• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
 

Michael Fuchs the Head of Technology at E.On Kernkraft (Atoms for the Future 2013)

on

  • 781 views

The Head of Technology at E.ON Kernkraft, Michael FUCHS, then presented the load follow from operator point of view with in particular, the issue of intermittency of wind and solar power versus ...

The Head of Technology at E.ON Kernkraft, Michael FUCHS, then presented the load follow from operator point of view with in particular, the issue of intermittency of wind and solar power versus stability of nuclear power.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
781
Views on SlideShare
781
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Michael Fuchs the Head of Technology at E.On Kernkraft (Atoms for the Future 2013) Michael Fuchs the Head of Technology at E.On Kernkraft (Atoms for the Future 2013) Presentation Transcript

    • Load follow from operator point of view Michael Fuchs Atoms for the Future 2013, Paris, October 21st, 2013
    • E.ON's Nuclear Fleet: 17 Nuclear Power plants in Germany and Sweden Forsmark 17 units in operation (7 units operated by E.ON, 10 with minority stakes) Ringhals Barsebäck Oskarshamn Malmö 9 units shutdown / under decommissioning and dismantling Brunsbüttel Stade Installed capacity ≈ 7,8 GW E.ON‘s nuclear portfolio Brokdorf Krümmel Unterweser Emsland Employees NPP shutdown after Fukushima ≈ 3.500 Grohnde Power generation ≈ 60 TWh Nuclear power plant (NPP) in operation NPP (minority interest) Würgassen NPP under decommissioning and dismantling Grafenrheinfeld NPP under decommissioning and dismantling (minority interest) Isar 1 Isar 2 Gundremmingen B und C 2
    • Year of shut down according to recent German Atomic Law Brunsbüttel In operation In operation Zusätzl. since until Jahre Biblis A 1975 1976 2011 Biblis B 1977 1977 2011 Isar 1 1979 2011 Unterweser 1979 2011 Philippsburg 1 1980 2011 Krümmel 1984 2011 Grafenrheinfeld 1982 2015 Gundremmingen B 1984 2017 Philippsburg 2 1985 2019 Grohnde 1985 2021 Gundremmingen C 1985 2021 Brokdorf 1986 2021 Isar 2 1988 2022 Emsland 1988 2022 Neckarwestheim 2 3 Krümmel 2011 Brunsbüttel Unterweser 2011 Neckarwestheim 1 Brokdorf 1989 2022 Emsland Units affected by the moratorium Grohnde Grafenrheinfeld Biblis A, B Neckarwestheim 1, 2 Philippsburg 1+2 Isar 1, 2 Gundremmingen B, C Operated by E.ON Operated by RWE E.ON’s minority stake Operated by EnBW Operated by Vattenfall
    • Nuclear Power Plants hinder the development of Renewable Energy! „Nuclear Power Plants are the most inflexible power generators among the traditional power plants. It’s difficult to control the power of NPPs. Frequent start up’s and shut down’s should be avoided due to safety concerns.“1 Federal Ministry of environment, protection of nature and reactor safety (BMU): Hindernis Atomkraft: Die Auswirkungen einer Laufzeitverlängerung der Atomkraftwerke auf erneuerbare Energien. Berlin (2009) - Kurzstudie 1 4
    • The Reality! Test of the load flexibility of the Konvoi unit Emsland up to 140 MW/min 5
    • Why so flexible? - Fall 1973 – First oil price shock following Yom Kippur war - Acceleration of the German nuclear program under the lead of Social Democratic government (1972-74) - The goal • 1980: 18 GWe of nuclear power • 1985: 40 GWe of nuclear power Power Generation 1985 (Goal) Power Generation 1985 (Real) Hydro 4,1% Hydro 4,1% Nuclear Fossile 31,2% 27,0% Nuclear 68,9% Fossile 64,7% The planned share of nuclear power required load follow capability. Load flexibility is a build in feature, not an upgrade. 6
    • The Reality Today Power fluctuations due to environmental cooling water temperature limitations at NPP Unterweser! 7
    • The Reality Today 25.11.2012 Power control due to fluctuating of wind and solar power 8
    • The Reality Today 29.09.2013 Power control due to fluctuating of wind and solar power 9
    • The Reality Today 30.04.2013 No wind and solar power 10
    • Power control modes Primary control: Deviations of 50 Hz grid frequency are countered by Turbine control in a range of +/- 45 MW. Primary control in a specified power level range (e.g. KWG 95%-55%), Combination with secondary control possible, Start of primary control by shift on demand of load dispatcher. Secondary control: NPPs power is remote controlled by setting of the dispatcher +/- 10 MW/min in a specified power level range. Start of secondary control by shift on demand of load dispatcher. Load following operation: Management of all E.ON power plants accordingly to the power demand by load dispatcher. Minimum load levels are specified. The power plants are used at optimal costs. 11
    • Specified Load Flexibility Power Fluctuation Max power change Limited to power range [%PN/min] [% PN] [% PN] 60 10 5 2 5 20 50 70 80 – 100 50 – 100 50 – 100 30* - 100 Power variation [% PN] Accumulated number Average power fluctuations per day (relative to 60 years of operation) Power jump Power ramp 12 10 100-80-100 100-60-100 100-40-100 100-20-100 100-0-100 100000 100000 15000 12000 1000 400 4,5 4,5 0,7 0,5 0,05 6,7 (per year)
    • Kühlmitteltemperatur [°C] Power diagram of PWR 325 320 315 310 305 300 295 290 285 0 20 40 60 40 60 F -D c [b r] D ru k a 75 70 FD-Druck DE-Austritt 65 - > 40% PN: Power ramp with constant average coolant RDB-Austritt temperature - Low temperature mittlere KMT fluctuation inside the fuel - Low influence on reactivity - Low ageing effects on RDB-Eintritt material - Decrease of steam 80 100 pressure depending on Reaktorleistung [%] steam generator and turbine characteristics 60 55 50 45 40 0 13 20 80 100 Reaktorleistung [%]
    • Power diagram of BWR 14
    • Rod-Control-Cluster Assembly (RCCA) in German PWR Cluster of 20 Control-Rods in 16x16 FA (Pre-Konvoi) Cluster of 24 Control-Rods in 18x18 FA (Konvoi) Absorber Ag80In15Cd5 (broad-band black n-absorber; no grey rods) Cladding material incl. end-plugs SS1.4541, 550 µm thickness 15
    • Control rod drive in German PWR RCCA-drives designed for 40 annual cycles AREVA recommendation: replace drive after 1 million steps 16
    • Control rod pattern in German PWR 61 RCCA in 193 FA (checkboard) Operating in 15 groups of 4: D1 …D6; L1…L9 + central RCCA: E0 L D Groups L+D5+D6+E0 fully withdrawn (371cm fuel-length): SCRAM-function Groups D1+D2+D3+D4: fast loadreduction and axial power shape reactivity-worth sufficient for U- and U/MOX-cores 17
    • Operation of control rod banks in German PWR D1 – D6 used for power-control alternating for equally distributed fluence, wear&tear D2 D2 Effective full power days 18 0 – 25 VLT 25 – 50 VLT
    • Reactivity compensation by boron acid in German PWR boron for burn upcompensation also used for slow power control (not visible on the graph because measurements taken at full power for verification of core calculation) 19
    • Power control by boron acid in German PWR Initial power transient fast power reduction by L- and D- CRs RCA restore 70% power by CR-withdrawl compensation für Xeburnout with D-bank CRs compensate long-term 30% power-reduction with boron instead of D-bank CRs 20
    • Operational limitations for control rods in German PWR limiting effect: cladding hoop-strain due to swelling of absorber design-criterion: effective cladding hoop-strain of 0,75% use measured correlation swelling vs. fast-neutron-flux (snvt) conservative limiting snvt: 49 1021/cm2 EON established RCCA-individual design limits by one-time measurement of hoop strain (which is equivalent to determine the as-built gap size) can extend lifetime of RCCA up to several cycles 21
    • Limitations for load follow operation - During fuel conditioning due to interaction between fuel and cladding caused by temperature transients UO2 UO2 Pellet-Clad-Interaction (PCI), Crack initiation in fuel rod material - In case of fuel leakage - During testing of core instrumentation => approx. 50 days per year 22
    • Fuel conditioning in PWR 23
    • Limitations in BWR 24
    • Experiences Units cope with the grid requirements in a favorable matter Power ramp in daily operation up to 20 MW/min. No influence of load follow on maintenance activities until now. Inspection intervals of some components are reduced. Expected wear and tear on specific components not notable yet. Nuclear Power Plants have an excellent capability of load follow operation 25
    • Comparison of power ramps Nuclear Power Plants Maximum Power ~1260 MW 1200 Minimum Power ~630 MW Max Power Ramp+/- 63 MW/min1 1000 New Fossil Plants Maximum Power ~800 MW Electrical Power in MW 800 Minimum Power ~320 MW Max Power Ramp +/- 26 MW/min 600 Maximum Power ~600 MW 400 Minimum Power ~420 MW Max Power Ramp +/- 8 MW/min 200 Maximum Power ~875 MW Old Fossil Plants Minimum Power ~260 MW 2 Max Power Ramp +/- 38 MW/min New Gas Plants 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time in min Nuclear Power Plants belong to the most flexible plants in the grid! 26
    • Thank you for your attention 27
    • Power-Changes in PWR power-conditioning 28
    • Power-Changes in BWR power-conditioning 29