The ADTRTM Power Station Presentation to UNTF2011 12 April 2011 Victoria Ashley, Project Manager Roger Ashworth, Technical Manager © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Agenda 08/04/2015 Introduction to Jacobs The ADTRTM Technology The ADTRTM Business Case Conclusions Slide 2 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. An introduction to Jacobs 08/04/2015 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is one of the world’s largest and most diverse providers of professional technical services 2010 revenues of nearly $10 billion Support to industrial, commercial, and government clients across multiple markets We provide a range of engineering, construction, operation, and maintenance services for advanced research facilities, including fusion and fission energy, nanoscale materials, high-powered lasers and x-rays in the US, Europe, UK SNS is an accelerator-based neutron source in Oak Ridge National Lab. This one-of-a-kind facility provides the most intense pulsed neutron beams in the world for scientific research and industrial development. Slide 3 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Agenda 08/04/2015 Introduction to Jacobs The ADTRTM Technology The ADTRTM Business Case Conclusions Slide 4 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Why nuclear? World population is growing by approx 1.6% annually Energy usage is increasing by approx 2% annually Decreasing supply of fossil fuels Issues of climate change Alternative energy sources needed Nuclear safety and waste issues need to be addressed Based on WNA Nuclear Century Outlook Data June 2010 08/04/2015 Slide 5 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Why thorium? To continuously generate annual power output of 1GW requires: 3,500,000 tonnes of coal 200 tonnes of Uranium 1 tonne of Thorium Significant impact upon the Environment Low CO2 impact Low CO2 impact but challenges with reprocessing Can consume Plutonium and radioactive waste and very long-term storage of hazardous wastes Reduced quantity and much shorter duration for storage of hazardous wastes especially CO2 emissions In principle, total annual global energy needs could be provided by 5000 tonnes of thorium (Ref. ThorEA report) 08/04/2015 Slide 6 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Estimated World Thorium Resources Country Tonnes % of world 1. Australia 452 000 18 2. USA 400 000 15 3. Turkey 344 000 13 4. India 319 000 12 5. Brazil 302 000 12 6. Venezuela 300 000 12 7. Norway 132 000 5 8. Egypt 100 000 4 9. Russia 75 000 3 10. Greenland 54 000 2 11. Canada 44 000 2 12. South Africa 18 000 1 Other countries 33 000 1 2 573 000 100 World total 08/04/2015 Slide 7 Source: OECD/NEA Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand (Red Book) 2008 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Project Background • Norway No. 7 in estimated world thorium reserves, Aker Solutions investigated potential for utilising thorium • Collaboration with Professor Carlo Rubbia to commercially develop his original Energy Amplifier concept, EA patent ownership • Feasibility Study from Jan 2008, £m’s internal investment Project Objectives 1. Establish technical feasibility of the design 2. Apply established technology 3. Develop and protect IP rights 4. Align with Gen IV strategy 5. Develop the business case for thorium power 6. Establish a consortium with suitable partners 08/04/2015 Slide 8 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Development from Energy Amplifier to ADTR™ EA Energy Amplifier K-effective 0.98 12-48MW accelerator power output Reactivity uncontrolled (No control rods) - larger sub-critical margin Coolant circulation by natural convection ADTRTM Source CERN 95/44 K-effective 0.995 3MW accelerator power output Reactivity controlled by enriched boron10 control rods Coolant circulated by axial flow pumps Heat exchangers separate from main vessel Slide 9 ADTRTM ADTRTM COMPLEX Passive Air Cooling System Stack Beam Transport Accelerator Refuelling machine Steam collection tank Heat Exchangers & Coolant Pumps •1500MW(Th)/600MW(e) •59te MOX fuel, 10 year refuelling •Vessel dimensions 9.5m diameter, 20m high •Molten lead coolant and spallation target Nuclear Core •Decay heat removed by natural convection on shutdown •System operates at atmospheric pressure 08/04/2015 Slide 10 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Coolant Sodium Lead Negative temp & void coefficient of reactivity Positive void coefficient of reactivity MP 98ºC BP 883ºC MP 327ºC BP 1748ºC Intermediate cooling loop required Intermediate cooling loop not required Chemically reactive Chemically un-reactive – no fire risk Pressure vessel Operate at atmospheric pressure High pumping power as high specific gravity Low pumping power as low specific gravity High thermal heat sink Not suitable for spallation target Also acts as spallation target Less corrosive with steel Corrosive with steel No hydrogen generation No hydrogen generation 08/04/2015 Slide 11 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Conversion of Fertile Thorium to Fissile Uranium • Thorium fuel requires fissionable starter material • Plutonium + Th232 n1 Th233 β • Minor Actinides • Plutonium selected for mixed oxide fuel (22.3 min) ADTRTM • 84.5%Th β • 15.5%Pu Pa233 (27 d) • Fertile Th232 breeds fissile U233 Fission Fragment • Could burn waste actinides from conventional reactors + U233 n1 Slide 12 n1 n1 • No need for fuel enrichment 08/04/2015 n1 Fission Fragment © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Fuel Cycle – Tendency to Equilibrium (11 cycles) •Self-sustained fuel cycle possible •Over a 10 year fuel cycle • Plutonium is burnt • U233 is produced •Delivers balanced criticality • as much fissile material produced as is destroyed 08/04/2015 Slide 13 All Pu All U U233 Pa233 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Reactor Control – First fuel cycle (10 year operation) Reactivity vs Fuel Burn Up 0.035 Raw Reactivity Plot 0.03 0.025 Reactivity 0.02 0.015 Control Rods 0.01 Control Rods 0.005 Fuel Burn Up GW day/ton 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 -0.005 Controlled Reactivity keff = 0.995 -0.01 • • • • 08/04/2015 Raw reactivity swing compensated by control rods Power output adjusted by accelerator Load following possible – useful for small grid systems Developed method of measuring Keffective - filed as patent Slide 14 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Accelerator Benchmarking against Generation IV Goals • • • • Sustainability • • • • Economics 08/04/2015 Thorium is 3-5 times more abundant than Uranium Thorium is by-product from rare earth mining Minor actinides from a thorium reactor less than from a PWR Can be configured as a minor actinide ‘burner’ reducing long term waste burden ADTRTM consumes ~50% of its Plutonium starter over 10 year cycle One ADTRTM can consume Pu from approx 1.5 PWRs Gaseous emissions equivalent to conventional advanced systems Low carbon emissions • Thorium fuel is cheaper than Uranium fuel • Lead shielding reduces neutron embrittlement & extends reactor vessel lifespan • 10 year refuelling time increases system availability to >95% • Operation at atmospheric pressure means cost savings on containment vessel • Reduced fuel handling requirement leading to reduced operational expenditure • Replaceable reactor components reduces the risk to capital Slide 15 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Benchmarking against Generation IV Goals Proliferation Resistance Safety & Reliability 08/04/2015 • • • • 10 year sealed core reduces opportunities for fuel interception The ADTRTM is a net consumer of Plutonium Hard gamma U232 daughter products prevent manual handling No requirement for enrichment technology • Design is for inherent safety, i.e. • Sub-critical operation increases margins to prompt criticality • Virtually instantaneous reduction in power achieved by accelerator shut-off • Primary system operates at atmospheric pressure • Maximum credible accident results in self-limitation of reaction • Reactor below ground enhancing physical protection • Coolant chemically unreactive and provides large heat sink Slide 16 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Agenda 08/04/2015 Introduction to Jacobs The ADTRTM Technology The ADTRTM Business Case Conclusions Slide 17 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Programme aligns with GenIV timescales Aim to build first commercial 600MW(e) reactor by 2030 Capital cost per KW equivalent to current reactors Further reduced costs due to: Long refuelling time therefore lower operational costs Use of thorium fuel requires no enrichment Technical & commercially viable No significant Concept & Development Issues 2 years Feasibility Study Regulators Endorsement of Site and Design Licenses issued 5 years Completion Date Concept design & development 5 years System definition, Plant design & Safety Case 3 years Pre-licensing & site selection 7 years Construction & Completion Detailed design & fabrication 2008 08/04/2015 2010 2015 Slide 18 2020 2025 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. 2030 Market Analysis - Types of countries 1. Large countries with nuclear power, but with significant energy demand growth Ideally the first ADTRTM demonstration plant should be in a country with established nuclear infrastructure 2. Countries with no existing nuclear infrastructure and recent aspirations to gain benefits of nuclear power Its inherent safety and nonproliferation strengths could make the ADTRTM attractive to countries requiring energy with minimum infrastructure and maximum safety 3. Smaller countries less demand on grid system Benefits of load following and 600MW size, the ADTRTM fits market gap between small modular systems <300MWe and conventional reactors >1000MWe 08/04/2015 Slide 19 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Agenda Introduction to Aker Solutions The ADTRTM Project and Business Case The ADTRTM Technology Conclusions ADTR Concept Study 08/04/2015 Slide 20 Slide 20 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Conclusions Aker Solutions truly believes in the potential of the ADTRTM technology because: 1. Technically feasible • • Challenged assumptions for confidence in design Transmutation with load following power generation 2. Applying established technology • Reduced commercial risk 3. Developing IP • • • EA patent Keffective patent Other unique design aspects identified 4. Align with GenIV strategy • Meets GenIV goals and timescales 5. Develop the business case for thorium power • • Financial potential - Capital cost per KW equivalent to current reactors Market potential - Niche for size and power producing waste burner 6. Establish consortium with suitable partners • 08/04/2015 Now engaging with potential partners to further develop this exciting technology Slide 21 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. The ADTRTM Team Roger Ashworth Technical Manager Victoria Ashley Project Manager E-mail: victoria.ashley@jacobs.com Tel: 01642 334072 Mobile: 07925 113388 E-mail: roger.ashworth@jacobs.com Tel: 01642 334061 Mobile: 07833 295500 www.jacobs.com 08/04/2015 Slide 22 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright Copyright of all published material including photographs, drawings and images in this document remains vested in Jacobs and third party contributors as appropriate. Accordingly, neither the whole nor any part of this document shall be reproduced in any form nor used in any manner without express prior permission and applicable acknowledgements. No trademark, copyright or other notice shall be altered or removed from any reproduction. 08/04/2015 Slide 23 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved. Disclaimer This Presentation includes and is based, inter alia, on forward-looking information and statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ. These statements and this Presentation are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about global economic conditions, the economic conditions of the regions and industries that are major markets for Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (including subsidiaries and affiliates) lines of business. These expectations, estimates and projections are generally identifiable by statements containing words such as “expects”, “believes”, “estimates” or similar expressions. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expectations include, among others, economic and market conditions in the geographic areas and industries that are or will be major markets for Jacobs’ businesses, oil prices, market acceptance of new products and services, changes in governmental regulations, interest rates, fluctuations in currency exchange rates and such other factors as may be discussed from time to time in the Presentation. Although Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. believes that its expectations and the Presentation are based upon reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that those expectations will be achieved or that the actual results will be as set out in the Presentation. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is making no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the Presentation, and neither Jacobs Engineering Inc. nor any of its directors, officers or employees will have any liability to you or any other persons resulting from your use. Jacobs consists of many legally independent entities, constituting their own separate identities. Jacobs is used as the common brand or trade mark for most of these entities. In this presentation we may sometimes use “Jacobs”, “we” or “us” when we refer to Jacobs companies in general or where no useful purpose is served by identifying any particular Jacobs company. 08/04/2015 Slide 24 © Copyright 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. All rights reserved.