2. KI SETS FOR COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF NESs
2.4. Special considerations for KIs
2.4.3. Comparison of nuclear to non-nuclear, including for newcomer countries
The development of KIs for NES vs NES comparisons is targeted for implementation in countries interested in the near term or medium term deployment of NESs, whether or not the country owns or is constructing NPPs.
For newcomer countries where NPPs do not exist, and conventional energy and renewable energy system are widely used and familiarly operated, KIs designed for the comparative evaluation of NES and non-NES options may be more useful than KIs that are only designed for the comparison of two or more NESs. In this regard, specific KIs are needed for use in both technology developing countries and newcomer countries. The development of recommendations for KI selection for newcomer countries may also be based on the INPRO methodology and its extensions. KIs in certain areas need to be developed in conjunction with the national perspectives of newcomer countries.
There are three domains to which the newcomer countries normally pay close attention. First, only energy systems with proven and demonstrated safety are eligible for consideration. The second domain is economics and the third one is acceptability, which may be divided into the following areas: economics, energy security, public acceptance and infrastructure. Energy security is acceptability from the national point of view, while public acceptance is acceptability from the viewpoint of the public. Infrastructure determines the ability of the institutions and industries to accept the energy system. Different KIs under these areas need to be specified depending on the newcomer country.
The LUEC could be adopted as an economic indicator to evaluate the affordability (cost competitiveness) of the energy system, and the cash flow could be adopted as an economic indicator for availability. The two KIs in the area of economics, LUEC and cash flow, are described below.
LUEC is one of the best indicators for comparing the affordability of energy systems, taking into account the cost of the whole life of the NES, including the initial investment, fuel costs, operation and maintenance costs, and decommissioning costs. Since the external costs will be discussed further, they are not to be covered in the evaluation of LUEC in order to avoid double counting. On the other hand, if the energy system is a first of a kind plant, as in the case of NESs in newcomer countries, this may increase the LUEC (e.g. risk premium, construction delay, and increased operation and maintenance costs). In addition, headroom for higher cost could be provided for the preferable energy system in order to reflect any strategic considerations.
TABLE 2.1. KEY INDICATORS USED IN THE SYNERGIES SCENARIO STUDIESa
Area of interest Key indicators Units Relevance to areasb
Power production
Per annum electric energy generation growth by reactor type GW(e)·year I Per annum thermal energy generation growth by reactor type GW(th)·year I Non-electrical production:
(a) Hydrogen (b) Desalination (c) Heat
GW(e)·year I
Commissioning and decommissioning rates GW(e)/year I, WM
Installed capacity GW(e) I, WM
Depleted uranium kt HM ES, ER
Reprocessed uranium kt HM ES, ER
Natural uranium savings due to: (a) Reprocessed U use (b) MOX use
(c) Direct use of spent PWR fuel in CANDU (DUPIC)
kt HM ER, PR, PP, WM
Time of exhaustion of conventional natural uranium resource Years ER, PR, PP, WM
Natural uranium exhaustion t HM ER, PR, PP, WM
Plutonium:
(e) MAs in long term storage
t HM ER, WM
TABLE 2.1. KEY INDICATORS USED IN THE SYNERGIES SCENARIO STUDIESa
Area of interest Key indicators Units Relevance to areasb
Power production
Per annum electric energy generation growth by reactor type GW(e)·year I Per annum thermal energy generation growth by reactor type GW(th)·year I Non-electrical production:
(a) Hydrogen (b) Desalination (c) Heat
GW(e)·year I
Commissioning and decommissioning rates GW(e)/year I, WM
Installed capacity GW(e) I, WM
Depleted uranium kt HM ES, ER
Reprocessed uranium kt HM ES, ER
Natural uranium savings due to:
(a) Reprocessed U use (b) MOX use
(c) Direct use of spent PWR fuel in CANDU (DUPIC)
kt HM ER, PR, PP, WM
Time of exhaustion of conventional natural uranium resource Years ER, PR, PP, WM
Natural uranium exhaustion t HM ER, PR, PP, WM
Plutonium:
(e) MAs in long term storage
t HM ER, WM
TABLE 2.1. KEY INDICATORS USED IN THE SYNERGIES SCENARIO STUDIESa (cont.)
Area of interest Key indicators Units Relevance to areasb
Fuel cycle services
Requirements in terms of NFC infrastructure, i.e. installed and new capacities for uranium:
(a) Mining (b) Conversion (c) Enrichment (d) Fuel fabrication
(e) Reprocessing of SNF, SNF temporary storages and final repositories
Annual quantities of fuel and waste material transported
between groups t HM WM, PR, PP, I
Transmutation rate kg/TW(e)·h WM, PR, PP, I
Costs and investment
Levelized unit of electricity cost (LUEC) US $/MW(e)·h,
mills/kW(e)·h E
Levelized fuel cycle unit of electricity cost US $/MW(e)·h E Annual and total investment (expenditure) in NPP Billion US $,
rel. value E
Annual and total investment (expenditure) in NFC Billion US $,
rel. value E
Annual and total discounted investment in NFC Billion US $,
rel. value E
Natural uranium cost prospective US $/kg E
Economic value of reprocessed uranium US $/kg E
Fuel cycle service cost:
Transmutation overcost (different approaches) % E
Note: CANDU — Canada deuterium–uranium, FPs — fission products, HLW — high level waste, HM — heavy metal, ILW — intermediate level waste, LLW — low level waste, MA — minor actinide, MOX — mixed oxide, NFC — nuclear fuel cycle, NPP — nuclear power plant, PWR — pressurized water reactor, SNF — spent nuclear fuel, SWU — separative work unit.
a Such important areas as safety and physical protection are not covered under the GAINS metrics, but are assumed to be thoroughly evaluated under other assessments based on the INPRO methodology for NES sustainability assessment [2.1, 2.17].
b E — economics, ER — environmental resource, ES — environmental stressors, PR — proliferation resistance, PP — physical protection, I — infrastructure, WM — waste management.
Energy (electricity) will only be available if the energy system is developed and deployed. The development and deployment of an energy system require substantial investment, and thus the owner has to convince a number of major investors that their investments would lead to acceptable profit. Cash flow is a good indicator to evaluate the quality of the investment, since it takes into account the whole life of the energy system, and it enables simultaneous consideration of multiple units in a specific timeframe. In order to evaluate the cash flow, several important conditions have to be determined (e.g. debt fraction, debt term, interest rate, expected return to equity investor, discount rate and the schedule for the introduction of the (series of) energy system(s)).
In cases where these conditions are still ambiguous, or the resource is not sufficient to perform a cash flow evaluation, several indicators may be used instead, for which the evaluations are much easier. Internal rate of return (IRR) and return on investment (ROI) are the two indicators that could be used to evaluate the attractiveness of the investment, and the comparison of investment to the investment limit is a way to evaluate the investment ability of the utility. However, there are some other aspects that could affect the attractiveness of investment in the energy system (e.g. banks and investors tend to perceive larger investment risk for larger projects; thus, the interest rate and the required rate of return on equity are normally higher for larger projects). The same conditions apply to projects with a long payback period. Therefore, the IRR and ROI are evaluated within the context of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which is the weighted average of the required rates of return for investors in the equity and debt of the project, where the weights are the shares of equity and debt in terms of total project value [2.8].
Energy security is of particular importance in the process of technology selection for energy systems. One way to strengthen energy security is to maximize the degree of localization. Based on this perspective, the degree of dependence on suppliers (overseas versus domestic) could be used as a KI for a comparative evaluation of energy systems.
The degree of dependence on supplier(s) is taken into consideration to evaluate the degree of localization of the energy system when introduced in the country, which reflects the sustainability of power utilization of the country. To generalize the degree of dependence so that it is applicable to all energy systems, the areas that need to be considered are determined based on the life cycle of the energy systems, for example, technology, construction, fuel supply, operation, maintenance, waste management and decommissioning.
Public acceptance is needed to initiate and sustainably use an energy system in a country. Public acceptance for an energy system may be achieved easily in some countries, but for others it may not be. Therefore, the evaluation of public acceptance is a crucial element for the evaluation of the ability to establish an energy system in a newcomer country (and to sustain an energy system in any country). The public acceptance survey is a metric that can reflect the acceptance of the public towards the energy systems [2.18]. In addition, there are several more concerns that can affect public acceptance; they may be characterized, for instance, by external cost and risk of accidents. External cost is the sum of the indirect costs estimated from the effects of the energy systems (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions and health effects caused by the operation of the energy systems).
Different approaches exist to evaluate the risk of accidents based on different criteria and thresholds to define a severe accident. The probability of a severe accident occurring could be evaluated by the accident rate (per GW(e)∙year), which can be obtained by summing the severe accidents that have occurred in a specific energy system in the past and dividing the number by the total electricity generation (GW(e)∙year).
To compare the degree of infrastructure readiness of a country with respect to the introduction of NESs with that for non-NESs, the measures of the status of the legal framework, the status of state organizations, the availability of infrastructure to support the owner/operator, government policy and the availability of human resources may be considered as KIs.
The national legal framework related to NESs or non-NESs in selected major areas of operational safety, environmental protection and waste management needs to be developed adequately to ensure that the development of the energy system, from construction until operation and decommissioning, will have no adverse effects on human health, the environment and infrastructure.
The term ‘state organizations’ covers all regulatory authorities of NESs or non-NESs that are responsible for controlling and maintaining operational safety, environmental protection and waste management.5 As with the status of the legal framework, the state organizations need to be well developed to ensure that the development of the energy system, from construction until operation and decommissioning, will have minimal impacts on human
5 For the nuclear option, safeguards and security measures are added by default.
TABLE 2.1. KEY INDICATORS USED IN THE SYNERGIES SCENARIO STUDIESa (cont.)
Area of interest Key indicators Units Relevance to areasb
Fuel cycle services
Requirements in terms of NFC infrastructure, i.e. installed and new capacities for uranium:
(a) Mining (b) Conversion (c) Enrichment (d) Fuel fabrication
(e) Reprocessing of SNF, SNF temporary storages and final repositories
Annual quantities of fuel and waste material transported
between groups t HM WM, PR, PP, I
Transmutation rate kg/TW(e)·h WM, PR, PP, I
Costs and investment
Levelized unit of electricity cost (LUEC) US $/MW(e)·h,
mills/kW(e)·h E
Levelized fuel cycle unit of electricity cost US $/MW(e)·h E Annual and total investment (expenditure) in NPP Billion US $,
rel. value E
Annual and total investment (expenditure) in NFC Billion US $,
rel. value E
Annual and total discounted investment in NFC Billion US $,
rel. value E
Natural uranium cost prospective US $/kg E
Economic value of reprocessed uranium US $/kg E
Fuel cycle service cost:
Transmutation overcost (different approaches) % E
Note: CANDU — Canada deuterium–uranium, FPs — fission products, HLW — high level waste, HM — heavy metal, ILW — intermediate level waste, LLW — low level waste, MA — minor actinide, MOX — mixed oxide, NFC — nuclear fuel cycle, NPP — nuclear power plant, PWR — pressurized water reactor, SNF — spent nuclear fuel, SWU — separative work unit.
a Such important areas as safety and physical protection are not covered under the GAINS metrics, but are assumed to be thoroughly evaluated under other assessments based on the INPRO methodology for NES sustainability assessment [2.1, 2.17].
b E — economics, ER — environmental resource, ES — environmental stressors, PR — proliferation resistance, PP — physical protection, I — infrastructure, WM — waste management.
health, the environment and infrastructure. The state organizations’ degree of infrastructure readiness may be considered, based on whether the country has adequate state organizations with the above mentioned functions.
The infrastructure to support the owner/operator refers to any hardware, facilities or equipment needed to support the project during the installation, operation and decommissioning of the energy system. The industrial infrastructure to support the owner/operator can be equipment, machines, vehicles and related manufacturing capabilities, while the government infrastructure to support the owner/operator can be ports, roads and bridges related to the transportation of equipment or parts. In the case where there is no infrastructure to support the owner/
operator, it will be imported from other countries [2.7].
The national energy policy issued by the government is a key part of establishing and maintaining NESs or non-NESs during their lifetime. The government is responsible for defining options for the energy system of the country to meet its growth in energy demand. The statement of government policy needs to define the role of NESs or non-NESs clearly as an energy source for the country for sustainable development. The policy may not be a commitment to use a specific energy system, but needs to provide details of the process and timeframe; the government will make a decision to use such an energy system as one of the energy sources in the country. It is noted that this KI may be eliminated or have a reduced weighting factor if there is a strong correlation between the areas of government policy and public acceptance in such a country, in order to avoid or reduce double counting in the scoring of those two areas.
Last but not least, the availability of human resources for the installation and operation of NESs or non-NESs is essential to ensure the safe, secure and economical operation of the NESs or non-NESs during their lifetime.
The human resources need to be sufficient and qualified to be utilized for an energy system project. The human resources are necessary not only for the owner/operator of the energy system, but also for related organizations, such as the regulatory agency, governmental units, research institutes and industry.
REFERENCES TO SECTION 2
[2.1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: INPRO Manual — Overview of the Methodology, IAEA-TECDOC-1575 (Rev. 1), IAEA, Vienna (2008).
[2.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, Vol. 9: Summary Volume, IAEA, Vienna (1980).
[2.3] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, GENERATION IV INTERNATIONAL FORUM, A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, USDOE and GIF, Washington, DC (2002).
[2.4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Lessons Learned from Nuclear Energy System Assessments (NESA) Using the INPRO Methodology: A Report of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO), IAEA-TECDOC-1636, IAEA, Vienna (2009).
[2.5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, EUROSTAT, EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, IAEA, Vienna (2005).
[2.6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INPRO Methodology for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems: Infrastructure, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.12, IAEA, Vienna (2014).
[2.7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1 (Rev. 1), IAEA, Vienna (2015).
[2.8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Managing the Financial Risk Associated with the Financing of New Nuclear Power Plant Projects, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-4.6, IAEA, Vienna (2017).
[2.9] BRUNDTLAND COMMISSION, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987).
[2.10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience, IAEA, Vienna (2006).
[2.11] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General, IAEA, Vienna (2015).
[2.12] KEMENY, J.G., et al., Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, US Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC (1979).
[2.13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety Standards, https://www.iaea.org/resources/safety-standards
[2.14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Building a National Position for a New Nuclear Power Programme, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.14, IAEA, Vienna (2016).
[2.15] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) Missions: The First Six Years, IAEA-TECDOC-1779, IAEA, Vienna (2015).
[2.16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Industrial Involvement to Support a National Nuclear Power Programme, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.4, IAEA, Vienna (2016).
[2.17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Framework for Assessing Dynamic Nuclear Energy Systems for Sustainability: Final Report of the INPRO Collaborative Project GAINS, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-1.14, IAEA, Vienna (2013).
[2.18] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-1.4, IAEA, Vienna (2011).