Such as?
Many are quick to bring up Fukushima but let's not forget that reactor design was over 40 years old, the reactors designed today are far, far safer. The VVER-1000 reactors at Kudankulam are amongst the safest in the world with both active and passive cooling that makes them immune to the kind of issues the Fukushima plant encountered. India's power plants being built today are all cutting edge with the very latest in safety features, any talk of them being unsafe is pure hogwash and intellectually dishonest.
I am not doubting tech the tech or capabilities of India scientists but I am not sold on nuclear energy. The costs and risks out weigh the benefits.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf
The
Future of
Nuclear
Power
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY MIT STUDY
Copyright © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved.
ISBN 0-615-12420-8
iii
Study Participants
PROFESSOR STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE
Department of Political Science, MIT
PROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH — CO CHAIR
InstituteProfessor
Department of Chemistry, MIT
PROFESSOR EMERITUS MICHAEL DRISCOLL
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
PROFESSOR PAUL E. GRAY
President Emeritus, MIT
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
PROFESSOR JOHN P. HOLDREN
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government, and
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University.
PROFESSOR PAUL L. JOSKOW
Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management
Department of Economics and Sloan School of Management, MIT
Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research
PROFESSOR RICHARD K. LESTER
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
Director, MIT Industrial Performance Center
PROFESSOR ERNEST J. MONIZ — CO CHAIR
Department of Physics, MIT
Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
PROFESSOR NEIL E. TODREAS
Korea Electric Power Company Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT
ERIC S. BECKJORD
Executive Director
Student Research Assistants
Nathan Hottle
Christopher Jones
Etienne Parent
iv MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
MIT Nuclear Energy Study Advisory
Committee Members
PHIL SHARP, CHAIR
Former member of Congress
JOHN AHEARNE
Sigma Xi and Duke University
THOMAS B. COCHRAN
National Resources Defense Council
E. LINN DRAPER, JR.
Chairman, CEO, and President, American Electric Power
TED GREENWOOD
Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
JOHN J. MACWILLIAMS
Partner, The Tremont Group, LLC
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS
President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
ZACK T. PATE
Chairman Emeritus
World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO)
JOHN PODESTA
Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
JOHN H. SUNUNU
JHS Associates, Ltd.
MASON WILLRICH
Consultant
v
Table of Contents
Forward and Acknowledgments vii
Executive Summary ix
Chapter 1 The Future of Nuclear Power — Overview and Conclusions 1
Chapter 2 Background and Purpose of the Study 17
Chapter 3 Outline of the Study 25
Chapter 4 Fuel Cycles 29
Chapter 5 Nuclear Power Economics 37
Chapter 6 Safety 47
Chapter 7 Spent Fuel/High-Level Waste Management 53
Chapter 8 Nonproliferation 65
Chapter 9 Public Attitudes and Public Understanding 71
Chapter 10 Recommended Measures to Resolve Uncertainty
About the Economics of Nuclear Power 77
Chapter 11 Recommendations Bearing on Safety,Waste Management,
and Proliferation 85
Chapter 12 Recommended Analysis, Research,Development and
Demonstration Program 91
Glossary of Technical Terms 95
APPENDICES
Appendix to Chapter 1: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Primer 101
Appendix to Chapter 2: Nuclear Deployment Scenario 109
Appendix to Chapter 4: Fuel Cycle Calculations 117
Appendix to Chapter 5: Economics 131
Appendix to Chapter 7:Waste Management 157
Appendix to Chapter 9: Public Attitudes 167
vii
We decided to study the future of nuclear power
because we believe this technology, despite the
challenges it faces, is an important option for
the United States and the world to meet future
energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other atmospheric pollutants. Other
options include increased efficiency, renewables,
and sequestration. We believe that all options
should be preserved as nations develop strategies
that provide energy while meeting important
environmental challenges. The nuclear
power option will only be exercised, however, if
the technology demonstrates better economics,
improved safety, successful waste management,
and low proliferation risk, and if public policies
place a significant value on electricity production
that does not produce CO2. Our study identifies
the issues facing nuclear power and what
might be done to overcome them.
Our audience is government, industry, and academic
leaders with an interest in the management
of the interrelated set of technical, economic,
environmental, and political issues that
must be addressed if large-scale deployment of
new nuclear power generating facilities is to
remain an option for providing a significant
fraction of electricity supply in the middle of
this century. We trust that our analysis and
arguments will stimulate constructive dialogue
about the way forward.
This study also reflects our conviction that the
MIT community is well equipped to carry out
interdisciplinary studies intended to shed light
on complex socio-technical issues that will have
a major impact on our economy and society.
Nuclear power is but one example; we hope to
encourage and participate in future studies with
a similar purpose.
We acknowledge generous financial support
from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and from
MIT’s Office of the Provost and Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment.
Forward and Acknowledgments
ix
STUDY CONTEXT
Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change
dramatically, energy production and use will
contribute to global warming through largescale
greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of
billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon
dioxide. Nuclear power could be one
option for reducing carbon emissions. At present,
however, this is unlikely: nuclear power
faces stagnation and decline.
This study analyzes what would be required to
retain nuclear power as a significant option for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting
growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis
is guided by a global growth scenario that
would expand current worldwide nuclear generating
capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion
watts, by the year 2050. Such a deployment
would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions
annually from coal plants, about 25% of
the increment in carbon emissions otherwise
expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This
study also recommends changes in government
policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively
near term to retain an option for such an
outcome.
We did not analyze other options for reducing
carbon emissions — renewable energy sources,
carbon sequestration, and increased energy efficiency
— and therefore reach no conclusions
about priorities among these efforts and
nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a
mistake to exclude any of these four options at
this time.
STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,
four critical problems must be overcome:
Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power
is not now cost competitive with coal and
natural gas.However, plausible reductions by
industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance
costs, and construction time could
reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if
enacted by government, can give nuclear
power a cost advantage.
Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a
very low risk of serious accidents, but “best
practices” in construction and operation are
essential.We know little about the safety of the
overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.
Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible
but execution is yet to be demonstrated
or certain. A convincing case has not been
made that the long-term waste management
benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles
involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed
by the short-term risks and costs.
Improvement in the open, once through fuel
cycle may offer waste management benefits
as large as those claimed for the more expensive
closed fuel cycles.
Proliferation. The current international safeguards
regime is inadequate to meet the
security challenges of the expanded nuclear
deployment contemplated in the global
growth scenario. The reprocessing system
now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that
involves separation and recycling of plutonium
presents unwarranted proliferation risks.
Executive Summary
x MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
We conclude that, over at least the next 50
years, the best choice to meet these challenges
is the open, once-through fuel cycle. We judge
that there are adequate uranium resources
available at reasonable cost to support this
choice under a global growth scenario.
Public acceptance will also be critical to expansion
of nuclear power. Our survey results show
that the public does not yet see nuclear power as
a way to address global warming, suggesting
that further public education may be necessary.
SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS
We support the Department of Energy
(DOE) 2010 initiative to reduce costs
through new design certification, site banking,
and combined construction and operation
licenses.
The government should also share “first
mover” costs for a limited number of power
plants that represent safety-enhancing evolutionary
reactor design.We propose a production
tax credit for up to $200/kWe of the
plant’s construction cost. This mechanism
creates a strong incentive to complete and
operate the plant and the mechanism is
extendable to other carbon-free technologies.
The government actions we recommend
aim to challenge the industry to demonstrate
the cost reductions claimed for new reactor
construction, with industry assuming the
risks and benefits beyond first- mover costs.
Federal or state portfolio standards should
include incremental nuclear power capacity
as a carbon free source.
The DOE should broaden its long-term
waste R&D program, to include improved
engineered barriers, investigation of alternative
geological environments, and deep bore
hole disposal. A system of central facilities to
store spent fuel for many decades prior to
geologic disposal should be an integral part
of the waste management strategy. The U.S.
should encourage greater harmonization of
international standards and regulations for
waste transportation, storage, and disposal.
The International Atomic Energy Agency
should have authority to inspect all suspect
facilities (implement the Additional
Protocol) and should develop a worldwide
system for materials protection, control, and
accountability that goes beyond accounting,
reporting, and periodic inspections. The U.S.
should monitor and influence developments
in a broad range of enrichment technologies.
The DOE R&D program should be realigned
to focus on the open, once-through fuel
cycle. It should also conduct an international
uranium resource assessment; establish a
large
nuclear system analysis, modeling, and
simulation project, including collection of
engineering data, to assess alternative nuclear
fuel cycle deployments relative to the four
critical challenges; and halt development and
demonstration of advanced fuel cycles or
reactors until the results of the nuclear system
analysis project are available.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 1
The generation of electricity from fossil fuels, notably natural gas and coal, is
a major and growing contributor to the emission of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse
gas that contributes significantly to global warming.We share the scientific
consensus that these emissions must be reduced and believe that the
U.S. will eventually join with other nations in the effort to do so.
At least for the next few decades, there are only a few realistic options for
reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation:
increase efficiency in electricity generation and use;
expand use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and
geothermal;
capture carbon dioxide emissions at fossil-fueled (especially coal) electric
generating plants and permanently sequester the carbon; and
increase use of nuclear power.
The goal of this interdisciplinary MIT study is not to predict which of these
options will prevail or to argue for their comparative advantages. In
our view,
it is likely that we shall need all of these options and accordingly it would be a
mistake at this time to exclude any of these four options from an overall carbon
emissions management strategy. Rather we seek to explore and evaluate actions
that could be taken to maintain nuclear power as one of the significant
options for meeting future world energy needs at low cost and in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
In 2002, nuclear power supplied 20% of United
States and 17% of world electricity consumption.
Experts project worldwide electricity consumption
will increase substantially in the coming
decades, especially in the developing world,
accompanying economic growth and social
progress. However, official forecasts call for a
mere 5% increase in nuclear electricity generating capacity worldwide by
2020 (and even this is questionable), while electricity use could grow by as
CHAPTER 1 — THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER —
OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
In our view, it would be a mistake
at this time to exclude any of these
four options from an overall carbon
emissions management strategy.
2 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
much as 75%. These projections entail little new nuclear plant construction
and reflect both economic considerations and growing anti-nuclear sentiment
in key countries. The limited prospects for nuclear power today are attributable,
ultimately, to four unresolved problems:
Costs: nuclear power has higher overall lifetime costs compared to natural gas
with combined cycle turbine technology (CCGT) and coal, at least in the
absence of a carbon tax or an equivalent “cap and trade” mechanism for
reducing carbon emissions;
Safety: nuclear power has perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health
effects, heightened by the 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl reactor
accidents, but also by accidents at fuel cycle facilities in the United
States, Russia, and Japan. There is also growing concern about the safe and
secure transportation of nuclear materials and the security of nuclear facilities
from terrorist attack;
Proliferation: nuclear power entails potential security risks, notably the possible
misuse of commercial or associated nuclear facilities and operations to
acquire technology or materials as a precursor to the acquisition of a
nuclear weapons capability. Fuel cycles that involve the chemical reprocessing
of spent fuel to separate weapons-usable plutonium and uranium
enrichment technologies are of special concern, especially as nuclear power
spreads around the world;
Waste: nuclear power has unresolved challenges in long-term management of
radioactive wastes. The United States and other countries have yet to implement
final disposition of spent fuel or high level radioactive waste streams
created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. Since these radioactive
wastes present some danger to present and future generations, the public
and its elected representatives, as well as prospective investors in nuclear
power plants, properly expect continuing and substantial progress towards
solution to the waste disposal problem. Successful operation of the planned
disposal facility at Yucca Mountain would ease, but not solve, the waste
issue for the U.S. and other countries if nuclear power expands substantially.
We believe the nuclear option should be
retained, precisely because it is an
important carbon-free source of power.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 3
Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice.Moreover,
unlike other energy technologies, nuclear power requires significant government
involvement because of safety, proliferation, and waste concerns. If in
the future carbon dioxide emissions carry a significant “price,” however,
nuclear energy could be an important — indeed vital — option for generating
electricity.We do not know whether this will occur. But
we believe the
nuclear option should be retained, precisely because it is an important carbonfree
source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution to
future electricity supply.
To preserve the nuclear option for the future requires overcoming the four
challenges described above—costs, safety, proliferation, and wastes. These
challenges will escalate if a significant number of new nuclear generating
plants are built in a growing number of countries. The effort to overcome
these challenges, however, is justified only if nuclear power can potentially
contribute significantly to reducing global warming, which entails major
expansion of nuclear power. In effect, preserving the nuclear option for the
future means planning for growth, as well as for a future in which nuclear
energy is a competitive, safer, and more secure source of power.
To explore these issues, our study postulates a
global growth scenario that by
mid-century would see 1000 to 1500 reactors of 1000 megawatt-electric
(MWe) capacity each deployed worldwide, compared to a capacity equivalent
to 366 such reactors now in service. Nuclear power expansion on this scale
requires U.S. leadership, continued commitment by Japan,
Korea, and Taiwan, a renewal of European activity, and
wider deployment of nuclear power around the world. An
illustrative deployment of 1000 reactors, each 1000 MWe in
size, under this scenario is given in following table.
This scenario would displace a significant amount of carbon-
emitting fossil fuel generation. In 2002, carbon equivalent
emission from human activity was about 6,500 million
tonnes per year; these emissions will probably more than
double by 2050. The 1000 GWe of nuclear power postulated
here would avoid annually about 800 million tonnes of carbon
equivalent if the electricity generation displaced was
gas-fired and 1,800 million tonnes if the generation was
coal-fired, assuming no capture and sequestration of carbon
dioxide from combustion sources.
2000
PROJECTED 2050
GWe CAPACITY 2050
Total World
Developed world
U.S.
Europe & Canada
Developed East Asia
FSU
Developing world
China, India, Pakistan
Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico
Other developing countries
1,000
625
300
210
115
50
325
200
75
50
17%
23%
16%
2%
19%
29%
23%
11%
NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY
MARKET SHARE
REGION
Projected capacity comes from the global electricity demand scenario in Appendix 2,
which entails growth in global electricity consumption from 13.6 to 38.7 trillion kWhrs
from 2000 to 2050 (2.1% annual growth). The market share in 2050 is predicated on
85% capacity factor for nuclear power reactors. Note that China, India, and Pakistan
are nuclear weapons capable states. Other developing countries includes as leading
contributors Iran, South Africa, Egypt, Thailand, Philippines, and Vietnam.
Global Growth Scenario
4 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
FUEL CYCLE CHOICES
A critical factor for the future of an expanded nuclear power industry is the
choice of the fuel cycle — what type of fuel is used, what types of reactors
“burn” the fuel, and the method of disposal of the spent fuel. This choice
affects all four key problems that confront nuclear power — costs, safety, proliferation
risk, and waste disposal. For this study, we examined three representative
nuclear fuel cycle deployments:
conventional thermal reactors operating in a “oncethrough”
mode, in which discharged spent fuel is sent directly
to disposal;
thermal reactors with reprocessing in a “closed” fuel cycle,
which means that waste products are separated from unused
fissionable material that is re-cycled as fuel into reactors. This includes the
fuel cycle currently used in some countries in which plutonium is separated
from spent fuel, fabricated into a mixed plutonium and uranium oxide fuel,
and recycled to reactors for one pass1;
fast reactors2
with reprocessing in a balanced “closed” fuel cycle, which means
thermal reactors operated world-wide in “once-through” mode and a balanced
number of fast reactors that destroy the actinides separated from thermal
reactor spent fuel. The fast reactors, reprocessing, and fuel fabrication
facilities would be co-located in secure nuclear energy “parks” in industrial
countries.
Closed fuel cycles extend fuel supplies. The viability of the once-through
alternative in a global growth scenario depends upon the amount of uranium
resource that is available at economically attractive prices.
We believe that the
world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000
reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of deployment
over a 40 year lifetime of this fleet. This is an important foundation of our
study, based upon currently available information and the history of natural
resource supply.
The result of our detailed analysis of the relative merits of these representative
fuel cycles with respect to key evaluation criteria can be summarized as follows:
The once through cycle has advantages in cost, proliferation, and fuel cycle
safety, and is disadvantageous only in respect to long-term waste disposal; the
We believe that the world-wide supply
of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the
deployment of 1,000 reactors over the
next half century.
1. This fuel cycle is known as
Plutonium Recycle Mixed
Oxide, or PUREX/MOX.
2. A fast reactor more readily
breeds fissionable isotopespotential
fuel-because it
utilizes higher energy neutrons
that in turn create
more neutrons when
absorbed by fertile elements,
e.g. fissile Pu239 is
bred from neutron absorption
of U238 followed by
beta (electron) emission
from the nucleus.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 5
two closed cycles have clear advantages
only in long-term aspects of
waste disposal, and disadvantages in
cost, short-term waste issues, proliferation
risk, and fuel cycle safety. (See
Table.) Cost and waste criteria are
likely to be the most crucial for determining
nuclear power’s future.
We have not found, and based on
current knowledge do not believe it is
realistic to expect, that there are new
reactor and fuel cycle technologies
that simultaneously overcome the
problems of cost, safety, waste, and
proliferation.
Our analysis leads to a significant conclusion:
The once-through fuel cycle best
meets the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance. Closed fuel cycles
may have an advantage from the point of view of long-term waste disposal
and, if it ever becomes relevant, resource extension. But closed fuel cycles will
be more expensive than once-through cycles, until ore resources become very
scarce. This is unlikely to happen, even with significant growth in nuclear
power, until at least the second half of this century, and probably considerably
later still. Thus our most important recommendation is:
For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.
This recommendation implies a major re-ordering of priorities of the U.S.
Department of Energy nuclear R&D programs.
Fuel Cyc le Types and Ratings
ECONOMICS Reactor Fuel Cycle
Once
through
Closed
thermal
Closed
fast
× short term
– long term
– short term
+ long term
– short term
+ long term
SAFETY
+ means relatively advantageous;
× means relatively neutral;
– means relatively disadvantageous
This table indicates broadly the relative advantage and disadvantage among the different type of nuclear fuel cycles. It does not
indicate relative standing with respect to other electricity-generating technologies, where the criteria might be quite different
(for example, the nonproliferation criterion applies only to nuclear).
WASTE PROLIFERATION
+
–
–
+
–
–
×
×
+ to –
+
–
–
6 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR POWER
Expanded deployment of nuclear power requires public acceptance of this
energy source. Our review of survey results shows that a majority of
Americans and Europeans oppose building new nuclear power plants to meet
future energy needs. To understand why, we surveyed 1350 adults in the US
about their attitudes toward energy in general and nuclear power in particular.
Three important and unexpected results emerged from that survey:
The U.S. public’s attitudes are informed almost entirely by their perceptions
of the technology, rather than by politics or by demographics such as
income, education, and gender.
The U.S. public’s views on nuclear waste, safety, and costs are critical to their
judgments about the future deployment of this technology. Technological
improvements that lower costs and improve safety and waste problems can
increase public support substantially.
In the United States, people do not connect concern about global warming
with carbon-free nuclear power. There is no difference in support for building
more nuclear power plants between those who are very concerned about
global warming and those who are not. Public education may help improve
understanding about the link between global warming, fossil fuel usage, and
the need for low-carbon energy sources.
There are two implications of these findings for our study: first, the U.S. public
is unlikely to support nuclear power expansion without substantial
improvements in costs and technology. Second, the carbon-free character of
nuclear power, the major motivation for our study, does not appear to motivate
the U.S. general public to prefer expansion of the nuclear option.
The U.S. public is unlikely to support
nuclear power expansion without
substantial improvements in costs and
technology.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 7
ECONOMICS
Nuclear power will succeed in the long run only if it has a lower cost than
competing technologies. This is especially true as electricity markets become
progressively less subject to economic regulation in many parts of the world.
We constructed a model to evaluate the real cost of electricity from nuclear
power versus pulverized coal plants and natural gas combined cycle plants (at
various projected levels of real lifetime prices for natural gas), over their economic
lives. These technologies are most widely used today and, absent a carbon
tax or its equivalent, are less expensive than many
renewable technologies. Our “merchant” cost model uses
assumptions that commercial investors would be expected
to use today, with parameters based on actual experience
rather than engineering estimates of what might be achieved
under ideal conditions; it compares the constant or “levelized”
price of electricity over the life of a power plant that
would be necessary to cover all operating expenses and taxes
and provide an acceptable return to investors. The comparative
figures given below assume 85% capacity factor and a
40-year economic life for the nuclear plant, reflect economic
conditions in the U.S, and consider a range of projected
improvements in nuclear cost factors. (See Table.)
We judge the indicated cost improvements for nuclear power to be plausible,
but not proven. The model results make clear why electricity produced from
new nuclear power plants today is not competitive with electricity produced
from coal or natural gas-fueled CCGT plants with low or moderate gas prices,
unless
all cost improvements for nuclear power are realized. The cost comparison
becomes worse for nuclear if the capacity factor falls. It is also important
to emphasize that the nuclear cost structure is driven by high up-front capital
costs, while the natural gas cost driver is the fuel cost; coal lies in between
nuclear and natural gas with respect to both fuel and capital costs.
Nuclear does become more competitive by comparison if
the social cost of carbon emissions is internalized, for example
through a carbon tax or an equivalent “cap and trade”
system. Under the assumption that the costs of carbon
emissions are imposed, the accompanying table illustrates
the impact on the competitive costs for different power
sources, for emission costs in the range of $50 to $200/tonne
carbon. (See Table.) The ultimate cost will depend on both
societal choices (such as how much carbon dioxide emission
REAL LEVELIZED COST
Cents/kWe-hr
Nuclear (LWR)
+ Reduce construction cost 25%
+ Reduce construction time 5 to 4 years
+ Further reduce O&M to 13 mills/kWe-hr
+ Reduce cost of capital to gas/coal
Pulverized Coal
CCGTa (low gas prices, $3.77/MCF)
CCGT (moderate gas prices, $4.42/MCF)
CCGT (high gas prices, $6.72/MCF)
6.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.2
4.2
3.8
4.1
5.6
CASE
(Year 2002 $)
a. Gas costs reflect real, levelized acquisition cost per thousand cubic feet (MCF) over
the economic life of the project.
Comparative Power Costs
$50/tonne C
Coal
Gas (low)
Gas (moderate)
Gas (high)
5.4
4.3
4.7
6.1
CARBON TAX CASES
LEVELIZED ELECTRICITY
COST
cents/kWe-hr $100/tonne C
6.6
4.8
5.2
6.7
$200/tonne C
9.0
5.9
6.2
7.7
Power Costs with Carbon Taxes
8 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
to permit) and technology developments, such as the cost and feasibility of
large-scale carbon capture and long-term sequestration. Clearly, costs in the
range of $100 to $200/tonne C would significantly affect the relative cost
competitiveness of coal, natural gas, and nuclear electricity generation.
The carbon-free nature of nuclear power argues for government action to
encourage maintenance of the nuclear option, particularly in light of the regulatory
uncertainties facing the use of nuclear power and the unwillingness of
investors to bear the risk of introducing a new generation of nuclear facilities
with their high capital costs.
We recommend three actions to improve the economic viability of nuclear
power:
The government should cost share for site banking for a number of plants,
certification of new plant designs by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and combined construction and operating licenses for plants built immediately
or in the future; we support U.S. Department of Energy initiatives on
these subjects.
The government should recognize nuclear as carbon-free and include new
nuclear plants as an eligible option in any federal or state mandatory
renewable energy portfolio (i.e., a “carbon-free” portfolio) standard.
The government should provide a modest subsidy for a small set of “first
mover” commercial nuclear plants to demonstrate cost and regulatory feasibility
in the form of a production tax credit.
We propose a production tax credit of up to $200 per kWe of the construction
cost of up to 10 “first mover” plants. This benefit might be paid out at
about 1.7 cents per kWe-hr, over a year and a half of full-power plant operation.
We prefer the production tax credit mechanism because it offers the
greatest incentive for projects to be completed and because it can be extended
to other carbon free electricity technologies, for example renewables, (wind
currently enjoys a 1.7 cents per kWe-hr tax credit for ten years) and coal with
carbon capture and sequestration. The credit of 1.7 cents per kWe- hr is
equivalent to a credit of $70 per avoided metric ton of carbon if the electricity
were to have come from coal plants (or $160 from natural gas plants). Of
course, the carbon emission reduction would then continue without public
assistance for the plant life (perhaps 60 years for nuclear). If no new nuclear
plant is built, the government will not pay a subsidy.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 9
These actions will be effective in stimulating additional investment in nuclear generating
capacity if, and only if, the industry can live up to its own expectations of being able to
reduce considerably capital costs for new plants.
Advanced fuel cycles add considerably to the cost of nuclear electricity.We considered
reprocessing and one-pass fuel recycle with current technology, and found the fuel cost,
including waste storage and disposal charges, to be about 4.5 times the fuel cost of the
once-through cycle. Thus use of advanced fuel cycles imposes a significant economic
penalty on nuclear power.
SAFETY
We believe the safety standard for the global growth scenario should maintain today’s
standard of less than one serious release of radioactivity accident for 50 years from all
fuel cycle activity. This standard implies a ten-fold reduction in the expected frequency
of serious reactor core accidents, from 10-4/reactor year to 10-5/reactor year. This reactor
safety standard should be possible to achieve in new light water reactor plants that make
use of advanced safety designs. International adherence to such a standard is important,
because an accident in any country will influence public attitudes everywhere. The extent
to which nuclear facilities should be hardened to possible terrorist attack has yet to be
resolved.
We do not believe there is a nuclear plant design that is totally risk free. In part, this is
due to technical possibilities; in part due to workforce issues. Safe operation requires
effective regulation, a management committed to safety, and a skilled work force.
The high temperature gas-cooled reactor is an interesting candidate for reactor research
and development because there is already some experience with this system, although
not all of it is favorable. This reactor design offers safety advantages because the high
heat capacity of the core and fuel offers longer response times and precludes excessive
temperatures that might lead to release of fission products; it also has an advantage compared
to light water reactors in terms of proliferation resistance.
These actions will be effective in
stimulating additional investment in
nuclear generating capacity if, and only
if, the industry can live up to its own
expectations of being able to reduce
considerably overnight capital costs
for new plants.
10 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
Because of the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986,
a great deal of attention has focused on reactor safety. However, the safety
record of reprocessing plants is not good, and there has been little safety
analysis of fuel cycle facilities using, for example, the probabilistic risk assessment
method.More work is needed here.
Our principal recommendation on safety is:
The government should, as part of its near-term R&D program, develop
more fully the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts
of fuel cycle facilities and focus reactor development on options that can
achieve enhanced safety standards and are deployable within a couple of
decades.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
The management and disposal of high-level radioactive spent fuel from the
nuclear fuel cycle is one of the most intractable problems facing the nuclear
power industry throughout the world. No country has yet successfully implemented
a system for disposing of this waste.We concur with the many independent
expert reviews that have concluded that geologic repositories will be
capable of safely isolating the waste from the biosphere. However, implementation
of this method is a highly demanding task that will place great stress
on operating, regulatory, and political institutions.
For fifteen years the U.S. high-level waste management
program has focused almost exclusively on the proposed
repository site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Although
the successful commissioning of the Yucca Mountain
repository would be a significant step towards the secure
disposal of nuclear waste, we believe that a broader,
strategically balanced nuclear waste program is needed to
prepare the way for a possible major expansion of the
nuclear power sector in the U.S. and overseas.
The global growth scenario, based on the once-through fuel cycle, would
require multiple disposal facilities by the year 2050. To dispose of the spent
fuel from a steady state deployment of one thousand 1 GWe reactors of the
light water type, new repository capacity equal to the nominal storage capacity
of Yucca Mountain would have to be created somewhere in the world every
three to four years. This requirement, along with the desire to reduce longterm
risks from the waste, prompts interest in advanced, closed fuel cycles.
We do not believe a convincing case can
be made, on the basis of waste management
considerations alone, that the
benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles
will outweigh the attendant safety,
environmental, and security risks and
economic costs.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 11
These schemes would separate or partition plutonium and other actinides —
and possibly certain fission products — from the spent fuel and transmute
them into shorter-lived and more benign species. The goals would be to
reduce the thermal load from radioactive decay of the waste on the repository,
thereby increasing its storage capacity, and to shorten the time for which
the waste must be isolated from the biosphere.
We have analyzed the waste management implications of both once-through
and closed fuel cycles, taking into account each stage of the fuel cycle and the
risks of radiation exposure in both the short and long-term.
We do not believe
that a convincing case can be made on the basis of waste management considerations
alone that the benefits of partitioning and transmutation will outweigh the
attendant safety, environmental, and security risks and economic costs. Future
technology developments could change the balance of expected costs, risks,
and benefits. For our fundamental conclusion to change, however, not only
would the expected long term risks from geologic repositories have to be significantly
higher than those indicated in current assessments, but the incremental
costs and short-term safety and environmental risks would have to be
greatly reduced relative to current expectations and experience.
We further conclude that waste management strategies in the once-through
fuel cycle are potentially available that could yield long-term risk reductions
at least as great as those claimed for waste partitioning and transmutation,
with fewer short-term risks and lower development and deployment costs.
These include both incremental improvements to the current mainstream
mined repositories approach and more far-reaching innovations such as deep
borehole disposal. Finally, replacing the current ad hoc approach to spent fuel
storage at reactor sites with an explicit strategy to store spent fuel for a period
of several decades will create additional flexibility in the waste management
system.
Our principal recommendations on waste management are:
The DOE should augment its current focus on Yucca Mountain with a
balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
A research program should be launched to determine the viability of
geologic disposal in deep boreholes within a decade.
A network of centralized facilities for storing spent fuel for several decades
should be established in the U.S. and internationally.
12 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
NONPROLIFERATION
Nuclear power should not expand unless the risk of proliferation from operation
of the commercial nuclear fuel cycle is made acceptably small.We believe
that nuclear power can expand as envisioned in our global growth scenario
with acceptable incremental proliferation risk, provided that reasonable safeguards
are adopted and that deployment of reprocessing and enrichment are
restricted. The international community must prevent the acquisition of
weapons-usable material, either by diversion (in the case of plutonium) or by
misuse of fuel cycle facilities (including related facilities, such as research
reactors or hot cells). Responsible governments must control, to the extent
possible, the know-how relevant to produce and process either highly
enriched uranium (enrichment technology) or plutonium.
Three issues are of particular concern: existing stocks of
separated plutonium
around the world that are directly usable for weapons; nuclear facilities, for
example in Russia, with inadequate controls; and transfer
of technology, especially enrichment and reprocessing
technology, that brings nations closer to a nuclear
weapons capability. The proliferation risk of the global
growth scenario is underlined by the likelihood that use
of nuclear power would be introduced and expanded in
many countries in different security circumstances.
An international response is required to reduce the proliferation risk. The
response should:
re-appraise and strengthen the institutional underpinnings of the IAEA safeguards
regime in the near term, including sanctions;
guide nuclear fuel cycle development in ways that reinforce shared nonproliferation
objectives.
Nuclear power should not expand unless
the risk of proliferation from operation of
the commercial nuclear fuel cycle is made
acceptably small.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 13
Accordingly, we recommend:
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should focus overwhelmingly
on its safeguards function and should be given the authority to carry out
inspections beyond declared facilities to suspected illicit facilities;
Greater attention must be given to the proliferation risks at the front end
of the fuel cycle from enrichment technologies;
IAEA safeguards should move to an approach based on continuous materials
protection, control and accounting using surveillance and containment
systems, both in facilities and during transportation, and should implement
safeguards in a risk-based framework keyed to fuel cycle activity;
Fuel cycle analysis, research, development, and demonstration efforts
must include explicit analysis of proliferation risks and measures defined
to minimize proliferation risks;
International spent fuel storage has significant nonproliferation benefits
for the growth scenario and should be negotiated promptly and implemented
over the next decade.
ANALYSIS, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) analysis, research, development, and
demonstration (ARD&D) program should support the technology path leading
to the global growth scenario and include diverse activities that balance
risk and time scales, in pursuit of the strategic objective of preserving the
nuclear option.
For technical, economic, safety, and public acceptance reasons,
the highest priority in fuel cycle ARD&D, deserving first call on available funds,
lies with efforts that enable robust deployment of the once-through fuel cycle.
The current DOE program does not have this focus.
Every industry in the United States develops basic analytical models and tools
such as spreadsheets that allow firms, investors, policy makers, and regulators
to understand how changes in the parameters of a process will affect the performance
and cost of that process. But we have been struck throughout our
study by the absence of such models and simulation tools that permit indepth,
quantitative analysis of trade-offs between different reactor and fuel
14 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
cycle choices, with respect to all key criteria. The analysis we have seen is
based on point designs and does not incorporate information about the cost
and performance of operating commercial nuclear facilities. Such modeling
and analysis under a wide variety of scenarios, for both open and closed fuel
cycles, will be useful to the industry and investors, as well as to international
discussions about the desirability about different fuel cycle paths.
We call on the Department of Energy, perhaps in collaboration with other countries,
to establish a major project for the modeling, analysis, and simulation of
commercial nuclear power systems — The Nuclear System Modeling Project.
This project should provide a foundation for the accumulation
of information about how variations in the
operation of plants and other parts of the fuel cycle
affect costs, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance
characteristics. The models and analysis should be based
on real engineering data and, wherever possible, practical
experience. This project is technically demanding and
will require many years and considerable resources to be
carried out successfully.
We believe that development of advanced nuclear technologies — either fast
reactors or advanced fuel cycles employing reprocessing – should await the
results of the
Nuclear System Modeling Project we have proposed above. Our
analysis makes clear that there is ample time for the project to compile the
necessary engineering and economic analyses and data before undertaking
expensive development programs, even if the project should take a decade to
complete. Expensive programs that plan for the development or deployment
of commercial reprocessing based on any existing advanced fuel cycle technologies
are simply not justified on the basis of cost, or the unproven safety,
proliferation risk, and waste properties of a closed cycle compared to the
once-through cycle. Reactor concept evaluation should be part of the Nuclear
System Modeling Project.
On the other hand, we support a modest laboratory scale research and analysis
program on
new separation methods and associated fuel forms, with the
objective of learning about approaches that emphasize lower cost and more
proliferation resistance. These data can be important inputs to advanced fuel
cycle analysis and simulation and thus help prioritize future development
programs.
The modeling project’s research and analysis effort should only encompass
technology pathways that do not produce weapons-usable material during
normal operation (for example, by leaving some uranium, fission products,
For technical, economic, safety, and
public acceptance reasons, the highest
priority in fuel cycle R&D, deserving
first call on available funds, lies with
efforts that enable robust deployment
of the once-through fuel cycle.
C h a p t e r 1 — T h e Fu t u r e o f Nu c l e a r Powe r — O v e r v i ew a n d Co n c l u s i o n s 15
and/or minor actinides with the recycled plutonium).
The closed fuel cycle currently
practiced in Western Europe and Japan, known as PUREX/MOX, does not
meet this criterion. There are advanced closed fuel cycle concepts involving
combinations of reactor, fuel form, and separations technology that satisfy
these conditions and, with appropriate institutional arrangements, can have
significantly better proliferation resistance than the PUREX/MOX fuel cycle,
and perhaps approach that of the open fuel cycle. Accordingly, the governments
of nuclear supplier countries should discourage other nations from
developing and deploying the PUREX/MOX fuel cycle.
Government R&D support for advanced design LWRs and for the High
Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) is justified because these are the two reactor
types that are most likely to play a role in any nuclear expansion. R&D support
for advanced design LWRs should focus on measures that reduce construction
and operating cost. Because the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) has
potential advantages with respect to safety, proliferation resistance, modularity
and efficiency, government research and limited development support to
resolve key uncertainties, for example, the performance of HTGR fuel forms in
reactors and gas power conversion cycle components, is warranted.
Waste management also calls for a significant, and redirected, ARD&D program.
The DOE waste program, understandably, has been singularly focused
for the past several years on the Yucca Mountain project.We believe DOE
must broaden its waste R&D effort or run the risk of being unable to rigorously
defend its choices for waste disposal sites.More attention needs to be
given to the characterization of waste forms and engineered
barriers, followed by development and testing of
engineered barrier systems.We believe deep boreholes, as
an alternative to mined repositories, should be aggressively
pursued. These issues are inherently of international
interest in the growth scenario and should be pursued
in such a context.
There is opportunity for international cooperation in this ARD&D program
on safety, waste, and the Nuclear System Modeling Project. A particularly pertinent
effort is the development, deployment, and operation of a word wide
materials protection, control, and accounting tracking system. There is no
currently suitable international organization for this development task. A possible
approach lies with the G-8 as a guiding body.
Our global growth scenario envisions an open fuel cycle architecture at least
until mid-century or so, with the advanced closed fuel cycles possibly
deployed later, but only if significant improvements are realized through
The closed fuel cycle currently practiced
in Western Europe and Japan, known
as PUREX/MOX, does not meet this
nonproliferation criterion.
16 MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
research. The principal driver of this conclusion is our judgment that natural uranium
ore is available at reasonable prices to support the open cycle at least to late in the century
in a scenario of substantial expansion. This gives the open cycle clear economic
advantage with proliferation resistance an important additional feature. The DOE should
undertake a global uranium resource evaluation program to determine with greater confidence
the uranium resource base around the world.
Accordingly, we recommend:
The U.S. Department of Energy should focus its R&D program on the once-through fuel
cycle;
The U.S. Department of Energy should establish a Nuclear System Modeling project to
carryout the analysis, research, simulation, and collection of engineering data needed
to evaluate all fuel cycles from the viewpoint of cost, safety, waste management, and
proliferation resistance;
The U.S. Department of Energy should undertake an international uranium resource
evaluation program;
The U.S. Department of Energy should broaden its waste management R&D program;
The U.S. Department of Energy should support R&D that reduces Light Water Reactor
(LWR) costs and for development of the HTGR for electricity application.
We believe that the ARD&D program proposed here is aligned with the strategic objective
of enabling a credible growth scenario over the next several decades. Such a ARD&D
program requires incremental budgets of almost $400 million per year over the next 5
years, and at least $460 million per year for the 5-10 year period.
