Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AREVA
Michael A. McMurphyPresident, AREVA, Inc.
President & CEO, COGEMA, Inc.
2
Energy: AREVA's Core Business
3
Atoms for Peace
Historic Initiative by President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Make available the humanitarian benefits of nuclear energy
Today, those humanitarian benefits support
“Sustainable Development” AND we address them globally.
Today, those humanitarian benefits supportToday, those humanitarian benefits support
“Sustainable Development” AND we address them globally.“Sustainable Development” AND we address them globally.
4
Sustainable Development
Meeting the needs of the Present While Contributing to the Future.
Economic development and environmental protection are inextricably intertwined
Emission-Free generation technologies, including nuclear, are essential to sustainable development
5
Massive Electricity Needs
Massive quantities of electricity are needed for economic development
Extremely high rate of growth in China, India, Korea, and other Asian countries
Example: China >9% per year increase in GDP; India ~8%
Reminder:Reminder: Every 80% increase in GDP yields 100% Every 80% increase in GDP yields 100%
increase in per capita electricity consumptionincrease in per capita electricity consumption
6
Where’s It Coming From?
Do we just flip a switch??Is there enough…
Oil? Coal? Natural Gas?
Can geothermal satisfy the need? Wind? Solar?
WE NEED THEM ALL…AND WE NEED NUCLEAR!!
7
Global Recognition: Need for Emissions-Free, Large Baseload Generation
U.S. is Fortunate: We have a diverse mix of generation
Coal (50%) and Nuclear (20%) are the U.S. Backbone
Natural gas, hydro, geothermal, some small wind/solar projects
Relying on DIVERSITY is the U.S.’s greatest strengthRelying on DIVERSITY is the U.S.’s greatest strengthRelying on DIVERSITY is the U.S.’s greatest strength
8
Emissions-Free Sources Can Contribute
HydroHydro::Relies on rainfall, snowfall
Impacts wetlands and raises other environmental issues
Produces 38% of the time
WindWind::Relies on speed and consistency
Requires vast numbers of windmills
Has environmental impacts on “footprint” and bird-life
SolarSolar::Needs a lot of sun, and a lot of land
Inconsistent and expensive
9
Myth: Renewables are Better Than Nuclear Energy
TRUTH: Renewables are good. But nuclear energy is more economical, dependable, and uses much less land
TRUTH: Renewables are good. But nuclear energy is more economicaTRUTH: Renewables are good. But nuclear energy is more economical, l, dependable, and uses much less landdependable, and uses much less land
Land required for emissionsLand required for emissions--free generation of 1000 megawattsfree generation of 1000 megawatts
Method Requirement/Description Land Area (sq. miles)
Photovoltaic 100km2 @ 10% efficiency 40
Wind 3,000 Wind Turbines @ 1 MW ea. 40-70
Biogas 60,000,000 pigs or 800,000,000 chickens ??
6,200km2 of sugar beets 2,400
Bioalcohol 7,400 km2 of potatoes 2,800
16,100 km2 of corn 6,200
272,000 km2 of wheat 104,000
Bio-oil 24,000 km2 of rapseed 9,000
Biomass 30,000 km2 of wood 12,000
Nuclear <1km2 1/3
WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE LIMITS OF RENEWABLESWE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE LIMITS OF RENEWABLESWE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE LIMITS OF RENEWABLES
10
Nuclear Generation Will Contribute
Average 90% Capacity Factor
Emission-Free
The MOST economical baseloadEven taking into account the large capital costs
Even without attributing value to the emissions and sustainable development factors
(1 uranium fuel pellet = 17,000 cu ft natural gas or 1,780 lb coal)
Small FootprintGeneration on 500-acre nuclear facility equivalent to generation from 35,000 acre solar panels or 150,000 acre wind farm
11
Myth: Nuclear Energy is Bad for the Environment
U.S. nuclear energy plants avoided tons of emissions in 2004
3.43 million tons of sulfur dioxide
1.11 million tons of nitrogen oxide
700 million tons of carbon dioxide
U.S. nuclear energy plants avoided carbon emissions equal to 94% of U.S. auto emissions (138 million cars)
World wide, 440 nuclear energy plants save more than twice the Kyoto Accord carbon targets annually
TRUTH: Nuclear energy is improving the environmentTRUTH: Nuclear energy is improving the environmentTRUTH: Nuclear energy is improving the environment
Nuclear power reduces air pollution and greenhouse gases by displacing other generation
Nuclear power reduces air pollution and greenhouse gases Nuclear power reduces air pollution and greenhouse gases by displacing other generationby displacing other generation
12
Diversity of Generation Sources
Underpins Energy Security
Foundation of Environmental Responsibility
Cushions Global Development
Pursue CleanCoal
Pursue CleanCoal
Must:Develop geothermal,
hydro, wind onglobal basis
Develop geothermal,hydro, wind onglobal basis
Must:Have growth
of large baseload nuclear generation
Have growthof large baseload nuclear generation
Must:
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER NUCLEAR CAN CONTRIBUTE:
NUCLEAR MUST CONTRIBUTE
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER NUCLEAR CAN IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER NUCLEAR CAN CONTRIBUTE:CONTRIBUTE:
NUCLEAR MUST CONTRIBUTENUCLEAR MUST CONTRIBUTE
13
Into The Future
Hydrogen EconomySubstituting for gasoline/diesel is effective ONLY if hydrogen is produced by using a source that does not emit CO2!
Advanced Reactors: Best source for hydrogen economy
14
Prominent Environmentalists Support Nuclear Energy (1)
“By the mid-1980’s, … I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities…. Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic, and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year…. Renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution. Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.”
---- Patrick Moore, leading ecologist and environmentalist, founder of Greenpeace, Chair and Chief Scientist of GreenspiritThe Miami HeraldJanuary 30, 2005
15
Prominent Environmentalists Support Nuclear Energy (2)
“Now we come to the most profound environmental problem of all…global climate change. Its effect on natural systems and oncivilization will be a universal permanent disaster….So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough…The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power…It also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it….Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a ‘hydrogen economy’, combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.”
---Steward Brand, noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
“Environmental Heresies”Technology Review (MIT)
May 2005
16
We Built 30% of the World’s NuclearGenerating Capacity
17
Plants: Evolutionary Reactor TechnologyEPR: A competitive, safe, advanced 1600 MWe class
PWR
Containmentdesigned towithstandhydrogendeflagration
Spreading AreaProtection of the Basemat
Prevention of highpressure core melt bydepressurisationmeans
Containment HeatRemoval System
In Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST)
18
Olkiluoto 3
Location- Olkiluoto, Finland
Reactor supplier- AREVA-FANP
Reactor type- Pressurized water reactor, PWR
Turbine supplier- Siemens AG, Germany
Electric output- approx. 1,600 MW
19
Utilities Have Publicly Announced Consideration of New Reactors
Constellation EnergyTeamed with AREVA in UniStar Nuclear
Visit website at www.unistarnuclear.com
Duke PowerEntergy NuclearExelonProgressSCANA Corp.Southern Co.TVA
AND…MORE TO COMEAND…MORE TO COMEAND…MORE TO COME
20
Reactors
Gen III Reactor Designs
EPRAREVA PWR, 1600 Mwe
The only one currently being built
Others exist on paper
AP1000W PWR, 1000 Mwe, Based on AP600
US Design Certification approved
ESBWRGE BWR, 1500 Mwe
First of a kind cost co-funded by DOE
US Design Certification submitted
21
High Temperature Gas Reactor
Electrical Generation Plant
Hydrogen Generation Plant
Heat Exchanger
Nuclear Unit
2005 R&D Heat exchangerParticle fuelComputer analysis programsVesselsHigh temperature materials
Other major investmentsHigh temperature test loop
AREVA invested >$25M in 2005
22
*Energy Affiliates (AREVA, Framatome ANP, Inc., COGEMA, Inc. Canberra and T&D)
Total AREVA North America
Employees6000
Lynchburg VA (1,700)
Alpharetta/Atlanta GA (64)
Benicia CA (135)
Charlotte/Huntersville NC (545)
Naperville IL (50)
Fort Worth TX (50)
Hawthorne NY (30)
Denver CO (20)
Mills WY (29)
Woodbury/Dover NJ (71)
Albuquerque NM (191)
Cranberry Township/Charleroi PA (143)
Fremont CA (30)
Tacoma WA (24)
Las Vegas NV (26)
Aiken/Seneca SC (123)
Richland WA (792)
Washington DC (48)
Melville NY (45)
Bellevue WA (300)
Medford OR (75)
Bethlehem PA (85)
Oak Ridge/Erwin TN (43)
Eddystone PA (71)
Idaho Falls ID (3)
St-Leonard (67)
Ontario (22)
Calgary (13)
Vancouver (1)
Burlington (8)
LaPrairie (113)
Quebec (1)
Brossard (23)
Saskatchewan (235)CI
Toronto (25)
AREVA in North America
San Jose CA (50)
Meridian CT (395)
Marlborough MA
23
Substantial U.S. Presence:Substantial U.S. Presence:
Nuclear Services and Engineering
Nuclear Fuel
4,500 employees
Headquarters: Lynchburg, VA
Framatome ANP, Inc.
Uranium Products and ServicesNuclear MeasurementEngineering & TechnologySpent Fuel Management~900 employeesHeadquarters: Bethesda, MD
COGEMA, Inc.
24
AREVA Market Leader in Dry Storage
Yucca Mountain 1998 missed deadline led to the creation of dry storage market AREVA now: the dry storage market leader
AREVA well positioned for future SNF transportation and handling activities BUT…
Both TN metal cask and NUHOMS® concrete shielded dry storage are market leaders
Advanced designs for high burnup and short cooled fuel
Major Transport Package Provider
25
Sustaining the Nuclear Renaissance
We are witnessing the revival of nuclear power
We therefore need to re-examine our used fuel management strategy
Do we have an adequate waste-management strategy to sustain the renaissance?
Does the “throw away” fuel cycle strategy provide a strong enough foundation for the rebirth?
Without an unequivocal “yes,” we must seriously consider a closed-cycle strategy
26
The Open Cycle Strategy: 30 Years Later
The open cycle “throw away” strategy was adopted in the US more than a quarter century ago
Primarily as a measure perceived to support nonproliferation objectives
An adequate strategy for a stagnant nuclear power industry of the 1980s and 1990s
Unintended consequence – complicates waste disposal
27
Myth: There are Huge Volumes of Nuclear Waste
TRUTH: Used fuel is a small volume, easily managedTRUTH: Used fuel is a small volume, easily managedTRUTH: Used fuel is a small volume, easily managed
You could stack all used fuel from 40 years of operations on a football field about 5 yards deepReprocessing would reduce waste to one end zone
Vastly decreased volume
Converts long-lived isotopes into short-lived ones (10,000 Years → 300 Years)
Extends uranium fuel
Other countries ARE reprocessing
U.S. should reprocess to reduce volume and to reclaim 96% of the fuel that is unburned in our
once-through fuel cycle
U.S. should reprocess to reduce volume and to U.S. should reprocess to reduce volume and to reclaim 96% of the fuel that is unburned in our reclaim 96% of the fuel that is unburned in our
onceonce--through fuel cycle through fuel cycle Dan Keuter, VP, Entergy Nuclear, 2 Dec 05
28
Current Used Nuclear Fuel Situation~ 2100 t/year annual fuel discharge from reactor
On-going difficulties
Legal battles DOE-Utilities-States (multi-billion dollar potential liabilities)
YM continuously challenged (incl. Congress investigation)
Funding inadequate to support schedule
Fundamental issues around the design of the current scheme
10,000-year EPA radioprotection standard vacated
YM capacity incompatible with a nuclear renaissance
Increasing call for change
Centralized interim storage (DOE and/or private)
Policymakers considering treatment - Recycling increasingly considered/advocated by Congress and the industry
[NEW] U.S. Administration proposing “advanced recycling” in context of the announced Global Nuclear Energy Policy
29
Open vs. Closed Cycles
ConversionEnrichmentFabrication
UOX
UOX
Recycled U
UsedFuel
HLWtransport
TreatmentRecycling
Used UOXTransport
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HLW Repository
(High Volume)
HLW Repository
(Low Volume)
MiningConversionEnrichmentFabrication
MOXFuel
Closed Cycle
Open Cycle
Mining
30
The Case for Treating-Recycling
Why the renewed interest in Treating-Recycling?
1. Repository optimization through HLW waste reduction
2. Energy Security and Resource conservation
3. Economics (Cost effectiveness)
4. Proliferation-resistance imperative
31
Yucca Mountain Optimization
The goal is to optimize repository loading
It requires addressing two constraints
Physical volume reduction of waste package, and
Heat load reduction, due to
1. Actinides for the long term (mostly americium)
2. Fission products for the short term (cesium and strontium)
120,000
250,000
600,000
Source: Argonne National Laboratory
32
Yucca Mountain Optimization
Goal can be reached through the following strategyEarly uranium+plutonium removal from newly discharged fuel
Avoids build-up of americium from Pu-241 decay (14 years half-life) leading to production of Am-241 in the waste form
Interim storage/cooling of vitrified treatment residuesAllows Cs and Sr heat decay (30-year half-life)
Treatment of low burn-up legacy fuel With low americium content
Providing significant heat load densification factorsEarly treatment only: 5 - 7
Early treatment + legacy used fuel in dilution: 4
A factor of 4 results in an overall savings of 75%of the repository capacity
33
Yucca Mountain Optimization
The strategy also facilitates Safety / Radioprotection Demonstration
Early treatment minimizes neptunium build-up in final waste
Pu-241 (14 years half-life) → Am-241 (433 years half-life )
→ Np-237 (2 million years half-life)
Vitrified waste form provides long term durability
34
Treatment-Recycling Reduces ToxicityR
elat
ive
Toxi
city
Treatment-Recycling
Once-Through
YEARS
35
Energy Security and Cost Effectiveness
Energy SecurityMOX recycling
REPU (Reprocessed Uranium) recycling
Up to 30% Uranium savings
Cost effectiveness“Bridging” plant design approach
Initial design derived from proven technologies & feedback from commercial experience
Continuous improvement / upgrade strategy minimizes implementation risk
36
Cost Effectiveness
Within the bounds of reasonable uncertainties, there is little or no difference between the total life cycle costs of an open or a closed fuel cycle based on burning MOX in current and next generation LWRs.
37
Nonproliferation
Treatment-Recycling plant characteristicsCurrent operating facilities fully secure and safeguardedCOEX process
No separated plutoniumIntegrated plant
In line fabrication of recycled fuelNo accumulation
Optimized safeguards
Just-in-time MOX recycle in reactors
Pu use in MOXDestroys about 1/3 of the original PuSignificantly degrades isotopic composition of remainder
38
An Evolutionary Plant (1)
A recycling plant that can be implemented now
“Early” treatment of newly discharged fuel (~ 3 years)Treatment of low burn-up legacy fuel in dilutionU/Pu recovery and recycle in Gen III/III+ reactors (MOX)REPU recycling Used-MOX saved and interim stored for recycle in Gen IV
Gen III / III+ reactors
Fuel cycle generation aligned with reactors technology
Gen I: Defense facilitiesGen II: La Hague ; Sellafield ; Rokkasho Mura
2020
Gen III: US facility
39
An Evolutionary Plant (2)
Plant designAdapted from existing technologies: some potential cooperative developments with US National Labs
Capable of integrating future evolutions through modular design
Why future evolutions?Implement improvements (1) when required and (2) when ready:
Increasing densification factor with Americium separation
Implementing second recycling of used MOX fuel
40
Why Start Early ?
Stops the accumulation of used UOX fuel in interim storage
Significantly optimizes Yucca Mountain loading (x4)
Brings a much needed high level of certainty to the US used fuel management program
Provides a sustainable foundation for the impending nuclear renaissance
Other countries will not wait, nuclear renaissance is marching on, worldwide
41
In Summary
Treatment-recycling Complements the current repository strategyAddresses nuclear waste acceptability
Volume and toxicity reductionWaste form durabilityLong-term intrinsic proliferation resistanceMinimization of the transfer of responsibility to future generations
Provides a domestic energy sourceEnhances energy security
Promotes concepts at the heart of sustainable developmentSignificantly optimizes repository use and managementRecovers valuable materials through recycling
42
Is this the end of the story?
43
No, a Parallel Track
To support the introduction of Gen IV systemsEnergy security
Waste Management: further optimization of the repository
Global actinide management
Actinides incineration
Further reducing volume and heat of waste to be disposed of
Nonproliferation
44
A Final Thought“In the world of expanded use of nuclear power, the once-through
cycle does not seem workable.”Dr. Burton Richter
Nobel Laureate in Physics (1976)At IAEA General Conference – September 2005
A closed nuclear fuel cycle – not “if”, but when and how?