Long Term Sustainability of Nuclear Fuel Resources

Pevec, Dubravko; Knapp, Vladimir; Trontl, Krešimir

doi:10.5772/33517

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our estimates in Ref. [9] are providing the support for this prediction. Supporting argument for the selection of open nuclear fuel cycle follows from consideration that plutonium produced in LWR till 2065 would be more valuable to preserve options considering fission energy production after 2065.…”

Section: Selection Of Fuel Sustainable Proven Nuclear Technology Up Tsupporting

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Carbon Emission Impact for Energy Strategy in Which All Non-CCS Coal Power Plants Are Replaced by NPPs

Knapp¹,

Matijević²,

Pevec³

et al. 2017

JEPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A threat of global warming should convince the public to accept a nuclear fission energy contribution to climate change mitigation, at least for the climate critical years up to 2065. The nuclear fission energy is available now, with proven reactors, such as advanced LWR (light water reactors). Nuclear strategy in this paper outlines a proposal to replace all coal power plants (without carbon and capture storage system) with nuclear power plants in the period 2025-2065. Assuming once through advanced LWR technology, one would need nuclear capacity of 1,600 GW to replace coal power plants in that period. Corresponding reduction of emission would amount to 11.8 Gt of CO 2. This energy strategy would reduce carbon emission by approximately 22% in the year 2065 and would be covered by projected uranium resources. An estimation of replacement costs showed that future carbon tax has a considerable potential to offset higher costs of nuclear replacement power.

show abstract

Section: Selection Of Fuel Sustainable Proven Nuclear Technology Up Tsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…The uranium requirements for operating these reactors in the period 2065-2105 would amount to 6. [9]. A decision on 40 years or 60 years of operation life would come from other considerations.…”

Section: A Comment On Advanced Lwr Reactors Operations After 2065mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Emission Impact for Energy Strategy in Which All Non-CCS Coal Power Plants Are Replaced by NPPs

Knapp¹,

Matijević²,

Pevec³

et al. 2017

JEPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, working with scientists from the University of Zagreb and the Academy of Sciences, we showed, for the first time, that nuclear fission had the potential on a worldwide scale to effectively contribute towards the mitigation of global warming by replacement of fossil fuels (15). This was confirmed by published research in the years 2010-2019 (16,17,18,19). These publications were important as they demonstrated the possibility of using fission energy to combat global warming at an earlier phase, before solar energy could make a significant contribution.…”

Section: Work On Global Warming By the Zagreb Groupmentioning

confidence: 66%

On the Future of Fission and Solar Energy

Knapp¹

2021

joe

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our attitudes towards the risks of climate change must be reconsidered. We must recognise that the consequences will be huge and inevitable if we do not act now. Better to accept a few false alarms rather than be unprepared for a climate catastrophe. An outstanding example is the calculation by groups from Germany and the UK in 2009 (1) of the allowable emissions of CO2 before a 2°C increase in global temperature is exceeded. This leaves very little time, only 4 to 8 years, for mitigation measures. Nuclear fission now presents a formidable fleet of some 450 reactors benefitting from over 50 years of operational experience. Throughout decades of development, they reached outstanding safety standards, exceeding those of most renewable sources. However, the threat of climate change is calling this perspective into question as nuclear technology requires long-term stability of institutions. The future of nuclear fission will be determined after the expiration of the next decade with the development of hydro, solar and wind energy as replacements. For Croatia, in view of future climate insecurity, we cannot recommend the construction of a nuclear power plant built to operate from 2043 to 2083 (2) as a replacement for the outgoing NE Krško plant. Instead, we should intensify the development of our renewable resources.

show abstract

“…It also discusses the fuel sufficiency after 2065. Further details which show that with advanced nuclear technologies of Generation 4 sufficiency of nuclear fuel should not be a problem are given in [13,26]. We could not have the same confidence in predicting the contribution to emission reduction from energy saving, from increased efficiency of energy use and from many other ways, some unknown today, which could reduce carbon emission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future without Nuclear Energy; is it Feasible, is it Sensible?

Knapp¹,

Pevec²

2022

joe

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering the necessity and future role of nuclear energy as relevant to the climate problem, we have focused on the period to the year 2065. For quantification of the required emission reduction we have used IEA WEO 2009 and WEO 2011 data as presented in their Reference strategies predicting emissions with business as usual practices, and WEO 450 Energy strategies which show the time development of allowed emissions consistent with a limit on the global temperature increase of 2 ºC and the peak CO2 concentration of 450 ppm. By extrapolating these data to the year 2065 we obtain 77.4 GtCO2-eq for Reference emission and 10 GtCO2-eq for WEO 450 strategy allowing emission, resulting in 67.4 GtCO2-eq reduction required to come down to sustainable WEO 450 trajectory. The large contributions to emission reduction from fusion energy and fossil fuel with carbon separation and storage are not likely. Main carbon non-emitting sources assumed in the years up to 2065 are proven technology nuclear fission and renewable sources. In our specified strategy aimed to achieve WEO 450 target we assumed an energy mix including nuclear power build-up in the period 2025-2065 to the level of 3300 GW in 2065. With the resulting nuclear contribution of 25.2 GtCO2 to the total required emission reduction of 67.4 GtCO2, what remains for renewable sources, energy saving and increased efficiency of energy use to contribute are prodigious 42.2 GtCO2-eq. Assuming that energy saving and more efficient energy use will by 2065 effect an annual reduction between 10 to 16 GtCO2-eq, remaining 26.2 to 32.2 GtCO2, respectively 27290 and 33540 TWh would be the task for renewable energy sources. Our estimates about contribution of renewable sources going as far as 2065 are based on EREC prediction for EU and on our extension to world total with EREC and GWEC prediction as a guide. Our high, but still credible estimates of predicted world renewable energy contribution by 2065 come to the similar figures between 29260 and 36180 TWh. However, without nuclear contribution in 2065, renewable energy contribution would have to be doubled, practically impossible task in the time period in consideration. Resulting contributions by renewable sources, probably their upper limits, allow some conclusions about the role of nuclear energy in future decades. By combining highest contributions from energy saving, efficiency increase and other measures to reduce emission, apart from energy production, with highest prediction for renewable sources contribution, we obtain the minimum nuclear energy requirement of about 2190 GW in 2065. This minimum nuclear strategy should be planned and prepared for, unless there is strong evidence that other carbon free energy sources (CCS or fusion) could be developed in time. Expansion of nuclear power by about 1800 GW by 2065 would come from different and already developed industrial sector, which can give its contribution to the energy mix, without obstructing the build-up of renewable sources. It would not be wise to forfeit nuclear contribution at least in the period to 2065, critical for the control of climate change.

show abstract

Long Term Sustainability of Nuclear Fuel Resources

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Carbon Emission Impact for Energy Strategy in Which All Non-CCS Coal Power Plants Are Replaced by NPPs

Carbon Emission Impact for Energy Strategy in Which All Non-CCS Coal Power Plants Are Replaced by NPPs

On the Future of Fission and Solar Energy

Future without Nuclear Energy; is it Feasible, is it Sensible?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About