Clean Coal Technology Selection Study - Canadian Clean Power Coalitio
Nuclear Power and Sustainable DevelopmentBreak up of the Soviet Union All the above together: New...
Transcript of Nuclear Power and Sustainable DevelopmentBreak up of the Soviet Union All the above together: New...
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.