MAPPING GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXPANSION

Transcription

1 MAPPING GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXPANSION Sharon Squassoni Senior Associate November 5, 2007 Updated May 28, 2008 With Georgina Jones and Nima Gerami, research assistants

2 Nuclear Energy Today 6% global electricity demand 3 countries operating 439 reactors (37 GW) countries with 50 million SWU enrichment 5 countries separating plutonium commercially 0 countries with geologic repositories for nuclear waste

3 I: Reactor Capacities, 2008* (Gigawatts electric, GWe) 22 3 OECD EUROPE 30 9 UNITED STATES JAPAN *See separate Appendix for details, assumptions, and data for this and other maps.

4 II: States Enriching Uranium, 2008

5 III: States Reprocessing Spent Fuel, 2008

6 Nuclear Energy Enthusiasm Since 2005, about 20 states have announced new plans for nuclear power Perceived as clean and green Greater energy security (?) But what about proliferation? (as well as cost, safety, waste?)

7 Does Geography Matter? clear energy increasingly attractive to nuclear phytes those without nuclear power now. 3 states in Middle East want nuclear Has Iran s nuclear program influenced? ergy security has geographic derpinnings have any impact on climate change, it tters where nuclear energy grows (need to

8 Proliferation and Geography hen do reactors spur enrichment and reprocessing? forts to restrict technology transfer are foundering More states now interested in such capabilities Nuclear enthusiasm outstripping rules and institutions for managing rennial issues: developing scientific and hnological base and security & control of clear material

9 Nuclear Expansion Scenarios* enario I: Meeting demand in 2030 (EIA) enario II: Planning supply for 2030 enario III: Climate change requirements in 2050 a. One nuclear wedge (Pacala, Socolow) b. MIT 500 GW c. Stern Report (2-6 wedges )

10 Scenario I: Meeting Demand in 2030 nergy Information Administration (EIA) jections look at GDP growth, energy demand, -use sector, electricity supply, with nuclear as re mitations Nuclear energy projections done off-line Regional estimates (with a few country-specific ones) Wildcards = Retirements, Western Europe

11 Scenario II: Planning Supply for 2030 his scenario takes at face value states nounced plans for nuclear development. ld optimism? rong growth in Asia (India, China) ew nuclear reactor states ossibly new enrichers, reprocessers?

12 IV: Where Will Nuclear Energy Grow?

13 V: A Closer Look at New Nuclear States Proposals as of 2008

14 Scenario III: Global Climate Change, 2050 om tripling to quadrupling capacities a. Gigaton of carbon emissions reduction (Pacala-Socolow wedge ) = GWe for a total of 070 GWe reactor capacity b. 500 GWe = MIT study high scenario c. 2-6 Gigatons of carbon emissions reduction (Stern Report) = GWe

15 IIIb MIT New Capacity VI: Reactor Capacities for all Scenarios* (Gigawatts electric, GWe) UNITED STATES 99 3 OECD EUROPE JAPAN Y: Current Capacity 0 I EIA Forecast II Proposed Expansion 2 I Proposed New Capacity IIb MIT Expansion

16 VII: A Closer Look at New Nuclear Reactors Scenarios II and III (GWe) Y: II Proposed New Capacity IIb MIT Expansion

17 Enrichment Implications* Baseline Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III a: Wedge Scenario Scenario III b: MIT Scenario III c: Stern

18 Variables Affecting Enrichment Projections % operating power reactors currently use LEU sumptions about reactor technologies and the fuel le (open or closed) matter a lot in projections xample: 500 GWe LWRs = 225 million SWU/year 500 GWe with MOX reactors ( recycle) = 89 million SWU/year 500 GWe with fast, thermal reactors: 23 million SWU/year

19 VIII: Enrichment Capacities for all Scenarios (million SWU/year) 9 USEC 8 EURODIF 0.8 URENCO TENEX 22 8 CNNC 6 JNFL RESENDE 0.2 Y: Current Capacity 3 6 I EIA Forecast 0.5 I Proposed Expansion I Proposed New Capacity IIb MIT Expansion

20 Spent Fuel: How to Handle? eactor expansion raises questions about how to ndle spent fuel. Basic options are storage vs. processing; no way to predict ational policies vs. international norms Existing storage capacities (S. Korea?) Fuel cycle approaches (once-through, one recycle, fast reactors?) New technologies (reactors & recycle) Cost GNEP Factor

21 Storage Capacities GWe LWR produces 20 MT spent uranium oxide fuel/yr enario II : 700 GWe will require 4 Yuccas (NRDC)* enario III a: 000 GWe will require a Yucca every 3.5 years (or, 20 Yuccas; MIT) enario III b: 500 GWe ~ 30 Yuccas ssuming Yucca can only hold 70,000 MT

22 Spent Fuel Build-Up? countries now = 80% of global reactor capacity Of 8, half don t reprocess: US, Canada, Ukraine and South Korea All but Canada are reconsidering y 2050, the only countries with comparably-sized el cycles will be China and India, both of which ill reprocess ther states won t face a storage shortage

23 Fuel Cycles Dictate Waste Scenario IIIb: 500 GWe* Once-through (no reprocessing) ~30,000 MTIHM/yr spent fuel = 30 Yuccas** Thermal reactors with one MOX recycle ~25,000 MTIHM/yr uranium oxide is reprocessed (plus separated uranium, high-level waste in glass, etc) = 22 Yuccas (?) and 5 La Hagues Balanced cycle with fast and thermal reactors ~6,000 MTIHM/yr uranium oxide and 4,700 MTIHM of FR fuel is reprocessed leaving pyroprocessing waste, etc =4 Yuccas (?) & 0 La-Hague-sized pyroprocessing plants *est. burn-up = 50 GWd/MTIHM (millions tons initial heavy metal) ** Assuming Yucca can only hold 70,000 tons

24 IX: States Reprocessing?

25 Summary Expansion plans are unrealistic Proliferation concerns are real Reactors require infrastructure, expertise, some of which can be applied to a nuclear weapons program Enrichment, reprocessing not yet off the table Real expansion will entail massive flows of sensitive material

26 Summary Even if nuclear power expansion fizzles, some states may go ahead with plans Few financial barriers to enrichment ($2 B per plant; 5 years construction for URENCO) Cost & waste are still issues for reprocessing. Second-tier nuclear suppliers -- China, India?

27 Additional Questions Retirements of reactors a wild card after 2030 Forecasts assume light water reactors. What about a) PHWR exports from India, China, Canada?; and b) lower enrichment requirements if MOX fuel cycle or fast reactor with actinide recycling pursued. ssue of electricity grids developing nations may purchase much smaller sized reactors than planned ranium enrichment -- not expensive ($-2B) or long (5 years) to build, but environmental hazards?; wide range of enrichment per GW (-.5M SWU) estern European reactor plans quite variable