nuclear power -greenhouse gas emissions & risks a ...us nuclear fuel cycle a: separative work...

1

Vasilis Fthenakis Brookhaven National Laboratory

www.pv.bnl.govColumbia University

www.clca.columbia.edu

Presentation at the California Energy Commission Nuclear Issues Workshop,Panel 4 “Environmental, Safety, and Economic Implications of Nuclear Power”

Sacramento, CA, June 28, 2007

Nuclear Power -Greenhouse Gas Emissions & RisksA Comparative Life Cycle Analysis

2

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Mining/millingMining/milling ConversionConversion EnrichmentEnrichment

Construction /decommission

Construction /decommission

OperationOperationFuel fabrication

Fuel fabrication Waste

Disposal

Waste Disposal

M, Q

E

M, Q M, Q M, Q M, Q M, Q

E E E E

M, Q: material and energy inputs

E: effluents (air, water, solid)

M, Q

E

ReconversionReconversion

E

EM, Q

ReprocessingReprocessing

M, Q

E

3

Review of GHG Emissions from Nuclear Fuel Cycle

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

United States,DeLucchi 1991

Australia(hypothetical),

ACA 2001

Sw eden,Vattenfall 2004

Sw itzerland(case 1),

Dones 2003

Sw itzerland(case 2),

Dones 2003

Japan, Hondo2005

World, Stormand Smith 2005

GH

G e

mis

sion

s (g

CO

2-eq

./kW

h)

Except enrichmentWaste ManagementOperationDecommissioningConstructionEnrichmentConversion/FabricationMinning/milling

4

Breakdown of GHG Emissions from Nuclear Fuel Cycle

0

5

10

15

20

25

Vattenfall 2002,Sweden

Hondo 2005, Japan Dones et al, 2005,Switzerland PWR

Dones et al, 2005,Switzerland BWR

GHG

(g C

O 2-e

q./kW

h)

Waste Disp.OperationConst./Decomm.EnrichmentConv./Fab.Minning/milling

D (France): 20% C: 80%

D (US): 67% D (France): 22%C: 11%

D (France): 60% C: 40%

D (US):13%D (France): 55%C: 32%

D: Diffusion enrichment C: Gas centrifuge enrichment

5

20% coal 80% Tennessee Valley Authority grid

Upstream Electricity Mixfor enrichment

3.8/ 0.25

35

85

0.2

- Diffusion (US)-34%(France)-11%

- Centrifuge (mix)-19%- dilution highly enriched uranium (Russia)-36%

4240

Product/tail assay (% U235)

Thermal efficiency (%)

Ore grade (% U3O8)

Capacity factor (%)

Enrichment mix (%)EIA -1998-2002

Burn-up (MWdth/kgU)Reactor lifetime (yrs)

BNL Reference Case -Conditions for US Nuclear Fuel Cycle

6

BNL Study -Scenarios for GHG Estimation of US Nuclear Fuel Cycle

a: Separative Work Unit b: Tennessee Valley Authority

3000 kWh/SWU2600 kWh/SWU2400 kWh/SWUaEnergy for diffusion enrichment

Economic Input/Output

Process-basedProcess-basedLCA method:Construction stage

0.05 (Australia)0.212.7 (Canada)Ore concentration (% U)

100% from coal80% from TVAb, 20% from coal

100% from US avg.

Electricity source for enrichment

Max.ReferenceMin.Parameters

7

BNL Study -US Nuclear Fuel Cycle: GHG Emissions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Min Reference Max

g CO

2-eq.

/kWh

Deconversion

HLW waste disposal

LLW waste disposal

Operation

Construction /DecommissionFabrication

Enrichment

Conversion

Mining/milling

MRS LCA Symposium, Nov. 2005

Energy Policy 35 (2007) 2549-2557

8

GHG Emissions from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Comparisons of different studies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mining/milling

Conversion

Enrichment

Fuel Fabrication

Construction/DecommissionOperation

Reprocessing

Waste disposalTotal

Germany (ExternE, 2003)US (BNL, 2005)Japan (Hondo, 2005)Switzerland (Dones, 2005)Australia (ACA, 2001)World (Storm and Smith, 2005)

99

Australia (ISA, 2006)

MRS LCA Symposium, Nov. 2005Energy Policy 35 (2007) 2549-2557

9

Process Based vs. Economic Input/Output LCAExample: Construction –1 GW NPP-

177.5 billionEI/OStorm 2005, baseline

51.3 billionEI/OISA 2006 baseline

114.5 billionEI/OBNL worst case

1Process-Based (Steel, concrete, copper)

BNL ref case

CO2 emission(g/ kWh)

ConstructionCost ($2000)

EI/O LCA may overestimate GHG emissions Process-based LCA may slightly underestimate GHG emissionsDegree of overestimate of underestimate depends on the detail of material and energy inventories

10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Coal (Kim andDale 2005)

Natural Gas(Kim and Dale

2005)

Petroleum(Kim and Dale

2005)

Nuclear(Baseline -

Fthenakis andKim, 2005

PV, CdTe(Fthenakisand Kim

2006)

PV, mc-Si,(Fthenakis and Alsema, 2006)

GH

G (g

CO

2-eq

./kW

h)

MaterialsOperationTransportationFuel Production

Life Cycle GHG Emissions -A process-based LCA comparison-

24 24 37

11

Framework for Evaluation of Life-Cycle Risksin Electricity Production

Benefits

Energy

Welfare

Direct Economic External

Normal operation

AccidentalRoutine/Severe

Difficult to evaluate risks

Risks

Health impacts

Resource depletion

Environmental impacts

Economic development

Economic impacts

National Security

Fthenakis1, Kim1, Colli2 A., and Kirchsteiger2 C., 1 Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, U.S.2 European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Petten, The Netherlands

12

Accidental Risks in Electricity Production

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

Coal, O

ECDCoa

l, non

-OECD

Oil, OECD

Oil, no

n-OECD

NG, OECD

NG, non

-OECD

LPG, OECD

LPG, non

-OECD

Hydro,

OECD

Hydro,

non-O

ECDNuc

lear, O

ECD

Nuclea

r, non

-OECD

PV

c-Si, B

NLa-S

i, BNL

Even

t/GW

yr

FatalitiesInjuries

GaBE project, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), ENSAD 1969-2000

13

Maximum Consequences per Accident

Coal Oil NG LPG

Nuclear

(Chernobyl)

Nuclear

(except

Chernobyl)PV, PSI

Fata

litie

s

434

3000

100

600

125

PV, BNL

2

9000-33000

100

105

104

103

102

101

100

PSI

14

Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Depletion Risks-Is there a tenable solution ?

Nuclear Energy• Spent fuel management • Proliferation risks

Coal with C sequestration• Reliability/Cost • Residual pollution

Wind• Resource limits• Intermittency

Solar• Cost• Intermittency

15

The President’s Advanced Energy Initiative

Initiated significant new investments and policies in:

Clean Coal technologyNuclear Power• Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to address spent

nuclear fuel, eliminate proliferation risks, and expand the promise of clean, reliable, and affordable nuclear energy

Renewable Solar and Wind energy• Reduce the cost of solar PV technologies so that they become

cost-effective by 2015 and expand access to wind energy.

16

The President’s Advanced Energy Initiative

“To safeguard our future economic health as well as national security, we must move aggressively to diversify our energy sources.”

-DOE Secretary Samuel BodmanGolden, CO, July 7, 2006

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

-Thomas Edison

17

The Solar America Initiative (SAI)

SAI Goal: Achieve Grid Parity Nationwide by 2015

18

Solar Solutions to Climate Change and Energy Self-Reliance*

200,000 square miles of desert land in the SW is suitable for constructing solar power plantsThis area receives 3,600 quadrillion Btu of solar irradiation per year. If just 3% of this energy is converted to electricity, we satisfy the total US annual energy consumption.Throughout the rest of the country, sunlight can be used for distributed (rooftop) PV systems.

*From Zweibel, Mason, Fthenakis. “An Imminent Solar Solution to Climate Change and Energy Security for the US”, in press

19

Solar Solutions to Climate Change and Energy Self-Reliance*

PV and compressed air energy storage (CAES) for 24-hour electricityConcentrating Solar Power with heat storage, also dispatchablePlug-in hybrids powered by solar electric (80%) and biofuels (20%)Wind as complement and nighttime backup to solarLow-cost solar, an essential, enabling technologyUS SW solar enough to provide US energy self-sufficiency

*From Zweibel, Mason, Fthenakis. “An Imminent Solar Solution to Climate Change and Energy Security for the US”, in press

20

Conclusions

• A Life Cycle Framework is necessary for a complete description of the sustainability of energy technologies

• It enables a holistic approach encompassing resource availability and costs, potential risks and benefits to the US economy and the environment for current and future generations

www.pv.bnl.govwww.clca.columbia.edu

21

Contributors

Hyung Chul Kim, Brookhaven National LaboratoryJames Mason, Hydrogen Research InstituteKen Zweibel, PrimeStar Solar

www.pv.bnl.govwww.clca.columbia.edu