2. SYNERGIES STORYLINES AND SCENARIO FAMILIES
2.4. SUSTAINABILITY ENHANCEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
In terms of the scope of the SYNERGIES project (focused on the material flow and economic analyses), the major long term sustainability enhancement issues addressed are as follows:
(a) Progressive accumulation of spent nuclear fuel that creates a burden for future generations;
(b) Non-effective use of natural fissile resources that in the future might create problems related to fissile resource non-availability;
(c) Presence of direct use materials (plutonium) in spent nuclear fuel, first in irradiated form, and, in several hundreds of years, already in a form that might be rated as unirradiated and that might create long lasting (hundreds of thousands of years) proliferation resistance and security concerns in the case of direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel in non-nuclear-weapon States;
(d) Huge investments required to develop and deploy innovative technologies for nuclear power, making such innovative options unaffordable for many current and potential users of nuclear technology;
(e) Risks related to global spread of sensitive technologies of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing, addressing the consequences of which would be a huge burden for future generations.
The above mentioned issues could be effectively addressed with innovative technologies, such as fast reactors and a closed nuclear fuel cycle, but also several others. However, as the experiences of Member States show, development and implementation of new technologies requires huge financial resources, and the resulting FIG. 2.2. Structure of the INPRO methodology for nuclear energy system assessment.
TABLE 2.1. GAINS KEY INDICATORS AND EVALUATION PARAMETERS [2.6]
No.
Key indicators and evaluation parameters INPRO assessment areas
Colour coding indicative of relative uncertainty level in estimating specific
quantitative values for future NESs (can vary based on a particular scenario)
Low
Resource Sustainability Waste Management
and Environment Stressors Safety Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection Economics Infrastructure
Medium low Medium high
High Power production
KI-1 Nuclear power production capacity by reactor type X
EP-1.1 (a) Commissioning and (b) decommissioning rates X X
Nuclear material resources
KI-2 Average net energy produced per unit mass of natural
uranium X X
EP-2.1 Cumulative demand of natural nuclear material, i.e.
(a) natural uranium and (b) thorium X X
KI-3 Direct use material inventories per unit energy generated
(cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-3.1) X X X
Discharged fuel
KI-4 Discharged fuel inventories per unit energy generated
(cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-3.1) X X
Radioactive waste and minor actinides
KI-5 Radioactive waste inventories per unit energy generated
(cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-5.3) X X
EP-5.1 (a) Radiotoxicity and (b) decay heat of waste, including
discharged fuel destined for disposal X X
EP-5.2 Minor actinide inventories per unit energy generated X X
Fuel cycle services
KI-6 (a) Uranium enrichment and (b) fuel reprocessing capacity, both normalized per unit of nuclear power production
capacity X X
KI-7 Annual quantities of fuel and waste material transported
between groups X X X
EP-7.1 Category of nuclear material transported between groups X
Safe system
KI-8 Annual collective risk per unit energy generation X
TABLE 2.1. GAINS KEY INDICATORS AND EVALUATION PARAMETERS [2.6] (cont.)
No.
Key indicators and evaluation parameters INPRO assessment areas
Resource Sustainability Waste Management and Environment Stressors Safety Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection Economics Infrastructure
Colour coding indicative of relative uncertainty level in estimating specific
quantitative values for future NESs (can vary based on a particular scenario)
Low Medium low Medium high
High
Cost and investment
KI-9 Levelized unit of electricity cost X
EP-9.1 Overnight cost for Nth-of-a-kind reactor unit:
(a) total and (b) specific (per unit capacity) X
KI-10 Estimated R&D investment in Nth-of-a-kind deployment X X
EP-10.1 Additional function or benefits X
economic benefits are visible only for scenarios with large scale deployment of such technologies [2.6], also contributing to the accelerated economies of scale or numbers. Moreover, some of such technologies, such as enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing where direct use/weapons usable materials are present in bulk form, are proliferation sensitive. With these limitations in place, it is collaboration among countries in nuclear fuel cycle that could bring the benefits of enhanced sustainability originally available only to technology holder countries to a broader variety of users, including those who will not be able or willing to deploy innovative technologies [2.6].
For the purpose of scenario studies focused on options of cooperation among countries in nuclear fuel cycle, and taking into account the overall known potential of nuclear technology (both, proven and yet to be proven) and nuclear trade, INPRO Task 1: Global Scenarios has developed a concept of ‘Options for enhanced nuclear energy sustainability’, included as Appendix V to this publication. This concept addresses both, technology related and collaboration related options.
The technology related options are structured along generic fuel cycle options, with generic reactor options linked to fuel cycle options. The reason for this is that the generic reactor technologies may be common for several generic fuel cycle options, while the generic fuel cycle options are limited in number and well known. The details on nuclear reactors associated with the defined fuel cycle options are provided in Appendix V.
With respect to fuel cycle technology, the following options have been defined:
— Option A. Once through nuclear fuel cycle;
— Option B. Recycle of spent fuel with only physical processing;
— Option C. Limited recycling of spent fuel;
— Option D. Complete recycle of spent fuel;
— Option E. Minor actinide or minor actinides and fission products transmutation;
— Option F. Final geological disposal of all wastes.
Option F (final geological disposal of spent nuclear fuel/high level radioactive waste) applies to all Options A–E above. In this context, each generic fuel cycle option can be amended by adding Option F (e.g. AF, BF, CF and so forth) and only with such amendment could they be considered for sustainability.
Sustainability Option A is fundamental to any sustainable NES. Options B–E can progressively improve resource sustainability of an NES while also substantially reducing the long term waste burden. This in turn TABLE 2.1. GAINS KEY INDICATORS AND EVALUATION PARAMETERS [2.6]
No.
Key indicators and evaluation parameters INPRO assessment areas
Colour coding indicative of relative uncertainty level in estimating specific
quantitative values for future NESs (can vary based on a particular scenario)
Low
Resource Sustainability Waste Management
and Environment Stressors Safety Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection Economics Infrastructure
Medium low Medium high
High Power production
KI-1 Nuclear power production capacity by reactor type X
EP-1.1 (a) Commissioning and (b) decommissioning rates X X
Nuclear material resources
KI-2 Average net energy produced per unit mass of natural
uranium X X
EP-2.1 Cumulative demand of natural nuclear material, i.e.
(a) natural uranium and (b) thorium X X
KI-3 Direct use material inventories per unit energy generated
(cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-3.1) X X X
Discharged fuel
KI-4 Discharged fuel inventories per unit energy generated
(cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-3.1) X X
Radioactive waste and minor actinides
KI-5 Radioactive waste inventories per unit energy generated
(cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-5.3) X X
EP-5.1 (a) Radiotoxicity and (b) decay heat of waste, including
discharged fuel destined for disposal X X
EP-5.2 Minor actinide inventories per unit energy generated X X
Fuel cycle services
KI-6 (a) Uranium enrichment and (b) fuel reprocessing capacity, both normalized per unit of nuclear power production
capacity X X
KI-7 Annual quantities of fuel and waste material transported
between groups X X X
EP-7.1 Category of nuclear material transported between groups X
Safe system
KI-8 Annual collective risk per unit energy generation X
TABLE 2.1. GAINS KEY INDICATORS AND EVALUATION PARAMETERS [2.6] (cont.)
No.
Key indicators and evaluation parameters INPRO assessment areas
Resource Sustainability Waste Management and Environment Stressors Safety Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection Economics Infrastructure
Colour coding indicative of relative uncertainty level in estimating specific
quantitative values for future NESs (can vary based on a particular scenario)
Low Medium low Medium high
High
Cost and investment
KI-9 Levelized unit of electricity cost X
EP-9.1 Overnight cost for Nth-of-a-kind reactor unit:
(a) total and (b) specific (per unit capacity) X
KI-10 Estimated R&D investment in Nth-of-a-kind deployment X X
EP-10.1 Additional function or benefits X
can facilitate the achievement of Option F. However, care needs to be taken that the advanced technologies and infrastructure deployed do not significantly increase costs. Competitive economics versus other energy options is, and would remain, an important driver for nuclear energy development, along with national and international considerations such as diversification of resources or environmental objectives such as greenhouse gas reduction. It could also be noted that moving from Option AF to Option EF may be a dynamic process.
In the above mentioned classification, Option A represents technologies commercially available today (thermal reactors, and wet and dry storages of spent nuclear fuel). Some Option C technologies are also commercially available today in a limited number of technology holder countries. For the other options research, development and demonstration is in progress in a number of countries, including under international collaborations such as the Generation IV International Forum and the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative. With regard to collaboration among countries in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it was noted that options for such collaboration are governed by bilateral and multiple bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements.
If considered superficially, the agreements governing international trade and cooperation on nuclear power and fuel cycle may seem to hamper competitive trade as found in less regulated markets. However, peaceful nuclear energy development and trade implies transfer of considerable and unique responsibilities and liabilities.
The sophisticated nuclear trade regime helps to manage these specific and unique risks associated with nuclear energy development.
In Appendix V, it is also noted that, although rare, some examples of multilateral agreements (e.g. Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community), as well as the emerging multiplicity of suppliers and bilateral agreements among certain countries (nuclear power plants, fuel supplies and services) indicate that benefits of competitive trade can be achieved in the future for a variety of supplies in nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle, within the established governance models of international nuclear trade and cooperation [2.21]. International cooperation is also viewed crucial in developing the next generation of nuclear reactors.
It should be noted that the concluded SYNERGIES collaborative project had no objective to examine particular forms of collaboration among countries in nuclear fuel cycle and legal and institutional issues arising thereof, which could become the subject of a dedicated future study. The project addressed more generic issues related to synergies among nuclear technologies and options to ‘amplify’ their positive effects through collaboration among countries.