Status of Nuclear Power: A Global View
Y. A. Sokolov
Deputy Director General
GLOBAL 2005
9 – 13 October 2005, Tsukuba, JapanIAEA

Map of Global Energy Poverty
By 2030 (IAE):
18282056

GDP annual growth 3.2 %,801815509

570

Electricity use
221

332

530

96

Millions of People Without Electricity
Millions of People Relying on Biomass

1.6 billion people have no access to electricity,
80% of them in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa

IAEA

New
Investment

2,5 %,4800 GW(e),10 T$,

930
252015

Other Renewables
Biomass
NuclearGasOilCoalPopulation

8,58
7,5

10

7

56,50
1990

6

IAEA

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

World Population (Billions)

World Primary Energy Sources (Gtoe)

Sustainable Development Vision Scenario (IEA 2003)

2050

Source IEA : Energy to 2050 Scenarios for a Sustainable FutureBreak in Nuclear Power
1. Reasons for the break:Market deregulation,
Slowing energy demand
Investment risk,
Management failure,
Unstable regulation,
Public perception,
Safety concerns (Chernobyl)

Installed Nuclear Power400

Developing countries

350

Japan / ROKFSU / EE

300

250
GW (e)•••••••200Western Europe

150

2. Current trends & environment•••••

Best management and safety,
Economic viability,
Energy demand and security,
Climate change concerns,
Needs of developing countries

IAEA

100

North America

5001960

1965

1970
NA

1975
WE

1980

Russia & EE

1985
Japan & ROK

1990
Developing

1995

2000

Energy Sustainable Development( based on UN concept of SD)

Economic
Dimension

Environmental
Dimension

SocialDimension

Institutional
Dimension

Sustainable development ofNuclear Energy
Environment

Economics

WasteManagement

SafetyProliferation
Resistance

Infrastructure

Compatibility assessment, modelling of energy systems, holistic approach.
Decision on Nuclear Energy System implementation

IAEA

Brundtland definition: “Sustainable development isdevelopment that meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs.” 1987

Status of Nuclear Power• More than 11 000 reactor years of experience• More than 440 power reactors in operation(installed capacity > 370 GWe)
• Average plant load factor: >80%
• Contributions to global electricity: ~16% in 2004
• Low electricity cost, good safety records• In 2004, new capacity 7529 MWe connected tothe grid.
- South Korea: Ulchin 5 & 6 (2x960 MWe )- China: Qinshan 3 (610 MWe)- Japan: Hamaoka 5 (1380 MWe)- Ukraine: Khmelnitsky 2 & Rovno (2x950 MWe)
- Russian Federation: Kalinin 3 (950 MWe)- Canada: Bruce 3 (769 MWe) restarted• Shift in national energy strategies

IAEA

Nuclear Power Growth
Country

China

Years

Annualelectricity
consumption,
per cap, kWh

Installed
capacity of NP,
GW(e)NP growth,
times

2002

1380

6,6

5-62020
2002

India

ROK

IAEA 2020

100,42

10

4,2537022240-456190

2015
2002

USA4802020
2005

2,7292030
2002

Russia

420

2022
2002

Pakistan

32-40

16,8

1,57

26,412320~ 100~ 110~1,1 ?

Source: NEA and IEA: Projected costs ofGenerating Electricity: 2005 Update (OECD)

IAEA

Climate Change andSustainable Development

G8 Action Plan
• We should mobilize all available opportunities to increase power
efficiency for the space of an entire technological chain, starting fromfuel production and finishing by power transmission, as well as toprovide for maximum usage of considerable and unrealized potential
alternative energy sources of low emission levels.

• We appreciate efforts of those G8 member-states which, though having
an intention to use nuclear power as before, are eager to develop moreadvanced technology that is safer, more reliable and more protectedfrom the attempts to use it for other purposes and proliferation.

IAEA

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
LIGNITELIGNITE
COAL
COAL

GHG
gCeq/kWhOIL
OIL
NATURAL
NATURALGAS
GAS
SOLAR
SOLARPV
PV
HYDRO
HYDRO
BIOMASSBIOMASS
WIND
WIND
NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR00

IAEA

5050100100150
150200200250250300300350350400400

Self Sufficiency

117%

120%

self sufficiency

100%

73%

80%

51%

60%

40%

108%

40%20%

64%

20%

27%
9%

4%
0%JapanUSA

Germany

without nuclear

IAEA

Francewith nuclear

UKRisk Comparison
10-2
10-3

Risks from Harmful
Chemical Substances inLarge Cities

10-4

Smoking
Car Accidents
Acceptable Risk

10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

IAEA

Actual Radiation Risks fromNuclear Technology

Negligible Risk

Safety First• Three Mile Island, Chernobyl: radical changes,
strengthen IAEA’s role.

• International Cooperation: INSAG – BSP for NPP(1988),
INES, cooperation with OECD/NEA, WANO, national Regulators,• Safety Standards, Activities: IAEA’s Safety Series,Codes and Safety Guides ( safe design, sitting, operation; regulator’s
purposes, functions, etc).

• Missions: OSART, ASSET, ESRS, IPERS-PSA, ASCOT, IRRTIAEA

CONCLUSIONSThe uranium industry is looking up.
 The price of U nearly tripled, inthe last three years;
new exploration and mining
initiated,and uranium producers
increased production.
 Uranium resources are adequate
up to 2030, if not 2050.
 Advanced exploration
techniques could discover more U
deposits.
 New mines and mills arerequired to be opened. Expansionof In-Situ Leaching (ISL) and othertechnologies may ensure timely
delivery of U.

IAEA

World Thorium Resources - economically extractable
3516

Reserves/1000t

Australia

95
300

100

Country

India

NorwayCountryCountry

Reserves/t
Reserves / t

Australia
Australia

300000300000

India
India

290000290000

NorwayNorway170000170000USA

160000160000

CanadaCanadaSouthSouth
AfricaAfricaBrazilOther
Othercountries
countries
World total
total

100000100000USA

Canada160
290170South Africa

BrazilOther countries

Source: USA Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity
Summaries, January 1999 referred by World Nuclear
Association in 2003 (http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf62.htm)

IAEA

35000
35000
16000
16000
95000
95000
1200000
1200000

Closing the fuel cyclea) Waste minimization [in terms of Pu & MA]b) Resource (natural uranium) utilization

ReactorRadiotoxicity ofwastes after 1000years

SPENT FUEL
Freshunranium
fuel (asoxide)

Wastes4%

valuable materials
96%+• U: 94-96%• Pu: ~1%+Pu• FP: 3-4%
• MA: ~0.1%

MAFP

EVOLUTION OF THE RADIOTOXICITY

IAEA

Accumulated experience in fast reactors•••

Demonstration and prototype reactors¾ Phénix (France, 250 MWe )¾ BN-350 (Kazakhstan, 650+150 MWth,for electr. +desalination)¾ PFR (UK, 250 MWe)
¾ MONJU (Japan, 280 MWe)
¾ PFBR (India, 500 MWe, underconstruction)¾ CEFR (China, 25 MWe underconstruction)
Full scale industrial reactor¾ BN-600 (Russia, 600 MWe)
¾ Superphénix (France, 1200 MWe,shut down in 1998)¾ BN-800 (Russia, 800 MWe, underconstruction)
In focus of GIF and INPRO

IAEA

Construction of India’s 500 MWe
Prototype FBR (PFBR)Two major international initiatives

IAEA

Sodium Fast Reactor SFR
SFR Objectives¾ A new generation of sodium fast reactors¾ High level of safety (passive safety)¾ Cost reduction (Pool/Loop system,innovative technologies, ISI&R, PCS)
¾ High burn-up TRU fuel
¾ Deployment: 2015 - 2020
(Demo Monju 2015)

U.S.A.

Steam Generator

Heat Exchanger

Control
Rods

Japan
FranceTurbineElectricalPower

SFR Steering
Committee

Condenser
Hot Plenum
Primary
Sodium（ Hot）

Pump

Core

Pump

IAEA

Heat Sink
Pump

Euratom
countries

United Kingdom

Southy Korea

Generator

Cold Plenum

PrimarySodium（ Cold）

SecondarySodiumHow to step into nuclear power futureEnergy Planning (Energy options, nationalresources…)

Infrastructure Development (E&T, Regulator,…)Development and Deployment (Assist , bestpractice …)

Assessment of future INS (INPRO, G-IV…)
IAEA

Infrastructure development (1/2)“One size does not fit all”

• Guidance on minimum infrastructure toadopt nuclear power• Education and training, Human resources• Financial / economical / industrial• Legal, Regulatory, International agreements• Guidance on regional sharing of nuclearpower infrastructure• Exploring co-operation ( interconnected grids; shared:
facilities,education and training program, skilled labour pools…)• Developing of regional agreements (Africa: ECOWAS,WARTS,…)• Different scenarios for going nuclear (buy N electricity
and/or services, lease reactor or fuel, share investment/construction ofNPP,…)

IAEA

Strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Regime“the wide dissemination of the mostproliferation-sensitive parts of thenuclear fuel cycle…could be the‘Achilles’ heel’ of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. It is importantto tighten control over theseoperations, which could be done bybringing them under some form ofmultilateral control, in a limited
number of regional centers…..”-Introductory Statement tothe IAEA Board of Governors by theDirector General, March 2004

IAEA

Findings of the Group: five suggested
approaches
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Reinforcement of existing commercial market mechanisms:
long-term contracts with government backing, fuel leasing andfuel take-back offers, commercial offers to store and dispose ofspent fuel, commercial fuel banks,
Development of international supply with the IAEA as guarantorof service supplies,
Voluntary conversion of existing facilities to MNAs asconfidence-building measures,
Creation multinational, and in particular regional, MNAs for new
facilities based on joint ownership,
In further expansion of nuclear energy the development of a
nuclear fuel cycle with stronger multilateral arrangements andbroader cooperation, involving the IAEA and the international
community.

IAEA

Status of nuclear fuel development
EXPERIENCE OF LMFBR FUEL
(U-20%Pu)O2(UPu)
C
2480

(UPu)
N

2650

UPu-ZrMeeting
Point(oC)

2750

1057
+ 25Boiling Point(oC)

3150

4280

NA3700Density(g/cm3)

9.7

12.9

13.5

14.3

ThermalConductivity

4.1

70
60
50

B u rn u p (G W D /t)

Property

TRs FUEL BURNUP

PWR

BWR

PHWR

RBMKAGR

GCR

WWER

40
30
20

18.1

17.0

20.4

100(W/m/K)

Fabrication &Irradiation
Experience

For Phenix, Super
Phenix, BN 350 &600, PFR, FFTF,Joyo, Monju, SNR
300〈 500kg
For
FBTR〈 100kg〈250kgFor
EBR II

MaximumBurn up

20 a/o20 a/o∼12 a/o

12 a/o18 a/o

IAEA

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000 2010
Year

2020

2030

2040

205

Major issues in the back-end of thenuclear fuel cycle• Storage of spent fuel - short and longterm (burnup credit, corrosion
resistance and safety)• Transportation of spent fuel (burnupcredit, safety and security)• Reprocessing of spent fuel [dry andwet routes, minor actinide (MA) issues,
intrinsic proliferation resistance]• Refabrication of Pu and 233U bearing
highly radiotoxic ceramic & metallic
fuels by advanced manufacturing
routes amenable to automation andremotization• Waste management including
treatment and storage. Developing
multinational radioactive waste
repositories

IAEA

Spent fuel managementAccumulation
ofstorage
spent
fuel 1980-2050
Cumul. SF Storage (excludingfor reprocessing),
700.00•Worldwide ~10 000t (HM)/y of SF•Most SF in wet storage, use of dry storage

SF Storage (1000 t)

and 460,000 t HM ( total ) by 2020
• ~1 500t HM/y are reprocessed

600.00P0-R1-M2

P1-R1-M2

500.00P2-R1-M2
400.00300.00200.00100.00Year•National situations differ and may require
urgent attention•A reality of long term storage (100 years)•Social stability to maintain institutionalcontrol.
•Regional approaches

IAEA

2045

204020352030

2025

2020

2015

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

•Storage capacity is sufficient till 2015

0.00
1980

is increasing

Decommissioning is as a major enterprise
NPPs RRs

FCFs

RSs

1. 107/ 14

214/ 173

297/ 192

10E5

2. 446/ 45

287/ 8427/ 19

10E5

1. Shutdown/decommissioned
2. In operation/underconstruction
Global liability 1000 B$.
Proven technology exists.
Funds for NNPs are in place.
IAEA

Maine
MaineYankee
YankeeNPP;
NPP;
dismantlingofthe
dismantling of thereactorreactorbuildingbuilding

Dismantling
Dismantlingofofaa
radio-biologicalradio-biologicallab,
lab,
Dominican
Dominican
Republic
RepublicWaste disposal• Short Lived Low Level andEl Cabril Facility, Spain

Intermediate Level Waste• Near surface nonengineered disposal• Near surface engineereddisposal• Subsurface disposal
facilities• High Level Waste, Spent
Fuel and otherLong Lived Waste• Geological repositories
IAEA

WIPP,USAConventional & advanced/innovativefuel reprocessing
AQUEOUS PROCESS:** PUREX process is on an industrial scale:* For UO2 and MOX fuels,* Suitable for mixed nitride and metallic fuels.
* Modifications:- for proliferation resistance – U-Pu coextraction,- for economic - gelation process, dust-free and free-flowing U-Pub microspheres
adjusted to vibro packed or pelletized fabrication process,- others: GANEX, PARC, UREX, REPA…

PYROPROCESSING:** Pyroprocessing is yet to be adapted on an industrial scale.
* On laboratory scale demonstrated for carbide and nitride fuels.
* On a pilot plant scale for:- reprocessing of metallic fuels (U-Zr & U-Pu-Zr) in USA,- reprocessing of UO2 and vibro packing adjusted to waste management in Russia.

OTHERS:** Have so far been demonstrated on a laboratory scale only:- for example: fluoride volatilization.

IAEA

Russian Federation

IAEA

Innovative Back-end Technology of Fuel Cycle
Japan
Reprocessing

Simplified PUREX
Process
Dissolution

Alternative
Aqueous Process

DirectExtraction

U
Recovery

Crystallization

U, Pu,MA
RecoverySingle Cycle
Extraction

MA
Recovery

SETFICS Process/TRUEX Process

Supercritical
Fluid Extraction
TBP-CO2-HNO
3Ion Exchange /Amine Extraction

Oxide Electrowinning
Process

Metal ElectrorefiningJNC
Process

OxideReduction

Uranium
Electrowinning

U Electrorefining(solid cathode)U, Pu, MA

MOX Electrocodeposition

Electrorefining( Liq . Cd cathode)

MA Electrowinning

Cd Extraction( pyro contactor)

Oxidation

Fuel
Refabrication

Pellet short
Process

Sphere Packing
Process

Vibro -Packing
Process

Casting
Process

Simplified
Pelletizing

Gelation

Granulation

Casting

Stacking

Vibration
Packing
MOX Fuel

Vibration
Packing
MOX Fuel-Aqueous Recycle-Aqueous Recycle:MOX Aqueous Recycle

IAEA:MOX Non(MOX – MA):Metal Non(MOX,MN-MA)(U,Pu -Zr-MA)

Stacking
Metal Fuel

Non-electricity applications of nuclear energy

SteamReformer•Sea-water desalination•Industrial and district
heating•Hydrogen production

High Temp.
Gas DuctReactor

IHX

Electricity
30%Transportation
15%Kazakhstan,
BN-350

IAEA

Heat55%

Evidence from opinion surveys• UK• 2001: 19% approve, 60% disapprove• 2005: 35% approve, 30% disapprove• Finland• 1994: 34% approve, 35% disapprove• 2004: 46% approve, 25% disapprove Vote for Nuclear?

• USA• 1983: 49% approve, 46% disapprove• 2005: 70% approve, 24% disapprove• Sweden, 2005
• 83% – keep existing reactors operating or expand• 13% – early closure
IAEA

Conclusions• Current centre of growth is Asia
• Policy shifts in China, India, USA, Japan, EU,Finland, Russia and EU recognize thatnuclear has a part to play and suggest abroader revival• better reputation of nuclear among investors• more economical operations and better designs• contribution to energy security andenvironmental protection
IAEA

Conclusions• Importance of innovation• account for regional and national variation• new look at multilateral and regional approaches to thefuel cycle• international cooperation• link with non-proliferation, complementary institutional
and technical measures are essential• Importance of applications beyond electricity: heat,desalination, hydrogen• Growing expectations are well established
IAEA

IAEA

…atoms for peace.
IAEA