Sustainable Nuclear production in France EDF France Nuclear Fuel Cycle - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

sustainable nuclear production in france edf france nuclear fuel cycle n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sustainable Nuclear production in France EDF France Nuclear Fuel Cycle PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sustainable Nuclear production in France EDF France Nuclear Fuel Cycle

play fullscreen
1 / 29
Sustainable Nuclear production in France EDF France Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Sustainable Nuclear production in France EDF France Nuclear Fuel Cycle

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Sustainable Nuclear production in France EDF France Nuclear Fuel Cycle Dr. Noël Camarcat EDF Generation Special advisor for nuclear R&D and international issues Imperial College of London Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 Version v4b 23 oct 11

  2. EDF Nuclear Know-How and Experience Gravelines • 58 reactors in operation, on 19 sites, all owned by EDF • A single technology: PWR (“Pressurised Water Reactor”) • 3 standardized series : a major safety asset and an economic benefit • 900 MWe: 34 units, 31 GW • 1,300 MWe: 20 units, 26 GW • 1,500 MWe: 4 units, 6 GW • ≈1400 reactor-years of experience • 1 EPR unit under construction in Flamanville (FA3) • 1 EPR under development in Penly (PL3) Chooz Penly Paluel Flamanville Cattenom Nogent Seine Fessenheim St Laurent Dampierre Belleville Chinon Civaux Bugey St Alban Blayais Cruas Tricastin Golfech 900MW 1300MW 1500MW EPR 2 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  3. Sustainable Nuclear Production in France and Internationally • Nuclear production : Safety as main priority • 58 PWRs with standardized series 900 MW (34), 1300 MW (20) and 1500 MW (4) • 408 TWh in 2010,  77 % of electricity generation in France • launching of the new EPR reactor at Flamanville 3 (first production in 2016) and at Penly 3 • Perspective for the future: • long term operation of existing NPPs and studies beyond 40 years periodic safety reassessment process, experience feedback, backfitting .... • preparation for EPR deployment: timeframe 2020 to 2030… • International development based on EPR standardisation: UK, USA, China, Poland, RSA… • participation to GEN 4 advanced fast neutrons reactors programs, timeframe 2040 + … 3 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  4. Reactor core and fuel management arrangements in France • The current fuel management • average burn up 44 GWd/t, average enrichment 4% • 900 MW CP0 (6 units): 4.2% per third and 18 months cycle on CP0 units (6 units); • 900 MW CPY (28 units): 3.7% per quarter and 13 months cycle on CPY unitswith 22 units authorized for MOX fuel (30% core) and 4 units loaded with REPU fuel (100% core); • 1300 MW units (20 units): 4% per third and 15/18 months cycle; • 1500 MW N4 units (4 units): 4% per third, 17 months cycle. • Fuel management policies • Implementation of MOX Parity fuel management and extension on 900 MW plants (22 units authorized as of today, 21 loaded), MOX equivalent to UO2 3,7% (52 GWd/t, 8.5% Pu) • Adaptations as needed to ensure recycling and fuel cycle consistency (evolution of burn up…) • Security of supply and Diversification 4 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  5. The French choice of reprocessing and recycling strategy • Reprocessing of spent fuel has been implemented in France from the beginning • initially: to enhance energy independence, along with fast breeder reactors program • current status: transportation and reprocessing of spent fuel at the La Hague facility • Spent fuel represents a valuable energy resource • (1%) plutonium as long term energy resource, under safeguard rules • (35% of fission energy in situ in UO2 fuel + possible 10% with recycling) • (95%) recovered uranium, still sligthly enriched (0,8% U235) • (4%) fission products and minor actinides (Am, Cm, Np) to be treated as waste and vitrified. • High level waste vitrification and recycling of valuable energetical material are the chosen options for back end fuel cycle • the vitrification process is a major factor for long terme safe confinement of high level waste, interim storage and disposal under reduced volume • decision to recycle plutonium in PWR 900 MW, using a mixed uranium / plutonium fuel (MOX) first MOX loading in 1987 at Saint Laurent B, extended now to 22 units PWR 900 MW (30% core) • use of REPU fuel on four 900MW units (100% core) • preservation of long term energy resource (use of plutonium for future fast reactors) 5 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  6. The principles of recycling Uranium and Plutonium in Light Water Reactors 6 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  7. Nuclear fuel cycle industry in France A major contribution to energy sustainability UO2 Fuel fabrication 1000 t/year 2000 assemblies/yr (45 GWd/t average, max 52 GWd/t Uranium and conversion  8000 t/year Enrichment  5,5 MUTS/year  time period 20 years 430 TWhe /an Spent Fuel: 1200 tons /year (UOX et MOX) Recycling: MOX fuel 120 t/year on 22 units 900 MW (30% core) --> 43 TWh/yr 58 EDF NPPs 22 units loaded with MOX 4 with REPU fuel Spent Fuel Transportation to La Hague, interim storage in cooling pools 1200 tons/year MELOX Fuel Fabrication plant Reprocessing: 1050 t / year 10 t /yr Separated plutonium (1%) Reprocessed uranium: ~ 1000 t/yr (U235 content 0,8%) 600t re-enriched and recycled on 4 units 900W (100% core) 80t REPU fuel/yr --> 28 TWh/yr La Hague Vitrified High level Waste Interim passive storage Disposal optimisation around 150 m3/yr vitrified HLW around200 m3/yr compacted ILW Depending on Burn up 7 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  8. Reprocessing - The Purex chemical process some historical milestones U.S.A 1950s (Savannah, Hanford) UK 1953 (Windscale) France 1958 (Marcoule UP1) 1967 (La Hague UP2-400) 1976 (La Hague, UP2-HAO for UO2 fuel) 1989 (La Hague UP3) 1994 (La Hague UP2-800) UK 1994 (Sellafield THORP) Japan 2007 (Rokkashomura RRP) 8 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  9. Reprocessing capacities in the world in 2000 9 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  10. Reprocessing in nuclear chemical plants 3 important steps in the Purex process : 1-Dissolve the spent fuel in oxide form 2-Extract and separate Uranium, Plutonium, Fission products Condition the Fission Products Wastes (and others) 10 - Imperial College of London - October 28th, 2010 - 00 Mois 2009

  11. Transport of used fuel assemblies between power plants and the reprocessing plant by shielded casks 11 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  12. Example of spent fuel cooling pools at La Hague Dimensions Length : 50 m Width : 16 m Depth : 9 m About 7200 m3 of water Storage capacity 730 baskets, each bearing : 9 PWR assemblies (EDF fuel type) Or 16 BWR assemblies ~ 4000 tons of Fuel 12 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  13. The La Hague Plant and the Supplementary Safety Assessments after the Fukushima accident (the so-called stress tests) May 2011 : request from the french safety regulator (ASN) to perform further evaluation of safety (ECS) of the operator’s nuclear facilities. The so called « stress tests » cover almost all of the 150 french facilities, in particular 58 operating nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants The reports of the 80 facilities identified as priorities have been submitted on september 15 and are available on web sites. Both nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants have spent fuel pools but : The fuel assemblies heat load is smaller at a reprocessing plant than in a power plant UOX 6 months after reactor shutdown : ~14kW UOX18 months after reactor shut down ~ 5 kW Line of defense in case of Plant Black Out (~SBO) with loss of heat sink : add up water with external pumps and pipes, several days available to perform these operations for the pools, longer than for power reactors Rapid intervention force (french FARN) being set up also for reprocessing plants (see back up slides in french). 13 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  14. La Hague Canisters for waste conditionning Glass canisters cast with the vitrification process for high level waste (HLW) 180 liters, 400 kg 15% of Fission Products Oxides mixed in glass frit (High Level Waste) Same canisters for Hulls (cladding cut in pieces at shearing/dissolution) « technologicals » i.e compacted parts from the maintenance of machines 14 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  15. Intermediate storage of glass canisters at La Hague before geological repository Glass canisters are stored in metallic shafts below the yellow/red concrete slab 15 - Imperial College of London - October 26th 2011

  16. Nuclear fuel cycle industry in France A major contribution to energy sustainability The current reprocessing recycling strategy is a major asset for sustainable nuclear energy in the following respects: • Ensuring a safe and long lasting confinement of high level waste by vitrification in inert glass canisters under a reduced volume, a safe and long-lasting containment, internationally recognized in a suitable form to be stored and ultimately disposed of in an optimised package, limited volume (around 150 m3/year for 430 TWh); optimisation of disposal; no more safeguards • Reducing the quantity of stored spent fuel, 8 UO2 spent fuel  1 MOX spent fuel, in which plutonium is concentrated (5%); and potentially 1 URE spent fuel • Recycling of plutonium and recovered uranium, while getting back energy output produces 43 TWh/yr (10% of nuclear production) in 22 units (30% of the core) 4 units feeded with REPU fuel (100% core) • Maintaining the possibility in the far future to use the plutonium resource concentrated in MOX spent fuel, under small volume, full safeguards leaves open the possibility to reuse Pu in future GEN4 fast reactors 16 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  17. Nuclear fuel cycle industry in France A major contribution to energy sustainability • This strategy is robust and flexible in term of flow sheet and volume of nuclear materials (spent fuel, plutonium, REPU...). • It gives time and can be extended for the years to come, while preparing for future options. • It results in a safe and optimised high level waste interim storage and disposal (limited volume), along with nuclear energy resource preservation. • It relies on existing industrial tool, to be amortised in the long run. 17 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  18. The Geological Disposal Facility : an important stake for sustainable development • 1991: The December 30th Waste Act launched 15 years of research on 3 management options for High Level Waste: separation/transmutation, long term storage and geological disposal. • 1999: Construction Permit for an underground research laboratory situated in Bure • 2005: The technical feasibility of a disposal facility in the Bure’s area clay established • End 2005: Public debate • 2006: New radioactive waste management act: GDF is the reference solution for the long-term management of HLW – design development and final site selection have to be carried out under the following calendar: • 2013: Public debate and site selection (in Bure’s area) • 2014: Permit/license submission • 2016: Law defining how reversibility should be implemented • 2017-2018: Beginning of construction • 2025: Commissionning • EDF is strongly involved in this project which success is a key element of our sustainable back-end policy 18 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  19. Studies for future back end options: the June 2006 law on Sustainable management of Radioactive Material and Waste • 1/ R&D studies to be pursued on three complementary lines: • Partitioning and transmutation of HLW, in relation with studies on future reactors, to assess the industrial perspectives for those systems (2012) and to develop a prototype reactor (2020) • Geological disposal, as a reference solution, in order to prepare a licensing procedure (site selection, design options..) in 2015 and implementation in 2025 • Interim storage: new capacities, or existing to be adapted, for 2015, according to the needs • 2/ A National Program for the Management of Nuclear Material and Radioactive Waste • featuring reduction of the quantity and toxicity (french term in the law “nocivité”) of radioactive waste, notably through spent fuel reprocessing and treatment of radioactive waste • 3/ Financial settlements • for local economic development and R&D expenses (Andra) • for cost assessment for HLW management options and related provisions (long term liabilities) with dedicated financial assets. 19 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  20. Conclusion • The on going challenges • first priority: nuclear safety • acceptability: waste management and Geological Repository development • best use of energy resource • The reprocessing recycling strategy brings a robust answer to high level waste management and allows to use fissile material rationally, while benefiting from an optimised use of existing industrial tool in the long run, which contributes to nuclear economics. • A perspective open to future progress and optimisation, as needed to meet long term energy sustainability. 20 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  21. Acknowledgments • All fuel cycle facilities photographs and some technical data are due to the courtesy of Professor Bernard BOULLIS, both at CEA and INSTN - 2007 course in nuclear engineering, fuel cycle « module ». 21 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  22. Focus on the UK:EDF Energy, key nuclear player in the UK • UK's largest producer of low-carbon electricity • Leading nuclear operator in the UK: 8 NPPs, 9.5 GW, including 7 AGR plants and 1 PWR • 4 EPRs under development. 23 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  23. Nuclear New Build in the UK… Overview - Progress on Nuclear New Build • July 2011: Approval for Site Preparation Works, Hinkley Point, Somerset • October 2011: Weightman report into implications of Fukushima: - No reason to curtail operation of power plants or other UK nuclear facilities - UK industry has reacted responsibly and appropriately - No cause to revist siting strategies for new projects • Autumn 2011: Development Consent Order (DCO) submission to Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) • Ongoing: Regulatory approval for EPR continues to make progress. 24 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  24. Nuclear New Build in the UK… EDF Energy Response to Fukushima • Reviewed emergency planning procedures • Proactive steps taken to build public trust… - Open days at existing stations - Redeveloping visitor centres - New web pages - Public focus groups - Expert, external panel to challenge company • Broad consensus remains… - 61% of UK people support nuclear’s role in the energy mix - Cross Party consensus continues… 25 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  25. Nuclear New Build in the UK… Progress on Policy Framework • Parliamentary vote endorsing National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure • Parliamentary vote on Justification • Current Energy legislation includes provisions for Waste and Decommissioning for new build • Electricity Market Reform White Paper published in July will provide greater certainty for investors 26 - Imperial College of London - October 26th, 2011

  26. Forces d’intervention rapide des opérateursChronogramme d’intervention T0 + 24 h T0 + 3 h Initiateur T0 + 15 h > T0 + qql jours Actions PUI équipe de conduite Intervention avec les moyens mutualisés - M2IN (GIE INTRA rénové) Gestion de crise moyen terme Intervention de la FARN d’EDF et des FARN du CEA et d’AREVA (FLS, …) Gestion de crise court terme Mise en œuvre FARN d’EDF • Mise en œuvre FARN du CEA • Mise en œuvre FARN d’AREVA Alerte Projection éventuelle d’une deuxième équipe Décision de mobilisation Organisation Nationale de Crise 27

  27. Force d’Action Rapide Nucléaire CEA et AREVA : mettre en état sûr l’installation et secours sur site • Renforcer dès le début de la crise les moyens d’exploitation et d’intervention par des ressources locales connaissant les installations (astreinte). • Apporter et mettre en service sous 24 heures des moyens matériels complémentaires permettant de mettre en sécurité l’installation : apport en électricité, eau et air comprimé, lutte contre l’incendie, secours, … • Amener sur le site, à partir de 24 h, la logistique nécessaire au bon fonctionnement des matériels de sauvegarde. • Assurer la surveillance radiologique de l’environnement. • Être en liaison avec la direction de l’équipe de crise nationale et la direction locale. Equipes FLS, SPR, des autres centres

  28. Moyens Mutualisés d’Intervention Nucléaire - M2IN (GIE INTRA rénové)  Préparer la gestion moyen terme et long terme de la crise • Assurer un soutien lourd au site (forte puissance électrique, alimentation en eau à grand débit, base de support, protection périmétrique lourde) • Mettre en œuvre des actions de limitation et de traitement d’éventuels rejets • Assurer la sécurité des intervenants (accès, protection, contrôle radioprotection, base arrière …) • Assurer la continuité du fonctionnement de divers moyens utilisés en premier échelon • Objectif: Réflexion sur les moyens finalisée pour Février 2012 Pompage en eaux vives