Introduction to Nuclear Energy

Jacopo Buongiorno

Associa t e Pr of essor of Nuc l ear Science and Engineering

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

U-235 has 2.5 million times more energy per pound than coal: 37 tons of fuel ( 3%-enriched uranium ) p er 1000 MW e reactor per yea r

Nuclear provides an emission-fre e hea t source that can be converted into multiple products

 Electricity (worldwide)

 Steam for industry (done in Switzerland, Russia, Japan, not in the U.S.)

 Hydrogen (future with development of technology)

Nuclear com p ared to fossil fuels

Fuel energy content

Coal (C): C + O 2  CO 2 + 4 eV

Natural Gas (CH 4 ): CH 4 + O 2  CO 2 + 2H 2 O + 8 eV

Nuclear (U): 235 U + n  93 Rb + 141 Cs + 2n + 200 MeV

Fuel Consumption, 1000 MW e Power Plant (=10 6 homes)

Coal (40% ef ficiency):

10 9 /(0.4x4x1.6x10 -19 )  3.9x10 27 C/sec (=6750 ton/day) Natural Gas ( 50% ef ficienc y) :

10 9 /(0.5x8x1.6x10 -19 )  1.6x10 27 CH 4 /sec (=64 m 3 /sec) Nuclear (33% ef ficiency):

10 9 /(0.33x200x1.6x10 -13 )  1.0x10 20 U/sec (=3 kg/day)

1 eV = 1.6x10 -19 J

U ore Y e llow cake F uel assembl y

Pellets

Boiling W ater Reactor (BWR)

Public domain image from wikipedia.

Rankine Cycle

Reacto r

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.

Tu r b i n e - generator

turns heat into work, then electricity

Pressurized W ater Reactor (PWR)

Public domain image from wikipedia.

PWR P rimary System

Courtesy of Westinghouse. Used with permission.

PWR

Reactor V e ssel Showing internal Structures and Fuel Assemblies

Public domain image from wikipedia.

Heat Discharge in Nuclear Plants (2 nd law of thermodynamics)

Nuclear Ener gy in the US , toda y

104 US reactors, 100 GWe is 13% of US installed ca p acit y but p rovides about 20% of electricit y .

In 2007 nuclear energy production in the US was the highest ever .

US plants have run at 90.5% capacity in 2009 , up from 56% in 1980 .

3 . 5 GWe o f uprates were permitted i n t he last decade .

3.5 GWe are expected by 2014 and more by 2020 .

59 reactor licenses extended, from 40 years to 60 years of operation, 20 more reactors in process.

Electricity production costs of nuclear are the lowest in US ( 1 - 2 ¢ /kWh)

Calver t Cliffs - M D

Robinson - SC

Indian Point - N Y

Diablo Canyon - CA

Prairie Island site - M N Surr y - V A

The MIT Research Reactor

- 5 MW power

- Located near NW12 on Albany St.

- Operated by MIT students

- Just turned 50!

Nuclear Ener gy in the W o rld T o da y

Courtesy of MIT student. Used with permission.

About 440 W orld r e actors in 30 countries, 14% of global electricity pr oduced.

6 0 new reactors are in various stages of constructio n

Olkiluoto – Finland

Lungmen – T aiwan Kudankulam – I ndia

Fl amanv ill e – F rance

Rostov – R ussia

Shin kori – S . Korea

Shimane – Japan

Sanmen – C hina

3 on g oin g in the US!

V ogtle, G eor gia Summer , South C arolina

W atts Bar , T ennessee

© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

The Case for New Nuclear Plants in the US

Concerns for climate change…

S o u r c e s o f E m i s s i o n - F r e e E l e c t r i c i t y 2 0 0 8

S o l a r , W i n d & G e o t h e r m a l 6 . 1 %

H y d r o 2 1 . 7 %

Athabasca Glacier, Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canad a

Photo provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center

Courtesy of National Snow and Ice Data Center. Used with permission.

U S d a t a

N u c l e a r 7 2 . 3 %

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Ab ou t 700 , 000 , 000 t on o f CO2 em i ss i ons avo id e d every year in the US

The Case for New Nuclear Plants in the US (2)

…and growing fossil fuel imports and consumption

T o tal U . S. Ener g y Consumption

↑

Low C arbon

↓

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Oil is the Challenge

U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outl ook 2008 Early Release, years 2006 and 2030; world data from I EA, World Energy Outlook 20 07, years 2005 and 2030

C an nuc l ear di sp l ace coa l?

Y e s, as they are both used for baseload electricity generation.

What about oil?

Oil Is Used for Transportation.

What Are the Other Transport Fuel Options?

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)

Liquid f uels from fossil s ources (oil , natural gas and coal)

Liquid fuels from biomass

Hydrogen

 Long term option

 Depends upon hydrogen on-board-vehicle storage b rea k t h roug h

PHEVs: Recharge Batteries from the Electric Grid Plus Use of Gasoline

Electric car limitations

 Limited range

 Recharge time (Gasoline/Diesel refueling r ate i s ~ 10 MW)

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

Images removed due to copyright restrictions .

 Electric drive for short trips

 Recharge battery overnight to avoid rapid recharge requirement

 Hybrid engine with gasoline or d i ese l e n g in e f o r l o n ge r t ri ps

Connects cars and light trucks to the electrical grid

Courtesy of the Electric Power Research Institute

PHEVs: Annual Gasoline Consum p tion

Substituting Electricity for Gasoline

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Compact sedan Midsize sedan Midsize SUV Fullsize SUV

Conventional vehicle

Plug-in HE V , 20 mile EV range

Plug-in HE V , 60 mile EV range

"No-Plug" Hybrid

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Need 150 to 200 Nuclear Plants Each Producing 1000 MW( e)

Refineries Consume ~7% of the Total U.S. Energy Demand

Energ y inp u ts

 Primarily heat at 550 C

Column

Cracker

il  Some hydrogen

e Hi g h-tem p erature ga s reactor s could suppl y hea t and hydrogen

 Market size equals existing nuclear

T r aditional Refining

enterprise

© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Bio mass: 1.3 Billion Tons per Yea r

Available Biomass without Significantly Impacting

U.S. Food, Fiber, and Timber

© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

C o n v e r s i o n o f B i o m a s s t o L i q u i d

F u e l s R e q u i r e s E n e r g y

B i o m a s s

A t m o s p h e r i c

C a r b o n D i o x i d e

F u e l F a c t o r y

C a r s , T r u c k s , a n d P l a n e s

E n e r g y

L i q u i d F u e l s

C x H y + ( X + Y ) O 2

4

C O 2 + ( Y ) H 2 O

2

26

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Starch

( corn, potatoes, etc. )

Steam

Natural gas

Steam

Ethanol plant

Steam plant

Nuclear reactor

Ethanol plant

Animal protein

Ethanol

Electricity

Animal protein

Ethanol

Fossil energy input 70% of energy content of ethanol

50% Decrease in CO 2 Emissions/Gallon ethanol 50% reduction in steam cost

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

5 Advanced Reactor Designs Considered for New Construction in the US

Gen III+ Plants: Improved Versions of Existing Plant Designs

ABWR (GE-Hitachi) US- A PWR (Mitsubishi)

US-EPR (ARE V A )

A P1000 ( T oshiba: W estinghouse) ESBWR (GE-Hitachi)

© source unknown . All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Nuclear Reactor Timeline

Advanced Reactors (Gen III+) that initiated design certification process with the NRC

U . S . u tiliti es h ave su b m itt e d 18 li cens i ng app li ca ti ons (total 28 units)

Mission/Goals f or Gen III+

Improved economics. Targets:

- Increased plant design life ( 60 years)

- Shorter construction schedule (36 months*)

- Low overnight capital cost (  $1000/kWe** for NOAK p l an t)

- Low O&M cost of electricity (  1¢/kWh)

* First concrete to fuel loading (does not include site excavation and pre - service testing)

** Unrealistic target set in early 2000s . Current contracts in Europe, China and US have overnight capital costs

>$3000/kWe

Improved safety and reliability

- R e d uce d nee d f or opera t or ac ti on

- Expected to beat NRC goal of CDF<10 -4 /yr

- Reduced lar g e release p robabilit y

- More redundancy or passive safety

31

Nuclear Safet y Prime r

Hazard: fission products are highly

radioactive

Aggravating factor: nuclear fuel can never be completely shut down ( decay heat)

Objective: prevent release of radioactivity into environment

Safety Pillars:

- Defense - in - depth : multiple, independent physical barriers (i.e., fuel pin + vessel + containment)

- Safety systems : prevent overheating of the core when normal coolant is lost

Some interesting s afety - related features of the Gen III+ reactors…

Hi g her redundanc y ( US-EPR ECCS )

Four identical diesel-driven trains, each 100%, provide redundancy for maintenance or sin g le-failure criterion (N+2)

Physical s eparation against internal hazards (e.g. fire)

Hi g her redunda nc y ( US-EPR Containment )

Inner wall pre-stressed concrete w i t h stee l li ner

Outer wall reinforced concrete

Protection a gainst airplane crash

Protection against external explosions

Annulus sub-atmospheric and filtered to reduce radioisotope release

Passive safet y s y stems ( AP1000 ECCS )

http://ww w .ap1000.westinghousenuclear .com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.html

Courtesy of Westinghouse. Used with permission.

Passive safet y s y stems ( ESBWR ECCS and PCCS )

© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

S e v e r e accidents m i t i g a t i o n ( E P R c o r e catcher)

IR WST

Corium Spreading Area

E x - vessel core catcher concept (passive)

- Molten core is assumed to breach vessel

- Molten core flows into spreading area and is cooled by IRWST water

- H ydrogen recombiners ensure no detonation within container

Nuclear energy economics

Nuclear Ener gy Economics

Financial risk for new plants is high

 Initial investement is lar g e (  $3,480/kW  G$/unit )

 Fear of delays during construction (like in 70s and 80s)

9

8 $ 2 5 / t C O 2

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

$ 2 5 / t C O 2

N u c l e a r C o a l G a s

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

 Nuclear production costs are lowest of all energy sources

U . S . E l e c t r i c i t y P r o d u c t i o n C o s t s

1 9 9 5 - 2 0 0 8 , I n 2 0 0 8 c e n t s p e r k i l o w a t t - h o u r

1 8 , 0

1 6 , 0

1 4 , 0

1 2 , 0

P e t r o l e u m - 1 7 . 2 6

1 0 , 0

8 , 0

G a s - 8 . 0 9

C o a l - 2 . 7 5

N u c l e a r - 1 . 8 7

6 , 0

4 , 0

2 , 0

0 , 0

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs. Production costs do no t include indirect costs and are base d o n FERC Form 1 filings submitted by regulated utilities. Production costs are modeled for utilities that are not regulated.

Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite Updated: 5/09

Nuclear Fuel - Com p act & Economic

Nuclear fuel cycle has made up less than 15% of the cost of nuclear electricity . In 2006 that was about 6

$/MWhr, out of a total electricity cost of 50 $/MWhr

This covers the following steps

 Uranium ore extraction and conversion to U 3 O 8, at $48/kg

 Enrichment in U235, typically by centrifugal forces spinning gaseous UF 6 , to about 4% (Japan Rakashu plant in side pictures)

 Manufacturing of UO 2 pellets, and placing them in Zr tubes (cladding) thus p roducin g fuel rods. The rods (or pins) are arranged in square lattices called assemblies.

 Removal of spent fuel assemblies to temporary storage in fuel pools, th en t o i n t er i m d ry s t orage

 1 $/MWhr for spent fuel disposal fees

© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Nuclear fuel cycle