Supplementary memorandum by Dr Karsten
Neuhoff, University of Cambridge
Do uranium resources constraints limit the contribution
nuclear power can make to global emission reductions?
It is sometimes argued that renewable energy
sources do not have to be supported because nuclear power can
address the climate change problem.
By 2050 global CO2 emissions have to be reduced by
at least 50%. Even with ambitious efficiency improvements final
energy consumption is likely to remain at high levels, due to
ongoing economic growth. Large scale exploitation of low carbon
energy sources is therefore necessary. Can nuclear the job by
itself?
In 2004 nuclear energy served globally 3% of
final energy consumption. The number might be surprisingly low—from
the perspective of OECD countries with an average share of 20%
nuclear power generation. But once non-OECD countries are considered,
and all the non-power energy consumption is included, the role
of nuclear looks surprisingly low, particularly in contrast to
various renewable energy sources that contribute globally to 17%
of final energy consumption.
Some of the scenarios that are currently discussed
envisage that nuclear power generation will increase by 2030 by
13% (IEA 2006 base case), or even 41% (IEA 2006, alternative policy
scenario). But in both cases, the share of nuclear in final energy
consumption is declining. The World Nuclear Association assumes
in the upper scenario a doubling of global nuclear capacity, which
increases the share of nuclear to global electricity generation
from 16% to 18% in 2030 (WNA 2007).
These are the scenarios that are typically discussed
by industry representatives and analysts—and it is generally
agreed that uranium resources will suffice under these scenarios.
But please note, in all these scenarios, nuclear energy will only
serve 3% of final energy consumption on a global scale.
I think the interesting question is whether
uranium resources would suffice if nuclear power were to make
a contribution to global energy supply corresponding to the time
that is spend in many countries and international for a to discuss
the topic. Lets therefore assume global nuclear generation capacity
increases from 364 GW in 2003 to 3640 GW and power generated from
nuclear increases from 2.740 TWh to 27.400 TWh so that 30% of
final energy consumption would be supplied by nuclear power (assuming
energy efficiency measures keep demand constant). For how long
would the global resource base suffice to meet this demand?
The main determinant of the answer is whether
nuclear power uses an open, once through fuel cycle, or whether
spent fuel is reprocessed. The extensive study of MIT argues that
"the best choice to meet [cost, safety, proliferation and
waste management challenges] is the open, once-through fuel cycle"
(Ansolabehere et al., 2003). There is currently limited support
for reprocessing activities, given that they facilitate access
to plutonium.
To fuel nuclear power stations in an open-cycle
approach, about 200 tonnes of Uranium are required to fuel 1GW
power station for one year (capacity factor.9, based on Ansolabehere
e.a., 2003). Our envisaged fleet of 3640GW would therefore require
0.73 million tons of uranium per year.
The "Red Book" jointly published by
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Energy Agency has
traditionally been the main source for data on uranium resources.
4.7 million tonnes identified resources, 3.3 million tons reasonably
assured and 1.5 million tons inferred resources that can be captured
at costs below 130$/kg Uranium are listed (OECD/NEA and IAEA 2006).
There are some discussions whether additional resources could
be identified with increased global effort and the WEA (2000)
estimates resources at extraction costs below $260/kg Uranium
at 20 million tons, while Ansolabehere e.a. (2003) argue that
with increased demand also exploration would increase, and the
Australian Uranium Information Center suggests 30 million tons
might be recoverable at prices below $80/kg (2000).
These numbers suggest that above mentioned global
fleet could be operated between 6 and 40 years—dependent
on the resource assessments. Particularly the lower range, between
six and 13 years based on the "Red Book" is surprisingly
low. This is driven by the tenfold increase of uranium consumption
relative to current levels. Given thus limitations, it is sometimes
argued that the large scale exploitation of uranium resources
in sea water (three parts per billion) should be explored, and
Ansolabehere e.a. (2003) refer to Japanese research that estimates
costs between $300-$500/kg of Uranium. Also, instead of uranium
based nuclear power generation, some countries like India are
contemplating to explore the thorium based cycle. The approach
was initially not pursued because it is less suitable fur military
use, but might for exactly this reason be more suitable.
This note does not to argue for an increase
of nuclear power production by the factor of 10. It seems that
even nuclear industry representatives do not consider such an
increase viable, eg because of constraints on qualified labour.
Also other implications, like the requirement to increase safety
standards if the likelihood of an accident is to stay at similar
levels are not considered. The purpose of the note is merely to
argue that nuclear power can even in ambitious scenarios only
make a limited contribution to meet global demand for low-carbon
energy.
This implies that in the European context, the
ambition to pursue climate policy in a manner that engages other
countries requires a strong focus on a portfolio of renewable
energy technologies.
REFERENCES
Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray P E, Holdren
J P, Joskow P L, Lester R K, Moniz E J, Todreas N E. (2003) The
future of nuclear power, an interdisciplinary MIT study, Boston.
International Energy Agency (2006) World Energy
Outlook.
OECD/NEA and IAEA (2006) Uranium Resources, Production
and Demand 2005
Uranium Information Center (2000) Nuclear Electricity,
6th edition.
WEA (2000) World Energy Assessment: Energy and
the Challenge of Sustainability, New York: UNDP.
World Nuclear Association (2007) The global nuclear
fuel market, Supply and Demand 2007-2030. www.world-nuclear.org
| 
