Nuclear Energy: Challenges and Necessities

Nuclear Energy: Challenges and Necessities

Salman M Salman, Alquds University, Jerusalem, Palestine (2009)

Scope and Objectives

1. A review of the energy needs and resources.
2. Problems, Hazards and Benefits of the Various Energy Sources.
3. Problems and solutions to the Nuclear Energy Production.
4. Nuclear Energy Resources & Technologies and Absence of Arabs Share.
5. Review of the Basic Technology of Portable Nuclear Reactors.
6. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

I. Energy Needs & Resources and the Need for Nuclear Energy.

Table 1: basic World energy parameters

Parameter	Value
Total world energy consumption per year	E= 5* 10­­20 Jules = 1.4 *10 13 kwh.
Total earth sun energy/year	Es = 5* 10­­24 Jules= 1.4 *10 17 kwh
Humanity consumption ratio	~ 10-4 of Sun input.
Average world energy consumption/capita	8.2 * 109 Jules per year (~3000kwh)
Average world energy cost per kWh	0.2 $
Total world energy bill per year	2.8 * 1012 $ (2008)

Table 2: Resources distributed according to consumption category

Services	15%
Households	25%
Industries	30%
Transport	30%

Table 3: Distributed according to energy sources

Nuclear	15%
Oil	30%
Coal	30%
Other	25%

Table 4 Production total and efficiency, Nuclear share 16% (kwe (electric) ~1/3 kwt)

U form	Kwh/kg	notes
Pure U	106	1 ref.
U3O8 67k ton/year	3×104	3×10-2 moderate
Enriched UO2	3×102	3×10-4 low eff.
Total nuclear energy production		2.658x 109 kwh

Table 5: Annual World energy resources and consumption

Fuel type	Power in TW	Energy/year in EJ = 1018J
Oil	5.6	180
Gas	3.5	110
Coal	3.8	120
Hydroelectric	0.9	30
Nuclear	0.9	30
Geothermal, wind, solar, wood	0.13	4
Total	15	471

Table 6: Remaining world reserves of conventional fossil fuels estimates

Fuel	Energy reserves in ZJ = 1021
Coal	290
Oil	18.4
Gas	15.7

Table 7: Existing resources of energy of the type

Type	(Jules/kg)	kwh ($)	Available (Jules)	Years at current share	World years stand alone
Oil	106	.3	18*1021	100	36
Coal	<106	.1	290*1021	2500	600
Nuclear	4*1013 ideal 1010 actual	.05	250*1021 ideal	3000 ideal 75 actual	500 ideal 15 actual

II. Problems, hazards, and benefits of the various energy sources

With an indication of the best rating for renewable energy and then nuclear energy.

Table 8: Problem based on energy source type

Type	Problems
Oil & Gas	Short span, political vitality, pollution, high cost, hazards
Coal	hazards, inefficient, pollution
Nuclear	Public rejection, rare high risks, waste p, inefficient, high investment cost
Hydraulic	Environmental changes, high risks, immovability
Solar & Wind	Low power, inefficient, limited applications
other	Limited power output

Table 9: Advantages based on energy source type

Type	Advantages
Oil & Gas	Technology setup, mobility, industry based
Coal	Cheap, hard mobility
Nuclear	low running cost, low pollution, low risk rates, medium portability
Hydraulic	Long terms span
Solar & Wind	Very long term, renewable, small pollution
other	Local advantages.

 

Chernobyl Disaster

The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the result of major design deficiencies in the RBMK type of reactor, the violation of operating procedures and the absence of a safety culture.

One peculiar feature of the RBMK design was that coolant failure could lead to a strong increase in power output from the fission process ( positive void coefficient). However, this was not the prime cause of the Chernobyl accident.

The accident destroyed the reactor and killed 56 people, 28 of whom died within weeks from radiation exposure. It also caused radiation sickness in a further 200-300 staff and firefighters, and contaminated large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and beyond. It is estimated that at least 5% of the total radioactive material in the Chernobyl-4 reactor core was released from the plant, due to the lack of any containment structure.

About 130,000 people received significant radiation doses (i.e. above internationally accepted ICRP limits) and are being closely monitored. About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer in children have been linked to the accident. Most of these were curable, though about nine have been fatal. No increase in leukemia or other cancers have yet shown up, but some is expected.

The Chernobyl accident was a unique event and the only time in the history of commercial nuclear power that radiation-related fatalities occurred.

An OECD expert report on it concluded that “the Chernobyl accident has not brought to light any new, previously unknown phenomena or safety issues that are not resolved or otherwise covered by current reactor safety programs for commercial power reactors in OECD Member countries.”

Table 10: Electricity cost (US cent/kWh)

Source	MIT 2003	France 2003	UK 2004	Chicago 2004	Canada 2004	EU 2007
Nuclear	4.2	3.7	4.6	4.2 – 4.6	5.0	5.4 – 7.4
Coal	4.2		5.2	3.5 – 4.1	4.5	4.7 – 6.1
Gas	5.8	5.8, 10.1	5.9, 9.8	5.5 – 7.0	7.2	4.6 – 6.1
Wind onshore			7.4			4.7 – 14.8
Wind offshore			11.0			8.2 – 20.2

III. Resources, Problems and Solutions Nuclear Energy Production

III.1 Highlights

1. Cost of building reactors at about 3-5k$ /kwh with about 3-5 b$ + about 4 B for clean up investment cost is about 7b
2. Today there are some 457 up to 2010 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with a combined capacity of about 384+ GWe. In 2006 these provided 2658 billion kWh, about 16% of the world’s electricity.
3. Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading. Plant life extension.
4. About 38 power reactors are currently being constructed, notably in China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

III.2 Nuclear Power Reactors Components

Fuel

Usually pellets of uranium oxide (UO₂) arranged in tubes to form fuel rods. The rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core.

1. The world’s power reactors, with combined capacity of some 380 GWe, require about 67,000 tons of uranium each year. While this capacity is being run more productively, The factors increasing fuel demand are offset by a trend for higher burn up of fuel and other efficiencies, so demand is steady. (Over the 18 years to 1993 the electricity generated by nuclear power increased 5.5-fold while uranium used increased only just over 3-fold.)
2. Reducing the tails assay in enrichment reduces the amount of natural uranium required for a given amount of fuel.
3. Reprocessing of spent fuel from conventional light water reactors also utilizes present resources more efficiently, by a factor of about 1.3 overall.
4. Nuclear Weapons as a source of fuel
5. Thorium as a nuclear fuel Today uranium is the only fuel supplied for nuclear reactors. However, thorium can also be utilized as a fuel for CANDU reactors or in reactors specially designed for this purpose.

Moderators

This is material which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite.

Control rods

These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it. (Secondary shutdown systems involve adding other neutron absorbers, usually as a fluid, to the system.)

Coolant

A liquid or gas circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. . In light water reactors the water moderator functions also as primary coolant. Except in BWRs, there is secondary coolant.

Pressure vessel or pressure tubes

Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the moderator.

Steam generator

Part of the cooling system where the heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine.

Containment

The structure around the reactor core which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any malfunction inside. It is typically a meter-thick concrete and steel structure.

There are several different types of reactors as indicated in the following table.

III.3 Types of Reactors

Most nuclear electricity is generated using just two kinds of reactors which were developed in the 1950s and improved since. New designs are coming forward and some are in operation as the first generation reactors come to the end of their operating lives.

1. Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR).
2. Boiling Water Reactors (BWR).
3. Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR or CANDU).
4. Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGR).
5. Fast neutron reactors.
6. Floating nuclear power plants.

III.4 Economics of Nuclear Power

Capital investments

Cost of building reactors at about 3-5k$ /kwh with about 3-5 b$ + about 5b$ for clean up investment cost is about 10b$.

External costs

The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in mid 2001. It shows that nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity. If these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include global warming.

Material and production costs

Table 11: Cost (US$, 2007) to get 1 kg of Uranium as UO₂ reactor fuel

Operation	Amount	Total cost $
Uranium compound	8.9 kg U3O8 x $53	472
Conversion	7.5 kg U x $12	90
Enrichment	7.3 SWU x $135	985
Fuel fabrication	per kg	240
Total		US$ 1787
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kwh electrical, hence fuel cost: 0.50 c/kwh.

III.5 Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors

1. There has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials.
2. Three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Three Mile Island, was contained without harm and Chernobyl, involved an intense fire without provision for containment. Then Fukushima daiichi.
3. These are the only major accidents to have occurred in more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
4. The risks of an accident, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust.

Safety

Focuses on unintended conditions or events leading to radiological releases from authorized activities. It relates mainly to intrinsic problems or hazards. Security

Focuses on the intentional misuse of nuclear or other radioactive materials by non-state elements to cause harm. It relates mainly to external threats to materials or facilities.

Safeguards

focus on restraining activities by states that could lead to acquisition of nuclear weapons. It concerns mainly materials and equipment in relation to rogue governments.

Achieving optimum nuclear safety

Nuclear plants operate using a ‘defense-in-depth’ approach, with multiple safety systems supplementing the natural features of the reactor core. Key aspects of the approach are:

1. high-quality design & construction
2. equipment which prevents operational disturbances developing into problems
3. redundant and diverse systems to detect problems, control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive releases
4. provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage to the plant itself.

Table 12: Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production.

Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of total primary energy
Fuel	Immediate fatalities 1970-92	Who?	Normalized to deaths per TWy* electricity
Coal	6400	workers	342
Natural gas	1200	workers & public	85
Hydro	4000	public	883
Nuclear	56	workers	8

IV. Nuclear Energy Resources & Technologies and Absence of Arabs Share

Table 13: Known Recoverable Resources of Uranium 2009

Country	Tones U	Percentage of world
Australia	1,673,000	31%
Kazakhstan	651,000	12%
Canada	485,000	9%
Russia	480,000	9%
South Africa	295,000	5%
Namibia	284,000	5%
Brazil	279,000	5%
Niger	272,000	5%
USA	207,000	4%
China	171,000	3%
Jordan	112,000	2%
Uzbekistan	111,000	2%
Ukraine	105,000	2%
India	80,000	1.5%
Mongolia	49,000	1%
other	150,000	3%
World total	5,404,000	100%

Reasonably Assured Resources plus Inferred Resources, to US$ 130/kg U, 1/1/09, from OECD NEA & IAEA, Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand (“Red Book”).

Table 14: Production from mines (ton U)

Country	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Canada	11604	10457	11597	11628	9862
Australia	6854	7572	8982	9516	7593
Kazakhstan	2800	3300	3719	4357	5279
Niger	3075	3143	3282	3093	3434
Russia (est)	2900	3150	3200	3431	3262
Namibia	2333	2036	3038	3147	3067
Uzbekistan	1860	1598	2016	2300	2260
USA	919	779	878	1039	1672
Ukraine (est)	800	800	800	800	800
China (est)	730	750	750	750	750
South Africa	824	758	755	674	534
Czech Repub.	465	452	412	408	359
India (est)	230	230	230	230	177
Brazil	270	310	300	110	190
Romania (est)	90	90	90	90	90
Germany	212	150	150	77	50
Pakistan (est)	38	45	45	45	45
France	20	0	7	7	5
Total world	36 063	35 613	40 251	41 702	39 429
tons U3O8	42 529	41 998	47 468	49 179	46 499

Table 15: Nuclear power plants in commercial operation

Reactor Type	Main Countries	Number	GWe	Fuel	Coolant	Moderator
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)	US, France, Japan, Russia	264	250.5	enriched UO2	water	water
Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)	US, Japan, Sweden	94	86.4	enriched UO2	water	water
Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor ‘CANDU’ (PHWR)	Canada	43	23.6	natural UO2	heavy water	heavy water
Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR & Magnox)	UK	18	10.8	natural U, enriched UO2	CO2	graphite
Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK)	Russia	12	12.3	enriched UO2	water	graphite
Fast Neutron Reactor (FBR)	Japan, France, Russia	4	1.0	PuO2 and UO2	liquid sodium	none
Other	Russia	4	0.05	enriched UO2	water	graphite
	TOTAL	439	384.6

Table 16: World Nuclear Power Reactors 2006-07 and Uranium Requirements

	NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2006		REACTORS OPERABLE October 2007		REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION October 2007		REACTORS PLANNED October 2007		REACTORS PROPOSED October 2007		URANIUM REQUIRED 2007
	billion kWh	% e	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	tones U
WORLD	2658	16	439	372,002	33	26,838	94	101,595	222	193,095	66,529

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide

1. Cost of building reactors at about 3-5k$ /kwh with about 3-5 b$ + about 4 B for clean up investment cost is about 7b
2. Today there are some 457 up to 2010 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with a combined capacity of about 384+ GWe. In 2006 these provided 2658 billion kWh, about 16% of the world’s electricity.
3. Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily but not dramatically, Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading. Plant life extension.
4. About 38 power reactors are currently being constructed (see Table below), notably in China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

Table 17: Power reactors under construction 2007

Start Operation*		REACTOR	TYPE	MWe (net)
2011	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Severodvinsk	PWR x 2	70
2011	Finland, TVO	Olkilouto 3	PWR	1600
2011	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Kalinin 4	PWR	950
2011	Korea, KHNP	Shin Kori 2	PWR	1000
2011	Korea, KHNP	Shin Wolsong 1	PWR	1000
2011	China, CNNC	Qinshan 6	PWR	650
2011	China, CGNPC	Lingao 4	PWR	1000
2011	Pakistan, PAEC	Chashma 2	PWR	300
2011	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Kursk 5	RBMK	1000
2012	China, CNNC	Qinshan 7	PWR	650
2012	Korea, KHNP	Shin Wolsong 2	PWR	1000
2012	France, EdF	Flamanville 3	PWR	1630
2012	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Beloyarsk 4	FBR	750
2012	Japan, Chugoku	Shimane 3	PWR	1375
2012	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Novovoronezh 6	PWR	1070
2012	Slovakia, SE	Mochovce 3	PWR	440
2012	China, CGNPC	Hongyanhe 1	PWR	1080
2012	China, CGNPC	Ningde 1	PWR	1080
2013	China, CNNC	Sanmen 1	PWR	1100
2013	China, CGNPC	Ningde 2	PWR	1080
2013	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Leningrad 5	PWR	1070
2013	Russia, Rosenergoatom	Novovoronezh 7	PWR	1070
2013	Korea, KHNP	Shin Kori 3	PWR	1350
2013	China, CGNPC	Hongyanhe 2	PWR	1080
2013	China, CGNPC	Yangjiang 1	PWR	1080
2013	Japan, EPDC/J Power	Ohma	ABWR	1350
2013	Japan, Tepco	Fukishima I-6	ABWR	1350
2013	Slovakia, SE	Mochovce 4	PWR	440
2014	China , CNNC	Sanmen 2	PWR	1100
2014	China , CPI	Haiyang 1	PWR	1100
2014	China , CGNPC	Ningde 3	PWR	1080
2014	China , CGNPC	Yangjiang 2	PWR	1080
2014	China , CGNPC	Hongyanhe 3	PWR	1080
2014	Korea, KHNP	Shin-Kori 4	PWR	1350
2014	Russia , Rosenergoatom	Leningrad 6	PWR	1200
2014	Russia , Rosenergoatom	Volgodonsk 3	PWR	1200
2014	Japan , Tepco	Fukishima I-7	ABWR	1080
2014	Japan , Tepco	Higashidori 1	ABWR	1080

V. Review Basic of Portable Nuclear Reactors Technology

V.1 Specifications

SSTAR = a small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor.

10-100 mwe and 30 years span. Portable 500 tons.

Total cost for 1 kwh energy production = $.005 – .01

Nuclear naval submarines and carriers since 1940s.

Most commercial nuclear reactors are large light-water reactors (LWRs) designed to generate 1,000 megawatts electric (MWe) or more. Significant capital investments are required to build these reactors and manage the nuclear fuel cycle. Many developing countries do not need such large increments of electricity.

The SSTAR design will provide a tamper-resistant reactor. after its operation, the sealed reactor will be returned to a secure recycling facility for refueling or maintenance.

Designed to be deployable anywhere in the world, SSTAR may also meet a national need. In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees more than 100 nuclear power plants that were built during the 1960s and 1970s. SSTAR would provide a secure and cost-effective system to replace older nuclear reactors as well as aging fossil-fuel plants, particularly in an isolated location.

SSTAR is designed as a lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) that can supply 10 to 100 MWe with a reactor system that can be transported in a shipping cask. Fast reactors typically use liquid metal coolants, such as lead, lead–bismuth, or sodium, instead of water. Neutron kinetic energy is about 250 kilo electron volts in LFRs—much greater than in LWRs, where the low mass of hydrogen in the water coolant slows neutron velocity and, thus, energy to about 0.025 to 0.05 electronvolt. With fast-moving neutrons, SSTAR could produce the fissile material it needs to fuel continued operation at the same time that it generates energy. Spent fuel in the form of uranium and plutonium would remain in the reactor to generate power for up to 30 years.

No refueling is necessary during the reactor’s operation, which eliminates access to and long-term storage of nuclear materials on-site. The design also includes detection and signaling systems to identify actions that threaten the security of the reactor. And because of the reactor’s small size and its thermal and nuclear characteristics, the design can include a passive method to shut down and cool the reactor in response to hardware or control failures.

Reduced Operating Costs

SSTAR also offers potential cost reductions over conventional nuclear reactors. Using lead or lead–bismuth as a cooling material instead of water eliminates the large, high-pressure vessels and piping needed to contain the reactor coolant. The low pressure of the lead coolant also allows for a more compact reactor because the steam generator can be incorporated into the reactor vessel. Plus with no refueling downtime and no spent fuel rods to be managed, the reactor can produce energy continuously and with fewer personnel.

Table 18: Illustrations of the portable reactor size and portability

Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Argonne national laboratories are designing a self-contained nuclear reactor with tamper-resistant features. Called SSTAR (small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor), this next-generation reactor will produce 10 to 100 megawatts electric and can be safely transported on ship or by a heavy-haul transport truck. In this schematic of one conceptual design being considered, the reactor is enclosed in a transportation cas

V.2 Tackling the Design Challenges

Must develop materials for the fuel and coolant boundary that are compatible with the coolant. Lead, especially when alloyed with bismuth, tends to corrode the fuel cladding and structural steel. Controlling the oxygen in the coolant will help reduce corrosion.

In addition, the team must identify materials that would best withstand the damaging effects of long-term exposure to fast neutrons. Structural damage could include material swelling and ductility loss, both of which may limit the life of the reactor.

Evaluated a modified design, developed by the Japanese team, for a small liquid metal–cooled reactor using sodium as a coolant.

Passive safety features also will be developed to ensure that any failure in the control system will shut down the reactor and initiate a natural convection system to cool the reactor core and vessel.

must develop packaging and transportation systems so the reactor can be removed safely. must design a process to cool the reactor while it is being shipped to the recycling facility. The design criteria for meeting these challenges may affect the maximum power level that can be achieved.

Table 18b: Illustrations of the portable reactor size and portability

When it is upright, SSTAR will be about 15 meters high and 3 meters wide, and its total weight will not exceed 500 tons. This compact size will allow the nuclear reactor to be transported on a ship and by a heavy-haul transport truck.

VI. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

1. GNEP is a partnership of countries aiming to improve the proliferation-resistance of the nuclear fuel cycle while guaranteeing access to fuel supplies.
2. It involves both political and technological initiatives, the latter mainly in relation to reprocessing and burning actinides in fast reactors.
3. focused on limiting the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.

VI.1 GNEP work plan- (after new world development I do not encourage this plan 2021)

The 16 GNEP members agreed to set up a nuclear fuel services working group, to address nuclear fuel leasing and other considerations around comprehensive nuclear fuel supply goals. Another working group, on nuclear infrastructure development, would address the financial, technical and manpower challenges surrounding nuclear power deployment in many countries.

An early priority is the development of new reprocessing technologies to enable recycling of most of the used fuel. One of the concerns when reprocessing used nuclear fuel is ensuring that elements separated not be used to create a weapon. One chemical reprocessing technology – PUREX – has been employed for over half a century, having been developed in wartime for military use. This has resulted in the accumulation of 240 tonnes of separated reactor-grade plutonium around the world (though some has been used in mixed oxide fuel). While this is not suitable for weapons use, it is no longer seen as appropriate and future reprocessing will result in the plutonium being combined with some uranium and possibly with minor actinides . GNEP creates a framework where states that currently employ reprocessing technologies can collaborate to design and deploy advanced separations and fuel fabrication techniques that do not result in the accumulation of separated pure plutonium.

Table 19: Nuclear share figures, 1996-2006

April 2007
Country or area	Nuclear share (%)											electricity production (TWh)	electricity production (TWh)
	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2005	2006
Argentina	11.4	11.4	10.0	9.0	7.3	8.2	7.2	8.6	8.2	6.9	6.9	6.4	7.1
Armenia	36.7	25.7	24.7	36.4	33.0	34.8	40.5	35.5	38.8	42.7	42.0	2.5	2.4
Belgium	57.2	60.0	55.2	57.7	55.3	58.0	57.3	55.5	55.1	55.6	54.4	45.3	44.3
Brazil	0.7	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.4	4.3	4.0	3.6	3.0	2.5	3.3	9.8	13.8
Bulgaria	42.2	45.4	41.5	47.1	45.0	41.6	47.3	37.7	41.6	44.1	43.6	17.3	18.1
Canada	16.0	14.1	12.4	12.4	11.8	12.9	12.3	12.5	15.0	14.6	15.8	86.8	92.4
China:
– Mainland	1.3	0.8	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.1	1.4	2.2	–	2.0	1.9	50.3	54.8
– Taiwan	29.0	26.4	24.8	25.3	23.6	21.6	22.9	21.5	–	–	19.5	–	38.3
Czech Rep	20.0	19.3	20.5	20.8	26.7	19.8	24.5	31.1	31.2	30.5	31.5	23.2	24.5
Finland	28.1	30.4	27.4	33.0	30.0	30.6	29.8	27.3	26.6	32.9	28.0	22.3	22.0
France	77.4	78.2	75.8	75.0	76.4	77.1	78.0	77.7	78.1	78.5	78.1	430.9	428.7
Germany	30.3	30.6	28.3	31.2	34.5	30.5	29.9	28.1	32.1	31.0	31.8	154.6	158.7
Hungary	40.8	40.8	35.6	38.3	40.6	39.1	36.1	32.7	33.8	37.2	37.7	13.0	12.5
India	2.2	2.3	2.5	2.6	3.1	3.7	3.7	3.3	2.8	2.8	2.6	15.7	15.6
Japan	33.4	36.0	35.9	36.0*	33.8	34.3	34.5	25.0	29.3	29.3	30.0	280.7	291.5
Kazakhstan	0.2	0.6	0.2	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
Korea, S	36.3	34.1	41.4	42.8	40.9	39.3	38.6	40.0	37.9	44.7	38.6	139.3	141.2
Lithuania	83.4	81.5	77.2	73.1	73.7	77.6	80.1	79.9	72.1	69.6	72.3	10.3	7.9
Mexico	5.1	6.5	5.4	5.2	4.5	3.7	4.1	5.2	5.2	5.0	4.9	10.8	10.4
Netherlands	4.8	2.5	4.1	4.0	na	4.2	4.0	4.5	3.8	3.9	3.5	3.8	3.3
Pakistan	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.1	1.7	2.9	2.5	2.4	2.4	2.8	2.7	2.4	2.5
Romania	1.8	9.7	10.3	10.7	10.3	10.5	10.3	9.3	10.1	8.6	9.0	5.1	5.2
Russia	13.1	13.6	13.1	14.4	14.9	15.4	16.0	16.5	15.6	15.8	15.9	137.3	144.3
Slovakia	44.5	44.0	43.8	47.0	53.4	53.4	65.4	57.3	55.2	56.1	57.2	16.3	16.6
Slovenia	37.9	40.0	38.3	37.2	37.4	39.0	40.7	40.4	38.8	42.4	40.3	5.6	5.3
S. Africa	6.3	6.5	7.2	7.1	6.7	6.7	5.9	6.0	6.6	5.5	4.4	12.2	10.1
Spain	32.0	29.3	31.7	31.0	27.8	28.8	25.8	23.6	22.9	19.6	19.8	54.7	57.4
Sweden	52.4	46.2	45.7	46.8	39.0	43.9	45.7	49.6	51.8	46.7	48.0	70.0	65.0
Switzerland	44.5	40.6	41.1	36.0	38.2	36.0	39.5	39.7	40.0	32.1	37.4	22.1	26.4
UK	26.0	27.5	27.1	28.9	21.9	22.6	22.4	23.7	19.4	19.9	18.4	75.2	69.2
Ukraine	43.8	46.9	45.4	43.8	45.3	46.0	45.7	45.9	51.1	48.5	47.5	83.3	84.8
USA	21.9	20.1	18.7	19.8	19.8	20.4	20.3	19.9	19.9	19.3	19.4	780.5	787.2
TOTAL												2626	2658

VI.2 Outcomes of GNEP

Nine requirements

1. Import of spent fuel for disposal, as well as storage, should be permissible.
2. A geological disposal option (not only for spent fuel, but also for vitrified high-level wastes and other long-lived wastes) should be part of the package.
3. International acceptability is essential,
4. Economic advantages for user and supplier.
5. Long-term availability of facilities should be guaranteed for user countries.
6. International support and recognition.
7. Transparent project management.
8. Use best knowledge and expertise.
9. Active involvement of the IAEA

Immediate objectives

1. A greed set of requirements for an international repository.
2. a project plan over several years, would lead to implementation the repository.
3. recommendations for specific actions by national and international organizations to enable implementation.

Waste management

Internationally coordinated recycling is cost efficient

Power generation

1. A standalone variable high efficient generation
2. Integration with the existing power generation systems

Economic outcomes

Solving the energy problem over more than 500 years stability with the existing limits.

Reduction of the cost 50%

Conclusions

1. International management of the system is possible if there is a balanced political stability.
2. World energy organizations need to serve all nations fairly.
3. Taking into account other available energy resources, the portable reactors technology is a good choice for future power generation.

Note about the small portable reactors

Small portable reactors with solid moderators can provide very good nuclear energy production and the risk of melt down is very small because they are small in addition of the fact that the solid moderator locks the reactor if heat goes out of control.

These reactors are basically what is used in modern submarines. The technology is only available for military use in the US and Russia. A typical reactor size is about a large truck and can be moved out all together with no long term waste remains on the site after the reactor is consumed. Such reactors can serve a typical city of half a million people and they can be fully manufactured in a distance production site with no significant time for assembly on the operation site. They also can be returned for cleanup when they are consumed.

Three problems prevent a wide use. The technology is considered with high military value and it is strictly for military use. The second is that the distribution of many reactors brings risks of criminal and abusive activities. The third is the trend amongst world powers to stop using nuclear energy under the excuse of pollution is extended to these one even though they are not polluting. The true reason they want to keep them exclusive for the countries who have most of the row materials.

Annex 1. Operational Safety Environmental Political

Energy Analysis of Power Systems (March 2006) Critique of 2001 paper by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith: Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? and its May 2002 successor: Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; would it solve the CO₂-emission problem? with reference to a 2005 version entitled Nuclear Power, the Energy balance

Power plant operation

given as 2.8 PJ/yr, which compares with 1.1 PJ over 40 years in the Vattenfall 2002 life cycle study.

Power plant decommissioning

Suggested as being more than twice that for construction, but see above re Vattenfall life cycle study where it is aggregated with construction.

Uranium enrichment

3.1 GJ/SWU for centrifuge compares with actual 0.673 GJ/SWU at URENCO Capenhurst in 2001-02, including some capital works.

Spent fuel management

2.4 PJ initial + 0.6 PJ/yr compares with 4.3 PJ total in Vattenfall 2002 life cycle study.

Conclusion

The 2001 and 2002 Storm van Leeuwen & Smith papers and Background Information represent an interesting attempt to grapple with a complex subject but depend on many essentially speculative figures to put the case that nuclear energy incurs substantial energy debts and gives rise to minimal net energy outputs considered on a lifetime basis. Recent life cycle assessment (LCA) studies such as Vattenfall’s show figures around ten times lower for key capital and waste-related energy demands. The Vattenfall life cycle study gives a bottom line of 1.35% of lifetime energy output being required for all inputs, and only a tiny fraction of this being in the nature of energy debts.

Finally, it should be pointed out that, even on the basis of their assumptions and using their inaccurate figures, Storm van Leeuwen & Smith still are forced to conclude that nuclear power plants produce less CO₂ than fossil-fueled plants, although in their view “the difference is not large”. Others might see a 20 to 50-fold difference (between nuclear and gas or coal) as significant. The audited Vattenfall figure for CO₂ emission on lifecycle basis is 3.10 g/kWh, less than one percent of the best fossil fuel figure. This could approximately double if nuclear power inputs to enrichment were replaced by fossil fuel ones, but it is still very low.

It is clear, then that the concerns related to energy costs at the heart of the Storm van Leeuwen & Smith paper can be dismissed. The authors’ other point, that nuclear energy is not sustainable, is addressed in the Sustainable Energy and Supply of Uranium papers in this series.

United States Naval reactors

U.S. Naval reactors are pressurized water reactors, which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:

1. they have a high power density in a small volume and run either on low-enriched uranium (some French and Chinese submarines) or on highly enriched uranium (>20% U-235, current U.S. submarines use fuel enriched to at least 93%^[1], compared to between 21-45% in current Russian models, although Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker reactors are enriched up to 90%), ^{[citation needed]}
2. the fuel is not UO₂ but a metal-zirconium alloy (c15%U with 93% enrichment, or more U with lower enrichment).
3. they have long core lives, so that refueling is needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores are designed to last 50 years in carriers and 30-40 years in submarines.
4. the design enables a compact pressure vessel while maintaining safety.
5. The long core life is enabled by the relatively high enrichment of the uranium and by incorporating a “burnable poison” in the cores which is progressively depleted as fission products and actinides accumulate, leading to reduced fuel efficiency. The two effects cancel one another out.

Long-term integrity of the compact reactor pressure vessel is maintained by providing an internal neutron shield. (This is in contrast to early Soviet civil PWR designs where embrittlement occurs due to neutron bombardment of a very narrow pressure vessel.)

Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French Rubis class submarines have a 48 MW reactor which needs no refueling for 30 years.

The Russian, US and British navies rely on steam turbine propulsion, the French and Chinese use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion. Most Russian submarines as well as all surface ships since Enterprise are powered by two or more reactors. US, British, French and Chinese submarines are powered by one.

Decommissioning nuclear-powered submarines has become a major task for US and Russian navies. After de-fueling, US practice is to cut the reactor section from the vessel for disposal in shallow land burial as low-level waste (see the Ship-Submarine recycling program). In Russia the whole vessels, or the sealed reactor sections, remain stored afloat indefinitely.