Nuclear energy and waste production

Availability improvements in nuclear power plants in Europe

Note: Last three years Capability Factor over 2008-2010. The indicator shows the ratio of the available energy generation over a given time period to the reference energy generation over the same time period, expressed as a percentage. Both of these energy generation terms are determined relative to reference ambient conditions. The reference energy generation is the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions. The available energy generation is the energy that could have been produced under reference ambient conditions considering only limitations within control of plant management, i.e. plant equipment and personnel performance, and work control.

Data source:

IAEA (2009) Power Reactor Information System (PRIS); August 2009 http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/a2/

Downloads and more info

Numbers of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities operational in 2011

Note: Reprocessing is an important part of the fuel cycle within the European nuclear fuel industry, as illustrated by the share of European reprocessing facilities to the global total number of facilities. Europe imports most of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants as ore, having very little mining production in the region itself

Data source:

NFCIS (2011) Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System (NFCIS). http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/

 

Downloads and more info

Stored total amount of high level waste (in tonnes heavy metals)

Note: The figure shows the amount of high level nuclear waste continues to accumulate.

Data source:

NEA (2010) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2010 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2010

 

Downloads and more info

Historic series in annual spent fuel arisings (tonnes heavy metals)

Note: The following table refers to nuclear waste: it presents annual spent fuel arisings in nuclear power plants of OECD countries. The data are expressed in tonnes of heavy metal, and include projections and estimates up to the year 2010. Spent fuel arisings are one part of the radioactive waste generated at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium mining and milling, fuel enrichment, reactor operation, spent fuel reprocessing). Radioactive waste also arises from decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and from other activities using isotopes, such as scientific research and medical activities. The impact of nuclear waste on humans and the environment depends on the level of radioactivity and on the conditions under which the waste is handled, treated, stored and disposed of. While reading this table it should be noted that these data do not represent all radioactive waste generated, and that amounts of spent fuel arisings depend on the share of nuclear electricity in the energy supply and on the nuclear plant technologies adopted.

Data source:

OECD (2007) OECD environmental data compendium, part 1, chapter 8; April 2007. Home -> Environmental Indicators -> Modelling and Outlooks -> OECD Environmental Data Compendium  http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data-providers-and-partners/oecd

 IAEA (2003) K. Fukuda, W. Danker, J.S. Lee, A. Bonne, M.J. Crijns; IAEA Overview of global spent fuel storage; Vienna : IAEA, Department of Nuclear Energy, 2003

NEA (2007) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2007 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2007

NEA (2008) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2008 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2008

NEA (2009) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2009 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2009

NEA (2010) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2010 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2010

Downloads and more info

EU Electricity production from nuclear (percentages relative to 1990 level)

Note: EU Electricity production from nuclear (percentages relative to 1990 level). Spent fuels arisings: Data for Bulgaria is not included due to a lack of information. No 2008 and 2009 data available for Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden, so 2007 data rolled. Lithuania closed its last nuclear reactor at the end of 2009.

Data source:

OECD (2007) OECD environmental data compendium, part 1, chapter 8; April 2007 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/46/38106824.xls

IAEA (2003) K. Fukuda, W. Danker, J.S. Lee, A. Bonne, M.J. Crijns; IAEA Overview of global spent fuel storage; Vienna : IAEA, Department of Nuclear Energy, 2003

NEA (2007) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2007 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2007

NEA (2008) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2008 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2008

NEA (2009) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Nuclear Energy Data : 2009 Edition = Données sur l' énergie nucléaire; Paris, France : OECD, 2009

Downloads and more info

• The amount of high level nuclear waste continues to accumulate. In 2009, 34,824 tonnes of heavy metals contained in nuclear waste was in storage, up 4.7 % since 2008 (see Figure 1).  
• In 2009, 1,828 tonnes of heavy metals contained in spent nuclear fuel resulted from electricity production from nuclear power plants, an amount which has declined by.. since 1990. Historical series of arising spent fuel are given in Figure 2[1]. Arising amounts of spent fuel depend primarily on the amount of power produced, but also to a large extent on the type of reactor, level of fuel enrichment, fuel burnup and power plant net electric efficiency. For example, as indicated by the given burnup rate (see Table 1 below), a Candu reactor will produce more spent fuel per kWh_e than reactors using enriched uranium, such as Pressurised Water Reactor (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plants. However, CANDU plants can be refuelled online without slowing the reaction, they, therefore, have a high availability of (about 90. Newer Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors, such as Advance Candu Reactors (ACRs) have light water cooling and slightly enriched fuel.
• Since 1990, the amount of arising spent fuel has decreased annually. At the same time, the amount of electricity production from nuclear power has increased by 12.5% (see ENER 27 and Figure 3 below).
• Only a small number of ‘operating’ nuclear facilities have come online in EU-27 since 1990 (WNA, 2011), this includes those in France (10), Slovakia (2), Czech Republic (2) Romania (2), United Kingdom (1) and Bulgaria (1). In addition, several plants in the UK, Lithuania, Germany, Sweden, Slovakia and Bulgaria have been shut down. These trends illustrate increased plant availability in the past decades (see Figure 4 below) and increased net plant electric efficiency from app. 32% to app. 35% (WNA, 2003). They also illustrate the trend in increasing fuel enrichment and fuel burnup and the resulting reduction in spent fuel arising per unit of power. Plant closure results in a peak in spent fuel arising because all the fuel present  in the reactor core is removed. By contrast, during power production only some quarter to a third is removed annually as spent fuel. The effects of plant closure on spent fuel production are most pronounced for the UK with decommissioning at Trawsfynydd (1993), Hinkley Point (2000) and Bradwell (2002) which explain the peaks in the graph (see Figure 2 below).

[1] The information refers to the quantity of heavy metals in nuclear fuel, which make up approximately 85% of the uranium fuel and 60% - 70% of the aggregation of fuel and fuel casing (fuel assembly).

Indicative specifications for different reactor types

Note: Indicative specifications for different reactor types. For example, as indicated by the given burnup rate, a Candu reactor will produce more spent fuel per kWhe than light water reactors (LWR).

Data source:

IEE (2005) Nuclear reactor Types : an Environment & Energy FactFile; The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE); London, UK : The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), 2005

Downloads and more info

Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing

The amount of spent fuel arising in Europe is not equivalent to the amount of high level waste that is ultimately stored, since part of this spent fuel is reprocessed. Former Eastern bloc member states appear to have exported part of their produced spent fuel to Russia, with Bulgaria appearing to have exported spent fuel as late as 2006 (Bellona, 2008).

Reprocessing is an important part of the fuel cycle within the European nuclear fuel industry, as illustrated by the share of EEA32 reprocessing facilities, which is equal to the number in the rest of the world (see Figure 5). Europe imports most of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants as ore, having very little mining production in the region itself. This means that the environmental and human health impacts associated with uranium mining play a much lesser role in the European context. Imported ore is processed into fuel in Europe and part of the produced fuel is exported to the USA. While in other parts of the world the fuel is stored after consumption, in Europe a significant portion of the spent fuel is reprocessed, hence reducing the amount of high level waste that requires final disposal. For more technical details on spent fuel reprocessing see (EdF, 2007), (Harvard, 2003) and (MIT, 2003) and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Spent fuel from France, Japan, Netherlands, and Belgium is reprocessed in La Hague in Normandy. This plant has the capacity to reprocess 1700 tonnes of fuel per year in its UP2 and UP3 facilities. The recycling rate is high, extracting 99.9% of the plutonium and uranium, and leaving just 3% of used material as high level wastes. By 2009, some 27,000 tonnes of fuel from LWRs had been recycled at LA Hague (WNA 2011). Most reprocessed uranium (RepU) is converted and stored in the interim period for eventual re-enrichment and/or exported to Russia (about 500tU per year is sent to Seversk) (WNA 2011).

High level nuclear waste storage

Spent nuclear fuel is the most highly radioactive waste. It decays rapidly at first, i.e. after 40 years the level of radioactivity has typically dropped to 1/1000th of the initial value. But it takes around 1000 years to drop to the level of the original uranium ore which was needed to produce that quantity of spent fuel (WNA, 2003). The potential impact of high level nuclear waste on humans and the environment depends on the level of radioactivity and on the conditions under which the waste is managed. The majority of member states currently store spent fuel and other high level radioactive wastes in above ground storage facilities. However, deep geological disposal in an underground repository is currently favoured as a long-term option by many countries. Finland, in particular, has advanced plans for deep geological storage sites for used fuel on Olkiluoto Island (WNA 2011). Lower level radioactive wastes are commonly stored in surface disposal sites.

New technology (e.g. 3^rd/4^th generation)

• Technological development in the last decade has resulted in improved versions of existing LWR reactor designs, such as the EPR, AP-1000, ESBWR and ABWR: the so-called generation III or III⁺ designs. These have a somewhat higher net electric efficiency compared to current updated generation II reactors (35% - 39% compared to 33% - 35%, (TUD, 2006)) and allow for higher fuel burnup, higher fuel assay (quantity of fuel in total material) and a higher percentage of MOX in the fuel. These specifications mean less fuel is required per kWh_e and a larger percentage of spent fuel can be reprocessed. They are also intrinsically safer than updated generation II reactors and the first few generation III reactors are in operation in Japan (WNA 2011).
• Development of new reactor designs is coordinated in the so-called Generation IV International Forum (GIF). This is a US-led grouping (set up in 2001 and joined by the EU in 2005), which has identified six reactor concepts for further investigation. They will not be in operation before 2020 at the earliest (WNA 2011). These reactor designs contain different levels of automatic safety controls which are likely to minimize the risk of human failure in operating the plant (the main cause of the Cernobyl accident). Higher operational temperature will also result in higher energy efficiency. Whilst Generation III reactors recycle plutonium and some uranium, Generation IV are expected to have full actinide recycle.
• In 2010, the European Commission launched the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII). This will support three Generation IV reactors as part of a wider programme to promote low-carbon technologies. Of particular focus is the Astrid sodium-cooled fast reactor (France), the allegro gas-cooled fast reactor (central and eastern Europe) and the lead-cooled fast reactor (Belgium) and additional nuclear applications include hydrogen production, desalination plants and industrial heat.
• Parallel to the Generation IV forum, a more radical Generation III reactor is being developed - the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) - in South Africa and China. Net efficiency will be 41%, burnup will be at least 80 GWday/tU but may be increased eventually to 200 GWday/tU. At a burnup of 90 GWday/tU the amount of spent fuel per unit of delivered electricity will be 60% less than for current Generation II reactors (WNA 2011).

Cost structure of nuclear power projects

Note: Cost structure of nuclear power projects

Data source:

ECN (2007) M.J.J. Scheepers, A.J. Seebregts, P. Lako F.J. Blom, F. van Gemert; Fact finding kernenergie : t.b.v. de Ser-Commissie Toekomstige Energie voorziening; Petten, The Netherlands : ECN, 2007

Downloads and more info

Cost estimates on final disposal (million euros)

Note: Estimated operational costs range from €ct1,2/kWhe to €2,0/kWhe, including dismantling and waste disposal. Costs for insurance may make up 30% of total operational costs. The table shows the cost estimates for final disposal of spent fuel in Finland (5,600 tonnes HM).

Data source:

Kukkola (2005) T. Kukkola, T. Saanio; Cost Estimate of Olkiluoto Disposal Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel; March 2005

Downloads and more info

Nuclear power is expensive to build, but cheap to operate and in most parts of the world it is competitive with both gas and coal plants. Costs of nuclear power production are a subject of intense discussion and estimates range from very low costs of e.g. 2 €ct/kWh_e to more than 10 €ct/kWh_e (ECN, 2007). Production cost estimates for the intended EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) power plants in France amount to €ct 4,6/kWh_e. Differences between estimated production costs are mainly due to differences in the applied depreciation methodology, depreciation period and interest rates. For investment costs a fairly narrow range is mentioned. Dismantling costs are covered by a fund created from sales during the operational lifetime of the plant.

Estimated operational costs range from €ct1,2/kWh_e to €2,0/kWh_e, including dismantling and waste disposal. Costs for insurance may make up 30% of total operational costs. Cost estimates for final disposal of spent fuel in Finland (5,600 tonnes HM) are estimated, see figure 8.

Nuclear power being a base load power production technology competes primarily with coal and large scale hydropower. Compared to coal a new Nuclear Power Plant requires approximately twice the investment for the same capacity, excluding construction interests. Operational costs for a new coal power plant amount to approximately €ct 2/kWh_e, including fuel costs (€ 2/GJ) (CE, 2006). In Europe, the nuclear industry still benefits from state subsidies but accurate, transparent information on the level of these subsidies is not available. A new report published by Earth Track[1] in February 2011 takes a critical view on the continuous dependency of the nuclear power sector on subsidies. The report considers the following as the main subsidies:  the shift of construction and operating costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, transferring a range of  risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents as well as nuclear waste management on to the taxpayer.

[1] http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/nuclear%20subsidies_report.pdf