1. 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

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

3. 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
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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Recent HTGR concepts GT-MHR PBMR HTR-PM
Fuel enr %, 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Thank you for your attention.