Fuel Cycle of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors and the Cost Estimate of Their Electricity Production Innovative Nuclear Concepts, Liblice Workshop, April 10 – 13, 2012 Evžen Losa Department of Nuclear Reactors

Content Introduction Motivation Assumptions Recent HTGR concepts Input data Output data Conclusions Department of Nuclear Reactors

Introduction The idea came in 50’s of the last century Common features: Graphite moderator Disperse fuel Helium coolant High temperature of fuel failure Core with triangular lattice or stochastic formation Knowledge of operation gained The first operated – UHTREX 1959-71 Development was stopped in 90’s, new wave of interest 10 years later – Japan & SA Coated particles made of UO2 or UCO – coating PyC, SiC, PyC, preventing the gaseous FP release Department of Nuclear Reactors

Motivation One of the GEN IV reactor type representative with near term deployment Meets the GEN IV criteria set in 2002 Indefinite economic factors of operation published The cost of operation needs to be estimated for the feasibility study Department of Nuclear Reactors

Assumptions Costs of the front end of fuel cycle according the exchange spot prices (except fabrication) Costs of the back end of fuel cycle same as for the LWRs Investment and operation costs per MW output of the HTRs are the same as of the large LWRs (Yuliang S., HTR-PM Project Status and Test Program, IAEA TWG-GCR-22, 201) The capacity factor on the level of 80 % Department of Nuclear Reactors

Recent HTGR concepts GT-MHR PBMR HTR-PM Fuel enr. 15.5 %, burn-up 121 MWd/kg, Net el. output 286 MW, net efficiency 48 % PBMR Fuel enr. 9.6 %, burn-up 92 MWd/kg, Net el. output 180 MW, net efficiency 45 % HTR-PM Fuel enr. 8.9 %, burn-up 90 MWd/kg, Net el. output 210 MW, net efficiency 42 % Department of Nuclear Reactors

Input data Reactor data Fuel enr. [%] Fuel burn-up [MWd/kg] Net el. power output [MWe] Thermal power output [MWt] Plant net eff. [%] HTGR GT-MHR 15.5 121 286 600 48 PBMR 9.6 92 180 400 45 HTR-PM 8.9 90 210 500 42 PWR VVER-1000 4.25 43.4 1000 3000 33.3 Isar-2 4.4 55 1400 3900 35.9 EPR 5 60 1600 4500 35.6 AP-1000 4.8 1115 3415 32.7 MIR-1200 1114 3200 34.8 BWR BWR-72 (Gun-C) 4.6 50 1284 3840 33.4 ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7) 3.7 1315 3811 34.5 Parameter Unit Cost (2012 US$) Front end U3O8 $/lb U3O8 51.00 Conversion $/kgU 6.50 Enrichment $/SWU 135.00 Fabrication [PWR] 260.37 Fabrication [BWR] 314.61 Fabrication [HTGR] 10,848.70 Back end SNF Storage $/kgHM 130.18 SNF Pack. 100.89 Reposition $/kgiHM 594.51 Department of Nuclear Reactors

Input data Parameter U3O8 Conversion Enrichment Reactor type Unit count/Cost 2012 US$ GT-MHR 86.4/4,406.4 33.1/215,15 31.3/4,225.5 PBMR 53.0/2,703.0 20.3/131.95 18.0/2,430.0 HTR-PM 49.0/2,4099.0 18.8/122.2 16.4/2,214.0 VVER-1000 (Temelin) 22.7/1,157.7 7.0/45.5 4.8/648.0 Isar-2 23.5/1,198.5 9.0/58.5 6.7/904.5 EPR 26.9/1371.9 10.3/67.0 7.9/1,066.5 AP-1000 25.8/1,315.8 9.9/64.35 7.5/1,012.5 MIR-1200 BWR-72 (Gun-C) 24.7/1,259.7 9.4/61.1 7.1/958.5 ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7) 19.6/999.6 7.5/48.8 5.2/702.0 Department of Nuclear Reactors

Output data Parameter Fuel Heat produced Electricity produced Reactor type US$/kg US$/MWh GT-MHR 20,521.33 7.07 14.72 PBMR 16,939.23 7.67 17.05 HTR-PM 16,509.48 7.64 18.20 VVER-1000 (Temelin) 2,717.85 2.61 7.84 Isar-2 3,247.45 2.46 6.85 EPR 3,591.3 2.49 7.01 AP-1000 3,478.6 2.42 7.39 MIR-1200 6.94 BWR-72 (Gun-C) 3,419.49 2.85 8.53 ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7) 2,890.54 2.68 7.76 Parameter Fuel Heat produced Electricity produced Reactor type US$/kg US$/MWh GT-MHR 9,672.63 3.33 6.94 PBMR 6,090.53 2.76 6.13 HTR-PM 5,660.78 2.62 6.24 VVER-1000 (Temelin) 2,457.48 2.36 7.09 Isar-2 2,987.08 2.26 6.30 EPR 3,330.93 2.31 6.50 AP-1000 3,218.23 2.23 6.83 MIR-1200 6.42 BWR-72 (Gun-C) 3,104.88 2.59 7.75 ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7) 2,575.93 2.39 6.91 Department of Nuclear Reactors

Influence (with/without fabrication) in % per 10% parameter variation Output data Parameter U3O8 Conversion Enrichment Fabrication SNF Storage SNF Pack Reposition Reactor type Influence (with/without fabrication) in % per 10% parameter variation GT-MHR 2.15 / 4.56 0.10 / 0.22 2.06 / 4.37 5.29 / NA 0.06 / 0.13 0.05 / 0.10 0.29 / 0.61 PBMR 1.60 / 4.44 0.08 / 0.22 1.43 / 3.99 6.40 / NA 0.08 / 0.21 0.06 / 0.17 0.35 / 0.98 HTR-PM 1.51 / 4.41 0.07 / 0.22 1.34 / 3.91 6.57 / NA 0.08 / 0.23 0.06 / 0.18 0.36 / 1.05 VVER-1000 (Temelin) 3.45 / 3.82 0.17 / 0.19 2.38 / 2.64 0.96 / NA 0.48 / 0.53 0.37 / 0.41 2.19 / 2.42 Isar-2 3.69 / 4.01 0.18 / 0.20 2.79 / 3.03 0.80 / NA 0.40 / 0.44 0.31 / 0.34 1.83 / 1.99 EPR 3.82 / 4.12 0.19 / 0.20 2.97 / 3.20 0.73 / NA 0.36 /0.39 0.28 / 0.30 1.66 / 1.78 AP-1000 3.78 / 4.09 2.91 / 3.15 0.75 / NA 0.37 / 0.40 0.29 / 0.31 1.71 / 1.85 MIR-1200 BWR-72 (Gun-C) 3.68 / 4.06 2.80 / 3.09 0.92 / NA 0.38 / 0.42 0.30 / 0.32 1.74 / 1.91 ABWR (Kashiwazaki 7) 3.46 / 3.88 2.43 / 2.73 1.09 / NA 0.45 / 0.51 0.35 / 0.39 2.06 / 2.31 Department of Nuclear Reactors

Output data US$/MWhe Capital 20.33 Operations 10.16 Fuel cycle see Tab. 2 Decommissioning 0.31 Total 30.80+Fuel Department of Nuclear Reactors

Conclusions Apparent distinction in electricity costs from the HTGRs and the LWRs The HTGRs are competetive with the LWRs, when the fuel fabrication cost drops to the level of 1600 US$/kg The costs were calculated for the electricity production only, the high potential heat consumption in industry would be favourable for the economy of the HTGRs The costs can be decreased by increase of the capacity factor and/or lowering investment costs. For the same level of investment and capacity factor, the HTGRs are… Department of Nuclear Reactors

Thank you for your attention.