ThorEA - Towards an Alternative Nuclear Future.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 5: The economics of thorium-fuelled ADSR technology The returns on investment in an R&D programme to deliver thorium fuelled ADSR technology are diverse and manifold and include, for example, cost competitive low carbon electricity, export of IP and facilities, inward investment, education and training, skilled workforce, new businesses, new products and service, regional development & UK reputation and leadership. Some of these benefits are discussed in this Appendix. 5.1 ADSRs as a cost competitive, low carbon technology ADSRs excel when considering social and environmental benefits such as diversifying the fuel mix, reducing radioactive waste products, increasing proliferation resistance and avoiding carbon emissions. However, alongside these benefits it is necessary that ADSRs are cost competitive with alternative forms of electricity generation. The following preliminary cost benefit analysis indicates firstly, how an n th-of-a-kind 600MWe ADSR competes with a contemporary n th-of-a-kind 600MWe uranium cycle nuclear power station, and secondly calculates the carbon price above which ADSRs outperform gas fired power generation. In the analysis both conventional Linac and ns-FFAG driven thorium fuelled ADSRs, are considered. The study is an extrapolation from the analysis performed by (Kennedy, 2007). It is assumed that the cost of a uranium cycle power station is the same as that of an ADSR, except for fuel and accelerator costs. Costs are divided into six categories: capital expenditure for the nuclear power station (Nuclear CapEx) and the accelerator complex (Accel. CapEx); Fuel; Operations and Maintenance for the nuclear power station (Nuclear O&M) and the accelerator complex (Accel. O&M); and finally the geological disposal and site decommissioning funds. 40 Towards an Alternative Nuclear Future The LINAC accelerator complex cost is based on predictions performed under the Euratom programme (European Commission, 2001). A 600MeV 20mA accelerator is predicted to cost €210 million, assuming zero cost increase for cryogenics, the superconducting LINAC cost has been linearly scaled (Ruggiero, 1997), accounting for increasing the beam energy from 600MeV to 1 GeV. This gives cost of construction of €290 million (excluding the cost of financing) for a LINAC accelerator complex. An exchange rate of €1=£1 has been used. Preliminary projections indicate that the cost of ns-FFAGs will be £60 million (excluding the cost of financing). It is considered that it might be advantageous to employ three ns-FFAGs to drive an ADSR. Accelerator O&M costs for LINACS and ns-FFAGs are derived from those reported by the existing high-powered accelerator facilities, the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge and the European Synchrotron Radiation Source. The added costs of the accelerators are estimated to be £14/MWh for a LINA and £10/MWh for the ns-FFAG option. In terms of the fuel costs, uranium mining makes up approximately a quarter of the uranium cycle fuel cost (WNO, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html). It requires enrichment, which accounts for approximately 50 % of the uranium cycle fuel cost (WNO, http://www.world-nuclear. org/info/inf28.html); the remaining fuel cost is dominated by fuel rod fabrication. The efficiency of the thorium oncethrough fuel cycle is greater than for uranium. Over 8 times more uranium ore is required per MWe of electricity produced compared to thorium (Bryan, 2009). Thorium does not require enrichment. The contemporary uranium fuel cycle costs £3.9/ MWh, thorium is expected to cost only £1.1/MWh. The savings associated with a thorium fuel cycle therefore amount to almost £3/MWh.
For an operational lifetime of 40 years and a real discount rate of 10%, the levelised cost per MWh for nth-of-a-kind uranium cycle, LINAC and ns-FFAG ADSR nuclear power stations are presented in the below figure. The analysis shows that a LINAC ADSR costs £12 /MWh more than a uranium cycle nuclear power station. The ns-FFAG design is predicted to achieve a £4/MWh cost saving over the LINAC accelerator, making it £7/MWh more expensive than the uranium cycle, at current uranium prices. Levelised cost of electricity per MWh £60 £50 £40 £30 £20 £10 £0 uranium cycle LINAC ADSR ns-FFAG ADSR escalated uranium A cost comparison of the thorium ADSR and conventional uranium systems is shown in Figure 14. This comparison would of course be significantly modified if: The predicted escalation of uranium prices over the coming decades; A potential reduction in the cost of accelerator drivers are taken into account. Accel. O&M Fuel Nuclear O&M Accel. CapEx Geo. & Decom. Funds Nuclear CapEx Figure 14. Cost structure for different nuclear power options, per MWh produced. A report prepared by: the thorium energy amplifier association 41
Page 1 and 2: TOWARDS AN ALTERNATIVE NUCLEAR FUTU
Page 3 and 4: A report prepared by: the thorium e
Page 5 and 6: Appendices: Appendix I: ADSR Accele
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary Recent developmen
Page 9 and 10: This report is structured as follow
Page 11 and 12: Thorium presents numerous advantage
Page 13 and 14: Operating reactors 500 40 450 400 3
Page 15 and 16: 1.5 The potential global market for
Page 19 and 20: 2.3 Minimizing the economic cost of
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 3: An R&D Programme to secu
Page 25 and 26: Phase III: THOR Successful completi
Page 27 and 28: 3.6 Private Investment and construc
Page 31 and 32: Case Study 2: Letter of support fro
Page 33 and 34: 4.3 The patent landscape Categoriza
Page 35 and 36: 4.6 Future opportunities facilitate
Page 37 and 38: 4.7.1 Medical applications Both ADS
Page 39: 4.7.5 From megatons to megawatts: W
Page 43 and 44: 5.2 Inward investment The delivery
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 6: The way forward In this
Page 49 and 50: A1.3 Accelerator reliability Accele
Page 51 and 52: Estimated thorium resources by coun
Page 53 and 54: FBTR, India: India’s first fast p
Page 55 and 56: Japan: Mitsui Engineering & Ship Bu
Page 57 and 58: EUROTRANS has proposed a route to a
Page 59 and 60: thorium oxide mixed fuels is access
Page 61 and 62: Appendix VIII: An historical UK per
Page 63 and 64: Bibliography Bryan, A. C. (2009). J
Page 65 and 66: LBE - Lead-Bismuth Eutectic LEU - L
Page 67 and 68: Q4. Early investment in accelerator
Page 69 and 70: Q11. ThorEA focus upon FFAG technol
Page 71: William J. Nuttall is a University

ThorEA - Towards an Alternative Nuclear Future.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?