Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Perspectives on the Back- end of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Present and Future John Kessler, Program Manager, HLW & Spent Fuel Management

Published byEdgar Harvey Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Perspectives on the Back- end of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Present and Future John Kessler, Program Manager, HLW & Spent Fuel Management"— Presentation transcript:

1 Perspectives on the Back- end of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Present and Future John Kessler, Program Manager, HLW & Spent Fuel Management (jkessler@epri.com; 704-595-2249)jkessler@epri.com DOE Fission-Fusion Hybrid Workshop, Gaithersburg MD October 1, 2009

2 2 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Projected US Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel (CSNF) Inventory (assumes all existing plants run for 60 years) Current Yucca Mountain legal CSNF capacity limit (63,000)

3 3 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Dry Interim Storage: High Burnup and Extended Storage EPRI data and models are the basis for enabling: Dry storage of spent fuel with burnup >45 GWd/MTU Dominion, Duke Energy, Constellation, … Dry storage license extended from 20 to 60 years First license renewal: Surry site Conclusion: Long(er)-term storage can give us time to introduce new technologies

4 4 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. EPRI Yucca Mountain and Generic Disposal Program Yucca Mountain-specific –Pre- and post-closure –Transportation Generic disposal –Compare post-closure doses from alternative fuel cycle waste forms –Need for a second repository?

5 5 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. DOE Yucca Mountain Repository Design

6 6 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. DOE TSPA Results 10,000-year results –Mean peak dose rate to the RMEI: ~0.2 mrem/yr ~0.1% of background ~1% of dose limit –Dominated by (relatively) early failure of DOE/Defense wastes 1,000,000-year results: –Mean peak to RMEI: ~2 mrem/yr ~1% of background ~10% of dose limit –Dominated by commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF)

7 7 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. EPRI TSPA Results (CSNF only) EPRI, 2006, Report # 1013444, Fig. 6-3 0.04 mrem/y –~0.01% of background –~0.2% of dose limit –1/50 th of DOE estimate Why are EPRI estimates lower? –Reduction of conservatisms

8 8 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. The Peak Dose is NOT Dominated by the Most “Radiotoxic” Species The geology takes care of the more radiotoxic species –Example: relatively low solubility of many actinides (including Pu) –Sorption on geologic media impedes many radionuclides from movement Conclusion: inappropriate to use “radiotoxicity” as a measure for potential technical improvements –Closing the fuel cycle –Fission-fusion hybrids, … –Only a handful of radionuclides contribute to long-term dose (not usually minor actinides)

9 9 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Yucca Mountain Peak Dose Estimates Have Been Decreasing. Why? Additional data Removal of initial conservatisms –Improved (lower) Np solubility estimates dramatically decreased importance of Np-237 –EPRI drip shield example (next slide)

10 10 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Example of Over-conservatism: Drip Shields are not Necessary –Overestimated the amount of net infiltration; –Overestimated the fraction of the repository experiencing seepage into the open drifts; –Overestimated seismic energy and rockfall; –Overestimated damage to the TADs due to seismic and rockfall events; –Overestimated the rate at which Alloy 22 will degrade; –Cladding performance was neglected; –Waste form alteration time was underestimated What did DOE do to make it think it needed Drip Shields?

11 11 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Which is Cheaper, Faster, and Easier to Lower Dose Estimates for Disposal: Additional work to remove conservatisms in dose estimates? –Drip shield example even saves money and time! Introduce a major technological “fix” (e.g., fission- fusion hybrids)?

12 12 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Several Benefits of Making Yucca Mountain Capacity Larger than the Current Legal Limit Nuclear industry interested in building new plants –Opponents will point out there isn’t enough disposal space for existing plants Delays or even eliminates the need for a second repository Provides sufficient time buffer for introduction of advanced fuel cycles –R&D time to get closed fuel cycles into commercial operation: ~30-50 years

13 13 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Yucca Mountain Capacity Options the EPRI Team Analyzed Option 1: Expanded repository ‘footprint’ Option2: Multi-level repository Option 3: Grouped, single-level emplacement drifts Determine the range in ‘expansion factor’ attributable to each option Combinations of options Yucca Mountain Tuffs 81m 41m 20 m 0

14 14 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. EPRI-Projected Yucca Mountain Technical Capacity is Much Higher Than the Legal Limit EPRI’s projected technical capacity range (~260,000-570,000 MTU, 4 to 9 times current legal limit) Current legal limit (63,000 MTU)

15 15 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Feasibility of Direct Disposal of Dual-Purpose Canisters (DPCs, licensed for storage and transportation only) Motivation: –Industry currently using DPCs –Avoids need to repackage –DPC capacity ~1.5x DOE’s Transportation, Aging, and Disposal canisters (TADs) Considerations DPC versus TAD diameter: it still fits Added decay heat effects (hydrothermal, thermomechanical): Yucca Mountain can handle it Post-closure dose: no effect Criticality: still won’t happen

16 16 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Need for Advanced Fuel Cycles for Waste Disposal Minimization? NO! Yucca Mountain doses are already very low (<1% of background) –True for all other repository system estimates Yucca Mountain technical capacity is big enough for decades to come Why trade off near-term, certain increase in dose to lower very long- term hypothetical dose? –Need to compare source terms from the entire fuel cycle – not just what is headed to disposal Which is cheaper and faster, introducing fission-fusion hybrids or doing some more work to eliminate conservatisms in disposal dose estimates? “Radiotoxicity” is an inappropriate measure Therefore, introduce advanced fuel cycle for reasons other than reducing waste disposal needs –Economics, resource utilization, energy independence, …

17 17 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Yucca Mountain (and Most Other Repository Systems) can Help Keep our Options Open for Decades to Come Use them as temporary storage until advanced fuel cycle(s) are ready Co-locate storage, reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and disposal? No need to move spent fuel twice if no nuclear advancement Conclusion: Judicious use of repositories will support realistically-paced advanced fuel cycle development

18 18 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

Download ppt "Perspectives on the Back- end of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Present and Future John Kessler, Program Manager, HLW & Spent Fuel Management"

Similar presentations

The Mythology of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Allison Macfarlane Program in Science, Technology & Society MIT April 24, 2006.

The Mythology of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Allison Macfarlane Program in Science, Technology & Society MIT April 24, 2006.
Nuclear Energy Chapter 12. Introduction to the Nuclear Process Fission – nuclear energy released when atom split, conventional technology Fusion – nuclear.

Nuclear Energy Chapter 12. Introduction to the Nuclear Process Fission – nuclear energy released when atom split, conventional technology Fusion – nuclear.
Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Fuel Cycles and Repositories Dr. Phillip.

Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Fuel Cycles and Repositories Dr. Phillip.
Optimisation of New Build Spent Fuel Management and Disposal Peter Haslam Public Policy Advisor Nuclear Industry Association 25 January 2011.

Optimisation of New Build Spent Fuel Management and Disposal Peter Haslam Public Policy Advisor Nuclear Industry Association 25 January 2011.
Yucca Mountain Yucca mountain was a proposed site for the disposal of high level nuclear waste. It is in South Nevada, adjacent to the Nevada Test Site.

Yucca Mountain Yucca mountain was a proposed site for the disposal of high level nuclear waste. It is in South Nevada, adjacent to the Nevada Test Site.
CONSOLIDATED FUEL TREATMENT CENTER AND ADVANCED BURNER REACTOR Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Initiatives OCTAVIA BIRIS, KYLE GRACEY, KATY HUFF, WAI KEONG.

CONSOLIDATED FUEL TREATMENT CENTER AND ADVANCED BURNER REACTOR Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Initiatives OCTAVIA BIRIS, KYLE GRACEY, KATY HUFF, WAI KEONG.
Fuel Cycle Subcommittee: Overview and Status Fusion-Fission Hybrid Workshop Gaithersburg, MD September 30, 2009 Robert N. Hill Department Head – Nuclear.

Fuel Cycle Subcommittee: Overview and Status Fusion-Fission Hybrid Workshop Gaithersburg, MD September 30, 2009 Robert N. Hill Department Head – Nuclear.
Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel February 2008.

Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel February 2008.
High Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Yucca Mountain, USA.

High Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Yucca Mountain, USA.
Nuclear Fuels Storage & Transportation Planning Project Office of Fuel Cycle Technologies Nuclear Energy A History of Standardized, Multipurpose Canister.

Nuclear Fuels Storage & Transportation Planning Project Office of Fuel Cycle Technologies Nuclear Energy A History of Standardized, Multipurpose Canister.
Long Term Storage, The Failure of the Federal Government, and NIMBY.

Long Term Storage, The Failure of the Federal Government, and NIMBY.
1 GAO Study on Radioactive Waste Management Scenarios Ric Cheston US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

1 GAO Study on Radioactive Waste Management Scenarios Ric Cheston US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Safety  performance  cleanup  closure M E Environmental Management National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program Role in DOE’s Transformation Barb Beller, Project.

Safety  performance  cleanup  closure M E Environmental Management National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program Role in DOE’s Transformation Barb Beller, Project.
IPCC Synthesis Report Part IV Costs of mitigation measures Jayant Sathaye.

IPCC Synthesis Report Part IV Costs of mitigation measures Jayant Sathaye.
1 Current and GNEP Perspectives: Issues of High-Level Nuclear Waste Management T. Ahn, S. Whaley and A. Murray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,

1 Current and GNEP Perspectives: Issues of High-Level Nuclear Waste Management T. Ahn, S. Whaley and A. Murray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,
Nucular Waste A Technical Analysis Ian Baird 5/12/08.

Nucular Waste A Technical Analysis Ian Baird 5/12/08.
The Future of Nuclear Waste Management, Storage, and Disposal Thanassi Lefas 26 November 2008 ChE 359 Energy Technology and Policy.

The Future of Nuclear Waste Management, Storage, and Disposal Thanassi Lefas 26 November 2008 ChE 359 Energy Technology and Policy.
POWER PLANT.

POWER PLANT.
Near Term Planning for Storage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel Jeff Williams Project Director Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning.

Near Term Planning for Storage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel Jeff Williams Project Director Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning.
Setting the Stage: Review of 2013 IEPR Nuclear Recommendations Danielle Osborn Mills Former Senior Nuclear Policy Advisor to the California Energy Commission.

Setting the Stage: Review of 2013 IEPR Nuclear Recommendations Danielle Osborn Mills Former Senior Nuclear Policy Advisor to the California Energy Commission.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google