Sharon SquassoniSenior Associate

November 5, 2007Updated May 28, 2008

With Georgina Jones and Nima Gerami, research assistants

MAPPING GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXPANSION

•16% global electricity demand•31 countries operating 439 reactors (371 GW)•11 countries with 50 million SWU enrichment•5 countries separating plutonium commercially•0 countries with geologic repositories for nuclear waste

Nuclear Energy Today

I: Reactor Capacities, 2008*(Gigawatts electric, GWe)

22

19

17

13

9

2

2

5

4

1

1

0.5

OECD EUROPE

130

UNITED STATES

99JAPAN

48

*See separate Appendix for details, assumptions, and data for this and other maps.

II: States Enriching Uranium, 2008

III: States Reprocessing Spent Fuel, 2008

Nuclear Energy Enthusiasm

•Perceived as “clean and green”•Greater energy security (?)

•But what about proliferation?(as well as cost, safety, waste?)

•Since 2005, about 20 states have announced new plans for nuclear power

uclear energy increasingly attractive to “nuclear ophytes” – those without nuclear power now.

•13 states in Middle East want nuclear •Has Iran’s nuclear program influenced?

nergy security has geographic nderpinnings

o have any impact on climate change, it atters where nuclear energy grows (need to f i l h i b

Does Geography Matter?

When do reactors spur enrichment and reprocessing o?

fforts to restrict technology transfer are foundering •More states now interested in such capabilities•Nuclear enthusiasm outstripping rules and institutions for managing

erennial issues: developing scientific and chnological base and security & control of clear material

Proliferation and Geography

cenario I: Meeting demand in 2030 (EIA)

cenario II: Planning supply for 2030

cenario III: Climate change “requirements” in 2050

a. One nuclear wedge (Pacala, Socolow)

b. MIT 1500 GW

c. Stern Report (2-6 “wedges”)

Nuclear Expansion Scenarios*

nergy Information Administration (EIA) ojections look at GDP growth, energy demand, d-use sector, electricity supply, with nuclear as are

imitations– Nuclear energy projections done “off-line”– Regional estimates (with a few country-specific ones)– Wildcards = Retirements, Western Europe

Scenario I: Meeting Demand in 2030

This scenario takes at face value states’ nnounced plans for nuclear development. ild optimism?

trong growth in Asia (India, China)

New nuclear reactor states

Possibly new enrichers, reprocessers?

Scenario II: Planning Supply for 2030

IV: Where Will Nuclear Energy Grow?

V: A Closer Look at “New” Nuclear StatesProposals as of 2008

Scenario III: Global Climate Change,2050

rom tripling to quadrupling capacitiesa. 1 Gigaton of carbon emissions reduction

(Pacala-Socolow “wedge”) = + 700 GWe for a total of 1070 GWe reactor capacity

b. 1500 GWe = MIT study high scenarioc. 2-6 Gigatons of carbon emissions reduction

(Stern Report) = 1500-4500 GWe

UNITED STATES

99

13

1

1

2

22

19

JAPAN48

5

189

2

40.5

OECD EUROPE

130

8

1

5

1 6

4

2

4

6

1

0.5

1

VI: Reactor Capacities for all Scenarios*(Gigawatts electric, GWe)

EY:

Current Capacity

I. 2030 – EIA Forecast

II. 2030 – Proposed Expansion

II. 2030 – Proposed New Capacity

IIIb. 2050 – MIT Expansion

IIIb. 2050 – MIT New Capacity

1

1

3

5

4

14

9

3

1

1

3

5

18

10

VII: A Closer Look at New NuclearReactors – Scenarios II and III (GWe)

Y:

II. 2030 – Proposed New Capacity

IIIb. 2050 – MIT Expansion

1

4

3

5

3

1

15

8 14 1

9

3

1

10

1

4

4

6

1

5

2

6

1

8

0.5

1

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

2007 Baseline Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III a:Wedge

Scenario III b:MIT

Scenario III c:Stern

Scenario

40-50

72-108

52

150

112-225

250-650

Enrichment Implications*

0% operating power reactors currently use LEU

Assumptions about reactor technologies and the fuel cle (open or closed) matter a lot in projections

xample:

•1500 GWe LWRs = 225 million SWU/year

•1500 GWe with MOX reactors (1 recycle) = 189 million SWU/year

•1500 GWe with fast, thermal reactors: 123 million SWU/year

Variables Affecting Enrichment Projections

VIII: Enrichment Capacities for all Scenarios(million SWU/year)

EY:

Current Capacity

I. 2030 - EIA Forecast

II. 2030 – Proposed Expansion

II. 2030 – Proposed New Capacity

IIIb. 2050 - MIT Expansion

6

1

68

6

9

1

1

0.5

USEC8

EURODIF10.8

TENEX22

URENCO8.1

1CNNC

JNFL1

RESENDE0.12

18

3

3

Reactor expansion raises questions about how to andle spent fuel. Basic options are storage vs. eprocessing; no way to predict

National policies vs. international norms•Existing storage capacities (S. Korea?)

•Fuel cycle approaches (once-through, one recycle, fast reactors?)

•New technologies (reactors & recycle)

•Cost

“GNEP Factor”

Spent Fuel: How to Handle?

Storage Capacities

GWe LWR produces 20 MT spent uranium oxide fuel/yr

Scenario II : 700 GWe will require 14 Yuccas (NRDC)*

Scenario III a: 1000 GWe will require a Yucca every 3.5 years (or, 20 Yuccas; MIT)

Scenario III b: 1500 GWe ~ 30 Yuccas

Assuming Yucca can only hold 70,000 MT

8 countries now = 80% of global reactor capacity

•Of 8, half don’t reprocess: US, Canada, Ukraine and South Korea …

•All but Canada are reconsidering

By 2050, the only countries with comparably-sized uel cycles will be China and India, both of which

will reprocess

Other states won’t face a storage shortage

Spent Fuel Build-Up?

Scenario IIIb: 1500 GWe* •Once-through (no reprocessing)

~30,000 MTIHM/yr spent fuel = 30 Yuccas**•Thermal reactors with one MOX recycle

~25,000 MTIHM/yr uranium oxide is reprocessed (plus separated uranium, high-level waste in glass, etc)

= 22 Yuccas (?) and 15 La Hagues•Balanced cycle with fast and thermal reactors

~16,000 MTIHM/yr uranium oxide and 4,700 MTIHM of FR fuel is reprocessed leaving pyroprocessing waste, etc

=14 Yuccas (?) & 10 La-Hague-sized pyroprocessing plants

*est. burn-up = 50 GWd/MTIHM (millions tons initial heavy metal)

** Assuming Yucca can only hold 70,000 tons

Fuel Cycles Dictate Waste

IX: States Reprocessing?

Expansion plans are unrealistic

Proliferation concerns are real– Reactors require infrastructure, expertise,

some of which can be applied to a nuclear weapons program

– Enrichment, reprocessing not yet off the table

– Real expansion will entail massive flows of sensitive material

Summary

Even if nuclear power expansion fizzles, some states may go ahead with plans

Few financial barriers to enrichment ($2 B per plant; 5 years construction for URENCO)

Cost & waste are still issues for reprocessing.

Second-tier nuclear suppliers -- China, India?

Summary

Retirements of reactors a wild card after 2030Forecasts assume light water reactors. What about a) PHWR exports from India, China, Canada?; and b) lower enrichment requirements if MOX fuel cycle or fast reactor with actinide recycling pursued. Issue of electricity grids – developing nations may purchase much smaller sized reactors than plannedUranium enrichment -- not expensive ($1-2B) or long (5 years) to build, but environmental hazards?; wide range of enrichment per 1 GW (1-1.5M SWU)Western European reactor plans quite variable

Additional Questions