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 StudiesPaul 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 Commission’s 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

AreaGDP (ppp)

(Billions of U.S. Dollars)

CO2/GDP

Kg/$(ppp)

World 42,400 0.56

France 1,390 0.28

CO2 Intensity

(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

• 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

World Nuclear Expansion: U.S. Role

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

EgyptFrance

IsraelLithuania

Czech RepublicSlovakiaVietnamTurkey

IndonesiaUSA

BrazilSouth Africa

BulgariaUkraine

South KoreaArgentina

FinlandPakistanRomania

North KoreaIran

JapanTaiwan

ChinaRussia

India

Under Construction

Planned and Approved

Under Consideration

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

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

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07

Time, years

Re

lati

ve

CD

Ha

zard

Total Actinides

Total FP

Np-237

Pu-239

Pu-240

Am-241

13

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.

Environmental Standards

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

LWR Reprocessed

Fuel

Separation

Plant

Fast System

(one for every 7-8 LWRs)

Actinides U&FF

Separation

Plant

U&FF Actinides

LWR

Fast System

Separation

Plant

U&FF Actinides

16

Impact of Loss Fraction

Impact of Loss Fraction - Base ATW Case (3M)

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

10 100 1000 10000

Time (years)

Re

lati

ve

To

xic

ity

0.1% Loss

0.2% Loss

0.5% Loss

1% Loss

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.

IAEA’s own budget is small. Most work is done by Weapons’ States in cooperation with IAEA.

FY’07 U.S. budget considerably boosts R&D 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

SourceRadiation 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

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 @ 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 Today’s Interest Rates & Treatment of Externalities:Nuclear is competitive with coal.Cheaper than gas.

Cost Including Reprocessing and Actinide Burning Not Yet KnownReprocessing 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 R&D.

29

Cost (Continued)

If Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will be the WinnerCO2 sequestration 2-3¢/kw-hr for coal and

1-1.5¢/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.