World Nuclear Programs Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Jor-Shan Choi Nuclear Fuel Cycle & Materials Section Nuclear Fuel Cycle & Waste Technology Division International Atomic Energy Agency
IAEA Regional Training Course on WWER Fuel Design, Performance and Back End Bratislava, Slovakia, 21 June 1999 • icm) c.in ..ii.
Course Outline
Global Nuclear Programs c o The nuclear fuel cycle
Economics of the nuclear fuel cycle o Analysis results I Conclusions
(lAW 0001) BJ!
300,000
Inventory Drawdown (t U) 250,000 (non Russian)
200,000
150,000 World Requirements
100,000
s ij-3 l fn 50,000 5 • ffl«-| 1 1 I | 1 J World Production 1 0 U . I i I . I u_L I , I 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Not accounting for CIS civilian stockpflw; U.S. and CIS HEU
FIG. 2. Projections of World Uranium Requirements
The front-end nuclear fuel cycle 110,000 Ul
Natural uranium purchase y 100,000 Rod BooK Low
• Production, requirements and inventory in the world uranium market Red Book High
90.000 • Projections of world uranium requirements DOEHigti
• Spot uranium market prices r» 80,000 ,••* DOE Low (A O C Tral»Teeli |S 70,000 Nukam
60,000 IrtSyra. High
lntSym,Low 50,000 1 RequtfBmontt
40,000 i . i . i , i . i . i , i , i ,. i , i . i—,—i—,—i , i MW 2001 2519 RECENT SPOT MARKET PRICES
« • 16 —- » __ * 1 / —- 40 Restrictec price v%
L ft
* — • \ n 14 - \»/ — Y-« v /— \ » - 35 «' // 1i •« V t | m *»l/ ft * I x» ft 12 - y I _$. .-* 1 v f * • t ft 30 x f • ft • ft O * • * * $ \ f * J . / - 25 «.* f restricted pric;e 1 \J
X - 20
Ml I — —
6 - - 15 1 I i I ! M I I I ! II 1 11 1II M 1 1\ i i 11 I > 11 i 111 1 1M i 1 II 1 i 1 1: ; . M 1 1 1 U he fM >pl Jiw ^ Da be Fit Ajrf Jun* >•« W be Fit Ml Jum h« M tM FA tfii Ju» ^ OS D« Fit >p! Jut* ^ Qd he *ff «°» If WwOl Miy A*r S-pt K°* J*n W*«i Mir ^ 5«f* «c* Jin M»re« Miy Mf S*pt Nov Jin Uprrfi U*j M, Upt No* J*n Miith Mty JJy Sipl Hov Jm 1992 1998 Gaseous diffusion stages. From NUEXCO to 12/19S4 From TRADETEC a«er 1/1995
The front-end nuclear fuel cycle
Uranium Enrichment:
• Gaseous Diffusion (US, France, etc.)
• Gaseous Centrifuge (Russian Federation, Urenco, China, etc.)
• Laser Isotope Separation (future) Current world enrichment requirements: • -36MSWU/y
• effect of HEU blend-down and use of MOX: ~6MSWU/y
View of centrifuges in a cascade half of an enrichment plant. The Back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle Time frames important to utilities • Spent fuel interim storage
• Spent Fuel reprocessing • When loss of full core reserve occurs • At end of plant life (with or without plant life • MOX fuel fabrication extension) - end of revenue generation • Waste repository • At time of decontamination and decommission (D&D) of nuclear power plant (NPP) • At time to turn over the spent fuel custodianship
Spent fuel storage, a utility perspective Spent fuel capacity and inventory by regions At-Reactor: (tonne) wet storage: original/expanded racks 100000 Options: r-i At-rcactor storage capacity and • on-site dry storage: dual purpose casks inri-rim stnragff ruparity, if any • transfer to other co-located reactor units At-reactor storage inventory and next 5 year discharge inventory • away-from-reactor storage: E. Europe 1: Eastern European countries including Russia - to spent fuel reprocessors* E. Europe2: Eastern European countries not including Russia - to regional spent fuel storage**
* This will buy time, but has to deal with the separated Pu and HLW, and the spent MOX fuel ** If this is available, it will also buy time, and don't have to deal with the separated Pu and HLW N. Ameiica W. Europe E. Europei E. Europe2 East Asia South Asia S. America Scandinaua CUMULATIVE AMOUNT OF CIVIL REPROCESSED SPENT FUEL yearend 1998 (t HM) Country Site Plant Fuel type
GCR LWR FBR MOX Total Belgium Mol Eurochemic* 19" 86 105 France Marcoule UP1" 18,000' 18,000 La Hague UP2/UP3 12,452 10 9.4 12,471 Germany Karlsruhe WAKa 180 180 India Trombay PP Tarapur Prefre-1 Kalpakkam Prefre-2 Japan Tokai-mura TRP 936 10d 946 Russian Fed. Chelyabinsk RT-1 4,000 4,000 UK Sellafield B205 40,000° 40,000 Sellafield THORP l,500r 1,500 Dounreay UKAEARP 14 14 USA West Valley NFS" 194 194 Total 58,0019 19,348 24 19 77,410 Closed facility spent fuel from Fugen Status yearend 1998 CANDU, GCR and other Magnox UNGG LWR/AGR
MOX FUEL FABRICATION CAPACITY REPROCESSING CAPACITIES IN 1998 (t HM/y) (tHM/y) Country Site Plant 1998 2000 2005 2010 Country Site Plant Fuel type Belgium Dessel P0 35 40 40 40 MAGNOX LWR FBR Other Total France Cadarache CFC 35 40 40 40 120 200" 200* France La Hague UP2 800 800 Marcoule MELOX 250* La Hague UP3 800 800 India Tarapur AFFF 5 10 10 10 India Trombay PP 60' 60 b b b Japan Tokai PFPF Tarapur Prefre-1 60 60 15 15 5' 5' Kalpakkam Prefre-2 100° 100 Rokkasho-ra MOX FFF - - 100 100 Tokai-mura TRP 100 100 Japan Russian Fed. Chelyabinsk inside RT-1 - 10 10 Russian Fed. Chelyabinsk RT-1 400 400 UK Sellafield B205 1500 1500 Chelyabinsk Mayak, Complex 300 40 d Sellafield THORP 1200 1200 UK Sellafield MDF 8 8 8 8 Dounreay UKAEARP 10 10 Sellafield SMP 120 120 120 Total 1500 3300 10 220' 5030 Total 218 473 573 663 * Research reactor c Under commisioning Status ycarend 1998 1 date not fixed b Derated ' LWR/AGR Status yearend 1998 b for ATR Fugen and FBR Monju ' for FBR Monju STATUS OF MOX FUEL UTILIZATION IN THERMAL REACTORS
Number of Thermal Reactors Central Interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel Operating Licensed to use Loaded with Applied for (CLAB). Slart of HI MOX FAs MOX FAs MOX license Deration 1985. Belgium 7 2 2 France 57 20 17 8' Germany 19 12 10 4 Flnal repository Japan 52 3 1 1 for radioactive Switzerland 5 3 3 operational waste (5FR). Start of Total 130 40 33 13 operation 1988. 1 Technically c;jpablc reactors planned to be licensed Status yearend I99S Deep geological repository for spent nuclear Medical care fuel, First staged Industry deposition 2008 at Research the earliest.
Deep repository for spent nuclear fuel ^ """ _ (-,. E .5 n 'rt "> w w ui "o "o Hg B £ £ 2 E
a o
Si K) i- j- — ri r*\ • -I g c . 'C •= ii o <2 o iff a 3 Q D O (" I a a O
Fuel pellet of Canister uranium dioxide Piioifcondiiionierungsanlage (PKA) Gorieben
Th« proposed repertory rtijf Include Approximately 100 pt»c»nv*nt tunnvla (73 mlkt of lunr^li). **ch 0.« milts In t*nglh; >pproxim«t»ly 100 vrasT* p^k>^«t will b-» *mplac*d in *»ch Direct-Disposal
Light Water Reactor Burnup - 30400MWO7MT Enrichment Fuel Natural Thermal Efficiency - 0 J42 Fabrication Uranium Conversion Capacity Factor - 0.80 Electric Power - 1000 MWt 3V. °'V 0.715% °'V 28.5 Mg 169 Mg
Depleted Spent Fuel Storage Uranium and Dlipoial
0.2SV. «'U 141 Mg
Options of back-end nuclear fuel cycles Self-Generated Pu-U Recycle
Plutonfun • Direct Disposal (Once Through, No Reprocessing) Recycle
61% Flsille - Long-term storage (or a repository with a retrievable provision) 0.435 Mg
U-Pu Fuel Light Water Reactor Fabrication 6.1 Mg Burnup - 30400MWd/MT • Reprocessing and Recycling Fuel Life-3 years Fuel Fbiion Natural Thermal Efficiency - 0.342 Reprocessing Produc Uranium UFuri Capacity Factor - 0.80 Electric Power - 1000 MWe 0.912 Mg - Mono-recycling (Reprocess spent UO2 fuel, but recycle MOX only once) Fabrication 22.0 Mg
22.3 Mg
Conversion Uranium and Isotope Recycle separation Separative work 81.7 Mg 0.83% "SU Depleted 18.0 Mg Uranium
J Depleted 0.45% " U Uranium 5.49 Mg
0J5W ViV 105 Mg Monorecycling Fuel cycle cost expenditures
Stor*t* of Expenditure Unit Cost Timefv) Pwovcnd U (A) Front-end
c vary, $/JbU O Natural U CoBvtntaB FabricattoB tumt 5torat °t • natural uranium purchase 3 8 -2.0 132 Mt and UO2 fntl 002 HLW LWR speattod • UF conversion $8/kgU -1.5 0.715V. Enrichmcot 113 Ml 1000 Mm , 6 BU-3O4M • enrichment SlOO/kgSWU -1.0 FutlUIt-Jj EK-0-W2 • fabrication: UO2 fuel S250/kgU -0.5 Fabricatioa 6JM^ Storattof MOs Sp«it Mox MOX fuel vary, S/kgHM 1-10 5.8 Ml fotl
t PB 0.19M{ (B) Backend nal source «f p OtOBlBtB • spent fuel shipping $30/kgHM 0.5 • spent fuel storage vary, S/kgHM 10-50 • fuel reprocessing vary, S/kgHM 1-10 • HLW shipping $20/kgHM 1.5-10.5 • spent fuel disposal vary, mills/kWh >50 • HLW disposal 0.8 mills/kWh, or vary >50
Procedure for Calculating Fuel-Cycle Costs Definitions
• The amount and composition of each sublot when charged to the reactor • The amount of electricity generated by each sublot in each period in which Break-even natural uranium price electricity is paid for • The amount and composition of each sublot when discharged from the reactor - is defined as the price of natural uranium at which the fuel-cycle • The cost incurred in each step for preparing fuel before charged to the reactor cost of reprocessing/recycling becomes identical to that of direct- • The cost or credit incurred in each step for recovering fuel after discharged disposal from the reactor • The time at which each cost is paid or each credit is received, and the time at which revenue is received for each increment of electricity generated by each lot of fuel. Coits for other rotl-cj-rie eicpcndhara:
Enrichment 100 USS/kgSWU % Enrichment 100 USS/kgSVTO .MOX foci fabrication 1000 USS/kgHM , \ MOX full fabrication ISM USVkgHM Spent fuel interim storage lJOUSS/kgHM \ * Spent "ffienSfertni Storage UOUSikgHM HLW disposal 0.8 USraiHs/kWb % HLW disposal O.S USmllb/kWh
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Spent-fuel disposal cost, USmiHs/kWh Spent-fuel disposal cost, USmills/kWh
Break-ev«n natural uranium price as functions of spent fuel disposal cost and reprocessing cost Break-even natural uranium price as functions of spent fuel disposal cost and reprocessing cost (calculated by equating the direct-disposal fuel cycle and the self-generated U-Pu recycle) (calculated by equating the direct-disposal fuel cycle and the self-generated U-Pu recycle)
360 —| 14U —' Costs for other foel-eycle expendHares: \ \ .120 — Enrichment 120 — MOX fuel fabrication 1000 USS/kgHM Spent fuel interim storage H&USSOgHM :so — HLW disposal 0.8 USmillsykWh \ Conclusions 100 — % 240 — Study uncertainties: \ \ 1 80 — ft 200 — •f. \ • Future uranium supply and price trends • Maturity of technologies •J • 1. 160 —^ =. 60 — • Regulation and licensing
C i c • Safeguards provisions \ • Increasing costs of spent fuel storage/disposal •z 40 — "E il
Z \\ Remarks: 20- \ 40 — X • 1\ \ \ \ • Economics is a strong factor determining the long-term strategy for \ \ \ \ the back-end nuclear fuel cycles, especially for a competitive and 0 "— 1 1 3 4 5 de-regulated electricity-generation market. • The price of natural uranium is a key factor for fuel-cycle economics. Spent-fue! disposal cost, USmil!s/kWh For as long as the uranium price is kept steady at the current level (15 US$/lb U3O8), other cost factors such as spent fuel storage and Break-even natural uranium price as functions of spent fuel disposal cost and reprocessing cost (calculated bv equating the direct-disposal fael cycle and the self-generated U-Pu recycle) MOX fabrication will also be important.