opportunities, challenges and strategies for innovative ... · international conference on...

International Conference on Non-electric Applications of Nuclear Power, 16-19 April

2007, Oarai, Japan

International Atomic Energy Agency

Opportunities, Challenges and Strategies for Opportunities, Challenges and Strategies for Innovative SMRs Incorporating NonInnovative SMRs Incorporating Non--electrical electrical

ApplicationsApplications

Presentation by Vladimir KUZNETSOV (IAEA)

International Conference on Non-electric Applications of Nuclear Power, 16-19 April 2007, Oarai, Japan


CONTENT

1. Introduction

2. IAEA project “Common Technologies and Issues for SMRs”

3. Market opportunities for innovative SMRs

4. Deployment potential of innovative SMRs

5. Design strategies for SMRs

6. Deployment strategies for SMRs

7. Competitiveness considerations

8. An approach to incorporate increased proliferation resistance

9. Common challenges for innovative SMRs

10. Conclusion



Introduction

Small Reactor: 0 – 300 MW(e)Medium Sized Reactor: 300 – 700 MW(e)

In 2006:Of 442 NPPs, 139 were with small and medium sized reactors (SMRs)

SMRs : 61.6 GW(e) or 16.7% of the world electricity production

Of 31 newly constructed NPPs, 11 were with SMRs

More than 50 concepts and designs of innovative SMRs were developed in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Morocco, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey, USA, and Vietnam

Most of innovative SMRs provide for or do not exclude non-electric applications



IAEA project “Common Technologies and Issues for SMRs”

Objective:• To facilitate development of the key enabling technologies and resolution of

the enabling infrastructure issues common to innovative SMRs of various types

Participation:• Argentina, Brazil, China, Croatia, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the

Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Morocco, Russian Federation, South Africa, USA, Vietnam; Observers: European Commission, NEA-OECD

Deliverables 2005-2007:

TECDOC-1451 (May 2005) “Innovative SMRs: Design Features, Safety Approaches, and R&D Trends”

TECDOC-1487 (Feb. 2006) “Advanced Nuclear Plant Design Options to Cope with External Events”

Status Reports:

TECDOC-1485 (Mar. 2006) “Status of Innovative SMR Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes”

TECDOC-1536 (Jan. 2007) “Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-Site Refuelling”



Market Opportunities for Innovative SMRs

•The progress of innovative SMRs is defined by their capability to address the needs of those users that for whatever reason cannotbenefit from economy-of-scale NPP deployments

Countries with small and medium electricity grids/ or limited energy demand growth/ or limited investment capability

Villages, towns and energy intensive industrial sites in off-grid locations

In the future, utilities and merchant1 plants for non-electric energy services

1 Operating outside the regulatory framework of regulated utilities and selling their product on a competitive market



Deployment Potential of Innovative SMRs

2010

2020

2030

Conventional Refuelling Schemes Small Reactors without On-site Refuelling

Integral Design PWRs: SCOR

SMART IRIS

CAREM

HTGRs: GTHTR300 GT-MHR HTR-PM PBMR

Icebreaker Derivatives:

RIT VBER-150

KLT-20 ABV, UNITHERM

Fast Reactors (Na; Pb; Pb-Bi):

RBEC-M BREST-300 KALIMER

VHTR:AHTR

Icebreaker Derivatives: VBER-300 KLT-40S

LWRs with TRISO Fuel:

AFPR VKR-MT

PFPWR50

Nearer-term Na Cooled

Reactors: 4S

Submarine Derivatives:

SVBR-10 SVBR-75/100

Longer-term Na & Pb/Pb-Bi Cooled: STAR-LM

LSPR ENHS

SSTAR

BN GT-300

Longer-term VHTRs:

FUJI-MSR STAR-H2

CHTR BGR-300

MARS

Advanced LWRs,

PHWRs: IMR

AHWR CCR



Design Strategies for innovative SMRs (1)

A potentially “Win-Win” strategy regarding plant safety and economy

To eliminate/prevent as much accident initiators/consequences aspossible by design

Then deal with the remaining part by appropriate combinations ofactive and passive systems

Approach: Realize design solutions that are optimum for the reactor of a given

type and a given unit power

Objectives:High safety level for a variety of siting conditions and applicationsGreater plant simplicity and robustness with respect to human errorsImproved economics



Design Strategies for innovative SMRs (2)Operational complexity of the plant could be quantified (1)

OC = Σ{DEPix (DYN1i.DYN2i.VSi) x Σ[MRj.Efj.PASSj.REVjx(1+Esj+Cuj+DMj)]}NF NMi

Total number of safety functions (SF)

to manage

Number of technical meansM j dedicated to the objective i

Intrinsic and dynamic complexity of the Safety

Function N° i and associated process

Intrinsic and dynamiccomplexity of the mean N° j assigned to the function N° i

Interactions and constraints for the mean N° j

Time constantof the physical

process i

DynamicComplexity

Of the process i

VisibilityOf the

process i

Setting mode complexity

of Mj

Efficiencyof Mj

Passivityof Mj

Reversibilityof Mj Number of

side effectsof Mj

Number of Utilisation Constraints

For Mj

Number of Technical DependanciesFor Mj

Number of physical

interactions with other SF

Quantification of complexity – Operational Complexity Index (OC) Courtesy of CEA (France)



Design Strategies for innovative SMRs (3)Operational complexity of the plant could be quantified (2)

Operational complexity index

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

INV S/K PRESS REF INV GV INT GV ENC

Standard PWRSCOR

RCO SG INV SGINT CONT

Operational complexity vs. safety functions for the integral design

SCOR and a standard PWR; CEA (France)




Integral design of IRIS (International team led by Westinghouse, USA)

Passive heat removal paths of PBMR (PBMR ltd., South Africa)

Graphite Graphite Helium nuclear fuel

Graphite Helium

Stainless steel

Helium

Carbon steel

Air

Stainless steel pipes & H2O

Air Concrete



Design Strategies for Innovative SMRs (5)

4S sodium cooled reactor with a 10 − 30-year refuelling interval for a 50 MW(e) plant (Toshiba − CRIEPI, Japan)

Heat exchanger of PRACS

Secondary sodium loop of PRACS

Seismic isolator

Top dome (Containment vessel)

RV & GV (GV - containment vessel)

RVACS (Air flow path)

Secondary sodium loop

Shielding plug

IHX

EM pumps(Two units in series)

Fuel subassembly (18 fuel subassemblies)

Radial shielding

Movable reflector (6 sectors): - Upper region: cavity - Lower region: reflector

Ultimate shutdown rod & fixed absorber (the central subassembly)

Coolant inlet module



Design Strategies for innovative SMRs (6)Borrowing from proven experience may facilitate early market

penetration

Modular layout of the KLT-40S reactor plant (OKBM, Russian Federation).

1 Reactor 6,7 Pressurizers 2 Steam generator 8 Steam lines 3 Main circulating pump 9 Localizing valves 4 CPS drives 5 ECCS accumulator

10 Heat exchanger of purification and cooldown system

6

2

3

1

9

8

4

10 5

7



Design Strategies for innovative SMRs (7)Increased energy conversion efficiency and use of reject

reject heat for cogeneration reduce plant costs

GT-MHR Desalination Process Diagram, GA(USA) – OKBM(Russia)

Targeted plant efficiency – 48%




Energy supply system with the Package-Reactor (Hitachi-MHI, Japan)

Cassettes & SGsSteam: 289oC 5 MPa

Feedwater: 220oC

Feed

wat

er li

ne

Backpressure turbine

Main steam line

AC/DC interchange

Battery

Transformer

Lower-temperature heat (~ 100oC)

CH3OH→CO+2H2

CO+2H2→CH3OH

Generator

Electric power supply

a

a

Water temperature > 150oC

Higher-temperature heat (289oC)

Higher tempe-rature heat (> 150oC)

Gas storage tank

Chemical heat pipe system (Long-distance heat transport system)

Heater Heater

Water temperature ~ 100oC

b

b



Deployment Strategies (1)

Small reactor does not mean low-output NPP!

Clustered modular nuclear steam supply system SVBR-1600 with 16 SVBR-75/100 modules (IPPE-Gidropress,

Russian Federation)

Рис. 6



0 300 600 900 1 200 1 500

Potential for Smaller Reactor Economic Competitiveness (1)Potential for Smaller Reactor Economic Competitiveness (1)Westinghouse, USAWestinghouse, USA

Plant Capacity, MW(e)

5

Construct Schedule Factor

2

3

4

Multiple Unit Factor

Learning Curve Factor

Unit Timing Factor

6Plant design Factor

Economy of Scale Factor

1

Present Value Capital Cost

“SMR Concept”

(1) Assumes single unit and the same design concept

$/kW (equivalent)

(2) Savings in cost for multiple units at the same site

(4) Shorter construction time

(5) Gradual capacity increase to meet demand growth

(6) Cost reduction due to specific design

(3) Cost reduction due to learning



Potential for Smaller Reactor Economic Competitiveness (2)Potential for Smaller Reactor Economic Competitiveness (2)

SMR/Large Plant Comparison (Westinghouse, USA)

SMR: One 335 MW(e) plant, as part of four units Large: One single 1340 MW(e) plant

SMR/Large Plan Capital Cost Factor Ratio

Factor

Individual Cumulative

(1) Economy of scale

1.7 1.7

(2) Multiple units 0.86 1.46

(3) Learning 0.92 1.34

(4) (5) Construction schedule and timing

0.94 1.26

(6) Design specific 0.83 1.05



Deployment Strategies (2)Incremental capacity increase reduces the required front end

investment

Years

Cash flow profile for construction/ operation of four SMRs versus a single large plant (Westinghouse, USA)

Cas

h Fl

ow P

rofil

e, U

S$ m

illio

n



Deployment Strategies (3)

Costs can be reduced through factory mass production in series

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

1,1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number in the series

Labo

r int

ensi

ty, r

el. u

nits

year 1

year 2

year 4

year 4year 5

year 6

year 7

year 82 years

Production continuity vs. specific labour intensity in the production of marine

propulsion reactors (OKBM, Russian Federation)



An Approach to Incorporate Increased Proliferation Resistance (1)

Small Reactors Without On-Site Refuelling (IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Jan. 2007)

SRWORs are reactors designed for infrequent replacement of well-contained fuel cassette(s) in a manner that impedes clandestine diversion of nuclear fuel material

Small reactors without on-site refuelling can be:

(a) Factory fabricated and fuelled transportable reactors or

(b) Reactors with a once-at-a-time core reloading at a site performed by a external team that brings and takes away the core load and the refuelling equipment

No refuelling equipment and fuel storages at the site

Increased refuelling interval (5 to 30+ years)




Design approaches to ensure long-life core operation include:

Reduced core power density;

Burnable absorbers (in thermal reactors);

High conversion ratio of the core (in fast reactors)

Refuelling performed without opening the reactor vessel cover

SRWORs end up at the same or less values of fuel burn-up and irradiation on the structures, achieved over a longer period than in conventional reactors




Pb-Bi cooled SVBR-75/100 reactor of 100 MW(e) with 6-9 EFPY refuelling interval (IPPE-“Gidropress”, Russia)

CPS drives

RMB vessel

MCP

SG modules

Core




Small Reactors without On-site Refuelling could:

Relax the dependence on outsourced suppliers, fuel cost changes,political and economic tensions and conflicts between countries −increase energy security

Reduce the obligations for spent fuel and waste management

Simplify decommissioning strategy

Appear more environmentally clean, simple and secure



Common challenges for innovative SMRs (1)

Adjust regulatory rules toward technology neutral and risk-informed approach

Quantify reliability(?) of passive safety systems

Justify reduced or eliminated EPZ (proximity to the users)

Justify reliable operation with long refuelling interval (Licence-by-test + periodic safety checks)

Demonstrate SMR competitiveness for different applications



APSRA (BARC, India) APSRA (BARC, India) -- How it works ?How it works ? I. Passive System for which reliability assessment is considered

II. Identification of its operational mechanism and failure

III. Parameters affecting the operation

IV. Key parameters causing the failure

V. Identification of active components causing the key parameters’

VI.

V. Identification of passive components causing the key parameters’ deviation

VII. Evaluation of core damage frequency (CDF)

I. Passive System for which reliability assessment is considered

II. Identification of its operational mechanism and failure

III. Parameters affecting the operation

IV. Key parameters causing the failure

V.

VI.

V.

VII. Evaluation of core damage frequency (CDF)

Identification of passive components causing the key parameters’ deviation for causing the failure

Identification of active components causing the key parameters’ Deviation for causing the failure

Evaluation of probability of failure of active/passive components causing the deviation in the key parameters for causing ultimate failure of system

1020

3040

5060

70

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

0

20

40

6080

100

Pow

er (M

W)

ΔTsu

b (K

)

Pressure (bar)

Typical Failure Surface for Natural Circulation



CONCLUSION

In the near term, most new nuclear power reactors are likely to be evolutionary large

units. But particularly in the event of a nuclear

renaissance, the nuclear industry can expect an increasing diversity of customers, and thus an increasing number of customers with needs potentially best met by several or more of the

innovative SMR designs now under development.



THANK YOU!

E-mail: [email protected]

Publications planned for 2007-2008:

NE Series Report “Review of Passive Safety Design Options for SMRs”

NE Series Report “Approaches to Assess SMR Competitiveness”

NE Series Report “Status of Validation and Testing of Passive Systems for Advanced Reactors”

mailto:[email protected]

opportunities, challenges and strategies for innovative ... · international conference on...

Documents