GeoPhysics 200A

1
Nuclear Renaissance

• GeoPhysics 200A Oil and War Oil Peak and Oil
  Panic
• ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar)
• Burton Richter
• Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute of
  International Studies
• Paul Pigott Professor Emeritus, Stanford
  University
• Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator
  Center
• May 26, 2006

2
Abstract

• Nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance around
  the world. Twenty new reactors are under
  construction today and many more are in the
  planning stage. Even in the U.S., utilities are
  beginning to run new nuclear plants through the
  Nuclear Regulatory Commissions licensing
  procedure. The drivers for this renaissance are
  mainly energy supply issues and to a lesser
  extent environmental issues, global warming in
  particular. In this talk I will discuss some of
  the background leading to this expansion and then
  go on to look at the 3 main issues that are of
  concern to some safety (little new to say),
  spent-fuel disposal (how many Yucca Mountains),
  and nuclear weapons proliferation
  (internationalization of the fuel cycle).

3
IIASA Projection of Future Energy Demand
4
CO2 Intensity
Area GDP (ppp) (Billions of U.S. Dollars) CO2/GDP Kg/(ppp)
World 42,400 0.56
France 1,390 0.28



(IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2003)
5
The Renaissance

• 20 under construction (most in Asia)
• 1 in Europe (Finland)
• Germany is reconsidering planned shutdown of
  reactors
• 2 moving through licensing phase in U.S.
• In total about 100 (including above) in
  discussion or design.

6
World Nuclear Expansion U.S. Role

• Over 130 reactors are being built, planned, or
  under consideration world-wide
• U.S. has not ordered a reactor for decades,
  despite an existing fleet of over 100 reactors
• The U.S. should be in a position to influence how
  these facilities are designed, constructed, and
  operated
• Safety
• Waste disposal
• Proliferation-resistance

7
Nuclear Power Projection to 2030
8
In the U.S.

• Nuclear Incentives in 2006 Energy Bill
• Licensing streamlined
• Insurance against regulatory delays
• Cost sharing for First-of-a-Kind costs
• GNEP
• Waste treatment change
• Proliferation risk reduction

9
Components of Spent Reactor Fuel
Component Fission Fragments Uranium Long-Lived Component
Per Cent Of Total 4 95 1
Radioactivity Intense Negligible Medium
Untreated required isolation time (years) 200 0 300,000
10
Yucca Mountain Repository Layout
11
Computed Yucca Mountain Repository Temperatures
for Direct Disposal of 25 Year Old, 50 GWD/MT PWR
Fuel
12
Radiotoxicity of LWR Spent Fuel
13
Environmental Standards

• EPA set a 10,000 year standard.
• Court held EPA violated 1992 Waste Policy Act
• Mandated EPA follow scientific advice of NAS.
• NAS said Keep safe as long as dangerous.
• EPA issued new standard that sets all sources
  dose limit for the dumbest person on Earth at
  350mr/yr.
• Yucca goes on as before in principle.

14
Repository Requirements in the United States by
the Year 2100
NuclearFutures Legal Limit Extended License for Current Reactors Continued Constant Energy Generation Constant MarketShare Growing MarketShare
Total Discharged Fuel by 2100, MTHM 63,000 120,000 240,000 600,000 1,300,000
Repositories needed with current approach 1 2 4 9 21
Repository with expanded capacity 1 2 5 11
With thermal recycle only 1 2 5
With thermal and fast 1
15
(a) Transmutation Schematics with LWR Recycle
(b) Without LWR Recycle
16
Impact of Loss Fraction
17
Nuclear Weapons Proliferation The Fuel Cycle

• There is NO proliferation-proof fuel cycle
• Nations Only method is binding international
  agreements that include sanctions for violators.
• Terrorist Groups It is not easy to build a Pu
  bomb. Risk is in buying or stealing or getting a
  gift of one, not so much from fuel cycle.

18
Proliferators

• Enrichment Phase (Front End) to make U(235)
  Weapons
• South Africa (gave them up under IAEA
  supervision)
• Pakistan (centrifuge technology sold around the
  world)
• Libya (abandoned attempt)
• Iran ?
• Reprocessing (Back End) to make Pu Weapons
• Israel
• India
• N. Korea

19
Technical Safeguards

• Not much money is spent on advanced technical
  safeguards.
• IAEAs own budget is small. Most work is done by
  Weapons States in cooperation with IAEA.
• FY07 U.S. budget considerably boosts RD on
  Technical Safeguards.
• All new facilities should be equipped with
  advanced technology.

20
Relative Proliferation Resistance Score (higher
is better)
21
Plutonium Isotopic Mixture and Properties after
Various Reactor Treatments (ANL)
22
Internationalize the Fuel Cycle

• Supplier States Enrich Uranium
• Take back spent fuel
• Reprocess to separate Actinides
• Burn Actinides in Fast Spectrum reactors
• User States Pay for reactors
• Pay for enriched fuel
• Pay for treatment of spent fuel (?)

23
Safety

• Not much new to say
• Chernobyl-style reactors never used for power
  outside old Soviet Bloc.
• New reactor designs are simplified compared to
  existing designs and use more passive safety
  systems.
• Radiation risk has always been exaggerated.

24
Radiation Exposures
Source Radiation Dose Millirem/year
Natural Radioactivity 240
Natural in Body (75kg) 40
Medical (average) 60
Nuclear Plant (1GW electric) 0.004
Coal Plant (1GW electric) 0.003
Chernobyl Accident (Austria ?1988) 24
Chernobyl Accident (Austria 1996) 7
Included in the Natural Total Included in the Natural Total
25
Public Health Impacts per TWh
  Coal Lignite Oil Gas Nuclear PV Wind
Years of life lost Nonradiological effects Radiological effects Normal operation Accidents 138 167 359 42 9.1 16 0.015 58 2.7
Respiratory hospitaladmissions 0.69 0.72 1.8 0.21 0.05 0.29 0.01
Cerebrovascular hospital admissions 1.7 1.8 4.4 0.51 0.11 0.70 0.03
Congestive heart failure 0.80 0.84 2.1 0.24 0.05 0.33 0.02
Restricted activity days 4751 4976 12248 1446 314 1977 90
Days with bronchodilator usage 1303 1365 3361 397 86 543 25
Cough days in asthmatics 1492 1562 3846 454 98 621 28
Respiratory symptoms in asthmatics 693 726 1786 211 45 288 13
Chronic bronchitis in children 115 135 333 39 11 54 2.4
Chronic cough in children 148 174 428 51 14 69 3.2
Nonfatal cancer         2.4    
Kerwitt et al., Risk Analysis Vol. 18, No. 4
(1998).
26
Costs

• AREVA, GE, Westinghouse all claim costs of
  electricity about 4/kw-hr for a new plant after
  First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) costs recovered and after
  building a few.
• AREVA Finnish plant costs 1800/kw which implies
  capital cost of about 2/kw-hr (30 yr _at_ 7).
• Regulatory Risk a concern addressed in 2006
  Energy Bill.

27
Waste Treatment Costs

• Federal Government is responsible for spent fuel.
• 0.1/kw-hr built into cost of nuclear electricity
  now.
• Review of Yucca Mt. costs say 0.1/kw-hr still
  about right.
• Opponents of reprocessing say Actinide fuel costs
  about twice that of fresh U(235) fuel (correct).
• Supporters of Reprocessing say cost of
  electricity increase by about 5 in the noise
  (also correct).

28
Cost (Continued)

• At Todays Interest Rates Treatment of
  Externalities
• Nuclear is competitive with coal.
• Cheaper than gas.
• Cost Including Reprocessing and Actinide Burning
  Not Yet Known
• Reprocessing and fuel fabrication will cost more
  than French MOX (radioactive fuel).
• Fast spectrum burners will cost more /kw-hr than
  LWRs. Number needed per LWR uncertain.
• Repository will cost less than Yucca Mountain.
• Will Take 20 Years To Do All the RD.

29
Cost (Continued)

• If Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will be
  the Winner
• CO2 sequestration 2-3/kw-hr for coal
  and1-1.5/kw-hr for gas.
• Wind about equal to coal now, but get 1.6/kw hr
  tax credit.
• If Supplier States User States Model Works,
  Proliferation Risk Will be Greatly Reduced and
  Smaller Countries Greatly Benefited.

30
Conclusion

• Nuclear is Growing Fast in Rest of World.
• Nuclear is Probably Restarting in U.S.
• Spent Fuel Problem Can be Solved.
• GNEP is an Important Step for U.S. Nuclear Energy
  and for Significant Greenhouse Gas Reduction.