What are the trends concerning the accumulation of high level nuclear waste and the production of spent fuel?

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

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

Data source:

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

Downloads and more info

Historic series in spent fuel arising (tonnes heavy metals)

Note: Historic series in spent fuel arising (tonnes heavy metals)

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

 

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)

Data source:

Eurostat, Supply, transformation, consumption - electricity - annual data. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_105a&lang=en

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

 

Downloads and more info

Availability improvements in nuclear power plants in Europe

Note: Availability improvements in nuclear power plants in Europe

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 2009

Note: Numbers of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities operational in 2009

Data source:

NFCIS (2009) Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System (NFCIS). August 2009 http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/

 

Downloads and more info

• The amount of high level nuclear waste continues to accumulate. In 2007, 34,216 tonnes of heavy metals contained in nuclear waste was in storage, up 13.2 % since 2005 (see Figure 1).  
• In 2007, 3461 tonnes of heavy metals contained in spent nuclear fuel resulted from electricity production from nuclear power plants, amount which remained relatively stable over the years 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 light water reactors (LWR). Since 1990, the amount of arising spent fuel remained stable while, at the same time, the amount of electricity generated increased by 17.7% (see ENER 27 and Figure 3 below). Since very few new nuclear power plants have come online since 1990 and several plants in UK, Lithuania, Germany, Sweden, Slovakia and Bulgaria have been shut down (WNA, 2009), these trends illustrate increased plant availability in the past decades (see Figure 4 below) and increases in 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 1/4 to 1/3 is removed annually as spent 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) 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).

What are the main developments concerning the spent fuel reprocessing and storage of high level nuclear waste in Europe?

Indicative specifications for different reactor types

Note: Indicative specifications for different reactor types

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 European reprocessing facilities to the global total number of facilities (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 impact 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 will require 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.. As of 1^st January 2007, 22,650 metric tonnes of spent fuel have been treated at La Hague (Areva, 2007). Most reprocessed uranium (RepU) is not reused but stored on site or exported to Russia. An estimated total of 20 ktonnes of RepU is stored in France, produced by the different La Hague and the older Marcoule plants. Another 10 ktonnes has also purportedly been exported to Russia for permanent storage[1] (Burnie, 2007)

• 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. Lower level radioactive wastes are commonly stored in surface disposal sites.

What are the most recent developments concerning the nuclear reactor design and what are the likely consequences on the environment and human health?

• 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.
• 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. 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. 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% less than for current Generation II reactors.

What is the cost structure of the nuclear power projects?

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: Cost estimates on final disposal (million euros)

Data source:

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

Downloads and more info

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. 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.

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 in table above.

Nuclear power being a base load power production technology competes primarily with coal and large scale hydropower. Compared to coal a new NPP 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 recent study conducted by DG Environment on “Environmental harmful subsidies” (EC, 2009) shows for instance that in Germany, the key subsidy specific to the decommissioning of nuclear-power facilities is a reduction in tax liabilities stemming from collection of decommissioning funds. Also the nuclear fuel is not taxed. The total size of this tax benefit is estimated at 5.6 billion EUR per year or 175 million EUR per nuclear power plant.

Indicator definition

The indicator measures spent nuclear fuel arising from nuclear electricity production in the Member States that had nuclear powered electricity production capacity between 1990 and 2009 (data for Bulgaria missing). It provides an indication of the situation of radioactive waste accumulation and storage.

Original measurement units:
                Spent fuel: tonnes of heavy metal (tHM)
                Nuclear electricity generation: terawatt hours (TWh)

According to the World Energy Council http://www.worldenergy.org nuclear waste falls into the following four broad categories:

• Very low-level waste (VLLW) contains negligible amounts of radioactivity, which can, depending on the clearance level, be disposed of in a dedicated surface site or with domestic refuse.

• Low-level waste (LLW) contains small amounts of radioactivity and negligible amounts of long-lived waste.

• Intermediate-level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts of radioactivity and does require shielding in the form of lead, concrete or water. It is further categorised into short-lived and long-lived. The former is dealt with in a similar way to LLW and the latter to HLW.

• High-level waste (HLW) is highly radioactive, contains long-lived radioactivity and generates a considerable amount of heat.

HLW accounts for 10% by volume of radioactive waste generated and contains about 99% of the total radioactivity. This includes fission products and spent fuel.

Units

 Spent fuel: tonnes of heavy metal (tHM)
 Nuclear electricity generation: terawatt hours (TWh)

Policy context and targets

Context description

Decisions concerning the use of nuclear energy are up to Member States: the principle of subsidiary grants member states autonomy in deciding their energy mix.

Public concern about environmental and safety considerations has led to plans to phase out nuclear power in certain Member States (such as Germany, Spain, Sweden and Belgium), with some others either declaring or considering moratoria on the building of new nuclear plants. On 30^th May 2011, the German government decided to stand by the previous government’s plans to close all reactors by 2022 (WNA 2011). Italy completely phased-out nuclear power following a referendum in 1987. In Sweden the Barseback nuclear power plant closed in 2005. Sweden is the only country to have a tax discriminating against nuclear power.

On the other hand, some Member States are currently discussing the construction of new nuclear capacity. In Finland (Olikiluoto-3) and France (Flamanville-3), the process of building additional capacity, based on new nuclear designs such as the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), is ongoing. Both are planned to start-up in 2012. Furthermore, in Romania, the Cernavoda 2 reactor was completed in 2007. Meanwhile, several countries, like the Netherlands, Belgium and Hungary have decided to extend the life-time of existing NPPs. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland agreed in 2007 on the construction of a NPP (Visaginas) in Lithuania. The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor is expected to operate from 2020. Bulgaria also plans to build two new reactors (Belene 1 and 2) and there has been strong governmental support for nuclear. The most up to date information on NPPs can be found in the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) of the IAEA (IAEA, 2009).

On June 25^th 2009 the European Council adopted Directive for setting up a Community framework for nuclear safety (COM(2008) 790 final). The Directive is a major step for achieving a common legal framework and a strong safety culture in Europe.

Main policy documents

• EURATOM Treaty (1957)

The Euratom Treaty helps to pool knowledge, infrastructure and funding of nuclear energy. It ensures the security of atomic energy supply within the framework of a centralised monitoring system.

• Council Directive (Euratom) setting up a Community framework for nuclear safety; COM(2008) 790 final

Provides binding legal force to the main international nuclear safety standards (IAEA Safety Fundamentals and the Convention on Nuclear Safety). The Directive also reinforces the independence and resources of the national competent regulatory authorities.

• Council Directive establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations (2009)

 National responsibility of Member States for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations is the fundamental principle on which nuclear safety regulation has been developed at the international level, as endorsed by the Convention on Nuclear Safety. That principle of national responsibility, as well as the principle of prime responsibility of the licence holder for the nuclear safety of a nuclear installation under the supervision of its national competent regulatory authority, should be enhanced and the role and independence of the competent regulatory authorities should be reinforced by this Directive.

• IAEA Safety Standards, Fundamental Safety Principles, No. SF-1 (2006)

States the fundamental safety objective as being to protect people and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Ten safety principles are stated and their intent and purpose are briefly explained. The safety objective and the ten safety principles provide the grounds for establishing requirements and measures for the protection of people and the environment against radiation risks, and for the safety of facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks.

• IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety (1994)

Achieve and maintain a high level of nuclear safety worldwide through the enhancement of national measures and international co-operation including, where appropriate, safety-related technical co-operation; to establish and maintain effective defences in nuclear installations against potential radiological hazards in order to protect individuals, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation from such installations; to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences should they occur.

• European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) (2010).

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.

Targets

No targets have been specified

Related policy documents

• COM(2008) 790
  Council Directive (Euratom) setting up a Community framework for nuclear safety
• EURATOM Treaty (1957)
• IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety
• IAEA Safety Standards, Fundamental Safety Principles, No. SF-1 (2006)
   

Methodology

Methodology for indicator calculation

Average annual rate of growth calculated using: [(last year / base year) ^ (1 / number of years) - 1]*100

Methodology for gap filling

No methodology for gap filling has been specified. Probably this info has been added together with indicator calculation.

Methodology references

No methodology references available.

Uncertainties

Methodology uncertainty

Data sets uncertainty

Data on spent fuel arisings have been compiled by the OECD using data from member Governments. This is a consistent ongoing process that is updated annually. However, no information is available for Bulgaria. During 2008 and 2009, no data was available for Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden, which decreases the overall accuracy of the indicator. The use of spent fuel arisings as a proxy for overall radioactive waste is itself slightly uncertain because of the various inconsistencies in classification of radioactive waste between Member States, although it does provide a ‘reliable representation of the production of radioactive waste situation and its evolution over time’ (OECD, 1993).

Rationale uncertainty

No uncertainty has been specified