INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY/ INTERNATIONAL

PROJECT ON INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR REACTORS AND FUEL

CYCLES (INPRO)

SYNERGIES AMONG THE VARIOUS NUCLEAR ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES AND OPTIONS TO AMPLIFY THEM BY

COOPERATION AMONG COUNTRIES IN NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

Presented by Vladimir KUZNETSOV

NENP/ INPRO Section

INPRO Dialogue Forum 11 “Roadmaps for a transition to globally

sustainable nuclear energy systems”

IAEA

INPRO TASK 1 “GLOBAL SCENARIOS”

Objective:

To develop, based on scientific

and technical analysis, global

and regional nuclear energy

scenarios that lead to a global

vision of sustainable nuclear

energy in the 21st century

2

Paper 15483 Session 8.04 ICAPP 2015

3-6 May 2015, Nice, France

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE OF

INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS WITH THERMAL AND FAST

REACTORS AND A CLOSED NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (GAINS)

2008-2011

Sixteen participants - Belgium, Canada, China, Czech

Republic, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the

Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, the USA, the

European Commission (EC), plus Argentina as an observer

Final Report: http://www-

pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8873/Framework-for-

Assessing-Dynamic-Nuclear-Energy-Systems-for-

Sustainability-Final-Report-of-the-INPRO-Collaborative-Project-

GAINS

GAINS developed an international analytical framework for

assessing transition scenarios to future sustainable nuclear energy

systems and conducted sample analyses.

The framework includes heterogeneous global model to capture

countries’ different policies regarding the nuclear fuel cycle back

end and to analyze available cooperation options

Global Scenarios: Heterogeneous world model introduced in GAINS

Non-personified, non-geographical

groups of countries with different

policies regarding the fuel cycle

back end:

NG1-recycling strategy;

NG2-direct disposal/reprocessing

abroad strategy

NG3- looking for minimal NFC

infrastructure: disposal or reprocessing

abroad

5

MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE GAINS COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

WHICH MODEL WOULD THE WORLD FOLLOW?

Investments in RD&D on innovative technologies, such as those of fast reactors and closed

fuel cycles, are huge and provide reasonable pay-back times only in the case of foreseen

large scale deployment of such technologies. Not all of the countries interested in nuclear

energy would afford such investments

Global nuclear energy system is likely to follow a heterogeneous world model, within which

most of the countries will continue to use thermal reactors in a once-through nuclear fuel

cycle throughout the 21st century.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10 20 30 40 50 100

Pe

rio

d o

f R

&D

re

turn

, yr

Total installed capasities, GWe

Return of RD&D, demonstration and construction investments for innovative reactor technology (FR)

New capacity 1 GWe/yr,

R&D 00

R&D 10

R&D 20

R&D 30

R&D 40

Although only a few countries may master innovative technologies of fast reactors and

closed nuclear fuel cycle within this century, all others could benefit from this if they follow

a synergistic approach, i.e., send their spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing and recycle in

fast reactor programmes implemented by technology holder countries.

In this, progressive accumulation of spent nuclear fuel on a global or regional scale could

be mitigated or even reversed. The synergistic approach could also secure natural

uranium saving of up to 40%, compared to a heterogeneous non-synergistic case.

7

Synergistic approach within a heterogeneous world model offers potential benefits associated

with management of the plutonium from spent nuclear fuel of LWRs

The global fleet of fast reactors could be doubled in the synergistic case compared to the non-

synergistic one

MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE GAINS

COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON SYNERGISTING NUCLEAR ENERGY

REGIONAL GROUP INTERACTIONS EVALUATED FOR SUSTAINABILITY

(SYNERGIES)

2012-2015

Twenty two participants and observers - Algeria, Argentina, Armenia,

Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Israel,

Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Romania, the Russian

Federation, Spain, Ukraine, UK, USA, Viet Nam.

Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/SYNERGIES/index.html

Objectives: Apply and amend the GAINS analytical framework to examine more specifically

synergies among the various existing and innovative nuclear energy technologies and

options to amplify them through collaboration among countries in fuel cycle back end

Examine drivers and impediments for synergistic collaboration among countries and

identify possible ‘win – win’ situations.

Focus on short- and medium-term collaborative actions that can help developing

pathways to long term NES sustainability.

Technology lines in SYNERGIES project

Today 2020

SYNERGIES STORYLINE

ALWR

SYNERGIES Scenario Family A:

Business as usual scenarios consisting of once-through fuel

cycle and mono-recycling of U/Pu in thermal spectrum

reactors

LWR

PHWR

U

UOX MOX Pu

REPU

MOX

Pu

Today 2020 2030 2040 2050

REPU

SYNERGIES Scenario Family A

Business-as-usual situation reasonably stable owing to:

The perceived no immediate shortage of natural uranium;

Economic competitiveness in the short-term with reliance on the existing competitive

global front-end fuel cycle market;

Competitive wet and dry interim storage services market;

No requirement for additional domestic specialized skills relating to back-end fuel cycle

service.

Factors making the current situation unsustainable from a resource and waste perspective

Growing risk regarding the security of supply;

Spent fuel accumulation;

o Saturation of the available wet spent fuel pool capacities for interim (cooled) storage;

o Limitations of the interim dry spent fuel storage performance; long-term/very long term

behaviour of spent fuel is unknown and may reduce options to manage in the medium-

term; the associate increased costs and risks cannot be assessed up-front;

Proliferation and security risks associated with long term/ very long term interim storage

and direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

SYNERGIES Scenario Family A

Includes mono-recycling of Pu in LWRs. This is already a reality in France, Japan,

Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany.

This step is driven by:

Possibility to reduce natural uranium specific consumption by 15 – 25 % for the case of U

and Pu-recycling;

An option to empty on-site and off-site wet interim spent fuel storage pools;

An option to postpone the need for wet/dry interim (regional) spent fuel storage solutions

and to postpone the need for geological disposal by at least 2 decades;

Alleviating difficult-to-safeguard proliferation risks in geological disposal;

Relying on available (although limited) international/regional back-end fuel cycle services.

ALWR

SYNERGIES Scenario Family B

Today 2020 2030 2040 2050

LWR

U

UOX MOX Pu

MOX

Pu

FR-MOX Pu

Pu

Pu

U-Blanket

Scenarios with the introduction of a number of fast reactors

to support multi-recycling of Pu in LWRs and fast reactors

Drivers and impediments example: SYNERGIES scenario family B

The family B scenarios consider a limited deployment of FRs primarily to manage the LWR-generated Pu.

They may be driven by:

Avoidance of any spent fuel direct disposal;

Possibility to further reduce specific natural uranium consumption;

Delayed interim storage needs for MOX spent fuel;

Avoidance of any fissile material disposal facilitating safeguards and physical protection requirements

for such disposal sites.

The impediments here are related to:

Increase of the specific fraction of minor actinides in ultimate waste;

Developing a well-defined back-end fuel management strategy;

Modifying core management schemes for evolutionary LWRs;

A demonstration of FR-technology and associated fuel cycle.

The synergistic collaborations may include:

Regional interim storage and/or geological disposal sites;

Regional fuel cycle centres (e.g., La Hague, etc.);

Pre-cycling and TOP MOX, other international (regional) fuel cycle services.

ALWR increased CF

SYNERGIES Scenario Family C

F(B)R

(A)LWR

U

UOX Pu

FR-MOX Pu U-Blanket

F(B)R

FR-MOX

TRU

Today 2020 2030 2040 2050

Fast reactor centred scenarios – scenarios with reprocessing of thermal reactors’ fuel

to enable noticeable growth rate of fast reactor capacity

SYNERGIES Scenario Family C

Fast reactor centred scenarios lead to ‘full’ sustainability of nuclear energy. The drivers are:

Possibility to achieve ‘perfect’ synergy between LWR/HWR and FRs including the possibility to recycle

‘all’ mined resources;

High degree of flexibility, given multiple parameters:

o Fast reactor / LWR+HWR ratio;

o Fast reactor conversion/breeding ratio;

o Reduced specific (per unit of energy produced) minor actinide inventory in waste;

Reduction / elimination of proliferation risks related to waste disposal and, for some options, to

enrichment.

The impediments:

Anticipated higher overnight construction costs for fast reactors;

Industrialization of FRs and associated fuel cycle.

Synergistic collaboration might require combined regional fast reactor fuel cycle service centres, which

in turn would require time to get there (ideally, an alignment on main technological fuel cycle choices

would be an asset).

Multi variants are considerable under this scenario family all depending on the timing of introduction of FRs and the degree

of FR/LWR-development.

FR-deployment could be considered domestically for large nuclear energy programs or in international/regional nuclear fuel

cycle centres due to technical-economic and socio-political reasons.

These fuel cycle centres may be aimed at managing the Pu-balance for multiple countries with some complementing REPU

and Pu-recycling in LWRs and/or PHWRs.

ALWR

SYNERGIES Scenario Family D

Today 2020 2030 2040 2050

AHWR

F(B)R FR-MOX

Pu

Pu

Th-Blanket

Th UTh-OX

233U

233U / Th

U-Blanket PuThOX

MOX

Pu

233U

UOX

Scenarios of transition to Th/233U fuel cycle and scenarios with alternative

U/Pu/Th fuel cycles

SYNERGIES Scenario Family D

The drivers for synergistic collaboration in Family D scenarios could be:

‘Full’ sustainability of nuclear energy system, additionally boosted by the

several-times increase of natural resources;

Exploiting in full the synergistic potential among thermal spectrum and fast

spectrum reactors with respect to thorium and 233U.

On the impediment side:

Addition of the 233U-Th fuel cycle would result in a more complex fuel cycle

management involving both the U/Pu and 233U/Th cycle simultaneously;

Requiring a whole new nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure specific to 233U/Th

including mining, new fuel and fuel fabrication development, new fuel handling

and radioprotection, new separation processes and waste characterisations.

Qualification of the technology towards industrialization is required.

MAJOR FINDINGS: SYNERGIES PROJECT

Synergistic collaborations among countries in

the fuel cycle back end offer larger-capacity

centralized fuel cycle enterprises which could

help exploit the economy of accelerated

learning and the economy of scale laws to

support ‘win-win’ collaborative strategies

through the resulting economic benefits for all.

Cumulative reprocessing expenditures for non-

synergistic and synergistic cases (ADRIA Case

Study)

Economic savings were identified as the primary driver for cooperation

among countries.

MAJOR FINDINGS: SYNERGIES PROJECT

Economic savings were identified as the primary driver for cooperation

among countries.

Standard economic treatment of net present value and discounting consistently

shows the cost of long term interim storage is minimal and the larger disposal

investments cost less if postponed.

Because disposal costs are incurred in the near term but the benefits are

distributed over very long time horizons, the standard application of discounting

reduces values far into the future to essentially zero in present day terms.

However, such textbook application of economic theory fails to address the inter-

generational aspect of sustainability.

New economic models are needed in fuel cycle analyses to better model the costs

of current practices and the benefits of sustainability.

MAJOR FINDINGS: SYNERGIES COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

Synergistic collaborations among countries in fuel cycle back end may be

prevented or hampered by the both, technical limitations and

institutional and infrastructure nature. Overcoming technical limitations

could be achieved by detailed nuclear energy system modelling. Finding

pathways to overcome institutional and infrastructure impediments is a

necessary step to enable cooperative countries’ move toward sustainable

nuclear energy.

Taking into account time needed to change national laws and develop new

institutional procedures such a resolution may be a priority task for the near

and medium term.

The first step here would be to investigate the scope of legal and

institutional issues in interested technology holder, technology user and

newcomer countries more specifically and with high degree of detail.

MAJOR FINDINGS: SYNERGIES COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

SYNERGIES also considered global and regional NES deployment options

not considered in previous INPRO studies, for example, scenarios with fast

reactor start-up from enriched uranium load:

- The enriched uranium start-up load introduction makes it possible to

achieve a high scenario fast reactor deployment programme under LWR

reprocessing capacity limitations.

- The growth of fast reactors could be increased by a factor of 1.5 compared

to the case of FRs with MOX fuel obtained from LWRs reprocessed spent

fuel.

MAJOR FINDINGS SYNERGIES COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

• Scenarios with the introduction of a limited

number of fast reactors to support multi-

recycling of plutonium in LWRs and in fast

reactors could be a flexible and risk-

balanced option under uncertainties in the

scale of demand for nuclear energy and

before fast reactors are proven to be reliable

and competitive source of energy with a

potential of broad deployment

LWR-UOX SFR LWR-MOX Pu Pu

Pu

SYNERGIES status October 2015: Project Completed

Final consultants’ meeting (SYNERGIES Editorial committee

meeting) convened in Vienna on 30 March – 02 April 2015

Draft Final report, including 28 Case Studies from project

participants as Annexes, Summaries of the Case Studies and 5

Cross-cutting Chapters 100 % developed and undergoes final review

by all participants/observers of the project – to be completed by the

end of 2015):

No further meetings planned

Thank You! V.Kuznetsov@iaea.org

Back-up slides

28

• Economics: Nuclear energy products must be competitive against

alternative energy sources available in the country;

• Waste management: Nuclear waste must be managed so that human

health and environment are protected and undue burdens on future

generations are avoided;

• Infrastructure: Assure adequate infrastructure and reduce effort to create

and maintain it.

• Legal and institutional frame work;

• Industrial and economic infrastructure;

• Socio-political infrastructure (Public acceptance, Human resources)

Generalized INPRO requirements:

Main messages in areas of INPRO Methodology

29 Generalized INPRO requirements (cont.): Main messages in areas of INPRO Methodology

• Proliferation resistance: Future NES must remain unattractive for a

nuclear weapon program by a combination of intrinsic features and

extrinsic measures;

• Physical protection: Efficient and effective regime to be implemented for

whole life cycle of NES;

• Environment: Impact of stressors from future NES must be within

performance envelope of current NES. Resources must be available to

run NES until end of 21st century;

• Safety: Safety of planned NPP should be superior compared against

safety of reference plant. Large off-site releases of radionuclides should

be prevented so that there should be no need for evacuation (emergency

preparedness and response remain a prudent requirement).

IAEA

CP Synergistic Nuclear Energy Regional Group Interactions Evaluated for Sustainability (SYNERGIES)

30

MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE GAINS COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

The dynamics of world’s nuclear power capacity expansion

indicates that in all cases low projections are more likely to meet

the reality compared to the high ones.

Fig. 2 Projection of the world’s nuclear power

capacity in the low estimates .

Fig. 3 Projection of the world’s nuclear

power capacity in the high estimates