India's Energy Options and
Strategies post Fukushima
Anil Kakodkar
Source: The Energy Challenge for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, (UN-Energy, 2005)
SOURCE: THE ENERGY CHALLENGE FOR ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS,
(UN-ENERGY, 2005)
We need as much additional
electricity as we produce today to
provide a reasonable standard of
living (~5000 kWh per capita) in the
developing world
Population
(billions)
World
OECD
6.7
1.18
Annual
Electricity
Generation
(trillion kWh)
Carbon-di-oxide
Emission
(billion tons/yr)
18.8
10.6
30
13
Annual
av. per capita ~2800
Electricity (kWh)
~9000
Non-OECD
5.52
8.2
17
~1500
India alone
would need
around 40% of
present global
electricity
generation to
be added to
reach average
5000 kWh per
capita
electricity
generation
Global average temperature over
last one and a half century
showing a more or less steady
increase over the last fifty years
or so. The fluctuations and their
cycles can be correlated with
various events like solar cycles
.
We do not know
how close we are
to the tipping
point. However
we need to act
now to secure
survival of our
future
generations.
Current Indian Energy Resources
155502
156000
69 Renewables
Nuclear
Fossil
42231
154000
70
60
40000
50
30000
40
30
20000
20
10000
5833
Current
20
10
328
0
Years of
rate
depletion for (697 TWh)
electricity
generation by 2052 rate
single source (7957 TWh)
10419
Effective Electricty Generation
Potential of Renewables (GWe)
Electricity Generation Potential in GWe-Yr of
Indian Energy Resources (Fossil + Nuclear)
(Ref: A Strategy for Growth of Electrical Energy in India, DAE, 2004; Coal data from Report of The Expert Committee
on Road Map for Coal Sector Reforms)
Uranium Plutonium 233Uin
in Fast Thorium
PHWRs Reactors based
Reactors
Coal
Hydrocarbon
130
*
4.12
211
>1950
11.5
*
0.36
18.5
>170
Hydro
Other
Renewables
excluding
solar
0
Total Solar collection area required
(based on MNES estimate 20
MW/km2) :
At current rate- >>3900 sq. km
At 2052 rate- >>44650 sq. km
*: To be preferentially used in transport sector
Chernobyl Consequences
TOTAL DEATHS;
62 (47 PLANT, 15 DUE TO THYROID CANCER )
ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME;
134 (OUT OF WHICH 28 HAVE DIED)
INCREASED CANCER INCIDENCE;
AMONG RECOVERY WORKERS
THYROID CANCER; (CURABLE, WAS AVOIDABLE)
6000 ( 15 HAVE DIED)
PROJECTED HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FROM VERY
LOW DOSES TO LARGE SECTIONS OF
POPULATIONS ARE QUESTIONABLE
AN ESTIMATE IN 2006—93,000 WILL DIE DUE TO CANCER
UP TO THE YEAR2056
ANOTHER ESTIMATE IN 2009---985,000 DIED TILL 2004
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal China 278
Coal USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000
Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energysource.html
Comparative Seismic Hazard
Catastrophe syndrome
• Low quantitative risk is not a good enough criteria
• Maximum impact in public domain needs to be limited
irrespective of the low probability
Not withstanding Fukushima most countries are
going ahrad with nuclear power
( USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Japan, Finland ---)
The Indian Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR),
a quick, safe, secure and proliferation resistant solution for the
energy hungry world
AHWR is a 300 MWe vertical pressure tube type, boiling light water cooled and heavy water
moderated reactor (An innovative configuration that can provide low risk nuclear energy using
available technologies)
Major design objectives


Significant fraction of Energy from
Thorium
Several passive features


AHWR can be
configured to accept a
range of fuel types
including LEU, U-Pu ,
Th-Pu , LEU-Th and
233U-Th in full core
3 days grace period
No radiological impact

Passive shutdown system to address
insider threat scenarios.

Design life of 100 years.

Easily replaceable coolant channels.
Top Tie Plate
Water
Tube
Fuel
Pin
Displacer
Rod
Bottom Tie Plate
AHWR Fuel assembly
PSA Level 3 calculations for AHWR indicate practically
no probability of impact in public domain
Plant familiaisation &
identification of design
aspects important to
severe accident
PSA level-1 : Identification
of significant events with
large contribution to CDF
Level-3 : Atmospheric Dispersion With
Consequence Analysis
SWS: Service
Water System
Release from Containment
ECCS HDRBRK:
ECCS Header
Break
APWS: Active
Process Water
System
LLOCA: Large
Break LOCA
Level-2 : Source Term (within
Containment) Evaluation through
Analysis
Level-1, 2 & 3 PSA activity block diagram
SWS
63%
SLOCA
15%
Contribution to CDF
MSLBOB: Main
Steam Line
Break Outside
Containment
Frequency of Exceedence
-10
10-10
10
-11
-11
10
10
-12
10-12
10
-13
10-13
10
-14
-14
10
10
110
mSv
-3
0.110Sv
-2
10 Sv
1.0
-1
10 Sv
10
0
Thyroid Dose (Sv) at 0.5 Km
Variation of dose with frequency exceedence
(Acceptable thyroid dose for a child is 500 mSv)
Iso-Dose for thyroid -200% RIH + wired shutdown
system unavailable (Wind condition in January on western
11
Indian side)
Reactor Block Components
Peak clad
temperature hardly
rises even in the
extreme condition
of complete station
blackout and
failure of primary
and secondary
systems.
Clad temperature (K)
AHWR 300-LEU is a simple 300 MWe system fuelled
with LEU-Thorium fuel, has advanced passive safety
features, high degree of operator forgiving
characteristics, no adverse impact in public domain,
high proliferation resistance and inherent security
strength.
600
10 sec delay
5 sec delay
2 sec delay
590
580
570
560
550
0
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (s)
AHWR300-LEU provides a robust design against
external as well as internal threats, including insider
malevolent acts. This feature contributes to strong
security of the reactor through implementation of
technological solutions.
Amount of Plutonium in spent fuel per unit energy
(kg/TWhe)
Reduced Plutonium generation
High 238Pu fraction and low fissile content of
Plutonium
30
238Pu
Total
Fissile
25
239Pu
240Pu
241Pu
242Pu
20
MODERN
LWR
15
10
5
0
MODERN
LWR
AHWR300-LEU
238Pu
3.50
%
238Pu
9.54
%
239Pu
51.87
%
239Pu
41.65
%
240Pu
23.81
%
240Pu
21.14
%
241Pu
12.91
%
241Pu
13.96
%
242Pu
7.91
%
242Pu
13.70
%
AHWR300-LEU
The French N4 PWR is considered as representative of a modern LWR.. The reactor has been referred from “Accelerator-driven Systems
(ADS) and Fast Reactor (FR) in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles”, OECD (2002)
STRONGER PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE
WITH AHWR 300-LEU
MUCH LOWER PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
Much Higher 238Pu & Lower Fissile Plutonium
The
Presence of 232U in uranium from spent fuel
232U
233U
234U
composition
of the fresh
235U
236U
as well as the
238U
spent fuel of
AHWR300-LEU
MODERN
LWR
%
232U
0.02
%
0.00
%
233U
6.51
%
234U
0.00
%
234U
1.24
%
235U
0.82
%
235U
1.62
%
236U
0.59
%
236U
3.27
%
238U
98.59
%
238U
87.35
%
232U
0.00
233U
Uranium in the spent fuel contains about 8% fissile isotopes,
and hence is suitable to be reused in other reactors. Further, it
is also possible to reuse the Plutonium from spent fuel in fast
reactors.
AHWR300-LEU
makes the
fuel cycle
inherently
proliferation
resistant.
Mined uranium per unit energy produced
(Tons/TWhe)
20
15
10
5
0
PHWR
MODERN AHWR300-LEU
LWR
AHWR300-LEU
provides a better
utilisation of
natural uranium,
as a result of
a significant
fraction of the
energy is extracted
by fission of 233U,
converted in-situ
from the thorium
fertile host.
With high burn up possible today,
LEU-Thorium fuel can lead to better/comparable
utilisation of mined Uranium
Present deployment
Of nuclear power
Uranium
Thorium
Enrichment
Plant
LEU Thorium
fuel
LEU
Thermal
reactors
Reprocess
Spent Fuel
For growth in
nuclear
generation
beyond thermal
reactor potential
Safe &
Secure
Reactors
For ex. AHWR
Fast
Reactor
Recycle
233U
Thorium
Nuclear power with
greater proliferation
resistance
LEUThorium
Thorium
MOX
Thorium
Reactors
Recycle
For ex. Acc.
Driven MSR
Thorium
Sustainable development of energy sector
Transition to Fossil Carbon Free Energy Cycle
GREATER
SHARE FOR
NUCLEAR IN
ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY
REPLACE
FOSSIL
HYDROCARBON IN A
PROGRESSIVE
MANNER
RECYCLE
CARBONDIOXIDE
Fossil
Energy
Resources
ENERGY
CARRIERS
Carbon/
Hydrocarbons
Electricity
Electricity
(In storage or
transportation)
• Electricity
• Fluid fuels
(hydrocarbons/
hydrogen)
Hydrogen
Sun
Nuclear
Energy
Resources
CH4
Fluid
Hydro
carbons
chemical
reactor
Biomass
WASTE
• CO2
• H2O
• Other
oxides and
products
CO2
CO2
DERIVE MOST
Nuclear Recycle
OF PRIMARY
ENERGY
Sustainable Waste Management Strategies
THROUGH
SOLAR &
Urgent need to reduce use of fossil carbon in a progressive manner
NUCLEAR
Other
recycle
modes
Thank
you
Strategies for long-term energy security
Required
import:
The
deficit coal
is practically
* in 2050
1.6
billion
wiped
outtonne
in 2050
1400
1300
1200
No
LWRimported
import: reactor/fuel
40 GWe
Period: 2012-2020
7 GWe
Deficit 412
GWe
FBR using spent
fuel from LWR
Installed capacity (GWe)
1100
1000
900
800
Deficit to be filled by fossil
fuel / LWR imports
700
LWR (Imported)
Nuclear (Domestic
3-stage
programme)
Projected
requirement*
600
500
Hydrocarbon
Coal domestic
400
300
200
Non-conventional
100
Hydroelectric
0
2010
2020
2030
Year
*
- Assuming 4200 kcal/kg
2040
*Ref:
2050
“A Strategy for Growth of Electrical Energy in
India”, document 10, August 2004, DAE