t f a
play

T F A MAPPING GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXPANSION R Sharon Squassoni D - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 09, 2024 •441 likes •722 views

T F A MAPPING GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXPANSION R Sharon Squassoni D Senior Associate November 5, 2007 With Georgina Jones and Nima Gerami, research assistants Nuclear Energy Today T F A 16% global electricity demand 31 countries

  1. T F A MAPPING GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXPANSION R Sharon Squassoni D Senior Associate November 5, 2007 With Georgina Jones and Nima Gerami, research assistants

  2. Nuclear Energy Today T F A • 16% global electricity demand • 31 countries operating 439 reactors (371 R GW) • 11 countries with 50 million SWU D enrichment • 5 countries separating plutonium commercially • 0 countries with geologic repositories for nuclear waste

  3. I: Reactor Capacities, 2007* T (Gigawatts electric, GWe) F 22 22 A 13 13 OECD 19 19 EUROPE 130 UNITED 17 17 STATES JAPAN 99 9 48 R 5 0.5 0.5 4 1 D 2 2 1 *See separate Appendix for details, assumptions, and data for this and other maps.

  4. T II: States Enriching Uranium, 2007 F A R D

  5. T III: States Reprocessing Spent Fuel, 2007 F A R D

  6. Nuclear Energy T Enthusiasm F • Since 2005, over 20 states have A announced new plans for nuclear power • Perceived as “clean and green” R • Greater energy security (?) • But what about proliferation? D (as well as cost, safety, waste?)

  7. Does Geography Matter? T F • Nuclear energy increasingly attractive to “nuclear neophytes” – those without nuclear power now. A • 13 states in Middle East want nuclear R • Has Iran’s nuclear program influenced? • Energy security has geographic underpinnings D • To have any impact on climate change, it matters where nuclear energy grows (need to offset greatest potential growth in carbon emissions as in India, China)

  8. Proliferation and Geography T F • When do reactors spur enrichment and reprocessing also? A • Efforts to restrict technology transfer are foundering • More states now interested in such capabilities R • Nuclear enthusiasm outstripping rules and institutions for managing D • Perennial issues: developing scientific and technological base and security & control of nuclear material

  9. Nuclear Expansion Scenarios * T F • Scenario I: Meeting demand in 2030 (EIA) • Scenario II: Planning supply for 2030 A • Scenario III: Climate change “requirements” in 2050 R a. One nuclear wedge (Pacala, Socolow) b. MIT 1500 GW D c. Stern Report (2-6 “wedges”) * See following slides and separate Appendix for details of scenarios

  10. Scenario I: Meeting Demand T in 2030 F • Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections look at GDP growth, energy demand, A end-use sector, electricity supply, with nuclear as share R • Limitations D – Nuclear energy projections done “off-line” – Regional estimates (with a few country-specific ones) – Wildcards = Retirements, Western Europe

  11. Scenario II: Planning Supply T for 2030 F • This scenario takes at face value states’ A announced plans for nuclear development. Wild optimism? R • Strong growth in Asia (India, China) • New nuclear reactor states D • Possibly new enrichers, reprocessers?

  12. T IV: Where Will Nuclear Energy Grow? F A R D

  13. V: A Closer Look at “New” Nuclear States T Proposals as of 2007 F A R D

  14. Scenario III: Global Climate Change, T 2050 F From tripling to quadrupling capacities A a. 1 Gigaton of carbon emissions reduction (Pacala-Socolow “wedge”) = + 700 GWe for R a total of 1070 GWe reactor capacity b. 1500 GWe = MIT study high scenario D c. 2-6 Gigatons of carbon emissions reduction (Stern Report) = 1500-4500 GWe

  15. VI: Reactor Capacities for all Scenarios* T (Gigawatts electric, GWe) F 22 22 5 A 13 13 4 19 19 OECD 3 EUROPE 130 0.5 0.5 4 1 JAPAN UNITED 8 1 1 1 1 48 5 STATES 18 18 99 9 R 3 6 1 5 1 5 1 0.5 0.5 4 2 1 9 4 8 4 D 3 6 2 KEY: Current Capacity 6 I. 2030 – EIA Forecast 2 1 II. 2030 – Proposed Expansion 1 II. 2030 – Proposed New Capacity III.b. 2050 – MIT Expansion III.b. 2050 – MIT New Capacity *New nuclear capacities (red, green dots) not necessarily to scale; consult Appendix for data.

  16. VII: A Closer Look at New Nuclear T Reactors – Scenarios II and III (GWe) F 5 A 4 3 0.5 0.5 4 1 8 1 1 1 1 5 R 3 1 6 5 1 1 2 4 9 8 4 D 3 6 6 1 KEY: II. 2030 – Proposed New Capacity III.b. 2050 – MIT Expansion III.b. 2050 – MIT New Capacity

  17. Enrichment Implications * T F 250 55 225 200 A 200 44 M illions SW U / Year Number of Plants 150 150 33 R 72-108 100 22 D 52 40-50 50 11 0 0 2007 Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III: Scenario III: Scenario III: a. Wedge b. MIT c. Stern Scenario *See separate Appendix for details. Numbers are rough approximation.

  18. Variables Affecting T Enrichment Projections F • 90% operating power reactors currently use LEU A • Assumptions about reactor technologies and the fuel cycle (open or closed) matter a lot in projections R • Example: • 1500 GWe LWRs = 225 million SWU/year D • 1500 GWe with MOX reactors (1 recycle) = 189 million SWU/year • 1500 GWe with fast, thermal reactors: 123 million SWU/year

  19. VIII: Enrichment Capacities for all Scenarios T (million SWU/year) F TENEX 22 A 9 URENCO 8.1 3 6 EURODIF 10.8 1 JNFL USEC 8 1 1 CNNC 1 R 8 1 6 8 D 1 RESENDE 0.12 KEY: 6 Current Capacity 3 I. 2030 - EIA Forecast 0.5 0.5 II. 2030 – Proposed Expansion II. 2030 – Proposed New Capacity III.b. 2050 - MIT Expansion III.b. 2050 - MIT New Capacity

  20. Spent Fuel: How to Handle? T F • Reactor expansion raises questions about how to handle spent fuel. Basic options are storage vs. A reprocessing; no way to predict • National policies vs. international norms R • Existing storage capacities (S. Korea?) • Fuel cycle approaches (once-through, one recycle, fast D reactors?) • New technologies (reactors & recycle) • Cost • “GNEP Factor”

  21. Storage Capacities T F A R • 1 GWe LWR produces 20 MT spent uranium oxide fuel/yr • Scenario II : Scenario II : 700 GWe will require 14 Yuccas (NRDC)* D • Scenario III a: Scenario III a: 1000 GWe will require a Yucca every 3.5 years (or, 20 Yuccas; MIT ) • Scenario III b: Scenario III b: 1500 GWe ~ 30 Yuccas * Assuming Yucca can only hold 70,000 MT

  22. Spent Fuel Build-Up? T F 8 countries now = 80% of global reactor capacity A • Of 8, half don’t reprocess: US, Canada, Ukraine and South Korea … R • All but Canada are reconsidering D By 2050, the only countries with comparably-sized fuel cycles will be China and India, both of which will reprocess Other states won’t face a storage shortage

  23. T Fuel Cycles Dictate Waste F Scenario IIIb: 1500 G Scen ario IIIb: 1500 GWe* [DRAFT DATA] e* [DRAFT DATA] • Once-through (no reprocessing) A ~30,000 MTIHM/yr spent fuel = 30 Yuccas** • Thermal reactors with one MOX recycle R ~25,000 MTIHM/yr uranium oxide is reprocessed (plus separated uranium, high-level waste in glass, etc) D = 22 Yuccas (?) and 15 La Hagues • Balanced cycle with fast and thermal reactors ~16,000 MTIHM/yr uranium oxide and 4,700 MTIHM of FR fuel is reprocessed leaving pyroprocessing waste, etc =14 Yuccas (?) & 10 La-Hague-sized pyroprocessing plants *est. burn-up = 50 GWd/MTIHM (millions tons initial heavy metal) ** Assuming Yucca can only hold 70,000 tons

  24. IX: States Reprocessing? T F A R D

  25. Summary T • Expansion plans are unrealistic F • Proliferation concerns are real A – Reactors require infrastructure, expertise, some of which can be applied to a nuclear R weapons program – Enrichment, reprocessing not yet off the D table – Real expansion will entail massive flows of sensitive material

  26. Summary T • Even if nuclear power expansion fizzles, F some states may go ahead with plans A • Few financial barriers to enrichment ($2 B per plant; 5 years construction for R URENCO) • Cost & waste are still issues for D reprocessing. • Second-tier nuclear suppliers -- China, India?

  27. Additional Questions T F 1. Retirements of reactors a wild card after 2030 2. Forecasts assume light water reactors. What about a) PHWR exports from India, China, A Canada?; and b) lower enrichment requirements if MOX fuel cycle or fast reactor with actinide R recycling pursued. 3. Issue of electricity grids – developing nations may purchase much smaller sized reactors than D planned 4. Uranium enrichment -- not expensive ($1-2B) or long (5 years) to build, but environmental hazards?; wide range of enrichment per 1 GW (1- 1.5M SWU) 5. Western European reactor plans quite variable

Recommend

More recommend