Economic analysis of grid and wire wrap supported hydride and oxide fueled pressurized water reactors

An economic analysis is performed to calculate the levelized unit cost of electricity (COE) for a pressurized water reactor (PWR) retrofitted with a range of potential U (45 wt.%)-ZrH_1.6 hydride and UO₂ oxide fueled geometries (i.e., combinations of rod diameter and pitch) supported by traditional grid spacers (square array) and wire wrap spacers (hexagonal array). The time frame considered in computing the COE is the remaining plant life, beginning at the time of retrofit. The goals of the analysis are twofold: (1) comparing the economic performance of UO₂ and U-ZrH_1.6 fuels for a range of retrofitted geometries supported by grid and wire wrap spacers; and (2) investigating the potential economic benefits for nuclear utilities considering retrofitting new fuels and/or geometries into existing PWR pressure vessels. Fuel cycle, operations and maintenance (O & M), and capital costs are considered.The economic performance of U-ZrH_1.6 and UO₂ fuels is found to be similar, with UO₂ fueled designs providing a slight advantage when supported by grid spacers, and U-ZrH_1.6 providing a slight advantage when supported by wire wrap spacers. These small differences in cost, however, are within the bounds of uncertainty of this study and are not believed to provide a strong economic argument for the use of one fuel type over the other.To demonstrate the potential economic benefits of retrofitted designs to nuclear utilities, two different comparisons are made. The first compares the COE for retrofitted designs with the COE for a reference PWR, assumed to have operated long enough to recuperate its initial capital investment. The costs for this reference PWR reflect the “do-nothing” case for current plant owners whose primary expenditures are fuel cycle and O & M costs. The second comparison introduces a different reference PWR that includes the costs to operate an existing unit and the cost to purchase power from a newly constructed PWR, for comparison with retrofitted designs which offer increased power relative to existing commercial PWRs.For the first comparison, no grid supported designs and only one wire wrap supported design (i.e., U-ZrH_1.6 Stretch Case) provide a lower levelized unit cost of electricity than the reference “do-nothing” PWR. The primary cause of this conclusion is the capital costs incurred by retrofitted designs to change the core geometry and, for many designs, to upgrade primary and secondary loop components for operation at higher power than the reference PWR. The reference “do-nothing” PWR cost in this first comparison includes only operations and maintenance as well as fuel cycle costs but does not include a capital component. For the second comparison, significant cost savings are demonstrated for both grid (15-19% savings) and wire wrap (30-40% savings) supported designs using U-ZrH_1.6 and UO₂ fuels. These cost savings are enabled by enhancing the pumping capacity of the primary system and, for wire wrap supported designs, by taking advantage of enhanced critical heat flux performance. The optimal geometry for retrofitted UO₂ and U-ZrH_1.6 fueled PWR cores supported by grid spacers is D_rod = 6.5 mm and P/D = 1.39. The cost savings over the second case reference PWR are ∼19 and 15%, respectively. The cost savings for retrofitted PWRs that incorporate wire wrap spacing are even larger because of operation at even higher power. Cost savings over the reference PWR range between 30 and 40% for the U-ZrH_1.6 and UO₂ Achievable and Stretch Cases. The optimal geometries for the U-ZrH_1.6 Achievable and Stretch Cases are D_rod = 8.08 mm, P/D = 1.41 and D_rod = 8.71 mm, P/D = 1.39, respectively. The optimal geometries for the UO₂ Achievable and Stretch Cases are D_rod = 7.13 mm, P/D = 1.42 and D_rod = 9.34 mm, P/D = 1.27, respectively. Utilities seeking to meet rising demand by expanding capacity may therefore strongly benefit from retrofitting existing PWRs with either U-ZrH_1.6 or UO₂ fueled designs. These new designs have different geometries than are currently used by commercial plants. A conclusion on which fuel type to use, however, could not be reached in this analysis as both offer similar economic performance.