Japan, plus plans to burn military Plutonium in both US and Russia, using conventional LWRs; Pu consumption is dependant on the proportion of core that has MOX assemblies: 30% net zero production 50% 15kg/TWhe consumption Higher MOX loadings require modifications to burnable poison and/or control rods - to maintain adequate reactivity shut-down and hold-down margins; In principle, LWRs can operate with 100% MOX with consumption 60kg/TWhe - existing reactors would require some re-design – more control rods, higher concentration of Boron or use of B10 – perhaps reactors designed/optimised specifically for MOX fuel; Multiple re-cycle brings issues of higher isotopes of Plutonium – which both act as neutron absorbers and produce higher actinides - MoX fuel is more radioactive, hence more difficult to fabricate & handle. Ref: NEA 4451

15. Thorium systems Thorium reactors are being considered because of: Larger reserves with potential to convert & burn the whole resource - compared with 0.7% of Uranium; Potential proliferation advantages with reprocessing cycles; Improved ability to burn Plutonium; Lower radio-toxicity of waste <10,000 years; Thorium systems require a supply of neutrons from: Fission in fast or thermal reactors – with a driver fuel enriched U or Pu from reprocessing; Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor (ADSR) – most likely fast reactor with driver core of either enriched U or Pu – being studied by THOREA. Prototype Thorium reactors: Have been operated in Germany (BWR & HTGR), UK & US (HTGR), India (PHWR), Canada (CANDU) & US (PWR & BWR); Have been extensively studied (LWR) jointly by Germany & Brazil; Are being planned in India (complex cycles of FR & AHWR), Russia for burning military Pu (RTR); Are included in Gen IV - Molten Salt Reactor (Thorium Fluorides with on-site reprocessing) Thorium systems have been little studied in UK because of: More difficult reprocessing requirements – requires HF for dissolution; Current availability and low price of Uranium; Prior commitment to fast reactors; Open Thorium cycle in LWRs may be feasible but need complex fuel shuffling & long irradiation cycles. Galperin ARWIF 2001

16. Fast Neutron Reactors • Major programs of enriched U and Pu fuelled liquid cooled fast reactors from 1950/70s were halted by low Uranium prices and technical difficulties from mid 1980s; • Only BN 600 (600MWe) & small test reactors (Phénix & Joyo) are still operating; • Reactors & fuel operated well (400 reactor years), but economics, concerns about proliferation & technical difficulties included: sodium-water leaks, thermal stress in core structure, fuel handling/fabrication – led to stand-still; • Plans for new fast reactors as breeders (or burners of actinides) - in all regions except Europe, though France is leading the re-launch of fast reactors within EU.

17. Advanced Systems – what are objectives, which system? Advanced systems are being studied under the Generation IV International Forum (GIF): Why new systems? Economics of smaller/simpler reactors – PBMR, IRIS; Process heat for chemical eng, including direct hydrogen production; Making use of the available fertile material – breeders; Proliferation resistance & trans-uranic burning; Breaking the energy barriers – fast breeders, fusion & ITER. Novel designs – new fuel cycles or configurations – like Liquid or intrinsically safe fuel, Accelerator driven sub-critical etc. Improved safety; Burning waste/actinides; Proliferation resistant cycles; Facilitate breeding cycles. Which system? Fast or thermal neutron? Gas of liquid cooled? Solid or liquid fuelled? High or current temperatures? Advanced Systems • Gen IV Systems • Super Critical Water Reactor • Very-High Temp Reactor • Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor • Molten Salt Reactor • Gas-cooled Fast Reactor • Lead-cooled Fast Reactor

18. A potential approach to System Selection U/Pu Th/U Thermal Fast Thermal Fast Open Cycle Closed Cycle • Once thru LWRs are dominant because of relatively mature technology & low/dependable costs, but they may be limited in the medium term by the availability of low cost Uranium resources; • MoX fuel cycles enables U/Pu cycle to be extended with little increase costs and low technological risk – more advanced designs of LWR fuel may enable steady state Pu cycle – but reprocessing separates Pu with consequential concerns about proliferation; • Fast reactors offer scope for greatly extending Uranium resource – technological issues with front runner Sodium reactors are well known, plus need to reprocess and re-fabricate the progressively more active fuels; • Thorium fuel can either extend existing thermal once-thru’ reactors utilising Pu as a seed/driver – with some development & testing, or greatly increase the resource efficiency with fast reactors but with much higher development uncertainty & timescales with both higher operating & capital costs.

19. How? – by Collaboration Within the University: Nuclear problems are particularly multi-disciplinary – e.g. Thorium fuel systems requires: Core physics; Thermal hydraulic; Fuel & clad performance; Fuel processing etc; With Industry/Labs: New nuclear engineering development require industrial relevance and practical testing; Expensive facilities such as test rigs and irradiation labs are in industry/NNL. Rolls-Royce & AMEC both have strong positions in UK nuclear are - Cambridge has the links to build a nuclear relationship with Rolls-Royce. Involvement in key Government/IAEA committees on nuclear issues. With other countries; Nuclear is a global market & research must reflect this: Market scale – 3-4 leading reactor vendors world-wide; Standards & safety – becoming more international; Specialised facilities including materials test reactors exist in other countries; Funding – new systems development & demonstration will costs many £billions & be collaborative. EU capabilities and facilities are largely still in place – France & Germany – plus ambitions in Czech Republic, Poland etc. to develop nuclear power. Also, EU has funding & the will to support advanced systems – possible new demonstration fast reactor; US, while not being keen on reprocessing and hence fast reactors, will not be left behind in nuclear development – and is keen to lead international developments.

20. A Possible Strategy? • Becoming a centre of excellence in post graduate teaching of nuclear engineering through the proposed M Phil etc. Supported by an enhanced research programme; • Support major growth in nuclear in the UK (& world-wide) through development of LWR technology - providing solutions to technical issues that limit the effectiveness of LWR - where Cambridge has relevant & specific skills; • Develop new fuel design & cycles for LWRs to greatly expand the available global nuclear fuel resource, required to respond to the challenges of Climate Change; • Analyse & identify the most promising advanced reactor systems and contribute to their international development. By collaboration: within the university, with industry, NNL & UK government/ IAEA and internationally – EU and US. Education LWR Devlt Fuel Resource Advanced Systems

21. End

22. Future system selection – an outline approach Baseline: LWR reactors Gen III+ ESBWR/ABWR, AP1000, EPR; Low enrichment Uranium fuels; New reactors spent fuel storage ~50 years no reprocessing; Large Plutonium stocks from previous military programs and existing reprocessing in France, UK, Russia and Japan. • System attractiveness depends on many and conflicting priorities – main ones being: • Whether Technology is demonstrated in a robust and dependable manner: • How will system improve the Resourceavailability of usable nuclear energy; • Costs, both capital & whole life operating costs: fuel fabrication, reactor ops, waste/reprocessing etc. • Proliferation considerations. Thermal Fast Open Cycle Closed Cycle Green Amber Red Technology: Mature Develop Problem Resource: x100 x10 Once thru Cost (TLC): LWR x2 x5 Proliferation; x10 LWR OTT /10

23. System Maturity & Development cycles • Development Clock Speed • System Generation Safety/Conservatism Period Dev/Capital Cost Comment • PC systems 15 Low 2 years $100m Rapid maturity • Motorcar 15 Mid 6 years $1bn 100 yr devlt • Civil Airliner 6-7 High 10+ years $10bn Mil & Civ devlt • Nuclear Power 3+ V High 30 years $5bn • Level of frustration with nuclear, particularly in UK, that after 50 years and £billions of R&D we have only a handful of large & somewhat inflexible power stations – dependant on limited Uranium supplies; • What happened to the claim of ‘energy too plentiful & too cheap’ to meter? • Other mature technologies have been through at least 5 full generations; • Because of: conservatism; scale; project time; & cost – nuclear has only completed 3 cycles in 50+ years; • Take more care in what is claimed for a single development cycle – not over-promise; • New systems must have large advantages over LWRs, which need to be clearly deliverable; • New types of reactor are being studied Gen IV designs: GCFR; LFR; SFR; MSR; SCWR; VHTR. • Each will require better materials & more irradiation data and demonstration or test reactors; • Some new Gen IV designs will (but many will not) be built in the medium term – next 20-30 years;