Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INTERNATIONAL PROJECT ON INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR
REACTORS AND FUEL CYCLES (INPRO)
INPRO Task 1
“GLOBAL SCENARIOS”
Presented by Vladimir KUZNETSOV
INPRO Section
INPRO Dialogue Forum 11 “Roadmaps for a transition to
globally sustainable nuclear energy systems”
IAEA 2
Services and Training Offered for NES
Strategic Planning Tools
• INPRO offers training on nuclear energy system
(NES) strategic planning tools:
• NES Assessment (NESA) using the INPRO Methodology
helps develop a more detailed technical perspective of
actions needed to improve sustainability – a “gap”
assessment
• NES Scenario Analysis helps develop a dynamic picture
view of NES strategy and sustainability outcomes
• Key Indicator evaluation and analysis helps better
understand and communicate benefits and risks
associated with still immature innovative NES
IAEA
Nuclear Energy System (NES)
Strategic Planning: 3 linked Parts
3
National Energy Planning:
How does nuclear energy fit
into the national energy mix?
Nuclear Energy System
Assessment (NESA):
INPRO Methodology of
sustainability assessment
What are the gaps?
Nuclear Energy System
(NES) modelling and the
‘GAINS Framework’: How
do we get from here to
there and beyond?
IAEA
INPRO methodology: Key Indicator approach
(IAEA-TECDOC-1575)
4
IAEA
INPRO TASK 1 “GLOBAL SCENARIOS”
Objective:
To develop, based on scientific
and technical analysis, global
and regional nuclear energy
scenarios that lead to a global
vision of sustainable nuclear
energy in the 21st century
5
Paper 15483 Session 8.04 ICAPP 2015
3-6 May 2015, Nice, France
Global Scenarios: Heterogeneous world model introduced in GAINS
Non-personified, non-geographical
groups of countries with different
policies regarding the fuel cycle
back end:
NG1-recycling strategy;
NG2-direct disposal/reprocessing
abroad strategy
NG3- looking for minimal NFC
infrastructure: disposal or reprocessing
abroad
INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE OF
INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS WITH THERMAL AND FAST
REACTORS AND A CLOSED NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (GAINS)
2008-2011
Sixteen participants - Belgium, Canada, China, Czech
Republic, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the
Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, the USA, the
European Commission (EC), plus Argentina as an observer
Final Report: http://www-
pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8873/Framework-for-
Assessing-Dynamic-Nuclear-Energy-Systems-for-
Sustainability-Final-Report-of-the-INPRO-Collaborative-Project-
GAINS
GAINS developed an international analytical framework for
assessing transition scenarios to future sustainable nuclear energy
systems and conducted sample analyses.
The framework includes heterogeneous global model to capture
countries’ different policies regarding the nuclear fuel cycle back
end and to analyze available cooperation options
8
MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE GAINS COLLABORATIVE PROJECT
WHICH MODEL WOULD THE WORLD FOLLOW?
Investments in RD&D on innovative technologies, such as those of fast reactors and closed
fuel cycles, are huge and provide reasonable pay-back times only in the case of foreseen
large scale deployment of such technologies. Not all of the countries interested in nuclear
energy would afford such investments
Global nuclear energy system is likely to follow a heterogeneous world model, within which
most of the countries will continue to use thermal reactors in a once-through nuclear fuel
cycle throughout the 21st century.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
10 20 30 40 50 100
Pe
rio
d o
f R
&D
re
turn
, yr
Total installed capasities, GWe
Return of RD&D, demonstration and construction investments for innovative reactor technology (FR)
New capacity 1 GWe/yr,
R&D 00
R&D 10
R&D 20
R&D 30
R&D 40
Although only a few countries may master innovative technologies of fast reactors and
closed nuclear fuel cycle within this century, all others could benefit from this if they follow
a synergistic approach, i.e., send their spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing and recycle in
fast reactor programmes implemented by technology holder countries.
In this, progressive accumulation of spent nuclear fuel on a global or regional scale could
be mitigated or even reversed. The synergistic approach could also secure natural
uranium saving of up to 40%, compared to a heterogeneous non-synergistic case.
GLOBAL SCENARIOS: ON-GOING ACTIVITIES
On-going Collaborative Activities:
Collaborative Project “Synergistic Nuclear Energy Regional Group
Interactions Evaluated for Sustainability” (SYNERGIES, 2012-2015)
Collaborative Project “Key Indicators for Innovative Nuclear Energy
Systems” (KIND, 2014-2017)
Collaborative Project “Roadmaps for a Transition to Globally
Sustainable Nuclear Energy Systems” (ROADMAPS, 2014-2017)
Training on Nuclear Energy Sustainability (TNES): Webex based
distant lecturing/training for undergraduate, graduate and PhD
students and teaching and research staff of nuclear universities and
research centres (recurrent) – includes also the development of
tools!
INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON SYNERGISTING NUCLEAR ENERGY
REGIONAL GROUP INTERACTIONS EVALUATED FOR SUSTAINABILITY
(SYNERGIES)
2012-2015
Twenty two participants and observers - Algeria, Argentina, Armenia,
Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Israel,
Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Romania, the Russian
Federation, Spain, Ukraine, UK, USA, Viet Nam.
Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/SYNERGIES/index.html
Objectives: Apply and amend the GAINS analytical framework to examine more specifically
synergies among the various existing and innovative nuclear energy technologies and
options to amplify them through collaboration among countries in fuel cycle back end
Examine drivers and impediments for synergistic collaboration among countries and
identify possible ‘win – win’ situations.
Focus on short- and medium-term collaborative actions that can help developing
pathways to long term NES sustainability.
SYNERGIES STORYLINE
ALWR increased CF
Synergies among the technologies
AHWR
F(B)R
(A)LWR
PHWR
U
UOX MOX Pu
URT
MOX
Pu
FR-MOX
Pu
Pu
URT
Th-Blanket
Th UTh-OX
233U
233U / Th
U-Blanket
Pu
FR-MOX
TRU
HTR EU OTC
MA-FR ADS
Am-PHWR
Am
MA
FR-EU
LWR SMR
Today 2020 2030 2040 2050
Period <2025
Period 2025-2040
Period post-2035
SYNERGIES status October 2015: Project Completed
Final consultants’ meeting (SYNERGIES Editorial committee
meeting) convened in Vienna on 30 March – 02 April 2015
Draft Final report, including 28 Case Studies from project
participants as Annexes, Summaries of the Case Studies and 5
Cross-cutting Chapters 100 % developed and undergoes final review
by all participants/observers of the project – to be completed by the
end of 2015):
No further meetings planned
MAJOR FINDINGS: SYNERGIES COLLABORATIVE PROJECT
SYNERGIES also considered global and regional NES deployment options
not considered in previous INPRO studies, for example, scenarios with fast
reactor start-up from enriched uranium load:
- The enriched uranium start-up load introduction makes it possible to
achieve a high scenario fast reactor deployment programme under LWR
reprocessing capacity limitations.
- The growth of fast reactors could be increased by a factor of 1.5 compared
to the case of FRs with MOX fuel obtained from LWRs reprocessed spent
fuel.
INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON ROADMAPS FOR A TRANSITION TO
GLOBALLY SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (ROADMAPS)
2014-2017
Fourteen participants and observers - Armenia, Bangladesh, China, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation,
Thailand, Ukraine, USA, Viet Nam.
Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/ROADMAPS/index.html
Background:
The basic concept of SYNERGIES with respect to sustainability is to have
the whole achieve more than the parts. If one partner in a synergistic
collaboration is achieving enhanced sustainability, then the other partner
may achieve the same enhancement without the requisite investment in
technologies and the related infrastructure.
Collaboration, in turn, can benefit from sharing of longer-term nuclear
energy planning which can provide information on the projected size and
timing for R&D and infrastructure deployment and demonstrate the looming
needs for institutional developments.
INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON ROADMAPS FOR A TRANSITION TO
GLOBALLY SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (ROADMAPS)
Objectives:
To develop a structured approach for documenting plans for moving toward
globally sustainable nuclear energy systems, including the roadmap
template to document actions, scope of work, and timeframes for specific
efforts by particular stakeholders, and guidance for the template application
To facilitate application of the developed structured approach and guidance
in Member States, to develop their own country level roadmaps in a
compatible format.
As these country-level roadmaps are developed and linked, the composite may grow into
an integrated plan for achieving global sustainability of nuclear energy.
ROADMAPS: Options for enhanced nuclear energy
sustainability
For the purpose of scenario studies focussed on options of cooperation
among countries, and taking into account overall known potential of
nuclear technology (both, proven and yet to be proved), INPRO Task 1
had defined the options for enhanced nuclear energy sustainability in two
directions:
Enhancing Sustainability via Advanced Reactors and Fuel Cycles
Collaborative Enhancements
The draft document was distributed for review to all participants of INPRO
Dialogue Forum 11
ROADMAPS: Questionnaire and Roadmaps template
“Successful implementation of collaborative projects like ROADMAPS is
impossible without establishing a productive dialogue among the broad variety
of stakeholders in technology holder, technology user and newcomer
countries”.
INPRO Dialogue Forum 11 “Roadmaps for a transition to globally
sustainable nuclear energy systems”– 20-23 October 2015, Vienna
• All participants have been requested to Questionnaire
• The Questionnaire is a proto ROADMAPS template
• The template proposal will be presented and discussed at the Forum
Consultants’ meeting to process the outputs of the INPRO DF11 and
prepare final report of the Forum – 14-17 December 2015
INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON KEY INDICATORS FOR INNOVATIVE
NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (KIND)
2014-2017
Fifteen participants and observers - Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Croatia,
France, Germany, India (TBC), Indonesia, Malaysia, Romania, Russian
Federation, Ukraine, UK, USA, Viet Nam.
Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/KIND/Protected/index.html
Objectives:
To develop guidance and tools for comparative evaluation of the status,
prospects, benefits and risks associated with development of innovative
nuclear technologies for a more distant future (based on application of a set
of key indicators and the selected judgment aggregation method)
To examine the generic KIND approach potential in application to other
problems, for example, those of particular interest to newcomer and
technology user countries.
Economics Environment Waste
Management
Proliferation
Resistance Country-
specific
General Indicator
Maturity of
Innovative
technology
E/SE
Method (MAVT), Weights
Env/SEnv WM/SWM PR/SPR M/SM
Method (MAVT), Weights
GI
AI
KI
Areas of
interest
Key
Indicators
Cost
HI Performance Acceptability
High-level
objectives
Method (MAVT), Weights
INES-1 INES-2 INES-3 INES-… INES-N
Aggregation of indicators and determination of preference
order of alternatives (with MAVT)
Multi Attribute Value Theory (MAVT) method selected
A set of KIs K={K1, K2, …Kn} for each INES alternatives A={A1, A2,...Am}
is mapped from specific measurement scale onto numerical scale (utility function
ui) and then combined to several or one aggregated indicator (overall utility
function u) as weighted average of all the individual utility functions:
u=Σwi×ui
where wi – are weighing factors for each indicator specified an indicator’s
importance relative to the other’s.
Finally, ranks for the alternatives based on the comparison of overall utility
function/functions for considered alternatives are defined: one alternative exceeds
the other if its utility function is larger than that of the others’.
Publications in refereed journals on intermediate results of KIND
• (1) V. Kuznetsov, G. Fesenko, A. Andrianov, and I. Kuptsov, “INPRO
Activities on Development of Advanced Tools to Support Judgment
Aggregation for Comparative Evaluation of Nuclear Energy Systems,”
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, vol. 2015, Article ID
910162, 15 pages, 2015. doi:10.1155/2015/910162
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/stni/2015/910162/
• (2) Kuznetsov, V.; Fesenko, G.; Schwenk-Ferrero, A.; Andrianov, A.;
Kuptsov, I., Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art
Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to
Performance Comparison. Energies 2015, 8, 3679-3719.
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/5/3679
KIND: Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty treatment
• In the framework of the KIND approach, uncertainties can be examined through a
sensitivity analysis. Uncertainty can be objective like KI value and subjective like
indicator weight or method parameters. The sensitivity analysis should explore impact of
changing in key indicators, weights and method parameters, for example value/utility
function on ranking results. Application of uncertainty analysis methods requires more
information about system features and experts’ preferences but, at the same time, may
greatly enhance the decision-maker capabilities to incorporate in the analysis of the
uncertainties of both the objective (in indicator values) and subjective (in weights) nature.
Illustration of ‘Linear weight’ approach to weights
sensitivity analyses
To implement this method the expert should choose
an indicator for a weight sensitivity analysis and
analyze how the ranking alternatives will change
with a weighting factor changing from 0 to 1 (other
weights are automatically changed proportionally
holding the weight sum equal to unity).
This approach may be implemented for the
weighting factors on each level of the objectives
tree: the high-level aggregated objectives, an
assessment area level, and indicators level.
Case study on comparison of hypothetical INESs
• Demonstration of procedures for multi-criteria comparative analysis was performed on the
numerical examples of the 2 and 5 hypothetical INESs comparison. • 15 KIs were used
• Evaluation of 15 KIs is performed using 10 and 5 scoring scale (for 2 and 5 INESs, correspondingly)
Application of KIND approach to comparative evaluation
of scenarios (GAINS and SYNERGIES)
Intermediate conclusions of KIND
The KIND approach could be a useful tool to support communication to
decision makers.
The KIND methodology based on a key indicator set with judgment aggregation
and uncertainty analysis methods, employing indicator scales and utility
functions, was found to be very flexible and applicable to a variety of tasks,
including comparative evaluations of not only INS, but also, NES evolution
scenarios, NES and non-nuclear energy sources and, potentially, evolutionary
NES. For each of these applications an individual key indicator set needs to be
developed.
It was noted that a top level aggregated score is typically of little use to
communicate key differences between evaluated systems. More productive
communications could be achieved at lower aggregation levels using graphic
presentations taking into account uncertainties in the comparison
Intermediate Conclusions of KIND
Taking into account the above said, the project could develop a detailed
guidance and a software tool for application of the KIND methodology,
completed with necessary justifications and verifications. As comes to
key indicators sets, only a guidance on development, and the
examples, of such sets for particular tasks could be provided, leaving
final definitions to interested Member States.
E-learning
Training on Nuclear Energy Sustainability: Users’ Guide for Modelling
Nuclear Energy Systems with MESSAGE
(D-NG-T-5.2, approved for publication, in print)
Users Guide, developed jointly
with PESS, provides a step-by-
step guidance to create
mathematical models
representing nuclear energy
systems to the level of detail as
necessary.
The User Guide presents three
demonstration cases including
modelling a nuclear energy
system based on thermal and fast
reactors with fully closed fuel
cycle.
MESSAGE model allows to assess:
Optimal Schedule for introduction various reactor technologies and fuel cycle options
Infrastructure requirements
Nuclear material flows and wastes
Investments, and other costs
E-learning
Training for nuclear energy sustainability
Distant lecturing on INPRO Methodology for Nuclear Energy System Assessment, September-November, 2014, State Engineering University of Armenia
• INPRO overview • Introduction to INPRO methodology and NESA • Economic analysis of energy options • INPRO Analytical framework for the analysis of transition scenarios to sustainable nuclear
energy systems • Overview of MESSAGE, DESAE, NFCSS • INPRO area of Economics; • INPRO areas of Infrastructure, Safety of nuclear reactors , Environment and Waste
management
E-learning
Training for nuclear energy sustainability
Distance INPRO training on State-of-the-Art Methods and Tools for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems, February-May, 2015 ,
to the Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering (INPE) of the National Research Nuclear University (NRNU MEPhI) in the Russian Federation, and higher education institutions and nuclear industry organizations in Belarus (State University and Republican Unitary Enterprise "Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant") and Kazakhstan (Nuclear Technology Safety Centre and Institute for Strategic Studies).
• Introduction to INPRO. The concept
of sustainable development and the INPRO methodology .
• INPRO methodology and NESA • Economic analysis of energy options • GAINS framework ; Overview of
nuclear fuell cycle modelling tools • Lectures from NRNU MEPhI
Thank You! [email protected]
Back-up slides
34
• Economics: Nuclear energy products must be competitive against
alternative energy sources available in the country;
• Waste management: Nuclear waste must be managed so that human
health and environment are protected and undue burdens on future
generations are avoided;
• Infrastructure: Assure adequate infrastructure and reduce effort to create
and maintain it.
• Legal and institutional frame work;
• Industrial and economic infrastructure;
• Socio-political infrastructure (Public acceptance, Human resources)
Generalized INPRO requirements:
Main messages in areas of INPRO Methodology
35 Generalized INPRO requirements (cont.): Main messages in areas of INPRO Methodology
• Proliferation resistance: Future NES must remain unattractive for a
nuclear weapon program by a combination of intrinsic features and
extrinsic measures;
• Physical protection: Efficient and effective regime to be implemented for
whole life cycle of NES;
• Environment: Impact of stressors from future NES must be within
performance envelope of current NES. Resources must be available to
run NES until end of 21st century;
• Safety: Safety of planned NPP should be superior compared against
safety of reference plant. Large off-site releases of radionuclides should
be prevented so that there should be no need for evacuation (emergency
preparedness and response remain a prudent requirement).
Technology lines in SYNERGIES project
Today 2020