2011

Nuclear Energy Potential

Do renewable sources of energy pose real challenge to non-renewable ones?

By : Priyank Jadav
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

Nuclear Energy Potential 2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is my pleasure to acknowledge all those whose inspiration and wisdom helped me in completing my project. I would like to extend my gratitude to EMERSON for giving me an opportunity to make a project on very warm issue of nuclear energy.

I would like to thank Mr. Sachin Sehgal for informing me about the TALENT QUEST. I would also like to thanks Poorva Chandra Shekhar and Mausam Joshi from HR Department, Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt.Ltd. for continuous updating me and encouraging for working hard to meet the project requirement and deadlines.Lastly I would like to thank my colleagues for the constant moral support.

Priyank Jadav MBA 2nd Year School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

2|Page

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Ex utiv Summ r

Statistics says that in 2008, world s total energy cons tion was 143,851 TWh and

near about 87% of total energy was produced by non -renewable sources and only 13% of total energy was produced by renewable sources If we see present power generation capacity of India, then 68 19% energy is produced by non-renewable sources and only 31.81% of total energy was produced by renewable sources. The statistics say that renewable energy sources do not pose real challenge to non-renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources produces causes less pollution and produced less green house gases as compared to non- renewable energy sources. Because renewable resources do not run out, they can power generators indefinitel y. Also, once initial startup costs are taken care of, these alternative fuels eventually pay for themselves. But, unfortunately, some renewable resources are not very reliable. Power generation from renewable energy sources is costlier and it can be produ ced only at the selected places where these resources are available. Renewable energy sources like solar, tidal, wind etc are impossible to transport like coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Also e uipments and machineries used to produce power from renewable energy sources are very costly and at present, there is no technological support available to bring down power generation cost by renewable energy sources and make them comparable with cost of power production by non-renewable energy sources.

Current nuclear waste in the US is over 90% Uranium. If reprocessing were made legal again in the US we would have enough nuclear material to last 100s of years. Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world's energy and 13 14% of the world's electricity. World s total nuclear power generation capacity is 378,910MW with the highest contribution of U.S. with 101,229MW. In India, currently 20 nuclear reactors produce 4780MW which is only 2.9% of total installed base. There are five more nuclear projects are under construction with 9 reactors and total production capacity of 6700MW. India is e pected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW. Based on India's known commercially

Sc

of Pe ole

Manage ent, Gandhinagar

3|Page

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

4|Page

Nu
Contents

rE

P t

ti

2011

I NTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10 PRESENT SCENARIO ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 OPPORTUNITIES FOR N UCLEAR EXPANSION ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 CHALLENGES FOR NUCLEAR EXPANSION ................................ ................................ ................................ . 15 RISKS OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS AND THEIR C ONTROL ................................ ................................ ................. 19 U RANIUM ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 20 THORIUM ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25 ECONOMIES OF N UCLEAR POWER ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 26 COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR TO RENEWABLE ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 RADIOACTIVE WASTES - MYTHS AND REALITIES ................................ ................................ ....................... 29 FUTURE SCENARIO ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 31 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

5|Page

Nu
List of Figures

rE

P t

ti

2011

Figure 1: Nuclear energy consumption by region ................................ ................................ ............... 9 Figure 2: Nuclear Power production by top 10 countries compared to India ................................ .... 12 Figure 3: World Annual power sector CO2 emission reductions ................................ ........................ 14 Figure 4: Contribution of energy sources in electricity generation in world and OECD countries ...... 15 Figure 5: Evolution of Nuclear Power since 1991 to 2009................................ ................................ . 15 Figure 6: Nuclear power project risk matrix ................................ ................................ ..................... 19 Figure 7: Risk control and monitoring in nuclear power projects................................ ...................... 20 Figure 8: World Uranium Production and Demand................................ ................................ ........... 22 Figure 9: Uranium Production Cost Curve : 2007 - 2030 ................................ ................................ ... 23 Figure 10: Uranium Supply Scenario 2009................................ ................................ ........................ 25 Figure 11: Net Additions to Global Electricity Grid from New Renewable and Nuclear (in GW) ......... 28 Figure 12: Electricity Production from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources ................................ ........................ 28 Figure 13: Future global electricity production by source................................ ................................ . 32

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

6|Page

Nu
List of Tables

rE

P t

ti

2011

Table 1: World Energy & Indian Power Sector Scenario ................................ ................................ ...... 8 Table 2: Top 10 Countries by Nuclear Power production and percentage share................................ 11 Table 3: India's operating nuclear power reactors ................................ ................................ ........... 13 Table 4: Countries with Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors in the World..................... 18 Table 5: Uranium Production and Recoverable Reserves ................................ ................................ .. 21 Table 6: The approx cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel................................ ................ 26 Table 7: Construction Time of Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide ................................ ...................... 27 Table 8: Estimates investment in nuclear energy in the BLUE Map scenario................................ ...... 31

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

7|Page

Nu


rE

P t

ti

2011

IN R

UC ION

In 2008, world s total energy consumption was 143,851 TWh and near about 87% of total energy was produced by non-renewable sources and only 13% of total energy was produced by renewable sources. If we see present power generation capacity of India, then 68.19% energy is produced by non-renewable sources and only 31.81% of total energy was produced by renewable sources. The statistics say that renewable energy sources do not pose real challenge to non-renewable energy sources. In the world, only 5.8% of total power production is from nuclear.

Table 1: World Energy & Indian Power Sector Scenario World Energy by power source 2008 TWh Oil Coal Gas Nuclear Hydro Other RE Others Total
biofuels

% 33.50% 26.80% 20.90% 5.80% 2.20% 10.60% 0.20% 100% Thermal Nuclear Hydro RES Total

MW 111294.5 4780 37367.4 16786.98 170228.9

48204 38497 30134 8 283 3208 15284 241 143 851

Source: Ministry of Power - Annual Report 2010

Source: IEA =solar, wind, geothermal and

Renewable energy sources (RES) are alternatives available to meet increasing energy demand but they can t replace non -renewable energy sources for energy generation. RES are alternative not the substitute of Non -RES. Power generation from non-renewable energy sources is cheaper than renewable energy sources. Hence, cost of generation is low and profit margin can be comparatively higher. Non-renewable resources helped bring the age of tomorrow, today. With the exception of nuclear power plants, using these r esources

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

Power Sector Indi - 2010 % 65.38% 2.81% 21.95% 9.86% 100%

8|Page

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

to create energy is fairly simple. Even after all these advantages of fossil fuel, one thing is sure that one day they will eventually run out and these fuels are also responsible for many types of pollution and green house effect. And unfortunate ly, as powerful as nuclear power plants are, they generate nuclear waste, which is cannot be recycled, is very dangerous to the environment, and cannot be cleaned or reduced through filtration systems. These arguments lead us to think about an alternative solution which is renewable energy sources. Figure 1: Nuclear energy consumption by region

Renewable energy sources produces causes less pollution and produced less green house gases as compared to non- renewable energy sources. Because renewable resources do not run out, they can power generators indefinitely. Also, once initial startup costs are taken care of, these alternative fuels eventually pay for themselves. But, unfortunately, some renewable resources are not very reliable. Power generation from renewable energy sources is costlier and it can be produced only at the selected places where these resources are available. Renewable energy sources like solar, tidal, wind etc are impossible to transport like coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Also e uipments and machineries used to produce power from renewable energy sources are very costly and at present, there is no technological support available to bring down power generation cost by renewable energy sources and make them comparable with cost of power production by non-renewable energy sources.
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 9|Page

Nu
E VOLUTION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
y y y y y y y 1938 1941 1942 1945 1949 1952 1955

rE

P t

ti

2011

Scientists study Uranium nucleus Manhattan Project begins Controlled nuclear chain reaction U.S. uses two atomic bombs on Japan Soviets develop atomic bomb U.S. tests hydrogen bomb First U.S. nuclear submarine

From the late 1970s to about 2002 the nuclear power industry suffered some decline and stagnation. Few new reactors were ordered, the number coming on line from mid 1980s little more than matched retirements, though capacity increased by nearly one third and output increased 60% due to capacity plus improved load factors. The share of nuclear in world electricity from mid 1980s was fairly constant at 16-17%. Many reactor orders from the 1970s were cancelled. The uranium price dropped accordingly, and also because of an increase in secondary supplies. Oil companies which had entered the uranium field bailed out, and there was a consolidation of uranium producers. By 1989 there were a total of 424 reactors operating in the world. A historic peak was reached in 2002 with 444 units, five more than the 439 operating reactors as of August 2010. In 2009 the 370 GW of nuclear capacity generated about 2,600 TWh the third in a row a 1.3% decline,

that is about 13% of commercial electricity or 5.5% of commercial all on a downward trend.

primary energy, or between 2% and 3% of all energy in the world

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

10 | P a g e

Nu
P RESENT SCENARIO

rE

P t

ti

2011

Nuclear power provides about 6% of the worl d's energy and 13 14% of the world's electricity. World s total nuclear power generation capacity is 378,910MW with the highest contribution of U.S. with 101,229MW. Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 376 GWe. In 2009 these provided 2560 billion kWh, about 15% of the world's electricity. Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries. In India, currently 20 nuclear reactors produce 4780MW which is on ly 2.9% of total installed base. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons o f uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal.

Table 2: Top 10 Countries by Nuclear Power production and percentage share

Top 10 Countries in Nuclear Power production Ran 1 2 3 4 5 Korea 6 7 8 9 10 Germany Canada Ukraine Mainland Spain 133 85.5 84 70.1 59.3

Top 10 Countries by share of Nuclear Power

Country USA France Japan Russia South

Production (TWh) 807.1 410.1 280.3 159.41 141.9

Ran 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

Country France Slovakia Belgium Ukraine

Share (%) 74.1 51.8 51.1 48.1

Hungary Armenia Sweden

42.1 39.4 38.1

Switzerland 38 Slovenia Czech 37.3 33.3

11 | P a g e

Nuclear Energy Potential 2011

Fi ure 2: Nuclear Power production by top 10 countries compared to India

Produ tion (TWh

Production (TWh)

807.1

410.1 280.3 159.41 141.9

133

85.5

84

70.1

59.3

20.5

Statistics shows that India is still far behind in terms of nuclear power development. Due to trade bans and lack of indigenous uranium, India has uniquely been developing a nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium. Now, foreign technology andfuel are expected to boost India's nuclear power plants considerably. All plants will have high indigenous engineering content. India has a vision of becoming a world leader in nuclear technology due to its expertise in fast reactors and thorium fuel cycl . India has a flourishing e and largely indigenous nuclear power program and expects to have 20,000 MWe nuclear capacity on line by 2020 and 63,000 MWe by 2032. It aims to supply 25 of electricity from nuclear power by 2050. Presently India has 20 reactors with total production capacity of 4385 MWe.
!

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

12 | P a g e

Nuclear Energy Potential 2011

() '&1 ' &0) 3
Table 3 Ind a op a ng nu

India's operating nu lear po er reactors Reactor Tarapur 1 & 2 aiga 1 & 2 aiga 3 & 4 akrapar 1 & 2
4

Gujarat Tamil Nadu Uttar

Madras 1 & 2 (MAPS)

Narora 1 & 2 Rajasthan 1 Rajasthan 2 Rajasthan 3 & 4

Pradesh Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan

Rajasthan 5 & 6 Tarapur 3 & 4

Rajasthan Maharashtra

Advantages & Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

ADVANTAGES Relatively low fuel cost Suitable for baseload capacity Long life time Low external costs Guarantee for energy supply Capacity development Low carbon emission

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

#( '& 2

%$ #

a po

rea ors

"

State Maharashtra arnataka arnataka

Type BWR

Mwe Operation 150 1969 1999-2000 2007 1993-95 1984-86

PHWR 202 PHWR 202 PHWR 202 PHWR 202

4 4

PHWR 202 PHWR 90 PHWR 187 PHWR 202

1991-92 1973 1981 1999-2000 Feb & April

PHWR 202 PHWR 490

2010 2006, 05

DISADVANTAGES Highly capital intensive Sensitive to interest rates Long lead times Long payback periods Regulatory/policy risks New financing structures required to attract private investors

13 | P a g e

Nuclear Energy Potential 2011

5 5

OPPORT

NITIES FOR N CLEAR EXPANSION

The analysis in Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 (ETP) (IEA, 2010) projects that energy-related CO2 emissions will double from 2005 levels by 2050. Strategies for reducing
6

energy-related CO2 emissions by 50

from 2005 levels by 2 050, concludes that nuclear

power will have a large role to play in achieving this goal in the most cost effective manner (Figure 1). Nuclear capacity is assumed to reach about 1 200 GW by 2050, providing about 24% of global electricity supply.

Although the growth of nuclear energy has stalled in the last two decades, it is a mature technology with more than 50 years of commercial operating experience that does not require major technological breakthroughs to enable its wider deployment. Providing around 38% of global electricity by 2050, would reduce the average electricity generation cost in 2050 by about 11%. One factor that sets nuclear apart from most other low -carbon energy technologies is that, in some countries at least, adopting or expanding a nuc lear programme will be the subject of considerably greater public and political opposition. Fi ure 3: World Annual power sector CO2 emission reductions
7

CO2 emission reduction

0% 17% 0%

Uranium Production by Country, 2010

Country Australia

51%

28%

Brazil Canada

1% Source: IEA, 2010

1%

2%

Key po n Nuclear po er ma es a major con ribu ion toreducing C 2 emissions

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

@9 8

14 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Figure 4: Contribution of energy sources in electricity generation in world and OECD countries

Source: IEA, 2009 Key point: Nuclear and hydropower are the main low-carbon energy sources at present.

C HALLENGES FOR NUCLEAR EXPANSION

Figure 5: Evolution of Nuclear Power since 1991 to 2009

Source: IAEA PRIS Key point: The average operating performance of nuclear power plants improved markedly in the 1990s and early 2000s, but has fallen in the last few years.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

15 | P a g e

Nu
Safety

rE

P t

ti

2011

Although no plant design can be risk-free, new research has brought claims of a new generation of nuclear reactors with advanced safety features. However, they have yet to be tested at full scale, and all reactors now on order use conventional technology. Moreover, nuclear power plants are now considered plausible targets for terrorist attacks. Whether caused by accident or malice, a sudden dispersal of radio activity would have severe community impact, perhaps exacerbated by inade uate evacuation plans. If such an event triggered a renewal of anti-nuclear sentiment in the general public and led to demands for a nuclear moratorium, the resilience and sustainability of the energy system would be greatly compromised. Cost The full economic costs of nuclear energy are difficult to determine. A comprehensive accounting would include accident i nsurance, safety assurance, decommissioning, and radioactive waste disposal costs that are often buried in generous public sub sidies for the

nuclear industry or shifted to future generations. As the experience in the U.S. with the first wave of nuclear plants indicated, projected costs can soar as the full costs of the nuclear fuel-cycle are reflected in the price of electricity. Of course, high costs might not be a key issue if nuclear power were the only option fo r climate mitigation. Waste Storage & Uranium Recycling The need to safely dispose of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years poses daunting technical challenges. Indeed, as no country has yet implemented a functioning long-term waste repository, much of the world s inventory of waste remains se uestered in temporary casks at dispersed plant sites. It re uires considerable technological optimism to be sanguine about finding satisfac tory geologic repositories: 2,000 reactors would re uire new capacity the size of the controversial Yucca Mountain storage site in the United States every few years into the foreseeable future. It is difficult to imagine that this level of storage capacity could be found and activated. Indeed, after 20 years and $9 billion of investment. Proliferation Nuclear power cannot be decoupled from nuclear weapons. Two paths lead from a nuclear energy program to weapons-grade material; one involves uranium and the other plutonium.
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 16 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

For use as a nuclear fuel, naturally occurring uranium undergoes en richment to increase the concentration of the fissionable U-235 isotope, and further enrichment can produce weapons-grade material. Conse uently, a wide deployment of nuclear power and associated technology would increase the risk of nuclear weapons proli feration. This link is underscored in today s headlines on disputes over enrichment programs in North Korea and Iran, putatively for electricity generation, possibly for more. Security Another pathway from nuclear power to nuclear weapons would be through the recovery of plutonium from spent uranium fuel, either directly or as a by-product of re-processing. A mere six kilograms of such highly fissible plutonium is needed for a simple nuclear weapon, and much less to fabricate a dirty conventional bomb. At t he large scale of nuclear generation under consideration, it would become extremely difficult to track and secure the movement of such small amounts of material.

Other Challenges: y Financing the large investments needed, especially where nuclear construction is to be led by the private sector. y Developing the necessary industrial capacities and skilled human resources to support sustained growth in nuclear capacity. y Expanding the supply of nuclear fuel in line with increased nuclear generating capacity, and ensuring all users of nuclear energy have access to reliable supplies of fuel. y Implementing plans for building and operating geological repositories for the disposal of spent fuel and high -level radioactive wastes. y Maintaining and strengthening where necessary the safeguards and security for sensitive nuclear materials and technologies, to avoid their misuse for non -peaceful purposes. y In the past, because of above mentioned challenges, 124 nuclear power reactors (37,788 MWe) were closed down permanently.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

17 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Table 4: Countries with Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors in the World

Energy Output Country Total MW(e) United States 9,764 U.K. Germany France Japan Russia Bulgaria Italy Ukraine Canada Slovakia Sweden Lithuania Spain Armenia Belgium Kazakhstan Netherlands World Total: 3,301 5,879 3,789 1,618 786 1,632 1,423 3,515 478 909 1,210 2,370 621 376 10 52 55 37,788

Permanently Closed Nuclear Power Reactors 28 26 19 12 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 124

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

18 | P a g e

Nu
RISKS OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS AN T HEIR CONTROL
F

rE

P t

ti

2011

Structuring a nuclear new-build project for success re uires the identification and understanding of the various risks associated with a project of such magnitude and complexity. Some risks are quite similar to those in any power investment project; others are clearly unique to nuclear. In developing a project, a utility will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment, which will be reviewed and updated as the project progresses. Nuclear projects are capital intensive, with long project schedules. They hav e significant fixed operating and maintenance costs and relatively low fuel costs. They exist in a rigorous regulatory environment where the regulator actively patrols plant operations and has considerable authority to impact unit construction and operatio ns. Nuclear plants are also subject to public scrutiny and concern. In normal operation, nuclear plants are environmentally friendly. At the same time, public concerns often focus on the questions of long-term management of nuclear waste and potential consequences of low-probability safety events. Figure 6: Nuclear power project risk matrix

Source: Economics Report, WNA, 2010

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

19 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Figure 7: Risk control and monitoring in nuclear power projects

Source: Economics Report, WNA, 2010

URANIUM

Production & Demand About 435 reactors with combined capacity of over 370 GWe, require 77,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate containing 65,500 tonnes of uranium (tU ) from mines (or the equivalent from stockpiles or secondary sources) each year. The capacity is growing slowly, and at the same time the reactors are being run more productively, with higher capacity factors, and reactor power levels. However, these factors increasing fuel demand are offset by a trend for increased efficiencies, so demand is dampened - over the 20 years from 1970

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

20 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

there was a 25% reduction in uranium demand per kWh output in Europe due to such improvements, which continue today. Each GWe of increased capacity will require about 200 tU/yr of extra mine production routinely, and about 400 -600 tU for the first fuel load. Fuel burnup is measured in MW days per tonne U, and many utilities are increasing the initial enrichment of their fuel (eg from 3.3 to more than 4.0% U-235) and then burning it longer or harder to leave only 0.5% U-235 in it (instead of twice this).

Table 5: Uranium Production and Recoverable Reserves

Uranium

Production

by

Uranium Recoverable Reserves by Country, 2009

Country, 2010 Country Australia Brazil Canada China Czech Republic India Kazakhstan Namibia Niger Russia South Africa Ukraine United States Uzbekistan Others Total 400 17803 4496 4198 3562 583 850 1660 2400 799 53633 Production (tU) 5900 148 9783 827 254

Country Australia

Reserves Percentage 1673000 31.0% 12.0% 9.0% 9.0% 5.0%

Kazakhstan 651000 Canada Russia South Africa Namibia Brazil Niger USA China Jordan Uzbekistan Ukraine India Mongolia other World 284000 279000 272000 207000 171000 112000 111000 105000 80000 49000 150000 5404000 485000 480000 295000

5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 3.5% 100%

Source: WNA, 2010

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

21 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Coal ash is easily-accessible though minor uranium resource in many parts of the world. In central Yunnan province in China the coal uranium content varies up to 315 ppm and averages about 65 ppm. The ash averages about 210 ppm U (0.021%U) - above the cutoff level for some uranium mines. The Xiaolongtang power station ash heap contains over 1000 tU, with annual arisings of 190 tU. Recovery of this by acid leaching is about 70%.

Figure 8: World Uranium Production and Demand

Source: WNA, 2010

Cost Looking ten years ahead, the market is expected to grow significantly. The WNA reference scenario shows a 33% increase in uranium demand over 2010-20 (for a 27% increase in reactor capacity - many new cores will be required). Demand thereafter will depend on new plant being built and the rate at which older plant is retired - the reference scenario has a 16% increase in uranium demand for the decade to 2030. Licensing of plant lifetime extensions and the economic attractiveness of continued operation of older reactors are critical factors in the medium-term uranium market. However, with electricity demand by 2030 expected (by the OECD's International Energy Agency, 2008) to double from that of 2004, there is plenty of scope for grow th in nuclear capacity in a greenhouseconscious world.
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 22 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Figure 9: Uranium Production Cost Curve : 2007 - 2030

The above graph, from International Nuclear Inc. as of end of 2007, shows a cost curve for world uranium producers, and suggests that for 50,000 tU/yr production from mines (approximately the present level) and up to 60,000 tU/yr, US$30/lb plus profit marg in is a plausible price. Costs may now have escalated somewhat, but hte cost curve only rises steeply at higher uranium requirements.

Supply Mines in 2009 supplied some 60,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (U 3O8) containing 50,772 tU, about 78% of utilities' annual requirements. The balance is made up from secondary sources including stockpiled uranium held by utilities, but those civil stockpiles are now largely depleted. The perception of imminent scarcity drove the "spot price" for non-contracted sales to over US$ 100 per pound U 3O8 in 2007 but it has settled back to $40-45 over the twelve months to July 2010. Most uranium however is supplied under long term contracts and the prices in new contracts have, in the past, reflected a premium above the spot market.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

23 | P a g e

Nu
Supply from elsewhere

rE

P t

ti

2011

As well as existing and likely new mines, nuclear fuel supply may be from secondary sources including: y y y y y Recycled uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel Re-enriched depleted uranium tails Ex military weapons-grade uranium Civil stockpiles Ex-military weapons-grade plutonium, as MOX fuel.

Major commercial reprocessing plants are operating in France and UK, with capacity of over 4000 tonnes of used fuel per year. The product from these re -enters the fuel cycle and is fabricated into fresh mixed oxide (MOX) fuel elements. About 200 tonnes of MOX is used each year, equivalent to less than 2000 tonnes of U3O8 from mines. Military uranium for weapons is enriched too much higher levels than that for the civil fuel cycle. Weaponsgrade is about 97% U-235, and this can be diluted about 25:1 with depleted uranium (or 30:1 with enriched depleted uranium) to reduce it to about 4%, suitable for use in a power reactor. From 1999 to 2013 the dilution of 30 tonnes such material is displacing about 10,600 tonnes per year of mine production. The USA and Russia have agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each of military plutonium by 2014. Most of it is likely to be used as feed for MOX plants, to make about 1500 tonnes of MOX fuel which will progressively be burned in civil reactors.

The following graph suggests how these various sources of supply might look in the decades ahead:

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

24 | P a g e

Nu
Figure 10: Uranium Supply Scenario 2009

rE

P t

ti

2011

Source: WNA 2009 World reference scenario

T HORIUM
Another potential nuclear fuel, thorium, is plentiful in one or two Latin American countries (Brazil, and to a much lesser extent Venezuela). However, currently there is limited interest in developing a thorium-based fuel cycle, apart from in India. Indeed, there is such little demand for thorium currently that there is little exploration for it. There are significant conflicts in the estimates of world thorium reserves. The 2005 IAEA-NEA Red Book suggests a probable thorium reserve of 4.5 million tons worldwide, though

acknowledges that the lack of figures for many parts of the world makes this little more than an educated guess. It is nevertheless known that thorium is 3 to 4 times as common on the surface of the earth as uranium. According to some figures, Australia has the largest reserves, with India coming second, each with about 25% the world s total. However, both the IAEA and OECD put Brazil at the top of the list by a significant amount, over Turkey then India.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

25 | P a g e

Nu
E CONOMIES OF NUCLEAR P OWER

rE

P t

ti

2011

Nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health an d environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding

Table 6: The approx cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel

The approx cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO 2 reactor fuel Cost Kg Uranium Conversion Enrichment Fuel Fabrication Total 8.9 7.5 7.3 1 ($) 146 13 155 240 Total Cost 1299 98 1132 240 2768

At 45,000 MWd/t burn -up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.77 c/kWh. Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn -up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burnup will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost. Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradable commodity. Nuclear power has a history of delays in construction, and analysis undertaken by the World Energy Council54 has shown the global trend in increased construction times for nuclear reactors. In Germany, in the period from 1965 to 1976, construction took 76 months, increasing to 110 months in the period from 1983 to 1989. In Japan average construction time in the period from 1965 to 2004 was in the range of 44 to 51 months.
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 26 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Finally in Russia, the average construction time from 1965 to 1976 was 57 months, then from 1977 to 1993 it was between 72 and 89 months, but the four p lants that have been completed since then have taken around 180 months (15 years), due to increased opposition following the Chernobyl accident, economic constraints and the political changes after 1992. As per World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 , calculating a global average construction time it would be around nine years for the 16 most recent grid connections

does not make much sense because of the differences between countries. The construction period for four reactors started up in Romania, Russia and Ukraine lasted between 18 and 24 years. In contrast, it took hardly more than five years on average to complete the 12 units that were connected to the grid in China, India, Japan and South Korea.

Table 7: Construction Time of Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide

Avg. Period Reference 1965-1970 1971-1976 1977-1982 1983-1988 1995-2000 2001-2005 2005-2009 of No. of Construction Reactors Time (Months) 48 112 109 151 28 18 6 60 66 80 98 116 82 77

Sources: Clerici, 2006; IAEA

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

27 | P a g e

Nu
C OMPARISON OF NUCLEAR TO RENEWABLE

rE

P t

ti

2011

Figure 11: Net Additions to Global Electricity Grid from New Renewable and Nuclear (in GW)

Source: Amory Lovins, 2010

Figure 12: Electricity Production from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources

Source: Earth Policy Institute, 2009

Figures 11 and 12 show the net additions to the grid from new renewable (not including large hydropower) and nuclear and the contributions of all so -called low-carbon

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

28 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

energy sources to the global electricity mix. Although at first glance these figures may appear contradictory, they are two sides of the same narrative. Figure 11 details the net additions to the grid over the global grid over the last two decades. The size of the individual stations, coupled with the closure of reactors, is why the nuclear trend -line lacks an overall direction, but it could be summarized to an average net annual additional capacity of around 2 GW per year in the beginning of the Speriod, compared to a global installed capacity of some 370 GW. However, this trend has stagnated or decreased since 2005. Over the same period, wind power has increased its capacity by over 10 GW on average per year, with capacity additions steadily increasing to reach over 37 GW in 2009.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES - M YTHS AND REALITIES

1. The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem' Today, safe management practices are implemented or planned for all categories of radioactive waste. Low-level waste (LLW) and most intermediate-level waste (ILW), which make up most of the volume of waste produced (97%), are being disposed of securely in near-surface repositories in many countries so as to cause no harm or risk in the long -term. This practice has been carried out for many years in many countries as a matter of routine.

2. The transportation of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment The primary assurance of safety in the transport of nuclear materials is the way in which they are packaged. Packages that store waste during transportation are designed to ensure shielding from radiation and containment of waste, even under the most extreme accident conditions. Since 1971, there have been more than 20,000 safe shipments of highly radioactive used fuel and high-level wastes (over 50,000 tonnes) over more than 30 million kilometres (about 19 million miles) with no property damage or personal injury, no breach of containment, and very low radiation dose to the personnel involved.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

29 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

3. Nuclear wastes are hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations in the long -term International conventions define what is hazardous in terms of radiation dose, and national regulations limit allowable doses accordingly. Well-developed industry technology ensures that these regulations are met so that any hazardous wastes are handled in a way that poses no risk to human health or the environment. Waste is converted into a stable form that is suitable for disposal. In the case of high-level waste, a multi-barrier approach, combining containment and geological disposal, ensures isolation of the waste from people and the environment for thousands of years.

4. Nobody knows the true costs of waste management. The costs are so high that nuclear power can never be economic Because it is widely accepted that producers of radioactive wastes should bear the costs of disposal, most countries with nuclear power programmes make estimates of the costs of disposal and update these periodically. International organisations such as the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have also coordinated exercises to compare these estimates with one another. For low-level waste, the costs are well-known because numerous facilities have been built and have operated for many years around the world. For high level -waste (HLW), cost estimates are becoming increasingly reliable as projects get closer to imple mentation.

5. The waste should be disposed of into space The option of disposal of waste into space has been examined repeatedly since the 1970s. This option has not been implemented and further studies have not been performed because of the high cost of this option and the safety aspects associated with the risk of launch failure.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

30 | P a g e

Nu
F UTURE SCENARIO

rE

P t

ti

2011

Studies and statistics say that nuclear energy will play a vital role in energy market in future. World is spending billions of dollars to develop sustainabl e nuclear energy. All the governments also support investments made in nuclear field because now due to latest technologies, handling of nuclear energy has become safer than earlier and nuclear energy produce least CO 2; it is clean source of energy.

Table 8: Estimates investment in nuclear energy in the BLUE Map scenario Estimated investment required (USD billions) Region/country 2010-2020 US & Canada OECD Europe OECD Pacific China India Latin America Other Asia Economies transition Africa & Middle East World in 55 2 342 156 23 1469 80 18 1045 39 12 1118 developing 5 75 60 68 57 9 11 2020-2030 342 333 296 193 57 30 39 2030-2040 243 105 153 295 91 36 24 2040-2050 224 88 97 350 230 39 39

The IEA s Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 BLUE Map scenario (IEA, 2010) projects an installed nuclear capacity of almost 1200 GW in 2050, compared to 370 GW at the end of 2009, making nuclear a major contributor to cutting energy related CO2 emissions by 50%. This nuclear capacity would provide 9600 TWh of electricity annually by that date, or around 24% of the electricity produced worldwide. IEA has projected that by 2050, nuclear will contribute highest in electricity generation in the world.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

31 | P a g e

Nu

rE

P t

ti

2011

Figure 13: Future global electricity production by source

Source: IEA, 2010 Key point: In the BLUE Map scenario, nuclear power is the largest single source of electricity in 2050.

In India, nuclear power is growing at a rocket speed. As per Indian Economy Review March 2011, thermal power & hydro power generation recorded growth of 6.7% and 18.68% while nuclear power generation recorded 78.77% growth over the last year. In April January 2011, the all India power generation recorded a 5.18 % growth compared to April January 2010 and Nuclear power generation recorded 37.94% growth till January in current fiscal. In 12th five year plan is to add 100GW out of which 3.4GW will be from nuclear energy. India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW. There are five more nuclear projects are under construction with 9 reactors and total production capacity of 6700MW.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

32 | P a g e

Nu
C ONCLUSION

rE

P t

ti

2011

Above analysis and study shows that nuclear energy has potential market in near future. At present, we have technology to develop nuclear power but it s very costly and takes long time. It has some environmental and safety issues also to take care. Nuclear energy market is growing at a very high speed and to continue this growth there are some points which all the countries of the world should consider as near milestone in nuclear energy development. Key nuclear power development milestones include: y Demonstrate the ability to build the latest nuclear plant designs on time and within budget. y Develop the industrial capacities and skilled human resources to support sustained growth in nuclear capacity. y Establish the required legal frameworks and institutions in countries where th ese do not yet exist. y y Encourage the participation of private sector investors in nuclear power projects. Make progress in implementing plans for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. y Enhance public dialogue to inform stakeholders about the r ole of nuclear in energy strategy. y Expand the supply of nuclear fuel in line with increased nuclear generating capacity.

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

33 | P a g e

Nu
REFERENCES
y y y World Energy Outlook 2010

rE

P t

ti

2011

BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2011 World energy Council - World Energy Insight 2010 Official Publication of the World Energy Council to mark the 21st

y y y y y

World Energy Congress IEA Energy Technology Essentials Nuclear Power IEA Key World Energy Statistics NEA Nuclear Energy Roadmap Renewable vs. non-renewable energy sources, forms and technologies prepared by A.Gritsevskyi, IAEA 2010

y y y y y y y y y y

IEA & NEA - Technology Roadmap Nuclear Energy Nuclear for the Energy Revolution: IEA launches the nuclear roadmap WNA Nuclear power in the world today February 2011 2009 June 2010

WNA - NUCLEAR facts - How important is nuclear energy in the world? WNA - Nuclear Power in India July 2011 May 2009 December 2010

WNA - Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities WNA - World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power WNA - Uranium Markets - updated July 2010

WNA - World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements

July 2011

BACKGROUND PAPER, LATIN AMERICA: NUCLEAR FACTS AND FIGURES by Ken Berry ICNND Research Coordinator - April 2009

y y

Bureau of Energy Efficiency - ENERGY SCENARIO GTI PERSPECTIVES ON CRITICAL ISSUES | NUCLEAR POWER: SHOULD IT HAVE A ROLE?

India Energy Outlook: End Use Demand in India to 2020 by Environmental Energy Technologies Division January 2009

y y

http://www.indianuclearenergy.net www.powermin.nic.in

School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar

34 | P a g e