What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish to Reduce CO2

What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish to Reduce CO2

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 CO 2 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 Vein Deposits 1.E-01 Fossil Placers, Sandstones 1.E+00 Volcanic Deposits 1.E+01 Black Shales 1.E+02 Average Crust Granites Shales, Phosphates 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, 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. (a) 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) 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 FR MA MOX

LWR LWR MA MOX LWR MA MA TRU MA TRU LWR FR ADS HLW ADS HLW ADS HLW ADS HLW HLW Repository HLW 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 (a) 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). 9 Sustainability Viewed As a Three-Legged Stool and Connected to the Four Canonical Issues Characterizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC) ECONOMICS (incl. Resources) SOCIETY ECOLOGY ECONOMY SUSTAINABILITY WASTE SAFETY (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 CO 2 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 plus noncommercial energy History 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 IS92a Scenario 15 per-capita GDP, GDP/N 10 5 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

2020 2040 2060 2080 Carbon Intensity, RC/PE(kgC/GJ) 15 10 5 0 1900 History 20 20 Energy Intensity, PE/GDP 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 IS92a Scenario 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) 2000 History 20 25 30 25 1980 9 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--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) K. Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development, Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000). (a) 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; T = 0.4 K from 1765 to 1990.T = 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) K. Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development, Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000). (a) 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 K. Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development, Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000). (a) 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% Commercial 2 28% 1.5 15.5% 13.4% 1 19.5% 0.5 Residential Industry Energy Sector 30% 20.6 0 % 1960 1965 Transport 31% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Electricity 1995 TIME (a) IEA (1998), Mapping the Energy Future: Energy Modelling and Climate Change Policy, IEA Energy and Environment Policy Analysis Series. 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 (a) 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) 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 Percent CO 2 Avoided Globally 9 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) 300 Clean Coal? Coal ? 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% 800 97 GWe Generation, TWeh; Capacity Factor, %*10 700 Capacity Factor 600 99 GWe 90 GWe 500 400 300 200 100 0 1970 Capacity Generation 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) (A) (B) 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) Spain Korea France Primary Energy and Country as C oa l N uc l G

as C oa l Nu cl G as C oa l Nu cl G as C oa l N uc l G G as C oa l N uc l 0 Canada OECD/NEA, 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) ECONOMICS (incl. Resources) SOCIETY ECOLOGY ECONOMY SUSTAINABILITY WASTE SAFETY (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 (Extraction) Environment Backstop Technologies NUCLEAR FUEL-CYCLE PARAMETERS REGIONAL PRICES WORLD

(FOSSIL) PRICES REGIONAL SUPPLY NUCLEAR ENERGY MODEL Economics Fuel-Cycle Mix Material Flows Proliferation Intl Constraints GLOBAL SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ENERGY MIX AND INTENSITY GHG EMISSIONS AND ACCUMULATIONS NUCLEAR MATERIAL INVENTORIES AND FLOWS Reactor Reprocessing Fuel Fabrication Spent Fuel 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 Millions 12,000 OECD REF Population ROW 10,000 per-capita GDP US$/cap. 70,000

OECD REF ROW 60,000 8,000 50,000 40,000 6,000 30,000 20,000 4,000 10,000 0 1990 2,000 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095 Year 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Year GDP 1012 US$ 180

160 140 OECD REF ROW 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095 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 ar e l c Nu IAEA/MV (a) 500 IAEA/LV R. A. Krakowski and R. Wilson, Chapter 7, R. G. Watts(ed.), Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2

Stabilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (2002). Solids 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 OX BA U/B O(f M OX IAEA/HV =0 .0 1500 fM NE Demand, GWe yr/yr .3) BAU/BO Basis Scenario IAEA/MV, NEA-I (a)

NEA-III 500 IAEA/IV R. A. Krakowski and R. Wilson, Chapter 7, R. G. Watts(ed.), Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2 Stabilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (2002). (b) OECD/NEA, Nuclear Power and Climate Change, (April 1998). (c) IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities, (1997). NEA-II 0 1975 2000 2025 2050 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 /100 WO 10 W/10 0 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 NE Demand, NE(GWe yr/yr) 10000 f f UTC Variations TUTC = 40 yr t o = 2005 0.3 0.4 0.5 V A/H IAE V A/M IAE 1000 0.75 BO) AU/ B ( 1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 IA E A /LV 100 BAU 3.0( ) /PO 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,f NE,EE 60 Absolute Values of Key Parameters Percent Changes in 2095 r = 0.04 1/yr fNE Total global plutonium, MPu(ktonne) 15.3 40 CO2 linear tax rate, CTAX($/tonneC/15yr) M/10 R fEE 20 0 W -20 T MGNP(PV)*100 0 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 PRI CO2 emission rate, RCO2(GtonneC/yr) 19.8 R -40 -60 M/10 NE fraction of final energy, fNE 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 RC 5 0 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 30 40 50 2100 Year 36 Summary of Relative Sensitivities of Key Metrics in Year 2095 to Imposition of (Linear) CO2 Taxes R,W,PRI,GNP*100,f NE,EECTAX 80 M CTAX($/tonneC/yr) Variations Percent Changes in 2095

r = 0.04 1/yr 60 Absolute Values of Key Parameters CTAX 40 fNE 20 fEE CO2 linear tax rate, CTAX($/tonneC/15yr) 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 -40 1632. W Average global temperature rise, DT(K) 2.6 T CO2 emission rate, RCO2(GtonneC/yr) 19.8 GNP*100 -60 -80 Total global plutonium, MPu(ktonne) 15.3 R 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 BAU (IIASA/WEC B) ED (IIASA/WEC C) NO CTAX Nuclear Scenarios BO Demand-Supply BAU-BO Scenarios Notes: Demand Scenarios: Nuclear Scenarios: IIASA/WEC B: IIASA/WEC C: PO CTAX 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 (a) 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). 38 Scenario Analysis: Primary Energy Demand BAU-BO

EJ /Year 1,400 1,200 ROW R EF OEC D 1,200 1,000 1,000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 BAU-PO EJ /Year 1,400 Scenario B A U-B O 2065 2080 2095 0 1990 Sce nar io B A U-PO R OW R EF O EC D 2005 2020

2035 Ye ar ED-BO EJ /Yea r 1,400 1,200 1,000 ROW R EF OEC D 1,200 1,000 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 2005 2020 2035 2050 Ye ar 2065 2080 2095 2065 2080 2095 ED-PO EJ /Year 1,400 Sc enario E D -B O 800 0 1990 2050 Year

2065 2080 2095 0 1990 Scenario E D-PO R OW R EF OEC D 2005 2020 2035 2050 Year 39 Scenario Analysis: Global Primary, Secondary, Final and Energy Demands 1,200 EJ /Ye a r 1,400 BAU-BO EJ /Ye a r 1,400 Sc enar io B A U-B O FE SE PE 1,200 1,000 1,000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2050 Ye a r 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 ED-BO EJ /Ye a r 1,400 1,200 2040 SE 1,000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2050 Ye a r SE 2020 PE

2030 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 0 2000 2040 2050 Ye a r 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2070 2080 2090 2100 ED-PO Sc e nar io E D -PO 1,200 PE 1,000 0 2000 FE EJ /Ye ar 1,400 Sc e nar io E D -B O FE 0 2000 BAU-PO Sc enar io B AU-PO

FE 2010 2020 SE 2030 PE 2040 2050 Ye a r 2060 40 Scenario Analysis: Global Primary Energy Mix % of Total PE 100% % of Total PE 100% BAU-BO BAU-PO LEGEND 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% Renewables 60% 60% Nuclear 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30%

20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 Year ED-BO % of T ot al P E 100% 2095 0% 1990 Gas Oil 2005 2020 % of Total PE 100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

2050 2065 2080 2095 Year 90% ED-PO 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 1990 Solids 10% 2005 2020 2035 Year 2050 2065 2080 2095 0% 1990 2005 2020 2035 Year 41 Scenario Analysis: Global Electrical Energy Mix % of Elec. Gen.

100% BAU-BO % of Elec. Gen. 100% BAU-PO LEGEND 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% Renewables 60% 60% Nuclear 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

Year % of Elec. Gen. 100% 0% 1990 ED-BO 90% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 2020 2035 2050 Year Oil 2005 2020 % of Elec. Gen. 100% 80% 2005 Gas 2035 2050 2065

2080 2095 2050 2065 2080 2095 Year 90% 0% 1990 Solids 2065 2080 2095 0% 1990 ERB ED-PO 2005 2020 2035 Year 42 Scenario Analysis: Global Fossil Fuel Consumption MTOE/Year GTOE/yr 25,000 25 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 20,000 BAU-BO BAU-PO ED-BO ED-PO 15,000 BAU-PO BAU-BO 10,000 ED-PO ED-BO 5,000 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2070 2080 2090 2100 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 $/GJ $/GJ 16 14 12 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Year

Year ED-PO BAU-BO BAU-PO ED-BO ED-PO 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 TWh/Year TWeh/yr 50,000 45,000 BAU-BO ED-BO 40,000 ED-BO 35,000 30,000 25,000 BAU-BO

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2000 GW(e) 8,000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Year GWe 7,000 2050 BAU-BO ED-BO 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, CO 2-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, CO 2 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 CO 2 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 fPu = 0.50 fission boost from non-235U fissions, 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) PRESENT/NEAR FUTURE BRIDGE TO SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FUTURE Generation-IV Concepts(b) [Maintain (growing) market share in technologically advanced regions (OECD, China, Russia, India)] SECURE EXISTING PLANTS (LWRS) License renewal - Pressure-vessel life - small component replacement Enhanced O&M cost effectiveness - NDT, monitoring, robotics - Chemistry control - waste/dose reduction - validated reliability Minimize challenge to Safety Systems EVOLUTIONARY LWRs compete safer LMRs - proliferation resistent metal fuels - actinide burning MHTGRs - high-BU particle fuels - high- TH direct cycle - process-heat applications

(other) Novel concepts - Thorium cycle - IACS/SCNES (no actinides, LLFPs to disposal) economic and safer optimal mix of passive and active Safety Systems meet lifecycle requirements (close fuel cycle) Address diseconomies-of-scale issues ~600 MWe and expandable - grid matching - collability (LOCA) - FP inventories (many versus few sites) - reduced capital costs - modularity (factory construction) - district heating ( smaller reactors) - deployment in DCs 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. (a) 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). 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 CANDU VVER, RBMK ABWR System 80+ 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 CONVERSION UF6 Recycled Uranium (RU) REPROCESSING HWL from Reprocessing LLFP, ACTINIDE SEPARATIONS/ FABRICATION DEPLETED URANIUM (DU)

ENRICHMENT Plutonium FABRICATION REACTOR(s) (NPPs + FSBs) (a) All Actinides HLW (Less LLFPs, Actinides) Spent Fuel Once-through (OT/LWR) Closed cycle (MOX/LWR) HLW DISPOSAL SPENT FUEL DISPOSAL ADS DU FSB HLW IFR LLFP LMR LWR MOX NPP OT RU Enriched UF6 MOX FABRICATION MOX Fuel Assemblies Spent Fuel LLFP Enriched UF6 = = = = = = = = = = = = SCNES

Accelerator-Driven System Depleted Uranium Fast-Spectrum Burner (IFR/LMR or ADS) High-Level Waste (fission products, actinides) Integral Fast Reactor 79 93 99 107 126 135 Long-LivedFission Products ( Se, Zr, Tc, Pd, Sn, Cs) Liquid-Metal (cooled) Reactor Light-Water Reactor (U, Pu) O2 Nuclear Power Plant Once-Through Recycled Uranium (a) may be a system of NPP supported by fast-spectrum burners (FSBs) 56 Taxonomy of Methodologies for Assessment of Proliferation Resistance(a) PROLIFERATION ITEM ACCT. 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. MATL. FORM ENVIR. MC&A PHYS. PROT. MC&A

OBSERV. AUDITS UTILITY PERIODIC INTSTUTIONAL (EXTRINSIC) SITE ACCESS INTRINSIC PERIMETER INTRUSION RESISTANCE PRO. FORCE INTL. OBSERV. UTILITY INSTITUTIONAL PHYSICAL PROTECT. ACCESS. INTRINSIC MEASURES / FEATURES BARRIERS NATL. RESISTANCES FOR NFC STAGE npr (a) 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). 57

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Section 2.3: The Condorcet Method

    Section 2.3: The Condorcet Method

    The Condorcet Winner. Using this method, the winner is the candidate that wins all of the pairwise elections it is involved in. In our example, since Soda beat Milk and Soda beat Juice, Soda is the . Condorcet winner. Polling...
  • The Actuarial Profession

    The Actuarial Profession

    It's hard to say. Some states with only a handful of actuaries are always trying to hire someone. With one examination passed and a B.A. degree, an actuary may earn a starting salary of $41,000 to $53,000 (according to D.W....
  • Vývoj virulence - web.natur.cuni.cz

    Vývoj virulence - web.natur.cuni.cz

    Times New Roman Arial WP Greek Century Default Design Corel Presentations 9 Drawing Fotografie MS Photo Editor 3.0 Graf programu Microsoft Graph 2000 Evoluce parasitů Obsah Obsah Parazitismus Dva aspekty vymezení parazitů Problémy s definicí parazitismu Prezentace aplikace PowerPoint Rozšíření...
  • Distribution in the Fashion Industry - ctaeir.org

    Distribution in the Fashion Industry - ctaeir.org

    Distribution in the Fashion Industry Fashion Marketing Place Place, or distribution channel, is the method for making your product available to the consumer.
  • Chapter 3 Alkenes and Alkynes

    Chapter 3 Alkenes and Alkynes

    a. propene . b. 4-methylcyclohexene. 3.7b Addition of Water (Hydration)If an acid catalyst is present, water adds to alkenes to form alcohol. ... is a structure with maximum energy for a particular reaction step. Activation energy, E. a, is the...
  • KEMA Consulting CIGRE C5 Workshop 21-23 September 2003,

    KEMA Consulting CIGRE C5 Workshop 21-23 September 2003,

    [email protected] KEMA Consulting Russian power industry is the largest in Europe and fourth largest in the World by installed capacity and output Despite some reorganisation of the sector in 1992, Russian power industry essentially retained monopolistic vertically integrated structure Newly...
  • Midway Airfield - Federal Aviation Administration

    Midway Airfield - Federal Aviation Administration

    Rehabilitate Rwy 6/24 edge lights, twy edge lights, marking, signage (incl apn edge reflectors, twy trenching, fixtures, cable, isolation transformer), (PAPI repl by ANI) The lights/signs & navaids are the old navy equipment. The equipment is old, corroded and unreliable...
  • Linking the past to the Present - Central Bucks School District

    Linking the past to the Present - Central Bucks School District

    2. Research six aspects of ancient Greek culture and think of an aspect of our culture which we have developed as a result of the Greek idea. 3. Each of your six connection slides should include a picture of the...