Comparative evaluation of pebble-bed and prismatic fueled high-temperature gas-cooled reactors

Abstract

A comparative evaluation has been performed of the HTGR and the Federal Republic of Germany's Pebble Bed Reactor (PBR) for potential commercial applications in the US. The evaluation considered two reactor sizes (1000 and 3000 MW(t)) and three process applications (steam cycle, direct cycle, and process heat, with outlet coolant temperatures of 750, 850, and 950/sup 0/C, respectively). The primary criterion for the comparison was the levelized (15-year) cost of producing electricity or process heat. Emphasis was placed on the cost impact of differences between the prismatic-type HTGR core, which requires periodic refuelings during reactor shutdowns, and the pebble bed PBR core, which is refueled continuously during reactor operations. Detailed studies of key technical issues using reference HTGR and PBR designs revealed that two cost components contributing to the levelized power costs are higher for the PBR: capital costs and operation and maintenance costs. A third cost component, associated with nonavailability penalties, tended to be higher for the PBR except for the process heat application, for which there is a large uncertainty in the HTGR nonavailability penalty at the 950/sup 0/C outlet coolant temperature. A fourth cost component, fuel cycle costs, is lower for the PBR, but not sufficiently lower to offset the capital cost component. Thus the HTGR appears to be slightly superior to the PBR in economic performance. Because of the advanced development of the HTGR concept, large HTGRs could also be commercialized in the US with lower R and D costs and shorter lead times than could large PBRs. It is recommended that the US gas-cooled thermal reactor program continue giving primary support to the HTGR, while also maintaining its cooperative PBR program with FRG.