the energy issue and the possible contribution of various nuclear energy production scenarios
Post on 16-Mar-2016
35 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The energy issue and the possible contribution of various nuclear
energy production scenarios
H.NifeneckerScientific consultant LPSC/CNRSChairman of « Sauvons le Climat »
Global Heating Challenge
(a)
(b)
Models for emission (a) and concentrations of CO2 (b)
Global Warming•2004 Emissions : 7,3 GtC (6,4 in 2000)•World population: 6,3 Billions (6,0 in 2000) •Emission/capita: 1,15 Ton C (1,06 in 2000)
Max. emission for temperature stabilization: 3GtC
•Objective for 2050•World Population(minimum) : 9 Billions•Emission/capita: 0.33 Ton
The effort to do
•World average: 1,15 ton C/capita•USA: 5,4 tons C/capita•Germany : 2,8 tons C/capita•France: 1.7 tons C/capita•China: 0.75 tons C/capita
2004 emissions
Origin of world CO2 emissions
Factors to control
EnergyQ
GDPEnergy
NGDP
NQ CO
poppop
CO 22
GDPEnergy
EnergyQCO2
Energy intensities
CO2 intensities
tCO2/tep (1995)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Danem
ark
Irland
e
Portug
al
Luxe
mbourg Ita
lie
Allemag
neUSA GB
Autrich
e
Espag
ne
Pays B
asJa
pon
Finlan
de
Belgiqu
e
Canad
a
France
tCO
2/te
ptCO2/tep
tCO2/elec
tCO2/tep
Role of electricity
Strategic role of Electricity
Electricity substitute to fossiles
•Mass transportation •Electric car•Hydrogen (electrolysis or reforming + CS (CO2)•Bio-Fuels
-Transportation
-Heating
•Insulation•Thermal Solar•Biomass (wood, wastes, bio-gas)•Geothermal•Heat Pump •Electric Heat
Learn from the past
Comparison of electricity mixOECD vs France
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
Coal Oil Gas Nucl+Ren.
Fuel
%
OECDFrance
First step: electricity mix
Assume same mix for OECD as for France
Comparison of CO2 emissions for observed and potential mix
Gain: 0.67
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
observed potential
Mt C
O2
emitt
ed
electricnon electric
Second step: Heatproduction with electricity
Total gain: 0.3Residual « transport » CO2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
observed clean electricity clean elec.+heat
MtC
O2 electricity
heattransport
Evolution of world GHG Emissions
Increase dominatedby CO2
Evolution of GHG emissions
Origin of GHG emissions
GHG emissions by sectorDominant rôle of energy sector
Building of scenariosExample of IAASA-WEC
scenarios
Population projections
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Popu
latio
n M
illio
ns
A2RB1B2
GDP Projections
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Trill
ions
dol
lars
A2RB1B2
Energy Demand
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gte
p A2RB1B2
Energy demand per aggregate
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
Gte
p
AsiaTransitionOECDLAM+AFRICA
Total primary energy B2
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gte
p 480 ppmv670 ppmvBase
Nuclear B2
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
9,00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gte
p 480670Base
% electricity in B2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
%
480670base
Coal B2
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gte
p 480 ppmv670 ppmvBase
% nuclear electricity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
%
480670Base
IIASANuclear electricity in 2050
compared to 2000•Baseline:
Share of electricity multiplied by 1.64Share of nuclear multiplied by 1.38Nuclear multiplied by 2,26
•670 ppmShare of electricity multiplied by 1.73Share of nuclear multiplied by 1,55 Nuclear multiplied by 2,68
•480 ppmShare of electricity multiplied by 1.98Share of nuclear multiplied by 1,65 Nuclear multiplied by 3,26
Share of CO2less in electricityB2 470 ppm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
nuclearHydrobiomasswind+PV
Share of CO2less in electricityBaseline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
nuclearhydroBiomassWind+PV
Share of CO2less in electricityOECD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
nuclearhydrobiomasswindPV
Share of CO2less in electricityAsia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
nuclearhydrobiomasswindPV
Share of CO2less in electricityALM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
nuclearhydrobiomasswindPV
Share of CO2less in electricityREF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
nuclearhydrobiomasswindPV
CO2 concentrations
0,00
200,00
400,00
600,00
800,00
1000,00
1200,00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
conc
entr
atio
n CO
2 eq
u. p
pmv
480670 ppmBase
Relation GHG concentrationtemperature
IPCC scenarios
Evolution of CO2 emissionsin IPCC scenarios
IPCC projections
2030tCO2<50$/tonRenewables: 35% electricityNuclear: 18% electricity
IEA’s successive Prospects fo Nuclear (World Energy Outlook)
2020 2030Mtoe TWh % Mtoe TWh %
WEO 1998 604 2317 8 WEO 2000 617 2369 9 WEO 2002 719 2758 11 703 2697 9 WEO 2004 776 2975 12 764 2929 9 WEO 2006 861 3304 10 Alt. 2006 1070 4106 14
Prospect for nuclear production 2000-2030 TWh (AIEA July 2006)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Am N W Eur Afr Pacif
2000
2010 b2010 H2020 b2020 H2030 b2030 H
Am L Eur E MO+As S Ext. O
Nuclear Intensive Scenarios
•Scenarios by difference:P.A.BauquisD.Heuer and E.Merle
•Objective oriented ScenariosH.Nifenecker et al.
No miracle from renewables•Hydro:
Limitation of ressource (Europe-USA)Environment and localization (Am.Sud, Asie, Afrique, Russie)Large Investments Reliable, availableMight provide 20% of world electricity.
France: 70TWh/450•Wind
« fatal » EnergyLimit: 10-15% of electricity production
No miracle with renewables•Solar
PV: Ideal for isolated sites (Africa, SE Asia). Mostly artificial in Developed Countries and very expansive
Thermal: interesting for heating and warm water
Thermodynamic: Fiability? Hot and dry climates Hot and dry climate.
•Biomass
Bio-fuels (10 Mtep/50)
Wood energy.
Competition with food, energy and environmental balance
Pierre René Bauquis
Renewable energies
7 J o u r n é e d e l ’ É n e r g i e 1 4 - 1 8 m a i 2 0 0 1
É l e c t r i c i t é d ’ o r i g i n e r e n o u v e l a b l e e n 1 9 9 5 e t 2 0 5 0 *
G l o b a l F o u n d a t i o n - N o v e m b e r 2 6 / 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 0 P R B 9 _ 0 1 . p p t - P i e r r e R e n é B A U Q U I S
* É q u i v a l e n c e r e t e n u e p o u r l ’ é l e c t r i c i t é : l e n u c l é a i r e e t l e s r e n o u v e l a b l e s o n t é t é c o m p t a b i l i s é s c o m m e s ’ i l s a v a i e n t é t é g é n é r é s p a r u n e f i l i è r e t h e r m i q u e a v e c u n r e n d e m e n t d e 4 0 % ( c o n v e n t i o n u t i l i s é e p a r l e g r o u p e T O T A L ) d o n t p l u s d e 9 5 % d e « g r a n d e h y d r a u l i q u e »
H y d r a u l i q u eH y d r a u l i q u eÉ o l i e nÉ o l i e n
B i o m a s s e B i o m a s s e ( f i l i è r e s ( f i l i è r e s é l e c té l e c t . ). )
G é o t h e r m i eG é o t h e r m i e
S o l a i r e S o l a i r e ( p h o t o v o l t a ï q u e )( p h o t o v o l t a ï q u e )
S o l a i r e S o l a i r e t h e r m i q u et h e r m i q u e
7 2 2 . 6 0 07 2 2 . 6 0 0
7 0 0 . 0 0 07 0 0 . 0 0 0
5 . 0 0 05 . 0 0 0
1 0 . 0 0 01 0 . 0 0 0
7 . 0 0 07 . 0 0 0
6 0 06 0 0
--
1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 01 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0
2 0 0 . 0 0 02 0 0 . 0 0 0
1 0 0 . 0 0 01 0 0 . 0 0 0
2 0 . 0 0 02 0 . 0 0 0
3 0 . 0 0 03 0 . 0 0 0
--
2 . 4 0 02 . 4 0 0
1 01 0
5 05 0
3 03 0
11
1 01 0
3 . 0 0 03 . 0 0 0
5 0 05 0 0
5 0 05 0 0
1 0 01 0 0
1 0 01 0 0
5 05 0
1 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 01 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 0 2 . 5 0 12 . 5 0 1 4 . 2 5 04 . 2 5 0T o t a lT o t a l
1 9 9 51 9 9 5 2 0 5 02 0 5 0 1 9 9 51 9 9 5 2 0 5 02 0 5 0
P u i s s a n c e s i n s t a l l é e sP u i s s a n c e s i n s t a l l é e sM WM W
É l e c t r i c i t é g é n é r é eÉ l e c t r i c i t é g é n é r é eT W hT W h
S o u r c e : R e v u e d e l ’ É n e r g i e ,5 0 a n s , n ° 5 0 9 S e p t . 9 9
Renewable electricity
8 J o u r n é e d e l ’ É n e r g i e 1 4 - 1 8 m a i 2 0 0 1
É l e c t r i c i t é d ’ o r i g i n e r e n o u v e l a b l e e n 1 9 9 5 e t 2 0 5 0 *
G l o b a l F o u n d a t i o n - N o v e m b e r 2 6 / 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 0 P R B 9 _ 0 1 . p p t - P i e r r e R e n é B A U Q U I S
* É q u i v a l e n c e r e t e n u e p o u r l ’ é l e c t r i c i t é : l e n u c l é a i r e e t l e s r e n o u v e l a b l e s o n t é t é c o m p t a b i l i s é s c o m m e s ’ i l s a v a i e n t é t é g é n é r é s p a r u n e f i l i è r e t h e r m i q u e a v e c u n r e n d e m e n t d e 4 0 % ( c o n v e n t i o n u t i l i s é e p a r l e g r o u p e T O T A L )* * d o n t p l u s d e 9 5 % d e « g r a n d e h y d r a u l i q u e »
C o n s o m mC o n s o m m . é l e c t r i c i t é. é l e c t r i c i t é( t o u t e s o r i g i n e s )( t o u t e s o r i g i n e s )
H y d r a u l i q u e * *H y d r a u l i q u e * *
A u t r e s r e n o u v e l a b l e sA u t r e s r e n o u v e l a b l e s
T o t a l r e n o u v e l a b l e sT o t a l r e n o u v e l a b l e s 2 5 0 02 5 0 0
1 3 0 0 01 3 0 0 0
2 4 0 02 4 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 9 9 51 9 9 5
É l e c t r i c i t é g é n é r é eÉ l e c t r i c i t é g é n é r é ee n e n T W h T W h e n e n G t e p G t e p **
4 2 5 04 2 5 0
4 2 0 0 04 2 0 0 0
3 0 0 03 0 0 0
1 2 5 01 2 5 0
2 0 5 02 0 5 0
0 . 5 20 . 5 2
2 . 82 . 8
0 . 50 . 5
0 . 0 20 . 0 2
1 9 9 51 9 9 5
0 . 90 . 9
9 . 09 . 0
0 . 60 . 6
0 . 30 . 3
2 0 5 02 0 5 0
1 8 . 8 %1 8 . 8 %
1 0 0 %1 0 0 %
1 8 . 0 %1 8 . 0 %
0 . 8 %0 . 8 %
1 9 9 51 9 9 5
1 0 . 0 %1 0 . 0 %
1 0 0 %1 0 0 %
7 . 0 %7 . 0 %
3 . 0 %3 . 0 %
2 0 5 02 0 5 0
6 . 8 %6 . 8 %
3 4 . 0 %3 4 . 0 %
6 . 5 %6 . 5 %
0 . 3 %0 . 3 %
1 9 9 51 9 9 5
5 . 0 %5 . 0 %
5 0 . 0 %5 0 . 0 %
3 . 5 %3 . 5 %
1 . 5 %1 . 5 %
2 0 5 02 0 5 0
S o i t e n % d e sS o i t e n % d e sc o n s o m m a t i o n sc o n s o m m a t i o n s
é l e c t r i q u e s 2 0 5 0é l e c t r i q u e s 2 0 5 0
S o i t e n % d e sS o i t e n % d e sc o n s o m m a t i o n sc o n s o m m a t i o n s
é n e r g é t i q u e sé n e r g é t i q u e st o t a l e st o t a l e s
A vision of energy mix by 2050
9 J o u r n é e d e l ’ É n e r g i e 1 4 - 1 8 m a i 2 0 0 1
U n e v i s i o n d e s b i l a n s é n e r g é t i q u e s 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 2 0 -2 0 5 0
G l o b a l F o u n d a t i o n - N o v e m b e r 2 6 / 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 0 P R B 9 _ 0 1 . p p t - P i e r r e R e n é B A U Q U I S
S o u r c e : R e v u e d e l ’ É n e r g i e ,5 0 a n s , n ° 5 0 9 S e p t . 9 9
2 0 0 02 0 0 0
G t e pG t e p %%
2 0 2 02 0 2 0
G t e pG t e p %%
2 0 5 02 0 5 0
G t e pG t e p
P é t r o l eP é t r o l eG a zG a z
C h a r b o nC h a r b o n
3 . 73 . 72 . 12 . 12 . 22 . 2
4 04 02 22 22 42 4
5 . 05 . 04 . 04 . 03 . 03 . 0
4 04 02 72 72 02 0
3 . 53 . 54 . 54 . 54 . 54 . 5
2 02 02 52 52 52 5
%%
E n s e m b l e é n e r g i e s f o s s i l e sE n s e m b l e é n e r g i e s f o s s i l e s 8 . 08 . 0 8 68 6 1 2 . 01 2 . 0 8 78 7 1 2 . 51 2 . 5 7 07 0
R e n o u v e l a b l e sR e n o u v e l a b l e sd o n t f i l i è r e s é l e c t r i q u e sd o n t f i l i è r e s é l e c t r i q u e s
0 . 70 . 7( 0 . 5 )( 0 . 5 )
7 . 57 . 5
11( 0 . 7 )( 0 . 7 )
6 . 56 . 5
1 . 51 . 5( 0 . 9 )( 0 . 9 )
88
N u c l é a i r eN u c l é a i r e 0 . 60 . 6 6 . 56 . 5 11 6 . 56 . 5 44 2 22 2
T o t a l t o u t e s é n e r g i e sT o t a l t o u t e s é n e r g i e s 9 . 39 . 3 1 0 0 . 01 0 0 . 0 1 4 . 01 4 . 0 1 0 0 . 01 0 0 . 0 1 8 . 01 8 . 0 1 0 0 . 01 0 0 . 0
Energy mix in 2050
11 Jou rn ée d e l’Énerg ie 14-18 m ai 2001
Sources d’énerg ies prim aires (m onde) : 1900 - 2050
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1900 1950 2000 2050
Charbon Renouvelables (sauf hydro.)Pétrole G az naturelHydraulique Nucléaire
G lobal Foundation - Novem ber 26/28, 2000 0PRB 9_01.pp t - P ierre R en é BAUQ UIS
CO2 emissions
1 0 J o u rn é e d e l ’É n e rg ie 1 4 -1 8 m a i 2 0 0 1
É v o lu t io n e s tim é e d e s é m is s io n s d e C O 2
H y p o th è s e 1 : 1H y p o th è s e 1 : 1 G tC G tC g é n è re u n a c c ro is s e m e n t d e 0 .2 7 7 g é n è re u n a c c ro is s e m e n t d e 0 .2 7 7 p p m p p m C OC O 22 d a n s l’a tm o s p h è re d a n s l’a tm o s p h è reH y p o th è s e 2 : 1H y p o th è s e 2 : 1 G tC G tC g é n è re u n a c c ro is s e m e n t d e 0 .2 2 8 g é n è re u n a c c ro is s e m e n t d e 0 .2 2 8 p p m p p m C OC O 22 d a n s l’a tm o s p h è re d a n s l’a tm o s p h è re
C OC O 22 p p mp p m
2 0 0
2 5 0
3 0 0
3 5 0
4 0 0
4 5 0
5 0 0
5 5 0
1 9 6 0 1 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 0
H y p o th è s e 2H y p o th è s e 2
H y p o th è s e 1H y p o th è s e 1
M a u n a L o aM a u n a L o ad a tad a ta
G lo b a l F o u n d a tio n - N o v e m b e r 2 6 /2 8 , 2 0 0 0 0 P R B 9 _ 0 1 .p p t - P ie rre R e n é B A U Q U IS
c a lc u léc a lc u léo b s e rv éo b s e rv é
Nuclear production
In Bauquis ScenarioNuclear production
0.6 Gtep 4 Gtep i.e. x 6.5
Primary Energy (GTEP)
2000 2050
Fossils 7.5 7.5Hydro 0.7 1.4
Wood 1.2 1.1
Renewable 0.2 5.2
Nuclear 0.6 5.2
Total 10.2 20.4
– Stabilization of fossile contribution– World energy consumption x 2– Renewable = nuclear
Hypothesis 2050
Multiplication by factor 8 • Then increase by 1.2%/year up to 2100
Nuclear :
Elsa Merle and Daniel Heuer
Objective oriented scenariosH.Nifenecker et al.
2000 IIASA-WEC Scenarios
• A: strong growth– A1: Oil – A2: Coal– A3:Gaz
• B: Middle of the road• C: Low energy intensity. High electricity
– C1: Ren.+Gaz– C2: Ren.+Nuclear
GDP/capita 1000$
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
NorthAmerica
WesternEurope
PacificOECD
FormerSovietUnion
EasternEurope
LatinAmerica
M. East&N.Africa
Africa Centrallyplanned
Asia
OtherPacificAsia
South Asia
GD
P/C
apita
100
0$
1990
2050 A
2050 B
2050 C
GDP/cap
Energy Intensities
0,000
0,050
0,100
0,150
0,200
0,250
0,300
0,350
0,400
0,450
0,500
1990 2050 A 2050 B 2050 C
toe/
kilo
$
Energy intensities
World GDP
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
1990 2050 A 2050 B 2050 C
Scenarios
Wor
ld G
DP
billi
on$
World GDP
B2: 110 000
Primary energy per fuel MToe
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Coal Oil Nat. Gas Nuclear Hydro Biomass(comm)
Biomass(nonc)
Solar Others CO2(MtC)
MTo
e
1990
2050 A1
2050 A2
2050 A3
2050 B
2060 C1
2050 C2
Primary energy per fuel
A1 A2 A3 B C1 C2 Reserves 1990 Coal+Lignite 200 275 158 194 125 123 540 Oil 300 260 245 220 180 180 146 Gas 210 211 253 196 181 171 133
Exhaustion of fossile reserves(Gtoe)
Exhaustion of fossile reserves
•Minimize use of fossils for Electricity• « Reasonable » Development of Nuclear
OECD: 85%Transition: 50%China, India, Latin America: 30%
3000 GWe Nuclear
2030-2050
2050•Minimize use of coal and gas•30% coal China, India; 30% gas Russia; 100% Africa
7500 GWe Nucléaire
2030
Scenario no coal no gaz in 2050
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
PrimaryEnergy(Mtoe)
PrimaryElectricity(Mtoe)
Nuclear(Mtoe) CO2(Mt C)
Mto
e
20002050 A22050 C22050 N2
B2=18000, Nuclear=1450
CO2/GDP
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
2000 A2 2050 A2 2050 N1 2050 N2 2050 C2
T(C
)/100
0$CO2/GDP
CO2/primen
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
2000 A2 2050 A2 2050 N1 2050 N2 2050 C2
CO
2 to
n(C
)/Toe
CO2/primen
Gestion of Natural Uranium Reserves
Unat exhaustion
0,00E+00
2,00E+06
4,00E+06
6,00E+06
8,00E+06
1,00E+07
1,20E+07
1,40E+07
1,60E+07
1,80E+07
2050 A2 2050 N1 2050 N2 2050 C2
Cum
ulat
ed U
nat M
tons
Unat exhaustion
Breeding Cycles
U-Pu versus Th-U cycles
•U-PuFast SpectraPu fuel1.2 GWe reactorsSolid fuels1 year cooling25 years doubling time
•Th-UThermal SpectraPu, then 233U fuel1 GWe reactorsMolten Salts fuel10 days fuel cycling25 years doubling time
U-Pu vs Th-U
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Years
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Num
ber o
f Gw
e
Total number of GweNumber of Gwe PWRNumber of Gwe fast reactors
Number of Gwe (PWR and FR) as function of time
Nb GWe
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Years
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Pu
Inve
ntor
y to
ns Pu inventorry
Pu inventory
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
years
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Num
ber o
f GW
e
totalPWRThPUThU3
Evolution of the number of Gwe for the Th-U cycle
Nb GWe Th-U
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Years
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
U3
inve
ntor
y to
nsEvolution of the U3 stockpile
U3 inventory
Trajectory
Stabilisation T
•Stabilization of CO2 concentration to 450 ppm•Stabilization of temperature
E.Merle, D.HeuerAlternative
3 components
Reactor type3rd
GenerationSodium Fast
Neutron Reactors Thorium
molten salt reactor
Power(GWe) 1.45 1.0 1.0Date 2010 2025 2030
Fuel UOX Mox U-Pu Thorium + 233U
Fissile component 4.9 % (235U) 11 % (239Pu) 3 % (233U)Scenario without Th :
•Plutonium Production 250 kg/year 300 kg/year (breeding) -Scenario with Th :
• 233U Balance 130 kg/year 500 kg/year breeding
• Pu Balance 130 kg/year -200 kg/yearincineration
4 kg/year
Reactor types
• Les RNR ferment le cycle U/Pu
• 233U production: 450 PWR and 300 FNR
•natU consumption: 7 million tons by 2100•10 times less fissile matter in fuel cycle•Minor actinides production minimized
3 components
R and D needsstandard reactors
•PWR reactorsSelective reprocessing: extraction of Cs, Sr and M.A.Th-Pu MOx fuel in order to produce U233
•Candu type reactors Use of Th-Pu and, then Th-U3 fuel Reprocssing of Th-U3 fuelOptimization of fuel regeneration
R and D needsfast neutron reactors
•Sodium cooledVoid coefficientCore Recompaction Th blanketReprocessing of Th blanket
•Lead cooled reactors Corrosion problems Pb-Bi alloys
•Molten salt cooled reactorsChemical compositionCorrosion
•Gas cooled reactors Reprocessing of refractory fuels
R and D needsmolten salt reactors
•Neutron spectrum optimization•Corrosion•Fuel reprocessing
Proliferation
• Political or technical question?
top related