What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish

to Reduce CO2 Emissions

Robert A. Krakowski(a) and Richard Wilson(b)
2002 ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress
November 17-22, 2002
New Orleans
(a) Systems Engineering and Integration Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(b) Department of Physics, Harvard University

1
What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish
to Reduce CO2 Emissions
Outline
 Background
- State of the Planet (Top Concerns, Global-Warming Trends) ;
- Global Economic-Energy-Environmental (E3) Modeling Approaches
(“Top-Down” versus “Bottom-Up”);
- Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas (mainly CO2) Emissions,
along with other Socioeconomic, Technological, and Political
Drivers;
 Nuclear Energy History (growth, avoided CO2, cost, sustainability issues);
 Sample Results from a “Top-Down” E3 Model
- Base Case Illustrating Magnitudes/Tradeoffs of NE versus CO2 Mitigation;
- Scenario Analysis and NE Requirements to Reduce CO2 Emissions;
 Conclusions/Future Directions
2
 State of the Planet: Seven Setbacks(a):
Nuclear Energy is On Both the Giving and Receiving
Ends of the Problem

• Global Warming: November 2001 – January 2002 in US warmest since

records were taken (1895);
• An Appetite for Oil: Consumption grew 14% in 1990s, accounts for 40% of
CO2 emissions:
• Disappearing Wetlands: 31 years after Convention on Wetland (132 Nations),
results are disappointing; 50% destroyed 1900s;
• Rise of Megadams; 5,000 45,000 large dams (larger than 17 m high) in the
world over the 1950 – 2000 period;
• Coral Reefs: 27% lost in last 50 years, 16% during 1998 El Nino;
• Overfishing: Marine “principle” is being spent; cod, bluefin tuna, grouper
populations are plummeting;
• Nuclear Waste: This year 400 NPPs create more than 11,000 tonne of spent
nuclear fuel (SNF, labeled as “waste”); pose problems of accidental leakage
and terrorist attack (161 million people within 100 km of SNF storage).
(a) National Geographic, p. 108 (September, 2002).
3
The Increase in Global Temperature During the 20th Century is
Likely the Largest of Any Century for the Last 1000 Years and
Correlates with Increased Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

Growth in Atmospheric Reconstruction of Average Temperatures

Carbon Dioxide Concentration in the Northern Hemisphere

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Year Year

4
 What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish to
Reduce CO2 Emissions and What is Needed
 Reductions of CO2 emission rates to present values ( ~6 GtonneC/yr) by 2100 will require
5-7,000 GWe, or 15-20 times present world capacity; deeper reductions are possible for non-
electric applications of nuclear energy (H2 production from water splitting).
 Uranium-resource and waste-disposal implications of supplying this capacity over the next
100 years based on once-through fuel cycle are significant: 4-5 times present world (conventional
+ known + estimated) uranium resources (16 MtonneU at 160 $/kgU); one Yucca Mountain
(globally) every few (or less) years; a total of ~50,000 tonne reactor-grade plutonium contained in
the spent fuel so disposed by the year 2100.
 Advanced, plutonium-burning/recycling fuel cycles will be needed to reduce (significantly)
both the fuel-resource and the waste disposal (mass, volume, long-term radio-toxicity)
requirements; reduction by factors of 40-50 attend this comparable increase in energy-resource
utilization.
 The economics of achieving this predominant nuclear role are within reach for known (once-
through) technologies; advanced (high recycle/burn-up) fuel cycles may add 10-20% to the life-
cycle cost; these costs should be competitive with any “closed” fossil fuel cycle used to generate
electricity.
 Deployment rates (80-90 GWe/yr) for once-through reactors have been approached in the
past; extensions to the required advanced reactor technologies require demonstration.

5
What Nuclear Power Can Accomplish to Reduce
CO2 Emissions and What is Needed (cont.-1)
Proliferation propensities should be very low for advanced fuel cycles that minimize total
plutonium inventories while assuring strong intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to clandestine use through
theft or diversion; detailed designs and management systems must be implemented to assure the
reality of this claim.
Safe reactor operations at both public and operational levels have been demonstrated, but
continuance of this experience must be assured, as well as extension thereof to other parts of the fuel
cycle, particularly for high burn-up/recycle processes (reprocessing, storage, transport).
Socioeconomic, technological, and political drivers dictate the role played by nuclear energy in
mitigating global warming, even with solutions in hand to the four cardinal issues of waste,
proliferation, cost, and safety; more remains to be done in quantifying these drivers and interactions
among them (population growth, productivity, economic equity, technology evolution and diffusion,
degree of globilzation, personal freedoms versus added institutional controls, etc.).

6
 Uranium Resource and Availability: Fuel
Supply is Perceived as a Longer-Term Issue(a)
1.E+08
 Redbook (OECD/IAEA)
1.E+07 lists estimates by suppliers;
 Limited recent incentives

Vein Deposits, Pegmatites,

1.E+06

Unconformity Deposits
Estimated Amount, MtonneU

1.E+05 for exploration;

1.E+04
Evaporates. Siliceous Ooze, Chert (Much) more ore is likely
1.E+03 to found if price increases;
Oceanic Igneous Crust

1.E+02 Fuel cycle contributes to

Ocean Water

1.E+01 < 20% of production costs.

1.E+00 Volcanic Deposits Waste management and not uranium
Fresh Water

resource is main issue for early (new)

Vein Deposits
1.E-01 deployment.
1.E-02 D. Wade, “Goals for Future Nuclear
(a)
Energy Systems and Fuel Cycle Concepts
1.E-03
Proposed for the Generation IV Roadmap.”
1.E-05 1.E-04 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+05
Symp. On Energy and Environment
Ore Grade, ppmU (October 2-4, 2002)

7
“Top-Level” View of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options That
Diminish Both Waste and Resource Requirements
Resource Base U/Pu Electricity Waste Arisings
Conversion
Full Act.* HLW + MA+ Pu
Recycle

Full Pu HLW + MA
Recycle

Partial Pu
Recycle Spent
Nuclear
Fuel (SNF)

Once-
Thru
Spent Nuclear
Fuel (SNF)
* Act. = Pu + MA; SNF = Act.+ U + FP + SP 8
Schematic Diagram of Key Material Flows
for a Range of Transmutation Scenarios(a)
Scenarios
OT FR0 ADS0 FR2 ADS1 ADS2 ADSC
Tiers
Tier-0

LWR LWR LWR LWR LWR LWR

MOX

MOX
HLW HLW HLW

MA MA MA
MOX MOX

TRU
TRU
Tier-1

MOX
LWR LWR LWR LWR

HLW
MA MA MOX MA

TRU
MA

TRU
TRU TRU TRU

MA
TRU
Tier-2

SNF

FR
FR ADS ADS ADS ADS

HLW HLW HLW HLW HLW HLW

Repository

(a)R. A. Krakowski and C. G. Bathke, “Method for Quantitative Assessment of Cost and
Proliferation Risks Associated with the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Los Alamos National
Laboratory document LA-UR-02-2369 (April 26, 2002).

9
Sustainability Viewed As a “Three-Legged Stool” and
Connected to the Four Canonical Issues
Characterizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC)

SUSTAINABILITY
ECONOMY

ECOLOGY

SOCIETY
ECONOMICS WASTE SAFETY PROLIFER-
(Short/Long-Term) (Oper./Accidents)
(incl. Resources) ATION

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ISSUES

10
Overview of Systems Modeling Approaches for Quantifying
Economy (LCC), Ecology (Waste), and Society (Proliferation)
NFC
SUSTAINABILITY

METRICS MODEL

NFC NFC IN PE SUPPLY

ALONE COMPETITION

“TOP DOWN” “BOTTOM UP”

ECONOMY

STATIC DYNAMIC DEMAND

ECOLOGY

SIMULATION OPTIMIZATION
SOCIETY

11
 “Top-Down” (Econometric) versus “Bottom-
Up” (Technological) Modeling Methodologies(a)

(a)Mapping the
Energy Future:
Energy Modeling and Climate
Change, OECD/IEA report
(1998)

12
Energy Drives Human Welfare, Fossil Fuel Drives Energy
Consumption (90%), and Growing Atmospheric CO2
Concentration is Driven by Fossil Fuel Consumption
 Present 6B world population is growing, 2B have no access to
electricity, and access is marginal for another 2B people.
 The developed countries comprise 25% of the world population, but
consume 70% of the primary energy.
 Fossil sources provide 90% of all energy fuels, and CO2 emissions
(presently 6 GtonneC/yr) is growing with the growing use of fossil
fuels.
 Carbon emissions are related by the simple identity:

RC(kgC/yr) = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
N = population(persons); GDP =productivity ($/yr);
PE = annual primary energy consumption (J/yr);
C = carbon emission (kgC)

13
 A Simple Identity Indicates Means to Reduce Global CO2 Emissions:
RC(kgC/yr) = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
12 25

GDP/N[k$(1990)/person/yr]
History IS92a Scenario History IS92a Scenario
10
20

per-capita GDP,
POPULATION,
N(Bpersons)

8
15
6
10 per-capita GDP, GDP/N
4
9 5
2 Population, N/10
0 0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

30 25 coal
plus noncommercial energy History IS92a Scenario History IS92a Scenario
25
PE/GDP(GJ/k$(1990)

20 oil

Carbon Intensity,
RC/PE(kgC/GJ)
Energy Intensity,

20
15 gas
15
10
10
5 Carbon Intensity, RC/PE
5 Energy Intensity, PE/GDP
0 0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

20
CO 2 Emissions, RC(GtonneC/yr)

CO2 Emissions, RC = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)

15
History IS92a Scenario
10

0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

14
Top-Level Controls on CO2 Emissions vis-à-vis
RC(kgC/yr) = N*(GDP/N)*(PE/GDP)*(C/PE)
 Population growth, N: a positive driver, presently stabilizing, not
much control.
 per-capita productivity, GDP/N ($/capita): a positive driver as
HDI is increased for the world majorities, requires increased energy
consumption.
 Energy Intensity, PE/GDP (MJ/$): historic decreases reflect
success in increasing economic productivity with less energy use.
 Carbon Intensity, C/PE(kgC/GJ): Infers the development of
energy electricity and portable-fuel sources with considerably
reduced carbon emissions:
- Renewable energy (solar PV, solar H2, wind);
- Nuclear (fission, ultimately thermonuclear fusion).

15
 The Key Drivers of GHG Emissions Are Highly Aggregated Results of
Complex Socio-economic, Technological, and Political Drivers a)
(a)K.
Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, “Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development,”
Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000).
Scenario General Character Population GWP Equity Primary Cumul. Glob
ID (billion) [trillion Ratio Energy CO2 Temp
(1990) (DEV/ (EJ/yr) (GtC) Chg
USD] IND) (K)
Year 2050 2100 2050 2100 2100 2050 2100 2100 2100
Very hetero. world; high pop. growth; resource
A2 self-reliance; consoled. trade blocks; slow 11.3 15.1 82 243 0.24 1014 1921 781 2.7
capital stock turnover / change.
A2 basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to 550
A2-550 11.3 15.1 81 236 0.23 959 1571 550 2.1
ppm in 2100.
Inc. concern for envir. and soc. sustain.; hetero.
B2 world; diverse technol. change; local/regional 9.4 10.4 110 235 0.33 869 1357 603 2.0
structures
B2 basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to 550
B2-550 9.4 10.4 109 231 0.33 881 1227 550 1.8
ppm in 2100.
Very rapid econ. growth; low pop. growth;
A1 market-based solutions; strong education, 8.7 7.1 187 550 0.64 1422 2681 724 2.4
investment, mobility of ideas/people/technol.
A1 basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to 550
A1-550 8.7 7.1 186 547 0.63 1339 2505 550 1.9
ppm in 2100.
A1C A1 w/ clean-coal technol. future 8.7 7.1 187 550 0.64 1377 2325 3.0
A1C basecase w/ CO2 emissions mitigated to
A1C-550 8.7 7.1 185 542 0.64 1269 2188 550 2.0
550 ppm in 2100.
A1G A1 with oil and gas future. 8.7 7.1 187 550 0.64 1495 2737 950 2.8
A1T A1 with rapid devel. of solar and nuclear. 8.7 7.1 187 550 0.64 1213 2021 560 1.9
Collective, service-oriented prosperity while
B1 8.7 7.1 136 328 0.59 837 755 486 1.7
accounting for equity and envir. concerns.
B1G B1 basecase w/ oil and gas future. 8.7 7.1 166 350 0.60 911 1157 509 1.8
B1T B1 with rapid devel. of solar and nuclear. 8.7 7.1 136 328 0.59 819 714 464 1.6
1990 Values: 5.3 billion; 20.9 trillion$; ER = 0.06; PE = 352 EJ/yr; 7.5 GtonneC/yr; 354 ppm; ΔT = 0.4 K from 1765 to 1990.

16
 The Key Drivers of GHG Emissions Are Highly Aggregated Results of
Complex Socio-economic, Technological, and Political Drivers (cont.-1)(a)
(a)K.
Riahi and R. A. Roehrl, “Energy Technology for Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Sustainable Development,”
Environmental Economic and Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000).

17
 The Key Drivers of GHG Emissions Are Highly Aggregated Results of
Complex Socio-economic, Technological, and Political Drivers that Lead
to Varying Levels of Sustainable or Non-Sustainable Futures(a)
35
A1G: Very rapid growth, gas/oil rich;
A1C: Very rapid growth, coal rich; A1G
30 A2: Hetro. world, slow change/turnover;
A1: Very rapid growth, market-based;
Global CO2 Emissions, GtonneC/yr

B2: Modest growth; A1C

25 B1G: Equity/environ concerns, balanced,
gas/oil rich; A2
B1: Equity/environ concerns,
20
balanced res/tech;
B1T: Equity/environ concerns, A1
15 non-fossil decentralized technol.
B2

10
B1G (a)K.Riahi and R. A. Roehrl,
B1 “Energy Technology for Carbon
5
Dioxide Mitigation and
B1T
Sustainable Development,”
0 Environmental Economic and
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Policy Studies, 3, 89-123 (2000).
Year

18
Energy-Related CO2 Emissions versus Time
and Sector in IEA Countries(a)
3.5

3 Other
Sectoral CO2 Emission Rate,

2.5 Residential
9.1%
RCO2(GtonneC/yr)

Commercial
2
28%
Transport

1.5
Industry
15.5% 13.4%
1 19.5% Energy
Sector
30% Electricity
0.5 31%
20.6
0 %
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
TIME

IEA (1998), “Mapping the Energy Future: Energy Modelling and Climate Change
(a)

Policy”, IEA Energy and Environment Policy Analysis Series.

19
Full-Energy-Chain Specific Carbon-Equivalent Emissions
versus Generation Technology Kind and State(a)
1000
Lignite

hi, lo, adv hi, lo, adv Coal

hi, lo, adv Oil
hi, lo, adv Gas
Specific Emissions, kgC-eq/MWeh

SolarPV
100
hi, lo, adv Hydro
BioM
Wind
Nucl
hi, lo
ja, ch, be, be

10
de, ca, ch hi, lo

1
1

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35
Lignite Coal Oil Gas Solar Hydro BioM Wind Nucl

Generation Technology

J. V. Spadaro, L. Langlois, and B. Hamilton, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generation

(a)
Chains: Assessing the Difference, IAEA Bulletin, 42/2/2000, Vienna, Austria (2000)

20
 By the End of Year 2000 Nuclear Energy Makes an
Important Contribution to the World Electric
Generation and CO2-Equivalent Emissions Mitigation(a)
 Total capacity : 361 GWe;
 Number of nuclear power plants: 438;
 Multinational: 31 countries (85% OECD Members);
 Production in 2000: 2,450 TWeh;
 Contribution: 16% electric energy (EE) production, 6% of global
commercial primary energy (PE);
 Specific carbon-equivalent emission (kgC/MWeh):
- Nuclear energy chain: 2.5-5.7 (-8% PE sector, -17% EE sector);
- Renewable energy chain (solar PV, wind, hydro, bio) 2.5-76;
- Fossil energy chain (gas, oil, coal, lignite): 105-366.

(a) OECD/NEA, “Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol,” (2002)

21
 World-wide History of Nuclear Energy
Growth in Capacity(a)
400

350

300
CAPACITY, GWe

250
Total
200

150

100

50
Starts Decommissions

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEAR

(a) Signposts 2002: Envisioning the Future,” WorldWatch Institute, Washington DC (2002)

22
Both Nuclear Electric and Hydroelectric are Important
Contributors to Annual Reductions in CO2 Emissions(a)
10

9
Hydroelectric
Percent CO 2 Avoided Globally

7
Nuclear Electric
6

0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
TIME

(a)OECD/NEA, “Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol,” (2002)

23
 US Electricity Capacity versus Generation: Gas is
Growing; Coal May Be Emission Constrained, Oil is
Decreasing; Nuclear is Uncertain, but Performing Well
350
Clean Coal?
US Electricity Capacity versus Generation in 1998 (EIA)
Coal
?
300

Emissions?
250
Generation, TWeh

200
Rapid Growth
Gas
Financial
150
Incentives
Nucl ? Increase

100 Capacity
Oil Factors
Hydro
50

Ren
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Capacity, GWe

24
 US Nuclear Electricity Generation, Capacity, and
Capacity Factor versus Time Over Last Quarter Century
1000
77 GWe Added During Capacity Factor Increases
Construction Boom from 60% to 90%
900

800

700 97
GWe
Capacity Factor, %*10
Generation, TWeh;

600 Capacity Factor 99

GWe
500
90
GWe
400
Capacity
Generation
300
80
53 GWe
200
GWe
38
100 GWe
22
GWe
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year

25
Operations and Maintenance Costs and Production Costs
for US NPP Over the Past Two Decades (a)

N. J. Diaz, “Nuclear Technology: Global Accomplishments

(a)

and Opportunities,” Nuclear News, 36 (May, 1998)

26
Effect of Carbon Tax on Levelized Generation Cost for
Key Primary Fuels in Different Countries(a)
100
CTAX($/tonneC-eq): 0 50 100 150
10%/yr Discount Rate
Cost of Electricity, COE(mill/kWeh) 90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
l

l
l

l
as

as

as

as

as
uc

uc

uc

uc

uc
oa

oa

oa

oa

oa
G

G
N

N
C

C
USA Spain Korea France Canada
Primary Energy and Country

(a)OECD/NEA, “Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol,” (2002)

27
Sustainability Viewed As a “Three-Legged Stool” and
Connected to the Four Canonical Issues
Characterizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC)

SUSTAINABILITY
ECONOMY

ECOLOGY

SOCIETY
ECONOMICS WASTE SAFETY PROLIFER-
(Short/Long-Term) (Oper./Accidents)
(incl. Resources) ATION

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ISSUES

28
 Structural Layout of “Top-Down”
(Econometrics) ERB Global E3 Model(a)
INPUT MODEL OUTPUT

REGIONAL MARKET
POPULATION PENETRATION
OF ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGIES

REGIONAL REGIONAL
LABOR REGIONAL ENERGY ECONOMIC
UPPER-LEVEL

GNP
ATTRIBUTES

FORCE DEMAND WELFARE

SCENARIO

REGIONAL
TECHNOLOGY ENERGY
CHANGE MIX AND
INTENSITY
GLOBAL
SUPPLIES
REGIONAL WORLD AND
TAXES AND REGIONAL
PRICES (FOSSIL) DEMANDS GHG
TARIFFS PRICES EMISSIONS AND
ACCUMULATIONS

REGIONAL NUCLEAR
RESOURCE MATERIAL
CONSTRAINTS INVENTORIES
• Technology REGIONAL AND FLOWS
(Extra ction) SUPPLY • Reac tor
• Envir onm ent • Reproces sing
LOWER-LEVEL

• Back stop • Fuel Fabrication

ATTRIBUTES
SCENARIO

Technologies
NUCLEAR ENERGY • Spent Fue l
MODEL
• Economic s
NUCLEAR • Fuel-Cycle Mix
FUEL-CYCLE • Mate rial Flows PROLIFERATION
PARAMETERS • Proliferation RISK
• Int’l Constraints

(a)BARON, R, M., D. Barns, H. M. Pitcher, J. A. Edmonds, M. A. Wise, (1992) “The Second Generation Model
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Background and Initital Development,” Coping with the Energy Future: Market
and Regulations, 2, 15th Annual Converence of the International Associations for Energy Economics on Coping
with the Energy Future: Market and Regulations (18-20 May 1992).

29
 Key Model Drivers Used for ERB “Top-Down” E3 as
Aggregated from 13 Regions to OECD, REF, and ROW
M illion s
1 2,0 00

1 0,0 00
OECD REF ROW Population US$/cap .
7 0,0 00
per-capita GDP
6 0,0 00 OECD
REF
8 ,00 0 5 0,0 00
ROW
4 0,0 00
6 ,00 0 3 0,0 00
2 0,0 00
4 ,00 0
1 0,0 00
0
2 ,00 0 1 99 0 2 00 5 2 02 0 2 03 5 2 05 0 2 06 5 2 08 0 2 09 5
Year

0
2 00 0 2 01 0 2 02 0 2 03 0 2 04 0 2 05 0 2 06 0 2 07 0 2 08 0 2 09 0 2 10 0
Year
1 012 US$
1 80
GDP
1 60
OECD REF ROW
1 40
1 20
1 00
80
60
40
20
0
1 99 0 2 00 5 2 02 0 2 03 5 2 05 0 2 06 5 2 08 0 2 09 5
Year

30
Time Evolution of Cumulative Demand for Six
Primary Energy for BAU/BO Scenario(a,b)
1500
BAU/BO
Total

Hydro
Primary Energy Demand, EJ/yr

Solar
1000 IAEA/HV
l e ar
c
Nu

IAEA/MV

(a) R. A.
Krakowski and R. Wilson,
500 Solids Chapter 7, R. G. Watts(ed.), Innovative
IAEA/LV Energy Strategies for CO2
Stabilization, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge UK (2002).
Gas (b)
IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and
Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New
Oil Realities, (1997).
0
1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year
31
 Comparison of World Nuclear
Energy Generation Scenarios(a,b,c)
2000
BAU/BO Basis Scenario

.3)
=0
1500

X
.0

MO
NE Demand, GWe yr/yr

=0
IAEA/HV

O(f
OX

U/B
fM
BA
IAEA/MV, NEA-I
1000
(a) R. A.
Krakowski and R. Wilson, Chapter 7,
R. G. Watts(ed.), Innovative Energy
Strategies for CO2 Stabilization, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK (2002).
500 NEA-III (b) OECD/NEA, “Nuclear Power and Climate
Change, (April 1998).
IAEA/IV
(c)IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor
Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities,
NEA-II (1997).
0
1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year
32
Evolution of World CO2 Emission Rate, Integrated
Emission, Atmospheric Accumulations, and Average
Global Temperature Increase for BAU/BO Scenario
20
RC(GtonneC/yr), W(Gtonne)/100, T(K)*10 BAU/BO

15

/100
10 WO
0
W/10 RC w/o NE

*10
 T RC

0
1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year
33
 Impact of Phased Change in Unit Capital Cost
of Nuclear on Demand and CO2 Emissions
10000
f
fUTC Variations 0.3
TUTC = 40 yr 0.4 0.75
t o = 2005 0.5 O)
B A U/B
1.0(
NE Demand, NE(GWe yr/yr)

1.25
V
1000 E A/H
IA
V 1.5
A/M
IAE
2.0
/LV
IAEA )
/PO
BAU
100 3.0(

4.0

10
1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year

34
 Summary of Relative Sensitivities of Key Metrics in Year
2095 to Changes in Unit Total Capital Cost of Nuclear
Generation
60
fNE Percent Changes in 2095 Absolute Values of Key Parameters
R,W,PRI,RGNP*100,fNE,EE

r = 0.04 1/yr Total global plutonium, MPu(ktonne) 15.3

40
M/10 CO2 linear tax rate, CTAX($/tonneC/15yr)
fEE R NE fraction of final energy, fNE 0.19
20
EE fraction of primary energy, fEE 0.15

0 Proliferation Risk Index, PRI 0.14

W Atmospheric CO2, W(GtonneC) 1632.
M/10 MGNP(PV)*100
-20 Average global temperature rise, DT(K) 2.6
T
PRI CO2 emission rate, RCO2(GtonneC/yr) 19.8
-40 R

-60
0 1 2 3 4
Factor Change in UTC NE

35
 Impact of (Linearly) Increasing Carbon Taxes
(Imposed After 2005) on Nuclear Energy
Demand and CO2 Emission Rate
10000 20
CTAX($/tonneC/15yr) Variations CTAX($/tonneC/15yr) Variations 0
about BAU/BO Scenario

BO
50 0

U/
BA
RC(Gtonne/yr), W(Gtonne)/100
NE Demand, NE(GWe yr/yr)

30 (ED/BO)
15 10
20
20
)
IAEA/HV U /BO
0 ( BA 50
1000 10
IAEA/MV 10
W/100
20
ED/BO
RC 30

IAEA/LV
5 40
50

100 0
1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year Year

36
 Summary of Relative Sensitivities of Key Metrics in
Year 2095 to Imposition of (Linear) CO2 Taxes
80
CTAX($/tonneC/yr) Variations M Absolute Values of Key Parameters
R,W,PRI,GNP*100,fNE,EECTAX

60 Percent Changes in 2095 Total global plutonium, MPu(ktonne) 15.3

r = 0.04 1/yr CTAX
fNE CO2 linear tax rate, CTAX($/tonneC/15yr)
40
NE fraction of final energy, fNE 0.19
20 fEE
EE fraction of primary energy, fEE 0.15
PRI
0 Proliferation Risk Index, PRI 0.14
Atmospheric CO2, W(GtonneC) 1632.
-20
Average global temperature rise, DT(K) 2.6
W
-40 CO2 emission rate, RCO2(GtonneC/yr) 19.8
T

-60 GNP*100

R
-80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
PV Ratio, f TAX = (TAX/GNP)*100

37
 Nuclear-Energy Scenario Analyses(a)

SCENARIO ATTRIBUTES

BAU ED
Demand Scenarios
(IIASA/WEC B) (IIASA/WEC C)
NO CTAX CTAX

Nuclear Scenarios BO PO
High
BO PO
High
UTC UTC

Demand-Supply BAU-BO BAU-PO ED-BO ED-PO

Scenarios
Notes:
Demand Scenarios: BAU=Business-As-Usual; ED = Ecologically Driven
Nuclear Scenarios: BO=Basic Option; PO = Phase
- out
IIASA/WEC B: Scenario B in the IIASA/WEC Study
IIASA/WEC C: Scenario C in the IIASA/WEC Study
“Scenarios of Nuclear Power Growth in the 21st Century, Report of an Expert Group Study (IAEA, Univ. Dauphine
(a)
Paris, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Univ. Tokyo, and Energy Systems Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences,
published by the Centre of Geopolitics of Energy and Raw Materials, University of Paris IX Dauphine (2002).

38
Scenario Analysis: Primary Energy Demand
EJ/Year
1, 40 0
BAU-BO
Scen ario BAU-BO EJ/Year
1, 40 0
BAU-PO
Scen ario BAU-PO

ROW ROW
1, 20 0 REF 1, 20 0 REF
OECD OECD
1, 00 0 1, 00 0

80 0 80 0

60 0 60 0

40 0 40 0

20 0 20 0

0 0
19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95 19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95
Year Year

EJ/Year
1, 40 0
ED-BO
Scen ario ED-BO EJ/Year
1, 40 0
ED-PO
Scen ario ED-PO

ROW ROW
1, 20 0 REF 1, 20 0 REF
OECD OECD
1, 00 0 1, 00 0

80 0 80 0

60 0 60 0

40 0 40 0

20 0 20 0

0 0
19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95 19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95
Year Year

39
 Scenario Analysis: Global Primary,
Secondary, Final and Energy Demands
EJ/Year EJ/Year
1, 40 0
BAU-BO
Scen ario BAU-BO
1, 40 0
BAU-PO
Scen ario BAU-PO

1, 20 0 FE SE PE 1, 20 0 FE SE PE

1, 00 0 1, 00 0

80 0 80 0

60 0 60 0

40 0 40 0

20 0 20 0

0 0
20 00 20 10 20 20 20 30 20 40 20 50 20 60 20 70 20 80 20 90 21 00 20 00 20 10 20 20 20 30 20 40 20 50 20 60 20 70 20 80 20 90 21 00
Year Year

EJ/Year Scen ario ED-BO EJ/Year Scen ario ED-PO

1, 40 0 ED-BO 1, 40 0 ED-PO
1, 20 0 1, 20 0 FE SE PE
FE SE PE
1, 00 0 1, 00 0

80 0 80 0

60 0 60 0

40 0 40 0

20 0 20 0

0 0
20 00 20 10 20 20 20 30 20 40 20 50 20 60 20 70 20 80 20 90 21 00 20 00 20 10 20 20 20 30 20 40 20 50 20 60 20 70 20 80 20 90 21 00
Year Year

40
 Scenario Analysis: Global Primary Energy Mix

% of T otal P E BAU-BO % of T otal P E BAU-PO

10 0% 10 0%
90 %
LEGEND
90 %
80 % 80 %
70 % 70 % Renewables
60 % 60 % Nuclear
50 % 50 %
40 % 40 % Solids
30 % 30 % Gas
20 % 20 %
10 % 10 % Oil
0% 0%
19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95 19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95
Year Year

% of T otal PE ED-BO % of T otal P E ED-P O

100% 10 0%
90% 90 %
80% 80 %
70% 70 %
60% 60 %
50% 50 %
40%
40 %
30%
30 %
20%
20 %
10%
10 %
0%
0%
1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
Year 19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95
Year

41
 Scenario Analysis: Global Electrical Energy Mix
% o f Elec. Gen . BAU-BO % o f Elec. Gen . BAU-PO
1 00 % 1 00 %
9 0%
LEGEND
9 0%
8 0% 8 0%
7 0% 7 0% Renewables
6 0% 6 0% Nuclear
5 0% 5 0%
4 0% 4 0%
Solids
3 0% 3 0% Gas
2 0% 2 0%
1 0% 1 0% Oil
0% 0%
1 99 0 2 00 5 2 02 0 2 03 5 2 05 0 2 06 5 2 08 0 2 09 5 1 99 0 2 00 5 2 02 0 2 03 5 2 05 0 2 06 5 2 08 0 2 09 5
Year Year
% of Elec. Gen . ED-BO % of Elec. Gen . ERB ED-PO
10 0% 10 0%
90 % 90 %
80 % 80 %
70 % 70 %
60 % 60 %
50 % 50 %
40 % 40 %
30 % 30 %
20 % 20 %
10 % 10 %
0% 0%
19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95 19 90 20 05 20 20 20 35 20 50 20 65 20 80 20 95
Year Year

42
 Scenario Analysis: Global Fossil
Fuel Consumption

MTOE/Year
GTOE/yr
25,00025
BAU-PO
20,000
20
BAU-BO
15,000
15
ED-PO
10,000
10 ED-BO

5,0005 BAU-BO BAU-PO

ED-BO ED-PO
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
Year

43
 Scenario Analysis: Global CO2 Emissions
MT C/Year
MtonneC/yr
20,000

BAU-BO
BAU-P O BAU-PO
15,000 ED-BO
ED-P O
BAU-BO

10,000
ED-PO

ED-BO
5,000

0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year

44
Scenario Analysis: Global Primary Energy Cost
PercentPercent
of GDP GDP
12

10

8 ED-PO
BAU-BO
BAU-PO
6
BAU-PO ED-BO
ED-BO BAU-BO
4 ED-PO

0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
$/GJ YearYear
16
$/GJ

BAU-BO
ED-PO
14
BAU-PO
12 ED-BO
ED-PO
BAU-PO, ED-BO
10

8
BAU-BO
6

0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
Year

45
Scenario Analysis: Global Nuclear-Energy
(Electricity) Demand
T Wh /Year
50 ,0 00
TWeh/yr
45 ,0 00
BAU-BO
40 ,0 00 ED-BO
35 ,0 00
ED-BO
30 ,0 00
25 ,0 00
BAU-BO
20 ,0 00
15 ,0 00
10 ,0 00
5, 00 0
0
20 00 20 10 20 20 20 30 20 40 20 50 20 60 20 70 20 80 20 90 21 00
GW(e) Year
GWe
8,000
BAU-BO
7,000
ED-BO
6,000
ED-BO

5,000

4,000
BAU-BO
3,000

2,000

1,000

0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
46
Global Annual Additions of New Nuclear Capacity

GW(e)/Year
100
90 BAU-BO
ED-BO
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005-10 2015-20 2025-30 2035-40 2045-50 2055-60 2065-70 2075-80 2085-90 95-2100
Year

47
 Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions
 Nuclear energy is on tap, but not on top; continued successful operation
of present LWRs crucial to preserve if not to improve this status;
 The reality and rate of approaching any viable, CO2-impacting
nuclear-energy future is dependent on:
- overcoming barriers to public acceptance (waste, proliferation,
safety, cost; in order of decreasing concern);
- global shifts in energy demand and growths;
- economics of financing large capital-intensive technologies.

48
 Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-1)

 Nuclear energy can play an important, although not dominant,

role in CO2 reduction strategies;
- In both the BAU-BO and BAU-PO scenarios, CO2 emission rates
increase continuously throughout the next century, reaching
levels 143% and 174% higher than in 1990, respectively.
- In the ED-PO scenario, CO2 emission rates are essentially
stabilized, but at a level 34% above 1990 levels.
- Only in the ED-BO scenario is the CO2 emission rate
decreased, being 5% lower in 2095 than in 1990.

49
 Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-2)

 Nuclear capacity in the year 2100 reaches about 3,900 GWe in the BAU-
BO scenario and about 6,700 GWe in the ED-BO scenario, or some 9 to 15
times, respectively, the capacity in operation as of 2000.
 Annual nuclear capacity additions reach a maximum of some 55 GWe/yr
in the BAU-BO scenario and around 95 GWe/ye in the ED-BO scenario.
Based on past experience, with some 40 GWe/yr of capacity having been
added in some years, these levels of capacity addition are feasible, although
significant expansion beyond the nuclear plant manufacturing capability
existing today will be required.

50
 Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-3)
 If nuclear energy is to contribute to stabilizing CO2 emissions, then:
- NPP capacities of >6,000 GWe by 2100 [>17 times present
world capacity, 4 %/yr average growth or 80 GWe/yr (new
construction) after 2030];
- Breeder reactors may be required towards the end of this century(a);
- Even with the development of new economic uranium resources to
meet these demands, if spent fuel and the contained plutonium
inventories are to be controlled/minimized, advanced plutonium
burning fuel cycles will be required(a);
- Applications that produce of carbon-free transportable liquid fuels will
be required if reductions in CO2 emissions rather than
simply stabilization of emissions are desired.
(a) see footnote

51
 Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-3, footnote(a) )
For a global natural uranium resource of R(MtonneU), recovering 63% of the xf = 0.00712 fraction
of the 235U isotope, allowing that 62% is actually fissioned (for a total of fU = 0.39 of the mined
235U is actually fissioned), and taking credit for a f = 0.50 fission boost from non-235U fissions,
Pu
for a nominal fission release of a = 2.7 MWtyr/kg(fission) and a nominal thermal-to-electric
conversion efficiency of 35%, this natural uranium resource represents an electrical energy
resource (supply) of SE(GWeyr) = 3,980*R.
For a capacity of Pi = 350 GWe in Yi = 2000 increasing linearly to Pf = 5,000 GWe in Yf = 2100,
and for nominal plant capacity factor of pf = 0.85, a total generation (demand) of DE(GWeyr) =
pf*(Pf + Pi)*(Yf – Yi)/2 = 227,400 must be satisfied by this augmented fuel supply; the required fuel
supply (DE = SE) fuel supply leads to a natural uranium resource use of R(MtonneU) = 57 (note
that as of 2000, proven uranium reserves extractable at UCMM($/kgU) =130 amounted to R(130) ~
16 Mtonne).
For a fuel burn-up of BU = 50 MWtd/kg(IHM), the above conditions applied to a once-through
LWR fuel cycle would create an SNF inventory of MSNF(tonne) = 4,742,400 (YM = 68 Yucca
Mountain statuary inventories) containing xPu*MSNF(tonnePu) = 47,400(total) or
xPu*fPu*MSNF(tonnePu) = 29,000(fissile), for xPu = 0.01 and fPuf = 0.70. Fissioning this SNF
plutonium would relieve the uranium resource requirement by a factor of xPu* fPuf *a/(BU/dpy) =
0.14, reducing the natural uranium requirement to R = 49 MtonneU.

52
 Conclusions: Role of Nuclear Energy in
Stabilizing CO2 Emissions (cont.-4)

Clearly, fuel cycles more innovative than once-through

and/or plutonium recycle in LWRs will be required,
unless both the economics and the public would accept
approximately one YM/yr, fuel resource extensions
permitting:
 238U 239Pu conversion/burning in breeder reactors if
uranium prices at the required level of resource utilization
dictate; and
 Advanced fuel cycles that reduce waste volume and
toxicity while enhancing recourse utilization (e.g., ADS or
FR transmutation; deep-burn GCRs ).

53
Possible Growth Scenario for Nuclear Energy(a)

Generation-IV Concepts(b)
 LFR: lead-alloy-cooled
fast reactor;
 SFR: sodium-cooled fast
reactor;
 MSR: Molten-salt-cooled
reactor;
 SCWR: supercritical-
water-cooled reactor;
 GFR: gas-cooled fast
reactor;
VHTR: very high-
temperature gas-cooled
reactor.

N. E. Toderas, “What Should Our Future Nuclear Strategy Be?,” Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. On the Next
(a)
Generation of Nuclear Power Technology, MIT report MIT-AP-CP-002 (October 25-26, 1993).
(b) Nuclear News, 23 (November 2002).

54
 Generation-IV Concepts Continues
the Evolution of Nuclear Energy
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Generation I
Generation II
 Shippingport Generation III
Generation III+
 Dresden, Fermi I  LWRs (PWR, BWR)  ABWR Generation
Near-Term
Magnox  CANDU  System 80+ Deployment of IV
VVER, RBMK Evolutionary  Economic
AP600
Designs With  Enhanced Safety
EPR Improved
Economics Minimal Waste
Generation-IV Concepts
 LFR: lead-alloy-cooled fast  SCWR: supercritical-water-
Proliferation
reactor; cooled reactor; Resistant
 SFR: sodium-cooled fast  GFR: gas-cooled fast reactor;
reactor;
VHTR: very high-temperature
 MSR: Molten-salt-cooled gas-cooled reactor.
reactor;

55
Possible Nuclear Fuel Cycles: Once-through (OT/LWR);
Plutonium Recycle in LWRs (MOX/LWR); and
Advanced Actinide/LLFP-Burning FSB
URANIUM UF6 DEPLETED
MINING AND Natural U CONVERSION ENRICHMENT URANIUM
MILLING UF6 (DU)
Rec yc led Enric he d Enric he d
Uranium UF6 UF6
(RU)

REPROCESSING MOX
Plutonium FABRICATION

HWL from MOX Fue l

Spe nt Fue l Ass e mblie s FABRICATION
Reproce ss ing

LLFP
LLFP, ACTINIDE REACTOR(s)
SEPARATIONS/ (NPPs + FSBs) (a)
FABRICATION
All Ac tinide s
HLW
(Le ss LLFPs , Spe nt Fue l Once -through (OT/LWR)
Actinides )
Clos ed cycle (MOX/LWR)

HLW SPENT FUEL SCNES

DISPOSAL DISPOSAL

ADS = Accelerator-Driv en System

DU = Depleted Uranium
FSB = Fast-Spectrum Burner (IFR/LMR or ADS)
HLW = High-Level W aste (fission products, actinides)
IFR = Integral Fast Reactor
79 93 99 107 126 135
LLFP = Long-LivedFission Products ( Se, Zr, Tc, Pd, Sn, Cs)
LMR = Liquid-Metal (cooled) Reactor
LW R = Light-W ater Reactor
MOX = (U, Pu) O2
NPP = Nuclear Power Plant
OT = Once-Through
RU = Recycled Uranium
(a) ma y b e a syste m o f NPP sup po rte d b y fast-sp ectru m bu rne rs (FSBs)

56
Taxonomy of Methodologies for Assessment of
Proliferation Resistance(a)
PROLIFERATION
RESISTANCES FOR
NFC STAGE npr
BARRIERS

MATL. FORM ENVIR. MC&A PHYS. PROT.

ACCESS. OBSERV. UTILITY

INTSTUTIONAL (EXTRINSIC)
MEASURES / FEATURES

INSTITUTIONAL
NATL.
PHYSICAL • PRO. FORCE PERIMETER

ACCESS.
INTRUSION
• SITE ACCESS
PROTECT.

• PERIODIC

RESISTANCE
AUDITS

INTL.
MC&A • ITEM ACCT.
• ZERO MEAS.
ERRORS

OBSERV.
FOR DRY CAST:
• ACCESS DELAY
• HEAVY
ENVIRON. • CLEAR SIGNIT.

INTRINSIC
MOVING EQUIP.
• MIN. ACTIVITY
• MASSIVE
CONTAINER

INTRINSIC

UTILITY
FOR SNF:
• RAD. HAZARD
DISTINCTIVE
• DILUTION
MATERIAL •SIZE, MASS
SIGNITURE • COMPLEX
CHEM.
FORM • CHEM FORM • DEGRADED
• RAD. FIELD PROPERTIES

KRAKOWSKI, R. A. (2001a), “ Review of Approaches for Quantitative Assessment of Risks of and

(a)

Resistance to Nuclear Proliferation form the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Los Alamos National
Laboratory document LA-UR-01-169 (January 12, 2001).

57