Future Of Nuclear Energy

ME 428 NUCLEAR REACTOR ENGINEERING TERM PROJECT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT METU

FUTURE of NUCLEAR ENERGY

Kürşad YILMAZOĞLU 1296599 Date: 09/06/2009

INTRODUCTION A general sympathy for the expansion of nuclear technology is perceived in almost all leading economies around the world. Some scenarios are being drawn by futurists predicting that; the overall nuclear energy production is going to be doubled or tripled by the year 2050 as well as the introduction of these technologies to some new markets like Middle East & South Asia. Some agendas as Global Energy Partnership 2006 and the joint declaration of the then-presidents of USA and Russia in 2007 are two signs for this foreseen revival.

URANIUM RESERVES One of the major points of nuclear revival is obviously how long uranium or other fissile materials seem to last. Uranium is actually not a trace element; on the contrary it can virtually be unearthed from many parts of the crust, even can be distilled from seawater. Under mean or high (~%5) expansion assumptions, a gap between the demand and the supply is to emerge not so later. However as the demand for uranium increases so does the price of it. That’s to say uranium exploration would become more profitable at that time. Apart from these the cost of the fuel in nuclear reactors constitute but a small portion of the overall operational expenses. Considering all these; a balance exists between the prices and the market demand so resources still offer to meet demand for a rather long period. Another case worth paying attention is the possible long term improvements of the currently researched nuclear fuels as bred plutonium and thorium. Uranium might well be replaced by these ones within the near future at least partially which would naturally decrease the consumption rate of it. Below is a table demonstrating the most abundant uranium reserves of some countries besides the information given about the running reactors at these countries; TABLE 1 Uranium Resources in Selected International Atomic Energy Agency Member States

Country

Uranium Resources (Tons Uranium)

Percentage of

No. of Nuclear

World Resource (%)

Power Reactors (% Electricity)

Countries with major uranium resources but without nuclear power reactors

Australia None

735 000

23.0

Kazakhstan None

530 460

17.0

Namibia None

170 532

5 .0

Niger None

102 227

3.0

Uzbekistan None

79 620

2.5

Mongolia None

46 200

1.5

Countries with uranium resources and nuclear power reactors

USA 104 (20)

345 000

11.0

Canada 20(~12)

333 834

10.5

South Africa 2(5.9)

315 330

10.0

Russian Fed. 30(16)

143 020

4.5

Brazil 2 (4)

86 190

China 9 (1.4)

35 060

3.0 1.1

India 15(~3)

40 980

1.3

Countries with many nuclear power reactors but without significant uranium resources

France 59(78)

No domestic

Germany 18(30)

No domestic

Japan 53(39)

No domestic

Republic of Korea 19(39)

No domestic

NUCLEAR INNOVATION To begin with the innovations achieved in nuclear area; one need to be aware of the general approach of the countries owning this technology. First of all there is not a single country showing willingness to share her experiences about these. After all,” it is this technology by which some countries get able to wipe away its opponents within very short durations”. Hiroshima and Nagazaki are two shameful instances as proof. So what then makes them behave the other way? Actually no one can guarantee the absence of secretly developed technologies or better to say; no doubt there are some examples. On the other hand while these states improve their existing technologies “they don’t want others to suspect them”; so convey some other developments to the others. All of those states are serious about the prevention of proliferation. In reality there are other concerns as well such as to promote lowering carbon emissions in an indirect way, since we all live on the same planet. As a result the innovations presented below might actually be “what they let the others know” in reality.

Keeping the mentions above in mind, there are basically four branches along which advances are undertaken. These belong to light water, heavy water, gas cooled and liquid metal cooled type reactors.

A table is represented below in which the names of these newly introduced reactors, their developers, capacities & country origins are included:

Name

Country

Type

Capacity

Developer

Light-Water Reactors B-500 SKDI Russia

PWR

515 MWe

RRCKI/Hydropress

CAREM-25

Argentina

PWR

27 MWe

CNEA/INVAP

MRX

Japan

PWR

Up to 300 MWth

JAERI

RMWR

Japan

BWR

1,000 MWe

JAERI

SCLWR

Japan

PWR

1,100 MWe

SLP-PWR

France

PWR

600 MWe

University of Tokyo CEA

SMART

ROK

PWR

100 MWe

KAERI

SPWR

Japan

PWR

600 MWe

JAERI

SWR 1000

Germany

BWR

1,000 MWe

Siemens

Heavy-Water Reactors APHWR India

PHWR

200

BARC

CANDU X

PHWR

350 – 1150MWe

AECL

Liquid-Metal Fast Reactors 4S Japan

LMR

50 MWe

CRIEPI

ALMR (PRISM)

USA

LMR

150 MWe

General Electric

BN-800

Russia

LMR

800 MWe

Russian Ministry for

Canada

Atomic Energy

BREST 300

Russia

LMR

300 MWe

RDIPE

DFBR

Japan

LMR

660 MWe

JAPC

EFR

Europe

LMR

1,500 MWe

EU Consortium

Energy Amplifier

Europe

Hybrid LMR/

675 MWe

CERN

LFBR

Japan

Accelerator LMR

625 MWe

JAERI

SAFR

USA

LMR

450 MWe

Rockwell Int./CE

Gas Reactors GT-MHR

USA/Russia

HTGR

286 MWe

General Atomics

HTGR-MHD

Japan

HTGR

860 MWe

JAERI

HTR-Module

Germany

HTGR

80 MWe

Siemens-KWU

PBMR

South Africa

HTGR

110 MWe

ESKOM

ECONOMICS & CLIMATE CHANGE

The latest sharp increases in the oil & natural gas prices as well as the urgent need to reduce the carbon emissions direct states to a shift from fosil fuels into nuclear power. Referring to the table presented at the very above uranium reserves are kept by some certain countries. In other words there are some monopolies over the resources. Thus it is questionable, whether shifting from fosil power plants into nuclear plants can really help a country to strengthen its energy independence. Rather it seems to depend on the own resources of that country. Canada, USA, South Africa etc. are the lucky ones from this perspective while Germany, France or Japan seem to be the losers. Nuclear reactors are expensive to build but relatively cheap to operate. Thus, nuclear power, along with coal, is used to provide “baseload” electricity. (coal is 4–5 cents per kWh; nuclear is 7 cents per kWh) The low cost of nuclear fuel makes this possible. Furthermore any tax added to the oil prices by governments to contract their consumption; would eventually fortify the competitiveness of uranium. A real challenge for states seeking to introduce nuclear power plants to their electricity network is the impact of large generators of to the overall production rate. A general approach about that is “no single

source of electricity should encompass more than 10 percent of total electricity production”. Regarding the situation when a huge capacity nuclear plant is out of operation due to some reason, even the baseload might not be delivered. So some developing countries now consider nuclear power would be better sustained by smaller reactors. Yet the reactors currently for sale range from 600 to 1,600 megawatts (MW), and smaller reactors are still largely in the planning stages.On the other hand from cost point of view, having large capacity generators would decrease the overall cost. That’s to say there is again a kind of controversy between two approaches. This duality may somehow be overcame by integrating the networks of neighbour states such that a typical purchase-or-sell situation would endure. Energy (electricity) production accounts for 41 per cent of the total carbon emissions. Nuclear power production, essentially, is safe from this aspect. Though there are some renewable and clean power production technologies as solar, wind, geothermal etc; they are mainly intermittent sources. Moreover it is impossible to stock them. So nuclear power offers a continuous energy supply unlike the ones stated above. Most of the estimates made to envision the probable carbon savings of nuclear power plants assume that mainly existing coal-powered plants are subjected to be replaced by nuclear alternatives. On the other hand, just as we have pointed earlier, to be benefited of cost reductions; most states envisage to replace the oil and gas powered plants by nuclear ones. To express the situation with a Turkish proverb; they aim to shoot two birds by one shot. As a result we are faced with another duality. For instance China and India both increase the number of coalpowered plants, by adding one 1000 MW capacity each week and once every two weeks, respectively. Estimates suggest that 86 percent of the world’s coal demand through 2030 will come from China and India. Besides both powers aspire to reach to an approximate additional 50 GW nuclear production capacity by the year 2020. As anticipated “nuclear power is not regarded as a substitute for coal” by major powers. Environmental concern is again on the shoulders of developed countries which constitute only a small portion of world population. As a result their share for a substantial decrease in emissions is limited. Counting for all these by the year 2030 the proportion of nuclear power for energy generation is foreseen to drop from its current 16% value to about %10 which is nothing but the unexpected result to lower the emissions.

NUCLEAR SAFETY & REPROCESSING

The safety of a nuclear plant had always been of major importance and in the near future it still poses some questions relating human health or life. There are some basic concerns from the viewpoint of nuclear safety. These can be ordered as; -Incident and emergency preparedness and response, -Civil liability for nuclear damage, -Radiation protection, -Radioactive waste management and disposal, -Decommissioning The International Atomic Energy Agency has some guidelines to make its member states establish a broader safety for their nuclear plants. For instance Response Assistance Network (RANET), is aimed to be a valuable repository of information about national assistance capabilities. Such that in case of an accident the victim state would identify which one to call for help. Concerning the liability of civilians to these possible accidents, one of the measures to be taken is to legislate compensations for the harmed people. Actually there are some laws in the nuclear capable states; however the content of these changes from one to another. On the contrary the long term effects of a large scale accident do not cease at the boundaries of the country it happened. So in a near future there must be set international regimes to manage such incidences and decide how to retrieve the losses caused by the accidents and to negotiate the included states The radiation protection as a whole (including theoretical and practical ways) must be conveyed to the public as much as possible. To embody the argument, the signs or alarms showing the possibility of a radiation spread must be introduced in detail to the ones living nearby along with the urgent precautions needed to be taken. Indeed this generalization is mostly valid for developing countries in which public awareness about the virtual aspects and the possible effects of nuclear technology is relatively primitive. There are some researches carried by major nuclear powers like USA and Canada to find safe and long term waste disposal solutions. The “Intrusion Resistant Underground Structure “(IRUS) for instance, in

which most of the low-level radioactive waste will be stored, can hold wastes for up to 500 years and the “Shallow Rock Cavity” can contain wastes that should be isolated for even longer. As anticipated the main point here is to extend this term as long as possible. The main cons against these technologies is the enormous cost to construct these infrastructures which readily can not be handled by the majority the developing countries. In other words cheaper waste disposal techniques are of paramount importance for developing states. When it comes to the decomissioning of aged plants; indeed there a bunch of such reactors requiring urgently to be taken out of operation. One famous one is the “Metsamor Nuclear Plant” in our problematic neighbour Armenia. A table is presented below to give an idea of the ages of the reactors aroung the globe; Plenty of reactors actually had been decomissioned by some developed countries such as Germany and USA. However the developing ones are not that willing to take them out of operation due to the cost of replacing them with the new ones. The coming days will most probably bring strong controversies between these blocks through international agencies like IAEA or United Nations. The strategy for fuel reprocessing is a complex decision with many factors to be taken into account including politics, economics, resource conservation, environmental protection. As a result the future outcomes in this field will be determined extensively by these factors. Apart from this reprocessing has proved effectiveness and safety due to its relatively long period of use. The plutonium recovered by reprocessing can be recycled in light water reactors as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, replacing an equivalent amount of enriched uranium and thus avoiding the need for enrichment. Despite this reality; reprocessing is not so profitable as long as uranium is available at a relatively low price. Therefore the near and medium term challenges for reprocessing depend on the desire to achieve economic competitiveness. One critical issue of reprocessing has been the risk the use of plutonium for non-peaceful purposes. The leading powers try to impose strong restrictions on reproccessing facilities due practically

to this reason and they do not seem to change their minds soon as well.

CONCLUSION

To conclude there are major issues to be accounted for while making a guess about the future fate of nuclear energy. As pointed at the very beginning of the report the footsteps of a nuclear revival can anyhow be heard. On the other hand the global worries about the environmental aspects along with the national necessities of different states do not compromise most of the time. And this renders the envisioned revival of nuclear power far from certain.

From our national viewpoint, Turkey, which is assertive about being an unignorable player in world politics; has to set up her nuclear energy policy very soon properly, without more delay.

BIBLIOGRAPHY -International Atomic Energy Agency, Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050 (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001). -International Atomic Energy Agency, “Uranium Production and Raw Materials for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Supply and Demand, Economics, the Environment, and Energy Security,” in Proceedings from an International Symposium, Vienna, June 20–24, 2005 (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005), 11.

- G. W. Grandey, “The Nuclear Renaissance: Opportunities and Challenges,” presentation to IAEA international symposium on “Uranium Production and Raw Materials for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Supply and Demand, Economics, the Environment, and Energy Security,” Vienna, June 20–24, 2005, 19–24. -Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation? Sharon Squassoni -INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR REACTOR DEVELOPMENT Opportunities for International Co-operation INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY 9, rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris, cedex 15, France -Nuclear Safety Review for the Year 2007 IAEA/NSR/2007 -LIABILITY & COMPENSATION for NUCLEAR DAMAGE Julia SCHWARTZ- Head of Legal Affairs , OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY -International Monterrey Model United Nations Simulation,

American School Foundation of Monterrey