MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 3 Commissariat à l’énergie atomique e-den A monograph of the Nuclear Energy Directorate Nuclear energy of the future: what research for which objectives? Éditions techniques MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 2 DEN monographs A monograph of the Nuclear Energy Directorate Commissariat à l’énergie atomique, 31-33, rue de la Fédération 75752 Paris Cedex 15 Tél. : +33-1 40 56 10 00 Scientific comitee Michel Alexandre, Michel Beauvy, Georges Berthoud, Mireille Defranceschi, Gérard Ducros, Yannick Guérin, Yves Limoge, Charles Madic, Gérard Santarini, Jean-Marie Seiler, Pierre Sollogoub, Étienne Vernaz, Research Directors. The following people participated in this work: Fanny Bazile, Patrice Bernard, Bernard Bonin, Jacques Bouchard, Jean-Claude Bouchter, Bernard Boullis, Franck Carré, Jean Cazalet, Alain Marvy, Valérie Moulin, Emmanuel Touron, Yves Terrien. Publishing Supervisor: Philippe Pradel. Editorial Board: Bernard Bonin (Managing Editor), Bernard Bouquin, Martine Dozol, Michel Jorda, Jean-Pierre Moncouyoux, Alain Vallée. Administrator: Fanny Bazile. Editor: Jean-François Parisot. Graphic concept: Pierre Finot. Cover illustration: Véronique Frouard. Correspondence: all correspondence can be addressed to the Editor or to CEA / DEN Direction scientifique, CEA Saclay 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex. Tél. : + 33-1 69 08 16 75. © CEA Saclay and Groupe Moniteur (Éditions du Moniteur), Paris, 2006 The information contained in this document can be freely reproduced, with the agreement of the Editorial Board and due mention of its origin. MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 5 Preface After a dazzling start in the 1950s as a promising, inexhaustible, cost-effective energy source, nuclear energy was rejected by majority opinion in several countries in North America and Western Europe three to four decades later, suddenly bringing its development to a halt. Although the 1973 and 1979 oil crises marked the beginning of massive construction pro- grammes in the countries most heavily penalized by oil imports, France and Japan in par- ticular, they were paradoxically followed by a gap in nuclear spending, first in the United States and then in Western Europe. However, more recent oil market tensions and emerg- ing concerns over non-renewable natural resources should have increased such spending. There are surely many reasons for this pause, which can in part be explained by the acci- dents in Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, which deeply impacted public opinion. On top of this, ecological movements and Green parties made their (highly publi- cized) fight against nuclear energy a key part of their platform. In France, whose population, with the exception of one case, had never disputed nuclear plant construction, negative attitudes began to surface in the late 1980s concerning the nuclear waste issue. Given Andra’s growing difficulties in finding an underground laboratory site, the Government decided to suspend work in favour of a one-year moratorium and sub- mitted the issue to the OPECST (French parliamentary evaluation office for scientific and technological choices). The Act of 30 December 1991 on nuclear waste management implemented the essence of the OPECST’s recommendations, in particular its definition of a diversified research pro- gramme and the basis for democratic discussion, thus helping calm the debate. That said, although it is now an accepted fact that long-term nuclear waste management is a neces- sity, there is still no guarantee that France will continue its electronuclear programme: for this reason, the recent energy act of 13 July 2005 merely aimed to “keep nuclear options open through 2020”. However, this century should be marked by renewed collective awareness that our gener- ation’s energy needs cannot be met without concern for the environment and without pre- serving future generations’ rights to satisfy these same needs. This concept of sustainable development is an inevitable challenge to our society. Today, it goes unquestioned that global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emis- sions is a human-caused problem.The only remaining debate concerns the consequences of this climate change. Industrialized nations, which are for the most part responsible for the current situation, should feel particularly obliged to voluntarily take steps towards reducing emissions of these gases. Nuclear energy should gain considerable ground since, by nature, it does not produce this type of emissions and yet is an abundant, reliable and cost-effec- tive energy source. The situation varies from country to country. On one hand, European countries such as Germany and Belgium have chosen to progressively stop using nuclear energy, even with- out making plans for reversibility. On the other hand, countries like China, South Korea, or, Nuclear energy of the future: 5 what research for which objectives? MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 6 closer to home, Finland, are making huge investments in developing this technology. Furthermore, according to a recent statement by President Bush, the United States has decided to launch new nuclear power plant construction projects over the next ten years, picking up a process that had been on hold for over a quarter-century. Following France’s national energy debate that took place in the first half of 2003, the par- liamentary bill on energy adopted in June 2005 established the decision to build a demon- strator EPR in preparation for the switchover when currently operating plants will be shut down. Several signs lead us to believe that there could soon be a nuclear energy "renaissance", especially if the barrel of crude stays at or above the 70 USD mark. Nevertheless, the future of nuclear energy in our country, as in many others, will depend largely on its capacity to properly address the following two concerns: - First, its social acceptability: nuclear energy must be deployed under stringent safety and security conditions, generating as little final waste as possible, with perfect control of the waste that is produced in terms of its possible impact on human health and the environment. - Secondly, the availability of nuclear resources: it is important to guarantee a long-term supply of fuel, by preparing to resort to more economical natural fissile material systems which are less dependent on market fluctuations. These topics are a key part of the CEA Nuclear Energy Division’s work. Indeed, this divi- sion is a major player in the research that aims to support the nuclear industry’s efforts to improve reactor safety and competitiveness, providing the Public Authorities with the ele- ments necessary for making decisions on the long-term management of nuclear waste, and, finally, developing the nuclear systems of the future, essentially fast neutron reactors, which offer highly promising innovations in waste management and raw material use. As a fervent partisan of sharing as much scientific and technical knowledge as possible to a broad public, I believe that this research work, which calls upon a diverse array of scien- tific disciplines often at top worldwide level, should be presented and explained in priority to anyone who would like to form their own opinion on nuclear energy. For this reason, it is with great satisfaction that I welcome the publication of these DEN monographs. Through close reading of these works, they can become an invaluable source of information for the, I hope, many readers. I would like to thank all the researchers and engineers who, by contributing to this project, helped share their experience and knowledge. Bernard BIGOT High Commissioner for Atomic Energy MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 7 Introduction Today energy problems are global problems. It is on the There are two conditions for this: firstly that we know how to international scale that we share resources and risks, in par- respond to public opinion concerns.Then that we are capable ticular those linked to climate changes caused by greenhouse of proposing new nuclear systems, even more effective in gas emissions. terms of safety or economy, but, above all, that will place in highest priority the sustainable development and non-pro- For this reason any new generation* of nuclear energy pro- liferation criteria. duction must be thought out based on serious projections on the international scale. But, making nuclear power acceptable is above all demonstrat- ing it “with proof”. From this point of view, the exemplary oper- Recent studies carried out by the World Energy Council or by ation of nuclear reactors for over 15 years, throughout the the International Energy Agency of the OECD provide us with world, is an invaluable advantage. The availability rates are the following trends: excellent, incidents, even minor, are decreasing and this enables public confidence to be gained. • An energy demand which will increase by 50 to 60% before 2020; In the last few years waste management has been seen as •A demand which will increase predominately in developing the main problem of nuclear power for public opinion. It alone countries; probably explains part of the defiance regarding nuclear power •Fossil energy which will continue to provide for the majority so well that it may have no future if we do not provide solutions of our needs; for it. That said, contrary to the idea often spread, technical • Finally, in spite of national efforts, CO2 emissions which will solutions do exist… probably be greater than the Kyoto objectives. In France, as in other countries in fact, the management of less active waste and of that which has a shorter lifetime, is a reality already implemented in industrial disposal Mtep centres. It must be remembered that this repre- 16,000 sents more than 90% of the overall volume of 14,000 nuclear waste. 12,000 Renewables The question of high level and long lived waste, 10,000 Hydrogen that which, with a few percent of the volumes, con- 8,000 Nuclear centrates most of the radioactivity, remains.