Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development

H-Holger Rogner
Head, Planning & Economic Studies Section (PESS) Department of Nuclear Energy

IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency

Nuclear Power & Sustainable Development A brief review

CSD-9 in 2001 and WSSD (Rio+10) in 2001
Exhaustive debate Both side presented their arguments Agreement to disagree on nuclears role in sustainable development Unanimous agreement that choice belongs to countries
IAEA

Contra: Nuclear & Sustainability

No long-term solution to waste Nuclear weapons proliferation & security
Safety: nuclear risks are excessive

WIPP

Transboundary consequences, decommissioning & transport

Too expensive
IAEA

Pro: Nuclear & Sustainability

Brundtland1) about keeping options open Expands electricity supplies (connecting the unconnected) Reduces harmful emissions

Puts uranium to productive use Increases human & technological capital

Ahead in internalising externalities
1)

IAEA development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

Economics Nuclear power

Advantages
Nuclear power plants are cheap to operate Stable & predictable generating costs Long life time Supply security (insurance premium) Low external costs (so far no credit applied)
IAEA

But
High upfront capital costs can be difficult to finance Sensitive to interest rates Long lead times (planning, construction, etc) Long payback periods Regulatory/policy risks Market risks

Overnight costs (OC) for 1 000 MWe generating capacity

CSP PV

Bio
Geo Wind

Hydro
Gas Nuclear

Coal CCS
Coal 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Source: NEA/IEA, 2010

IAEA

Billion US$

Range of levelized generating costs of new electricity generating capacities

Geothermal

Biomass
Hydro - small scale Hydro - large scale Solar Thermal Solar PV - stand alone
459 324 935 616

Solar PV
Wind (offshore) Wind (onshore) Gas Coal (CCS)

Coal
Nuclear

IAEA

50

100

150

200

250

300

US$/MWh

Source: NEA/IEA, 2010

Typical nuclear electricity generation cost breakdown

Decommissioning 1-5%

O&M 20%

5% Uranium 1% Conversion

Investment 60%

Fuel cycle 20%

6% Enrichment

3% Fuel fabrication

IAEA
5% Back-end activities
Source: NEA

Cost structures of different generating options

100% 90% 80%

70%
60% Uranium

50%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Fuel
O&M Capital

IAEA

Nuclear

Coal

Gas CCGT

Impact of a doubling of resource prices on generating costs

100
90 80 70 60

US$/MWh

50
40 30 20 10

IAEA

Nuclear

Coal

Gas

Impact of CO2 penalty on competitiveness of nuclear power

Comparative Generating Costs Based on Low Discount Rate US cents per kWh
9 8 7
6

nuclear high nuclear low

5 4 3 2 1 0

CCGT

Coal steam

IGCC

Source: IEA, 2006

No carbon price Carbon price $20/tCO2

Carbon price $10/tCO2 Carbon price $30/tCO2

A relatively modest carbon penalty would significantly improve the IAEA ability of nuclear to compete against gas & coal

Externalities of different electricity generating options

Air pollution (PM10) and other impacts

HIGH

Biomass technologies

Existing coal technologies

no gas cleaning

Nuclear power
LOW

Natural gas technologies

New coal technologies

Wind

IAEA

LOW

Greenhouse gas impacts

HIGH
Source: EU-EUR 20198, 2003

Environment Nuclear power

Advantages
Low pollution emissions Small land requirements Small fuel & waste volumes Wastes are managed Proven intermediary storage
IAEA

But No final waste repository in operation High toxicity Needs to be isolated for long time periods Potential burden to future generations

Nuclear Fuel: Small volumes, high energy contents

1 pellet produces the energy of 1.5 tonnes of coal Each pellet produces 5000 kWh

IAEA

Geological nuclear waste disposal

NATURAL BARRIERS Stable rock around the repository Stable groundwater in the rocks Retention, dispersion and dilution processes in the rock Dispersion and dilution processes in the biosphere

Seals Access shafts or tunnels

Waste

Container

Buffer or backfill

ENGINEERED BARRIERS Solid waste material Waste containers Buffer and backfill materials Seals Disposal tunnels or caverns

IAEA

Industrial waste per year per capita in France

Industrial waste 2,500 kg

Nuclear waste < 1 kg

Long-lived waste < 100 g

10 g of which are HLW

IAEA
Source: Areva

Radio-toxicity of spent nuclear fuel

Relative radiotoxicity

Spent fuel (Pu + MA + FP)

Partitioning & Natural uranium ore transmutation

FP MA + FP

Time (years)

IAEA

Time lines..
INNOVATION:
Relative radiotoxicity
Spent fuel (Pu + MA + FP)

Natural uranium ore FP MA + FP

Burning of HLW in Fast Reactor in Reducing Radio Toxicity

Plutonium and minor actinides are responsible for most of the long term hazards

Time (years)

IAEA

Wastes in fuel preparation and plant operation

Million tonnes per GWe yearly
0.5 Flue gas desulphurization 0.4

Ash
Gas sweetening Radioactive (HLW)

0.3
0.2 0.1 0 Coal Oil Natural gas
Source: IAEA, 1997

Toxic materials

Wood

Nuclear

Solar PV

IAEA

Mitigation Role of nuclear power

Life cycle GHG emissions of different electricity generating options
1 800 1 600
[8]

180 160
Standard deviation Mean

[4]

1 400

gCO2-eq per kWh

1 200 1 000 800 600 400

[10]

gCO2-eq per kWh

[12]

140
120 100 80 60 40 20
[16]

Min - Max [sample size]

[8] [13]

[16]

[8]

[15]

[15]

200

lignite

coal

oil

gas

CCS

hydro nuclear wind solar PV

biomass

storage

Nuclear power: Very low lifetime GHG emissions make IAEA technology a potent climate change mitigation option the

Global CO2 emissions from electricity generation and emissions avoided by hydro, nuclear & renewables
18 16 14

Non-hydro renewables avoided emissions

Nuclear avoided emissions

Hydro avoided emissions Electricity generation (actual)

12
10 8 6 4

2
0

1970 IAEA

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Source: IAEA calculations based on IEA data

Safety Nuclear power

Reality
Safety is an integral part of plant design & operation Nuclear power has an excellent safety record Lessons learned from past accidents Safety culture, peer reviews & best practices No room for complacency
IAEA

Perception
Nuclear power is dangerous It can never be made safe Safe is not safe enough Nuclear plants are atomic bombs No public acceptance

Nuclear power safety

Safety is a dynamic concept

Upgrading of older generation reactors & life time extensions Advanced reactor designs with inherent safety features
The impact of these ongoing efforts are:

Improved availability worldwide

Lower radiation doses to plant personnel and fewer unplanned stoppages

IAEA

Unplanned scrams per 7000 hours critical

Unplanned scrams per 7000 hours critical
2 1.8

1.6
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (369) (387) (400) (418) (413) (417) (419) (405) (428) (428) (429) (425) (418) (420) (425)
(in brackets) = units reporting

IAEA

Source: WANO 2010 Performance Indicators

Do not drive into the future by looking in the rear view mirror:
Yesterdays technology is not tomorrow's
Innovation ongoing With each new investment cycle technology tends to get better
IAEA

Geopolitical compatibility:
Ideally, energy sources should be evenly distributed geographically, allow for secure supplies and pose no threat to the security of other countries

IAEA

Uranium reach of different fuel cycles

Total conventional resources and phosphates Total conventional resources
470 000 56 000 1 700

72 000

9 000 300

Identified resources
86

24 000 3 000

10

100

1 000

10 000

100 000

1 000 000

Years
Once through fuel cycles (LWR)

IAEA

Pure fast reactor fuel cycle with Pu reprocessing

Pure fast reactor fuel cycle with U recycling and all actinides

Nuclear weapons proliferation:

The genie is out of the bottle Preventing the misuse of nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes needs special attention

It is an area where IAEA has a strict mandate Non-proliferation is a political problem

NPT regimes needs strengthening
IAEA

Post Fukushima: Unchanged drivers behind the renaissance in the interest in nuclear power
Global energy demand is set to grow Nuclear power expands supply options Environmental pressures are rising Nuclear power has low life-cycle GHG emissions

Energy supply security back on the political agenda Nuclear power contributes to energy security
Reliable base load electricity at predictable and affordable costs for meeting MDGs Nuclear power offers stable and predictable generation costs based on low resource costs
IAEA

Why Nuclear Power?

There is no technology without wastes and risks

Nuclear waste volumes are small and manageable

On factual balance, nuclear compares well with alternatives

It is readily available at large scale Nuclear power alone is not the silver bullet for mitigating climate change and sustainable energy development but for sure it can be an integral part of any solution
IAEA

One size does not fit all

Countries differ with respect to
energy demand growth alternatives financing options weighing/preferences
accident risks (nuclear, mining, oil spills, LNG), cheap electricity, air pollution, jobs, import dependence, climate change

All countries use a mix. All are different. Local conditions determine the optimal supply and technology mix. IAEA

IAEA

IAEA

atoms for peace.