Nuclear Energy Policy in the Aftermath of Fukushima

1. Nuclear Energy Policy in the Aftermath of Fukushima NS 4053 Tim Stevens ValdasDambrauskas Brendon Hathorn Dan Hogue

2. Introduction • Effects of Fukushima on Japanese energy policy • Reaction by European nations to the Fukushima disaster • Example of successful nuclear reliance • Energy Security : Cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel process • Recommendations for U.S. nuclear energy policy

3. Japanese Nuclear Policies Prior to Fukushima Disaster • “Nuclear Power Nation Plan” • Increase technological capability • Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel • Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR) • 54 Nuclear reactors operating • Strict safety standards • Most designed for 7.5 quake • Financial sinkhole • rely on UK/France for fuel • consistent upgrade of plants • Public support maintained through monetary subsidies • Nuclear company buy-outs • Rising concerns about global warming

4. The Fukushima Daiichi Disaster • Plant was operating for over 40 years • Earthquake/tsunami exceeded design criteria of plant • 2 direct casualties (both due to drowning) • Evacuation within 20 km (30 km voluntary) • Only 2 of the 54 reactors in Japan currently operating • Physical effects of radiation are not yet known, correlation being conducted with data from the Chernobyl incident • Companies undergoing strict inspection and retrofit to conventional reactors • Several decommissioned fossil fuel plants have been reopened to support power demand http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

5. Japan’s Post-Fukushima Energy Policy • “Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment” - 3 Pillars to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power • 1. “Realization of a society not dependent on nuclear power in the nearest possible future” • Possible complete phase out by 2030 • 2. “Realization of a green energy revolution” • Conservation • Renewable sources • 3. “Stable supply of energy” • Accelerate R&D for new technologies • Increase efficiency of fossil fuel http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

6. The EU’s nuclear policies: Agenda • Why the EU’s nuclear policy matters? • The EU’s nuclear policies and post-Fukushima changes • Impact of the Fukushima accident on the global nuclear energy sector • Recommendations to the U.S. Government http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

7. Why the EU’s nuclear policy matters? • The EU is: • One of the largest global consumers of energy • One of the largest global producers of electricity • The global leader in renewable technologies • Experienced, capable, and reliable partner on the international arena • Took the most radical changes after Fukushima’s accident • The EU similarly to the U.S.: • Cares about public opinion • Cares about environmental impact • Develops sector of renewables • Has high technical potential and safety standards http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

8. The EU’s nuclear policies • 14 out of 27 EU members use nuclear power for electricity • Scope of nuclear power generation in the EU: • 143 operating nuclear reactors • Average nuclear share in electricity production 35% • From the mid-2000 this sector experienced “nuclear renaissance” • The EU’s policy of 2007 on nuclear energy: • “The EU should maintain its technological lead in 4th generation fission nuclear reactors and future fusion technology to boost the competitiveness, safety and security of nuclear electricity, as well as reduce the level of waste.” • “…nuclear […] is one of the largest and cheapest sources of CO2 free energy in Europe. The next generation of nuclear reactors should reduce these costs further.” • “There are economic benefits in maintaining and developing the technological lead ...” • “It is for each Member State to decide whether or not to rely on nuclear electricity.” http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

9. Impact of the accident in Fukushima on the EU’s nuclear policies • Significant changes in: • Germany: 8 reactors closed and the last should be closed by 2022 • Italy: public referendum voted to remain non-nuclear • Spain: banned construction of the new reactors, continues operating 8 • Belgium: plans to close the existing 7 reactors by 2015 • Lithuania: public referendum voted against the construction of nuclear power plant • Extensive stress tests; 132 nuclear reactors need upgrades (€10-25 billion) • Proposal for countries near the EU borders to conduct the same stress tests • Abrupt political changes hamper the long-term energy policy to develop competitive, sustainable, and secure energy network within the EU • Some negative economic, environmental, and political consequences • Public opinion, the decisive factor in the EU, remains strongly divided http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

10. Impact of the accident in Fukushima on the global nuclear policies • Switzerland: banned construction of the new reactors, operates 5 • Ukraine: 15 operating / 2 constructions / 2 planned / 2(-9) proposed • Belarus: no changes, 0 / 0 / 2 / 2 • Russia: 34 / 9 / 14 / 30 • India: 20 / 9 (+2) / 16 (-1) / 40 • Japan: 46 (-4) / 2 / 10 (-2) / 5 • China: 19 / 25 / 52 (+1) / 130 (+10) • USA: 104 / 1 / 13 (+2) / 15 (-4) http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

11. The EU’s nuclear policies: Summary • So far, the post-Fukushima changes in the EU’s nuclear sector have no major impact on the European nuclear sector • Yet, the proliferation of similar approach within the EU may: • undermine her plans to develop competitive, sustainable, and secure energy network • hinder her attempts to solve environmental problems, particularly the GHG emissions • worsen economic problems • increase the EU’s dependency on the imported fuels for energy generation • decrease the EU’s role in imposing high nuclear security standards globally • The U.S. should consider: • Interest and possibilities to sustain stable nuclear policies in the EU • Better domestic public education on nuclear power generation matters http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

12. France : A Nuclear Example • Natural Resources • Devoid of energy sources • Coal ceased • Uranium ceased • Shale Oil (1 billion metric tons) • Context • Economy, infrastructure severely damaged after WWII • Global opportunity • Atoms for Peace • EURATOMTreaty • 1970’s Oil Crisis • Messmer Plan • Rapid Expansion

13. France : A Nuclear Example • Current Situation • 70+ % Energy from Nuclear • Under capacity • Cheap Electricity • Low Emissions • Future Opportunities • Compare/Contrast with US • Cultural Differences • Transparent Access/Reporting • Educational Efforts from Gov. • Moving Forward • Who knows?

14. Cradle-to-Grave: Commercial Nuclear Fuel Lifecycle • Uranium mining and refinement • Uranium enrichment • Fuel demand • Fuel waste http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm

15. Cradle-to-Grave: Commercial Nuclear Fuel Lifecycle • Uranium mining Uranium 2011: Resources, Production, and Demand

16. Cradle-to-Grave: Commercial Nuclear Fuel Lifecycle • Uranium supply & demand Uranium 2011: Resources, Production, and Demand

17. Cradle-to-Grave: Commercial Nuclear Fuel Lifecycle • Current capabilities • Nuclear waste policy http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/design.html

18. Policy recommendations • Upgrade and expand U.S. commercial nuclear power program • Long term outlook required for policy objectives • Modernization of current U.S. plants vice license extensions • No other non-carbon producing electrical source replacement (low energy density) • Continued support of uranium ore exploration • Current supply projected to fill demand for over a century • Secondary sources are starting to deplete • Top suppliers currently U.S. allies (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia) • Reprocessing currently not cost effective w.r.t. primary mining • Continue R&D • Improve worldwide policies to combat nuclear proliferation • Long term storage solution needed within next decade • Interim storage policies are working, not meant to be long term

19. Policy recommendations (cont.) • Public education on nuclear power should be improved in order to avoid the EU’s scenario of abrupt changes in energy policies • Since the recent EU’s changes in the nuclear energy sector increase her dependency on the imported natural resources and energy, especially from Russia, the U.S. government should consider interest and possibilities to support stable development of the European nuclear sector and active European participation in promoting high nuclear security standards globally • Since the rejection of nuclear power in some European countries will hinder their attempts to reduce GHG emissions and, consequently, compromise international efforts to do so in the developing countries, the U.S. government should consider interest and possibilities to support stable development of the European nuclear sector and active European participation in reducing environmental impact globally

20. Questions ?