DOE Nuclear Energy Research Initiative and Nuclear Power 2010 Programs
39
Assessment of Power Reactors for Implementation in the 2010 - 2015 Time Frame Mario Fontanaa, Larry Millera, Ralph Boroughsb , Scott Outtena, Mathew Millera, Igor Petruskia
a
The University of Tennessee, Nuclear Engineering Department, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-2300 b The Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Email: MHFontana1@Comcast.net IRIS: 110 Mwe to 300 Mwe per module PWR with the entire primary cooling system internal to the reactor vessel and with passive safety features. (Westinghouse-led international consortium) PBMR: 110 Mwe per module pebble bed fuel, graphite moderated, helium-cooled reactor driving a gas turbine. (Consortium led by ESCOM of South Africa) GT-MHR: 286 Mwe per module prismatic fuel, graphite moderated helium-cooled reactor driving a gas turbine. (Consortium led by General Atomics)(GA) ESBWR (European Simplified Boiling Water Reactor): 1380 BWR evolutionary design of the ABWR and the SBWR. (GE) EPR (European Pressurized Water Reactor): 1524 to 1759 Mwe PWR with redundant active safety systems and hardened construction. (Nuclear Power International) EVALUATION CRITERIA The evaluation criteria were as follows:
INTRODUCTION The University of Tennessee is performing, under contract to the Tennessee Valley Authority, an assessment of nuclear power reactor designs appropriate for implementation in the years 2010-2015. Ten designs were chosen and criteria were developed to guide the assessment. Summaries of the reactor types were written, based on information received from the industry 2010 roadmap1, from manufacturers, and from public sources. These, along with an assessment matrix, were sent to industry and academic experts for their input to the evaluation. The evaluation process, the criteria, and observations are summarized here. The results of the expert elicitation will be presented in a future paper. REACTOR ASSESSED The following reactor designs were chosen for the assessments: AP 600: 600 Mwe pressurized water reactor (PWR) with passive safety features. (Westinghouse) AP 1000: 1000 Mwe PWR higher power version of the AP 600. (Westinghouse) ABWR: 1350 Mwe evolutionary Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). (General Electric) SWR 1000:1250 Mwe evolutionary BWR with partial replacement of active safety systems with passive systems. (Framatom ANP) ACR 700: 700 Mwe evolutionary design of the CANDU pressure tube reactors. (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) (AECL)
Infrastructure addressed off the shelf component availability, manufacturing capability, fuels and fuel cycle, and operational/training experience. Operations and Maintenance addressed factors such as working space, complexity of the piping, complexity of the instrumentation and control systems and the operator-machine interfaces. Safety, Certification and Licensability included radiological considerations, design basis accident events, and beyond design basis
40
DOE Nuclear Energy Research Initiative and Nuclear Power 2010 Programs
accident events. Licensing factors were addressed, largely dependent on regulatory certification. Costs/Schedule were obtained from manufacturers' documents, including total power, capital, operations, maintenance (O&M), fuel, and decommissioning costs. Schedules were reported from manufacturers input. A summary judgment was made of the maturity of these factors. OBSERVATIONS Inputs from the expert solicitation have not been received yet, but some preliminary qualitative observations follow. Infrastructure and Operations and Maintenance. The reactors based on existing PWR and BWR technology have the most mature infrastructure. The AP 600 and AP 1000 have mature areas in fuels, components, vessels, instrumentation and control, etc. The EPR has considerable European infrastructure. The ABWR and ESBWR are evolutionary extensions of present technology and should require little development. IRIS uses PWR technology for fuels, but has significant differences due to the in-vessel, spiral tube steam generators, internal low-head main coolant pumps, and crowded configuration. IRIS manufacturing infrastructure is minimal in the USA: some is based in foreign countries. ACR 700 infrastructure is well developed because of the similarity with earlier CANDU plants. The graphite moderated, helium cooled reactors have little infrastructure available. The PBMR has been operated only in small experimental plants, but the fuel microspheres have had extensive R&D. The GTMHR depends on fairly old gas-cooled reactor technology. Both the PBMR and the GT-MHR use a direct helium gas turbine cycle. Although combustion gas turbine technology is extensive, no direct helium experience is available. Safety. All the designs feature advances in safety. The AP 600 and AP 1000 have gravity driven emergency core cooling systems and passive containment cooling systems. The ABWR and ESBWR have simplified piping, safety, and control systems that result in lower computed core damage frequencies. IRIS depends on passive systems and has "designed out" accidents such as the pipe break accident.
Gas cooled reactors take advantage of the high heat capacity of the graphite moderator and have slow responses to accident initiators. EPR increases the use of redundant systems and of structures hardened against external attack. Certification and Licensability The AP 600 and ABWR are already certified, so licensing should not be a major concern provided that the licensing process proceeds according to plan. However, licensing of certified plants has not been tested in actual cases; the first cases will be watched carefully. AP 1000 is nearing certification. The others have not started or are in the early stages of certification. ABWRs have been built in Japan and two are being built in Taiwan, so licensing issues should be resolved. Costs and Schedules Reported cost estimates vary from 2.7 cents per Kw-hr from the designs with no construction experience to 4.7 cents per Kw-hr for those with relevant experience. The most credible capital costs range from $1200 to $1400 per Kw. Schedule estimates range from 36 months for untested designs to the 48-month actual construction time for the ABWR completed in Japan. Costs in this range are competitive with natural gas fired plants at a cost of gas of 4 to 5 dollars per million BTU 1. Gas prices in 2003 ranged from about 4.5 to 7.5 dollars per million BTU2. References 1. A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010, Volume II, Main Report. Prepared for the United States Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and its Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Generation IV Technology Planning, October 31, 2001 2. NYNEX natural gas selling prices, Natural Gas Weekly Update, www.eia.doe.gov. May 2003