# Presentation: 825614

## Building the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

**Dr. David Hill**Deputy Laboratory Directorfor Science and TechnologyIdaho National Laboratory

- July 16, 2007

**Physics Teachers Workshop**

## The amount of energy the world will need is enormous 

- Demand for energy to grow by 71 percent and electricity demand to double by 2030
- By 2030, developing countries’ energy usage will pass the industrialized countries
- Uncertainty of supply and price of natural gas and volatility of oil
- Challenge of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global warming

*The world is turning increasingly to nuclear energy for sustainable development*

**Notes:**
Oil became the dominant fuel during the twentieth century.  The 20th century saw a 20-fold increase in the use of fossil fuels. The growth of oil was further enabled by steadily dropping prices from 1920 until 1973. After the oil shocks of 1973, there was a shift away from oil for electricity.  Coal and nuclear became preferred fuels for electricity generation.  Today, fossil fuels supply 87 percent of the world’s energy.  
In this century, energy demand in developing countries will dominate growth in demand worldwide as developing economies and populations grow.  Much of the 50 percent growth expected over the next fifty years will take place in developing countries  
	-- By 2030, energy consumption of developing countries will pass the industrialized countries.
	-- China alone will pass the U.S. by 2030.
The challenge is then how to fuel this growth but mitigate global warming.  A recent study by the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change forecasted an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 750 ppm by the end of this century, with a rise in global temperature of 2 to 5 percent, depending on location.
We’re already seeing the strain on oil and natural gas supplies.  Oil prices have surged and demand is increasing at a rate of 1.5 million barrels per day [EIA].  Natural gas is more abundant but also at record high prices -- the U.S. has higher reserves of natural gas and receives much of its imports from Canada, but transportation is an issue and when you look at the countries that have the largest reserves of natural gas, the same geopolitical concerns that apply to oil, apply to natural gas.  Coal is abundant, but has the highest carbon intensity and to fix is very expensive.  Sequestration is certainly part of the answer.  
Countries are seeking solutions to meet increased demand consistent with principles of sustainable development.  Nuclear provides baseload.  Renewable can load-follow and add to the mix.  Indeed if the objective is clean energy, both nuclear and distributed generation systems will be needed to meet demand in urban areas, rural areas and undeveloped regions.  Solar, wind, biofuels will experience a dramatic increase over the next 25 years, but there are limits to the growth that is possible.  
As a result -- the coupling of two issues -- energy demand and concerns about environmental sustainability -- has prompted countries to give nuclear energy a new look.

## U.S. energy policy:  a balanced portfolio

**Energy efficiency**
**Baseload capacity**
**Nuclear power** - Near zero emission
**Fossil fuels** - Sustainable with hydrogen, carbon sequestration and clean coals
**Peak load capacity**
**Solar** - Renewable, distributed power
**Wind** - Peak loading balancing
**Hydroelectric** - Best sites in use, future small scale production
**Geothermal** - TBD

## U.S. electricity net generation (thousand megawatt hours)

## Clean and reliable electricity

- Life cycle emissions are comparable to wind, geothermal, and hydro

- The Environmental Protection Agency identifies the following average emission levels in production of 1 MWh of electricity (pounds of emissions/MWh)

**Notes:**
All industrial processes have environmental impacts but nuclear has one of the smallest overall environmental footprints of any manufacturing process

## Nuclear energy  benefits reflected in U.S. policy and politics

**President George W. Bush** *(State of the Union, January 23, 2007)*

*... **In the early days of my life in Congress, I was an opponent of nuclear energy because of questions on how to dispose the waste...the technology has changed and I bring a more open mind to that subject now because I think we should look at this technology, and compare it to the alternatives...it has to be on the table.”*
**House Speaker Nancy Pelosi** *(February 8, 2007)*

- Nuclear energy  benefits reflected in U.S. policy and politics

- American attitudes toward nuclear energy have changed – 7 out of 10 Americans favor nuclear energy for electricity

## News headlines affirm renaissance

**Investing In The Mighty Atom**Paul M. Murdock, 03.07.07
- “Now, with rising geopolitical tensions and growing concerns about petroleum supplies and global warming, discussion of the "nuclear option" is back in vogue.”

**France: Vive Les Nukes**Steve Kroft , 04.08.07
- “...what the world needs now is an efficient means of producing large amounts of carbon free energy. One of the few available options is nuclear, a technology whose time seemed to come and go and may now be coming again.”

**Brown’s Vision for a Nuclear Britain**
- “Gordon Brown, U.K. Prime Minister Elect, to give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations...to signal support for a dramatic renewal of nuclear power ... that will see the building of up to 8 new stations, possibly within 15 years.”
- May 20, 2007 (Reported in The Guardian)

**House Democratic Leader Calls for Greater Role for Nuclear Energy**Nuclear Energy Overview, 05.21.07
- “We must develop a smorgasbord of energy choices,” said South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the House majority whip. “I believe nuclear has to be a significant part of the smorgasbord. ... In some states, it may be the centerpiece of the smorgasbord.”

**Notes:**
Hardly a week goes by without a report on why nuclear energy has to be a part of the mix in addressing climate change. Nuclear is increasingly becoming recognized as sustainable for thousands of years with minimal environmental impact.

Gordon Brown, U.K. Prime Minister Elect, to give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations...to signal support for a dramatic renewal of nuclear power programme that will see the building of up to 8 new stations, possibly within 15 years.  Guardian, May 20, 2007 (Reported in The Guardian)

## Solid nuclear power plant economics

- Strong safety record
- High average capacity factor
- 90% in 2005
- Decreasing production costs
- 30 percent in the last ten years
- 1.72 cents/KWH
- Performance excellence through power up-rates
- Gain of 4,183 MWe
- Renewals continue
- 48 complete
- 38 filed or announced
- U.S. on verge of building first new plants in twenty years (30+ plants in planning stage)

## Internationalizing a closed fuel cycle is necessary

- Internationalizing a closed fuel cycle is necessary

- As nuclear expands, a greater number of states will consider developing their own fuel cycle facilities
- Nuclear waste will become a major issue for global expansion of nuclear energy
- In the longer-term future, uranium resources could be strained

- A global partnership and advanced recycling technologies are needed to ensure that nuclear energy expands safely and securely

## Global Nuclear Energy Partnership launched in February 2007

- The United States “will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies
- This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons
- These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand”

*The National Security Strategy of the United States of America **(March 16, 2006): 29*

## Elements of GNEP support global expansion of nuclear power

- Continue work to encourage new nuclear plants in the U.S.
- Advanced proliferation resistant technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel
- Advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel
- Reliable international fuel supply
- Enhanced nuclear safeguard technologies
- Advanced exportable reactor technologies

## GNEP strategy requires international efforts

- GNEP makes diversion and misuse of fissile materials more difficult, more costly, and acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies more difficult to justify as part of a peaceful nuclear program

**Fuel Suppliers: **Operate reactors and fuel cycle facilities, including fast reactors to transmute the actinides from spent fuel into less toxic materials
**Fuel Users: **Operate reactors, lease and return fuel
**IAEA: **Provide safeguards and fuel assurances, backed up with a reserve of nuclear fuel for states that do not pursue enrichment and reprocessing

## GNEP strategy reduces environmental burden of nuclear waste 

- GNEP strategy reduces environmental burden of nuclear waste

- Spent nuclear fuel is processed to remove the most hazardous radionuclides, *e.g.,* the actinides
- Lowers environmental impact per unit of energy produced
- Enables options for far greater utilization of a repository
- Repository loading is constrained by temperature limits that are reached due to decay heat generation

- Potential Drift Loading Increase Factor for Spent LWR Fuel

*GNEP strategy will also enable greater utilization of energy content **contained in nuclear fuel*

**Notes:**
The technology development and demonstration of an advanced fuel cycle and development of the repository are compatible
The licensing process for the repository is proceeding in parallel with demonstration of an advanced fuel cycle.
Licensing regulations allow for subsequent license amendments) as required to accommodate waste forms from an advanced fuel cycle
As a result of processing the spent nuclear fuel, the high-level waste requiring geologic disposal is much less hazardous, creating options for use of geologic repository space
Place process waste from the same amount of spent fuel in the repository as would have been disposed directly
Large reduction in estimated peak dose rate (~ 100 times less)
Place process waste from a greater amount of spent fuel in the repository
Achieve the same estimated peak dose rate as for direct disposal of far less spent fuel
Disposal of waste from fuel that generated significantly more energy (~ 100 times more) in the same repository space
Combine the two options, with waste from a greater amount of spent fuel placed in the repository, while still achieving a dose rate reduction
For example, placement of waste from ~ 10 times more spent fuel while reducing the peak dose rate by about a factor of 10 

## GNEP strategy requires a geologic repository

- The technology development and demonstration of an advanced fuel cycle and development of the repository are compatible
- The licensing process for the repository is proceeding in parallel with demonstration of an advanced fuel cycle

**Notes:**
License Application for Yucca Mountain planned for submittal to NRC by June 2008

LA will include disposal of 70,000 metric tons of SNF from the current fleet of nuclear reactors and HLW from commercial and defense complex activities that exist today

Licensing regulations allow for subsequent license amendment(s) as required to accommodate waste forms from an advanced fuel cycle

## GNEP technology facilities

## Design, demonstration and deployment of advanced recycling technologies

- Design and deployment to be led by industry
- Government efforts aimed at removing barriers to deployment and closing technology gaps
- Idaho National Laboratory under consideration for a fuels research laboratory
- Industry proposing sites for recycling (including two sites in Idaho)
- Department of Energy will award funds this fall for conceptual design studies
- DOE to decide path forward for implementation of GNEP technologies in summer 2008

**Notes:**
National Labs may participate as team members but are not eligible for award under the FOA
Proposals due June 21, 2007
3-6 awards by September 2007
Funding levels of about $15M in FY 2007 and $45M in FY 2008
Could lead to a separate solicitation and award of design build contracts in 2009 to proceed with GNEP technologies

## Final Thoughts

- International support for GNEP is strong and moving forward
- Significant effort over the next year
- Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement underway that examines technologies and locations for siting the technologies
- Industry deployment studies to be launched this year
- National laboratories will help respond to key technology challenges
- Conceptual design for advanced fuel cycle research facility in progress
- Moving to a closed fuel cycle is a natural evolution for the U.S. and is necessary