The Future of Nuclear Energy

Account of the dinner-debate held on 14 June 2003 with Jean-Pierre Mustelier

 

Figure 1 shows that there are 448 nuclear reactors of different types currently in operation in the world. We can see their distribution in the 30 countries that possess them, and the exceptional position of France, the second largest producer of nuclear energy after the USA.

The reactors are sited mainly in western countries, the countries of the former USSR, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, which have all reached an advanced stage of development. On the other hand nuclear energy is proportionately very small in developing countries with large populations, such as China, India, Indonesia, Latin America, Pakistan etc.

Figure 2 shows the share that nuclear reactors have in the production of electricity in the different countries in the world, and the very special position of France. Its reactors produce on average and in total about 18 % of the world’s electricity, which represents 7 % of primary energy.

Except for two major accidents, the accident at Three Mile Island in the USA and the one in Chernobyl in the Ukraine, these reactors have functioned remarkably well.

In France for example, the operating period authorised by the safety authorities (independent of Electricité de France) was originally 25 years. On the evidence of the results of the inspection checks the authorities gave their agreement to the extension of this period to 40 years. And we know that this authorisation may well extend to 60 years for quite a few of them.

The production costs of nuclear reactors per kilowatt-hour are very competitive, enabling EDF to export to neighbouring countries between 10 and 15 % of its output.

So we can confidently say that nuclear power stations are at present one of the most tried and tested as well as most reliable means of producing electricity.

Primary energy resources and needs.

The following data are taken mainly from M. Pierre René Bauquis, former head of strategy and planning for the Total group, and professor at the Ecole nationale supérieure du pétrole et des moteurs.

Figure 3 gives an estimate of the evolution of the world population as well as that of the industrialised countries from 1800 up to 2100. These statistics enable us to predict a population of about10 billion inhabitants in 2100 (compared with 6 billion in 2000). This growth will occur especially in the developing countries, with the currently « industrialised » countries peaking out below 2 billion.

It is a commonplace to point out that this growth in the world population has been accompanied by a considerably larger growth in the consumption of primary energy; as is shown in figure 4 : a factor of 8 between 1900 and 2000.

Over the last fifty years the rate of growth in world consumption of electricity has accelerated even more, mainly owing to the ever-increasing concentration of the population in urban areas that are more and more gigantic.

Figure 5 gives an overview of the consumption in tonne of oil equivalent oil (toe) per inhabitant and per year of the OECD countries compared with developing areas such as Africa, Asia except China, China and Latin America. The disparities are enormous, in the order of a factor of 6 to 9.

The disparities in electricity consumption are given in the right-hand diagram. They are analogous, but the discrepancy, a factor of 10, is even greater.

How can we possibly imagine that our small planet can live in peace and harmony as long as such shocking discrepancies exist between nations in terms of meeting such essential needs as food, drinking water, housing, medical care, education, etc...? And all this requires energy.

This is why most economic forecasters suggest « reasonable consumption objectives for the world population » in 2020, 2050, and even 2100.

 

Figure 6 presents the following type of scenario :

• the world population, which has doubled since 1960, is assumed to stabilise at around 10 billion inhabitants in 2100,
• the world consumption of primary energy  is deemed to have gone from 9.5 in 2000 to 23 giga toe/year in 2100.

This is a moderate increase, very much lower than the growth rates we have experienced up to now. Thus consumption per inhabitant would indeed be limited on average to 2.3 toe per inhabitant per year, whereas the OECD countries already now consume 4.7 and whereas also the developing countries are below 1 toe.

Figure 6 also illustrates the way in which the primary energy consumption might be developed to meet the rates of consumption in the previous scenario.  

Fossil  fuels 

Energy consumption from fossil fuels reaches a peak and then falls off, in particular because of the commitments of the various countries to limit their emissions of carbon gas. The scenario presented is, however, still far from fulfilling the criteria of the Kyoto conference.

As far as coal is concerned, growth is relatively weak not only because of the greenhouse effect (emissions of carbon gas during burning and of methane during extraction), but also because of emissions of sulphur, nitrogen oxides and ash from domestic use. Coal is also penalised by its very high cost of transport by land. (A problem for mainland China.)

As far as petrol is concerned, this product that has almost all the qualities needed, the problem of reserves is particularly sensitive and of course the experts are far from all being in agreement. It seems, however, that even though « proven » reserves will still last for between 30 and 50 more years the last remaining world reserves of conventional crude, as estimated by the various players, have stopped increasing since 1973, the inevitable sign of an imminent decline.

As far as gas is concerned there exists no consensus about the last remaining resources, nor about the best means of assessing them, but there is agreement, however, on the fact that they are not infinite and that a reduction in production is likely from 2050.

There is one final but important remark to be made about this figure: the rapidly growing transport sector, for which oil is today irreplaceable, could represent from 2050 onwards a consumption equivalent to the total production of oil. Hence the usefulness of studies carried out on the use of hydrogen. But we must not forget that hydrogen is not a primary energy and that it requires other energy sources to be produced.

 

Renewable forms of energy

Their share, though growing very rapidly, seems relatively limited. Figure 7 attempts a forecast.

At present only hydraulic energy is widely used. As this form of energy cannot be developed much further in most countries, it is other forms of renewable energy that will have to be looked into.

The part these sources of energy might play over the next hundred years is a very controversial subject. They are now taking off rapidly, with sometimes very high rates of growth, 20 or even 30 % per year in certain sectors such as photovoltaic solar energy, wind power or biofuels. It is therefore especially difficult at this point in time to assess its long term development without falling into the trap of making facile extrapolations.

Each of these energy sources presents particular fields of application, advantages and often disadvantages that are specific to each, but their ability to compete at their present stage of development is certainly not guaranteed and for their development to continue the community as a whole will have to subsidise significantly not only the research costs but also the production costs. This is due in particular to their low energy density (the space taken up by each kwh produced). See figure 12).

Figure 12 – Approximate energy density of different sources of energy

To produce 10 terawatt-hour/year of electricity:

Ground area taken up by energy source:
- nuclear energy..................<1 km²
- wind energy..................500 km²
- biomass energy.........7,000 km²

Annual consumption:
- nuclear power...................300 tonnes of natural uranium
- coal-fired power station............2,500,000 tonnes of coal
- wind power.................4 000 turbines

NB :Electricity production in France : 500 terawatt-hour/year

In the long run it seems therefore impossible to do without nuclear energy, even if the construction of nuclear power stations is for the moment at a standstill in western countries because of the pressure of public opinion. It must however be noted that 35 nuclear reactors are under construction in the world, using existing models (pressurised water reactors, boiling reactors, heavy water reactors), which have already proved their worth.

 

Advantages and defects of nuclear energy

They are summarised in the table in figure 8. Its most important points are as follows:

• nuclear energy mainly produces electricity and this is not really able to replace the hydrocarbons used for transport,
• nuclear energy functions inside its own base, whereas renewable sources, hydraulic, solar and wind power, are often subject to changing weather conditions, which necessitates the existence of alternative methods of production in the event of a breakdown in supply.
• Because of its high investment costs this form of energy should be and for the moment actually is reserved for developed countries and the hydrocarbons should be reserved for the developing countries.
• Uranium reserves are not unlimited. This, as we shall see later, can be solved by the use of plutonium.
• the problem of the safe management of radioactive waste must be able to be resolved both on the technical level as far as public opinion is concerned.
• the contribution of this form of energy to the greenhouse effect is nil.

In France, the construction company Areva-Framatome is taking advantage of the current standstill to develop in collaboration with the Siemens company the ERP reactor (European Reactor Project), which benefits from numerous improvements in reliability and safety.

At the same time American and Russian contractors, rivals in the world market, are also bringing out improved, competitively-priced.

For the more distant future a programme initiated by the Americans, « Generation IV », is now bringing together ten countries: France, Great Britain, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. Its aim is to develop a new generation of nuclear systems which could be operational by about 2030. Six concepts have been chosen as of now by Generation IV:

• the sodium-cooled fast reactor
• the lead-cooled fast reactor
• the gas-cooled fast reactor
• the very high temperature reactor
• the super critical water-cooled reactor
• the molten salt reactor.

The concepts chosen meet defined criteria of durability, safety and reliability, economy, non-proliferation and physical protection. All these reactors are designed for a closed fuel cycle, i.e. for sophisticated reprocessing and the re-use of plutonium. Three of them are rapid neutron flux concepts, enabling the use of impoverished uranium and thereby extending by at least 1000 years the reserves of uranium.

Another concept chosen is the very high temperature reactor, which enables applications other than electricity, in particular the production of hydrogen.

Now that the choice of concepts for Generation IV has been made, research and development is becoming organised with the work being shared out internationally between the member countries.

This research and development is not intended to preclude the continuing use of the previous generation of nuclear reactors for at least thirty years.

The new reactors will take over from the previous ones from then on.

As was to be expected, discussion has centred on security, waste and radioactivity. Concerning security, nuclear energy follows the same pattern as all other dangerous human activities, for example electricity, the motor car or aviation, which have become more and more safe as a result of analysis and experience.   

The problem of waste

Figure 9 represented total waste production in France per inhabitant and per year. For 10,000 kilos of waste of all kinds produced in France per inhabitant, the overall amount of nuclear waste is one kilo, of which 10 grammes are made up of long-life radioactive waste already diluted and vitrified for storage.

Despite the very small amounts concerned, the storage of this waste poses a serious problem for society because of the precautionary principle in respect of future generations.

I would remind you that among these types of waste we can distinguish:

-- those that contain only short-lived radio-elements, the radioactivity of which will have practically disappeared, called class A. This type of waste, which makes up most of the total amount, is generally encased in cement and placed inside water-tight concrete or metal containers that are carefully checked and recorded. The latter are then placed inside concrete cells in a surface storage site that is covered with a multi-layered skin, consisting in particular of a bitumen membrane and above it a layer of grassed-over soil. This type of surface storage can be easily monitored for 300 years.
France possess two surface storage sites for class A waste, one that is at present full, situated in the department of the Manche, and the other currently in use, situated in the department of the Aube.

-- the small quantity of those that contain most of the long-lived radio-elements, called class C waste.
This type of waste is by far and away the most important problem for the management of radioactive waste produced by the nuclear industry, since it contains the largest amount of radioactivity (99.5 % for alpha activity, and 97.5 % for beta – gamma activity).
In addition this type of waste retains its radioactivity over a very long period.

Figure 10 represents the evolution of category C waste activity over time. The upper curve refers to waste (spent fuel from nuclear reactors) put into storage without reprocessing.

The lower curb represents the same type of waste after the removal of plutonium by reprocessing.

The right-hand horizontal represents the benchmark activity of the same amount of natural uranium.

It can be seen that reprocessing, by removing the plutonium, considerably reduces the time needed for the radioactivity to decrease.

Given the very long time needed for this decrease it seems preferable for the future, rather than to store the waste on the surface to use geological storage deep underground. This solution presupposes of course the choice of a geologically safe site, as little subject to seismic activity as possible and with very little water in circulation.

In France, the 1991 law on nuclear energy made the provision that a definitive decision on the method and site of storage should be taken in 2006.

In countries that do not undertake the reprocessing of fuel, the spent fuel elements are enclosed in heavy copper containers that are then in turn put inside concrete cells for underground storage.

In the case of France and in part for Germany, Japan, Belgium and the United Kingdom, the fuel is reprocessed. High activity waste coming from reprocessing is vitrified and therefore takes on the form of special glass blocks. These blocks are at present stored at the reprocessing site before deep-level storage. 

Lastly, some waste that contains long-lived radio-elements in very small quantities, called category B waste, undergoes various processes to reduce its volume and later is treated in the same way as category C waste.  

Radioactivity 

The rays emitted by radioactive substances are imperceptible to the senses, whereas excessive exposure can produce cancers or even cause death. They therefore instill fear. But everything is a matter of degree.

Radioactivity is present everywhere in the universe. It has always existed on earth and has been much more intense here in the past. It was perhaps one of the factors that conditioned the evolution of living species.

Without realising it, we live in a radioactive environment. Inside the bodies of each one of us radioactivity is broken down on average 8000 times per second.

Figure 11 illustrates the sources of average natural radioactivity that we are subject to in France. A large proportion of this radioactivity comes from causes over which we have no control. There is radon in the air we breathe, especially in the vicinity of coal-fired power stations. Medicine represents a significant component of the extra irradiation we are subject to.

The extra radioactivity suffered by people living next to nuclear power plants in France is far less than a hundredth part of natural radioactivity in the environment.

Radioactivity is subject to considerable variation across the globe. There are regions, such as Kerala in India, where its intensity is thirty times greater than in France, and yet it has not proved possible to establish an abnormal number of cancers among populations that have lived there for generations despite extensive epidemiological studies.

All these types of irradiation are measured with an efficiency and precision that outstrip ways of measuring all existing poisons. A very large number of official organisations in the world are engaged in studying the toxicity of nuclear energy. Thanks to the body of knowledge accumulated, and regularly exchanged in a large number of conferences, this toxicity is well known.

You will hear it said that any radioactivity additional to natural radioactivity, however small, should be banned because it is potentially a cause of cancer, not to say of genetic mutations.

The French Academy of Medicine has never failed to speak out against such allegations. It has even questioned the validity of international regulations imposing an additional reduction of acceptable limits for workers, the public and foodstuffs. Indeed in all living cells there are constantly at work efficient repair mechanisms and there no doubt exist as a result off these repairs toxicity threshold effects.

This debate can be illustrated in the following way: if you smoke eighty cigarettes a day for forty years the odds are that you will get cancer of the lungs: the probability is close to 1. However, some people claim that if eighty people smoke one cigarette per day for forty years this will also produce cancer of the lungs in them. This is untrue. It is by using such crude notions that some people for instance regularly give assessments of the number of victims of Chernobyl that are completely without any objective, measurable foundation.

(Translated by Michael Glencross)

 

Back to the English-language section of bastiat.net.