Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen
Senior Scientist
Ceedata Consultancy
Chaam, Netherlands
February 2008
This report is an update of the original report published on this website:
Nuclear power the energy balance
by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith
The original report is still available on this website: see below.
In this update the author gratefully incorporated numerous valuable comments and critical questions from independent consultants, NGOs and scientists at large companies and at universities and scientific institutions. A short selection:
Australia: University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University.
Belgium: NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven.
Germany: Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt.
Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten.
Switzerland: CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich.
United Kingdom: Imperial College London, University of Edinburgh, Oxford Research Group London.
United States of America: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University.
Objectives of this study
This study is aiming to present in the most accessible way the scientific and physical aspects of nuclear power, that are relevant for its role as energy source in our society.
Here we address two main issues:
• The potential contribution of nuclear power to the world energy supply in the future, from a physical point of view.
• To what extent nuclear power could contribute to the mitigation of the anthropogenic climate change in the future.
Safety issues and proliferation risks are not directly addressed.
The sheer complexity of the nuclear system turns out to be a major hurdle in understanding the many different aspects of the civil application of nuclear power. Free access to all information, prerequisite for conscious choices by the civil policy makers, happens, is very difficult.
A number of nuclear institutes which policy makers and governments rely on for information regarding nuclear affairs, such as WNA (World Nucear Association), NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute), UIC (Uranium Information Centre) and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), are organisations with a vested interest in nuclear power. These institutes are directed towards promoting nuclear energy, and are not necessarily neutral scientific institutes.
Summary
Nuclear power is not just an energy technology. Nuclear power is a unique complex of technical, economical, political and military interests.
Technically the nuclear energy system is by far the most complex energy system ever designed. Apart from its technical complexity, the nuclear system is also unique by its exceedingly long stay time. The completion of the sequence of activities related to one commercial nuclear power station, here called a nuclear project, from the start of construction through the safe disposal of its last radioactive waste, may take 100-150 years.
This study is a physical analysis of the nuclear system: the full technical and industrial complex, needed to generate electricity from uranium. The main issues are the potential contribution of nuclear power to the world energy supply in the future and to the mitigation of the anthropogenic climate change in the future. Safety issues and proliferation risks are not directly addressed.
We analyzed all energy inputs needed to operate the nuclear system and balanced these inputs with the energy output of the nuclear reactor: the amount of electricity put into the grid. Furthermore we analyzed the main parameters determining the energy balance, of which the grade of the uranium ore turned out to be the most important.
Some novel concepts are introduced, to make the results of this study better accessible: the, the ‘energy cliff’, the ‘CO2 trap’, the ‘coal ceiling’ and the ‘energy debt’. Beyond the energy cliff the nuclear system cannot generate net useful energy and will produce more carbon dioxide than a fossil-fueled power station (CO2 trap). Nuclear power may run off the energy cliff with the lifetime of new nuclear build.
Beyond the coal ceiling more uranium ore has to be processed each year to feed one nuclear power plant than the annual coal tonnage of coal consumed by a coal-fired power plant to generate the same amount of electricity.
The exceedingly large and long-term energy debt, combined with the insecurities of the nuclear energy system will seriously delay the transition of the world energy supply to a really sustainable one. A delay we cannot afford. The nuclear option would absorb a disproportionate part of the ability to cope of the society in a ever diverging need for energy, high quality materials and human skills.
The ease with which the nuclear industry waives the unsolved problems of nuclear power suggests an attitude of ‘après nous le déluge’.
Misconceptions
Discussions on nuclear power often are troubled by implicite but persistent misconceptions:
• Ultimately every uranium atom in the ground or sea could be recovered, with no or a negligible energy input.
• Almost every uranium atom extracted from the ground or sea could be fissioned.
Both assumptions are false and easy to refute by applying basic physical laws, as is shown in this study.
A third, also implicite, misconception seems the view of many people talking about electricity generation thinking they’re talking about the whole energy supply.
Unique features of the nuclear system
The nuclear system has some unique features, no other energy system has, being:
• the energy source is a metal to be extracted from ores,
• the irreversible generation of immense quantities of radioactivity,
• the extremely long-term commitments of 100-150 years,
• very large uncertainties regarding the completion of a nuclear project.
Once started, a nuclear reactor generates unavoidable and very large amounts of radioactive waste, posing immeasurable risks to man and society. The safe cleanup of the nuclear legacy requires a number of processes, each consuming large amounts of materials, human effort and energy.
Energy is a conserved quantity, whereas the value of money is unpredictable beyond a very short time horizon. Energy debts cannot just be written off as uncollectable. Just for that reason we choose for energy analysis as our tool.
Methodology of this study
This study comprises a full life cycle assessment (LCA) and energy analysis of the technical/industrial system which makes possible the generation of electricity from uranium. The LCA is based on the light-water reactor (LWR) in the once-through mode.
All data used in the analysis originate from the open literature of the nuclear industry itself.
Due to the many variables involved, the full energy analysis of the nuclear system is complicated.
The methodology used in this study has been validated by numerous peer reviewed publications in the 1970s and 1980s. One of us (Storm van Leeuwen) published the results of an earlier study based on the same methodology in Energy Policy, June 1985 (click here to download a pdf copy (877 kB).
History of this study
The study started in 2000, on request of the Green parties of the European Parliament, to prepare a background document for the UN Climate Conference COP6 (The Hague, 13-24 November 2000).
After that conference the results were placed on the web in 2001. Since its first publication the study has seen several revisions. We thank our readers all over the world who sent us, and are still sending, their comments.
You can contact us at the email address storm@ceedata.nl
Publications
Short selection of recent publications on nuclear power.
A new paradigm. Climate change and nuclear power,
presentation at the Institute of Physiscs, London, 9 March 2006,
Climate change and nuclear power,
CERN, Geneva, April 2006
http://ihp-lx2.ethz.ch/energy21/Links.html
Published by the Oxford Research Group, London, 2006, 2007
• Energy from uranium (1023 kB)
• Factsheet 4: Energy security and uranium reserves (877 kB)
• Secure energy? Civil nuclear power, security and global warming( (1.3 MB)
See also:
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk
presentation: Nuclear power and global warming (1.5 MB)
Seminar Kernenergie in de 21ste eeuw. Realiteit en beloften,
Brussels, Federaal Parlement, 19 Oktober 2006
Greenpeace, WWF, IEW, Bond Beter Leefmileu, Voor Moeder Aarde.
See also:
Atomstrom ist keine Lösung für Klimaprobleme und Energieknappheit, (239 kB)
Energie und Umwelt, Dezember 2006 (in German).
See also:
Reviews
The original study has been extensively reviewed by ISA of the University of Sydney:
Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia,
A study undertaken for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet of the Australian Government,
ISA, The University of Sydney, 3 November 2006,
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/umpner/docs/commissioned/ISA_report.pdf
Zittel W & Schindler J,
Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy,
Energy Watch Group, EWG Paper 1/06, December 2006,
Critique
Critique and rebuttal:
Critique:
www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.htm
In 2003 we added a Rebuttal to our site. This document refutes criticism that was placed on the web by the nuclear industry, the World Nuclear Association, WNA (www.world-nuclear.org ), in an attempt to discredit the conclusions reached in an earlier version of this website. Every point of criticism is completely refuted with facts and calculations, all based on publications of the industry itself.
It is unpleasant to note that some of the criticism was based on apparently deliberate misquotation of our text. The criticism of WNA has been updated several times since its first appearance on the web.
Table of contents
Due to its length the new report has been divided into a number of parts (labeled A, B, C, . . .), which can be downloaded separately. Each part addresses certain aspects or phases of the study and may be updated later on, independently of the other parts. Each part has its own list of references, each reference being coded with a unique code (e.g. Q6) which is used throughout the publications of the author.
Part A (pdf 280 kB) October 2007
Nuclear power in its global context
To place nuclear power in its global context, the current nuclear share of world energy supply and greenhouse gas mitigation is addressed. A confusing manipulation of statistical data is widely used in the official energy statistics, which actually is in conflict with the First Law of thermodynamics. The nuclear share in 2006 was 2.1% of the world energy supply. Consequently, assumed nuclear power is free of greenhouse gases (which it is not), the nuclear contribution to the mitigation of the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases would be at most 2.1%.
References
Part B (pdf 512 kB) October 2007
The reference reactor
B1 Which technology?
B2 Primary reactor parameters
B3 Load factor and operational lifetime
B4 Secondary reactor parameters
B5 The nuclear system
References
Part C (pdf 668 kB) October 2007
Energy analysis – the method
C1 Methodology
C2 Energy balance of the nuclear system
C3 Performance parameters
C4 Energy debt and CO2 debt
C5 Other greenhouse gases
References
Part D (pdf 1 MB) October 2007
Uranium
D1 World known recoverable uranium resources
D2 World known recoverable uranium resources by grade
D3 Recovery of uranium from the earth’s crust
D4 Energy requirements of uranium recovery
D5 In situ leach (ISL) uranium mining
D6 Mine reclamation
D7 Process analysis of the Ranger mine
D8 Olympic Dam
D9 Uranium from unconventional resources: phosphates, shales and granites
D10 Uranium from seawater
D12 MOX fuel
D11 World uranium outlook
References
Part E (pdf 640 kB) October 2007
Energy analysis – process data
E1 Nuclear process chain: outline and uranium mass balance
E2 Processes of the nuclear chain
E3 Summary tables of the basic chain parameters
References
Part F (pdf 1.2 MB) December 2007
Reactor: construction
operation, maintenance and refurbishments
decommissioning and dismantling
F1 Construction cost
F2 Construction materials requirements
F3 Construction energy - other studies
F4 Construction energy - methodology and results
F5 Operation, maintenance and refurbishments
F6 Decommissioning and dismantling
References
Part G (pdf 1.3 MB) January 2008
Energy analysis – results
G1 Outline of the energy analysis
G2 System parameters with a fixed value
G3 Energy inputs of the first core
G4 Energy inputs of one reload charge
G5 Lifetime parameters
G6 Energy cliff, CO2 trap and energy debt
References
Part H (pdf 672 kB) February 2008
The future of nuclear power
H1 Scenarios
H2 Depletion of the known uranium resources
H3 Uranium supply in the future
H4 Uranium supply: conclusions
References
Original report (August 2005)
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith
Table of contents
Contains short curricula vitae of the authors.
Introduction (410 kB).
In the Introduction we describe the methodology followed in our analysis. The advantages of a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of nuclear power plants are compared with an analysis based on consideration of monetary cost/benefit studies. The fundamental physical criteria for sustainability are presented as grounded in the first and second law of thermodynamics. An overview of the energy costs is given. The technical parameters used in the analysis of a nuclear power plant are also given, for the operating mode of a nuclear reactor (system) under the currently applied high efficiency mode.
Chapter 1 (151 kB)
The CO2-emission of the nuclear life-cycle
We devote Chapter 1 to one of the most controversial issues in the current environmental debate: the emission of CO2. We calculate the ratio of the CO2 emission brought about by the use of nuclear energy and that of a gas-burning plant of the same net (electrical) capacity.
If the uranium consumed by the nuclear energy system has been extracted from rich ores the ratio CO2(nuclear/CO2(gas) is much less than unity, giving the impression that the application of nuclear energy would solve the global warming problem.
However as rich ores become exhausted this ratio increases until it finally becomes larger than one, making the use of nuclear energy unfavourable compared to simply burning the (remaining) fossil fuels directly. In the long term the use of nuclear energy provides us with no solution to the problem.
Chapter 2 (348 kB)
From ore to electricity. Energy production and uranium resources
In the second chapter the energy requirements of the nuclear fuel (enriched uranium) is given on the basis of figures from the nuclear mining industry. All industry estimates of the energy costs of energy are based on rich uranium ores. The energy costs of the mining and milling of rich ores is negligible compared to the other energy costs of operating a nuclear power plant, as well as with respect to the energy produced by the power plant. The total energy available from these ores, as listed by the World Nuclear Association, is so small that in order to give a fair picture for the future, one must consider the energy costs of leaner ores.
It turns out that the energy requirements of mining and milling these lean ores may surpass the energy produced by "burning" them in a nuclear reactor.
Chapter 3 (128 kB)
In the third chapter the energy inputs of construction, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear power plant are calculated, assuming 2000 as the year of commissioning.
The costs of decommissioning are lumped together with the construction costs, since even though these costs may actually be incurred fifty or a hundred years after the reactor has stopped producing energy, they should properly be subtracted from the energy produced during the useful lifetime of the plant. For this reason we label them "energy debts". The time at which these energy debts must be paid is irrelevant, quite differently than monetary debts. The latter are, in economic calculations, discounted at an assumed interest rate, and are further subject to the variations in the value of money. It is here that one sees the great value of energy analysis as compared to monetary analysis. Energy is a conserved quantity, whereas the value of money is unpredictable beyond a very short time horizon. Energy debts cannot just be written off as uncollectable.
Chapter 4 (69 kB)
Radioactive Waste; conditioning and disposal
In the fourth chapter the energy costs of the safe sequestration of the immense amounts of radioactive substances produced by nuclear power are calculated. These calculations must, of necessity, be approximate since the gargantuan task of safe disposal has hardly been begun.
Chapter 5 (96 kB).
Technical/Mathematical Summary of Formulas
In the fifth chapter an overview of the formulas used in our study is given for reference.
This file contains all of the literature references used in our study.
