iea etsap workshop on energy modelling and applications ... introduction v3.pdf · nuclear power...

Undarmaa Baatarkhuu

The University of Tokyo

FUJII-KOMIYAMA Laboratory

ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGYSTRATEGY WITH OPTIMAL NUCLEAR FUELCYCLE MODEL

1

Research Overview

Current Work: Competitiveness with Coal-fired Power

Results

Future Work

IEA ETSAP Workshop on Energy Modelling and Applications | 2016/12/14

2

2

Consideration of Future Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Generation III and IV reactors, FBRs …

Undiscovered resources

Unconventional uranium resource: phosphates, seawater uranium

Alternative fuel cycles based on thorium

Future Challenges in Nuclear Power

Stability of fuel supply

Economics

Nuclear non-proliferation

Nuclear safety

Objective of this studyAnalysis of the optimal nuclear power generation and the flow of the

nuclear material, using a nuclear fuel cycle model.

Nuclear power capacity increases by almost 60%, from 392 GW in 2013 to 624 GW in 2040

Current policies and policy proposals: World Energy Outlook 2014.New Policies Scenario

Transition of nuclear power capacity by region

Overview Current Work Results Future Work

Background

2.3%/ year

3

Determines the economically rational optimal operation through minimization of the

total expenses for electricity generation within the target period, expressed in present value of money.

Target processes Uranium/thorium procurement Uranium enrichment UOX/MOX fuel fabrication Heavy water production Electricity generation Storage Reprocessing (U/Pu cycle) Vitrification Direct disposal

Features

Analysis of long-term operation-100 years

Transition of Pu isotopic composition-due to radioactive decay

Consideration of technology trends-Advanced LWRs, recycling, seawater Uranium, Thorium utilization

Resource limitation


Model

Power Generation Existing Reactors: IAEA. World Nuclear

Reactors(2015)

Advanced LWR (GEN III, III+) Fast Breeder Reactor High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Thorium fuel: HWR, LWR

4

Linear Programming

Minimize the object function(linear) while satisfying the given constraints(linear).

Overall cost of nuclear fuel cycle (Economy）

𝑶𝒃𝒋 =

𝒚

𝝈 × (𝒇𝒄𝒚

+ 𝒗𝒄𝒚)

𝜎 term of discount rate, 𝑓𝑐𝑦

fixed cost, 𝑣𝑐𝑦

variable cost, y time point Fixed cost: capital cost of facilities Variable cost: fuel and operation costs


Method

Objective function

Costs in the lifecycle of a nuclear power plant World Energy Outlook 2014

5

Various constraints on operation

Electricity supply-demand

balance

Capacity constraints of facilities

Sf storage capacity(AR,AFR)

Mass balance of materials

(U, Pu, Th)

Resource limit of uranium

Pu enrichment limitation etc..

at each stage


MethodLinear Programming

Minimize the object function(linear) while satisfying the given constraints(linear).

Constraints

6

Transition of Isotopic Composition Ratio of Plutonium


Method

Nuclide Fissile Half-life238Pu × 87.74

239Pu ○ 24110

240Pu × 6564

241Pu ○ 14.29

242Pu × 373300

Spent Fuel Cooling/Storage

Change in Pu composition ratio

Mass balance in

Reprocessing/MOX fabrication

Mass balance of Plutonium

𝑖 fuel，f spent fuel，sPu separated Pu，NFI isotopic composition of fuel, Fuelamount of fuel fabricated, Lfr time lag from reprocessing to fuel fabrication , EFPefficiency of fabrication for fuel 𝑖 , VT Pu isotopic composition after y-y0 years, RPF amount of spent fuel to reprocess, Spuamount of separated Pu for fuel

𝑵𝑭𝑰𝒊,𝑷𝒖 × 𝑭𝒖𝒆𝒍𝒊,𝒚+𝑳𝒇𝒓= 𝑬𝑭𝑷𝒊 × (𝑽𝑻𝒚−𝒚𝟎,𝒇,𝑷𝒖 × 𝑹𝑷𝑭𝒚,𝒚𝟎,𝒊,𝒇+ 𝑽𝑻𝒚−𝒚𝟎,𝒔𝑷𝒖,𝑷𝒖 × 𝑺𝑷𝒖𝒚,𝒊)

7


Scenario Settings: Resource and Demand

Annual O&M Cost Rate 0.03

Life Time [year] 15

Electricity Consumption [GWh/t] 0.5

Variable Cost [$/kg SWU or HM] 1230

Construction Cost[$/kg /year] 1775

Resource category

IdentifiedUndiscover

edTotal

<40$/㎏U 0.68 - 0.68

<80$/㎏U 1.96 0.67 2.62

<30$/㎏U 5.90 3.86 9.77

<260$/㎏U 7.63 4.70 12.33

World uranium resources Mt by end-2013. WEO 2014.

Seawater Uranium

ThoriumOECD/NEA Uranium 2014

Initial price 80$/kg ThAnnual increase rate 0.5%

Natural UraniumCost increases with the supply, according to resource grade

Science & Global Security, 21:134–163, 2013

Nuclear Power DemandOutlook for Nuclear Power. WEO 2014

2461 TWh(2012) + 2.3%/year until 2040

Increase rate assumed to remain constant during the calculation period.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105

World Nuclear Power Demand (TWh)

2.3%

8


Scenario Settings: Cost

Reactor Capital Costs

Cycle cost [$/kg SWU・HM]

Uranium enrichment 118

UOX fuel fabrication 275

MOX fuel fabrication 325

Heavy water production 300

UOX reprocess 800

MOX reprocessing U235, Pu 800

Spent fuel transport 160

Vitrification 90

Direct disposal 350

• IAEA. Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. (2012)• OECD NEA. Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. (2016)• 電力事業連合会. コスト等検討小委員会. (2003)

Reactor type Construction cost [$/kW]

Decommissioning cost [$/kW]

BWR, PWR 2000 500

ABWR, APWR 2000 500

FBR 2500 500

FR, HTGR 2000 500

HWR 2200 500

Fuel Cycle Costs

9


Scenario Settings: Other

Global spent fuel in AR and AFR interim storage 258,700 t HM IAEA. Nuclear Technology Report. 2015

• Subject to reprocessing

• Considered as LWR spent fuel at AFR site

Separated Plutonium 505 tIPFM. Global Fissile Material Report. 2015

• Subject to MOX fuel Fabrication

• Storage cost 1000$/kg-Pu/year

𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚+𝟏 ≤ 𝟏 + 𝑳𝑼 × 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚(𝟏 − 𝑳𝑳) × 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚−𝟏 ≤ 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒚

𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 Natural uranium supply in year y, 𝐿𝑈: growth rate upper, 𝐿𝐿: growth rate lower

16

-6 -10

0

10

20

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

World Uranium Production 2004-2014 [tU]

Production Change %

WNA Information Library 2015

Growth rate Constraint for Natural Uranium demand

10


ResultsPower Generation

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

Electricity Generation [TWh]

LWR UOX LWR MOX ALWR UOX ALWR MOX FBR

FR UHWR ThHWR ThPWR HTGR

FBR MOX

ALWR MOX

LWR UOX

ALWR UOX

ThPWR

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

Total Capacity [GW]

LWR ALWR FBR FR UHWR ThHWR ThPWR HTGR

FBR

ALWRLWR

ThPWR

• Current LWR fleet was replaced with advanced LWRs

• Uranium price increases and MOX generation becomes economically

competent → Large scale deployment of FBRs in the second half

• LWR reactor with Thorium MOX fuel also becomes economical, however

the proportion was small, due to relatively low efficiency and availability

of plutonium.

11


ResultsUranium Supply

0

500

1000

1500

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Uranium Supply [t/year]

Natural U Seawater U

Reused Depleted U Avg.Cost [$/kg U]

0

500,000

1,000,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Spent Fuel Storage and Reprocessing [t/year]

Past SF Storage On-site StorageOff-site Storage MOX Fabrication MFBReprocess (UOX) REPU Reprocess (MOX) REPM

Spent Fuel and Reprocessing Plutonium

• Reprocessing and MOX fabrication

increase as Uranium price grows

• Spent fuel storage decreases as

reprocessing increase

• Spent fuel from the past was not

reprocessed because of lower rate of

Pu, compared to discharged fuel

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Nat.Th [t]

12

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97

Pu Balance [t/year]

Pu240 Pu239

FBR-MOX

Th-MOX

LWR-MOX

Pu supply

Pu consumption

Pu242Pu238

Pu241

Plutonium Balance


Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46

Pu Supply [t/year]

Pu from Stockpile Pu from reprocessing

• Plutonium balance stabled around 2500 t/year at the end

• Current Plutonium stockpile was used up in early stage

13

Cost Structure


Results

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Cost Structure [Million $/year]

Natural Uranium Thorium

Nuclear Power Plant Fixed Chemical Plant Fixed

Chemical Variable Storage

Seawater U Fixed Seawater U Variable

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Electricity Cost [$/MWh]

Marginal Cost[mil$/kWh] Average Cost[mil$/kWh]

OECD/IEA-NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015

• About 80% is fixed cost of NPPs

• Fuel cost proportion grows with U

from seawater

• Electricity price within the period is

consistent with projection by IEA

14

Base Load Share: Nuclear power demand is decided by competitiveness

with thermal power generation

Estimate the impact of measures against global warming on use of nuclear energy in the model :CO2 tax, CO2 emission limit etc.


Competitiveness with Coal-fired Power Plants

Coal PriceIEA. Resources 2013

Increases with the supply, according to resource category.

Base Load DemandWorld Energy Outlook 2014. New Policies Scenario

6438

11665

13620

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1990 2012 2020 2040

Base Load: Nuclear+Coal [TWh]

Coal Nuclear Total

1.08%

1.96%

2.73%

Electricity demand-supply balance

p: nuclear power plant, cp: coal power plant, Xi electricity

consumption of chemical plants, Load: electricity

demand

𝜎 term of discount rate, 𝑓𝑐𝑦

fixed cost, 𝑣𝑐𝑦variable

cost, y time point, CO2tax carbon tax, STC carbonstorage cost

𝒑

𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒑 +

𝒄𝒑

𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒑 = 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 + 𝑿𝒊 × 𝒔𝒘𝒖

𝑶𝒃𝒋 =

𝒚

𝝈 × (𝒇𝒄𝒚

+ 𝒗𝒄𝒚 + 𝑪𝑶𝟐𝒕𝒂𝒙 + 𝑺𝑻𝑪)

Objective Function

15


Competitiveness with Coal-fired Power Plants

Result Example: Carbon Budget Scenario

IPCC: to have 50% chance of meeting the internationally agreed goal oflimiting the temperature increase to 2OC, the world cannot emit more than a total of around 1000 Gt of CO2 from 2014 onwards. IEA WEO 2014

Limit of total carbon emission from coal-fired within the calculation period: 120 Gt-C (44% of total carbon budget)

Coal CCS Coal IGCC-CCS

Efficiency 0.39 0.39 0.431

Annual O&M cost rate 0.048 0.048 0.048

Own consumption rate 0.06 0.06 0.06

Life time [year] 40 40 40

Heat content [GWd/t] 3.08E-04 3.08E-04 3.08E-04

Carbon intensity [kg C/kWh] 2.28E-01 2.28E-01 2.28E-01

Capital cost [$/kW] 1500 1625 1950

Capture rate 0 0.9 0.9

Electricity for capture/storage 0 0.815 0.269

Carbon storage cost [$/kg-C] 0 0.05 0.05

Power Plant Parameters

Overview Current Work Result Future Work

Effect of Carbon Budget (Example)

16

Power Generation

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

Total Capacity [GW]

LWR ALWR FBR FR UHWR ThHWRThPWR HTGR COAL CCS Coal IGCC

ThPWR

ALWRLWR

COAL

IGCC

FBR

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

Electricity Generation [TWh]

LWR UOX LWR MOX ALWR UOX ALWR MOX FBR

FR UHWR ThHWR ThPWR HTGR

FBR MOX

ALWR MOX

LWR MOX

ALWR UOX

COAL

LWR

IGCC

ThPWR

• Due to the carbon emission constraint, proportion of nuclear was large

• Coal-fired power plant was used due to it’s cost competitiveness

• Carbon budget was used up about in 80 years

• Coal fired IGCC-CCS power generation starts growing afterwards, due

to low emission and economic competitiveness



17

Uranium Supply

Carbon Emission

0

500

1000

1500

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Uranium Supply [t/year]

Natural U Seawater U

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

1 5 91

31

72

12

52

93

33

74

14

54

95

35

76

16

56

97

37

78

18

58

99

39

7Carbon Emission [Mt C]

Cumulative net emission [Gt] IGCC captureCCS capture Gross carbon emission MtNet carbon emission Mt

• Total carbon emission remains

under budget with

deployment of Carbon

Capture and Storage.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 7

13

19

25

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79

85

91

97

Nat.Th [t]



18

Cost Structure

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91

Cost Structure [Million$/year]

CO2 Storage Seawater U VariableSeawater U Fixed CO2 TaxCoal Power Plant Fixed CoalStorage Chemical VariableChemical Plant Fixed Nuclear Power Plant FixedThorium Natural Uranium

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Electricity Cost [$/MWh]

Marginal Cost[mil$/kWh] Average Cost[mil$/kWh]

• Average cost decreases as

proportion of coal power increases

• Electricity cost remains low despite

the use of seawater uranium, with

the contribution of IGCC-CCS



19

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

1 6

11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96

Chemical Plant Output

Enrichment ENR UOX Fabrication UFB

MOX Fabrication MFB Reprocess (UOX) REPU

Reprocess (MOX) REPM Heavy Water Production HWP

Uranium from Seawater SWUR Vitrification VIT

SF Transportation TRA SF Direct Disposal DDS

Other Fuel Cycle Activities

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Pu Balance [t/year]

Pu240

Pu239

FBR-MOX

Th-MOX

LWR-MOX

Pu supply

Pu consumption

Pu242Pu238

Pu241

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Storage [t]

Past SF On-site Off-site


Tasks

Sensitivity analysis:- Fuel/Cycle Cost- Plutonium consumption etc.

Calculations for various scenarios- BAU only etc.

Consideration of Recovered Uranium and Thorium recycle

Advanced analysis on back-end:- Volume of fuel for direct disposal- MA content etc.

20

APPENDIX 1

21

Coal Price

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 4 7

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

37

40

43

46

49

52

55

58

61

64

67

70

73

76

79

82

85

88

91

94

97

10

0

Coal Supply [mill t/year]

Coal [mill t] Avg.Coal Cost [$/kg C]

APPENDIX 2

22

Parameters of Nuclear Reactors

EfficiencyOperating

periodBurnup

GWd/tBoiling Water Reactor BWR 0.33 40 30

Pressurized Water Reactor PWR 0.33 40 30

Advanced BWR ABWR 0.33 60 45

Advanced PWR APWR 0.33 60 48

Fast Breeder Reactor FBR 0.406 40 75

Fast Reactor FR 0.42 40 90

HWR Nat.U UHWR 0.29 60 8.5

HWR Th/Pu MOX ThHWR 0.32 60 20.2

PWR Th/Pu MOX ThPWR 0.324 60 40.5

High Temperature Gas Reactor HTGR 0.45 40 651

• IAEA. Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. (2012)

• Hirohide Kofuji, Kiyoshi Ono. Transition of Plutonium Isotopic Composition by multi-recycling.(1997)

APPENDIX 3

23

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

FBR HTGR FR ThPWR BWR ABWR PWR APWR ThHWR

Pu Isotope Composition in MOX Fuel

Pu239 Pu240 Pu242 Pu238 Pu241

93%

6%

Military Pu [150 t]

Pu239 Pu240 Pu242 Pu238 Pu241

AEC Introduction to Nuclear Weapons 1972

60%25%

5%1%

8%

Civilian Pu [271 t]

Pu239 Pu240 Pu242 Pu238 Pu241

Separated from BWR-UOX

APPENDIX 4

24

SF Storage

Depleted

Uranium

Storage

Recoverd

Uranium

Storage Pu Storage

Loss Rate of Material 0 0 0 0

Annual O&M Cost Rate 3.00E-02 0.03 0.03 0.03

Life Time [year] 100 100 100 100

Usage Rate 1 1 1 1

Legal Durable Period [year] 15 15 15 15

Loan Period [year] 15 15 15 15

Construction cost [$/kg HM] 63 1 63 63

Cost per year [$/kg HM or Pu] 2.4 1 1 1000

Enrichme

nt

UOX

Fabricati

on

MOX

Fabricati

on

Reproces

s (UOX)

Reproces

s (MOX)

Heavy

water

prodocti

on

Seawate

r

Uranium

Recovery

Vitrificati

on

SF

Transport

ation

SF Direct

Disposal

ENR UFB MFB REPU REPM HWP SWUR VIT TRA DDS

Loss Rate of Material 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0

Annual O&M Cost Rate 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05

Life Time [year] 40 40 40 40 40 40 15 40 40 40

Usage Rate 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 1 0.9 0.9 0.9

Electricity Consumption [GWh/t or tSWU] 0.05 0 0 0 0 2.4 0.5 0 0 0

Legal Durable Period [year] 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Loan Period [year] 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Variable Cost [$/kg SWU or HM] 118 275 325 800 800 300 1230 90 160 600

Construction Cost[$/kg SWU or HM/year] 1 1 6000 3600 6000 6000 2610 1 1 1

iea etsap workshop on energy modelling and applications ... introduction v3.pdf · nuclear power...

Documents