EnergyThe and Stable Climate Salt Change Reactor Conference - Safer, JULY 2016 Cleaner and Cheaper
SMR 2016 Ian Scott
1 EnergyBackground and Climate Change to Moltex Conference Energy JULY 2016
SMR 2016
2 Moltex Energy Support
Technical Advisory Business Advisory Development Board Board Partners Neutronics Simulations, Tim Abram Tony Roulston Corrosion and Heat Transfer Westinghouse Professor of Former MD Rolls Royce Nuclear Experiments Nuclear Fuel technology, Prototype Fuel Assembly University of Manchester Mark Higson Fabrication and Former CEO Office for Nuclear Manufacturing Reviews Derek Fray Development, DECC FRS, FR Eng, Director of Communication Research, Cambridge University Norman Harrison Support Director Nuclear Liabilities Fund, Computational Fluid Dynamic and Heat Paul Madden Former CEO UKAEA, Transfer Simulations FRS, Provost Queens College Oxford Frans Boydon Key Claim Validation Former Superintending Nuclear Fuel Cycle Paul Littler Inspector, Nuclear Installations Licensing & Controls Nuclear Technical Director, Inspectorate Support (C&I) Atkins Ltd
Nial Greeves Plant Cost Estimating & Safety Assessments Head of Nuclear, Fraser-Nash Consultancy Today’s low ambitions for nuclear
400
350
300
250 Large Nuclear
200 GW SMR ~Cost of Large nuclear 150 (NNL)
100
50 International Energy Agency 2015 World Energy Outlook
0 Nuclear Energy is too Expensive
O/N Coal 2016
O/N Gas 2016 Why do PWR’s need such complex and expensive safety systems?
Water at 325°C explodes violently if pressure vessel fails
Zircalloy tube – reacts with water producing explosive hydrogen
Solid fuel pellet – internal pressure 10 tons per sq. inch of extremely dangerous gas Molten Salts eliminate the hazards
Molten salt coolant – no ° pressure, chemically Water at 325 C explodes stable, miscible with fuel violently if pressure vessel salt fails
Steel tube - no reaction Zircalloy tube – reacts with fuel or coolant with water producing molten salts explosive hydrogen
Solid fuel pellet – internal Molten salt fuel – no pressure 10 tons per sq. pressure and caesium inch of extremely and iodine non volatile dangerous gas Energy andThe Climate Stable Change Salt ConferenceReactor JULY 2016
SMR 2016
8 Fuel Assembly like Sodium Fast Reactor ALL OTHER MSR’S BASED STABLE SALT REACTOR ON 1960’s US 2013 concept TECHNOLOGY
Fuel ≠ Coolant Fuel = Coolant
Molten salt fuel Static fuel salt vs Pumped fuel salt
Safety critical engineered systems in pumped system Molten salt pumps and valves Fission gas removal and separation system Chemical processing and refuelling system Freeze plug and emergency drain/cooling Molten salt fuel Heat exchanger
Pumped system creates new IAEA safeguards issues Current IAEA safeguards regime tracks defined fuel assemblies New international standards required for bulk fuel (10-15 years)
Online reprocessing possible in pumped system Theoretical advantage in higher breeding and use of thorium (SAMOFAR/EVOL = Target date ~ Fusion) Reactor high level design
Helium/argon containment with airlock
Fuel assembly movement
Passive cooling air ducts
Heat exchanger/pump to secondary molten salt Fuel Management
Fresh fuel inserted
• Rectangular core allows counter-flow migration of fuel assemblies while on power • Spent fuel cools in reactor then freezes on withdrawal Spent fuel stored • Fresh fuel inserted out of then removed neutron flux to melt slowly SSR modular reactor to GW Scale
Up to 8 identical modules placed in single reactor tank creating single reactor up to 1200MWe
Modular factory Modular factory construction construction Factory produced 150MWe Economy module contains supports, pumps, of scale Economy primary heat exchanger, control of scale blades, instrumentation, flow Conventional Small ducts, fuel assembly handling etc Modular Reactor Stable Salt Reactor Key design decisions
Fast reactor • Eliminates moderator problems • More compact, simpler and cheaper • Low cost spent oxide fuel recycling Key design decisions
Chloride fuel salt • Lower melting point than fluorides • Redox stabilisation with zirconium eliminates metal corrosion • Natural chlorine neutronically acceptable Key design decisions
Vented fuel tubes • Essentially benign off gas with Zr stabilised salt • Hold up in tube allows almost all 137Xe to decay Key design decisions
Coolant salt
• NaF/KF/ZrF4/ZrF2 • Low melting point 385C
• Redox stabilisation ZrF2 eliminates corrosion • Miscible with fuel salt in accident • Hafnium in coolant screens neutrons with minimal core effect Smaller tank Simpler fuel movement outside salt Key design decisions
On power refuelling • Elimination of excess reactivity eliminates many accident scenarios • Far simpler reactor control systems • Shut down boron blades • In operation reactivity controlled via temperature coefficient and refuelling process Energy andEconomics Climate Change and Conference costs JULY 2016
SMR 2016
20 Current whole plant overnight capital cost estimate
OVERNIGHT CAPITAL COST OF NUCLEAR REACTORS (constant 2014 $, by date of operation)
8000
7000
6000
5000
$ per kW 4000 Coal 2016 3000
2000 Gas 2016 1000
0 UK on-site construction
Actual US costs from Koomey & Hultman (2007) Cost Estimate by Atkins Ltd
“Most likely cost” £718 per kW complete nuclear island including civil engineering (Hinkley Point C - £5000)
Review conceptual Carry out HAZOP 0 Calculate approximate design against UK analysis identifying capital cost of the SAP’s (Safety essential structures, nuclear and electrical Assessment Principles) systems and generator islands of an from Office of Nuclear components required for Nth of a kind 1GW Regulation safe operation Stable Salt Reactor Reasons to expect low cost
Eliminate instead of “manage” fundamental hazards
Fraction of the size of Below ground level similar power reactor location – small conventional reactor biological shield also aircraft defense SSR IS A SMALL MODULAR REACTOR Small size – not small power
GW Stable Salt Reactor compared to GW AP1000 Reasons to expect low cost
Eliminate instead of “manage” fundamental hazards
Fraction of the size of Below ground level similar power reactor location – small conventional reactor biological shield also aircraft defense
Emergency shutdown Continuous air cooling so just by getting hotter. no safety critical backup Single shut down system cooling systems
Continuous refuelling so Modular construction but “Standard” steam no safety critical systems a full size reactor – no temperature so turbines to hold down excess trade off economic ~1/6th cost of nuclear reactivity advantages ones Levelised Cost of Electricity
ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES SSR
60
50 License fee
40 OPEX inc
MWhr waste and 30 decom.
(UK 2019) LCOE LCOE $/
20
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2013) 10 CAPEX (IRR 9%) Large margin between LCOE and market electricity price provides strong sales “pull” 0 26 EnergyWorking and Climate with renewableChange Conference energy – JULY 2016 not just “baseload”
SMR 2016
27 Today’s low ambitions for nuclear
International Energy Agency 2015 World Energy Outlook GridReserve Energy Storage “perfect complement to renewables”
Commercialised technology from the concentrated solar power industry – only works with high temperature output but costs only $5 per MWhr 1000MW reactor runs continuously but varies electricity output from zero to 2000MW for 8 hours or more per day Nuclear fuel
SMR 2016 Conventional reactor fuel (CANDU)
0.8
0.7
0.6 This (especially the red bit) is what makes spent 0.5 fuel dangerous for 300,000 years % of the fuel 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Fresh fuel Spent fuel Uranium 235 Plutonium Higher actinides Plutonium purity needed for fuel
MOX FUEL MADE AT SSR FUEL SELLAFIELD
PLUTONIUM IMPURITIES
60% NaCl 6% PuO2 16% PuCl3 94% UO2 24% UCl3/LnCl3 Fuel for the Stable Salt Reactor
Waste nuclear fuel pellets – $billions of liability cost
Metal/salt Exchang Actinide free waste
Modified er aluminium smelter Uranium alloy for breeding Ready to use SSR fuel
Instead of this
Sellafield THORP reprocessin g plant with same annual production! Nuclear weapons proliferation?
Proliferation analysis after IAEA meeting on MSR’s Less plutonium per fuel assembly than MOX Purification of plutonium from SSR fuel needs a reprocessing plant just like spent conventional fuel Purification of plutonium from MOX can be done in a high school lab – hard bit already done! Immediate risk therefore marginally higher than spent oxide fuel but much lower than MOX Longer term, burning plutonium reduces proliferation risks Canadian Deployment Model
Green – Secured IP Owner Financial Partner Blue - tbc Moltex Energy Deloitte
Detailed Designer Reactor Builder Reactor Vendor SPV EPC
Operator/Licensee Suppliers CNL & OPG Fuel Fabricator Various CNL Moltex Energy Timeline
2013 2014 2015 2016
Invention Moltex Energy Concept Atkins cost Engineering conceived established design estimate design started UK SMR competition Master patent Master patent NNL review Financial filed UK/PCT granted UK of claims Partner
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Complete st Start Complete 1 300MWe nd Pre-license 2 reactor Pre-license License reactor online online & establish partners Approval & 2nd license approval Fuel fabrication demo Fuel fabrication comm rig design complete rig design complete Fuel fabrication demo Fuel fabrication comm Start Up fuel rig operational rig design operational ready Reasons to expect fast development and regulatory approval
No high pressure systems with long lead times
No new materials, Fewer safety critical standard nuclear grade systems for regulators to steels only approve
IAEA safeguards Factory construction of compliant fuel system entire reactor modules – avoids major regulatory minimum on site work delay Moltex Energy intends to change this!
International Energy Agency 2015 World Energy Outlook