Sustainable nuclear scenarios (Guglielmo Lomonaco) Italy

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

Preliminary Approach to Sustainable Nuclear Scenario Definition.

Case Study: Italy B. Vezzoni, G. Lomonaco, G. Forasassi, CIRTEN, Dep. Mech. Nuclear and Prod. Engineering, University of Pisa, Via Diotisalvi, n°2-56126 Pisa-ITALY Tel: +39-050-836620; Fax: +39-050-836665 Correspondent author e-mail: barbara.vezzoni@ing.unipi.it

Abstract – This work, developed as a part of a wider project carried on in the frame of an agreement among Italian MSE, ENEA and CIRTEN, focused on the determination of a suitable methodology to compare different nuclear fuel cycle scenarios with particular attention to strategies able to minimize nuclear wastes.

Starting from the energy-electricity projections for the period 2008-2050, the share to cover by nuclear energy has been analyzed and resulting scenarios have been defined.

In order to compare different options, the identification of principal indicators available for the nuclear energy-electricity sector has been carried on. Among these indicators, the radiotoxicity vs. time of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is one of the most interesting for both acceptability and wastes reduction points of view.

In this work, as a case study, the Italian situation has been investigated. Italy does not have nuclear electricity production at present but it will be probably inserted in the new energy action plane. In this context a LOW and HIGH scenarios have been simulated, where EPRs are inserted to cover the energy demand for the medium term and, starting from 2035, Gen-IV lead cooled fast reactors have been introduced for the long term.

Computational tools used are MCNPX-2.5.0 and ORIGEN-2.2 codes, for the reactor behaviour simulation, and NFCSS scenario code, released by IAEA in 2008, for scenario analyses.

I. INTRODUCTION Nowadays, it is possible to affirm that the development followed by the industrialized countries is becoming not more sustainable (considering both the natural resources involved and the derived environmental impact). Therefore, new integrated strategies, based on the diversification of energy sources, have to be found.

If the attention is directed to the sustainability of the energy context, two main challenges can be identified: the reduction of CO2 emissions and the preservation of natural resources (oil, natural gas, uranium) for a future worldwide development process.

For these reasons, the researches on energy field have been directed to identify and to analyse possible future energy scenarios able to cover the energy demand without further compromising the environmental conditions.

The present work has been developed as a part of a wider project in the frame of research program foreseen in the general agreement (A.d.P) among Italian MSE, ENEA and CIRTEN. It focuses on the definition of a suitable methodology to compare different nuclear energy options

where Gen-III+ (e.g. European Pressurized Reactor, EPR) and Gen-IV facilities (in particular Lead cooled Fast Reactors, LFR) are inserted. As case study the Italian situation has been considered.

Anyhow, it is important to underline that the nuclear scenarios analyses are only a small part of the most general scenario analyses under development worldwide. On the other hand, the importance of nuclear energy, considering both the future supply and the mitigation of the climate changes contributions, brings about to investigate deeply nuclear solutions.

In this process, the definition of a suitable methodology to compare nuclear energy options could be useful to reduce the uncertainties necessarily involved in that process.

The methodology, as afterward described, starts from the analysis of the historical data and the present situation of the specific area investigated.

To limit uncertainties related to future projections, the time scale chosen is restricted to the period 2008÷2050, although an enlargement of this scale would not involve

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

the methodology change, and it will be analysed during the next activities.

For a considered area, the annual rates of nuclear and total electricity productions have been considered, taking into account the most up to date international publications (IAEA, IEA, IPCC, IIASA and NEA) on this issue.

After the specification of the boundary conditions, some hypotheses, concerning the substitution of the actual reactor fleet with new facilities, could be proposed to set up nuclear scenarios. These scenarios are finally investigated and compared on the basis of the most significant indicators for the nuclear sector (radiotoxicity, inventory of wastes, resources involved) in order to underline advantages and drawbacks of each choice.

As a case study, the Italian situation has been chosen.

In fact, that situation could be considered an ‘edge case’, because for Italy is impossible to speak about transition scenarios, such as for all the other European countries.

Actually, Italy does not have nuclear electricity production but it is going to start a new energy action plan where evolutionary Gen-III+ reactors will be inserted (the European Pressurized Reactor is the most likely). For the long term the adoption of Gen-IV fast reactors (Leadcooled fast reactors) has been considered.

II. THE ANALYSIS BACKGROUND At the base of the present work, there is the definition of Sustainable Development, as proposed by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: a development able to meet needs of present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs1.

To reach the sustainability, an integrate and multidisciplines process has to be adopted. In fact, heterogeneous sectors, such as the environment, the social and the economic ones, have to be taken into account simultaneously. That is schematically represented in Fig. 1.

The concept of the energy sector sustainable development is become more and more attractive in Europe. One of the most specific document published in 2006 is the ‘Green Paper': A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy’3, at which several European Council dispositions and Parliament deliverables have followed4.

All those dispositions have been and are important to set up the background for a coordinated effort among member States in order to efficiently reach environmental goals identified.

In fact, worldwide, the main target fixed, for the environmental protection, is the containment of temperature increase at 2050 (DT) by 2°C if compared to pre-industrial level, as IPCC has indicated on the basis of biological environmental studies5.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the central aspects of sustainable development based on the definition of Bruntland Commission1, 2

This target is reachable only by the reduction on the reliance on fossil fuels (minimizing the carbon gas emissions) by the partial substitution of energy-electricity production chain. Nevertheless, in order to be incisive, this process has to be developed in a more general agreement between industrialized countries, such as Western Europe and USA, and countries, as China and India, involved at present in a very fast development.

Therefore, European Union (EU) to make an effort to change, as soon as possible, the actual trend, has fixed own intermediate objectives, the so called 3x20 objectives for 2020: • • •

20% reduction in GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions compared to 1990; 20% energy saving (improvement on plants efficiency); 20% share of renewable energies (hydro, photovoltaic and biomass) in the total energy mix.

In order to respect these ambitious goals, the European Commission (EC) published in November 2007 the ‘Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan’ where a set of competitive low carbon energy technologies has been identified6.

In particular, the use of nuclear energy seems to be essential to cover the future energy needs (considering both the medium and the long term).

In fact for the medium term at least the current level of nuclear energy in Europe’s electricity mix (around 31%) has to be maintained, applying the Planlife Extention (PLEX) strategy of existing Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and by an ambitious programme of new build.

On the other hand, for the long term (2050), the SET Plan recommends to act now to ‘complete the preparation for the demonstration of a new generation (Gen-IV) of fission reactors with increased sustainability’6.

Of coarse, the improvement on nuclear energy use has to be coupled with an intensive and extensive use of

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

renewable sources and by the adoption of new carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies.

In this framework, an analysis of the sustainability of nuclear scenario seems to an important step to analyse in collusion with the other strategies.

In particular, nuclear scenario means first of all, the analysis of fuel cycle to adopt in order to have the scenario chosen and the definition of mass streams is a central part to investigate.

In order to describe, as better as possible, the methodology adopted, two subsequent approaches are presented. First of all the methodology will be described in details, then the application to case study (Italy) will be presented to help underling the most critical point.

A particular attention has been directed to choose the most useful indicators, among the energy-electricity indicators, for the nuclear sector. The choice has been based on the criterion of the nuclear energy acceptability, as presented later on.

III. THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED As previous mentioned, this work focuses on the the definition of a suitable methodology to compare different nuclear energy options, taking into account the sustainability of each choice.

The methodology set up could be summarized in very few steps, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. A simplified block diagram of the methodology proposed for the nuclear scenario analysis

The starting point is the analysis of present situation and of the historical data considered both the total electricity and nuclear energy productions. That analysis is a crucial aspect to investigate in order to guarantee a sort of ‘continuity’ for the near term.

!Therefore, the need to set up a preliminary methodology is related to the aim to model, as much as possible, reproducible scenarios, that are boundary conditions for the following fuel cycle analyses.

In fact, several sources of uncertainties (e.g. the energy demand projections, the political dispositions, the level of technology development) should be considered in these analyses and they should be taken into account to compare final results.

It is important to underline that scenario analyses are not ‘prediction tools’ but they could be considered as an extrapolation of actual situations affected by the improvement in the energy-environmental sectors and by the energy policies adopted.

These analyses, indeed, could be used as a help to policy makers (e.g. IEA publications are proposed as a support to G8 decision on energy field7).

The following steps, that compose the methodology, have been analyzed in depth: • • •

Future energy-electricity demand Future nuclear share on the electricity sector Substitution of in operation reactors by new ones (or introduction ex-novo of new facilities, e.g. Italian case) III.A. Future energy-electricity demand

The definition of the future energy demand projections, considering both primary and electricity needs, is a very difficult analysis to perform.

In fact, complex models where economical, political and environmental considerations are taken into account all together, should be adopted.

For this reason, only specific organizations (e.g. IEA, IAEA, IIASA, IPCC, NEA) could be considered trustworthy to define future energy demand trend.

So, as mentioned above, the work performed by these organizations has been chosen as technical support to decision making process as well as to energy policy definition.

A detailed analysis of models adopted by that organizations is not feasible, but data presented as their results, could be considered useful to set boundary conditions in the investigation of fuel cycle scenarios.

Furthermore, the adoption of these common data could make consistent the analysis.

As previously indicated, the analysis has been circumscribed to a limited period of time (2008÷2050) mainly to minimize uncertainties involved. In addition 2050 is the upper limit date adopted by several International Publications (used as reference in this work), and it could be a useful date, also, for the analysis of nuclear scenarios where Gen-IV reactors are inserted (foreseen between 2035-2040).

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

For this preliminary approach (and for the Italian case study), data adopted derive from the IAEA’s publications8,9. This choice is strictly related to the fact that these publications seem complete both for nuclear and total electricity trends points of view; therefore they were considered useful for a first application of the methodology.

In any case, for what concerns the future energy trends, IAEA gives data up to 2030, that have been extrapolated up to 2050 (because they are in agreement with the IEA10 ones).

When an extrapolation of actual energy situation is performed, as just mentioned, uncertainties are necessary involved. For that reason, international organizations almost give an upper trend (HIGH case) and a lower trend (LOW case) between them the real growing up will be surely inserted.

The annual rates chosen for the total primary energy and for the electricity, are average values for Western Europe and they depends on the develop level of each area considered (in this case the area considered is Europe).

Values adopted are summarized in Table I. TABLE I Annual rates for Western Europe8,9 Parameter Period Population Primary Energy Electric Energy

Annual rate LOW HIGH 2008÷2050 ∼0.2% +0.2% +0.9% +1.0% +2.8%

Assuming these values, the increase of electricity needs, in the period considered, will be not negligible, passing from 3194.7 TWh/year in 200711 to 4900.6 TWh/year for the LOW case and 10474.5 TWh/year for the HIGH case, as shown in Fig. 3. These data take into account also the share of nuclear energy of the total electricity: 884.0 TWh/year in 2007 equal to an average value of 27.67% that becomes equal to 31% if EU15 is considered.

Fig. 3. LOW and HIGH scenarios for the EU27: electricity needs

These values are extrapolated on the basis of the historical trends and they further take into account the energy policies adopted up to now in Europe (e.g. countries as Belgium, Germany and Spain have decided the gradual phase out from the nuclear electricity production). Furthermore, the small increase even in the case of HIGH scenario, is justified by the developed situation of Europe, where reactors actually in operation still with 15÷20 years gap remaining before shutdown, even without consideration of a possible Plan Life Extension (PLEX) strategy as in the case of USA. A different background now could be find that will imply a radical change of these trends, as mentioned above (SNE-TP medium term strategy).

In the case of nuclear energy share, it could be interesting to apply the average annual rates only under a specification that takes into account the energy policy adopted and the reactor fleet in operation (special attention to the fleet age).

An example of that could be expressed by Fig. 4, that shows the nuclear capacity installed in Spain (LOW and HIGH cases) where average trend are applied only after 2025. As already indicated, Spain decided the gradual phase-out from nuclear energy production, represented in Fig. 4 by an initial substantial reduction on nuclear capacity installed for both scenarios.

III.B. Future nuclear share on the electricity sector In order to define the share of electricity production to cover by nuclear energy, in this preliminary approach, the reference adopted still remain data from IAEA’s publications8,9.

Even in this case a LOW and an HIGH annual rates are provided, and in the case of Western Europe are respectively equal to –2.2% (LOW) and +0.9% (HIGH) 8,9.

Fig. 4. LOW and HIGH scenarios for Spain: nuclear capacity installed

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

III.C. Scenarios definition After the definition of nuclear installed capacity trends for the HIGH and the LOW cases, considered as the boundary conditions, the determination of transition scenarios could be set up.

Different strategies already exist (different reactors, different fuel cycle strategies, etc.) but in this preliminary approach only two types of facilities have been considered for the determination of scenarios: • •

the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) proposed by AREVA, for the medium term partial substitution of existing plants, the Lead cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) proposed in GenIV, for the long- equilibrium term.

The choice of EPR is easy to justify because, focusing in an European scenario, it seams to be the more reasonable solutions for the next years (this kind of facility is under construction in two European sites, Olkiluoto and Flamanville, and it is the facility that should be built in the frame of the ex-novo Italian nuclear energy plan).

For the long term, the introduction of Gen-IV facilities has to be considered. Among the six projects under investigation in Gen-IV frame, the choice of the lead cooled fast reactors is related to the necessity to have fast fission processes and Breeding Gain greater than one (BG>1), respectively to reduce final wastes and to have an optimised use of resources. Furthermore, our Research Team (DIMNP) is involved in the development of the European Lead cooled Fast Reactor (ELSY)12, that is the European proposal for the Gen-IV LFR. Under these hypotheses, now, some scenarios could be identified.

In order to give an example for the Spain case, Fig. 5 shows the substitution of Spanish nuclear fleet (6 PWRs and 2 BWRs) by the introduction, starting from 2024 of 3 EPRs)13 in order to cover LOW scenario nuclear trend (blue line).

Fig. 5. LOW scenario for Spain: substitution of existing reactors by 3 EPRs13

Once that scenarios are defined, the analysis of advantages and drawbacks has to be performed. This comparison is directed to identify the benefits of Pu recycling and of the minor actinides (MA) transmutation.

III.D. How compare nuclear scenarios A correct comparison of the possible scenarios proposed is one of the most critical point to investigate.

In fact, it involves simultaneously different sectors: environmental, social and economical ones.

In order to compare heterogeneous values, the adoption of a set of suitable indicators representative of the whole problem, seems to be the more correct way.

Starting from the indicators typical of the electric sector (IAEA14, NEA2) the identification of the more representative for the nuclear sector has been performed.

The chosen indicators are: • • • •

The Radiotoxicity vs. time evolution of SNF (analysing the time to reach a chosen reference level RL); The total inventory of wastes; The heat decay of wastes (useful for the design of the needful deep repository; The resources (U and Pu) involved.

Other indicators exist (such as the cost/KWh) but, even if important, they are not considered at this stage.

In order to explain in details the methodology, a particular case study has been chosen and presented in the following parts.

IV. CASE STUDY: ITALY In order to show some key points of the methodology set up, the Italian case has been chosen as reference one.

In fact, it could be considered an ‘edge case’ if compared with other European countries because actually Italy does not have nuclear electricity production to cover its energy demand.

In this case, it is impossible to speak about transition scenarios in “continuity” with historical behaviour but new scenarios have to be defined.

However, in a country that want to re-open at the nuclear energy option, an analysis of sustainability could be considered as a useful activity to perform.

To set up scenarios for Italy, the only help comes from the political decisions (European directives and Italian governmental ones) in order to have an idea about ‘starting’ time and number of reactors to insert in the energy mix.

In any case, for the moment, scenarios hereinafter described, considered only the introduction of Gen-III+ facilities (EPR) and Gen-IV LFR.

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

Even in this case the starting point is the actual situation of Italy, where nuclear energy production is absent.

In fact, in Italy, 4 reactors were operated between 1964 and 1990, and their lifetime generations are shown in Table II. TABLE II Italian reactors lifetime energy Generation (GWe h)15 NPP

MWe net

Period

Lifetime gen.

(GWe h)

Latina

GCR

153

1964-‘87

25489.2

Garigliano

BWR

150

1964-‘82

12246

Trino

PWR

260

1965-‘90

24307.1

Caorso

BWR

860

1981-‘90

27725.8

In order to have an idea about the share of nuclear energy in Italy in the period 1963-1989, Fig. 6 is proposed.

The average share was about 2.6%, with the higher case of 4.5% in 198616.

Energy mix: 1963 - 1989 100%

Fig. 7. The Spent Fuel Storage stock for the period 1963÷1989

After this brief investigation, it is possible to apply the methodology set up above described.

The first step is the analysis of future energyelectricity demand applying average annual rates proposed by the IAEA for the LOW and the HIGH case8,9. Furthermore, an average trend has been proposed (called AVEG case).

Table III summarizes the electricity needs in the three cases, applying the annual rates of 1.0%, 1.9% and 2.8%, respectively for the LOW, AVEG and HIGH cases. This bring to obtain that the electricity needs in 2050 will be 1.5÷2.2÷3.2 times the actual needs.

80%

TABLE III

60%

Italian projections of the electricity needs considering three cases: HIGH, AVEG, and LOW Nuclear

40%

Geothermal

20%

LOW Year 2008 2018 2023 2028 2038 2045 2050

Hydro Thermal

0% 1963

1967

1971

1975

years

1979

1983

1987

Fig. 6. Italian Energy Mix in the period 1963 -198916.

Concerning wastes produced during that years, and the present accords for the reprocessing, it is possible to indicate that the quantity in storage in Italy is about 237 tonHM17, that means a very low quantity (in fact the big amount of wastes have been sent to reprocessing site and about 6000 m3 of vitrified wastes will come back for the final disposal). In addition a contract exists between Italy and AREVA(France) to reprocess all the remaining spent fuel in Italy.

A simplified model of the old Italian fleet has been performed by means of the fuel cycle code adopted, taking into account nuclear power installed and the real load factors get in the period considered. The Spent Fuel Storage stock, as an example, is shown in Fig.7, where the values obtained are in agreement with the literature ones.

336.49 353.65 371.69 410.58 440.19 462.65

AVEG TWe h 304.62 367.70 460.95 443.85 535.77 611.22 671.53

HIGH

401.50 403.99 529.19 697.50 846.25 971.55

In order to set scenarios at this point some hypothesis have to be added. In particular, there is not continuity with the past situation, and in order to take into account a wider range three scenarios have been defined, as follow: 1.

2.

3.

Case ONE: Introduction of 4 EPRs in the near term (starting from 2018) with use of MOX in the second stratum; Case TWO: Introduction of 8 EPRs (4 in 2028 where recycling on MOX is possible and 4 in 2025 without MOX use) and 3 LFRs starting from 2038: Case THREE: Introduction of 12 EPR (in three subsequent slots of 4 units) and 7 LFR starting from 2038.

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

If these scenarios (shown in Fig. 8) are implemented the share covered by nuclear energy in the case of HIGH, AVEG and LOW scenarios is summarized in Table IV and in Fig. 9.

Case_1

20000

Case_2

15000

Case_3

MWe

25000

front end and back end facilities) could be a help for the comparison of the strategies.

In this preliminary work, the code adopted is tha Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation System (NFCSS code) released by the IAEA in 200818. It is a scenario based computer model for the estimation of fuel cycle service requirements and it has been designed to estimate longterm fuel cycle requirements and actinide arising.

The three cases have been model inside this code and results obtained are presented below.

10000

IV.A. Case ONE

5000 0 2008

2018

2028

years

2038

2048

Fig. 8. Scenarios proposed for the Italian situation: cumulative nuclear capacity installed

The case of the introduction of 4 EPRs for the near term (starting from 2018), could involved a nuclear energy production behavior, shows in Fig. 10, that is able to cover only the 5 % of electricity needs in 2050 (the use of MOX has been limited to the period 2030-2038).

TABLE IV Italian projections of the electricity needs: nuclear energy share 2018 Case ONE Case TWO Case THREE

LOW 6.86 % 6.86 % 6.86 %

Case ONE Case TWO Case THREE

5.62 % 11.78 % 17.40 %

Case ONE Case TWO Case THREE

4.99 % 11.39 % 18.25 %

AVEG 6.28 % 6.28 % 6.28 %

HIGH 5.75 % 5.75 % 5.75 %

4.31 % 9.02 % 13.33 %

3.31 % 6.93 % 10.24 %

3.44 % 7.84 % 12.57 %

2.38 % 5.42 % 8.69 %

2038

%

2050

20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2008

2018 Low_1 Low 2

2028 Aveg_1 Aveg 2

Fig. 10. Electricity produced by nuclear energy by 4 EPRs. Period 2008รท2050 simulated by NFCSS18

The Uranium resources involved in this scenario are shown in Fig.11. It represents the natural uranium requirements for this cycle and the Spent Fuel in storage for reprocessing is shown in Fig.12. In both figures the red lines are the cumulative values obtained.

2038 ye a rs 2048 High_1 High 2

Fig. 9. Nuclear energy shares for three scenarios case for the Italian situation (2008รท2050)

After the definition of scenarios, the implementation of them within a Fuel Cycle code is the subsequent step to perform. In fact, only the simulation of a complete cycle and the definition of mass stream between facilities (both

Fig. 11. Natural uranium requirement for 4 EPRs. Period 2008รท2050 simulated by NFCSS18

The same approach has been used to simulate the other two scenarios for the Italian case.

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

IV.C. Case THREE For the case THREE, where 12 EPR (in three subsequent slots of 4 units) and 7 LFR are introduced, the electricity produced has been calculated, and shown in Fig. 15. In 2050 the value obtainable is about 172397 GWe h that corresponds to 12.57 % of total needs in the AVEG case.

Even in this case, the SNF could be evaluated by means of NFCSS code, obtaining that in 2050 there are 284.28 tons of SNF stored in order to be reprocessed.

Fig. 12. Spent fuel storage for reprocessing for 4 EPRs. Period 2008รท2050 simulated by NFCSS18 IV.B. Case TWO

The second case simulated is composed by 8 EPRs (4 in 2028 and 4 in 2025 without MOX use) and 3 LFRs starting from 2038.

The electric energy produced is shown in Fig. 13 and it represents the 11.4% of total electricity needs in 2050 (107923 GWe h), if the growing up will be in agreement with the LOW case chosen.

Only to give an example of particular data and mass flows furnished by the code, Fig. 14 shows the U enriched needed to implement the scenario with 8 EPRs and 3 LFRs.

Fig. 13. Electricity produced by nuclear energy by 8 EPRs and 3 LFRs in the period 2008รท2050 [by NFCSS18]

Fig. 14. Enriched uranium requirement for the case TWO. Period 2008รท2050 simulated by NFCSS 18

Fig. 15. Electricity produced by nuclear energy by 12 EPRs and 7 LFRs in the period 2008รท2050 [by NFCSS18]

IV.D. Preliminary comparisons among scenarios proposed After the definition of scenarios, the comparison among them is the following essential step to perform.

In this preliminary analysis, only the identification of the most important indicators (representative of different sectors that constitute the sustainability) has been performed; a further development of the work will be devoted to a detailed analysis of each indicators chosen where a correct evaluation of uncertainties involved will be the central point to analyze.

After the state-art revisions of energy-electricity indicators, the social acceptability has been adopted as a discriminate criterion, in order to chose indicators representative of the advantages and the drawbacks of the nuclear strategies.

Therefore, starting from the analysis of the European statistical data coming from the EC surveys (so called Eurobarometers) and in particular with reference to the Eurobarometer 200819 on nuclear wastes, major causes of opposition to the use of the nuclear energy have been identified: first of all nuclear energy chain is the biggest producer of radioactive wastes and these wastes have to be confined for a time not comparable with usual human times.

In this direction the radiotoxicity vs. time and the inventory of nuclear wastes have been chosen as special indicators for the sustainability analysis of the nuclear scenarios.

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

A correct comparison among three cases proposed will be necessary, even if a preliminary analysis performed is presented below.

The analysis of radiotoxicity vs. time of an EPR and a LFR (e.g. ELSY system) has been performed and they will analyzed in depth in the future planned research activities.

In order to give an example, Fig.16 shows the radiotoxicity of LFR, e.g the ELSY starting cycle, compared with a common LWR (where radiotoxicity coefficients adopted are relative to ICRP72 publication20).

Fig. 16. Radiotoxicity vs. Time evolution of a LFR (e.g ELSY), considering also the Pu separation case, compared with a common 1000MWe LWR

To analyze the inventory of the nuclear wastes produced in 2050 in Table V the spent fuel stock for reprocessing and the HLW volume streams have been summarized.

TABLE V

Case ONE Case TWO Case THREE

NOMENCLATURE BG A.d.P. CCS CIRTEN DIMNP

Nuclear waste inventory in 2050 Calculation by NFCSS 18 SF for reprocessing 88.25 ton HM 184.9 ton HM 284.28 ton HM

In particular, the Italian case, above preliminary presented, will be analyzed in depth and compared with scenarios proposed in different countries (such as France, Belgium and Spain), countries characterized by a big development of the nuclear sector.

In this comparison the attention will be focused on the application of specific indicators of nuclear energy sector but significant also for the acceptability of this source, of coarse taking into account that the public opinion on nuclear energy in Europe is divided by half (support to it 44% and opposition to it 45%).

It should also taken into account that the chosen indicators are not exhaustive, in fact the economic sector has not investigated here at all for the moment, even if the real importance of it is not negligible. Some indicators exist in this field (e.g. cost/kWh, or the engaged investment) and they have been investigated in the present and future activities of an other CIRTEN group.

The work will be continued by an analysis of uncertainties involved, and of the propagation of them in the final results.

HLW volume stock 318.256 m3 482.859 m3 675.104 m3

V. CONCLUSIONS This preliminary work has focused on the definition of a suitable methodology to set up nuclear scenarios with the aims to reach the sustainability target.

This methodology could be considered as the starting point to reduce uncertainties involved in this kind of analyses; indeed a correct evaluation of uncertainties will be the next step to develop.

This work will be further developed in the frame of the already indicated research program A.d.P foreseen in the general agreement among Italian MSE, ENEA, CIRTEN (Consortium of Italian University).

EC ELSY ENEA EPR EU GHG IAEA IEA IIASA IPCC LFR LWR MA MOX MSE NEA

Breeding Gain Accordo di Progetto - Project Agreemet Carbon Capture and Sequestration Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale per la Ricerca Tecnologica Nucleare Department of Mechanical Nuclear and Production Engineering European Commission European Lead-cooled SYstem Ente Nazionale Energia e Ambiente European Pressurized reactor European Union GreenHouse Gas International Atomic Energy Agency International Energy Agency International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Lead cooled Fast Reactor Light Water Reactor Minor Actinides Mixed OXide Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico - Italy Nuclear Energy Agency

Proceedings of Global 2009 Paris, France, September 6-11, 2009 Paper 9434

NFCSS NPP PLEX SET SNE-TP SNF

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation System Nuclear Power Plant PLan EXtention life Strategic Energy Technology Plan Sustainable Nuclear Energy – Technology platform Spent Nuclear Fuel REFERENCES

1.

Brundtland, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environmental and Development, Tech. Rep., Oxford (1987).

2.

NEA, Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Energy, No. 6242,Tech. Rep, OECD, Paris (2007).

3.

EC, Green Paper: a European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy, Tech.

Rep. SEC(2006) 317, March, 2006.

4.

EU, European Council - 9th March 2007 Conclusions of Presidence, Tech. Rep. 7224/07, EU, 2007.

5.

IPCC, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2000.

6.

EC, Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technical Platform: Strategic research Agenda, Final Draft, 2009.

7.

IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives, Tech. Rep., OECD, Paris, 2008.

8.

IAEA, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2030, Tech. Rep., IAEA, 2008.

9.

IAEA, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power: Developments and Projections, Tech. Rep., IAEA, 2008.

10. IEA, World Energy Outlook – 2006, Tech. Rep., OECD, 2006.

11. EUROSTAT, Electricity Statistics – provisional data for 2007, EU, 2007.

12. Cinotti L., LFR Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor, UCRLCONF-221396, FISA 2006, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, May 2006.

13. Vezzoni B., et al. Preliminary Set Up of the Methodology to Analyse nuclear fuel cycle scenarios, in proceedings, ICONE17, Brussels, 2009.

14. IAEA, Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Tech.

Rep., STI/PUB/1222, 2005.

15. IAEA, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html.

16. TERNA, Dati Storici produzione elettrica – Italia, TERNA Rete Elettrica Nazionale, Italy.

17. NEA, Nuclear Energy Data – 2008 No. 6347, Tech.

Rep., OECD, Paris, 2008.

18. IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation System (NFCSS), User manual, IAEA, 2008.

19. EU, European Citizens Opinions Towards Radioactive Wastes, EU, April, 2008.

20. ICRP, Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 72, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1996.