RAS0047-003-003C

TEXTBOOK for Multimedia Course on SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL CHALLENGES IN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT

Victor M. Murogov Professor, Obninsk Institute Atomic Power Engineering of National Research Nuclear University MEPhI Director, International Center of Nuclear Education, and Professor, National Research Nuclear University MEPhI

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 PART I CURRENT STATUS AND INTERNAL CONTRADICTION OF TRADITIONAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................2 I.1. Structure, of power generation and consumption of energy resources: Global, regional and national overview. Contradictions of the requirements of energy security and current situation in the world: Needs for development of the new industrial and sustainable sources of energy ................................................................................................................................3 I.1.1. The status of global power industry ...................................................................4 I.1.2. Ecological aspects of hydrocarbon energy .........................................................7 I.1.3. The prospects for energy development ..............................................................9 I.2. Concept of sustainable energy development. Indicators for sustainable development. United Nation Programme Agenda 21 and its requirements .................................................. 11 I.2.1. Concept of sustainable energy development ....................................................11 I.2.2. Indicators for sustainable development .............................................................13 I.2.3. United Nation Programme Agenda 21 and its requirements ............................. 16 PART II CURRENT STATUS AND MODERN PROBLEM FOR FULL-SCALE DEVELOPMENT NUCLEAR POWER ............................................................................... 19 II.1. Introduction: Current status of nuclear power development. Role of nuclear energy for development: industrial and developing country ................................................................... 20 II.1.1. Current status of nuclear power development .................................................20 II.1.2. Role of nuclear energy for development: industrial and developing country ... 24 II.2. History of the development nuclear science and technology, nuclear power and nuclear fuel cycle technology ............................................................................................................ 28 II.2.1. Basic stages in the history of nuclear science ................................................. 28 II.2.2. The first commercial use of nuclear energy .................................................... 32 II.2.3. Milestones in the history of nuclear energy science and technology ...............36 II.2.4. Brief information about outstanding scientists................................................ 37 II.3. History, current status and future prospects of nuclear power development in the major nuclear countries: Western Europe, USA, the former Soviet Union and Russian Federation .. 42 II.3.1. Nuclear power in Western European countries ............................................... 42 II.3.2. Nuclear power in the USA .............................................................................49 II.3.3. Nuclear power in Russia ................................................................................ 54 II.4. History, current status and future prospects of nuclear power development in Asia ........ 59 II.4.1. Nuclear power in China .................................................................................59 II.4.2. Nuclear programme in India .......................................................................... 63 II.4.3. Nuclear Power Development in Asia .............................................................66 II.5. Nuclear fuel cycle: fuel supply, enrichment, and reprocessing, open and closed fuel cycle, waste disposal............................................................................................................. 68 II.5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 68 II.5.2. NFC technology components ......................................................................... 68 II.5.3. Global infrastructure of NFC .........................................................................69 II.5.4. Requirements to NFC ....................................................................................71 II.5.6. NFC internationalization ................................................................................ 73 II.6. Non-power applications of nuclear medicine, agriculture, industry, desalination, heating and others ................................................................................................................. 76

II.6.1. Research reactors ........................................................................................... 76 II.6.2. Non-electric application of nuclear technologies ............................................78 II.6.3. Radioisotopes in medicine ............................................................................. 80 II.6.4. Radioisotopes in industry ............................................................................... 82 II.6.5. Non-electric applications of nuclear energy ...................................................85 II.7. Role of international cooperation in nuclear science and technology development and international nuclear organizations: IAEA, WNA, WANO, OECDNEA and others ............ 88 II.7.1. Some stages of international initiatives on the peaceful use of nuclear energy 88 II.7.2. International Initiatives on non-proliferation and use of nuclear weapon ........ 90 II.7.3. Key international organizations related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 91 II.7.4. International initiatives on the development of innovative nuclear energy systems .................................................................................................................. 101 II.7.5. The need for global cooperation ................................................................... 108 PART III CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 110 III.1. Energy security and role of nuclear power for sustainable development of the planet . 111 III.1.1. Challenges and contradictions of nuclear energy development .................... 111 III.1.2. Socialpolitical and economical aspects of nuclear energy development ..... 114 III.1.3. Nuclear culture ........................................................................................... 115 III.1.4. NPP and NFC of the future International Scientific and Technical Cooperation ........................................................................................................... 116 CONCLUDING REMARKS .............................................................................................. 118

INTRODUCTION The Multimedia Course SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL CHALLENGES IN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT consists of textbook of lectures (10 lectures, approx. 118 pages), 10 presentations (approx. 800 slides), and reference video materials in English (approx. 30 DVD). The Multimedia Course is nonstandard discipline which is not available at normal university lectures. It helps students understand the objectives and background of the nuclear science and technology development in depth and foster logical thinking capability through various analysis, comparison and case studies. Latest information about innovative technology under development and international cooperation in progress gives the students clear and dynamic picture of the nuclear industry and international scheme. This course of lectures was developed based on flash-technology and includes a set of multimedia flash-presentations with video clips, animation, audios, interactive control elements (zooming-in pictures, highlighting of some fragments in the presentation, etc.). This technology was chosen due to the fact that the information prepared can be used on any programmable platform, which supposes a correct operation of the application regardless of the operating system and the availability of special-purpose software. The versatility and availability are the main advantages of flashtechnology, which allow the creation of cross-platforms, stable running and protected software products that represent an up-to-date high-effective fail-safe support for education process. Moreover, the potential of this course of lectures provides the basis for subsequent preparation of courses for distance education. The presentation is commanded (paging, exit to menu, printing, slideshow mode) using the control buttons located in the upper left corner and on the control panel as well as using the key buttons (PgUp, PgDn). The pictures being highlighted in yellow by pointing with mouse can be zoomed in with a mouse click. Video clips and audios can be activated by starting the corresponding player. Provision is made for highlighting certain fragments on slide. To do this, it is necessary to draw a curved line on slide by pressing the left mouse button. The line will remain on slide until you exit the presentation. The line can be deleted by pressing the delete button. At the end of each presentation there is a set of video clips on lecture subject. The user (lecturer) may replace video clips, if necessary. To do this, the video files in the folder with a particular lecture should be replaced. Video files are in FLVformat. Lecture course was prepared by the Scientific Team under leadership of Prof. V.M. Murogov with participation PhD A.A. Andrianov, PhD A.A. Natalenko, PhD A.I. Voropaev, researches: A.A. Zolotukhina, V.V. Holev and others, in the framework of Contract IAEA with the use of published materials: their own and kindly provided by IAEA staff and other organizations.

Part I CURRENT STATUS AND INTERNAL CONTRADICTION OF TRADITIONAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

I.1. STRUCTURE, OF POWER GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES: GLOBAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL OVERVIEW. CONTRADICTIONS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENERGY SECURITY AND CURRENT SITUATION IN THE WORLD: NEEDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL AND SUSTAINABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY Sufficient power supply is required for normal economic performance, and the energy shortage is a constraining factor of sustainable energy development. An empirical relation is well known: in order to provide an increment of 1% in gross national product it is necessary to provide an increase from 0.5 to 1.5% in energy production and consumption. Energy consumption is a derivative of economic range and level of national socio-economic development. Ensuring the humankind with energy requires energy resources and technologies for converting them into end-use energy. Energy resources and demand are unevenly distributed around the world depending on geological and geographical features of a particular country. The global economic development is therefore effected due to active world trade of energy resources, which provides necessary flows from resource-excess to resource-shortage regions. One key tendency should be noted towards the use of energy resources in the history of mankind caused by the need for increase in labor efficiency. As the industrial and technogenic civilization advanced, there occurred the transition to the use of more concentrated energy sources, which was characteristic of the power industry as well as for the human activity as a whole. This is best reflected in the development of defense technology. At the same time the process takes place that is caused by the increase in power density, which is logically associated with the necessity of growth of unit ratings of power plants (Fig. I.1). These tendencies have been responsible to a certain degree for the change in primary energy source over the past 150 years: wood coal oil gas

FIG. I.1. Classification of energy resources.

In the early 21st century, the power industry has been developing by a hydrocarbon scenario specified away back in the last century. In the foreseeable future, such scenario assumes, however, high risks for both leading national economies and the global economical system. This necessitates the search for protection methods against such risks by developing energy-efficient technologies, alternative energy sources, primarily in the nuclear power [1-4]. I.1.1. The status of global power industry Currently, the structure of global energy consumption is as follows: oil 36% of consumed energy resources, coal 28%, gas 24%, hydropower 6%, nuclear power 6% (Fig. I.2). The main increment in consumption is generally provided by the economies of AsiaPacific Region (APR) countries, primarily China. The growth of industrial production and social transformations associated with economic development in such thickly inhabited countries as China and India provide the effect that the indexes of average energy consumption per capita in developing countries rapidly approaches to those of the developed countries (Fig. I.3).

FIG. I.2. Evolution from 1971 to 2008 of world total primary energy supply by fuel (Mtoe).

FIG. I.3. Evolution from 1971 to 2008 of world total primary energy supply by region (Mtoe) (*Asia excludes China, **Includes international aviation and international marine bunkers).

One of the multiple signals that makes one to expect a sharp increase in consumption of energy resources in APR countries in the near future is the projected up to 2030 increase of a number of light vehicles, on the average by about 9% in South Asia, while the mean value for the whole world being about 2%. Urbanization can be also considered as another signal; its rates are indicated by the following figures: if 10% of the global population lived in cities in 1900, and in 2007 urban and rural sectors went shares, it is expected that approximately 75% of people would live in cities by 2050. In fast-going industrialization of developing countries, a significant role is played by such dirty and/or power-intensive sectors as metallurgy, petrochemical, automobile, electronics, aviation, paper-and-pulp and other industries. This provides not only the growth of hydrocarbon consumption, but also strengthening of negative effect on the ecological situation. In particular, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is increasing, which is on the list of greenhouse gases that cause the increase of atmospheric temperature. The International Energy Agency has formulated a core of the current situation on the fossil fuel market as follows: the problem is not in the absence of resources, but in providing the access to these resources. As a consequence, it is followed by sharpening of the world competition for the rights and conditions of resource access. The coal reserves and availability are great. If it is used not only in solid phase, the timeframes for its potential application go beyond hundreds of years. The main disadvantages of coal consist in uneven location of reserves, health risk and hazard to life, and environmental contamination during coal mining and using. The coal market is a global market with limited supply sources. Thus, 90% of coal is concentrated in China, the United States, Russia and Australia. However, these countries are also facing a number of problems to be solved in the use of coal. For example China, the country, the industrial development of which is most associated with the availability of coal reserves. By 2010, more than 2 milliard tones of coal per year will be mined in China for all industrial needs (more than in all OECD countries). China cannot continue to intensively increase the amount of coal transportation due to its railway tonnage capacity. Due to the fact that the main coal mining is located in the North, while the consumption South-East, China has to provide its South areas by exporting high-quality coal from Australia due to logistics limitations. The greatest environmental damage is known to be connected with coal consumption, which is also associated with the maximum risk for human life during mining and transportation. According to statistical data, the mining of 1 million tons of coal is connected with the fatality of 510 miners (depending on the technology and industrial culture). In China, only according to the official statistics more than 5000 miners died in 2004. The situation is more complicated with oil and gas. In using oil resources, things are coming to the moment of truth. If the reserves of new oil deposits yearly have exceeded annual consumption so far, currently they are equal. Annual world oil production is expected to be steadily declined (23% per year). By 2040, annual oil output is expected to be 5060% to the level of 2000. In addition, more than 70% of the global oil production will fall on Muslim countries. In the United States, the own black gold will be sufficient only for about 1015 years at a current rate of oil production. The situation with gas is the same, but estimated more optimistically gas reserves would be sufficient for 4050 years. The following has been changed in the structure of gas consumption over the last 30 years: gas along with oil was replaced from the industry by coal. Its non-electric application and use for transport purposes became widely used. By comparing the number of consumed and imported oil, gas and coal, the following 5

figures can be obtained: 67% of consumed oil, 26% of gas including liquefied natural gas and 16% of coal were imported in 2006. In other words, oil, gas and coal are energy resources of global, regional and local significance, respectively. Import and export operations with energy resources maintain the polarization and interrelation of production and user countries established in international relations in the last century. By comparing the list of regions that are leaders in proved reserves of energy resources with the list of regions being the user-leaders, they are seen to be fully mismatched. For example, Middle East, Europe, the countries of the former USSR and Africa precede by the amount of proved oil reserves, whereas oil is most consumed in the countries of APR, North America, Europe including Russia and a number of the former Soviet republics. A more vivid picture can be formed in detailing the list: the largest proved oil reserves are located in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, while the United States, China and Japan are taking a lead in the list of oil consumers. Therefore, the worlds largest economies increasingly depend on the situation in the regions supplying considerable part of consumed energy resources (as the suppliers depend on the development of these economies). Such interdependence can be demonstrated by the United States and China. Oil is supplied to the USA from the Central and South America, North and West Africa, from Middle East, Europe. China mainly imports oil from the countries of Middle East, Africa, APR, the former USSR. It is obvious that possible breakdown in supplies for any reason including domestic ones is the gravest threat for such large consumers as the United States and China, by making the development of their national economy conditional on internal and external political events in other countries. On the one hand, such risk stimulates the importers to create reserves for a rainy day and boosts the rise of prices on energy resources; on the other hand, it motivates consuming countries to the diversification of supplies and increase of nuclear share and power engineering based on renewable energy sources in the structure of national energy consumption. These measures are a part of the activity focused on ensuring the energy security, which also supposes the prevention of accidents and terroristic attacks against energy facilities, support of investments into its infrastructure, optimization of arrangement of markets for all kinds of energy resources in order to avoid the threat of reducing energy resources supply at bearable prices. The positions of energy resource exporters are also vulnerable: the refusal of any large consumer from supplies from an exporting country can inflict heavy destruction of its economy. Thus, the energy security supposes not only assured access of consumers to energy, but also assured entrance to the global market, i.e. the main goal of energy security is to ensure the stability of international flows of energy resources. The issues of energy security become more and more urgent in view of the limitedness of global reserves of hydrocarbon energy resources, primarily oil. The further exploitation of open-access and long developed oil fields based on state-of-the-art technologies will result in reduction of oil production volumes in the near future. Although the proved world oil reserves are sufficient to meet the increasing demand for energy resources up to the 2030s, substantial investments and introduction of new technologies are required to provide more efficient exploitation of readily available deposits and development of hard-to-reach fields. In conjunction with political risks in the countries that are the largest producers of energy resources, the uncertainty about resource base causes the instability of energy markets and international political situation. The following conclusion can be made from the above about the current state in the field of production, consumption and distribution of the world energy resources. Currently, the experts suggest more often the anticipation of systemic energy crisis that is evidenced 6

by the rise in oil prices on the world markets, increase of production and consumption, which advances the additions to reserves. The full chain of production, transportation and processing operates at its maximum output: any small interruptions in supplies result in upset of the market balance. There are practically no available reserves for increasing oil supplies which could satisfy the growing demand. Therefore, from renewable fuel for the future development there remain considerable on todays scale and well developed reserves of coal and uranium. I.1.2. Ecological aspects of hydrocarbon energy Along with the limited resources of fossil fuel and their uneven distribution around the world, a significant obstacle for further intensive energy development based on organic fuel is caused by dangerous consequences of such development for the biosphere ecology. According to the estimates made by the International Energy Agency, the carbon dioxide emissions have increased for the last 30 years by about 1.8 times and are currently about 30 000 Mt. The tendency towards the change in the structure of energy consumption in different regions of the world remains when projecting on greenhouse gas emissions. A little bit higher average annual increase of carbon dioxide emissions in developing regions as compared with the growth rates of energy consumption is caused by the fact that the buildup of energy supply occurs due to the most dirty types of organic fuel coal and biomass. The ongoing unlimited production of greenhouse gases (2, 4 and others) causes inevitable ecological catastrophe for the Earth in the future greenhouse effect (Fig. I.4). The tendency of the world community to prevent the inevitability of global climatic catastrophe was reflected in the Kyoto protocol.

FIG. I.4. Environmental impacts of different energy production.

Among greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (55% of greenhouse gases associated with human activity), chlorofluorocarbons (24%), methane (15%) and nitrogen oxide (6%). Although anthropogenic emissions of these gases are 25 times less than natural ones, they have a considerable effect on the climate change. About 85% of carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activity are due to combustion of fossil raw materials. The most part of these emissions is provided by oil (about 40%), the remainder by coal (about 39%) and natural gas (about 20%) (Fig. I.5). The unprecedented jump of greenhouse gases concentration observed for the last decades in the atmosphere makes it to expect an increase of average global temperature by 1 to 6C, which means a temperature increase in some regions by 1015C at the development by the worst scenario (over the whole 20th century the change of average temperature was 0.7C). Even considering an optimistic scenario, the average global temperature will increase by 2C over the next 20 years). This means that only due to intensification of hydro-meteorological phenomena (hurricanes, flood, etc.) economical losses can be considerable. It is much more complicated to assess qualitatively and quantitatively all negative consequences of climatic changes of biological and socialeconomical nature which can result in much greater economic damage (Fig. I.6). The complete contribution of use of various energy sources into 2 emission (greenhouse effect) is shown in Figure, where the full cycle of energy production is taken into account (from mining, transportation, processing, operation of related facilities, decommissioning of plants to waste disposal).

FIG. I.5. Specific emissions of 2.

The total negative contribution of all possible technologies of energy production into the environmental ecology is presented in Figure. As shown from the data, the current opinion about absolute ecological purity of renewable energy sources proved to be incorrect when considering the whole cycle of energy production. In view of low energy density in solar, wind and other renewable sources the required areas for heat transferring (or absorbing) surfaces increase considerably (by orders of magnitude).

FIG. I.6. Evolution from 1971 to 2008 of world CO2 emissions by fuel (Mt of CO2).

This causes a considerable increase in mining and transportation of structural and other materials required for the construction of such power plants. As a result, the use of even renewable energy sources is associated with a significant increase of environment pollution as compared with nuclear source of energy. I.1.3. The prospects for energy development Economical and ecological problems should be solved by complex measures at all levels from individual economic entities to the world community as a whole. Such measures involve: increasing of energy efficiency that makes it possible to save energy resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; development of technologies based on renewable energy sources; development and large-scale application of carbon dioxide capture and disposal technologies; increasing of nuclear share in the structure of the global energy. The exclusion of any measure above would impede solving the indicated problems as a whole. However, if increasing the energy efficiency as a necessary measure meets no principal objections, everything connected with the transformation of the global energy structure provokes sharp discussions concerning economic justifiability and safety. The limitedness and, as a consequence, projected reduction of oil and then gas production become currently the most urgent political problem for most industrially developed countries by introducing uncertainty and an element of unreliability to energy predictions. As a result, a lot of diverse scenarios and predictions for the future energy development are discussed. But impartially, there are a number of firm positions for all serious scenarios in this area: Population growth and rise of the world energy consumption; Toughening competition for limited and unevenly distributed resources of organic fuel; Increasing dependence on instable situation in the regions of oil-exporting countries; Increasing ecological limitations; Provocative difference in the level of energy consumption in the worlds richest and poorest countries. All present-day scenarios for the energy future are based on optimum combination of different energy sources: Nonrenewable fuel (organic and nuclear); Renewable (hydro-, solar energy, wind energy, together with tidal, wave and 9

thermal energy of oceans, geothermal and biomass energy). The population growth and tendency to economic growth (to the increase of life expectancy and comfort conditions primarily in developing countries) cause the need for the increase in energy production, in particular, electric power as the most flexible, clean and convenient energy product. Technological improvement of the power industry follows the way of rapid increase of diversity in forms of energy used by consumers and improvement of its quality. With the doubling of the global energy predicted by IEA for the period from 2005 to 2050, the share of electric power in supply of end energy would increase according to the existing tendencies from 25% to 33% with reducing the share of direct combustion of fuel (furnace and motor together) from 69% to 63% and heat (steam, hot water) from 6% to 4%. In accordance with the Bushs hydrogen fuel initiative the United States, European Community, Japan suppose to transfer from this conventional path to the scenario of hydrogen energy. Even by optimistic estimates, hydrogen would provide no more than 10% of final consumption, which will require the development of infrastructure for production, transportation, storage and distribution (to petrol stations) of up to 3 trillion cubic meters of this highly volatile, very mobile and explosive gas. The hydrogen scenario will not practically change the share of electric power in final energy consumption, but will reduce the fuel share (primarily, liquid) to 55% and heat to 3%. But even with a wide replacement of current water hydrolysis by thermalchemical technologies of hydrogen production, its use will require large consumption of electric power. Meanwhile, hydrogen will replace oil fuel in fuel elements with the production of electric power: hydrogen automobile is actually an electric vehicle. An alternative is proposed by the scenario of an electrical world where more than a half of final consumption will be provided by electrical energy. By using brand new accumulators it would reduce the direct combustion of fuel to 47%, primarily, in transport and in distributed energy, and by mastering the superconductivity it would also facilitate the use of renewable energy, in particular, solar and tidal energy.
[1] [2] [3] [4] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY. WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY: STATISTICS http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp UNITED NATIONS: ENERGY STATISTICS http://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/default.htm DOE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION http://www.eia.doe.gov

10

I.2. CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT. INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. UNITED NATION PROGRAMME AGENDA 21 AND ITS REQUIREMENTS I.2.1. Concept of sustainable energy development Sustainable development has been defined best by the Brundtland Commission as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [1-2]. Adequate and affordable energy supplies have been key to economic development and the transition from subsistence agricultural economies to modern industrial and service-oriented societies (Fig. I.7).

FIG. I.7. Gro Harlem Brundtland is a Norwegian Social democratic politician, diplomat, and physician, and an international leader in sustainable development and public health.

Energy is central to improved social and economic well-being, and is indispensable to most industrial and commercial wealth generation. It is key for relieving poverty, improving human welfare and raising living standards. But however essential it may be for development, energy is only a means to an end. The end is good health, high living standards, a sustainable economy and a clean environment. No form of energy coal, solar, nuclear, wind or any other is good or bad in itself, and each is only valuable in as far as it can deliver this end. Much of the current energy supply and use, based, as it is, on limited resources of fossil fuels, is deemed to be environmentally unsustainable. There is no energy production or conversion technology without risk or without waste. Somewhere along all energy chains from resource extraction to the provision of energy services pollutants are produced, emitted or disposed of, often with severe health and environmental impacts. Even if a technology does not emit harmful substances at the point of use, emissions and wastes may be associated with its manufacture or other parts of its life cycle. Combustion of fossil fuels is chiefly responsible for urban air pollution, regional acidification and the risk of human-induced climate change. The use of nuclear power has created a number of concerns, such as the storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The noncommercial use of biomass in some developing countries contributes to desertification and loss of biodiversity. Moreover, about one-third of the worlds population still relies on the use of animal power and non-commercial fuels. Some 1.7 billion people have no access to electricity. Many areas in the world have no reliable and secure energy supplies. This lack of access to 11

modern energy services severely limits socioeconomic development an integral part of sustainable development. Nonetheless, because of improved technology and an increased understanding of the effects and impacts of energy and energy systems, a developing country today can make the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy with much lower costs and with less environmental damage than todays developed countries were subjected to during their transition (Fig. I.8).

FIG. I.8. GDP/capita vs KW/capita.

Achieving sustainable economic development on a global scale will require the judicious use of resources, technology, appropriate economic incentives and strategic policy planning at the local and national levels [3-4]. It will also require regular monitoring of the impacts of selected policies and strategies to see if they are furthering sustainable development or if they should be adjusted. It is important to be able to measure a countrys state of development and to monitor its progress or lack of progress towards sustainability (Fig. I.9). First, policymakers need to know their countrys current status concerning energy and economic sustainability, what needs to be improved and how these improvements can be achieved. Second, it is important for policymakers to understand the implications of selected energy, environmental and economic programmes, policies and plans, and their impacts on the shaping of development and on the feasibility of making this development sustainable. Third, inevitably there will be trade-offs. In short, there is an imminent need for informed and balanced choices to be made on policy, investment and corrective action.

FIG. I.9. Main component of sustainable development concept.

12

I.2.2. Indicators for sustainable development Since the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987, various international and national organizations have been developing sets of indicators to measure and assess one or more aspects of sustainable development. These efforts received a major boost following the adoption of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in 1992, which (in Chapter 40) specifically asks countries and international governmental and nongovernmental organizations to develop the concept of indicators of sustainable development and to harmonize them at the national, regional and global levels. Agenda 21, which was agreed to at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and is a central focus of the August 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development also calls on countries at the national level and international governmental and non-governmental organizations at the international level to develop the concept of indicators of sustainable development in order to identify such indicators. Energy is essential to economic and social development and improved quality of life. However, much of the worlds energy is currently produced and used in ways that may not be sustainable in the long term. In order to assess progress towards a sustainable energy future, energy indicators that can measure and monitor important changes will be needed. When choosing energy fuels and associated technologies for the production, delivery and use of energy services, it is essential to take into account economic, social and environmental consequences. Policymakers need methods for measuring and assessing the current and future effects of energy use on human health, human society, air, soil and water. They need to determine whether current energy use is sustainable and, if not, how to change it so that it is. This is the purpose of the energy indicators presented in this report, which address important issues within three of the major dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (Fig. I.10) [5].

FIG. I.10. The relationship between aspects of sustainable energy systems.

The indicators are not merely data; rather, they extend beyond basic statistics to provide a deeper understanding of the main issues and to highlight important relations that are not evident using basic statistics. They are essential tools for communicating energy issues related to sustainable development to policymakers and to the public, and for promoting institutional dialogue. Each set of indicators expresses aspects or consequences of the production and use of energy. Taken together, the indicators give a clear picture of 13

the whole system, including interlinkages and trade-offs among various dimensions of sustainable development, as well as the longer-term implications of current decisions and behaviour. Changes in the indicator values over time mark progress or lack of progress towards sustainable development. The same value for a given energy indicator might not mean the same thing for two different countries. The meaning will depend on the state of development of each country, the nature of its economy, its geography, the availability of indigenous energy resources and so on. Caution, therefore, needs to be applied when using such indicators for crosscountry comparisons. Nonetheless, changes in the value of each indicator over time will help to quantify the progress of each country. Instead of relying on abstract analysis, policymakers will have a simple set of figures to guide their decisions and monitor the results of their policies. Indicators are useful for monitoring progress towards specific country goals. For example, to reach an annual limit on a set of emissions from the energy sector, it would be sensible to identify the values of appropriate indicators that would be necessary to meet this goal. With knowledge of the energy sector, policymakers can identify the indicators over which they have the most control. Progress is then more easily monitored and policy is often more easily implemented by using these indicators rather than focusing solely on the goal. Despite some progress, indicators for sustainable no comprehensive set of energy development exists (Fig. I.11). In 1999, the International Atomic Energy Agency brought together representatives from seven international organizations and eight countries to review existing relevant indicators and develop a provisional set of indicators for sustainable energy development. These indicators were informally field tested in 15 countries (including Argentina, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey, countries in Eastern and Western Europe, the Russian Federation, and the USA) to assess data quality and availability. A final set of 41 indicators was then defined incorporating both the test results and criteria used by the United Nations ongoing Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development. An interim report describing this stage of the project was presented at the Ninth Session of the Commission for Sustainable Development in April 2001.

FIG. I.11. IAEA publications on sustainable development indicators.

The indicators presented below constitute a core set of Indicators for Sustainable Energy Development (ISED) with corresponding methodologies and guidelines useful to policymakers, energy analysts and statisticians. Some indicators focus on the delivery of essential energy services for reducing poverty and improving living conditions, while other 14

indicators focus on environmental effects. It is important to take not only the economic but also these social and environmental issues into account when deciding on policies. The role of the analyst is to select, weigh and present to policymakers appropriate indicators for the situation in their own country so as to foster development in a sustainable manner. Each of the EISD presented might, in fact, represent a set of several indicators, as many of the issues touched on are best analyzed using a group of related indicators. List of ISED: 1. Population: total, urban. 2. GDP per capita. 3. End-use energy prices with and without tax/subsidy. 4. Shares of sectors in GDP value added. 5. Distance travelled per capita: total, by urban public transport mode. 6. Freight transport activity: total, by mode. 7. Floor area per capita. 8. Manufacturing value added by selected energy intensive industries. 9. Energy intensity: manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, commercial and public services, residential sector. 10. Final energy intensity of selected energy intensive products. 11. Energy mix: final energy, electricity generation, primary energy supply. 12. Energy supply efficiency: fossil fuel efficiency for electricity generation. 13. Status of deployment of pollution abatement technologies: extent of use, average performance. 14. Energy use per unit of GDP. 15. Expenditure on energy sector: total investments, environmental control, hydrocarbon exploration and development, RD&D, net energy import expenses. 16. Energy consumption per capita. 17. Indigenous energy production. 18. Net energy import dependence. 19. Income inequality. 20. Ratio of daily disposable income/private consumption per capita of 20% poorest population to the prices of electricity and major household fuels. 21. Fraction of disposable income/private consumption spent on fuel and electricity by: average population; group of 20% poorest population. 22. Fraction of households: heavily dependent on non-commercial energy; without electricity. 23. Quantities of air pollutant emissions (SO2, NOx, particulates, CO, VOC). 24. Ambient concentration of pollutants in urban areas: SO2, NOx, suspended particulates, CO, ozone. 25. Land area where acidification exceeds critical load. 26. Quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. 27. Radionuclides in atmospheric radioactive discharges. 28. Discharges into water basins: waste/storm water, radionuclides, oil into coastal waters. 29. Generation of solid waste. 30. Accumulated quantity of solid wastes to be managed. 31. Generation of radioactive waste. 32. Accumulated quantity of radioactive wastes awaiting disposal. 33. Land area taken up by energy facilities and infrastructure. 34. Fatalities due to accidents with breakdown by fuel chains. 35. Fraction of technically exploitable capability of hydropower currently in use. 15

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Proven recoverable fossil fuel reserves. Life time of proven fossil fuel reserves. Proven uranium reserves. Life time of proven uranium reserves. Intensity of use of forest resources as fuelwood. Rate of deforestation.

I.2.3. United Nation Programme Agenda 21 and its requirements Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. Humankind is confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can in a global partnership for sustainable development.

FIG. I.12. Agenda 21 web-page.

This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment (Fig. I.12). Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public 16

participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. In the implementation of the relevant programme areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. It must also be recognized that these countries are facing unprecedented challenges in transforming their economies, in some cases in the midst of considerable social and political tension. The programme areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation. Agenda 21 is a dynamic programme. It will be carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.

FIG. I.13. Rio Earth Summit 1992 logo.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 314 June 1992 (Fig. I.13). The Commission on Sustainable Development was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session. The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002. Information about the initiative and other activities in energy indicators for sustainable development is also available on the IAEA website: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/Energy/pess/ISED.shtml 17

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Energy in a Sustainable Development Perspective (2000). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power (1997). United Nations Environment Programme, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION, Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations (1997). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies.

18

Part II CURRENT STATUS AND MODERN PROBLEM FOR FULL-SCALE DEVELOPMENT NUCLEAR POWER

19

II.1. INTRODUCTION: CURRENT STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT. ROLE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR DEVELOPMENT: INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY A rapid growth of the developing worlds economies with anticipated shortage of energy resources as well as pollution of the atmosphere causing climatic changes provided an objective basis for a new era of nuclear power. Long-term interests in energy security and sustainable energy development of the world require an increase of the nuclear power share in production of electricity, hydrogen, industrial and domestic heat [1]. II.1.1. Current status of nuclear power development Currently, there is a wide spreading in both specific actions and plans for the development of nuclear fuel and energy complex in different countries. There are three categories of the states grouped by the principle of their current status and projections for the future development of nuclear power. The first group includes highly developed countries: the United States, Canada, countries of Western Europe, Japan and some others. Among the above countries is also Russia from geopolitical considerations. The main nuclear capacities and nuclear fuel cycle facilities are located in these countries. They share about 90% of the global NPP operating experience. 10 of 12 largest generating nuclear utilities are operating in the countries of this group. These countries have also the required knowledge base and processing experience (Fig. II.1).

FIG. II.1. Location of nuclear power stations in the world.

The second group includes most of developing countries which have changed over to industrial economy and are preparing to become full-fledged members of the developed world. These are the countries of Latin America, Eastern and Southern Asia, Central and Eastern Europe. The countries from this group keep the interest in nuclear energy, because they realized that only the use of nuclear energy technologies would make it possible to ensure stable and high level of increase in energy requirements. 20

The last group includes the states with decreasing share in the gross world product (the countries of Equatorial Africa, Central Asia and some others). They do not count on joining the nuclear club in the near future. Currently, nuclear energy produces slightly less than 14% of the worlds electricity supplies and 5.7% of total primary energy used worldwide. Currently, 29 countries operate 441 plants, with a total capacity of 375 GW(e). A further 60 units, totaling 58.6 GW(e), are under construction (as of 26 August 2010). During 2009, nuclear power produced 2558 billion kWh of electricity. The industry now has more than 14 000 reactor years of experience. On a global basis, the nuclear power in the world was developed with a growth rate of about 2.5% exceeding the growth rates of the world power industry at large. On a regional scale, the rates of nuclear power development are much different from the global rates based on data from the IAEA (Table 1, Fig. II.2) [2].
TABLE 1. NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS IN THE WORLD (on 26 August 2010)
Region In operation Number Net Capacity MW(e) Under construction Number Net Capacity MW(e) Electricity supplied by nuclear plants in 2009 (TWh) 882 30 796 310 13 17 510 2558

North America Latin America Western Europe Central and Eastern Europe Africa Middle East and South Asia Far East World

122 6 129 67 2 21 94 441

113 316 4119 122 956 47 376 1800 4614 80 516 374 697

1 2 2 17 6 32 60

1165 1937 3200 13 741 3721 34 820 58 584

FIG. II.2. Projections for nuclear energy development in different countries.

21

The contribution of nuclear energy to total electricity generation varies considerably by region. In Western Europe, nuclear generated electricity accounts for almost 27% of total electricity. In North America and Eastern Europe, it is approximately 18%, whereas in Africa and Latin America it is 2.1% and 2.4%, respectively. In the Far East, nuclear energy accounts for 10% of electricity generation; in the Middle East and South Asia it accounts for 1% over the past two years the contribution of nuclear generation to world electricity production has declined from 15% to less than 14%, largely due to a rise in total electricity generation worldwide without an increase of nuclear generation. The non-uniformity of future development is even more shown when considering at a national level. Figure II.2 presents the projections for nuclear energy development in different countries to 2030 (based on data from WNU). A developing situation is estimated in a wide range of categories from stagnation to renaissance; however, the experts agree that the current phase of nuclear energy development has proved its sustainability. The key technical challenges have been defined, principal ways of their solution are already known. And once they have been implemented in the current century it will be possible for a new phase of nuclear energy application to begin large-scale nuclear energy development. Currently, the analysts share the opinion that the nuclear power could gain a stable position as a reliable energy technology and optimistic outlooks for further development only on the assumption of its economic competitiveness and completion of nuclear fuel cycle. The world nuclear reactor fleet comprises a mix of technologies, a product of the many different approaches taken by countries in the early years of nuclear power. Table shows that the global fleet was dominated, both in number and in generating capacity, by pressurized water reactors (PWR and VVER) followed by boiling water reactors (BWRs). The remainder of the fleet currently in operation is comprised of pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), gas-cooled reactors (GCRs and AGRs), light-water-cooled graphite-moderated reactors (LWGRs) and one fast breeder reactor (FBR) (Fig. II.3, Table 2).

FIG. II.3. The structure of the world's nuclear fleet.

On 1 January 2010, there were 437 nuclear reactors under operation, with a total capacity of 371 GWe. In 2009, two new units were connected to the grid: Unit 3 of Tomari NPP (866 MWe) in Japan and Unit 5 of Rajasthan NPP (202 MWe) in India. Also in 2009, the construction of eleven units was started: Hongyanhe 3 and 4, Sanmen 1 and 2, Yangjiang 2, Fuqing 2, Fangjiashan 2, Haiyang 1 and Taishan 1 (each 1000 MWe) in China; Shin-Kori Unit 4 (1340 MWe) in the Republic of Korea; Novovoronezh NPP Unit 2 (1085 MWe) and Rostov NPP Unit 3 in Russian Federation. Construction activities were resumed on Units 3 and 4 of Mochovce NPP (each 405 MWe) in Slovakia. For reference: the construction of ten units was started in 2008 and eight units 22

in 2007 in addition to the restart of construction activities on one reactor. Therefore, a total of 56 reactors were under construction at the end of the year. In the 1980s and 1990s, nuclear power developed a reputation for slow construction. However, consistent average construction times of 62 months are now being achieved in Asia, where 18 units were connected to the grid between late 2001 and May 2007. Of these 18 units, three were connected to the grid in 48 months or less. The fastest was Onagawa-3, a Japanese 800 MWe BWR that was connected in 2002 after a 41month construction period. This level of performance will significantly reduce the levelised cost of nuclear power. Existing plants in many countries are being uprated, availability has been significantly improved and licence renewals for two decades of additional future generation are now commonplace. All these factors maximize the return on investment in existing nuclear power plants.
TABLE 2. OPERATIONAL POWER REACTORS BY TYPE
Country Argentina Armenia Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada China Czech Rep. Finland France Germany Hungary India Japan Korea Rep. Mexico Netherlands Pakistan Romania Russia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland UK Ukraine USA TOTAL PWR BWR GCR PHWR LWGR FBR Total No. MW(e) No. MW(e) No. MW(e) No. MW(e) No. MW(e) No. MW(e) No. MW(e) 2 935 2 935 1 375 1 375 7 5934 7 5934 2 1884 2 1884 2 1906 2 1906 18 12 569 18 12 569 11 8748 2 1300 13 10 048 6 3678 6 3678 2 976 2 1745 4 2721 58 63 130 58 63 130 11 14 033 6 6457 17 20 490 4 1889 4 1889 2 300 17 3889 19 4189 24 19 286 30 27 537 54 46 823 17 15 943 4 2722 21 18 665 2 1300 2 1300 1 487 1 487 1 300 1 125 2 425 2 1300 2 1300 16 11 914 15 10 219 1 560 32 22 693 4 1762 4 1762 1 666 1 666 2 1800 2 1800 6 6006 2 1510 8 7516 3 2799 7 6504 10 9303 3 1700 2 1538 5 3238 1 1188 18 8949 19 10 137 15 13 107 15 13 107 69 66 945 35 33 802 104 100 747 269 248 295 92 83 834 18 8949 46 22 840 15 10 219 1 560 441 374 697

23

II.1.2. Role of nuclear energy for development: industrial and developing country Increasing nuclear capacities at present time as well as short- and long-term development of nuclear power will occur mostly due to Asia as before. From 12 reactors, the construction of which was started in 2009, ten are located in Asia. From 56 reactors under construction 36 reactors account for Asia; 30 of 42 new reactors recently connected to the grid are also located there. The aim of China is to have nuclear capacity of 40 GWe by 2020; for reference, today it is 8.4 GWe. In opening the International Conference in Delhi, the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh said that India had potential to reach a total capacity of 470 GWe by 2050. In some European countries where restrictions were imposed on the future use of nuclear energy a tendency is seen for the revision of such policy [1].
TABLE 3. OPERATING REACTORS AND REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE WORLD (on 1 January, 2010)
Operating reactors Under construction Country Number of units 2 1 7 2 2 4 17 18 8 18 11 20 2 1 2 31 2 4 1 19 104 15 4 59 6 5 10 2 54 437 Total Number Total capacity of units capacity (MWe (MWe net) net) 935 1 692 375 5 902 1 906 2 1 906 1 884 1 889 20 480 3 987 5 2 708 1 915 7 450 12 569 8 438 20 19 920 17 705 6 6 520 1 300 487 425 1 300 21 743 10 8 007 1 300 1 762 2 782 666 10 137 100 747 1 1 165 13 107 2 1900 2 696 1 1 600 63 260 1 1 600 3 678 3 238 9 036 1 800 46 823 1 1 325 370 705 56 51 940 Electricity generated at NPP in 2009 TWh % of total output 7.6 2.3 45.0 14.2 12.2 14.3 127.7 14.8 50.6 85.3 65.7 141.1 10.1 4.0 2.6 152.8 10.8 13.1 5.5 62.9 796.9 78.0 22.6 391.8 25.7 26.3 50.0 11.6 263.1 2 558.3 7.0 45.0 51.7 35.9 2.9 43.0 26.1 2.2 17.5 14.8 1.9 34.8 4.8 3.7 2.7 17.8 20.6 53.5 37.8 17.9 20.2 48.6 32.9 75.2 33.8 39.5 37.4 4.8 29.2 14% Total operating experience as of the end of 2009 Years Months

Argentine Armenia Belgium Bulgaria Brazil Hungary Germany India Iran, Islamic Republic Spain Canada China Korea, Republic Mexico Netherlands Pakistan Russian Federation Romania Slovakia Slovenia United Kingdom United States Ukraine Finland France Czech Republic Switzerland Sweden South Africa Japan TOTAL

62 35 233 147 37 98 751 318 269 582 99 339 35 65 47 994 15 132 28 1 457 3 499 368 123 1 700 110 173 372 50 1 440 13 913

7 8 7 3 3 2 5 5 6 2 3 7 11 0 10 7 11 7 3 8 11 6 4 2 10 10 6 3 8 0

The number of reactors under construction increased from 33 with a total capacity of 27 193 MW(e) at the end of 2007 to 60 with a total capacity of 58 584 MW(e) on 26 24

August 2010. In many countries with existing nuclear power programmes there are significant increases in investment in future nuclear power plants. Of these 60 plants, 11 have been under construction since before 1990, and of the 11 possibly only three are predicted to be commissioned in the next three years. There are a few reactors which have been under construction for over 20 years and which currently have little progress and activity. In 2008, there were 10 construction starts and in 2009 there were 12, extending a continuous upward trend that started in 2003. All 22 of the construction starts in 2008 and 2009 were pressurized water reactors (PWRs) in three countries: China, Republic of Korea and Russian Federation. In addition to the current construction programme, many countries, including China, India, Japan, the Ukraine, Korea and the Russian Federation, have announced ambitious plans to expand nuclear capacity in the coming decades. Processes that could lead to additional construction in Canada and the United States are ongoing and, should these come to fruition, over 20 reactors could be built in North America (Table 3). The IAEA annually publishes the projections for global growth of nuclear power. In 2009, despite financial crisis that started at the end of 2008 both the low and high scenarios were revised towards increasing. According to the updated low scenario, the total capacity of nuclear power would increase up to 511 GWe by 2030, as compared with 371 GWe at the end of 2009. According to the new high scenario, the capacity would increase up to 807 GWe. These revised scenarios for 2030 are higher by 8% as those made in 2008 [3]. The revision of scenario projections towards increasing is most considerable with respect to Far East, the region including China, the Republic of Korea and Japan. Little revisions of scenarios towards decreasing were made with reference to North America and South-East Asia and the Pacific Ocean. Not only the IAEA revised its projections in 2009. The new scenarios were also prepared in 2009 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the OECD International Energy Agency (IEA) and World Nuclear Association (WNA). The range of EIA scenarios was somewhat reduced, the WNA range somewhat extended and the IEA range was very little revised towards increasing (both the low and high values were increased). Figure shows the comparison between the ranges of nuclear projections made in 2009 published by EIA, IEA, IAEA and WNA (Fig. II.4) [4].

FIG. II.4. Comparison between the ranges of nuclear projections made by EIA, IEA, IAEA, WNA.

In the 29 countries with operating nuclear power plants, the share of national electricity they provide ranges from 76% of French electricity generation to 2% of Indian and Chinese electricity. The difference between the IAEAs low and high nuclear power projections is in both the total installed capacities in the 29 countries already with nuclear power and the increase in the number of countries with nuclear power. 25

Table presents a review of available information on the expansion plans of countries currently operating nuclear power plants. Each of the 29 countries has been classified into one of the groups, which thus provides an indication of the expected future intentions of the 29 countries already with nuclear power (Table 4).
TABLE 4. POSITION OF COUNTRIES WITH OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Description of group Intending to phase out nuclear plants when the current plants come to the end of their life or reach an agreed cumulative power output. Reviewing energy needs and including nuclear as a potential option Permitting new plants to be proposed but with no incentives Supporting the construction of new plant/plants New plant/plants under construction Number of countries 2 5 4 5 13

In recent years, in every region of the globe, many countries have expressed a new or renewed interest in nuclear power (Table 5). In the context of growing energy demands to fuel economic growth and development, climate change concerns, and volatile fossil fuel prices, as well as improved safety and performance records, some 65 countries are expressing interest in, considering, or actively planning for nuclear power. This comes after a gap of nearly 15 years, during which international markets, energy systems and strategic concerns have evolved. Countries introducing nuclear power now face different conditions than in the past, and are responding to them in new and creative ways. Countries planning the expansion of existing nuclear power programmes, some of which have not built new reactors for more than a decade, may also share some of these issues. Table shows the numbers of countries at different stages of nuclear power consideration or development. Sometimes referred to as nuclear newcomers, some countries, such as Bangladesh, Egypt and Vietnam have in fact been planning for nuclear power for some time. Others, such as Poland, are reviving the nuclear power option after plans had been curtailed when governments and public opinion changed. Countries such as Jordan, Mongolia and Uruguay are considering nuclear power for the first time. What they have in common is that they are all considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes, and have not connected a first nuclear power plant to the grid. Of the 65 countries expressing an interest in the introduction of nuclear power, 21 are in Asia and the Pacific region, 21 are from the Africa region, 12 are in Europe (mostly Eastern Europe) and 11 in Latin America.
TABLE 5. POSITIONS OF COUNTRIES WITHOUT OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Description of group Not planning to introduce nuclear power plants, but interested in considering the issues associated with a nuclear power programme6 Considering a nuclear programme to meet identified energy needs with a strong indication of intention to proceed Active preparation for a possible nuclear power programme with no final decision Decided to introduce nuclear power and started preparing the appropriate infrastructure New nuclear power plant ordered New nuclear power plant under construction Number of countries 31 14 7 10 2 1

26

[1] [2] [3] [4]

IAEA 2010, International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System, PRIS. Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the period up to 2030, IAEA-RDS-1/29. IAEA, Vienna (2009). UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, International Energy Outlook 2009, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0484 (2009), http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

27

II.2. HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NUCLEAR POWER AND NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE TECHNOLOGY The knowledge of the history of nuclear science and technology provides a better understanding of current realities typical of the nuclear science and engineering [1-4]. II.2.1. Basic stages in the history of nuclear science The XX century was critical for science: the view on such major physical concepts as energy, time and space fundamentally changed. The classical mechanics was changed by new ideas developed by Max Planck, Albert Einstein, E. Schrdinger, N. Bohr, W.K. Heisenberg and other outstanding scientists. In 1895, when working with cathode rays German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen (Fig. II.5) discovered that their collision with tube glass resulted in certain radiation capable of penetrating through material barriers. Since Roentgen failed to determine the nature of this radiation, he gave them the name X rays. The new type of radiation had amazing properties: it made it possible to see the internal structure of things and found common use in medicine. French physicist Antoine Henri Becquerel (Fig. II.6) noticed that the uranium sulfate exposed to light became capable of shining in the darkness. Becquerel decided to find out whether the compound also emitted X rays: it turned out to be the case. Later in his investigations in 1896, Becquerel discovered that uranium sulfate exposed to the sunlight or not radiated invisible rays similar to X rays continuously. He noticed that a photographic plate (even wrapped in thick black paper) became black under the rays. Becquerel named this phenomenon radiation.

FIG. II.5. Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen (18451923).

FIG. II.6. Antoine Henri Becquerel (18521908).

In 1898, Polish-born French physicist Marie Sklodowska-Curie together with her husband Pierre Curie (Fig. II.7) demonstrated that the radiation must come from the uranium atom itself, i.e. any uranium compound emits radiation. Madame Curie named the uranium property she discovered radioactivity. A little later it was found that thorium discovered by Berzelius in 1829 was also radioactive. Almost at the same time it was found that radiation is nonuniform in composition. In 1899, Becquerel and others showed that under the action of magnet a part of radiation deviates aside, while the other part propagates in a straight line. Besides it was found that the rays diverted in the magnetic field divide into two streams in electric field, i.e. positively and negatively charged radiation. New Zealandborn British physicist Ernest Rutherford (Fig. II.8) gave the first type of radiation its name alpha rays, the second type beta rays. The radiation not deviating in the magnetic field was soon named 28

gamma rays. A little later, it was found that gamma rays are similar to ordinary light, but their waves are shorter than X rays; in 1900, Rutherford found that rays were just electron streams; in 1906, he showed that rays are the streams of helium nuclei without electronic shells and began active studies of the particles.

FIG. II.7. Marie (18671934) and Pierre Curie (18591906).

FIG. II.8. Ernest Rutherford (18711937).

The discovery of radioactive phenomenon provided a powerful impetus for nuclear physics development. In 1906, Ernest Rutherford conducted an experiment by irradiating gold foil with particles that led him to formulate the nuclear model of the atom in 1911. In 19021907, Ernest Rutherford and his colleague Frederick Soddy (English radiochemist) demonstrated radioactive decay series, i.e. sequences of radioactive elements where each successive element appears from the previous one as a result of decay with the emission of or particle. When studying the radioactive decay series, the atoms were found identical in their chemical properties to the known chemical elements, however decaying either much faster or much slower. In 1913, Soddy named the atoms with the same position in the periodic table different radioactive properties isotopes (from the Greek phrase meaning same place). In 1935, Canadian-American physicist Arthur Jeffrey Dempster (18861950) discovered 0.7% of the uranium isotope 235U in the natural mixture of uranium nuclei. At that time, the focus was on nucleus composition in search of positive electrons, all in vain. Finally in 1914, when trying to knock positive electric charge from hydrogen nuclear mass Rutherford understood and proved that it was impossible. It became evident that the positive charge is indissolubly related to hydrogen nucleus. Rutherford named hydrogen nuclei protons (from the Greek for first) and supposed that nuclei of the rest elements also consist of protons. By that time it became clear that nuclei are capable of changing themselves, however it is a random and uncontrolled process. The main issue was whether a man can change nuclear structure or not. In 1919, when bombarding nitrogen nuclei with particles Rutherford for the first time managed consciously to change the composition of atomic nuclei by having turned the nitrogen nucleus into an oxygen nucleus. In 1934, the French physicists Frederic and Irene Joliot-Curie (Fig. II.9) produced the first man-made isotope phosphorus-30 (natural phosphorus is 100% of phosphorus-31) by bombarding 27Al nuclei with particles. Starting from 1934, thousands of not natural nuclei were produced in physical laboratories of different countries around the world. In the 1920s, the theory of atomic structure underwent hardship related to the discovery of nuclear spin. In theory the problem could be solved by the introduction of the third type of particles with the mass equal to proton mass and zero charge into the nucleus this is the particle (lately named neutron) which was searched for. Neutron 29

practically does not interact with the environment. That is why it is very difficult to notice it; however, neutrons are able to knock protons from light nuclei, this phenomenon was pointed out in the Joliot-Curie experiments in 1932. They mistakenly explained the emerging of protons as a new property of rays. In their opinion high-energy ray photons were capable of knocking protons out of light nuclei. Rutherfords disciple, English physicist James Chadwick (Fig. II.10) determined in the same year that rays without mass cannot move a proton out of its location in the nucleus! The discovery of the neutron in 1932 allowed modifying the model of atomic nuclei and creating the neutron-proton theory (German physicist Werner Karl Heisenberg (19011976) and Soviet physicist Dmitri Ivanenko (19041994)).

FIG. II.9. Irene (18971956) and Frederic Joliot-Curie (19001958) in the laboratory.

FIG. II.10. James Chadwick (18911974).

Neutrons had a number of specific properties. In particular, they had zero charge and subjected to the Coulomb interaction on the way to the nucleus. Even having a very small energy reserve and being carefully targeted, they certainly reached and hit the nucleus. Just a few months after the discovery, neutrons were widely used in laboratories to initiate nuclear reactions. In 1934 and 1935, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi (Fig. II.11) and his colleagues tried to implement neutron bombardment of uranium atoms with fast and slow neutrons, respectively. In succeeding years, technetium (the U.S., 1937, Emilio Segre assistant of Enrico Fermi, Italian physicist), neptunium (the U.S., 1939, Edwin Macmillan and Philip Abelson), plutonium (the U.S., 1940, Glenn T. Seaborg and associates), promethium (1945) and other artificial elements were discovered with the use of neutron bombardment. In January 1939, the physical world was shocked to hear about possible fission of uranium nuclei by neutron bombarding into two parts with the release of huge amounts of energy and 23 neutrons (Lise Meitner, Otto Frisch, Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann). This meant that it became possible to produce nuclear chain reaction. Such nuclear reaction was first considered by the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard (18981964), who had worked in Britain since 1934 and arrived in the United States in 1937. Szilard discerned the destructive power of atomic bomb and was concerned that Hitler would get it first. Due to Szilard's efforts, the U.S. scientists have started voluntarily to classify the results of their research to avoid any information leakage into Germany. Finally, it was Szilard and his colleagues (also Hungarian refugees Eugene Wigner (19021955) and Edward Teller (1908 1999)) who had asked Albert Einstein (Fig. II.12) already moved to the U.S. from Nazi Germany to write a letter to the U.S. president. Einstein's letter of August 2, 1939 addressed to the U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the capabilities of atomic bombs and the need for its preventive development resulted in the organization of a high30

powered research team of scientists. From this point the history of atomic bomb has begun.

FIG. II.11. Enrico Fermi (1901-1954).

FIG. II.12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955).

In 1940, the Soviet physicist Georgy N. Flerov (19131997) and his colleague Constantine Antonovich Petrjak (19071998) Kurchatovs pupils discovered the spontaneous fission of uranium nuclei. This discovery made it possible to determine the critical mass of uranium required for initiation of nuclear explosion. However, Danish physicist Niels Bohr (18851962) demonstrated that only the isotope uranium-235 was able to divide, and the nucleus of uranium-238 absorbed slow neutrons without fission and emit beta-particles. It became clear that it was necessary to separate isotopes of uranium to enrich to the maximum natural mixture of uranium by isotope uranium-235. Before the practical creation of nuclear charge, the scientists had to carefully study the mechanism of a nuclear chain reaction. For this purpose, in late 1942 the first in the world nuclear reactor represented a pile of graphite and uranium blocks was built under the stands of the soccer stadium at the University of Chicago with the participation of Enrico Fermi (who refused to support the Mussolini fascist regime and arrived in the U.S. in 1938). On December 2, 1942 at 3.45 the uranium fission was spontaneous (self-sustaining). Arthur Compton (one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project on the development of nuclear weapons) immediately called the White House on ordinary lines and said: The Italian navigator has landed in the New World How were the natives? Very friendly. The power generated by this first reactor (called the atomic pile) was just 40 watts equivalent to a burning match. After just 28 minutes of operation, the nuclear reaction was stopped and cadmium strips were inserted to mop up neutrons and quench the chain reaction. The experiments on production of enriched uranium were successfully completed. This led to the fact that on July 16, 1945 the first ever nuclear explosion was conducted at the landfill in the desert near Alamogorodo (New Mexico). By that time, Nazi Germany was defeated, but the fighting continued in Japan. On 6 August 1945 at 8.15, after the warning, the atomic bomb of a capacity of 21 kiloton was exploded over the Japanese city Hiroshima and on August 9, 1945 over Nagasaki. 180 thousand people were killed. In subsequent decades, 2408 explosions were conducted (541 in the atmosphere and 1867 under the earth, most of all tests 176 were performed in 1961). From the beginning of the 1940s, under the leadership of Beria and Kurchatov (1903 1960) (Fig. II.13) the Soviet scientists worked on the creation of nuclear weapons. In this period, the Soviet nuclear industry was created from scratch: mining and uranium enrichment plants and facilities for reprocessing of irradiated uranium. On August 29, 1949, the Soviet scientists detonated the first atomic bomb (Fig. II.14) at the Semipalatinsk test 31

site; they were followed by British (1952), French and Chinese (1964), India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and possibly North Korea (2006).

FIG. II.13. Igor Vasilyevich Kurchatov (1903-1960).

FIG. II.14. Model of the first Soviet atomic bomb RDS-1.

The first Soviet nuclear reactor was commissioned at the Laboratory 2, Academy of Science of the USSR (Moscow) on 25 December, 1946 at 19 oclock under the direction of I.V. Kurchatov. On December 15, 1948 near Paris, the first French nuclear reactor was put into operation under the guidance and leadership of Curies. A little later, an idea was proposed to use nuclear energy for submarine and surface fleet. The nuclear reactor installed on a submarine makes it possible to pass under water tens of thousands nautical miles without refueling. In 1954, the United States launched the Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine. In 1957, the first Soviet nuclear submarine Leninsky Komsomol (Fig. II.15) was launched, with the testing starting in 1958. In 1959, both the USSR and the U.S. launched the first surface ships with nuclear engines (nuclearpowered icebreaker Lenin (Fig. II.16) and the cargo ship Savannah).

FIG. II.15. Nuclear submarine K-3 Leninsky Komsomol.

FIG. II.16. Nuclear-powered icebreaker Lenin.

II.2.2. The first commercial use of nuclear energy In the course of the development of atomic bomb, basic and applied research works were carried out and the industry was prepared capable of producing materials for nuclear power. Thus, in 1944 the first gaseous diffusion plants were constructed in the U.S. (e.g., K-25 plant, whether the first ever enriched uranium was produced in March 1945), and in 1949 the construction of gaseous diffusion enrichment plant was started in England (for the purpose of creating its own atomic bomb). Also in the second half of the 1940s, before completing the creation of nuclear weapons, scientists began the development of first projects on peaceful use of nuclear energy, with the electricity production being the main area. At the same time, several nuclear reactors were built with the main purpose of producing plutonium for a nuclear bomb. The heat released during the reactor operation 32

was simply removed into pools. Then, the idea of using this heat appeared.

FIG. II.17. The worlds first nuclear power station (Obninsk).

For the practical development of nuclear energy, the scientists were entitled with the task to design and build a pilot production plant for solving scientific and technical problems of the development of large nuclear power plants. It was possible to implement the task due to the experience gained by specialists in the 1940s, when search works were carried out almost in all areas of reactor engineering, appropriate engineering solutions were developed, and special industry branches were created. In December 1951, the U.S. launched a small experimental fast reactor EBR1. In August 1953, the construction of the first commercial nuclear power station was started at Calder Hall (England), which was put into operation on August 27, 1956. At Kurchatovs suggestion, the first work on nuclear power were started in the Soviet Union in 1948, despite the fact that there were skeptical views among some scientists concerning the practicality of the idea of NPP development, who considered it as a fun for scientists and that would never be of practical importance. In 1954, the Soviet Union put into operation the worlds first nuclear power plant (Fig. II.17). The worlds first nuclear power plant was developed and put into operation over four and a half years. The works on the plant has become an example of creative cooperation between scientists, engineers, designers, technicians and workers based on broad cooperation of various institutes and enterprises, an undoubted labor feat of all members of its creation. The creation of the nuclear power plant in Obninsk has opened a new era in the history of energy an era of nuclear power, and it initiated the scientific and technological revolution in the field of energy supply and energy resources necessary for humanity for its future development. II.2.2.1. The development of nuclear power before the Chernobyl accident After the worlds first NPP had been commissioned, a tremendous development of the nuclear power started worldwide. These tendencies reached such scope that required a 33

special organization to coordinate activities in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy. In 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established with the focus on ensuring nuclear and radiation safety in all countries, as well as nuclear nonproliferation and the development of nuclear technology to meet the needs of humanity. The IAEA was created at the suggestion of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced in his address to the 470th plenary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on 8 December 1953. After 1960, the geography of nuclear power expanded due to national projects and imports from more technically developed countries. The first programmes of rapid growth of the nuclear power were developed in the 195060s in the U.S., UK, USSR, France, then in Germany and Japan. For the most part they were not implemented that was first of all due to a lack of competitiveness of the nuclear power as compared to thermal power plants based on coal, oil and gas. With the global energy crisis that caused a sharp rise in prices of oil and other mineral fuels and set the issues related to reliability of power supply in a new way, the role of nuclear energy in addressing these issues was quickly realized. This was especially true for the countries with no large oil and gas resources, and coal in some cases France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Republic of Korea. However, the largescale programmes of nuclear power have also been undertaken in such countries as the U.S. and the USSR. As a result, in the late 1970s, most Western experts believed that by the end of XX century nuclear power capacity could reach 13001600 GW or approximately half the total capacity of all power plants, and nuclear power plants would be in 50 countries. The reduction in growth of the nuclear power was evident already in 1972, when first cancellations of orders for construction of nuclear power units occurred in the United States (only there). The cancellations had become even more significant with the election of the U.S. President Jimmy Carter on November 2, 1976, who was against the development of nuclear program. But the real crisis that set back the nuclear power in its development for many years ago had started after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. II.2.2.2. The Chernobyl disaster The first large-scale radiation accident occurred on March 28, 1979 at the Three Mile Island NPP (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the U.S.) the second largest accident in the history of the worlds nuclear power. It caused release of some radioactive gases outside the plant. The Three Mile Island accident lied in the fact that progressive leakage of coolant (water) from the reactor circuit resulted in a partial fuel meltdown and release of radionuclides. Based on the findings of the accident investigation, the reason was a combination of the equipment failure and incompetence of operators who were not able to understand the reactor condition. After the accident at Three Mile Island the orders for NPP construction in the U.S. were cancelled on a mass scale. Up to the present, the Three Mile Island is an evidence for NPP hazard in the world public opinion, and a detailed technical description of the accident is given in many publications on the operation of nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, this accident had no crucial impact on the development of worlds nuclear power. On April 26 1986, at 01:23 a.m. of local time, at the reactor 4 of Chernobyl NPP (RBMK-1000, put into operation in December 1982) the severe accident occurred resulting in the destruction of the reactor core and some part of the reactor building. The accident was caused by an experiment focused on generating electric power in the regime of steam 34

turbine rundown (i.e. its inertia-induced rotation after shutting off the steam to it). During the experiment the reactor went into unsteady regime and should have been shutdown according to established procedures. But the operating personnel took a fundamentally wrong decision and continued the experiment. Moreover, the safety system was switched off in violation of all regulations. Further combination of RBMK design features and staff actions led to a thermal explosion of the reactor. Fuel fragments were ejected into the atmosphere (about 33.5% of the total uranium loaded in the reactor), the area of 145 km2 was contaminated, 6.5 million people were estimated suffered from the accident. To prevent further releases of radioactive substances into the atmosphere, Unit 4 of Chernobyl NPP was covered in the shortest possible time with a concrete sarcophagus (Fig. II.18).

FIG. II.18. Chernobyl NPP, Unit 4 present time.

The man-made crisis occurred 1986 did not of course kill the nuclear power, although the programme of its forced development was stopped. Being a serious lesson for the global nuclear industry as a whole, the Chernobyl disaster resulted in reconsidering the views on the nuclear power by both specialists and the public. II.2.2.3. Nuclear engineering: focus on new development The period of five years (19911996) following Chernobyl was already under the effect of other crises. The political crisis (collapse of the USSR, change of the political system in Eastern Europe, etc.) lead to the shutdown of 6 power generating units in Germany, complications in nuclear power of many countries, primarily Ukraine, due to the severance of economic ties, however, without depriving any of these countries of its nuclear program. To characterize the general status of the world nuclear power during the time after the Chernobyl catastrophe, it may be said that development has been observed although the growth of nuclear industry in developed countries has slowed down. This can be explained by the fact that the optimal level was reached after the stage of plentiful growth the level corresponding to the balance of economical, environmental and socio-psychological factors of the development of commercial energy generation technology. There is no need to develop the industry as intensively as it was before (for instance, in 2001, 76.4% of energy in France was produced at NPP). Rapid growth of nuclear power is observed in the developing countries which were not considered as industrially developed in the recent past (South Korea, China, and India). Today the scale of nuclear power unit construction is intensively growing all over the world due to the finiteness of traditional energy sources. Specialists forecast nuclear Renaissance. Not only the largest players (the USA, France, Russia) declared their 35

intentions to establish and develop national nuclear power, but also China, India, Finland, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Japan, Argentine, etc. Thus, the world nuclear power enters the period of intensive development again. However, it is not worthwhile to absolutize its possibilities. In the XXI century, energy production by organic fuel and coal combustion will not completely disappear and will long form a considerable share in the global energy balance. Unconventional types of power engineering are under development. Nuclear power will though keep and strengthen its positions as a reliable and powerful source of energy and heat. II.2.3. Milestones in the history of nuclear energy science and technology 1895 German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Rntgen discovered rays (roentgen radiation). 1896 French physicist Antoine Henri Becquerel, while investigating phosphorescence, accidentally discovered nonvisible radiation of uranium salts rays analogue. Discovery of radioactivity. 1898 Maria and Pierre Curie announced the existence of two radioactive elements polonium () and radium (Ra). 1899 Antoine Henri Becquerel and other scientists demonstrated that the nonvisible radiation emitted by radioactive nuclei divides into three streams in the magnetic field: discovery of -, - and -radiation. 1900 British physicist Ernest Rutherford determined that -radiation is a stream of electrons (-). 1906 E. Rutherford determined that -particles are helium nuclei () without electronic shells. 1911 E. Rutherford suggested a nuclear model. 1919 A group of scientists under the leadership of E. Rutherford, while bombing nitrogen with particles, obtained oxygen isotope (17) that was the first in the world induced nuclear reaction. 1932 English physicist James Chadwick discovered the neutron. This discovery allowed creating the neutronproton theory which says that the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. 1934 French physicists Frdric and Irne JoliotCurie obtained the first man-made radioactive isotope (phosphorus 30). 1939 German scientists Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn discovered that under neutron radiation uranium nucleus 235U can decay to two fragments with the emission of 2-3 neutrons and great amount of energy discovery of uranium nuclei fission chain reaction. 1940 Soviet scientists K.A. Petrzhak and G.N. Fliorov found out that uranium can fission without neutron bombardment they discovered the spontaneous fission of uranium nuclei. This discovery led to the notion of critical mass minimum mass in which the sustained fission chain reaction can be carried out. 1942 Under the football grand stands of University of Chicago (USA), the first in the history nuclear reactor was started. 1945 Tests of the first in the world atomic bomb were carried out at the test site in the desert country of New Mexico near Alamogordo (USA). 1946 The first atomic reactor in Eurasia was put into operation at the Kurchatov Institute (Moscow). 36

1949 The tests of the first Soviet atomic bomb were conducted at Semipalatinsk test site: this date is a sign of the end for the U.S. monopoly of nuclear weapons. 1952 The thermonuclear bomb was tested for the first time in the history (USA). 1953 The first testing of Soviet thermonuclear weapon. 1954 The U.S. launched the USS Nautilus the worlds first nuclear-powered submarine. 1954 The worlds first nuclear power plant was put into operation in Obninsk (USSR) on the territory of the Institute for Physics and Power Engineering. 1957 The worlds first nuclear icebreaker Lenin was launched. 1957 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established. 1963 The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water) known as the Moscow Treaty. 1972 The first ever fast neutron reactor was put into operation (USSR). 1986 The Chernobyl disaster. 1992 The agreement was signed by four parties (the European Community, Russia, the United States and Japan) for conceptual design activities on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). 1996 The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the 50th United Nations General Assembly. 2000 At the Millennium Summit Russia proposed the initiative to establish the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) under the auspices of the IAEA. 2006 The development of the nuclear power in Russia was enlivened; nuclear renaissance in the world. 2009 The construction of the first ever floating nuclear power plant was commenced in Saint Petersburg. II.2.4. Brief information about outstanding scientists Antoine Henri Becquerel (18521908) French physicist and Nobel laureate. He discovered the phenomenon of uranium radioactivity. Marie SklodowskaCurie (18671934) French physicist and chemist, born in Poland: she shared a Novel Prize for physics (1903) with her husband Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel for their study into radioactivity, and was awarded a Nobel Prize for chemistry (1911) for the discovery of the radium. Pierre Curie (18591906) French physicist, Nobel Prize shared with M. SklodowskaCurie. Joseph John Thomson (18561940) British physicist. Nobel Prize for the discovery of the electron (1906). Suggested one of the first atomic models. Ernest Rutherford (18711937) British physicist, the father of nuclear physics; since 1919 Director of the Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge. Nobel Prize for chemistry (1908). In 1919 he performed the first artificial nuclear reaction (nitrogen to oxygen), discovered the proton. His pupils: Pyotr Kapitsa, Yuli Khariton, Kirill Sinelnikov. 37

Niels Bohr (18851962) Danish physicist. Nobel Prize for the creation of quantum theory of planetary atom (1922). Paul Dirac (19021984) English theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. He shared the Nobel Prize in physics for 1933 with Erwin Schrdinger. Erwin Schrdinger (18871961) Austrian theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. He shared the Nobel Prize in physics for 1933 with Paul Dirac. Louis de Brogile (18921987) French theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. He was awarded Nobel Prize for the discovery of wave nature of the electron in 1929. D.I. Mendeleev (18341907) Russian scientist, the founder of the periodic table of elements (Mendeleevs law). Albert Einstein (18791955) Outstanding theoretical physicist, one of the founders of modern physics, special and general relativity theories. Nobel Prize (1921) for the contribution to the light quantum theory (explanation of the photoelectric effect, etc.) Discovered the law of mass-energy equivalence in 1905 (E = mc2) that formed the basis of nuclear physics. Max Born (18821970) German physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics (Nobel Prize 1904). James Franck (18821964) German physicist, worked in the field of atomic and nuclear physics; discovered the laws governing the impact of electrons on atoms (Nobel Prize 1925). Pyotr L. Kapitsa (18941984) Soviet physicist, academician; most works dedicated to nuclear physics, physics and engineering of super-strong magnetic fields and low temperatures, highpower electronics and high-temperature plasma physics. He was awarded Nobel Prize in 1978 for fundamental research in the field of low temperature physics. J. Robert Oppenheimer (19041967) American theoretical physicist, the father of the atomic bomb (director of atomic bomb project). Friedrich Gauss (17771855) German mathematician, astronomer and physicist; professor of the University of Gttingen. Henri Poincare (18541912) French mathematician, physicist, astronomer and philosopher. Aside from A. Einstein he laid the groundwork for the theory of special relativity. Hendrik Lorentz (18531928) Dutch theoretical physicist, the founder of the classical electron theory. Nobel Prize in 1902. Arnold Sommerfeld (18681951) German theoretical physicist; works in the field of the quantum theory of atom, spectroscopy, mathematical physics. The founder of the Sommerfelds school of theoretical physics. Max Plank (18581947) German theoretical physicist, the founder of the quantum theory (Nobel Prize 38

1918) Peter Debye (18841966) German physicist and physical chemist, one of the founders of the theory of solids. Walther Nernst (18641941) German physicist and physical chemist, one of the founders of physical chemistry. Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1920. Albert Abraham Michelson (18521931) American physicist, known for his work in optics and spectroscopy, measurement of the speed of light. In 1907 he was awarded Nobel Prize in Physics for the development of precision instruments and performed investigations. Robert Andrews Milikan (19841953) American experimental physicist known for his work on atomic physics, spectroscopy, cosmic ray physics. Irving Langmuir (18811957) American physicist and chemist, his works are dedicated to the discharges in gases, plasma physics, electronics, atomic physics. Nobel Prize in 1932. Edward Uhler Condon (19021974) American physicist; his works are dedicated to quantum mechanics, atomic and nuclear physics. Norbert Wiener (18941964) The founder of cybernetics. Enrico Fermi (19011954) Italian and since 1938 American physicist who worked in the field of atomic and nuclear physics, high energy physics, etc. He discovered the artificial radioactivity (Nobel Prize 1938). Built the first nuclear reactor. Fritz Houtermans (19031966) German physicist, worked in the field of nuclear physics of high energies. He, in 1929, with R. Atkinson, made the first calculation of stellar thermonuclear reactions. Abram F. Ioffe (18801960) Soviet physicist, academician, the founder of the school of physicists in the field of atomic and nuclear physics, solid state physics, especially in the field of semiconductors. Many of his students became academicians. Leo Szilard (18981964) US physicist, born in Hungry, worked in the field of nuclear physics, computer science. John von Neumann (19031957) American mathematician and physicist who worked in the field of computer science. Edward Teller (19082003) American physicist, father of the hydrogen bomb, the main work in the field of quantum mechanics, nuclear physics. Carl Friedrich von Weizscker (19122007) German theoretical physicist and astrophysicist, his works are dedicated to atomic and nuclear physics, quantum theory, astrophysics, etc. James Chadwick (18911974) British experimental physicist; his works are dedicated to radioactivity and nuclear physics. Nobel Prize in 1935. Frdric Joliot-Curie (19001958) 39

French physicist; his works are dedicated to nuclear physics, chemistry and engineering. Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1935. Irne Joliot-Curie (18971956) French physicist and radiochemist, his works are dedicated to radioactivity, nuclear physics and chemistry. Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1935. Lise Meitner (18781968) German physicist, she discovered the chain reaction of uranium nuclear fission by neutrons. Otto Hahn (18791968) German radiochemist and physicist; his works are dedicated to radioactivity, nuclear chemistry and physics. Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1944. Werner Karl Heisenberg (19011976) German theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize in 1932. Ernest Lawrence (19011958) American physicist, his works are dedicated to accelerator physics. In 1929 he proposed the idea of the cyclotron and in 1931 built the first cyclotron (Nobel Prize in 1939). Max von Laue (18791962) German physicist; his works are dedicated to optics, crystal physics, superconductivity, quantum theory, atomic physics, etc. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of X ray diffraction in 1914. Arthur Compton (18921962) American physicist; his works are dedicated to atomic and nuclear physics. Nobel Prize in 1927. Otto Robert Frisch (19041979) British experimental physicist; his works are dedicated to nuclear physics and molecular beams. Richard Phillips Feynman (19181988) American theoretical physicist, one of the founders of modern quantum electrodynamics, the physics of elementary particles, etc., the author of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Lev A. Artsimovich (19091973) Soviet physicist, academician; his works are dedicated to atomic and nuclear physics, plasma physics, controlled thermonuclear reactions. Igor V. Kurchatov (19031960) Soviet physicist, academician; his works are dedicated to the physics of dielectrics, nuclear physics. Under his leadership the atomic and hydrogen bombs, nuclear reactors and the worlds first nuclear power plant were developed. Yuli B. Khariton (19041996) Soviet physicist and physical chemist, an academician; his works are dedicated to nuclear physics of combustion and explosion. Under his leadership the atomic and hydrogen bombs were created. Alexander I. Leypunsky (19031972) Soviet physicist, academician; his works are dedicated to atomic and nuclear physics, nuclear power. He suggested the idea of fast reactors. Georgy N. Flyorov (19131990) Soviet experimental physicist, academician; his works are dedicated to nuclear 40

physics, nuclear energy, cosmic ray physics. Konstantin A. Petrzhak (19071999) Soviet experimental physicist, academician; his works are dedicated to nuclear physics. Isaak K. Kikoin (19081984) Soviet experimental physicist, academician; his works are dedicated to solid state physics, atomic and nuclear physics, nuclear engineering.
[1] [2] [3] [4] CROPPER, W.H., Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking, Oxford University Press (2004). UNITED STATES DEPERTMENT OF ENERGY, http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdf UNITED STATES DEPERTMENT OF ENERGY, http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/DE00782931.pdf Outline History of Nuclear Energy, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html

41

II.3. HISTORY, CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE MAJOR NUCLEAR COUNTRIES: WESTERN EUROPE, USA, THE FORMER SOVIET UNION AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION II.3.1. Nuclear power in Western European countries The situation with the development of nuclear power in Western Europe reflects in full the contradictions resulting from the implementation of nuclear technologies in the world (Fig. II.19) [1-4]. On the one hand, there are almost inexhaustible potential reserves of nuclear fuel (uranium and thorium) in the world providing sustainable development of the nuclear energy for centuries. On the other hand, the practical implementation of the development of nuclear energy based on thermal neutron reactors employing generally only uranium-235 from relatively high-grade ores with their potential reserves being less than those of oil and gas.

FIG. II.19. Location of nuclear power plants in Western Europe.

42

On the one hand, the possibility of creating inherently safe nuclear reactors (including those based on passive systems), on the other hand, a number of severe nuclear accidents, including Three Mile Island accident (USA) and the Chernobyl disaster (USSR). On the one hand, the potential for total control and isolation of almost all radioactive waste, on the other hand, practically unsolved problem of ultimate disposal of high-level nuclear waste. On the one hand, the establishment of a global nuclear non-proliferation regime (NPT, etc.), on the other hand, black market of nuclear materials and technologies, absence of international mechanism for preventing possible emergence of new countries with nuclear weapons with the proliferation of nuclear technology into new countries, potential threat of nuclear terrorism. On the one hand, anticipated renaissance in the nuclear power, on the other hand, unsolved problem of the development of closed nuclear fuel cycle and commercial plutonium breeder reactor that would fully meet the non-proliferation requirements, ageing of scientific-and-technological community and the threat for loss of experience, knowledge gained by older generation, loss of scientific-technical schools, threat for loss of critical knowledge for the future development of nuclear energy. As a result, Western Europe (primarily, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland) are demonstrating the use of main advantages of the nuclear power as ecologically attractive, economically competitive energy source. In Western Europe, closed nuclear fuel cycle for uranium and plutonium was implemented with reprocessing of more than 30% of spent nuclear fuel, with the use of uranium-plutonium MOX fuel in light-water reactors in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. In these countries the reactors of the future were developed: fast neutron breeder reactors (Phenix, SuperPhenix 1200 MW in France, KNK in Germany, PFR in the United Kingdom); the possibility was demonstrated in practice for final disposal of fuel-processing waste (France) or SNF (Sweden, Finland) (Fig. II.20). In Western Europe, high-temperature uranium-graphite reactors were designed and constructed with helium as a coolant at helium temperature up to 800900C, including the use of thorium (THTR, Germany) the basis for future NPP with gas-turbine installations and the basis for the development of future nuclear hydrogen power.

FIG. II.20. Dynamics of growth of nuclear power in Western Europe.

At the same time, after the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl NPP, some countries of Western Europe (such as Austria, Ireland, Netherlands) prohibited legislatively the development of nuclear energy or set a moratorium for further construction of new NPPs (Germany, Belgium, Sweden). 43

II.3.1.1. National policy of Western Europe countries in the field of nuclear energy The development of nuclear power in Western Europe was started with the construction of the first commercial NPPs with MAGNOXtype gasgraphite reactors (CalderHall, 1956, the United Kingdom). As it was already noted, the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) NPP in the USA in March 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in the USSR in April 1986 resulted in stopping the programmes of NPP construction in a number of countries, and some countries of Western Europe such as Sweden, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, abandoned their plans for construction of the nuclear capacities, although nowadays the nuclear energy in these countries contributes considerably to the generation of electricity at a level of 3060%. The anti-nuclear movement, strengthening and extension of license regulations and requirements had a significant impact on the decrease in popularity of the nuclear energy and further slow-down in the increase of NPP capacities in Western Europe. Among the rising problems in the development of nuclear power, unsettled problems of NPP decommissioning and issues of radioactive waste became the main challenges. Currently, only two countries of Western Europe have plans for construction of new NPP units: France and Finland. Both countries plan to construct one power unit with EFR reactor designed by joint efforts of France and Germany. In Finland there are some intensions to submit to the parliament the question on construction of one more, the sixth, unit. In other countries the construction of new power units was not specifically discussed, but some proposals were made concerning such possibility for the replacement of units being decommissioned. Lets dwell on the situation with the nuclear power in some Western European countries. Nowadays, France operates 59 commercial nuclear power units with total capacity of 63 260 MWe, and one 1600 MWe unit is under construction. More than 75% of electric power is generated by nuclear power plants more than in any other country in the world.

FIG. II.21. Location of nuclear power plants in France.

In France, operating NPPs are competitive as compared with thermal plants on imported gas: the cost is 3.20 Euro/(kWh) for nuclear power, 3.054.26 Euro/(kWh) for gas thermal plants depending on different conditions, 3.814.57 Euro/(kWh) for coal thermal plants. 44

In France the legal issues of the nuclear power were included in statutory regulations applied to common spheres of activity (for instance, in laws of environmental protection, on atmosphere emissions, on water use, health and occupational safety). In France, 11 reactors were put out of operation, including 8 first generation gasgraphite reactors with the six reactors being very similar by the performances to MAGNOX reactors of the United Kingdom. The equipment at these power reactors was partially dismantled, but they were left for final disassembly and decontamination for 50 years (Fig. II.21). France has no legislative limitations for the operating time of nuclear power units. For 900 MW power reactors built in France in the 1980s the technical limits were set (3040 years of operation) relative to the equipment reliability. The operating entity, which is represented by Electicite de France, would like to extend the operation of its PWR reactors up to 60 years by motivating its desire with the experience of other countries. France considers the construction of EFR power units as a part of long-term energy policy, which can allow France to sweep global energy markets and be done with its dependence on oil and gas. With such companies as EDF, GDF Suez, Total, AREVA and Alstom, France has all chances to increase exports. Finland, like France, has not changed the plans for the development of nuclear energy since 1981, when the total capacity of three power units (including two VVER-440 reactors) was 1500 MWe. Currently, Finland has four power units with installed capacity of 2696 MWe, and one 1600 MWe EFR unit is under construction. The unit capacity of Loviisa1, 2 with VVER440 reactors was increased from 465 to 510 MW (9.7%), and the operating life up to 50 years (Fig. II.22). The unit capacity of Olkiluoto1, 2 with PWR reactors was increased from 690 to 870 MW (26%), and the operating life was extended to 60 years.

FIG. II.22. Loviisa NPP.

In Finland, the construction of Unit 5 is likely to be implemented by TVO Company established in 1969 by a number of Finnish industrial companies with the aim of constructing and operating large-scale national electric power plants. The stakeholders are private (56.9%) and state (43.1%) enterprises. Private stakeholders are mainly represented by large industrial companies with high consumption of electric power in the base load mode; therefore, it is of crucial importance for them to keep low price for electrical power, especially, under conditions of anticipated fuel price rise. The calculations show that doubling of fuel prices in Finland would result in the increase in costs for electricity production by 9% at NPP, by 31% at coal thermal power plants, and by 66% at gas thermal power plants. In December 1984 there were 35 power units with total capacity 10 612 MWe in operation in the United Kingdom; 7 units with a total capacity of 4620 MWe were under 45

construction (Fig. II.23). From the very beginning of the nuclear power development in the United Kingdom it was based on NPPs with gas-graphite reactors (at first, as in France, MAGNOX-type reactors, and then the advanced gas-graphite reactors with very high temperature due to transition to the use of stainless steel instead of MAGNOX alloy as fuel cladding material) as opposed to France, which has sharply changed the strategy in the field of nuclear energy by moving to the construction of pressurized light-water reactors (PWR) initially by domestic designs, and then with the use of Westinghouse technology license. After discovering and using of considerable reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea, further state support of the development of nuclear energy was almost alienated in the United Kingdom. In 1995, the government gave consent to the development of nuclear energy provided that it would be competitive in the market environment, but denied to support in the future.

FIG. II.23. Location of nuclear power plants in the UK.

46

In October 1998, the White Paper on challenges of the development of electric power in the country was issued, where the prospects were considered for using various energy sources to produce electricity and a conclusion was made that the construction of new nuclear power plants was too expensive and the use of existing thermal power plants burning coal and gas was found to be the most economically efficient. At the same time, it was stressed that the future of nuclear energy would depend on the ability of nuclear industry to gain public support. The governments attitude to the nuclear energy remained the same: the prospects for the construction of new NPPs would be defined by the market as judged by their safety, efficient performance and public attitude. The nuclear share in the production of electric power in the United Kingdom was 22% in 2000, and by 2010 it was projected to reduce it to 13%. In December 2008, 19 power units with a total capacity of 10 222 MWe were in operation in the United Kingdom. The problem of putting out the nuclear power plants from operation in the United Kingdom consists in much higher costs of power unit for gas-cooled reactors as compared with water-cooled reactors. For MAGNOXtype reactors this ratio is 5:1. This is caused by the necessity for processing much more amounts of materials and, particularly, graphite. The waste amounts resulting from decontamination of MAGNOXtype reactors exceed ten-fold the amounts of waste from light-water reactors. In 2008, after discovering the prospect for considerable reduction of production in the North Sea (after 20202030) in view of limited reserves of oil and gas the British Government published the Energy White Paper with the main focus made on the need for the development of nuclear energy to provide future demands of the country for electric power. According to the recommendations made in the report by the Energy Security Commission in 2009, the nuclear share in electricity production in the United Kingdom should be 3540% of the national electric generation by 2030. In Germany the Atomic Energy Act was accepted in 1959 and covered all the basic aspects of regulation in this area. In the period from 1984 to 2002, 17 power units of NPPs and prototype reactors, 31 research reactors and critical assemblies and 9 nuclear fuel cycle facilities were shutdown in Germany. Two reactors at NPPs (Grosswelzheim and Niederaichbach), 21 research reactors and critical assemblies and four NFC facilities were dismantled. The sites of two reactors were fully decontaminated and removed out of the control by supervisory authorities for security. Other two reactors (Lingeri, BWR, and Hamm-Uentrop, THTR300) were safe enclosed. Other 14 power units are being dismantled, with the territory being then reclaimed to the condition of green site. The Stade nuclear power plant shutdown in 2003 will be also dismantled. The data of the survey performed by TNS Emnid, the German company engaged in research of markets and public opinion, and published in July 2009 showed: 61% of Germans think that Germany cant do without the nuclear energy. Only 36% of respondents considered that one can abandon the development of atoms for peace. 63% believe that a hasty shutdown of nuclear power plants would adversely affect the Germany economy, and 31% hold the alternative opinion. One of the conditions for successful development of the nuclear energy in the context of free market in electric power is its competitiveness with regard to other methods of electricity generation. The efforts made by operating companies to reduce production costs are often insufficient. In Germany, variable balance between the advocates of nuclear energy (NPP owners, large industry) and its opponents (political coalition in the parliament) is based on the promise given by operating organizations to support NPP operation under cost-effective conditions. But at the same time the coalitions representatives support the state funding of coal-mining industry, thereby giving the priority to coal-fired power 47

stations. By contrast, when speaking about the future of nuclear energy Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, favors its further development. In Sweden since January 2000 the tax for nuclear electricity production has been increased by 0.35 cent/(kWh). With the openness of free market in electric power, the prices dropped sharply, as there revealed excessive capacities in some countries, and this made it impossible for NPP owners to compensate capital costs, pay taxes and make savings for the construction of new capacities. Some companies in Sweden started to buy shares in foreign energy companies owning power plants including NPPs, for instance, in Germany. However, in the context of unfavorable weather conditions on the Scandinavian Peninsula caused the reduction of electricity production at hydroelectric power plants, the prices in 20022003 raised sharply, which allowed the Swedish companies to launch an extensive campaign for NPP modernization focused on increasing their capacities and enhancing operation safety. The total costs of the whole range of works in the period up to 2020 are estimated at 120 million dollars. A part of the required fund the companies expect to have from selling electric power produced by power plants of other types. At the referendum about the future of nuclear power held in March 1980 the Christian democrats and centrists favored the shutdown of all NPPs in Sweden as soon as possible this was the most negative approach proposed at the referendum. Later on, in the same year the parliament came to the decision to phase out the nuclear power by 2010. However, the authorities attitude began to change in the end of 2008, when the liberals announced that they agreed the new reactors to be constructed by investors without any political restrictions. The leaders of the federations of trade unions that involve energyconsuming industries of Sweden (primarily, steel making, paper making, and minerals industry) have long tried to change negative attitude of social democrats to the nuclear power. These federations together with the nuclear industry actually carry on pro-nuclear campaign. The Swedish power industry has practically no carbon dioxide emissions, as half it is composed of hydroelectric power plants and the other half NPPs. Nowadays, all four parties entering the coalition government of Sweden have adopted the plans to raise a national prohibition and to give permission for the construction of new nuclear power plants. The agreement on nuclear energy policy provides that new power units will be built only to replace the existing units and only on sites already available. Belgium. By 1981, the total capacity of three power units was 1650 MWe, and four units with a total capacity of 3800 MWe were under construction, with two of them being put into operation by the end of 1984. By 2002, one more power unit was commissioned by reaching the installed nuclear capacity of 5760 MWe, and further construction was suspended. The replacement of the steam generator at Tihange-2 NPP performed in 2001 resulted in the increase in capacity by 48 MW. The replacement of steam generators is carried out stepwise at all reactors. Due to this operation the capacity of all seven power units was increased by 219 MW in the period of 1994-2002. Switzerland. The capacity of all reactors of Beznau1, 2 was uprated from 350 to 365 MWe, Muehleberg from 306 to 355 MW, Goesgen from 920 to 970 MW, Leibstadt from 942 to 1165 MW. BKW Company operating Muehleberg NPP proposed to extend the lifetime of the power unit with a designed lifetime to be ended in 2012, up to 2020. If the license for extending the lifetime is granted, the company would invest 100 million Swiss francs to the modernization of the unit. In Italy, the decision on phase-out of nuclear energy was taken in 1987 based on the results of a national referendum. Latina NPP was shut down immediately after the referendum in December 1987. Enrico Fermi (Trino Vercellese) and Caorso were shut down 48

in 1990 after ten-year operation. The proposals to renew the nuclear energy programme and commence the building of new nuclear power plants were announced in 2008, after S. Berlusconi has been elected as the Prime Minister, who found the nuclear phase-out a terrible mistake. Although there was no national nuclear programme in Italy, it supported the Italian energy company Enel in searching the ways for extension of nuclear energy imports, as the dependence of Italy on fossil fuels resulted in high prices for electricity. In 2009, the Upper Chamber of the Italian Parliament, the Senate, adopted a legislative package that gave green light to the nuclear renaissance in the country. II.3.2. Nuclear power in the USA The USA is a leading country of industrially developed community. It is not only the richest and most powerful country in the world economically and militarily, but also the country with the most powerful nuclear industry with the capacities of about 100 GWe (Fig. II.24, II.25). The USA is a pioneer in the development of nuclear technologies and the country that best demonstrated the contradictions in the development of the nuclear power. The analysis of the situation with the development of nuclear energy in the USA is significant with respect to the analysis of the problems of its development in the world, future role of nuclear power on a global scale.

FIG. II.24. Location of nuclear power plants in America.

49

FIG. II.25. Dynamics of growth of nuclear power in the U.S.

II.3.2.1. History of nuclear power in the USA The initial landmarks in the development of nuclear technology in the world are closely related to the history of nuclear power in the USA: creation of the first self-sustaining chain reaction in nuclear reactor (December 1942 E. Fermi, Chicago); generation of first electric power from nuclear source (1951, EBR1 reactor); commissioning of first fast neutron reactors (1946 experimental plutonium reactor cooled by liquid mercury Clementine; 1949 experimental reactor EBR-1; 1964 development reactor EF 60 MWe, 200 MWt). These achievements are most impressive in the development of innovative nuclear technology based on fast neutron reactors, especially when considering the history of fast reactors in other countries. Thus, for instance, in the USSR the first records about the initial discussion of possible development of fast reactors relate to 1949, and the BR1 first critical assembly started the operation in 1953. It should be noted that the USA government in the name of the President Eisenhower under the influence of pioneers in the development of nuclear power (Einstein, Oppenheimer, Weinberg and others) realized its global role both in peaceful purposes and threat of proliferation of nuclear technology in military purposes; and in 1953 it put forward the initiative Atoms for peace in the UN, which first stated officially at such high level the role and threat of the development of nuclear power in the world. This initiative provided the bases for the historical resolution of the United Nations General Assembly about the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) entitled to coordinate and control the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Based on the resolution, the IAEA was established in 1957, and the Geneva conferences on peaceful uses of atomic energy were arranged, where specialists from leading nuclear states (the USA, USSR, the United Kingdom, France, India, etc.) presented declassified data on the status of the development of nuclear science and technology in their countries and proposals on cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear energy. The U.S. energy policy conducted in the 196070s as to the nuclear power under the direction of the Atomic Energy Commission of the USA headed by G. Siborg, Nobel laureate, who discovered plutonium, led to the creation of the most powerful in the world system of nuclear energy with a capacity of 100 GWe. In after years, the commission was abolished and the nuclear power became a part of the activity of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) along with coal, oil, gas and nuclear weapons complex. In view of a variety of political, economical, social and market reasons the prospect for the development of the nuclear power was lost in the USA, which resulted 50

in closing the construction and terminating R&D in the field of fast reactors and closed nuclear fuel cycle with plutonium recycling. This initiative was proposed by the Administration of the President Carter, who declared non-proliferation as the high priority in the development of nuclear power and who connected the achievements of this goal with the prohibition on SNF reprocessing (i.e. ban on the development of closed NFC) and on the development of fast reactors as the most dangerous (by the Carter Administrations opinion) way of creating nuclear weapons. In 19791981, on the initiative of the President Carter the analysis of NFC for nonproliferation was performed under the auspices of the IAEA with the participation of 18 nuclear states: the program of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE). As a result of long-continued and thorough scientific-technical and economic study (8 volumes) the representatives of all 18 countries did not support the policy of the U.S. Administration. After more than 25 years, the course of nuclear technology events was fully confirmed by the INFCE conclusion: it turned out that the enrichment technology was the most sensitive element with relation to military proliferation in the form of centrifugal technology that became the main actual danger for nuclear weapons proliferation. This can be illustrated with the situations occurred around the nuclear programmes of Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, Iran, South Africa. This technology was found much cheaper (by 50 60 times), less visible (small areas) from satellites, quicker (months as compared with years required for plutonium production) and more affordable. Thus, the policy adopted by the U.S. put the country back by 2030 years in the development of closed NFC and fast breeder reactors the basis for the development of large-scale power engineering. This resulted in dismantling of the equipment at NPP with the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, loss of experience and knowledge in view of loss of scientific-and-technological community. Freezing of further development of the nuclear power led to the increased dependence on oil and gas supplies, including from an unstable region of the Persian Gulf, and caused subsequent actions of the United States in this region. II.3.2.2. New energy policy of the USA At the beginning of the new century the U.S. administration declared a new national energy strategy that recognized the important role of nuclear energy for the future development of the country, along with coal, oil, gas and hydropower. The overuse (>85%) of fossil fuel in energy and industrial balance in the world has found a negative reflection in the U.S. economy. For example, in the chemical industry of the U.S. in 1992 the costs for the purchase of energy sources (import) were over and above covered with the export of processed products: US $25 billion and US $40 billion, respectively. In 2004, the pattern was reversed: the import of raw materials (oil and gas) was US $100 billion and exceeded considerably the export by US $10 billion. The rise of prices for raw materials resulted in loss of profitability of the U.S. chemical industry. The implementation of the national strategy for the development of nuclear power requires at least maintaining its share in U.S. electricity (~20%) due to (Fig. II.26): license renewal for NPP operation (~60-80 NPPs for 1020 years in the next ten years); construction (starting from 20102015) of new NPPs at least to replace nuclear power plants to be decommissioned; further capacity uprating of existing NPP. According to the latest projections, maintaining the current share of nuclear power in 51

the fast-growing energy industry (doubling over the next 50 years) would require the construction of ~150200 (mid-century) of new nuclear power plants. All this happens within the urgent need to address long-term problems: solving the problem of long-term management of NPP spent fuel (SNF); reliable and long-term disposal of NPP radioactive waste; solving the problem of management of surplus weapon-grade plutonium and reserves of civil plutonium. The Clinton Administration tried to resolve all three problems above by means of direct geological disposal of nuclear waste, SNF and plutonium. For this purpose, a start was made for the construction and licensing of geologic repository near Las-Vegas (YokyMount). However, as a national strategy this way proved to be untenable, at least for economic reasons: the developing nuclear energy of the U.S. (300 GWe in the next 50 years) would require building such mega-billion and time-consuming geological repositories every 10 years. Here one needs to add future problems of safe disposal and non-proliferation of plutonium-containing materials.

FIG. II.26. Plans on nuclear power development in the U.S.

The initiators of the New U.S. energy policy analyzed and presented the program for solving the challenges the U.S. faced, that were inevitably associated with the global problems of mankind development, as the U.S. is the most significant world power in resource consumption and environmental impact. The key objectives of the program are: to reduce considerably oil consumption, oil import as the most sensitive element of the national energy security; to use a new energy market of developing countries; to reduce significantly the environmental pollution in the U.S. on a global scale, to prevent adverse climate impact. To achieve the above goals, it is necessary to rejuvenate the scientific-andtechnological personnel, preserve and transfer knowledge, experience; to modernize the personnel training system, develop the nuclear energy infrastructure. Inter alia, this would encourage the possibility of solving the problem of optimizing the energy consumption on a 52

global scale in the next 50 years, according to American scientists, experts and researchers opinion. In early 2003, the U.S. administration decided to develop the technology of advanced nuclear fuel cycle with separation of fission products and actinides, so that in future on costeffectiveness basis to use them in the form of plutonium MOX fuel in light water reactors or in the form of advanced fuel for fast breeder reactors. At the same time, the decision was made that it would be useful to recycle surplus weapon-grade plutonium through MOX fuel of light water reactors. At the same time the Bush administration inherited a negative impact of this 25year policy: practical absence of closed NFC technology in the U.S.; loss of competency in the above issues (loss of scientists and engineers); loss of the national educational system on the above issues (suffice it to mention the disappear of actinoid scientific school by Glenn Seaborg, the Nobel laureate); loss of cooperation between the U.S. National laboratories and relevant leading centers in the world (France, Japan, Russia, first of all). As a response, the following decisive actions were taken: allocating substantial funds in support of nuclear education at universities; allocating annually (by tender) tens of million dollars for support of R&D projects at universities and national laboratories in promising areas of NPP and NFC; allocating funds and establishing the International project GIFIV (new 4th generation of NPP) with the participation of ten leading states; development of the programme for mid-term development of the nuclear energy in the U.S.; in addition to the International project, conclusion of bilateral agreements with leading states in the development of innovation technologies for NPP and NFC (primarily, with France and Japan); signing contracts with the leading companies of Western Europe in the field of SNF reprocessing and MOXfuel production (BNEL, Cogema (AREVA)). For the practical implementation of the national nuclear strategy the required funds are allocated, and based on the National laboratory the R&D are to be planned and performed, including the plans for construction of installation to demonstrate new promising technologies of NPP and NFC. The objective of the Generation IV programme recommended by the directors of the U.S. national laboratories is to develop and demonstrate present-day reactor systems of Generation IV capable of providing a considerable increase of the nuclear energy role in the first half of the 21st century. The basis will be provided by: designing and developing advanced fast reactors that would provide long-term solution for fuel problem of the nuclear power; designing and development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactor as a basis of nuclear hydrogen power; implementing advanced closed NFC technology. The key point of the possibility of solving the assigned tasks is the advanced technology of closed nuclear fuel cycle that defines both the economy of the future nuclear power, its environmental acceptability and the possibility of addressing the nonproliferation problem. The main content of the U.S. new non-proliferation strategy is as follows (GNEP 53

programme): absence of stockpile of separated plutonium due to sharing of transuranium elements; production and use of highly-enriched uranium in the centers under international control; maintaining the balance and its control between production and use of fissile materials (SNF recycle); minimizing the amount of fissile materials for geological disposal (renunciation of direct disposal of SNF, disposal of only fission products after SNF reprocessing); development and leasing of small-size NPP with long interval between refueling as a guarantee of fuel supply for consuming country. By American designers opinion, the implementation of the Generation IV programme would allow the long-term objectives of the U.S. energy policy to be achieved. According to the schedule for the implementation of Generation IV NPP and NFC developments, the following sequence of actions is projected (Fig. II.27): extending the lifetime of most NPPs for about 20 years (38 NPPs have already license renewal, 29 NPPs under consideration); construction of new advanced NPPs with light water reactors (increase in the nuclear share in electric power up to 23% by 2020); construction of NPPs with Generation IV reactors and increasing the nuclear share in electric power industry up to 3050% by 2050; improving high-temperature nuclear reactors to produce processing heat and electricity, to fabricate artificial liquid fuel for transport and to drive out organic fuel (oil, first of all) from the transport sector. In the chain of changes in the priorities in the development of nuclear power in the U.S. it is seen that the main risk of long-term strategic planning of the nuclear development is that the planning horizon is significantly less in a real process of decision-making and coincides with political cycles, as a rule.

FIG. II.27. Nuclear energy development strategy (GEN-IV) in XXI century (the USA), GW.

II.3.3. Nuclear power in Russia Nowadays, around the world there have been constructed NPPs with 56 nuclear reactors of Russian design VVER: including Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Finland (Fig. II.28). Among them, 16 reactors are in Russia. The last nuclear power plants with Russian VVER reactors were built in China (two reactors), Iran (Bushehr NPP), 54

and the construction of NPP in India is now under completion. NPP with RBMK reactors were built only on the territory of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the USSR the RBMKtype reactors (the last design in RBMK series) were found to be in Lithuania and Ukraine. Now these nuclear power plants with RBMK reactors have been put out of operation. In 1954, the first in the world nuclear power station to generate electricity for commercial use was connected to the grid in the former USSR (at Obninsk, Kaluga region).

FIG. II.28. Soviet-type reactors in the world, GW.

Currently, Russia's nuclear power plants, with 32 operating reactors totalling about 22 MWe, comprise (Fig. II.29): 4 first generation VVER440/230 or similar pressurised water reactors; 2 second generation VVER440/213 pressurised water reactors; 10 third generation VVER1000 pressurised water reactors with a full containment structure, mostly V320 types; 11 RBMK light water graphite reactors now unique to Russia. The four oldest of these were commissioned in the 1970s at Kursk and Leningrad NPPs. 4 small graphite-moderated BWR reactors in eastern Siberia, constructed in the 1970s for cogeneration (EGP6 models); One BN600 fast-breeder reactor.

FIG. II.29. Location of nuclear power plants in Russia.

55

In Russia, the northernmost nuclear cogeneration plant in the world, Bilibino, is under operation with 4 small reactors that supply electricity and heat for the needs of the region with the load variation during a day (by 34 times) and during a year (by seasons) from the load factor of 85% to 15% (in summer). An outstanding result of Russian nuclear scientists is the designing, development and successful operation of domestic commercial fast neutron reactor BN600 (1500 MWt), the most high-powered operating installation of such type in the world. The strategic objectives of the development of nuclear power in Russia consists in providing the breeding based on the development of nuclear energy and science-technology complexes as well as the complex for ensuring nuclear and radiation security, enhancing international competitiveness and improving the potential of the state management. The main goals were set for the next years in different time horizons, including: application of present-day industrial and high technologies to provide substantial optimization of operational performance of water-cooled power reactor; formation of a new technology base of the nuclear energy based on fast reactors with closed nuclear fuel cycle; transition to practical, applied development of technologies of controlled thermonuclear synthesis as a basis of the future power engineering. II.3.3.1. The development of nuclear power in Russia The initial Rosatoms proposal for rapid growth of nuclear capacities was based on cost-effective completion of the construction of 9 GWe power plants that were suspended after the Chernobyl disaster. In October 2006, Russia officially adopted the program of nuclear energy development estimated at US $55 billion, with US $26 billion be arrived from the federal budget by 2015. In addition to the completion of construction of freezed power units, four standard VVER reactors of new generation will be built: at Leningrad NPP PhaseII (two power units for the start of phase II) and Novovoronezh NPP PhaseII, with the commissioning to be projected for 20122014. This would lead to the program with the start of construction in Russia at least 2000 MWe every year beginning from 2010 (not including export plants). In 2009, a new Kaliningrad NPP was included into the long-term NPP construction program adopted by Rosatom (Fig. II.30). In the new Innovation Program of nuclear power Development (as of 2010), of the prime importance is the goal to transfer to fast reactors and to closed nuclear fuel cycle, for which Rosatom offers various options. The main option is connected with the development of fast reactors cooled by sodium or lead-bismuth, with the acceptance of corresponding engineering designs of such reactors and closed nuclear fuel cycle technologies not later than in 2014. By that time, the detail design has to be prepared for the construction of multipurpose research fast reactor. This option was developed with the aim of attracting outside funds in addition to allocations from the federal budget; and this option is supported by Rosatom. On the second stage during 20152020, the plans involve the construction of experimental demonstration fast reactors with lead and lead-bismuth coolants and a research fast reactor, the construction and commissioning of commercial complex for fabrication of high-density fuel, the completion of construction of experimental demonstration pyrochemical complex for fuel production and comprehensive testing of closed nuclear fuel cycle technologies.

56

FIG. II.30. Plans to develop nuclear power in Russia.

II.3.3.2. Development of reactor technologies The development of reactor technologies for the future nuclear energy in Russia is focused on the following proved areas: full-scale production of AES2006M type units based on VVER reactors; NPPs with BNtype fast reactors; Small- and medium-size reactors (including the experience of development and operation of more than 400 reactors for nuclear submarines). The BN800 fast reactor under construction in Beloyarsk is designed for using MOX fuel both with reactor and weapongrade plutonium. Its total capacity will be 880 MWe, fuel burnup from 70 to 100 GWday/t. The next BN800 units are projected for construction, and BN1200 that is under development at OKBM for putting into operation since 2020 is the next step towards BN-1800. The lifetime of BN1200 is 60 years, burnup 120 GWday/t. This area of reactor engineering is a technological advantage for Russia and has a significant potential for export and international cooperation. In 2008, Rosatom and Russian Machines Corporation established a joint venture company for the purpose of constructing SWBR prototype reactor with a capacity of 100 MWe that represents a modular fast reactor with heavy liquid metal lead-bismuth coolant designed by OKB Gidropress under the scientific supervision of SSC RFIPPE. It was declared that with the construction by series of 1016 modules the reactor would be competitive to VVERtype reactors. Gidropress called it a multifunctional reactor. After many years of discussions Rosatom has approved the project of constructing a nuclear power plant on a barge to supply electric power and heat to isolated coastal cities. Two KLT40S reactors developed on the basis of those used in ice-breakers but with lowenriched fuel (less than 20% U-235) will produce 70 MWe and 586 GJ/h of heat. The interval of refueling is 34 times per year. At the end of 12year operation period the entire station will be returned to the factory for twoyear overhaul and storage of spent fuel. The export is planned of cogeneration power and desalination units to China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Argentine and others countries, which are identified as potential buyers, though it might be that Russia would preserve the ownership of the plant 57

with the responsibility for operation and would just sell generated power. In 197080s, OKBM carried out a large scope of research work in the field of hightemperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR). In 1990s, it took the leading role in the international project on the development of high-temperature reactor with gas turbine energy-conversion module (GTMHR project) based on the design proposed by General Atomics (the U.S.). In conclusion, it should be noted that long-term interests of Russias energy and national security require the increase in nuclear share in the generation of electricity, hydrogen, industrial and domestic heat for sustainable development of the country. The considerable technological experience and scientific-technical potential gained over 50 years of the nuclear energy allow Russia to reach the nuclear front line with corresponding conditions and innovative policy and to become one of the leaders in the next nuclear era for the sake of its nation as well as a leading supplier of nuclear technology, equipment, knowledge and experience to developing countries. To achieve these goals, the following problems should be solved: Reach the nuclear share in electricity generation at a level of 3550% in 2050; Extend the areas of non-electric application of nuclear energy to produce artificial fuel and hydrogen in a volume of no less than 30% of the present-day demand; Close the fuel cycle of nuclear energy to provide the extension of resource base due to efficient use of 238U and 232Th. Create the radioactive waste management system to ensure reliable waste isolation and develop the technologies for rehabilitation of industrial territories being decommissioned; Implement the possibility of using thermonuclear NPPs in the future nuclear power.
[1] [2] [3] [4] Country Nuclear Fuel Cycle Profiles. Tec. Rep. Ser. 425 (2008). INFORMATION PAPER INDEX, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System, PRIS. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Systems, INFCIS.

58

II.4. HISTORY, CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA The leaders among the developing countries India and China connect their development, the energy security with nuclear power, with the use of nuclear technologies. This is based on the understanding that under conditions of limited resources and severe competition on the market of fossil fuel it is almost the only possibility of increasing national consumption due to the growth of electrical power production. II.4.1. Nuclear power in China II.4.1.1. Current status and prospects of the nuclear power development in China The great Asiatic country China is facing in its intensive development of national economy with the problems of limited energy resources available. China as a nuclear country in contrast to India that is under embargo for nuclear cooperation can use the cooperation with foreign companies for the application of the most state-of-the-art technology from Western countries and Russia. In its turn, China gradually applies new high technologies and provides the support to developing countries in constructing new NPPs. For instance, concluding contracts with Western companies and Russia for the construction of 1000 MWe watercooled NPP in China, it support the construction of 300 MW(e) Chashma NPP in Pakistan by using its own resources (Fig. II.31) [1, 2]. The nuclear reactor fleet available in China is small by its sizes: 12 power units are under operation with a total power of 9624 MW. In absolute values it is comparable with the indicators of such countries as the Ukraine, Belgium, Switzerland, and in relative values with account of nuclear share in energy balance and population China is a hopeless outsider at all. Nevertheless, Chinas government sets the mission to achieve the leading positions on nuclear power market [3].

FIG. II.31. China Nuclear & Electric Power Data.

Nuclear power plants in China were built with the use of various reactor technologies: French (Daya Bay units 1 and 2, Ling Ao units 1 and 2), Canadian (Qinshan units 1 and 2, Phase III), Russian (Tianwan units 1 and 2) and own (Qinshan unit 1 Phase 1, units 1 and 2 Phase II, Ling Ao unit 1 Phase II). The firstborn of Chinas nuclear power Qinshan NPP, unit 1 Phase I was commissioned in 1991 and put into commercial operation in 1994. The works on nuclear energy programme in China were started only in the 1970s, and the first nuclear power plant was built less than two decades ago, when the global 59

nuclear power was in a deep stagnation caused by the accident at Chernobyl NPP. The fastgrowing Chinese economy requires considerable amounts of energy resources (~1.01.5% of energy gain for 1% of economy increment) by increasing oil consumption, for example, up to 35% per year. The oil and gas reserves and their future production are understood to be reduced from year to year, water resources are limited, and further increase in coal consumption is limited due to ecological and transport problems. Only nuclear power can increase the production of electrical power in the required volume: reliably, safely and costeffective. Currently, 23 power units are under construction in China more than somewhere in the world (Fig. II.32). The government regularly revises upwards the plans for introducing nuclear capacities by 2020. Initially, it was expecting 40 GW of total capacity and more 18 GW under construction. In March 2008, the goal was stated to increase the share of nuclear generation at least to 5% by 2020, which is already 50 GW. In June 2008, there were predictions about 60 GW. Finally, in July 2009 it was reported that the State Council of the People's Republic of China was considering the possible increase of total nuclear capacity up to 86 GW by 2020. In May 2007, the National Development and Reform Commission announced that by 2030 the nuclear fleet of China would be 160 GW. In April 2010, the China Nuclear Energy Association projected 200 GW for the same period. By 2050, the installed nuclear capacity is projected to be up to 400 GW.

FIG. II.32. NPP location in China.

The technology vector was set also extremely explicit: China must increase the degree of self-sufficiency in designing reactor installations, manufacturing the equipment, building and operating NPPs due to introduction, adaptation and improvement of foreign analogs. There is no official information about preferred reactor designs for future nuclear power plants, but two types dominate in the current plans: a China design CPR1000 and Westinghouse Electric AP1000. The American reactor must provide a launching pad for China in mastering Generation III technologies. Today, in addition to four power units with AP1000 under construction at Haiyang NPP and Sanmen NPP, at least eight more such reactors are planned for construction at four sites, but it would include the transfer of technology and localization of production. Without the technology transfer, two EPR 60

reactors are being built in Guangdong province [4]. In 2008, the Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute and Westinghouse Electric came to the agreement concerning a joint development of large-size reactor based on AP1000 design. In April 2009, the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and State Nuclear Power Technology Corp. signed an agreement to co-develop and refine the AP1000 design. In December 2009, the State Nuclear Demonstration Company was set up to build and operate an initial unit of the larger design, CAP1400, at Huanengs Shidaowan site by 2017. It may be followed by a CAP1700 design, and China will own the intellectual property rights for these two larger designs. In February 2006, the State Council announced that the large advanced PWR was one of two high priority projects for the next 15 years, depending on the cooperation with foreign countries in order to master international advanced technology on nuclear power and develop a Chinese Generation III large PWR. II.4.1.2. Nuclear fuel cycle China has stated it intends to become self-sufficient not just in nuclear power plant capacity, but also in the production of fuel for those plants. However, the country still relies on foreign suppliers for all stages of the fuel cycle, from uranium mining through fabrication and reprocessing (Fig. II.33) [5]. Domestic uranium mining currently supplies about one-half of Chinas nuclear fuel needs. Exploration and plans for new mines have increased significantly since 2000, but state-owned enterprises have also entered into agreements to acquire uranium resources internationally. The UF6 conversion facility near Lanzhou (capacity 1500 t U/a) has been in operation since 1963. China's two major enrichment plants (total capacity 1000 tSWU/yr) were built under agreements with Russia in the 1990s and, under a 2008 agreement, Russia will help build additional capacity and also supply low-enriched uranium to meet future needs.

FIG. II.33. Material flow in the nuclear fuel cycle: China. Foreign organizations: Eurodif (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain), Framatome ANP (France), JSC TVEL (Russian Federation), ROSATOM (Russian Federation).

61

The Yibin fabrication plant in Sichuan province has been producing fuel for the Qinshan nuclear power plant since 1984 and currently has a capacity of 200 t HM/a. Under a contract with Framatome ANP to transfer fuel fabrication technology to China, the Yibin fabrication plant has been modernized with the goal of providing fuel to all Chinese PWRs. The Baotou fabrication plant, with a CANDU fuel production line, is operating and has a throughput of 200 t U/a. All spent fuel is currently stored at the nuclear power plants. A civil reprocessing pilot plant with a capacity of 100 kg HM/d is under construction in Lanzhou and is scheduled to be commissioned some time in the near future. A centralized wet storage facility with a capacity of 550 t HM is under construction in the Lanzhou nuclear fuel complex. II.4.1.3. The development of innovative nuclear technologies In addition to light-water reactors China is also moving towards the development and adaptation of technologies based on fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors as well as building of full nuclear fuel cycle. In accordance with the nuclear power strategy of China, the development of fast reactors and closed nuclear fuel cycle (including separation and transmutation) will be of crucial importance in the future (after 2030). The development of fast reactors with sodium coolant will be implemented in three phases: Chinas experimental fast reactor (CEFR) with a power of 65 MWt / 20 MWe (Russian design); Chinas prototype fast reactor (CPFR) with a power of 1500 MWt / 600 MWe; Chinas demonstration fast reactor (CDFR): 37502500 MWt / 1500 1000 MWe a priority project in the Chinas national program (Table 6).
TABLE 6. TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CHINAS FAST REACTOR DESIGNS
Power, MW Coolant Type Fuel Cladding Na outlet temperature, Linear power, W/cm Burnup, MW day/kg CEFR 25 Na Pool-type UO2, MOX CrNi 530 430 60~100 CPFR 600 Na Pool-type MOX, Metal CrNi 500~550 450~480 100~120 CDFR 1000~1500 Na Pool-type Metal CrNi 500 450 120~150

According to the strategy, the agreement has been recently achieved for the construction in China of two Russian BN800type fast reactors. The development of fast reactors has been prepared by a successful RussianChinese cooperation since 1990. The development of closed nuclear fuel cycle in China is focused on the two following goals: Efficient utilization of natural uranium resources and recovered plutonium and minor actinides; Maximum reduction of high-level radioactive wastes for geological disposal. The serious intentions in this field are evidenced by the sequence of events of just a one ten-day interval at the end of July / beginning of August: 21 July: the self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was attained at the CEFR fast reactor. 30 July: the construction has commenced of Unit 1, Fangchenggang NPP Phase I in Guangxi Zhuang region. 30 July: the construction has commenced of two units of Phase II Hongyanhe 62

NPP in Liaoning Province. 3 August: Unit 3 of Qinshan NPP Phase II was brought into pilot production.

II.4.2. Nuclear programme in India The nuclear power in India is currently rather modest by its sizes. Today its share is 2.7 GWe of 139 GWe of the total electrical power in the country, which has to increase up to 275 GWe (by reaching the contribution to electric power more than 20%) over the next 50 years [6]. India is one of the largest countries in the world (area of 3,287,240 km2, population of 1200 million). It rapidly develops a wide spectrum of nuclear technologies. India became an independent nation on 15 August, 1947. However, as early as 1944 Dr. Homi J. Bhabha made the proposal for initiation of activities in nuclear power in India, and in December 1945 the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research was established. Practically right from the first days of its establishment, the Independent Republic of India set a course for the development of nuclear industry. In April 1948, the Atomic Energy Act was signed. In August 1948, the Indian Atomic Energy Commission was established, and in July 1949 the Raw Materials Division was set up, which is later (1958) to be known as Atomic Minerals Division subsequently renamed as Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research in 1998. The creation of such division among the first can be to a certain degree explained by the fact that India possesses not very large uranium reserves (estimated at 92,000 tonnes), while it has the worlds largest thorium reserves (up to 590,000 tonnes). In August 1956, APSARA the first research reactor in Asia was put into operation in Trombay. Another 40 MWt research reactor CIRUS was commissioned in July 1960; and the first nuclear power plant in India Tarapur1 in October 1969 with a total electrical power of 160 MW (Fig. II.34).

FIG. II.34. India Nuclear & Electric Power Data.

II.4.2.1. Stages of nuclear power development in India The development of nuclear power in India is supposed to be implemented in three stages. At the first stage, NPPs with heavy water reactors are planned to be built, which will use naturally-enriched uranium and produce plutonium for the second stage in addition to generation of electrical power. At the second stage, it is projected to build plutonium fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium and 233U from uranium and thorium in addition to the production of electric power. The third stage will be based on thorium cycle reactors generating electrical power and 233U [7]. Currently, in the frame of the first stage two 1000 MWe power units with VVER 63

reactors are under construction at Kudankulam site with Russias support. The works for the second stage are performed in Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research. In Kalpakkam, an experimental fast breeder reactor has been operated and has achieved 110 GW day/tone burn-up with its carbide fuel. The designing of the first prototype fast breeder reactor of a power of 500 MWe has been already completed, and in 2003 the works were started on digging a foundation pit for NPP and constructing the reactor. Within the frame of research activities at the third stage, since 1997 the KAMIN1 reactor with a thermal power of 30 kW has been operated at Kalpakkam site with the fuel elements based on 233U produced from irradiated thorium. The design of 300 MWe advanced heavy-water reactor has been prepared. This is a channel-type reactor with heavy water moderator, boiling light-water coolant and plutonium- and thorium-based fuel, with the two thirds of energy being generated in thorium fuel elements. India is one of a few states having the experience practically in all fields of nuclear activity. In 1974 the first underground peaceful nuclear explosion was conducted in Rajasthan; in 1998 five more underground nuclear tests were carried out at the same place. It is the factor that may hamper the implementation of Indias plans for NPP scalingup after 2020. Currently, India has declined to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty 1970 and is seeking the recognition of a nuclear state status for itself, as it was decided for China. But China conducted the first tests of nuclear weapon in 1964, while India in 1974, and between these dates the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty entered into force. The Treaty offers for India only the option of nuclear disarmament and acceptance of a non-nuclear state status. India denies such option and by referring to potential nuclear threat for its security from China and Pakistan it declines from the acceptance of IAEAs safeguards regime for its nuclear facilities, and it is seeking equal rights with five nuclear states: the United Kingdom, China, Russia, the United States and France. As in 1992 the informal club of nuclear technology suppliers took the decision on prohibition of any cooperation with the states that did not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and did not accept in full IAEAs safeguards regime for their nuclear materials, in its further plans of nuclear power development India has to figure only on its own capabilities in the field of fuel mining and production as well as in designing and building of NPP and SNF processing. It should be noted that the delivery of two NPPs with VVER1000 from Russia does not fall within the Clubs prohibition, as the corresponding contract was signed before the establishment of this Club. In the opinion of the Indian government, the existing capabilities of India are quite adequate for independent development of nuclear power. At the same time, the tendency of a more pragmatic attitude towards the situation around the Indias nuclear programme has been shaped by the leading nuclear states (the United States, Russia, and France). The proposals for construction of nuclear reactors (EPR, AP1000) subjected to subsequent placing them under IAEAs safeguards may serve as an example. II.4.2.2. Implementation of nuclear fuel cycle in India India has decided in favor of closed nuclear fuel cycle (Fig. II.35) [5]. This means that in contrast to open fuel cycle the spent nuclear fuel is not stored as radioactive waste, but delivered for processing to radiochemical plant for extraction of uranium and plutonium and separation of fission products. Recovered uranium and plutonium can be used for fuel production for fast and thermal reactors as well as for other purposes (for example, for nuclear tests). India implements mining and processing of uranium and thorium, production of heavy water, manufacture of fuel elements, processing of spent nuclear fuel as well as 64

conditioning and disposal of waste. Three uranium mining plants are under operation in Bihar (Jaduguda, Bhatin and Narvapahar). Three uranium mining plants located close to copper ore processing plants are engaged in extraction of uranium concentrate from subsequent tailings of copper ore processing. All uranium ore from these plants and three mining plants is processed at the uranium plant at Jaduguda with an output of 270 t of uranium per year. Two conversion facilities are under operation in India: conversion into metallic uranium with an output of 100 t/yr of uranium in Trombay, and conversion into UO2 with an output of 300 t/yr of uranium in Khaidarabad (Nuclear Fuel Complex). Currently, there are two pilot enrichment plants in India where the method of centrifuges is used for enrichment. However, uranium enrichment is carried out in China, where there are two enrichment plants Lanzhou Nuclear Fuel Complex (diffusion and centrifuge methods) and Shanghai nuclear fuel complex (centrifuges). The nuclear fuel complex in Khaidarabad supplies all fuel assemblies for heavy-water reactors operating in India. It also supplies fuel assemblies for Indian reactors manufactured from uranium hexafluoride enriched in China. At the plant the MOX fuel assemblies are also produced and supplied for the experimental fast breeder reactor. By focusing on future needs of the Indias nuclear energy program, the nuclear fuel complex increases its capacities for production of nuclear fuel and zircalloy. There are three facilities for production of sponge zirconium and two plants for production of tubes from zircalloy.

FIG. II.35. Material flow in the nuclear fuel cycle: India. Foreign organization: CNNC (China).

65

As both present-day approaches to processing of spent nuclear fuel (closed and open nuclear fuel cycles) have their advantages and shortcomings, which are not always easy to estimate at the current stage, most countries developing nuclear porgrammes follow the concept of postponed decision including intermediate storage with the possibility of monitoring the storage conditions of spent fuel and its removal at a later time for direct disposal or reprocessing. India practices both approaches: reprocessing of spent fuel of heavy-water reactors and storage of fuel removed from the reactor core. In the 1960s, in India at an experimental facility in the Research Center in Trombay the technology was developed for spent fuel processing based on natural uranium oxide from its CANDUtype heavy-water reactors. The second processing plant with an output of 100 t/yr of heavy metal was put into operation in Tarapur in 1977. After reconstruction in 1985, the pilot plant in Trombay reached an output of 60 t/yr of heavy metal. The third plant was commissioned in Kalpakkam in 1996. This plant with an output of 100 t/yr of heavy metal will separate plutonium designed for the use as fuel in the prototype fast breeder reactor, which is under construction at Kalpakkam site. Heavy water is used in heavy-water reactors as moderator and coolant. Its amount in CANDUtype reactors is tens of thousands of liters; its cost reaches 10% of reactor operating costs. The main industrial methods of heavy water production are isotope exchange of water and hydrogen sulfide, electrolysis of water or water solutions. In order to ensure the operation of the own heavy-water reactors, India has built several plants for heavy water production. II.4.3. Nuclear Power Development in Asia In the case of successful implementation, the strategic plans of energy development of China and India can serve as a leading light for all developing countries in their driving to industrial and social development, implementing the idea of sustainable energy development and reducing the differences in the level of living between OECD developed countries and developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America [8, 9]. In the future, China will follow Korea in its strategy in seeking nuclear cooperation with developing countries. In particular, China has lately discussed some issues with Brazil, which is capable of covering a part of Chinas demand for uranium and, as it was already noted, it is supporting the construction of Chashma NPP in Pakistan. China plays an increasingly important role in the global nuclear industry, as it makes also in other key sectors of the global economy. However, the continuation of such situation depends on whether China would manage to avoid overheating that usually follows the years of tremendous growth. The implementation of ambitious nuclear programmes of China and India in the next 20 years will promote even more the growth of nuclear power in developing countries. A September 2010 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power said that some 65 countries without nuclear power plants are expressing interest in, considering, or actively planning for nuclear power at present, after a gap of nearly 15 years in such interest worldwide. Of these 65 un-named countries, it said that 21 are in Asia/Pacific, 21 in Africa, 12 in Europe (mostly eastern Europe), and 11 in Latin America. However, of the 65 interested countries, 31 are not currently planning to build reactors, and 17 of those 31 have grids of less than 5 GW, too small to accommodate most of the reactor designs on offer. The report added that technology options may also be limited for countries whose grids are between 5 GW and 10 GW (Table 7). Asia is the main region in the world where electricity generating capacity and specifically nuclear power is growing significantly. In East and South Asia there are 112 66

nuclear power reactors in operation, 37 under construction and firm plans to build a further 84 (at April 2010). Many more are proposed. The greatest growth in nuclear generation is expected in China, Japan, South Korea and India. Through to 2010 projected new generating capacity in this region involved the addition of some 38 GWe per year, and from 2010 to 2020 it is 56 GWe/yr, up to one third of this replacing retired plant. This is about 36% of the world's new capacity. Much of this growth will be in China, Japan, India and Korea. There are currently 112 nuclear power reactors operating in six countries of the region, 37 units under construction (with several more due to start construction in 2010), firm plans in place to build 84 more, and serious proposals for another 180.
TABLE 7. NUCLEAR POWER IN ASIA (October 2010)
Power Reactors in Operation 12 19 54 20 2 112 Power Reactors Under Construction 23 4 2 6 1 37 Power Reactors Planned 2 35 20 2 12 6 1 2 2 2 84 Power Reactors Proposed 120 40 4 0 0 1 1 4 10 180

Australia Bangladesh China India Indonesia Japan S. Korea N.Korea Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Thailand Vietnam TOTAL

In conclusion, we note that the analysis of the status and prospects of energy development in the world, striving for the achievement of sustainable energy development shows the increasing importance of the status of power engineering in developing countries. This factor becomes dominating both for the market of energy sources and global ecological problems and for the energy security as a whole. In this respect, of special interest are the energy situation and energy programmes of the leaders in the developing world China and India, as independent factors and as indicators of future tendencies of the developing world as a whole (Asia, Africa and Latin America).
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] CHINA GUANGDONG NUCLEAR POWER GROUP, http://www.cgnpc.com.cn CHINA NATIONAL NUCLEAR CORPORATION, http://www.cnnc.com.cn UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Country Analysis Briefs: China, Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/index.html. Proceedings of the World Nuclear Associations China International Nuclear Symposium, held in Beijing on 2325 November 2010. IAEA 2003, Country Nuclear Power Profiles (2004). NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA Ltd., http://www.npcil.nic.in Kakodkar 2008, Managing new nuclear power paradigm, IAIF August 2008. IAEA 2010, International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power. OECD/IEA 2007, Energy statistics of non-OECD countries.

67

II.5. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE: FUEL SUPPLY, ENRICHMENT, AND REPROCESSING, OPEN AND CLOSED FUEL CYCLE, WASTE DISPOSAL II.5.1. Introduction A well-developed infrastructure that ensures fabrication of new fuel and spent nuclear fuel management is an important part of nuclear power. Such process technologies are carried out at nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) facilities (Fig. II.36) [1]. Nuclear fuel cycle is understood as a complex of technological processes associated with energy generation in nuclear reactors. Depending on fuel type, there are three types of NFC available: 1) uranium; 2) uraniumplutonium; 3) uraniumthorium. In uranium fuel cycle, 235U is used as fissile material, and 238U as fertile material. Uranium fuel is fabricated from natural (0.72% 235U) low-enriched (15% 235U) or highlyenriched uranium (up to 93% 235U). The first two types of nuclear fuel are used in thermal reactors; the third type in fast reactors operating in conversion regime. Nuclear fuel for uranium/plutonium fuel cycle consists of natural or depleted (0.2 0.3% 235U) uranium including u to ensure chain reaction. This fuel can be used both in thermal and fast reactors. 238U is also used as fertile material. In uranium/thorium fuel, 235U or 233U is used as fissile material, 232Th is fertile.

FIG. II.36. Open and close NFC.

II.5.2. NFC technology components The aim of the NFC front-end is to fabricate nuclear fuel. It includes uranium ore mining, ore enrichment, uranium extraction and purification, isotope enrichment by 235U, production of materials from enriched uranium suitable for reactor fuelling, fabrication of fuel elements and fuel assemblies. The second stage of nuclear fuel cycle is generation of thermal energy in nuclear reactors by combusting fission fuel. After unloading from the reactor, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is stored in special reactor pools to reduce its activity. The third stage is radiochemical reprocessing. Then some operations are carried out to prepare 68

radioactive waste for ultimate disposal. NFC can be arranged such that residual unburned uranium and accumulated plutonium are extracted from irradiated fuel and used in fabrication of new fuel elements and assemblies closed nuclear fuel cycle. If spent nuclear fuel is not reprocessed and fissile materials are not recycled, NFC is called once-through or open (Table 8).
TABLE 8. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES
Process Uranium mining and milling Conversion Enrichment Uranium fuel fabrication Spent fuel reprocessing Number of facilities in commercial operation 37 22 13 40 5 Capacity 50455, t 78452, t 45775103, kg SWU 18143, t HM 4920, t HM

NFC combines many facilities: uranium ore mines; facilities for fine purification of extracted uranium; enrichment plants; reprocessing facilities to convert enriched uranium into form applicable for reactors; fuel fabrication plants; nuclear power plants and heat supply plants where fuel burning provides generation of thermal and electrical energy; spent fuel reprocessing plants to convert radioactive waste into form suitable for permanent disposal; waste repository sites. II.5.3. Global infrastructure of NFC Table 9 and Fig. II.37 shows the status of the global nuclear fuel cycle by providing the number of different types of fuel cycle facilities in commercial operation worldwide and their capacities (as of 2008). The largest conversion plants operate in Canada, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. The largest enrichment plants are in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. Conversion and enrichment capacities are expected to increase in most major supplier countries over the coming decade [2].
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
FIG. II.37. Regional distribution of NFC capacity.

Share of industrial capacities, %

NA

LA

WE

EE

Af

ME

FE

Total annual productivity Uranium mining (51 kton) Uranium conversion (69.6 kton) 6 Uranium enrichment (56.3 10 SWU) Fuel fabrication (20.3 ktonHM) Interim SNF storage (240 ktonHM) SNF reprocessing (5.9 ktonHM)

69

TABLE 9. CAPACITIES OF NFC FACILITIES IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (tonnes of heavy metal)

Enrichment, Fuel Spent SNF wet Reprocessing, 103 kg fabrication, fuel pool, storage, t HM t HM SWU t HM t HM 20 150 435 280 1000 10 800 1800 1050 5950 800 4000 2500 3800 30 300 4200 1272 400 600 1000 1150 2300 50 455 6000 14 000 78 452 2300 11 300 45 775 1680 3450 18 143 2700 4920 5 30 000 15 000 20 110 2600 940 5240 480 410 670 3820 1500 705 3010 2666 60 700 155 903 5875 2093 984 812 419 2700 400 1585 650 594 1689 1700 1000 31 407 480 666 11 090 5087 480 15 150 1450 1100 1000 600 14 500 600 1450 14 500 560 27 4300 180 585 162 73 SNF dry storage, t HM 200 800

Country Argentine Australia Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada China Czech Republic Finland France Germany Hungary India Japan Kazakhstan Korea Lithuania Mexico Namibia Netherlands Nigeria Pakistan Rumania Russia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom US Uzbekistan TOTAL

Mining, t Conversion, t 120 9438 340 14 890 840 650 62 40 12 500 1500 14 350 175

120

400

12960 600

5000 2000 10 350 780 55 227 50 958 2155 21 494

Only France, and the United Kingdom operate commercial-scale (more than 1000 tons of heavy metal per year) reprocessing plants; Japan has plans to begin reprocessing in the near future. Although most uranium conversion and enrichment facilities are concentrated in a few OECD countries and the Russian Federation, 18 countries have the capability to fabricate fuel using uranium provided by such sources. Currently, the NFC product and services market is international in nature. Such services as uranium mining, conversion and enrichment, fuel fabrication and fuel supply of nuclear power plants are carried out by the limited number of countries and proposed competitively to other countries. Thus, worldwide uranium conversion services are provided by five companies, uranium enrichment by four companies, and 16 companies offer nuclear fuel fabrication services. At the same time, practice shows that the performance of service market in the field of nuclear fuel production is rather efficient despite the existing commercial and political restrictions. The back end of nuclear fuel cycle is to a certain degree also international in nature: France, the United Kingdom and Russia have good practice in management of foreign irradiated fuel. 70

Only six countries have the whole processing chain of nuclear fuel fabrication for LWR-type reactors on a commercial scale: the U.S., Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China and Argentine. Four countries operate SNF reprocessing facilities: Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Japan. Therefore, there is a considerable imbalance in the number of countries consuming nuclear energy services and their suppliers. II.5.4. Requirements to NFC The following essential requirements are imposed to NFC: efficient fuel supply of nuclear power plants with the use of natural, technogenic and recycled nuclear materials as well as ensuring of nuclear power development under conditions of secured nonproliferation of NFC technologies that can be used for production of weapon materials, because many NFC technologies and materials have potential double purpose. The initiatives of the 21st century proposed by Presidents of Russia and the United States on the development of nuclear power and NFC are addressed to solve the problems of NFC. Among them are: RF President Putins initiative proposed on the UN Millennium Summit (2000) the formation of INPRO project under the auspices of the IAEA; the U.S. Initiative on Generation IV nuclear reactors (2001) the formation of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF); RF President Putins initiative on creation of international centers for sensitive technologies of nuclear fuel cycle (2006) the establishment of the International Uranium Enrichment Center (IUEC) in Angarsk; the U.S. President J. Bush initiative on the Global Nuclear Energy partnership (GNEP) (2006) the invitation of states possessing NFC technologies and pure reactor technologies to global cooperation. II.5.5. NFC development trends Let us dwell on the main trends of the current period of NFC in the world. First of all, the relations with military programmes began to weaken, in particular, the termination of production of nuclear weapon materials in Russia and the United States. The degree of governments influence in setting short- and medium-term strategies of NFC development continuously reduces and they are redirected to the implementation of market-oriented strategies on the part of individual market participants. Transnational associations appear regularly in the field of development and management of nuclear technology and NFC facilities. These include AREVA, ToshibaWestinghouse and HitachiGeneral Electric. It must be emphasized that the degree of openness of nuclear materials and services market is increasing, in particular, conducting of business transactions on the transfer of NFC technology and facilities. Overall, the understanding has been increased that NFC facilities acquire increasing importance, which was previously assigned to reactor technologies of civil nuclear energy, and the nuclear fuel cycle was subordinate in nature. Let us address to each process stage of NFC. Merging of main NFC facilities and creating of the largest transnational corporations define the current stage of development. This is due to purely economic reasons a high unit cost of nuclear fuel cycle services at a relatively small demand rate. The size effect makes it reasonable to create large-scale NFC plants. Uranium mining. Currently, it is generally recognized that the world reasonably assured resources of uranium are sufficient to ensure nuclear fuel for 5060 years (Table 10). Nevertheless, in expecting nuclear renaissance the exploration of new uranium deposits 71

was activated supported by the growth of production and rise of uranium price. As a consequence, the profitability of uranium mining has recently increased. The countries producing natural uranium keep making efforts to increase the processing chain and create uranium stockpile [3].
TABLE 10. NATURAL URANIUM AND THORIUM RESERVES
Types of resources Reasonable assured Undiscovered Non-conventional Thorium resources Known Expected Undiscovered 80 130 300 2573 1887 1618 dollars/kg Uranium resources 40 80 130 300 500 Amount, kg 2970 2499 10 540 22 000 4 000 000

The global reserves of natural uranium are distributed now rather non-uniformly (Fig. II.38). About 85% of all world uranium reserves are found in eight countries. More than 55% of uranium resources from reasonable assured and inferred category are located in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan. The remaining 30% of resources are found in Uzbekistan, Republic of South Africa, Namibia, Niger and Russia. It should be noted that only Canada and Russia among the countries occupying a prominent place in uranium mining develop the nuclear power. At the same time, other largest states with large-scale nuclear power either do not produce uranium at all (countries of Western Europe, Japan) or produce it in the amounts that are much less as compared with its consumption (the U.S.).

FIG. II.38. Global reserves of natural uranium.

Enrichment. The enrichment capacities satisfy only current needs of nuclear power. The planned growth of capacities is expected only due to gas centrifuges. The main development trend in this NFC segment consists in the competition in improvement of the existing technology. 72

The competitive developments are implemented by Urenco, ORNLUSEC, LES. At the same time, General Electric has started the commercialization of the SILEX Technology of separation of isotopes by laser excitation. In view of the potential hazard of such NFC, the possibility is generally discussed of internationalization of NFC redistribution and the application of multiple approaches to nuclear fuel cycle (the initiative to create IUEC). Fuel fabrication. Currently, the total capacities are exceeding the demand, which is accompanied by closure of unprofitable production plants. In order to increase the efficiency of fuel fabrication, the companies are making efforts to develop and apply fuel assemblies for the types of reactors that are historically not typical of these manufacturers. Strengthening and development of international cooperation supported by the development of competitive edge, optimization of technology redistributions, fulfillment of orders for manufacture of individual components are now commonplace. As a consequence, there appears a competition on principally new segments of the nuclear fuel market. The reduction of uranium consumption per unit of energy generation due to increasing fuel burn-up and improving fuel cycles is the main final target of the development in this NFC segment. In this regard, there is a growth of demands for the use of regenerated uranium, the possibilities are being investigated of gradual transition to promising fuel cycles based on other resource (thorium). To achieve this goal, the works are regularly carried out on improvement of fuel assemblies. SNF and RW management. Currently, spent fuel reprocessing facilities are not running at full capacity. The construction rates of dry spent fuel storage facilities continuously increase in anticipation of commercial technology for recycling. Massive efforts are made with regard to both aqueous (wet) and pyrochemical (dry) processes in methods of radiochemical reprocessing including partitioning, transmutation and final disposal of radioactive waste. The radioactive waste management programmes including final disposal are financed from special funds and they are implemented in the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Finland, and some Eastern Europe countries [4, 5]. It should be noted that the international market of NFC back end services is significantly restricted by legal (international conventions, national legislation) and objective (long-term programs, lack of proven technical solutions, and social significance) reasons. Closed nuclear fuel cycle at this stage is considered as a promising breakthrough but not commercial technology. The comparative economic analysis of the effectiveness in the implementation of open and closed fuel cycle for thermal reactors performed by the OECD shows that the costs of nuclear fuel cycles of thermal reactors with direct disposal of spent fuel and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel with single fuel recycling in the form of MOX fuel are much the same. They vary at a level of 15% due to the peculiarities of time and national factors. Nevertheless, even with plutonium recycling in thermal reactors the problems of uranium mining and enrichment, final disposal of spent nuclear remain unresolved. Multiple recycling of plutonium with breeding in closed nuclear fuel cycle of fast reactors is believed by the experts to be more attractive economically as compared with any other option of thermal reactor fuel cycle, especially if the waste management costs will be minimized in this type of NFC. II.5.6. NFC internationalization Currently, we have come to the understanding that almost all steps in the development of NFC technology can be considered as steps towards the development of 73

non-peaceful uses of nuclear technology. A problem has arisen: how to ensure energy development without the proliferation of NFC technology (primarily, enrichment, fabrication of highly enriched uranium, spent fuel reprocessing, use of separated plutonium, etc.)?

FIG. II.39. Global Nuclear Energy Partnerships concept.

At the initiative of the IAEA Director General, the expert group from leading countries performed a special analysis and published an analytical report: Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle INFCIRC/640. The WNA report was published Ensuring security of supply of the international fuel cycle and the initiatives of several countries in this field (the initiatives of the U.S., Russia, Japan, Germany, the initiative of six countries, etc.). Among these initiatives the following three reflect fully and comprehensively the challenges of further development of nuclear power: GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnerships) the U.S. (Fig. II.39) [6]; Initiatives to create Multinational (International) Nuclear Fuel Cycle Centers to provide nuclear fuel cycle services such as enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel Russian Federation; Initiatives to establish International nuclear fuel banks to guarantee the access of new countries to the NFC products and services Germany, WNA, etc. Practical implementation of such initiatives on the internationalization of nuclear fuel cycle is the only way to prevent uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear materials and technology. Successful implementation of the initiatives under discussion is a key factor for the future development of nuclear power.

74

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Trends in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Economic, Environmental and Social Aspects (2001). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Systems, INFCIS. OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand (2008). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options. IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1587 (2008). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status and Trends in Spent Fuel Reprocessing, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1467 (2005). UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Strategic Plan, GNEP 167312 (2007).

75

II.6. NON-POWER APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, DESALINATION, HEATING AND OTHERS The use of nuclear technologies for non-electric applications is a considerable area of scientific and practical knowledge and technologies, the most part of which were and are still high technologies and the best achievements of the mankind in its field [1-4]. Areas of non-energy applications of nuclear technology: Food and Agriculture Water Resources Environment Human Health Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy PACT Nuclear Science Radioisotope Production and Radiation Therapy II.6.1. Research reactors Currently, nuclear research reactors (RRs) are used in various fields of science and technology. Nuclear research installations vary in purposes, designs and parameters (Fig. II.40).

FIG. II.40. Number of research reactors in industrialized and developing countries.

A research reactor is a nuclear reactor to be used primarily for generation and use of neutron flux and ionizing radiation. These reactors are used for investigations and other purposes, including experimental facilities related to the reactor, installations for storage, processing and treatment of radioactive materials, which are on the same site and are directly related to safe operation of a research reactor. This term applies to the facilities known as critical assemblies. Most research reactors were built in and have been operated since the end of 1950s early 1960s, and they are of various types and of a wide range of power (from several watts to 100 MW). By the early 2010 there have been 232 operating research reactors in 55 countries (including 43 critical and 4 subcritical assemblies). One reactor is under development (TRRII reactor in Taiwan); six reactors (including one Jordan Subcritical 76

Assembly JSA) are under construction. 13 reactors (including 2 critical assemblies) are temporarily out of operation. By now 241 reactors have been shutdown, 176 decommissioned. Most (two thirds) operating RRs have been already under operation more than 30 years (Fig. II.41).

FIG. II.41. Age distribution of research reactors (IAEA, June 2004).

The design of a research reactor and its physical characteristics are defined by its application, purpose, range and scope of problems to be solved. By the intended purpose the research reactors can be classified as follows: Reactors for physical investigations. The facilities are generally designed to generate fluxes of neutron- and gamma-radiation. The particle beams are generated in experimental channels (vertical, horizontal or inclined) passing through reflector and biological shielding. Thus, the irradiation objects and experimental equipment are located outside the biological shielding of the reactor. Reactors for generation of radionuclides including isotopes of transuranium elements. Testing reactors. The main experimental components are vertical channels that allow the irradiation objects to deliver into the region of core and reflector that are most suitable for generation the required conditions for irradiation. Reactors for engineering investigations. The reactors allow the use of autonomous cooling loops to maintain the required regimes for testing new engineering solutions for fuel elements, fuel assemblies and other reactor design elements. This makes it possible to conduct full-scale tests under as real as possible conditions. Reactors for fundamental and applied researches in the field of radiation chemistry, resistance of synthetic materials in powerful fields of neutron- and gamma-radiations, radiation materials science, etc. Reactors for conducting researches in the field of neutron physics, neutron activation analysis, non-destructive examination, non-destructive analysis of materials, neutron radiography and other neutron methods. Reactors for conducting radiobiological and medical investigations. 77

Reactors for teaching and personnel training in the following fields: reactor physics, reactor safety, nuclear and radiation security, reactor dynamics, as well as for the development of skills and competences with regard to experimental methods of nuclear physics and management of complex objects.

Physical and design features of research reactors are selected such that they provide the main parameters required for performing projected investigations, with the radiation cost being as minimum as possible. The use of experimental vessels and devices, relatively small dimensions and the requirements to neutron-physical characteristics, flexibility in the arrangement of core elements and experimental channels make the research reactors fundamentally different from power reactors. Heat generation in research reactors is an inevitable shortcoming. The higher the neutron characteristics of a research reactor at lower thermal power, the higher the usefulness of the reactor (Fig. II.42, II.43).

FIG. II.42. The distribution of research reactors by countries.

FIG. II.43. Distribution of existing research reactors on thermal power (IAEA, June 2004).

II.6.2. Non-electric application of nuclear technologies Stable and radioactive isotopes in the modern world provide the basis for high technologies in various areas of human activity from fundamental and applied research investigations to the development of precision instrumentation and measuring devices for technical and medicine diagnosis (Fig. II.44).

78

FIG. II.44. Fields of application of isotopes.

Ionizing radiations of various kinds (, , , n and X ray) have multiple specific properties of interaction with substance (Fig. II.45). The use of these properties provides the basis for application of radiation technologies and sources of ionizing radiation. The application area of sources of ionization radiation is wide; radiation technologies and devices are very diverse. They can be used for the improvement of production efficiency and process control, diagnosis and therapy of diseases, security assurance, study of materials composition, properties and processes for applied purposes. Therefore, there are practically no field of human activity to find where radiation technologies would not be used industry, medicine, geology, biology and others. The amount of funds provided from the use of ionizing radiation sources in the developed countries is several times larger than the incomes from the use of nuclear power. The users of such technologies are expected to be hundreds of thousands around the world. Economic benefits from the use are estimated by tens of billions of dollars.

79

FIG. II.45. Types of interaction of radiation with matter.

II.6.3. Radioisotopes in medicine Medicine is the science where radioactive isotopes have found the first physical use: from the beginning of the century (in 1903) the 226Ra radiation has been used to remove cancer tumors. If the application was initially limited by a therapy effect of ionizing radiation, later due to the production of a large amount of artificial radioactive elements radioactive and radioisotope procedures began to be used more in diagnosis (Fig. II.46).

FIG. II.46. Forecast growth of cancer.

Nowadays, nuclear medicine is commonly used as a separate specialty of medicine like cardiology, nephrology or ophthalmology. Having been developed relatively recently after the discovery of artificial radioactivity, the nuclear medicine has made contribution to the diagnosis of human diseases by using all dominating properties of ionizing radiations and radioactive isotopes. In addition to the diagnosis, nuclear medical and radioisotope procedures are used for blood testing, sterilization of bandaging materials, cloths, surgical materials (retention suture), catheters, as well as human tissues for transplantation and implantation operations. 80

The isotopes are therefore used in the modern medicine for diagnosis and therapy in the form of radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotope devices and applicators. Radioisotopes are used in medicine more often than stable isotopes. The success of nuclear medicine directly depends on the scope of pharmaceutical products on the global market. At present, radiopharmaceuticals are produced in many countries; they are equally intended for domestic needs as well as for export (the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, India); the others (France, Italy, Belgium) mainly export radiopharmaceuticals to developing countries. The United States are the largest consumer of radiopharmaceuticals among the developed countries. More than 36 000 medical diagnostic procedures using radioisotopes and more than 50 000 nuclear therapeutic procedures are conducted in the United States every year: every third patient of a clinic receives radioisotope treatment. A total of more than 13 million nuclear medical procedures with the use of > 4000 nuclear medical facilities are conducted every year. Annual cost of these procedures is estimated from US $7 milliard to US $10 milliard. Besides, more than 100 million laboratory investigations are performed every year, which include the treatment of such diseases as oncology, epilepsy, coronary heart diseases, as well as the development of new radiopharmaceuticals (Fig. II.47).

FIG. II.47. Examples of use of nuclear technology in medicine.

In the countries of the European Union 15 million nuclear medical procedures are provided every year, 14 million from them are diagnostic. About 1 million therapeutic procedures are distributed as follows: Germany 40%; France 15%; Great Britain 8%; Spain 8%; the other countries 18%. In Australia with a population of 19 million people, about 430 000 nuclear medical procedures using isotopes are conducted; by 2010 the number of procedures has been estimated to increase to 1.5 million. By estimates made in the IAEA, by the beginning of the 21st century the turnover in sales of diagnostic products was about 20 milliard dollars, and by the end of the first decade of the 21st century it was estimated to reach 26.5 milliard dollars; about 10% of turnover is the share of radiopharmaceuticals for radioimmunoassay. One of the indicators of the use of nuclear methods in medicine can be the number of the most commonly devices gamma cameras for scanning: according to the IAEAs evidence, for one million people there are 20 gamma cameras on average in developed countries, and 0.8 cameras in developing countries. Diagnostic and therapeutic use of medical isotopes in oncology, rheumatology, and surgical cardiology has recently much expanded due to the development and study of new types of specific radiopharmaceuticals. Radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy is a promising 81

method of diagnosis that allows to detect by using a radioactive indicator the lymph nodes affected by tumor in the carriers of breast and skin cancer. The development should be noted of radioimmunoscintigraphy based on monoclonal antibodies and peptides specific to various pathologic processes, for example, the method of cancer therapy with the use of generator based on 213i isotope attached to monoclonal antibody for destruction of cancer cells related to leukemia. The value of achievements in the field of nuclear medicine consists in the detection of diseases that cannot be found by diagnosis using other methods at the early stage, when the recovery may be made, as well as in the improvement of condition and extension of life of seriously ill patients. In a large number of cases, the use of radiotherapy helps to salvage patients with such diseases as brain tumor, lymphoma, leukemia, when other means are ineffective. The further development of radioisotope diagnosis and therapy is associated with the increase in production and extension of isotope nomenclature for medical purposes, in particular, of short-lived radioisotopes. Radionuclides for nuclear medicine and corresponding radiopharmaceuticals are classified into separate groups as diagnostic and therapeutic. In diagnosis, radionuclides and radiopharmaceuticals are used to generate images and to perform biochemical analysis. The basic methods for diagnosis with the use of radioactive isotopes to generate images are single-photon emission computed tomography (SECT), positron emission tomography (PET), biochemical analysis. Tomographic methods are based on registration of radiation of radionuclides introduced into human body as a part of radiopharmaceutical intravenously, orally or via inhalation. The computer processing of information on activity distribution indicates the transfer of nuclides in human body and its accumulation in a particular organ. In contrast to radiographic images that reproduce only anatomical organization, the use of radionuclides allows one to obtain three-dimensional images of organism, hard and soft tissues, and to study specific physiological and biochemical processes and function of separate organs. The method of radioimmunoassay that does not require the irradiation of the patient itself is a variation of biochemical laboratory analysis using radiopharmaceuticals. Radiotherapy is used both as a separate method and in combination with others nonnuclear treatment modes. The use of radioisotopes to be delivered directly to affected organ allows the localization of irradiation by reducing the impact on adjacent tissues. The same radionuclides can be used in diagnosis and radiotherapy. As an example, the basic isotopes used in gamma-diagnosis are presented in Table 11.
TABLE 11. BASIC ISOTOPES USED IN GAMMA-DIAGNOSIS
Organs Lungs Bones Thyroid body Kidneys Brain Liver, pancreas Abdominal cavity Blood Heart Full body Isotope used for diagnosis Kr, 99mTc, 133Xe 99m Tc 99m Tc, 123I, 131I 99m Tc, 111In,131I 99m Tc, 123I, 133Xe 99m Tc, 111In 67 Ga, 99mTc 111 In, 99mTc 82 Rb, 99mTc, 201Tl 67 Ga, 99mTc, 111In, 201Tl
81m

Diagnosis type Bloodvessel occlusion, respiratory distress Tumor, infection, fissures and fractures Hypertrophy, tumor Dysfunction Bloodvessel occlusion, blood flow, tumor, neural disorders Tumor Tumor Infection, volume and circulation Myocardial functions and viability Tumor

II.6.4. Radioisotopes in industry The introduction of modern radioisotope technologies in various branches of the 82

industry can enhance the productivity and provides the possibility of gaining important information that could not be obtained earlier with the use of any other technologies. Radioactive isotopes have lately acquired a wide range of applications in the industry. Hermetic radioactive sources are used in industrial radiology, and for various measurements, for example, for the analysis of materials composition in soil. Using shortlived radioactive materials, the leakages in pipelines are detected. The method of sterilization by gamma rays is well-known; it is used for sterilization of medical equipment, some mass consumer goods, and, particularly, for food preservation. Nuclear technologies are most efficiently used in the industry and applications related to environmental safety. Nuclear technologies provide the opportunity for continuous analysis and quick access to important information with the use of a large number of applicable radioisotopes which ensures the acquisition of reliable flow of analytical data. This results in cost reduction and increase of the quality of output production. The sources of ionizing radiation are used in the industry for the following purposes: optimization and enhancement of the effectiveness of production processes; diagnosis of problems arising during production processes; control of equipment using non-destructive analysis methods; analysis of materials composition and structure; processing of materials in the fields of high-energy radiation for the purpose of sterilization and modification of properties; impact assessment of industrial processes and infrastructure of cities on the environment and development of corrective actions. The applications and list of most commonly used radionuclides in industrial technologies are presented in Table 12.
TABLE 12. THE APPLICATIONS AND LIST OF COMMONLY USED RADIONUCLIDES IN THE INDUSTRY
The area of application of radioisotope source Instrumentation Neutron activation analysis Gamma activation analysis X ray fluorescence analysis Gamma radiography Neutron radiography Radioactive tracer method Irradiation equipment Light sources Corrosion inhibitors Applicable radioisotopes Co, 90Sr, 85Kr, 137Cs, 241Am, 153Gd, 210Po, 226Ra, 239Pu, 227Ac, 57Co, 252Cf, 3H, 63Ni, Pu, 242Cm, 124Sb, 147Pm, 55Fe, 244Cm, 204Tl, 14C, 88Y 226 RaBe, 124SbBe, 241AmBe, 238PuBe, 252Cf 24 Na, 46Sc, 60Co, 134Cs, 140La, 182Ta, 144Pr, 95Zr, 145Eu 55 Fe, 109Cd, 125I, 238Pu, 241Am, 244Cm, 57Co, 153Gd, 3HZr, 147PmAl, 75Se, 133Ba, 90Sr 60 Co, 192Ir, 137Cs, 134Cs , 170Tm, 169Yb 242 Cm, 228Th, 252Cf, 244Cm, 227Ac, 238Pu, 241Am, 226Ra, 124Sb 59 Fe, 24Na, 140La, 32P, 3H, 51Cr, 169Yb, 82Br, 39Ar, 18O, 13C, 14C, 131I, 198Au, 15N, 198Ru, 85 Kr, 46Sc, 65Zn, 181Hf, 124Sb, 64Cu, 137mBa, 35S, 134Cs, 99mTc, 41Ar, 153Gd, 160Tb, 38Cl, 204 Tl, 203Hg, 54Mn, 60Co, 58Co 60 Co, 137Cs, 90Sr 85 Kr, 147Pm, 3H, 90Sr, 14C, 226Ra 99m Tc
238 60

Nowadays, analytical control methods using radioisotope sources are an integral part of many manufacturing processes in many branches of the industry (chemical, metallurgical, etc.). More than 40 radioisotopes are used in the industry for the analysis and control of processing technologies; determination of movement rate of materials in pipelines; detection of leaks, wear and corrosion; monitoring of environmental pollution; exploration of ground waters (origination, mechanism and rate of recharge, movement and storage); formation of snow and ice; dynamics of rivers and lakes; movement processes of bottom sediments. Technological and economic efficiency of applicable radioactive tracer methods in the 83

industry shows possible further extension of the use of radioisotopes in control and measuring equipment of this type. The main applications of tracers are presented in Table 13.
TABLE 13. THE MAIN APPLICATIONS OF RADIOACTIVE TRACER METHODS
Application Monitoring of macroscopic mixing in engineering processes (time of homogenizing of solids in industrial mixers, homogeneity of agglomerated powders in metallurgy, filling of coolant in reactor fuel subassembly, etc.) Monitoring of flow rate (liquid, solid and gaseous media) in pipelines (oil lines, sewage systems), boilers and oil-bearing strata Monitoring and localization of leakages in sealed reservoirs, pipelines (fuel in cylinders, tanks, gas in life-support sustems), etc. Determination of wear degree and corrosion of materials (engines and other hard-to-reach machine parts and components) Control of coal and ore treatment (separation, reduction, processing, transportation) Control of production processes of semiconductor devices (from cleaning of raw materials to testing of end devices) Groundwater exploration Hydrodynamics of rivers and lakes Monitoring of sediments movement at the bottom of seas, rivers and closed water bodies Pollution survey: air water
59

Applicable isotopes Fe, 24Na, 140La, 32P, 35S, 134Cs

H, 24Na, 51Cr, 169Yb, 85Kr, 82Br (in twophase flows liquid/air), 131I, 46Sc, 110Ag, 85 Kr (in oilbearing strata) 3 H, 41Ar, 46Sc, 85 Kr, 82Br, (CH382Br) and othres 85 Kr, 131I, 99mTc and others S (processing), 64Cu and 59Fe (transportation at flotation), 32P, 137Ba, 131 82 I, Br, 24Na 18 F, 76As, 32P, 59Fe, 64Cu, 115Cd, 85Kr, 131 I and others 3 H, 39Ar, 13C, 14C, 51Kr, 60Co, 82Br, 131I, 46 Sc, 38Cl, 58Co, 114m I, 153Gd, 160Tb, 99Tc 3 H, 82Br, 24Na, 131I, 198Au 51 Cr, 198Au, 46Sc, 131I, 147Nd, 198Ru, 65 Zn, 181Hf, 124Sb, 192Ir, 110Ag, 182Ta
85 82 35

Kr, 41Ar and other radioactive gases Br, 46Sc

Irradiation equipment is in most common practical use in two areas: modification of polymers and sterilization of medical products. Besides, irradiation equipment can be also used for food handling, chemical synthesis, production of biomaterials, environment protection, and other (Table 14).
TABLE 14. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES OF RADIATIONCHEMICAL AND RADIOBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Process Radiobiological treatment (sterilization): sterilization of medical products irradiation of food stuffs for the purpose of disinfection and shelf life extension waste treatment for reusing
60 60

Sources of ionizing radiation prime other (0.16 mCi) (0,034 mCi) accelerators; 137Cs 10 MeV accelerators; 137Cs 60 (0.031 mCi) 137 Cs (0.52.5 mCi)
60

Radiation dose, Mrad 2.53.2 0.0154 0.051 4050 1.2 0.21 0.13

35 MeV accelerators Radiationchemical treatment (synthesis and modification of polymers): chlorine treatment, sulphochlorination, sulfoxidation accelerators of hydrocarbons 60 synthesis of ethyl bromide rubber vulcanizing for automobile tires, surface accelerators coatings (up to 150 kW) production of polyethylene foam for thermal accelerators (up to insulation of cables and wires, for sportswear 150 kW) 60 production of woodplastic composites 60 production of concretepolymer materials 60 production of biomaterials 60 synthesis of chemicals (cleaning agents and others) , accelerators 60 conservation of historical valuables (made of wood and stone)

accelerators accelerators

84

II.6.4.1. Radioisotope energy sources Radionuclide sources of ionizing radiation are usefully employed as radioisotope energy sources. The radioisotope energy sources use the energy of natural decay of radioactive isotopes. For this purpose, the devices of various designs are used, which employ the energy releasing during nuclear decay for coolant heating or convert this energy into electric power. Radioisotope energy sources are used where there is a need for ensuring independent operation of the equipment, considerable reliability, small weight and dimensions. At present, the main areas of application are the spacecraft (satellites, interplanetary stations, etc.), deep-sea vehicles, and remote areas (cold regions, seaway, Antarctica). In most cases, power sources require large activities (about Ci and more) of long-lived radionuclides (Table 15).
TABLE 15. APPLICABLE AND PROMISING RADIONUCLIDES FOR ENERGY SOURCES
Isotope Half-life Isotope Half-life
60

Co 5.3 years 254 Es 275 days

238

Pu 87.7 years 257 Fm 101 days

90 Sr 28.6 years 209 Po 102 years

144 Ce 285 days 227 Ac 21,8 years

242

Cm 163 days 148 Gd 93 years

147 Pm 2.6 years 106 Ru 372 days

137 Cs 30 years 170 Tm 128 days

210 Po 138 days 194m Ir 171 days

244 Cm 18.1 years 248 Cf 334 days

208 Po 2.9 years 250 Cf 13,1 years

232 U 69 years 241 Am 432 years

154 Eu 8,8 years

II.6.5. Non-electric applications of nuclear energy Almost all nuclear energy is currently used for electricity production. Nevertheless, during nuclear fission the heat is released which is converted into electricity only after passing through additional technological phases. This heat is valuable from the viewpoint of the possibility of its energetic application, because it can be used for desalination, district heating, hydrogen production, running of transport facilities and other applications. It should be noted that the industrial use of the heat generated in nuclear reactors is nowadays one of the most promising non-power applications of nuclear energy. Many international expert groups, particularly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggest that nuclear power, which currently provides about 6% of total primary energy could, in the future, make an increasing contribution to carbon-free heat as well as to electricity production. Less than 1% of the heat generated in nuclear reactors is used for other applications. However, there are other potential uses and the extent to which they become important may significantly affect the future expansion of nuclear energy programmes. Two industrial uses for heat produced by nuclear systems already exist: district heating and desalination. Other potentially more significant uses include fuel synthesis, particularly production of hydrogen (Fig. II.48).

FIG. II.48. The possible scheme of hydrogen production using nuclear energy.

85

Currently, about 40% of the worlds primary energy is used for electricity generation; the remainder is mainly used for transport (about 18%) and heat for household and industrial use (about 42%). In 2004, electricity generation produced about 10 Gt of CO2, over 27% of the worlds anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Road transport in 2004 was responsible for around 13% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is clear that increased use of nuclear power for electric and non-electric applications, particularly in a hydrogen economy, could play a significant role in reducing CO2 emissions over the coming decades. District heating is specific due to the absence of large distribution networks for supplying heat from the plant to consumers. Small- or medium-sized modular reactors are likely to be more suitable for industrial uses of heat. Co-generation is most likely, combining industrial heat applications with electricity generation. Co-generation is not a new concept; some of the first civilian reactors in the world were used to supply heat as well as electricity. The United Kingdoms first reactor, at Calder Hall, provided electricity to the grid and heat to a fuel reprocessing plant in 1956; Agesta in Sweden provided hot water for district heating of a suburb of Stockholm in 1963; and the first nuclear power plant in Russia provided electricity and heat to the city of Obninsk, near Moscow, in 1954. Approximately 85% of the industrial sectors energy use is in the energy-intensive industries of iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, chemicals and fertilisers, petroleum refining, minerals (cement, lime, glass and ceramics) and pulp and paper. Reliable data for associated global CO2 emissions are available for iron and steel (6% of total emissions), cement (5%), pulp and paper (1%) and non-ferrous metals (0.35%).

FIG. II.49. Volumes of water.

The main non-power uses of nuclear energy in the future are commonly supposed to be: district heating; desalination (Fig. II.49); process heating; use in navigation; use for space purposes; 86

 hydrogen production; coal gasification and production of other synthetic fuels; extraction of nonstandard oil resources, and others. The following conclusions can be made from the analysis of the market potential of non-electric applications of nuclear energy. In the foreseeable future, the production of electricity will remain the main application of nuclear energy. This is generally caused by the fact that this application has been technologically developed to a greater extent, as well as that the share of electricity in the final energy demand is inevitably increasing. Nuclear energy is currently not widely used on the non-electric power market; however, it is expected that considerable need for non-electric nuclear energy would arise and rapidly increase resulting from growing energy consumption due to the population increase; limited reserves of fossil fuel; replacement of direct use of fossil fuel; increased sensitivity to the effect of fossil fuel combustion on the environment. Because of the predominance of electricity production, the penetration of nuclear power into the market of non-electric services would grow due to the application of technologies that offer the production of electricity together with other types of energy, where it is possible; eventually, specialized reactors for the production of heat could be developed for several applications. A great number of non-electric applications require energy sources with a relatively small output (1001000 MW(t)) as compared with the size of existing nuclear reactors; the development of small and medium-sized nuclear power plants could therefore promote nonelectric use of nuclear energy. Some non-electric applications require proximity of NPPs to the consumer; this will require special safety typical for a particular place. Economically, there are the same trends in non-electric applications of nuclear energy as in the field of production of nuclear electric power. The increase of NPP capital investments has influenced the cost of most non-electric applications; evolutionary and innovative improvement of reactor design together with stable prices for nuclear fuel would result in increasing competitiveness of non-electric nuclear applications. Depending on regional conditions, nuclear power is already competitive in such applications as district heating, desalination and, partially, use of process heat. The use of nuclear energy for hydrogen production would promote indirect penetration of the nuclear energy into the transport markets, the most part of which cannot directly use nuclear reactors. Non-electric applications of nuclear energy would be most likely attractive for the use in countries that already have corresponding infrastructure and organizational support. The embodiment of some non-electric applications, for example, desalination, will promote the increase of degree of the public confidence in nuclear power.
[1] LOWENTHAL G.C., AIREY P.L., Practiczl Application of Radioactivity and Nuclear Radiation Published by the press syndicate of the University of Cambridge (2001). [2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Irradiation as a Phytosanitary Treatment of Food and Agricultural Commodities, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1427 (2004). [3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Medicine Resources Manual (2006). [4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radioisotope Handling Facilities and Automation of Radioisotope Production, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1430 (2004).

87

II.7. ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR ORGANIZATIONS: IAEA, WNA, WANO, OECDNEA AND OTHERS Nuclear power and nuclear technologies have become the first example in the history of mankind in realizing a global approach to solving problems, an example of priority of a global interest over the national sovereignty, though the latter is still considered to be a cornerstone of international relations, the United Nations principles. II.7.1. Some stages of international initiatives on the peaceful use of nuclear energy 1953 The Atoms for Pease Initiative in the United Nations (Fig. II.50); 1954 The formulation of the General Assembly Resolution on the establishment of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); 1957 The establishment of IAEA; 1955, 1958, 1964, 1971 The United Nations International Conferences on the peaceful use of atomic energy held in Geneva; 19601970 The establishment of a number of organizations in western countries in the area of peaceful uses of nuclear energy: Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) (Paris), Euratom. At the same time with the creation and development of global (multinational) organizations in the nuclear energy sector there was a process of recognition of a key role of NFC technology in solving the non-proliferation problem. 1970 The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came into force, a multilateral international act elaborated by the United Nations Disarmament Commission in an effort to create a reliable barrier on extending a number of states possessing nuclear weapon; provide necessary international control over the fulfillment of the obligations of the states under the Treaty in order to limit the potential of an armed conflict with the use of such weapon; offer the possibilities for peaceful use of nuclear energy. 19701980s Initiation and discussion of ideas, concepts and proposals on international integration in the area of nuclear fuel cycle (for example, the workshop in Salzburg, 1977): on the development of regional NFC centres; on international storage of spent fuel and plutonium. An important stage in the discussion of various NFC concepts was the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) performed in 19781980 with the participation of experts from 18 leading countries in the nuclear energy sector. 1987 After the accident at the Chernobyl NPP the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) was formed. 1993 The Additional Protocol to the NPT was signed. 1992 The formulation of Agenda 21 the main programme of United Nations the principles of sustainable development (including the energy development). 2000 The President of the Russian Federation addressed to the participants of the UN Millennium Summit with the initiative Nuclear Power is the base of the future sustainable energy development. 2001 The World Nuclear Association (WNA) was formed (the former Uranium Institute (UI), London). 2003 The World Nuclear University (WNU) was founded (London). 88

2005 The Kyoto Protocol was signed: application of a global approach to the whole technological human activity.

FIG. II.50. History of IAEA

Fifty years after the Atoms for Peace the Initiative Atoms for Sustainable Development was initiated, the World Nuclear University was founded to promote the dissemination of specific knowledge and experience in the field of nuclear technologies all around the world. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA Director General, who initiated the foundation of the World Nuclear University, has announced: The IAEA, with its constituency of 135 Member States, is hopeful that this will truly become a World Nuclear University. Almost 2 billion people, nearly one third of the population of the planet, remain without access to modern energy supplies a shortfall that could be addressed, at least in part, by nuclear energy. But any major expansion in the future use of nuclear power will only be feasible if the nuclear industry is successful in developing innovative reactor and fuel cycle technology as well as operational and regulatory approaches that effectively address concerns related to cost competitiveness, safety and security, proliferation resistance and waste disposal. Over the past several years, a variety of international initiatives was undertaken with the consideration of medium- and long-term prospects of nuclear power development. Among these initiatives there is the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) proposed by the United States, the IAEAs International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). Two large investigations were also implemented: The Innovative Nuclear Reactor Development: Opportunities for International Cooperation organized by IAEA in collaboration with the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) (19982000) and The Future of Nuclear Power an interdisciplinary study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003, 2009). These initiatives are similar in many ways, because they all are intended for the development of innovative nuclear energy systems, including nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. Though the same urgent needs of countries were the impulse for the implementation of the initiatives, they differ in certain aspects, for example, in how much attention is given to nuclear fuel cycle. Two projects GIF and INPRO are the most significant initiatives that could ensure the development of international cooperation in this area.

89

II.7.2. International Initiatives on non-proliferation and use of nuclear weapon The high point in the modern history is the creation of non-proliferation regime and prevention of the use of nuclear weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a multilateral international act elaborated by the United Nations Disarmament Commission in an effort to create a reliable barrier on extending a number of states possessing nuclear weapon; provide necessary international control over the fulfillment of obligations taken by the states under the Treaty in order to limit the potential of an armed conflict with the use of such weapon; offer the possibilities for peaceful use of nuclear energy. It was approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 1 June, 1968. The Treaty came into force on 5 March 1970 after the deposit of the ratification of depositary states: Russia (a successor to the Soviet Union) in 1968, the United States (1968) and the United Kingdom (1968). France and Chine acceded to the treaty in 1992. As of 11 May 1995, more than 170 memberstates agreed to extend the term of the Treaty without day without any additional conditions. Almost all independent states of the world are the parties to the treaty. Four non-parties to the treaty are Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The treaty establishes that nuclear-weapon state is any state that manufactured and detonated a nuclear weapon or other explosive device prior to 1 January, 1967 (i.e. Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China). The treaty assigns inalienable right of all member states to develop the investigations, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in compliance with the treaty. The treaty is binding the parties to exchange the information, promote the benefits for non-nuclear states from any peaceful use of nuclear explosions. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is charged with supervising nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Each non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards and conclude the agreement with IAEA. In Article VI and the Preamble to the Treaty it states that nuclear states would seek the reduction and liquidation of all their existing stockpiles. However, for more than 40 years of the treaty there has been not so much done in this area. According to Article I nuclear-weapon states undertake not to encourage any non-nuclear-weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons; however, but the fact that a nuclear state has accepted military doctrine based on the possibility of preventive striking along with other threats of military violence can be in principle considered as such motivation. Article X states that any party has the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country, for example in view of supposed threat. Three states India, Pakistan and Israel have declined to sign the Treaty. These countries argue that the Treaty creates a club of nuclear haves and a larger group of 90

nuclear have-nots by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid. India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons what is restricted by the treaty. Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev desert. A nuclear technician from the nuclear center Mordechai Vanunu published evidence to the British Sunday Times about 100 to 200 warheads Israel has stockpiled since 1958. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny the possession of nuclear weapons. South Africa undertook the nuclear weapon program, allegedly with the assistance of Israel, and may have conducted a nuclear test was in the Indian Ocean, but has since renounced its nuclear program and signed the NPT in 1991 after destroying its small nuclear arsenal. India and Pakistan have announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests. China signed the Treaty, but withdrew from it after the conflict with IAEA. Iran acceded to the Treaty, but since 2004 it has been suspected of violation of the Treaty and the development of nuclear weapons. The main problem in the context of NPT compliance monitoring is that the same process uranium enrichment may be used both for generation of nuclear fuel for NPP and production of a nuclear bomb. The nuclear materials for bomb can be secretly enriched under the pretence of fuel production (what Iran is suspected of), or as in the situation with North Korea any NPT party may just leave the treaty. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of IAEA from 1997 to 2010, said that no less than forty states could have the knowledge to create a nuclear bomb where there is a will. In the world there is a black market of nuclear materials; more new countries make efforts to acquire technologies for production of materials suitable for nuclear weapon. There is a direct will of terrorists to get hold of weapons of mass destruction. All this, in the judgment of Mohamed ElBaradei, has radically changed a general picture in the area of nuclear safety. NPT Review Conferences are held every five years. The last conference was in May 2010. II.7.3. Key international organizations related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY The IAEA is the worlds center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up as the worlds Atoms for Peace organization in 1957 within the United Nations family. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies [1].
Article II: Objectives The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or its request under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.

The IAEAs mission is guided by the interests and needs of Member States, strategic plans and the vision embodied in the IAEA Statute. Three main pillars or areas of work underpin the IAEAs mission: Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification (Fig. II.51). The IAEA Secretariat is headquartered at the Vienna International Centre in Vienna, Austria. Operational liaison and regional offices are located in Geneva, Switzerland; New York, USA; Toronto, Canada; and Tokyo, Japan. The IAEA runs or supports research 91

centers and scientific laboratories in Vienna and Seibersdorf, Austria; Monaco; and Trieste, Italy. IAEA at a glance (The information below is from the latest IAEA Annual Report) 151 Member States. 71 intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations worldwide having formal agreements with the Agency. 53 years of international service by 2010. 2338 professional and support staff. 285 million total regular budget for 2009, supplemented by extrabudgetary contributions received in 2009 amounting to 58.1 million. US $85 million target in 2009 for voluntary contributions to the Agencys Technical Cooperation Fund. 2 international laboratories (Seibersorf and Monaco). 125 active Coordinated Research Projects involving 1588 approved research, technical and doctoral contracts and research agreements. 171 States with safeguards agreements in force involving 1983 safeguards inspections performed in 2009. 20 national safeguards support programmes and 1 multinational support programme (European Union). 12 million average monthly hits to the Agencys IAEA.org web site. 3.1 million records in the International Nuclear Information System (INIS), the Agencys largest database. 214 publications and newsletters issued (in print and electronic formats) in 2009.

FIG. II.51. Three Pillars of the IAEA.

92

The IAEA Secretariat is a team of 2200 multi-disciplinary professional and support staff from more than 90 countries. The Agency is led by Director General Yukiya Amano and six Deputy Directors General who head the major departments (Fig. II.52). IAEA programmes and budgets are set through decisions of its policymaking bodies the 35member Board of Governors and the General Conference of all Member States. Reports on IAEA activities are submitted periodically or as cases warrant to the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly.

FIG. II.52. IAEA Management Team.

The Agencys role in nuclear power in the 21st century: Developing a vision for global nuclear energy Assessing/clarifying affordability & acceptability requirements for 21st century large-scale nuclear energy use for developed & developing countries Facilitating international cooperation in developing different types of new generation nuclear energy systems which meet these requirements Facilitating (political) discussion aimed at establishing enhanced institutional systems acceptable to both developed & developing countries. WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) unites every company and country in the world with an operating commercial nuclear power plant to achieve the highest possible standards of nuclear safety. WANO Mission is to maximize the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants worldwide by working together to assess, benchmark and improve performance through mutual support, exchange of information and emulation of best practices (Fig. II.53) [2]. Based in London with regional centres in Moscow, Atlanta, Tokyo and Paris, WANO cuts across political barriers and interests. WANO exist purely to help our members achieve the highest levels of operational safety and reliability. WANO do this through peer reviews, technical support and access to a global library of operating experience (Fig. II.54).

93

FIG. II.53. Activities of WANO

FIG. II.54. WANO Organisation.

WANO are a non-profit organization with a Governing Board that sets policies that are implemented in its regional centres. Day-to-day work in these centres is overseen by WANOs Executive Leadership Team and our programmes are managed by permanent and seconded employees drawn from members around the world. While WANO work directly with its members, WANO are not a regulatory body and do not advise companies or countries on reactor design issues. With safety as WANO only goal, the organization help operators communicate effectively and share information openly because experience shows many accidents could have been prevented if lessons had been learned from previous incidents. Ultimately, this will raise the performance of all operators to that of the best. WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION

FIG. II.55. WNA logo.

94

The World Nuclear Association (Fig. II.55) is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry [3]. WNA arose on the foundations of the Uranium Institute, established in London in 1975 as a forum on the market for nuclear fuel. In 2001, spurred by the expanding prospects for nuclear power, the UI changed its name and mandated itself to build a wider membership and a greater diversity of activities. The goal was to develop a truly global organization geared to perform a full range of international roles to support the nuclear industry in fulfilling its enormous growth potential in the 21st Century. Since WNAs creation in 2001, the effort to build and diversify has born fruit. WNA membership has expanded three-fold to encompass (i) virtually all world uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication; (ii) all reactor vendors; (iii) major nuclear engineering, construction, and waste management companies; and (iv) nearly 90% of world nuclear generation. Other WNA members provide international services in nuclear transport, law, insurance, brokerage, industry analysis and finance. WNA will remain a work in progress. Its rapid growth reflects recognized value and represents major advance in building toward universal industry membership. Today WNA serves its membership, and the world nuclear industry as a whole, through actions to: Provide a global forum for sharing knowledge and insight on evolving industry developments Strengthen industry operational capabilities by advancing best-practice internationally Speak authoritatively for the nuclear industry in key international forums Improve the international policy and public environment in which the industry operates. An overarching WNA purpose is to foster interaction among top industry leaders to help shape the future of nuclear power. Led by senior industry executives, the WNA Board sets priorities, budgets and fees to support a diversity of WNA activities, including more than a dozen industry Working Groups, which are staffed by a small London-based secretariat. All WNA activities focus on objectives outside the scope of national associations, intergovernmental organizations and the industrys reactor safety organization, WANO. Key topics on which WNA represents the nuclear industry include: Climate Change In the context of ongoing United Nations negotiations on climate change, WNA coordinates industry strategy to build worldwide recognition of nuclear powers unique and hugely expandable clean-energy contribution. Reactor Design Standartization To engage with international regulatory bodies, an expert WNA Working Group is preparing far-reaching recommendations to promote reactor design standartization and regulatory harmonization. Radiation Protection Backed by industry experts, the WNA secretariat interacts with international standard-setting bodies to challenge unbalanced and unwarranted regulation that hinders the beneficial use of nuclear power. Event Definition WNA engages with the IAEA to review basic definitions used in the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) to ensure accurancy in grading and to maximize the potential for public misunderstanding. 95

Regulation of Mining and Transport WNA coordinates industry action to surmount localized policy impediments that block or hinder efficiency in the responsible mining of uranium and the safe transport of nuclear fuel. International Nuclear Trade Complementing the role of the World Nuclear Transport Institute, WNA works to overcome international barriers to legitimate commerce in civil nuclear equipment and supplies. Non-Proliferation A WNA Working Group is providing an evolving response to various proposals, including the establishment of an IAEA fuel bank, that would attempt to internationalize sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle

FIG. II.56. WNU logo.

In 2001 on the basis WNA was establish the World Nuclear University (WNU) (Fig. II.56) by initiative of IAEA, WANO, WNA and NEAOECD. EUROPEAN NUCLEAR EDUCATION NETWORK ASSOCIATION The European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN) Association was established afterwards on the basis of the European High Education Area by the partners of the European Nuclear Engineering Network project (Fig. II.57, II.58). The ENEN was given a more permanent character and a legal status by the foundation of the ENEN Association, a nonprofit international organization on 22 September 2003 under the French law of 1901. ENEN's Mission and Goals The main objective of the ENEN Association is the preservation and the further development of expertise in the nuclear fields by higher education and training. This objective should be realized through the co-operation between universities, research organizations, regulatory bodies, the industry and any other organizations involved in the application of nuclear science and ionizing radiation. The ENENII project will consolidate the results and achievements obtained by the European Nuclear Education Network Association (ENEN) and its partners during the FP-5 ENEN and the FP-6 NEPTUNO projects. It will expand ENEN's activities into other than nuclear engineering disciplines such as radiation protection, radiochemistry, radioecology and geological disposal of radioactive waste, attracting universities and faculties active in those fields. It will extend ENEN's activities from academic education into professional training, strengthening the cooperation with industries and regulatory bodies, with other networks for nuclear education and training and with the World Nuclear University.

96

FIG. II.57. ENEN and related organisations.

FIG. II.58. ENEN Structure.

ASIAN NETWORK FOR EDUCATION IN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

FIG. II.59. ANENT website.

97

ANENT (Asian Network for Education in Nuclear Technology) is set up to promote, manage and preserve nuclear knowledge and to ensure the continued availability of talented and qualified human resources in the nuclear field in the Asian region and to enhance the quality of the resources for the sustainability of nuclear technology (Fig. II.59, II.60).

FIG. II.60. ANENT Members.

The objective of ANENT is to facilitate cooperation in education, related research and training in nuclear technology in the Asian region through: sharing of information and materials of nuclear education and training exchange of students, teachers and researchers establishment of reference curricular and facilitating mutual recognition of degree serving as a facilitator for communication between ANENT member organizations and other regional and global networks (Fig. II.61).

FIG. II.61. ANENT Structure.

Essential function of the ANENT is to integrate available resources for education and training in synergy with existing IAEA and other mechanism, to create public awareness about the benefits of nuclear technology and its applications, to attract talented youth in view of alternate competing career options, to encourage senior nuclear professionals to share their experience and knowledge with the young generation and to use information technology, in particular web based education and training to maximum possible extent. 98

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20 April 1972, when Japan became its first non European full member (Fig. II.62) [4].

FIG. II.62. NEA logo.

The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is a specialized agency within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries, based in Paris, France. The mission of the NEA is to assist its Member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for the safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. To achieve this, the NEA works as: a forum for sharing information and experience and promoting international co-operation; a centre of excellence which helps Member countries to pool and maintain their technical expertise; a vehicle for facilitating policy analyses and developing consensus based on its technical work. The NEA's current membership consists of 28 countries, in Europe, North America and the AsiaPacific region: Australia, France, Japan, Slovak Republic, Austria, Germany, Korea, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Sweden, Canada, Hungary, Mexico, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Iceland, Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom, Finland, Italy, Portugal, United States (Fig. II.63).

FIG. II.63. NEA Members.

Together they account for approximately 85% of the world's installed nuclear capacity. Nuclear power accounts for almost a quarter of the electricity produced in NEA Member countries. The NEA works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna a specialized agency of the United Nations and with the European Commission in Brussels. Within the OECD, there is close co-ordination with the International Energy Agency and the Environment Directorate, as well as contacts with other directorates, as appropriate. NEA areas of work: Nuclear safety and regulation, Nuclear energy development, Radioactive waste management, Radiological protection and public health, Nuclear law and liability, Nuclear science, The Data Bank, Information and communication.

99

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974 (Fig. II.64). Its mandate is two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply and to advise member countries on sound energy policy [5].

FIG. II.64. IEA logo.

The IEA carries out a comprehensive programme of energy co-operation among 28 advanced economies, each of which is obliged to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of its net imports. The Agency aims to: Secure member countries access to reliable and ample supplies of all forms of energy; in particular, through maintaining effective emergency response capabilities in case of oil supply disruptions. Promote sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protection in a global context particularly in terms of reducing greenhousegas emissions that contribute to climate change. Improve transparency of international markets through collection and analysis of energy data. Support global collaboration on energy technology to secure future energy supplies and mitigate their environmental impact, including through improved energy efficiency and development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. Find solutions to global energy challenges through engagement and dialogue with non-member countries, industry, international organizations and other stakeholders. IEA member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission also participates in the work of the IEA. As example, provision by IEAOECD on future energy-mix in the developed world: data for almost 200 new plants starting operation around 2015 in 17 OECD and 4 nonOECD countries (Brazil, China, Russia, South Africa), including a wide range of technologies: Nuclear: 20 light water reactors. Gas: 25 plants of which 22 CCGTs. Coal: 34 plants of which 22 SC/USC. Carbon capture: 14 coal-fired and 2 gas-fired plants with CC(S). Renewables: 72 plants, of which 18 onshore wind and 8 offshore wind, 17 solar PV and 3 solar thermal, 14 hydro, 3 geothermal, 3 biogas, 3 biomass, 1 tidal and 2 wave. CHP: 20 plants, of which 13 gas-fired, 3 coal, 3 biomass, 1 biogas and municipal waste. 100

EURATOM The European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) is an international organization which is legally distinct from the European Union (EU), but has the same membership, and is governed by the EU's institutions (Fig. II.65).

FIG. II.65. EURATOM logo.

It was established on 25 March 1957 along with the European Economic Community (EEC) by the Treaty of Rome, being taken over by the executive institutions of the EEC in 1967. Although other communities were merged in 1993 and 2009, the nuclear program has maintained a legally distinct nature from the European Union. All EU Member States have signed the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community the Euratom Treaty. As President Barroso stated during a conference on the civil use of nuclear energy (Paris, 8 March 2010), the European Commission is the watchful guardian of the Treaty; more than half of EU countries are currently producing nuclear energy and, in doing so, have adhered to the high level standards of safety and security stated in the Treaty. Originally created to coordinate the Member States' research programmes for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the Euratom Treaty today helps to pool knowledge, infrastructure and funding of nuclear energy. It ensures the security of atomic energy supply within the framework of a centralized monitoring system. In particular, the provisions of the Treaty enable multiannual Research Framework Programmes to be funded from the EU budget. II.7.4. International initiatives on the development of innovative nuclear energy systems Around the world, a large number of reactor designs are under development and it is clear that considerable international co-operation is required to maximize the outcome of scarce R&D funding.

FIG. II.66. Two major international initiatives (INPRO and GIF IV).

101

At least two initiatives are in progress globally (Fig. II.66): The Generation IV International Forum GIF [6]; The International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) [7]. The GIF is aimed at developing advanced designs for future plants, whereas INPRO brings together technology holders and users to consider jointly the international actions required to achieve innovations in nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. In addition, there is significant international collaboration on the development of small- and medium-sized reactors, primarily aimed at those countries without widespread power distribution infrastructures. This section describes the aims of each of these initiatives. II.7.4.1. The International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) The International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) operates under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Its objective is to support the safe, sustainable, economical and proliferation-resistant use of nuclear technology to meet the global energy needs of the 21st century by bringing together technology holders and users so that they can consider jointly the international and national actions required for achieving desired innovations in nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. As of December 2009, the following 31 countries and organizations were members of INPRO: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the Ukraine, the United States and the European Commission (Fig. II.67).

FIG. II.67. INPRO members.

INPROs missions are to: Provide a forum where experts and policy makers from developed and developing countries can discuss technical, economic, environmental, proliferation resistance and societal aspects of nuclear energy planning as well as the development and deployment of innovative nuclear energy systems (INS) 102

in the 21st century. Develop the methodology for assessing INS and establish a set of recommendations for such assessments. Analyze on a global, regional and national scale the role and structure of INS capable of meeting energy demands in a sustainable manner. Facilitate the co-ordination of international co-operation for INS development and deployment. Pay particular attention to the needs of developing countries interested in INS. The project is coordinated and implemented by an international coordinating group (ICG), comprising experts from participating member states. The ICG seeks input from and interacts with national and international stakeholders, in particular with the NEA and the GIF. History of INPRO In September 2000, the President of the Russian Federation addressed to the participants of the United Nations Millennium Summit with the initiative to ensure energy stability of the development based on nuclear technologies. The initiative has turned out extremely opportune and was supported by the global community. In four resolutions of the IAEA General Conference and two resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly the initiative of the President of RF was welcomed as one meeting the hopes of developing countries and as a way of harmonization of relations between developed and developing countries. The RF Presidents initiative is a political action, but not a technical project. This was accepted by the global community and was reflected in the international project INPRO on the development of innovative concept of NPP and NFC that excludes the use of most sensitive materials and technologies in the world power engineering free plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, and opens to the world conceptually new prospects for living (September, 2000). The implementation of the international project INPRO made it possible to consolidate the efforts of experts from 24 IAEA member states and develop the requirements and criteria of the development of nuclear power, NPP and NFC (Fig. II.68).

FIG. II.68. INPRO Organization.

103

The focus on the proposals made by the President as a political initiative allowed the improvement of the atmosphere in the IAEA that is considered by western countries as an organization with police functions, by orienting the IAEA on to the role of a global forum on the discussion of the role of nuclear technologies in the world, in particular, for developing countries in accordance with the Presidents initiative. INPRO Programme Areas INPRO passed a milestone with the development and application of the INPRO methodology that can help countries assess existing and future nuclear energy systems in a holistic way and supports long-term strategic planning and decision making. After a first series of successful studies, eight additional countries have expressed interest in assessing existing or future nuclear energy systems to determine if they meet national sustainable development criteria. The following areas are developed within the frame of INPRO (Fig. II.69).

FIG. II.69. INPRO methodology.

Global Vision on Sustainable Nuclear Energy By formulating potential scenarios and harmonizing visions for long-term global nuclear development and deployment, INPRO helps newcomers and mature nuclear countries alike to understand the potential of technical innovations and of new institutional and legal approaches for developing and building a sustainable nuclear architecture in the 21st century. Promotion of Innovations Fostering collaboration among INPRO members on selected innovative nuclear technologies are key activities in this area. The activities are connected with related R&D, which contribute to sustainable nuclear energy. Promotion of Innovations in Institutional Arrangements In addition to the complete spectrum of the nuclear fuel cycle, institutional arrangements are also part of the nuclear energy system. Such arrangements include agreements, treaties, national and international legal frameworks or regimes, and conventions. Deploying new reactor designs may require innovative approaches to institutional measures, in particular for non-stationary, small and medium-sized reactors. INPRO fosters collaboration in this area and supports countries in developing and implementing innovative arrangements. The INPRO Dialogue Forum Particular emphasis is placed in the INPRO project on the organization of a dialogue 104

forum in the area of future energy development with the use of nuclear technologies what is aimed at fostering the information exchange between nuclear technology holders and technology users to ensure that future technical and institutional innovations meet the expectations of both. National Assessments Recently, several countries performed a series of national NESAs: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, India, Republic of Korea, and Ukraine. In addition, eight countries, i.e. Canada, China, France, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and Ukraine, jointly investigated a nuclear energy system consisting of sodium cooled fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle. The joint study explored several possible scenarios through modelling of how different nuclear technologies could contribute to fulfilling the expanded role of nuclear energy and what kinds of problems and approaches might be considered to allow an easy transition to a closed nuclear fuel cycle with fast reactors. The national NESA studies were conducted by countries of both technology users and developers and included different scales of assessments. Argentina and Ukraine evaluated the sustainability of their planned national nuclear energy systems by assessing all facilities of the nuclear fuel cycle. Brazil, India and the Republic of Korea assessed specific reactor designs and associated fuel cycles in selected areas of the INPRO methodology. The Brazil team chose the IRIS reactor design and assessed it in the areas of safety and economics. In addition, the Fixed Bed Nuclear Reactor (FBNR) design was assessed for sustainability in the areas of safety and proliferation resistance. The Indian study investigated the replacement of fossil fuel by hydrogen in the transportation sector. The prime objective of the Korean study was to develop a qualitative analysis to determine the level of proliferation resistance of the DUPIC fuel cycle, where spent PWR fuel is transformed into new fuel for CANDU reactors. Armenia performed a NESA primarily to familiarize national decision makers with all issues of the planned nuclear power programme of replacing the existing reactor by a larger unit around 2025. Closed Fuel Cycle with Fast Reactors Over a period of two years, eight countries joined forces to assess a nuclear energy system based on a closed fuel cycle with fast reactors with the INPRO methodology. The objective of this Joint Study was to determine whether such fuel cycle would meet criteria of sustainable development, to define milestones for deploying nuclear energy and to establish areas which would require future collaborative R&D work. The countries were Canada, China, France, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. A system of closed fuel cycle with fast reactors based on proven technologies, such as sodium coolant, MOX pellet fuel and aqueous reprocessing technology was used as a reference system. With the goal of making the closed fuel cycle with fast reactors a viable alternative to conventional sources of power, the Joint Study identified some weak points in current national approaches that must be resolved. This refers specifically to economics and safety, where further research is necessary to achieve a lower level of risk of severe accidents. The design of currently operating nuclear energy systems with closed fuel cycle with fast reactors may not meet economic competition requirements. Simplifying the design, increasing the fuel burn up and reducing costs through targeted R&D, along with small series constructions, could make the costs of nuclear power plants with fast reactors comparable to those of thermal reactor and fossil fuelled power plants. In some countries, the introduction of fast reactors might contribute to an efficient use 105

of nuclear fuel resources by increasing the use of plutonium fuels and denaturated uranium fuel, to be generated in the fast reactor blankets. By developing and introducing novel technologies for an optimal management of nuclear fission products and minor actinides, the system of closed fuel cycle with fast reactors would have the potential for a breakthrough in meeting all of todays requirements of waste management. Due to the technological features of the system with closed fuel cycle with fast reactors, its proliferation resistance could be comparable to, or higher than that of a oncethrough fuel cycle. The system is a key technology for the balanced use of fissile materials. A system based on closed fuel cycle with fast reactors requires a regional or multilateral approach to front and back end fuel cycle services and the transition to a global nuclear architecture. Since the Joint Study conclusions also called for an inter-disciplinary approach and international collaborations wherever possible, as a follow-up, several INPRO collaborative projects were initiated which address the issues identified: Global architecture of nuclear energy systems based on thermal and fast reactors including a closed fuel cycle (GAINS); Integrated approach for the design of safety grade decay heat removal system for liquid metal cooled reactor (DHR); Assessment of advanced and innovative nuclear fuel cycles within large scale nuclear energy systems based on CNFC concept to satisfy principles of sustainability in the 21st century (FINITE); Investigation of technological challenges related to the removal of heat by liquid metal and molten salt coolants from reactor cores operating at high temperatures (COOL). II.7.4.2. The Generation IV International Forum Thirteen countries and organizations Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Euratom, France, Japan, the Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States have joined together to form the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the Technical Secretariat of which is provided by the NEA (Fig. II.70). The GIF aims to develop a future generation of nuclear energy systems that will provide competitive and reliable energy while satisfactorily addressing the issues of improved nuclear safety, radioactive waste minimization, improved physical protection and proliferation resistance. Generation IV systems are intended to be responsive to the needs of a broad range of countries and users.

FIG. II.70. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF).

106

In the first phase of its work, the GIF collaborated on a comprehensive evaluation of nuclear energy concepts and selected the most promising ones as candidates for Generation IV nuclear energy systems. The report entitled A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems documents this evaluation process and identifies the six Generation IV systems that were selected in 2002. For these systems, detailed research and development plans were elaborated for establishing scientific and technical viability and assessing performance before a potential industrial scale demonstration. The GIF members believe that developing these concepts will lead to long-term benefits for nuclear energy worldwide. The term system refers to the reactor and its complete fuel cycle. Assessing the complete fuel cycle is essential in determining PR&PP performance in particular. The Generation IV systems selected in 2002 were: the very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR): a graphite-moderated, heliumcooled reactor with a once-through uranium fuel cycle; the supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR): a high temperature, high pressure, water-cooled reactor that operates above the thermodynamic critical point of water; the molten salt reactor (MSR): a system producing fission power in a circulating molten salt fuel mixture in an epithermal neutron spectrum reactor with full actinide recycling; the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR): a fast neutron, high temperature helium cooled reactor with a closed fuel cycle; the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR): a fast neutron, lead or lead/bismuth eutectic liquid metal-cooled reactor with a closed fuel cycle for efficient conversion of fertile uranium and management of actinides; the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR): a fast neutron, sodium-cooled reactor with a closed fuel cycle for efficient management of actinides and high conversion of fertile uranium. Focus has now moved away from the technical assessment (or roadmap) phase to implementation of the detailed R&D programmes. In 2006, the US Senate Appropriations Committee encouraged the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) to give priority consideration to fast reactor technologies and requested a report on the progress of fast neutron reactor technology development. The US Generation IV Fast Reactor Strategy was issued in 2006. It includes a comparative analysis of the GFR, LFR and SFR systems in the areas of technical readiness and operating experience. This analysis resulted in the selection of the SFR as the most viable option for near-term deployment of a fast reactor. Large-scale prototype SFRs have been constructed; two are operating, in France and the Russian Federation. An important aspect of advanced reactor designs is improved PR&PP. GIF proliferation resistance and physical protection goals state that Generation IV nuclear energy systems will increase the assurance that they are a very unattractive and the least desirable route for diversion or theft of weapons-usable materials, and provide increased physical protection against acts of terrorism. Proliferation resistance aims to impede covert or overt diversion of declared materials, covert or overt misuse of declared facilities and construction of clandestine facilities by states seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Physical protection aims to impede theft and transportation of materials suitable for nuclear explosives or radiation dispersal devices, and sabotage of facilities. The technical characteristics of the Generation IV systems are designed to enhance both their resistance to proliferation threats and their robustness against sabotage and 107

terrorism threats. II.7.5. The need for global cooperation There is a common agreement concerning the need for international efforts to develop new nuclear technologies. In this connection, the possibility was considered of establishing the cooperation between the existing projects, what has been already realized in practice. The technology objectives of GIF and the user requirements of INPRO as necessary characteristics of innovative technologies are similar in many ways or agree in the context of economy, safety, ecology, fuel cycle, proliferation resistance and global stability. The approaches used for verification and selection of proposed innovative concepts also seem to be analogous. However, there are some significant differences between them: R&D programme is already in progress in GIF, whereas in INPRO the development of user requirements is nearing completion; GIF is primarily focused on activities to meet the needs of several developed countries, whereas INPRO provides for more fundamental consideration of nuclear power problems as a whole in view of specific character of countries and regions; INPRO is expected to develop a broad range of proposals on innovative technologies of nuclear reactors and fuel cycle that would be capable of meeting the needs of practically all countries, but not only those with the developed nuclear power industry; INPRO seeks the ways of solving the problems beyond the scope of technology requirements; in particular, potential advantages of international cooperation are investigated for creating the required infrastructure for some countries and possibility of improving legal and institutional structures. INPRO is ready for considering the needs of developing countries; GIF considers only particular systems of nuclear power and related fuel cycles; INPRO believes that it is necessary to use combinations of such systems as part of various scenarios of nuclear power development on a national, regional and global scale. GIF and INPRO have the basis for a closer collaboration, because their efforts are aimed at different goals. The GIF members are primarily technology holders, therefore rather complicated technology systems are the concern of the project. On the contrary, INPRO considers Asia as the future market for nuclear power, including the developing countries demanding more simple but reliable systems. INPRO that includes also the members from developing countries provides better understanding of their demands and requirements. The developing countries (except for such giants as India and China) cannot use the advantages and potential of conventional nuclear technologies this is the most important concern of innovative technologies. The role of innovations as a key factor for the future of nuclear power was the main topic of the IAEA International Conference on innovative technologies for nuclear fuel cycles and nuclear power held in Vienna in June, 2003. At the session of the IAEA General Conference in September 2003, the member states adopted the resolution where the need for global cooperation was addressed for the development of innovative nuclear technology as well as high potential and significance of joint efforts. The resolution also states the need for consolidating the efforts with other international initiatives in the development of innovative nuclear technology. It is obvious that the international cooperation becomes closer these days, though there are quite a few obstacles to be dealt with on this way. It appears that in the near future 108

the INPRO and GIF project would proceed to coordination of their activities.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, http://www.iaea.org WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, http://world-nuclear.org WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS, http://www.wano.info NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, http://www.oecd-nea.org INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, http://www.iea.org GENERATION IV INTERNATIONAL FORUM, http://www.gen-4.org/index.html INPRO, http://www.iaea.org/INPRO

109

Part III CONCLUSION

110

III.1. ENERGY SECURITY AND ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANET Over its sixty-five-year development the nuclear power has increased by now to such a level that it can be considered as a mature industrial technology. During this period the area of possible applications of nuclear technologies has been extremely extended, and currently it involves the power industry, medicine, agriculture, industry, and space. Moreover, a tendency has been seen in recent years for getting the awareness of the significance of nuclear power as a stable and efficient energy source which is generally accompanied with the promotion of investments and innovations to this area. At the same time, over last 1015 years there has been a sharp decline in increasing nuclear power capacities (Fig. III.1, III.2) [1].
400
45 40 35

350

300
30

250

25

G W

200

G W

20 15 10

150

100
5

50

0 -5

0 1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

FIG. III.1. Nuclear Capacity Development.

FIG. III.2. Construction Profile.

The reason for such situation is seen in the termination of state subsidies and guarantees, introduction of market relations into the electric power industry, low competitiveness of newly built NPPs as well as rather negative attitude of Western public and policymakers towards the further development of nuclear technologies [2]. As a consequence of these contradictory tendencies, there is a certain breakdown in opinions on the nuclear power from the public including policymakers on the one hand and the representatives of nuclear sector on the other hand. III.1.1. Challenges and contradictions of nuclear energy development The best part of policymakers including those from nuclear countries, nongovernmental ecological organizations and some other social movements believe that the conclusions and recommendations of nuclear specialists cannot be trusted and the nuclear power would not be popular both in the near future and in the midterm. On the contrary, most representatives of the nuclear sector both in science and industry strongly believe that the nuclear power not only can but must be developed. It is the nuclear power that can provide a solution to the problem of global sustainable energy supply for the human, in particular if considering the need for solving global and local ecological problems facing the mankind. In this respect, there is an urgent more than ever problem nowadays that consists in a comprehensive analysis of the current contradictory situation in the positions concerning the future role of nuclear power, identification of reasons for dual attitude to it, 111

search for reasonable compromise defining the role and position of nuclear technologies as well as the requirements imposed to them from all concerned parties. Many questions related to the nuclear power have been the subject of the most fierce disputes for more than half a century and their successful solution is seen to be unlikely not only within narrow industrial limits. That is the reason that the current state of nuclear power upon the completion of its formation and reaching a commercial level came into collision in the consciousness of both experts and public, fully reflecting the disagreements that arose during the expansion of nuclear technologies in the world between the concepts of pioneers and practically feasible solutions. Thus, despite the potential inexhaustible nature of the resource base providing the possibility of sustainable development of the nuclear power, the practical implementation was performed based on thermal reactors utilizing mainly uranium-235 from relatively rich ores, the inferred reserves of which are less than those of oil and gas (Fig. III.3) [3].

FIG. III.3. Relative energy content of natural fuel resources in the World.

Despite the accepted possibility of creating inherently safe nuclear reactors, the inherent safety concept was not implemented in full measure, which resulted in a number of severe accidents, including the Chernobyl disaster in the USSR (Fig. III.4) and severe accident at Three Mile Island NPP in the USA.

FIG. III.4. Chernobyl disaster.

112

Despite the possibility of providing total control and isolation of almost all radioactive waste, the problem of their ultimate disposal has not been currently solved in full (Fig. III.5) [4].
160000 140000 120000 100000 tHM 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year 2010 2015 2020 Western Europe Eastern Europe Asia and Africa America

FIG. III.5. Spent fuel in storage around the world: historical data through 2009 plus projections through 2020.

Despite the nuclear non-proliferation regime created and accepted by most states, it was not able to cope fully with the black market of nuclear materials and technologies and establish an international mechanism for preventing the emergence of new states possessing nuclear weapons with the expansion of nuclear technology around the world (Fig. III.6).

FIG. III.6. The elements of non-proliferation.

Despite the anticipated nuclear renaissance, closed NFC and plutonium breeder reactor that provide the possibility of large-scale development have not been currently commercially implemented. Of crucial importance is also the problem of ageing of scientific and engineering personnel and threat for loss of experience and knowledge [5]. Although the nuclear power is considered as relatively pure energy source encouraging the reduction of global technological impact on the planet climate, the presentday NPPs with thermal reactors are characterized by low efficiency values, which cause direct thermal environmental pollution being much higher as compared with a number of state-of-the-art energy technologies. When discussing these problems, one should keep in mind that the nuclear power is not only one of possible elements of the energy market. The area of potential applications 113

of nuclear technologies and their roles in the human life is well beyond the energy applications. In leading nuclear states the nuclear science and technology determine social political and technicaleconomical life of the society. III.1.2. Socialpolitical and economical aspects of nuclear energy development Nuclear technologies set indeed a standard for social development of the society, as the energy consumption and its quality determine living standards and human longevity. But they also determine militarypolitical potential of the great powers by providing the basis for their defensive power and policy. Nuclear science and technology involve the development of the science as a whole: nuclearphysical methods and instruments provide an essential part of almost all present day methods of scientific research (lasers, accelerators, isotope diagnostics, radioactive sources, synchrotron emission, etc.). The necessity of developing the nuclear energy gave rise to a new integrated level of interaction: fundamental science applied science industry based on the establishment of nuclear centers represented for instance by closed administrativeterritorial formations in Russia and national laboratories in the USA, and also a new interaction level: science government industry. The requirements for ensuring safe operation of nuclear plants have led to a new level of understanding the problem for various technological facilities, development and systematic introduction into the practice of security culture principles. The experience of international cooperation in the nuclear area prefigures an efficient multilateral solution of the problems, the role of which would inevitably be enhanced in the time of globalizing economy (Fig. III.7).

FIG. III.7. Reasons for the mid 1980s stagnation

A dual-use nature of nuclear technology consisting in the potential for its application equally in peaceful and military sphere is the basic contradiction for the existing nuclear non-proliferation regime and comprehensive development of the nuclear energy (NE) and nuclear fuel cycle (NFC). The associated antagonism between the need for the development of civil nuclear energy, extension of countries range and areas of application, on the one hand, and risk of transferring nuclear technologies and fissile materials being potentially 114

applied in the military sphere, on the other hand, defines the principal threat to the nonproliferation regime. Moreover, the intensity of the situation in nuclear non-proliferation at the beginning of the new millennium coincided with a new cycle of renewed interest to NE, to plans and efforts focused on further development of innovative technologies: for instance, small-size nuclear power plants for developing countries; breeder reactors with closed NFC with reprocessing and recycling of fissile materials, primarily, plutonium; highefficiency technology of centrifugal enrichment, etc., which would inevitably result in the increasing risk of stealing fissile materials and changing nuclear technologies from peaceful to military activity. This is particularly evident with the increasing threat of nuclear and radiation terrorism with the widening scope of potential application of nuclear science and technology. The prevention of proliferation is nowadays more urgent than ever. In these circumstances, it becomes more evident that only institutional, technology and/or prohibitive (control) measures of international organizations do not provide absolute guarantee, especially in the context of potential threat of terrorism. A crucial role of Control, Accounting and Physical Protection is definitely increasing (this is a necessary condition). But also as it was with the development of Nuclear Safety Culture after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the problem of educating, developing Nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear security culture in mass consciousness of population and authorities of all levels (as a second-order condition) has become a high priority. Nuclear technologies determine a new level of social-economical development of a state; their development results in increasing the share of intelligent product and facilitates eventually the transfer from raw-based to industrial economy. The circumstances as indicated complicate the answer to the question about the role of nuclear technologies for the future of mankind when following only market considerations around the nuclear power problems. Turning back to the energy application of nuclear technology, the following should be noted. The planned development of nuclear power is a part of the state energy strategy, one of the components of the optimal composition of different energy sources. This composition is based on different requirements, limitations, initial and boundary conditions as well as on economic analysis with regard for ecology and safety. This is especially urgently now, when there occurs a change in the development paradigm of energy systems that consists in the passing of a long period of their independent coexistence and mutual competition to the benefit of search for synergy ways of the development with the maximum use of advantageous features of each energy technology. At the same time, there are additional limitations for the nuclear power resulting from the requirements of non-proliferation and physical protection within the framework of existing international agreements. This may in some cases significantly limit the economic competitiveness of this energy source and exclude it from the consideration. Thus, the problems of nuclear technology are systematic in nature; not only the human progress but also the maintenance of civilization depend on their solving. These problems are interconnected and cover many spheres of human life and concern all the countries in the world. Aggravation of some or other aspects is dynamic in nature, depending on the social-political environment, which appears as an objective evolution factor. At the present time, it became apparent that solving the problems of nuclear technology would require joint efforts of all mankind. III.1.3. Nuclear culture The dual-use nature of nuclear technology requires making strategic and tactical 115

decisions balanced by various benefits, risks and liabilities. Simultaneous public awareness of both powerful potential and high risks causes the uncertainty in social attitudes towards the nuclear power, under conditions of which it has to be developed. It seems surprising that both negative problems of the nuclear power and its potential become a reference point, a measure of comparison, the framework through which quite other global processes and phenomena can be analyzed. This once again underlines the important role the nuclear science and technology plays in the human life. As a natural result, following the experience of nuclear power development (progress and failures) there appear such projects as Security Culture, Responsible Science Program the new projects of the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) in Moscow. On the one hand, the analysis and generalization of the results of the nuclear power development lead to the formation of the own Nuclear Culture: Nuclear safety, Nuclear non-proliferation and security, Nuclear power ecology, Nuclear infrastructure education, control, medicine, science, agriculture, etc. It becomes more evident that the Nuclear Culture (the need for education of the population) must be introduced for the success of the future nuclear era (especially, for new countries that are starting and planning the use of nuclear energy). The prevention of nuclear technology and materials misuse requires a comprehensive package of control (protection, control and accounting), political and institutional (NPT, etc.) measures together with increasing the education level of population including specialists and managers, i.e. what we call the introduction of Nuclear Culture. This is especially important for the future development of nuclear power, as the innovation technologies of the future being considered currently: fast neutron reactor FR, closed uraniumplutonium NFC, smallsized NPP, etc. substantially increase the risk of nuclear proliferation, also due to the growth of nuclear facilities and plant personnel, increase of flows of nuclear materials transportation and reprocessing, etc. III.1.4. NPP and NFC of the future International Scientific and Technical Cooperation At the same time, the nuclear power can be developed as large-scale energy technology comparable in size to the organic power industry and become eventually the basis of energy security only provided that these contradictions be resolved and the practical feasibility of solutions for the above problems be demonstrated. Furthermore, the nuclear power will not be able to settle the problem of replacing organic fuel without considerable expansion of its application: participation in industrial and household heat supply, in regional power industry, solving the problem of transport fuel development. Only with the introduction into the above mentioned areas, the nuclear power can reach a level of 3040% in the total energy balance, where the share of organic fuel is currently 8085%. As the experience showed, the problem is much more complicated than the problem of creating state-of-the-art nuclear weapon. This is evidenced by the history of solving the problem of the development of commercial NPP with fast reactor and corresponding costeffective NFC that has not been solved by any country individually for more than 60 years of large financial, material and human efforts. On this way the international scientifictechnical cooperation, new international innovation projects and new international initiatives in the field of NFC internationalization provide a real way to consolidation of human, financial capacities and resources of leading nuclear states for meeting the key challenges facing the nuclear technology (Fig. III.8) 116

[6, 7].

FIG. III.8. Nuclear energy development strategy (GEN-IV) in XXI century (the USA), GW. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System, PRIS. The Future of Nuclear Power. An interdisciplinary MIT Study (2003). OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand, (2008). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options. IAEA TECDOC Series No.1587 (2008). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Fast Reactor Database: 2006 Update, TEC/DOC/1531, Vienna (2006). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Innovative Technologies for Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Nuclear Power (Proc. Int. Conf. Vienna, 2004), IAEACSP24, IAEA, Vienna (2004). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear technology Review, Vienna (2010).

117

CONCLUDING REMARKS Lecture course was prepared by the Scientific Team under leadership of Prof. V.M. Murogov with participation PhD A.A. Andrianov, PhD A.A. Natalenko, PhD A.I. Voropaev, researches: A.A. Zolotukhina, V.V. Holev and others, in the framework of Contract IAEA with the use of published materials: their own and kindly provided by IAEA staff and other organizations.

118