8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
1/34
2011
By : Priyank Jadav
School of Petroleum Management,
Gandhinagar
Nuclear Energy PotentialDo renewable sources of energy pose real challenge to non-renewable ones?
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
2/34
Nuclear Energy Potential 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 2 | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is my pleasure to acknowledge all those whose inspiration and wisdom helped me in
completing my project. I would like to extend my gratitude to EMERSON for giving me an
opportunity to make a project on very warm issue of nuclear energy.
I would like to thank Mr. Sachin Sehgal for informing me about the TALENT QUEST. I would
also like to thanks Poorva Chandra Shekhar and Mausam Joshi from HR Department,
Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. for continuous updating me and encouraging
for working hard to meet the project requirement and deadlines.Lastly I would like to thank
my colleagues for the constant moral support.
Priyank Jadav
MBA 2nd
Year
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
3/34
Nu r E r P t ti 2011
Sc
of Pe
ole
Manage
ent, Gandhinagar 3 |P a g e
Ex utiv Summ r
Statisticssays that in 2008, worlds total energycons
tion was 143,851 TWh and
near about 87% of total energy was produced by non-renewablesources and only 13% of
total energy was produced by renewable sources If we see present power generation
capacity of India, then 6819% energy is produced by non-renewable sources and only
31.81% of total energy was produced by renewable sources. The statistics say that
renewable energy sources do not pose real challenge to non-renewable energy sources.
Renewable energy sources produces causes less pollution and produced less green house
gases ascompared to non- renewableenergysources. Because renewable resources do not
run out, they can power generators indefinitel y. Also, once initial startup costs are taken
care of, these alternative fuels eventually pay for themselves. But, unfortunately, some
renewable resources are not very reliable. Power generation from renewable energy
sources iscostlier and it can be produced only at theselected places where these resources
are available. Renewable energy sources like solar, tidal, wind etc are impossible to
transport like coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Also e
uipments and machineries used to
produce power from renewable energysources are verycostly and at present, there is no
technological support available to bring down power generation cost by renewableenergy
sources and make them comparable with cost of power production by non-renewable
energysources.
Current nuclear waste in the US is over 90% Uranium. If reprocessing were made
legal again in the US we would haveenough nuclear material to last 100s ofyears. Nuclear
power provides about 6% of the world's energy and 1314% of the world's electricity.
Worlds total nuclear power generation capacity is 378,910MW with the highestcontribution of U.S. with 101,229MW. In India, currently 20 nuclear reactors produce
4780MW which is only2.9% of total installed base. There are five more nuclear projects are
under construction with 9 reactors and total production capacity of 6700MW. India is
epected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total
estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW. Based on India's known commercially
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
4/34
Nu r E r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 4 |P a g e
viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50 years
uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to
112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves
is largeenough to supply
all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's
nuclear weapons arsenal.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
5/34
Nu r E r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 5|P a g e
Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8
EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10
PRESENT SCENARIO................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NUCLEAR EXPANSION ................................ ................................ ............................. 14
CHALLENGES FOR NUCLEAR EXPANSION ................................ ................................ ................................ . 15
RISKS OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS AND THEIR CONTROL ................................ ................................ ................. 19
URANIUM ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 20
THORIUM ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25
ECONOMIES OF NUCLEAR POWER ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 26
COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR TO RENEWABLE ................................ ................................ ............................ 28
RADIOACTIVE WASTES-MYTHS AND REALITIES................................ ................................ ....................... 29
FUTURE SCENARIO ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 31
CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33
REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
6/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 6 |P a g e
ListofFigures
Figure 1: Nuclear energyconsumption by region ................................ ................................ ............... 9
Figure2: Nuclear Power production by top 10countriescompared to India................................ .... 12
Figure 3: World Annual power sector CO2emission reductions ................................ ........................ 14
Figure 4: Contribution ofenergysources in electricity generation in world and OECD countries ...... 15
Figure5: Evolution of Nuclear Power since 1991 to 2009 ................................ ................................ . 15
Figure 6: Nuclear power project risk matrix ................................ ................................ ..................... 19
Figure7: Risk control and monitoring in nuclear power projects................................ ...................... 20
Figure8: World Uranium Production and Demand ................................ ................................ ........... 22
Figure 9: Uranium Production Cost Curve : 2007 - 2030 ................................ ................................ ... 23
Figure 10: Uranium SupplyScenario 2009 ................................ ................................ ........................ 25
Figure 11: Net Additions to Global Electricity Grid from New Renewable and Nuclear (in GW) ......... 28
Figure 12: Electricity Production from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources ................................ ........................ 28
Figure 13: Future global electricity production bysource................................ ................................ . 32
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
7/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 7|P a g e
ListofTables
Table 1: World Energy & Indian Power Sector Scenario ................................ ................................ ......8
Table2: Top 10 Countries by Nuclear Power production and percentage share................................ 11
Table 3: India's operating nuclear power reactors ................................ ................................ ........... 13
Table 4: Countries with Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors in the World..................... 18
Table5: Uranium Production and Recoverable Reserves ................................ ................................ .. 21
Table 6: The approx cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel................................ ................ 26
Table7: Construction Time of Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide ................................ ...................... 27
Table8: Estimates investment in nuclear energy in the BLUE Map scenario................................ ...... 31
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
8/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 8|P a g e
IN
R
UC
ION
In 2008, worlds total energyconsumption was 143,851 TWh and near about 87% of
total energy was produced by non-renewable sources and only 13% of total energy was
produced by renewablesources. If wesee present power generation capacity of India, then68.19%energy is produced by non-renewablesources and only 31.81% of total energy was
produced by renewable sources. The statistics say that renewable energy sources do not
pose real challenge to non-renewableenergysources. In the world, only5.8% of total power
production is from nuclear.
Table 1: World Energy & Indian Power Sector Scenario
World Energy by power source2008
Power Sector Indi
- 2010
TWh % MW %
Oil 48204 33.50% Thermal 111294.5 65.38%
Coal 38497 26.80% Nuclear 4780 2.81%
Gas 30134 20.90% Hydro 37367.4 21.95%
Nuclear 8283 5.80% RES 16786.98 9.86%
Hydro 3208 2.20% Total 170228.9 100%
Other RE 15284 10.60% Source: Ministry of Power - Annual Report 2010
Others 241 0.20%
Total 143 851 100%
Source: IEA =solar, wind, geothermal and
biofuels
Renewableenergysources (RES) are alternatives available to meet increasing energy
demand but they cant replace non-renewable energy sources for energy generation. RES
are alternative not the substitute of Non-RES. Power generation from non-renewable
energysources ischeaper than renewableenergysources. Hence, cost of generation is low
and profit margin can becomparatively higher. Non-renewable resources helped bring the
age of tomorrow, today. With theexception of nuclear power plants, using these r esources
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
9/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 9 |P a g e
to create energy is fairly simple. Even after all these advantages of fossil fuel, one thing is
sure that one day they will eventually run out and these fuels are also responsible for many
types of pollution and green houseeffect. And unfortunate ly, as powerful as nuclear power
plants are, they generate nuclear waste, which iscannot be recycled, isvery dangerous to
the environment, and cannot be cleaned or reduced through filtration systems. These
arguments lead us to think about an alternative solution which is renewableenergysources.
Figure 1: Nuclearenergyconsumption byregion
Renewable energy sources produces causes less pollution and produced less green
house gases ascompared to non- renewableenergysources. Because renewable resources
do not run out, they can power generators indefinitely. Also, once initial startup costs are
taken care of, these alternative fuels eventually pay for themselves. But, unfortunately,
some renewable resources are not very reliable. Power generation from renewableenergy
sources iscostlier and it can be produced only at theselected places where these resources
are available. Renewable energy sources like solar, tidal, wind etc are impossible to
transport like coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Also e uipments and machineries used to
produce power from renewable energysources are verycostly and at present, there is no
technological support available to bring down power generation cost by renewableenergy
sources and make them comparable with cost of power production by non-renewable
energysources.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
10/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 10|P a g e
EVOLUTION OF NUCLEARENERGY
y 1938 Scientistsstudy Uranium nucleus y 1941 Manhattan Project begins y 1942 Controlled nuclear chain reactiony 1945 U.S. uses two atomic bombs on Japany 1949 Soviets develop atomic bomby 1952 U.S. tests hydrogen bomby 1955 First U.S. nuclear submarine
From the late 1970s to about 2002 the nuclear power industrysuffered some decline
and stagnation. Few new reactors were ordered, the number coming on line from mid
1980s little more than matched retirements, though capacity increased by nearly one third
and output increased 60% due to capacity plus improved load factors. Theshare of nuclear
in world electricity from mid 1980s was fairlyconstant at 16-17%. Many reactor orders from
the 1970s werecancelled. The uranium price dropped accordingly, and also because of an
increase in secondary supplies. Oil companies which had entered the uranium field bailed
out, and there was a consolidation of uranium producers.
By 1989 there were a total of 424 reactors operating in the world. A historic peak
was reached in 2002 with 444 units, five more than the 439 operating reactors as of August
2010. In 2009 the 370 GW of nuclear capacity generated about 2,600 TWh a 1.3% decline,
the third in a row that is about 13% of commercial electricity or 5.5% of commercial
primaryenergy, or between 2% and 3% of all energy in the world all on a downward trend.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
11/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 11 |P a g e
PRESENT SCENARIO
Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world'senergy and 1314% of the world's
electricity. Worlds total nuclear power generation capacity is 378,910MW with the highest
contribution of U.S. with 101,229MW. Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactorsoperating in 30countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 376 GWe. In 2009
these provided 2560 billion kWh, about 15% of the world's electricity. Over 60 power
reactors arecurrently being constructed in 15countries.
In India, currently20 nuclear reactors produce 4780MW which is on ly2.9% of total
installed base. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000
tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50years uranium supply for India's nuclear power
reactors. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons o f uranium (approx 1% of global
uranium reserves) is largeenough to supply all of India'scommercial and military reactors as
well assupply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal.
Table2: Top 10 Countries by Nuclear Power production and percentage share
Top 10 Countries in Nuclear Power
production
Top 10 Countries by share of
NuclearPower
Ran
Country Production (TWh) Ran
Country Share (%)
1 USA 807.1 1 France 74.1
2 France 410.1 2 Slovakia 51.8
3 Japan 280.3 3 Belgium 51.1
4 Russia 159.41 4 Ukraine 48.1
5South
Korea141.9
5 Hungary 42.1
6 Germany 133 6 Armenia 39.4
7 Canada 85.5 7 Sweden 38.1
8 Ukraine 84 8 Switzerland 38
9 Mainland 70.1 9 Slovenia 37.3
10 Spain 59.3 10 Czech 33.3
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
12/34
Nuclear Energy Potential 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 12 | P a g e
Fi
ure2: Nuclear Powerproduction bytop 10 countriescompared to India
Statistics shows that India is still far behind in terms of nuclear power development.
Due to trade bans and lack of indigenous uranium, India has uniquely been developing a
nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium. Now, foreign technology andfuel are
expected to boost India's nuclear power plants considerably. All plants will have high
indigenous engineering content. India has a vision of becoming a world leader in nuclear
technology due to its expertise in fast reactors and thorium fuel cycle. India has a flourishing
and largely indigenous nuclear power program and expects to have 20,000 MWe nuclear
capacity on line by 2020 and 63,000 MWe by 2032. It aims to supply 25!
of electricity from
nuclear power by 2050. Presently India has 20 reactors with total production capacity of
4385 MWe.
807.1
410.1
280.3
159.41 141.9 13385.5 84 70.1 59.3
20.5
Produ tion (TWhProduction (TWh)
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
13/34
Nuclear Energy Potential 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 13 | P a g e
Table 3 " Ind# a $%
op & ' a ( # ngnu ) 0 & a ' po 1 & ' rea ) ( ors
India'soperating nu2
lear po 3 er reactors
Reactor State Type Mwe Operation
Tarapur 1 & 2 Maharashtra BWR 150 1969
4 aiga 1 & 2 4 arnataka PHWR 202 1999-2000
4 aiga 3 & 4 4 arnataka PHWR 202 2007
4akrapar 1 & 2 Gujarat PHWR 202 1993-95
Madras 1 & 2 (MAPS) Tamil Nadu PHWR 202 1984-86
Narora 1 & 2
Uttar
Pradesh PHWR 202 1991-92
Rajasthan 1 Rajasthan PHWR 90 1973Rajasthan 2 Rajasthan PHWR 187 1981
Rajasthan 3 & 4 Rajasthan PHWR 202 1999-2000
Rajasthan 5 & 6 Rajasthan PHWR 202
Feb & April
2010
Tarapur 3 & 4 Maharashtra PHWR 490 2006, 05
Advantages & DisadvantagesofNuclear Energy
ADVANTAGES
Relatively low fuel cost
Suitable for baseloadcapacity
Long life time
Low external costs Guarantee for energy
supply
Capacity development
Low carbon emission
DISADVANTAGES
Highly capital intensive
Sensitive to interest rates
Long lead times
Long payback periods
Regulatory/policy risks New financing structures
required to attract privateinvestors
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
14/34
Nuclear Energy Potential 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 14 | P a g e
OPPORT 5 NITIES FOR N 5 CLEAR EXPANSION
The analysis in Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 (ETP) (IEA, 2010) projects that
energy-related CO2 emissions will double from 2005 levels by 2050. Strategies for reducingenergy-related CO2 emissions by 50 6 from 2005 levels by 2050, concludes that nuclear
power will have a large role to play in achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner
(Figure 1). Nuclear capacity is assumed to reach about 1 200 GW by 2050, providing about
24% of global electricity supply.
Although the growth of nuclear energy has stalled in the last two decades, it is a
mature technology with more than 50 years of commercial operating experience that does
not require major technological breakthroughs to enable its wider deployment. Providing
around 38% of global electricity by 2050, would reduce the average electricity generation
cost in 2050 by about 11%. One factor that sets nuclear apart from most other low-carbon
energy technologies is that, in some countries at least, adopting or expanding a nuclear
programme will be the subject of considerably greater public and political opposition.
Fi7
ure3: World Annualpowersector CO2emission reductions
Source: IEA, 2010
Keypo 8 n 9 @ Nuclearpo A er ma B es a major con 9 ribu 9 ion toreducingCC 2 emissions
0%
17%
0%
28%
2%1%1%
51%
CO2emission reduction
Uranium Production by
Country, 2010
Country
Australia
Brazil
Canada
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
15/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 15|P a g e
Figure 4: Contributionofenergysourcesinelectricitygenerationin
world and OECDcountries
Source: IEA, 2009
Key point: Nuclear and hydropower are the main low-carbon energy sources at present.
.
CHALLENGES FORNUCLEAREXPANSION
Figure 5: EvolutionofNuclearPowersince 1991 to 2009
Source: IAEA PRIS
Key point: The average operating performance of nuclear power plants improved markedly in the
1990s and early 2000s, but has fallen in the last few years.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
16/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 16 |P a g e
Safety
Although no plant design can be risk-free, new research has brought claims of a new
generation of nuclear reactors with advanced safety features. However, they haveyet to be
tested at full scale, and all reactors now on order useconventional technology. Moreover,
nuclear power plants are now considered plausible targets for terrorist attacks. Whether
caused by accident or malice, a sudden dispersal of radio activity would have severe
community impact, perhaps exacerbated by inade D uateevacuation plans. Ifsuch an event
triggered a renewal of anti-nuclear sentiment in the general public and led to demands for a
nuclear moratorium, the resilience and sustainability of theenergysystem would be greatly
compromised.
Cost
The full economic costs of nuclear energy are difficult to determine. A comprehensive
accounting would include accident insurance, safety assurance, decommissioning, and
radioactive waste disposal costs that are often buried in generous publicsub sidies for the
nuclear industry or shifted to future generations. As theexperience in the U.S. with the first
wave of nuclear plants indicated, projected costs can soar as the full costs of the nuclear
fuel-cycle are reflected in the price ofelectricity. Ofcourse, high costs might not be a key
issue if nuclear power were the only option for climate mitigation.
Waste Storage&UraniumRecyclingThe need to safely dispose of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for tens of thousands of
years poses daunting technical challenges. Indeed, as no country has yet implemented a
functioning long-term waste repository, much of the worlds inventory of waste remains
seD
uestered in temporary casks at dispersed plant sites. It reD
uires considerable
technological optimism to be sanguine about finding satisfac tory geologic repositories:
2,000 reactors would reD
uire new capacity the size of the controversial Yucca Mountain
storagesite in the United Statesevery few years into the foreseeable future. It is difficult to
imagine that this level of storage capacity could be found and activated. Indeed, after 20
years and $9 billion of investment.
Proliferation
Nuclear power cannot be decoupled from nuclear weapons. Two paths lead from a nuclear
energy program to weapons-grade material; one involves uranium and the other plutonium.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
17/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 17|P a g e
For use as a nuclear fuel, naturally occurring uranium undergoesen richment to increase the
concentration of the fissionable U-235 isotope, and further enrichment can produce
weapons-grade material. ConseE
uently, a wide deployment of nuclear power and
associated technology would increase the risk of nuclear weapons proli feration. This link is
underscored in todays headlines on disputes over enrichment programs in North Korea and
Iran, putatively for electricity generation, possibly for more.
Security
Another pathway from nuclear power to nuclear weapons would be through the recovery of
plutonium from spent uranium fuel, either directly or as a by-product of re-processing. A
meresix kilograms ofsuch highly fissible plutonium is needed for a simple nuclear weapon,
and much less to fabricate a dirty conventional bomb. At t he large scale of nuclear
generation under consideration, it would becomeextremely difficult to track and secure the
movement ofsuch small amounts of material.
OtherChallenges:
y Financing the large investments needed, especially where nuclear construction is tobe led by the privatesector.
y Developing the necessary industrial capacities and skilled human resources tosupport sustained growth in nuclear capacity.
y Expanding the supply of nuclear fuel in line with increased nuclear generatingcapacity, and ensuring all users of nuclear energy have access to reliablesupplies of
fuel.
y Implementing plans for building and operating geological repositories for thedisposal ofspent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes.
y Maintaining and strengthening where necessary the safeguards and security forsensitive nuclear materials and technologies, to avoid their misuse for non -peaceful
purposes.
y In the past, because of above mentioned challenges, 124 nuclear power reactors(37,788 MWe) wereclosed down permanently.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
18/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 18|P a g e
Table 4: Countries with Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors in the World
CountryEnergy Output PermanentlyClosed
Total MW(e) Nuclear Power Reactors
United States 9,764 28
U.K. 3,301 26
Germany 5,879 19
France 3,789 12
Japan 1,618 5
Russia 786 5
Bulgaria 1,632 4
Italy 1,423 4
Ukraine 3,515 4
Canada 478 3
Slovakia 909 3
Sweden 1,210 3
Lithuania 2,370 2
Spain 621 2
Armenia 376 1
Belgium 10 1
Kazakhstan 52 1
Netherlands 55 1
World Total: 37,788 124
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
19/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 19 |P a g e
RISKS OF NUCLEARPROJECTS AN F THEIRCONTROL
Structuring a nuclear new-build project for success reG
uires the identification and
understanding of the various risks associated with a project of such magnitude and
complexity. Some risks are quite similar to those in any power investment project; others are clearly unique to nuclear. In developing a project, a utility will undertake a
comprehensive risk assessment, which will be reviewed and updated as the project
progresses.
Nuclear projects are capital intensive, with long project schedules. They hav e
significant fixed operating and maintenancecosts and relatively low fuel costs. Theyexist in
a rigorous regulatoryenvironment where the regulator actively patrols plant operations and
has considerable authority to impact unit construction and operations. Nuclear plants are
also subject to public scrutiny and concern. In normal operation, nuclear plants are
environmentally friendly. At thesame time, publicconcerns often focus on the questions of
long-term management of nuclear waste and potential consequences of low-probability
safetyevents.
Figure 6: Nuclearpowerprojectriskmatrix
Source: Economics Report, WNA, 2010
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
20/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 20|P a g e
Figure 7: Riskcontrol andmonitoringinnuclearpowerprojects
Source: Economics Report, WNA, 2010
URANIUM
Production & Demand
About 435 reactors with combined capacity of over 370 GWe, require77,000 tonnes
of uranium oxideconcentratecontaining 65,500 tonnes of uranium (tU ) from mines (or the
equivalent from stockpiles or secondarysources) each year. Thecapacity is growing slowly,
and at the same time the reactors are being run more productively, with higher capacity
factors, and reactor power levels. However, these factors increasing fuel demand are offset
by a trend for increased efficiencies, so demand is dampened - over the20years from 1970
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
21/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 21 |P a g e
there was a 25% reduction in uranium demand per kWh output in Europe due to such
improvements, which continue today.
Each GWe of increased capacity will require about 200 tU/yr of extra mine
production routinely, and about 400 -600 tU for the first fuel load. Fuel burnup is measured
in MW days per tonne U, and many utilities are increasing the initial enrichment of their fuel
(eg from 3.3 to more than 4.0% U-235) and then burning it longer or harder to leave only
0.5% U-235 in it (instead of twice this).
Table5: Uranium Production and Recoverable Reserves
Uranium Production by
Country, 2010
Uranium Recoverable Reserves by
Country, 2009
Country Production (tU) Country Reserves Percentage
Australia 5900 Australia 1673000 31.0%
Brazil 148 Kazakhstan 651000 12.0%
Canada 9783 Canada 485000 9.0%
China 827 Russia 480000 9.0%
Czech
Republic
254 South
Africa
295000 5.0%
India 400 Namibia 284000 5.0%
Kazakhstan 17803 Brazil 279000 5.0%
Namibia 4496 Niger 272000 5.0%
Niger 4198 USA 207000 4.0%
Russia 3562 China 171000 3.0%
South Africa 583 Jordan 112000 2.0%
Ukraine 850 Uzbekistan 111000 2.0%
United States 1660 Ukraine 105000 2.0%Uzbekistan 2400 India 80000 1.5%
Others 799 Mongolia 49000 1.0%
Total 53633 other 150000 3.5%
World 5404000 100%
Source: WNA, 2010
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
22/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 22|P a g e
Coal ash is easily-accessible though minor uranium resource in many parts of the
world. In central Yunnan province in China thecoal uranium content varies up to 315 ppm
and averages about 65 ppm. The ash averages about 210 ppm U (0.021%U) - above thecut-
off level for some uranium mines. The Xiaolongtang power station ash heap contains over
1000 tU, with annual arisings of 190 tU. Recovery of this by acid leaching is about 70%.
Figure 8: World UraniumProduction andDemand
Source: WNA, 2010
Cost
Looking ten years ahead, the market is expected to grow significantly. The WNA
reference scenario shows a 33% increase in uranium demand over 2010-20 (for a 27%
increase in reactor capacity - many new cores will be required). Demand thereafter will
depend on new plant being built and the rate at which older plant is retired - the reference
scenario has a 16% increase in uranium demand for the decade to 2030. Licensing of plantlifetime extensions and the economic attractiveness of continued operation of older
reactors arecritical factors in the medium-term uranium market. However, with electricity
demand by 2030 expected (by the OECD's International Energy Agency, 2008) to double
from that of2004, there is plenty ofscope for growth in nuclear capacity in a greenhouse -
conscious world.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
23/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 23 |P a g e
Figure 9: UraniumProductionCostCurve : 2007 - 2030
The above graph, from International Nuclear Inc. as of end of 2007, shows a cost
curve for world uranium producers, and suggests that for 50,000 tU/yr production from
mines (approximately the present level) and up to 60,000 tU/yr, US$30/lb plus profit marg in
is a plausible price. Costs may now haveescalated somewhat, but htecost curve only rises
steeply at higher uranium requirements.
Supply
Mines in 2009 supplied some 60,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (U 3O8)
containing 50,772 tU, about 78% of utilities' annual requirements. The balance is made up
from secondary sources including stockpiled uranium held by utilities, but those civil
stockpiles are now largely depleted. The perception of imminent scarcity drove the "spot
price" for non-contracted sales to over US$ 100 per pound U3O8 in 2007 but it hassettled
back to $40-45 over the twelve months to July 2010. Most uranium however is supplied
under long term contracts and the prices in new contracts have, in the past, reflected a
premium above thespot market.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
24/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 24 |P a g e
Supplyfromelsewhere
As well asexisting and likely new mines, nuclear fuel supply may be from secondarysources
including:
y Recycled uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, as mixed oxide (MOX) fuely Re-enriched depleted uranium tails y Ex military weapons-grade uraniumy Civil stockpilesy Ex-military weapons-grade plutonium, as MOX fuel.
Major commercial reprocessing plants are operating in France and UK, with capacity
of over 4000 tonnes of used fuel per year. The product from these re -enters the fuel cycle
and is fabricated into fresh mixed oxide (MOX) fuel elements. About 200 tonnes of MOX is
used each year, equivalent to less than 2000 tonnes of U3O8 from mines. Military uranium
for weapons isenriched too much higher levels than that for the civil fuel cycle. Weapons-
grade is about 97% U-235, and this can be diluted about 25:1 with depleted uranium (or
30:1 with enriched depleted uranium) to reduce it to about 4%, suitable for use in a power
reactor.
From 1999 to 2013 the dilution of 30 tonnessuch material is displacing about 10,600
tonnes per year of mine production. The USA and Russia have agreed to dispose of 34
tonneseach of military plutonium by2014. Most of it is likely to be used as feed for MOX
plants, to make about 1500 tonnes of MOX fuel which will progressively be burned in civil
reactors.
The following graph suggests how thesevarioussources ofsupply might look in the decades
ahead:
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
25/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 25|P a g e
Figure 10: Uranium Supply Scenario 2009
Source: WNA 2009 World reference scenario
THORIUM
Another potential nuclear fuel, thorium, is plentiful in one or two Latin American
countries (Brazil, and to a much lesser extent Venezuela). However, currently there is
limited interest in developing a thorium-based fuel cycle, apart from in India. Indeed, there
is such little demand for thorium currently that there is little exploration for it. There are
significant conflicts in the estimates of world thorium reserves. The 2005 IAEA-NEA Red
Book suggests a probable thorium reserve of 4.5 million tons worldwide, though
acknowledges that the lack of figures for many parts of the world makes this little more
than an educated guess. It is nevertheless known that thorium is 3 to 4 times ascommon on
thesurface of theearth as uranium.
According to some figures, Australia has the largest reserves, with India coming
second, each with about 25% the worlds total. However, both the IAEA and OECD put Brazil
at the top of the list by a significant amount, over Turkey then India.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
26/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 26 |P a g e
ECONOMIES OF NUCLEARPOWER
Nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation, despite
relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and
decommissioning costs. If thesocial, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are alsotaken into account, theeconomics of nuclear power are outstanding
Table 6: The approx cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel
Theapproxcosttoget 1 kgofuraniumas UO2reactor
fuel
Kg
Cost
($) TotalC
ostUranium 8.9 146 1299
Conversion 7.5 13 98
Enrichment 7.3 155 1132
Fuel Fabrication 1 240 240
Total 2768
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost:
0.77c/kWh. Fuel costs are one area ofsteadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For
instance, in Spain the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This
involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction.
Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burnup will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.
Uranium has the advantage of being a highlyconcentrated source ofenergy which iseasily
and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil.
One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as thesame
amount ofcoal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradablecommodity.
Nuclear power has a history of delays in construction, and analysis undertaken by
the World Energy Council54 hasshown the global trend in increased construction times for
nuclear reactors. In Germany, in the period from 1965 to 1976, construction took 76
months, increasing to 110 months in the period from 1983 to 1989. In Japan average
construction time in the period from 1965 to 2004 was in the range of 44 to 51 months.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
27/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 27|P a g e
Finally in Russia, the average construction time from 1965 to 1976 was 57 months, then
from 1977 to 1993 it was between 72 and 89 months, but the four p lants that have been
completed since then have taken around 180 months (15 years), due to increased
opposition following the Chernobyl accident, economicconstraints and the political changes
after 1992.
As per World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 , calculating a global average
construction time it would be around nineyears for the 16 most recent grid connections
does not make much sense because of the differences between countries. Theconstruction
period for four reactorsstarted up in Romania, Russia and Ukraine lasted between 18 and
24 years. In contrast, it took hardly more than five years on average to complete the 12
units that wereconnected to the grid in China, India, Japan and South Korea.
Table7: Construction Time of Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide
Period of
Reference
No. of
Reactors
Avg.
Construction
Time (Months)
1965-1970 48 60
1971-1976 112 66
1977-1982 109 80
1983-1988 151 98
1995-2000 28 116
2001-2005 18 82
2005-2009 6 77
Sources: Clerici, 2006; IAEA
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
28/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 28|P a g e
COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR TO RENEWABLE
Figure 11: NetAdditionsto Global Electricity Gridfrom New Renewable
and Nuclear (in GW)
Source: Amory Lovins, 2010
Figure 12: ElectricityProductionfrom Non-Fossil Fuel Sources
Source: Earth Policy Institute, 2009
Figures 11 and 12 show the net additions to the grid from new renewable (not
including large hydropower) and nuclear and the contributions of all so -called low-carbon
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
29/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 29 |P a g e
energy sources to the global electricity mix. Although at first glance these figures may
appear contradictory, they are two sides of the same narrative. Figure 11 details the net
additions to the grid over the global grid over the last two decades. Thesize of the individual
stations, coupled with theclosure of reactors, is why the nuclear trend -line lacks an overall
direction, but it could be summarized to an average net annual additional capacity of
around 2 GW per year in the beginning of the Speriod, compared to a global installed
capacity ofsome 370 GW. However, this trend hasstagnated or decreased since2005. Over
thesame period, wind power has increased itscapacity by over 10 GW on average per year,
with capacity additions steadily increasing to reach over 37 GW in 2009.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES -MYTHS AND REALITIES
1. The nuclear industrystill has no solution to the 'waste problem'Today, safe management practices are implemented or planned for all categories of
radioactive waste. Low-level waste (LLW) and most intermediate-level waste (ILW), which
make up most of the volume of waste produced (97%), are being disposed of securely in
near-surface repositories in manycountriesso as to cause no harm or risk in the long-term.
This practice has been carried out for manyyears in manycountries as a matter of routine.
2. The transportation of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and theenvironment
The primary assurance of safety in the transport of nuclear materials is the way in
which they are packaged. Packages that store waste during transportation are designed to
ensure shielding from radiation and containment of waste, even under the most extreme
accident conditions. Since 1971, there have been more than 20,000safeshipments of highly
radioactive used fuel and high-level wastes (over 50,000 tonnes) over more than 30 million
kilometres (about 19 million miles) with no property damage or personal injury, no breach
ofcontainment, and very low radiation dose to the personnel involved.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
30/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 30|P a g e
3. Nuclear wastes are hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly isunprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations in the long -term
International conventions define what is hazardous in terms of radiation dose, and
national regulations limit allowable doses accordingly. Well-developed industry technology
ensures that these regulations are met so that any hazardous wastes are handled in a way
that poses no risk to human health or the environment. Waste is converted into a stable
form that issuitable for disposal. In thecase of high-level waste, a multi-barrier approach,
combining containment and geological disposal, ensures isolation of the waste from people
and theenvironment for thousands ofyears.
4. Nobody knows the truecosts of waste management. Thecosts areso high that nuclearpower can never beeconomic
Because it is widely accepted that producers of radioactive wastes should bear the
costs of disposal, most countries with nuclear power programmes make estimates of the
costs of disposal and update these periodically. International organisations such as the
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) have also coordinated exercises to compare theseestimates with one
another. For low-level waste, the costs are well-known because numerous facilities have
been built and have operated for manyyears around the world. For high level-waste (HLW),cost estimates are becoming increasingly reliable as projects get closer to imple mentation.
5. The wasteshould be disposed of into space The option of disposal of waste into space has been examined repeatedlysince the
1970s. This option has not been implemented and further studies have not been performed
because of the high cost of this option and the safety aspects associated with the risk of
launch failure.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
31/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 31 |P a g e
FUTURE SCENARIO
Studies and statisticssay that nuclear energy will play a vital role in energy market in
future. World is spending billions of dollars to develop sustainabl e nuclear energy. All the
governments also support investments made in nuclear field because now due to latesttechnologies, handling of nuclear energy has becomesafer than earlier and nuclear energy
produce least CO2; it isclean source ofenergy.
Table8: Estimates investment in nuclear energy in the BLUE Map scenario
Region/country Estimatedinvestmentrequired (USD billions)
2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050
US& Canada 75 342 243 224OECD Europe 60 333 105 88
OECD Pacific 68 296 153 97
China 57 193 295 350
India 9 57 91 230
Latin America 11 30 36 39
Other developing
Asia5 39 24 39
Economies in
transition55 156 80 39
Africa & Middle East 2 23 18 12
World 342 1469 1045 1118
The IEAs Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 BLUE Map scenario (IEA, 2010) projects an
installed nuclear capacity of almost 1200 GW in 2050, compared to 370 GW at the end of
2009, making nuclear a major contributor to cutting energy related CO2emissions by50%.
This nuclear capacity would provide 9600 TWh ofelectricity annually by that date, or around
24% of the electricity produced worldwide. IEA has projected that by 2050, nuclear will
contribute highest in electricity generation in the world.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
32/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 32|P a g e
Figure 13: Futureglobal electricityproduction bysource
Source: IEA, 2010
Key point: In the BLUE Map scenario, nuclear power is the largest single source of electricity in 2050.
In India, nuclear power is growing at a rocket speed. As per Indian Economy Review
March 2011, thermal power & hydro power generation recorded growth of 6.7% and
18.68% while nuclear power generation recorded 78.77% growth over the last year. In April
January2011, the all India power generation recorded a 5.18 % growth compared to April
January 2010 and Nuclear power generation recorded 37.94% growth till January in
current fiscal. In 12th five year plan is to add 100GW out of which 3.4GW will be from
nuclear energy. India isexpected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by
2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW. There are five more
nuclear projects are under construction with 9 reactors and total production capacity of
6700MW.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
33/34
Nu rE r P t ti 2011
School of Petroleum Management, Gandhinagar 33 |P a g e
CONCLUSION
Above analysis and studyshows that nuclear energy has potential market in near future. At
present, we have technology to develop nuclear power but its very costly and takes long
time. It hassomeenvironmental and safety issues also to takecare. Nuclear energy marketis growing at a very high speed and to continue this growth there aresome points which all
the countries of the world should consider as near milestone in nuclear energy
development.
Keynuclear powerdevelopmentmilestones include:
y Demonstrate the ability to build the latest nuclear plant designs on time and withinbudget.
y Develop the industrial capacities and skilled human resources to support sustainedgrowth in nuclear capacity.
y Establish the required legal frameworks and institutions in countries where th ese donot yet exist.
y Encourage the participation of privatesector investors in nuclear power projects.y Make progress in implementing plans for permanent disposal of high-level
radioactive wastes.
y Enhance public dialogue to inform stakeholders about the r ole of nuclear in energystrategy.
y Expand thesupply of nuclear fuel in line with increased nuclear generating capacity.
8/6/2019 Priyank - Nuclear Energy Potential
34/34