2. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Rev 3 (18 October 2012)

Transcription

1 2. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Rev 3 (18 October 2012) 2.1. Introduction Participants of the Forum were asked to fill out the questionnaire enclosed as Annex 1. The responses from participants are summarized below. In analyzing the responses, all respondents were attributed to one of the following nuclear fuel cycle policy groups: Group NG1 starts with light water reactors (LWRs), transitions to a closed fuel cycle with fast reactors; Group NG2 maintains an open fuel cycle with LWRs and heavy water reactors (HWRs); Group NG3 starts with no reactors, develops LWRs and minimal fuel cycle infrastructure. Table 1 lists the number of responses by country and by nuclear fuel cycle policy group as used in the analysis. For the purpose of this study, NG1 and NG2 groups were considered together (NG1+NG2) as no responses from some NG1 countries were received (France, India, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, USA), because some NG1 countries technologically capable to go on with fast reactors and a closed nuclear fuel are uncertain about doing so practically owing to political considerations, and because some of NG2 countries may eventually transition to NG1. Table 1. Responses by country and by nuclear fuel cycle policy group # Country Number of NG respondents 1 Argentina 1 NG1+NG2 2 Armenia 1 NG1+NG2 3 Bangladesh 1 NG3 4 Bulgaria 1 NG1+NG2 5 Brazil 1 NG1+NG2 6 Croatia 1 NG1+NG2 1 7 Egypt 1 NG3 8 France 0 NG1+NG2 9 Ghana 1 NG3 10 India 0 NG1+NG2 11 Jordan 1 NG3 12 Republic of Korea 0 NG1+NG2 1 Taking into account joint ownership of the Krsko NPP located in Slovenia. 1

2 13 Lithuania 1 NG1+NG2 14 Mongolia 1 NG3 15 Niger 1 NG3 16 Pakistan 1 NG1+NG2 17 Peru 2 NG3 18 Poland 1 NG3 19 Romania 1 NG1+NG2 20 Russia 3 NG1+NG2 21 Sudan 2 NG3 22 Switzerland 0 NG1+NG2 23 Tanzania 1 NG3 24 Uganda 1 NG3 25 Ukraine 2 NG1+NG2 26 USA 0 NG1+NG2 27 Vietnam 1 NG3 28 Yemen 1 NG3 In the analysis, the responses were averaged over: (1) All respondents (NG1+NG2+NG3); (2) Respondents from countries attributed to groups NG1 and NG 2 (NG1+NG2); (3) Respondents from countries attributed to group NG3. For the purpose of this study, short-term was defined as ; medium-term as and long term as Responses to Section 1 of the questionnaire In Section 1 of the questionnaire (see Annex 1), respondents were asked to prioritize the importance of collaboration with other countries on particular issues relevant for transition to sustainable nuclear energy systems, using a 1 to 5 scale (1 low priority, 5 highest priority). The responses from (NG1+NG2+NG3) respondents are summarized in Fig. 1; from (NG1+NG2) in Fig. 2 and from NG3 in Fig. 3. The responses summarized in Fig. 1, 2 and 3 show cooperation with other countries is perceived important in a number of areas and is projected to become more important in most of the areas in the medium and long term. On average among all respondents (NG1+NG2+NG3), see Fig. 1, 2

3 cooperation on NPPs appears to be a champion in the near and medium term, while in the longer term it loses to final disposal of waste. For the newcomer countries (NG3) cooperation on NPPs is an ultimate leader in the near term, see Fig. 3. For NG1+NG2 countries (technology holders and users) cooperation on NPPs is also a near-term leader although closely backed by cooperation on final disposal of waste, see Fig. 2. In the medium and long terms, cooperation on final disposal of waste becomes a leader for NG1+NG2 countries (Fig. 2), while for the NG3 countries it is long term spent fuel storage that gets the highest rating, see Fig. 3. Fig. 1. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 1 (NG1+NG2+NG3) 3

4 Fig. 2. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 1 (NG1+NG2) Fig. 3. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 1 (NG3) 4

5 The observed pattern of responses might be explained by the fact that NG1+NG2 countries which have already operated NPPs for some time typically have accumulated certain amounts of spent nuclear fuel which are growing proportionally to energy production and which need to be managed up to final disposal. These countries may have a vision of options and issues for spent nuclear fuel storage/ management and final waste disposal. Then, they give a higher priority to cooperation with other countries on final disposal of waste in the medium and long terms. Different from that, countries of the NG3 group which are newcomers might have less certain vision on the above mentioned options and, therefore, they suggest long-term spent nuclear fuel storage would remain the best spent fuel management option even in the long term (up to 2100). For the near term ( ) the priorities (averaging more than 2.5 on 1 to 5 scale) for cooperation among all respondents (NG1+NG2+NG3) are (in that order): NPPs; Final disposal of waste; Long term spent nuclear fuel storage; High level waste (HLW) management; Uranium resources (yellowcake). In the medium term ( ) the corresponding priority list is amended by (with cooperation on final disposal of waste moving to the top): Potential for non-electrical applications; Advanced fuel cycles; Enrichment; Minor actinide management and Special plants (accelerator driven systems (ADS), molten salt reactors (MSR)). In the longer term ( ) cooperation in all considered areas (see Annex 1) becomes a priority (rates more than 2.5 on a 1 5 scale). Such a response indicates collaboration among countries is seen by all respondents as necessary condition for making a transition to future sustainable nuclear energy systems. In the short term, the priorities for cooperation among respondents from the (NG1+NG2) groups (technology holders and users) are (in that order): NPPs; Final disposal of waste; Long-term spent nuclear fuel storage; Enrichment; High level waste (HLW) management; Uranium resources yellowcake. In the short term, the priorities for cooperation among respondents from the NG3 group (newcomers) are (in that order): NPPs; 5

6 Final disposal of waste; HLW management; Uranium resources yellowcake; Potential for non-electrical applications; Long term spent nuclear fuel storage. Cooperation on NPPs has the highest priority in the near term among both, NG1+NG2 and NG3 countries, which potentially opens to the door to many new NPP deployments in NG3 ( newcomer ) countries. Moreover, such cooperation is also rated very important in the medium and long term. Cooperation on final disposal of waste goes as the second near-term priority for both, NG1+NG2 and NG3 countries, offering the newcomers a good chance to initiate transition to future sustainable nuclear energy system from the outset of a national nuclear power programme. Comparison of the presented above near term priority lists on a qualitative level indicates many priority areas for cooperation are actually common among respondents for the (NG1+NG2) and the NG3 countries. One thing different is that newcomers (NG3) are already looking for cooperation in non-electrical applications while technology holders and users do not recognize this as a priority in the near term Responses to Section 2 of the questionnaire In Section 2 of the questionnaire (see Annex 1), respondents were asked to indicate their vision of the importance of economic indicators with respect to a nuclear energy project in their respective country. Again, a 1 to 5 scale was used (1 low priority, 5 highest priority). The responses from (NG1+NG2+NG3) respondents are summarized in Fig. 4; from (NG1+NG2) in Fig. 5 and from NG3 in Fig. 6. Fig. 4. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 2 (NG1+NG2+NG3) 6

7 Fig. 5. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 2 (NG1+NG2) Fig. 6. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 2 (NG3) 7

8 It could be noted that for the near term ( ) respondents from all groups of countries (NG1+NG2+NG3) rate the investment cost (which is the overnight capital cost plus interest during construction, see Attachment 2 in Annex 1) as equally important to the Levelized Unit Electricity Cost (LUEC), an indicator traditionally used in energy planning to determine least cost energy option, see Fig. 4. High importance of the investment cost is owing to large overnight capital costs typical of a state-of-the-art NPP project, which is a well-known impediment for implementation of nuclear energy projects in many countries 2. In the medium and long term LUEC is seen as more important by respondents from all country groups; however, the respondents from technology user and holder countries (NG1+NG1) indicate a somewhat smaller gap in importance between LUEC and the investment cost (compare Fig. 4 and 5). Net present value (NPV), payback period and internal rate of return (IRR) are the indicators favoured by private investors operating in liberalized de-regulated markets. In most cases their rated importance is below that of LUEC and the investment cost, see Fig. 4, 5 and 6, which might reflect the fact that nuclear energy markets remain and are likely to remain strongly regulated and government-controlled. However, respondents from newcomer countries (NG3) gave a very high rating to NPV. This rating nearly matches the investment cost and LUEC in the near-term and even slightly surpasses the investment cost in the long-term, see Fig. 6. NPV is an indicator of how much value an investment or project adds to the firm, used in decision making 3. Its high rating by newcomers might reflect their expectation of a NPP construction project that would add to a national company managing the implementation of such a project. Technology holders and users, on the contrary, have fewer expectations regarding the above mentioned and rate NPV below the IRR and payback time which are indicators characterizing attractiveness of the investments Responses to Section 3 of the questionnaire In Section 3 of the questionnaire (see Annex 1), respondents were asked to indicate their preferences regarding the approach to final disposal of radioactive waste. Both, technological and infrastructure approaches were suggested for rating. Again, a 1 to 5 scale was used (1 low priority, 5 highest priority). The responses from (NG1+NG2+NG3) respondents are summarized in Fig. 7; from (NG1+NG2) in Fig. 8 and from NG3 in Fig. 9. On the infrastructure side, the respondents were asked to provide comparative ratings for fuel cycle back-end: National solution; Regional solution; 2 Note by the Scientific Secretary: Overcoming this impediment is possible through government loans and cost sharing or, potentially, by incremental capacity increase via developing and implementing cost competitive NPP projects with small modular reactors. 3 Typically, with NPV>0 the project may be accepted, with NPV<0 the project should be rejected. 8

9 International solution and Solution fully or partially outsourced to fuel supplier. On average among all respondents (NG1+NG2+NG3), international solution is a preferred option in the short, medium and long terms, see Fig.7. Figure 7 also shows regional solution to be second to international one in the medium and long terms, with the difference becoming small in the long-term. National solution is always below regional solution and remains substantially so even in the longer term. The solution fully or partially outsourced to fuel supplier (e.g., a fuel take back arrangement with or without return of the ultimate waste for disposal) wins over regional and national solutions in the short-term (although by a small margin when compared to regional solution) but then drops down to become the least preferred option in the medium and long term. Regarding responses from different country groups, national solution goes first in the short, medium and long terms in view of the respondents from technology holder and user countries (NG1+NG2), see Fig. 8. The overall average rating (NG1+NG2+NG3, Fig. 7) is then driven by the opinion of the respondents from NG3 countries that definitely prefer international and regional solution to a national one, see Fig. 9. Regarding solution outsourced to the supplier, in view of NG1+NG2 it is reasonably close to regional and international solutions in the long term, see Fig. 8. However, the respondents from NG1+NG2 give the priority to national solution in all terms. Newcomers are more sceptical about national solution. In their view the outsourced solution loses to regional and international solutions in the medium and long terms while winning to a national solution in the short and medium terms. In view of NG3 respondents, national solution loses to regional and international ones in all terms, see Fig. 9. The above mentioned differences in ratings between respondents from different groups of countries might be explained by the fact that some technology holder and technology user countries have already attempted regional or international solutions for final disposal of radioactive waste and are aware of the difficulties arising on this way. A relatively low rating of the long-term outsourced solution among newcomers (NG3) might be explained by a concern over being too much bound to a particular fuel supplier offering take back arrangements. On a technological side, the respondents were asked to provide comparative ratings for: Controlled spent nuclear fuel storage pending availability of proven disposal technology; Final disposal of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and Final disposal of only fission products after reprocessing and recycle of spent nuclear fuel, possibly outsourced to the vendor/supplier country. On average among NG1+NG2+NG3 the respondents see controlled spent nuclear fuel storage pending proven disposal technology as a preference in all terms, although its rating goes down, especially in the longer term, see Fig. 7. Final disposal of fission products from reprocessing and recycle goes next, with its rating increasing toward the long term. Being so, fission product disposal loses substantially to controlled spent nuclear fuel storage in the short and medium term. 9

10 Final disposal of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing rates slightly below fission product disposal in the short term, goes up slightly toward the medium term and then drops down in the long term. As comes to technology holders and users, see Fig. 8, the trend is similar to that observed for NG1+NG2+NG3. As comes to newcomers (NG3), final disposal without reprocessing is always rated below the final disposal of only fission products, see Fig. 9. Fig. 7. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 3 (NG1+NG2+NG3) 10

11 Fig. 8. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 3 (NG1+NG2) Fig. 9. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 3 (NG3) 11

12 Summing up the analysis performed above: (1) In the absence of proven commercial solutions for final disposal of waste the decisions on this issue remain essentially open, with the majority of the respondents voting for long term controlled storage of spent nuclear fuel pending availability of proven disposal technology; (2) Newcomer countries are somewhat more optimistic regarding reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel, probably in a supplier country or in a regional or international nuclear fuel cycle centre, to deal only with the remaining fission products at the final disposal stage Responses to Section 4 of the questionnaire In Section 4 of the questionnaire (see Annex 1), respondents were asked to indicate which stages of the front-end nuclear fuel cycle their respective countries have mastered or consider to master indigenously. The responses from (NG1+NG2+NG3) respondents are summarized in Fig. 10; from (NG1+NG2) in Fig. 11 and from NG3 in Fig. 12. The vertical axis in these figures gives the percentage (or fraction) of positive answers within a given group or a given aggregation of groups. Fig. 10. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 4 (NG1+NG2+NG3) 12

13 Fig. 11. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 4 (NG1+NG2) Fig. 12. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 4 (NG3) 13

14 The responses averaged over all country groups (NG1+NG2+NG3) indicate that, with time, more and more countries would target mastering indigenously the non-sensitive stages of the nuclear fuel cycle front-end, first of all mining and milling, and to a smaller extent conversion and fuel pellet/ fuel assembly manufacturing, see Fig. 10. Among the respondents from technology holder and user countries (NG1+NG2), some of which have already mastered the corresponding technology(ies), relatively small changes are seen on transition from the short to the medium and, then, to the long term, see Fig. 11. Different from that, the responses from the newcomer countries indicate the number countries to master frontend nuclear fuel cycle stages would steadily grow with time, see Fig. 12. All in all, the responses to questionnaire Section 4 indicate many countries wish to take broader benefit of a nuclear energy programme by eventually mastering non-sensitive front-end fuel cycle stages with a potential of becoming players in the domestic, regional or international markets Responses to Section 5 of the questionnaire In Section 5 of the questionnaire (see Annex 1), respondents were asked to prioritize the prespecified issues regarding their current or potential future importance in their respective countries, with respect to a nuclear energy programme. A 1 to 5 scale was used in prioritization (1 low priority, 5 highest priority). The responses from (NG1+NG2+NG3) respondents are summarized in Fig. 13; from (NG1+NG2) in Fig. 14 and from NG3 in Fig

15 Fig. 13. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 5 (NG1+NG2+NG3) Fig. 14. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 5 (NG1+NG2) 15

16 Fig. 15. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 5 (NG3) The responses shown in Fig indicate that all of the pre-specified issues (see captions on Fig ) are of substantial importance. The lowest rating (2.5, a median value on 1 to 5 scale) corresponds to the issue of land requirements in technology holder and user countries (NG1+NG2), see Fig. 14. All other issues were rated above 2.5 on average among the respondents within groups NG1+NG2+NG3, NG1+NG2 and NG3. On average among the respondents from all groups (NG1+NG2+NG3), see Fig. 13, the priority issues with rating above 4.0 are (in descending priority): Security of supply and Financial resources 4 ; Human resources and Public health and environmental issues and Political considerations/ political willingness and Public perception and acceptance and Energy independence; Physical infrastructure and Considerations of Global climate change. In addition to the above mentioned, issues of Cost sharing and technology transfer closely approach 4.0 rating in aggregated view of all of the respondents (NG1+NG2+NG3), see Fig. 13. On average among the respondents from technology holder and user countries (NG1+NG2), see Fig. 14, the priority issues with rating above 4.0 are (in descending priority): Financial resources; Security of supply; 4 Hereafter, issues mentioned within a single line have nearly equal importance rating. 16

17 Public health and environmental issues and Human resources; Political considerations/ political willingness and Public perception and acceptance and Energy independence. In addition to the above mentioned, Cost sharing closely approaches 4.0 rating in view of NG1+NG2 respondents, see Fig. 14. On average among the respondents from newcomer countries (NG3), see Fig. 15, the priority issues with rating above 4.0 are (in descending priority): Security of supply; Political considerations / political willingness, Public perception and acceptance and Energy independence and Public health and environmental issues and Human resources; Legal and institutional infrastructure and Physical infrastructure; Financial resources and Technology transfer and Considerations of Global climate change; Size of electrical grids; Logistic considerations; Cost sharing. It could be noted that respondents from newcomer countries (NG3) indicate larger number of high-importance issues compared to the technology holder and user countries (NG1+NG2), which is quite natural in view of a limited experience with national nuclear power programmes in newcomer countries. Security of supply, Political considerations/ political willingness, Public perception and acceptance, Energy independence, Public health and environmental issues and Human resources are commonly rated very important by respondents from NG1+NG2 and NG3 countries alike. Remarkably, Financial resources and Human resources are not indicated to be of the highest importance by respondents from the NG3 group, which might be explained by high expectation of support from a foreign (NG1) NPP supplier on these issues. On the other hand, Financial resources are of highest importance for technology holders and users (NG1+NG2). It could also be noted that Grid size is not rated by the NG3 respondents as the issue of very high importance Responses to Section 6 of the questionnaire In Section 6 of the questionnaire (see Annex 1), respondents were asked to provide answers to the following three questions: (1) Does your country have national laws prohibiting or restricting return of spent nuclear fuel to suppliers from other countries? 17

18 (2) Does your country have national laws prohibiting or restricting trans-boundary transport of spent nuclear fuel? (6.3) In relation to a nuclear energy project, assume a service or a particular product could be provided by several suppliers. How many suppliers would, in your view, guarantee the security of supply? Regarding the first two questions the answers were yes or now. The responses to these questions are summarized in Fig. 16, 17 and 18 for respondents from the NG1+NG2+NG3, NG1+NG2 and NG3 countries, correspondingly. The vertical axis on these figures corresponds to fractions of 1.0. Fig. 16. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 6 (questions 1 and 2, NG1+NG2+NG3) 18

19 Fig. 17. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 6 (questions 1 and 2, NG1+NG2) Fig. 18. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 6 (questions 1 and 2, NG3) 19

20 The averaged responses shown in Fig indicate that in about 20% of the countries represented at the Forum there are national laws that either prohibit/ restrict the return of spent nuclear fuel to suppliers from other countries or prohibit/ restrict trans-boundary transport of spent nuclear fuel, see Fig. 16. Legal prohibitions/ restrictions of this kind might become impediments for collaborative fuel cycle back-end options, be they a shared repository/disposal facility or a reprocessing service provided by a supplier or within a regional or international nuclear fuel cycle service centre. As it can be seen from Fig. 17 and 18, in technology holder and user countries the laws tend to prohibit or restrict spent nuclear fuel return to the supplier and, to a substantially lesser extent, trans-boundary transport of spent nuclear fuel. For newcomer countries (NG3) the situation appears to be mirror opposite, compare Fig. 17 and 18. The situation in NG1+NG2 countries might be explained by the willingness of some of such countries to keep spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing and recycle, e.g., within a future fast reactor programme, or by the adopted environmental acts prohibiting the return of spent fuel to those countries where reprocessing technologies do not meet certain environmental standards. The situation in NG3 countries might, then, be owing to increased non-proliferation and security concerns. Regarding the third question in Section 6, the answers were just numbers of suppliers, and the responses to this question are summarized in Fig. 19, 20 and 21 for respondents from the NG1+NG2+NG3, NG1+NG2 and NG3 countries, correspondingly. Fig. 19. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 6 (question 3, NG1+NG2+NG3) 20

21 Fig. 20. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 6 (question 3, NG1+NG2) Fig. 21. Summary of responses to questionnaire Section 6 (NG3) 21

22 On average, the respondents preference is to have 2-3 independent suppliers of nuclear fuel, services, spare parts, etc., whatever it might be, to ensure security of supply, see Fig. 19. Respondents from the NG3 group (newcomers) also suggest 2-3 providers could be sufficient. Different from that, responses from technology holder and user countries (NG1+NG2) indicate 2-4 providers as a preference, pointing to a higher desired diversity of supply Conclusion Analysis of responses to the questionnaire makes it possible to draw the following main conclusions: (1) Cooperation among countries is seen by all respondents as necessary condition for making a transition to future sustainable nuclear energy systems. (2) Cooperation on NPPs has the highest priority in the near term ( ) among respondents from both, technology holder/user countries and newcomer countries. Moreover, such cooperation is also rated very important in the medium ( ) and long ( ) term. (3) Cooperation on final disposal of waste goes as the second near-term priority for all respondents, offering the newcomers a good chance to initiate transition to future sustainable nuclear energy system from the outset of a national nuclear power programme. (4) In the medium and long term, cooperation on final disposal of waste becomes a leader for technology holder and user countries. The newcomers also rate it important but believe long term spent fuel storage would still remain the best option and, hence, give the highest priority for cooperation in this area in the long term. (5) Respondents from newcomer countries are looking for near-term cooperation in nonelectrical applications while technology holders and users do not recognize this as a priority in the near term. (6) Regarding economic indicators, all respondents rank total investment cost (overnight capital cost plus interest during construction) as equally important to LUEC in the near term. High importance of the investment cost is owing to large overnight capital costs typical of a state-ofthe-art NPP project, which is a well-known impediment for implementation of nuclear energy projects in many countries. (7) Regarding solutions for fuel cycle back-end international and regional solutions are preferred options by respondents from newcomer countries in the short, medium and long term. Different from that, respondents from technology holder and user countries prefer national solution in all terms. (8) Among the respondents from newcomer countries, the solution fully or partially outsourced to fuel supplier (e.g., a fuel take back arrangement with or without return of the ultimate waste for disposal) wins over national (but not international) solution in the short-term, but then drops down to become the least preferred option in the medium and long term. 22

23 (9) Controlled spent nuclear fuel storage pending available (proven) disposal technology is a preference in all terms on average among all of the respondents. Final disposal of fission products from reprocessing and recycle goes next, with its rating increasing toward the long term. (10) In view of technology holders and users final disposal of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing is a preference for the short and medium term, while newcomers are more optimistic on reprocessing (possibly done in another country or in a regional or international nuclear fuel cycle centre) in their view final disposal of only fission products is a preference in all terms. (11) To take broader benefit of a nuclear energy programme more and more countries with time would target mastering indigenously the non-sensitive stages of the nuclear fuel cycle front-end, first of all mining and milling, and to a smaller extent conversion and fuel pellet / fuel assembly manufacturing. (12) Security of supply, Political considerations/ political willingness, Public perception and acceptance, Energy independence, Public health and environmental issues and Human resources are the issues commonly rated very important in all terms by the respondents from technology holder/user countries and newcomer countries alike. (13) Respondents from newcomer countries do not indicate Financial resources and Human resources as issues of prime importance for their respective countries, which might be due to high expectations of support from a foreign NPP supplier on these issues. For technology holders and users Financial resources appear as the issue of highest importance. (14) Respondents from newcomer countries do not rate Grid size as the issue of very high importance. (15) In about 20% of countries represented at the Forum there are national laws that either prohibit/ restrict the return of spent nuclear fuel to suppliers from other countries or prohibit/ restrict trans-boundary transport of spent nuclear fuel. Legal prohibitions/ restrictions of this kind might become impediments for collaborative fuel cycle back-end options. (16) On average, the respondents preference is to have 2-3 independent suppliers to ensure security of supply. Specifically, responses from technology holder and user countries indicate 2-4 providers as a preference, pointing to a higher desired diversity of supply. 23

24 ANNEX 1. QUESTIONAIRE INPRO Dialogue Forum Drivers and Impediments for Regional Cooperation on the Way to Sustainable Nuclear Energy Systems 30 July 3 August 2012, VIC Boardroom A, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna Short instruction: (1) The Questionnaire has 6 Sections (2) Please, try to fill out as many positions of the Questionnaire in all its 6 sections as possible (3) Leave the box blank only if you definitely don t know the answer (4) Numerical scale of 1 through 5 is always suggested to indicate your rating of the priorities (preferences, importance). 1 is always for the lowest rating and 5 is always for the highest rating. In your ratings, please, also use the numbers in-between (i.e., 2, 3, 4) to fine-tune your evaluations. The higher the number you indicate, the higher is your rating. (4) Several issues or positions in the tables below may have the same rating, i.e., each number on a 1 through 5 scale could appear in each table as many times as deemed necessary by you. (5) Please, note that filling out the Questionnaire is requested from each participant of the Dialogue Forum, as it had been indicated in the Prospectus (5) Please, fill out the Questionnaire electronically and forward it to us (V.Kuznetsov@iaea.org; Y.Busurin@iaea.org) before 27 July (6) As the exception, if you really feel you will be able to provide more reliable answers after listening to some lectures and presentations at the Forum, an option to fill out the Questionnaire manually during the meeting or submit it on a USB stick will be available. (7) In Section 6, please do not forget to indicate your country, which would help us better systematize and analyze the responses regarding where the countries stand regarding a nuclear power programme. Thank You! Scientific Secretaries Vladimir Kuznetsov Nuclear Engineer NE/NENP/INPRO, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Room A-2447 Tel.: Fax: V.Kuznetsov@iaea.org Yury Busurin Nuclear Engineer NE/NENP/INPRO, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Room A-2447 Tel.: Fax: Y.Busurin@iaea.org 24

25 Section 1. Please, prioritize the importance of collaboration with other countries on particular issues in each of the empty boxes below using a 1 to 5 scale (1 low priority, 5 highest priority). Please, note the question is about the importance of collaboration with other countries on a particular issue, not about the priority of the issue Please, read short explanatory comments in Attachment 1 before proceeding # Issues to be addressed in transition to sustainable nuclear energy systems (NES) 1 U resources - yellowcake 2 Enrichment 3 Low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel manufacture 4 Nuclear power plants (NPPs) 5 Potential for non-electrical applications 6 Long-term spent fuel storage 7 Reprocessing of LEU fuel for water cooled reactors and mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication 8 High Level Waste (HLW) management 9 Final disposal of waste 10 Management of minor actinides 11 Special plants: Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS), Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) 12 Advanced fuel cycles 13 Incorporation of Thorium Short term (up to 2030) Medium term ( ) Long term ( ) Priority: 1 to 5 Priority: 1 to 5 Priority: 1 to 5 Comments Please, insert a couple of comments to explain your rating 25

26 Section 2. With respect to a nuclear energy project in your country, please, indicate your vision of the importance of economic indicators in each of the empty boxes below using a 1 through 5 scale (1 lowest importance, 5 highest importance). Please, read Attachment 2 for the definitions and short explanations # Indicator Short term (up to 2030) Medium term ( ) Long term ( ) Please, comment on your rating, if necessary Importance: 1 to 5 Importance: 1 to 5 Importance: 1 to 5 1 Levelized Unit Electricity Cost (LUEC) 2 Investment cost 3 Payback period 4 Net Present Value (NPV) 5 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 26

27 Section 3. With respect to your country, please, indicate your preferences regarding the approach to final disposal of radioactive waste in each of the empty boxes below using a 1 to 5 scale (5 most preferred, 1 least preferred). # Approach Short term (up to 2030) Preference: 1 to 5 1 National solution Medium term ( ) Preference: 1 to 5 Long term ( ) Preference: 1 to 5 Please, explain your preferences, if necessary 2 Solution fully or partially outsourced to supplier 3 Regional solution 4 International solution 5 Controlled spent nuclear fuel storage over a long period, pending the availability of proven and efficient technologies for final disposal 6 Final disposal of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing 7 Final disposal of only fission products that remain after the reprocessing and recycle of spent nuclear fuel (possibly in a supplier country) 27

28 Section 4. Please, indicate which stages of the front-end nuclear fuel cycle your country has mastered (or considers to master) indigenously # Fuel cycle front-end stage Short term Medium term Long term Please, provide comments, if necessary (up to 2030) ( ) ( ) Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No 1 Mining and milling 2 Conversion 3 Fuel pellet manufacturing 4 Fuel assembly manufacturing 28

29 Section 5. Please, indicate which of the issues mentioned below are (or may become) important with respect to a nuclear energy project in your country. Please, use a 1 to 5 scale (1 not important, 5 very important) # Issue Importance: 1 to 5 1 Land requirements 2 Water requirements 3 Legal and institutional infrastructure 4 Logistic considerations 5 Political considerations/ Political willingness 6 Public perception and acceptance 7 Energy independence 8 Public health and environmental issues 9 Security of supply 10 Considerations of global climate change 11 Size of electrical grids 12 Industrial base 13 Financial resources 14 Cost sharing 15 Human resources 16 Technology transfer 17 Physical infrastructure 18 Other issues (please, name them and rate their importance in the free rows below) 19 Please, amend your rating with a comment, if necessary 29

30 Section 6. Please, answer the following questions (6.1) Does your country have national laws prohibiting or restricting return of spent nuclear fuel to suppliers from other countries. Please, indicate yes or no. If your answer is yes, please, comment on the nature of the existing restrictions (6.2) Does your country have national laws prohibiting or restricting trans-boundary transport of spent nuclear fuel? Please, indicate yes or no. If your answer is yes, please, comment on the nature of the existing restrictions (6.3) In relation to a nuclear energy project, assume a service or a particular product could be provided by several suppliers. How many suppliers would, in your view, guarantee the security of supply? Please, provide a number (e.g., 5 ) or a range (e.g., 2-3). (6.4) Please, indicate your country 30

31 Attachment 1. Short explanatory comments to Section 1 # Issues to be addressed in transition to sustainable NES 1 Uranium resources - yellowcake 2 Enrichment 3 Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel manufacture Characteristics/ comments - There is an already established open market - International trading is possible. Price will define competitiveness of other fuel cycle options - Some uncertainty about future prices exists - Limited number of producers may determine the need of cooperation - Proliferation sensitive - Technologies and commercial facilities are available with a few countries, though investments may be required - Again, there is already international trading of these services. However, it is a sensitive technology and economies of scale favour a limited number of larger facilities instead of a large number of smaller facilities - International legal framework to assure enrichment services is essential (how much fuel needs to be stored?) - Multiple sources of supply would be desirable, preferably in different geographical regions - Safety, security and legal issues of low enrichment uranium (LEU) transportation need to addressed - Commercial facilities and services are available - Fuel manufacture facilities collocation with enrichment facilities is not necessary - Change in availability from a single supplier to several suppliers may be needed to prevent possible critical situations when a supplier cannot respect the already engaged commitments for a variety of reasons - One or few suppliers may be available for some fuel designs. - Standardization of fuel or flexibility for fuel is desirable (but difficult today) 31

32 4 Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) 5 Potential for non-electrical applications 6 Long-term spent fuel storage 7 Reprocessing of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel for water cooled reactors and Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication - Generation III, III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs) are available - Generation IV and other advanced designs are under development (significant R&D required in most cases) - Present-day NPP construction is an area of commercial competition, but cooperation is required for development of new-generation reactors - Country specific requirements for NPPs are generically needed - Standardization of design would help in licensing - Generic design concerning safety aspects should be collaborative (demonstration projects, crosschecking of results, etc.) - Non-electrical applications have high potential in the longer-term - This area is very important for advancing broader use of nuclear power to address climate change - Generic design concerning safety aspects should be collaborative (demonstration projects, crosschecking of results, etc.) - Technical solutions exist - Commercial facilities are available. - Degradation of Pu, accumulation of minor actinides are the issues - International/ multi-national facilities could be considered - Legal and commercial framework needs to be worked out - Has clear advantages for countries with small/ medium nuclear program, but in-site temporary solutions are available - Proliferation concerns exist - Competence is available in several countries for aqueous reprocessing - Typically attached with fuel supply (would be important in medium and longer term) - Current policies in several countries are to go on without reprocessing (but policies may change in a medium or longer term) - It is important to have only a few countries with competence for reprocessing (because of proliferation concerns), but monopoly that might arise may raise concerns 32

33 8 High Level Waste (HLW) management - Recycling of used fuel is central to sustainability. Given the sensitivity of technologies and the economies of scale, this is a very important area for collaboration. Generically, reprocessing is not limited to the boiling water reactor (BWR)/ pressurized water reactor(pwr) low enriched uranium (LEU), and the recycled product is not limited to mixed oxide (MOX ) fuel - Typically attached with reprocessing - Fission products are the essential part of HLW - Proliferation sensitive in a number of aspects: management of separated streams after reprocessing must be addressed: Pu separation, fast reactor fuel fabrication (Pu, minor actinides (MA)), process losses destination, fission product conditioning - Decisions in this area will be key to implementation of any collaborations 9 Final disposal of waste - Waste stream from a nuclear energy system includes low level waste (LLW), intermediate level waste (ILW) and high level waste (HLW) which, in turn, includes spent nuclear fuel 10 Management of Minor Actinides (MA) - Spent nuclear fuel appears to be the area of highest concern owing to its accumulation being proportional to energy production (in present-day once-through nuclear fuel cycles), and because it contains plenty of highly radiotoxic long-lived isotopes (actinides) - Spent fuel could be disposed of without reprocessing, after a necessary storage period - As an alternative, spent nuclear fuel could be reprocessed with actinides recycled as reactor fuel and minor actinides and long-lived fission products being transmuted in special plants or in fast reactors. In this case, HLW will be substantially reduced in volume and its radioactivity and radiotoxicity will decay down to natural uranium level just in ~500 years after final disposal - International/multi-national approach wouldl be essential for some users of nuclear energy - Decisions in this area will be key to implementation of any collaborations - Typically attached with reprocessing - May be of proliferation concern if streams of certain MA are separated - Advanced fast reactors or accelerator driven systems (ADS) could be used to burn MA - While an important topic for sustainability, it may be less important for collaboration 33

34 11 Special plants: Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS), Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) - Standard fast reactors possibly could manage a good amount of MA, but special plants could maximize the efficiency - Could realistically be considered in a longer term for MA burning or fissile material breeding. - Fusion neutron sources might be a solution, if proven. - Could be considered as part of the options for sustainability (waste management, thorium usage, etc.) 12 Advanced nuclear fuel cycles - Claimed to be proliferation-resistant by some, but argued to be proliferation sensitive by others 13 Incorporation of Thorium - Pyro-processing is under development, but RD&D are required to commercialize it - Separation processes (pyro, aqueous, fuel fabrication routes, etc.) must advance in parallel with the general objectives of advanced nuclear systems. The coverage of many sub-processes and aspects favours collaboration - May be not so interesting in the near term when uranium is sufficient - Demonstrated in current generation reactors on a limited scale - Potential for near-term deployment with once-through nuclear fuel cycle exists - Has higher potential for sustainable fuel cycles with reprocessing. Not so useful without reprocessing. - Does not present any unique collaborative issues versus uranium based options 34

35 Attachment 2. The definitions of, and some comments on, economic indicators 2.1. Definitions (1) Levelized Unit Electricity Cost (LUEC) LUEC = (Investment t + O&MM t + Fuel t + Carbon t + Decommissioning t ) t (1 + r) t Electricity t t (1 + r) t where: Electricity t : P Electricity : (1+r) -t : Investment t : O&M t : Fuel t : Carbon t : Decommissioning t : The amount of electricity produced in year t ; The constant price of electricity; The discount factor for year t ; Investment cost in year t ; Operations and maintenance cost in year t ; Fuel cost in year t (includes fuel cycle cost); Carbon cost in year t ; Decommissioning cost in year t. Table. Structure of nuclear electricity generation cost (for large reactors) [1] Discount rate 5% 10% Investment cost 58.6% 75.6% O&M 25.2% 14.9% Fuel costs % 9.5% Carbon costs 0.0% 0.0% Decommissioning 0.3% 0.0% 5 Fuel costs comprise the costs of the full nuclear fuel cycle including spent fuel reprocessing or disposal [1] 35

36 (2) Investment cost = Overnight cost + Interest During Construction (3) Payback period = the period of time required for the return on an investment to "repay" the sum of the original investment (4) Net Present Value (NPV) The net present value (NPV) of a time series of cash flows, both incoming and outgoing, is defined as the sum of the present values (PVs) of the individual cash flows. Each cash inflow/outflow is discounted back to its present value (PV). Then they are summed. (5) Internal rate of return The internal rate of return on an investment or project is the annualized effective compounded return rate or discount rate that makes the net present value of all cash flows (both positive and negative) from a particular investment equal to zero Comments (1) The notion of LUEC is a handy tool for comparing the unit costs of different technologies over their economic life. It would correspond to the cost of an investor assuming the certainty of production costs and the stability of electricity prices. In other words, the discount rate used in LUEC calculations reflects the return on capital for an investor in the absence of specific market or technology risks. It is also closer to the real cost of investment in electricity production in regulated monopoly electricity markets with loan guarantees and regulated prices rather than to the real costs of investments in competitive markets with variable prices [1]. (2) Projects with small capital outlay (investment cost) and short payback period are typically more attractive to private investors operating in liberalized markets where the figures of merit are the net present value (NPV) and the internal rate of return (IRR) rather than the levelized unit product cost assuming the certainty of the production costs and the stability of the product prices [2]. References [1] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2010 Edition, OECD PUBLICATIONS, Paris (2010). [2] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: 36