Nuclear Power:
Benefits and Risks
H-Holger Rogner
Head, Planning & Economic Studies Section (PESS)
Department of Nuclear Energy
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
Technology options towards a
sustainable energy future
Improved Energy Efficiency throughout the
energy system
More Renewable Energy
Advanced Energy Technologies:
clean fossil fuel technologies including carbon
capture & storage (CCS)
next generation nuclear technologies
IAEA
Nuclear power and sustainable
development – A controversial issue?
Exhaustive debate at CSD-9
Agreement to disagree on nuclear’s role in
sustainable development
But unanimous agreement that choice
belongs to countries
NOTE
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 in a system context and life
IAEA
cycle (LCA) basis.
Pro: Nuclear & Sustainability
Brundtland1) about keeping
options open
Expands electricity
supplies (“connecting the
unconnected”)
Reduces harmful emissions
Puts uranium to productive use
Increases human & technological capital
Ahead in internalising externalities
1)
IAEA that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
development
future generations to meet their own needs
Contra: Nuclear & Sustainability
No long-term
solution to waste
Nuclear weapons
proliferation &
security
Safety: nuclear risks are excessive
Transboundary consequences,
decommissioning & transport
Too expensive
IAEA
WIPP
Economics – Nuclear power
Advantages
But…
Nuclear power plants
are cheap to operate
High upfront capital costs
can be difficult to finance
Stable & predictable
generating costs
Sensitive to interest rates
Long life time
Long lead times (planning,
construction, etc)
Supply security
(insurance premium)
Long payback periods
Low external costs (so
far no credit applied)
IAEA
Regulatory/policy/market
risks
Range of levelized generating costs of
new electricity generating capacities
188
Solar PV
Offshore wind
Onshore wind
Hydropower
Oil/oil products
Natural gas
Coal
Nuclear
0
5
IAEA
Source: Adapted from eight recent studies
10
15
US$/MWh
20
25
Air pollution (PM10) and other impacts
Externalities of different electricity
generating options
HIGH
Existing coal
technologies
Biomass
technologies
Nuclear
power
no gas cleaning
Natural gas
technologies
New coal
technologies
LOW
Wind
IAEA
LOW
Greenhouse gas impacts
HIGH
Source: EU-EUR 20198, 2003
Cost structures of different generating
options
100%
uranium
90%
80%
70%
60%
Fuel
O&M
Capital
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IAEANuclear
Coal
Natural gas
Impact of a doubling of resource prices
80
Base costs
70
Double resource costs
US$ per MWh
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
IAEA
Nuclear
Coal
Natural gas
Fuel as a percentage of marginal
generating costs USA - 2005
26%
Fuel
O&M
78%
94%
91%
6%
9%
Gas
Oil
74%
22%
Nuclear
Source: Global Energy Decisions
IAEA
Updated: 6/06
Coal
Environment – Nuclear power
Advantages
But…
Low pollution
emissions
No final waste
repository in operation
Small land
requirements
High toxicity
Small fuel & waste
volumes
Wastes are managed
Proven intermediary
storage
IAEA
Needs to be isolated for
long time periods
Potential burden to
future generations
Mitigation – Role of nuclear power
Life cycle GHG emissions of different electricity generating options
1 800
180
[8]
1 600
a
1 400
[12]
gCO2-eq
1 200
gCO2-eq
[10]
1 000
[16]
800
600
[4]
Standard deviation
160
Mean
140
Min - Max
120
[sample size]
[8]
100
[13]
80
60
400
[8]
40
200
20
0
0
lignite
coal
oil
gas
CCS
[16]
[15]
[15]
hydro nuclear wind solar
PV
biomass
Nuclear power: Very low lifetime GHG emissions make
IAEA
the technology a potent climate change mitigation option
storage
Range of carbon dioxide reduction costs for
electricity technologies
US$/t CO2
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Supercritical Coal
Geothermal
Nuclear
Large Hydro
Biomass Steam
Wind
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Small Hydro
CCS
Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Solar Thermal
Solar PV
280 - 465
IAEA
Note: This graph is for illustrative purposes only, actual costs are site specific
Source: World Bank
Impact of CO2 penalty on
competitiveness of nuclear power
9
Comparative Generating Costs Based on Low
Discount Rate
8
US cents per kWh
7
nuclear high
6
5
nuclear low
4
3
2
1
0
CCGT
No carbon price
Carbon price $20/tCO2
Coal steam
IGCC
Carbon price $10/tCO2
Carbon price $30/tCO2
A relatively modest carbon penalty would significantly improve the
IAEA ability of nuclear to compete against gas & coal
Source: IEA, 2006
Nuclear Fuel:
Small volumes, high energy contents
1 pellet produces
the energy of 1.5
tonnes of coal
Each pellet
produces 5000
kWh
IAEA
Wastes in fuel preparation and plant
operation
Million tonnes
per GWe yearly
0.5
Flue gas desulphurization
Ash
0.4
Gas sweetening
Radioactive (HLW)
0.3
Toxic materials
0.2
0.1
0
Coal
Oil
Natural
gas
IAEA
Source: IAEA, 1997
Wood
Nuclear
Solar
PV
Geological nuclear waste disposal
NATURAL BARRIERS
Stable rock around the repository
Stable groundwater in the rocks
Retention, dispersion and dilution processes in the rock
Dispersion and dilution processes in the biosphere
Waste
Container
IAEA
Buffer
or
backfill
ENGINEERED BARRIERS
Solid waste material
Waste containers
Buffer and backfill materials
Seals
Disposal tunnels or
caverns
Seals
Access
shafts or
tunnels
FR
A
L
SL IT NC
H
O U E
VA A
K NIA
BE RE
L P.
SW GIU
E M
UK DE
BU RA N
LG INE
AR A R
KO
M IA
RE SLO EN
A, VE I A
RE N
P IA
SW HU . O
IT NG F
ZE AR
G RL Y
E A
CZ RM ND
EC A
H NY
R
JA EP.
FI P A
NL N
TA
AN
IW
AN SP D
, C AI N
H
IN
A
US
A
RU UK
CA SS
IA
RO NAD
AR M A
G AN
EN I A
SO
T
UT ME INA
NE H X
TH AF ICO
ER RI
L A CA
N
BR DS
PA A
KI ZIL
ST
A
IN N
D
CH IA
IN
A
% of electricity from nuclear power
Nuclear share of electricity (2006)
France 78%
90
80
Belgium 54%
70
Rep. Korea 40%
60
50
Switzerland 37%
40
Japan 30%
30
20
IAEA
Russia 16%
USA 19%
China 2%
S. Africa 4%
10
0
Structure of global electricity supply
Global electricity
generation in 2005:
18,235 TWh
Hydro
16.0%
Renewables
2.2%
Coal
40.3%
Nuclear
15.2%
IAEA
Natural gas
19.7%
Oil
6.6%
Structure of OECD North America electricity
supply
Biomass
1.6%
Hydro
12.9%
Other Ren
0.8%
Coal
44.7%
Nuclear
17.8%
IAEA
Electricity generation
in 2005: 5,128 TWh
Gas
17.6%
Oil
4.5%
Structure of Latin American electricity supply
Other Ren
0.2%
Biomass
2.1%
Coal
3.4%
Electricity generation
in 2005: 905 TWh
Oil
9.3%
Gas
14.7%
Nuclear
1.9%
IAEA
Hydro
68.4%
Nuclear power today:
On 1 January 2008, 439 nuclear power plants
(NPPs) operated in 30 countries worldwide, with
a total installed capacity of 371 900 MWe.
400
350
GWe installed
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
IAEA
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
“Where does
nuclear power go
from here?”
Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation:
Energy efficiency improvements
Economic restructuring
Significant drop in electricity demand
Excess generating capacity
Electricity market liberalization &
privatization
Oil (traded fossil energy) price collapse
Advent of the high-efficient cheap gas
turbine technology (GTCC)
IAEA
Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation:
Little regard for supply security
Regulatory interventions after Three Mile
Island
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)
IAEA
Development of regional nuclear
generating capacities
140
North America
100
100
80
80
60
40
20
20
0
0
90
80
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1965
90
Eastern Europe & CIS
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
1970
Asia
80
GWe
GWe
60
40
1965
Western Europe
120
GWe
GWe
120
140
0
1965
IAEA
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1965
1970
1975
Development of regional nuclear
generating capacities
3.0
140
Latin America
120
2.5
100
GWe
2.0
GWe
OEA
1.5
1.0
80
60
40
0.5
20
0.0
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
IAEA
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
45
2,700
40
2,400
35
2,100
30
1,800
25
1,500
20
1,200
15
900
10
600
5
300
0
0
-5
-300
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
IAEA
Total nuclear power generation in TWh
Incremental nuclear power capacity
additions in GW e
Annual Incremental Nuclear Capacity Additions
and Total Nuclear Electricity Generation
Global energy availability factor of
nuclear power plants
90
85
Equivalent to the construction
of 34 NPPs of 1,000 MW each
82.6
82.2 81.9
Percent
80
78.4
75.4
73.7
75
71.3
70.1
70.5
81.1 81.1
80.4
79.6
79.6
75.7
74.3
71.2
70
66.8
65
60
1990 91
IAEA
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99 2000 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Summary of nuclear power today:
A proven technology that provides clean
electricity at predictable and competitive costs
Provides 15% of global electricity supply
More the 13,000 years of accumulated reactor
experience
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
IAEA
Summary of nuclear power today:
The industry is alive and vibrant
Market liberalization served as a wake-up call
The industry is heavily engaged in innovation
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
IAEA
Summary of nuclear power today:
But most importantly the global energy
map today is distinctly different from the
situation of the mid 1980s
Fossil fuel prices
Energy security
Climate change considerations
Demand
Aging generating capacities
IAEA
Rising expectations
GWe installed
Upwardly revised nuclear
projections
Plans for expansion in
a number of countries
Entry into force of the
Kyoto Protocol
Projection of nuclear power for 2030
430
420
410
400
390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
2002
2004
2006
Year of projection (WEO, IEA)
Proven technology that provides clean electricity
at predictable and competitive costs
The industry’s safety record is second to none
Increasingly favorable commentary from both
politicians
and the media
IAEA
Updated nuclear power projections
IAEA
IAEA: Evolution of low projection
800
700
600
history
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
GW(e)
500
400
300
200
100
0
IAEA
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
IAEA: Evolution of high projection
800
700
600
history
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
GW(e)
500
400
300
200
100
0
IAEA
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Nuclear power around the globe
Countries with operating NPPs
Countries with operating NPPs &
plants under construction
Countries with a phase out policy
Countries with operating NPPs
IAEA
One size does not fit all
Countries differ with respect to
energy demand growth
alternatives
financing options
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.
Nuclear power per se is not “the solution” to
the world’s energy problems and climate
change but
It surely can be an integral part of the solution!
IAEA
IAEA
IAEA
…atoms for peace.
The Oklo Mine had a fission reaction…
2 Billion Years Ago
IAEA
Scientific American, July 1976
The Oklo Mine fission reaction…
• 15 natural reactors
discovered
• 16,000 MW-years
• Used 5 tons uranium
• 5 tonnes waste
• 1.5 tonnes of Pu
Scientific American, July 1976
IAEA
Relative radiotoxicity
Radio-toxicity of spent nuclear fuel
Spent fuel
(Pu + MA + FP)
Natural uranium ore
FP
MA + FP
Time (years)
IAEA
Time lines…..
Relative radiotoxicity
INNOVATION:
Spent fuel
(Pu + MA + FP)
Burning of HLW in Fast
Reactor in Reducing
Radio Toxicity
Natural uranium ore
MA + FP
FP
Time (years)
IAEA
Plutonium and minor
actinides are
responsible for most
of the long term
hazards
Do not drive into the future by
looking in the rear view mirror:
Yesterday’s technology is not tomorrow's
Innovation ongoing
With each new investment cycle technology
tends to get better
IAEA
Innovation: Nuclear power generation
Generation I
Early prototype
reactors
Generation II
Commercial
power reactors
Generation III
Generation III+
Advanced LWRs &
HWRs
– Shippingport
– Dresden, Fermi I – LWR-PWR,
BWR
– Magnox
– CANDU
– VVER/RBMK
Evolutionary designs
with improved
economics and
safety for near-term
deployment
–
–
–
–
– AP1000, ABWR,
System 80+
– ACR
– EPR
Gen III
1950
1960
IAEA 1970
1980
1990
2000
Generation IV
Gen III+
2010
2020
Highly economical
Enhanced safety
Minimal waste
Proliferation
resistant
Gen IV
2030
Innovation: AP 1000
IAEA
Integral Primary System Reactor (IRIS)
X
X
X
X XX
X
X
X
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
IAEA
security.
Nuclear weapons proliferation:
The genie is out of the bottle
Preventing the misuse of nuclear materials for
non-peaceful purposes needs special
attention
It is an area where IAEA has a strict mandate
Non-proliferation is a political problem
NPT regimes needs strengthening
IAEA
Nonproliferation and Nuclear Security
Nuclear Nonproliferation: To curb and
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,
their delivery means, and related materials
and technologies.
Owner Controlled
Area
Nuclear Security: The prevention and
detection of and response to theft,
sabotage, unauthorized access, illegal
transfer or other malicious acts involving
nuclear material, other radioactive
substances, or their associated facilities.
IAEA
Protected Area
Double Fence
Protected
Area
Vital Area
Access Control Points
Elements of nuclear safety:
Defense in Depth
IAEA
Source: NEA
A history of mistaken forecasts
“The energy produced by breaking down
the atom is a very poor kind of thing.
Anyone who expects a source of power
from the transformations of these atoms is
talking moonshine.”
Lord Ernest Rutherford
1933
IAEA
A history of mistaken forecasts
“It is not too much to expect that our
children will enjoy in their homes [nuclear
generated] electrical energy too cheap to
meter.”
Lewis Strauss
Chairman
US Atomic Energy Commission
1954
IAEA
Nuclear Energy and Society
Bjorn Wahlström
IAEA
Nuclear power projections
22,000
20,000
Maximum mean
global temperature
change < 2oC
18,000
16,000
TWh
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2005
IAEA
IAEA
IEA
2030
WETO
IEA
2050
WETO
Typical nuclear electricity generation
cost breakdown
Decommissioning
1-5%
O&M
20%
5% Uranium
1% Conversion
Investment
60%
Fuel cycle
20%
6% Enrichment
3% Fuel fabrication
IAEA
5% Back-end activities
Source: NEA
Safety – Nuclear power
Reality
Perception
Safety is an integral part
of plant design &
operation
Nuclear power is
dangerous
Nuclear power has an
excellent safety record
It can never be made
safe
Lessons learned from
past accidents
Safe is not safe enough
Safety culture, peer
reviews & best practices
No room for
complacency
IAEA
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
The impact of these ongoing efforts are:
Improved availability worldwide
Lower radiation doses to plant personnel and
fewer unplanned stoppages
IAEA
Typical barriers confining radioactive
materials
IAEA
Source: NEA
Unplanned scrams per 7000 hours
critical
2
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0
Units
reporting
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
369
404
417
428
419
405
428
425
429
IAEA
unplanned scrams per 7000 hours critical
Source: WANO 2006 Performance Indicators
Industrial accidents at NPPs per
200,000 person-hours worked
1.2
1
1.04
0.8
0.6
0.58
0.4
0.33
0.2
0.33
0.31
0.28
0.21
0.26
0.24
0
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
169
192
203
200
203
201
210
208
209
Stations
reporting
Industrial accidents per
IAEA
Source: WANO 2006 Performance Indicators