Transcript Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cooperation in East Asia

Overview of East Asia
Science and Security Project
Report: Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Cooperation Scenarios for
East Asia-Pacific
David F. von Hippel
Nautilus Institute
Prepared for the East Asia Science and Security
Project Meeting
September 23-24, 2010
Tsinghua University, Beijing, PRC
1
FUEL CYCLE COOPERATION:
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
Overall East Asia Science and Society
(EASS) Project Approach, Organization
 Nuclear Capacity “Paths” for East Asia
and the Pacific
 “Scenarios” of Regional Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Cooperation
 Analytical Approach, and Key Results
 Conclusions and Next Steps

D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
2
Overall EASS Project Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Analysis: Organization and Approach

10 Country Working Groups in East Asia/Pacific
nations
Modeling energy paths, including BAU, “maximum
nuclear”, “minimum nuclear”
 Using common software (LEAP) and analysis methods
 Models nuclear energy paths in context of full energy
sector, economy of each country


Group of nuclear specialists advising/contributing
on formulation and analysis of regional scenarios
for nuclear fuel cycle cooperation

Including J. Kang (ROK), T. Suzuki and T. Katsuta
(Japan), A. Dmitriev (RF), and others
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
3
Overall EASS Project Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Analysis: Organization and Approach


Nuclear paths by country specified by working
groups, in some cases modified/updated
somewhat, serve as basis for calculating fuel
requirements, spent fuel arisings
Apply to nuclear paths four scenarios of regional
cooperation (or lack of cooperation) on nuclear
fuel cycle issues

Evaluate required inputs, implied outputs, costs, and
other key Energy Security (broadly defined) attributes
(quantitative and qualitative)
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
4
GROWTH IN ELECTRICITY DEMAND
IN EAST ASIA/PACIFIC
Regional Electricity Demand Projections
9,000
8,000
7,000
Japan
ROK
China
RFE
Taiwan
DPRK
Indonesia
Vietnam
Australia
TWh
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
20
12
20
10
20
20
08
-
Projections from EASS LEAP data and other sources
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
5
Nuclear Capacity Paths in East
Asia/Pacific: BAU Paths
Total Nuclear Capacity Net of Decommissioned Units:
BAU Capacity Expansion Case
350
300
Japan
RFE
ROK
Taiwan
China
DPRK
Indonesia
Vietnam
Australia
GWe
250
200
150
100
50
D. von Hippel 9/2010
11
20
14
20
17
20
20
20
23
20
26
20
29
20
32
20
35
20
38
20
41
20
44
20
47
20
50
20
08
20
05
20
02
20
99
19
93
96
19
19
19
90
0
EASS 2010, Beijing
6
Nuclear Capacity Paths in East
Asia/Pacific: Maximum Nuclear Paths
Total Nuclear Capacity Net of Decommissioned Units:
Maximum Nuclear Capacity Expansion Case
500
450
400
Japan
RFE
ROK
Taiwan
China
DPRK
Indonesia
Vietnam
Australia
350
GWe
300
250
200
150
100
50
D. von Hippel 9/2010
23
20
26
20
29
20
32
20
35
20
38
20
41
20
44
20
47
20
50
20
20
20
17
20
14
20
11
20
08
20
05
20
02
20
99
19
96
19
93
19
19
90
0
EASS 2010, Beijing
7
Nuclear Capacity Paths in East
Asia/Pacific: Minimum Nuclear Paths
Total Nuclear Capacity Net of Decommissioned Units:
Minimum Nuclear Capacity Expansion Case
160
140
120
ROK
China
RFE
Taiwan
DPRK
Indonesia
Vietnam
Australia
100
GWe
Japan
80
60
40
20
0
19
90
19
93
19
96
19
D. von Hippel 9/2010
99
20
02
20
05
20
08
20
11
20
14
20
17
20
20
20
23
20
26
20
29
20
32
20
EASS 2010, Beijing
35
20
38
20
41
20
44
20
47
20
50
8
“Scenarios” of Regional Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Cooperation

Four “Scenarios” of regional nuclear fuel cycle
cooperation (or lack of cooperation) evaluated
1.
2.
3.
4.

Scenarios chosen not necessarily as most likely, but as
illustrations of possible cooperation arrangements



“National Enrichment, National Reprocessing”
“Regional Center(s)”
“Fuel Stockpile/Market Reprocessing”
“Market Enrichment/Dry Cask Storage”
To allow for analysis by country, many assumptions as to
individual national activities go into each scenario
Common assumptions across scenarios (such as U, SWU costs)
In general, where scenarios include regionally-shared fuel
cycle facilities, locations of facilities are not specified
In some cases, more than one facility could serve the region
 In practice, choices of countries to host regional facilities will be
limited by multiple considerations (geological, political, social…)
9
EASS 2010, Beijing
D. von Hippel 9/2010

“Scenarios” of Regional Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Cooperation
Scenario 1: “National Enrichment, National
Reprocessing”

Major current nuclear energy users (Japan, China, the ROK) each
pursue their own enrichment and reprocessing programs







Japan, ROK import U; other nations eventually produce 50% of U needs
domestically (except Australia, 100%, RFE, 100% from RF)
All required enrichment in Japan, China, ROK accomplished domestically
by 2025 or 2030 (other countries import enrichment services)
Nuclear fuel is fabricated where U is enriched
Reprocessing, using 80, 60, and 50 percent of spent fuel (SF) in
Japan/ROK/China, respectively, is in place in Japan by 2020, in
ROK/China by 2030
50% of reactors in Japan, China, ROK eventually use 20% MOx fuel, but
starting earlier in Japan
Disposal of spent fuel/high-level nuclear wastes from reprocessing done
each individual country (interim storage or dry cask assumed  2050)
Security arrangements made by individual countries
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
10
“Scenarios” of Regional Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Cooperation
Scenario 2: “Regional Center(s)”
 Uses one or more regional centers for
enrichment/reprocessing/waste management, operated by
international consortium, drawn upon and shared by all
nuclear energy users in region





Consortium imports U for enrichment from international market,
shares costs; China limits own production to current levels
Nuclear fuel (including MOx) is fabricated at regional center(s)
Reprocessing of SF from Japan/ROK/China in same amounts as
in Scenario 1, but in regional center(s) by 2025; reprocessing of
50% SF from other nations by 2050
MOx use as in Scenario 1
Disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear wastes from
reprocessing in coordinated regional interim storage facilities,
pending development of permanent regional storage post-2050
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
11
“Scenarios” of Regional Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Cooperation
Scenario 3: “Fuel Stockpile/Market Reprocessing”
 Regional U purchase, use of international enrichment, but
countries cooperate to create a fuel stockpile (one year’s
consumption, natural U and enriched fuel); reprocessing
services purchased from international sources




Enrichment from international sources except for existing
Japanese, Chinese capacity
Nuclear fuel (excluding MOx) is fabricated where enriched
Reprocessing of SF from in same amounts as in Scenario 2, but at
international center(s), where MOx fuel is fabricated for use in
region (MOx use is as in Scenarios 1 and 2)
Disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear wastes from
reprocessing in international interim storage facilities, possibly
including facilities in the region, pending development of
permanent regional storage post-2050
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
12
“Scenarios” of Regional Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Cooperation
Scenario 4: “Market Enrichment/Dry Cask Storage”
 Almost all countries continue to purchase enrichment
services from international suppliers; all spent fuel goes
into dry cask storage at reactor sites or interim storage
facilities





U resources purchased by regional consortium
Enrichment from international sources except for existing Chinese
capacity; existing Japanese capacity closed after 2020
Japan’s MOx use phased out by 2013; no MOx use elsewhere
Japan and China cease reprocessing in 2015—no other countries
reprocess SF (at international or in-region facilities)
Cooled spent fuel stored at reactor sites in dry casks, or in
national interim storage facilities (Japan, RFE); high-level wastes
from reprocessing (before 2016) placed in interim storage facilities
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
13
Analytical Approach, and Key Results


Nuclear paths specified by EASS country
working groups, in some cases modified, serve
as basis for calculating fuel requirements, spent
fuel arisings
Apply to each nuclear path, in each country, 4
scenarios of regional cooperation (or lack of
cooperation) on nuclear fuel cycle issues



Timeline: 2000 through 2050
Stock and flow accounting to generate estimates of
major required inputs/outputs of to nuclear fleet in
each country
Fuel cycle nodes modeled: U mining/milling, U
transportation/enrichment, fuel fabrication/reactor fuel
transport, reprocessing/spent fuel management
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
14
Analytical Approach, and Key Results

Key inputs at each node:


Key outputs at each node:


U and Pu, energy, enrichment services, transport services,
money, by country/year
U, Pu, spent UOx and MOx fuel, major waste products, by
country/year
Results for 12 different regional cooperation scenario and
nuclear power development path combinations


Quantitative results coupled with qualitative considerations to
provide a side-by-side comparison of Energy Security attributes
of four cooperation scenarios
Energy Security comparison methodology as developed by
Nautilus and partners starting in 1998
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
15
Analytical Approach: Additional Key
Assumptions









Uranium Cost/Price: $120/kg in 2009, escalating at
1%/yr
Average Uranium concentration in ore: 0.1%
International enrichment 30% gaseous diffusion in 2007,
declining to 0% by 2030
Enrichment costs $160/kg SWU—no escalation
Raw Uranium transport costs at roughly container freight
rates
Cost of U3O8 conversion to UF6: $6.2/kg U
Cost of UOx fuel fabrication: $270/kg heavy metal (HM)
Cost of MOx fuel blending/fabrication: $1800/kg HM
Fraction of Pu in MOx fuel: 7%
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
16
Analytical Approach: Additional Key
Assumptions










Spent fuel transport costs (ship): ~$40/tHM-km
Cost of reprocessing: $1200/kg HM (except in Japan,
$3400/kg HM)
Effective average lag between placement of fuel in-service
and removal from spent fuel pool: 8 years
Cost of treatment and disposal of high-level wastes: $150/kg
HM reprocessed
Mass of Pu separated during reprocessing: 11 kg/t HM
Cost of storage/safeguarding Pu: $3000/kg Pu-yr
Capital cost of dry casks (UOx or MOx): $0.8 million/cask
Operating cost of dry cask storage: $10,000/cask-yr
Cost of interim spent fuel storage (total): $360/kg HM
Cost of permanent storage of spent fuel: $1000/kg HM (but
not implemented or charged to any scenario by 2050)
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
17
Analytical Approach, and Key Results:
Enrichment needs net of MOx use
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
3,000
2,000
1,000
Enrichment in-country
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
20
00
2048
2045
2042
2039
2036
2033
2030
2027
2024
2021
2018
2015
2012
2009
2006
2000
2003
-
6,000
06
20
09
20
12
20
15
20
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
20
42
20
45
20
48
4,000
Enrichment out-of-country
20
Enrichment in-country
5,000
7,000
20
Enrichment out-of-country
6,000
03
Metric Tonnes Enriched Uranium
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
8,000
Enrichment out-of-country
6,000
Enrichment in-country
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Enrichment out-of-country
7,000
Enrichment in-country
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
D. von Hippel 9/2010
15
20
12
20
20
09
20
06
20
03
20
00
20
06
20
09
20
12
20
15
20
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
20
42
20
45
20
48
20
20
20
03
-
00
-
Metric Tonnes Enriched Uranium
Metric Tonnes Enriched Uranium
7,000
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
20
42
20
45
20
48
Metric Tonnes Enriched Uranium
7,000
EASS 2010, Beijing
18
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Enrichment Requirements by Country, 2000-2050,
Scenario 1, BAU Capacity Path
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
45
40
35
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
30
25
20
15
10
5
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
20
20
03
-
00
Enrichment Requirements, Million kg SWU
50
19
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Enrichment Requirements by Country, 2000-2050,
Scenario 1, BAU Capacity Path
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
6,000
5,000
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
20
20
03
-
00
Enrichment Requirements, Metric Tonnes
Enriched Fuel as U
7,000
20
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Enrichment Requirements by Country, 2000-2050,
Scenario 4, BAU Capacity Path
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
50
40
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
For Stockpile
30
20
10
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
20
20
03
-
00
Enrichment Requirements, Million kg SWU
60
21
Analytical Approach, and Key Results:
Enrichment needs net of MOx use

Total enrichment services requirements for BAU paths are about 45
M kg SWU in 2050 in Scenarios 1-3, about 50 M for Scenario 4 (no
MOx use)

For MAX path, needs rise to about 70 M SWU/yr in scenarios without
substantial MOx use, about 10% less in scenarios with MOx use
 For MIN path, requirements fall from a maximum of about 20 million
SWU in 2020s to about 15 million SWU in 2050.

Under Scenario 1, additional enrichment capacity in the countries of
the region will need be required under all nuclear capacity
expansion paths

Under other scenarios, global enrichment capacity by 2015 would need
to be expanded significantly to meet 2050 regional plus out-of-region
enrichment demand under BAU or MAX expansion paths
 Under MAX expansion path and Scenario 1, China alone would need to
build new enrichment capacity by 2050 approximately equal to 60
percent of today’s global capacity
 Under MIN expansion path, international enrichment facilities as of 2015
are likely sufficient to meet regional and out-of-region demand without
significant expansion
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
22
Analytical Approach, and Key Results:
Annual Cooled UOx SF (Scen-1, BAU path)
Annual Newly-Cooled Spent Fuel for
Reprocessing/Disposal (metric tonnes)
6,000
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
5,000
4,000
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
3,000
2,000
1,000
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
39
20
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
03
20
20
00
-
23
450
400
350
300
250
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
200
150
100
50
20
00
20
03
20
06
20
09
20
12
20
15
20
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
20
42
20
45
20
48
Annual Cooled Spent MOx Fuel for Storage/Disposal (metric
tonnes HM)
Analytical Approach, and Key Results:
Annual Cooled MOx SF (Scen-1, BAU path)
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
24
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Cumulative difference between 90% of capacity in spent fuel pools
at domestic reactors and cumulative amount of spent fuel produced,
BAU Nuclear Capacity Expansion Path and Regional Scenario 1
20,000
10,000
-
(10,000)
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
(20,000)
(30,000)
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
20
24
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
20
09
20
06
03
20
20
00
(40,000)
20
Cumulative Net Spent Fuel Capacity (metric tonnes)

25
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Implied Minimum Annual New Requirements for Out-of-reactor-pool
Storage, Disposal, or Reprocessing, BAU Nuclear Capacity
Expansion Path and Regional Scenario 1
6,000
5,000
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
4,000
3,000
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
2,000
1,000
06
20
09
20
12
20
15
20
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
20
42
20
45
20
48
20
03
20
00
-
20
Minimum Spent Fuel for Reprocessing/Disposal (metric
tonnes)

D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
26
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Cooled spent LWR fuel reprocessed in-country and out-of-country
from regional spent fuel, by scenario, BAU Capacity Expansion Path
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
3,000
Reprocessing out-of-country
2,500
Metric Tonnes Heavy Metal
Reprocessing in-country
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Reprocessing in-country
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2048
2045
2042
2039
2036
2033
2030
2027
2024
2021
2018
2012
2009
2006
2000
2048
2045
2042
2039
2036
2033
2030
2027
2024
2021
2018
2015
2012
2009
2006
2003
-
2000
-
Scenario 4
Scenario 3
300
3,000
Metric Tonnes Heavy Metal
Reprocessing out-of-country
2,500
Reprocessing in-country
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Reprocessing out-of-country
250
Reprocessing in-country
200
150
100
50
-
D. von Hippel 9/2010
2048
2045
2042
2039
2036
2033
2030
2027
2024
2021
2018
2015
2012
2009
2006
2003
2000
-
20
00
20
03
20
06
20
09
20
12
20
15
20
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
20
42
20
45
20
48
Metric Tonnes Heavy Metal
Reprocessing out-of-country
2,500
2003
Metric Tonnes Heavy Metal
3,000
2015

EASS 2010, Beijing
27
Analytical Approach, and Key Results

Cumulative mass of Pu separated from SF reprocessed (all
locations), less Pu used to make MOx fuel, by Regional Scenario
and Nuclear Expansion Path
Metric Tonnes Plutonium Accumulated
300
250
200
Scenario 1--BAU
Scenario 1--MAX
Scenario 1--MIN
Scenario 2--BAU
Scenario 2--MAX
Scenario 2--MIN
Scenario 3--BAU
Scenario 3--MAX
Scenario 3--MIN
Scenario 4--BAU
Scenario 4--MAX
Scenario 4--MIN
150
100
50
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
03
20
20
00
-
28
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Annual fuel cycle costs in 2050, not including generation costs
Annual Regional Nuclear Fuel Cycle Costs, 2050: BAU Capacity
Path
Uranium Production/Purchase
Uranium Conversion/Enrichment
Reprocessing
Spent Fuel Storage/Disposal
$30,000
Uranium/Fuel/SF Transport
Fuel Fabrication
Waste Treatment/Pu Storage
$25,000
$20,000
Million USD

$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$Scenario 1
D. von Hippel 9/2010
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
EASS 2010, Beijing
Scenario 4
29
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Cumulative fuel cycle costs, 2000-2050, not including generation
costs
Cumulative Regional Nuclear Fuel Cycle Costs, 2000-2050: BAU
Capacity Path
Uranium Production/Purchase
Uranium Conversion/Enrichment
Reprocessing
Spent Fuel Storage/Disposal
$800,000
Uranium/Fuel/SF Transport
Fuel Fabrication
Waste Treatment/Pu Storage*
$700,000
$600,000
Million USD

$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$Scenario 1
D. von Hippel 9/2010
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
EASS 2010, Beijing
30
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Energy Security Attributes of Regional Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Cooperation Options: Summary Results

Energy Supply Security



Scenario 1, with individual nations running enrichment and reprocessing
facilities, provides greater energy supply security at the national level
On a regional level, scenarios 2, 3, possibly 4 may offer better energy
supply security, including stockpiles aspect of scenarios 3 and 4
Economic Security

Scenarios including reprocessing have significantly higher annual costs
over entire fuel cycle than scenario 4, but additional cost is a small
fraction of overall cost of nuclear power
 Use of reprocessing and related required waste-management
technologies may expose countries of the region to risks of unexpectedly
high technology costs
 Required additional (government/government-backed) investment, (tens
of billions of dollars, at least) in reprocessing may divert investment from
other activities, within the energy sector and without
 Development of in-country and in-region nuclear facilities will have its
own job-creation benefits in the nuclear industry and related industries
31
EASS 2010, Beijing
D. von Hippel 9/2010
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Energy Security Attributes of Regional Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Cooperation Options: Summary Results

Technological Security



Scenario 1 makes nations dependent on specific technologies and plants
for the operation of their nuclear energy sector
Scenario 4, using dry-cask storage, depends least on performance of
complex technologies, but depends on future generations to manage
today’s wastes (but so do other scenarios)
Environmental Security

Scenarios 1 through 3 offer ~10% less Uranium mining and processing,
with attendant impacts/waste streams, relative to scenario 4
 Reduced U mining/milling/enrichment offset by additional environmental
burden of need to dispose of solid, liquid, radioactive wastes from
reprocessing
 Differences between scenarios in generation of greenhouse gases, more
conventional air/water pollutants likely to be relatively small, and
inconsequential compared with overall national/regional emissions
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
32
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Energy Security Attributes of Regional Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Cooperation Options: Summary Results

Social-Cultural Security

Given growing civil-society movements in some countries with concerns
regarding nuclear facilities power in general, reprocessing in particular,
and local siting of nuclear fuel-cycle facilities, Scenario 4 arguably offers
the highest level of social-cultural security


In some cases current laws—in Japan, for example—would have to be
changed to allow long-term at-reactor storage; changing those laws has its
own risks.
Military Security

Safeguarding in-country enrichment and reprocessing facilities in
Scenario 1, including stocks of enriched U and of Pu, puts largest strain
on military and/or other security resources
 Security responsibilities are shifted largely to the regional level in
Scenario 2, to the international level in Scenario 3


More stress on the strength of regional and international agreements
Level of military security (guards and safeguard protocols) required in
Scenario 4 is likely considerably less than in other scenarios.
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
33
Conclusions and Next Steps

Conclusions




Consistent with other studies, analysis shows that nuclear
fuel cycle cooperation scenario without reprocessing yields
lower costs
Overall cost differences are probably less important than
considerations of proliferation resistance, social-cultural
security, and military security, for which scenario 4 (dry-cask
storage, no reprocessing) has advantages
Options using mostly regional or international facilities
(scenarios 2 and 3) provide some non-proliferation benefits
over scenario 1 (national enrichment/reprocessing) at cost
differences that are likely insignificant, but will require
considerable effort to arrange
Issues related to DPRK “denuclearization” may play a role
in shaping regional nuclear fuel cycle cooperation strategies
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
34
Conclusions and Next Steps

Next Steps in EASS Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Analysis




Evaluate generation costs to compare three nuclear
capacity paths
Investigate implications of climate change
mitigation/adaptation for nuclear power, and for
regional spent fuel management/enrichment
proposals in Asia
Investigate implications of new reactor and other
nuclear technologies for regional spent fuel
management/enrichment proposals in Asia
Explore possible safeguards implications of various
nuclear fuel cycles and related cooperation
scenarios
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
35
THANK YOU!
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
36
EXTRA AND
REFERENCE
SLIDES
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
37
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Enrichment Requirements by Country, 2000-2050,
Scenario 2, BAU Capacity Path
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
45
40
35
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
30
25
20
15
10
5
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
20
20
03
-
00
Enrichment Requirements, Million kg SWU
50
38
Analytical Approach, and Key Results
Enrichment Requirements by Country, 2000-2050,
Scenario 3, BAU Capacity Path
Australia
DPRK
Japan
RFE
Vietnam
45
40
China
Indonesia
ROK
Taiwan
For Stockpile
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
45
20
42
20
39
20
36
20
33
20
30
20
27
20
24
20
21
20
18
20
15
20
12
20
09
20
06
20
20
20
03
-
00
Enrichment Requirements, Million kg SWU
50
39
Analytical Approach, and Key Results

Nuclear capacity by Path—Republic of Korea
50
GWe Nuclear Capacity
45
40
35
30
25
20
BAU
15
MAX
10
MIN
5
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
44
20
40
20
36
20
32
20
28
20
24
20
20
20
16
20
12
20
08
20
04
20
20
00
-
40
Analytical Approach, and Key Results

Nuclear capacity by Path—Japan
80
GWe Nuclear Capacity
70
60
50
BAU
40
MAX
MIN
30
20
10
D. von Hippel 9/2010
EASS 2010, Beijing
48
20
44
20
40
20
36
20
32
20
28
20
24
20
20
20
16
20
12
20
08
20
04
20
20
00
0
41