esnii maquette interieure bat - eurosfaire

ww

w.SN

ETP.e

u

ESNIIThe European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative

May 2010

A contributionto the EU

Low CarbonEnergy Policy:

DemonstrationProgramme

for FastNeutronReactors

Concept Paper

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

S u s t a i n a b l e N u c l e a r E n e r g y T e c h n o l o g y P l a t f o r m 3

This document has been prepared by theESNII Task Force established within theSustainable Nuclear Energy Technology

Platform.

Contact: [email protected]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Table of contents

The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform ES

NII

Co

nce

pt

Pap

er

5E u r o p e a n S u s t a i n a b l e N u c l e a r I n d u s t r i a l I n i t i a t i v e

TTaabbllee ooff ccoonntteennttss 55

11.. IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn 77

22.. VViissiioonn bbyy 22005500:: FFaasstt NNeeuuttrroonn rreeaaccttoorrss wwiitthh cclloosseedd ffuueell ccyycclleess iinn tthhee ffrraammee ooff EESSNNIIII 99

2.1 State of the art 92.2 Technology objectives and cross-cutting actions 11

2.2.1 Demonstration and prototype facilities 112.2.2 Support Infrastructures 122.2.3 R&D 12

2.3 Global impact of the ESNII initiative 122.4 ESNII-1: SFR – the Sodium cooled Fast Reactor 12

2.4.1 Objectives 122.4.2 Work Programme 132.4.3 Expected Impact 142.4.4 Preliminary Cost Analysis 142.4.5 Milestones and Key Performance Indicators 14

2.5 ESNII-2: LFR – the Lead cooled Fast Reactor 152.5.1 Objectives 152.5.2 Work Programme 152.5.3 Expected Impact 162.5.4 Preliminary Cost Analysis 162.5.5 Milestones and Key Performance Indicators 17

2.6 ESNII-3: GFR – the Gas Fast Reactor 172.6.1 Objectives 172.6.2 Work Programme 172.6.3 Expected Impact 192.6.4 Preliminary Cost Analysis 192.6.5 Milestones and Key Performance Indicators 19

2.7 ESNII-4: the Support Infrastructures 202.7.1 Objectives 202.7.2 Work Programme 202.7.3 Expected Impact 212.7.4 Preliminary Cost Analysis 212.7.5 Key Performance Indicators 222.7.6 Milestones 22

33.. IInnddiiccaattiivvee ccoossttss ffoorr EESSNNIIII uupp ttoo 22002200 2233

44.. IInnddiiccaattiivvee KKeeyy PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee IInnddiiccaattoorrss 2255

4.1 Key Performance Indicators for ESNII-1, ESNII-2, ESNII-3 254.2 Key Performance Indicators for ESNII-4 27

AAppppeennddiixx:: RRooaaddmmaapp && GGlloossssaarryy ooff aaccrroonnyymmss 2299

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

1. Introduction


NII

Co

nce

pt

Pap

er

T oday more than 2 billion peopleworldwide have no access toelectricity. Current forecasts showthat the world population will

increase up to 9 billion people by 2050. All thesepeople have an inalienable right to have betterconditions of life, which primarily includes bothenergy and water supply.At the same time, the threats to the Earth’sclimate have never been so strong; sustainabledevelopment to address the future needs ofhumankind requires non CO2 emitting sourcesof energy. In that regard, nuclear energy has a lotof advantages – it is clean and competitive – andeven if nuclear energy is not the whole solution,it is part of the solution for the coming years anddecades. Therefore, strong and concerted actionis required to develop appropriate technologiesfrom the short term to the long term.

Today, nuclear energy represents about 16% ofelectricity production in the world and about30% in the European Union. More than30 countries havealready expressed tothe IAEA theirinterest in gettingsupport for thedefinition andrealisation of anuclear programme.The main nuclearreactor technology available today is the LightWater Reactor which has the cumulated recordof more than a thousand years of excellent safetyand operation. For those countries alreadyequipped with Generation II nuclear reactors,the main issue is to manage plant ageing and

power upgrades properly in order to obtain thebest economic value from their fleet whilekeeping the highest standards of safety. Newreactors (Generation III) are being built,decided upon, or planned in countries which areextending their nuclear fleet and in countriesthat are “new comers” to nuclear energy: thisrequires top level expertise both in industry andin R&D organisations.

The competitiveness of nuclear fissiontechnologies, together with the questions raisedon the management of spent fuel and radioactivewaste, are the key short and medium term issuesaddressed by the 2020 objectives for nuclearenergy in the Strategic Energy Technology Planof the European Union (SET Plan). Butdemand for electricity is likely to increasesignificantly in the near future , as current fossilfuel applications are replaced by processes usingelectricity, for example in the transport sector.The present known resources of uraniumrepresent about 100 years of consumption withthe existing reactor fleet. However, dependingon the growth rate of nuclear energy worldwide,the question of uranium resources will be raised;therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate, asrequested by the SET Plan, the development offast neutron reactors with closed fuel cycle.These technologies have the potential tomultiply by a factor of 50 to 100 the energyoutput from a given amount of uranium (with afull use of U238), while improving themanagement of high level radioactive wastethrough the transmutation of minor actinides.They are therefore potentially able to provideenergy for the next thousand years with thealready known uranium resources.


Nuclear will remain an important part of the EU energy mix for base-load

electricity generation.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

2.Vision by 2050: Fast neutron reactors with closed fuel cycles in the frame of ESNII


NII

Co

nce

pt

Pap

er

■ 2.1 State of the art

In parallel to similar efforts made in theUnited States, Russia and Japan, Europeanlaboratories and industries supported an

active development of Sodium cooled FastReactors (SFR) from the 1960s to 1998. No lessthan seven experimental demonstration andprototype reactors were built and operated overthis period: Rapsodie, Phenix and Superphenixin France, DFR and PFR in United Kingdom,and KNK-II and SNR-300 (which was neverput in service) in Germany. In addition, France,Germany and the UK jointly developed theEuropean Fast Reactor project which wasintended to be a commercial sodium-cooled fastreactor project. Thus there is significant historicexperience in these countries.

However, the industrial development of SFRstopped in Europe when political decisions weretaken in Germany, the UK and finally France toabandon SFR development; this culminated inthe decision to cease operations at Superphenixin February 1998. As noted, the cessation ofSFR technology development was not as a resultof concerns regarding technical feasibility.Whilst there were initial issues to be addressedwith early systems (reliability and globalcompetiveness), no technical showstoppers wereidentified.

SFR technology development had stoppedearlier in the United States with the NonProliferation Act promulgated in 1978. Russiaproceeded with the development of SFR in spiteof budget constraints and is expected to put BN-800 (800 MWe) in service in 2012. Japan’sefforts since 1995 where mainly devoted toputting MONJU back into service. India andChina, which both plan for nuclear power tosupply part of the energy needed for their rapideconomic growth, have aggressive agendas to

develop light water reactors and SFR withrespective plans to start a prototype fast reactor(PFBR, 500 MWe) and an experimental reactor(CEFR, 65 MWth) in 2010.

All these reactors were targeted to makeprogress with regard to the previous ones buttoday’s International and European standardsrequire the design of a new generation of reac-tors. This is the so-called Generation IV.Important R&D on six major reactor concepts iscurrently being coordinated at the internationallevel through initiatives such as the “GenerationIV International Forum” GIF1. Europe, throughSNETP2, has defined its own strategy and prior-ities for the fast neutron reactors that are themost likely to meet Europe’s energy needs in thelong term in terms of security of supply, safety,sustainability and economic competitiveness(see the figure below):■ the Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR) as a first track

aligned with Europe’s prior experience, and■ two alternative fast neutron reactor technologies

to be explored on a longer timescale: the Leadcooled Fast Reactor (LFR) and the Gas cooled FastReactor (GFR).

Indeed, the previouswork in Europe onSFR technologygives this option astrong startingposition. However,significant R&D isstill required becauseof today’s morestringent constraints

on capital cost, environmental impact, safety,safeguards, proliferation resistance, operationalperformance, etc.As an alternative to sodium, lead does not reactwith water or air, has a very low vapour pressure,


Europe, throughSNETP, has defined

its own strategy andpriorities for the fastneutron reactors thatare the most likely tomeet Europe’s longterm energy needs.

1 - GIF: http://www.gen-4.org/ 2 - SNETP: SustainableNuclear EnergyTechnology Platform:www.snetp.eu

good heat transfer characteristics and is cheap. Ithas a very high boiling point and high gammashielding capability. Finally its density is close tothat of MOX fuel, which reduces the risks of re-criticality in case of core melt. Significantprogress is still necessary to confirm the indus-trial potential of this technology, in particularbecause of the corrosive character of lead, and ofits high melting point requiring the temperatureto be maintained above 350 °C. Furthermore,lead like sodium is opaque, so that in-serviceinspection remains to be properly addressed.As another alternative, the gas fast reactor offersenhanced safety using a totally inert coolant,with low risk of core disruptive accidents (nocore voiding effect), simplified inspection andrepair due to the non activated and transparentgas coolant, and potentially high temperatureheat delivery for industrial processes. Significantprogress is also necessary to confirm theindustrial potential of this technology, inparticular because of small thermal inertia of thecore, which requires a specific safety approach;innovative fuels with refractory cladding shouldalso be developed to address the issues relatingto the high power density and high temperaturesin the core.

Even though only SFR led to a prototype so far,all types of fast reactors have a comparablepotential for making efficient use of uraniumand minimising the production of high level

radioactive waste. They may also all contributeto non-electric applications adapted to theirrespective range of operating temperature.

Technology breakthroughs and innovations arestill needed for all Generation IV reactor types.Innovative design and technology features areneeded to achieve safety and security standardsanticipated at the time of their deployment, tominimise waste, and enhance non-proliferationthrough advanced fuel cycles, as well as toimprove economic competitiveness especially byhaving a high availability factor. In particular,one of the challenges for fast neutron reactorswill be to demonstrate that they are as safe asother existing reactors at the time of theirdeployment (by 2040-2050). For that, it will bevery important to pursue both cooperation withthe GIF and to initiate discussion with relevantEuropean safety authorities.

R&D topics for all three fast neutron reactorconcepts (Sodium, Lead and Gas fast reactors)are described in the next chapters, with theirchallenges and milestones. They include:

■ primary system design simplification;■ innovative heat exchangers and power conversion

systems;■ advanced instrumentation, in-service inspection

systems;

E u r o p e a n S u s t a i n a b l e N u c l e a r I n d u s t r i a l I n i t i a t i v e10

ESNII roadmap

■ enhanced safety, partitioning and transmutation,■ innovative fuels (incl. minor actinide-bearing)

and core performance;■ improved materials.

In particular, a specific focus is put on structuralmaterials and innovative fuels which are neededto sustain high fast neutron fluxes and hightemperatures, as well as to comply withinnovative reactor coolants. It is important toemphasise that the development andqualification of new fuels require a significantR&D effort in terms of resources and time andthey will constitute also a major pathway forfuture innovation in fast neutron reactorsbeyond demonstration and prototype phases.

In addition to R&D, demonstration projectsare planned in the frame of the EuropeanIndustrial Initiative for sustainable fissionESNII. These demonstration projects includethe SFR prototype ASTRID (AdvancedSodium Technological Reactor for IndustrialDemonstration), with a start of operationforeseen in France by 2020, and the constructionof a demonstration reactor based on one of thealternative technologies, to be sited in anotherEU Member State.

All these facilities will be open to European andinternational cooperation, through consortiadedicated either to building the facility or torunning R&D projects, in particular those formaterial and fuel development and qualification.

For the alternative technologies – LFR andGFR – an assessment process will start in 2012to prepare for decisions on design andconstruction. The assessment may requestinternational peer reviews. It will be based onvarious criteria, including:

■ the results of the R&D performed during the 2010-12 period and the relevance to the GEN IVrequirements;

■ the potential international cooperations whichcould reinforce competencies for systemdevelopment;

■ the ability to establish consortia or partnerships oforganisations aiming to invest in the projects andin particular to offer a site to host them.

Finally, supporting research infrastructures,irradiation facilities, experimental loops and fuel

fabrication facilities will also need to beconstructed. Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS)are also envisaged as dedicated facilities fortransmuting large amounts minor actinides fromhigh level nuclear waste in a concentratedapproach. The development of ADS technologyhas considerable synergy with the R&Drequired for fast reactors and in particular theLead Fast Reactor. Mainly for economicreasons, ADS are not considered in the ESNIIinitiative as potential energy productionsystems, but as fast neutron irradiation andtesting tools which can support the developmentof fast neutron systems.

■ 2.2 Technology objectives and cross-cutting actions

The technology roadmap and the accuratedefinition of the technical objectiveshave been assisted both by the national

programmes on fast neutron reactors and by theEURATOM Framework Programmes.

■ 2.2.1 Demonstration and prototype facilities

T he ESNII initiative, as described above,will demonstrate that fast neutron reactors:

■ are able to exploit the full energy potential ofuranium by extracting up to 50-100 times moreenergy than current technology from the samequantity of uranium;

■ have the ability to "burn" (i.e. eradicate thoughnuclear transmutation) the minor actinidesproduced in the fuel during reactor operation andin so doing significantly reduce quantities, heatproduction and hazardous lifetime of the ultimatewaste for disposal;

■ can attain safety levels at least equivalent to thehighest levels attainable with Generation II andIII reactors;

■ reinforce proliferation resistance by avoidingseparation of individual fissile material at anypoint during the fuel cycle;

■ can attain levelised electricity and heat productioncosts on a par with other low carbon energysystems.

This is covered by the components ESNII-1,ESNII-2 and ESNII-3 of the initiative.


■ 2.2.2 Support Infrastructures

The infrastructures needed to support thedesign and/or operation of prototype and

demonstrator fast neutron reactors, in particular:■ irradiation facilities and associated devices for

testing materials and fuels;■ facilities for the development of materials and

components, code validation and qualification,and design and validation of safety systems;

■ fuel fabrication workshops for the SFR prototypeand alternative demonstrator reactor, dedicated touranium-plutonium driver and minor actinidebearing fuels.

This is covered by the component ESNII-4 ofthe initiative.

■ 2.2.3 R&D

Each component of the Initiative (ESNII-1,ESNII-2, ESNII-3 see below) defines its

specific R&D needs in support of the design ofthe corresponding reactors. This R&D will alsobenefit current reactors of Generations II andIII in terms of maintaining safety and radiationprotection, increasing performance andcompetitiveness, improving lifetimemanagement, and implementing solutions forwaste management.Both basic and applied research is essential tosupport the activities foreseen in the actionsabove, in particular, the development ofsimulation and testing tools and associatedmethodologies to support the design andoperational assessment of the reactors andsupport facilities. This will draw heavily oncurrent R&D programmes, but efforts in alldomains need to be intensified and focused onthe ESNII objectives. Much of this research willbe linked to nearer-term R&D activities ofrelevance for current nuclear technology, e.g.design and operational safety and radiationprotection, waste management, componentageing and lifetime management, materialsscience and multiscale modelling of materialbehaviour (structural materials, fuels, cladding),code development and qualification, severeaccident management, etc.Selection of materials for demonstrators andprototypes is other critical issue. Because thedevelopment of new structural materials is a verylong process, the construction of technologydemonstrators or prototypes envisaged to beoperational around 2020 will make use of

already available and qualified materials. In thelonger term, 2030 and beyond, new materialsable to resist higher temperatures will be used soas to increase thermal efficiencies. A specificjoint programme on “advanced nuclear materialsfor innovative nuclear reactors” is currentlyunder definition under the umbrella of theEuropean Energy Research Alliance3

established within the SET-Plan.This programme on fast neutron systems alsoneeds to be supported by research on advancedfuel cycle technologies for recycling minoractinides in fast reactors or dedicated burners.

■ 2.3 Global impact of the ESNII initiative

A huge potential increase in thesustainability of nuclear energy will beachieved through demonstrating the

technical, industrial and economic viability ofGeneration IV fast neutron reactors, therebyensuring that nuclear energy can remain a long-term contributor to a low carbon economy.

ESNII will play a key role by involvingEuropean Industry and maintaining anddeveloping European leadership in nucleartechnologies worldwide, and will make possiblethe further commercial deployment by theEuropean industry of these technologies by2040 and beyond. This is the prime goal forindustry, which in the meantime will seek tomaintain at least a 30% share of EU electricityfrom currently available reactors for the benefitof the European economy (the industrial needsfor nuclear energy could be enhanced with anexpansion towards cogeneration of process heatfor industrial applications when such marketsdevelop).

■ 2.4 ESNII-1: SFR – the Sodium cooled Fast Reactor

■ 2.4.1 Objectives

Design, construction and operation of aninnovative demonstration sodium fast

reactor ASTRID coupled to the grid.


3 - EERA: seehttp://www.eera-set.eu/

■ Investigating innovative paths leading tosignificant progress on Sodium Fast Reactortechnology in the main areas needingimprovement:● Robustness of safety demonstration, in particular

by prevention & mitigation of severe accidentsincluding those linked to sodium, and minimizingproliferation risks;

● Economic competitiveness;● Meeting operators’ needs: ease of maintenance,

in-service inspection, occupational safety, limitedsensitivity to human factors;

● Capability to reduce the long-term burden ofultimate radioactive waste for final geologicaldisposal through recycling and transmutation inthe reactor of all actinides (including minor)extracted from spent nuclear fuel.

■ Implementing these innovative paths through thedevelopment, licensing, construction andoperation in France of the pre-industrial scaleprototype fast reactor ASTRID, coupled to the grid,with an electrical power in the range of 250 to 600MWe;

■ Demonstrating the improvements in operabilityand the potential economic competitiveness of SFRtechnologies by return of experience from theoperation of the prototype;

■ Demonstrating the capability for recycling ofactinides through representative irradiations onthe prototype.

■ 2.4.2 Work Programme

EESSNNIIII--11..11 IInnnnoovvaattiioonn

Investigating innovative paths allowingsignificant progress in domains such as safety,economy, in-service inspection and actinideincineration requires close collaborationbetween R&D organisations, industry, utilitiesand safety experts.

Past R&D, engineering and constructionexperience, together with operating andlicensing experience of past European SFRs(DFR, KNKII, Rapsodie, PEC, PFR, Phenix,SNR300, Superphenix) represents a huge assetfor Europe, which was 10 years ago theundisputed leader in this domain, with theEuropean Fast Reactor (EFR) project.

On the basis of this asset, the work programmeincludes investigations and developments on thefollowing main technical tracks:

Core and fuel

■ Develop an innovative core design that allowsdrastic reduction or exclusion of the risk of over-heating accidents. Examples are low over-reactivity core concepts, or carbide cores (for thelong term);

■ Develop and irradiate innovative non-swellingcladdings (manufactured with oxide dispersionstrengthened steels), allowing a decrease of thesodium content in the core, and an increase in fuelburn-up potential;

■ Develop and validate innovative safety features,aiming to strengthen the lines of defence(objective: three, diversified) against core fusionrisks, such as passive anti-reactivity insertiondevices or advanced core control systems;

■ Develop a core design enabling the most efficientuse of depleted or reprocessed uranium, throughin-situ plutonium production and consumption,and the recycle of minor actinides.

Safety

■ Define and validate advanced methods fordetecting sodium leaks in a totally reliable way,and to mitigate the consequences of sodium fires,so as to avoid any chemical consequences at thesite boundary;

■ Develop advanced sodium-water reactiondetection and secondary loop designs enabling thecontainment of any sodium-water reactionaccident without giving rise to consequences onthe plant;

■ Develop and validate mitigation provisions andsimulation methods concerning defence-in-depthsituations, such as core fusion (core catcherdesign), aircraft crash or very large earthquakes.

Reactor and system design

■ Conceive an adapted reactor design and in-sodium telemetry or non-destructive examinationtechniques enabling efficient and practicable in-service inspection campaigns;

■ Develop and test advanced cost-efficient steamgenerator concepts in order to improve the globalthermal efficiency of the plant. This may involvedeveloping 9Cr ferritic steels for nuclear use;

■ Develop efficient fuel and component handlingsystems that allow availability objectives to bereached by reducing fuel and componentreplacement durations;

■ Develop an advanced instrumentation and controlsystem, adapted to sodium fast reactors challenges(sodium leak detection, individual subassemblytemperature and leak control…).


Bringing the prototype on line will includeseveral tasks:■ Pre-conceptual design;■ Conceptual Design and Safety Options Report;■ Basic Design and Preliminary Safety Analysis

Report;■ Detailed Design and Final Safety Analysis Report; ■ Construction;■ Commissioning and Start-up.In parallel, R&D activities will need to becontinued and increased, in order to validateinnovations and component feasibility andperformance through representative mock-ups.This will also allow the industry to recoverindustrial competencies, eg through theconstruction of sodium loops and the testing ofcomponents.This will be particularly necessary for theprimary system components (mock-up in waterfor primary system and pump hydraulics), steamgenerators (sodium mock-ups for limitedbundle), fuel handling and absorber mechanisms(full-scale sodium mock-ups); subassemblies(water and sodium mock-ups), instrumentationand in-service-inspection (sodium mock-ups),safety innovations - such as passive anti-reactivity devices, core catcher - that will requireanalytical and representative tests both in non-active and in-reactor environments.The fuel will require also some out-of-pile andin-pile tests, in order to qualify new claddinggeometries, even if the demonstrator is startedwith a “conventional” cladding material (Ti-stabilized stainless steel).

EESSNNIIII--11..33 PPrroottoottyyppee ooppeerraattiioonn aannddeexxppeerriimmeennttaall pprrooggrraammmmee

The operational and experimental programmeattributed to the prototype will include:■ Demonstration of consistency with industrial

objectives (efficiency, availability, licenseability,in-service-inspection and maintainability,operator friendliness…);

■ Irradiation programme concerning innovativecladding materials (oxide dispersion strengthenedsteels), innovative proliferation-resistant fuelfabrication processes, actinide recycling solutionsand performance.

■ 2.4.3 Expected Impact

Today the players in the field of fast neutronreactors are Japan ( JSFR project), Russia

(construction of BN-800), India (constructionof PFBR), and China (construction of CEFR).However these prototype reactors are notadapted to European safety requirements and toEuropean past experience and social acceptancecriteria. It is therefore necessary for the future ofnuclear energy in Europe to develop systemsadapted to its specific needs and constraints.

The ESNII programme on sodium fast reactorswill allow Europe to maintain its expertise (theexperienced scientists and engineers whoparticipated in the design and construction ofPhenix and Superphenix are now close toretirement), to save the knowledge and skillsaccumulated during 50 years in this field, and todevelop a reactor concept of the fourthgeneration, adapted to European needs andsafety requirements.

■ 2.4.4 Preliminary Cost Analysis

The total budget is still to be elaborated indetail and will depend, in particular, on the

extent of innovations to be developed andassessed, and on the power level chosen for thedemonstrator. A first assessment gives:■ About 1000 M€ for innovations, investigations

and assessments (ESNII-1.1 and innovationvalidations during ESNII-1.2);

■ 2000 to 4000 M€ for the demonstrator’s designand construction.

■ 2.4.5 Milestones and KeyPerformance Indicators

R&D innovation and pre conceptual studies

■ 2012: Consortia for funding, construction,operation;

■ 2012: Assessment of innovations & design /GEN IV requirements.

Design & construction:robustness of safety demonstration

■ 2017: License, enabling operation to start by 2020;■ 2017: Start of construction;■ 2022: Start of operation.


EESSNNIIII--11..22 PPrroottoottyyppee ccoonncceeppttiioonn,,lliicceennssiinngg aanndd ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn

After Commissioning: sustainability

■ Capability for recycling plutonium, depleted ura-nium and reprocessed uranium, for self-burningin the reactor or for feeding other reactors;

■ Conversion ratio>1; ■ Demonstration at the sub-assembly scale of the

feasibility of minor actinide incineration(reduction by a factor of 1000 of the thermal loadof high level waste in geological disposal).

After Commissioning:adequacy of meeting operators’ needs

■ Availability of advanced in-service inspectionsystems, adapted advanced I&C system, tolerantand robust systems and components.

After Commissioning:economic competitiveness

■ Thermal efficiency for the commercial plant =42%;■ Efficient fuel handling and in-service inspection

systems enabling, after 5 years of operation, atechnical availability factor of 80% to be reached(to be increased to 90% for the commercial plants);

■ Demonstration that the cost for electricitygeneration using future SFRs is comparable withthe costs of other sources of low carbon electricity.

Specific issues

■ Definition and implementation of a first R&Dprogramme to address:● MOX fuel and innovative fuel development and

qualification;● Innovative advanced structural material

qualification.

■ 2.5 ESNII-2:LFR – the Lead cooled Fast Reactor


Design, construction and operation of aninnovative lead cooled fast reactor

demonstrator:■ Develop a lead cooled fast neutron system that

features equal safety performance and economiccompetitiveness, with comparable uraniumutilisation and reduction of waste burden, to SFR;

■ Finalise the design and obtain a license for theconstruction of the European Technology PilotPlan (ETPP) in the range 50-100 MWth, with startof operation around 2020; MYRRHA in sub-critical

and critical mode will play this role;■ Finalise the design and obtain a license for the

construction of an LFR Demonstrator in the regionof 100 MWe (2015-2025) that will allowconnection to the grid;

■ Demonstrate safety and waste minimisationperformance by operational feedback 2025-2030and prepare the design and construction of an LFRPrototype of the order of 600MWe at the horizonof 2025-2030.


EESSNNIIII 22..11 SSuuppppoorrtt RR&&DD pprrooggrraammmmee

■ Material qualification: steel for the reactor vessel,lead-corrosion-resistant material for the steamgenerators, protective coating for fuel cladding andfuel element structural parts, and special materialsfor the impeller of the mechanical pumps;

■ Fuel development and qualification: MOX driverfuel, and in a later phase advanced minor actinidebearing fuel, lead-fuel interaction;

■ HLM technology: lead purification/filteringtechniques, oxygen & chemical control;

■ Components development: safety & control rods,pumps, heat exchangers, in service inspection andrepair technologies;

■ Develop models & tools: to study thenuclear/thermal-hydraulic feedback, the reactorstability, as well as the reactivity margin for notreaching prompt-critical conditions, response andresistance of structure to lead sloshing;

■ Conduct large scale integral tests: to characterisethe behaviour of the main systems, especially forlicensing procedures, key component performanceand endurance demonstration, benchmarking ofthermal-hydraulics in a rod bundle;

■ Starting of the zero power facility Guinevere in2010 for core design qualification and reduction ofdesign uncertainties (critical mass, power distribu-tion as well as reactivity coefficient).

EESSNNIIII 22..22 LLFFRR EETTPPPP ccoonncceeppttiioonn,,lliicceennssiinngg aanndd ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn

The realisation of the LFR ETPP project willinclude several phases (2010-2020): conceptualdesign, detailed engineering, specificationsdrafting and tendering, construction of


components and civil engineering, on siteassembly and commissioning. In parallel, thesupport R&D programme is continued.Comparing the scope and specifications, thecalendar and the current status of theMYRRHA project with those of the LFRETPP (with no need for electricity production),the MYRRHA project will fulfil the role of theLFR ETPP.

EESSNNIIII 22..33 LLFFRR EETTPPPP eexxppeerriimmeennttaall pprrooggrraamm

The main mission of the LFR ETPP(MYRRHA) is to demonstrate bothtechnologies of fuel and heavy liquid metals, andthe endurance of materials, in-service inspectionand repair, components and systems to controlindustrial risks (obtain reactivity feedback atpower) for the LFR demonstrator and LFRprototype over the commissioning period 2018-2020 and during the operational phase in theyears 2020-24.

EESSNNIIII 22..44 LLFFRR DDeemmoonnssttrraattoorr::ccoonncceeppttiioonn,, lliicceennssiinngg aanndd ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn

The realisation of the LFR Demonstratorproject will include several phases (2010-2025):conceptual design, decision point (2013),detailed engineering, specifications drafting andtendering, construction of components and civilengineering, on site assembly andcommissioning. In parallel, the feedback fromdesign and experience from the LFR ETPP(MYRRHA) will serve to optimise the finaldesign of the LFR Demonstrator.

EESSNNIIII 22..55 LLFFRR DDeemmoonnssttrraattoorr::ooppeerraattiioonn aanndd ffeeeeddbbaacckk ffrroomm eexxppeerriieennccee

The LFR Demonstrator has the mission todemonstrate the correct operability of all heattransport systems including the powerproduction system. Therefore, the LFRDemonstrator will be connected to the grid. Thedemonstration reactor is a scaled down versionof the (industrial) prototype, with similar (notnecessarily identical) characteristics.

The objectives of the LFR Demonstrator are:

■ to achieve the safety standards required at thetime of deployment and to enhance non-proliferation resistance;

■ to assess economic competitiveness of LFRtechnology, including high load factors;

■ to demonstrate better use of resources by closingthe fuel cycle;

■ to validate materials selection.


The current experience base for heavy liquidmetal cooled systems includes 80 reactor

years of operating experience in the formerSoviet Union and then in the RussianFederation with lead-bismuth cooled reactorsfor strictly military purposes. During the lastdecade, significant expertise on heavy liquidmetal cooled reactors and ADS technology hasbeen acquired through various FrameworkProgrammes of the European Union.

With the construction and operation of a LFRETPP and Demonstrator reactor, Europe willbe in an excellent position to secure thedevelopment of a safe, sustainable andcompetitive fast spectrum technology. Theprogramme will allow the main technologicalissues that can then be implemented in the LFRprototype around 2020-2035 to be investigatedand addressed. This LFR prototype will pave theway for industrial deployment of LFR by 2050,and hence contribute significantly to thedevelopment of a sustainable and secure energysupply for Europe from the second half of thiscentury onwards.


The cost of the ETPP is included in the costof the MYRRHA facility, taken into

account in ESNII-4.

Based on a scaling down exercise of the costanalysis performed in the framework of theELSY project for the LFR prototype, apreliminary cost estimate for the LFRdemonstrator was obtained and is in the order of1000 M€. A more detailed cost analysis isforeseen in the framework of the FP7 LEADERproject, taking into account more detaileddesign choices.




■ 2012: MYRRHA owner consortium andmanagement structure;

■ 2013: Demo consortium agreement, siteidentification;

■ 2013: Assessment of innovations & design withregard to GEN IV requirements.

Design & construction:robustness of safety demonstration

■ 2013: MYRRHA licensing by Belgian FederalAgency for Nuclear Control, construction permit;

■ 2020: MYRRHA start of operation;■ 2021: Demo licensing by a European leading

safety authority;■ 2025: Demo start of operation.


MYRRHA:■ Contribution to advanced options for waste

management: capability to accommodate up to afull minor actinide bearing fuel assembly.

Demo:■ Capability to recycle plutonium, depleted uranium

and reprocessed uranium, for self-burning in thereactor and feeding to other reactors;

■ Conversion ratio=1 with long fuel cycle (> 5 years).


■ Availability of advanced in-service inspectionsystems, of adapted advanced I&C system, tolerantand robust systems and components.


Demo:■ Thermal efficiency = 40%;■ Efficient fuel handling and in-service inspection

systems allowing the targeting of availabilityfactor of 80% for the demonstrator (to beincreased to 90% for the commercial plants).

Specific issues

On the basis of the operational feedback fromMYRRHA and the LFR Demo:■ Design and construction of an LFR prototype to

start in 2035;■ Design and construction of a “first of a kind” LFR

power plant between 2035 and 2050.

■ 2.6 ESNII-3: GFR – the Gas Fast Reactor


Design, construction and operation of aninnovative gas-cooled fast demonstrator

reactor:■ Develop a gas-cooled fast neutron system that

proposes an alternative solution to liquid metaltechnology using an inert and transparent coolant,with uranium utilisation and reduction of wasteburden comparable to SFR;

■ Investigate fuel, materials, components andreactor design leading to a safe and economicreactor technology;

■ Study improvements in the safety demonstration,in particular by reducing the risk of severeaccidents, and taking benefit from simpler in-service inspection and repair and coolantmanagement;

■ Implement those innovative technologies throughthe development, licensing and operation in aEuropean country of a demonstration scaleprototype ALLEGRO, the world’s first gas-cooledfast reactor, in the range of 70 to 100 MW, withconstruction in the 2020s;

■ Test high temperature heat delivery andutilization for industrial purposes;

■ Demonstrate safety and waste minimisationperformance by operational feedback 2025-2030and prepare the design and construction of a GFRPrototype coupled to the grid circa 2030-2035.


EESSNNIIII--33..11 SSuuppppoorrtt RR&&DD pprrooggrraamm

Fuel Development

For continuous high power density and hightemperature operation, dense fuels with goodthermal conductivity are required. In thisrespect, carbide and nitride appeared moreattractive than oxide. Oxide remains a back upbecause of a lot of experience feedback. Forcladding, standard alloys cannot reach theforeseen temperature. Refractory claddingmaterials have to be envisaged (metals orComposite Matrix Ceramic), while oxidedispersion strengthened steels can be consideredas backup materials for lower temperature GFRcore concepts.


For the development of these innovative fuelelements, the R&D activities include fuelelement design, core materials studies (claddingmaterials and fissile phase), fuel fabrication andirradiation programme. Specifically, the areasthat have been identified are:■ Fuel element and assemblies modelling and

design;■ Basic cladding and fuel material studies; ■ Basic core material studies;■ Development of cladding and fuel fabrication

processes;■ Fuel element & assembly development and

irradiation testing;■ Analysis of behaviour during fault conditions.

Development of analysis tools and qualification

Computational tools are needed to design thesystem and to analyse operational transients(normal and abnormal). This area of the workconcentrates on adapting and validating thesetools through benchmarking and comparisonwith experimental data. An important outputfrom this work is the specification of testfacilities required to fill the gaps in the availableexperimental data for the tools qualification.These computational tools fall into five mainareas:■ Core thermal-hydraulics;■ Core neutronics;■ System operation;■ Fuel performance;■ Other (materials performance, structural

assessment, codes & standards, etc.).

Helium technology and components development

Sufficient knowledge of the technology relatedto helium under pressure is needed to buildALLEGRO. This includes:■ Management of gas impurities;■ Development and qualification of heat insulation

techniques;■ Construction and qualification of main specific

components (helium blowers, fuel subassembly,leak tightness of circuits, fits and valves, controlrod mechanism, fuel handling system, …);

■ Development of advanced instrumentationtechniques in hot gas (optical 3D temperaturemeasurements).

ALLEGRO Design Studies

The main goal of this work is to prepare theconsistent design of the ALLEGRO reactor.This design must be consistent with the GFRchoices and include specific devices andmonitoring systems for experimental purposes.It aims at providing experimental safetydemonstrations under suitable conditions. Thiswork is divided into three areas:■ Review of the exploratory and pre-conceptual

studies;■ Core studies – a conventional technology start-up

core with a transition to an all-ceramic GFR core;■ Mission & design consistency – continuous

monitoring of the mission requirements forALLEGRO and its consistency with the GFR system.

ALLEGRO Safety Studies

This work is essentially the same as for GFR butis dedicated to the ALLEGRO specific case andhas thus a tighter schedule. This work will usethe ALLEGRO Safety Options Report as inputwhich is due at the end of the ALLEGROconceptual phase.

EESSNNIIII 33..33 FFuuttuurree GGFFRR ppllaanntt pprroossppeeccttss

GFR Design Studies

The main goal is to define a consistent, high-performance GFR meeting the requirementsbelow:■ The GFR core should be at least self-sustaining in

terms of the consumption and production ofplutonium and should be capable of plutoniumand minor actinide multi-recycling;

■ The GFR system should have an adequate powerdensity to meet requirements in terms ofplutonium inventory and breeding gain,economics and safety;

■ A coupling between the reactor and process heatapplications must be possible.

Alternative design features should also beidentified and studied for the core, the balanceof plant, the decay heat removal system designand performance.


EESSNNIIII--33..22 AALLLLEEGGRROO:: aa GGFFRR ddeemmoonnssttrraattoorr

GFR Safety Studies

The safety analysis for the GFR system and itsalternatives runs in parallel with the GFR designprocess. These safety studies are needed toestablish a safety case for GFR and will be basedupon the definition of a relevant safety approachfor GFR. It consists of performing mainly thefollowing tasks:

■ Recommending and evaluating specific safetysystems and requirements for fuel and materialbehaviour to manage accident conditions;

■ Analysing accident transients (loss of coolantaccident / depressurisation, reactivity insertionfaults, seismic events, etc.) to establish both thenatural, un-protected behaviour of the system,and to demonstrate that adequate protectionsystems are available;

■ Implementing a core melt exclusion strategy;■ Conducting a probabilistic risk assessment for the

system.

In common with other reactor concepts, thesafety studies will be based on first establishinga safety approach. A combination ofdeterministic and probabilistic methods will beused to demonstrate that the safety objectiveshave been met. Finally, severe accident studieswill demonstrate that containment performanceis satisfactory, that adequate mitigation has beenprovided and that the off-site impact isacceptable.


Europe leads the world in gas reactor, hightemperature reactor and fast reactor

technologies. The GFR is an integration of allthree of these technologies and presents anexcellent opportunity for Europe to maintain itslead in these areas. Of the four internationalpartners working on GFR within theGeneration IV International Forum, three ofthese are European (France, Switzerland andEuratom). GFR is technically very challenging,the benefits are great – GFR will be a reactorthat can power the range of applications that, atthe moment, are only in the domain of hightemperature thermal reactors, in a future inwhich natural uranium is scarce. GFR is anopen-ended technology, the operatingtemperature is not limited by phase change orchemical decomposition of the coolant and thecoolant is chemically inert. Thus the system willallow high thermal efficiency to be achieved,

minimising the amount of waste heat that has tobe rejected, the fuel consumed and the volume ofwastes generated.


The total budget will be elaborated in detailat the end of the basic design of

ALLEGRO. A first assessment gives:

■ About 400 M€ for the R&D programme in supportto the construction of ALLEGRO;

■ 700 to 800 M€ for the ALLEGRO design andconstruction.


R&D innovation and pre-conceptual studies

■ 2012: Confirmation of the feasibility;■ 2012: Assessment of innovations & design / GEN

IV requirements.

Design & construction:robustness of safety demonstration:

■ 2014: Preliminary design & environmental impactstudies, consortium, site identification;

■ 2018: License, enabling operation to start by2025.


■ Capability to recycle plutonium, depleted uraniumand reprocessed uranium, for self-burning in thereactor and feeding to other reactors;

■ Conversion ratio=1 with long fuel cycle (> 5 years).


■ Minimisation of the helium leakage rate, reducedlikelihood of cladding failures, reliability andavailability of fuel and component handlingsystems and the helium management system.


■ Thermal efficiency > 45%;■ Efficient fuel handling and optical in-service

inspection systems enabling the targeting of anavailability factor of 80% for the demonstrator(outside periods where ALLEGRO is used as anirradiation facility).


Specific issues

■ Demonstration of the viability of the GFR concepton the basis of operational feedback (componentsand core behaviour, confirmation of the safetycase);

■ Definition and implementation of thequalification programme for an innovativeceramic fuel;

■ Demonstration of the high temperature andcogeneration potential of the GFR concept;

■ Demonstration of reliability as a fast neutronirradiation reactor.

■ 2.7 ESNII-4: the Support Infrastructures


■ Design, construct and operate the necessaryirradiation tools and devices to test materials andfuels;

■ Design, construct and operate the necessary fuelfabrication workshops, dedicated to uranium-plutonium driver fuels, and to minor actinidebearing fuels;

■ Design, construct, upgrade and operate aconsistent set of experimental facilities forcomponent design, system development, codequalification and validation, that are essential toperform design and safety analyses of thedemonstration programme of ESNII (see ESNII-1,ESNII-2 and ESNII-3), including zero-powerreactors, hot cells, gas loops, liquid metal loops.


EESSNNIIII--44..11 RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd tteessttiinngg ffaacciilliittiieess

Experimental irradiation capacities

There is a clear need to update Europeanirradiation facilities given that existing facilitiesare close to end of life. Three reactors arecurrently considered in Europe:

■ JHR, the Jules Horowitz Reactor (Cadarache,France) dedicated to materials testing for nuclearfission; its construction has started in March 2007,the start of operation is foreseen in 2014;

■ MYRRHA (Mol, Belgium), a flexible fast neutronirradiation facility, dedicated to test lead coolant

systems and accelerator-driven sub-critical sys-tems (ADS) for transmutation. MYRRHA can alsoaddress the possible need in a European contextfor an ADS demonstrator, since in its currentdesign it is able to work in both subcritical andcritical mode. As pointed out in the roadmap forLFR (see ESNII-2), MYRRHA also acts as the ETPPfor LFR. MYRRHA is scheduled to be operational in2020 and its cost is estimated at 960 M€;

■ PALLAS (Petten, The Netherlands) mainlydedicated to radioisotope production for medicalapplications, which may provide a complementaryirradiation capacity.

Irradiation devices for experiments

The irradiation experiments necessary forscreening, characterising, testing and qualifyingmaterials and fuels will be performed either indedicated material testing reactors or inindustrial reactors or prototypes. Beyond theavailability of these irradiation capacities, it isnecessary to develop new experimental devicestaking into account cutting-edge progresses inmodelling, instrumentation and modern safetystandards. Europe has a worldwide leadingposition in this field and has to keep it throughintra-European synergistic developments toovercome shortage of resources.

Experimental facilities for reactor physics

■ Dedicated experimental facilities are needed forthe development of SFR, LFR and GFR reactorsystems. They are essential for component design,system development and code qualification andvalidation, which are mandatory to sustain thesafety analysis;

■ Zero-power nuclear facilities are also needed forneutronics code validation.

Experimental facilities for civil, structural andsafety case support work

More specifically, we can identify the need forthe following supporting facilities:

For the development of SFR:

■ facilities to support the SFR material and coolantphysical-chemistry studies;

■ facilities to support the SFR studies on thermal-hydraulics, heat transfer, safety, fuel behaviourunder accidental conditions, severe accidents;

■ facilities to support the SFR system/componentvalidation such as for fuel handling systems, corecontrol system, primary mechanical pumps,energy conversion systems, coolant quality controlsystems;


■ facilities to support the development of SFRinstrumentation, in-service inspection and repair,maintenance.

For the development of LFR:

■ facilities to support the LFR material, coolantphysical-chemistry and corrosion/erosion studies;

■ facilities to support the LFR safety experimentalstudies;

■ facilities to support LFR studies of movingmechanisms, instrumentation, maintenance, in-service inspection and repair;

■ facilities to support the LFR studies in thermalhydraulics and heat transfer.

For the development of GFR:

■ facilities to support the GFR material studies;■ facilities to support the GFR studies on thermal-

hydraulics and heat transfer;■ facilities to support the GFR system and

component validation, such as fuel handlingsystems, compressors, heat exchangers, valves,pipes and heat insulation;

■ facilities to support the development of GFRprimary and emergency systems operation andtransients;

■ facilities to support the safety study of thebehaviour of specific materials at very hightemperatures during transients.

Recycling capacities

Concerning facilities for recycling processesdevelopment, the need for new large facilitiesseems less urgent. Existing large researchfacilities (ATALANTE at CEA in France, ITUat JRC in Germany, the Central Laboratory atNNL in the United Kingdom) offer effectivepotentialities at lab-scale, and should be used inthe future to develop suitable processes, and toperform demonstration runs on samples of spentfuel or on irradiated targets at up to pin-scale.

For oxide fuel processing, minor actiniderecovery processes under development at lab-scale mainly rely on well-known and industriallymature solvent extraction technologies. Theimportant background coming from industrialplant feedback, or from the very important workcarried out over past decades to design modernreprocessing plants, make extraction a well-mastered technology.

Therefore, considering that there are no impor-tant issues for scaling-up hydrometallurgicalprocesses, the requirements in this field could bepostponed.

Besides existing facilities (ATALANTE, ITU,the UK’s new Central Laboratory facility), it isimportant to improve capability in the field ofexperimental fuel fabrication.

A Prototype Core Facility (PCF) will be neededaround 2016 for the production of the MOXdriver fuel to be loaded into the core of the SFRprototype and the experimental reactors.Suitable technologies should be chosen to allowfor a timely production and licensing of theMOX driver fuel. What is needed here could beseveral tons of MOX fuel per year; an industrialfacility to fulfil the needs of prototype reactors isunder preliminary design in France by AREVAand CEA.

There is also a need for a pin-scale facility, ableto provide in an efficient manner the (verydiverse) experimental pins to be irradiated inexperimental facilities during the early phases ofthe design of possible future fuels (MA-bearingfuel, other than oxide fuel…). Such a facilitycould be located in existing hot labs, inATALANTE (CEA/Marcoule) or the CentralLaboratory (NNL) for instance. The goal is toget an efficient, modern and flexible tool withthe capacity to produce from a few pellets up toa few pins per year to address the many anddiverse experimental needs expected from theR&D fuel research community.

The construction, if necessary, of a “pilot-scale”fuel fabrication facility will enable, in furthersteps, demonstrative irradiation experiments at alarger scale.


Successful deployment of a demonstrationFNR system whether it is SFR, LFR or

GFR requires a comprehensive set of large andmedium-sized research infrastructures includingirradiation facilities, fuel cycle facilities andexperimental facilities for reactor physics.


■ Fuel fabrication workshops: 600 M€ (U-Pu fuel)+ 250-450 M€ (prototype fuel);

■ Fast spectrum irradiation facility: 1000 M€;■ Experimental facilities: 600 M€.


EESSNNIIII--44..22 FFuueell mmaannuuffaaccttuurriinngg ccaappaacciittiieess

■ 2.7.5 Key Performance Indicators

■ Demonstration of the fabrication of advancedminor-actinide-bearing fuel at the pilot scale;

■ Operational facilities to enable completion ofpost-irradiation examination in order to supportfuel validation;

■ Demonstration of the preferred advancedrecycling flowsheet process at the pilot plant scale;

■ Experimental data to support multi-scaleassessment of structural materials (including datafrom the fast neutron irradiation facility MYRRHA);

■ Computational facilities in place for a full suite ofsimulation and modelling covering fuel, reactor,fuel cycle, reactor dynamics etc;

■ Operational facilities to support civil and externalhazard assessment for demonstration plant safetycases.

■ 2.7.6 Milestones

■ 2011 complete identification of the necessary facilities;

■ 2012 construction or upgrade initiated of the necessary facilities including:● fuel manufacturing workshop;● micropilot for advanced separation

of minor actinide bearing fuel.■ 2015 start of the construction of the irradiation

facility MYRRHA;■ 2017 initiate start-up fuel production for

prototype and demonstrator.


3. Indicative costs for ESNII


NII

Co

nce

pt

Pap

er

Afirst evaluation of the cost of ESNII issummarized in the table below. Thesecost assessments will be improved as

design activities for each prototype ordemonstrator progress.

E u r o p e a n S u s t a i n a b l e N u c l e a r I n d u s t r i a l I n i t i a t i v e

ESNII Components Costs (currently under detailed analysis)

ESNII-1Prototype SFR

■ 1000 M€ for innovation and component development; ■ 2000-4000 M€ for the construction phase (ASTRID),

depending on the electrical power (250-600 MWe) andtechnical options. Includes basic and detailed design,licensing, testing and qualification of components,construction and start up operations.

ESNII-2Alternative technology LFR

■ (800-1000 M€ for MYRRHA as the Test Power Plant,included in ESNII-4);

■ 1000 M€ for the Demonstrator.

ESNII-3Alternative technology GFR

■ 400 M€ for R&D activities including design activitiesbefore construction (2012-18);

■ 800 M€ for the construction phase (ALLEGRO). Includesbasic and detailed design, licensing, testing andqualification of components, construction and start upoperations (2018-24).

ESNII-4Supporting infrastructures

■ 600 M€ for the U-Pu fuel fabrication workshop;■ 250-450 M€ for the prototype fuel fabrication workshop;■ 1000 M€ for the fast spectrum irradiation facility

(MYRRHA); ■ 600 M€ for the other experimental facilities;■ A provision of 1000 M€ for the research programmes

performed in these facilities (equivalent to 100 M€/yrover 10 years), to be consolidated with ESNII-1, ESNII-2and ESNII-3.

TOTAL 8650-10850 M€

23


The costs included in the above table are stillfirst estimates. The deployment of the imple-menting plan for 2010-12 and the results of thecorresponding R&D will give a rationale for anupdating of these figures before go/no-go deci-sions for the next steps of reactor design andconstruction are taken.Major research infrastructures and developmentof prototypes for reactors or fuel cycle technolo-gies can be funded at EU level throughprivate/public partnerships (PPP), involvingnational governments, regions, research organi-sations, industry, and the European Institutions.Contributions from international partners out-side the EU can also play a role. Research can beaccomplished through coordinated national pro-grammes, but it must also be supported at EUlevel, especially for the short term issues, to giveconfidence to future private partners and tostimulate participation of Member States.In particular the Euratom FrameworkProgrammes can play an important role, providedthe funding for nuclear fission is substantiallyincreased in the 8th Framework Programme. Theinitiative shall also take advantage of EU loans.The European Investment Bank has declareditself ready to help the financing of nuclear ener-gy infrastructures, and the potential loans fromthis financial institution must also be explored.

The SFR prototype, which will mostlydemonstrate the maturity of the technology forfuture industrialisation and commercialisationafter the FOAK, would be typically funded inthe frame of a Private Public Partnership:■ Financial contributions from utilities and industry

and loans from the EIB based on a business plan;■ Public funds to cover the extra cost of going

beyond Generation III reactors and so to cover thecorresponding additional risk beyond classicalindustrial risk.

The alternative LFR or GFR technologies arefurther from market, from an industry point ofview. Therefore, the development of suchtechnologies in the spirit of the SET-Plan willrequire a stronger involvement of MemberStates and of the European level for funding,even if some private funding might beforeseeable.

A specific study has been performed in 2009 inorder to explore both the potential fundingmechanisms and organisational schemes forachieving the ESNII objectives. It gives firstindications for the future consortia in charge ofeach of the specific projects to be undertakenwithin ESNII.


NII

Co

nce

pt

Pap

er

The Key Performance Indicators whichare necessary to monitor the progress ofESNII in the SETIS system are defined

for each demonstration or prototype reactoralong the three main phases:■ 2010-2012: mainly devoted to the R&D

programme necessary to enable the go/no-godecision for construction of the demonstration orprototype reactor;

■ 2012-2020 or 2025: consolidation of preliminarydesign, basic design and detailed studies beforethe construction and full licensing process;

■ Beyond 2020 or 2025: prototype or demonstration

reactor operation to demonstrate that theyachieve their objectives.

■ 4.1 Key PerformanceIndicators for ESNII-1,ESNII-2, ESNII-3

The table below presents the keyperformance indicators for the threecomponents of the initiative

corresponding to the three major technologies:SFR, LFR, GFR.


4. Indicative Key Performance Indicatorsfor ESNII

ESNII 1 – SFRASTRID

ESNII 2 – LFRMYRRHA and Demo

ESNII 3 – GFRALLEGRO


2012: Consortia for funding,construction, operation.

2012: Assessment of innovations &design / GEN IV requirements.

2012: MYRRHA owner consortiumand management structure.

2013: Demo consortium agreement,site identification.

2013: Assessment of innovations &design with regard to GEN IVrequirements.

2012: Confirmation of the feasibility.2012: Assessment of innovations

& design / GEN IVrequirements.

Design & construction: Robustness in the safety demonstration:

2017: License, enabling operation tostart by 2020.

2017: Start of construction.2022: Start of operation.

2013: MYRRHA licensing by BelgianFederal Agency for NuclearControl, construction permit.

2020: MYRRHA Start of operation.2021: Demo licensing by a European

leading safety authority.2025: Demo Start of operation.

2014: Preliminary design &environmental impact studies,consortium, site identification.

2018: License enabling operation tostart by 2025.

After Commissioning: Sustainability

■ Capability to recycleplutonium, depleted uraniumand reprocessed uranium, forself-burning in the reactor andfor feeding other reactors.

■ Conversion ratio>1.

■ MYRRHA: Contribution toadvanced options for wastemanagement: capability toaccommodate up to a fullminor actinides bearing fuelassembly.

■ Capability to recycleplutonium, depleted uraniumand reprocessed uranium, forself-burning in the reactor andfor feeding other reactors.


ESNII 1 – SFRASTRID

ESNII 2 – LFRMYRRHA and Demo

ESNII 3 – GFRALLEGRO

After Commissioning: Sustainability (continued)

■ Demonstration at the sub-assembly scale of thefeasibility of minor actinideincineration (reduction by afactor 1000 of the thermalload of high level waste ingeological disposal).

Demo:■ Capability to recycle

plutonium, depleted uraniumand reprocessed uranium, forself-burning in the reactor andfor feeding other reactors.

■ Conversion ratio=1 with longfuel cycle (> 5 years).

■ Conversion ratio=1 with longfuel cycle (> 5 years).

After Commissioning: Adequacy to operator’s needs

■ Availability of advanced in-service inspection systems, ofadapted advanced I&C system,tolerant and robust systemsand components.

■ Availability of advanced in-service Inspection systems, ofadapted advanced I&C system,tolerant and robust systemsand components.

■ Low level of helium leak,reduced number of cladfailure, availability of fuel andcomponents handling systems,and helium managementsystem.

After Commissioning: Economic competitiveness

■ Thermal efficiency for thecommercial plant = 42%.

■ Efficient fuel handling and in-service inspection systemsallowing, after 5 years ofoperation, the targeting of atechnical availability factor of80% (to be increased to 90%for the commercial plants).

■ Demonstration that the cost forelectricity generation usingfuture SFR is comparable withcosts of other sources of lowcarbon electricity.

Demo: ■ Thermal efficiency = 40%.■ Efficient fuel handling and in-

service inspection systemsallowing the targeting of anavailability factor of 80% onthe demonstrator (to beincreased to 90% for thecommercial plants).

■ Thermal efficiency > 45%■ Efficient fuel handling and

optical in-service inspectionsystems allowing the targetingof an availability factor of80% on the demonstrator(outside periods whereALLEGRO is used as anirradiation facility).

Specific issues

■ Definition and implementa-tion of a first R&D programmeto address:

■ MOX fuel and innovative fueldevelopment and qualifica-tion;

■ Innovative advanced structuralmaterial qualification.

■ On the basis of the operationalfeedback from MYRRHA andthe LFR Demo: - Design and construction of aLFR prototype to start in 2035.- Design and construction of a“first of a kind” LFR powerplant between 2035 and 2050.

■ Demonstration of the viabilityof the GFR concept on the basisof the operational feedback(components and core behav-iour, confirmation of the safetycase).

■ Definition and implementa-tion of the qualificationprogramme for an innovativeceramic fuel.

■ Demonstration of the hightemperature and cogenerationpotential of GFR concept.

■ Demonstration of reliability asa fast neutron irradiationreactor.


■ 4.2 Key Performance Indicators for ESNII-4

In order to monitor the Initiative, we alsointroduce key performance indicators forthe Support Infrastructures:

MYRRHA as an irradiation facility:

■ Operational availability and flexibility: efficientfuel handling and in-service inspection and repairsystems enabling an operational up-time factor of65% as an irradiation facility to be reached.

R&D and testing facilities:

■ End of 2011: shared identification of the neededsupporting research, development and testingfacilities for each of the components ESNII-1,ESNII-2 and ESNII-3 (ADRIANA FP7 project);

■ End of 2012: Definition of an investment plan forthe corresponding facilities taking into accountopportunities for international cooperation.

Fuel manufacturing facilities:

■ Definition of preferred advanced recycling flowsheet process at the pilot plant scale;

■ By 2016: through the operation of the fuelfabrication workshops:● Production of up to several tonnes of driver fuel per

year;● Development of high performance minor actinide-

bearing fuel with a production of up to tens ofkilograms per year.

■ After 2025: definition on the most suitable flowsheet for a pilot plant facility for advanced fueland a decision to go on.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Appendices: Roadmap & Glossary of acronyms


NII

Co

nce

pt

Pap

er

Roadmap

The figure below indicates the foreseentiming for the major steps of the initiative.

■ For the SFR technology, ASTRID is a prototypecoupled to the grid (250 to 600 MWe). It will befollowed by a “First of a Kind” when industrialdeployment has been decided;

■ For the LFR technology, the technology pilot plantMYRRHA will be quickly followed by ademonstration reactor scheduled to enter intooperation in 2025, then by a prototype foreseen toenter into operation ten years later;

■ For the GFR technology, the demonstration reactorALLEGRO is foreseen to enter into operation by2025.


Glossary of acronyms

■ ADS: Accelerator Driven Systems

■ ASTRID: Advance Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration

■ EERA: European Energy Research Alliance

■ ETPP: European Test Pilot Plant

■ GFR: Gas cooled Fast neutron Reactor

■ GIF: Generation IV International Forum

■ LFR: Lead cooled Fast neutron Reactor

■ M€: Million Euro

■ MWe: Megawatt electrical power

■ MWth: Megawatt thermal power

■ SFR: Sodium cooled Fast neutron Reactor

■ SNETP: Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Editors: ESNII Task Force and SNETP Secretariat | Design: LGI Consulting with Noème

ww

w.SN

ETP.e

u

esnii maquette interieure bat - eurosfaire

Documents