Proposal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options for Turkey

XA9744511 IAEA-SM-346/35p

PROPOSAL OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE OPTIONS FOR TURKEY

Resat Uzmen, Sevket Can, Timucin Aybers, Liitfiye Giireli, Ferhan Can Cekmece Nuclear Research and Training Center, Istanbul, Turkey

For two decades, Turkey has been considering the implementation of a nuclear power programme in order to ensure a secure and ecologically non-pollutant electricity supply, and a site was selected at Akkuyu on the Mediterranean coast. However, negotiations with different reactor suppliers have not resulted in agreement during the last two decades, owing to financial and political issues. Turkey is facing a rapid increase in energy demand and nuclear power generation is under serious consideration. The energy gap predicted in recent projections could be partly filled by nuclear power. The present plan of the Ministry of Energy schedules the commissioning of at least 2 GWe nuclear capacity by 2010. In the January of 1997 the ministry invited nuclear vendors to submit their offers for bidding of total 1400 MWe NPP by the mid-1997. Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) is in charge of preparation of a nuclear power programme, implementation all R&D activities on nuclear energy field as well as all activities on nuclear regulations, licensing and radiation protection. According to the task distribution of TAEK, our Institute (CNAEM) is in charge of pursuing all the activities in nuclear fuel cycle. In this context, it is decided to start a comprehensive project on different aspects of nuclear fuel technology including nuclear fuel design, experimental fuel element fabrication, QA and on evaluation of economic aspects of necessary investments on nuclear fuel cycle. Meanwhile, the project is being supported by IAEA for manpower development and economic evaluation. In this study which is a part of the above project, two types of reactors (PWR and PHWR) that meet the safety and selection criteria will be taken into consideration. For Turkey's case, fuel demand, availability, options and economics will be discussed according to these reactor types. In the world, uranium is used for military, commercial and research purposes. Commercial uranium use is primarily determined by the fuel consumption in nuclear power reactors. The fuel cycle typically extends over a period of between 50 and 100 years, from mining the uranium ore to finally disposing of the high level waste. The levelised fuel cycle cost is derived in mills/kWh terms by equating the net present value of the entire fuel cycle cost and the net present value of the total electrical output over the station lifetime. Sales on the world uranium market consist of two types: spot and contract. The annual average spot price peaked in mid-1978 at $112.85 per kgU, then declined with a yearly average of $20.67 per kgU in 1992. This price range represented a historical low. Uranium production and market prices will be dramatically affected by ending of Cold War and in the new world order. Decisions of reducing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and weapons grade plutonium will result in using HEU blended into low-enriched uranium and use of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in commercial reactors. For Turkey, long term (till 2010) electrical energy utilization-generation planning projection shows that installed power and generation capabilities should be increased by a factor of 3 based on total installed power of 20700 MWe in 1995. For the term 1995-2010 demand projections are made by the Ministry of Energy and a production plan to meet this

95 additional demand is prepared by TEAS (Turkish Electricity Co.)- As a long term projection, a guess is made for the term 2030. It shows that the gross electricity generation in the year 2030 will be 460 billion kWh (271 billion kWh for 2010). To provide this gross output, 12 different cases or scenarios are discussed, varying the primary source to be used. For all of these scenarios, it is assumed that all the economical hydroelectricity potential is used (122 billion kWh/a). Seven of them contain nuclear option. It is possible to determine the basic energy policies as a result of these discussions: 1. To use all the lignite and coal potentials (tolerating ashes and smoke). 2. To meet the additional demand by importing natural gas where domestic resources are not enough. 3. To start a nuclear power program as soon as possible in order to reduce the dependence on natural gas resource. The most suitable scenario (S.5 covering total 15500 MWe nuclear power in 2030) for these policies is as follows: In this scenario, equal shares of nuclear energy and natural gas plants meet the additional demand that is not supplied by hydroelectricity and lignite plants. Since fuel oil and imported coal will not be used, 22.2 billion kWh/a capacity (3167 MWe) nuclear power and 89.7 billion kWh/a capacity (16143 MWe) natural gas plants should be installed by the year 2010. Thus the share of natural gas used in electricity generation will reach 33% and 18.7 billion m3/a will have to be imported. By 2030 nuclear power and natural gas plants will reach equal capacities (108 billion kWh/a) and have equal shares in production (24%) their respective power outputs will be 15543 MWe and 19563 MWe . The result of these discussions show that to fill the energy gap Turkey will have to install nuclear power plants and energy projections show that for the term 2000-2030 average one unit of 1000 MWe capacity should be connected to the grid every two years. There are two different strategical points of view on which power plant type would be better to begin Turkey's nuclear program: Starting with PHWR types or PWR types. The advantages of PHWR are less risky fuel cycle technology and the possibility to use Th/U-233 fuel without changing the reactor design. Turkey has high thorium reserves and this advantage may mean increased domestic technological contribution in future. The disadvantage is that the unit capacity is less than 1000 MWe. PWR types have higher unit capacities but their disadvantage is the complex fuel technology requiring enriched uranium, thus increasing technological dependance on other countries. Both opinions are considered as a probability in this study and all calculations and estimations take into account both of these opinions. According to these considerations and projections, annual natural uranium demand of Turkey can be estimated for the range of 2004-2030 as follows:

YEARS 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 tU/a 180 450 900 1300 1700 2200

In conclusion, Turkey's need for nuclear power is clearly seen in the above paragraphs. It is proposed that in nuclear power introduction Turkey should provide domestic contribution as high as possible. Uranium conversion and/or re-conversion and fuel fabrication should be done domestically. If required, enrichment services can be supply abroad. Direct disposal option should be chosen for the back-end. Thus, plutonium is of no interest other than the potential effect on uranium market and enrichment prices.