Nuclear Power:

Benefits and Risks

H-Holger Rogner
Head, Planning & Economic Studies Section (PESS)
Department of Nuclear Energy

IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
Technology options towards a
sustainable energy future

Improved Energy Efficiency throughout the

energy system

More Renewable Energy

Advanced Energy Technologies:

clean fossil fuel technologies including carbon
capture & storage (CCS)

next generation nuclear technologies

IAEA
Nuclear power and sustainable
development – A controversial issue?

Exhaustive debate at CSD-9

Agreement to disagree on nuclear’s role in
sustainable development

But unanimous agreement that choice
belongs to countries
NOTE

There is no technology without risks and
interaction with the environment.

Do not discuss a particular technology in
isolation.

Compare a particular technology with
alternatives in a system context and life
IAEA
cycle (LCA) basis.
Pro: Nuclear & Sustainability

Brundtland1) about keeping
options open

Expands electricity
supplies (“connecting the
unconnected”)

Reduces harmful emissions

Puts uranium to productive use

Increases human & technological capital

Ahead in internalising externalities
1) IAEA that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
development
future generations to meet their own needs
Contra: Nuclear & Sustainability

No long-term
solution to waste

Nuclear weapons
proliferation & WIPP
security

Safety: nuclear risks are excessive

Transboundary consequences,
decommissioning & transport

Too expensive
IAEA
 Economics – Nuclear power

Advantages But…

Nuclear power plants
High upfront capital costs

are cheap to operate can be difficult to finance

Stable & predictable
Sensitive to interest rates
generating costs

Long lead times (planning,

Long life time construction, etc)

Supply security
Long payback periods
(insurance premium)

Regulatory/policy/market

Low external costs (so risks
far no credit applied)

IAEA
Range of levelized generating costs of
new electricity generating capacities
Solar PV 188

Offshore wind

Onshore wind

Hydropower

Oil/oil products

Natural gas

Coal

Nuclear

0 5 10 15 20 25
US$/MWh
IAEA
Source: Adapted from eight recent studies
Externalities of different electricity
generating options
Air pollution (PM10) and other impacts

HIGH Existing coal

Biomass technologies
technologies no gas cleaning

Nuclear Natural gas New coal

power technologies technologies
LOW
Wind

LOW HIGH
IAEA Greenhouse gas impacts
Source: EU-EUR 20198, 2003
Cost structures of different generating
options
100% uranium
90%

80%

70%

60%
Fuel
50% O&M
40%
Capital

30%

20%

10%

0%
IAEANuclear Coal Natural gas
Impact of a doubling of resource prices

80
Base costs
70
Double resource costs
60
US$ per MWh

50

40

30

20

10

0
IAEA Nuclear Coal Natural gas
Fuel as a percentage of marginal
generating costs USA - 2005

26%
Fuel
O&M

78%
94% 91%

74%

22%
6% 9%

Nuclear Coal Gas Oil

IAEA
Source: Global Energy Decisions
Updated: 6/06
 Environment – Nuclear power

Advantages But…

Low pollution
No final waste

emissions repository in operation

Small land
High toxicity
requirements
Needs to be isolated for

Small fuel & waste long time periods
volumes
Potential burden to

Wastes are managed future generations

Proven intermediary
storage

IAEA
 Mitigation – Role of nuclear power

Life cycle GHG emissions of different electricity generating options

1 800 [8] 180

[4]
1 600 160 Standard deviation
a Mean
1 400 [12] 140 Min - Max
[10]
1 200 120 [sample size]

gCO2-eq
gCO2-eq

[8]
1 000 100
[16]
800 80 [13]

600 60

400 40 [16]
[15] [15]
[8]
200 20

0 0
lignite coal oil gas CCS hydro nuclear wind solar bio- storage
PV mass
Nuclear power: Very low lifetime GHG emissions make
IAEA
the technology a potent climate change mitigation option
Range of carbon dioxide reduction costs for
electricity technologies
US$/t CO2
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Supercritical Coal

Geothermal

Nuclear

Large Hydro
Biomass Steam
Wind

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

Small Hydro

CCS
Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Solar Thermal

Solar PV
280 - 465

IAEA
Note: This graph is for illustrative purposes only, actual costs are site specific Source: World Bank
Impact of CO2 penalty on
competitiveness of nuclear power
Comparative Generating Costs Based on Low
Discount Rate
9
8
7
nuclear high
US cents per kWh

6
5
nuclear low
4
3
2
1
0
CCGT Coal steam IGCC

No carbon price Carbon price $10/tCO2

Carbon price $20/tCO2 Carbon price $30/tCO2

A relatively modest carbon penalty would significantly improve the

IAEA ability of nuclear to compete against gas & coal
Source: IEA, 2006
Nuclear Fuel:
Small volumes, high energy contents

1 pellet produces
the energy of 1.5
tonnes of coal

Each pellet
produces 5000
kWh

IAEA
Wastes in fuel preparation and plant
operation

Million tonnes
per GWe yearly

0.5
Flue gas desulphurization
Ash
0.4
Gas sweetening
Radioactive (HLW)
0.3
Toxic materials

0.2

0.1

0
Coal Oil Natural Wood Nuclear Solar
gas PV

IAEA
Source: IAEA, 1997
Geological nuclear waste disposal

NATURAL BARRIERS
Stable rock around the repository
Stable groundwater in the rocks
Retention, dispersion and dilution processes in the rock
Dispersion and dilution processes in the biosphere Seals

ENGINEERED BARRIERS
Solid waste material Access
Waste Waste containers
Buffer and backfill materials shafts or
Container Buffer Seals tunnels
or
backfill
Disposal tunnels or
IAEA caverns
 % of electricity from nuclear power
FR
L A

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
SL IT NC
O U EH
VA A
K NIA
BE RE
L P.

IAEA
SW GIU
E M
UK DE
France 78%

BU RA N
LG INE
AR A R
KO M IA
RE SLO EN
A, VE I A
RE N
P IA
Belgium 54%

SW HU . O
IT NG F
ZE AR
G RL Y
E A
CZ RM ND
EC A
H NY
R
Rep. Korea 40%

JA EP.
FI P A
TA NL N
IW AN
AN SP D
, C AI N
H
IN
A
US
Switzerland 37%

A
Japan 30%

RU UK
CA SS
IA
USA 19%

RO NAD
AR M A
G AN
EN I A
SO T
UT ME INA
NE H X
TH AF ICO
ER RI
L A CA
Russia 16%

N
BR DS
Nuclear share of electricity (2006)

PA A
KI ZIL
ST
A
S. Africa 4%

IN N
D
CH IA
IN
A
China 2%
Structure of global electricity supply
Global electricity
Hydro
16.0% generation in 2005:
18,235 TWh
Renewables
2.2%
Coal
40.3%

Nuclear
15.2%

Natural gas Oil

IAEA 19.7% 6.6%
Structure of OECD North America electricity
supply
Biomass
1.6%
Electricity generation
Other Ren
Hydro
0.8% in 2005: 5,128 TWh
12.9%

Coal
Nuclear 44.7%
17.8%

Gas
IAEA 17.6% Oil
4.5%
Structure of Latin American electricity supply

Other Ren Electricity generation

0.2%
Coal
in 2005: 905 TWh
Biomass 3.4% Oil
2.1% 9.3%

Gas
14.7%

Nuclear
1.9%

Hydro
IAEA 68.4%
Nuclear power today:
On 1 January 2008, 439 nuclear power plants
(NPPs) operated in 30 countries worldwide, with
a total installed capacity of 371 900 MWe.
400

350 “Where does

nuclear power go
300
from here?”
GWe installed

250

200

150

100

50

IAEA
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation:

Energy efficiency improvements

Economic restructuring

Significant drop in electricity demand

Excess generating capacity

Electricity market liberalization &
privatization

Oil (traded fossil energy) price collapse

Advent of the high-efficient cheap gas
turbine technology (GTCC)
IAEA
Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation:

Little regard for supply security

Regulatory interventions after Three Mile
Island

High interest rates

Chernobyl

Break up of the Soviet Union
All the above together: New nuclear build out of
favour (poor economics and lack of demand)
IAEA
Development of regional nuclear
generating capacities
140 140

120
North America 120
Western Europe
100 100

80 80
GWe

GWe
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

90 90
80 Eastern Europe & CIS 80
Asia
70 70
60 60
GWe

50 50
GWe

40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1965
IAEA
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Development of regional nuclear
generating capacities

3.0 140
Latin America 120
OEA
2.5
100
2.0

GWe
GWe

80
1.5
60
1.0
40
0.5 20

0.0 0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

IAEA
Annual Incremental Nuclear Capacity Additions
and Total Nuclear Electricity Generation

45 2,700

Total nuclear power generation in TWh

Incremental nuclear power capacity

40 2,400

35 2,100
additions in GW e

30 1,800

25 1,500

20 1,200

15 900

10 600

5 300

0 0

-5 -300
1974

1978

2004
1966
1968
1970
1972

1976

1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002

2006
IAEA
 Global energy availability factor of
nuclear power plants
90
Equivalent to the construction
of 34 NPPs of 1,000 MW each
85
82.2 81.9 82.6
81.1 81.1
80.4
79.6 79.6
80 78.4
Percent

75.4 75.7
73.7 74.3
75
71.3 71.2
70.1 70.5
70
66.8

65

60
1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
IAEA
Summary of nuclear power today:

A proven technology that provides clean
electricity at predictable and competitive costs

Provides 15% of global electricity supply

More the 13,000 years of accumulated reactor
experience

Operation of nuclear installations have safety
as highest priority

Lessons learned from past mistakes or
accidents have been acted on

Nuclear takes full responsibility its waste
IAEA
Summary of nuclear power today:

The industry is alive and vibrant

Market liberalization served as a wake-up call

The industry is heavily engaged in innovation

The political climate towards the technology
has begun to change in many countries

All credible long-term (>> 2030) demand &
supply projections show steep increases in
nuclear power

IAEA
Summary of nuclear power today:

But most importantly the global energy
map today is distinctly different from the
situation of the mid 1980s

Fossil fuel prices

Energy security

Climate change considerations

Demand

Aging generating capacities
IAEA
 Rising expectations

Upwardly revised nuclear 430

Projection of nuclear power for 2030

projections 420
410
400

GWe installed

Plans for expansion in 390
380
370
a number of countries 360
350

Entry into force of the 340

330
320
Kyoto Protocol 2002 2004
Year of projection (WEO, IEA)
2006

Proven technology that provides clean electricity

at predictable and competitive costs

The industry’s safety record is second to none

Increasingly favorable commentary from both
politicians
IAEA and the media
Updated nuclear power projections

IAEA
IAEA: Evolution of low projection

800

700

600
history
2001
500 2002
GW(e)

2003
400 2004
2005
300 2006
2007
2008
200

100

0
IAEA
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
IAEA: Evolution of high projection

800

700

600
history
2001
500 2002
GW(e)

2003
400 2004
2005
300 2006
2007
2008
200

100

0
IAEA
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Nuclear power around the globe

Countries with operating NPPs

Countries with operating NPPs &
plants under construction
Countries with a phase out policy

Countries with operating NPPs

IAEA
One size does not fit all

Countries differ with respect to

energy demand growth

alternatives

financing options

weighing/preferences

accident risks (nuclear, mining, oil spills, LNG…), cheap
electricity, air pollution, jobs, import dependence,
climate change

All countries use a mix. All are different.

Nuclear power per se is not “the solution” to
the world’s energy problems and climate
change but

It surely can be an integral part of the solution!
IAEA
IAEA

…atoms for peace.

IAEA
The Oklo Mine had a fission reaction…
2 Billion Years Ago

IAEA
Scientific American, July 1976
The Oklo Mine fission reaction…

• 15 natural reactors
discovered

• 16,000 MW-years

• Used 5 tons uranium

• 5 tonnes waste

• 1.5 tonnes of Pu

Scientific American, July 1976

IAEA
Relative radiotoxicity
Radio-toxicity of spent nuclear fuel

Spent fuel
(Pu + MA + FP)

Natural uranium ore

MA + FP
FP

Time (years)
IAEA
 Time lines…..

INNOVATION:
Relative radiotoxicity

Burning of HLW in Fast

Spent fuel
(Pu + MA + FP)
Reactor in Reducing
Radio Toxicity
Natural uranium ore

MA + FP
FP
Plutonium and minor
Time (years) actinides are
responsible for most
of the long term
hazards

IAEA
Do not drive into the future by
looking in the rear view mirror:

Yesterday’s technology is not tomorrow's

Innovation ongoing

With each new investment cycle technology

tends to get better

IAEA
 Innovation: Nuclear power generation
Generation I

Generation II
Early prototype
reactors Generation III
Commercial
power reactors Generation III+
Advanced LWRs &
HWRs
Evolutionary designs Generation IV
with improved
economics and
– Shippingport safety for near-term
– Dresden, Fermi I – LWR-PWR, deployment
– Magnox BWR
– AP1000, ABWR, – Highly economical
– CANDU
System 80+ – Enhanced safety
– VVER/RBMK
– ACR – Minimal waste
– EPR – Proliferation
resistant

Gen III Gen III+ Gen IV

1950 IAEA 1970

1960 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Innovation: AP 1000

IAEA
Integral Primary System Reactor (IRIS)

X X
X
X XX
X
X
X

Simplifies design by eliminating loop piping and external
components.

Enhances safety by eliminating major classes of
accidents.

Compact containment (2 times less power but 9 times
less volume, small footprint) enhances economics and
IAEA
security.
 Nuclear weapons proliferation:

The genie is out of the bottle

Preventing the misuse of nuclear materials for
non-peaceful purposes needs special
attention

It is an area where IAEA has a strict mandate

Non-proliferation is a political problem

NPT regimes needs strengthening

IAEA
Nonproliferation and Nuclear Security

Nuclear Nonproliferation: To curb and

prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,
their delivery means, and related materials
and technologies.
Owner Controlled Protected Area
Area Double Fence

Nuclear Security: The prevention and Protected

Area
detection of and response to theft,
sabotage, unauthorized access, illegal
transfer or other malicious acts involving Vital Area

nuclear material, other radioactive Access Control Points

substances, or their associated facilities.

IAEA
Elements of nuclear safety:
Defense in Depth

IAEA
Source: NEA
A history of mistaken forecasts

“The energy produced by breaking down

the atom is a very poor kind of thing.
Anyone who expects a source of power
from the transformations of these atoms is
talking moonshine.”

Lord Ernest Rutherford

1933

IAEA
A history of mistaken forecasts

“It is not too much to expect that our

children will enjoy in their homes [nuclear
generated] electrical energy too cheap to
meter.”

Lewis Strauss
Chairman
US Atomic Energy Commission
1954

IAEA
Nuclear Energy and Society

Bjorn Wahlström
IAEA
Nuclear power projections

22,000
20,000
18,000 Maximum mean
global temperature
16,000
change < 2oC
14,000
12,000
TWh

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2005 IAEA IEA WETO IEA WETO
2030 2050
IAEA
Typical nuclear electricity generation
cost breakdown
Decommissioning
1-5%

O&M
20%
5% Uranium

1% Conversion
Investment Fuel cycle
60% 20%

6% Enrichment

3% Fuel fabrication

IAEA
5% Back-end activities Source: NEA
 Safety – Nuclear power

Reality Perception

Safety is an integral part
of plant design &
Nuclear power is
operation dangerous

Nuclear power has an
It can never be made

excellent safety record safe

Lessons learned from
Safe is not safe enough

past accidents
Nuclear plants are

Safety culture, peer atomic bombs
reviews & best practices
No public acceptance

No room for
complacency
IAEA
Nuclear power safety

Safety is a dynamic concept

Upgrading of older generation reactors & life
time extensions

Advanced reactor designs with inherent
safety features

The impact of these ongoing efforts are:
 Improved availability worldwide
 Lower radiation doses to plant personnel and
fewer unplanned stoppages

IAEA
Typical barriers confining radioactive
materials

IAEA
Source: NEA
Unplanned scrams per 7000 hours
critical

2
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
1.0
0.8 0.9
0.6 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.5
0.2
0
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Units
reporting 369 404 417 428 419 405 428 425 429
unplanned scrams per 7000 hours critical
IAEA
Source: WANO 2006 Performance Indicators
Industrial accidents at NPPs per
200,000 person-hours worked
1.2

1 1.04

0.8

0.6
0.58
0.4
0.33 0.33 0.31
0.2 0.28 0.26
0.21 0.24

0
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Stations
169 192 203 200 203 201 210 208 209
reporting
Industrial accidents per

IAEA
Source: WANO 2006 Performance Indicators