- NGNP Industry Alliance Limited

Transcription

NGNP Industry Alliance
and the Opportunity for an
International Initiative for
Deployment of a Modern
Prismatic Block HTGR
Chris Hamilton
Executive Director
NGNP Industry Alliance Limited
March 8, 2016
Clean Sustainable Energy for the 21st Century
World Needs Sustainable, Environmentally Friendly
Energy Sources
2
2
In Near and Perhaps Long Term, HTGR is
Unmatched to Meet World’s Clean Energy Needs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unsurpassed safety case & low investment risk
Broad, proven technology & operations base
Most ready for nuclear regulatory licensing
Unsurpassed versatility
Competitive Economics
Large potential world market
3
NGNP Industry Alliance Is Focused on
Having HTGR Demonstration Plant Built
•
•
•
Our Alliance promotes the development and commercialization of the HTGR
We currently executing projects to:
- Update HTGR Business Plan & evaluate US sites for Advanced Reactors
- Quantify conservatism in analysis of HTGR depressurization event
We are catalyzing an International HTGR Initiative
Southern Ohio Asset
Recovery LLC
www.ngnpalliance.org
4
Our Members Worked with DOE to Define
HTGR Business Plan & Results
SELECTED RESULTS:
• 1st Demo Module will cost ~$2.3B
• NOAK, 4 module plant ~$4600/kwe
• Competitive with $6 to $10/MMBtu
natural gas for process heat &
electricity
• Supports manufacture of synthetic
transportation fuels competitive with
oil at ~$70 to $140/bbl
5
Many Costs Could Be Shared Based on
National Preference & Project Role
6
Key Challenges Identified in Business
Plan - Cost Not Technology
1. Financial lift for Demo Module & FOAK
manufacturing infrastructure
2. Ill-defined Regulatory process with uncertainty
3. Low U.S. energy costs; particularly pipeline
natural gas
… requires Public/Private collaboration and
opens discussion for international participation
7
Technology Development, Business Plan and
Design Work Has Positioned U.S. For Demo
• Recognition that prismatic HTGR has most mature
technology base for licensing Gen IV in U.S.
- productive interactions with USNRC
• Highly successful fuel development program
• Technology progress principally completed for 750C cycle
• Reference design for 750C steam cycle
• Higher outlet temperature applications underway
• Attractive U.S. demo sites available
8
Time Is Right for International HTGR Initiative
1. International recognition of need for intrinsically safe
nuclear energy .. Gen IV characteristics
2. For reduced emissions non-fossil high temperature
process heat source is needed
3. HTGR programs in multiple countries illustrates interest
4. FOAK Commercial Demo costs exceed program
currently planned by any single country
5. Sharing costs increases benefit-to-cost ratio for all
9
International HTGR Initiative Envisioned Will
Develop Infrastructure in Each Country
• Majority of participation envisioned as In-Kind contribution:
– Design participation
– Component equipment
• R&D for higher temperature - Coordinated and Shared:
– Minimizes duplication and cost
• Licensing:
– strive for a international standard
– Enables adaptation for each country
• Intellectual Property:
– Shared through design and specifications
10
International HTGR Initiative Can Reduce Cost
to Each Nation and …
• Fulfill participant’s national mission for HTGR technology
• Position each nation competitively in international
markets for systems & components
• Provide test bed and operational data for:
– Component equipment
– Personnel training
• Advance regulatory maturity of both HTGR technology
and national regulatory review
• Catalyst for other advanced reactor types
11
Recommended Goal of This Meeting
Clarify … how the EU, Japan, Korea and the U.S.
might join together in the very near term – by
early 2017 – to initiate a project for the
deployment of a modern, commercial, prismatic
block HTGR
12
Next Steps?
Chris Hamilton
Executive Director
NGNP Industry Alliance Limited
www.ngnpalliance.org
Towards secure and competitive
energy system - plans of the
Polish Ministry of Energy
Michał Kurtyka, Under Secretary of State,
Ministry of Energy of Poland
New government structure in Poland…
Ministry of
Development
Specyfika
Ministry
of
PL
Economy
Ministry of
Energy
… new challenges and opportunities
1. Affordable energy at a competitive price
2. Technology diversification
3. Air pollution limitation
4. Regional energy security
Key projects (Coal Gasification)
New, sustainable uses for coal are a precondition for maintaining
demand for coal in the long run
Large-scale gasification
1.
production of methanol and ammonia
is indicated as the most profitable;
2.
Polish Chemical Group Azoty SA is now
analysing how to optimise the business
model to produce carbochemical
products from coal;
3.
It is estimated that about 1 mln tonnes
of coal can be used in Kedzierzyn-Kozle
annually
Small-scale gasification
development of the Polish highlyeffective technologies of small-scale
gasification
Key projects (Coal Gasification) 2
Expected benefits for the economy:
- higher demand for coal;
- higher R&D capacity of Polish companies and research
institutes;
- secure supply of raw materials for chemical industry.
Polish Chemical Group Azoty SA
Key projects (E-mobility)
rare earth
metals
supply
lithium-ion
battery cells
IT systems
MULTIPLIER EFFECT IN THE ECONOMY
…
robotics
electric
vehicle
new
business
models
Nuclear Programme in Poland
1.
Two nuclear power plants with combined capacity of 6 000 Mwe,
producing 50 TWh of electricity per year;
2.
CO2 emission reduced by 36 million tons per year what constitutes 23% of
our total emission in electricity sector;
3.
Integrated tender for technology supplier under preparation.
Main challenge: how to combine nuclear technology transfer with building
Polish R&D capacity?
Nuclear cogeneration (1)
High Temperature Reactors used in cogeneration
address two priorities:
1. Diversification of energy sources
2. Development of new technologies
Particular need:
• heat for industry,
especially chemical plants
Major milestone:
• ~300 MWt prototype at one plant
Possible funding:
• EIB/Euratom/Juncker-plan loan
• International cooperation
• National budget
Plant
Boilers
MW
ZE PKN Orlen S.A.Płock
8
2140
ArcelorMittal Poland S.A.
8
1273
Zakłady Azotowe "Puławy" S.A.
5
850
Zakłady Azotowe ANWIL SA
3
580
Zakłady Chemiczne "Police" S.A.
8
566
Energetyka Dwory
5
538
International Paper - Kwidzyn
5
538
Grupa LOTOS S.A. Gdańsk
4
518
ZAK S.A. Kędzierzyn
6
474
Zakl. Azotowe w Tarnowie Moscicach S.A.
4
430
MICHELIN POLSKA S.A.
9
384
PCC Rokita SA
7
368
MONDI ŚWIECIE S.A.
3
313
Nuclear cogeneration (2)
International approach:
• NC2I members are warmly invited to participate
• Regional cooperation with V4 countries (CZ, HU, SK) is encouraged
• Common goals with UK SMR programme to be explored
• EC „patronage” would be appreciated
• Strategic partnership with US NGNP
Industrial Alliance is most welcome
We hope Poland to be the ice nucleus
to crystalize the HTR project
Thank you for your attention!
michal.kurtyka@me.gov.pl
HTGR heat for
European industry
Nuclear Cogeneration
Industrial Initiative
a branch of European
Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform
)
Q)
0..:
f-
w
z
tJ)
~
~
~
Grzegorz Wrochna
chairman of NC2I
National Centre for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Poland
g.wrochna@ncbj.gov.pl
2
www.snetp.eu
Download: www.snetp.eu
Deployment Strategy
2010
Education & Training
2010
Research Areas
& Innovation Agenda
2013
Strategic Research
Agenda
2009
Vision Report
2007
Research Areas After
Fukushima Accident
2013
Thorium cycles
& thorium in fuel
2011
SRA Annexes
Molten Salt Reactors
2010
ESNII Concept Paper
2010
SNETP strategic documents
Print: secretariat@snetp.eu
SNETP „pillars”
Competitiveness
NUGENIA
Improving
gen II & III
reactors
Environment
protection
SNETP
for
sustainable
development
ESNII
Fast reactors
for waste burning
& fuel breeding
NC2I
Nuclear
cogeneration
Security
of supply
V
I
----------!~ I
:
I
•
Jf _1_t"i ,_ri
-
•
tt.,u f_Hl:< :l', ~\ l l) '1_1'11tr
5
Nuclear cogeneration
European projects
+ many crosscutting projects
on materials, waste, reactor
physics …
National projects:
• Germany: SYNKOPE – HTR for lignite gasification, STAUB II,
• Poland: HTRPL – Polish industry needs, coupling technologies
NC2I studies
• Nuclear cogeneration in general
–
–
–
–
–
)
Q)
0..:
f-
w
z
tJ)
~
~
~
Heat market, potential end users
Coupling to industrial installations
Available technologies
Economy, energy policies
Societal aspects
• Nuclear high temperature cogen.
– Technological issues
– Safety and licensing
HTGR economic model:
reference case
Parameters
NC2I Reference
Configuration
Overnight costs
2 x 250 MWth
1.862 €/MWth
O&M costs
Lifetime
Reference gas
price
Design
development costs
Technical basis
6,23 €/MWth
40 years
35 €/MWh
+ 10 €/t CO2
Excluded
Near-term applications
(750°C outlet temperature,
SG, plug-in market)
Economic model:
sensitivity analysis
Reference case:
- NPV: + 233 M€
- IRR: 9,9 %
- Positive NPV
after 24 years
If electricity
production:
- LCOE =
81,6 €/MWhe
Availability, discount rate & heat price are the most influent parameters
Sensibility analysis shows robustness of the main parameters
NPV > 0 for reference case (!) BUT no design, licensing or FOAK costs
Heat prices
-~
70
-·-..
60
NC21
.c
Gas 20€/MW.h
S
Gas 30€/MW.h
Gas 40€/MW.h
41
I.I
Gas SO€/MW .h
! so
"'41
::c
•
Reference scenario
40
.
0
10
20
30
40
so
60
CO2 prices (€ft.CO2)
70
80
90
100
•
..
TREP 0$
mioso
End-user needs
• Sample of >130 sites in Europe
• Mostly chemical industries
11
Heat market
for nuclear technologies
LWR, FBR
District heating, pulp &
paper, desalination
Mainly
low T
needed
HTR
VHTR
Chemicals,
Chemicals, refining,
refining, H2,
H2, steelmaking, soda
ash, lime, glassmaking, industrial gases, etc.
550°C steam
required to address
the segment 250-550°C
(like gas cogen)
Several high T
sectors potentially
open for nuclear
(pre)heating
High potential for H2
and high T O2
production
Reactors mature
+ experience in cogen
Proven reactor technology,
high potential for cogen
Long-term
Source: EUROPAIRS study on the European industrial heat market
Nuclear cogeneration
in practice
Reactor
maturity
Cogen
maturity
Market
potential
Water reactors
Mature
Operational
Fast breeders
Gen IV under
development
Proven
Medium
(restricted to low
temp.)
HGTR
Proven
Demo needed
Large
Bruce Industrial Park, Canada
(8 CANDU, 5 300 MWth)
~ 1 700 reactor.years of
experience in nuclear
cogeneration in 2006…
Aktau nuclear desalination plant,
Kaxskhstan (BN350, 100 MWth)
PWR desalination plant,
Ohi, Japan
Nuclear district heating,
Bohunice, Slovakia
(VVER, 61 MWth)
THTR Germany
GEMINI initiative
•
•
•
•
Joint effort of NC2I & NGNP IA
MoU signed June 2014
Workshops in Washington & Brussels
Modular design to meet US & EU needs:
– same components,
– 300 or 600 MWth (1or 2 loops)
NGNP
NC2I @ Piketon
NC2I
14
Window of opportunity
)
Q)
0..:
f-
w
z
tJ)
~
~
~
– EU in need for fossil fuels replacement
to increase energy security & sustainability
– Large factories e.g. in Poland need to exchange
coal heating for another source
– Cooperation NC2I & NGNP IA: Gemini
– Progress in US: Piketon site
– Strong interest in Korea and Japan
– UK experience in gas cooled reactors
and plans to become SMR vendor
– Czech Republic, Slovakia, … interested
– Public funds available
• 80 bln € of structural funds in Poland
• InnovFin by European Investment Bank
• Euratom loans – new edition
• European Fund for Strategic Investments ("Juncker Plan")
15
• + R&D funds: H2020, national (PL,UK,US,Korea,Japan…)
Let’s use the window of opportunity
to launch the projet !
Nuclear cogeneration and high
temperature reactors
Presentation to the NC2I and NGNP – Washington, DC
8th / 9th March 2016
Gas cooled and high temperature
reactors in the UK – a history
CHP and High Temperature Reactors
GCR & HTRs – a UK history
The UK has a substantial history of gas cooled, graphite moderated reactors of
increasing core temperature
Magnox (Gen I):
• Commercial operation 1956 – 2010s
• CO2 coolant, unenriched U metal fuelled
• Core temperature 400°C
Source : Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (Gen II):
• Commercial operation 1976 - present
• CO2 coolant, UO2 fuelled
• Core temperature ~640°C
Source : Office of Nuclear Regulation
3
Nuclear cogeneration and high temperature reactors
GCR & HTRs – a UK history
Winfrith “Dragon” research reactor (materials and fuels test reactor)
• Helium cooled,
• Variety of TRISO fuels
(UO2, ThO2, Pu carbide)
• Operated 1965-1976
• Core temperature 750°C
Source : Research Sites Ltd.
4
HTRs – UK activity in 2015
HTR development activity in the UK has shifted to the private sector. Two
companies currently known to be active in developing designs:
• U-Battery (a consortium of Urenco, Amec Foster Wheeler and Atkins)
– Gas cooled – helium in primary circuit, nitrogen in secondary circuit.
– TRISO prismatic fuel
– Designed for heat as much as power : outlet temperature 800°C
– 4 MW electric / 10 MW thermal
• HTMR Ltd (a sister company of Steenskampskraal Thorium Ltd.)
– Helium cooled HTMR100 reactor
– TRISO pebble bed fuel
– Designed for heat or power
– 35 MW electric / 100 MW thermal
5
The potential for nuclear heat and
cogeneration in the UK
Nuclear heat and cogeneration :
UK potential
Decarbonising the UK – cogeneration in context
• Current heat demand in UK varies
between ~30GW to >200GW, whilst
electricity supply varies between ~30GW
to ~50 GW.
• Decarbonising the UK energy system
through electrification of heat production
is a challenge (even with heat pumps for
low grade heat).
• Economically competitive cogeneration
from thermal electrical generation plant
has long been an area of interest…
especially if it is from low carbon
generation!
7
UK potential
Current UK Government policy is that thermal power stations, including nuclear
ones, should aim to use CHP (combined heat and power) where this is
possible.
– “…development consent applications for nuclear power stations should
demonstrate that the applicant has fully considered the opportunities for CHP.”
Nuclear National Planning Statement, 2011
It should be technically feasible to transport heat to settlements at least up to
50km away from a power station.
Assumes mid- to low-grade heat, taken off the lower end of the steam turbines
of current plant.
Applicable to all nuclear plant, including HTRs.
8
UK potential
However…
– “…the economic viability of CHP opportunities…may be more limited for new
nuclear power stations because the application of a demographic criterion for
new nuclear power stations can result in stations being located away from
major population centres and industrial heat demand..”
Nuclear National Planning Statement, 2011
• Nuclear sites tend to be a long way from population and industry centres.
o Magnox were required to be remote from population centres.
o More recent (and proposed) designs have been assessed as being
safer. A reactor is not obliged to be remote.
• Office for Nuclear Regulation’s siting criteria combine safety assessment
and demographic analysis, which defines limits to sites’ proximity to
population centres based on reactor characteristics.
9
Nuclear heat and
cogeneration : UK potential
2 current sites are shown with heat demands from the
UK heat map.
Sizewell
10
Hinkley Point
UK potential
Barriers to uptake of nuclear CHP from current plant
Domestic heat demand:
• Demand density is very low near current nuclear power stations.
• Heat networks in the UK are currently too small to utilise a significant
proportion of the heat available from current designs of nuclear power
stations (largest is 60 MW thermal).
• Cost of heat network development.
• Result is that nuclear cogeneration for domestic heating cannot compete
with gas (domestic heating falls outside the EU Emissions Trading System)
Industrial heat demand:
• Lack of industrial customers close enough to nuclear plant.
Barriers have potential to reduce with technology shift in coming decades.
11
Assessing potential for small
modular reactors
There may be greater potential for the use of Heat / CHP in the future if
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are taken forward. (SMR ≤ 300 MW
electrical)
• In principle SMRs may have greater flexibility of siting.
• Heat production volume and flexibility may be more compatible with heat
networks.
• Economics may be more favourable (e.g. build cost, time to deployment).
• Some designs offer higher grade heat than current large nuclear power
stations, making industrial process heat supply.
Late 2014 – Completed overview of global market
Spring 2015 – DECC commissioned a programme of technoeconomic
analysis to assess implications of SMR deployment for UK. Aims to
engage with developers of all SMR types, including HTR SMRs.
12
Small modular reactor TEA
Spring – Summer 2015 – Technoeconomic assessment of SMRs
launched in 7 sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Evidence on current systems.
Development of assessment tools.
Evidence on emerging technologies.
Evidence on safety and security.
Advanced manufacturing processes.
Advanced assembly, modularisation, and construction.
Control, operation and electric systems
Completion due end of March 2016.
Systems under consideration, via vendor engagement, include:
13
Integrated PWRs
High temp gas cooled reactors
Na and Pb cooled fast reactors
Molten salt reactors
Potential for UK research
R&D and facilities relevant to nuclear
cogeneration
In November 2015, the UK government announced a £250 million programme of
nuclear R&D.
This comes on top of a longer running programme of investment in national
nuclear user facilities.
Developments relevant to potential nuclear cogeneration include:
•
Additional capability for The National Nuclear Fuel Centre of Excellence,
(NNL and the University of Manchester), to facilitate the development of
advanced fuel materials and manufacturing processes for accident tolerant
fuels (ATF).
•
A high temperature materials testing suite (HTF) is being established by a
consortium of industry and universities to provide open access to facilities for
fundamental research on structural materials, which have the potential for
use in primary and secondary circuits of future reactor systems
15
R&D and facilities relevant to nuclear
cogeneration
Areas of R&D relevant to nuclear cogeneration
• High temperature materials performance, through key UK
universities with established industry partners (e.g. AMEC, Rolls
Royce)
• Alloy design
• Corrosion mechanisms
• Understanding of graphite as structural moderator and in fuel design
(TRISO manufacturing) for HTRs
• Advanced and passively safe nuclear fuels
16
Thank you for your attention
Rob Arnold
rob.arnold@decc.gsi.gov.uk
Mark Caine
Mark.Caine@fco.gsi.gov.uk
First Organizing Meeting
International Prismatic Block HTGR Commercial Deployment
Status of VHTR Program in Korea
March 8, 2016
Minhwan Kim
First Intl. HTGR meeting, Washington D.C., Mar. 8-10, 2016
Contents
I. Backgrounds
II. VHTR R&D Status
III. VHTR Demonstration Plan
IV. Summary
1
Contents
I. Backgrounds
II. VHTR R&D Status
IV. Summary
2
Nuclear Energy Policy in Korea
Need of Nuclear Power
• Exhaustion of fossil fuel, Emission of Green house gas
• 96% dependency on imported fossil energy
 2nd National Energy Basic Plan (’14)
 Nuclear power generation
- Make up 29% of national electricity generation until 2035
- 24 in operation, 4 under construction and 6 planned (36GW)
- Additional 5-7 reactors (7GW)
 7th Basic Power Supply Plan(’15)
 Period up to 2029
 Nuclear power ratio
- 28.2% in 2029 (27.4% by 2027 in the 6 th plan)
- Additional 2 reactors ( total 35 units in 2029)
•
Substitution of 4 coal plants
3
Energy Mix in Korea
Increase of Nuclear
• Nuclear electricity gen. (10.4% of total energy, 2013)
• Extend nuclear power into heat market
Hydro, etc
3.6%
Fossil Fuel
69.6%
Ratio of Electricity
Generation
Energy Balance Flow(2013, KEEI)
4
Nuclear
26.8%
Prospects for Hydrogen Economy
President Park, “Gwangju city, a leader in the hydrogen economy”
Ministry of Environment, a long-term distribution plan for hydrogen vehicle
LG Economic Research Institute released a report, “Fuel-cell Electric Vehicle,
Preclude of Hydrogen Economy Era” (2015)
- Korea needs to prepare the realization of hydrogen economy
 President Park will help Gwangju develop into a
portal to the automobile industry in order to make
the city a leader in the so-called “hydrogen
economy.” (Korea.net, Jan 28, 2015)
President Park talks with Hyundai Motor Group CEO during CCEI opening ceremony held in Gwangju
5
Prospects for Hydrogen Economy
Prediction by Korea Energy Economics Institute in 2010
 Introduction of Fuel-cell(2015)
 5% Occupancy in Energy Market (2030)
Current Status
 2013, 59MW Fuel-cell Electricity Generation by Kyonggi Green Energy
 2013, Commercialization of Fuel-cell car by Hyundai (Tucson ix)
 2015, Beginning of construction of 200MW fuel-cell power plant by SK Energy
Kyonggi Green Energy (59MW)
Plan for Renewable Energy Cluster in Pyeongtaek
6
Climate Change Agreement
COP21
in Paris
World’s 7th largest emitter of greenhouse gases
Multiple
-Use of
Nuclear
Energy
Decrease of power demand (economic growth↓, energy efficiency↑)
Reduction of GHG emission by 37% from BAU in 2030
Fossil fuel substitution in non-electricity application
Need of HTGR development for multiple-use of nuclear energy
7th Basic Power Supply Plan
Nuclear Energy
Power
Total Energy
26.8
10.4
1.4↑
0.6↑
28.2
Nuclear Heat Utilization
Hydrogen
Production
(%)
Beyond
Power
11.0
HTGR
VHTR
Process Heat
(High T Steam)
Distributed
Power
2013
2029
7
Domestic Policies (Hydrogen-related)
Hydrogen Steelmaking (New energy industry 2030, MOTIE in 2015)
- 2 tons-CO2 per 1 ton of steel (14% of total GHG emission)
- Ion ore reduction using hydrogen (140K tons-H2 for 2M tons steelmaking)
Promotion of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (MOTIE and ME in 2015)
- 630,000 fuel cell cars, 520 hydrogen refueling stations by 2030
- 200K tons-H2/year for 1M fuel cell cars
Renewable Portfolio Standards and Renewable Energy Certificates
- 10% of power from renewable sources by 2024
- Increase of fuel cell power : 40k tons-H2/100MWe (150MWe in 2014)
H2 Production
H2 Demand
Additional
800K
700K
By-product
28K
’20
Diversification of H2 Supply
(ton)
‘30
100K
’14
100K
‘30
8
(ton)
Assumed
Nuclear Hydrogen
Clean and Safe Energy with a Wide Range of Application
VHTR
Very High
Temperature
Reactor
Highest Level of Nuclear Safety
High Efficiency
High Temperature Heat Supply
Substitution of Fossil Fuels
H20
H2
O2
Advantages of VHTR for hydrogen production
- High efficiency(~50%) using thermochemical water splitting
- No GHG emission compared to LNG steam-methane reforming
- A clean and efficient manner reducing fossil fuel dependence
9
VHTR/Hydrogen R&D Plan
 Nuclear Energy Commission (’08) and Nuclear Promotion Committee (’11)
 Long-term R&D Plan: Nuclear hydrogen demonstrated by 2030
Not determined yet
10
I. Backgrounds
II. VHTR R&D Status
IV. Summary
11
Key Technology Development
 Develop Key and Basic Technologies for NHDD project
- NHDD: Nuclear Hydrogen Development and Demonstration
 Phase 1: Key Technology Development (2006~2011)
 Phase 2: Performance Improvement (2012-2016)
 Industry has participated in Hydrogen R&D since 2011
12
Nuclear Hydrogen Key Technologies
VHTR
SI Hydrogen
IS Thermochemical Plant
Production
Warm Air
SO3 Decomposor
Design &
Natural Cooling
Design Tools
Cold Air
Fuel(Core)
He Purifier
Graphite
Fuel
Manufacturing
H2
Protection Wall
Filter
Circulator
(Reflector)
Helium
950, ~490, ~200oC
Hot Gas Duct
IHX
Isolation Valve
13
Materials,
Components
Gas Loop
Design and Analysis Code System
Reactor Physics
DeCART, CAPP, MUSAD
FP Inventory
Power
Power,
Irradiation dose
1.045
1.035
Thermo-Fluid & Coupled Neutronics
1.030
1.025
1.020
1.015
1.010
1.005
1.000
CORONA, GAMMA+
GAMMA+/CAPP, CORONA/DeCART
Temperature
Mass & Energy
Discharge
Fuel & Graphite
COPA
FP Source
Fission Product & Containment
GAMMA-FP, TRIBAC
CONTAIN
TBD
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
EFPD
Graphite Oxidation
& Hydrolysis
Corroded
Mass
Graphite Corrosion
GAMMA+, COPA
Atmospheric Dispersion & Public Dose
Case 1 : PF=27.5/23.5, BP=3.0%
Case 2 : PF=30.0/25.0, BP=3.0%
Case 3 : PF=35.0/30.0, BP=3.5%
1.040
k-effective
Temperature,
Steam Density
Unit: oC
1.050
300
350
400
450
500
High Temperature Experiments and Components
 Small-scale (10kW) Gas Loop and Medium-scale(150kW) Helium Loop
 Process HX and Intermediate HX
 Reactor Cavity Cooling System
15
High Temperature Materials
 Nuclear Grade Graphite
 High Temperature Metals & C/C Composites
16
Coated Particle Fuel
 Lab-scale (20g/batch) TRISO Fuel Fabrication
 Irradiation Test in HANARO and PIE
17
Sulfur-Iodine Hydrogen Production
 Engineering-scale (50 l/hr) Pressurized Hydrogen Production
 Technologies for Catalyst and Thermodynamics
18
I. Backgrounds
II. VHTR R&D Status
IV. Summary
19
Nuclear Hydrogen Demonstration
 NHDD(Nuclear Hydrogen Development and Demonstration)
 Design, construct and demonstrate nuclear hydrogen system
 National project expected to be supported by government and industry
 Nuclear Hydrogen Alliance was formed and discussion started (2009.12)
- 9 nuclear industrial companies or institutes and 5 end users
- MOU with NIA(NGNP Industrial Alliance) at ICAPP 2013 in Jeju, Korea
20
Nuclear Hydrogen Demonstration
 VHTR Design Concept Study (2012. 3 ~ 2015. 2)
 Pre-project preparing for NHDD demonstration and commercialization
 System concept study and business planning with industry
 VHTR System Point Design and Feasibility Study(2015.2~2017.2)
 Submitted for a preliminary feasibility approval by Government
'12
'14
'16
'18
'21
'24
'26
'28
'30
Not yet decided
21
Pre-feasibility Approval
 Project Planning by KAERI (‘15.3 ~ ’15.12)
 Technology advisory committee
 Project planning report
- Nuclear Hydrogen Technology Development
 Feasibility Evaluation (‘16.1~ )
 MSIP (Ministry of science, ICT and future planning) accepted “Nuclear
Hydrogen Technology Development” project as a candidate (‘16.01.15)
 MSIP submitted the project to MOSF (Ministry of strategy and financing)
- Technology evaluation has performed by KISTEP
- The project accepted as “adequate” (‘16.03.04)
 Full-scale evaluation is in preparation and will be finished in 2016
22
Project Plan (Submitted)
Nuclear Hydrogen
Y2016
Reactor and
Plant
System
Hydrogen
Production
Licensing
Y2017
Y2018
Y2019
Y2020
Y2021
Y2022
Y2023
Y2024
Y2025
Y2026
Y2027
Y2028
Y2029
Tech. Development and Verification
Conceptual
Design
General
Design
Bench-Scale(5m3/hr)
Design Approval
Pilot-Scale(500m3/hr)
Regulation Tech.
Commercial Design
Licensing Evaluation
Licensing System
SPC
Nuclear Hydrogen Construction and Demonstration
23
Y2030
Synergy w/ Intl. HTGR Program
 Nuclear hydrogen demonstration using VHTR should be
based on technologies developed in HTGR program
 HTGR can be used for steam supply to chemical complex
Yeosu and Ulsan Complexes
- Sufficient self-heat production
- 37.6%(Yeosu), 20.1%(Ulsan)
350MWt HTGR (750oC)
- 7units(Yeosu), 3Units(Ulsan)
3
3
3 2
1 23
132
1
3
8 4
9 9
9 3 1
2
9 2 4 9
2 2 4
6
Ulsan
2
0
2 2
1 0
7
2
3
3
2
5
2
6
1
9
1
9
1
4
9
1
9
1 1
3 1
8
8
9
2
9
1
6
Steam
Water
1
1
6 3
2
2
1
6
1
16
0
2
7 9 3
20
2
2 7
8
5
1
7
1
5
Yeosu
3
3
24
3
4
Summary
 The Korean government supports the VHTR and nuclear
hydrogen R&D based on the long-term promotion plan for
future nuclear energy system
 The plan is under revision process to cope with the change of domestic
and international circumstances
- 5th mid-term nuclear R&D plan (‘17~’21)
 The realization of nuclear hydrogen in Korea is necessary
for energy security and reduction of GHG emission
 KAERI applied for pre-feasibility approval to the government
 Technology evaluation has finished and a full-scale evaluation will be
carried out by the government
 International collaboration is necessary for the success
of VHTR development and realization in Korea
25
APPENDIX:
Experimental Facilities in KAERI
26
Small-scale Gas Loop
 Objectives
 Feasibility Test for Lab-scale Components
 Experimental Data for Code V&V
 Experimental Tech. for High P & T
 Design Specification
 Working Fluid: N2 / Design P & T: 6 MPa, 950℃
 Heater Power: 55 kW
Small-Scale Gas Loop
 Mass Flow Rate: 2 kg/min (@4 MPa N2)
 Performance & Plan
 2007: Construction of Small Scale Gas Loop
 2008~2011: Feasibility Test of Lab-scale PHE
 2012~2013: Heat Transfer Test for Process Gas Channel
 2014: Performance Test of Lab-Scale Hot Gas Duct
 2016: Feasibility Test of Advanced Lab-scale PHE
27
Helium Experimental Loop (HELP)
 Objectives
 Performance Test at the Component-level Condition
 Experimental DB for System Analysis Code V&V
 Experimental Tech. for High P & T Helium Loop
 Design Specification
 Working Fluid: He / Design P & T: 9 MPa, 1000℃
 Heater Power: 0.6
MW(1st),
0.3
MW(2nd)
 Mass Flow Rate: 6.0 kg/min (@4 MPa He)
 2009~2011: Construction of HELP
 2012: Shake-down Test with N2
 2013~2014: PCHE Test at High T and P
 2015: IHX Transient Behavior Test
 2016: Optimization Test for Intermediate System
28
HELP
PCHE test
Natural Cooling Experimental Facility (NACEF)
 Objectives
 Verification of RCCS Performance at VHTR Accident Condition
 Establishment of Scaling Analysis for RCCS Demonstration
 Assessment and Improvement of VHTR Passive Safety
 Experimental Setup
NACEF
 # of Risers: 6 EA (PMR200, 220 EA)
 Residual Heat: 21.8 kW (PMR200, 0.8MW)
 Total Height: 14 m(1:4) / Cavity Height: 4 m (1:4)
 Radiation Distance: 1.37 m(1:1)
 2012~2013: Design & Construction of NACEF
 2014: Shake-down Test and 1st Test
 2015: Tests for INERI Project with ANL
 2016: Advanced RCCS concept test
29
Status of HTGR Development in Japan
Kazuhiko KUNITOMI
HTGR Hydrogen and Heat Application Research Center
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)
International Prismatic Block HTGR Commercial Deployment Meeting
March 8-10, 2016, Washington DC, USA
Policies of HTGR Development in Japan
Technical development of HTGR is stated in the following policies approved by the
Cabinet.
 “Strategic Energy Plan” approved by the Cabinet on April 11, 2014
 Under international cooperation, government of Japan facilitates R&D of nuclear
technologies that serve the safety improvement of nuclear use, such as hightemperature gas-cooled reactors which are expected to be utilized in various
industries including hydrogen production and which has inherent safety.“
 “Japan revitalization strategy, revised 2015” approved by the Cabinet on June 30.
 Moreover, as well as engaging in international cooperation focused on ··· , and the
development of nuclear technologies that serve the safety improvement of
nuclear use, such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, the Government will
implement human resource development in these fields.
 “Strategic Roadmap of hydrogen and fuel cell” issued by the committee in the METI
on June 23, 2014.
1
Recent Topics of HTTR Project
Following VIPs visited the HTTR.
 The Minister of the MEXT, Hakubun Shimomura, on July 4, 2014.
 The Parliamentary Vice-Minister of the MEXT, Tsutomu Tomioka, on August 6, 2014.
 The Minister Environment, Nobuteru Ishihara and five members of the House of
Representatives, Takeshi Noda et.al., on April 7, 2014.
 A member of the House of Representatives, Taku Yamamoto, on April 25
They are all supportive of deployment and development of HTGR.
HTGR development supporting group consisting of more than 40 LDP members was
made on July 19, 2014
 The second meeting was held on March 10th, 2015, and the following resolution was adopted.
 Early restart of HTTR and reinforcement of HTGR related research
 Reinforcement of system discussing basic policy for commercialization of HTGR
 Reinforcement of international collaboration and human education
 Thirteen LDP members of the HTGR development supporting group
visited the HTTR site on October 13th, 2015.
2
Nuclear science committee (NSC) of MEXT set up a task force on May 23, 2014, to
evaluate the status of research and development of HTGR technology and nuclear heat
utilization technology such as hydrogen production and power generation.
Task force issued an interim report and reported it to the NSC on October 1, 2014.
 Items of research and development for the next 10 years are selected.
 HTTR-GT/H2 test
 HTTR safety test
 Advanced fuel development
 Gus-turbine component development
 IS process hydrogen production development
 Establishment of safety standards and design guideline
3
MEXT established a committee including MEXT, METI, JAEA, industries and universities to
discuss roadmap and conceptual design for the first demonstration plant.
 A board member in industry participate in this forum.
 Preparatory meeting was held on February 26, 2015, to discuss the vision of future
commercial HTGR.
 The first meeting was held on April 28, 2015.
 Specification of commercial HTGR, R&D plan, introduction scenario will be discussed.
 The second meeting was held on September 29, 2015.
Industry
Vendors
Toshiba Corporation
Hitachi, Ltd.
Fuji Electric Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Fuel/Graphite manufactures
Nuclear Fuel Industries, Ltd.
Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd.
Trading company/Think tank
Marubeni Utility Services, Ltd.
Canon Institute for Global Studies
Academy
Users (Electricity/Hydrogen/Heat Utilization)
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation
Iwatani Corporation
Chiyoda Corporation
Toyo Engineering Corporation
JGC Corporation
Hitachi Zosen Corporation
Toyota Motor Corporation
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
Honda R&D Co.,Ltd.
Government
University of Tokyo
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)
Tokyo City University
Toyo University of Agriculture and Technology
Kyushu University
Observer: Japan Electrical Manufacturers Association, Japan Atomic Power Company, Institute of Applied Energy, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
4
Overview of the HTTR Project
(1) Reactor technology
HTTR
 30 MWt and 950oC
prismatic core
advanced test reactor
(Operation start in
1998)
 Technology of fuel, graphite, superalloy and
experience of operation, and maintenance.
 Safety evaluation by NRA is underway.
(3) Innovative HTGR design
 GTHTR300 for electricity
generation and desalination
 GTHTR300C for cogeneration
and nuclear/renewable
GTHTR300
energy hybrid system
 HTGR with Thorium fuel
 Clean Burn HTGR for surplus plutonium burning
 Establishment of safety design philosophy
(2) Gas turbine and H2 technology
He compressor
 R&D of gas turbine technologies
such as high-efficiency helium
compressor, shaft seal, and
maintenance technology
 In February 2016, 8 hours of
hydrogen production with the
rate of 0.01m3/h was successfully
achieved.
hydrogen facility
(4) HTTR-GT/H2 test
 The connection of a
helium gas turbine
power generation
system and hydrogen
production with the
HTTR.
 Basic design for the HTTR-GT/H2 test is now
underway.
5
Draft Plan of HTTR Project
Items　FY 2015 Interim evaluation
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
High Burnup Fuel (up to 160GWd/t)
Fuel
Advanced Fuel Element
IS process
Gas Turbine
Continuous Hydrogen Production Test, Design Guide of Ceramics Components, Database
Componet development, Scale-up
.
HTTR-GT
HTTR-GT/H2
Design
Construction
Design
Test
Construction
Test
HTTR Test
Safety
Technology
NRA : Nuclear Regulation Authority in Japan
Safety Standards
Standardization by IAEA
Review / Issue by NRA (for Gas Turbine)
Review / Issue by NRA (for HTTR-IS)
(Tentative)
Commercial
Scale HTGR
Development
850℃,250MW,
Gus Turbine
Design
Review / Issue by NRA (for Co-generation)
Licen
sing
950℃,600MW,
Co-generation
Construction
Design
Operation
Licen
sing
Construc
tion
Opera
tion
6
Hydrogen production technology development
Continuous hydrogen production test
Continuous hydrogen production test
H2
-Verification of integrity of total components and stability of hydrogen production
Process
HO O
2
2
Decomposer
・H2 production: 0.１m3/h
・Electric heating
Decomposer
Component materials
Reactor
I (iodine)
Distillation
column
Liquid phase
• Fluoroplastic lining
• Glass lining
• Silicon carbide (SiC)
ceramic
• Graphite (impermeable)
S (sulfur)
Separator
EED
Hydrogen iodine (HI) Bunsen
Decomposition
reaction
section
section
Test schedule
2013
H2SO4
decompositi
on section
FY2014
H2 Production Test Facility
Gaseous phase
•Hastelloy C-276
•JIS SUS316
Status
Preparation of operation
FY2015〜
Construction
Preparation for operation
Operation for each section
Integrated operation
 In February 2016, 8
hours of hydrogen
production with the
rate of 0.01m3/h
was successfully
achieved.
7
Objectives of HTTR-GT/H2 test
 To successfully license and operate the
world’s first HTGR gas turbine power
generation and hydrogen production plant
 To establish safety design criteria for
coupling chemical plant such as hydrogen
production plant to nuclear reactor
 To complete the system technology
required for construction of the first
demonstration plant
Items
Year 2015
HTTR-GT test
HTTR-GT/H2 test
HTTR
H2 facility
Helium
gas turbine
2020
2025
Shakedown
Design
Construction
Operation
Licensing
test
HTTR modification
Design
Licensing
Shakedown
Operation
Construction
test
Construct
lead plant
by private
sector
8
HTTR-GT/H2 Test (System Design Outline)
Plant cycle schematic
Major specification
Thermal power (IHX)
10 MWt
IHX heat supply temperature
900 oC
Gas turbine inlet temperature
650 oC
Gas turbine pressure ratio
1.3
Hydrogen plant power
1 MWt
H2 plant
Isolation valves
Reactor
IHX
Gas turbine
Generator
Precooler
Recuperator
To cooling tower
Gas turbine
Plant layout
Recuperator
Operation area
Gas Turbine
Precooler
Generator
To reactor
9
Tentative schedule of the HTTR
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Evaluation of natural
phenomena
Re-evaluation of
seismic design
classification
Seismic evaluation
FRS
Documentation of
verification results,
including evaluation
of BDBA
Evaluation by NRA
Application
Nov. 26
(Review period is unknown)
Periodic inspection
Re-start
10
Establishment of safety standards and design guideline
• Probabilistic Risk Assessment Method Development for HTGRs
Objectives
– Establish a PRA method fully utilizing the
HTGR design and safety characteristics
– Confirm presence of “cliff edge” in HTGR during
extreme earthquake
•
Current status
– Investigations of failure modes in HTGR SSCs
during extreme earthquakes are started.
– An advisory committee is newly established to
indecently review the PRA development.
R&D items
– System analysis method for accident sequence
considering multiple failures in structures
– Reliability database development using HTTR
O&M data
– Source term evaluation method considering
failures in core component and reactor building
•
•
Schedule (started in Oct. 2015)
– 3 year project from 2015 to 2017
– Evaluation method development for extreme
seismic event in 2015 and 2016
– Application of the developed method to HTGR
reference plant and development of PRA
guideline in 2017
1
10-2
Frequency [/year]
•
10-4
Example of
evaluation criteria
Design
Basis Event
Design
target
10-6
10-8
Cliff edge
101
10-1
100
Consequence [mSV]
Expected outputs from the development
11
Advanced fuel development
• R&D on Security-Enhanced Safety Fuel for Clean Burn HTGR
•
–
•
Establish Pu-burn fuel technologies
R&D items on fuel fabrication technologies
–
–
–
•
•
Objectives
(PuO2-surrogated) CeO2-YSZ kernel by sol-gel method
ZrC coating on YSZ kernel by bromide process
Continuous TRISO coating based on HTTR fuel
technologies
Schedule (started in Oct. 2014)
–
–
–
Current status
–
–
Apparatuses for YSZ fabrication at NFI and ZrC coating
with dummy YSZ particle at JAEA were maintained.
YSZ fabrication and ZrC coating are in the progress.
Ce-YSZ particle fabricated at NFI
ZrC on Ce-YSZ particle coated at JAEA
4 year project from 2014 to 2017
YSZ fabrication and ZrC coating in 2015 and 2016
TRISO coating on ZrC-coated YSZ in 2016 and 2017
Buffer / IPyC / SiC / OPyC coated at NFI
ZrC coating on PuO2-YSZ kernel as free O2 getter to
reduce 50% (max. in target) of internal gas pressure
Kernel : UO2  PuO2-YSZ
Buffer layer ： Low dense PyC
High dense PyC layer
Conventional UO2 SiC-TRISO
SiC layer
PuO2-YSZ ZrC/SiC-TRISO
YSZ fabrication apparatus
ZrC coating apparatus
12
Advanced fuel development
• R&D on Sleeveless Oxidation-Resistant Fuel
•
•
Objectives
–
•
Current status
–
–
R&D items
–
–
•
Develop the advanced HTGR fuel performing higher
heat removal than that of the HTTR to decrease the
maximum fuel temperature during the normal operation
Fabrication technologies by hot press with Si & C
powders
New inspection methods based on HTTR fuel
technologies
Schedule( started in Sep. 2014)
–
–
–
–
–
Overcoating device was prepared.
Fabrication conditions for SiC-matrix dummy compact
(pressure, temperature, time, …) were analyzed by
design of experiments, etc.
Oxidation testing furnace (~ 1,600C in O2 atmosphere)
was constructed.
Fabrication and oxidation tests for SiC-matrix dummy
compact is in the progress.
3 year project from 2014 to 2016
Start fabrication of SiC-matrix dummy compact in 2015
Optimize fabrication and inspection conditions in 2016
Center rod
・・・・・
Higher heat removal
Graphite sleeve
→ Sleeveless
SiC-matrix
fuel compact
Upgrading oxidation
resistance
Graphite matrix → SiC
Conventional HTTR fuel rod
Sleeveless oxidation-resistant
fuel element
Overcoating device
Oxidation testing furnace
13
Interest in international project
 Expectation to the international project
 A demonstration HTGR can not be built in Japan at this moment.
 Too much risk for private sectors
 Standoff of fuel cycle policy, strong anti-nuclear movement, etc.
 International project will help establish government/industry HTGR development
structure in Japan, minimizing investment risk.
 International project will keep Japanese industries’ HTGR technology and human
resources.
 Japanese contributions to the international project
 Utilization of HTTR as an international test reactor and provision of HTTR data, including
legacy data
 Utilization of HTTR for GT and hydrogen technology development
 Possibility of establishment of new government/industry structure supporting the project
14
Summary
 JAEA would like to make a technical contribution to this international project for worldwide
deployment of HTGR with help of Japanese industries.
 JAEA has been developing HTGR and heat application technologies , and recently successfully
produced hydrogen using a new test facility. Also JAEA is making a strong effort to restart the
HTTR.
 HTTR is the only active HTGR providing 950oC heat. JAEA expects that the HTTR will be used as
an international test HTGR , especially for hydrogen and GT development.
15
Reference
Outline of HTTR
HTTR
Graphite-moderated and helium-cooled VHTR
Fuel Rods
Graphite
Block
Major specification
Thermal power
Fuel
Core material
Coolant
Inlet temperature
Outlet temperature
Pressure
Intermediate
heat
exchanger
(IHX)
Containment
vessel
30 MW
Coated fuel particle /
Prismatic block type
Graphite
Helium
395C
950C
4 MPa
First criticality : 1998
Full power operation : 2001
50 days continuous 950oC operation : 2010
Loss of forced cooling test at 9MW : 2010
Reactor
pressure vessel
Hot- gas duct
17
HTTR safety test
Data acquisition on inherent safety feature of HTGRs
Capability of reactivity control
Capability of heat removal
 Loss of forced cooling (LOFC) test (100%)
 LOFC and loss of vessel cooling test
Capability of confinement of radionuclides
 Confirmation of low radioactive
material inventory in primary circuit
 Confirmation of plate-out amount of
radioactive iodine in primary circuit
 Confirmation of FP release
performance from CFP
Control system for
reactor原子炉出口
outlet
temperature
温度制御系
(3) Acquisition
of data on
reactor
power,
outlet
temperature,
etc.
(1) Change the
heat removal
(simulate offnormal event in
Control
制御棒 rod
hydrogen
facility)
Heat exchanger
T
Reactor
(2) Disturbance of
reactor inlet
temperature
Data acquisition for analytical tools to evaluate safety of HTGR-H2.
 Demonstration of HTGR robustness to offnormal events in hydrogen facility
 Demonstration of HTGR safety against
multiple failures events initiated by
hydrogen facility.
Demonstration of HTGR robustness to
off-normal events in hydrogen facility
18
Establishment of safety standards for commercial HTGRs
 Requirements for commercial HTGRs
 Requirements for coupling H2 facility to HTGR
The research committee on “Safety
requirements for HTGR design” under
Atomic Energy Society of Japan (FY13-14)
Drafting guideline for safety evaluation
New research committee is planned (FY15-16)
Design guidelines for fuel and structural materials
HTTR
H2 facility
Helium gas
Turbine system
Safety standards for commercial HTGRs
Drafting safety requirements
HTTR-GT/H2 test
Safety review by NRA
HTTR safety test
Data acquisition on inherent safety features of HTGR
Data acquisition for analytical tools to evaluate safety of
HTGR-H2.
Data acquisition on integrity of fuel and structural materials
Advanced fuel development for commercial HTGRs
Tie up with IAEA CRP on Modular HTGR safety design
19
Gas Turbine Technology Development
GTHTR300 basic design and
component development
(2001- )
Collaborative work with MHI
• Basic design, safety design, and
cost estimation
• Developed high-efficiency He
compressor, compact heat
exchanger, etc.
• Turbine blade alloy development
World’s first
successful
operation of axial
He compressor,
He compressor
design method
validated
GTHTR300
Commercial lead plant
(2025)
Plant uprate
•850oC reactor outlet
•Full size reactor build to
allow uprate to 300 MWe
without design
modification
Full-size turbine
hot-function test
Technology transfer to private company •Turbine disc/casing
clearance confirmation
HTTR-GT/H2 construction
and operation (2015-2024)
Present
850oC
Single turbine disc
Conceptual design for
GTHTR300 power
generation system
(1998-2001)
20
H2 Production Technology Development
HI decomp.
Production
of HI and H2SO4
H2 facility
Commercial
use
Helium
gas turbine
H2SO4
decomp.
HTTR
Demonstration of one-week continuous
hydrogen production by glass apparatus
(0.03 m3/h-H2)
Technology transfer to private company
Present
HTTR-GT/H2 test
Industrial material
component test
Elemental
technologies
Bench-scale
test
Lab-scale
test
2000
Uncovering an closedcycle continuous
operation condition
(0.001 m3/h-H2)
H2 production test facility
Bunsen reactor
 Verification of integrity of total
HI reactor
components and stability of
H2SO4
hydrogen production
reactor
Integrity of key components in the IS  Development of strength
process environment
evaluation methodology for
ceramic components
(corrosion resistance , heat resistance)
21
Hydrogen production technology development
Iodine Sulfur process
Basic research
1997
H2
400oC
H2
+
I2
2HI
I
High-temp.
heat
Bunsen reaction
(Production of
hydrogen iodide H2SO4
and sulfuric acid)
2HI + H2SO4
I2 + SO2 + 2H2O
I2
Clarification of closed-cycle
operating conditions
Operation control
2004
900oC
Water
Decomposition of
hydrogen iodide (HI)
H2O
S
O2
1/2O2
+
SO2 + H2O
SO2
+
H2O
Decomposition
of sulfuric acid
HTTR
H2SO4 decomposition
 Heat over 4000oC is required.
IS process
 Below 900oC using chemical
reactions of iodine (I) and sulfur (S)
 I and S circulate in the process
(No emission of harmful chemicals)
 Drive with HTGR
(No CO2 emission)
HTTR-GT/H2 test
Process engineering
Present
Bunsen
reaction
Thermal water splitting
IHX
Heat exchanger
4
H2 facility
HI decomposition
H2 Production Test Facility
GT facility
Verification of integrity of total
Continuous H2 production
Establishment of safety design
process components made of
for a week
standard for integrating heat
3
industrial
materials
(100
L/h
scale)
(0.03m /h, glass apparatus)
application systems with reactor
22
Continuing HTGR
Development
in the US
March 8, 2016
A
AR.EVA
Topics
HTGR development
history
AREVA 625 MWt steam
cycle HTGR
Advanced reactor focus
areas in the US
Test and demo reactor
planning study
Other industry activities
Concluding Remarks
International HTGR Meeting - March 8, 2016
2
HTGR Development History
USA
China
How did we get here?
 Past HTGR designs and operating
experiences forms the bed rock of AREVA
steam cycle HTGR design
USA
 In 2013 NGNP Industry Alliance selected
AREVA 625 MWt SC-HTGR as its
reference plant for commercialization
China
Germany
UK
USA
HTR-10
2000- Present
HTTR
1998-present
THTR
1986-1989
USA
Fort St. Vrain
1967-1988
AVR
1967-1988
Peach Bottom 1
Dragon 1966-1974
X-10 Pile 1966-1975
1943-1963
HTR-PM
2017 Start
NGNP
2005 - Present
Japan
Germany
USA
AREVA
SC-HTGR
Other HTGR programs and activities
 GA – Large HTGRs (1970s and 1980s)
 DOE/GA - MHTGR project (1984-1998)
 DOE/GA - GT-MHR (1991- present)
 DOE/CEGA NPR Project (1989 - 1995)
 South African PBMR project (1995-2011)
 AREVA ANTARES Project (2004-2008)
 AREVA SC-HTGR (2011 - present)
 X-Energy (2014 - present)
3
AREVA 625 MWt SC-HTGR
A modular High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor
Net electric output 272 MWe / module
 In all electricity mode
Reactor temperatures
 Core inlet/outlet: 325°C / 750°C
 Process steam:
560°C
Reasons for selection
 Cost and safety advantage to LWRs -- higher
efficiency, expanded market, higher burnup,
eliminate multiple safety systems including S-R
AC power, eliminate evacuation requirements
 Reduced cost compared to PBR –economy of
scale 600 MW vs 200 MW
 Satisfies most process heat needs
 Provides test bed for improving technology
incrementally for future higher temperature and
Hydrogen cycles
 Intrinsically safe-passive heat removal
 Minimized technical risks to allow completion of
the demo plant in early 2030s
4
HTGR Process Heat Price versus Module and Plant Rating
25.00
At 3000 MWt Plant Rating:
Electricity Generation
1025 MWe
Steam Supply
890 MWt
This ratio is carried down to lowest plant
rating for the 200 and 600 MWt module
Process Heat Price, $/MMBtu
20.00
15.00
200 Mwt Pebble Bed
Reactor Modules
10.00
Debt ratio
IRR
Term
Interest
Tax Rate
5.00
0.00
0
600 Mwt Prismatic Block
Reactor Modules
80%
10%
20 year
8%
38.9%
500
1000
1500
2000
Plant Rating, MWt
2500
3000
3500
5
Basis for SC-HTGR Selection
Foundation for Future VHTR Markets
Market for direct very high temperature heat is longer-term
 Smaller than high temperature steam market
 More fragmented – requires customized interface for different applications
 Existing chemical processes require further development for integration
with heat from very high temperature reactor
Reactor technology similar between
steam cycle HTGR and VHTR
 Largest VHTR challenge is high
temperature energy transfer interface
Focusing on steam cycle HTGR now
provides best short-term and longterm solution
 Maximum benefit for energy markets as
soon as possible
 Partitioning risk between HTGR and VHTR
Required Development
Fuel Qualification
X
HTR Siting
X
HTR Licensing
X
Process Interface Issues
X
Safety Case Validation
X
Future
VHTR
Very High Temperature
Materials (metals, ceramics)
X
IHX Development
X
Very High Temperature
Process Interface
X
projects reduces risk for each project
SCHTGR
6
Advanced Reactor Focus Areas
•
•
•
•
Technologies R&D
Regulatory Framework
Generic
Development
Advanced materials
ASME code cases
Energy conversion
Passive cooling
systems and
modeling methods
• HTGR technology preapplication licensing
interaction with NRC
• Advanced reactor
design criteria and
implementation guides
HTGR Specific R&D
• Coated particle fuel
development
• Nuclear grade graphite
qualification
• OSU High Temperature Test
Facility
• RCCS Testing
Partnerships
• NGNP Industry Alliance
(June 2006 - )
• Recent FOA awards
(January 2016)
> X-Energy and
> Southern Co.
Adv. Rx System Studies
• DOE sponsored
“Advanced Test and
Demonstration
Reactor Planning
Study”
7
Advanced Test and Demo
Reactor Planning Study
Study Objectives
To provide transparent and defensible options to address need for, and
technology of, a test and or a demonstration reactor to be built to support
innovation and long term commercialization.
Strategic Objectives
Demonstrate process heat / high
efficiency electricity application
Demonstrate actinide
management
Increase maturity of technology
concept
Provide an irradiation test bed
Study Steps
 Workshop in April-2015 to develop
criteria and metrics
 Developed Point Designs for candidate
reactor concepts
 Technology Assessment evaluations
 Point Design evaluations were scored
week of February 22nd
Draft report will be issued in April 2016
HR-4084 - “The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act”
recently passed the House - pending Senate action.
8
Other Industry Activities
NGNP Industry Alliance
 DOE cost shared contracts
(~ $8M total spending ceiling)
 Economic/Business Analysis
Trade Studies (2014 and 2015)
 Siting study – proposal currently
under review (2016)
 Reactor building response study
(awarded in 2015)
 International activities – MOUs
with NC2I, Korea and Japan
EPRI ANT Initiatives
 SMR Utility Requirements
Document
 SMR staffing optimization
NEI SMR Working Group
 Emergency planning
 Licensing fees
 Control room staffing
 Security staffing
 SMR Start
NEI Advanced Reactor Working
Group (recently launched)
Key Policy Issues
 Mechanistic Source Term
 Reduced EPZ
 Lack of need for traditional
containment building
 Non-LWR generic design criteria
 Reduce staffing
9
Concluding Remarks
NGNP Industry Alliance member companies lead the HTGR
commercialization efforts in the US
Fuel and graphite characterization and qualification R&D are
concluding in coming years with exceptionally positive interim
results
The Steam Cycle HTGR has extremely high intrinsic and
passive safety characteristics resulting in minimum
commercialization risk
NGNP Industry Alliance member companies are establishing a
solid technical, regulatory, business, and economic case for
modern prismatic block HTGR
The introduction of HTGR technology into the commercial
arena requires an international collaboration led by industry
and supported by our sovereign states
10
Backups
A
11
REV
SC-HTGR Module
A
12
Backup
13
Nominal Operating Parameters
Fuel type
Core geometry
Reactor power
TRISO particle
102 column annular
10 block high
625 MWt
Reactor outlet temperature
750°C
Reactor inlet temperature
325°C
Primary coolant pressure
6 MPa
Vessel Material
Number of loops
Steam generator power
Main circulator power
Main steam temperature
Main steam pressure
SA 508/533
2
315 MWt (each)
4 MWe (each)
566°C
16.7 MPa
14
SC-HTGR Provides Good Performance
Even for Extreme Arid Conditions
Nominal
(Ref. Plant)
Hot Arid
Site
Extreme
Day for
Hot Arid
Site
Cooling tower type
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet bulb temperature
16°C
NA
NA
Dry bulb temperature
36°C
45°C
55°C
Condenser heat load
340 MWt
369 MWt
380 MWt
Total house load
21 MWe
26 MWe
26 MWe
Net electricity output
272 MWe
239 MWe
228 MWe
43.5%
38.2%
36.5%
Net efficiency
15
Basis for SC-HTGR Selection (1)
Broadest Impact on Energy Economy
High temperature steam directly supports broadest segment
of process heat market
 Compatible with existing chemical facilities
 High temperature steam is de facto standard for high temperature energy
transport within process facilities
 HTGR allows nuclear to reach beyond traditional baseload electricity
market
 Electricity is only 40% of total energy market
High temperature steam provides more efficient electricity
production
 Reference concept efficiency >43% net
 Well suited to dry cooling applications
 Less performance loss than lower temperature technologies
Steam conditions directly compatible with modern fossil
steam turbine plants
 Beneficial for repowering existing facilities
16
Enhanced Safety of Modular HTGR
Low investment risk for all design basis events
 For nuclear plant
 For adjacent chemical plant (several billion dollar investment) or other
nearby facilities
Minimal EPZ
Allows collocation with industrial energy user for efficient
energy transfer
Chemical plant operators have indicated HTGR risk profile
acceptable (not so for other reactor technologies)
Safety profile allows repowering of retiring fossil units in nonrural settings
Enhanced safety eliminates need for evacuation
 (Risk potential of evacuation itself is not negligible – re Fukushima study)
Low investment risk attractive for all applications
17
Maximizes Use of Existing Technology
AREVA adopted SC-HTGR configuration to minimize
technology risk
Key technologies have been demonstrated in other
applications and support high TRLs
 Fuel being qualified in AGR program with excellent results
 Prismatic block core design and fuel handling successful in Fort St. Vrain
and in High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR – Japan)
 Vessels use established LWR technology
 Steam generator
 Helical coil steam generator technology demonstrated in numerous gas-cooled
reactors (performed well; FSV water ingress issues not related to steam generator)
 315 MWt steam generator enveloped by larger designs for 350 MWt MHTGR, NPMHTGR, and large PCRV HTGRs
 Circulator and magnetic bearings within current commercial technology
What remains to be done is to design and build actual modular
HTGR plant that integrates these technologies
18
Sized for Best Cost Performance
Maximizing reactor module size provides economy of scale
 Must stay within modular HTGR design constraints
Nominally 600 MWt prismatic block core is largest modular
HTGR configuration that allows passive cooling
 Acceptable fuel temperatures without active cooling
 Acceptable fuel temperatures without reactor coolant
“Large” modular HTGR has significant cost advantage
compared to smaller HTGR
 Studies during NGNP program demonstrated that the 600 MWt modular
HTGR had a 30% lower cost of energy compared to a 200 MWt HTGR
Modular design supports incremental capacity addition
 Individual module suitable for repowering moderate size fossil generators
 Typical industrial chemical facility may require multiple HTGR modules
 Full multi-module SC-HTGR plant (4x625) competitive with large LWRs
19
Industry Alliance
Clean, Sustainable Energy for the 21st Century
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
The Piketon
Integrated Energy System
(IES)
Plant
Steven Shepherd
Executive Director , SODI
Proposal HTGR International Project Meeting
March 8, 2015
1
Industry Alliance
SODI’s Mission
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
 SODI is the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative.
 Community Reuse Organization (CRO) for the DOE
Reservation at Piketon
 Site Re-use
 Job Creation
 Regional Impact
 Develop Partnerships
2
Industry Alliance
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
Outline
• What is the Piketon Plant?
• The Piketon Integrated Energy System (IES)
Plant
• Summary
• Questions
3
Industry Alliance
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
DOE Reservation at Piketon, Ohio
4
Industry Alliance
Strategically Located
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
5
Industry Alliance
Strategically Located
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
6
Industry Alliance
Piketon
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
• One day drive to 70% of manufacturing markets in North America
• Centralized location for infrastructure, population, industries, natural
resources
• Natural resources
– Coal, gas, Oil (Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania)
– Biomass (grasses, hardwoods)
– Water availability (River/Wells)
• Access to 13 State universities and advanced technical institutionsincluding Battelle, the Edison Centers and OSU
• Existing regulatory/environmental permits
• Nuclear site
• Both NRC/DOE regulatory experience
7
Industry Alliance
Piketon
•
•
•
•
•
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
Highly characterized site – Seismic Stability
Remotely located from large population centers
Long history of nuclear operations
Strong support for nuclear project/operations from the community
Industrial infrastructure
– Electric grid/right-of-way
– Pipelines/right-of-way
– Rail/River/Highway
• Emergency preparedness and response capability
• Security operations and physical protection system
8
Industry Alliance
Infrastructure
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
3700 acre former DOE uranium enrichment site
Water
Designed for 40 million gallons a day
Waste Water Treatment
Design Capacity 1.2 million gallons per day
Available Land
Capability to support a full scale IES with future
expansion capability
9
Industry Alliance
Activities Underway
for IES Land Transfer
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
• Creation of “Radiological
Baseline” activity initiated
October
• Procedures for transfer of
land being developed from
protocols (orders, etc)
• Projected Transfer Date is
Spring 2016
10
Industry Alliance
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
The Piketon IES Plant Project
•
Integrate high temperature nuclear heat with industrial technologies to:
– Power industrial processes such as carbon conversion (e.g. coal to liquids and biomass)
and chemical production
– Produce hydrogen for transportation fuels, polymers, plastics, fertilizer, hydrogen fuel
cell market
– Produce electricity
•
Create an Energy Intensive Process Plant:
- Serve existing markets
- Create new markets, both domestic and “off-shore” opportunities
- Utilize the generation of hydrogen across the individual components of the Process
Plant
- Develop “flexible” processes to accommodate market shifts
•
Utilize residual heat to drive low temperature processes
– Water purification (e.g. distillation, osmosis)
– Enzymatic processes (e.g. fermentation, anaerobic digestion)
11
Industry Alliance
Integrated Energy
System Concept
Nuclear Fuel
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
Electricity to the BES
Grid
750° C
HTGR Reactor
Process Heat
Generator
325° C
Low Temperature
Processes
(e.g., Water Purification,
Enzymatic Processes)
CO2
Natural Gas
Hydrogen Production
via steam methane reforming
Industrial Applications
(e.g., Oil & Gas Recovery, Food &
Beverage, Wastewater Treatment)
H2
Hydrogenation
Hydrocarbon Products
(e.g., Fuels, Polymers, Plastics)
C
Mechanical and Chemical
Processes
Carbon feedstock
Byproducts
• Carbon Fibers
• Bulk Chemicals
• Specialty Chemicals
12
Industry Alliance
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
Key Strategic Objectives
• Attract developers and investors
• Determine the composition of energy intensive
industries for location on or near the Reservation
• Identify and Attract end users – Piketon region is
rich with potential
• Strengthen international connections and support
• Implement formal agreement with U.S.
government for Piketon reindustrialization
13
Industry Alliance
Progress
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
SODI and Alliance MOU in place (4/15)
Visit to Piketon by EU delegation and DOE (4/15)
Meetings in Brussels (9/15)
Meetings with Elected Officials and Policy Makers in
Columbus (8/21&22)
Initiation of Land Transfer Activities by the DOE
Ongoing close communications with DOE and selected
Congressional offices
DRAFT investment prospectus for securing the
Assessment and Planning Team Support
Initiation of “Industry Discovery” Process
14
Industry Alliance
Summary
SOUTHERN OHIO
DIVERSIFICATION
INITATIVE
• Ambitious, complex, and requires active and sustained effort
by many players including industry, State and federal
government and possibly other countries.
• Provides “win-win” situations for communities, government,
energy industries, manufacturing and trades.
• Opportunity to advance the future of efficient integrated
Energy Systems in the United States and possibly the EU,
Korea and Japan.
15
www.inl.gov
Opportunities for
Commercializing and
Deploying HTGR Technology
Phil Hildebrandt
Special Assistant to the Laboratory Director
International HTGR Deployment Meeting
March 8, 2016
Topics
•
Introduction to the Idaho National Laboratory
•
Advanced Reactors – extending nuclear energy to the industrial
market
•
NGNP Project and the US Energy Policy Act 2005
•
HTGR – US technology status overview
•
Some perspectives applicable to an international HTGR project
2
The New Vision and Strategy Positions INL to
be Relevant to Tomorrow’s Energy Future
Vision:
INL will change the
world’s energy future and
secure our critical
infrastructure.
ADVANCING
NUCLEAR
ENERGY
ENABLING
CLEAN ENERGY
DEPLOYMENT
SECURING &
MODERNIZING
CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
3
People, Programs, and Facilities Enable Our Strategy
The Nation’s Premier Nuclear Science
and Technology Laboratory
Synergistic Energy and
Environment Solutions
At Scale
Implement Regional
Innovation for Clean
Energy Systems
Develop materials and
systems for clean energy
Enable sustainable
manufacturing processes
Advance next-generation
transportation systems
Deliver the Gateway
for Accelerated
Innovation in Nuclear
Enable the first SMR
Sustain the
LWR fleet
Maintain a viable
MFC and ATR
and restart TREAT to
design nuclear
energy systems
Critical National and
Homeland Security
Capability
Build the Control
Systems Cyber Security
Innovation Center
Design resilient critical infrastructure
Enable future defense and
intelligence systems
Provide innovative nuclear
and non-proliferation
solutions
Building on INL’s Extraordinary People,
Programs, and Facilities to Increase Scientific Impact
4
The Idaho National Laboratory Site
We Maintain:
• 890 square miles
• 111 miles of electrical transmission
and distribution lines
• 579 buildings
• 177 miles of paved roads
• 14 miles of railroad lines
• 3 reactors
• 2 spent fuel pools
• Mass transit system
• Security
• Museum
• Educational and research
partnerships – CAES
3,771 Employees
FY-2015 Business Volume
$917M
Idaho National Laboratory only – does not include other site contractors
5
Center for Advanced Energy Studies
Collaborative Energy Research
Explore:
Energy & Environmental Research
Educate: Energy & Environmental Education
Engage:
Apply Knowledge to Industry
Enable:
Energy Transitions and Economic
Development
Core Capabilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Energy Systems Design and Analyses
Nuclear Science and Engineering
Materials Science and Engineering
Environmental and Resource Sustainability
Carbon Engineering
Geological Systems and Applications
Policy
CAES by the Numbers
In the past 5 years:
$105.1 M
CAES Idaho Falls Facility
• 55,000 sq./ft. LEED Gold
• 8 Labs (4 with radiological capabilities)
• 150 research staff
3325
814
Research and development
funding and equipment acquired
Number of students supported
by CAES-related projects
Number of publications,
presentations, and proceeds
CAES researchers produced
6
Estimated U.S. Energy Use (2014)
39% Electricity (total)
28% Transportation
Non-electric energy use:
22% Industrial
7% Residential
4% Commercial
7
Advanced Technologies Can Extend Use of
Nuclear Energy to The Considerable Energy
Needs Of Industry Via Cogeneration
• US industrial market used ~21 quads of energy in 2014 (~22% of
total energy consumption)
• Today – industrial process heat needs provided primarily by fossil
resources
• Advanced nuclear energy can provide a competitive, clean and
sustainable alternative to fossil resources
• Advanced nuclear energy technologies can provide a flexible
source that can be matched to the energy needs of major
industrial facilities
8
Industrial Process Heat Opportunities
9
Important considerations for nuclear energy
supplying the needs of industry
• Energy supply capabilities match industry needs (power and process heat
conditions; N-x reliability criteria)
• Economics (stable and competitive energy prices over lifetime; sustainable energy
resource)
• Regulation (collocation of nuclear and industrial facilities; close coupled interconnection;
emergency planning; authority having jurisdiction)
• Financial risk (nuclear energy facility operations do not threaten the investment in the
industrial facility even under nuclear accident conditions – or vice versa)
• Flexibility (cogeneration configuration allows adjusting power supplied to grid based on
energy market pricing)
• Environmental effect (reduce carbon emissions; minimal additional waste burden)
10
NGNP Project Successfully…
• Enabled formation of an industry consortium to support and promote
HTGR technology commercialization and deployment
• Demonstrated the capabilities of TRISO fuel as the centerpiece of the
safety case
• Demonstrated industrial scale production of quality TRISO fuel
• Qualified and codified (in-process) high temperature metals and graphite
for HTGR structural applications
• Completed early conceptual design for HTGR concept and completed
multiple design trade studies
• Obtained technical agreement with NRC staff and ACRS on fundamental
safety and licensing basis concepts for HTGR
• Evaluated market opportunities for HTGR technology including feasibility
of collocating HTGRs with industrial process plants to provide high
temperature process heat and power
• Established a preliminary economic basis for development of business
cases for deployment of HTGR technology in multiple applications
11
Lessons Learned…
• USG priorities were inconsistent
– Administration budget requests did not align with project needs
– Priorities of Administration and Congress continually shifted – short attention span
• Original strong interest by energy intensive end-users tied to anticipated
USG environmental requirements and high natural gas prices -fundamental interest with a long view did not exist
• Inadequate advocacy by nuclear industry allowed
– USG priorities for NGNP Project to shift
– NRC not to take on longstanding policy level issues for HTGR and other advanced
reactor technologies
• Industry signals regarding reluctance to make adequate equity
investment provided opportunity for USG to defer project for other
priorities
 An industry-led initiative in partnership with Government is critical to
moving advanced nuclear energy technologies forward
 Structure of EPAct 2005 authorization for the NGNP Project
continues to provide a good foundation in the US for moving forward
with a public-private partnership
12
EPAct 2005 – the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant Project…
• Authorizes the development and commercialization of a
Generation IV Nuclear Energy System – HTGR technology
• Authorizes construction of a prototype plant
• Requires organization of a consortium of industrial partners
• Requires formation of a public-private partnership(s) to complete
the development, commercialization and initial deployment
• Establishes a cost-sharing formulation between industry and
government
• Directs NRC and DOE to develop and implement a licensing
strategy for the nuclear reactor technology being developed,
designed and constructed under the NGNP Project
• Authorizes certain appropriations
13
EPAct 2005 – An Opinion
• The NGNP Project authorized by the US Energy Policy Act of 2005
provides the necessary elements to proceed with the NGNP Project
as either a domestic or international project – with preference for a
partnership structure that retains US technological leadership
• The authorizing legislation lays the necessary foundation, but
requires some limited changes to bring the language consistent with
a plan for an international project and to recognize activities that
have previously been accomplished by industry and the US
Government
• As a minimum, success will require that industry leadership is
essential to gain the agreement of US Government to proceed
14
HTGR Technology
Development and Qualification Needs
High Temperature Materials
Characterization, Testing and Codification
Graphite Characterization, Irradiation Testing, Modeling and Codification
Fuel Fabrication, Irradiation, and Safety
Testing
Design and Safety Methods
Development and
Validation
15
UCO TRISO-coated Particle Fuel
• Currently uranium oxycarbide
TRISO fuel is being qualified in
the US
• Excellent fuel performance
under normal operating
conditions at high burnup (up to
20 atom%) and high
temperatures (up to 1250°C)
• Excellent fuel performance
under postulated accidents at
high temperature (16001800°C)
• Key needs:
TRISO Fuel for High
Temperature Gas-cooled
Reactors
– Characterization and understanding
fission product retention/transport in
TRISO coatings (SiC and pyrolytic
carbon) and graphite
16
Graphite Accomplishments
• Established analytical measurement laboratories
at INL and ORNL to perform extensive material
characterization of graphite. INL lab is being
upgraded to handle irradiated graphite
• Characterized over 800 graphite samples for
AGC-1 and AGC-2 irradiations
• Detailed characterization of graphite billets from
different vendors is complete
• Irradiation of AGC-1 and AGC-2 are complete.
PIE of AGC-1 is complete; PIE of AGC-2 is
nearing completion
• HTV irradiation complete. Irradiation of AGC-3 is
complete. PIE underway
• AGC-4 design is complete. Irradiation began in
June 2015.
First graphite
irradiation capsule
(AGC-1)
Graphite Characterization Labs at INL and ORNL
17
High Temperature Materials Accomplishments
• Completed initial material screening
tests to determine acceptability of
candidate alloys for large metallic
components in VHTR
• Established test loop to measure
impact of impurities on IHX alloys and
extended models for predicting He
impurity interaction with IHX alloys up
to 1000°C
• Developed data to demonstrate that
LWR pressure vessel steel (A503/533)
can be used in VHTR environment
• Extended code case for Alloy 800H
from 760°C to 850°C
• Developed data to codify Inconel 617
for use in VHTR up to 950°C. Draft
code case submitted to ASME
High Temperature
Mechanical and
Environmental Testing
of Key Alloys
High Temperature Materials Characterization
Lab at INL
18
VHTR Methods Program Elements
Integral
Systems
Modeling
Multi-dimensional CFD Simulations
Pebble and Prismatic Physics Methods
Physics, Thermal and System Safety Methods,
Code Development and Application
Design Methods and Validation
Separate Effects and Integral Testing Under Normal and Off-Normal Conditions
ANL Facility
to Validate
VHTR Cavity
Cooling
System
Behavior
Cross-section
Measurements
at LANL
INL’s Matched Index of
Refraction Facility to
Study 3-D Flow Effects in Plena
Scaled Vessel
Testing
Graphite/Air Reaction
Rate Testing
19
VHTR Design and Safety Methods
• Two large experimental validation
efforts underway for key safety
aspects of modular HTRs
HTTF:
Integral simulation
of VHTR
RCCS:
Characterize heat sink
• In-vessel studies in High Temperature
Test Facility (HTTF) at Oregon State
University
– Redesigning aspects of heater
rods to assure system can reach
desired temperature
• Reactor cavity cooling system (RCCS)
studies using Argonne National
Laboratory facility
– Tests with air complete.
Complementary testing at two
lower scales complete at UWMadison and Texas A&M
– Tests with water planned next.
Facility mods being planned
20
Licensing Policy & Technical Issue Relationships
Multi-Reactor Module Plant Facility
Fission Product
Transport
Fuel Performance
Source Term
(Technical)
(Policy)
Containment
Requirements
(Policy)
Protection of the
Public
Emergency
Planning
Requirements
(Policy)
Selection of Events,
incl. Multi-Module Risk
(Policy)
21
Perspectives…
• From a technology development perspective…
– Significant accomplishments have been achieved in all development areas –
qualification continues in several areas (e.g., fuel; graphite; high temperature
materials; design and safety analysis methods)
– Fuel program has demonstrated the high quality and excellent performance of
production TRISO fuel even at very high temperatures – central to nuclear safety
• From a technology selection perspective…
– HTGR and SFR technologies are the most mature of the Generation IV
technologies
– The US NGNP project and the continuing international VHTR program have laid
an important foundation for commercializing and eventually deploying HTGR
technology
• From a business perspective…
– HTGR technology opens the door to an expanded energy market for nuclear
energy
– An international project may provide the opportunity to commercialize HTGR
technology with acceptable investment risk
22
What is needed…
• A commitment by the international nuclear industry to complete a
project or projects that will permit realizing the benefits of an
advanced reactor technology – the HTGR
• A commitment by energy intensive end-users to a transformation
from the use of fossil fuels to nuclear energy for industrial process
heat needs
• A mutual commitment by industry and governments that
commercialization and deployment of HTGR technology is an
essential part of the future global energy enterprise
23
24
24
24
Empowering Change:
Licensee-Led Licensing Modernization Initiative
Amir Afzali
Licensing Director- Next Generation Reactors
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
© Southern Company 2015 All Rights Reserved
Proprietary and Confidential
Objectives
•
Objective of Southern proposed initiative is:
• To develop and present by 2018 end-users perspectives and
recommendations on a modernized licensing framework (and its
supporting requirements) that facilitates building an advanced
reactor in United States by 2030.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
2
2
Why- Background
•
Licensing modernization efforts have been on-going in US for over 30
years (e.g., MHTGR, PRISM, etc.).
The progress has been very slow and licensing barrier against
investment needed to realize benefits of advanced reactors still exist.
•
•
For example, policy issues outlined in SECY 93-092 (April 1993) have remained
unresolved for over 20 years.
• Uncertainties in regulatory positions on advanced technologies has result
in:
• Nuclear supply change challenges for new/advanced nuclear energy concepts
• Limited private sector investment due to unacceptable risks in financing development and
commercialization of advanced reactors.
• Potential customers taking a “wait and see” approach because economic and performance
claims are not considered credible without clear pathway for deployment.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
3
3
Gap Closure- Proposed Utility-Led Industry Initiative
•
Develop and recommend a modernized framework which is:
• Technology inclusive, performance-based, and risk-informed.
• Phased/staged approach.
Complement the joint DOE/NRC Advanced Reactor Design Criteria
(ARDC) initiative.
Builds on over 20 years of licensing modernization activities for HTGR by
using HGTR as a surrogate for the to be recommended licensing
framework.
•
•
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
4
4
Concluding Remarks
• A modernized phased technology inclusive, Performance-Based/Risk-Informed
(PB/RI) Licensing framework is essential to facilitate technology innovation.
• Exercise of the proposed licensing framework is necessary for its effective
deployment.
• Exercise of the framework requires an application from a ready to be deployed
advanced reactor technology.
• HTGR is a ready to be deployed non-light water reactor design (e.g., fuel
qualification, supply chain availability, etc.)
• Over 20 years of technology inclusive licensing related products available to build
upon.
• Timely deployment of advanced reactors is an expensive proposition which will be
greatly helped by the international cooperation.
• Deployment and licensing of a First Of A Kind (FOA) HTGR in US will help the
international community through retirement of technical and licensing risks.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
5
5
Empowering Change:
Licensee-Led Licensing Modernization Initiative
Amir Afzali
Licensing Director- Next Generation Reactors
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
Objectives
•
Objective of Southern proposed initiative is:
• To develop and present by 2018 end-users perspectives and
recommendations on a modernized licensing framework (and its
supporting requirements) that facilitates building an advanced
reactor in United States by 2030.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
2
2
Why- Background
•
Licensing modernization efforts have been on-going in US for over 30
years (e.g., MHTGR, PRISM, etc.).
The progress has been very slow and licensing barrier against
investment needed to realize benefits of advanced reactors still exist.
•
•
For example, policy issues outlined in SECY 93-092 (April 1993) have remained
unresolved for over 20 years.
• Uncertainties in regulatory positions on advanced technologies has result
in:
• Nuclear supply change challenges for new/advanced nuclear energy concepts
• Limited private sector investment due to unacceptable risks in financing development and
commercialization of advanced reactors.
• Potential customers taking a “wait and see” approach because economic and performance
claims are not considered credible without clear pathway for deployment.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
3
3
Gap Closure- Proposed Utility-Led Industry Initiative
•
Develop and recommend a modernized framework which is:
• Technology inclusive, performance-based, and risk-informed.
• Phased/staged approach.
Complement the joint DOE/NRC Advanced Reactor Design Criteria
(ARDC) initiative.
Builds on over 20 years of licensing modernization activities for HTGR by
using HGTR as a surrogate for the to be recommended licensing
framework.
•
•
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
4
4
Concluding Remarks
• A modernized phased technology inclusive, Performance-Based/Risk-Informed
(PB/RI) Licensing framework is essential to facilitate technology innovation.
• Exercise of the proposed licensing framework is necessary for its effective
deployment.
• Exercise of the framework requires an application from a ready to be deployed
advanced reactor technology.
• HTGR is a ready to be deployed non-light water reactor design (e.g., fuel
qualification, supply chain availability, etc.)
• Over 20 years of technology inclusive licensing related products available to build
upon.
• Timely deployment of advanced reactors is an expensive proposition which will be
greatly helped by the international cooperation.
• Deployment and licensing of a First Of A Kind (FOA) HTGR in US will help the
international community through retirement of technical and licensing risks.
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR
5
5
To:
Attendees (see attached list)
From:
Mark Haynes, Senior Advisor
Date:
March 17, 2016
SUBJECT:
March 8 – 10 Meetings on International Modular HTGR Project / Enterprise
Thank you each again for attending our meetings in Washington last week. Our discussions and work
confirmed that an international Project/Enterprise to develop a modern prismatic block HTGR can provide
an inherently safe and economical source of emissions free energy for multiple energy end-use sectors while
also paving the way to strategically and economically important export products for each of our nations and
other types of advanced reactor development.
In our working meetings we made excellent progress toward:
1. Better understanding each nation’s interests;
2. Defining the scope and nature of the Project/Enterprise;
3. Determining the actual organization of the Project/Enterprise;
4. Communicating about the proposed project with key U.S. government decision makers; and
5. Defining our next steps and how we will continue to move forward together.
Finally, our meetings were characterized by a strong mutual respect and enthusiasm for working together to
move the Project/Enterprise forward.
This memo summarizes some of the key aspects of the meeting
Meeting Attendance:
Attached is the list of attendees for the first day’s plenary session along with the final meeting agenda.
During the first day’s session there were key persons from Japan, Korea, Poland, the UK, U.S. Department
of Energy, the U.S. Department of State, the Piketon Ohio site, The Idaho National Laboratory and U.S.
Industry.
Presentations:
As listed in the attached Agenda, numerous presentations were given during the first day. Taken together
and most generally, the presentations by the U.S. participants described a convergence of events that create a
unique opportunity to begin the near-term deployment of a First Of A Kind (FOAK) modern prismatic block
HTGR in the U.S. These events include the technological maturity and a near completion of the
development work on HTGR fuel and materials; the growing U.S. interest in moving advanced reactors
forward; the interest by Southern Company in using an HTGR licensing action as a means of modernizing
the U.S. regulatory process for advanced reactors; the partnership with Piketon, Ohio as the potential site for
the FOAK project; and the apparent interest in other countries in joining a U.S. project.
The presentations by the Polish representatives made clear their interest in joining a project in the U.S. and
also in a parallel deployment in Poland with potential interest by Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Such a
project might be supported by existing EU loan programs and structural funding.
Presentations by the Japanese and Koreans described each country’s deep experience in HTGR technology
and interest in ultimately utilizing high temperature heat from HTGRs for the purpose of hydrogen
production and industrial process heat applications.
The UK presentation discussed their long term experience with gas cooled reactors and possible interest in
moving them forward under their developing Small Modular Reactor program. No decisions have been
made yet.
The electronic versions of those presentations will be found within the next few days on the Alliance’s
website at http://www.ngnpalliance.org
Group Discussions:
During the subsequent two days, two initial working groups were created that included participants from the
U.S., Japan, Korea, and Poland. One working group focused on defining what specific elements/projects
would define an international MHR development and demonstration Project/Enterprise. It was generally
agreed that a phased approach be adopted, with initial demonstration of a steam-cycle plant operating at
about 750ºC core outlet temperature for co-generation of process steam and electricity, followed by
demonstration of a Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) with core outlet temperatures up to about 950ºC
for nuclear hydrogen production and high-efficiency electricity production using a direct Brayton cycle. It
was also generally agreed that a common MHR/VHTR design be adopted for the Enterprise. Transitioning
to the VHTR would be incorporated into the MHR steam-cycle design to demonstrate common Structures,
Systems, and Components (SSCs). Additional technology development required to support VHTR
development and demonstration would be a key element of the enterprise and would be conducted in parallel
to the MHR steam-cycle design/demonstration effort. Based on discussions at this meeting, this approach is
consistent with the interests of all participant nations. This approach is also consistent with business plans
developed by the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Industry Alliance (NIA). This approach also
provides an MHR steam-cycle design with technical, licensing, quality control, and export advantages over
the concept being developed by China, while also providing an international framework for advancing past
China for VHTR development and deployment.
The second initial working group focused on what measures are needed within the participant nations to
establish an international framework to support this Project / Enterprise, i.e., “how” does this get established
across international boundaries with common MHR/VHTR interests. Our respective government and
industry decision making processes and possible means to align our interests and to join our countries
together were discussed. The central role of industrial participation and leadership in the Project/Enterprise
was recognized as was the need for more detailed discussions in the coming weeks and months with regard
to the benefits to and contributions from each nation. Opportunities for localized supply of SSCs and other
services will almost certainly factor into the decision making for countries participating in the enterprise. In
the case of Japan, for example, is the utilization of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) High
Temperature engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) to support design, technology development, methods
development, and licensing.
Project/Enterprise Structure: As noted before, there were considerable discussions about the actual
scope and structure of an international Project/Enterprise to deploy and commercialize modern HTGR
technology. It was generally agreed that the overall international partnership could include a phased
deployment and development effort as follows:
1. The Project: A First Of A Kind (FOAK) demonstration(s) in the U.S. and possibly Poland of a 750C
outlet temperature steam-cycle prismatic block HTGR. This near-term phase would include design,
licensing approvals by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and construction. The
demonstration(s) would be operational by approximately 2030.
2. The longer-term but parallel Enterprise: Development work that would facilitate a later
deployment of higher temperature (900 – 1000C), more advanced prismatic block HTGR technology
that would be capable of more efficient hydrogen and electric power production. This work would
include the development of higher temperature materials, hydrogen production technology, Brayton
Cycle gas turbine technology and high temperature intermediate heat exchanger technology (IHX).
Meetings with Key U.S. Government Decision Makers:
Each meeting was attended by Alliance Members and an international delegation. We described the interest
of each of our countries in the Project/Enterprise, the issues we were addressing during our meetings and the
progress we were making. While it is too early for any U.S. government decisions or obligations, each
meeting was very positive and we were met with good questions (including questions regarding positions of
Poland, Korea and Japan), offers of assistance and the request that we continue to communicate our progress.
Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio): The Senator represents the Piketon site and is a Member of the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. His staff had met several times previously with the Alliance
and others about our proposed Project/Enterprise and the potential of the Piketon site as the U.S. location.
The Senator expressed his strong support for the project and agreed to work with us to move the project
forward. The Alliance will be following up with his staff.
Staff of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology: Within the Committee’s broad
jurisdiction is the responsibility for the NGNP project and all U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) advanced
reactor research and development. The staff agreed that HTGRs are likely the advanced reactor technology
that is most mature in terms of receiving an NRC license. They also noted that that there were several
justifications for the project that might help bring Committee Member and Congressional support to the
project including national security, nuclear non-proliferation, NRC licensing modernization and the
strengthening of international relations.
Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho): The Senator is the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (and by virtue of being from Idaho, is keenly
supportive of the Idaho National Laboratory and of nuclear energy development). The Senator asked a
number of questions about the project and its siting. He stated his support. The Senator’s Chief of Staff
who was also in the meeting, expressed his support and requested that he be included in future meetings
with the Senator’s policy staff.
Staff of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: This is the Senate Committee that
has responsibility for the NGNP project and all DOE advanced reactor research and development. The
meeting was very positive with staff being particularly interested in the question of why the NGNP project
had yet to move forward. They expressed their belief that an international project might well be a good
way to move forward with an HTGR deployment in the U.S. and were interested in hearing more details as
our project/enterprise develops.
Staff of Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): The Senator, a very senior Member of the Senate and the
sponsor of legislation that supports advanced nuclear energy development, was unfortunately ill on this
day. So we met with the Senator’s staff. The meeting was very positive and the staff had a number of
questions about how the project would work, including how Intellectual Property might be handled. They
expressed their belief that the Project/Enterprise is a good idea and that they would be following it
carefully.
U.S Department of State: Richard Stratford, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and
Security, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Sarah McPhee, Office of Nuclear
Energy, Safety and Security; and Kyler Turner, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security:
This is the primary office within the Department of State responsible for international nuclear policy,
safety, security and non-proliferation. Mr. Stratford had done a considerable amount of research on the
NGNP project and the Alliance prior to our meeting. He asked a number of questions about the status of
the project and our proposed international collaboration. He noted that he did not see any “show stoppers”
with our proposed collaboration in terms of the export of U.S. technology (so called “Section 810”
approvals) to Poland, EU, Korea or Japan. He agreed that exploring OECD’s NEA as a possible host
forum to facilitate discussions amongst our governments and industry would be a good idea. Mr. Stratford
stated that he thought the international HTGR project was a good idea and asked to be kept informed of our
progress.
In addition to these meetings, the Polish delegation led by Dr. Michał Kurtyka, Undersecretary of State in
the Ministry of Economy, participated in several meetings with US government Administration on March
9th and 10th:
 Mike Wautlet, White House Director for Nuclear Energy Policy, et al.
 Jonathan Elkind, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Adam Cohen, Deputy
Undersecretary Cohen for NE, Department of Energy, et al.
 Michael Lally, Assistant Secretary for Europe, Middle East and Africa, Department of
Commerce, et al.
 Melanie Nakagawa, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Energy Resources, Department of
State, et al.
During these meetings, the Polish delegation expressed the interest in a common Project/Enterprise, as
described in the attached draft of EoI. In general, the idea was well received. Some reservation was expressed
concerning the choice of technology, since US government currently supports development of several types
of advanced reactors. Arguments on large export potential of HTGR technology were well received. It was
concluded that business-to-business and government-to-government relations would need to be intensified
to support the project.
Follow Up Actions
Among the many follow up items from the meeting were the following:
1. Summary of March 8 – 10 Meeting (Action: Mark Haynes)
2. Continue to refine the scope and structure of the Project / Enterprise (Action: All)
3. Consult with William Magwood, the head of the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency as to whether
there might be value in the NEA issuing an invitation the Parties (U.S., EC/Poland, Korea and Japan)
for discussions about the Project / Enterprise under their auspices. (Action: Phil Hildebrandt and
Mark Haynes). An ancillary action is to make sure that HTGR is well positioned on Nuclear
Innovation 2050 roadmap, which might be a useful vehicle to move the project forward. (Action:
Grzegorz Wrochna).
4. Draft Terms of Reference for the Project/Enterprise for use by each of the Parties (Action: Finis
Southworth, Mike Roberts, Mark Haynes and Phil Hildebrandt)
5. Additional follow up meetings with Congress and U.S. Executive Branch agencies (Action: Mark
Haynes, Amir Afzali, and Phil Hildebrandt)
6. Provide the NGNP Industry Alliance with list of key government and industry contacts for Japan and
Korea. (Action: Kazuhiro Kunitomi and Minhwan Kim respectively)
7. Schedule semi-weekly Project/Enterprise Conference call (“Go-to-Meeting” format) (Action: Kim
Stein, AREVA)
8. Information needed from each participating Nation:
a. Description of internal decision-making process
b. Identification of possible “show stoppers”
c. Prepare white paper by each potential participant country <25 March draft> (Priorities; Advantages;
National needs; Contributions to Project/Enterprise) – as working draft, not national position, for
input to draft Terms of Reference
(Action: Kazuhiro Kunitomi, Minhwan Kim, Grzegorz Wrochna, Mark Haynes and Chris
Hamilton)
9. Strategy white paper for building the Project/Enterprise organization and structure (Action: Chris
Hamilton and Mark Haynes)
Early draft of March 14th
Preliminary expression of interest
of Polish stakeholders
in High Temperature Gas Reactors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
a.
b.
3.
4.
a.
b.
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
HTGR technology fits to the priorities of the government:
Boosting the economy by large, ambitious, high-tech projects.
Creating added value to the nuclear programme (LWR of 6000 MWe in total) by developing skills,
intellectual property, new technologies and production capabilities.
Increasing security of supply and thus energy independence of the country by replacing natural gas as the
source of processing heat for the industry (chemical et .).
Increasing competitiveness of Polish industry by providing reliable and low cost energy (both electricity and
heat).
Decreasing emissions.
The advantages of HTGR technology over other types of advanced nuclear reactors are, from our point of
view, the following:
High level of maturity (TRL =7-8).
Intrinsic safety giving safety zone <1000m, thus permitting the construction in proximity of chemical
installations. The major safety features are:
never melting core – TRISO fuel withstands >1600ºC,
passive cooling enabling cooling down the reactor by natural convection, without any cooling systems and
operator interventions.
Parameters optimal for the industry needs: power of 200-600 MWt, core temperature of ~600-700ºC useful
for production of 550 ºC steam, enabling “plug=in” installation to replace old fossil fuel boilers without any
changes to the chemical installation.
High export potential based on
intrinsic safety and small safety zone,
limited size, suitable for many applications, and thus
relatively low investment threshold (1-2 bln €),
and confirmed by recent interest of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc.
Poland is interested to participate in an international project on HTGR by providing:
Skills of research institutions and industry in R&D, designing, licencing and construction.
End-user, i.e. chemical plant for deployment of the first reactor in Europe.
Financial contribution in form of public seed money for the project, EU structural funds and high risk loan
instruments for design and construction.
Possibly joining the “Mission Innovation”.
Consolidation of regional involvement (Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc).
“Interface” to the European Commission.
ATTENDEES
Washington D.C. March 8 – 10, 2016
EU
Michal Kurtkya - Vice Minister / Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Energy, Poland
Dr. Grzegorz Wrochna - International Cooperation Manager, National Center for Nuclear Research, Chairman of
Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative (NC2I), Poland
Piotr Zaremba, Head of Innovation and Technology Development Department, Ministry of Energy, Poland
Piotr Sprzaczak, Chief Specialist, Department of Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy
Bartosz Arabik, II Secretary, Polish Embassy in Washington
James Gavigan, Minister-Counsellor Research and Innovation, Delegation of the European Union
Mark Caine, Policy Advisor, Energy & Environment, British Consulate-General
JAPAN
Dr. Kazuhiro Kunitomi - Director General, Nuclear Hydrogen and Heat Application Center, Japan Atomic Energy
Agency
Dr. Xing Yan, Japan Atomic Energy Agency
KOREA
Dr. Minhwan Kim - Coordinator, VHTR Technology Development Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
Dr. Chang Keun Jo - Project Manager, VHTR Technology Development Center, Korea Atomic Energy Research
Institute
US INDUSTRY
Steve Kuczynski, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Amir Afzali - Licensing Director, Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Dr. Farshid Shahrokhi - Director of HTGR Technology, AREVA Inc.
Dr. Finis Southworth - Deputy Executive Director, NGNP Industry Alliance, CTO Emeritus, AREVA Inc.
Kim Stein – Director of Business Development / Advanced Reactors and Fuels, AREVA Inc.
Martin Owens – Project Director, AREVA
Dr. HanKwon Choi, Project Director, Advanced Nuclear Technologies, AECOM
Steve Shepherd – Executive Director, Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative
Phil Hildebrandt - Special Assistant to the Director, Idaho National Laboratory
Chris Hamilton - Executive Director, NGNP Industry Alliance
Dr. Matt Richards – Ultra Safe Nuclear
Dr. WonJae Lee – Ultra Safe Nuclear
Dr. Mike Roberts – Roberts International
Mark Haynes - Senior Advisor, NGNP Industry Alliance
US GOVERNMENT
Ray Furstenau – Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy
Tom O’Connor – Director, Office Advanced Reactor Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy
Carl Sink – Advanced Nuclear, Office of Nuclear Energy
Sarah McPhee – U.S. Department of State
Kyler Turner – U.S. Department of State
March 8 – 10, 2016
Washington D.C.
March 8
Offices of Nuclear Energy Institute
1201 F Street NW
Clean Air A/B Conference Room
8:30 am
Mark Haynes: Welcome, Meeting Goal and Objectives, Agenda
8:40 am
Chris Hamilton: The NGNP Industry Alliance’s perspective
9:00 am
Ray Furstenau, Department of Energy: Welcome
9:05 am
Michal Kurtyka: Presentation on Polish Priorities
9:20 am
Grzegorz Wrochna: Presentation on NC2I
9:35 am
Mark Caine, UK Consulate
9:50 am
Korean presentation
10:20 am
Japanese presentation
10:50 am
BREAK
11:05 am
Farshid Shahrokhi, AREVA
11:35 am
Steve Shepherd: HTGR centered Integrated Energy System at the
Piketon, Ohio site
11:50 am
Phil Hildebrandt: Idaho National Laboratory perspective
12:05 pm
LUNCH
1:00 pm
Afternoon discussion of Issues (see attached)
2:00 pm
Steve Kuczynski, Southern Company: Overall perspective on advanced
reactors
2:10 pm
Amir Afzali, Southern Company: HTGRs and the growing Industry effort to modernize the
U.S. licensing process for advanced reactors
2:15 pm
Continue Issues Discussions / Planning
5:30 pm
Depart for Dinner: Acadiana Restaurant, 901 New York Avenue, NW
March 9
Capitol Hill Offices of the Nuclear Energy Institute
122 C Street N.W. Suite 830
8:30 am
9:00 am Polish Delegation only meeting with Mike Wautlet (White House director of Nuclear Energy Policy) at
Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W
9:30 am
Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
432 Russell Senate Office Building
2:30 pm
Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
SR 483 Russell Senate Office Building
3:30 pm
Richard Stratford, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and
Security, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
U.S. Department of State
Sarah McPhee, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security,
U.S. Department of State 206 858-1409
Kyler Turner, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security,
(Arrive at 3:15 pm) at C Street Entrance of the Department of State
2201 C Street N.W.
______________
March 10
9:45 am
1:40 p.m.
Aaron Weston, Republican Staff Director
Adam Rosenberg, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
2:45 pm
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
SD 239 Dirksen Senate Office Building
3:30 pm
Ben Reinke, Republican Professional Staff Mem
Scott McKee, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Rory Stanley, Democratic Professional Staff Member
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
4:30 pm
Wrap up and Adjourn Meeting
Washington D.C.
March 8 – 10, 2016
Goal, Objectives and Discussion Issues
GOAL: Clarify if and how the EU, Japan, Korea and the U.S. might join together in the very
near term – by early 2017 - to undertake a project for the deployment of a modern
commercial prismatic block HTGR.
OBJECTIVES OF MEETING:
1. Identify next immediate steps for moving The Project forward
2. Establish initial participants for a formative Project Steering Group meeting
3. Determine assignments for a working group that will draft a project description and a
possible Project structure(s)
4. Agree on a formal mechanism (possibly letters of intent) for each country to express
support for The Project
Questions and Issues for Discussion
Questions of Each Nation’s Interests
• What is each nation’s interest in The Project? What might each nation wish to achieve with
The Project in combination with their domestic HTGR program?
• Options for The Project?
- reactor demonstration in U.S. plus possible other facilities in other countries such as:
- another demonstration reactor(s) in Poland, Korea, Japan?
- IHX development facility?
- Hydrogen generation technology development facility?
- Brayton cycle development facility?
- Other?
• What countries have existing domestic activities and facilities that are synergistic or
complimentary with The Project?
• Would licensing a demonstration project in the U.S. be of value to other nations’ regulators?
- Can The Project be utilized to foster an international licensing regime which can then be
tailored appropriately by each nation’s regulatory organization?
- Could OECD NEA and/or WENRA be helpful?
Questions and Issues for Discussion (continued)
Questions of Project Structure and Organization
• The Project will require a sustained collaboration between governments and industries.
Direction and policy will be determined by governments. The NGNP Alliance believes The
Project should be executed by industry. Do others agree?
• Can we conceive of a structure where government involvement is limited to the policy
functions which meet the requirements of each government while minimizing the need for
international governmental agreements? And where Project execution is essentially the
purview of industry?
• What are some project structure ideas that might be helpful? Are there Project structure
ideas or elements that definitely won’t work?
• How might Intellectual property be handled?
Questions On Moving Forward and Next Steps
• What must happen in each country before it could/would join The Project?
• Who are the key government and industry players in each country?
• Who are the key decision makers in each country?
• What is the decision taking process in each country?
• What materials and information are needed to achieve support in each country?
• What are potential “show stoppers” in each country?
• Is it realistic to plan for an MOU or joint statement signing at the HTR 2016 meeting in
November?
• What and when are our next steps?
• Who should serve on a Steering Committee?
• Who should serve on a Working Group to draft a project description and possible project
structure?
• Can each country provide some near-term (mid-summer) expression of interest in moving
further project discussions forward?
March 8 – 10, 2016
Washington D.C.
March 8
Offices of Nuclear Energy Institute
1201 F Street NW
Clean Air A/B Conference Room
8:30 am
Mark Haynes: Welcome, Meeting Goal and Objectives, Agenda
8:40 am
Chris Hamilton: The NGNP Industry Alliance’s perspective
9:00 am
Ray Furstenau, Department of Energy: Welcome
9:05 am
Michal Kurtyka: Presentation on Polish Priorities
9:20 am
Grzegorz Wrochna: Presentation on NC2I
9:35 am
Mark Caine, UK Consulate
9:50 am
Korean presentation
10:20 am
Japanese presentation
10:50 am
BREAK
11:05 am
Farshid Shahrokhi, AREVA
11:35 am
Steve Shepherd: HTGR centered Integrated Energy System at the
Piketon, Ohio site
11:50 am
Phil Hildebrandt: Idaho National Laboratory perspective
12:05 pm
LUNCH
1:00 pm
Afternoon discussion of Issues (see attached)
2:00 pm
Steve Kuczynski, Southern Company: Overall perspective on advanced
reactors
2:10 pm
Amir Afzali, Southern Company: HTGRs and the growing Industry effort
to modernize the U.S. licensing process for advanced reactors
2:15 pm
5:30 pm
Depart for Dinner: Acadiana Restaurant, 901 New York Avenue, NW
March 9
8:30 am
9:00 am Polish Delegation only meeting with Mike Wautlet (White House director of Nuclear
Energy Policy) at Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W
9:30 am
Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
432 Russell Senate Office Building
1:40 p.m.
Aaron Weston, Republican Staff Director
Adam Rosenberg, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
2:30 pm
Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
SR 483 Russell Senate Office Building
3:30 pm
Richard Stratford, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and
Security, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Sarah McPhee, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security,
U.S. Department of State 206 858-1409
Kyler Turner, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security,
(Arrive at 3:15 pm) at C Street Entrance of the Department of State
2201 C Street N.W.
______________
March 10
9:45 am
2:45 pm
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
3:30 pm
Ben Reinke, Republican Professional Staff Member
Scott McKee, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Rory Stanley, Democratic Professional Staff Member
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
4:30 pm
Wrap up and Adjourn Meeting
ATTENDEES
Washington D.C.
March 8 – 10, 2016
EU
Michal Kurtkya - Vice Minister / Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Energy, Poland
Dr. Grzegorz Wrochna - International Cooperation Manager, National Center for Nuclear Research,
Chairman of Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative (NC2I), Poland
Piotr Zaremba - Head of Innovation and Technology Development Department, Ministry of Energy,
Poland
Piotr Sprzaczak - Chief Specialist, Department of Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy
Bartosz Arabik - II Secretary, Polish Embassy in Washington
James Gavigan - Minister-Counsellor Research and Innovation, Delegation of the EU
Mark Caine - Policy Advisor, Energy & Environment, British Consulate-General
JAPAN
Dr. Kazuhiro Kunitomi - Director General, Nuclear Hydrogen and Heat Application Center, JAEA
Dr. Xing Yan - JAEA
KOREA
Dr. Minhwan Kim - Coordinator, VHTR Technology Development Division, KAERI
Dr. Chang Keun Jo - Project Manager, VHTR Technology Development Center, KAERI
US INDUSTRY
Steve Kuczynski - Chairman, President and CEO, Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Marty Parece - Chief Technology Officer / Vice President, Products and Technology, AREVA
Dr. Farshid Shahrokhi - Director of HTGR Technology, AREVA Inc.
Dr. Finis Southworth - Dep. Exec. Dir. NGNP Industry Alliance, CTO Emeritus, AREVA Inc.
Kim Stein – Director of Business Development / Advanced Reactors and Fuels, AREVA Inc.
Dr. HanKwon Choi, Project Director, Advanced Nuclear Technologies, AECOM
Dr. Matt Richards – Ultra Safe Nuclear
Dr. WonJae Lee – Ultra Safe Nuclear
Dr. Everett Redmond II – Senior Director, Policy Development, Nuclear Energy Institute
US GOVERNMENT
Ray Furstenau – Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy
Tom O’Connor – Director, Office Advanced Reactor Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy
Carl Sink – Advanced Nuclear, Office of Nuclear Energy
Jonathan Chesebro – Senior Nuclear Trade Specialist, Department of Commerce, International
Trade Association
Sarah McPhee - Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security, Department of State
Kyler Turner - Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security, Department of State
March 9, 2016 Senator Portman
Meeting Attendees List
ATTENDEES
Washington D.C.
March 9, 2016
EU
Dr. Grzegorz Wrochna - International Cooperation Manager, National Center for Nuclear
Research, Chairman of Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative (NC2I), Poland
Piotr Zaremba, Head of Innovation and Technology Development Department, Ministry of
Energy, Poland
Mark Caine, Policy Advisor, Energy & Environment, British Consulate-General
JAPAN
Dr. Kazuhiro Kunitomi - Director General, Nuclear Hydrogen and Heat Application Center,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Dr. Xing Yan, Japan Atomic Energy Agency
KOREA
Dr. Minhwan Kim - Coordinator, VHTR Technology Development Division, Korea Atomic
Energy Research Institute
Dr. Chang Keun Jo - Project Manager, VHTR Technology Development Center, Korea Atomic
Energy Research Institute
US INDUSTRY
Martin Owens - AREVA
Kim Stein-AREVA
Finis Southworth-AREVA

- NGNP Industry Alliance Limited

Transcription

Similar documents

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

Session C14-Preparing Your Students for Career in Energy

Books of Note - Arms Control Association

USS Abraham Lincoln - Virginia Ship Repair Association

RAHP News Letter No.13 High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor

National Seminar on Nuclear Energy Technology

classroom - Reader`s Digest Malaysia

CLASSROOM

NÜKLEER ENERJİ NEDİR

Keuzes voor electriciteitsopwekking