A Review of Nuclear Energy in U.S.

Bo Cheng

Technical Executive, Nuclear Fuel

Electric Power Research Institute

March 30, 2009

2

US Nuclear Energy Production

• Nuclear power contributes ~20% of US electricity output– Total 104 LWRs: 69 PWRs and 35

BWRs (11 units de-commisioned)

• Many more plants were planned– USAEC Chairman in 1954: nuclear

energy “too cheap to meter”– First commercial plant 1969– >230 units ordered by 1979– More than 120 units cancelled

• High cost post TMI accident– Breeder program cancelled ~1982– Fusion reactor (sustained fusion

1997??)

3.3*(19%)

2.6(15%)

3.5(20%)

3.5(20%)

7.3*(41%)

7.3*(41%)

1.0(6%) Renewable*

NuclearNatural GasCoalOil

*Trillion KW-hr 2006

*Hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power.

Source: EIA, IEA and AllianceBernstein

TMI-2

3

Maximizing Performance of Current Nuclear Fleet to Become Economically Competitive

• Improve plant capacity factor– System reliability– Cycle length extension– Fuel reliability

• Extend plant life: “life extension”• Increase plant capacity: “power uprate”• Goals achieved through utility collaborative efforts:

– NEI – interfaces with government agencies and increases public trust

– INPO – self-policing on plant operation and safety– EPRI – collaborative R&D, develop and demonstrate new

technologies

4

U.S. Nuclear Plants Sustaining High Capacity Factor >90%

U.S Average

World Average

50-65%

• 20 years of learning (1969-1988) • 10 years of improvements (1988-1999) • Outstanding >90% average capacity factor since 2001• None killed directly from nuclear energy production

5

A Major Nuclear System Reliability Issue- Unexpected Material Degradation

• Reactor vessel, components and piping may be susceptible to corrosion and cracking in nuclear plants

– Stainless and low alloy steels, and Ni-based alloys (Alloy 600)

– BWR: 288 oC, 1000 psig water

– PWR: 290-326 oC, 2250 psi water containing boric acid and LiOH

• Major component failures have forced long outages Intergranular cracking of non-

sensitized Type 316 NG stainless steel after 10 years service in a European BWR

Metal Weld and HAZ

6

Major BWR Material Degradation Issues

• BWR pipe and internals cracking• Cause, repairs and mitigation

Fuel

CRDM

Shroud

FW nozzle

Main steam line

Jet pump

• Alloy impurities• Sensitzed• Welds

• Hydrogen addition (HWC)• Noble metal addition (NMCA)• Zn addition• Chemistry Guidelines

• Low leakage core design

Water Chemistry

Susceptible Materials

Fast Neutron Flux

O2, Cl-,SO4

=

7

Major PWR Material Degradation Issues

• Steam generator tube degradation

– 2-4 SG/plant

– Replacement at many plants

• PWR vessel head degradation

– Vessel head - control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) penetration weld cracking

– Boric acid corrosion (Dave Besse 2002 – 2 year outage)

• Vessel monitoring and replacement as required

8

U.S. (and Worldwide) Nuclear Industry Has Substantially Improved Reliability and Safety

• Industry collective efforts in R&D, engineering, and manufacturing improvements

• Performance data sharing

• INPO (Institute of Nuclear Plant Operation)/WANO audits plant operation and requires corrective actions

− Can result in severe financial penalty if not in compliance

• Incidence requiring long plant outage has decreased substantially

Year Plus Reactor Outage

9

Current Utility/EPRI Focus on System Reliability - Many Technologies Areas

• Materials Degradation / Aging– Primary Systems Corrosion Research – Steam Generator Management – Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals – Pressurized Water Reactor Materials Reliability Program

• Fuel Reliability• High-Level Waste & Spent-Fuel Management• NDE and Material Characterization• Equipment Reliability • Instrumentation and Control • Safety Risk Technology and Application • Advanced Nuclear Technology • Chemistry LLW, and Radiation Management

10

Cycle Length Extension- Longer Cycle Length and Shorter Outage Time

• All BWRs on 24 month cycle• PWRs: B&W and CE plants on 24 mo.; Westinghouse mostly 18 mo.

11

Fuel Reliability Improvement Failures per GWe (1980-2008)

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

EOC Year

Num

ber o

f Fai

lure

s/G

We

PWRBWR

Fretting hole

Debris

Fuel failure rate decreasing steadily – INPO Board set 0 failure by 2010 target in 2005

12

Plant Life Extension

• The original 40-year term for reactor licenses was based on economic and antitrust considerations -- not on limitations of nuclear technology. (NRC)

• License renewal process and clear requirements codified in 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 54, that are needed to assure safe plant operation for extended plant life. (NRC)

• About 90% US plants received/applied for 20 years life extension to 60 years

• Action for 80 year life may start ~2015 (~15 years ahead)

13

Plant Uprates

• Type of uprates:– Measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates (<2%)– Stretch power uprates (<7%)– Extended power uprates (20%)

• Total uprate approved by NRC (1977-2008): 124 (94 plants)• Pending (2004-08) for approval in 2009: 6• Expected applications (2009-2013): 5 • Total capacity gain: 5,640 MWe or ~ 5 new plants• Easier for BWRs

#Plant #Plant Uprated Max. % Total, MWt Avg.MWt/Unit

BWR 35 33 15-20 9,242 280

PWR 69 61 5-8 7,677 125

14

U.S. Electricity Production Costs (In 2007 cents per kilowatt-hour)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs (exludes plant costs) Source: Global Energy Decisions (05/08)

Coal – 2.47Gas – 6.78Nuclear – 1.76Petroleum – 10.26

2007

Nuclear

Coal

15

Capital Cost for Various Generation Options- New Nuclear Plant Cost is Relatively High

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Coal IGCC Natural Gas Nuclear Wind Biomass SolarThermalTrough

Dec. 2007 $/kW

(No CCS) (No CCS)

$2,450

$2,900

$800

$4,000

$1,995

$3,235

$4,600

16

Electricty Capacity Factor for Various for Generation Types

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nuclear Coal Wind Solar

Cap

acit

y F

acto

r, %

Based on Current US Database; Wind and Solar Data May be Location-Dependent

17

Source: EPRI

Global Warming Concerns with New Carbon Emission Tax and Trade will Make Nuclear Electricity Cost Competitive with Coal

Levelized Cost of Electricity: 2015

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Coal IGCC NaturalGas

Nuclear Wind Biomass SolarThermalTrough

Dec. 2007 Constant $/MWh

(No CCS) (No CCS)

$64 $70$73-$87

$73$91 $73-$86

$175

18

Keep Current Fleet Running + Deploy New Fleet - U.S. Nuclear Generating Capacity Trend -

• Nuclear Generation Will Decline without New Plant Construction• New Nuclear Capacity Needed (US NP2010 – defined in 2002)

Gigawatts – Electric

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075

Current Reactors, 40 YearsCurrent Reactors, 60 YearsCurrent Reactors, 80 YearsNew Capacity Being Considered4 Builds Per Year Starting 20218 Builds Per Year Starting 2049

19

Emerging Renaissance in the U.S. - U.S. New Nuclear Power Plant Proposals

• 2005 Energy Policy Act authorizes– $18.5B loan guarantee for new reactors

– $2B for uranium enrichment

• 5 technologies for ~2015-2022• NRC received 17 app. for 27 units

(March 09); 5 ESBWR dropped– First licensing ~2 years away

– “NRC can learn from other nations’regulatory practices and share its knowledge” – NRC Chairman Klein

Potential 45 GW in new capacity from 5 technologies (2015-2022)

Reactor Type MWe Vendor

AP1000 1100 Westinghouse

US EPR 1600 French Areva

US APWR 1700 Mitsubishi

ABWR 1350 GE/Hitachi, Toshiba

ESBWR 1650 GE/Hitachi

(Many non-US designs)

20

Most New U.S. Nuclear Activity Targeted in the Atlantic Seaboard and the South

South Texas Project, NINA/NRG2-ABWR (2,700 MW)

Alternate Energy HoldingsUnspecified Technology

Blue Castle, TPUnspecified Technology

Amarillo, UNE2-USEPR (3,200 MW)

Callaway, AEE1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Fermi, DTEUnspecified Technology

Comanche Peak, LUM/TXU2-USAPWR (3,400 MW)

Victoria, EXE2-ESBWR (3,100 MW)

Grand Gulf, NS/ETR1-ESBWR (1,550 MW)

River Bend, ETR1-ESBWR (1,550 MW)

Turkey Point, FPL2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Levy County, PGN2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Alvin W. Vogtle, SO2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Summer, SCG2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Lee Station, DUK2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Harris, PGN2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Nine Mile Point, UNE1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Bell Bend/PPL, UNE1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Calvert Cliffs, UNE1-USEPR (1,600 MW)North Anna, D

1-ESBWR (1,550 MW)

Bellefonte, NS/TVA2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Mature Competitive MarketsLimited Competitive MarketsEmerging Competitive Markets

• 5 ESBWR cancelled – 2/09• Georgia Public Service Commission approved Georgia Power’s plan

for 2 AP1000s at the Vogtle site March 17; Next NRC COL approval

21

Generation IV Reactors

• Five types under consideration– DOE 2005 planned first GEN-IV at

Idaho National Lab site for 2010

– Consortium of universities led by MIT

– Low budget – low activity

• New administration position not known– DOE increased funding for R&D

• Others may be more advanced:French, Japan, Russia, China, India

• Traveling-wave Reactor – US private company (…Ed Taylor…)

Type Purpose Coolant

Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

Co-gen of hydrogen; ~300 MWe He gas

Supercritical-Water Cool Reactor (SCWR)

Large plant 1,700 MWe Water

Gas-cooled Fas Reactor (GFR)* Module 288 MWe He gas

Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)*

Long refuling periods, 50-1,200 MWe Liquid Pd

Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)* Module 150-1,700 Mwe Liquid Na

* Fuel need reprocessing

60 year fuel life?

22

Spent Fuel Issues

Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982 established Waste Fund to collect 0.1 c/KWh (~$.7B in 08)– DOE was to start accepting spent fuel at Yucca

Mountain Repository beginning in 1998, later delayed to 2017

– Plants now loading spent fuel in dry casks for on-site storage

– DOE submitted Yucca Mountain licensing application to NRC in 2008

• DOE reduced 2009 funding for Yucca Proj.– Only enough for NRC licensing review to continue– New policy: Multiple site concept? Reprocessing?

NRC Chief Klein: “We are not counting on Yucca Mountain being successful.. adding that dry cask storage would be a safe and secure alternative in the interim.” (March 19, 2009 at Senate Testimony)

23

Nuclear Fuel Cycle US Fuel Reprocessing??

• U.S. Policy changes with time– Nuclear proliferation and cost main concern

• U.S. thinkers continue to explore “proliferation-resistant” reprocessing

• Reprocessing needed in long term - limited natural U-235– Harvard Univ. study: $15-20B and 15 years to build a reprocessing

plant in U.S.• Limited use of MOX fuel from stockpile of Pu in US plants (2017)

Indian A-bomb 1970 1980 1990 20001960

Fuel reprocessing- Technical problems- Cost escalation

No-processing(Ford/Carter)

Processing allowed (Reagan) – Industry reject for cost concerns

Clinton reversed policy-no reprocessing

2010

Bush allowed use of MOX fuel; forms

GNEP 2006

What now?

24

U-235 Supply ~50 Years – Longer With New Technologies

World Requirements

World Production

Ratio between

Known Resources and

Requirements: ~50 years

for the past 20 years

25

Advanced Fuel Cycles -- The Evolutionary Concept (Present National Policy in France, Japan, …)

•No reprocessing of MOX fuel – waste volume reduction limited•Stockpile of Pu ~50 tons in France (+U.K.)•FBR deployment uncertain

26

Advanced Fuel Cycles -- The Original Concept (Present National Policy in Russia, India, …)

No Pu goes back to LWRs –better proliferation resistance

27

U.S. Reprocessing Initiative - Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

• The 2001 National Energy Policy (Bush) called for a major expansion of nuclear power, and for reconsidering reprocessing and the use of plutonium for fuel.

• The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) launched by US in 2006– Allow reprocessing U.S. spent fuel and expanding the

reprocessing capacity of “partner” nations– Allow the U.S. and its “partners” to lease reactor fuel to

other nations and require them to return the spent fuel for reprocessing, with the goal of dissuading them from acquiring their own enrichment and reprocessing facilities

– ~20 nations and organizations signed up• Obama administration has put GNEP on-hold (March 2009)

28

Advanced Fuel Cycles -- Options for the Future (MIT/EPRI Study)

Thermal Reactors

SpentFuel

Geologic Repository

Interim Storage

Fission Products

[and Minor Actinides]

Pu [and Minor Actinides]

UO2

Reprocessing

From Unat

FR FuelFabrication

FR Reprocessing

Fast Reactors (FR)

hUdepl

“Burner” Reactor

• Only Pu and other actinides go to “burner” fast reactor• Proliferation resistant• Smaller fuel volume for “burner fast reactor”

29

Summary

• Current fleet of 104 light water reactors have produced “carbon-free” electricity over 40 years, contributing 20% of electricity needs in US

• Utilities have learned, improved and now sustained high operation reliability with >90% capacity factor– Update technologies through collaborative R&D and oversight – Self-policing on operation and safety issues, and expeditious

information-sharing– Achieving good economics thru uprates and life extension

• New plants (20-30) with safer Gen III/III+ appear to have governmental and public support to proceed in 2-3 years

• Policy on Gen IV and spent fuel disposal not clear– Dry storage on-site or at an interim location deemed by DOE

and NRC to be a safe interim solution

30

Τηανκ Ψου

Thank You

31

Plants in “de-regulated” markets allowed to recovery "stranded investments“ (strengthens utilities finance, but cost to rate payers increased)

32

Obstacles to Nuclear Energy

• Fear of a possible nuclear accident (Three Mile Islandand the 1986 Chernobyl disaster)

• Fears of radiation• Nuclear proliferation• Nuclear waste production, transport and lack of any final

storage plans• Cost 15–30% more over their lifetime than conventional

coal and natural gas fired plants