Nuclear Energy The Great Carbon Debate

It is predicted that if emissions were capped at current levels, then atmospheric

greenhouse gas concentrations would reach 550ppm by 2050 resulting in a global
average temperature rise of 2
o
C. Given that 40% of global CO
2
emissions are
produced as a result of electricity generation, this sector has the potential for making
significant contributions to reductions in CO
2

Nuclear power has emerged to become a significant source of electricity. In 2007, 435
nuclear plants supplied 16% of the worlds power constituting in 31 countries around
the world. Roughly 85% of this capacity was in the US (104 plants), France (59
plants, 78% of electricity generation), J apan, Russia, the UK, and Korea.

emissions. But Simon Turner asks is
nuclear power the answer?

Introduction

Nuclear power installed capacity and generation 1980 to 2007

Advocates of nuclear power have framed it as an important part of any solution aimed
at fighting climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Opponents of
nuclear power have responded in kind suggesting nuclear plants are poor substitutes
to other less greenhouse gas intensive generators. But which side is right?

The nuclear power lifecycle

The nuclear power lifecycle is essentially made up of five interconnected stages,
summarised below. A number of studies have been produced, projecting greenhouse
gas emissions relating to the final energy produced by an operational plant, for each
of the five stages. Inevitably these show considerable variation, due in part to the
complexity of techniques and technologies employed in the nuclear process, and the
differing techniques of life cycle analysis used.

Studies have been shown to be particularly sensitive to the grade of uranium ore used
- rich ores embody concentrations of uranium oxide as high as 10%, but 0.2% or less
is usual, and most uranium producers will consider mining ores with concentrations
higher than 0.0004%. This can greatly skew estimates, as uranium of 10% U
3
O
8
has
emissions for mining and milling at just 0.04gCO
2
e/kWh, whereas uranium at 0.013%
grade has associated emissions more than 1500 times greater at 67gCO
2
e/kWh
1
a. Uranium mining
.

1. Front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle


Uranium mining does not differ significantly from mining of coal or other
metalliferous ores. As such, it could not be described as an environmentally friendly
process, whether at the surface as opencast pits up to 250m deep; in underground or
borehole mines; or, in-situ leaching of rocks with sulphuric acid, nitric acid and
ammonia. Mining requires energy inputs such as fuel for mining vehicles; however,
relative to the costs of the whole nuclear energy lifecycle these are very small.

b. Uranium milling

Mined uranium must undergo a series of metallurgical processes to crush, screen, and
wash the ore, letting the heavy uranium settle as the lighter debris is funnelled away
(hard rock ores such as quartz and granites are approximately 3-4 times more energy-
intensive than soft rock ores such as limestones and shales to crush).

The next step is the mill, where acid or alkali baths leach the uranium out of the ore,
producing a bright yellow powder that is about 75% uranium oxide. Both the oxide
and the tailings (remaining rock) remain radioactive, requiring treatment. Acids must
be neutralised with limestone, and made insoluble with phosphates.

c. Uranium conversion and enrichment

Next comes conversion and enrichment where a series of chemical processes are
conducted to remove remaining impurities (the current Magnox stations use natural
unenriched uranium). Natural uranium contains about 0.7% U
235
; the rest is mainly
U
234
or U
238
. In order to bring the concentration of U
235
up to about 4-5% for most
modern reactors, the oxide must be converted to uranium hexafluoride (UF
6
) and then
enriched the two dominant commercial enrichment methods accounting for over
90% of the worlds enrichment capacity are gaseous diffusion and centrifuge. To
supply enough enriched fuel for a standard 1000MW reactor for one year, about 200
tonnes of natural uranium has to be processed.

After enrichment, about 85% of the oxide comes out as waste in the form of depleted
UF
6
which must be stored (this can be used in armour and radiation shielding). The
15% that emerges as enriched uranium is converted into ceramic pellets or uranium
dioxide UO
2
, typically packed in zirconium alloy tubes for Pressurised Water
Reactors (PWRs) and bundled together to form fuel rod assemblies for reactors
(zirconium is a by-product of rutile sand mining, another energy-intensive process).

Projected greenhouse gas emissions Factors affecting emission values.
0.68118gCO
2
e/kWh
2
A range of 2-77gCO
identified by Sovacool
(2008) pooled analysis of studies.

2
a. Type of uranium mining (open-pit mining
produces greater emissions than underground
mines).
e/kWh identified by b. The type of enrichment (gaseous diffusion is

2. Construction

The construction phase of the nuclear lifecycle involves the fabrication,
transportation, and use of materials to build generators, turbines, cooling towers,
control rooms, and other infrastructure. One study for an older 1000MW PWR,
estimated that the typical nuclear plant needs 170,000 tonnes of concrete, 32,000
tonnes of steel, 1363 tonnes of copper, and a total of 205,464 tonnes of other
materials
4
. Many of these are carbon intense: 1 tonne of aluminium has the carbon
equivalent of more than 10,000 tonnes of CO
2
.

Projected greenhouse gas emissions Factors affecting emission values.
0.27-35gCO
2
e/kWh
2


Studies from the UK and Western Europe
report a range of 1.011.5gCO
2
Reactor type being constructed.

e/kWh.

3. Operation

The operation phase of the lifecycle is not without its energy demands. Energy is
needed to manage the cooling and fuel cycles of the plant, as well as for maintenance
and the fuels used for backup generators. Indirect energy use includes the provision of
power during reactor outages, repairs and shutdowns.

Projected greenhouse gas emissions Factors affecting emission values.
0.140gCO
2
e/kWh

Studies of PWR reactors, of the kind proposed
for nuclear new build in the UK typically range
from 0.41.9gCO
2
a. Duration of operation.
e/kWh.

b. Plant capacity factor - studies typically assume
lifetime nuclear capacity factors (85-98%) that do
not seem to match actual performance (the world
average was reported as 81% in May 2002).

4. The backend of the nuclear lifecycle

The backend phase involves:

Fuel processing. Spent fuel must be conditioned for reactors operating on a once-
through fuel cycle, and reprocessed for those employing a closed fuel cycle, as
eventually, radioactive impurities such as barium and krypton, along with
transuranic elements such as americium and neptunium clog the uranium fuelling
a nuclear reaction. The UK Government White Paper on The Future of Nuclear
Power (2008) concludes that it is not currently expecting any reprocessing of
spent fuel from new nuclear power stations.
Dones (2007) is considered typical.

Studies from the UK and Western Europe
typically range from 3.556gCO
2
A study for Torness Power Station in Scotland
by AEA Technology (2006), suggests a figure
of 2.28gCO
e/kWh.

2
/kWh
3
much more energy intense).
.
c. The quality of uranium ore being used.
d. Transport - One study found that in Canada, the
uranium needed to create fuel rods had travelled
more than 4000km before the process was
complete. The International Energy Agency
reports that in Europe most uranium is transported
150-805km by railway, 1250km by boat, or
378km by truck.
Interim storage. Spent fuel is stored on site in cooling ponds pending transport off-
site or long term storage.
Permanent sequestration of waste. Geological repositories must provide protection
against every plausible scenario in which radionuclides might reach the biosphere
or expose humans to dangerous levels of radiation.

Projected greenhouse gas emissions
0.440.75gCO
2
e/kWh

5. Decommissioning

The last stage of the nuclear lifecycle involves the decommissioning and dismantling
of the reactor, as well as reclamation of the uranium mine site where the overburden
of rock covering the area must be replaced and replanted with indigenous vegetation,
and radioactive tailings must be treated and contained.

Projected greenhouse gas emissions Factors affecting emission values.
0.0154.5 gCO
2
e/kWh Reactor type being decommissioned and hence
technologies employed in decommissioning the
total energy required for decommissioning can be as
much as 50% more than the energy needed for
original construction.

Total projected emissions

Total emissions for the nuclear lifecycle range in estimates from 2.83-
200gCO
2
e/kWh. However, looking towards nuclear new build in the UK, with more
efficient reactor designs predicted to have higher availability and longer operating
lives (typically 60 years), and the potential for decommissioning to be undertaken
with lower energy inputs than for previous generations, then maybe we should be
looking towards the lower end of the scale. A study for the Torness Nuclear Power
Station in 2002, gave estimated emissions at 5.056.85 gCO
2
e/kWh, and it is
suggested that the estimates provided are valid when applied to a new programme of
nuclear build.

The UK Government White Paper on The Future of Nuclear Power (2008) considers
7-22gCO
2
e/kWh as a prudent and conservative judgement, fully in line with
authoritative research published by the OECD and the IAEA, and broadly in line with
analysis carried out by the World Energy Council (WEC). The WEC presented a
range of emissions of 5-40gCO
2
e/kWh, the highest figure based on enrichment
carried out entirely through the inefficient and increasingly obsolete diffusion method
rather than the centrifuge process. The WEC figures were endorsed by the IPCC
Working Group III in its Fourth Assessment Report of October 2007, which states
that Total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are below 40gCO
2
/kWh, similar to
those for renewable sources.


How does this compare

Clearly nuclear energy can in no way be described as a carbon-free technology, but
when compared to fossil fuel technologies
5,6,7
then clearly nuclear does have a role to
play in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (data in gCO
2
Coal
e/kWh).

755-1050
(depending on scrubbing)
Oil and Diesel 650-778
Gas 385-500
Nuclear
(worst projected emission value from
J apanese study)
8

200


Clearly, emissions from fossil fuelled power stations are mostly at the point of
generation whereas for nuclear power they occur during the mining and processing of
uranium, and during the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants.

Considering renewables, taking a reasonable view from the published studies
7,9
then
emissions are comparable (data in gCO
2
Biomass
e/kWh).

14 -93 From fertilizer production, harvesting, drying and
transportation
Solar PV 32-58 From extraction of silicon at high temperatures required
for PV modules (accounting for 60% of total energy
requirement)
Hydroelectric 10-30 From the construction of dams
Nuclear 7-22 UK Government White Paper
Wind 5.25-9 (offshore)
4.64-10 (onshore)
From the manufacturing and construction phases, arising
from production of steel for the tower, concrete for
foundations, and epoxy / fibreglass for rotor blades
(accounting for 98% of total life cycle CO
2
emissions)
Nuclear 5.05-6.85 Torness Nuclear Power Station Study

A similar conclusion has been drawn from a number of studies that have used a
consistent life cycle analysis methodology to compare various energy technologies. A
study for the Swedish utility Vattenfall studied full life cycle emissions of nuclear,
hydro, coal, gas, solar cell, peat and wind which the utility uses to produce electricity.
The study concluded that nuclear power produced the smallest amount of CO
2
Nuclear power can be part of an energy mix that reduces greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from energy production in the UK, although in the global context it is argued
that even a 50% emission reduction in the UK by 2025 would constitute less than 1%
of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions
of any
of their electricity sources.

In a study conducted in 2006 by the UKs Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology (POST), nuclear powers lifecycle was evaluated to emit the least amount
of carbon dioxide (very close to wind powers lifecycle emissions) when compared to
other alternatives (fossil fuel, coal, and some renewable energy including biomass and
PV solar panels). The UK Government White Paper on The Future of Nuclear Power
(2008) also draws this conclusion.

Conclusion

.

However, CO
2
Energy security and diversity of supply. Whilst uranium needs to be imported,
there are currently 19 countries producing uranium and 25 countries where
resources of economic interest have been identified most of the uranium for the
UK comes from Australia. The worlds present measured resources of uranium are
enough to last for at least a century at current consumption rates
mitigation potential is only one argument towards renewed investment
in nuclear power in the UK. Clearly, when choosing which technologies to invest in,
UK policy-makers need also to consider:

10
, despite
increased demands from construction programmes in China, J apan and the Middle
East. In the UK, current stocks of uranium and plutonium could fuel three
1000MW reactors for 60 years
11
Stability of the system with provision of a non-intermittent baseload generation.
. This represents a higher level of assured
resource than is normal for most minerals, and of a resource with little or no other
demands placed upon it.
Competition within the energy market to secure long-term affordable energy.
Most of the monetary cost of nuclear power lies in the construction of the power
station, so it becomes economic to extract uranium from lower ore concentrations.
For instance, typically doubling the uranium market price would increase the fuel
cost for a Light Water Reactor by 26% and the electricity cost about 7%, whereas
doubling the price of natural gas would typically add 70% to the price of
electricity from that source.

These must then be weighed against public acceptance, final waste management
solutions, and proliferation risk.

Getting the balance right is not necessarily an easy task but with robust designs,
rigorous procedures and scrutiny by independent regulators, nuclear power certainly
has its place in the development of a diverse energy mix in the UK, along with
development of renewable technologies and energy conservation measures.


1
Storm van Leeuwen, J .W., Smith, P. (2007). Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance. Netherlands
2
Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical
Survey. Energy Policy 36, Elsevier
3
Forster, D. (2006) Carbon Footprint of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. AEA Technology
4
White, S. C. (1995). Energy Balance and Lifetime Emissions from Fusion, Fission and Coal
Generated Electricity. University of Wisconsin
5
Gagnon et al (2002). Lifecycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options: the Status of
Research in Year 2001. Energy Policy 30
6
Barnaby F., Kemp J . (2007). Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power. Oxford
Research Group. Oxford
7
Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (2006)
8
Tokimatsu et al (2006). Evaluation of Lifecycle CO
2
Emissions from the J apanese Electric Power
Sector in the 21
st
Century under Various Nuclear Scenarios. Energy Policy 34
9
Pehnt, M. (2006). Dynamic Lifecycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies. Renewable
Energy 31
10
Annual Report. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2008
11
Uranium and Plutonium: Macro-Economic Study. NDA, 2007