Prsentation PowerPoint

1

• Technico-economic comparison of long-term nuclear
  fuel cycle management scenarios application to
  the French context
• N. Jestin-Fleury
• International seminar on "the re-emergence of
  nuclear energy
• an option for climate change and emerging
  countries?",
• Mexico City, 19-20 April 2006

2
Radioactive waste management the French context

• Low-level and short-lived radioactive waste are
  industrially packaged and sent to a centralized
  surface disposal
• (Soulaines, Aube)
• Intermediate and high-level and long-lived
  radwaste are stored on their production sites,
  waiting for a long-term and sustainable
  management solution
• The French RD law called "Bataille law"
  (December 30th, 1991) defined three ways of
  research for 15 years
• advanced partitioning and transmutation (way 1)
• deep geological disposal (way 2)
• packaging and long-term storage (way 3)
• Ways 1 and 3 have been coordinated by CEA
• Way 2 has been coordinated by ANDRA

3
Radioactive waste management the French context
The "Bataille law" An innovative decison-making
process with several actors
Researches on the 3 ways 1991-2006 Pilotes
CEA, ANDRA in collaboration with CNRS,
universities Coordination Ministry of Research
National public debate 12 sept. 2005 13 jan.
2006
Evaluation CNE
Recommendations Parliament Nuclear Safety
Authority NEA/OECD
Project of a new law from ministries of research,
industry, environment Parliament debate in spring
2006
New law in spring 2006
4
Radioactive waste management the French context
Main conclusions of the National Evaluation
Commission Way 1 French researches on advanced
reprocessing have been innovative and lead to
sufficient results to foresee an industrial
application. However, there will not be
arguments in 2006 to decide anything on minor
actinides transmutation. A long RD process is
needed yet, with international collaboration, as
it is engaged in the Generation IV nuclear
forum. Way 2 information obtained by
experimentations in the underground laboratory
could give to decisions makers, if they want, the
possibility to choose the deep geological
disposal for the ultimate radioactive waste
management. Way 3 researches on packaging
have lead to maturity and opened concrete
perspectives. However, despite its technical
feasibility, the durability of a long-term
storage has not been demonstrated up to 100
years. Long-term storage is not considered as a
sustainable way for ultimate radioactive waste
management.
5
The goals of the long-term scenarios study
Provide a technico-economic evaluation of
prospective and contrasted nuclear fuel cycle
scenarios Put in evidence the cost of
radioactive waste management and its impact on
the kwh production cost The main interest is to
compare the scenarios and to put in evidence some
significant trends These scenarios must reflect
radioactive waste management options included in
the 1991 law The scenarios are not forecasts but
only a particular vision of the nuclear fuel
cycle in the future All scenarios suppose the
sustainable development of nuclear energy
6
The main technical assumptions common to all the
scenarios
Time-horizon 2000-2150 French context
constant annual energy production 400 TWh
constant nuclear power capacity installed 60
GWe two phases in the replacement of the
current nuclear park by a more modern
park 2020-2050 and 2080-2110 lifetime of
new reactors (EPR, Gen.IV reactors) 60
years replacement at a 2 000 MWe/y rate
7
The main technical assumptions common to all the
scenarios
Characteristics of the future nuclear reactors
8
The main technical assumptions common to all the
scenarios
Waste are sent to geological disposal
after 60 years of storage for HL-LL waste and UOX
spent fuels after 90 years of storage for
MOX spent fuels immediately for ILLL
waste The geological disposal is available from
2025 it can receive all radioactive waste
produced by the nuclear park untill the 2150 time
horizon
9
The main technical assumptions common to all the
scenarios

• Plants are supposed to operate full time
• 100 production capacity use rate
• A progress factor due to the return of experience
  is introduced
• extension of the plants lifetime from 30 to 50
  years
• decrease of the dismantling cost
• from 30 to 15 of the investment cost

10
The main assumptions for scenario 1
Scenario 1 is the reference scenario From 2000
to 2025 plutonium monorecycling in current LWRs
From 2025 advanced partitioning of minor
actinides, stop of the Pu
monorecycling, MOX spent fuels
reprocessing From 2035 multirecycling of global
actinides (Pu and all minor actinides) in Gen. IV
fast reactors Scenario 1a in sodium
FRs Scenario 1b in gas FRs Only waste are
sent to geological disposal "Light" HL waste are
produced from 2025 and sent to disposal after 60
years of storage
11
The replacement of the nuclear power in scenario 1
Current park
Park 2- Phase 1
Park 2- Phase 2
Park 3
Park 4

• Current nuclear park 60 GWe, constant power
  until 2150
• Nuclear park 2 is installed in two periods
• - From 2020 to 2034 20 EPR, 1 500 MWe each,
  total 30 GWe
• From 2035 to 2050 21 Gen. IV. SFR, 1 450 MWe
  each , total 30 GWe
• Nuclear park 3 is installed from 2080 to 2110
  with 42 Gen. IV SFR
• Nuclear park 4 is beginning from 2140 to 2150
  with 14 Gen. IV SFR
• From 2000 to 2150, 97 nuclear reactors installed
  77 Gen. IV SFR and 20 EPR

12
The replacement of the nuclear fuel cycle plants
in scenario 1
13
The replacement of the nuclear fuel cycle plants
in scenario 1
14
The main assumptions for scenario 2
Scenario 2 is the "alternative scenario",
considering a delay in the arrival of the Gen.
IV fast reactors technology From 2000 to 2025
Pu monorecycling in current LWRs From 2025
advanced partitioning of minor actinides,
Pu multirecycling (MOX-UE) in LWRs minor
actinides storage From 2080 multirecycling of
global actinides (Pu and all minor actinides) in
Gen. IV gas fast reactors Only waste are sent
to geological disposal "Light" HL waste are
produced from 2025 and sent to disposal after 60
years of storage
15
The replacement of the nuclear power in scenario 2
Current park
Park 2
Park 3
Park 4
Current nuclear park 60 GWe, constant power
until 2150 Nuclear park 2 is installed from 2020
to 2050 with 40 EPR Nuclear park 3 is installed
from 2080 to 2110 with 52 Gen. IV GFR, 1 158 MWe
each Nuclear park 4 is beginning from 2140 to
2150 with 18 Gen. IV GFR From 2000 to 2150, 110
nuclear reactors installed 70 Gen. IV GFR and 40
EPR
16
The main assumptions for scenarios 3 and 4
Scenario 3 reflects the pursuit of the French
current strategy From 2000 to 2150 Pu
monorecycling in LWRs Waste and MOX spent fuels
are sent to geological disposal Scenario 4 is
the "opened cycle scenario" From 2000 to 2025
Pu monorecycling in current LWRs From 2025
stop of the spent fuel reprocessing Waste and
all spent fuels (MOX and UOX) are sent to
geological disposal ? Scenario 3 and scenario 4
ignore the arrival of Gen. IV FRs technology
17
The replacement of the nuclear power in scenario
3 and scenario 4
Current park
Park 2
Park 3
Park 4
Current nuclear park 60 GWe, constant power
until 2150 Nuclear park 2 is installed from 2020
to 2050 with 40 EPR Nuclear park 3 is installed
from 2080 to 2110 with 40 EPR Nuclear park 4 is
beginning from 2140 to 2150 with 14 EPR From 2000
to 2150, 94 EPR nuclear reactors installed
18
The main assumptions for scenario 5

• Scenario 5 is the "industrial scenario",
• quite similar to the scenario 1a
• From 2000 to 2025 Pu monorecycling in current
  LWRs
• From 2025 stop of the Pu monorecycling
• MOX spent fuels reprocessing
• From 2035 only Pu multirecycling in Gen. IV
  sodium FRs
• Waste are sent to geological disposal
• ? This scenario does no include
• advanced partitioning and recycling of minor
  actinides
• production of "light" HL waste

19
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Uranium needs
20
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Depleted uranium storage needs
21
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
HL-LL waste storage needs (in case of no disposal)
22
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
IL-LL waste storage needs (in case of no
disposal)
23
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Reactors needs on the 2000-2150 horizon
24
Concluding remarks

• The flows and inventories allow to identify some
  trends and illustrate when the capacity of
  current facilities is reached
• The work program will continue. I t will consist
  in completing the prospective scenarios by an
  economic evaluation more robustly defined.
• We are preparing a sustainable nuclear for the
  future

25
ANNEXE
26
Radioactive waste management the French context
RD expenses linked to "Bataille law" From
1992, cumulated expenses 810 M on way 1 1
007 M on way 2 672 M on way 3 total 2,5
G or 192 M/year or 64 M/year/way source
of financing State 64 Industrials
36
27
In the "Bataille law" framework, a specific
mission for the CEA

• As IHL-LL radwaste management requires long-term
  investments, economic aspects had to be studied
  as well as scientifical and technical aspects.
• The CEA was mandated by the French State for
  studying technico-economic waste management
  options
• "The CEA will have to be able to propose waste
  management options which allow to enlighten
  Parliament and Government decisions at the 2006
  term (...). These options will be completed by
  the necessary technical information and
  approximative economic date to enlighten the
  decision-making process in 2006"
• (extract from the 2001-2004 CEA-French State
  Pluriannual contract)

28
The main technical assumptions common to all the
scenarios
Control of plutonium and minor actinides (Am and
Cm) for minimizing radwaste toxicity Spent fuel
reprocessing Fuel burn-up rising UOX-MOX parity
at 60 GWj/t
29
The main technical assumptions common to all the
scenarios
Current facilities are operated as much
profitable as possible Uranium enrichment process
by gaseous technology is replaced by the
ultracentrifugation technology from 2015 No
maintenance investment is supposed (for current
plants as well as for the future plants) Material
flows and inventories determine the plants
production capacity
30
The main economic assumptions common to all the
scenarios

• Every step of the nuclear fuel cycle is
  characterised by a unit cost
• (a "service cost")
• Unit costs data come from the most recent CEA
  studies, national and international (OECD/NEA,
  IAEA) public reports, communications in working
  groups, or industrial experiences
• Costs are expressed in a single monetary unit (
  2003) and normalised to the electricity
  production (/MWh)
• If possible, costs are variable for taking
  account the new fuel cycle plants until the 2150
  time horizon, and they are decomposed in
  different stages (investment, operation,
  decommissioning)

31
The main economic assumptions common to all the
scenarios
Costs are calculated using different discount
rates constant annual discount rates 0,
3, 6, 8 variable annual discount rates
4 for cash-flows ? 30 years 2 for
cash-flows gt 30 years To guarantee continuous
values and eliminate "jumps" in the global costs
results, the discounting procedure is ? t ?
30 years, R 4, and C(t) (1R)-t ? t ? 31
years, R 4 et R' 2, and C(t) (1R)30 x
(1R')t-30
32
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Enrichment needs
33
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
UOX fuel fabrication needs
34
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
MOX and Gen. IV fuel fabrication needs
35
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
UOX spent fuel reprocessing needs
36
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
MOX and Gen. IV spent fuel reprocessing needs
37
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
UOX spent fuel storage needs (in case of no
disposal)
38
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
MOX spent fuel storage needs (in case of no
disposal)
39
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Separated americium storage needs
40
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Separated curium storage needs
41
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Separated neptunium storage needs
42
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
43
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Fuel cycle plants needs on the 2000-2150 horizon

44
Preliminary results on technical and physical
level
Storage needs on the 2000-2150 horizon
45
Concluding remarks
The work program will continue. I t will consist
in completing the prospective scenario by an
economic evaluation more robustly defined. Some
unit costs will have to be more robustly defined,
in particular for the innovative steps such as
advanced reprocessing, MOX-UE fuel
fabrication new industrial storages (for Am and
Cm) geological disposal Sensitive analysis will
have to be led on the more uncertain steps, for
example lifetime of current fuel cycle
facilities, construction, operation and
decommissioning schedule for future fuel cycle
plants.