LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use
which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
European perspective on Nuclear Fission
Strategic and technical considerations for the future
development of Nuclear Energy in the European Union
Contents
Preamble
1. Review of Commission Position on Energy
2. Energy, development, environment: the dilemma
3. Europe and Nuclear Power
4. Lifetime extension, increase of performance and safety enhancement
5. Education and Training: the challenge of maintaining competence within the Nuclear
Area
6. Nuclear Knowledge Management
7. Fuel cycle and waste management
8. Proliferation and safeguards
9. Nuclear energy in a sustainable world
10. European R&D for nuclear fission energy
11. Conclusions and recommendations
Preamble
Energy will be a fundamental element for Sustainable Development in the long term,
and will also be a critical factor for social and economic welfare in the near future. In the first
years of the 21st Century, the fastest growing energy source is coal, with an annual increase
higher than 4 % (i.e., almost twice the annual increase of total primary energy). This fact is
connected with globalization, and it will likely remain so for several years, so disturbing the
fight against global warming.
Another important feature of the evolution of the energy sector is the increasing
participation of electricity, which requires reliable, effective and clean generation systems.
And another relevant point is the continuous increase (with oscillations) of oil and gas
prices.
December 2008
3
When confronting all these energy facts with the energy sources currently available
and expected to be developed, Nuclear Fission appears as a main asset, because it is both a
commercial reality and a technology with a bright potential. It could be said that Nuclear
Fission is a fundamental factor to avoid an electricity crisis in the coming decades.
The STC has reviewed the inherent features of Nuclear Fission and the role it can play
within the European Union. Although Nuclear Fission is contributing to more than 30 % of
electricity generation in the UE, and it represents 2/3 of the carbon-free electricity production,
Nuclear Fission seems to be poorly understood by our society. In this context, it is absolutely
mandatory for the nuclear community to find proper ways to explain very relevant scientific
facts, as those related to the long-term behaviour of the nuclear waste. On the other hand,
although the E.U. has a leading position nowadays in Nuclear Technology, it is at risk of
losing it because of the scarcity in power plant construction and lack of R&D efforts at the
required level.
This is why the STC proposes to the EU Commission to establish a European Strategy
for Nuclear Fission, which can be a common undertaking run in variable geometry, in order to
respect the social and political decisions of countries not being interested in it. Such a
Strategy, properly elaborated with the help of all relevant actors, could be the right tool for
paving the way to a true Sustainable Energy Sector using the potentiality of all natural forces
properly masterized by technology. The specific objectives of the Strategy would be defined
in a first phase of its work plan, but they would eventually have to include considerations for
a collaborative effort in the deployment of Generation 3 nuclear power plants, and a sharper
definition of safety and performance requisites for Generation 4 installations.
For guiding the proposed Strategy, some priority actions can be identified as
EURATOM tasks in the Fission domain:
•
To help create a positive social climate for Nuclear Energy by means of fostering
independent studies of high level groups.
•
To contribute to set up a common legal framework on nuclear safety.
•
To guide and coordinate efficient R&D programmes, looking for the best synergisms
with country-based activities and with globally international activities, and aiming at
increasing the public confidence in Nuclear Fission by developing new technologies
with better safety standards and lower waste burden.
December 2008
4
•
To speed-up efforts in coping with the human-factor problem, caused by the decline in
the number of young scientists and engineers in the Nuclear field.
1. Review of Commission Position Papers on Energy
Awareness of the energy and environmental challenges is still growing driven by the concerns
about climate change and the overwhelming trend of increasing oil prices.
The Energy Green Paper (2006) 105 and the Energy Policy for Europe (EPE) COM(2007)1
both pointed to the importance of nuclear energy in achieving the Commission’s goals.
Several other Commission reports and studies dealing with the energy sector pointed to the
importance of energy research as a pan European activity.
Despite the positive analysis for nuclear energy with respect to meeting the challenges of
lowering the EU’s strong carbon burden and more generally protecting the environment,
ensuring the security of energy supply and the competitiveness, the Presidency conclusions,
adopted by the Council in March 2007, understated somewhat the contribution of nuclear
energy to the European energy mix.
Recalling that the EPE will fully respect Member States' choice of energy mix, the European
Council:
•
notes the Commission's assessment of the contribution of nuclear energy in meeting
the growing concerns about safety of energy supply and CO2 emissions reductions
while ensuring that nuclear safety and security are paramount in the decision-making
process;
•
confirms that it is for each and every Member State to decide whether or not to rely on
nuclear energy and stresses that this has to be done while further improving nuclear
safety and the management of radioactive waste, and to that effect it supports R & D
on waste management, particularly under the 7th Framework Research Programmeme
and can envisage the creation of a high-level group on nuclear safety and waste
management;
•
suggests that broad discussion takes place among all relevant stakeholders on the
opportunities and risks of nuclear energy.
The leitmotiv in the EU documents remains that Europe needs to act now, together, to deliver
sustainable, secure and competitive energy. The inter-related challenges of climate change,
security of energy supply and competitiveness are multifaceted and require a coordinated
response.
The position on nuclear is clearly dominated by the need of the highest level of safety.
According to the conclusions of the March council, with the commission decision of 17 July
2007 the European High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management was
established.
The first bullet of the recital :“The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and its
Member States are committed to maintaining and further improving the safety of nuclear
installations and the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste” confirms the
strong commitment of the EC to nuclear safety. Some other examples of this commitment can
be found elsewhere as we see later.
December 2008
5
A second remarkable initiative of the Commission, more dedicated to nuclear energy, was the
Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNE-TP). It was officially launched on the
21st September 2007 in Brussels. This Technology Platform aims at coordinating Research,
Development, Demonstration and Deployment (RDD&D) in the field of nuclear fission
energy. It gathers stakeholders from industry (technology suppliers, utilities and other users),
research organizations including Technical Safety Organisations (TSO), universities and
national representatives
The Vision Report of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform was distributed at
the Launch Conference. It was presented as reflecting a consensus among a large group of
stake-holders on the priorities of RDD&D in the field of nuclear fission, addressing the
renaissance of nuclear energy with the deployment of Generation III reactors, and the
development of Generation IV systems, both fast neutron reactor systems with fuel multirecycling for sustainable electricity-generating capability and (Very)High Temperature
Reactors for other applications of nuclear, such as production of hydrogen or biofuels.
Important issues such as the safety of nuclear installations and the responsible management of
waste are also addressed, as well as other issues which are crucial to the success of nuclear
energy in the 21st century: education and training, research infrastructures, material research
and numerical simulation – and funding.
On 22 November 2007, the European Commission published the Strategic Energy
Technology Plan (SET-Plan) [COM(2007)723]. The plan aims at accelerating the
development of low-carbon technologies to help Europe in meeting the energy challenges.
The “clean” technologies include not only renewable, but also sustainable nuclear fission and
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The document recognizes officially that nuclear
power is a key part of EU energy policy and contributes along with other low-CO2 energy
sources to forging EU’s low-carbon economy.
To achieve EU’s energy goals, the plan proposes measures in order to increase effective coordination in research at EU level:
• A European Community Steering Group on Strategic Energy Technologies. Chaired by the
Commission, the group will be “composed of high level government representatives from
Member States.”• European Industrial Initiatives for renewable but also for nuclear fission,
CCS and electricity grids. The initiatives will be funded "in different ways", such as publicprivate partnerships, or “joint programming by coalitions of those interested Member States”.
• A European Research Alliance bringing together more closely universities and institutes for
energy;
•A
new
Energy
Technology
Information
System,
and;
• Organisation in the first half of 2009 of a European Energy Technology Summit.
However the SET-Plan does not address the thorny question of funding energy research.
Instead the Plan promises the publication of an EC communication on SET Plan financing by
the end of 2008. In this respect we can note that The European Council reiterates the
importance of spending 3 % of GDP on research and development by 2010.
The Plan stresses the role of both public and private investments. "Industry should be
prepared to increase investment and take greater risks", according to the plan. But "it is the
task of governments to lead" said the Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs. He also urged
for concrete actions to be taken in the energy field: "The Energy Policy for Europe calls for a
new industrial revolution. Like all industrial revolutions, this one is going to be technology
driven and it is high time to transform our political vision into concrete actions
Once more the statement about nuclear energy is rather ambiguous and gives a reserved
impression on the role nuclear fission could play.
December 2008
6
The European Parliament noted in its Resolution on climate change (14 February 2007) that
energy policy is a crucial element of the EU global strategy on climate change, in which
renewable energy sources and energy efficient technologies play an important role. The
Parliament supported the proposal of a binding target to increase the level of renewable
energy in the EU energy mix to 20% by 2020 as a good starting point, and considered that this
target should be increased to 25% of the EU energy mix. Furthermore the European
Parliament, in its Resolution on the Roadmap for Renewable Energy in Europe (25 September
2007), called on the Commission to present by the end of 2007 a proposal for a renewable
energy legislative framework, referring to the importance of setting targets for the shares of
renewable energy sources at EU and Member State level.
In the communication from the Commission COM(2008) 30 final (23 January 2008), it is
remarkable to notice that the only allusion to nuclear energy is a footnote recalling to the
conclusions of the European Council of March 2007. (quoted in the beginning of the chapter).
The main lines of the message of the Commission appear very clearly in the speech of
President Barroso to the European Nuclear Energy Forum in Bratislava in May 2008:
1. Facing the trend is in the direction of more, not less nuclear energy, there is a need for
an open debate, without taboos, without too many preconceived ideas, amongst all the
relevant actors, on nuclear energy in Europe. A debate on the opportunities, but also
the risks…a debate on the costs, but also on the benefits…a debate on the future of the
industry.
2. It remains absolutely each and every Member State's absolute right to choose freely
between different energy sources and thus to choose nuclear energy or not. This right
is reconfirmed in the new Lisbon Treaty. The European Commission is not in the
business of promoting nuclear energy, nor of advocating its use.
3. Nuclear power raises some genuine public concerns. Both the nuclear industry and
public authorities need to address these issues.
4. Nuclear energy can of course make a major contribution to this battle against climate
change, as it generates two thirds of the EU's carbon-free electricity. By 2020, 60% of
our electricity could come from carbon-free sources (nuclear and renewable).
5. But in addition, nuclear energy, as one of the cheapest low carbon energy sources and
with less vulnerability to fuel price changes than some other energy sources, can help
protect our economies against price volatility.
6. Nuclear energy also helps to enhance EU's security of energy supply, as it increases
diversification of energy sources and reduces our dependence on imported gas.
On the same meeting Commissioner Piebalgs repeated “The Commission on its side, while
fully respecting each Member States' sovereign right with regard to the use of nuclear
energy, remains committed to promoting the highest standards of safety and security." ''By
looking into nuclear energy risks and opportunities, the ENEF has a unique possibility to
contribute to addressing the outstanding issues, related to nuclear safety and waste
management, both crucial for public acceptance of nuclear energy.''
This statement doesn’t give a clear picture: nevertheless, to meet both energy and
environment challenges requires a full combination of all available carbon-free energy
sources
December 2008
7
9
9
9
9
The Commission acknowledges the role of nuclear energy (at the European level) in
low-carbon electricity generation
The Commission acknowledges that nuclear energy is not negligible part of the current
and future energy mix in the European Union
The Commission acknowledges the need for the maintenance of nuclear safety at the
highest level
The Commission acknowledges the need to keep options open for Member
StateMember States should they wish to select and deploy nuclear technology in the
future
Thus actions are needed to ensure/enable a critical mass of research endeavour in nuclear
technology for the European Union which takes account of the variable geometry in the most
efficient way
December 2008
8
2. Energy, Development, Environment: the Dilemma.
Energy is an irreplaceable input to almost all the needs of mankind: nutrition, irrigation,
protection against the weather inclemency, clothing, transportation, communication and
leisure. Consequently, as illustrated by the Human Development Index published by WHO
and UNDP, there is no development possible without a minimum access to energy
(http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/).
But today 1.6 billion people have no access to any form of commercial electricity, and even
under the reference scenario of the International Energy Agency, by 2030; this number would
still reach 1.4 billion.
In 2000, we were 6 billion people on Earth, in 2006, we reached 6.5 billion (this increment is
equal to the whole population of the European Union!), and the world population is likely to
grow to 9 billion around 2050 before reaching some kind of plateau. Therefore, the world
primary energy consumption, a staggering 10 billion tons of oil equivalent (10 Gtoe) in 2000,
is bound to keep increasing during this century. IEA’s reference scenario projects, in effect,
more than 16 Gtoe for 2030 – but with a dire warning: such growth is not sustainable!
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, delivered its 4th report in November
2007 (Valence, Spain). For first time, it is stated in the report that there is an unambiguous
relation between human activity and the increase of greenhouse effect gases in the atmosphere
(http://www.ipcc.ch; The AR4 Synthesis Report). Since the beginning of the industrial era,
man has been releasing into our atmosphere huge quantities of greenhouse effect gases
(GHG), the most important of which is CO2, carbon dioxide, produced by the combustion of
December 2008
9
coal, oil and gas. These three fossil fuels supply today 80% of the world primary energy
consumption. The present GHG concentration in our atmosphere far exceeds any amount
ever experienced by man, since the mastery of fire, half a million years or so ago. The vast
majority of the scientific community agrees that this modification in the atmospheric
composition has already a measurable impact on the thermal balance of the planet and,
therefore on the climate. This was unambiguously and unanimously declared by the Sciences
Academies of the “G8” countries, before the 2005 Heads of State and Government meeting in
Gleneagles, UK.
In order to limit the expected warming of the planet to 2°C during this century, one should
adopt policies to the effect of stabilizing at 550 ppm the GHG concentration, expressed in
CO2 equivalent. This means cutting by a factor of 2 the world GHG emissions by 2050. As
developing countries will have no choice but to increase their emissions, OECD countries
should target a factor of 4, which translates into a 3.5% reduction per year, a far cry from the
Kyoto Protocol commitments.
IAE’s reference scenario is completely off the mark in that respect (which is why it is not
sustainable)!
In the frame of the “World Energy Technology Outlook-H2” study
(ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/energy/docs/weto-h2_en.pdf), the POLES model was
used to assess scenarios respecting the 550 ppm emissions limit (which translates into 450
ppm CO2 alone). The latest results can be thus summarized:
December 2008
10
•
•
In the reference WETO-H2 case, world energy consumption reached 22 Gtoe in 2050.
Because of the “Oil Peak”, followed by a “Gas Peak”, coal is back with a vengeance,
despite significant increases in nuclear and renewable energy sources.
To be able to stabilize CO2 at the 550 ppm level, world energy consumption should
peak around 14 Gtoe by 2050. At this date, nuclear and renewable energy sources
should supply more than all three fossil fuels combined.
25
20
Renewable
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
15
10
5
0
2001
2010
2020
2030
2050
World Primary Energy Consumption (Gtoe/y) – WETO-H2 Reference
16
14
12
Renewable
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
10
8
6
4
2
0
2001
2010
2020
2030
2050
WETO-H2: 550 ppm GHG stabilization scenario
December 2008
11
IEA latest “Blue” scenario aiming at the same GEG reduction leads to similar conclusion
(Energy Technology Perspectives 2050. IEA 2008)
30
25
Coal
Oil
Gas
Total
20
15
10
5
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Gton of CO2 per year
It is worth noting that coal consumption is increasing much faster than energy in general. In
fact, in 2006, energy consumption increased by 2,3 %, but coal increased was 4,3 %. Similar
values were found in previous years of the 21st century, and again in 2007.
In year 2000 the share of coal in primary energy was 25 %, and this figure went up to 29 % in
2007 (http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622).
Of course, one should not read in scenarios more than they can offer. Qualitatively, the
message is however very clear: the only sustainable way out of the energy-DevelopmentEnvironment dilemma is a through a combination of conservation (energy efficiency and
responsible thrift), nuclear and renewable energy sources. We do need all three and can ill
afford to forego any.
December 2008
12
3. Europe and Nuclear Power
Where nuclear power is concerned, the European Union appears to be in a very paradoxical
situation. The EU is the region of the world most dependant upon nuclear power for its
energy supply. That used to be true of EU-15, of EU-25 and it is now true of EU-27. Since
the very beginning of what used to be the European Community (1957), no severe accident
has occurred in any of the many nuclear reactors and facilities operating on its territory.
Europe is very environment conscious, and serious about its commitments under the Kyoto
protocol. Nuclear power is obviously a significant asset in that respect.
And Europe’s dependency on energy imports is a growing concern. Indeed, in the energy
field as in many others, the key word is interdependence rather than dependence, and this is
especially true in the relationship between the EU and the Federation of Russia, but too large
a dependence would question the security of supply, and the present trend is not sustainable,
as shown on the figure below:
2000
Mtoe
Figure 3: Predicted External Energy Dependence of the EU
Total Consumption
1500
1000
2030 ?
~70 % in
0%
already > 5
to 2
ing 1
grow
%/ y
External Dependence
Primary Production
500
2005~55%
2004~53%
2002~50%
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Source TREN
There again, putting a cap to this dependence would call for an increase in EU’s nuclear
power generation. Of course, uranium must be imported too, but from a wide range of
countries of very diverse geopolitical characteristics. Furthermore, for electricity generation,
stockpiling two years of uranium is less expensive and far less cumbersome than stockpiling
two months of natural gas.
Nevertheless, the EU is the region of the world where the opposition to nuclear power is the
strongest (EUROBAROMETER, November 2005). As a result, in the forecasts of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Western Europe is the only region where
nuclear power development is still widely uncertain.
December 2008
13
1600
1400
2003
1200
2010
1000
2010
?
800
2020
600
2020
400
2030
2030
200
0
N Amer
L Amer Eur W Eur E
Africa
ME+AsE
Far East
Nuclear Power Generation 2003 – 2030 (TWh) – IAEA July 2004
This uncertainty reflects also the fact that the EU has a conservation policy, the EU has a
renewable energy sources policy, but the EU has no nuclear energy policy. But, to quote
from Commissioner Piebalgs in an interview dated January 16, 2007:
“It is difficult today, when elaborating an energy policy, not to take into account an energy
source which produces, without CO2 emission, close to 30% of the electricity generated in the
Union”.
In the very last few years, it seems some shift is occurring in many Member States toward a
better acceptance of nuclear power. It is too early to know how significant is this new trend,
but it is certainly worth it –as advocated by Business Europe (former UNICE)- to relaunch the
nuclear debate at the European level.
December 2008
14
4. Lifetime extension, increase of performance and safety enhancement
About 440 NPP units with output around 370 GWe which cover 17% of world –wide
electricity demand have been in operation in 2006. Majority of them are LWR units of so
called 2nd and 3rd generation. The age of the above units is provided in the following Table.
.
The Table shows that 253 of the units have been in operation more than 20 years and 81 units
more than 30 years.
Original designs of nuclear units stipulated conservatively on the basis of existing knowledge
the operational life time of NPPs to 30-40 years. National regulatory bodies issued operational
licence in compliance with design information or issued time unlimited licence. At the end of
80-ties countries operating the oldest units (UK, USA, RF) initiated activities for long-term
operation i.e. for longer time than was stipulated by original design. Results of tests, inservice inspections, operational feedback, more developed analytical tools and more
developed training of operational personal give the possibility to use carefully this excessive
conservatisms. On the other hand it is necessary to pay attention to the possible unknown or
accelerated aging mechanisms.
The decision on long-term operation requires to perform technical-economical study taking
into account the results of ageing management programmes (AMP), possibility of component
replacement, operational feedback, and measures of safety enhancement. The programmes for
PLIM, PLEX and AMP of structures, systems and components important for safety were
established.
15
These AMP consisted of definition of all ageing mechanisms and their impact on structures,
systems and components (for instance GALL report) and continued monitoring of the above
items by means of tests, in-service inspections and monitoring, and implementation of
operational feedback. The aim of the above activities is to define their abilities to fulfil
required safety functions, criteria and requirements for the longer time than was established
by original design.
During the first half of the 90' the IAEA issued a recommendation for Periodic Safety
Reviews (PSR). On the basis of the recommendation a complex safety evaluation has been
performed every 10 years and its results serve as a basis for the operational licences for the
next time frame. A majority of countries introduced this recommendation in their regulatory
practice. During 2003-6 the IAEA established the Extrabudgatery Programme on Safety
Aspects of Long Term Operation of LWRs which main objective was to prepare
recommendation on scope and content of activities to ensure safe long term operation of
LWRs .
Recently NEA/OECD carried out a study analysing the influence of long term operation on
economy, fuel cycle and management and preservation of knowledge. The long term
operation brings the following economical advantages
- decreases the urgent need of new units construction
- investment cost per kWe is substantially lower than for new units construction
- gives possibility to decrease the payment to nuclear account for radioactive wastes and
decommissioning
- stability and low price of nuclear fuel are precondition for lower price of electricity
Nuclear safety of operating NPPs has been continuously enhanced due to the regulatory
requirements based on results of operating experience and progress in science and technology.
For this reason the life extension has been accompanied by extensive programmes of safety
enhancement.
Currently the majority of NPPs operators plans long-term operation for additional 10-20
years. The regulatory decision on long term operation was issued in UK, USA and RF. In this
aspect the successful progress of Licence Renewal Process, which was launched in USA in
2000 should be mentioned. It concerns of all NPP and original operation licence for 40 years
has been prolonged for additional 20 years. Till September 2006 Licence Renewal has been
issued to 44 units and 10 other units are in the licensing process. In RF the original licence
which was issued for 30 years is extended to additional 15 years.
Conservatisms of old NPP designs, economical advantage and also non-possibility to
construct new units lead a number of operators to power uprating. Due to R&D results and
better knowledge on a number of items, the uncertainty margins can be reduced, which allows
for more realistic safety margins in uprated reactors, without increasing the risk. Anyhow, a
complete licensing process was needed in each uprating case. The power uprate can be
accomplished by increasing reactor thermal output and by increasing turbine efficiency.
For PWRs the power uprate is about 10%, for BWRs about 20%. The planned power uprates
mean increase of summary electricity output for instance in USA more than 4000 MWe, in
Sweden about 1300 MWe, in Spain about 550 MWe, in Czech republic, Slovakia and
Hungary about 200 MWe.
16
5. Education and Training: The Challenge of maintaining competence
within the Nuclear Area
Maintaining nuclear competence in Europe is a challenge for all nuclear stakeholders
(European Commission, national ministries, research and teaching organizations, industry,
etc). This objective has recently been recognized in a “Draft Council Conclusions on the need
for competences in the nuclear field” (DS 901/08). To achieve this goal, the respective roles
of the involved entities should be clarified and efficiently played, and the envisaged measures
would have to be carried out by them in a co-operative and coordinated way at different
levels.
In the next few decades, the workload in nuclear activities will remain large in Europe
irrespective of the different energy supply policies decided by the Member States. Radiation,
protection, safe nuclear power plants operation and fuel cycle management where existing,
rely on highly skilled people. It is worth quoting the cited “Draft”, which points out the
“imperative necessity to maintain a high level of expertise and human resources in all areas of
nuclear fission and radiation protection, notably with regards to the necessity to maintain the
current high level of nuclear safety”.
There are serious concerns about the replacement of nuclear specialists arriving to retirement,
because of the decline in the number of university students and university courses.
Postgraduate and professional courses are also suffering a similar decline.
Some actions have already been started to cope with this problem, as the launching of the
European Nuclear Education Network. The objective of this network is keeping the nuclear
knowledge and expertise through the preservation of higher nuclear engineering education, by
means of co-operation between universities and research centres, and better use of dwindling
teaching capacities, scientific equipments and training facilities.
The student-recruiting situation seems to be improving in countries with an active programme
for building nuclear power plants, as is the case of Finland, which is also very advanced in
nuclear waste policies. Although this problem can be addressed at national level, a clear
synergism can be established at European level through appropriate programmes for fostering
teaching and training in the nuclear field, which must remain open for future generations, as
one of the mechanisms for paving the road to sustainable development.
As analyzed in the cited “Draft”, the European Research Area could be a suitable tool to
improve synergism in the nuclear domain, and some positive results have been obtained with
last EURATOM FP, but additional initiatives should be launched, specifically addressed to
this goal. The “Draft” states “that Member States that so wish, shall support public
investments and public/private partnerships for initial and long-life learning of employees”.
In summary, the current scenario in this field seems very far from good, and conveys one of
the main risks for a sound new phase of Nuclear Energy in Europe in the 21st century. After a
detailed consideration of the specific problems connected to this challenge, the STC
recommends:
-
To study a new role for EURATOM in the field of promoting Nuclear
Education and Training at all the required levels, including learning associated
17
-
to research activities. This new role should be materialized in a clear policy
containing:
1. Objectives
2. Work plan
3. Budget
To elaborate a European curriculum of skills, experience and professional
qualifications in the nuclear field.
To establish high quality educational programmes with international recognition
(EURATOM endorsement, maybe with the contribution of the proposed
European Nuclear Academy).
To optimize the utilization of R&D facilities and infrastructures across E.U. to
improve education and training
To foster mobility of students, for instance by financing international courses
from EURATOM.
To develop training programmes with universities, research centers, industrial
companies and the Joint Research Centre, including postgraduate and life-long
learning programmes.
To improve public communication of Nuclear R&D at high school and
baccalaureate levels.
18
6. Nuclear Knowledge Management
Challenges
The loss of information in the nuclear sector deprives people, at later stages, of knowledge
that could be important to safe, economic completion of work or which could aid the analysis
of problems and options. It is costly to go through the learning process again with a risk of
potential events and incidents, programme delays, physical injury and increased regulatory
surveillance. In some cases, it can be impossible to rebuild some eventually lost information.
The management of nuclear knowledge has become an increasingly important element of the
nuclear sector in recent years resulting from a number of challenges and trends:
• Countries with expanding nuclear programmes require skilled and trained human
resources to design and operate future nuclear installations.
• In countries with stagnating nuclear programmes, the challenge is to secure the human
resources needed to sustain the safe operation of existing installations, including their
decommissioning and related activities for storage of spent fuel and waste.
• A great number of staff members in nuclear installations approach the retiring age.
Their replacement and attracting the young generation to a career in the nuclear field
are key challenges in a time when, in several countries, a decaying interest is observed
in universities for nuclear subjects.
• In some countries, several tens of percent of competence have been lost due to skilled
and knowledgeable people who left and were not replaced.
• The scientific and technical heritage of several decades of nuclear development,
existing in a decentralized manner in many countries with mature nuclear
programmes, requires to be assessed and valuable knowledge needs to be preserved
for future use.
• Knowledge ultimately resides with knowledgeable persons and/or groups, thus the
main effort must be focused to support and enhance the existing structure for
knowledge transmission. Access to existing knowledge can be improved in many
cases.
Approaches
Approaches in nuclear knowledge management can be classified into three major activities:
• giving access to archived materials,
• providing locators of active knowledge, and
• facilitating communication and direct knowledge exchange.
Archived information and data includes access to all information and data which are either
original information or compilations created by experts. Examples:
¾ documentation of measurements, experimental data,
¾ evaluated data based on both measurement and theory,
¾ descriptions, textbooks, articles, and technical papers,
¾ observations, operational experience,
¾ programmes and programme descriptions,
¾ nuclear data libraries, etc.
In relation to experimental information, evaluation is crucial: the original data and documents
need to be critically reviewed, and adequate statistical and systematical uncertainties should
be assigned to the archived data. The archived material comprises on-line databases,
19
electronic versions of publications, bibliographic data, descriptions of databases, etc.
NEA/OECD does an important activity in this respect. The criticality safety data and other
kinds of data produced by past reactor physics experiments are evaluated and presented in a
strictly formalized format in an easily retrievable way (ICSBEP and IRPhE projects). A
similar collection of biological shielding and fast rector experimental data are available at
NEA/OECD and IAEA, respectively.
In order to access knowledge directly, it is necessary to find people who carry that knowledge.
A locator of active knowledge could therefore contain a maintained list of experts which can
be drawn of sources such as bibliographic records or lists of participants for specialized
meetings. Names of experts can be contributed also by academic, professional, and industrial
organizations as well as universities laboratories, etc.
Communication and direct knowledge exchange can be facilitated by supporting or organizing
meetings, workshops, seminars, and conferences. If they are successful, they provide not only
effective knowledge transfer between participants but their proceedings can be valuable
means for generating information archives which help to record and transmit the experts’ tacit
knowledge.
R&D activity for demonstration projects of new reactor types is an ideal means for knowledge
transmission and creation of new knowledge as well. Such an activity will make the nuclear
field an attractive career for the young generation.
Information technology based knowledge management
As exposed above, knowledge management is not just the management of numerical
information stored on computers and other data carriers. Therefore, the information
technology based knowledge management must present numerical, descriptive and other data
in such a way which supports both the knowledge preservation and the human processes:
studying, communicating, research. The information technology based knowledge
management must facilitate the retrieval of factual data, descriptive materials, and contact
information.
Results
Until now, several useful tools have been evolved which help knowledge preservation. The
most important results are:
• Several evaluated nuclear data libraries have been created and are continuously
maintained and developed (ENDF, JEF, JENDL, BNAB, etc.).
• There are programme libraries which help disseminating computer programmes and
their data libraries in various fields of nuclear technology.
• International Nuclear Information System (INIS).
• Educational networks are being created (ENEN – European Nuclear Education
Network).
• The Incident Reporting System is operated jointly by IAEA and NEA/OECD.
This list is an example of actions already undertaken, but it is also an indication that there is
room to do much more in the quest of keeping and increasing scientific and technical
knowledge in the Nuclear field.
20
Recommendations
•
•
•
The current activities of data collection and archivation should be continued and
possibly extended to other kinds of experiments such as thermal-hydraulics, severe
accidents, etc.
R&D activity is a sine qua non tool of maintaining competence and nuclear
knowledge.
Every means should be used for making the nuclear attractive for the young
generation.
21
7. Fuel Cycle and Waste Management
Background
Internationally much has changed since previous STC reports over the past decade, which
were written in an era of retrenchment and consolidation of the Industry.
A number of Western Developed Nations have embarked upon programmes to refresh and
replace ageing fleets (the USA and France and now the UK and Bulgaria) and in some cases
expand the contribution made by nuclear energy in their electricity mix (Finland and
Romania). Within Europe some MS are reviewing moratoria set many years ago and actively
investing in cross border supply of nuclear electricity (Italy). A minority of MS still hold the
view that energy challenges can be met without recourse to nuclear energy in their generating
mix.
China has continued to invest heavily in new NPP as part of its National Energy Plan
including the long term intention to deploy FR’s and a recycling fuel cycle and possibly
HTGR’s
India has committed to significant deployment of NPP, opened the door for international
technology transfer especially with France and the USA and to pursuit of the Th fuel cycle
Russia has embarked on a programme of upping the efficiency of its current fleet and
significantly increasing capacity over the coming two decades with both large and small units
to provide 30% of electricity production from NPP. It remains committed to closing the fuel
cycle, to FR’s and to developing advanced designs including NPP suitable for regional
deployment.
Japan has commenced operations at Rokkashomura and remains committed to FR’s long
term.
South Africa has initiated a major investment programme in new NPP both Gen3+ LWR’s
and next generation HTGR’s
Growing awareness of the potential of nuclear energy has led the UAE to embark on a plan to
deploy significant NPP in the Gulf region.
As we approach the end of the first decade of the 21C we are seeing a new realisation of the
benefits which nuclear energy can bring to humankind in terms of security of energy supply
and mitigation of otherwise ever increasing CO2 levels. Rapidly expanding deployment of
NPP worldwide and refreshment of existing fleets are features of the 21C. This has
significant implications for attitudes and policies with respect to the fuel cycle and with it
waste management. The EU must plan to ensure options are kept open for MS to lead
development of and deploy fuel cycle technology which will underpin the next generation
systems, particularly FR’s and HTGR’s and to ensure long term options for pursuit of
recycling for LWR systems operating in the EU.
It is true that FBR’s are not yet commercially realised and still remain uncompetitive with
LWR’s in terms of capital cost per MW and hence generating costs. However given the trends
with oil and gas prices and the costs of accounting for carbon capture and sequestration, the
22
cost competitiveness and attractiveness of FBR systems may still be favourable. The goal
should be to strive for balance in the overall system and for optimal utilisation of the
available and potential energy content. This means looking at the total nuclear system costs in
an Energy Plan which incorporates both fast neutron and water reactors to get the best out of
the fissile/fertile resource whilst minimising long term wastes; in other words to strive
towards a sustainable position for nuclear energy.
Europe still has the lead for fuel cycles accompanying Gen 3+ and within Gen IV FR systems.
We will cede it East or to a rejuvenated United States unless much more is done to advance
the technologies within a European context. The US led GNEP has development and
deployment of an appropriate proliferation resistant recycling fuel cycle as its core. While
there are budgetary constraints limiting investment in new pilot and demonstration facilites,
the development of reprocessing fuel cycles is being pursued internationally, for various
reasons and particularly by the United States after a 30 year moratorium. Japan continues with
its extensive ambitions to realise closure of the fuel cycle for future as well as present
systems. France remains the only MS with very significant investment in future fuel cycle
options. Capabilities and facilities across other MS in the EU including those of the JRC
execute modest Euratom funded programmes of relevance to future fuel cycles.
The timescale for translation of new technology in nuclear fuel cycle systems is similar to that
for the reactor designs they underpin. It is important the EU recognises that if it wishes MS to
collectively sustain a technology lead in fuel cycle technology then political and budget
recognition will be needed. Tthat it will require a double decade endeavour which will entail
significant development cost as part of the Strategic Energy Plan which includes Nuclear
Energy.
As for the Waste Management aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, countries with existing NPP
in the EU will find a way forward for existing legacies. Much of the remaining challenge is
political and budgetary. It will be vital to ensure the Commission’s programmes facilitate and
encourage maximum sharing of knowledge and potential for sharing of technology and
practice between MS. The most important points will be to ensure that solutions evolved will
be able to accommodate future increases for new systems within the bounding envelopes set
for the planning and implementation of repositories and that much more is evolved on risk
and the concept of ‘good enough’ to ensure the nuclear sector is not saddled with
inappropriate and overly burdensome specifications.
General Aspects of the Fuel Cycle
Cost effective operations with a high level of safety are assumed in fuel cycles of tomorrow
which must also consider
-development of new and enlarged uranium resources
-development of new technology to maximise utilisation of natural resources
-application of processes with a minimum overall environmental impact
-security and diversity of supply of resources
-safe and appropriate waste management and disposal
-minimum proliferation risks and maximum safeguard visibility
From the point of view of the EU, given the timescales between development and delivery of
new systems and fuel cycles in an industrial context, plans need to be made now to pave the
way for potential deployment of the fuel cycles which will underpin FR and HTR systems
23
whilst sustaining the needs of existing and refreshed LWR fleets. Key issues for the European
Union will be availability of resources, future system choice and long term radioactive waste
management which supports more than one type of system.
Uranium resources
Although global trends for enhanced deployment of nuclear energy will lead to much
increased demands for uranium and related services, in the short to medium term these will
not have a detrimental impact on either resource availability or the overall generating cost of
electricity. Known and possible uranium resources are well investigated and documented by
both international organisations like the IAEA and OECD NEA (‘Red Book’) and the industry
through organisations like the WNA.
Resources of U cost range up to 130 USD/kgU
5.5Mtu identified
16.0MtU Total Conventional
22MtU Phosphates
The resources reported are coupled to the price of uranium and present level of prospecting
and investigation. The numbers are certainly not ultimate figures and it is certain more
economically recoverable uranium will be found in the future. The low price of uranium
during the past few years has hitherto not encouraged exploration for new resources. The
strong recent price rises and the small impact the price of natural uranium has on the end price
of electricity will make it economic to mine much more costly ore bodies. Uranium can be
found in many different geological formations in the earth’s crust and within sea water. The
question therefore is not whether there will be adequate uranium resources but rather the
overall cost and environmental impact of extraction from hitherto untapped resources
Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand and mainly “once through
LWR fuel cycle - the known amount is sufficient for ca 85 years. Fast reactor technology
would, however lengthen this period to over 2500 years. The present and anticipated fleet can
be fed from proven identified resources.
If total conventional and potential resources for natural uranium in geologically favourable
yet still unexplored areas are considered, uranium can be estimated available for at least 270
years and cover demand from the anticipated increased demand in the first half of the 21C
even with the current “inefficient” LWR fuel-cycle. Further, if the resources of phosphates are
included more than 675 years of generation of electricity at 2004 production levels can be
estimated. Considerable effort and investment will however be needed to develop new mining
projects in time and will depend on investor confidence in a rejuvenated industry. So far there
has been no great push from a uranium supply viewpoint to look for new resources. There is
lots of potential as yet unrealised in the already identified deposits.
The present high price level of natural uranium is approaching economic use of uranium from
sea-water. At a cost-level of 400 USD /kg U and further R&D-development of the technology
the uranium in the seawater may be collected; quantities are huge with estimated magnitudes
of 4000 MtU.
Uranium in seawater may be of importance for self-sufficiency reasons but the engineering
challenge and the energy consumption to deliver large scale process plant would be very
significant and a more likely development is a broad introduction of the future reactors with
24
fuel cycles using all the materials in the mined uranium and other fertile material such as
thorium. Such a development will secure the base of resources for thousands of years, also for
a large global fleet of nuclear power reactors.
The fissile/fertile resources available to mankind will not therefore be a limiting factor in the
deployment of NPP globally for the foreseeable future. Furthermore as far as the EU is
concerned the supply of uranium is not geopolitically sensitive with deposits more evenly
distributed than those of oil and gas with significant resources in countries like Canada and
Australia. If needed strategic inventories could be re-established and cover several years of a
country’s demand for uranium. Moreover, enrichment of depleted uranium by
ultracentrifugues could contribute significantly to the fuel market, if natural resources become
very expensive.
Future System Choice:
The strategic case for European deployment of fast reactors
Most reactors of today are light-water reactors based on “once through fuel cycle” where
almost 99 % of the potential energy is unused and left in the depleted uranium from
enrichment and the used fuel.
Present light water reactor-technology can be improved to achieve a better utilisation of the
fuel and its uranium. Increased burn-up, change of fuel mixture and similar measures would
however increase costs, demands on materials and may need considerable administrative
efforts to be realised.
Current reprocessing of fuel as applied in France and UK will increase the utilisation of
energy content in the fuel by 10 to 15 % if the material is recycled as Mox fuel. As illustrated
below, there is, however a potential to extend the resource base and increase the efficiency
of its use by introduction of a more advanced fuel cycle technology both for traditional
reprocessing and in particular through use of breeder-technology.
Modern breeder-technology will increase the utilisation of the energy of the uranium with a
factor of more than 80 which in turn would secure the availability of uranium for fuel over
tens of centuries.
Exploitation of reprocessing technology is being considered as a tool to improve waste
management by the United States via the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative which seeks to use
chemistry to separate heat from radiotoxicity problems in spent fuel management. FR’s are
once again key systems under consideration for long term development by the DoE.
Europe has the opportunity to be self sufficient for centuries to come with respect to nuclear
fission power if a closed fuel cycle where recycling of valuable fissile resources is
implemented rather than a once through and directly dispose cycle.
In realising advanced nuclear fuel cycles, Europe would be able to take advantage of the vast
resources of depleted uranium arising from the uranium purification and fuel manufacturing
processes and already held as long term strategic stocks particularly in France and the UK.
For example if the residual uranium resources in France were used in conjunction with
25
plutonium extracted from used fuel from the existing reactors and recycled in Fast Reactors,
there would be sufficient material to fuel a fleet equivalent in size to the present European
nuclear power, for over 2000 years.
Deployment of Fast Reactors where Europe has the technological lead and over 30 years of
operating experience, in conjunction with an appropriate advanced fuel cycle taking full
account of proliferation and waste minimisation concerns, would enable the valuable energy
resources residing in the used fuel from the existing generation of reactors to be combined
with the much greater volume of material arising from the initial refining and manufacturing
process. This would otherwise be designated a waste for costly treatment and disposal and it
is the STC view that it would be a course of action counter to sustainable practice.
Modern breeder technology fuel cycles
Introduction of breeder technology will, as well known drastically improve utilisation of the
potential energy content of the uranium and some other fertile materials. Use of such
technology would from uranium resources point of view lead to a true sustainable situation of
the nuclear power as the remaining 99 % of the energy of current stored depleted uranium and
LWR-fuel can also be used. Besides taking advantage of this other fertile material as existing
large resources of thorium and depleted uranium from enrichment can be used for power
production.
In table 2, the situation of the longer term and future technology is illustrated as years of
operation compared to 2004 level of electricity generation.
Table 2 Possible years of operation for different reactor technologies. Comparison based
on production of electricity (2004) in relation to available resources
Fuel cycle technology Known resources
Current LWR cycle
85
Future
technology 2.500
(recycling and fast
breeders)
Total conventional
270
8.000
+ Phosphates
675
20.000
HTGR’s
.The STC agrees with previous opinions expressed by the AGE which support the conclusions
of the Euratom sponsored Micanet project, that there is sufficient merit in the GIV thermal
reactor designs, particularly in the Very High-Temperature Reactor which could become the
most economic route to the hydrogen which may need to substitute for methane or even
hydrocarbon liquids in the future. There is also potentially helpful overlap between the
VHTR. and the gas-cooled fast reactor. Assessments to date have concentrated on the reactor
systems. Going forward there is a need to closely examine the fuel cycle and waste
management issues associated with HTR technology. Here Europe could and should take a
lead...
Nuclear power for the long term and disposal of its waste in repositories
26
There exists and will continue to exist large quantities of fuel from light water reactors and
vitrified high-level waste from reprocessing. Much of this fuel - today around 300000 tonnes
–is placed in interim storage and planned to be disposed of in stable geological formations.
Knowledge and technology for this exist and there are no particular limitations to
accommodate fuel in a safe way from a much larger future nuclear power production.
Increased demands for better utilisation of uranium will however require that the repositories
planned for permanent disposal should include proven technology allowing future
retrievability of the fuel from light-water reactor operations. Some MS are already well
advanced in the journey towards repository disposition of their radwaste. The concepts for
disposal presently under construction in Finland and Sweden with tunnels at 500 m depth
allow for both safe permanent disposal and if found necessary, reuse of the disposed fuel.
Disposal concepts based on very deep holes are, on the other hand not suitable for such reuse.
In most countries the planning for geological repositories is based on rather long interim
storage followed by disposal over long time periods often up 100 years. This should allow for
great flexibility and consideration of reuse of the “once through” fuel from LWR-cycles.
For the final disposal strong efforts will need to be made to treat the waste so it can be
disposed of in the best possible form for safe disposal and with a minimum of remaining
content of energy.
Radio-toxicity and Heat load of the waste can be minimized in closed fuel cycles in different
strategies, as the so-called Double Strata, where U and Pu remain in the main cycle, and
Minor Actinides are transmuted in a dedicated second cycle with accelerator-driven
subcritical reactors. A specific attention to this concept should be kept in EURATOM funded
programmes, because it has very interesting nuclear features and a large potential for
european added value.
Traditional reprocessing will need to be reviewed and optimised to reduce emissions as well
as volumes and the content of long-lived actinides. While transmutation technology has some
advantages equally FR’s can provide both production of energy and destruction of sensitive
isotopes. Partitioning and Transmutation projects may still be helpful from the viewpoint of
skills development.
Better utilisation of the fissile and fertile resource is the key as analysis based on solid
scientific knowledge convincingly shows that disposal of also long lived actinides can be
done with large safety margins. It is in the disposal and repository safety case area that the EU
should do much more to ensure that the solutions evolved are appropriate and proportionate in
comparison to the risk and that greater efforts are made in the area of public perception and
comparison with other sectors.
27
8. Proliferation and safeguards
Nuclear weapons proliferation did in the past, and might still occur in countries without any
nuclear power. Proliferation risk will never be zero but it is important to ensure that the
development of nuclear power does not increase this risk significantly - and that future
systems seek to further improve the situation.
Present and near term generation 3 LWR under existing and applied safeguard rules present a
very small proliferation risk. The “sensitive” technologies from a proliferation point of view
are uranium enrichment (especially centrifuge) and spent fuel reprocessing with the present
PUREX process where pure plutonium is separated.
Fast breeders of future reactor generation 4 do not need any enrichment, but they do need
reprocessing, which is indispensable for recycle and the key to full use of the uranium
resources. The same would apply to future thorium breeders.
To minimize the risks of proliferation associated with future fission “systems” it is therefore
necessary to develop in parallel with the reactors themselves a reprocessing technology
where pure fissile materials are not fully separated.
Europe has presently a clear leadership in the fuel cycle industries. A vigorous R&D
programme will support this leadership and influence the technological evolution to
minimize the proliferation risk.
Besides promoting a proliferation-resistant technical development, international efforts for
worldwide acceptance (universality) of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for increasing of
effectiveness of its safeguards system have to continue. The scope of nuclear verification
provided by IAEA is mainly enlarged by adoption of Additional Protocol to Safeguards
Agreements – therefore its signature and ratification by all NPT States should be accelerated.
This means that diplomatic activities are indispensable for avoiding proliferation. Besides
that, it must be taken into account that effectiveness of safeguards system will depend very
much on nuclear power technology and its future development. In other words, new
technologies will have to be developed with a parallel programme for identifying the suitable
tools for implementing the safeguards.
28
9. Nuclear energy in a sustainable world.
Introduction
With the increasing prosperity in our world, the definition by Bruntland ( “Our common future”,
Oxford University Press, U.K. 1987) of sustainability needs constant specification and
adaptation to the actual problems.
Energy is one of the most important issues in the context of sustainability: it is indispensible to
create wealth while at the same time the current energy supply system relies heavily on
exhaustible fossil energy resources. The detrimental effects of the emissions become more
visible and their effect is scaling up from local to global.
In many policy statements and publications the urgency for a transition of our current energy
system into a sustainable system is stressed.
In the green paper of the commission: “A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and
secure energy” (EU 2006) three main pillars for the future energy system are given:
Competitiveness, Security of Supply and Sustainability.
Within the context of a path towards a more sustainable energy supply, three tasks have been
defined by the EU:
− Develop competitive renewable sources of energy and other low carbon energy sources
and energy carriers
− Curb energy demand
− Lead global efforts to halt climate change and improve local air quality
It is our conviction that no single energy source can by itself fulfill all three goals and provide
competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability. Therefore it is the balance between these
three pillars that determine the degree in which the energy supply system can be considered to be
sustainable.
For STC the most relevant question is whether nuclear energy can contribute to this balance and
should be part of the energy supply system after transition.
The following issues and questions determine the dimensions of a sustainable energy supply:
Carbon emission and climate:
Is nuclear power a low carbon energy source?
In most studies the carbon emission is calculated on the basis of the total life cycle: including
mining, conversion, enrichment: fuel fabrication, reactor operation, reprocessing, interim storage
and repository. And also including the emission related to construction of the reactor, its
decommissioning and final storage of the radioactive components. Depending on the
assumptions made by the investigator and the country for which the analysis is made, the total
emissions that are reported vary widely between 10 and 65 g CO2/kWh. The enrichment
technology, diffusion or ultra centrifuge, and the source of electricity used in the process (coal or
nuclear) determines to a very large extend the differences in emission. Nevertheless it is agreed
that the CO2 emission by nuclear energy are comparable to those of other renewable sources
29
Is nuclear power contributing to the improvement of local air quality?
There is full agreement that nuclear power stations do not emit dust, SOx, NOx or other
pollutants. Local air quality will significantly improve when nuclear power is replacing other
fossil or biomass fuelled power stations.
What other effects can be expected from nuclear fission on the environment?
The emission of low amounts of radioactive material, in particular the emissions during the
reprocessing phase have been studied extensively (EU, Marina). Results show that the
contribution by these emissions to the radiation dose to different marine species only accounts
for a tiny fraction of the natural background radiation.
The emissions to the soil will be very limited. The amount of solid waste will be 5 to 6 orders of
magnitude smaller than that of fossil plants.
Costs
What are the costs of energy from nuclear fission?
In its green paper, the EU has stressed the importance of the competitiveness of the future energy
system. In many studies the costs of nuclear electricity has been analyzed. ( Royal Academy of
Engineering, 2004; NEA, 2005, EDF, 2006; IEA 2006); The reported generation costs vary
between 34 and 57 €/MWh.
How do the costs of nuclear electricity compare to those of other low carbon emission
energy sources?
The IEA analyzed the generating costs for different fuels and technologies. Compared to other
low CO2 emission technologies, nuclear has the lowest costs. (In the figure, no penalty for CO2
emissions is included. Should we consider a CO2 tax of 50 euros/ton, the coal cost would have to
be increased by about 40 – 50 euros/MWh; and the natural gas cost by about 20 euros/MWh).
30
Is there sufficient fissionable material available for fission to play an important role?
Nuclear energy can only be considered as sustainable if sufficient large amounts of uranium will
be available for present and future use. Using current light water technology, NEA and IAEA
estimate that the identified resources (at $130/kg U) will be sufficient to fuel present power
plants for 85 years and estimated conventional uranium resources would cover 270 years of
operation of the present fleet. (NEA/IAEA, 2006). However when a new generation of fast
neutron reactors becomes commercially available, around 2040, the current uranium resources
will be sufficient for many 1000 years. A prerequisite is the development of closed fuel cycles
and advanced reprocessing technologies.
Safety
Is the current and future technology for nuclear fission sufficiently safe?
Since the beginning of nuclear power there has been two main accidents: one without direct
fatalities (Three Mile Island) ; and another with external fatalities (, Chernobyl). When the
accident happened at Chernobyl unit 4, it was being operated as an experimental facility, out of
the safety standards usually applied to this type of reactors.
The present generation of reactors has reached a very high level of safety. Defense in depth for
design and operation of the reactors has been the main driving. Increased focus on safety culture
among all involved in operating and supervising the installations will further improve the safety
level. In a study into severe accidents in the energy industry the Paul Scherrer Institute showed
the expected risks for Nuclear power (number of immediate and latent deaths/GWyr) to be an
order of magnitude smaller than all other options (PSI 2004). However, there is a special
concern about very unlikely accidents with a large number of fatalities.
People and organisations are fundamental factors in nuclear safety and radiation protection.
Experience feedback analysis shows that about 80% of incidents occurring in operational nuclear
installations have at least one cause directly linked to organisational and human factors (OHF).
The purpose of taking OHF into account is not simply to reduce human error but also to
encourage specific human capabilities and skills (intelligence, adaptability, creativity, ability to
31
anticipate and to recover, etc.) and strengthen the human and organisational lines of defence.
Thus organisations have a crucial role to play in creating and guaranteeing conditions conducive
to improving human performance. Significant progress is still to be made in taking account of
these organisational and human factors in nuclear activities.
Can future generations cope with the effects of possible severe accidents?
Severe accidents with nuclear installations will have an effect for installations of a similar
design. Most probably operation will be stopped for a certain period with probably significant
economical effects. Management models to cope with economical effects need further
investigation. Severe accidents may also emit large amounts of radioactivity to the environment.
Those effects may not be limited to the immediate vicinity of the reactor. The IAEA has
developed a system for international warning. Also the management of severe contamination
needs international harmonization. The experience on radioactive cleaning after the Chernobyl
accident is relevant to this context.
Does investment in the EU in nuclear stimulate the use by countries with lower safety
standards thus contributing to a global decrease of safety?
Currently the EU is a world leader in safety standards. We should continue to invest in order to
maintain our technical leadership and keep high standards worldwide thus having an impact on
other countries that acquire our technology. In this context, it is worth pointing out the recent
proposal of an E.U. Directive on Nuclear Safety, already adopted by the Commission, which can
be the basis for a common understanding on nuclear safety standards and procedures at a very
demanding level.
Waste
Can nuclear waste safely and permanently be isolated from the biosphere?
32
All countries using nuclear power have developed interim storage facilities for either spent fuel
or reprocessed waste. It has been proven that those facilities provide adequate shielding from the
biosphere. Almost all countries that use nuclear energy have conducted in depth studies into
facilities for final storage of nuclear waste. Calculations of the transport processes which could
bring radioactive waste finally back into the biosphere show that this will only happen after a
time in which the nuclides have sufficiently decayed. Geological uncertainties have been taken
into account and calculations have been supported by measurements in experimental
repositories, and in natural analogues (mines, the Oklo site in Gabon, and others).
Proliferation
What are the risks of proliferation and how can they be mitigated?
The issue of the spread of nuclear weapons outside the group of countries that already possess
them has two dimensions: the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology and the spread of
nuclear material. Both aspects are on an international level covered by the United Nations and
international treaties. The IAEA has to play an active role in surveying and managing the
implementation of those treaties.
Although plutonium from light water reactors is not suited for and has never been used in
nuclear weapons, the production of pure plutonium during reprocessing of spend fuel should be
treated with utmost care. From a technical point, spread of reactor plutonium and proliferation is
best prevented by the re-use of plutonium as a fuel for nuclear reactors. This MOX technology is
available. Further development of proliferation resistant reprocessing technologies for future
generations of fast reactors needs further attention.
It must be kept in mind that proliferators may resort to obsolete enrichment technologies or
misuse normal reactors. Furthermore centrifuges intended for civilian purposes need special
attention from safeguards as they can easily be converted form LEU into HEU production.
Terrorism
What are the risks and effects of terrorist actions?
Terrorists may pose different kind of threats. In the first place they may try to construct a nuclear
weapon. For that they need access to nuclear technology and to nuclear material. This risk can be
considered to be extremely low.
Terrorists may try to construct a dirty bomb: a conventional explosive and radioactive material.
The possibilities to get access to radioactive material is not limited to nuclear power stations,
isotopes are abundant. In fact spent fuel is transported in heavy and heavily protected facilities.
Moreover the material is highly self protecting.
All nuclear reactors are designed to withstand terrorist attacks. The path into the sensitive parts is
blocked by several different engineered barriers. After 9/11 terrorist attack in New York, studies
have shown that the nuclear reactor facilities are very well designed and operated to withstand
attack from the outside.
Lock-out effect
Do investments in nuclear fission prevent or hamper the development of other energy
options such as solar, wind, distributed CHP etc.
Investment in nuclear fission R&D, even including that for GEN IV, is small compared to
investments in renewable R&D. Moreover the two technologies are in a different stage of
development. Currently low cost nuclear fission power is extensively cross-subsidizing the
deployment of renewable sources, which still needs extensive financial support.
33
Energy efficiency
Does investment in nuclear energy interfere with the goal of the Union to further curb
energy demand and therefore promote energy efficiency?
Any source of readily available energy, renewable and fission alike, may diminish the perceived
urgency of energy conservation. Energy conservation is a goal in its own, which must be
promoted.
Moral aspects
Can a technology that is not widely accepted by the population be considered to be part of
a sustainable system?
Any country that has the means to develop nuclear power in a safe way and does not use them, is
hurting the lesser developed countries that have no access to this source of energy. Continued
use of fossil sources will lead to higher prices which hamper the economic growth of developing
countries where close to 2 billion people have no access to electric power.
34
10. European R&D for Nuclear Fission Energy
As pointed out in the STC Formal Opinion on the 7th Framework Programme, fission power is a
technology1 whose potential for improvements and breakthroughs is far from exhausted. At the
EU level, the human and budgetary resources devoted to fission R&D are very limited,
representing only a small fraction of the total R&D resources devoted to fission by the Member
StateMember States on a national basis. Therefore, European R&D in this field should be very
selective, and focused on those topics that need an effective integration of national efforts and
can have a significant European added value.
According to the STC views, R&D activities on Fission Energy can be grouped in three major
lines:
1. R&D related to existing Reactors and Fuel Cycle Installations.
2. R&D related to Future Fission Systems
3. R&D related to radioactive Waste Management.
EURATOM R&D programme follows the same lines (with a slightly different wording), but the
practical realization of the programme seems to be not totally connected with the main R&D
efforts at national level (in those countries having a Fission R&D programme, or some important
activities in this field). An obvious goal would be to look for synergies between the EURATOM
programme and the national efforts, but this policy is not simple to implement because of the
very different attitudes on Nuclear Energy among the Member Countries.
STC welcomes the creation of the Sustainable Nuclear Fission Technology Platform (SNF-TP)
at the end of 2007, with partners from R&D organizations, industry and universities from more
than 10 Member States. By bringing together the R&D actors to prepare the future of fission
R&D, this Platform should define a strategic research agenda implicating national programmes
as well as the FP, and help establish the European Research Area in nuclear fission
We can therefore hope to avoid the current situation, where E.U. research efforts are fragmented
into individual projects, usually evaluated by individual teams without true roadmaps in each
domain. The current sponsoring policy makes it difficult to assess the significance of the net
advancements in a given project, or even at F.P. level
Indeed, the definition of several roadmaps (for definite R&D broad topics) appears as a critical
issue for guiding EURATOM research in an efficient way, particularly for long-term
development. For the short-term, the role of EURATOM activities should be considered from a
different viewpoint, because of the different national policies on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless,
many common points of interest could be identified in this context, which would help maintain
Nuclear Energy as a sound and safe option for electricity generation, in a scenario where security
of supply is going to play a fundamental role.
As an outline of the research fields where EURATOM can have a positive influence for
generating R&D synergies, the following ones can be cited:
1
Generation of electricity by nuclear reactors has been based on a few reactor types, some
operating in the once-through fuel cycle, and some based on limited recycle. Several other types
of rectors operating in a closed cycle can be envisaged. The deployment of these alternatives
would dramatically change for better the long term sustainable use of nuclear fission fuels.
35
10.1. R&D related to existing Reactors and Fuel Cycle Installations.
Although Nuclear Power is a mature and commercialized industrial activity, some aspects can be
considered as potential R&D fields for being in the track of “continuous improvement”, which
has been a permanent feature of Nuclear Fission Energy. Namely:
•
•
•
•
Safety culture (including emergency preparedness)
Management methods (safe and efficient O&M)
Fuel management and alternative fuels
Life extension
10.2. R&D related to Future Fission Systems
Even though fission power remains a contentious issue among the Member States of the
European Union, it is already obvious that at least some members will pursue its use well into
the 21st century. Moreover, the role of Nuclear Energy will have to grow worldwide, if an
actual reduction of CO2 emissions is really a must. Finally, more and more countries outside
Europe are embarking or plan to embark into significant nuclear programme: it is important that
the European nuclear industry remain a key technology supplier.
In this long-term development, a roadmap seems particularly necessary.
Generation IV and INPRO are two initiatives to prepare the future of Nuclear Power through
formalized international processes based on methodology, explicit criteria, screening, etc. These
initiatives must take into account not only the reactors, but the whole fuel cycle. GENEP is
focussed on insuring that future nuclear systems can be developed without increasing the risks of
nuclear weapons proliferation.
In the elaboration of a long-term EURATOM plan to help build the best possible framework for
the safe and efficient exploitation of Nuclear Fission, the following principles should be
followed:
• Proliferation-resistant technologies
• Safety features to minimize the effect of conceivable accidents (so-called “mitigation”)
• Suitable reactors and fuel cycles to efficiently exploit uranium (and thorium) natural
resources, and to minimize the generation of long-lived radioactive waste
• Economic competitivity (including fully standardized and licensed designs)
It is worth underlining the importance of reprocessing methods and fuel recycling techniques to
meet the foregoing criteria. Fuel designs and fuel management will also be a critical part of this
quest. Innovations in this field are particularly needed.
On the other hand, reactor selection appears as the most challenging task in this plan. Although
new materials can offer better features for radiation and temperature endurance, many critical
aspects are related to reactor physics, particularly in the field of reactor stability and reactor
cooling (in accidental circumstances). Those aspects can be studied by numerical simulation,
which is a fundamental tool in many engineering specialities, including reactor analysis.
Nevertheless, new research facilities will be the critical step in this development. As they will
36
have to be built within a national programme of a Member Country, EURATOM will have to
learn how to manage that situation with a suitable institutional tool (a Joint Undertaking?).
10.3. R&D related to radioactive Waste Management
EURATOM keeps two main lines of research in this field: Geological Disposal, and Partitioning
and Transmutation.
It must be noted that this field likely shows the biggest differences among EU Member
Countries, which makes it very difficult to converge into unified R&D programmes.
Research done until now has proven that there are no insurmountable problems to materialize
Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal, neither from the point of view of safety nor from the
point of view of feasibility. Such a disposal site has already been selected and approved in
Finland, where construction has started. There are however a number of points which have to be
elucidated in order to reduce the uncertainties, to increase the confidence (in general, but
particularly of the public and politicians) in the practical implementation of safety studies, and to
prove and improve the concepts and the understanding of the risks involved, which are affected
by very long time spans, but at extremely low probabilities. Specific programmes with definite
projects could join European efforts according to these objectives. Knowledge management
seems particularly suited for this field.
It is very important to note that several countries have already identified a geological disposal
solution for spent fuel and high-level waste. That decision was possible because of the
development of all the scientific background and all the technological elements needed to
materialise this solution, particularly in some types of host formations.
On the other hand, it is worth noting that some European countries prefer to wait before choosing
final solutions for the back-end of the fuel cycle, and consider that interim storage facilities for
the spent fuel are suitable solutions in the near and mid-term. This is also in connection with the
development of new technologies for reprocessing and recycling the fuel.
Although partitioning and transmutation (P&T) will not be able to avoid geological disposal and
will not provide any solution to “legacy” waste existing in some Member States, they could
contribute to relax the requirements for geological disposal, if they could reduce significantly the
heat generated by the waste packages and reduce by orders of magnitude the long term
radiotoxicity of the waste to be disposed of. P&T would require a substantial change in the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle (eventually including recycling of most of the heavy nuclei of the spent
fuel). As transmutation would be ineffective in presently operating reactors, P&T research
should be closely connected to Future Fission Systems R&D, as a potential part of the
Sustainable Nuclear Scenario, which could be created by a suitable development of all these
activities. Such Scenario is not easily at hand, but it could be a fundamental tool for the social
and economic welfare in the planet, particularly in Europe. EURATOM can play a fundamental
role in making that Scenario possible, which could be a key element to meet energy demands
while reducing greenhouse gases emissions.
37
11. Conclusions and recommendations
For many demographic and economic reasons, the demand for electricity along the 21st
Century will increase in the short, medium and longer term. Besides that, the energy sector will
have to undergo a deep structural change, mainly concerning combustion fuels, which will
partially evolve from fossil ones to man-made products, as elementary hydrogen. Under such a
prospective, it is STC’s view that Nuclear Fission will play an important role as an energy
source, not only for electricity supply. This fact will be true both at a European and at a global
level, and it will be of paramount importance for some highly populated countries with emerging
economies. It is also STC’s view that Nuclear Fission evolution will have to progress along
principles of sustainable development
It must be noted that there is a broad consensus on the goals guiding the Energy sector:
-
Security of supply
Environmental quality (in particular, the fight against Global Warming, although Acid
Rain and Local Contamination are also important subjects)
Economic competitivity (free markets, low energy costs...) although this goal is less
mandatory than the previous ones.
Security of supply (at reasonable prices) seems to be particularly critical. Recent crisis in food
goods and financial markets have been accompanied by strong rises in oil (and gas) prices,
which sets up an uncomfortable scenario for the future. Additionally, the limited size of gas
storages in importing countries conveys a threat for electricity supply in the event of a crisis in
that market.
The E.U. has established some goals and mandatory (or close to mandatory) Directives for many
energy issues (Renewables, Biofuels, Combined Heat and Power,...) but Nuclear Energy still
appears as a very sensitive topic that can not be treated at an European scale. Even the
harmonization of Nuclear Safety standards seems to be very difficult to discuss, although it is
somehow covered by the EURATOM Treaty. Discrepancies in the legal articulation of Nuclear
Safety in each country pose several difficulties to establish a common approach for those
standards.
The European Commission has addressed the Nuclear Energy issue in different papers, and it can
be said the following on that point:
9 The Commission acknowledges the role of nuclear energy (at the European
level)°in low-carbon electricity generation
9 The Commission acknowledges that nuclear energy is not negligible part of the
current and future energy mix in the European Union
9 The Commission acknowledges the need for the maintenance of nuclear safety at
the highest level
9 The Commission acknowledges the need to keep options open for Member States
should they wish to select and deploy nuclear technology in the future
38
STC considers that actions are needed to ensure/enable a critical mass of research endeavour in
nuclear technology for the European Union, taking into account the variable geometry procedure
in the most efficient way.
As one of the first answers to the challenge of evolving to a more sustainable energy sector,
some European countries, with strong energy dependence from abroad, should deploy, on a
significant scale, the new Generation III LWR’s, which have improved safety levels and are
ready for commercialization. Nuclear Power Plants will not be limited by uranium resources for
several decades, which will allow time to develop and progressively deploy more advanced
nuclear systems.
A European answer in the longer term will have to be based in the new industrial revolution
aimed at re-structuring the Energy sector, which will be a technology-driven revolution. In that
context, it is worth remembering that the European Union has outstanding capabilities for
developing new reactor concepts and fuel cycle installations that would be the basis for a new
dimension in exploiting Nuclear Fission. Besides the traditional principles of inherent safety
and proliferation resistance, the new approach will be guided by:
• Natural resources optimization through recycling (including recycling of existing
inventories)
• Long-lived waste radiotoxicity minimization
• Non-electricity application (e.g., process heat, hydrogen and desalination)
The EU should prepare and deploy a Nuclear Fission Strategy in order to make real the
opportunity that Nuclear Fission conveys. Whilst the EU currently has a leading technical role in
this field, we are at risk of losing it without new R & D investment and endeavors. This Strategy
would have to embody technological programmes, as well as institutional measures and
initiatives. This is a fundamental conclusion of this analysis.
This Strategy should take into account that Nuclear Fission is contributing to electricity
generation right now, it can contribute with new reactors in the medium term, and can offer
advanced reactors and fuel cycles in the longer term. Hence, it can be one of the main means to
cope with the Energy Problem that will severely affect the social welfare and economic
development of Europe and the planet at large. It goes without saying that budgets for such
Strategy have to be enlarged from the current figures, mainly in relation to long-term research. It
is true that the nuclear industry has commercial maturity and can afford by itself some near-term
R&D, but this is not sufficient for a complete strategic quest towards obtaining the best level in
exploiting Nuclear Fission.
It is also importance to realize that other countries, particularly in East and South Asia, are
firmly committed to further deploy nuclear energy until a very large scale. In fact, some of the
most important western companies in the nuclear field have been bought by asian companies, in
order to have larger capabilities to afford the very big plans they have established.
After analyzing the global picture of the Energy sector and the European features, one could ask:
What is the role of EURATOM in the current situation of Nuclear Fission Energy, which is
a renaissance and a crossroad at the same time?
A qualitative answer to this question could be:
39
To contribute to an efficient development of suitable nuclear technologies that could be
useful for European (and non European) countries considering Nuclear Energy as a part of
their energy technologies portfolio.
Although technology is a fundamental concept to solve the energy problems lying ahead, it must
be recognized that Nuclear Energy is not accepted by a sizeable fraction of the European
population (and political parties). This is also a fundamental element in energy politics and
policies, and must be addressed properly (including the significant fact that local opposition to
Nuclear Energy is not very strong in municipalities with Nuclear Power Plants).
In the public opposition to Nuclear Energy, two issues are particularly relevant: Nuclear
accidents and nuclear wastes. This reality has to be taken into account, because they must affect
the definition of research programmes and other initiatives, which will only produce the
expected results if the EU leads this development from the social and political points of view, as
a meeting point for shaping the future with the best tools and the deeper perspectives.
Therefore, some priority actions can be identified as EURATOM tasks in the Fission domain:
• To help create a positive social climate for Nuclear Energy by means of fostering
independent studies of high level groups.
• To contribute to set up a common legal framework on nuclear safety.
• To guide and coordinate efficient R&D programmes, looking for the best synergisms
with country-based activities and with globally international activities, and aiming at
increasing the public confidence in Nuclear Fission by developing new technologies with
better safety standards and lower waste burden.
• To speed-up efforts in coping with the human-factor problem, caused by the decline in
the number of young scientists and engineers in the Nuclear field.
Besides the previous priority list, the STC particularly recommends the following actions:
In Education and training:
To study a new role for EURATOM in the field of promoting Nuclear Education
and Training at all the required levels, including learning associated to research
activities. This new role should be materialized in a clear policy containing:
1. Objectives
2. Work plan
3. Budget
- To elaborate a European curriculum of skills, experience and professional
qualifications in the nuclear field.
- To establish high quality educational programmes with international recognition
(EURATOM endorsement, maybe with the contribution of the proposed European
Nuclear Academy).
- To optimize the utilization of R&D facilities and infrastructures across E.U. to
improve education and training
- To foster mobility of students, for instance by financing international courses from
EURATOM.
40
-
To develop training programmes with universities, research centers, industrial
companies and the Joint Research Centre, including postgraduate and life-long
learning programmes.
To improve public communication of Nuclear R&D at high school and
baccalaureate levels.
In Knowledge Management
- The current activities of data collection and archivation should be continued and
possibly extended to other kinds of experiments such as thermal-hydraulics, severe
accidents, etc.
- R&D activity is sine qua non tool of maintaining competence and nuclear
knowledge.
- Every means should be used for making the nuclear attractive for the young
generation
The STC is available to analyse and assess the development and outcome of these proposals.
41