GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar)

1. Nuclear Renaissance 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

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. 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. World Nuclear Expansion: U.S. Role • 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

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

10. 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

13. 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.

14. Repository Requirements in the United States by the Year 2100*

15. LWR Separation Fast System Separation Separation Plant (one for every 7 - 8 LWRs) Plant Plant Reproce ss ed Fuel Actinides Actinides U&FF U&FF U&FF Fast System LWR Actinides (a) Transmutation Schematics with LWR Recycle (b) Without LWR Recycle

16. Impact of Loss Fraction

17. 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.

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

25. Public Health Impacts per TWh* *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 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.

29. Cost (Continued) • If Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will be the Winner • CO2 sequestration 2-3¢/kw-hr for coal and1-1.5¢/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.