Nuclear energy and waste production

Historic series in spent fuel arising (tonnes heavy metals).

Note: No information has been included for Bulgaria due to a lack of information.

Data source:

(OECD, 2007), (IAEA, 2003b), (NEA, 2007)

Downloads and more info

Nuclear reactors and spent fuel commercial storage facilities in operation, 2008

Note: N/A

Data source:

WNA website (2008)

Downloads and more info

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

Note: Data for Bulgaria is not included due to a lack of information.

Data source:

Eurostat, (OECD, 2007), (IAEA, 2003b), (NEA, 2007)

Downloads and more info

Efficiency improvements in nuclear power plants in Europe (% of continuous full-power operation of the unit)

Note: N/A

Data source:

IAEA

Downloads and more info

Numbers of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities operational in 2008

Note: N/A

Data source:

WNA, 2008

Downloads and more info

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

Note: No information has been included for Bulgaria due to a lack of information.

Data source:

(IAEA, 2003b), (NEA, 2007)

Downloads and more info

Indicative specifications for different reactor types

Note: N/A

Data source:

IEE, 2005

Downloads and more info

Cost aspects of nuclear power

Note: N/A

Data source:

ECN, 2007

Downloads and more info

Cost estimates on final disposal (million euros)

Note: N/A

Data source:

Kukkola, 2005

Downloads and more info

This indicator focuses on the production of nuclear waste, its reprocessing and storage, as well as the closely linked issues of costs and the safety/risks of nuclear energy.

Historical series of arising spent fuel are given in Fig. 1. Presented 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).

The number of facilities for intermediate storage of spent fuel are given in Fig. 2, together with the number of reactors per country. There is presently no commercial storage facility for permanent storage of HLW. According to IAEA storage is defined as the holding of spent fuel or radioactive waste in a facility that provides for its containment, with the intention of retrieval. Storage is by definition an interim measure.

As indicated in the graph there is no storage facility in the Netherlands because of the export of spent fuel to Areva's reprocessing plants in La Hague.

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), a Candu reactor will produce more spent fuel per kWhe than light water reactors. Arising amounts of spent fuel show a limited decline (approximately 5%) for the period 1990 - 2006, while produced power increased in this period with approximately 20% (see EN27). Since very few new nuclear power plants have come online since 1990 and several plants in UK, Lithuania, Germany, Sweden and Bulgaria have been shut down (WNA website, 2008) these trends illustrate increased plant availability in the past decades and increases in net plant electric efficiency of approximately 10% (from app. 32 - 35 app. %), (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. This trend is likely to continue in the future.

Plant closure results in a peak in spent fuel arising as after closure all fuel present in the reactor core is removed. By contrast, during power production around 1/4 to 1/3 is removed annually as consumed fuel. The effects of plant closure on spent fuel production are most pronounced for the UK with decommissioning at Berkley (1989), Trawsfynydd (1993), Hinkley Point (2000) and Bradwell (2002) resulting in the peaks in the graph.

Future development of annually arising spent fuel quantities depend primarily on:

• Political developments and related developments of nuclear power production capacity (new capacity constructed or existing capacity decommissioned - see also paragraph 'Policy');
• Available capacity for nuclear power plant (NPP) construction - new NPP's are planned or under construction in Finland, France, UK, Bulgaria, Baltic States;
• The rate at which current nuclear power capacity will be replaced;
• National policies concerning reprocessing in other countries than France and UK.

The amount of spent fuel arising in Europe is not equivalent to the amount of high level waste to be 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 has an important position within the European nuclear fuel industry, as illustrated by the share of European reprocessing facilities to the global total number of facilities in Fig. 5. Europe imports most of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants as ore, having very little mining production in the region itself. 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.

During reprocessing, uranium and the plutonium generated in the reactor are separated from (other) fission products and the fuel rod casing for re-use. Uranium is re-enriched (RepU: Reprocessed uranium is the uranium recovered from nuclear reprocessing) and reused as nuclear fuel, whilst plutonium is mixed with depleted uranium or tails to create MOX (mixed oxides, nuclear fuel containing both U and Pu oxides). Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel provides about 2% of the new nuclear fuel used today (WNA) and it is manufactured from plutonium recovered from used reactor fuel. Fission products and fuel rod casings are melted into borosilicate glass and are destined for temporary storage and final disposal. MOX can be utilized in some nuclear reactors at limited percentages, but not at all nuclear power plants.

In practice, part of the isolated plutonium and the majority of separated uranium are stored temporarily (EdF, 2007). Reprocessing separated uranium is less attractive than using fresh uranium because of the presence of neutron absorbing and gamma radiation emitting uranium isotopes (see e.g. Harvard, 2003 and MIT, 2003).

Spent fuel is reprocessed at La Hague in France and the Sellafield B 205 Magnox fuel reprocessing plant and THORP reprocessing facility in the UK. Total reprocessing capacity in France and the UK amounts to 4,100 tonnes heavy metals per year, and will reduce to 2,600 tonnes due to the closure of Sellafield B 205. The Sellafield B 205 reprocessing facility will close in 2012/2013 after closure of the last Magnox power plants in the UK (NDA, 2008).

At La Hague, French, Japanese, Dutch, Belgium and German spent fuel have been processed, although transportation of German spent fuel to La Hague ceased in 2005. As of 1st January 2007, 22,650 metric tons of used fuel have been treated at La Hague (Areva, 2007). Most RePu (reprocessed plutonium) is not reused but temporarily stored on site or exported to Russia. An estimated total of 20000 tonnes of RePu is stored in France, produced by the different La Hague and the older Marcoule plants. Another 10000 tonnes has also purportedly been exported to Russia for long-term storage (Burnie, 2007)

Stored amounts of spent fuel and reprocessing wastes are given in Fig. 6. Storage capacity has not been included because it is relatively easy to create extra intermediate storage capacity over a short term (e.g. spent fuel rack rearranging, canister 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 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. Lower level radioactive wastes are commonly stored in surface disposal sites.

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 and a higher percentage of MOX in the fuel. These specifications mean less fuel is required per kWhe and a larger percentage of spent fuel can be reprocessed. They are also intrinsically safer than updated generation II reactors.

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 with a view to commercial deployment by 2030 http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/index.htm Comparative advantages compared to current technologies include reduced capital cost, enhanced nuclear safety, minimal generation of nuclear waste, and further reduction of the risk of weapons materials proliferation. Higher operational temperature will also result in higher energy efficiency and therefore lower spent fuel. Parallel to the Generation IV forum the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is being developed in South Africa and China. Net efficiency will be 42%, burnup will be at least 90 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% smaller than for current Generation II reactors.

The steep increase in fossil fuel prices in the last years, the liberalisation of the internal electricity market in Europe and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) have brought back the focus to the costs of energy supply. Most power companies in Europe are by and large covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The aim of the EU ETS is to help EU Member States achieve their commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way. Allowing participating companies to buy or sell emission allowances means that emission cuts can be achieved at least cost. Nuclear power plants are not subject to a carbon price because, like renewables, generate little greenhouse gas emissions during normal operation.

To assess the cost competitiveness of nuclear power vis a vis other forms of energy one needs to take into account the construction cost of building the plant, the operating cost of running the plant and generating electricity (fuel costs represent a small proportion of total generating costs), the cost of waste disposal and the cost of decommissioning.

Nuclear power is a base load power production technology and competes primarily with coal and large scale hydropower. Compared to coal a new NPP requires approximately twice the investment for the same capacity. Operational costs for a new coal power plant amount to approximately EURct 2/kWhe ,including fuel costs (EUR 2/GJ) (CE, 2006).

Costs of nuclear power production are a subject of intense discussion and estimates range from very low costs of e.g. 2 EURct/kWhe to more than 10 EURct/kWhe (ECN, 2007). Production cost estimates for the intended EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) power plants in France amount to EURct 4,6/kWhe. 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. Costs for insurance may make up 30% of total operational costs. Dismantling costs are covered by a fund created from sales during the operational lifetime of the plant. EC funding is also available for energy-related activities under the 7th Framework Programme, which runs from 2007-2013. FP7 nuclear research is guided by the EURATOM-treaty http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

Risks are determined by a probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). PSA is conducted at three levels:

• Core melt (PSA 1);
• Release of radioactive materials and radiation from a core melt or other events to the surroundings (PSA 2);
• Occurrence of damage in the surroundings (PSA 3).

The legal limit for core melt frequency is 10-5 (IAEA, 2007). For the EPR (European pressurized reactor, generation III type reactor), but also for updated existing generation II LWR (Light Water Reactor) reactors the frequency is approximately 10-6 (ECN, 2007).

Accidents and resulting releases of radioactive material and radiation are categorized according to the INES scale International Nuclear Event Scale), with INES 7 referring to a major accident. The vast majority of reported events are found to be below Level 3. The Chernobyl accident is regarded in the nuclear power industry as a non representative exemption and is rated as an INES 7 event. Next to this accident one other INES 5 event and three INES 4 events have occurred since nuclear power production became commercially available. The INES 5 event, the Three Mile Island accident, is viewed in the nuclear industry as the evidence that a well designed power plant with a containment structure can absorb a partial core melt without an impact on its surroundings.

Older Soviet designs (RBMK and VVER 440 - 230) are assumed not to be able to conform to Western safety standards, despite extensive modifications in the last 15 years (WNA website, 2008). As a consequence Germany has closed down all former East German VVER 440 - 230 reactors and the EU has signed conventions with accessing former Eastern Block states (Lithuania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia) for the shut-down of the RBMK and first generation VVER on their territory. These conventions have met with political opposition in the four new member states because of the important role of nuclear power in these countries, as a consequence shut-down has been delayed in some cases.

Employability of PSA's has certain limitations because of uncertainties and lack of data about the frequency of initiating events, failure frequencies of equipment and an incomplete overview of all the different possible starting events (e.g. poorly understood physical phenomena or human actions) (NEA, 1992).

Distribution of nuclear power technology to unstable nations and reprocessing are the main focus of the discussion concerning non-proliferation. Reprocessing is viewed as a sensitive step because of the isolation of plutonium. The isolated plutonium could be used for construction of a primitive nuclear weapon. However, this requires significant technological knowhow and becomes more difficult with higher fuel burnup because the concentration of fissile Pu-239 in the plutonium isolated in reprocessing reduces with higher burnup, while the concentration of poorly fissile and fission hindering Pu-240 increases. The current trend in fuel utilization is increased burnup, reducing the applicability of the isolated plutonium.