Economic Analysis of Alternative Transition - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Economic Analysis of Alternative Transition Pathways to Improve Economic Considerations in Fuel Cycle Transition

Brent Dixon

Deputy National Technical Director

Systems Analysis & Integration

Idaho National

Laboratory

Co-authors: Jason Hansen, Ross Hayes,

Piyush

Sabharwall

3

rd

Technical Workshop on Fuel Cycle Simulation

FIAP Jean Monnet

Paris, France

Slide2

Introduction

Slide3

Problem Statement

Low

capacity factors imply higher unit costs, less efficient systems

Physics analysis shows that de-coupling is possible if SFRs started on

LEU with enrichment up to 19.75% (Hoffman et al. 2015; Dixon et al. 2016)

Transition analysis reveals weakness in promising fuel cycle transition alternatives (Hoffman et al. 2015)

Low capacity factors arise from facilities built at first demand but under utilized

Slide4

Strategic buildout improves economics

Delaying the time when separations facilities brought online reduces life cycle costs while improving capacity utilization (Dixon et al. 2016

)

Delay requires more fissile material in

system, as some sits longer in storageTradeoff in increased

fuel storage costs versus reduced separations facility

unit costs

Slide5

Study Goals and Objectives

Research Question

:

Can

the economics of transition pathways be improved by leveraging LEU to start up fast reactors?Goal:

Using alternative sources of fissile material, identify lower cost transition pathways for U/Pu single tier fuel cycle (EG23*) and U/TRU two tier fuel cycle (EG30*)

EG23 and EG30 bracket the range of possibilities

Objective

: maximize cost differential between base cases and alternative transition pathways

Control variable

: build profile for separations facilities and for fuel fabrication facilities

Adjusting the build profile for fuel fab and separations implicitly adjusts the amount of material in storage.

The tradeoff in storage cost and savings from adjusted build profiles will be discussed with results.

*Nomenclature described

on next two slides.

Slide6

Description of EG23

Continuous recycle of U/Pu with new natural U fuel in fast critical

reactors

(

Wigeland

et al. 2014; Hoffman et al. 2017)

Slide7

Description of EG30

Continuous recycle of U/TRU with new natural U fuel in both fast and thermal critical reactors

(

Wigeland

et al. 2014; Hoffman et al. 2017)

Slide8

Methodology

Slide9

Modeling ApproachScenarios are

transition from open fuel cycle to EG23

and EG30

Cases

are Base and Optimized for each scenarioBase case follows analysis for each scenario as outlined in the Evaluation and Screening Report (Wigeland et al. 2014)

Optimized case brings separation and remote fuel fabrication facilities online when throughput supports full capacity utilization

Identify the core transition time between phases

Find

the present value of costs for each scenario and case, then compute the difference over cases

Cost model follows approach applied in (Dixon et al. 2016)

Compute the fleet capacity factors for separations and remote fuel facilities by scenario and case

Slide10

System Description

EG-23

EG-30

LWR

Power [

GWe

] (System / each)

-

44 / 1.0

SFR Power

[

GWe

] (System / each)

100 / 0.4

56 / 0.4

LWR MOX Burnup [GWD/MTiHM]

-

50

SFR Burnup [GWD/MTiHM]

46.1

21.4

SFR Driver Burnup [GWD/MTiHM]

84.2

117.4

Fuel Cooling Time [yr]55Reprocessing Facility Size [MT/yr]10001000

Recipes are fixed throughout the simulation

Metallic

fuel

Reactor build profile held constant, only thing that changes across cases/scenarios is build profile of separations/remote fuel fab facilities

Slide11

Three Phases of Fuel Utilization

Initial Core

and first reloads

LEU

only (up to 19.75% enrichment)Core Transition Transition occurs over ~3 recycles

Pu increases and residual 235U decreases each recycle

Core evolution by scenario:

EG23: LEU to U/Pu

EG30: LEU to

U/TRU

Equilibrium

EG23:

Breakeven SFRs with U/Pu fuel, DU makeupEG30: U/TRU Breeder SFRs, U/Pu MOX LWRs, DU makeup

Slide12

Cold Fabrication (LEU)

Sodium Fast Reactor

Storage

Mining

Enrichment

LEU Storage

DU Storage

Conversion

DU

Fresh Cold Fuel Storage

EG23 Initial Core

Slide13

Driver Hot

Glovebox

Fabrication (Recovered LEU and Pu)

Blanket Cold Fabrication (RU/DU)

Sodium Fast Reactor

Storage

Separations

(Driver and Blanket)

Waste (MA, FP)

Mining

Enrichment

LEU Storage

DU Storage

Conversion

DU

Fresh Cold Fuel Storage

EG23 Core Transition

(LEU to U/Pu)

RU going

to blankets

RU/Pu going

to driver

makeup

for

loss to waste

Storage

(

RU)

Slide14

Driver Hot

Glovebox

Fabrication (Recovered RU and Pu)

Blanket Cold Fabrication (RU/DU)

Sodium Fast Reactor

Storage

Separations

(Driver and Blanket)

Waste (MA, FP)

Mining

Enrichment

LEU Storage

DU Storage

Conversion

DU

Fresh Cold Fuel Storage

EG23 Equilibrium

(Breakeven Core)

makeup

for

loss to waste

RU/Pu going

to driver

RU going

to blankets

Storage

(RU)

Slide15

Cold Metal Fabrication (Low Enriched Uranium: start-up driver + all blankets)

Sodium Fast Reactor

Storage

EG30 Initial Core

Mining

Enrichment

LEU Storage

DU Storage

Conversion

DU

Cold Fab Oxide

LWR

Storage

Disposal

Slide16

Hot Fabrication (U/TRU, U/Pu)

Cold Fabrication (all blankets)

SFR

Store

Seps

Storage (RU)

Waste

EG30 Core Transition

(LEU to U/TRU)

Mining

Enrichment

DU Storage

Conversion

DU

Cold Fab Oxide

LWR

Storage

Disposal

RU/TRU

Slide17

Remote Hot Fabrication (Recovered Uranium and Plutonium) (driver)

SFR

Store

Separations

Waste

LWR MOX

Glovebox Hot Fabrication (Recovered Uranium and Plutonium)

Store

Separations

Storage (RU)

Waste

EG30

Equilibrium (Breeder

)

DU Storage

RU/TRU

Cold Fabrication (blankets)

U/Pu

Store

Separations

Waste

MA

Driver Loop

Blanket Loop

LWR Loop

RU

RU/Pu

Slide18

Modeling Assumptions No demand growth over simulation time horizon

Simulation runs 2015 through 2200

Base results computed with zero discounting, alternative discount rates evaluated in sensitivity analysis

Pyroprocessing

, electrochemical separations Remote fuel fabrication facilities collocated with separations, follow same assumptions of construction time and operating lifetime Contact handled fuel fabrication modeled as glovebox technology

Slide19

Cost ModelModeled fuel cycle system components, : uranium price, conversion, enrichment, DU storage, RU storage, contact-handled fuel fabrication, dry storage, separations with remote fuel fabrication, disposal

By the

j

th

scenario (EG23/EG30), and by the k

th

case (base or optimized), sum over the

i

th

cost component such that the total measured cost becomes: The cost delta thus becomes:

Slide20

Parameters in Cost Analysis

Slide21

Results and Discussion

Slide22

Simulated Fuel Cycle Transition Date

Core

Status

EG23

Base

EG23

Optimized

EG30

Base

EG30 Optimized

Initial

2015

2015

2015

2015

Transition

2037

2044

2037

2039

Equilibrium

2091

2077

2082

2083For all scenarios, initial cores are loaded at the beginning of the simulation with LEUIn the base case, each scenario begins core transition in 2037, but EG30 transitions sooner in the Optimized caseEG30 base reaches equilibrium the soonest, but EG30 optimized delays the longest

Slide23

Build Profiles

The base case for each scenario brings full facilities online at first demand, and maintains capacity over simulation

Optimized case adjusts capacity in response to utilization target

Slide24

Separations Capacity, Demand, Unit Cost (1)

For both scenarios, the optimized case reaches full utilization sooner

EG30 base case does not reach full utilization

“Dips” in optimized case reflect adjustments as number of facilities changes

Slide25

Separations Capacity, Demand, Unit Cost (2)

Capacity utilization bears on unit cost – base case has much steeper unit cost at first utilization

Optimized case builds capacity congruent with demand, more stable unit cost

Slide26

Separations Capacity, Demand, Unit Cost (3)

Similar to EG23, EG30 base case has steep unit cost at first utilization while optimized case is much less

Reduced “white space” between capacity and demand in optimized case, remaining is due to separations for LWR loop

Slide27

Summary Cost Metrics (1)

Optimized case in each scenario generates life cycle cost savings: roughly 4% for EG23 and 10% for EG30

Levelized cost decreases, too, but more for EG30: 8% vs 3% for EG23

.

Slide28

Summary Cost Metrics (2)Each scenario generates cost savings in excess of what the optimized case costs, but savings are larger in EG30

Optimizing each scenario increases enrichment requirements, so more cost for SWUs

Largest savings realized in separations facilities

Slide29

Investigating the Cost Delta (1)

Note that figures

do not

have the same y-axis, left figure zoomed in to show small changes

No change in dry storage or disposal

Slide30

Investigating the Cost Delta (2)

Note that figures

do not

have the same y-axis, left figure zoomed in to show small changes

No change in dry storage or disposal, disposal not required per EG30 assumptions

Slide31

Summary, Conclusions and Extensions

Slide32

In Summary . . .Scenarios driven by fissile material availability may underutilize fuel cycle facilities

Underutilization increases unit costs

Full utilization achieved by storage of feed material and delayed construction

Facility optimization may require additional fissile material

High assay LEU is an alternative to PuThe LEU supply chain is less fragile than for Pu

Can be enriched or enriched and fabricated in advanceFissile value does not degrade with storage

Additional scenario studies are needed, considering more optimization parameters

32

Slide33

References

Dixon, B., J. Hansen, R. Hays, and H. Hiruta. 2016.

Transition Economics Assessment -- FY2016 Update

,

Fuel Cycle Research & Development. Idaho National Laboratory: U.S. Department of Energy.Dixon, BW, F Ganda, KA Williams, E Hoffman, and JK Hansen. 2017. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis–2017 Edition. Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States).Hoffman, E., B. Carlsen, B. Feng, A. Worrall, B. Dixon, R. Hays, N.

Stauff, and E. Sunny. 2015. Report on Analysis of Transition to Fast Reactor U/Pu Continuous Recycle

,

Fuel Cycle Research & Development

. Argonne National Laboratory: U.S. Department of Energy.

Hoffman, E., B. Feng, B. Dixon, T.

Fei

, R. Hays, J. Peterson-

Droogh, A. Worrall, E. Davidson, W. Halsey, H. Hiruta, and A. Gascon. 2017. Updated Analysis Results for the Most Promising Fuel Cycle Options (Evaluation Groups 23, 24, 29, and 30): Argone National Laboratory.Wigeland, R., Taiwo, T., H.

Ludewig

, M.

Todoso

, W. Halsey, J.

Gehin

, R. Jubin, J.

Buelt

, S.

Stockinger

, K. Jenni, and B. Oakley. 2014.

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening -- Final Report

. Edited by Fuel Cycle Research & Development. Idaho National Laboratory: U.S. Department of Energy.