Nuclear Energy: Prospects and Market Effects.

In the book Global Nuclear Markets: Changes in the Strategic Landscape. Published in 2012 by The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research. Abu Dhabi, UAE Pages 119-151. Nuclear Energy: Prospects and Market Effects. Vladimir Kagramanyan Nuclear power has been in use for over 50 years. Nevertheless, the majority of the world s nuclear power plants are concentrated in industrialized countries with large economies. Several new countries are now considering using nuclear energy. However, since the accident at Fukushima there have been many controversial views aired regarding nuclear power s national and global prospects. The challenges of maintaining nuclear safety has yet again become the focus of arguments against nuclear power among its opponents. These arguments are not new, having been used after the nuclear incidents at Three Mile Island in the USA and Chernobyl in Ukraine. For those countries seeking to adopt nuclear energy it is very important to be mindful of the history of nuclear power in order to understand the driving forces behind nuclear energy use in countries with different markets size, as well as the various challenges that hinder its large scale use and potential. Nuclear Power: Past and Future The appearance of the first nuclear power plants in the United States and USSR was not dictated by economic considerations or by market conditions. The main reason was the desire to introduce and apply the fruits of weapons research in the form of peaceful applications. Today s nuclear power, with its basic reactor and fuel cycle technologies, is just that the peaceful application and development of technologies designed for military purposes. Small light water nuclear reactors, originally designated to use for nuclear submarines, were rather costly to use in peaceful applications. Therefore, the capacity of nuclear units designed for electricity production was raised to 1,000 MWe and above, in order to make them economically viable. During the first stage in its history, developments in nuclear power occurred mostly in large industrialized markets in America and Europe including the United States of America, the former USSR, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada and later in the largest emerging markets in Asia Japan and the Republic of Korea. By 2010 this short list of countries possessed 84 percent of the world s installed nuclear capacity, generating an average of more than 30% of their overall electricity consumption. At the dawn of the nuclear era most of these countries had planned to increase the share of nuclear generation in their electricity production to account for as much as 60 80 percent. However, these plans were later determined to be both impractical and uneconomical. Except for France, the contribution of nuclear power in satisfying these countries electricity needs have reached between 15 and 33 percent. 1

With the assistance of the world s nuclear leaders the United States and the USSR small and mid-sized countries in Europe and Asia have developed their own programs, largely based on US and Soviet designed light water reactors (LWRs). States in Western Europe and Asia deployed pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs) of American design, while Eastern European countries deployed light water reactors ( VVERs ) of Soviet Union design. Finland used both BWRs and VVERs, and Romania chose to employ the Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) design. The first nuclear accident involving a commercial nuclear power reactor was at the Three Mile Island power plant in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, where a nuclear meltdown occurred on March 28, 1979. While this is the most severe accident to occur in US commercial nuclear history, it only resulted in the release of moderate amounts of radioactive gases and iodine into the environment. The incident was rated five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), denoting an accident with wider consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/three_mile_island_accident?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_ medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit - cite_note-5#cite_note-5 The Three Mile Island accident resulted mainly in economic losses, there having been no serious release of radioactivity into the environment nor any significant impact on the health of personnel or the population. However, it had a significant effect on US nuclear power policy, resulting in major cuts to nuclear power development programs and ensuring that several planned units were not realized. Elsewhere, the Three Mile Island accident had much less of an effect on nuclear power development than in the United states, with France, the USSR, Japan, and South Korea continuing to construct and commission their units as planned. The first nuclear accident to result in a substantial release of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere occurred on April 26, 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, USSR. The accident involved an RBMK reactor of Soviet design, and was rated a level-7 event on the INES. The Chernobyl disaster had widespread effects in several other neighboring nations, including large swathes of territory in the Republic of Belarus (contaminating about 70% of its territory), and in the Bryansk region of Russia. Thirty-one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all of whom were either reactor staff or emergency workers. The Chernobyl disaster triggered sharp criticism of nuclear power from both government and nongovernmental public organizations across Europe. In the west, anti-nuclear government policies surfaced in Italy, Austria, Sweden, and the UK; while in the east the most criticism was heard in Armenia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus. Since the Chernobyl disaster the European Economic Community, and later the European Union, gradually increased pressure on several countries in Eastern Europe to shut down their ageing Soviet VVER and RBMK nuclear reactors. Four units in Bulgaria, two units in Lithuania, and two units in Slovakia have been shut down during 2002 2009. As one can see from Figure 0.1, the global commission rate for nuclear units in 1981 1987 was stable and averaged 23 units per year, before descending sharply in the late 1980s. 2

Figure 0.1 Total Nuclear Power Units Commissioned Worldwide 1980 2005 Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the period up to 2030, IAEA Reference Data Series No.1 (RDS-1) for 1980 2005. Many consider that this is the straightforward result of what they term the Chernobyl effect, but it is important to note that other significant changes in the late 1980s in the economies of all Eastern European and many Western countries minimized the need for new power plants. For example, political reforms in the USSR from 1985 onwards resulted in a deep economic and social crisis in late 1980s and early 1990s. The industrial recession experienced in the country in the 1990s was such that the needs for additional power dropped to zero. Likewise, many countries in Eastern Europe also faced economic problems in the 1990s that minimized the need for new power plants. In the same period many Western European countries reached energy saturation owing to the liberalization of energy markets and enhancements in energy efficiency. Combined with the sentiment following Chernobyl, this economic situation led states such as Sweden, Germany, Spain and the United States to reconsider their rather aggressive nuclear plans, and examine the plausibility of renewable sources. Contrary to Europe and America, however, Asian countries namely South Korea, Taiwan, Japan where industrial development continued in the late 1980s and early 1990s, witnessed continued commissioning and construction of new power units including nuclear power plants in spite of the Chernobyl disaster (see Figure 0.2). 3

Figure 0.2 Regional Growth in Generation Capacity 140 120 100 North America OECD Europe GWe 80 60 40 20 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Eastern Europe & CIS Asia Source: IAEA, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the period up to 2030, op. cit. It is important to note that the Chernobyl disaster not only resulted in anti-nuclear government policies in several countries, but also broad R&D activity to increase safety of nuclear power units all over the world. As a result, the safety characteristics of operational units all over the world have been meticulously examined and improved where necessary. Safety is of paramount importance in new reactor designs, and is reinforced by both active and passive safety features. Following two decades of safe and reliable operation of nuclear power plants, anti-nuclear policies around the world and in particular in Eastern European countries began to soften, and gradually policy began to turn toward favoring nuclear power. This occurred even in Ukraine and Belarus, the two countries most affected by the Chernobyl disaster. This change in attitude was inspired by the need to bolster their industrial and economic development following recession, as well as an objective assessment of the environmental and economic risks associated with the use of nuclear power compared with alternatives such as coal or natural gas. Beginning in 2004, the number of new nuclear reactors under construction worldwide has gradually increased to reach 16, the highest in any single year since 1985 (see Figure 0.3). 4

Figure 0.3 Nuclear Construction Worldwide Source: IAEA, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the period up to 2030, op. cit. In Western countries, including the United States, the UK and Sweden, previous negative attitudes towards nuclear power have also been turning in a positive direction. Worldwide, interest and expectations concerning nuclear power have also changed significantly with many countries including the biggest emerging economies of China and India planning dozens of new nuclear reactors, several rising powers preparing to construct their first nuclear power plants, and many more giving active consideration to a nuclear future. With over 60 of the members states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating to the Agency their interest in considering the introduction of nuclear power to their energy sectors, the world began to talk about a global nuclear renaissance. The main driver of the increase in total primary energy demand is the strong economic and population growth occurring in many developing countries, leading to larger societies and lifestyles of higher energy consumption. It is understood that the nuclear option offers advantages in terms of security of energy supply and, perhaps maybe more importantly in many countries and regions, in reducing the risk of global climate change. Policy makers recognize that the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by the Kyoto Protocol are unlikely to be met via business-as-usual policies, and are coming to terms with the need to take voluntary measures to achieve de-carbonization of the world s economies. Nuclear Power Prospects after Fukushima 5

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was the result of a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive material at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, occurring in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011. It is the greatest nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. The plant comprises six separate boiling water reactors (BWRs), originally designed by General Electric (GE), and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). At the time of the earthquake, reactor no. 4 had been de-fuelled while nos. 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance. The remaining reactors shut down automatically after the earthquake, and emergency generators came online to control electronics and coolant systems. 1 The tsunami severed the reactors connection to the power grid, causing them to begin overheating. The flooding and earthquake damage hindered external assistance. In the hours and days that followed, reactor nos. 1, 2 and 3 experienced full meltdowns. As workers struggled to cool and shut down the reactors, several hydrogen explosions occurred. Electrical power was slowly restored for some of the reactors, allowing for automated cooling. Japanese officials eventually assessed the severity of the accident as a Level 7 the same as for Chernobyl, although there were no serious health impacts and with the total amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere was approximately one-tenth of that released at Chernobyl. IAEA 2011 Nuclear Power Projections 2 Each year the IAEA updates its low and high mid-term projections for global growth in nuclear power up to the year 2030. The low projection represents expectations about the future in the absence of a significant change in current trends or policies, other than those already in the pipeline. The high case is more optimistic, but still plausible and technically feasible. These projections assume that stringent policies to mitigate climate change are implemented globally, and that challenges in the areas of nuclear safety, economics, waste management, and non-proliferation are properly addressed. Developing nuclear power projections in 2011 posed a considerable challenge. Many regions are yet to overcome the fallout of the global economic crisis that began in 2008, and the Fukushima-Daiichi accident and its likely impact on the future development of the sector are difficult to foresee, having undermined public confidence in nuclear safety in general. These projections also faced the complex problem of balancing the factors that have traditionally driven nuclear expansion with those that potentially could adversely affect it. It is important to clarify that the 2011 projections were made in May 2011, just two months after the Fukushima accident. In the updated low projection, the world s installed nuclear power capacity grows from 367 GWe to 501 GWe in 2030, down eight percent from what was projected in 2010. In the updated high projections, it grows to 746 GWe in 2030, down seven percent from last year s projection. The 2011 projection for the highest expected increase in nuclear power capacity is in Asia, a region that not only includes countries which currently possess commercial nuclear power programs China, India, the Republic of Korea and Pakistan but also several newcomer countries which can reasonably be expected to have nuclear power plants in operation by 2030. In the low projection, this region alone accounts for 85 percent of net nuclear capacity growth between 2009 and 2030. High energy demand especially for electricity in Asia is driven by continuous population growth, accelerated economic development and energy security concerns. This high energy demand, 6

coupled with a future most likely characterized by high and volatile fossil fuel prices and environmental considerations, has encouraged a desire for low-carbon energy supplies, including nuclear. For example, the biggest Asian countries China and India need more power including nuclear to sustain their high rates industrial development. Coal can be the only significant alternative to nuclear power for these large markets, but more and more stringent environmental requirements will make coal economically non-profitable in the coming decades, and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology remains largely unproven in financial and technical terms. According to 2011 projections, in the coming two decades the rest of the world except for the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) where the projected increase is more significant exhibits only a modest projected increase in nuclear generation capacity. For example, electricity demand uncertainty due to the slow economic recovery, uncertainty regarding new international agreements on climate change and the future in general, and continued financial conservatism in the wake of the financial crisis, has led to a wait and see attitude in Europe and North America. Three European countries have made drastic political decisions, either to phase out nuclear power entirely (Germany and Switzerland), or to abandon plans to build new nuclear plants (Italy). Meanwhile, most other European countries relying today on nuclear power, including France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic, have reaffirmed their plans for further development of their nuclear infrastructure in order to meet rising base load demand or to reduce their dependence on fossil fuel imports. These developments, alongside expectations that natural gas prices will fall, have led IAEA experts to revise their projections for the growth of nuclear power downwards, but not by any significant margin as of yet. Continued growth in both the IAEA s low and high projections suggests that the factors driving nuclear programs before the Fukushima Daiichi accident remain unchanged for many countries: global energy demand is still expected to rise, as are concerns about climate change and other environmental pressures, energy supply security is back on the political agenda, and there is a continued need for a reliable energy supply at predictable prices. The Technological Basis for Nuclear Power in the 21 st Century Commercialized large-sized light and heavy water reactors of Generations III and III+ (Gen III/Gen III+) are considered basic technologies for nuclear power development over the next one or two decades. At the same time innovative Generation IV reactor technologies are under development in several countries, with the aim of addressing those remaining nuclear challenges that continue to hinder large-scale and sustainable global nuclear power growth. Challenges in the realms of safety, economics, non-proliferation, spent fuel and waste management are identified, for example, within the IAEA International Project on innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles (INPRO) 3 and the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). 4 Large-scale Commercial Water-cooled Reactors 5 In France, AREVA continues to market the 1,600+ MWe European pressurized reactor (EPR) for domestic and international applications. AREVA is also developing the 1,100+ MWe ATMEA 7

PWR, together with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan, and the 1,250+ MWe KERENA BWR in partnership with Germany s E.ON. In 2010 Japan began construction of a new advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR). Hitachi is pursuing the development of 600, 900 and 1,700 MWe versions of the ABWR, as well as the 1,700 MWe ABWR-II. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has developed a 1,700 MWe version of the advanced pressurized water reactor (APWR) for the US market, the US-APWR, which is progressing through the NRC design certification process. A European version of the APWR, the EU-APWR, is also under development and is set to be assessed for compliance with European utility requirements. In the Republic of Korea a new indigenous optimized power reactor, the OPR-1000, was connected to the grid in 2010. Construction of the first advanced power reactor, APR-1400, is progressing according to plan and contracts were awarded in late 2009 for the construction of four more APR-1400s in the United Arab Emirates. The Republic of Korea is developing a European version of the APR-1400, the EU-APR-1400, which will be assessed for compliance with European utility requirements. It is also developing a US version, the US-APR-1400, which will be submitted for NRC design certification. In parallel, development of the 1,500 MWe APR+ continued in 2010 and initiation of the design of the APR-1000 was announced. Construction of two more reactors started in the Russian Federation in 2010, including a WWER- 1200. Plans to develop the WWER-1200A, as well as the WWER-600 and WWER-1800, based on the current WWER-1200 design were also announced. In the USA, the NRC is progressing with the design certification process for five advanced watercooled reactor designs: the (advanced passive) AP-1000, US-APWR, US-EPR, the Westinghouse small modular reactor (SMR), and the economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR). In 2010 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) completed Phase 1 of a pre-project design review of the 700 MWe enhanced CANDU-6 designs. Phase 2 of the EC6 review, currently under way, is to be completed in 2012. In January 2011, the CNSC completed Phase 3 of its review of the advanced CANDU reactor (ACR-1000), making it the first advanced nuclear power reactor to have completed three phases of such a design review by the CNSC. Meanwhile, China is currently developing the CAP-1400 and CAP-1700 designs, which are larger versions of the AP-1000, and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) has developed an evolutionary 700 MWe pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR). Conceptual Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Systems Six nuclear systems were selected by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) for research and development. 6 Table 0.1 provides an overview of the main characteristics of the six systems, which are described briefly below. The projected dates for their commercial deployment are provided by GIF participants and assume successful achievement of GIF R&D objectives in the coming decade. Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) The very high temperature reactor is a further step in the evolutionary development of high temperature reactors. The VHTR is a helium-gas-cooled, graphite-moderated, thermal neutron spectrum reactor with a core outlet temperature higher than 900 C, and a goal of 1,000 C, sufficient to support high 8

temperature processes such as production of hydrogen by thermo-chemical processes. The reference thermal power of the reactor is set at a level that allows passive decay heat removal, currently estimated to be about 600 MWth. The VHTR is useful for the co-generation of electricity and hydrogen, as well as for other process heat applications. It is able to produce hydrogen from water by using thermo-chemical, electro-chemical or hybrid processes with reduced emission of CO 2 gases. First, a once-through lowenriched uranium (LEU, <20% U 235 ) fuel cycle will be adopted, but a closed fuel cycle will be assessed, as well as potential symbiotic fuel cycles with other types of reactors (especially light-water reactors) for waste reduction purposes. The system is expected to be available for commercial deployment by 2020. Supercritical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR) Supercritical-water-cooled reactors are a class of high-temperature, high-pressure water-cooled reactors operating with a direct energy conversion cycle and above the thermodynamic critical point of water (374 C, 22.1 megapascals [MPa]). The higher thermodynamic efficiency and plant simplification opportunities afforded by a high-temperature, single-phase coolant translate into improved economics. A wide variety of options are currently under consideration: both thermal-neutron and fast-neutron spectra are envisaged, as are both pressure vessel and pressure tube configurations. The operation of a 30 to 150 MWe technology demonstration reactor is targeted for 2022. Molten Salt Reactor System (MSR) The molten salt reactor system has the special feature of a liquid fuel. MSR concepts, which may be used as efficient burners of transuranic elements (TRUs) from spent LWR fuel, also have a breeding capability in any kind of neutron spectrum ranging from thermal (with a thorium fuel cycle) to fast (with a uranium plutonium fuel cycle). Whether configured for burning or breeding, MSRs have considerable promise for the minimization of radiotoxic nuclear waste. Table 0.1 Overview of Generation IV systems System Neutron Spectrum Coolant Temp. ( o C) Fuel Cycle Size (MWe) VHTR (very high temperature reactor) Thermal Helium 900 1,000 Open/ closed 250 300 SFR (sodium-cooled fast reactor) Fast Sodium 550 Closed 30 150; 300 1,500; 1,000 2,000 SCWR (super-critical water reactor) Thermal (fast) Water 510 625 Open/ closed 300 700; 1,000 1,500 GFR (gas-cooled fast reactor) Fast Helium 850 Closed 1200 LFR (lead-cooled fast reactor) Fast Lead 480 800 Closed 20 180; 300 1,200; 600 1,000 MSR (molten salt reactor) Fast/ thermal Fluoride salts 700 800 Closed 1,000 Generation IV International Forum (GIF), http://www.gen-4.org/pdfs/genivroadmap.pdf) 9

Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) The sodium-cooled fast reactor system uses liquid sodium as the reactor coolant, allowing high power density with low coolant volume fraction. It features a closed fuel cycle for fuel breeding and/or actinide management. The reactor may be arranged in a pool layout or a compact loop layout. The size of reactors under consideration ranges from small (50 300 MWe modular units) to large (up to 1,500 MWe units). The two primary fuel recycle technology options are advanced aqueous or pyrometallurgical processing. A variety of fuel options are being considered for the SFR, with mixed oxide preferred for advanced aqueous recycle, and mixed metal alloy preferred for pyrometallurgical processing. Owing to the significant past experience accumulated with sodium-cooled reactors in several countries, the deployment of SFR systems is targeted for 2020. Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) The gas-cooled fast reactor combines the advantages of a fast neutron core and helium coolant, giving possible access to high temperatures. It requires the development of robust refractory fuel elements and appropriate safety architecture. The use of dense fuel such as carbide or nitride provides good performance in plutonium breeding and minor actinide burning. A technology demonstration reactor needed for qualifying key technologies could be in operation by 2020. Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) The lead-cooled fast reactor system is characterized by a fast-neutron spectrum and a closed fuel cycle with full actinide recycling, possibly in central or regional fuel cycle facilities. The coolant may be either lead (preferred option), or lead/bismuth eutectic. The LFR may be operated as: a breeder; a burner of actinides from spent fuel, using inert matrix fuel; or a burner/breeder using thorium matrices. Two reactor size options are considered: a small 50 150 MWe transportable system with a very long core life; and a medium 300 600 MWe system. In the long term a large system of 1,200 MWe might be envisaged. The LFR system may be deployable by 2025. Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems from a Sustainability Perspective The objective of the study is to assess the potential of selected commercial and conceptual nuclear energy systems (NES) to address sustainability challenges hindering large scale and sustainable global nuclear power growth. Here, an NES incorporates a reactor and all associated nuclear fuel cycle facilities, from mining to the disposal of all accumulated wastes. Selected NES are compared based on sustainability features such as: efficiency of nuclear resource use; accumulation of spent nuclear fuel to store and nuclear waste to dispose of; proliferation resistance; and economy. The various safety features of different NES are not covered in this study, and it is assumed that all compared reactors and fuel cycle facilities meet adequate high safety standards and norms. Among the many above-mentioned concepts of Gen III+ and IV reactors, two reactor types have been selected for assessment. Among commercial systems, an advanced large-size light water PWR has been? selected, while among conceptual systems a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) based-system has been chosen. 10

There are two main reasons for the selection of a PWR-based NES: first, PWR is the most commonly used commercial reactor; second, the PWR s sustainability features are very similar to two other often-used commercial LWRs: the BWR and WWER. Two types of commercial fuel cycle options for PWRs are considered; the first, is a once-through [uranium] fuel cycle (OTFC) option, the schematic architecture of which is presented in Figure 0.4. Figure 0.4 Architecture of NES based on PWR OTFC Option The second fuel cycle option for a PWR involves reprocessing of uranium spent fuel and the single recycle of extracted plutonium in the form of mixed uranium plutonium oxide (mixed oxide [MOX]) fuel as well as regenerated uranium after enrichment. The MOX PWR fuel cycle option is used in a commercial capacity in several countries, and widely in France. It is important to note that recycling of plutonium in a PWR is limited to only one cycle due to accumulation of parasitic isotopes of plutonium and minor actinides during fuel burn-up. The architecture of MOX PWR system is illustrated in Figure 0.5. 11

Figure 0.5 Architecture of NES based on MOX PWR Option Among the Gen IV technologies the SFR system operating in a fully closed nuclear fuel cycle (CNFC) has been selected because these represent the only technologies of this system to have passed successfully through the industrial demonstration stage. 7 All other Gen IV technologies remain at the conceptual R&D/design stage. In the 1950s and 1960s several industrialized countries had planned for large-scale use of nuclear power, launching national research, development and demonstration (RD&D) programs to master fast reactor systems. However, by the 1980s most of these countries had phased out their programs owing to declining nuclear power growth requirements, cost issues and political concerns about the proliferation dangers associated with fast reactor systems. Today, with new interest in nuclear power being expressed worldwide, India, China and Russia have plans to master fast reactor and CNFC technologies by 2030 as part of their aggressive nuclear power capacity build-up. Meanwhile, in China the 65 MWth (20 MWe) pool-type China experimental fast reactor (CEFR) reached first criticality on July 21, 2010. The CEFR physics startup program is currently under way. Construction works for India s 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam are well under way: the safety, primary and internal vessels are installed, and the reactor building is closed. Commissioning is planned for 2013. Also ongoing is the construction of the first fast reactor fuel cycle facility (FRFCF), which includes a fuel fabrication and reprocessing plant, a reactor core subassembly plant, a reprocessed uranium oxide plant and a waste management plant to serve the upcoming 500 MW PFBR. The development of sodium-cooled fast reactor technologies in Russia draws upon 140 total reactoryears of experience. The industrial size BN-600 has been in successful operation at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (NPP) site since 1980. The construction of a new industrial sized BN-800 fast reactor is 12

progressing at the same site. Almost all components have been ordered and manufacturing is well under way. Commissioning is planned for 2014. Those countries that managed to build large plants between the 1960s and 1980s, such as France, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the USA, have now restarted long term RD&D programs on fast reactor systems, aiming to prepare a new generation of reactors to substitute for the many thermal reactors due to be decommissioned after 2040. The key feature of a fast reactor is that fission in a fast neutron spectrum results in a larger number of extra neutrons than in a thermal spectrum of a light water reactor (LWR). As well as employing an active core capable of using mixed depleted uranium and plutonium, reactor design might include axial and radial blankets with depleted uranium fuel to in order to generate plutonium. Another specific feature of the fast spectrum is the reduced accumulation of the parasitic higher isotopes of plutonium (Pu), and of parasitic minor actinides (MAs, including neptunium [Np], americium [Am], and curium [Cm]). This provides the opportunity to achieve a fully closed fuel cycle in a fast reactor with the ability to recycle of all the accumulated transuranic elements (namely Pu and MA) in spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Depending on the ratio of Pu generation (or TRU) to consumption during the fuel cycle, fast reactors are classified as either: breeder (reactor with axial and radial fertile blankets generating more TRUs than it consumes); break-even (reactor with only axial fertile blankets regenerates TRUs that it consumes); or burner (reactor without fertile blankets consumes more TRUs than it generates). The architecture of nuclear energy supply (NES) based on SFRs operating in each mode is presented in Figure 0.6. 13

Figure 0.6 Architecture of NES based on SFR CNFC (Breeder, Break-even and Burner mode) In Figures 0.4 0.6, technological stages of supply developed to a commercial level are represented by solid lines, while stages that are only demonstrated or remain at the R&D level are illustrated by dotted lines. PWR-based systems have commercial uses at all fuel cycle stages accept the final disposal stage. All stages of the SFR CNFC system is still awaiting commercialization. Results of Assessment Overall qualitative results of the comparative assessment of selected reference NESs are presented in Table 0.2, including estimated values of selected key sustainability indicators as high, middle or low for each. NES Fuel cycle mode Resource efficiency PWR based NES SFR based NES Table 0.2 Sustainability Features of NESs based on PWR and SFR SNF storage capacity Nuclear waste minimization Proliferation Resistance Economic Efficiency OTFC (uranium Low Low Low Low High dioxide [UOX]) One recycle 2/3 Low Middle Low Low Middle UOX; 1/3 MOX Breeder (BR=1.2) High High High Low TBD Break-even Middle High High Low TBD (BR=1.05) Burner (BR=0.8) Low High High Low TBD Notes: TBD = to be defined. 14

In Table 0.3 several features of the comparison are presented in quantitative terms. The main objective of these illustrative figures is to show major significant differences between different types of reactors and fuel cycle modes. Table 0.3 Comparison of Consumption of Uranium and Accumulation of Nuclear Waste for Systems under Consideration Consumption of Nuclear Materials Tons of heavy metal per Gigawatt (electrical) over a period of 50 years Natural Uranium Depleted Uranium Trasuranic elements Accumulation of Nuclear Waste Tons of heavy metal per Gigawatt (electrical) over a period of 50 years Depleted Uranium Spent Nuclear Fuel Trasuranic elements Fission Product PWR (UOX) 10,000 - - 9,000 1,000 10 50 PWR (2/3 7,000 - - 6,700 300 5 50 UOX; 1/3 MOX) SFR - 50.1-10 - - 0.1 40 (breeder) SFR (breakeven) - 40.1 0 - - 0.1 40 SFR (burner) - 30.1 10 - - 0.1 40 Sustainability Assessment of PWR OTFC System The main advantage of this system operating with uranium fuel in a once-through fuel cycle is the presence of a well-established international commercial market for reactors and front-end fuel cycle services, including a market for natural uranium and enrichment services, and to less extent for UOX fuel fabrication. But this option also has several significant shortcomings from a sustainability point of view in both resource, waste and proliferation resistance areas, including: Very low efficiency use of mined natural uranium; only some 0.5% will undergo effective fission, overwhelming part of this uranium will go into storage in the form of depleted uranium (90%) or left as unburned uranium in accumulated spent nuclear fuel (9.4%) A need for long-term safeguarded storage and disposal of all accumulated SNF during the service life of a PWR (some 1,000 t h.m.) with significant amounts of Pu (10t/GWe) in national repositories. Worldwide dissemination of sensitive enrichment technology, as well as the accumulation of significant amounts of Pu (10t/GWe per reactor life-time) to be safeguarded as direct use material in SNF storage and repositories, raises serious political concerns. As of today there are no international services in the back-end fuel cycle area, which means it remains the responsibility of each country using PWRs to organize safe storage and disposal of all accumulated SNF in national underground repositories. This might be a challenge for many countries, particularly those with small territories or small reactor parks. It is also worth noting that no single 15

demonstrated facility for SNF disposal exists worldwide. Sweden and Finland have made a decision on the direct disposal of their SNF; Swedish nuclear fuel and waste management company SKB decided in 2009 to build a final repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark. The waste disposal facility is expected to begin operation by 2020, and will likely be the first ever facility for the permanent disposal of high level waste (HLW) from civil nuclear industry. A facility for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Finland is under construction and it is also planned to become operational in 2020. Sustainability Assessment of PWR MOX The relative advantage of the PWR (2/3 UOX, 1/3 MOX) variant is the possibility to decrease (by 3 to 5 times depending on MOX recycling strategy) the amount of SNF in storage, in comparison with a PWR once-through cycle. In addition, in the case of MOX recycling there is also a reduced need for natural uranium (by 30%) and a reduction of the accumulated amount of Pu (by 50%). However, this option has the same serious shortcomings as the PWR OTFC from a sustainability point of view in terms of resource and waste areas. Overall efficiency of uranium resource use is less than 1%. MOX spent fuel contains increased levels of Pu and MAs compared UOX spent fuel. In addition, this variant has less attractive economic features and would increase global proliferation risk due to the need to use additional fuel cycle steps including sophisticated technologies like SNF reprocessing and MOX fabrication. Sustainability Assessment of SFR The major sustainability advantages of SFR in breeder mode stem from the possibility of breeding nonnatural fissile material; i.e., plutonium from natural fertile U-238. This would mean a shift in nuclear power to a new resource base, from limited resources of natural fissile uranium-235 to inexhaustible resources of fertile U-238, accumulated in the tails (waste streams) of enrichment facilities. A system of fast breeders might de facto be considered a renewable energy source. This particular feature of fast breeder reactors has been especially important for countries planning large nuclear power capacity development. In these countries, fuel supply assurance is a major driving force for the development of SFR. Another version of SFR in self-sustained mode also has very attractive features from a resource perspective, and might be of interest to countries planning to have stable, long- time level of nuclear power capacity. An SFR in burner mode requires external fissile resources not only for startup but also for continuing operation. This version might be attractive for resource-endowed countries that are willing to use their large stocks of accumulated fissile material. Another major advantage of the SFR in all of its fuel cycle versions is the possibility of multirecycling of plutonium together with MAs. Multi-recycling allows for the minimization of stored SNF as well as the Pu and MA content of nuclear waste. The reduction of waste generation in an SFR-based system is the result of two main factors: first of all, an SFR can be operated at higher temperatures than an LWR, resulting in a higher thermal efficiency, thus generating less waste per installed power (MWe); secondly, in the once-through fuel cycle the radiotoxicity of the used fuel that is to be put in final storage can be reduced significantly by recycling plutonium and via the partitioning and transmutation 16

(P&T) of minor actinides in an SFR system. The evaluation of these parameters demonstrates that in an SFR, compared to a PWR, the amount of plutonium, americium, and curium placed in final disposal is reduced by a factor of about 200. However, reprocessing of used nuclear fuel produces several additional secondary waste forms that also require geological disposal. It is also important to note that SFR-based NESs have some unaddressed challenges, namely in economic and proliferation resistance areas. For example, in terms of economics, SFRs and associated fuel cycle technologies still have to be commercialized. Collectively, several countries have spent tens of billions of dollars on developing the elements of the SFR system. One element of this system, namely LWR SNF reprocessing, is used at a commercial level in several countries (France, Britain, Russia), while another two elements have been successfully demonstrated at semi-industrial level (SFR in Russia, MOX fuel technology in France). Also, an aqueous reprocessing technique for SFR SNF has been demonstrated at an experimental level. Nevertheless, the commercialization of the SFR system is not considered a top priority even for industrialized countries like France, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the USA. They have large parks of NPPs with LWRs; thus the need for a new SFR system may arise only in the context of a long term perspective after the beginning of decommissioning of the present generation of LWRs. Today, only large developing countries like India and China with intensive national nuclear development plans have strong incentives to commercialize SFR in the medium-term period (2020 2030). Russia is the third country seeking the commercialization of fast reactors in the coming decades to support the reindustrialization of its economy. As for proliferation concerns, the introduction of fast breeders and plutonium reprocessing facilities would reduce global proliferation risks due to the elimination in future of the need for enrichment services, and as a result of the associated reduction of plutonium stocks in storage and repositories. However, it might also introduce additional proliferation risks associated with the dissemination of sensitive reprocessing facilities around the world. In fact, it is understood that if the global proliferation issue is considered at a system level, including reactors and associated fuel cycle facilities, then all types of nuclear energy systems have attractive aspects for states with concealed nuclear weapons objectives. The most attractive element within traditional NESs with PWRs is uranium enrichment, while in case of NES with SFR it is spent fuel reprocessing technology. At present there are many ongoing activities that aim to minimize the global proliferation risks associated with the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle by reducing the dissemination of uranium enrichment technologies through the provision of assured fuel supplies. However, for the time being there is no comparable, practical proposal that aims to address global proliferation risks associated with accumulated plutonium in SNF storage and the dissemination of reprocessing technologies. From the above analysis the author concludes that, separately, neither PWR nor SFR based NESs should be considered sustainable variants for global nuclear power development, even though both have advantages and disadvantages. Analysis of possible options for employing PWR and SFR systems in a complimentary way in order to address NP sustainability challenges at the global level and in countries with different market sizes are discussed below. 17

Synergetic PWR+SFR Scenarios for Sustainable Nuclear Energy Development in Countries with Large Markets Potential complementarity of PWR and SFR systems is based on the fact that PWR generates plutonium as a by-product, accumulated in spent nuclear fuel, while SFR systems require plutonium for startup fuel loading. The availability of initial plutonium and the integral Pu balance over the entire lifetime (50 years) of fast reactors must be considered in any analysis of nuclear power based on fast reactors. From Table 0.3 we see that the 50-year lifetime of a PWR as well as any other type of LWR reactor (BWR or WWER) generates some 10t of Pu per 1GWe capacity. Approximately the same amount of Pu is needed for initial loading of fuel for an SFR system of the same capacity. This means that after LWR operation is discontinued there will be sufficient Pu in accumulated SNF to start a series of SFRs equal in capacity to the original LWR fleet. A simplified strategy of nuclear power development based on utilizing the Pu balance from LWR could comprise the following: First stage: use natural uranium to develop nuclear power based on LWR system and accumulate Pu for SFRs. Second stage: start reprocessing LWR and later SFR SNF to separate Pu for fuel loading of SFR with an objective either to further increase nuclear power capacity or simply to replace LWR capacity after being decommissioned. Several large-market countries with long-term large scale NP programs are developing innovative SFR and CNFC technologies for use in a variety of ways in their LWR systems. For example: France and Japan: LWR (UOX) + LWR (MOX) + SFR (break-even); Republic of Korea and USA: LWR (UOX) + FR (at first stage in burner mode, later in breakeven mode); Russia, India and China : LWR (UOX) + FR (breeder). In order to understand why different countries have different policies for FR deployment, it is illuminating to consider the national goals and priorities of three different groups of countries developing SFRs. France and Japan have large-scale NP programs today. SNF LWR reprocessing at commercial the stage and MOX recycling in LWRs address SNF and Pu accumulation problems in both the near and medium term perspectives. After 2040 these countries are planning to introduce fast self-sustainer reactors in order to replace LWRs after their decommissioning, and to address the MA challenge through transmutation and special burners. The United States and the Republic of Korea, like France and Japan, also have large-scale NP programs today and no plans for significant new capacities in the coming decades. But they have not introduced MOX recycling in PWRs. To manage the accumulation of significant stocks of plutonium in LWR SNF these countries may introduce SFRs with a burner option burning the accumulated excess of transuranic nuclides in LWRs, and then introducing fast breakeven reactors to replace the LWRs after their decommissioning. 18

India, China and Russia have small-scale NP programs today, but plan to increase capacity significantly in the coming decades. A major issue for them is nuclear resource availability; this might be met through the introduction of fast breeder reactors. An example of synergetic LWR and SFR system architecture considered in Russia is presented in Figure 0.7. Figure 0.7 WWER+SFR Symbiotic Nuclear Energy System Today Future F WWERs VVERs f FRFRFRs FRSFRs U fuel fabrication U enrichment SNF storage U-TRU fuel fabrication SNF Reprocessing U mining U depleted Radwaste Disposal SFRs with closed fuel cycles might be commercialized and deployed before the middle of this century, but only in few countries with large-sized markets and with fast reactor technologies under development. The majority of countries with medium- and small-sized markets will continue to use LWR-based systems with the unsustainable features discussed above. From this perspective it is important to devise ways of addressing nuclear power sustainability issues at the global level, taking into account the different interests of a variety of nuclear countries with small- and medium-sized markets. Global Nuclear Fuel Cycle Architecture Transition scenarios to achieve sustainable NESs at the global level and in countries with small- and medium-sized markets have been studied within the IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) collaborative project entitled: Global Architecture of Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems based on Thermal and Fast Reactors with the Including a Closed Fuel Cycle (GAINS). A short description of the GAINS approach and some related results are provided below. 8 The GAINS Approach The general approach applied in specifying global nuclear energy demand consists of a combination of projections made by competent energy agencies along with on-line information from the IAEA member states compiled by the Agency. A combination of these two approaches allowed the creation of high (5,000 GWe-year by the end of the century) and moderate (2,500 GWe-year) long-term global nuclear energy demand curves in the GAINS project. In accordance with the philosophy of the GAINS project, SFR systems are operating and being developed in G1 countries with large scale national markets. These countries bear substantial 19

expenses connected with research, development and demonstration (RD&D) costs and financial risks. In contrast to those in the G1 category, countries of medium market size (G2) use proven nuclear technologies in an optimal commercial regime with minimal nuclear infrastructure or financial risk. G2 countries include OTFC facilities (e.g., fuel fabrication plants, waste repositories). Countries with small internal markets that prefer to rely on international markets for fuel services are categorized as G3 Sample scenarios for meeting nuclear energy demand were built based on different combinations of technological and institutional innovations. At present, healthy multilateral cooperation exists at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, while only first steps have been taken at the back end. In order to reflect possible advances, two cases were analyzed to map a heterogeneous, synergistic world. The first depicts an initial stage of back-end multilateral cooperation, in which it is assumed that the G3 with minimal NFC infrastructure obtain front- and back-end fuel cycle services from the G1 and G2. The second case describes enhanced cooperation in which the SNF from all strategy groups is recycled in the G1, where all plutonium produced is used in MOX fuel for SFRs. Major GAINS Results Results of sample scenarios simulation implemented by different participants of the project consistently indicate that natural uranium consumption in the business-as-usual system (BAU, based on thermal reactors and once-through NFC) overruns conventional uranium resources estimated in the NEA IAEA Uranium Group s Red Book (16 million tons) 9 after mid-century for both high- and moderate- growth GAINS scenarios. The application of the synergistic heterogeneous model for the estimation of cumulative demand for natural uranium under the introduction of SFRs has identified strong dependence on the architecture of the global NES and on the intensity of material flows between strategy groups. Analysis of the case with enhanced cooperation in which SNF from all strategy groups is recycled and used in the G1 demonstrates a significant synergistic effect. Compared to the non-synergistic heterogeneous case, these uranium savings under moderate global nuclear power demand can increase more than two times and reach 14 million tons compared to the BAU NES. This example shows that synergy can potentially provide significant uranium savings globally even if the G2 and G3 do not run the economic and other risks associated with development of recycling and innovative technologies. In spite of the fact that the BAU + FRs system (based on thermal and fast reactors with closed NFCs) provides significant potential for uranium savings, simulation of the GAINS high growth scenario indicates a shortage of natural uranium past the third quarter of the century, unless more advanced fuel cycles are adopted. The possible problem with natural uranium supply is of concern to some countries participating in GAINS that have plans for large scale nuclear power development, such as India and China. In these countries additional technical innovations are being considered, such as an increase in the breeding ratio of FRs, or the introduction of the thorium (Th) fuel cycle (in India). The management of SNF is a common concern related to the use of nuclear energy. It is shown in the study that synergistic variants of the back-end architecture of a global NES might facilitate the development of long-term SNF management strategies, either for a specific group of countries or globally. Again, as for cumulative uranium demand, the economic impact of management and storage of SNF on the economies of the G1 and G2 under the scenario in which the G3 obtains front- and back-end NFC services from the G1 and G2 is very small. At the same time, all groups can benefit from such an 20