GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar)
description
Transcript of GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar)
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 StudiesPaul Pigott Professor Emeritus, Stanford UniversityDirector Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
May 26, 2006
2
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).
3
IIASA Projection of Future Energy Demand
4
AreaGDP (ppp)
(Billions of U.S. Dollars)
CO2/GDP
Kg/$(ppp)
World 42,400 0.56
France 1,390 0.28
CO2 Intensity
(IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2003)
5
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.
6
• 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
World Nuclear Expansion: U.S. RoleWorld Nuclear Expansion 2006
Number of Future Reactors
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
EgyptFrance
IsraelLithuania
Czech RepublicSlovakiaVietnamTurkey
IndonesiaUSA
BrazilSouth Africa
BulgariaUkraine
South KoreaArgentina
FinlandPakistanRomania
North KoreaIran
JapanTaiwan
ChinaRussia
India
Under Construction
Planned and Approved
Under Consideration
7
Nuclear Power Projection to 2030
8
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
9
Components of Spent Reactor Fuel
Component
Fission
Fragments Uranium
Long-Lived
Component
Per Cent
Of Total
4 95 1
Radioactivity Intense Negligible Medium
Untreated
required
isolation
time (years)
200 0 300,000
Yucca Mountain Repository Layout
11
Computed Yucca Mountain Repository Temperatures for Direct Disposal of 25
Year Old, 50 GWD/MT PWR Fuel
12
Radiotoxicity of LWR Spent Fuel
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+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Time, years
Relative CD Hazard
Total Actinides
Total FP
Np-237
Pu-239
Pu-240
Am-241
13
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.
Environmental Standards
14
Repository Requirements in the United States by the Year 2100*
NuclearFutures
Legal Limit Extended License for
Current Reactors
Continued Constant Energy
Generation
Constant MarketShare
Growing MarketShare
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
Repository with expanded capacity
1 2 5 11
With thermal recycle only
1 2 5
With thermal and fast
1
15
(a) Transmutation Schematics with LWR Recycle
(b) Without LWR Recycle
LWR Reprocessed
Fuel
Separation
Plant
Fast System
(one for every 7-8 LWRs)
Actinides U&FF
Separation
Plant
U&FF Actinides
LWR
Fast System
Separation
Plant
U&FF Actinides
16
Impact of Loss Fraction
Impact of Loss Fraction - Base ATW Case (3M)
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
10 100 1000 10000
Time (years)
Relative Toxicity
0.1% Loss
0.2% Loss
0.5% Loss
1% Loss
17
Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation & The Fuel
CycleThere 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.
18
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
19
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.
20
Relative Proliferation Resistance Score (higher is
better)
21
Plutonium Isotopic Mixture and Properties after Various Reactor
Treatments (ANL)
22
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 (?)
23
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.
24
Radiation Exposures
SourceRadiation 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
25
Public Health Impacts per TWh* Coal Lignite Oil Gas Nuclear PV Wind
Years of life lost:
Nonradiological effects
Radiological effects:
Normal operation
Accidents
138 167 359 42 9.1
16
0.015
58 2.7
Respiratory hospitaladmissions
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 2.4
*Kerwitt et al., “Risk Analysis” Vol. 18, No. 4 (1998).
26
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¢/kw-hr (30 yr @ 7%).
“Regulatory Risk” a concern addressed in 2006 Energy Bill.
27
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).
28
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 KnownReprocessing 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.
29
Cost (Continued)
If Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will be the WinnerCO2 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.
30
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.