fuel cycle of high temperature gas cooled reactors and the cost estimate of their electricity...

1

Fuel Cycle of High Temperature Gas Cooled

Reactors and the Cost Estimate of Their Electricity

Production

Department of Nuclear Reactors

Evžen Losa

Innovative Nuclear Concepts, Liblice Workshop, April 10 – 13, 2012

2

Content

Introduction Motivation Assumptions Recent HTGR concepts Input data Output data Conclusions


3

Introduction

The idea came in 50’s of the last century Common features:

o Graphite moderatoro Disperse fuelo Helium coolanto High temperature of fuel failureo Core with triangular lattice or stochastic formation

Knowledge of operation gained


4

Motivation

One of the GEN IV reactor type representative with near term deployment

Meets the GEN IV criteria set in 2002 Indefinite economic factors of operation published The cost of operation needs to be estimated for the

feasibility study


5

Assumptions

Costs of the front end of fuel cycle according the exchange spot prices (except fabrication)

Costs of the back end of fuel cycle same as for the LWRs

Investment and operation costs per MW output of the HTRs are the same as of the large LWRs (Yuliang S., HTR-PM Project Status and Test Program, IAEA TWG-GCR-22, 201)

The capacity factor on the level of 80 %


6

Recent HTGR concepts

GT-MHRo Fuel enr. 15.5 %, burn-up 121 MWd/kg, Net el.

output 286 MW, net efficiency 48 %

PBMRo Fuel enr. 9.6 %, burn-up 92 MWd/kg, Net el. output

180 MW, net efficiency 45 %

HTR-PMo Fuel enr. 8.9 %, burn-up 90 MWd/kg, Net el. output

210 MW, net efficiency 42 %


7

Input data


Parameter Unit Cost (2012 US$)

Front endU3O8 $/lb U3O8 51.00

Conversion $/kgU 6.50Enrichment $/SWU 135.00Fabrication

[PWR]$/kgU 260.37

Fabrication [BWR]

$/kgU 314.61

Fabrication [HTGR]

$/kgU 10,848.70

Back endSNF Storage $/kgHM 130.18SNF Pack. $/kgHM 100.89Reposition $/kgiHM 594.51

Reactor data

Fuel enr. [%]

Fuel burn-up

[MWd/kg]

Net el. power output

[MWe]

Thermal power output [MWt]

Plant net eff. [%]

HTGRGT-MHR 15.5 121 286 600 48PBMR 9.6 92 180 400 45HTR-PM 8.9 90 210 500 42PWRVVER-1000

4.25 43.4 1000 3000 33.3

Isar-2 4.4 55 1400 3900 35.9EPR 5 60 1600 4500 35.6AP-1000 4.8 60 1115 3415 32.7

MIR-1200 4.8 60 1114 3200 34.8

BWRBWR-72 (Gun-C)

4.6 50 1284 3840 33.4

ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7)

3.7 45 1315 3811 34.5

8

Input data


Parameter U3O8 Conversion EnrichmentReactor type Unit count/Cost 2012 US$GT-MHR 86.4/4,406.4 33.1/215,15 31.3/4,225.5PBMR 53.0/2,703.0 20.3/131.95 18.0/2,430.0HTR-PM 49.0/2,4099.0 18.8/122.2 16.4/2,214.0VVER-1000 (Temelin)

22.7/1,157.7 7.0/45.5 4.8/648.0

Isar-2 23.5/1,198.5 9.0/58.5 6.7/904.5EPR 26.9/1371.9 10.3/67.0 7.9/1,066.5AP-1000 25.8/1,315.8 9.9/64.35 7.5/1,012.5MIR-1200 25.8/1,315.8 9.9/64.35 7.5/1,012.5BWR-72 (Gun-C)

24.7/1,259.7 9.4/61.1 7.1/958.5


19.6/999.6 7.5/48.8 5.2/702.0

9

Output data


Parameter Fuel Heat produced

Electricity produced

Reactor type US$/kg US$/MWh

GT-MHR 20,521.33 7.07 14.72

PBMR 16,939.23 7.67 17.05

HTR-PM 16,509.48 7.64 18.20

VVER-1000 (Temelin)

2,717.85 2.61 7.84

Isar-2 3,247.45 2.46 6.85

EPR 3,591.3 2.49 7.01

AP-1000 3,478.6 2.42 7.39

MIR-1200 3,478.6 2.42 6.94

BWR-72 (Gun-C) 3,419.49 2.85 8.53


2,890.54 2.68 7.76

Parameter Fuel Heat produced

Electricity produced

Reactor type US$/kg US$/MWh

GT-MHR 9,672.63 3.33 6.94PBMR 6,090.53 2.76 6.13HTR-PM 5,660.78 2.62 6.24

VVER-1000 (Temelin)

2,457.48 2.36 7.09

Isar-2 2,987.08 2.26 6.30EPR 3,330.93 2.31 6.50AP-1000 3,218.23 2.23 6.83

MIR-12003,218.23 2.23 6.42

BWR-72 (Gun-C) 3,104.88 2.59 7.75

ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7) 2,575.93 2.39 6.91

10

Output data


Parameter U3O8 Conversion Enrichment Fabrication SNF Storage SNF Pack RepositionReactor

type Influence (with/without fabrication) in % per 10% parameter variation

GT-MHR 2.15 / 4.56 0.10 / 0.22 2.06 / 4.37 5.29 / NA 0.06 / 0.13 0.05 / 0.10 0.29 / 0.61

PBMR 1.60 / 4.44 0.08 / 0.22 1.43 / 3.99 6.40 / NA 0.08 / 0.21 0.06 / 0.17 0.35 / 0.98

HTR-PM 1.51 / 4.41 0.07 / 0.22 1.34 / 3.91 6.57 / NA 0.08 / 0.23 0.06 / 0.18 0.36 / 1.05

VVER-1000(Temelin)

3.45 / 3.82 0.17 / 0.19 2.38 / 2.64 0.96 / NA 0.48 / 0.53 0.37 / 0.41 2.19 / 2.42

Isar-2 3.69 / 4.01 0.18 / 0.20 2.79 / 3.03 0.80 / NA 0.40 / 0.44 0.31 / 0.34 1.83 / 1.99

EPR 3.82 / 4.12 0.19 / 0.20 2.97 / 3.20 0.73 / NA 0.36 /0.39 0.28 / 0.30 1.66 / 1.78

AP-1000 3.78 / 4.09 0.18 / 0.20 2.91 / 3.15 0.75 / NA 0.37 / 0.40 0.29 / 0.31 1.71 / 1.85

MIR-1200 3.78 / 4.09 0.18 / 0.20 2.91 / 3.15 0.75 / NA 0.37 / 0.40 0.29 / 0.31 1.71 / 1.85

BWR-72 (Gun-C) 3.68 / 4.06 0.18 / 0.20 2.80 / 3.09 0.92 / NA 0.38 / 0.42 0.30 / 0.32 1.74 / 1.91


3.46 / 3.88 0.17 / 0.19 2.43 / 2.73 1.09 / NA 0.45 / 0.51 0.35 / 0.39 2.06 / 2.31

11

Output data


US$/MWhe

Capital 20.33

Operations 10.16

Fuel cycle see Tab. 2

Decommissioning 0.31

Total 30.80+Fuel

GT-MHR

PBMR

HTR-PM

TemelinIsa

r-2 EPR

AP-1000

MIR-1200

G-mmingen-C

K-wasa

ki 70

10

20

30

40

50

US$/M

Whe

12

Conclusions

Apparent distinction in electricity costs from the HTGRs and the LWRs

The HTGRs are competetive with the LWRs, when the fuel fabrication cost drops to the level of 1600 US$/kg

The costs were calculated for the electricity production only, the high potential heat consumption in industry would be favourable for the economy of the HTGRs


13

Thank you for your attention.

fuel cycle of high temperature gas cooled reactors and the cost estimate of their electricity...

Documents