Spent Fuel Reprocessing Optimisation rev3x - Foro … · Spent Fuel Reprocessing Optimisation...

Spent Fuel Reprocessing Optimisation

CHOOSE EXPERTS, FIND PARTNERSCHOOSE EXPERTS, FIND PARTNERSCHOOSE EXPERTS, FIND PARTNERSCHOOSE EXPERTS, FIND PARTNERS

OptimisationH. Druenne

[email protected]

Outline

•

12-13/07/10Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cursos de verano 2010 2

• Nuclear in Belgium : a long story

• Optimisation of the stored spent fuel for recycling

3

1880 1986

HISTORY OF THE GDF SUEZ GROUP1895 1946 2001 20081858 19971862

ELECTROBEL

12-13/07/10Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cursos de verano 2010

LYONNAISE DES EAUX ET DE L'ECLAIRAGE

TRACTIONEL

COMPAGNIEUNIVERSELLE DU CANAL MARITIME DE SUEZ

GDF SUEZ A world leader in the utilities sector

� providing electricity, gas, energy services and environmental services

- Turnover of €80 billion in 2009

- 200 000 employees


GDF SUEZ, A balanced electricity generation mix with nuclear

• 73 000 MW of installedgenerating capacities

• A competitive electricity

12-13/07/10 5

16%11%

1%1%

3%

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cursos de verano 2010

• A competitive electricitygeneration portfolio

• Flexible, efficient and low CO2 generation facilities

• Safe and reliable nuclearpower plants.

16%

52%

11%

Nuclear

Hydro

Natural Gas

Coal

Biomass and biogas

Wind

Other non renewables

12-13/07/10Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cursos de verano 2010 6

GDF SUEZ> A STREAMLINED ORGANISATION

7

KEY FIGURES 2009

Turnover of Tractebel Engineering : 460 M€

INDUSTRY 2% GDF SUEZ 47%


INFRASTRUCTURE 23%

POWER 42%

GAS 7%

INDUSTRY 2%

NUCLEAR 26%

GDF SUEZ 47%

THIRD PARTY 53%

Sector Client

8

STAFF

27%WOMEN

23%BRAZIL

7%INDIA-ASIA

71%71%71%71%71%ENGINEERS


Resources : 3.300 highly skilled people present in > 20 countries

73%MEN

MIDDLE EAST

2%13%REST OF EUROPE

55%

BELGIUM & FRANCE

29%29%29%OTHERS

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

A long story

12-13/07/10 9Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cursos de verano 2010

… but with many reversals

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1915 – 1960 : U mine of Shinkolobwe (in Belgian Congo)

- Union Minière du Haut Katanga : the richest mine in the world at that time

- First exploited for Radium (for therapeutical uses)


NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1915 – 1960 : U mine ok Shinkolobwe (in Belgian Congo)

- 1939 : African Metal

- 1942 : Manhattan project

- 1944 : tripartite agreement between GB – USA and Belgium to guarantee the


- 1944 : tripartite agreement between GB – USA and Belgium to guarantee the total U production to the US in return for the participation of Belgium in future civil nuclear development.

• But …

- Most of the Belgo-Congolese U was used for military objectives

- 1946 : decision of US senator Mc Mahon to forbid any exchange of the US civil nuclear technology

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

In the 50’ies, everything seems possible with nuclear

• 1952 : creation of SCK/CEN one of the most famous hot labsin the world


in the world = still active:manyinternational programs

AtomiumAtomium : Universal Exhibition : Universal Exhibition Brussels, 1958Brussels, 1958

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

1956 : BR-1 : after GB and France, Belgium (although small) is the 3rd country in Western Europe to get a core


Europe to get a core critical

- Graphite-gas cooled reactor with natural U

= still in operation (research and education)

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1961 : BR-2 : research reactor

= still operational (research on materials)


NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1962 : BR-3 : first PWR in Europe

now being dismantled = full size dismantling technique

development


development

Removal of the RPVCutting with plasma torch

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1971 : founding of IRE (Institute for Radioelements)

- Mission : to contribute to public health and environmental protection

• Production of radionuclides for nuclear medecine > Worldwide leaderMajor producer of I-131First producer of Mo-99 for Europe


�� 95% of exportation

• Management of radioactive waste

• Radiological monitoring of the environment (TRANSRAD)

• Consultancy projects

- 2010 : founding of IRE ELIT

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

Reprocessing and recycling are the reference policy

• 1957 : Belgonucléaire

- 1960 – 1970 : Development of the MIMAS (now applied in MELOX plant in F)

- 1963 : 12 MOX fuel rods in BR3 for electricity production: a world first


- 1963 : 12 MOX fuel rods in BR3 for electricity production: a world first

- 1986-2006 : 660 tHM = 40 ton Pu

But shut down in 2006

Year

France

Switzerland

Germany

Belgium

Japan

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1986

1997

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1962 : founding of FBFC

- 1962 : first PWR fuel assembly in Europe / first MOX assembly in the world

- 1972 : first BWR fuel assembly in Europe (RBU/AEG)

- 1986 : start up of Gad fuel fabrication


- 1986 : start up of Gad fuel fabrication

- 1987 / 1991 : first PWR MOX for France / Germany

- 1995 / 1998 : first BWR MOX for Germany / Japan

= still in operation

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1966 – 1974 : EUROCHEMIC

- pilot plant for reprocessing - built in MOL with contribution of 14 OECD countries- before industrial scale in France and GB


- before industrial scale in France and GB

… But extension abandoned and shutdown in 1974

> the large countries had theirown capacities and were no longer interested.

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1967 : CHOOZ A a French-Belgian project

largest PWR in the world at that time

Shutdown in 1991


• 1974 – 1975 : DOEL and TIHANGE

First power stations : reprocessing as design basis � small pools

� reprocessing contracts with La Hague

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 1974 : launch of a research program for underground repository � underground laboratory HADES

= still on going


NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

DOEL

MOL - DESSEL

2212-

13/07/10Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cursos de verano 2010

UNIT

Fis

sile

hei

ght

Thermal power Power uprate

programs

ICFM

LHGR

Co

re o

utl

et

tem

pe

ratu

res

Hot spot

In o

pe

rati

on

sin

ce

Nu

mb

er o

f ass

em

blie

s

Ass

em

bly

latt

ice

NS

SS

TIHANGE

[ft] [MW] [W/cm] [°C] FDH

Doel 1 1975 W 121 14*14 8 1192 -> 1311 (+10% ) PU+SGR in 2009 12 m 222 316.8 1.62Doel 2 1975 W 121 14*14 8 1192 -> 1311 (+10% ) PU+SGR in 2004 12 m 244 316.1 1.64Doel 3 1982 FRA 157 17*17 12 2775 -> 3054 (+10% ) PU+SGR in 1993 12 m (end of MOX) 196 324.7 1.62Doel 4 1985 W 157 17*17 14 2988 SGR in 1996 18 m 165 ² 327.3 1.62

Tihange 1 1975 FRA 157 15*15 12 2655 -> 2865 (+8% ) PU+SGR in 1995 18 m 238 322.2 1.64Tihange 2 1982 FRA 157 17*17 12 2775 -> 2895 (+4.3% ) PUCE in 1995

-> 3054 (+10% tot) PU+SGR in 2001 18 m 196 324.4 1.65

Tihange 3 1985 W 157 17*17 14 2988 SGR in 1998 18 m 165 ² 331.3 1.621 PU = power uprating SGR= steam generator replacement

PUCE = Power Uprate and Cycle Extension2 Typical value as for EPR

Nu

mb

er o

f ass

em

blie

s


NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

But …

• US decision to not reprocess

• TMI in 1976 + Tchernobyl in 1986


� Anti nuclear movement

>> Lack of information => wrong perception of the public :

- Nuclear waste

- Danger of incidents : small probability but unmanageable in densely populated Belgium

- Risk of proliferation (dirty bomb)

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• Pu is demonized !


BNS Conference - 26 March 2009 25

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

But …

• Strong reduction of U price => economic profit questionable


NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

But …

� 1993 : Parliament decision to suspend reprocessing1998 : Government decision to cancel reprocessing contract concluded


1998 : Government decision to cancel reprocessing contract concluded in 1991, but authorized 66 ton HM coming from former reprocessing to be recycled as MOX in 2 units (Tihange 2 and Doel 3) and ERU in Doel 1

Since then :

- no more reprocessing and fuel stored in interim storage on site

- reprocessing and direct disposal of spent fuel are put on equal footing

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• Things are changing…


NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

• 2010 : MYRRHA = go !

- A flexible fast spectrum research reactor, is conceived as an accelerator driven system (ADS), able to operate in sub-critical and critical modes. It contains a proton accelerator, a spallation target and a multiplying medium with MOX fuel, cooled by liquid lead-bismuth (Pb-Bi).


cooled by liquid lead-bismuth (Pb-Bi).

- Funds voted in march 2010

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM

In most countries, the final back end solution

is not defined nor decided yet

� saturation of the storage capacities


To face the storage capacities saturation, and according to the Government resolution, 2 solutions are studied in parallel :

build new capacities

and

reprocess the spent fuel

NUCLEAR IN BELGIUM• Situation on 1.1.2009


(1) definitively unloaded since 1976(1) definitively unloaded since 1976

(2) reprocessed in UP2 plant(2) reprocessed in UP2 plant

QUANTITY OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL QUANTITY OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL ton HMton HM

3.2293.229

140140(2) reprocessed in UP2 plant(2) reprocessed in UP2 plant

(3) reprocessed in UP3 plant(3) reprocessed in UP3 plant

(4) currently stored at NPPs = (1) (4) currently stored at NPPs = (1) -- (2) (2) -- (3)(3)

(5) to be unloaded up to the end of the 40 years(5) to be unloaded up to the end of the 40 years

(6) to be disposed if no reprocessing = (4) + (5)(6) to be disposed if no reprocessing = (4) + (5)

recyclable plutonium in (6) with 55% fissile recyclable plutonium in (6) with 55% fissile

recyclable uranium in (6) with 1% U235recyclable uranium in (6) with 1% U235

532532

2.5572.557

4949

4.7004.700

2.1432.143

4.5004.500

140140

55000

Av

era

ge

dis

cha

rge

bu

rnu

p [

MW

d/t

]

55000

Av

era

ge

dis

cha

rge

bu

rnu

p [

MW

d/t

]

REPROCESS THE SPENT FUEL

• The storage capacities contain

large ranges of burnupenrichment

cooling time


30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Av

era

ge

dis

cha

rge

bu

rnu

p [

MW

d/t

]

Feed enrichment [%]

Ideal enrichment - average discharge

burnup dependance in annual cycle

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Av

era

ge

dis

cha

rge

bu

rnu

p [

MW

d/t

]

Feed enrichment [%]

Ideal enrichment - average discharge

burnup dependance in annual cycle

cooling time

Should the reprocessing be chosen as back end solution, then how to define the best strategy ?

REPROCESS THE SPENT FUEL

• Physics : evolution of MOX and ERU characteristics

versus burnupenrichment

cooling time


cooling time

Do they meet the technical constraints ?

• Illustrative application : comparison of 2 strategies on a specific spent fuel inventory

• Conclusion

34

Cursos de

verano

201012-13/07/10

• Yield of U-232, U-234 and U-236 during irradiation

MANY TRANSMUTATIONS

U232 decay after reprocessing

U-234 and U-236 stable (half-life resp. 2.4 E+05 and 2.3 E+07 years)

MANY TRANSMUTATIONS

12-13/07/10 35

Cursos de

verano

2010

Main source of various Pu isotopes

Pu 239

Pu 238

Pu 240

Pu 241

DRH1

Slide 35

DRH1 Voir les sections 4 slides plus loin : fissions / capture = un peu moins de 2 tant pour U5 que pour Pu9

U-235 : Sur 6 neutrons absorbés, 5 fissions et 1 capture

Pu-239 : sur 4 neutrons absorbés, 3 fisisons + 1 capture

Allure des courbes d'évolution (au moins en début d'irradiation (hors disparition par fission)

Pu 239 : Evolution linéaire car production continue par absorption dans U8

Pu240 : intégrale de l'évolution du Pu239 => fonction du second degré

Pu241 : intégrale de l'évlution du Pu240 => 1 degré en plus de la précédentedruenne; 09/02/2010


IMPACT OF BU ON PU AND REPU QUALITY

• Higher burnups => lower Pu and U quality

Residual Pu versus U depletion before reprocessing

0.7 96

U23

8 co

nten

t [%

]

3.8Initial ENU enrichment :Residual enrichment depending on depletion

4.5

52.9

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000Burnup UO2 [MWd/t]

Pu

cont

ent [

%] -

Am

241

[0 / 0

0]

91

92

93

94

95

U23

8 co

nten

t [%

]

PU 238PU 239PU 240PU 241PU 242Am 241U238

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000Assembly burnup [MWd/t]

U23

5 an

d U

236

in [%

]

0.1

0.5

0.9

1.3

1.7

2.1

2.5

Pu2

36 a

nd U

232

in [p

pb]

or U

234

in [°

/00

]

U235

U236U234

U232

Pu236


EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE

• No change in cycle energy when some ENU replaced by MOX and/or ERU

• If same kinf at EOC core average burnup• If same kinf at EOC core average burnup

• Simple approach and very good approximation(based on full core calculations)

CONSTRAINTS

• Neutronics : MOX fraction is chosen accordingly

• Storage capacities => minimum reprocessing rate


• Pu max content in MOX � MOX equivalence

• MOX fabrication & transport � MOX assembly decay heat

• ERU maximum enrichment � ERU equivalence

• ERU fabrication � U-232 limit in ERU

MOX CHARACTERISTICS

• During source ENU cooling time:

Pu-241 decay

⇒ Pu quality loss


9.5

10

Ave

rag

e P

u c

on

ten

t [%

]

Total Pu average content in MOX equivalent to 4.3% UOX

4.5% => 51 GWd/t

⇒ Pu quality loss

⇒ higher [Pu] in MOX

� The shorter the source ENU cooling time: the better the Pu quality => [Pu]

�� For long storage times : stabilisationEquivalence limit due to [Pu] limit

8

8.5

9

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ave

rag

e P

u c

on

ten

t [%

]

Storage duration before reprocessing (years)

3.8% => 41 GWd/t

Feed enrichment - discharge burnup

dependance for annual cycle

10

11

Nu

mb

er o

f ass

em

blie

s

Number of ENU assemblies to be reprocessed to get 1 MOX (equivalent to 4.3 UOX)

MOX CHARACTERISTICS


Pu-241 decay

⇒ Pu quantity losses


10

11

Num

be

r of a

sse

mbl

ies

Number of ENU assemblies to be reprocessed to get 1 MOX (equivalent to 4.3 UOX)

8

9

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Nu

mb

er o

f ass

em

blie

s




⇒ Pu quantity losses

⇒ more ENU to be reprocessedfor 1 MOX

� The shorter the source ENU cooling time:

the lesser ENU to be reprocessed

8

9

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Num

be

r of a

sse

mbl

ies




MOX CHARACTERISTICS


Pu-238 decay

⇒ Lower PuO2 powder


1000

1200

1400

De

cay

he

at [

W/a

sse

mbl

y]

Fresh MOX decay heat of 1 MOX ass. equivalent to 4.3% UOX

⇒ Lower PuO2 powder residual heat

⇒ But MOX residual heat depends also on [Pu]

�Maximum decay heat at 15 y source ENU cooling timeSmall variation but :

best as short as possibleor wait as long as necessary

400

600

800

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

De

cay

he

at [

W/a

sse

mbl

y]




4.4

4.5

2

Ach

iev

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce w

ith

5%

ER

U

23

6

URT quality and ERU (@ 5%) equivalence

ERU CHARACTERISTICS

• Reprocessed U quality : U-235 (fissile) / U-236 (neutron absorber)


Impact of initial enrichmentand burnup 4.4

4.5

2

Ach

iev

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce w

ith

5%

ER

U

23

6

URT quality and ERU (@ 5%) equivalence

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

1

1.5

2

35000 40000 45000 50000 55000

Ach

iev

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce w

ith

5%

ER

U

U-2

35

/ U

-23

6

Source assembly burnup [MWd/t]

Feed enrichment - discharge

burnup dependance for annual cycle

But rather stable isotopes => not impacted by cooling time

� ERU enrichment limit :limited available equivalence : 4.4 to 4.25%impact on ICFM

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

1

1.5

2

35000 40000 45000 50000 55000

Ach

iev

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce w

ith

5%

ER

U

U-2

35

/ U

-23

6

Source assembly burnup [MWd/t]

Feed enrichment - discharge

burnup dependance for annual cycle

30%

35%

35

40

45

23

6 c

on

ten

t

U-232 content in ERU

30%

35%

35

40

45

23

6 c

on

ten

t


30%

35%

35

40

45

23

6 c

on

ten

t


U-232 decay

ERU CHARACTERISTICS

• During source ENU storage time


U-232 = parent product of Tl-208 = strong gamma emitter

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Re

lati

ve

Pu

-23

6 c

on

ten

t

U-2

32

[p

pb

]

Delay before reprocessing [years]

55 000 MWd/t

48 000 MWd/t

38 000 MWd/t

ERU enrichment : 5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Re

lati

ve

Pu

-23

6 c

on

ten

t

U-2

32

[p

pb

]


55 000 MWd/t

48 000 MWd/t

38 000 MWd/t

ERU enrichment : 5%

Accumulation

from Pu_236

decay

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Re

lati

ve

Pu

-23

6 c

on

ten

t

U-2

32

[p

pb

]


55 000 MWd/t

48 000 MWd/t

38 000 MWd/t

ERU enrichment : 5%

Accumulation

from Pu_236

decay

emitter

Pu-236 decay before separation

U-232 decay after separation

� ERU U-232 best for short storage times or much longer

But margins versus future limit 37 ppb

ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATION

• Typical spent fuel stock

- Belgian stock taken as an example

• Note that reprocessing in Belgium is currently not possible without formal Government authorization

• => explorative analysis


• => explorative analysis

- Huge dispersion in burnups, enrichments and cooling times

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50

Bur

nup

[MW

d/t]

Feed initial enrichment [%]

ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATION

• Comparison of 2 scenarios :

- “Hot first” : the assemblies are sent to reprocessing as soon as they have cooled enough (the older ones remains in the storage)


30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50

Bur

nup

[MW

d/t]

Feed initial enrichment [%]

- “Cold first” : the oldest assemblies are first reprocessed

Same equivalence objective and same MOX fraction

SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT

• For older assemblies more ENU to get 1 MOX

- “Cold first” scenario leads to a faster reduction of the storage inventory

- “Hot first” scenario strong reduction of reprocessing needs


15500

7500

8500

9500

10500

11500

12500

13500

14500

15500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nu

mb

er

of

ass

em

bli

es

to b

e s

tore

d

Reprocessing year from T0

Storage management

"Hot first" scenario

"Cold first" scenario

4.84.8

MOX EQUIVALENCE

• The shorter the source ENU cooling time the better the Puquality

- Hot first scenario gives better Pu => better equivalence


9.6

9.8

10

10.2

10.4

10.6

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

0 5 10 15 20

MO

X a

ve

rag

e P

u c

on

ten

t [%

]

Av

ail

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce [

UO

X %

]


MOX equivalence

9.6

9.8

10

10.2

10.4

10.6

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

0 5 10 15 20

MO

X a

ve

rag

e P

u c

on

ten

t [%

]

Av

ail

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce [

UO

X %

]


MOX equivalence

MOX DECAY HEAT

• Maximum decay heat at 15 y cooling time:best as short as possible or wait as long as necessary

- Hot first �� hotter MOX assemblies

still compatible


MOX decay heatstill compatiblewith transportcapacities(1100 W/ass)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

0 5 10 15 20

MO

X a

sse

mb

ly h

ea

t (W

)/a

ss)


MOX decay heat

ERU EQUIVALENCE

• Limited available equivalence : 4.4 to 4.25%

Not dependant on source ENU cooling time

But source ENU enrich & BU => more residual U-235 for more recent ENU


54.3

Hot first

�� more ERU assemblies

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

0 5 10 15 20

ER

U e

nri

chm

en

t [%

]

Av

ail

ab

le e

qu

iva

len

ce [

UO

X %

]


ERU equivalence

ERU - RADIOPROTECTION

• Best for short storage times or much longer

- The scenarios are before or after the U-232 peak => limited impact


35

ERU U-232 content

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20

U-2

32

[p

pb

]


ERU U-232 content

CONCLUSION

• For this specific case, the best choice is the “hot first scenario”

- The amount of ENU to reprocess � hot first = - 18% !

- The gains on Natural U : hot first + 3% and SWU : hot first +20%


- The gains on Natural U : hot first + 3% and SWU : hot first +20% (resulting from ENU assemblies replacement by ERU and MOX)

Very attractive to think about and optimize it !

To be done for each specific case as results depend on:storage constraintsICFMequivalence objectivesacceptable MOX fraction …

Date post:	19-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongliem
View:	224 times
Download:	2 times

Spent Fuel Reprocessing Optimisation rev3x - Foro … · Spent Fuel Reprocessing Optimisation...

Documents