of 15 /15
JAEA latest reactor design (GTHTR300) and its economic analysis Aug. 25-28, 2015 Shoji TAKADA Department of HTTR, JAEA

JAEA latest reactor design (GTHTR300) and its economic ... · JAEA latest reactor design (GTHTR300) and its economic analysis ... line production and standardization of component

  • Author
    buingoc

  • View
    216

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Text of JAEA latest reactor design (GTHTR300) and its economic ... · JAEA latest reactor design (GTHTR300)...

  • JAEA latest reactor design (GTHTR300) and its economic analysis

    Aug. 25-28, 2015

    Shoji TAKADADepartment of HTTR, JAEA

  • Economy of GTHTR300

    Economic competitiveness

    High temperature, High efficiency

    Simplification (based on the safety feature)

    Direct cycle gas turbine

    Safety Severe accident free

    (Double confinement

    Power conversion Horizontal

    No inter-cooling

    Adoption of existing technology

    Enhancement of reliability

    Layout Separation of power

    conversion vessel and

    heat exchanger vessel

    Enhancement of

    maintainability

    GTHTR300Electricity; 275MW (46%)

    Outlet temperature; 850C

    Core DesignNew refueling method

    (Sandwich shuffling)

    High burn-up

    120GWd/t)

    Refueling Interval of 2 years

    Periodic inspection interval of 2 years)

    Coolant flow path Cooling the reactor vessel using outlet

    coolant of the compressor

    Available to use low-alloy for LWR

    reactor vessel

    Turbine Generator

    Core

    Recuperator

    Precooler

    Reactor

    Heat Exchanger

    vessel Power conversion vesselControl valves

    CompressorTurbine Generator

    Core

    Recuperator

    Precooler

    Reactor

    Heat Exchanger

    vessel Power conversion vesselControl valves

    Compressor

    2K. Kunitomi, et al., Design study on Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GTHTR300), Trans. Japan Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 352-360 (2002)

  • ReactorRecuperator

    Precooler321MW

    Turbine Compressor Generator

    Efficiency 46%

    RPV material is low cost alloy commonly used in LWR

    Recuperator is compact heat exchanger with temperature efficiency 90 % jointly developed with MHI

    Efficiencies of helium gas compressor over 90 % jointly developed with MHI

    Outline of GTHTR300

    X. Yan, et al., Cost and performance design approach for GTHTR300 power conversion system, Nucl. Eng. Des., 226, pp. 351-373 (2003)

  • Fluid Helium gas

    Pressure Max. 1.0MPa

    Temperature 30

    Test conditions

    1/3 scale model of helium gas compressor

    Magnetic bearing

    Magnetic bearing was developed, which supports

    turbo-machine rotor without lubricants

    Helium gas compressor with high efficiency

    over 90% was developed for gas-turbine

    Electro

    magnet

    Rotor blade

    Rotor

    Helium gas loop

    R&D of components

    X. Yan, et al., Aerodynamic Design, Model Test, and CFD analysisfor a Multistage Axial helium Compressor, ASME J. Turbomachinery, Vol. 130, (2008).

    X. Yan, et al., DESIGN STUDY OF AIR COOLED GTHTR300A FOR INLAND INSTALLATION, PBNC 2012, PBNC 2012-0049, (2012).

  • Heat utilization system

    Chemical reactors

    IHX

    Reactor

    Hot gas ductGas-turbine

    HTTR-GT/H2 test (Plan)

    H. Sato, et al., HTTR Demonstration Program for Nuclear Cogeneration of Hydrogen and Electricity, ICONE23-1459 (2015).

  • GTHTR300 (275MWe x 4) BWR-5 (1100MWe)

    Volume : 674,000 m3

    Reactor building :354,000 m3

    Turbine building 320,000 m3

    24 m

    47 m

    119 m

    11 m

    45 m

    68.5 m

    76 m

    A

    A

    Reactor building Turbine building

    A-A section

    22 m

    Ref) Figure is drawn from licensing document of Kashiwazaki-Kariya

    power plant (No.3 unit)

    93.7 m

    485,000 m3

    109.2 m

    84.0 m

    Volume533,000 m3

    Building volume is 79% of BWR-5

    Turbine building

    Smaller building volume

    Ref) X. Yan, et al., Nuclear Eng. Design., 226,

    p351-373 (2003)

    80 m

    53 m

  • 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

    LWR(PWR)

    GTHTR300

    Fuel cost (cents/kWh)

    U purchase, conversion

    enrichment

    fabrication

    storagereprocessing

    waste disposal

    MOX

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

    LWR(PWR)

    GTHTR300

    Fuel cost (cents/kWh)

    U purchase, conversion

    enrichment

    fabrication

    storagereprocessing

    waste disposal

    MOX

    Front-end process : U purchase, conversion/enrichment/fabrication

    Back-end process : storage/reprocessing/waste disposal

    Front-end process : Cost-up by high enrichment and coated fuel particle

    Bask-end process : Cost-down by less amount of generated waste because of higher burn-

    up and higher plant thermal efficiency

    Fuel cost is the same as LWR because of high burnup and high thermal

    efficiency despite that fabrication cost of coated fuel particles is higher.

    Ref) Takei, et al., Trans. At. Energy Soc. Japan, Vol.5, No.2 (2006)

    1.22 cents/kWh

    1.23 cents/kWh

    Competitive fuel cost

  • Development of high burn-up coated particle fuel in cooperation with NFIIrradiation test up to 100GWd/t ISTC Regular Project

    Fuel compacts for irradiation test

    Sandwich shuffling up to 120GWd/t

    Refueling method and High Burn-up fuel

    K. Kunitomi, et al., Design study on Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GTHTR300), Trans. Japan Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 352-360 (2002)

  • Suitable for Japanese fuel cycle policy

    Available for existing reprocessing plant

    Suitable for long-term temporary storage

    Reprocessing plant

    Power station

    (LWR)

    HTGR

    Fuel cycle

    Temporary storage

    Decay heat removal

    with natural

    circulation of air

    (without electricity)

    Preprocessing

    Ceramics fuel

    block with high

    corrosion resistance

    Temporary storage

    Reprocessing Spent fuel

    Rotation

    Extraction of

    fuel particle

    Fluidized

    incinerator

    Crushed fuel pin

    Fuel particle

    Fracture of

    coating layer

    Direct geological disposal *

    * Accessible to policy of direct geological disposal

    Reprocessing after temporary storage

    Direct geological

    disposal after

    temporary storage

  • Maintenance technology developed using HTTR

    Maintenance technology special to HTGRs Fuel handling technology ISI Helium purification, storage and supply system Reactivity control system Maintenance manual

    Maintenance technology for future HTGRs Overhaul inspection of primary system Helium leak detection technology

    Efficient maintenance works for general equipment Data base to establish condition based maintenance

    Periodic inspection interval is 2 years. During inspection period, decay heat removal by SCS, refueling and inspection of system and components are carried out. Main critical work is the inspection of primary cooling system such as removal and exchange of turbo-machinery from PCV.

    The critical path of maintenance is decay heat removal and inspection of primary cooling system. Maintenance works of systems for reactivity control, measuring and control, electric power, auxiliary system, ventilation and air conditioning are carried out using technologies developed for HTTR, which can be excluded from the critical paths.

    Y. Shimazaki, et al, Development of maintenance technologies for the future high-temperature gas cooled reactor(HTGR) using operating experieces acquired in high-temperature engineering test reactor(HTTR) , J. Nuclear Sci., Technol., Vol. 51, Nos. 11-12, (2014)

  • HTGR can be constructed near consuming region due to higher safety features.

    LWR can be constructed on the coast and

    generated power is transmitted to the

    consuming region.

    Transmission distance 10 km

    Construction cost of

    transmission system* 1.9M$

    Transmission distance 1,000 km

    Construction cost of

    transmission system* 193M$

    * Source) Anpara Power Transmission System Project in India (Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Ex-post Evaluation Report on ODA Loan Projects 2006)

    Total cost is 290M$. Total transmission distance is 1,508km. Estimated construction cost 0.19M$/km. Transmission line of 800kV is 409km. Transmission line of 400kV

    is 1,099km, 550MW of power can be transmitted by 400kV line. Five transformer substations of 315MVA (400kV) are constructed and three substations are extended.

    Low power transmission cost

    A few percentage of reactor

    construction cost of HTGR Almost same as reactor construction cost of LWR

  • By fully utilizing characteristics of HTGR; high heat efficiency, high performance to contain fission products and excellent inherent safety,

    Costs of management for accident risks and additional safety measures are eliminated.Capital, operating and maintenance costs are reduced.

    Unit/kWh

    2.5 3.1 1.4 1.1

    0.2 0.5

    2.0 1.9 1.4 1.1

    LWR*1

    HTGR*2

    Total: Over 8.9/kWh

    Total: 6.4/kWh-2.4*1 Material 2 in website of Cabinet Secretariat: http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy09/archive02_hokoku.html

    *2 JAEA estimation

    Operating and maintenance costs (1.2/kWh)

    Owing to fewer number of facilities in whole plant and less exposure to plant operators and workers as a result of retention of fission products inside fourfold coated fuel particles.

    Compensation for damage, decommissioning of accident reactor, decontamination, etc.

    Cost of management for accident risks (0.5/kWh)

    Expenses related to policy measuresLocation, disaster prevention, public relations, development of human resources, assessment and investigation, development of current/future technology for power generation, etc.

    Cost of Additional safety measures (0.2/kWh)Emergency safety measures, emergency power generation facilities, reliability assurance of external power supply, measures for severe accidents, etc.

    Fuel cycle cost

    Capital cost (0.5/kWh)

    Owing to few number of water and steam system facilities, fewer number of facilities in whole plant and high heat efficiency of plant.

    Comparison of cost with LWR

  • Operation and maintenance costs 1.1Estimated by JAEA

    1.5

    1.1

    1.6

    Fuel cycle costs1.5Estimated by JAEA in cooperation with NFI

    Capital costs1.6 Estimated by JAEA in cooperation with nuclear industry

    U purchaseconversion0.14, enrichment0.29, fabrication0.43*

    reprocessing0.40, Intermediate storage0.02, waste disposal0.18

    Repair cost0.41, expendable cost0.45, Labor cost0.19,

    Business tax0.05, business sharing expenses0.01

    Depreciable cost1.02, Interest cost0.24, Property

    tax0.11, Decommissioning cost0.21

    4.2Items CostBillion

    Reactor system[RPV, Reactor internal structure, reactivity control

    system, fuel handling and storage system, VCS, etc.]

    Power conversion system (Primary cooling system)

    [Turbine, compressor, generator, PCV, HXV,

    Heat exchanger, Hot duct, etc.]

    Auxiliary system

    [Systems of He purification, He storage & supply, cooling

    water, ventilating and air conditioning and radiation control,

    et al.

    Electric systemControl & measuring system

    Building and structure [R/B, HX/B for sharing]

    17

    14

    7

    6

    11

    55

    *1Takei, et al., Economical Evaluation on Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor 300 (GTHTR300), Trans. Japan Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Vol. 5, No. 2, p.109-117, 2006.

    Construction cost of GTHTR300

    Based on the paper published in 2006*1, construction cost for 1

    plant of GTHTR300 is accounted by amount of components as 55B.

    Power generation cost of HTGRevaluated in 2006 Estimate condition

    GTHTR3004plants/Unit600MWt/plant275MWe/plant1100MWe/Unit

    Average burn-up120 GWd/t, Plant life40 years, availability: 80%, Discounting rate3% Effects of learning, line production and standardization of component and construction (Nth Plant), Modular concept

    Construction cost includes those for design and fabrication of facility, plant construction and commissioningCosts of R&D, licensing, land, site preparation, fuel and spares are excluded

    It should be noted that further R&D is necessary until actual power generation is achieved.

    Power generation Cost

    13

    Availability80%

    Note; Construction cost of the 1st plant cost 30% more. Further more, that of 1plant in 1 unit costs 10% more.

    unit/kWh

    *fabrication cost by facility satisfying safety requirements in 2006

    HTGR

  • By fully utilizing characteristics of HTGR; high heat efficiency, high performance to contain fission products and excellent inherent safety, cost reduction is possible.

    Power generation cost of HTGRrevised in 2011

    Cost of power generation

    *2Material 2 in website of Cabinet Secretariat: http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy09/archive02_hokoku.html

    Operation and maintenance costs1.91.6*

    1.1

    1.4

    1.91.6

    2.0

    1.7

    Expenses related to policy measures 1.1

    Fuel cycle costs 1.4

    Capital cost2.01.7*

    14

    *1Takei, et al., Economical Evaluation on Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor 300 (GTHTR300), Trans. Atom. Ener. Soc. of Japan, Vol. 5, No. 2, p.109-117, 2006.

    6.45.8*

    Due to no experience of construction of demonstration plant and reprocessing of spent fuel, the cost of power

    generation is estimated by JAEA, which was revised as that of 2011 under the postulated condition accounting for

    the rates of increase and declining as same as those of LWR based on 4.2/kWh in the report (*1).

    In the report (*2), costs of management for accident risks and additional safety measures are added to capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, fuel cycle costs and expenses related to policy measures. However, costs of management for accident risks and additional safety measures are eliminated owing to the inherent safety design for HTGRs. In case postulated as same as LWRs, they are set over 0.5/kWh and 0.2/kWh, respectively. Hence, this evaluation can not be compared with that of LWR unconditionally. It should be also noted that more R&D is necessary before actual power

    generation is realized.

    Due to lower power density, construction cost of reactor system is higher

    Construction cost except for reactor system is lower due to following reasons Significant fewer number of water and steam system facilities than LWR Fewer number of electric and measuring system and their capacity No reactor containing vessel, and the volume of reactor building is

    smaller than LWR

    Owing to high enriched coated particle fuel, costs for processes for enrichment, conversion and fabrication are high

    Owing to higher burn-up, amount of spent fuel is small. Owing to higher thermal efficiency, costs of reprocessing and waste disposal is low.

    Owing to fewer number of facilities and amount of components in whole plant, maintenance cost is lower

    Owing to higher thermal efficiency, the cost is totally lower

    Availability7080%

    unit/kWh

    Postulated same increase rate as that of LWR in report(*2)

    * Left value: availability 70% (As same as that of LWR in report(*2))

    Right value: availability 80%as same as that of 2006 version

    **Discounting rate3%

    Postulated as same as that of LWR in report(*2)No change in cost for Siting, Disaster prevention, public relations, development of human resources, assessment and investigation, development of current/future technology for power generation, etc.

    HTGR

    Postulated same increase rate as that of LWR in report(*2)

    Postulated same declining rate as that of LWR in report(*2)

  • R&D Subjects

    (1) Design study

    (2) Safety demonstration

    test under sever

    conditions

    (3) Irradiation tests of fuel

    and graphite

    (4) Life-extension of

    graphite

    (5) Verification of codes

    (6) Next step of IS process

    for hydrogen production

    (7) Helium gas turbine

    (8) HTTR operation and

    maintenance

    R&D subjects

    15