Elsevier

Annals of Nuclear Energy

Volume 96, October 2016, Pages 104-111
Annals of Nuclear Energy

Exergy analysis of thermal energy storage options with nuclear power plants

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.06.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Different thermal energy storage (TES) methods are proposed for small modular nuclear reactors.

  • Exergy and energy density analyses of TES integration with NPPs are conducted and presented.

  • Sensible heat liquid-type TES systems outperform solid-type systems.

Abstract

Storing excess thermal energy in a storage media, that can later be extracted during peak-load times is one of the better economic options for nuclear power in future. Thermal energy storage integration with light-water cooled and advanced nuclear power plants is analyzed to assess technical feasibility of different options. Various choices of storage media considered in this study include molten salts, synthetic heat transfer fluids, and packed beds of solid rocks or ceramics. Due to limitations of complex process conditions and safety requirements there are only few combinations which have potential integration possibilities. In-depth quantitative assessment of these integration possibilities are then analyzed using exergy analysis and energy density models. The exergy efficiency of thermal energy storage systems is quantified based on second law thermodynamics. This study identifies, examines, and compares different energy storage options for integration with modular NPPs, with the calculated values of energy density and exergy efficiency. The thermal energy storage options such as synthetic heat transfer fluids perform well for light-water cooled NPPs, whereas liquid storage salt show better performance with advanced NPPs as compared to other options.

Introduction

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) have negligible carbon emission rates as compared to their fossil fuel counterparts, but their inability to follow grid load demands make them economically less competitive. The reason behind this economic disposition for NPPs is because of various associated technical complexities. These technical challenges include the adequate handling of reactivity swings caused by time-varying fuel and moderator temperatures, a higher fuel-failure probability due to thermal-structural cycling, and spatial variations in xenon concentrations. Although there are presently some reactors around the world that are operating with flexible load-following capabilities, such operation is restricted to slowly-varying powers, 2–3 times a day, and only up to 80% of the fuel cycle. On the other hand, most of the fossil fueled plants can supply peak-loads by adding more fuel and, thus, can generate far more revenue during those peak hours. The use of NPPs for peak load following is quite complex due to technical constraints associated with reactor behavior. Thus, a more convenient and effective method to facilitate load following by NPPs would be to integrate energy storage. If the grid demand is reduced, then the excess reactor thermal power or plant electrical power is stored in an integrated storage device. This stored energy can be released to the grid when demand is higher than what the NPPs can produce at 100% reactor power (Forsberg and Curtis, 2013). There are many options for storing either the thermal energy from the nuclear reactor or the electricity from the turbo-generator in the power cycle, with both having their advantages and disadvantages respectively. Thermal, mechanical, and electrical energy storage are the most commonly used storage options. Thermal energy storage is the energy stored in the form of heat in well-insulated solids or liquids, as either sensible heat, stored within a single phase media, or latent heat, stored within phase change materials. Thermal energy storage options include but are not limited to molten salt, packed beds, heating oils, ionic liquids, phase change materials and steam accumulators. Mechanical energy storage is any kinetic or potential energy stored within a device and electrical energy storage resides in the buildup of electrons within systems called electric condensers, which store the charges between two parallel plates when a voltage is applied. Mechanical storage options include but are not limited to compressed air, pumped hydroelectric, flywheels, whereas electrical storage options include batteries and capacitors. Electrical energy storage has the advantage of directly storing the final usable form of energy i.e. electrical energy, but disadvantages come from the high costs and irreversibility. Mechanical energy storage processes such as pumped hydro have higher degree of reversibility but disadvantages include non-negligible energy losses and substantially large space requirements for grid scale storage. Disadvantages with thermal storage is the low efficiency of the conversion process from thermal to electrical energy but with NPPs generating large amounts of thermal heat, a thermal energy storage system becomes advantageous. Therefore, among these various options to store energy, thermal storage is economically more competitive for NPPs as compared to electrical or mechanical energy storage options. However, the adoption of a particular thermal storage option is largely dependent upon the operating and process conditions of the nuclear heat source and reactor coolant. Light-water NPPs operate at lower temperatures than Next Generation Nuclear Power (NGNP) reactors and only use pressurized water as the main coolant, whereas NGNP reactors use molten salts or high temperature gasses as the main coolant. The critical step remains how to select and develop an ideal choice of heat transfer fluid or storage media (Bejan, 1978). Currently, there are some thermal storage solutions such as molten nitrate salt, also known as storage or solar salt (40%KNO3+60%NaNO3) and packed bed of alumina particles which present very low technological risk and a high deployment potential. These solutions can be good candidates for some of the advanced high-temperature reactors but have some limitations for integration into light-water cooled NPPs. Therefore, other materials such as synthetic heat transfer fluids need to be explored to evaluate the options to store thermal energy for light-water NPPs. An overall comparative economic analysis can help in decision making process for storage integration, however for new materials and methods it is difficult to estimate the actual costs or effective costs if those technologies are deployed in large scale. Thus, an energy density and exergy model are used to compare different technologies and materials in this study.

Section snippets

Nuclear power plants considered

Firstly, different NPPs which can be considered as potential candidates for TES integration will be briefly described with the sufficient details in the process system conditions. For this analysis three NPP designs are selected – light water-cooled small modular reactors (LW-SMR), the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) and pebble-bed fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactor (PB-FHR). The schematics of each type are shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Table 1 shows key

Thermal energy storage options

Sensible TES is more robust and established than any other thermal energy storage systems (Hasnain, 1998, Herrmann and Kearney, 2002). It has been shown by Bindra et al. (Bindra et al., 2013) that sensible heat storage have much higher exergy efficiency for high energy density storage design as compared to other mechanisms. So, in this work integration studies are only performed with sensible TES. The temperature difference between cold state and hot state, and thermal capacity of the media

Exergy and energy density quantification model

The disadvantage of the heat transfer in the heat exchanger between the RC and HTF for storage is that it reduces the top temperature during storage and in turn exergy efficiency of the system. The heat exchange process between HTF and RC is an important component of the model which involves indirect heat exchange to the HTF of the TES system. Due to the presence of additional resistances in the heat exchanger, the actual storage inlet temperature Tin is lower than the RC outlet temperature and

Results

This study evaluates the exegetic performance of different materials and methods to store thermal energy of NPPs. The analysis was conducted for thermal storage integration with existing and future generation NPPs based on the plant design data from literature (Doster et al., 2012, Ball, 2004, Andreades and Peterson, 2014). The study reveals that there are various possible options to store thermal energy of next generation NPPs efficiently, but the options for existing NPPs are limited. Low

Conclusions

This paper provides a conceptual presentation on the integration of NPPs with technically robust thermal energy storage solutions. Although a more detailed analysis with entire condensate and feed water system integrated to the energy storage solution is required for more accurate analysis, for the conceptual presentation a simpler approach based on energy density and exergy analysis is adopted. Therminol and Dowtherm are commercially available robust technological solutions for this purpose

Acknowledgments

The material presented is based upon work partly supported by the U.S. Department of Energy via Idaho National Laboratory under Prime Contract No. DE-AC07-05ID14517. First author, Jacob Edwards, was supported by NRC graduate fellowship program.

References (18)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (54)

  • Peridynamic analysis of thermal behaviour of PCM composites for heat storage

    2024, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text