Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Energy and Climate Change ConferenceJULY 2016
The Stable Salt Reactor - Safer,
Cleaner and Cheaper
SMR 2016 Ian Scott
2
Energy and Climate Change ConferenceJULY 2016
Background to Moltex Energy
SMR 2016
Tim Abram
Westinghouse Professor of
Nuclear Fuel technology,
University of Manchester
Derek Fray
FRS, FR Eng, Director of
Research, Cambridge University
Paul Madden
FRS, Provost Queens College
Oxford
Paul Littler
Nuclear Technical Director,
Atkins Ltd
Nial Greeves
Head of Nuclear, Fraser-Nash
Consultancy
Moltex Energy Support
Technical Advisory
Board
Business Advisory
Board
Tony Roulston
Former MD Rolls Royce Nuclear
Mark Higson
Former CEO Office for Nuclear
Development, DECC
Norman Harrison
Director Nuclear Liabilities Fund,
Former CEO UKAEA,
Frans Boydon
Former Superintending Nuclear
Inspector, Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate
Neutronics Simulations,
Corrosion and Heat Transfer
Experiments
Key Claim Validation
Fuel Cycle
Communication
Support
Computational Fluid
Dynamic and Heat
Transfer Simulations
Prototype Fuel Assembly
Fabrication and
Manufacturing Reviews
Development
Partners
Licensing & Controls
Support (C&I)
Plant Cost Estimating &
Safety Assessments
Today’s low ambitions for nuclear
International Energy Agency 2015 World Energy Outlook
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
GW
Large Nuclear
SMR ~Cost ofLarge nuclear(NNL)
O/N Coal 2016
Nuclear Energy is too Expensive
O/N Gas 2016
Why do PWR’s need such complex
and expensive safety systems?
Water at 325°C explodes
violently if pressure
vessel fails
Zircalloy tube – reacts
with water producing
explosive hydrogen
Solid fuel pellet – internal
pressure 10 tons per sq.
inch of extremely
dangerous gas
Molten Salts eliminate the hazards
Solid fuel pellet – internal
pressure 10 tons per sq.
inch of extremely
dangerous gas
Zircalloy tube – reacts
with water producing
explosive hydrogen
Water at 325°C explodes
violently if pressure vessel
fails
Molten salt coolant – no
pressure, chemically
stable, miscible with fuel
salt
Steel tube - no reaction
with fuel or coolant
molten salts
Molten salt fuel – no
pressure and caesium
and iodine non volatile
8
Energy and Climate Change ConferenceJULY 2016
The Stable Salt Reactor
SMR 2016
Fuel Assembly like Sodium Fast
Reactor
STABLE SALT REACTOR
2013 concept
Molten
salt fuel
Fuel ≠ Coolant Fuel = Coolant
ALL OTHER MSR’S BASED
ON 1960’s US
TECHNOLOGY
Static fuel salt vs Pumped fuel salt
Molten
salt fuel
Safety critical engineered systems in pumped systemMolten salt pumps and valves
Fission gas removal and separation system
Chemical processing and refuelling system
Freeze plug and emergency drain/cooling
Heat exchanger
Pumped system creates new IAEA safeguards issues
Current IAEA safeguards regime tracks defined fuel assemblies
New international standards required for bulk fuel (10-15 years)
Online reprocessing possible in pumped system
Theoretical advantage in higher breeding and use of thorium
(SAMOFAR/EVOL = Target date ~ Fusion)
Reactor high level design
Helium/argon containment with airlock
Fuel assembly movement
Heat exchanger/pump to secondary molten salt
Passive cooling air ducts
Fuel Management
• Rectangular core allows
counter-flow migration of
fuel assemblies while on
power
• Spent fuel cools in reactor
then freezes on withdrawal
• Fresh fuel inserted out of
neutron flux to melt slowly
Spent fuel stored then removed
Fresh fuel inserted
SSR modular reactor to GW Scale
Factory produced 150MWe
module contains supports, pumps,
primary heat exchanger, control
blades, instrumentation, flow
ducts, fuel assembly handling etc
Up to 8 identical modules placed in
single reactor tank creating single
reactor up to 1200MWe
Modular factory
construction
Economy
of scale
Conventional Small
Modular Reactor
Modular factory
construction
Economy
of scale
Stable Salt Reactor
Key design decisions
Fast reactor• Eliminates moderator problems
• More compact, simpler and cheaper
• Low cost spent oxide fuel recycling
Key design decisions
Chloride fuel salt• Lower melting point than fluorides
• Redox stabilisation with zirconium
eliminates metal corrosion
• Natural chlorine neutronically
acceptable
Key design decisions
Vented fuel tubes• Essentially benign off gas with Zr
stabilised salt
• Hold up in tube allows almost all 137Xe to decay
Key design decisions
Coolant salt• NaF/KF/ZrF4/ZrF2
• Low melting point 385C
• Redox stabilisation ZrF2 eliminates
corrosion
• Miscible with fuel salt in accident
• Hafnium in coolant screens
neutrons with minimal core effect Smaller tank
Simpler fuel movement outside salt
Key design decisions
On power refuelling• Elimination of excess reactivity
eliminates many accident scenarios
• Far simpler reactor control systems
• Shut down boron blades
• In operation reactivity controlled via
temperature coefficient and
refuelling process
20
Energy and Climate Change ConferenceJULY 2016
Economics and costs
SMR 2016
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
$ per kW
OVERNIGHT CAPITAL COST OF NUCLEAR REACTORS(constant 2014 $, by date of operation)
Actual US costs from Koomey & Hultman (2007)
Coal 2016
Current whole plant overnight
capital cost estimate
Gas 2016
UK on-site
construction
Cost Estimate by Atkins Ltd
Review conceptual
design against UK
SAP’s (Safety
Assessment Principles)
from Office of Nuclear
Regulation
Carry out HAZOP 0
analysis identifying
essential structures,
systems and
components required for
safe operation
Calculate approximate
capital cost of the
nuclear and electrical
generator islands of an
Nth of a kind 1GW
Stable Salt Reactor
“Most likely cost”
£718 per kW complete
nuclear island including
civil engineering
(Hinkley Point C - £5000)
Reasons to expect low cost
Eliminate instead of “manage” fundamental
hazards
Fraction of the size of
similar power
conventional reactor
Below ground level
reactor location – small
biological shield also
aircraft defense
SSR IS A SMALL MODULAR REACTOR
Small size – not small power
GW Stable Salt Reactor compared to GW AP1000
Reasons to expect low cost
Continuous refuelling so
no safety critical systems
to hold down excess
reactivity
Emergency shutdown
just by getting hotter.
Single shut down system
Continuous air cooling so
no safety critical backup
cooling systems
Modular construction but
a full size reactor – no
trade off economic
advantages
“Standard” steam
temperature so turbines
~1/6th cost of nuclear
ones
Fraction of the size of
similar power
conventional reactor
Below ground level
reactor location – small
biological shield also
aircraft defense
Eliminate instead of “manage” fundamental
hazards
Levelised Cost of Electricity
26
ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2013)
Large margin between LCOE and market electricity price
provides strong sales “pull”0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LC
OE
$/M
Wh
r
CAPEX
(IRR 9%)
OPEX inc
waste and
decom.
(UK 2019)
License
fee
SSR
27
Energy and Climate Change ConferenceJULY 2016
Working with renewable energy –
not just “baseload”
SMR 2016
Today’s low ambitions for nuclear
International Energy Agency 2015 World Energy Outlook
GridReserve Energy Storage
“perfect complement to renewables”
1000MW reactor runs
continuously but
varies electricity
output from zero to
2000MW for 8 hours
or more per day
Commercialised
technology from the
concentrated solar
power industry –
only works with high
temperature output
but costs only $5 per
MWhr
Nuclear fuel
SMR 2016
Conventional reactor fuel (CANDU)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Fresh fuel Spent fuel
% of the fuel
Uranium 235 Plutonium Higher actinides
This (especially the red
bit) is what makes spent
fuel dangerous for
300,000 years
Plutonium purity needed for fuel
MOX FUEL
MADE AT
SELLAFIELDSSR FUEL
PLUTONIUM IMPURITIES
60% NaCl
16% PuCl324% UCl3/LnCl3
6% PuO2
94% UO2
Modified
aluminium smelter
Meta
l/salt
Exchang
er
Waste nuclear fuel pellets – $billions of liability cost
Actinide free waste
Ready to use SSR fuel
Fuel for the Stable Salt Reactor
Sellafield
THORP
reprocessin
g plant with
same
annual
production!
Instead of this
Uranium alloy for breeding
Nuclear weapons proliferation?
Proliferation analysis after IAEA meeting on
MSR’s
Less plutonium per fuel assembly than MOX
Purification of plutonium from SSR fuel needs a
reprocessing plant just like spent conventional fuel
Purification of plutonium from MOX can be done in
a high school lab – hard bit already done!
Immediate risk therefore marginally higher than
spent oxide fuel but much lower than MOX
Longer term, burning plutonium reduces
proliferation risks
Canadian Deployment Model
SPV
IP Owner
Moltex Energy
Detailed Designer
Reactor Vendor
Green – Secured
Blue - tbcFinancial Partner
Deloitte
Reactor Builder
EPC
Operator/Licensee
CNL & OPG Fuel Fabricator
CNL
Suppliers
Various
2013 2014 2015 2016
Moltex Energy Timeline
Moltex Energy
established
Invention
conceived
Atkins cost
estimate
Master patent
filed UK/PCT
Financial
PartnerMaster patent
granted UK
UK SMR
competition
NNL review
of claims
Concept
designEngineering
design started
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Complete
Pre-license
& establish partners
Complete
License
Approval
1st 300MWe
reactor online
&
2nd license
approval
Start
Pre-license2nd reactor
online
Fuel fabrication demo
rig design complete
Fuel fabrication demo
rig operational
Fuel fabrication comm
rig design complete
Start Up fuel
readyFuel fabrication comm
rig design operational
Reasons to expect fast development
and regulatory approval
Fewer safety critical
systems for regulators to
approve
No high pressure
systems with long lead
times
No new materials,
standard nuclear grade
steels only
Factory construction of
entire reactor modules –
minimum on site work
IAEA safeguards
compliant fuel system
avoids major regulatory
delay
Moltex Energy intends to change this!
International Energy Agency 2015 World Energy Outlook
