Transcript Nuclear_power - Harvard University Department of Physics

What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish
to Reduce CO2 Emissions
Robert A. Krakowski(a) and Richard Wilson(b)
2002 ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress
November 17-22, 2002
New Orleans
(a) Systems
Engineering and Integration Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(b) Department
of Physics, Harvard University
1
What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish
to Reduce CO2 Emissions
Outline
 Background
- State of the Planet (Top Concerns, Global-Warming Trends) ;
- Global Economic-Energy-Environmental (E3) Modeling Approaches
(“Top-Down” versus “Bottom-Up”);
- Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas (mainly CO2) Emissions,
along with other Socioeconomic, Technological, and Political
Drivers;
 Nuclear Energy History (growth, avoided CO2, cost, sustainability issues);
 Sample Results from a “Top-Down” E3 Model
- Base Case Illustrating Magnitudes/Tradeoffs of NE versus CO2 Mitigation;
- Scenario Analysis and NE Requirements to Reduce CO2 Emissions;
 Conclusions/Future Directions
2
State of the Planet: Seven Setbacks(a):
Nuclear Energy is On Both the Giving and Receiving
Ends of the Problem
• Global Warming: November 2001 – January 2002 in US warmest since
records were taken (1895);
• An Appetite for Oil: Consumption grew 14% in 1990s, accounts for 40% of
CO2 emissions:
• Disappearing Wetlands: 31 years after Convention on Wetland (132 Nations),
results are disappointing; 50% destroyed 1900s;
• Rise of Megadams; 5,000 45,000 large dams (larger than 17 m high) in the
world over the 1950 – 2000 period;
• Coral Reefs: 27% lost in last 50 years, 16% during 1998 El Nino;
• Overfishing: Marine “principle” is being spent; cod, bluefin tuna, grouper
populations are plummeting;
• Nuclear Waste: This year 400 NPPs create more than 11,000 tonne of spent
nuclear fuel (SNF, labeled as “waste”); pose problems of accidental leakage
and terrorist attack (161 million people within 100 km of SNF storage).
(a)
National Geographic, p. 108 (September, 2002).
3
The Increase in Global Temperature During the 20th Century is
Likely the Largest of Any Century for the Last 1000 Years and
Correlates with Increased Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Reconstruction of Average Temperatures
in the Northern Hemisphere
Growth in Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide Concentration
1000
1200
1400
1600
Year
1800
2000
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Year
4
What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish to
Reduce CO2 Emissions and What is Needed
 Reductions of CO2 emission rates to present values ( ~6 GtonneC/yr) by 2100 will require
5-7,000 GWe, or 15-20 times present world capacity; deeper reductions are possible for nonelectric applications of nuclear energy (H2 production from water splitting).
 Uranium-resource and waste-disposal implications of supplying this capacity over the next
100 years based on once-through fuel cycle are significant: 4-5 times present world (conventional
+ known + estimated) uranium resources (16 MtonneU at 160 $/kgU); one Yucca Mountain
(globally) every few (or less) years; a total of ~50,000 tonne reactor-grade plutonium contained in
the spent fuel so disposed by the year 2100.
 Advanced, plutonium-burning/recycling fuel cycles will be needed to reduce (significantly)
both the fuel-resource and the waste disposal (mass, volume, long-term radio-toxicity)
requirements; reduction by factors of 40-50 attend this comparable increase in energy-resource
utilization.
 The economics of achieving this predominant nuclear role are within reach for known (oncethrough) technologies; advanced (high recycle/burn-up) fuel cycles may add 10-20% to the lifecycle cost; these costs should be competitive with any “closed” fossil fuel cycle used to generate
electricity.
 Deployment rates (80-90 GWe/yr) for once-through reactors have been approached in the
past; extensions to the required advanced reactor technologies require demonstration.
5
What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish to Reduce
CO2 Emissions and What is Needed (cont.-1)
Proliferation propensities should be very low for advanced fuel cycles that minimize total
plutonium inventories while assuring strong intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to clandestine use through
theft or diversion; detailed designs and management systems must be implemented to assure the
reality of this claim.
Safe reactor operations at both public and operational levels have been demonstrated, but
continuance of this experience must be assured, as well as extension thereof to other parts of the fuel
cycle, particularly for high burn-up/recycle processes (reprocessing, storage, transport).
Socioeconomic, technological, and political drivers dictate the role played by nuclear energy in
mitigating global warming, even with solutions in hand to the four cardinal issues of waste,
proliferation, cost, and safety; more remains to be done in quantifying these drivers and interactions
among them (population growth, productivity, economic equity, technology evolution and diffusion,
degree of globilzation, personal freedoms versus added institutional controls, etc.).
6
Uranium Resource and Availability: Fuel
Supply is Perceived as a Longer-Term Issue(a)
1.E+08
 Redbook
(OECD/IAEA)
lists estimates by suppliers;
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02
Volcanic Deposits
1.E+03
Oceanic Igneous Crust
1.E+04
Evaporates. Siliceous Ooze, Chert
1.E+05
Fresh Water
Ocean Water
Estimated Amount, MtonneU
1.E+06
Vein Deposits
Vein Deposits, Pegmatites,
Unconformity Deposits
1.E+07
1.E-03
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
Ore Grade, ppmU
 Limited recent incentives
for exploration;
(Much) more ore is likely
to found if price increases;
Fuel cycle contributes to
< 20% of production costs.
Waste management and not uranium
resource is main issue for early (new)
deployment.
D. Wade, “Goals for Future Nuclear
Energy Systems and Fuel Cycle Concepts
Proposed for the Generation IV Roadmap.”
Symp. On Energy and Environment
(October 2-4, 2002)
(a)
7
“Top-Level” View of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options That
Diminish Both Waste and Resource Requirements
Resource Base
U/Pu Electricity
Conversion
Full Act.* HLW + MA+ Pu
Recycle
Full Pu
Recycle
Partial Pu
Recycle
Waste Arisings
HLW + MA
Spent
Nuclear
Fuel (SNF)
OnceThru
Spent Nuclear
Fuel (SNF)
* Act. = Pu + MA; SNF = Act.+ U + FP + SP
8
Schematic Diagram of Key Material Flows
for a Range of Transmutation Scenarios(a)
Scenarios
OT
FR0
ADS0
FR2
ADS1
ADS2
ADSC
MOX
LWR
LWR
MA
TRU
MOX
LWR
MA
MA
ADS
ADS
MA
LWR
FR
ADS
HLW
ADS
HLW
HLW
HLW
HLW
Repository
HLW
MA
TRU
FR
MA
HLW
MA
HLW
TRU
SNF
TRU
LWR
HLW
MOX
MOX
TRU
TRU
LWR
HLW
MOX
LWR
MA
TRU
Tier-2
LWR
TRU
LWR
MOX
LWR
Tier-1
Tier-0
Tiers
R. A. Krakowski and C. G. Bathke, “Method for Quantitative Assessment of Cost and
Proliferation Risks Associated with the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Los Alamos National
Laboratory document LA-UR-02-2369 (April 26, 2002).
(a)
9
Sustainability Viewed As a “Three-Legged Stool” and
Connected to the Four Canonical Issues
Characterizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC)
SOCIETY
ECOLOGY
ECONOMY
SUSTAINABILITY
ECONOMICS
WASTE
SAFETY
(incl. Resources)
(Short/Long-Term)
(Oper./Accidents)
PROLIFERATION
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ISSUES
10
Overview of Systems Modeling Approaches for Quantifying
Economy (LCC), Ecology (Waste), and Society (Proliferation)
NFC
SUSTAINABILITY
METRICS
MODEL
NFC
ALONE
NFC IN PE SUPPLY
COMPETITION
“TOP DOWN”
“BOTTOM UP”
ECONOMY
STATIC
DYNAMIC
DEMAND
ECOLOGY
SIMULATION
OPTIMIZATION
SOCIETY
11
“Top-Down” (Econometric) versus “BottomUp” (Technological) Modeling Methodologies(a)
(a)Mapping the
Energy Future:
Energy Modeling and Climate
Change, OECD/IEA report
(1998)
12
Energy Drives Human Welfare, Fossil Fuel Drives Energy
Consumption (90%), and Growing Atmospheric CO2
Concentration is Driven by Fossil Fuel Consumption
 Present 6B world population is growing, 2B have no access to
electricity, and access is marginal for another 2B people.
 The developed countries comprise 25% of the world population, but
consume 70% of the primary energy.
 Fossil sources provide 90% of all energy fuels, and CO2 emissions
(presently 6 GtonneC/yr) is growing with the growing use of fossil
fuels.
 Carbon emissions are related by the simple identity:
RC(kgC/yr) = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
N = population(persons); GDP =productivity ($/yr);
PE = annual primary energy consumption (J/yr);
C = carbon emission (kgC)
13
A Simple Identity Indicates Means to Reduce Global CO2 Emissions:
RC(kgC/yr) = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
History
POPULATION,
N(Bpersons)
10
per-capita GDP,
GDP/N[k$(1990)/person/yr]
12
IS92a Scenario
8
6
4
2
Population, N/10
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
9
2080
2100
History
IS92a Scenario
20
15
per-capita GDP, GDP/N
10
5
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
25
30
plus noncommercial energy
History
History
Carbon Intensity,
RC/PE(kgC/GJ)
25
20
15
10
5
Energy Intensity, PE/GDP
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
IS92a Scenario
20
oil
15
gas
10
5
Carbon Intensity, RC/PE
0
1900
2100
2100
coal
IS92a Scenario
CO 2 Emissions, RC(GtonneC/yr)
Energy Intensity,
PE/GDP(GJ/k$(1990)
25
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
20
CO2 Emissions, RC = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
15
History
IS92a Scenario
10
5
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
14
Top-Level Controls on CO2 Emissions vis-à-vis
RC(kgC/yr) = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
 Population growth, N: a positive driver, presently stabilizing, not
much control.
 per-capita productivity, GDP/N ($/capita): a positive driver as
HDI is increased for the world majorities, requires increased energy
consumption.
 Energy Intensity, PE/GDP (MJ/$): historic decreases reflect
success in increasing economic productivity with less energy use.
 Carbon Intensity, C/PE(kgC/GJ): Infers the development of
energy electricity and portable-fuel sources with considerably
reduced carbon emissions:
- Renewable energy (solar PV, solar H2, wind);
- Nuclear (fission, ultimately thermonuclear fusion).
15
The Key Drivers of GHG Emissions Are Highly Aggregated Results of
Complex Socio-economic, Technological, and Political Drivers a)
(a)K.
Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, “Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development,”
Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000).
Scenario
ID
Year
General Character
Population
(billion)
GWP
[trillion
(1990)
USD]
2050 2100
Equity
Ratio
(DEV/
IND)
2100
Primary
Energy
(EJ/yr)
Cumul.
CO2
(GtC)
2050 2100
2050 2100
2100
Very hetero. world; high pop. growth; resource
A2
11.3 15.1 82
243
0.24
1014 1921 781
self-reliance; consoled. trade blocks; slow
capital stock turnover / change.
A2 basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to 550
A2-550
11.3 15.1 81
236
0.23
959
1571 550
ppm in 2100.
Inc. concern for envir. and soc. sustain.; hetero.
B2
world; diverse technol. change; local/regional
9.4
10.4 110
235
0.33
869
1357 603
structures
B2 basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to 550
B2-550
9.4
10.4 109
231
0.33
881
1227 550
ppm in 2100.
Very rapid econ. growth; low pop. growth;
A1
8.7
7.1
187
550
0.64
1422 2681 724
market-based solutions; strong education,
investment, mobility of ideas/people/technol.
A1 basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to 550
A1-550
8.7
7.1
186
547
0.63
1339 2505 550
ppm in 2100.
A1C
A1 w/ clean-coal technol. future
8.7
7.1
187
550
0.64
1377 2325
A1C basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to
A1C-550
8.7
7.1
185
542
0.64
1269 2188 550
550 ppm in 2100.
A1G
A1 with oil and gas future.
8.7
7.1
187
550
0.64
1495 2737 950
A1T
A1 with rapid devel. of solar and nuclear.
8.7
7.1
187
550
0.64
1213 2021 560
Collective, service-oriented prosperity while
B1
8.7
7.1
136
328
0.59
837
755
486
accounting for equity and envir. concerns.
B1G
B1 basecase w/ oil and gas future.
8.7
7.1
166
350
0.60
911
1157 509
B1T
B1 with rapid devel. of solar and nuclear.
8.7
7.1
136
328
0.59
819
714
464
1990 Values: 5.3 billion; 20.9 trillion$; ER = 0.06; PE = 352 EJ/yr; 7.5 GtonneC/yr; 354 ppm; ΔT = 0.4 K from 1765 to 1990.
Glob
Temp
Chg
(K)
2100
2.7
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.9
3.0
2.0
2.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.6
16
The Key Drivers of GHG Emissions Are Highly Aggregated Results of
Complex Socio-economic, Technological, and Political Drivers (cont.-1)(a)
(a)K.
Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, “Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development,”
Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000).
17
The Key Drivers of GHG Emissions Are Highly Aggregated Results of
Complex Socio-economic, Technological, and Political Drivers that Lead
to Varying Levels of Sustainable or Non-Sustainable Futures(a)
35
Global CO2 Emissions, GtonneC/yr
30
25
20
15
A1G: Very rapid growth, gas/oil rich;
A1C: Very rapid growth, coal rich;
A2: Hetro. world, slow change/turnover;
A1: Very rapid growth, market-based;
B2: Modest growth;
B1G: Equity/environ concerns, balanced,
gas/oil rich;
B1: Equity/environ concerns,
balanced res/tech;
B1T: Equity/environ concerns,
non-fossil decentralized technol.
A1G
A1C
A2
A1
B2
10
B1G
5
B1
B1T
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year
(a)K.
Riahi and R. A. Roehrl,
“Energy Technology for Carbon
Dioxide Mitigation and
Sustainable Development,”
Environmental Economic and
Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000).
18
Energy-Related CO2 Emissions versus Time
and Sector in IEA Countries(a)
3.5
Sectoral CO2 Emission Rate,
RCO2(GtonneC/yr)
3
Other
2.5
9.1%
Residential
Commercial
2
28%
1.5
15.5%
13.4%
1 19.5%
0.5
Industry
Energy
Sector
30%
20.6
0 %
1960
1965
Transport
Electricity
31%
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
TIME
IEA (1998), “Mapping the Energy Future: Energy Modelling and Climate Change
Policy”, IEA Energy and Environment Policy Analysis Series.
(a)
19
Full-Energy-Chain Specific Carbon-Equivalent Emissions
versus Generation Technology Kind and State(a)
1000
Lignite
hi, lo, adv
Coal
hi, lo, adv
Oil
Specific Emissions, kgC-eq/MWeh
hi, lo, adv
hi, lo, adv
Gas
SolarPV
100
Hydro
hi, lo, adv
BioM
Wind
Nucl
hi, lo
ja, ch, be, be
10
de, ca, ch
hi, lo
35
Wind
33
31
BioM
29
27
Hydro
25
23
Solar
21
19
Gas
17
15
Oil
13
11
Coal
9
7
Lignite
5
3
1
1
Nucl
Generation Technology
J. V. Spadaro, L. Langlois, and B. Hamilton, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generation
Chains: Assessing the Difference, IAEA Bulletin, 42/2/2000, Vienna, Austria (2000)
(a)
20
By the End of Year 2000 Nuclear Energy Makes an
Important Contribution to the World Electric
Generation and CO2-Equivalent Emissions Mitigation(a)
 Total capacity : 361 GWe;
 Number of nuclear power plants: 438;
 Multinational: 31 countries (85% OECD Members);
 Production in 2000: 2,450 TWeh;
 Contribution: 16% electric energy (EE) production, 6% of global
commercial primary energy (PE);
 Specific carbon-equivalent emission (kgC/MWeh):
- Nuclear energy chain: 2.5-5.7 (-8% PE sector, -17% EE sector);
- Renewable energy chain (solar PV, wind, hydro, bio) 2.5-76;
- Fossil energy chain (gas, oil, coal, lignite): 105-366.
(a)
OECD/NEA, “Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol,” (2002)
21
World-wide History of Nuclear Energy
Growth in Capacity(a)
400
350
CAPACITY, GWe
300
250
Total
200
150
100
50
Decommissions
Starts
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
YEAR
(a)
Signposts 2002: Envisioning the Future,” WorldWatch Institute, Washington DC (2002)
22
Both Nuclear Electric and Hydroelectric are Important
Contributors to Annual Reductions in CO2 Emissions(a)
10
9
Percent CO 2 Avoided Globally
Hydroelectric
8
7
Nuclear Electric
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
TIME
(a)OECD/NEA,
“Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol,” (2002)
23
US Electricity Capacity versus Generation: Gas is
Growing; Coal May Be Emission Constrained, Oil is
Decreasing; Nuclear is Uncertain, but Performing Well
350
US Electricity Capacity versus Generation in 1998 (EIA)
Clean Coal?
Coal
?
300
Emissions?
Generation, TWeh
250
200
Rapid Growth
Gas
Financial
Incentives
150
Nucl
100
? Increase
Capacity
Factors
Oil
Hydro
50
Ren
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Capacity, GWe
24
US Nuclear Electricity Generation, Capacity, and
Capacity Factor versus Time Over Last Quarter Century
1000
900
77 GWe Added During
Construction Boom
Capacity Factor Increases
from 60% to 90%
Generation, TWeh;
Capacity Factor, %*10
800
97
GWe
700
Capacity Factor
600
99
GWe
90
GWe
500
400
Capacity
Generation
300
200
100
0
1970
38
GWe
53
GWe
80
GWe
22
GWe
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
25
Operations and Maintenance Costs and Production Costs
for US NPP Over the Past Two Decades (a)
N. J. Diaz, “Nuclear Technology: Global Accomplishments
and Opportunities,” Nuclear News, 36 (May, 1998)
(a)
26
Effect of Carbon Tax on Levelized Generation Cost for
Key Primary Fuels in Different Countries(a)
100
Cost of Electricity, COE(mill/kWeh)
90
CTAX($/tonneC-eq):
0
50
100
150
10%/yr Discount Rate
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
USA
(a)OECD/NEA,
Spain
Korea
France
Primary Energy and Country
as
C
oa
l
N
uc
l
G
as
C
oa
l
N
uc
l
G
as
C
oa
l
N
uc
l
G
as
C
oa
l
N
uc
l
G
G
as
C
oa
l
N
uc
l
0
Canada
“Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol,” (2002)
27
Sustainability Viewed As a “Three-Legged Stool” and
Connected to the Four Canonical Issues
Characterizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC)
SOCIETY
ECOLOGY
ECONOMY
SUSTAINABILITY
ECONOMICS
WASTE
SAFETY
(incl. Resources)
(Short/Long-Term)
(Oper./Accidents)
PROLIFERATION
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ISSUES
28
Structural Layout of “Top-Down”
(Econometrics) ERB Global E3 Model(a)
INPUT
MODEL
OUTPUT
MARKET
PENETRATION
OF ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGIES
UPPER-LEVEL
SCENARIO
ATTRIBUTES
REGIONAL
POPULATION
REGIONAL
LABOR
FORCE
REGIONAL
GNP
REGIONAL
ENERGY
DEMAND
ECONOMIC
WELFARE
REGIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CHANGE
REGIONAL
TAXES AND
TARIFFS
LOWER-LEVEL
SCENARIO
ATTRIBUTES
REGIONAL
RESOURCE
CONSTRAINTS
• Technology
(Extra ction)
• Envir onm ent
• Backs top
Technologies
NUCLEAR
FUEL-CYCLE
PARAMETERS
REGIONAL
PRICES
WORLD
(FOSSIL)
PRICES
REGIONAL
SUPPLY
NUCLEAR ENERGY
MODEL
• Economic s
• Fuel-Cycle Mix
• Mater ial Flows
• Proliferation
• Int’l Constraints
GLOBAL
SUPPLIES
AND
DEMANDS
ENERGY
MIX AND
INTENSITY
GHG
EMISSIONS AND
ACCUMULATIONS
NUCLEAR
MATERIAL
INVENTORIES
AND FLOWS
• Reactor
• Reprocess ing
• Fuel Fabric ation
• Spent Fue l
PROLIFERATION
RISK
(a)BARON,
R, M., D. Barns, H. M. Pitcher, J. A. Edmonds, M. A. Wise, (1992) “The Second Generation Model
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Background and Initital Development,” Coping with the Energy Future: Market
and Regulations, 2, 15th Annual Converence of the International Associations for Energy Economics on Coping
with the Energy Future: Market and Regulations (18-20 May 1992).
29
Key Model Drivers Used for ERB “Top-Down” E3 as
Aggregated from 13 Regions to OECD, REF, and ROW
Millio ns
12 ,0 00
OECD
REF
Population
ROW
10 ,0 00
per-capita GDP
US$/cap.
70 ,0 00
OECD
REF
ROW
60 ,0 00
8, 00 0
50 ,0 00
40 ,0 00
6, 00 0
30 ,0 00
20 ,0 00
4, 00 0
10 ,0 00
0
19 90
2, 00 0
20 05
20 20
20 35
20 50
20 65
20 80
20 95
Year
0
20 00
20 10
20 20
20 30
20 40
20 50
20 60
20 70
20 80
20 90
21 00
Year
GDP
1 012 US$
1 80
1 60
1 40
OECD
REF
ROW
1 20
1 00
80
60
40
20
0
1 99 0
2 00 5
2 02 0
2 03 5
2 05 0
2 06 5
2 08 0
2 09 5
Year
30
Time Evolution of Cumulative Demand for Six
Primary Energy for BAU/BO Scenario(a,b)
1500
BAU/BO
Total
Primary Energy Demand, EJ/yr
Hydro
Solar
IAEA/HV
1000
Nu
ar
e
l
c
IAEA/MV
(a) R. A.
500
Krakowski and R. Wilson,
Chapter 7, R. G. Watts(ed.), Innovative
Energy Strategies for CO2
Stabilization, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge UK (2002).
Solids
IAEA/LV
Gas
(b)
IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and
Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New
Realities, (1997).
Oil
0
1975
2000
2025
2050
2075
2100
Year
31
Comparison of World Nuclear
Energy Generation Scenarios(a,b,c)
2000
1000
=0
MO
X
O(f
U/B
OX
IAEA/HV
=0
.0
1500
BA
fM
NE Demand, GWe yr/yr
.3)
BAU/BO Basis Scenario
IAEA/MV, NEA-I
(a) R. A.
Krakowski and R. Wilson, Chapter 7,
R. G. Watts(ed.), Innovative Energy
Strategies for CO2 Stabilization, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK (2002).
NEA-III
500
IAEA/IV
2000
2025
2050
“Nuclear Power and Climate
Change, (April 1998).
(c)
IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor
Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities,
(1997).
NEA-II
0
1975
(b) OECD/NEA,
2075
2100
Year
32
Evolution of World CO2 Emission Rate, Integrated
Emission, Atmospheric Accumulations, and Average
Global Temperature Increase for BAU/BO Scenario
20
RC(GtonneC/yr), W(Gtonne)/100, T(K)*10
BAU/BO
15
10
/100
WO
0
W/10
10
*
T

RC w/o NE
RC
5
0
1975
2000
2025
2050
2075
2100
Year
33
Impact of Phased Change in Unit Capital Cost
of Nuclear on Demand and CO2 Emissions
10000
NE Demand, NE(GWe yr/yr)
f
fUTC
Variations
TUTC = 40 yr
t o = 2005
0.3
0.4
0.75
0.5
O)
U/B
A
B
1.0(
1.25
V
1000
IAE
A /H
A
IAE
1.5
/MV
2.0
IAEA
/LV
100
)
/PO
BAU
3.0(
4.0
10
1975
2000
2025
2050
2075
2100
Year
34
Summary of Relative Sensitivities of Key Metrics in Year
2095 to Changes in Unit Total Capital Cost of Nuclear
Generation
R,W,PRI,RGNP*100,fNE,EE
60
Absolute Values of Key Parameters
Percent Changes in 2095
r = 0.04 1/yr
fNE
Total global plutonium, MPu(ktonne)
40
CO2 linear tax rate, CTAX($/tonneC/15yr)
M/10
R
fEE
20
0
W
-20
M/10
MGNP(PV)*100
NE fraction of final energy, fNE
0.19
EE fraction of primary energy, fEE
0.15
Proliferation Risk Index, PRI
0.14
Atmospheric CO2, W(GtonneC)
1632.
Average global temperature rise, DT(K) 2.6
T
PRI
CO2 emission rate, RCO2(GtonneC/yr) 19.8
R
-40
-60
15.3
0
1
2
3
4
Factor Change in UTC NE
35
Impact of (Linearly) Increasing Carbon Taxes
(Imposed After 2005) on Nuclear Energy
Demand and CO2 Emission Rate
20
CTAX($/tonneC/15yr) Variations
about BAU/BO Scenario
CTAX($/tonneC/15yr) Variations
30 (ED/BO)
20
IAEA/HV
1000
0
)
/BO
U
( BA
IAEA/MV
IAEA/LV
100
1975
2000
2025
Year
2050
2075
2100
15
10
0
BA
RC(Gtonne/yr), W(Gtonne)/100
NE Demand, NE(GWe yr/yr)
50
0
U/
BO
10000
10
20
10
50
W/100
20
ED/BO
30
40
50
RC
5
0
1975
2000
2025
2050
2075
2100
Year
36
Summary of Relative Sensitivities of Key Metrics in
Year 2095 to Imposition of (Linear) CO2 Taxes
R,W,PRI,GNP*100,fNE,EECTAX
80
M
CTAX($/tonneC/yr) Variations
Percent Changes in 2095
r = 0.04 1/yr
60
Absolute Values of Key Parameters
CTAX
fEE
20
PRI
0
NE fraction of final energy, fNE
0.19
EE fraction of primary energy, fEE
0.15
Proliferation Risk Index, PRI
0.14
Atmospheric CO2, W(GtonneC)
-20
1632.
Average global temperature rise, DT(K) 2.6
W
-40
15.3
CO2 linear tax rate, CTAX($/tonneC/15yr)
fNE
40
Total global plutonium, MPu(ktonne)
CO2 emission rate, RCO2(GtonneC/yr) 19.8
T
GNP*100
-60
R
-80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
PV Ratio, f TAX = (TAX/GNP)*100
37
Nuclear-Energy Scenario Analyses(a)
SCENARIO ATTRIBUTES
Demand Scenarios
Nuclear Scenarios
BAU
(IIASA/WEC B)
ED
(IIASA/WEC C)
NO CTAX
CTAX
BO
Demand-Supply
BAU-BO
Scenarios
Notes:
Demand Scenarios:
Nuclear Scenarios:
IIASA/WEC B:
IIASA/WEC C:
PO
High
UTC
BAU-PO
BO
ED-BO
PO
High
UTC
ED-PO
BAU=Business-As-Usual; ED = Ecologically Driven
BO=Basic Option;
PO = Phase
- out
Scenario B in the IIASA/WEC Study
Scenario C in the IIASA/WEC Study
“Scenarios of Nuclear Power Growth in the 21st Century, Report of an Expert Group Study (IAEA, Univ. Dauphine
Paris, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Univ. Tokyo, and Energy Systems Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences,
published by the Centre of Geopolitics of Energy and Raw Materials, University of Paris IX Dauphine (2002).
(a)
38
Scenario Analysis: Primary Energy Demand
BAU-BO
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
1, 20 0
ROW
REF
OECD
1, 20 0
1, 00 0
1, 00 0
80 0
80 0
60 0
60 0
40 0
40 0
20 0
20 0
0
19 90
20 05
20 20
20 35
20 50
BAU-PO
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
Scen ario BAU-BO
20 65
20 80
20 95
0
19 90
Scen ario BAU-PO
ROW
REF
OECD
20 05
20 20
20 35
Year
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
1, 20 0
1, 00 0
ED-BO
ROW
REF
OECD
1, 20 0
1, 00 0
80 0
60 0
60 0
40 0
40 0
20 0
20 0
20 05
20 20
20 35
20 50
Year
20 65
20 80
20 95
20 65
20 80
20 95
ED-PO
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
Scen ario ED-BO
80 0
0
19 90
20 50
Year
20 65
20 80
20 95
0
19 90
Scen ario ED-PO
ROW
REF
OECD
20 05
20 20
20 35
20 50
Year
39
Scenario Analysis: Global Primary,
Secondary, Final and Energy Demands
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
1, 20 0
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
BAU-BO
Scen ario BAU-BO
FE
SE
PE
1, 20 0
1, 00 0
1, 00 0
80 0
80 0
60 0
60 0
40 0
40 0
20 0
20 0
0
20 00
20 10
20 20
20 30
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
1, 20 0
20 40
20 50
Year
20 60
20 70
20 80
20 90
21 00
ED-BO
SE
1, 00 0
80 0
80 0
60 0
60 0
40 0
40 0
20 0
20 0
20 10
20 20
20 30
20 40
20 10
20 50
Year
20 60
SE
20 20
PE
20 30
20 70
20 80
20 90
21 00
0
20 00
20 40
20 50
Year
20 60
20 70
20 80
20 90
21 00
20 70
20 80
20 90
21 00
Scen ario ED-PO
ED-PO
1, 20 0
PE
1, 00 0
0
20 00
FE
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
Scen ario ED-BO
FE
0
20 00
BAU-PO
Scen ario BAU-PO
FE
20 10
20 20
SE
20 30
PE
20 40
20 50
Year
20 60
40
Scenario Analysis: Global Primary Energy Mix
% of T otal P E
10 0%
% of T otal P E
10 0%
BAU-BO
90 %
90 %
80 %
80 %
70 %
70 %
60 %
60 %
50 %
50 %
40 %
40 %
30 %
30 %
20 %
20 %
10 %
10 %
0%
19 90
20 05
20 20
20 35
20 50
20 65
20 80
20 95
0%
19 90
BAU-PO
LEGEND
Renewables
Nuclear
Solids
Gas
Oil
20 05
20 20
20 35
ED-BO
% of T otal PE
100%
90%
80%
% of T otal P E
10 0%
20 65
20 80
20 95
20 50
20 65
20 80
20 95
ED-P O
90 %
80 %
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1990
20 50
Year
Year
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
2005
2020
2035
Year
2050
2065
2080
2095
0%
19 90
20 05
20 20
20 35
Year
41
Scenario Analysis: Global Electrical Energy Mix
% o f Elec. Gen .
1 00 %
BAU-BO
% o f Elec. Gen .
1 00 %
BAU-PO
LEGEND
9 0%
9 0%
8 0%
8 0%
7 0%
7 0%
Renewables
6 0%
6 0%
Nuclear
5 0%
5 0%
4 0%
4 0%
3 0%
3 0%
2 0%
2 0%
1 0%
1 0%
0%
1 99 0
2 00 5
2 02 0
2 03 5
2 05 0
2 06 5
2 08 0
2 09 5
Year
% of Elec. Gen .
10 0%
0%
1 99 0
ED-BO
90 %
80 %
70 %
70 %
60 %
60 %
50 %
50 %
40 %
40 %
30 %
30 %
20 %
20 %
10 %
10 %
20 20
20 35
20 50
Year
Oil
2 00 5
2 02 0
% of Elec. Gen .
10 0%
80 %
20 05
Gas
2 03 5
2 05 0
2 06 5
2 08 0
2 09 5
20 50
20 65
20 80
20 95
Year
90 %
0%
19 90
Solids
20 65
20 80
20 95
0%
19 90
ERB ED-PO
20 05
20 20
20 35
Year
42
Scenario Analysis: Global Fossil
Fuel Consumption
MTOE/Year
GTOE/yr
25,00025
BAU-PO
20
20,000
BAU-BO
15
15,000
ED-PO
10
10,000
ED-BO
BAU-BO
ED-BO
5,0005
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
BAU-PO
ED-PO
2040
2050
Year
Year
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
43
Scenario Analysis: Global CO2 Emissions
MT
C/Year
MtonneC/yr
2 0,0 00
BAU-BO
BAU-P O
ED-BO
ED-P O
1 5,0 00
BAU-PO
BAU-BO
1 0,0 00
ED-PO
ED-BO
5 ,00 0
0
1 99 0
2 00 0
2 01 0
2 02 0
2 03 0
2 04 0
2 05 0
2 06 0
2 07 0
2 08 0
2 09 0
2 10 0
Year
44
Scenario Analysis: Global Primary Energy Cost
PercentPercent
of GDP
12
GDP
10
ED-PO
BAU-PO
8
BAU-BO
BAU-PO
ED-BO
ED-PO
6
4
ED-BO
BAU-BO
2
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
$/GJ
$/GJ
16
12
2080
2090
2100
ED-PO
BAU-BO
BAU-PO
ED-BO
ED-PO
14
2070
YearYear
BAU-PO, ED-BO
10
8
BAU-BO
6
4
2
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Year
Year
45
Scenario Analysis: Global Nuclear-Energy
(Electricity) Demand
T Wh /Year
TWeh/yr
50 ,0 00
45 ,0 00
BAU-BO
ED-BO
40 ,0 00
ED-BO
35 ,0 00
30 ,0 00
25 ,0 00
BAU-BO
20 ,0 00
15 ,0 00
10 ,0 00
5, 00 0
0
20 00
GW(e)
8,000
20 10
20 20
20 30
20 40
20 50
20 60
20 70
20 80
20 90
21 00
Year
GWe
BAU-BO
ED-BO
7,000
ED-BO
6,000
5,000
4,000
BAU-BO
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Year
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
46
Global Annual Additions of New Nuclear Capacity
GW(e)/Year
100
BAU-BO
ED-BO
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005-10
2015-20
2025-30
2035-40
2045-50
2055-60
2065-70
2075-80
2085-90
95-2100
Year
47
Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions
 Nuclear energy is on tap, but not on top; continued successful operation
of present LWRs crucial to preserve if not to improve this status;
 The reality and rate of approaching any viable, CO2-impacting
nuclear-energy future is dependent on:
- overcoming barriers to public acceptance (waste, proliferation,
safety, cost; in order of decreasing concern);
- global shifts in energy demand and growths;
- economics of financing large capital-intensive technologies.
48
Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-1)
 Nuclear energy can play an important, although not dominant,
role in CO2 reduction strategies;
- In both the BAU-BO and BAU-PO scenarios, CO2 emission rates
increase continuously throughout the next century, reaching
levels 143% and 174% higher than in 1990, respectively.
- In the ED-PO scenario, CO2 emission rates are essentially
stabilized, but at a level 34% above 1990 levels.
- Only in the ED-BO scenario is the CO2 emission rate
decreased, being 5% lower in 2095 than in 1990.
49
Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-2)
 Nuclear capacity in the year 2100 reaches about 3,900 GWe in the BAUBO scenario and about 6,700 GWe in the ED-BO scenario, or some 9 to 15
times, respectively, the capacity in operation as of 2000.
 Annual nuclear capacity additions reach a maximum of some 55 GWe/yr
in the BAU-BO scenario and around 95 GWe/ye in the ED-BO scenario.
Based on past experience, with some 40 GWe/yr of capacity having been
added in some years, these levels of capacity addition are feasible, although
significant expansion beyond the nuclear plant manufacturing capability
existing today will be required.
50
Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-3)
 If nuclear energy is to contribute to stabilizing CO2 emissions, then:
- NPP capacities of >6,000 GWe by 2100 [>17 times present
world capacity, 4 %/yr average growth or 80 GWe/yr (new
construction) after 2030];
- Breeder reactors may be required towards the end of this century(a);
- Even with the development of new economic uranium resources to
meet these demands, if spent fuel and the contained plutonium
inventories are to be controlled/minimized, advanced plutonium
burning fuel cycles will be required(a);
- Applications that produce of carbon-free transportable liquid fuels will
be required if reductions in CO2 emissions rather than
simply stabilization of emissions are desired.
(a)
see footnote
51
Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-3, footnote(a) )
For a global natural uranium resource of R(MtonneU), recovering 63% of the xf = 0.00712 fraction
of the 235U isotope, allowing that 62% is actually fissioned (for a total of fU = 0.39 of the mined
235U is actually fissioned), and taking credit for a f = 0.50 fission boost from non-235U fissions,
Pu
for a nominal fission release of a = 2.7 MWtyr/kg(fission) and a nominal thermal-to-electric
conversion efficiency of 35%, this natural uranium resource represents an electrical energy
resource (supply) of SE(GWeyr) = 3,980*R.
For a capacity of Pi = 350 GWe in Yi = 2000 increasing linearly to Pf = 5,000 GWe in Yf = 2100,
and for nominal plant capacity factor of pf = 0.85, a total generation (demand) of DE(GWeyr) =
pf*(Pf + Pi)*(Yf – Yi)/2 = 227,400 must be satisfied by this augmented fuel supply; the required fuel
supply (DE = SE) fuel supply leads to a natural uranium resource use of R(MtonneU) = 57 (note
that as of 2000, proven uranium reserves extractable at UCMM($/kgU) =130 amounted to R(130) ~
16 Mtonne).
For a fuel burn-up of BU = 50 MWtd/kg(IHM), the above conditions applied to a once-through
LWR fuel cycle would create an SNF inventory of MSNF(tonne) = 4,742,400 (YM = 68 Yucca
Mountain statuary inventories) containing xPu*MSNF(tonnePu) = 47,400(total) or
xPu*fPu*MSNF(tonnePu) = 29,000(fissile), for xPu = 0.01 and fPuf = 0.70. Fissioning this SNF
plutonium would relieve the uranium resource requirement by a factor of xPu* fPuf *a/(BU/dpy) =
0.14, reducing the natural uranium requirement to R = 49 MtonneU.
52
Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-4)
Clearly, fuel cycles more innovative than once-through
and/or plutonium recycle in LWRs will be required,
unless both the economics and the public would accept
approximately one YM/yr, fuel resource extensions
permitting:
 238U 239Pu conversion/burning in breeder reactors if
uranium prices at the required level of resource utilization
dictate; and
 Advanced fuel cycles that reduce waste volume and
toxicity while enhancing recourse utilization (e.g., ADS or
FR transmutation; deep-burn GCRs ).
53
Possible Growth Scenario for Nuclear Energy(a)
Generation-IV Concepts(b)
 LFR: lead-alloy-cooled
fast reactor;
 SFR: sodium-cooled fast
reactor;
 MSR: Molten-salt-cooled
reactor;
 SCWR: supercriticalwater-cooled reactor;
 GFR: gas-cooled fast
reactor;
VHTR: very hightemperature gas-cooled
reactor.
N. E. Toderas, “What Should Our Future Nuclear Strategy Be?,” Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. On the Next
Generation of Nuclear Power Technology, MIT report MIT-AP-CP-002 (October 25-26, 1993).
(b) Nuclear News, 23 (November 2002).
(a)
54
Generation-IV Concepts Continues
the Evolution of Nuclear Energy
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Generation I
 Shippingport
Generation II
Generation III
 Dresden, Fermi I  LWRs (PWR, BWR)
Magnox
 ABWR
 CANDU
 System 80+
VVER, RBMK
AP600
EPR
Generation-IV Concepts
 LFR: lead-alloy-cooled fast  SCWR: supercritical-waterreactor;
cooled reactor;
 SFR: sodium-cooled fast
reactor;
 MSR: Molten-salt-cooled
reactor;
Generation III+
Generation
Near-Term
IV
Deployment of
Evolutionary  Economic
Designs With  Enhanced Safety
Improved
Minimal Waste
Economics
Proliferation
Resistant
 GFR: gas-cooled fast reactor;
VHTR: very high-temperature
gas-cooled reactor.
55
Possible Nuclear Fuel Cycles: Once-through (OT/LWR);
Plutonium Recycle in LWRs (MOX/LWR); and
Advanced Actinide/LLFP-Burning FSB
URANIUM
MINING AND
MILLING
UF6
Natural U
UF6
Rec yc led
Uranium
(RU)
REPROCESSING
Plutonium
HWL from
Reproce ss ing
LLFP, ACTINIDE
SEPARATIONS/
FABRICATION
DEPLETED
URANIUM
(DU)
ENRICHMENT
CONVERSION
Enric he d
UF6
MOX
FABRICATION
MOX Fue l
Ass e mblie s
Spe nt Fue l
LLFP
Enric he d
UF6
FABRICATION
REACTOR(s)
(NPPs + FSBs) (a)
All Ac tinide s
HLW
(Le ss LLFPs ,
Actinides )
Spe nt Fue l
Once -through (OT/LWR)
Clos ed cycle (MOX/LWR)
SPENT FUEL
DISPOSAL
HLW
DISPOSAL
ADS
DU
FSB
HLW
IFR
=
=
=
=
=
LLFP
LMR
LW R
MOX
NPP
OT
RU
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
SCNES
Accelerator-Driv en System
Depleted Uranium
Fast-Spectrum Burner (IFR/LMR or ADS)
High-Level W aste (fission products, actinides)
Integral Fast Reactor
135
126
107
99
93
79
Zr, Tc, Pd, Sn, Cs)
Long-LivedFission Products ( Se,
Liquid-Metal (cooled) Reactor
Light-W ater Reactor
(U, Pu) O2
Nuclear Power Plant
Once-Through
Recycled Uranium
(a) ma y b e a syste m o f NPP sup po rte d b y fast-sp ectru m bu rne rs (FSBs)
56
Taxonomy of Methodologies for Assessment of
Proliferation Resistance(a)
• ZERO MEAS.
ERRORS
FOR DRY CAST:
ENVIRON.
• ACCESS DELAY
• HEAVY
• CLEAR SIGNIT.
MOVING EQUIP.
• MIN. ACTIVITY
• MASSIVE
CONTAINER
FOR SNF:
MATERIAL
FORM
• DILUTION
•SIZE, MASS
• CHEM FORM
• RAD. FIELD
DISTINCTIVE
SIGNITURE
• RAD. HAZARD
• COMPLEX
CHEM.
• DEGRADED
PROPERTIES
ACCESS.
OBSERV.
• ITEM ACCT.
MC&A
UTILITY
AUDITS
INTSTUTIONAL (EXTRINSIC)
• PERIODIC
INTRINSIC
• SITE ACCESS
RESISTANCE
PERIMETER
INTRUSION
NATL.
• PRO. FORCE
INTL.
OBSERV. UTILITY
INSTITUTIONAL
PHYSICAL
PROTECT.
ACCESS.
INTRINSIC
MEASURES / FEATURES
BARRIERS
MATL. FORM ENVIR. MC&A PHYS. PROT.
PROLIFERATION
RESISTANCES FOR
NFC STAGE npr
KRAKOWSKI, R. A. (2001a), “ Review of Approaches for Quantitative Assessment of Risks of and
Resistance to Nuclear Proliferation form the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Los Alamos National
Laboratory document LA-UR-01-169 (January 12, 2001).
(a)
57