The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eConomiCS Finding Nuclear power can be economically competitive for baseload power under appropriate market conditions. Recommendation First mover incentives put in place in the U.S. since 2005 should be implemented rapidly. Our updated economic analysis (MIT 2009) is summarized in Table 1.1. While the U.S. nuclear industry has continued to demonstrate improved operating performance, there remains significant uncertainty about the capital cost, and the cost of its financing, which are the main components of the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants. Table 1.1 Costs of Electric Generation Alternatives overniGht CoSt Fuel CoSt baSe CaSe levelized CoSt oF eleCtriCity W/ Carbon CharGe $25/tCo 2 W/ Same CoSt oF Capital $2007 $/KW $/mbtu ¢/KWh ¢/KWh ¢/KWh nuclear 4,000 0.67 8.4 6.6 coal 2,300 2.60 6.2 8.3 Gas 850 4/7/10 4.2/6.5/8.7 5.1/7.4/9.6 Nuclear electricity costs are driven by high up-front capital costs. In contrast, for natural gas the cost driver is the fuel cost. Natural gas prices are volatile relative to other fuels; thus, a range of gas prices are presented. Coal lies in-between. The track record for the construction costs of nuclear plants completed in the U.S. during the 1980s and early 1990s was poor. Actual costs were far higher than had been projected. Construction schedules experienced long delays, which, together with increases in interest rates at the time, resulted in high financing charges. Whether the lessons learned from the past can be factored into the construction of future plants has yet to be seen. These factors have a significant impact on the risk facing investors financing a new build. For this reason, the 2003 report and our 2009 analysis applied a higher weighted cost of capital to the construction of a new nuclear plant (10%) than to the construction of a new coal or new natural gas plant (7.8%). Lowering or eliminating this riskpremium makes a significant contribution to the competitiveness of nuclear electricity. These construction cost and schedule difficulties have occurred in some countries but not others. nuclear power can be economically competitive under appropriate market conditions. With the financial risk premium and without a carbon emission charge, electricity from nuclear is more expensive than either coal (without sequestration) or natural gas (at 7$/ MBTU). If this risk premium can be eliminated, the nuclear levelized cost decreases from 8.4¢ /kWh to 6.6 ¢/kWh and becomes competitive with coal and natural gas, even in the absence of carbon emission charges. With carbon emission charges, nuclear becomes either competitive or lower cost than either coal or natural gas. The first few U.S. plants will be a critical test for all parties involved. The risk premium will be eliminated only by demonstrated construction cost and schedule performance. Based on this analysis, we recommended in 2003 that financial first mover incentives be provided for the first group of new nuclear plants that are built. The first mover incentives put in place in the U.S. since 2005 Chapter 1 — The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle — Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations 3
have been implemented slowly. This should be accelerated for the purposes of determining construction costs and schedules at multiple plants. The incentives should not be extended beyond the first mover program (i.e. for 7–10 plants). uranium reSourCeS Finding Uranium resources will not be a constraint for a long time. uranium resources will not be a constrainit for a long time. The cost of uranium today is 2 to 4% of the cost of electricity. Our analysis of uranium mining costs versus cumulative production in a world with ten times as many LWRs and each LWR operating for 100 years indicates a probable 50% increase in uranium costs. Such a modest increase in uranium costs would not significantly impact nuclear power economics. However, given the importance of uranium resources for both existing reactors and decisions about future nuclear fuel cycles, we recommend: Recommendation An international program should be established to enhance understanding and provide higher confidence in estimates of uranium costs versus cumulative uranium production. liGht Water reaCtorS Finding LWRs will be the primary reactor choice for many decades and likely the dominant reactor for the remainder of this century. for the next several decades, a oncethrough fuel cycle using lWRs is the preferred option for the united states. The expanded deployment of LWRs should be an important option in any strategy to mitigate climate risk. LWRs are the commercially existing technology and the current lowestcost nuclear electric production option. They can be operated safely and built in sufficient numbers to match any credible nuclear power growth scenario. The market entry of other reactor types will be slow in part because of time-consuming testing and licensing of new technologies. Originally it was thought that the commercial lifetime of an LWR would be 40 years. Today more than half the LWRs have obtained, and most of the others are expected to obtain, license amendments to operate for 60 years. Many may operate for even longer time periods. Simultaneously, improvements in operations and technology have increased the output of these reactors. The U.S. has made and will likely make major additional investments in LWRs. Because of the extended lifetimes of these reactors, there is time for improvements in LWR economics, safety, nonproliferation characteristics, and fuel cycles—including possible closed fuel cycles with sustainable conversion ratios near unity. Many of the potential improvements involve advanced fuels and related technologies that would benefit both existing and future LWRs. To protect and enhance the investments already made in LWRs: Recommendation We recommend a long-term RD&D program to further improve LWR technology. 4 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle
Page 3 and 4: Other Reports in This Series The Fu
Page 5 and 6: MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study Adviso
Page 7 and 8: vi MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 9 and 10: viii MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nuc
Page 11 and 12: Study Findings and Recommendations
Page 13 and 14: Recommendation We recommend that a
Page 15 and 16: p Innovative nuclear energy applica
Page 17 and 18: p In line with many of our R&D reco
Page 19: The “once through” or open fuel
Page 23 and 24: Recommendation We recommend that th
Page 25 and 26: oped policies for specific wastes r
Page 27 and 28: nuClear Fuel CyCleS The united Stat
Page 29 and 30: - The primary differences were in t
Page 31 and 32: Recommendation Integrated system st
Page 33 and 34: Table 1.2 Summary of R&D Recommenda
Page 35 and 36: 18 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 37 and 38: the once-through Fuel Cycle for lig
Page 39 and 40: tricity costs. Waste management cos
Page 41 and 42: Figure 2.3 partial recycle of lWr S
Page 43 and 44: history of the nuclear Fuel Cycle B
Page 45 and 46: • What is the impact of timing of
Page 47 and 48: nuclear fuel cycles, the wastes (SN
Page 49 and 50: Because ore demand is closely coupl
Page 51 and 52: eStimatinG Future CoStS oF uranium
Page 53 and 54: Figure 3.3 relative uranium Cost vs
Page 55 and 56: Figure 3.4 100 year price trend for
Page 57 and 58: Stockpiling If supply interruption
Page 59 and 60: CitationS and noteS 1. Uranium 2007
Page 61 and 62: If SNF is to be shipped, typically
Page 63 and 64: a policy that maintains fuel cycle
Page 65 and 66: Dry cask storage is used for short
Page 67 and 68: For decommissioned sites, our econo
Page 69 and 70: with its attractiveness of jobs and
Page 71 and 72:
54 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 73 and 74:
2. The United States should create
Page 75 and 76:
Table 5.1 United States Waste Class
Page 77 and 78:
table 5.3 examples of operational G
Page 79 and 80:
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant The uni
Page 81 and 82:
Successful repository programs are
Page 83 and 84:
designed with limited SNF storage c
Page 85 and 86:
CitationS and noteS 1. A Handbook f
Page 87 and 88:
70 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucle
Page 89 and 90:
energy spectrum centered at higher
Page 91 and 92:
light Water reactor Fuel technical
Page 93 and 94:
(fertile-free) to CR=1.0 (break-eve
Page 95 and 96:
license. However, fuel reprocessing
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 6.4 densification Factors as
Page 99 and 100:
As expected, the breeder installed
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 6.8 shows the development of
Page 103 and 104:
Table 6.8 Uranium Cost in $/kg, Sta
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 6.11 location of the tru inv
Page 107 and 108:
SenSitivity analySiS: alternative a
Page 109 and 110:
Fast reactor technical Characterist
Page 111 and 112:
cooled fast reactor (SFR) fueled by
Page 113 and 114:
Summary oF ConCluSionS Among the in
Page 115 and 116:
[hoffman et al., 2006] e.a. hoffman
Page 117 and 118:
This chapter reports the cost of th
Page 119 and 120:
Table 7.1 Input Parameter Assumptio
Page 121 and 122:
Twice-Through Cycle Table 7.3 shows
Page 123 and 124:
Table 7.4 The LCOE for the Fast Rea
Page 125 and 126:
higher cost of disposal of the spen
Page 127 and 128:
110 MIT STudy on The FuTure oF nucl
Page 129 and 130:
power program might be used, as is
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 8.1 Weapons-usability Charac
Page 133 and 134:
inStitutional approaCheS to Fuel Cy
Page 135 and 136:
the iaea additional protocol an Iae
Page 137 and 138:
in technology innovation are likely
Page 139 and 140:
Reprocessing choices Commercial rep
Page 141 and 142:
Table 8.2 Safeguard Technical Objec
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
port for nuclear power over the per
Page 147 and 148:
Those Americans who have an opinion
Page 149 and 150:
who are very concerned with global
Page 151 and 152:
p Waste management must be integrat
Page 153 and 154:
options because we do not know toda
Page 155 and 156:
Nuclear Security. Nonproliferation
Page 157 and 158:
There have been major changes in ou
Page 159 and 160:
There are large financial and polic
Page 161 and 162:
Figure 3A.2 shows the results. As c
Page 163 and 164:
Figure A.3 plots Eq (2), where adva
Page 165 and 166:
Again, assuming that q = 0.29, the
Page 167 and 168:
Note that Eq. [7] suggests employin
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 3b.1 Cumulative probability
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Figure 5a.1 decay of radioactivity
Page 175 and 176:
and 241 Am. For the short term, hea
Page 177 and 178:
Repository Engineering All reposito
Page 179 and 180:
epreSentative repoSitory deSiGnS: u
Page 181 and 182:
orehole diSpoSal There are three me
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
table 7a.1 list of variables , 1 lc
Page 187 and 188:
The Twice-Through Cycle The LCOE fo
Page 189 and 190:
A proper representation of the chai
Page 191 and 192:
In the Twice-Through Cycle, the pai
Page 193 and 194:
table 7a.2 once-through Fuel Cycle
Page 195 and 196:
above ground storage. However, the
Page 197 and 198:
CitationS and noteS 1. The methodol
Page 199 and 200:
Historically, the interest in thori
Page 201 and 202:
p Analogous to plutonium. Plutonium
Page 203 and 204:
In case self-protection of U-232 da
Page 205 and 206:
Figure a.3 Schematic view of Sbu an
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
eaCtor teChnoloGieS Nuclear power e
Page 211 and 212:
via 239 Pu and 240 Pu, and then the
Page 213 and 214:
urnups, but the gap between the nec
Page 215 and 216:
(~700°C) with higher thermal-to-el
Page 217 and 218:
There are several unique consequenc
Page 219 and 220:
performance goals can be achieved.
Page 221 and 222:
is that it will be many decades bef
Page 223 and 224:
system [1]. The nuclear power plant
Page 225 and 226:
The HTRs can be used to provide hig
Page 227 and 228:
[http://nextgenerationnuclearplant.
Page 229 and 230:
CitationS and noteS Brinkmann, H. U
Page 231 and 232:
The analysis is based on the assump
Page 233 and 234:
considerations discussed above. We
Page 235 and 236:
In our analysis we make the explici
Page 237 and 238:
Figure d.4 transmutation Consequenc
Page 239 and 240:
Figure d.5 breeder Consequences LWR
Page 241 and 242:
facilities. These concerns are the
Page 243 and 244:
Technological applicability Geologi
Page 245 and 246:
It must be noted, that net risks an
Page 247 and 248:
p Once-through fast reactor fuel. T
Page 249 and 250:
Table E.1 Recycling Plant Functions
Page 251 and 252:
Table E.3 Conventional Fuel Fabrica
Page 253 and 254:
eactor. A summary of inputs from in
Page 255 and 256:
this page intentionally left blank
Page 257:
this page intentionally left blank
show all

The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?