Nuclear Power and Sustainable

Development

IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency

H-Holger RognerHead, Planning & Economic Studies Section (PESS)

Department of Nuclear Energy

Structure of global electricity supply

Global electricity

generation in 2007:

19,770TWh

Coal

Hydro15.6%

Biomass1.3%

Other Ren1.2%

IAEA

Coal41.0%

Oil5.6%

Natural gas20.9%

Nuclear13.8%

Nuclear share of electricity (2009)

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

400

500

600

700

800

900

Nu

cle

ar

sh

are

in

to

tal

ele

ctr

icit

gen

era

tio

n

Nu

cle

ar

ele

ctr

icit

y g

en

era

tio

n i

n T

Wh

IAEA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0

100

200

300

400

US

A

FR

AN

CE

JA

PA

N

RU

SS

IAN

FE

DE

RA

TIO

N

KO

RE

A, R

EP

UB

LIC

OF

GE

RM

AN

Y

CA

NA

DA

UK

RA

INE

CH

INA

UN

ITE

D K

ING

DO

M

SP

AIN

SW

ED

EN

BE

LG

IUM

SW

ITZ

ER

LA

ND

CZ

EC

H R

EP

UB

LIC

FIN

LA

ND

IND

IA

HU

NG

AR

Y

BU

LG

AR

IA

SL

OV

AK

IA

BR

AZ

IL

SO

UT

H A

FR

ICA

RO

MA

NIA

ME

XIC

O

LIT

HU

AN

IA

AR

GE

NT

INA

SL

OV

EN

IA

NE

TH

ER

LA

ND

S

PA

KIS

TA

N

AR

ME

NIA

Nu

cle

ar

sh

are

in

to

tal

ele

ctr

icit

gen

era

tio

n

Nu

cle

ar

ele

ctr

icit

y g

en

era

tio

n i

n T

Wh

Nuclear power today

On 18 August 2010, 441 nuclear power plants (NPPs)

operated in 29 countries worldwide, with a total

installed capacity of 374 600 MWe.

“Where does

nuclear

350

400

IAEA

nuclear

power go

from here?”

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

GW

e

60 plants with

58.9 GWe

generating

capacity

� Energy efficiency improvements

� Economic restructuring

� Significant drop in electricity demand

� Excess generating capacity

Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation:

IAEA

� Excess generating capacity

� Oil (traded fossil energy) price collapse

� Advent of the high-efficient cheap gas turbine

technology (GTCC)

� Electricity market liberalization & privatization

� Little regard for supply security

� Regulatory interventions after Three Mile Island

� High interest rates

Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation:

IAEA

� High interest rates

� Chernobyl

� Break up of the Soviet Union

All the above together: New nuclear build out of

favour (poor economics and lack of demand)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

GW

e

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

GW

eDevelopment of regional nuclear generating capacities

North America Western Europe

IAEA0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

GW

e

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

GW

e

Eastern Europe & CIS Asia

Construction starts and grid connections after 1. January 2000

Construction starts Asia: 36 World: 48

IAEA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Grid connections Asia: 28 World: 37

As per 18 August 2010

Source: IAEA - PRIS

Annual Incremental Nuclear Capacity Additions

and Total Nuclear Electricity Generation

1,500

1,800

2,100

2,400

2,700

25

30

35

40

45

To

tal n

ucle

ar e

lectric

ity g

en

era

tion

Incre

men

tal n

ucle

ar

po

wer

cap

acit

y a

dd

itio

ns

GW

e

IAEA

-300

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

To

tal n

ucle

ar e

lectric

ity g

en

era

tion

in T

Wh

Incre

men

tal n

ucle

ar

po

wer

cap

acit

y a

dd

itio

ns

in G

We

73.7

75.474.3

75.7

78.479.6

82.2 81.9

79.681.0 81.1

82.1

80.0 79.878.5

75

80

85

90

Pe

rce

nt

Global energy availability factor ofnuclear power plants

Equivalent to the construction of 34 NPPs of 1,000 MW each

IAEA

66.8

70.1 70.2 70.5 71.2

73.7

55

60

65

70

75

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pe

rce

nt

Summary of nuclear power today

� A proven technology that provides clean electricity at

predictable and competitive costs

� Provides 14% of global electricity supply

� More the 13,000 years of accumulated reactor experience

IAEA

� Operation of nuclear installations have safety as highest

priority

� Lessons learned from past mistakes or accidents have

been acted on

� Nuclear takes full responsibility its waste

Technology options towards a sustainable energy future

�Improved Energy Efficiency throughout

the energy system

�More Renewable Energy

IAEA

�More Renewable Energy

� Advanced Energy Technologies:

� clean fossil fuel technologies including carbon capture

& storage (CCS)

� next generation nuclear technologies

CSD-9: Outcomes (2001) – confirmed by WSSD (2002)

� Exhaustive debate

� Agreement to disagree on nuclear’s role in sustainable development

� Unanimous agreement that choice belongs to countries

IAEA

countries

� There is no technology without risks and interaction with the environment.

� Do not discuss a particular technology in isolation.

� Compare a particular technology with alternatives on a life cycle (LCA) basis.

BUT

Contra: Nuclear & Sustainability

� No long-term solution to waste

� Nuclear weapons proliferation & security

WIPP

IAEA

security

� Safety: nuclear risks are excessive

� Transboundary consequences,

decommissioning & transport

� Too expensive

WIPP

Pro: Nuclear & Sustainability

� Brundtland1) about keeping options open

� Expands electricity supplies (“connecting the unconnected”)

IAEA

unconnected”)

� Reduces harmful emissions

� Puts uranium to productive use

� Increases human & technological capital

� Ahead in internalising externalities1) development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs

Economics – Nuclear power

� Nuclear power plants are cheap to operate

� Stable & predictable

� High upfront capital costs can be difficult to finance

� Sensitive to interest rates

Advantages But…

IAEA

� Stable & predictable generating costs

� Long life time

� Supply security (insurance premium)

� Low external costs (so far no credit applied)

� Sensitive to interest rates

� Long lead times (planning, construction, etc)

� Long payback periods

� Regulatory/policy risks

� Market risks

Investment costs for 1,000 MWe

Clean coal & CCS

Clean coal

Coal

IAEA

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

Natural gas

Wind farm

Nuclear

Billion US $Source: NEA/IEA, 2010

Range of levelized generating costs of new electricity generating capacities

Solar PV - stand alone

Solar Thermal

Hydro - large scale

Hydro - small scale

Biomass

Geothermal

935

324

459

IAEA0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Nuclear

Coal

Coal (CCS)

Gas

Wind (onshore)

Wind (offshore)

Solar PV

Solar PV - stand alone

US$/MWh

616

935

Source: NEA/IEA, 2010

Externalities of different electricity generating options

Biomasstechnologies

Existing coaltechnologiesno gas cleaning

HIGH

) and o

ther

impacts

IAEASource: EU-EUR 20198, 2003

Natural gastechnologies

Nuclearpower

Wind

New coaltechnologies

LOW HIGH

LOW

Greenhouse gas impacts

Air

pollution (P

M10) and o

ther

impacts

Typical nuclear electricity generation cost breakdown

O&M

Decommissioning1-5%

IAEA

O&M

20%

Investment

60%

Fuel cycle

20%

5% Uranium

1% Conversion

6% Enrichment

3% Fuel fabrication

5% Back-end activities Source: NEA

Cost structures of different generating options

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Uranium

IAEA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Nuclear Coal Gas CCGT

Uranium

Fuel

O&M

Capital

60

70

80

90

100

Impact of a doubling of resource prices on generating costs

IAEA0

10

20

30

40

50

Nuclear Coal Gas

US

$/M

Wh

Environment – Nuclear power

� Low pollution emissions

� Small land

� No final waste repository in operation

� High toxicity

Advantages ButE

IAEA

� Small land requirements

� Small fuel & waste volumes

� Wastes are managed

� Proven intermediary storage

� High toxicity

� Needs to be isolated for long time periods

� Potential burden to future generations

Nuclear Fuel: Small volumes, high energy contents

� 1 pellet produces the energy of 1.5 tonnes of coal

IAEA

tonnes of coal

� Each pellet produces 5000 kWh

Industrial waste per year per capita in France

� Industrial waste2,500 kg

� Nuclear waste< 1 kg

IAEA

< 1 kg

10 g of which are HLW

� Long-lived waste< 100 g

Source: Areva

Geological nuclear waste disposal

NATURAL BARRIERSStable rock around the repository

IAEA

Stable rock around the repositoryStable groundwater in the rocksRetention, dispersion and dilution processes in the rockDispersion and dilution processes in the biosphere Seals

Access

shafts or

tunnels

Disposal tunnels or

caverns

ENGINEERED BARRIERSSolid waste materialWaste containersBuffer and backfill materialsSealsContainer

Waste

Bufferorbackfill

Spent fuel

Relative radiotoxicity

Spent fuel

Relative radiotoxicity

Radio-toxicity of spent nuclear fuel

IAEA

FPMA + FP

Spent fuel(Pu + MA + FP)

Natural uranium ore

Time (years)

Relative radiotoxicity

FPMA + FP

Spent fuel(Pu + MA + FP)

Natural uranium ore

Time (years)

Relative radiotoxicity

Partitioning & transmutation

Spent fuel(Pu + MA + FP)

Natural uranium ore

Relative radiotoxicity

Spent fuel(Pu + MA + FP)

Natural uranium ore

Relative radiotoxicity

INNOVATION:

Burning of HLW in Fast

Reactor in Reducing

Radio Toxicity

Time lines…..

IAEA

FPMA + FP

Time (years)

FPMA + FP

Time (years)

Plutonium and minor

actinides are

responsible for most

of the long term

hazards

Wastes in fuel preparation and plant operation

0.4

0.5Flue gas desulphurization

Ash

Gas sweetening

Radioactive (HLW)

Million tonnesper GWe yearly

IAEA

0

0.1

0.2

0.3Radioactive (HLW)

Toxic materials

Oil Nuclear Solar

PV

Natural

gas

WoodCoal

Source: IAEA, 1997

Mitigation – Role of nuclear power

Life cycle GHG emissions of different electricity generating options

[8]

[12][10]

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800 [8]

[12][10]

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

[4]Standard deviation

Mean

Min - Max

[sample size]120

140

160

180

[4]Standard deviation

Mean

Min - Max

[sample size]120

140

160

180

per

kW

h

IAEANuclear power: Very low lifetime GHG emissions make

the technology a potent climate change mitigation option

[16]

[8]

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

lignite coal oil gas CCS

[16]

[8]

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

lignite coal oil gas CCS

[15][15][16]

[15]

[13]

[8]

0

20

40

60

80

100

hydro nuclear wind solarPV

bio-mass

storage

[16][15]

[13]

[8]

0

20

40

60

80

100

hydro nuclear wind solarPV

bio-mass

storage

gC

O2-e

qp

er

kW

h

Decarbonising the Economy

IAEA

CLIMATE CHANGE

G l o b a l R i s k s, C h a l l e n g e s & D e c i s i o n s

COPENHAGEN 2009, 10-12 March

Global CO2 emissions from electricity generation and emissions avoided by hydro, nuclear & renewables

10

12

14

16

18

Gt CO2

Hydro – avoided emissions

Electricity generation (actual)

Nuclear – avoided emissions

Non-hydro renewables – avoided emissions

IAEA

0

2

4

6

8

10

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Gt CO

Source: IAEA calculations based on IEA data

Mitigation Potential in Gt CO2-eq.

Mitigation potentials by 2030 of selected electricity generation technologies in different cost ranges

US

$/t

CO

2-e

q.

40

60

80

100

0.19

0.09

0.54

0.19 0.08

0.06 0.31

0.01

1.88 1.220.940.87

0.43 0.49 0.32

0.94 1.88

Total Mitigation Potential :

7.27 Gt CO2-eq

US

$/t

CO

Gt CO2-eq.

-20

0

20

40

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

0.94

0.23

0.45 0.33

0.42 1.07

0.24

0.54

0.350.20

0.15

0.49

0.94

Nuclear

Hydro

Wind

Fuel switching & plant efficiency

Bioenergy Geothermal

Solar (PV, CSP)

CCS- Coal CCS- Gas

Negative mitigation costs

Impact of CO2 penalty on competitiveness of nuclear power

Comparative Generating Costs Based on Low Discount Rate

nuclear low

nuclear high

4

5

6

7

8

9

US cents per kWh

IAEAA relatively modest carbon penalty would significantly improve the

ability of nuclear to compete against gas & coal

nuclear low

0

1

2

3

4

CCGT Coal steam IGCC

US cents per kWh

No carbon price Carbon price $10/tCO2Carbon price $20/tCO2 Carbon price $30/tCO2

Source: IEA, 2006

� Safety is an integral part of plant design & operation

� Nuclear power has an

� Nuclear power is dangerous

� It can never be made

Reality Perception

Safety – Nuclear power

IAEA

� Nuclear power has an excellent safety record

� Lessons learned from past accidents

� Safety culture, peer reviews & best practices

� No room for complacency

� It can never be made safe

� Safe is not safe enough

� Nuclear plants are atomic bombs

� No public acceptance

Nuclear power safety

� Safety is a dynamic concept

� Upgrading of older generation reactors & life time

extensions

� Advanced reactor designs with inherent safety

features

IAEA

features

� The impact of these ongoing efforts are:

� Improved availability worldwide

� Lower radiation doses to plant personnel and fewer

unplanned stoppages

Unplanned scrams per 7000 hours critical

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2U

np

lan

ne

d s

cra

ms

pe

r 7

00

0 h

ou

rs c

riti

cal

IAEASource: WANO 2009 Performance Indicators

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

(369) (387) (400) (418) (413) (417) (419) (405) (428) (428) (429) (425) (418) (420)

Un

pla

nn

ed

scr

am

s p

er

70

00

ho

urs

cri

tica

l

Industrial accidents at NPPs per million person-hours worked

3

4

5

6

Ind

ust

ria

l acc

ide

nts

pe

r m

illi

on

pe

rso

n-

ho

urs

wo

rke

d

IAEASource: WANO 2009 Performance Indicators

0

1

2

3

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

(169) (175) (183) (198) (202) (203) (203) (201) (210) (208) (209) (207) (216) (216)

Ind

ust

ria

l acc

ide

nts

pe

r m

illi

on

pe

rso

n

ho

urs

wo

rke

d

Elements of nuclear safety: Defense in Depth

IAEASource: NEA

Typical barriers confining radioactive materials

IAEASource: NEA

Severe Accident Indicators for OECD and non-OECD Countries

14.896

10.285

6

8

10

12

14

16

Fata

liti

es

pe

r G

Wy

r

IAEASource: Burgherr & Hirschberg, 2005

0.157 0.057 0.1160.597

1.605

2.93

0.135 0.127 0.1240.897

0.085 0.077 0.082 0.111

1.957 1.763 1.749

0.003

1.349

0.0480

2

4

OEC

D

EU 1

5

EU 2

5

No

n-O

ECD

w/o

Ch

ina

No

n-O

ECD

wit

h C

hin

a

Ch

ina

OEC

D

EU 1

5

EU 2

5

No

n-O

EC

D

OEC

D

EU 1

5

EU 2

5

No

n-O

EC

D

OEC

D

EU 1

5

EU 2

5

No

n-O

EC

D

OEC

D

EU 1

5

EU 2

5

No

n-O

EC

D

No

n-O

EC

D w

/o B

&S

OEC

D

EU 1

5

EU 2

5

No

n-O

EC

D

Coal Oil Natural gas LPG Hydro Nuclear

Fata

liti

es

pe

r G

Wy

r

Do not drive into the future by looking in the rear view mirror:

� Yesterday’s technology is not

tomorrow's

� Innovation ongoing

IAEA

� Innovation ongoing

� With each new investment cycle

technology tends to get better

Innovation: Nuclear power generation

Generation I

Early prototype reactors

Generation II

Commercial power reactors

Generation III

Advanced LWRs & HWRs

Generation III+

Evolutionary designs

with improved

Generation IV

Generation I

Early prototype reactors

Generation II

Commercial power reactors

Generation III

Advanced LWRs & HWRs

Generation III+

Evolutionary designs

with improved

Generation IV

IAEA

with improved

economics and

safety for near-term

deployment– Shippingport

– Dresden, Fermi I

– Magnox

– LWR-PWR,

BWR

– CANDU

– VVER/RBMK

– AP1000, ABWR,

System 80+

– ACR

– EPR

– Highly economical

– Enhanced safety

– Minimal waste

– Proliferation

resistant

Gen III Gen III+ Gen IV

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

with improved

economics and

safety for near-term

deployment– Shippingport

– Dresden, Fermi I

– Magnox

– LWR-PWR,

BWR

– CANDU

– VVER/RBMK

– AP1000, ABWR,

System 80+

– ACR

– EPR

– Highly economical

– Enhanced safety

– Minimal waste

– Proliferation

resistant

Gen III Gen III+ Gen IV

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 20301950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Innovation: AP 1000

IAEA

Integral Primary System Reactor (IRIS)

XX

XX

XX

XX

XXXX

XXXX

XX

IAEA

� Simplifies design by eliminating loop piping and external components.

� Enhances safety by eliminating major classes of accidents.

� Compact containment (2 times less power but 9 times less volume, small footprint) enhances economics and security.

XXXX

� The technology links of the sustainable

energy system must be tolerated by the

general public.

Socio-political compatibility

IAEA

general public.

� Satisfying the preceding criteria will

prove instrumental in influencing public

perceptions and attitudes.

� Energy services must be based on

inexhaustible energy sources

� Alternatively, the use of finite sources

Intergenerational compatibility:

IAEA

� Alternatively, the use of finite sources

must lead to the creation of sustainable

substitutes (“weak sustainability”)

� Wastes from the energy system must

not pose a risk to future generations

Ideally, energy sources should be evenly

distributed geographically, allow for

secure supplies and pose no threat to

Geopolitical compatibility:

IAEA

secure supplies and pose no threat to

the security of other countries.

� The genie is out of the bottle

� Preventing the misuse of nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes needs special attention

Nuclear weapons proliferation:

IAEA

� It is an area where IAEA has a strict mandate

� Non-proliferation is a political problem

� NPT regimes needs strengthening

� The quality of energy services cannot be inferior to

the equivalent services provided by the established

system – rather it must have the potential of

becoming significantly better.

Demand compatibility:

IAEA

� Supply densities must match demand densities.

Global Urbanization and Energy

� Growing populations of South Asia, China and

regions of Africa will urbanize at an increasing

rate

� Urban residents use several times more energy

IAEA

� Urban residents use several times more energy

services provided by different forms of energy

what they used in the countryside

� Urbanization increases dependence on

electricity

Connecting the Unconnected

� Large developing

countries

IAEA

�Concentrated

demand in

megacities

The future of nuclear power

� The industry is alive and vibrant

� Market liberalization served as a wake-up call

� The industry is heavily engaged in innovation

IAEA

� The political climate towards the technology has begun to change in many countries

� All credible long-term (>> 2030) demand & supply projections show steep increases in nuclear power

Countries considering nuclear power

IAEAOperating (29) Considering (44) Expressing interest (25)

Nuclear energy is more than just electricity generation

800

900

1,000

1,100

Reactor type

1 District heating, seawater – brackish water desalination

2 Petroleum refining

3 Oil shale and oil sand processing

Use / Application

5

44 Refinement of hard coal and lignite

IAEA0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1LWR

HWR

2

LMFR

3

AGR

5 Hydrogen and water splitting

44 Refinement of hard coal and lignite

HTGR

5

IAEA – LOW Projection

600

700

800

900

history

2005

IAEA0

100

200

300

400

500

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

GW

(e)

IAEA – HIGH Projection

600

700

800

900

history

2005

IAEA0

100

200

300

400

500

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

GW

(e) 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Why Nuclear Power?

� Global energy demand is set to grow

� Environmental pressures are rising

� Energy supply security back on the political agenda

Demand for reliable base load electricity at

IAEA

� Demand for reliable base load electricity at predictable and affordable costs persists

� Potentially decoupled from natural resource availability

� Innovation improves on yesterday’s technology

� Technology spin-offs

Why Nuclear Power?

� Nuclear base load electricity is economically competitive and provides 14% to global electricity supply

� Nuclear power contributes to supply security and price stability

IAEA

and price stability

� Nuclear power virtually avoids air pollution and the emissions of gases threatening climate stability

� Most externalities internalized

Why Nuclear Power?

� There is no technology without wastes and risks

� Nuclear waste volumes are small and manageable

� On factual balance, nuclear compares well with alternatives

IAEA

� It is readily available at large scale

� Nuclear power alone is not the “silver bullet” for mitigating climate change and sustainable energy development – but for sure it can be an integral part of any solution

World abatement of energy-related CO2emissions in the 450 Scenario

34

36

38

40

42

Gt

Efficiency 65 57

End-use 59 52

Power plants 6 5

Share of abatement %

2020 2030

13.8 Gt

Reference Scenario

IAEA

Efficiency measures account for two-thirds of the 3.8 Gt of abatement in 2020,

with renewables contributing close to one-fifth

26

28

30

32

34

2007 2015 2020 2025 20302010

Power plants 6 5

Renewables 18 20

Biofuels 1 3

Nuclear 13 10

CCS 3 10

3.8 Gt

13.8 Gt

450 Scenario

Source: WEO 2009, OECD/IEA, 2009

One size does not fit all

� Countries differ with respect to

� energy demand growth

� alternatives

� financing options

IAEA

� weighing/preferences

� accident risks (nuclear, mining, oil spills, LNG…),

cheap electricity, air pollution, jobs, import

dependence, climate change

� All countries use a mix. All are different.

� Local conditions determine the optimal supply and technology mix.

IAEA

IAEA…atoms for peace.