Geo Physics 200 A Oil and War Oil

Geo. Physics 200 A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar) Burton Richter Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies Paul Pigott Professor Emeritus, Stanford University Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center May 26, 2006

Abstract Nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance around the world. Twenty new reactors are under construction today and many more are in the planning stage. Even in the U. S. , utilities are beginning to run new nuclear plants through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing procedure. The drivers for this renaissance are mainly energy supply issues and to a lesser extent environmental issues, global warming in particular. In this talk I will discuss some of the background leading to this expansion and then go on to look at the 3 main issues that are of concern to some; safety (little new to say), spent-fuel disposal (how many Yucca Mountains), and nuclear weapons’ proliferation (internationalization of the fuel cycle). 1

IIASA Projection of Future Energy Demand 2

CO 2 Intensity GDP (ppp) Area (Billions of U. S. Dollars) CO 2/GDP Kg/$(ppp) World 42, 400 0. 56 France 1, 390 0. 28 (IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2003) 3

The Renaissance: Ä 20 under construction (most in Asia) Ä 1 in Europe (Finland) Ä Germany is reconsidering planned shutdown of reactors Ä 2 moving through licensing phase in U. S. Ä In total about 100 (including above) in discussion or design. 4

World Nuclear Expansion: U. S. Role • Over 130 reactors are being built, planned, or under consideration world-wide • U. S. has not ordered a reactor for decades, despite an existing fleet of over 100 reactors • The U. S. should be in a position to influence how these facilities are designed, constructed, and operated – Safety – Waste disposal – Proliferation-resistance 5

Nuclear Power Projection to 2030 6

In the U. S. ÄNuclear Incentives in 2006 Energy Bill Ø Licensing streamlined Ø “Insurance” against regulatory delays Ø Cost sharing for First-of-a-Kind costs ÄGNEP Ø Waste treatment change Ø Proliferation risk reduction 7

Components of Spent Reactor Fuel Component Per Cent Of Total Radioactivity Untreated required isolation time (years) Fission Fragments Uranium Long-Lived Component 4 95 1 Intense Negligible Medium 200 0 300, 000 8

Yucca Mountain Repository Layout

Computed Yucca Mountain Repository Temperatures for Direct Disposal of 25 Year Old, 50 GWD/MT PWR Fuel 10

Radiotoxicity of LWR Spent Fuel 11

Environmental Standards Ä EPA set a 10, 000 year standard. Ä Court held EPA violated 1992 Waste Policy Act Ø Mandated EPA follow scientific advice of NAS. Ø NAS said “Keep safe as long as dangerous”. Ä EPA issued new standard that sets all sources dose limit for the dumbest person on Earth at 350 mr/yr. Ä Yucca goes on as before in principle. 12

Repository Requirements in the United States by the Year 2100* Nuclear Futures Legal Limit Extended License for Current Reactors Continued Constant Energy Generation Constant Market Share Growing Market Share Total Discharged Fuel by 2100, MTHM 63, 000 120, 000 240, 000 600, 000 1, 300, 000 Repositories needed with current approach 1 2 4 9 21 1 2 5 11 1 2 5 Repository with expanded capacity With thermal recycle only With thermal and fast 1 13

(a) Transmutation Schematics with LWR Recycle LWR Separation Plant Fast System (one for every 7 -8 LWRs) Reprocessed Fuel Actinides U&FF (b) Without LWR Recycle LWR Fast System Actinides Separation Plant 14 U&FF

Impact of Loss Fraction 15

Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation & The Fuel Cycle ÄThere is NO proliferation-proof fuel cycle Ø Nations: Only method is binding international agreements that include sanctions for violators. Ø Terrorist Groups: It is not easy to build a Pu bomb. Risk is in buying or stealing or getting a gift of one, not so much from fuel cycle. 16

Proliferators Enrichment Phase (“Front End”) to make U(235) Weapons: South Africa (gave them up under IAEA supervision) Pakistan (centrifuge technology sold around the world) Libya (abandoned attempt) Iran ? Reprocessing (“Back End”) to make Pu Weapons: Israel India N. Korea 17

Technical Safeguards ÄNot much money is spent on advanced technical safeguards. ÄIAEA’s own budget is small. Most work is done by Weapons’ States in cooperation with IAEA. ÄFY’ 07 U. S. budget considerably boosts R&D on Technical Safeguards. ÄAll new facilities should be equipped with advanced technology. 18

Relative Proliferation Resistance Score (higher is better) 19

Plutonium Isotopic Mixture and Properties after Various Reactor Treatments (ANL) 20

Internationalize the Fuel Cycle Supplier States: Enrich Uranium Take back spent fuel Reprocess to separate Actinides Burn Actinides in “Fast Spectrum” reactors User States: Pay for reactors Pay for enriched fuel Pay for treatment of spent fuel (? ) 21

Safety Not much new to say: ÄChernobyl-style reactors never used for power outside old Soviet Bloc. ÄNew reactor designs are simplified compared to existing designs and use more passive safety systems. ÄRadiation risk has always been exaggerated. 22

Radiation Exposures Source Radiation Dose Millirem/year Natural Radioactivity 240 Natural in Body (75 kg)* 40 Medical (average) 60 Nuclear Plant (1 GW electric) 0. 004 Coal Plant (1 GW electric) 0. 003 Chernobyl Accident (Austria 1988) 24 Chernobyl Accident (Austria 1996) 7 *Included in the Natural Total 23

Public Health Impacts per TWh* Years of life lost: Nonradiological effects Coal Lignite Oil Gas Nuclear PV Wind 138 167 359 42 9. 1 58 2. 7 Radiological effects: Normal operation Accidents 16 0. 015 Respiratory hospital admissions 0. 69 0. 72 1. 8 0. 21 0. 05 0. 29 0. 01 Cerebrovascular hospital admissions 1. 7 1. 8 4. 4 0. 51 0. 11 0. 70 0. 03 Congestive heart failure 0. 80 0. 84 2. 1 0. 24 0. 05 0. 33 0. 02 Restricted activity days 4751 4976 12248 1446 314 1977 90 Days with bronchodilator usage 1303 1365 3361 397 86 543 25 Cough days in asthmatics 1492 1562 3846 454 98 621 28 Respiratory symptoms in asthmatics 693 726 1786 211 45 288 13 Chronic bronchitis in children 115 135 333 39 11 54 2. 4 Chronic cough in children 148 174 428 51 14 69 3. 2 Nonfatal cancer *Kerwitt et al. , “Risk Analysis” Vol. 18, No. 4 (1998). 2. 4 24

Costs ÄAREVA, GE, Westinghouse all claim costs of electricity about 4¢/kw-hr for a new plant after First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) costs recovered and after building a few. ÄAREVA Finnish plant costs $1800/kw which implies capital cost of about 2¢/kw-hr (30 yr @ 7%). Ä“Regulatory Risk” a concern addressed in 2006 Energy Bill. 25

Waste Treatment Costs Ä Federal Government is responsible for spent fuel. Ä 0. 1¢/kw-hr built into cost of nuclear electricity now. Ä Review of Yucca Mt. costs say 0. 1¢/kw-hr still about right. Ä Opponents of reprocessing say Actinide fuel costs about twice that of fresh U(235) fuel (correct). Ä Supporters of Reprocessing say cost of electricity increase by about 5%; in the noise (also correct). 26

Cost (Continued) Ä At Today’s Interest Rates & Treatment of Externalities: Ø Nuclear is competitive with coal. Ø Cheaper than gas. Ä Cost Including Reprocessing and Actinide Burning Not Yet Known Ø Reprocessing and fuel fabrication will cost more than French MOX (radioactive fuel). Ø Fast spectrum burners will cost more /kw-hr than LWRs. Number needed per LWR uncertain. Ø Repository will cost less than Yucca Mountain. Ä Will Take 20 Years To Do All the R&D. 27

Cost (Continued) ÄIf Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will be the Winner ØCO 2 sequestration 2 -3¢/kw-hr for coal and 1 -1. 5¢/kw-hr for gas. ØWind about equal to coal now, but get 1. 6¢/kw hr tax credit. ÄIf Supplier States – User States Model Works, Proliferation Risk Will be Greatly Reduced and Smaller Countries Greatly Benefited. 28

Conclusion ÄNuclear is Growing Fast in Rest of World. ÄNuclear is Probably Restarting in U. S. ÄSpent Fuel Problem Can be Solved. ÄGNEP is an Important Step for U. S. Nuclear Energy and for Significant Greenhouse Gas Reduction. 29