Transcript GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar) Burton Richter Senior Fellow,

GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic
( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar)
Burton Richter
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies
Paul Pigott Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
May 26, 2006
Abstract
Nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance around the
world. Twenty new reactors are under construction today
and many more are in the planning stage. Even in the
U.S., utilities are beginning to run new nuclear plants
through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing
procedure. The drivers for this renaissance are mainly
energy supply issues and to a lesser extent environmental
issues, global warming in particular. In this talk I will
discuss some of the background leading to this expansion
and then go on to look at the 3 main issues that are of
concern to some; safety (little new to say), spent-fuel
disposal (how many Yucca Mountains), and nuclear
weapons’ proliferation (internationalization of the fuel
cycle).
1
IIASA Projection of Future Energy Demand
2
CO2 Intensity
GDP (ppp)
Area
(Billions of U.S. Dollars)
CO2/GDP
Kg/$(ppp)
World
42,400
0.56
France
1,390
0.28
(IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2003)
3
The Renaissance:
 20 under construction (most in Asia)
 1 in Europe (Finland)
 Germany is reconsidering planned
shutdown of reactors
 2 moving through licensing phase in U.S.
 In total about 100 (including above) in
discussion or design.
4
World Nuclear Expansion: U.S. Role
World Nuclear Expansion 2006
Number of Future Reactors
• Over 130 reactors are being
built, planned, or under
consideration world-wide
• U.S. has not ordered a
reactor for decades, despite
an existing fleet of over 100
reactors
• The U.S. should be in a
position to influence how
these facilities are designed,
constructed, and operated
– Safety
– Waste disposal
– Proliferation-resistance
India
Russia
China
Taiwan
Japan
Iran
North Korea
Romania
Pakistan
Finland
Argentina
South Korea
Ukraine
Bulgaria
South Africa
Brazil
USA
Indonesia
Turkey
Vietnam
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Israel
France
Egypt
Under Construction
Planned and Approved
Under Consideration
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5
Nuclear Power Projection to 2030
6
In the U.S.
Nuclear Incentives in 2006 Energy Bill
 Licensing streamlined
 “Insurance” against regulatory delays
 Cost sharing for First-of-a-Kind costs
GNEP
 Waste treatment change
 Proliferation risk reduction
7
Components of Spent Reactor Fuel
Component
Per Cent
Of Total
Radioactivity
Untreated
required
isolation
time (years)
Fission
Fragments
Uranium
Long-Lived
Component
4
95
1
Intense
Negligible
Medium
200
0
300,000
8
Yucca Mountain Repository Layout
Computed Yucca Mountain Repository
Temperatures for Direct Disposal of 25 Year Old,
50 GWD/MT PWR Fuel
10
Radiotoxicity of LWR Spent Fuel
1.E+04
Relative CD Hazard
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
Total Actinides
Total FP
Np-237
Pu-239
Pu-240
Am-241
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03
Time, years
11
Environmental Standards
EPA set a 10,000 year standard.
Court held EPA violated 1992 Waste Policy Act
 Mandated EPA follow scientific advice of NAS.
 NAS said “Keep safe as long as dangerous”.
EPA issued new standard that sets all sources
dose limit for the dumbest person on Earth at
350mr/yr.
Yucca goes on as before in principle.
12
Repository Requirements in the United States
by the Year 2100*
Nuclear
Futures
Legal Limit
Extended
License for
Current
Reactors
Continued
Constant
Energy
Generation
Constant
Market
Share
Growing
Market
Share
Total
Discharged
Fuel by 2100,
MTHM
63,000
120,000
240,000
600,000
1,300,000
Repositories
needed with
current
approach
1
2
4
9
21
1
2
5
11
1
2
5
Repository
with expanded
capacity
With thermal
recycle only
With thermal
and fast
1
13
(a) Transmutation Schematics with
LWR Recycle
LWR
Separation
Plant
Separation
Plant
Fast System
(one for every 7-8 LWRs)
Reprocessed
Fuel
Actinides
Actinides
U&FF
U&FF
(b) Without LWR Recycle
LWR
Fast System
Separation
Plant
14
Actinides
U&FF
Impact of Loss Fraction
Impact of Loss Fraction - Base ATW Case (3M)
Relative Toxicity
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
0.1% Loss
1.00E+02
0.2% Loss
0.5% Loss
1.00E+01
1% Loss
1.00E+00
10
100
1000
10000
1.00E-01
Time (years)
15
Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation &
The Fuel Cycle
There is NO proliferation-proof fuel cycle
 Nations: Only method is binding international
agreements that include sanctions for
violators.
 Terrorist Groups: It is not easy to build a Pu
bomb. Risk is in buying or stealing or getting
a gift of one, not so much from fuel cycle.
16
Proliferators
Enrichment Phase (“Front End”) to make U(235)
Weapons:
South Africa (gave them up under IAEA supervision)
Pakistan (centrifuge technology sold around the world)
Libya (abandoned attempt)
Iran ?
Reprocessing (“Back End”) to make Pu Weapons:
Israel
India
N. Korea
17
Technical Safeguards
Not much money is spent on advanced
technical safeguards.
IAEA’s own budget is small. Most work is
done by Weapons’ States in cooperation
with IAEA.
FY’07 U.S. budget considerably boosts
R&D on Technical Safeguards.
All new facilities should be equipped with
advanced technology.
18
Relative Proliferation Resistance Score
(higher is better)
19
Plutonium Isotopic Mixture and Properties
after Various Reactor Treatments (ANL)
20
Internationalize the Fuel Cycle
Supplier States: Enrich Uranium
Take back spent fuel
Reprocess to separate Actinides
Burn Actinides in “Fast Spectrum” reactors
User States:
Pay for reactors
Pay for enriched fuel
Pay for treatment of spent fuel (?)
21
Safety
Not much new to say:
Chernobyl-style reactors never used for
power outside old Soviet Bloc.
New reactor designs are simplified
compared to existing designs and use
more passive safety systems.
Radiation risk has always been
exaggerated.
22
Radiation Exposures
Source
Radiation Dose
Millirem/year
Natural Radioactivity
240
Natural in Body (75kg)*
40
Medical (average)
60
Nuclear Plant (1GW electric)
0.004
Coal Plant (1GW electric)
0.003
Chernobyl Accident (Austria 1988)
24
Chernobyl Accident (Austria 1996)
7
*Included in the Natural Total
23
Public Health Impacts per TWh*
Years of life lost:
Nonradiological effects
Coal
Lignite
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
PV
Wind
138
167
359
42
9.1
58
2.7
Radiological effects:
Normal operation
Accidents
16
0.015
Respiratory hospital
admissions
0.69
0.72
1.8
0.21
0.05
0.29
0.01
Cerebrovascular hospital
admissions
1.7
1.8
4.4
0.51
0.11
0.70
0.03
Congestive heart failure
0.80
0.84
2.1
0.24
0.05
0.33
0.02
Restricted activity days
4751
4976
12248
1446
314
1977
90
Days with bronchodilator usage
1303
1365
3361
397
86
543
25
Cough days in asthmatics
1492
1562
3846
454
98
621
28
Respiratory symptoms in
asthmatics
693
726
1786
211
45
288
13
Chronic bronchitis in children
115
135
333
39
11
54
2.4
Chronic cough in children
148
174
428
51
14
69
3.2
Nonfatal cancer
*Kerwitt et al., “Risk Analysis” Vol. 18, No. 4 (1998).
2.4
24
Costs
AREVA, GE, Westinghouse all claim costs
of electricity about 4¢/kw-hr for a new plant
after First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) costs
recovered and after building a few.
AREVA Finnish plant costs $1800/kw
which implies capital cost of about 2¢/kwhr (30 yr @ 7%).
“Regulatory Risk” a concern addressed in
2006 Energy Bill.
25
Waste Treatment Costs
 Federal Government is responsible for spent fuel.
 0.1¢/kw-hr built into cost of nuclear electricity now.
 Review of Yucca Mt. costs say 0.1¢/kw-hr still about
right.
 Opponents of reprocessing say Actinide fuel costs about
twice that of fresh U(235) fuel (correct).
 Supporters of Reprocessing say cost of electricity
increase by about 5%; in the noise (also correct).
26
Cost (Continued)
At Today’s Interest Rates & Treatment of
Externalities:
 Nuclear is competitive with coal.
 Cheaper than gas.
Cost Including Reprocessing and Actinide
Burning Not Yet Known
 Reprocessing and fuel fabrication will cost more than
French MOX (radioactive fuel).
 Fast spectrum burners will cost more /kw-hr than
LWRs. Number needed per LWR uncertain.
 Repository will cost less than Yucca Mountain.
Will Take 20 Years To Do All the R&D.
27
Cost (Continued)
If Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will
be the Winner
CO2 sequestration 2-3¢/kw-hr for coal and
1-1.5¢/kw-hr for gas.
Wind about equal to coal now, but get 1.6¢/kw
hr tax credit.
If Supplier States – User States Model
Works, Proliferation Risk Will be Greatly
Reduced and Smaller Countries Greatly
Benefited.
28
Conclusion
Nuclear is Growing Fast in Rest of World.
Nuclear is Probably Restarting in U.S.
Spent Fuel Problem Can be Solved.
GNEP is an Important Step for U.S.
Nuclear Energy and for Significant
Greenhouse Gas Reduction.
29