The Sustainable Nuclear Energy

Technology Platform A vision report

SPECIAL REPORT

EUR 22842
Interested in European research?

Research*eu is our monthly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments
(results, programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French, German and Spanish.
A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Research
Communication Unit
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 29-58220
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research

Directorate J – Energy (Euratom)
Unit 2 – Fission

Contact: Marc Deffrennes

E-mail: marc.deff[email protected]

Helpdesk: [email protected]
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy
 The Sustainable Nuclear Energy
Technology Platform A vision report

2007 Directorate-General for Research EUR 22842

Euratom
 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might
be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
European Commission.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007

ISBN 978-92-79-05591-1
ISSN 1018-5593

© European Communities, 2007

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

Table of contents
Background 5

Executive summary 7

Foreword 9

Introduction 10

1. The energy challenge: the role of nuclear energy 12

2. A European vision for the development of sustainable nuclear energy systems 20

3. Role and presentation of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform 27

4. Preliminary roadmaps: towards the strategic research agenda 30

5. Recommendations 32

References 33

Annex I High-level representatives 34

Annex II Contributors 35

Annex III List of acronyms 36

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 3

Background

N
uclear fission energy can deliver safe, sustainable, competitive and practically carbon-free energy to
Europe’s citizens and industries. Within the framework of the Strategic Energy Technology Plan
(SET Plan)[1], the European Commission’s stakeholders in this field have formulated a collective
vision of the contributions this energy could make towards Europe’s transition to a low-carbon energy mix
by 2050, with the aim of integrating and expanding R&D capabilities in order to further this objective. The
groundwork has been prepared by the stakeholders listed in Annex II, within the framework of two Euratom
FP6 (Sixth Framework Programme) Coordination Actions, namely SNF-TP (Sustainable Nuclear Fission
Technology Platform) and PATEROS (Partitioning and Transmutation European Roadmap for Sustainable
Nuclear Energy), with contributions from Europe’s technical safety organisations.

The high-level reprensentatives listed in Annex I have endorsed this vision report.

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 5

Executive summary

T
his vision report prepares the launch of the European Technology Platform on Sustainable Nuclear
Energy (SNE-TP). It proposes a vision for the short-, medium- and long-term development of nuclear
fission energy technologies, with the aim of achieving a sustainable production of nuclear energy,
a significant progress in economic performance, and a continuous improvement of safety levels as well as
resistance to proliferation. In particular, this document proposes roadmaps for the development and deployment
of potentially sustainable nuclear technologies, as well as actions to harmonise Europe’s training and education,
whilst renewing its research infrastructures.

Public acceptance is also an important issue for the development of nuclear energy. Therefore, research in the
fields of nuclear installation safety, protection of workers and populations against radiation, management of all
types of waste, and governance methodologies with public participation will be promoted.

The proposed roadmaps provide the backbone for a strategic research agenda (SRA) to maintain Europe’s
leadership in the nuclear energy sector, in both research and industry. By emphasising the key role of nuclear
energy within Europe’s energy mix, this document also contributes to the European Commission’s Strategic
Energy Technology Plan, by calling on Europe to mobilise the resources needed to fulfil the vision of
sustainable nuclear energy.

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 7

Foreword

T
echnology has a key role to play in solving our energy problems. However, no single
option can address all outstanding issues. A broad portfolio of low-carbon energy sources
and carriers needs to be investigated and developed as part of a general strategy to
confront the growing problems faced not only here in Europe, but by the whole world.
Nuclear energy, as the largest single source of carbon-free and base-load electricity in Europe,
certainly has a place in this strategy. At the same time, a realistic assessment of its potential
cannot ignore the essential question of public acceptance. Long-term sustainability, safety of
operation and safe management of waste all influence the general public’s perception of
nuclear as a viable energy source. This underlines the importance of new nuclear technology
that promises vastly improved efficiency in the utilisation of natural resources, cogeneration of electricity
and process heat, achieving even higher levels of safety, minimisation of waste and increased resistance
to weapons proliferation. These objectives are at the core of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology
Platform’s shared vision, and its strategic research agenda will enable this vision to be realised.

In its recent energy package, the European Commission has clearly recognised the role played by nuclear
energy in limiting greenhouse-gas emissions and in contributing to Europe’s security of energy supply. At
EU level, this requires those Member States that choose nuclear power to maintain very high standards
of safety, waste management, security and non-proliferation, both now and in the future. Priority areas of
research of common interest in these areas are clearly identified in the Seventh Euratom Framework
Programme, adopted unanimously by the Member States in December last year. This Community
research effort is fully consistent with the objectives of the new platform.

To rise to the challenges associated with future carbon-constrained scenarios, a reinforced and increasingly
integrated research effort is needed in all energy technologies; this is the basis of the Strategic Energy
Technology Plan currently in preparation. The initiative to launch a European technology platform (ETP) in
nuclear energy is fully in line with this strategy and is therefore both timely and welcome. It will ensure
enhanced coordination between national and industrial programmes while guaranteeing the most effective
use of framework programme funding. It also underlines the important research dimension of the
nuclear sector, the need to maintain high levels of safety, the importance of retaining competences and
know-how and the increasingly competitive nature of this global industry.

I would like to thank the broad range of R&D stakeholders that have come together over recent weeks
and months in the preparation of this ETP, its vision report and the launch conference taking place on
21 September 2007. As with other ETPs, success will depend on a strong and bottom-up stakeholder
involvement supported through a transparent and inclusive approach to membership of the platform
itself. This should also extend to interested civil society organisations wishing to enter into constructive
debate.

In conclusion, I would like to wish all present and future stakeholders involved in this new endeavour the
greatest possible success and am confident that this initiative will benefit Europe, its industry and its
citizens.

Janez Potočnik
Commissioner for Science and Research

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 9

 Introduction
Current forecasts indicate that the primary energy con- “Sustainable development is development that meets the
sumption worldwide by 2050 will probably be doubled in needs of the present without compromising the ability of
comparison with the year 2000. Energy security is becom- future generations to meet their own needs”. This state-
ing a major global concern. Fossil fuel reserves, particularly ment, from the Brundtland report [5], meets economic,
for crude oil, are confined to a few areas of the world. environmental, and standard-of-living criteria.
Political, economical, and ecological factors often force In a context of high fossil hydrocarbon prices, limitations
volatile and high fuel prices. Simultaneously, to combat cli- and taxing of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy offers
mate change, a global environmental policy which includes economically competitive solutions. One main advantage
of nuclear energy is that the price of electricity would
a major reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions is required.
remain stable even if the price of natural uranium
Thus, availability of an affordable, secure and sustainable increased substantially.
energy is necessary to preserve the living standards of Nuclear electricity production emits practically no
Europe’s population. The nature and scale of this chal- greenhouse gases.
lenge has been recognised by the European Union and its Energy and in particular electricity is needed worldwide
Member States. (1.6 billion people have no access to electricity [12]).
In Europe, where citizens of all Member States aspire to a
At its March 2007 summit, the European Council defined an high standard of living, sustainable nuclear energy would
integrated policy for energy and climate, which had three ensure security of supply of electricity at predictable
objectives: increased security of supply; competitiveness of prices over reasonable periods, which is a key issue for
the well-being of all sectors of socio-economic life (both
European economies and availability of affordable energy; public and private).
environmental sustainability whilst combating climate
A better public acceptance of nuclear energy in Europe
change. The Heads of States and Governments committed would favour its development and thus improve its
the European Union to a reduction of greenhouse-gas emis- competitiveness over other energy technologies. Open
sions of at least 20 % by 2020 as compared to the level of and two-way dialogues on key issues such as management
1990. The European Council also adopted an action plan, of waste, safety and protection of the populations against
radiological hazards are necessary to inform the public at
Energy Policy for Europe [2], whose fifth chapter, dedicated large that these issues are being appropriately addressed.
to energy technologies, covers nuclear technologies and
supports research in order to “further improve nuclear Nuclear fission energy is one of the highly technological
safety and the management of radioactive waste”. Addition- sectors in which Europe has undisputedly acquired a
ally, results from a recent European project [3] indicate that world leadership. The renewal of a worldwide interest
“a policy which combines emission control strategies with for nuclear fission technologies demonstrates a general
the present technology policy measures is not projected to recognition of the merits of this energy source. The
be the least cost strategy for the European electricity mar- construction of a new EPR-type reactor is underway in
ket” and that “support schemes for renewable energy Olkiluoto, Finland, and France has decided to build
sources and phasing-out policy for nuclear generation in another EPR in Flamanville. Initiatives for building new
some European countries induce higher cost without reduc- nuclear power plants are also taking place in Bulgaria,
ing the import dependence of fossil fuel significantly”. Romania, Lithuania (associated to the other Baltic States
Nowadays, with its 31 % share of electricity production, the and Poland), and Slovakia. However, Europe’s leadership
nuclear sector represents a ‘non-emission’ of nearly 900 mil- in the world competition is now challenged by large-scale
lion tonnes of CO2 per year in the EU. This represents initiatives from the United States [6], Russia [7], China, and
almost the quantity of carbon dioxide produced annually by
the transport sector *. Given these facts, it is very unlikely * According to [4], in 2004 in EU-25, the power-
generation sector and the transport sector emitted
that the goal of a 20 % CO2-emission reduction by 2020 can 1512 Mt CO2 and 1021 Mt CO2 respectively.
be achieved if the EU energy mix does not include a share of Out of the 3179 TWh gross electricity production,
nuclear energy at least as large as it is today. 1723 TWh are produced by conventional thermal
power plants (emitting CO2) and 986 TWh are
produced from nuclear power plants. Thus,
on average the amount of CO2 emitted by EU-25
thermal power plants is 1512/1723 Mt CO2/TWh.
Replacing the nuclear production by the equivalent
thermal production would lead to the additional
annual emission of 865 Mt CO2.

10 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

India. Europe, which has the largest nuclear industry in the development of generation-IV fast-neutron reactors
the world, has continuously enforced a high safety level, with closed fuel cycle which require technological
breakthroughs. Such reactors could be deployed by the
while promoting fuel and system innovation thanks to its
middle of the 21st century, to enhance significantly the
research programmes. In order to preserve this unique sustainability of nuclear energy. Through recycling, such
asset, it is imperative to strengthen the structure of EU nuclear systems will maximise the use of the energetic
research and development forces, and its industrial com- potential of recycled fuel, thereby making fission a
sustainable source of energy for thousands of years.
munity. Thus, nuclear energy will contribute even more to
Europe’s energy independence. This provisional calendar
This document proposes a vision for the short-, medium- could be accelerated depending in particular on
and long-term development of nuclear energy technolo- conditions affecting Europe’s security of energy supply;
gies, with the aim of achieving a sustainable production of generation-IV systems with closed fuel cycles to
nuclear energy, significant progress in economic perfor- substantially minimise the volume, the radiotoxic content
and thermal load of the residual high-level waste requiring
mance, technological breakthroughs, and a high safety geological disposal. As a consequence, the isolation time
level. Roadmaps are proposed for the development and and repository volume can be reduced [9]. Significant
deployment of several potentially sustainable nuclear progress towards practical implementation of geological
technologies as well as for actions to harmonise Europe’s disposal for high-level wastes has been achieved in
Finland, Sweden and France. Notably, a technology
training and education and renew its research infrastruc- platform for geological disposal is being considered by
tures. The main elements of the vision discussed in this the stakeholders in the CARD project [10];
document are: the development of new applications of nuclear energy in
nuclear energy as a key element in Europe’s future low- Europe, focusing on the production of alternative fuels for
carbon energy system, to address simultaneously the transport (hydrogen and bio-fuels, which are less carbon-
three challenges formulated in [1]: intensive than oil) and the delivery of process heat to
1. security of supply and lesser dependence on foreign high-temperature energy-consuming industrial processes;
hydrocarbon fuel imports for primary energy, the preliminary roadmaps for nuclear energy related
2. reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, technologies, which will form the basis of the future
3. increase of the competitiveness of European industry; strategic research agenda (SRA) and deployment
the perspective of an important development of nuclear strategies (DS), and which identify the required resources.
energy in the world (nuclear market renaissance) relying
on generation-III light-water reactors, in which it is Through the use of the instruments of the Sixth Frame-
Europe’s interest to maintain its present industrial
leadership. Nowadays, the primary energy production work Programme (FP6) – e.g. the Networks of Excellence
worldwide is approximately 10 Gtoe. A sober energy- SARNET, ACTINET, and NULIFE and the Integrated Pro-
growth scenario for the worldwide primary energy supply jects NURESIM, PERFECT, RAPHAEL, EUROPART, and
requires at least 14 Gtoe by 2050 (for example, the EUROTRANS – the nuclear RD&D community and indus-
“modest growth” scenario of WEC IIASA B [8] forecasts a
yearly consumption of 19.7 Gtoe). try have demonstrated their ability to coordinate their
Assuming that: efforts, collaborate and deliver results [11]. Much more can
1. energy efficiency measures would amount to a saving be attained by fostering coordination with the national
of 5 Gtoe compared to ‘business as usual’, and private programmes, leading to the creation of the
2. renewable energy could reach a share as large as 5 Gtoe,
3. the share of fossil fuel would amount to 4 Gtoe European Research Area (ERA) for nuclear research. This
(without CO2 sequestration) plus 2.5 Gtoe (with CO2 would foster the best use of the funding means, including
sequestration), public-private partnerships. Further progress can be
it follows that by 2050 nuclear energy would have to
achieved through the harmonisation of Europe’s educa-
produce at least 2.5 Gtoe (corresponding to 1300
GWe), i.e. about three and a half times more than tion and training system, and renewal and integration of its
today; research infrastructure and facilities. The Sustainable
Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNE-TP) proposed
in this document is an instrument for attaining the above
goals, leading to the long-term establishment of sustain-
able nuclear energy production in Europe.

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 11

 1. The energy challenge:
the role of nuclear energy

C
urrent forecasts (World Energy Outlook [12], WEC Mtoe
IIASA [8], WETO [13]) indicate that primary energy
18 000
consumption will increase significantly by 2030,
despite potential improvements in energy efficiency (Fig. 1). 16 000
The share of electricity in the energy mix will increase 14 000
more rapidly than the share of other energies, even more
when low-carbon technologies are implemented. Security of 12 000
energy supply is a major concern for the world and for 10 000
Europe in particular. Today Europe imports 50 % of its
energy and with current energy and transport policies, this 8 000
dependence would increase up to 65 % by 2030 (Fig. 2); 6 000
reliance on imports of gas would increase from 57 to 84 %;
4 000
and reliance on imports of oil would increase from 82 to
93 % [15]. 2 000

0
In addition to the foreseen growth of Europe’s depen- 1980 2004 2010 2015 2030
dence on fossil fuels, there is an increasing risk of supply
Fig. 1: World primary energy
failure. Fossil fuel reserves, particularly those of crude oil,
Coal

Hydro
Oil

Nuclear

Biomass and waste

Gas

Other RES*

demand evolution
are localised in a few areas of the world. Political, econom- (1980-2030) assuming IEA
ical, and environmental factors often induce volatile and “reference scenario”
(modest growth)
high fuel prices. * RES = renewable energy sources

Source: World Energy Outlook 2006

Simultaneously, environmental policies are demanding a © OECD/IEA, 2006
significant reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. Today,
energy consumption accounts for 80 % of Europe’s green-
house-gas emissions. If present energy and transport 100%
policies are maintained, the carbon-dioxide emissions in 90%
the EU would continue to increase and, by 2030, exceed
80%
1990 levels by 5 % [15]. The present energy trends within
the EU are thus not sustainable. 70%
60%
In summary, the European energy market faces three
50%
challenges:
40%
increase the security of energy supply;
30%
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The majority of the
scientific community [14] currently considers that the 20%
sustainable threshold for global annual anthropogenic
greenhouse-gas emissions should be below 3 Gt carbon 10%
equivalent per year, which would mean reducing current
0%
emissions by a factor of 3; Total Oil Natural gas Solids
maintain and even increase competitiveness of the
electricity production. For the citizens and for the Fig. 2: Foreseen EU-27 energy
2000
2010

2030
2020

companies located in Europe, it is important to prevent import dependence up to 2030

delocalisation of the electricity-dependent industry sector (“business as usual”)
to regions where it is cheaper. Source: European Commission,
DG TREN, PRIMES
Developing sustainable nuclear energy is of paramount
importance to meet these three objectives.

12 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

Reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions Tonnes of CO2 equivalent/GWh
(including stack emissions

1062-1372
In 2004 in EU-25, nuclear energy represented 31 % of the and other stages)
1 500
electricity produced in the European Union (Fig. 3) and
Low value
15 % of the total energy consumed (Fig. 4).
High value
Fossil with CO2 seq.
Nuclear energy is one of the energies with the lowest emis-

834-1026
1 200
sions of carbon dioxide per GWh (Fig. 5). On the basis of
the IEA (International Energy Agency) World Energy Out-
look 2006 data [12], a comparison can be made between

657-774
three scenarios of CO2 emissions from electricity produc- 900
tion for the EU by 2030:
Scenario 1: phase-out of nuclear power;
Scenario 2: reference scenario with 22 % nuclear

398-469
production of electricity; 600
Scenario 3: the same share of nuclear electricity as today,
i.e. 31 %.

245
300 187

13-104
Nuclear

5-90
31.0%

15-49

3-40
7-22
0
Coal with CO2 seq.

Natural gas with CO2 seq.

Lignite
Coal

Heavy fuel oil

Natural gas

Photovoltaic
Hydro
Biomass
Wind
Nuclear
Gas
19.9%
Hydro 10.6%

Oil
4.5%
Geothermal + solar 0.2%
Wind 1.8%
Biomass 2.1%
} RES*
14.8%

Solids Fig. 3: Electricity generation

29.5% Fig. 5: Greenhouse-gas
shares in EU-25 in 2004 [16]
emissions (in tonnes of
* RES = renewable energy sources
CO2-equivalent) per GWh for
Source: Eurostat different electricity production
means
Gas
23.9% From data in [42]
Nuclear
14.6%

}
Hydro 1.5%
RES*
Biomass 4.4% 6.5%
Other RES 0.6%

Oil
37.2% Coal Fig. 4: Energy consumption
17.9% shares in EU-25 in 2004 [16]
* RES = renewable energy sources

Source: Eurostat

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 13

 Mt CO2 Fig. 6 shows that if one replaces the nuclear electricity by
combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT)-produced electricity,
1 600
even in the case of strong energy management and a
1 400 renewables policy, CO2 emissions would remain the same
or even slightly increase compared to 2004 levels. Thus,
1 200 nuclear energy is essential if Europe wants to reduce its
greenhouse-gas emissions.
1 000

800
Competitiveness and security of supply
600

400 The recent European Commission Communication about

the new energy policy for Europe [15] outlines the fact that
200 nuclear energy “is one of the largest sources of carbon-
dioxide-free energy in Europe”. It also states that “nuclear
0
1990 2004 Alternative Alternative Alternative power is less vulnerable to fuel-price changes than coal- or
2030 2030 2030 gas-fired generation, as uranium represents a limited part
without with 22 % with 31 %
nuclear nuclear nuclear of the total cost of generating nuclear electricity and is
Gas
Oil
Coal

(as today) based on sources which are sufficient for many decades
Fig. 6: CO2 emissions by and widely distributed around the globe”.
electricity production
in the EU (in million tonnes)
As can be seen from Table 1 [17], which outlines the advan-
From data in [12] tages and disadvantages of different sources of energy,
nuclear energy is one of the cheapest sources of low-carbon
energy that is presently produced in the EU and has rela-
Add. costs for CO2 (30 €/t CO2) tively stable costs. According to [12], “new nuclear power
Total social Costs for CO2 (20 €/t CO2) plants could produce electricity at a cost of less than USD
electricity generation
costs (€/MWh) External costs, excl. CO2 5 cents per kWh [EUR 3.7 cents at mid-April 2007 exchange
ALLGC rates] if construction and operating risks are appropriately
80 managed by plant vendors and power companies” and also
“at USD 10 [EUR 7.40 at mid-April 2007 rates] per tonne of
70
CO2 emitted makes nuclear competitive with coal-fired
60 power stations. The next generation of nuclear reactors
should reduce these costs further.”
50

40 Table 1 calls for two further remarks:

1. For intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind,

30
the capacity factor, defined as the ratio of actual power
produced over power that could have been produced if
20 turbines operated at maximum output 100 % of the time,
is the main driving factor for cost calculations.
10 For wind power, it ranges between 25 and 40 %.
0 Fig. 7: Estimated total social costs
5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 %
for different electricity generation
technologies in 2030.
Lignite
(1050 MW)

Lignite, CCS
(1050 MW)

Hard coal
(1020 MW)

CS (1020 MW)

Natural gas
(CCGT)

Natural gas, CCS

(CCGT)

Nuclear
(gen. III)

Biomass
(IG, wood)
Hard coal,

From the EUSUSTEL project [3]

ALLGC: average lifetime levelised generation

costs. Calculations based on an 85 % capacity
factor. Discount rate: 5 or 10 %

14 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

Table 1: Energy sources for electricity generation [17]

Energy Technology Cost Projected Green- EU-27 import Efficiency Fuel-price Proven
source considered for in 2005 cost house-gas dependency sensitivity reserves
the cost estimate (€/MWh) in 2030 emissions at annual
(€/MWh (kg CO2 production
with eq./MWh)
20-30 €/t/
CO2)

Source: IEA 2005 2030

Open-cycle gas
45-70 55-85 440 40 % Very high
turbine
Natural
CCGT 57 % 84 % 64 years
gas
(combined-cycle 35-45 40-55 400 50 % Very high
gas turbine)
Oil Diesel engine 70-80 80-95 550 82 % 93 % 30 % Very high 42 years
PF
(pulverised fuel
30-40 45-60 800 40-45 % Medium
with flue gas
desulphurisation)
CFBC
Coal (circulating fluidised 35-45 50-65 800 39 % 59 % 40-45 % Medium 155 years
bed combustion)
IGCC
(integrated
40-50 55-70 750 48 % Medium
gasification
combined cycle)
Reasonable
Almost 100 % for
Nuclear Light-water reactor 40-45 40-45 15 33 % Low reserves:
uranium ore
85 years
Biomass-generation
Biomass 25-85 25-75 30 30-60 % Medium
plant
35-175 28-170
Onshore 30
35-110 28-80
Wind 95-98 %
50-170 50-150 Nil Renewable
Offshore 10
60-150 40-120 Nil
Large 25-95 25-90 20
Hydro 95-98 %
Small (< 10 MW) 45-90 40-80 5
Solar Photovoltaic 140-430 55-260 100 /

2. The EU imports almost all its uranium ore. However,

uranium is available throughout the world, and contrary
to oil or gas, the main suppliers of uranium to the EU are
politically stable countries, Canada (25 %) and Australia * External costs are defined as costs that arise when
(16 %). Furthermore, strategic stockpiles are already the social or economic activities of a group have
available or can be easily and safely built, contributing to an impact on another group. For example, during
energy security. the operation of a power plant, emissions damage
human health, crops, and materials. This generates
external costs. Other stages of the energy chains
such as mining of fuel or decommissioning of the
Fig. 7 shows that nuclear energy is one of the most com- power plant also generate external costs. However,
petitive energies in Europe. This is even more striking for nuclear energy the costs related to dismantling
when all external costs are taken into account, including of facilities and to management and disposal of
waste are already taken into account in the price
carbon taxes*. A recent study performed in the EUSUSTEL of electricity in most European countries, i.e. these
project [3] clearly shows the advantage that nuclear energy costs have been internalised.
has over hydrocarbon fuels.

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 15

 European practices for the development All EU Member States have signed the Euratom Treaty and
of nuclear energy the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) nuclear
safety and wastes management conventions. Regulations
have been developed and implemented in each country.
Europe has a long and successful history with nuclear energy Sustained efforts are now being conducted to harmonise
in terms of safety, economics and technology development. regulations all over Europe through WENRA (Western
Dissemination of information is now being improved and European Nuclear Regulators Association) [18] and to
converge on technical nuclear safety practices within the
participation in decision-making processes is also being TSO network ETSON (European Technical Safety
broadened. This should improve social acceptance of nuclear Organisations Network)[19].
energy, which has decreased in the last two decades. Transparency and public information on nuclear energy
The availability and capacity factors of nuclear power issues are improving. The Århus Convention on access to
plants have steadily improved over the past 50 years, information, public participation in decision making and
demonstrating the quality of the design, the reliability of access to justice in environmental matters entered into
operation as well as an efficient organisation in terms of force in 2001 and was ratified by all EU-27 countries.
regulations and safety. These matters will also constitute elements for discussion
European-designed nuclear power plants have an in the European Nuclear Energy Forum and the High-level
excellent safety record. No severe accident has occurred Group on Safety and Waste [15], which are in the process
in the EU. Safety is a primary concern for vendors, of being created. This technology platform will establish
utilities, operators, safety authorities, and technical safety appropriate relations with these bodies.
organisations.
Europe’s safety record and technological excellence to-
gether with its regulatory framework ensures a high level
for the future development of nuclear energy, inside the
EU, but also outside, when its industry is involved.

Important perspectives on the development

Fig. 8: Possible role of nuclear
of nuclear power in the world
energy in different scenarios for
2050: example of a 14-Gtoe/year In January 2007, 435 commercial nuclear reactors were in
scenario [22] where nuclear
operation in the world [21]. In 2005 the total installed nuclear
energy would represent 2.5 Gtoe
(corresponding to an installed power capacity was 369 GWe in 30 countries. During the year
capacity of 1 300 GWe) 2006, power production was 2 630 TWhe, representing about
16 % of worldwide electricity production.
Seq. = sequestration

The majority of scenarios of energy growth predict that

3.9 Gtoe Renewables Energy world primary energy needs, which are currently at around
management 5 Gtoe 10 Gtoe, will reach between 12 and 28 Gtoe by 2050.
3.2 Gtoe Nuclear The three major energy consuming areas are projected to
be the United States, Europe and Asia.
Renewables 5 Gtoe
Gas
To be sustainable, this growth of energy consumption can-
1.3 Gtoe Renewables
0.7 Gtoe Nuclear Nuclear 2.5 Gtoe not follow a “business-as-usual” scheme but must combine
Gas 12.6 Gtoe Oil a strong policy of energy savings, an ambitious expansion
Fossil with 2.5 Gtoe
CO2 seq. of renewable energies and a substantial development of
8.0 Gtoe Oil
Fossil nuclear power. The “medium” (modest growth) scenario
Coal without 4 Gtoe WEC IIASA B forecasts a yearly consumption of 19.7 Gtoe
Coal CO2 seq.
by 2050 [8]. If a sober (ecologically-driven growth) scenario
Total: 10.1 Gtoe Total: 19.7 Gtoe Total: 14 Gtoe is considered, reducing consumption to 14 Gtoe by 2050,
(2000) (IIASA B: 2050) (low-carbon it is necessary to combine [22]:
scenario: 2050)

16 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 strong energy management – saving 5 Gtoe by 2050 – Japan, which has 55 reactors, is constructing 2 and planning
bringing the predicted demand from 19.7 to 14 Gtoe (in an additional 11.
line with current energy-efficiency development curves),
South Korea, which has 20 reactors, is constructing 1 and
annual CO2 emissions restricted to 3 Gt of carbon planning an additional 7.
(or 4 Gtoe of fossil fuel energy),
Russia, which operates 31 reactors, is constructing
a strong renewable energy-based policy: 5 Gtoe, including 5 reactors, planning an additional 8, with an additional
hydropower (1.4 Gtoe) and wind power (0.8 Gtoe) etc., 18 having been announced.
nuclear power, even assuming that its contribution would Emerging countries are also planning to develop nuclear
be limited to partially filling the deficit left by other energy power.
sources to meet global demand. It would see its potential
Finally, in Europe, Finland and France are each building a
production gradually rise from the current 0.7 Gtoe/year
new generation-III reactor (European Pressurised-water
(7 %) to 2.5 Gtoe/year (18 %) in 2050, or three and a half
Reactor – EPR) and the Baltic States and Poland plan to
times the current installed nuclear capacity.
jointly build a new plant (Ignalina 3). A white paper in the
UK supports the renewal of the fleet to avoid an energy
These scenarios are illustrated in Fig. 8.
crisis [20]. Among the countries which joined the EU since
2004, 1 reactor is in start-up phase (Romania), 4 are
planned (Bulgaria, Slovakia) and more have been
An industrial reality for the 21st century proposed (Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia).

A ‘renaissance’ of nuclear power can be observed all over Nuclear energy has become a very competitive industry
the world [23]. Some 28 reactors are currently under con- worldwide. The EU is a major player in this market, with
struction, most of which are in Asia (Fig. 9): more than 30 % of its electricity currently produced by
The USA has defined a new framework supporting nuclear nuclear energy. It has developed third-generation nuclear
power. systems and participates in the Generation IV Interna-
China has decided to accelerate the development of its tional Forum (GIF) [24] to develop more sustainable nu-
nuclear fleet, with 4 reactors under construction and clear technology.
23 planned (i.e. approved and funded); a total of 50 have
been announced.
India, which currently operates 16 reactors, is constructing 6
and planning an additional 4, with 15 announced.

Fig. 9: Nuclear reactors under

construction or planned [23]
13
6 7
2 13
3 3 8
3 3 27

10

1
1

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 17

 Uranium supply and fuel cycles

Generation IV International Forum Although assured uranium reserves are currently in the
Ten countries including France and Switzer- region of 4.7 Mt, estimated resources [25] that could be
land – as well as the EU represented by exploited are in the range of 15 Mt. The current annual con-
Euratom and with the JRC as implementing sumption rate (about 67 000 t/y) will rise to an anticipated
agent – are working together within the
value of about 90 000 t/y in 2025 for installed power around
Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to
perform pre-competitive R&D on key 500 GWe. Assuming that the present installed world nuclear
technologies likely to be implemented in capacity of 370 GWe increases to 1300 GWe in 2050 (with a
future nuclear systems. consumption of natural uranium of 150 t/GW/year), the esti-
These systems must consider an optimum mated uranium resources would at that time be completely
use of natural resources, whilst addressing earmarked for the lifetime requirements of light-water reac-
nuclear safety, waste and proliferation resist- tors (LWRs). Therefore, the deployment of a new generation
ance and public perception concerns in the of reactors – generation-IV fast-neutron reactors (FRs) – with
countries in which they will be deployed.
closed fuel cycle, leading to a better use of natural resources
Technological roadmaps have been defined (typically multiplying energy production by up to 100 for the
for several systems. Europe has been a major same quantity of uranium), needs to be prepared.
contributor to many of them.
Despite some uncertainties in the evaluation of uranium
reserves, the scenario of deployment of fast-neutron reac-
tors around 2050 is reasonably based, since an increase of
50 % in uranium reserves (an additional 7.5 Mt) would only
delay the need for deployment of fast-neutron reactors by
about ten years*. Nevertheless, an earlier deployment is
possible if Europe’s energy security is at stake.

* Assuming an annual increase

of nuclear capacity of 65 GWe.

Spent-fuel and waste management,

closed fuel cycle strategy for sustainability

Technical solutions exist today for the safe disposal of

nuclear waste:
Continuous progress has been made in the processing of
spent fuel, the recycling of nuclear material, and the
conditioning of residual waste in a glass matrix.

The vision for future nuclear energy

Fig. 10: Renaissance and
long-term sustainability
Large Generation-III reactors
of nuclear energy development, with best available
“renaissance” technologies for recycling
R: recycling
T: transmutation Nuclear fission
U: uranium energy
for the
Pu: plutonium
21st century DEU Generation-IV fast
MA: minor actinides
DEU: depleted uranium Long-term reactors with
R T FP
sustainability advanced technologies
FP: fission products
U Pu MA for recycling

18 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 Geological disposal of high-level
waste
The ONKALO underground research facility
in Finland is being built to prepare the final
disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste
(spent fuel) in Olkiluoto. A decision in prin-
ciple to build such a repository has been
approved by the Finnish Parliament in 2001.

Posiva Oy (www.posiva.fi) is responsible

for practical preparations, R&D and the final
disposal of spent fuel. The construction
licence application for the repository is
planned to be submitted to authority review
in 2012.

Nuclear waste represents a small volume compared to chemical processing plants. A recent international confer-
industrial waste: In France, with 59 nuclear power ence [29] organised by the IAEA (International Atomic
reactors, 1 kg of nuclear waste is produced per year and Energy Agency), in cooperation with the OECD/NEA
per inhabitant – of which only 10 g represent high-level
long-lived waste, compared to 100 kg of residual industrial (Nuclear Energy Agency) and the International Desalina-
waste and 2 500 kg of municipal waste [26]. tion Association, has provided a broad survey of non-electric
Reversible geological disposal is now the object of an applications of nuclear energy. These include:
international technical consensus [27]. In Finland and processes for producing alternative energy carriers
in France, a precise final-disposal schedule has been replacing for example the use of oil for transport,
adopted, following public debates and approval by rele- including hydrogen and bio-fuel production;
vant committees.
processes that require heat and/or electricity, such as
For current light-water reactors (LWRs), the spent fuel can desalination.
be recycled at least once into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.
Spent MOX fuel is then stored, in order to recover the plu-
tonium to be used for a future generation of fast reactors
which can effectively burn this plutonium in a multi-recy-
cling uranium-plutonium strategy. Basically, 50 years of
operation of one LWR will produce the stock of plutonium
needed to start a fast reactor – which could thus form a
sustainable source of energy for thousands of years
through the use of depleted uranium [28]. Harmonisation of safety approaches
in Europe
A step further is related to the recycling of minor actinides Harmonisation of regulations at European
to reduce the thermal load, the volume and the needed level is ongoing through the Western
isolation time [9] of the remaining waste requiring geolog- European Nuclear Regulators Association
(WENRA). It pursues goals such as ensuring
ical disposal. Recent R&D results have shown that minor
that a design found suitable in one country
actinides can be separated from spent fuel, thus opening does not have to be substantially modified
the way for their burning in a fast-neutron system, thereby to meet licensing requirements in another
using their energetic potential, as well as eliminating them country.
(www.wenra.org)
as long-lived radioactive material (Fig. 10).
ETSON, the newly established Network of
European Technical Safety Organisations,
Recycling of minor actinides still needs further research has the following objectives:
and development, and the technology selection will be
to be a forum for exchanges on analyses
made on a cost versus benefit basis, taking into account and R&D in the field of nuclear safety,
the impact of minor actinide recycling on the geological to share experience, and to exchange
disposal specifications. technical and scientific opinions in this
field;
to foster the convergence of technical
New applications of nuclear energy nuclear safety practices in Europe;
to contribute to the definition of the
Beyond the use of nuclear power for electricity genera- needs for research programmes and to
the formation of a network in the nuclear
tion, new applications are being developed, based on safety field.
generation-III or -IV reactor features, in particular through (www.grs.de/tso)
the coupling of (very)-high-temperature reactors with

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 19

 2. A European vision for the development
of sustainable nuclear energy systems

N
uclear fission energy is a proven technology which Because of Europe’s ageing power-generation capacity, in-
today represents 31 % of the EU’s electricity pro- cluding nuclear power plants (Fig. 11 illustrates the rapidly
duction. With 152 reactors in operation in 2006, declining capacity of thermal and nuclear power plants in EU-
nuclear power is the main source of electricity generation, 15), there is an urgent need for investment to meet the
with very low greenhouse-gas emissions. Most of these expected energy demand and to replace infrastructures.
reactors are pressurised- or boiling-water reactors that According to [12], around 800-900 GWe capacity will be
have been in operation for about 20 years on average. required by 2030 to replace the existing capacity and to
Current plans in most EU Member States are to extend address increasing needs*. It is reasonable to assume that out
their lifetime on a case-by-case basis beyond 40 years, and of these potential new 800-900 GWe, at least 100 GWe will be
possibly beyond 50 years. Generation-III reactors, such as produced by generation-III nuclear reactors. This corre-
the EPR (European Pressurised-water Reactor), are evolu- sponds to the construction of 60 to 70 big reactor units, a task
tionary reactors derived from the experience of operating which is certainly compatible with the industrial capacity of
light-water reactors (LWRs) and developed to optimise Europe. It represents an investment of EUR 150 billion over
their safety and economic performance. They are currently 20 years (for an average overnight construction cost of EUR
being deployed in Finland and in France, which both chose 1 500 per kWe).
an EPR design, with commercial operation planned to start
around 2010 and 2012 respectively. The operational safety These new reactors are designed to be operated for
and the commercialisation of LWRs are currently supported 60 years. In the longer term, generation-IV systems will
by national R&D programmes and actions of the Euratom take over once they have reached technical maturity and
R&D framework programmes dedicated to safety, perfor- met sustainable development criteria, particularly those
mance, waste management, and radiation protection. pertaining to waste management and preservation of
energy resources.

Installed MW * Today, the EU-27 power-genera-

tion capacity stands at around
450 000 760 GWe, consisting of 600 GWe of
thermal and nuclear generation
400 000 and about 160 GWe of hydro and
renewable power generation.
350 000 Without replacement, there would
be a 60 % decrease of electricity-
300 000 generation capacity by 2030, with
only 300 MWe still available at
250 000 that time. To meet the demand,
estimated to be 1130 GWe in 2030
200 000 [39], the construction of a capac-
ity of 800 to 900 GWe will
150 000 therefore be necessary.

100 000

50 000

0
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025
2029
2033
2037
2041
2045
2049
2053
2057

Fig. 11: Decline of installed

fossil and nuclear power
generation capacity (without
renewal by new plants) in
Oil
Gas turbine

Coal

Nuclear
CCGT

Lignite

EU-15 per type of energy,

showing a decrease of
around 60 % by 2030

By courtesy of EDF

20 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075

Reactors Life-time
Fig. 12: Deployment Gen. IV
extension
of generation-III and
-IV reactors in the Current fleet
21st century Gen. III

Source: EDF, ENC, 2002

Commercial deployment of such generation-IV systems is Generation-III light-water reactors for nuclear
not expected to occur before 2040, since major techno- renaissance
logical breakthroughs are still needed to develop such
reactors; preliminary roadmaps for these technologies are With about 945 TWh in 2005 [30], the EU is the largest
described in Section 4 of this document. nuclear electricity producer in the world. Nuclear energy
is one of the largest sources of CO2-free energy in Europe.
Thus, it is very likely that three reactor generations will co- Nuclear energy generation has a major role to play in the
exist during the 21st century, as illustrated in Fig. 12 dealing context of the priorities identified in the European Com-
with a French scenario based on an almost stable nuclear mission’s Green Paper [31]. Furthermore, to preserve its
production of electricity. leadership in a growing worldwide market, Europe must
define a strategy for the renewal of the current generating
Each of the three generations faces specific technological fleet by generation-III LWRs. In the coming 25 years,
challenges to be overcome on the path to sustainability, according to various scenarios, more than 100 GWe of new
but all share the common goal of guaranteeing the highest nuclear plants will have to be built in Europe to meet the
level of safety. This goal requires the development and energy challenges and maintain the current share of
validation of modelling tools, experiments, as well as har- nuclear power in the European energy mix. Given the con-
monisation of safety assessment methods. struction time of a plant and the demands that such a
major construction programme would make on European
industry, decisions on new investments are required with-
Light-water reactors (LWRs) out delay.

Generation-II light-water reactors: lifetime With the European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) in
management Olkiluoto (Fig. 13), Finland was the first country in Europe
to launch the construction of a new nuclear power plant
Across the EU-27, a total of 152 reactors are in operation in (NPP) for more than a decade. It was followed by France in
15 Member States. The average age of these power plants 2006, with the decision to build another EPR plant in
is approaching 25 years for a typical initial design life of Flamanville.
30-40 years.
Nuclear market renaissance with the construction of a
To meet the growing concerns about security of energy large number of NPPs will necessarily rely on generation-
supply and CO2-emission reductions before LWRs of gen- III LWRs, which offer enhanced safety and reliability and
eration III can be built and operated, a first priority must the best available technologies for a responsible manage-
be given to lifetime extension of generation-II LWRs. While ment of spent nuclear fuel. The latter, particularly, is a
maintaining a high degree of operational safety, the already condition for nuclear acceptance.
well-proven economic competitiveness of nuclear energy
can be further enhanced by research focused on improved Spent fuel treatment and recycling of uranium and pluto-
availability, fuel performance and safety. nium are already an industrial reality in some countries,
such as France, Japan and Russia.

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 21

 This recycling strategy results in the significant reduction option was also selected in Europe (with Phénix, PFR,
of volume, heat load and isolation time for high-level KNKII, and Superphénix). In 2006, France launched a
wastes requiring geological disposal. Through the use of project to construct a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR)
plutonium in mixed-oxide fuel (MOX), it also saves natural prototype by 2020, open to industrial and international
resources (about 20 %), thus making a step towards sus- partnerships. This could be considered as the first step
tainability, with a non-significant effect on the kWh cost towards a renewed European initiative.
(less than 5 %). In addition, recycling, as it is implemented
today, buys some time. It opens a large range of options to Among the fast reactor systems, the sodium-cooled fast
optimise spent fuel management and contributes to the reactor currently has the most comprehensive techno-
foundation of a future sustainable policy. For these rea- logical basis, thanks to the experience gained internationally
sons, the USA is now reconsidering the recycling option from operating experimental, prototype and commercial-
with a renewed interest [6]. size reactors such as the Phénix plant in France (Fig. 14),
PFR in the UK, and MONJU in Japan.

Generation-IV reactors: towards The technological knowledge gained from these reactors
sustainability includes key elements of the overall reactor design, fuel
types, safety, and fuel recycling. Innovations are sought for
Spent fuel treatment and multi-recycling is the basis on which a generation-IV sodium-cooled fast reactor (Fig. 15) in
future generation-IV reactors will achieve sustainability. Fast- order to reduce costs and to further improve safety. They
neutron reactors with a closed fuel cycle allow: involve design simplification, improvement of in-service
significantly improved usage of natural resources, inspection and repair, fuel handling, high-performance
materials, and practical exclusion of high-energy release in
minimisation of volume and heat load of high-level waste.
case of a hypothetical severe accident.
This option has been selected by several countries, such as
Japan (with JSFR, Japan Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor), Rus- Given the maturity of sodium-cooled fast reactors, the
sia (with the BN 600 in operation and the BN 800 and BREST next facility to be built in Europe will be a prototype reac-
300 reactors), India (with the PBFR prototype), China (with tor with a power-conversion system of 250 to 600 MWe to
CEFR, China Experimental Fast Reactor) and the United demonstrate innovations with respect to existing SFRs and
States (with the advanced recycling reactor project). This to pave the way for a first-of-a-kind generation-IV commer-
cial reactor.

Fig. 13: The EPR 1 600 MWe

reactor under construction
in Olkiluoto (Finland),
status in June 2007

© Hannu Huovila,
www.tvo.fi

22 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 Fig. 14: Phénix sodium-cooled
fast-neutron reactor in
Marcoule (France)

© A. Gonin/CEA

To face the major worldwide challenges described above, being competitive with present-generation LWRs in elec-
generation-IV fast reactors have to offer a choice of technolo- tricity generation, provided that the designers succeed in
gies so as to limit the overall technological risk and be able to simplifying the primary system and eliminating the inter-
satisfy various markets and degrees of public acceptance. mediate cooling system. Current R&D addresses some
Whilst the SFR remains the reference technology, two alter- critical issues associated with using lead as a coolant for
native technologies for fast reactors, namely the gas-cooled reactors in the power range of 1 GWe, such as weight and
fast reactor (GFR) and the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) also corrosion. In-service inspection, maintenance and repair
need to be assessed at European level. After selection of an remain also a common challenge for both liquid-metal
alternative technology, an experimental reactor in the range coolants, sodium and lead.
of 50-100 MWth will be needed to gain experience feedback
by 2020 on this innovative technology.

Among the attractive features of the GFR, which is a high- Fig. 15: Design of an innovative
temperature reactor, the chemically inert and optically loop-type SFR
transparent coolant (helium) should be mentioned as well By courtesy of CEA
as the potential for producing hydrogen, synthetic hydrocar-
bon fuels and process heat. The most important challenges
for this type of reactor are the development of materials
resistant to the combined effects of high temperature and
high neutron flux (refractory and dense fuel, thermal bar-
rier) and the safety systems.

The LFR is identified as another potentially promising alter-

native fast-reactor type. Russia has gathered experience in
building and operating small lead-alloy-cooled reactors in
the 100 MWth range for naval propulsion. Europe has
recently gathered experience with the operation of several
lead-bismuth facilities including the MEGAPIE lead-bismuth
spallation target at PSI in Switzerland. The pure lead-cooled
LFR system offers the same advantages as the lead-alloy-
cooled reactors of operating primary systems at atmospheric
pressure. As a power reactor, it also offers the potential of

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 23

 Advanced fuel-cycle processes Safety research for nuclear systems

In association with the development of a robust fast-reac- The design of nuclear systems in Europe relies on the
tor system, a flexible separation and treatment strategy “defence in depth” principle. It consists in the prevention
needs to be assessed, aiming towards a closed fuel cycle of accidents and the mitigation of their consequences, and
which better uses the fertile resources by a multi-recycling the protection of workers and populations against radio-
of uranium and plutonium. This strategy includes the logical hazards through the use of multiple barriers and
development of actinide chemistry, separation technology safety systems. For the more recent reactor systems such
and minor actinide bearing fuels with reactor irradiation of as generation-III reactors, even extremely improbable acci-
such fuel. Such a coherent long-term strategy would allow dents are taken into account. For example, the European
the transition from the currently practiced mono-recycling of Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) was designed so that in
plutonium in light-water reactors (LWRs) to multi-recycling the very unlikely event of a severe accident, radiological
in generation-IV reactors. consequences would necessitate only very limited protec-
tive countermeasures in a relatively small area and for a
Beyond this goal, recycling is also the cornerstone of a strat- limited time for the surrounding population.
egy for partitioning and transmutation of minor actinides,
which would substantially reduce the radioactivity and heat The safety analysis of nuclear systems relies on a thorough
load of the remaining high-level waste. As a result, the isola- understanding of the behaviour of the system in normal
tion time and repository space required in deep geological and accidental conditions, and increasingly on the use of
disposal would also be reduced. advanced numerical simulation software and its validation
through experimental programmes. For future reactor
For the incineration of minor actinides, the opportunities designs, simplified tools can be developed and applied at
offered by accelerator-driven systems (ADS) will be com- first to carry out preliminary analyses of concepts and
pared to those of fast-neutron critical reactors on a safety options. Once the design is known, more advanced
technological and economic basis [32]. safety evaluation software tools can be developed and
applied. In order to contribute to the harmonisation of
Mtoe safety practices in Europe and to better compare the safety
aspects of the different reactor systems, the development
70 of common tools and methodologies is favoured.

60

Towards enlarged applications of nuclear

50
energy
40
In the EU, fossil fuels account for almost 80 % of total energy
30 consumption. Road, air and sea transportation, which is
98 % dependent on fossil fuels, will remain the main CO2
20 emitting sector over the coming decades, if alternative fuels
are not developed and deployed. Nuclear energy could be
10 used as a source of process heat for the production of other
energy carriers such as hydrogen, without CO2 emissions,
0 in addition to electricity production. Nuclear energy could
2001 2010 2020 2030 2050
further open the way to ‘low-CO2’ synthetic fuels produced
from biomass, gas or coal:
Fig. 16: H2 production in
Nuclear
Renewables

Gas
Grid

Coal

Europe, from [13], showing Nuclear H2 production (Fig. 16) could substitute large
the growth in anticipated H2 steam-reforming plants for refinery needs or for future
production needs and the transportation (internal combustion engines or fuel-cell
share of nuclear power in vehicles). As H2 production is energy intensive, nuclear
the production power can be used to provide an economic source

24 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 without CO2 emission. Water splitting could be realised that expertise in nuclear science and technology is at risk.
at low temperatures by alkaline electrolysis or at higher It was observed that in most countries there are fewer
temperatures by either electrolysis or thermo-chemical
comprehensive, high-quality nuclear technology pro-
processes. The (very)-high-temperature reactor (HTR/
VHTR) system, which corresponds to a thermal neutron grammes at universities than before and that the ability of
helium-cooled reactor concept operated at high (850 °C) universities to attract top-quality students, to meet future
temperatures, could deliver electricity and process heat staffing requirements of the nuclear industry and to con-
with a high efficiency (47 % or more). Nevertheless, for
industrialisation, many parameters have to be taken in duct leading-edge research, is becoming seriously
account, including the temperature level of the nuclear compromised. Thus, education and training in engineer-
heat source, the overall performance of the splitting ing and sciences is one of the cornerstones of Europe’s
reaction, the reactor coupling, the safety, and of course vision for the development of nuclear energy.
the costs involved.
Gasification technologies have been developed around The ENEN (European Nuclear Education Network) Associa-
the world for fuel production from coal or natural gas.
Fuels are also being developed from biomass. All these tion [34], currently comprising 41 members, plays a major
synthetic fuels need process heat and large amounts of role in shaping Europe’s education system. ENEN facilitates
H2. The process performance (yield and CO2 emissions) exchanges and cooperation within academic institutions
can be strongly improved by introducing external power and strengthens their interactions with research centres.
(heat or electricity) and additional hydrogen from nuclear
plants into the process. Using nuclear reactors to provide It delivers the European Master of Science in Nuclear Engi-
electricity, heat or H2 would reduce the overall carbon neering certificate. It further develops, promotes and
impacts of the fuels. supports ENEN exchange courses in nuclear disciplines,
including reactor safety, waste management and radiation
Ongoing research and demonstration projects in Japan, protection. It facilitates and coordinates the participation of
China and South Africa aim at proving the capability of universities in European research projects. For the benefit
VHTRs to achieve high coolant outlet temperature and to of end users, the ENEN Association preserves nuclear
use this high-temperature heat for combined electricity knowledge and improves access to expertise by developing
and heat application. Technological challenges for this and establishing databases, websites and distance learning
type of reactor include the development of high- and tools. It has a role as an interface between academia and
potentially very-high-temperature helium systems, such as industries, to define, disseminate and support interesting
intermediate heat exchanges, and efficient processes to projects and research topics for internships, Masters theses
produce hydrogen at industrial scale, through high-tem- and PhDs. By developing a framework for mutual recogni-
perature electrolysis or thermo-chemical decomposition tion of professional training, licensing and professional
of water. recruitment throughout the European Union, ENEN is cre-
ating a nuclear ‘European education and training area’.
The EU has already defined its vision on hydrogen and bio-
fuels for 2030 and beyond [33]. With the applications of Other initiatives to promote the renewal of competences
nuclear energy described above, obvious links between are ongoing in various fields: nuclear safety courses
the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNE- organised by the SARNET Network of Excellence for severe-
TP) and the hydrogen and bio-fuels European technology accident research [35], winter and summer schools in the
platforms will be established. field of actinide science organised by the ACTINET Network
of Excellence [36], and the Frédéric Joliot and Otto Hahn
Summer School on Nuclear Reactors [37] are examples of
Education and training, the renewal such initiatives. These and others will be coordinated at the
of competences European level by this technology platform.

At the Lisbon 2000 European Union summit, the EU set For the development of more fundamental knowledge,
itself the goal of becoming the most competitive know- the newly established European Research Council [38]
ledge-based economy, with more and better employment should also address basic research needs in nuclear sci-
and social cohesion, by 2010. With respect to nuclear ences and engineering, for example in the area of material
knowledge, specific concerns were expressed in two and actinide sciences.
important studies by the EC and the OECD, concluding

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 25

 Research infrastructures Table 2: Existing European material test reactors

In addition to education and training, the availability of Country Reactor Start/period Power
research infrastructures, and especially of the largest ones of operation (MWth)
that need European funding, is a key element to maintain Czech LVR 15 1957- 10
and further develop Europe’s position in the field of Republic
nuclear fission and to support innovation. Major experi- Norway Halden 1960- 19
mental reactors were built in the 1960s and 70s on a Sweden R2 1960-2005 50
national basis. From a purely national approach to design- The HFR 1961- 45
ing, constructing and operating research facilities and Netherlands
experimental reactors, Europe is now moving towards a Belgium BR2 1961- 60/120
community where large research tools are developed and France Osiris 1966- 70
used in common and where infrastructures are pooled in
a complementary manner – a European research area
(ERA) for infrastructures. Following a widely shared assessment of the situation, in
particular in [40], a European vision on experimental reac-
Two main objectives are sought: tors has been defined, building on three major initiatives:
optimise the use of existing research infrastructures in the construction of the high-performance Jules Horowitz
Europe, by facilitating trans-national access, coordinating Reactor (JHR) for material and fuel testing. JHR was
research programmes and networking of facilities and identified in 2006 as a major research infrastructure in the
scientists, and promoting common experimental practices; ESFRI roadmap [41] and was recently launched for a start
of operation in 2014, with the support of several
renew, when necessary, infrastructures of common
European countries and the European Commission;
interest at European level and no longer on a national
basis. a fast-spectrum experimental system, such as proposed by
SCK•CEN (Belgian Nuclear Research Centre), to support
Material test reactors (MTRs) are examples of such essential the development and demonstration of an alternative
research infrastructures: existing MTRs in Europe are age- technology to sodium;
ing, as shown in Table 2. They will progressively be closed in a reactor which should replace the high-flux reactor
the next decade, yet they are needed as a support for stud- (HFR) and will be the main European provider of radio-
nuclides for medical applications.
ies on ageing and life extension, safety, and fuel performance
of generation-II and -III LWRs. MTRs are also needed to sup-
port material and fuel science advances for generation-IV Finally, the proposed vision of a European fission research
reactors. In addition, they will continue to ensure the pro- area for infrastructures would not be complete without the
duction of radio-nuclides for medical applications. building of a research community through coordination
and networking of scientists, research teams and through
pooling of the existing and upcoming medium-sized
research facilities. ACTINET [36], a Network of Excellence
initiated in the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) and
devoted to actinide science, is an example of such a Euro-
pean network, pooling over twenty-five research institutions
and several experimental laboratories operated as a multi-
site user facility. The SNE-TP will foster the coordination of
the use and share of the research facilities and infrastruc-
tures at European level.

26 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

3. Role and presentation of the Sustainable
Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

T
o remain competitive, European industry needs to Europe is still fragmented and suffers from a lack of funding,
specialise more in high-technology areas. Invest- at national and industrial levels and at the level of the
ment in research must be increased, coordination Euratom Framework Programme. Action is therefore
across Europe enhanced, and the technological content of needed now to enable Europe to retain its leading techno-
industrial activity raised. Technology platforms address logical and industrial position in the field of civil nuclear
these challenges through: technology.
a shared vision of stakeholders;
To achieve this strategic goal, the nuclear RD&D community
positive impact on a wide range of policies;
intends to establish a European technology platform.
reduced fragmentation of research and development
This platform should include the most important and inno-
efforts;
vative companies and other organisations working on
mobilisation of public and private funding sources.
nuclear energy in Europe and represent a balance of expert
knowledge and stakeholder interests (industry, utilities,
This is true especially for the energy sector, which is facing research organisations, universities, public bodies). It should
the objectives set out by the Commission of transforming establish a strategic research agenda (SRA) for developing
the current energy system based on fossil fuels into a technologies, taking into account users’ requirements as
more sustainable one based on a diverse mix of energy well as safety considerations. The proposed Sustainable
sources and carriers, whilst addressing the challenges of Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNE-TP) will fulfil the
security of supply, climate change, as well as increasing following tasks:
the competitiveness of Europe’s energy industries. As the establish a strategic research agenda (SRA) and a
biggest provider of low-GHG-emitting energy in Europe, deployment strategy (DS) to ensure that nuclear fission
and one of the least expensive, nuclear fission has a key energy is generated in a manner that meets the criteria for
sustainable development in strict compliance with the
role to play in the future energy policy. Yet, research in
safety requirements;

Member States’ Governing board Technical safety

mirror group organisations group

Executive committee SNE-TP Secretariat

Strategic research Deployment strategy Education, training &

agenda (incl. policy framework) scientific evaluation

PLATFORM OPERATIONS
New and ongoing projects and working groups Fig. 17: Structure of the
Sustainable Nuclear Energy
Technology Platform

GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Biennial technology platform forum

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 27

 coordinate techno-economic studies to monitor the As illustrated in Fig. 17, the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Tech-
advances of nuclear technologies and EU needs, and the nology Platform is steered and monitored by a governing
role of nuclear energy in the EU energy mix;
board which provides guidance on how to initiate and push
facilitate the integration of national programmes; forward the strategic research agenda (Fig. 18) and the
seek synergies and links with other technology platforms deployment strategy, building on existing European initia-
(such as the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Platform tives, networks and structures. The executive committee is
and the future Geological Disposal Technology Platform)
responsible for running the platform and coordinating the
and interact with international initiatives in the field of
energy, such as the Generation IV International Forum different working groups and projects. It is supported by a
(GIF); secretariat. Three panels report to the executive committee,
provide expert advice and recommendations to the the first two draft and update the strategic research agenda
Commission and national governments for strengthening and the deployment strategy respectively, and the third one
the European scientific base, integrating research teams coordinates education & training and conducts scientific
and tools, optimising the use of existing research
infrastructures, and creating new infrastructures (as evaluations of the different activities.
needed), thereby contributing to the creation of
a European research area (ERA); Two additional bodies provide input and recommenda-
promote a coordinated training and educational system tions to the governing board: the mirror group, providing
for developing nuclear competence in Europe; information to ensure the effective coordination with
suggest topics for coordination or funding at European national programmes, and the technical safety organisa-
level, e.g. via the Euratom Framework Programme; tions (TSO) group.
foster joint initiatives between researchers, industry, The Member States’ mirror group has as mission:
utilities, Member States and the EU, such as joint
undertakings; to enhance the coordination and cooperation among
interested Member States, the EC, and the technology
foster joint projects between Member States; platform (TP) by providing interfaces for coordination of
disseminate the results of the above activities to Member-State activities within the TP;
appropriate policy-making and stakeholder bodies to provide opinion and advice to the TP governing board;
to ensure a common European vision; and
provide timely information about advances in nuclear to advance the European Research Area (ERA) in
energy to the general public. sustainable nuclear fission energy.

(V)HTR
LWR Process heat,
Gen. II and III electricity
Innovative materials and fuels and H2

Simulation and experiments:

reactor design, safety, materials
and fuels

R&D infrastructures

Safety standards Fig. 18: The SNE-TP

Strategic Research
Agenda

Fast systems
with closed
fuel cycles
Sustainability

28 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 (V)HTR
LWR Process heat,
Gen. II and III electricity
and H2

Sustainable Nuclear Energy

Technology Platform

Geological Disposal
Technology Platform
(CARD)
Fast systems
with closed
fuel cycles
Sustainability

Fig. 19: Interaction of the SNE-TP with other

technology platforms and international initiatives

The TSO group will provide advice on safety assessment- strategic research agenda and the deployment strategy. It
related R&D priorities with the objective to harmonise should be noted that research and development activities
safety standards and methodologies in Europe. Its chair- related to residual high-level long-lived waste behaviour in
man will be a member of the executive committee. The geological disposal will be carried out within the framework
TSOs will participate as active members in the working of the proposed Geological Disposal Technology Platform
groups of the platform. currently being evaluated as part of the CARD project (Eura-
tom Framework Programme) by the European waste agencies
The ‘platform operations’ activities constitute the ‘heart’ (Fig. 19).
of the SNE-TP, comprising:
1. ongoing and future projects, networks and initiatives Finally, every one or two years, the general assembly is
including, where relevant, those supported via the convened as a means to facilitate the widest involvement
Euratom Framework Programme; of interested stakeholders, providing feedback, interac-
2. national and regional programmes and initiatives. tion, networking, and building commitment towards
attaining the goals of the SNE-TP. These events will also
All of these projects and initiatives are implemented allow new participants to join the platform, since member-
according to the strategic research agenda and the deploy- ship is not limited to the contributors and endorsers of
ment strategy. The activities of ‘platform operations’ include this present report.
projects and initiatives encompassing three system pro-
grammes (light-water reactors, fast reactors with associated
plants of the closed fuel cycle, and the (very)-high-tempera-
ture reactors), including waste conditioning, and transverse
activities (materials and fuels development, development of
simulation tools for reactor design, and R&D infrastructures).
Of course, the elaboration, implementation and deployment
of all of the activities within the SNE-TP are guided by the

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 29

 4. Preliminary roadmaps:
towards the strategic research agenda
The Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) of the SNE-TP will a fast-spectrum experimental system with a power range
propose roadmaps for: between 50 and 100 MWth to support the development
and demonstration of an innovative reactor-cooling
optimising operating and next-generation light-water technology and whose cost is evaluated at EUR 600
reactors (generations II and III) million;
preparing the deployment of sustainable nuclear systems a reactor to replace the high-flux reactor (HFR) as the
for the future, including advanced fuel cycles main European provider of radio-nuclides for medical
widening the range of nuclear energy applications. applications and as such should be supported by the
medical industry. Estimated costs are around EUR 200
million;
Fig. 20 (next page) illustrates the different roadmaps of
the platform up to around 2040, when industrial deploy- a first-of-a-kind very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR) to
demonstrate cogeneration technologies, depending on
ment of fast-neutron reactors can be envisaged. the market need for hydrogen or synthetic fuel, typically
costing EUR 1.5 to 2 billion.
To be deployed successfully, the SRA will require signifi-
cant investments to support the R&D needed to meet the Besides these major research infrastructures, other exper-
technological challenges, but also to update the necessary imental facilities are needed to support technology
large infrastructures. developments and safety studies. These include experi-
mental loops (e.g. sodium, lead and gas loops) as well as
Currently identified large infrastructures of European material-development facilities and those necessary to
interest for nuclear fission are: develop fully closed fuel cycles.
the Jules Horowitz high-performance material test reactor,
identified in the European Strategy Forum on Research Networking of existing facilities and construction of new
Infrastructures (ESFRI) roadmap as a mature project ones operated as ‘European user facilities’ are essential for
(evaluated at EUR 500 million in 2005) to replace to a
meeting the R&D needs described above, for advancing
large extent Europe’s ageing materials test reactors
(MTRs) (over 40 years old) when it will come into the European Research Area (ERA), and for attracting a
operation in 2014. The Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR), new generation of scientists and engineers to contribute
launched recently with the support of several European to new and challenging programmes. Modern research
countries and the European Commission, will in the short
term support studies for generation-II and -III light-water infrastructures are essential for enabling the scientific
reactors on ageing and life extension, safety and fuel community to remain at the forefront of nuclear fission
performances, and support material and fuel develop- science and technology and to support the development
ments for generation-IV reactors; of industrial innovations for nuclear reactors, fuels and
the prototype sodium-cooled fast reactor with a power fuel cycle.
conversion system of 250 to 600 MWe to be built through
a research-industry partnership, together with a fuel-
fabrication pilot plant. The overall project costs are
estimated at about EUR 2 billion;

30 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

 Fig. 20: Preliminary research
roadmaps for the different
technologies

2010: Harmonised lifetime extension methodology

2010-12: Optimisation of severe accident management procedure for LWRs
Gen. II-III LWRs Continuous optimisation of fuel performances and safety
2010: Improved fuel-cycle economy; viability of high conversion ratio designs
2012: Viability of SCWR

Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) R&D programmes to bring innovations

(safety, competitiveness):
2009: Pre-selection of design options
2012: Confirmation of design options – preliminary and detailed design, safety
analysis reports, validation R&D, construction of a prototype SFR in the range

Reactors
Gen. IV of 250-600 MWe
fast-neutron
reactors: 2020: Start-up of operations
Sustainability R&D to assess viability and performance of gas- and lead-cooled fast reactors,
as well as accelerator-driven systems:
■
Selection in 2010-12 of a second type of fast-neutron system of importance for
Europe. Construction of a 50-100 MWth first experimental facility in Europe
■
2020: Start-up of operations
2020-2040: Further R&D to design and optimise full-scale systems, to build a
first-of-a-kind fast reactor and start of commercial deployment

Development of alternative fuels to oil for transport, including hydrogen and

New synthetic hydrocarbon fuel production, as well as processes that require heat
applications and/or electricity, such as desalination
of nuclear Tentative R&D agenda to support the realisation of first-of-a-kind VHTR reactor
energy around 2020 could be the following:
■
2010-12: Confirmation of key technologies (fuel, materials, components, power
conversion, hydrogen production)
■
2015-20: Construction of a VHTR and demonstration of cogeneration applications

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

2012: Selection of technologies for the closed fuel cycle with the development of
minor actinide bearing fuels; selection made on a technological and economical
basis, with an optimisation of the waste form in terms of long-term radio-toxicity
Fuel cycle

and thermal load impact on the required volume for the geological repository
Support the operation of a fast-reactor prototype from 2020 onwards:
Advanced
recycling ■
Construction in the period 2012-2017 of:
processes – a fuel-manufacturing workshop
– a micropilot for minor actinide recycling (separation and minor actinide bearing
fuel manufacturing)
2020-2040: Further R&D to design and optimise full-scale systems and to deploy
advanced fuel-cycle facilities around 2040

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 31

 5. Recommendations

T
o maintain its role as a worldwide player in the is planned in France with international and industrial
context of a global increase in energy demand, partnerships. In parallel, Europe should work on an
alternative design of fast-spectrum experimental system
Europe needs an energy mix that tackles the
(helium-cooled or lead-cooled fast reactor). Sustained
following challenges: increased security of supply, cost- research and technological breakthroughs are needed to
competitiveness, and reduction of greenhouse-gas emis- design and build such generation-IV systems. Dedicated
sions to combat climate change. R&D for this purpose needs to be supported from public
funds, including as part of the Euratom Framework
Programme. The European R&D programmes could
With these challenges in mind, it should be noted that: benefit from international cooperation with corres-
to fulfil Europe’s commitment to substantially reduce CO2 ponding activities within Generation IV International
emissions by 2020 and beyond, a long-term energy policy Forum (GIF) and other international activities.
urgently needs to be implemented. Nuclear power and ■
In order to maintain a high level of safety, based on
hydro power are currently the only sustainable large-scale national and international standards, safety regulations
means for producing continuously available base-load and and guidelines have to be further developed and
almost carbon-free electricity. Sustainable nuclear energy harmonised. Research programmes on reactor safety
has the potential for further reducing CO2 emissions over and protection against radiological hazards should
the very long term; continue to be conducted. Risk-governance metho-
to secure Europe’s energy supply and its competitiveness, dologies with participation of representatives from the
generation-III light-water reactors should be developed and public at large should be further developed;
supply a significant share of the EU’s energy needs. enhance Europe’s technological leadership in nuclear
Gradually, generation-IV fast reactors with closed fuel cycles science and engineering by the production of scientific
should be introduced. Through multi-recycling, such and technical skills to keep pace with the corresponding
nuclear systems will maximise the use of the energy poten- industrial and R&D demand. Therefore, education and
tial of the fuel, thereby ensuring that nuclear energy training in nuclear science and engineering must be
remains an economical and sustainable source of energy strengthened. In addition, R&D infrastructures of
for thousands of years. Increasing the relative share of European interest must be renewed and consolidated;
nuclear electricity production will reduce Europe’s external
dependency on fossil fuels, thereby further enhancing the in an environmentally benign and sustainable economy,
security of its energy supply; contribute to the production of synthetic fuels and
hydrogen needs on the basis of non-GHG-emitting
to effectively combat climate change, the cost of production sources. Therefore, in addition to electricity
greenhouse-gas emissions must be taken into account at production, the use of nuclear power to produce
a worldwide level. Nuclear power must be included in the hydrogen and industrial heat should become a high-
post-Kyoto international negotiations, as a part of clean priority R&D topic.
development mechanisms, contributing to sustainable
development.

The authors of this document therefore recommend

establishing the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology
Platform (SNE-TP), with the following objectives:
preserve and strengthen the European technological
leadership and nuclear industry through a strong and
long-term R&D programme, involving fuel cycles and
reactor systems of generation-II, -III and -IV types.
■
In order to ensure the development of sustainable nuclear
power on a large scale worldwide, the fuel cycle must be
closed, i.e. recycling uranium and plutonium. Such fuel-
cycle strategies can already be implemented with currently
available technology in conjunction with generation-II and
-III reactors. With further technological breakthroughs and
R&D efforts, multi-recycling of all actinides can be im-
plemented in conjunction with generation-IV reactors.
■
In order to maintain its technological leadership in a
worldwide context of nuclear market renaissance,
Europe has to build a generation-IV prototype. The
construction of a sodium fast-neutron reactor prototype

32 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

References
[1] Towards a European Strategic Energy [15] An energy policy for Europe, [30] Nuclear Power Reactors in the World,
Technology Plan, COM(2006) 847 COM(2007) 1, SEC(2007) 12, April 2006 Edition, IAEA
10 January 2007
[2] European Council 8-9 March 2007, [31] Green Paper on A European Strategy
Brussels, Presidency Conclusions, [16] Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC), for Sustainable, Competitive and
7224/07, Annex I, European Council COM(2006) 844, published in January Secure Energy (March 2006),
Action Plan (2007-2009), Energy 2007, and Annexes 1 and 2, SEC(2006) COM(2006) 105, European
Policy for Europe (EPE) 1717 and SEC(2006) 1718 Commission
[3] A. Voß, I. Ellersdorfer, U. Fahl, M. Blesl [17] EU energy policy data, SEC(2007) 12 [32] EU Integrated Project EUROTRANS,
(2007): Determination of the total http://nuklear-server.ka.fzk.de/
social costs of electricity generation. [18] Western European Nuclear Regulators’ eurotrans
European Sustainable Electricity; Association – http://www.wenra.org
Comprehensive Analysis of Future [33] Bio-fuels TP – http://www.biofuelstp.eu
[19] European Technical Safety – and Hydrogen and Fuel Cells TP –
European Demand and Generation of Organisations Network,
European Electricity and its Security of https://www.hfpeurope.org
http://www.grs.de/tso.html
Supply (EUSUSTEL), Final Technical [34] European Nuclear Education Network
Report – www.eusustel.be [20] Meeting the Energy Challenge: (ENEN) – http://www.enen-assoc.org
A White Paper on Energy, Department
[4] Energy & Transport in Figures 2006, of Trade and Industry, UK, May 2007 [35] SARNET, Network of Excellence on
Part 2: Energy, European Commission, severe-accident research –
DG TREN – http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ [21] World Nuclear Association – http://www.sar-net.org
energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/
doc/2006/2006_energy_en.pdf reactors.html [36] ACTINET, Network of Excellence on
fuel-cycle research –
[5] Brundtland Report: Our Common [22] Industrial stakes and scientific http://www.actinet-network.org
Future, the World Commission on challenges associated to current fleet
Environment and Development, and new generation of reactors for a [37] Frédéric Joliot, Otto Hahn Summer
Oxford University Press, 1987 utility, J. M. Delbecq, 6th International School on Nuclear Reactors –
Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor http://hikwww4.fzk.de/fjohss
[6] Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Thermal-hydraulics, Operations and
(GNEP) – www.gnep.energy.gov Safety, Nara, Japan, 4-8 October 2004 [38] European Research Council –
http://erc.europa.eu/index.cfm
[7] Proposition for an International [23] World Nuclear Association –
Uranium Enrichment Centre – http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/ [39] European energy and transport trends
www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/ reactors.html, updated on 31 May 2007 to 2030, EC, DG TREN, January 2003
russiatalks.html
[24] Generation IV International Forum – [40] FP5 Thematic Network FEUNMARR:
[8] Energy Policy Scenarios to 2050 – www.gen-4.org Future EU Needs in Material Research
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/ Reactors
edc/scenario.asp [25] Uranium 2005: Resources, Production
and Demand (Red Book), [41] ESFRI, European Strategic Forum
[9] Advanced nuclear fuel cycles and OECD/NEA – IAEA for Research Infrastructures –
radioactive waste management, http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/
OECD/NEA 2006 [26] Rapport N° 3003 de l’Assemblée home.html
nationale, relatif à la gestion des
[10] Co-ordination of research, matières et des déchets radioactifs, [42] Comparison of energy systems using
development and demonstration Cl. Birraux, 29 mars 2006 life-cycle assessment, Special Report,
(RD&D) priorities and strategies for World Energy Council, London, 2004
geological disposal, FP6 Coordination [27] NEA, 1995: The Environmental and
Action – http://cordis.europa.eu/ Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal:
fp6-euratom/projects.htm A Collective Opinion of the NEA
Radioactive Waste Management
[11] FISA 2006 – Conference on EU Committee
Research and Training on Reactor
Systems – http://cordis.europa.eu/ [28] The WEC Survey of Energy Resources
fp6-euratom/ev_fisa2006_proceedings_ (1995) estimates that for fast reactors,
en.htm proven uranium resources allow for
more than 3 000 years of energy
[12] World Energy Outlook 2006, production – http://www.worldenergy.
OECD/IEA org/wec-geis/edc/scenario.asp
[13] World Energy Technology Outlook, [29] International Conference on Non-
WETO H2, EUR 22038, 2006 electric Applications of Nuclear Power:
[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen
Climate Change – www.ipcc.ch Production and Other Applications,
16-19 April 2007, Oarai, Japan

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 33

 Annex I
High-level representatives
Company/organisation Person Position

Ansaldo, Italy Roberto Adinolfi Chief Executive Officer

AREVA, France Alain Bucaille Senior VP, Corporate Research & Innovation
AVN, Belgium Jean-Jacques Van Binnebeek Director-General
CEA, France Alain Bugat Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CIEMAT, Spain Juan Antonio Rubio Director-General
CNRS, France Hubert Flocard Director of the PACEN programme
EDF, France Jean-Pierre Hutin Vice-President, Electricity Production R&D Programs
ENDESA, Spain Pablo T. León Sub-Director, Nuclear Engineering
ENS Frank Deconinck President
E.ON, Germany Erwin Fischer Head of Nuclear Systems Departments
FORATOM Eduardo Gonzalez Gomez President
FZD, Germany Roland Sauerbrey Scientific Director
FZJ, Germany Detlev Stöver Research Director, Energy
FZK, Germany Peter Fritz Member of the Board
GRS, Germany Lothar Hahn Director-General
IBERDROLA, Spain Diego Molina Nuclear Power Director
IRSN, France Jacques Repussard Director-General
JRC, EC Roland Schenkel Director General
JSI, Slovenia Jadran Lenarcic Director
KFKI, Hungary János Gadó Director
Nexia Solutions, UK Graham Fairhall Chief Technology Officer
NRG, the Netherlands André M.Versteegh Director
NRI, Romania Constantin Pauniou Director
PSI, Switzerland Ralph Eichler Director
SCK•CEN, Belgium Eric van Walle Director-General
Suez, France Paul Rorive Group Senior Vice-President, Nuclear Activities
Tecnatom, Spain Antonio Alonso Director-General
TVO, Finland Jari Tuunanen Manager, Research and Development
UJV, the Czech Republic František Pazdera Director-General
University of Karlsruhe, Germany Dan Cacuci Institute Director and Chaired Professor
University of Madrid, Spain Carol Ahnert Head of Nuclear Engineering Department
University of Rome, Italy Antonio Naviglio Respectively present and future Director of Dipartimento di
Maurizio Cumo Ingegneria Nucleare e Conversioni di Energia
Vattenfall, Sweden Göran Lundgren Vice-President
VTT, Finland Kari Larjava Vice-President, R&D, Energy and Pulp & Paper; Professor

34 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

Annex II
Contributors
Company/organisation Person Position

Members of the SNF-TP and/or PATEROS Coordination Actions

Ansaldo, Italy Giuliano Locatelli Manager, Power Projects
AREVA NP, France Yves Kaluzny Vice-President, Corporate R&D
CEA, France Patrick Ledermann Deputy Director, Nuclear Energy Division
CIEMAT, Spain Enrique M. Gonzalez Head of Nuclear Fission Division
CNRS, France Hubert Flocard Director of PACEN Programme
EDF, France Jean-Michel Delbecq Future Nuclear Systems Programme Director
Olivier Marchand Numerical Simulation Tools Programme Director
ENEA, Italy Stefano Monti Programme Manager for Innovative Nuclear Fission Systems
FZD, Germany Frank-Peter Weiss Director, Institute of Safety Research
FZK, Germany Joachim U. Knebel Head of Programme NUKLEAR
JRC, EC Didier Haas Head of Unit
JSI, Slovenia Borut Mavko Head of Reactor Engineering Division
KFKI, Hungary János Gadó Director
Nexia Solutions, UK Tim Abram Senior Fellow, Fuels and Reactor Systems
NRG, the Netherlands André Versteegh Director
PSI, Switzerland Jean-Marc Cavedon Department Head, Nuclear Energy and Safety
SCK•CEN, Belgium Hamid Ait Abderrahim Director of the Advanced Nuclear Systems Institute (ANS)
UJV, the Czech Republic Ivo Vasa Director of the Nuclear Power and Safety Division
University of Karlsruhe, Germany Dan Cacuci Institute Director and Chaired Professor
University of Madrid, Spain Jose M. Aragones Chair, Nuclear Engineering Department
University of Rome, Italy Antonio Naviglio Respectively present and future Director of Dipartimento di
Maurizio Cumo Ingegneria Nucleare e Conversioni di Energia
Vattenfall, Sweden Tomas Lefvert Corporate Scientific Adviser
VTT, Finland Seppo Vuori Chief Research Scientist, Nuclear Energy

Members of ENEN
SCK•CEN, Belgium Peter De Regge Secretary General
CEA INSTN, France Joseph Safieh President

Members of TSOs
AVN, Belgium Ray Ashley Research & Development Coordinator
GRS, Germany Victor Teschendorff Head of Reactor Safety Research Division
IRSN, France Edouard Scott de Martinville Coordinator of European Affairs

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of EURELECTRIC, FORATOM and the chairman of the
Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee to this vision report, as well as the comments from members of the Advisory Group on
Energy during the Strategic Energy Technology Plan hearing in Brussels, 20 April 2007. The authors also acknowledge the assistance
provided by Henri Paillère, CEA, in editing this document.

THE SUSTAINAB LE NUCLEAR ENERG Y TECHNO LO G Y PL ATFOR M 35

 Annex III
List of acronyms
ADS accelerator-driven system
CCGT combined-cycle gas turbine
DS deployment strategy
EM energy management
EPR European Pressurised-water Reactor
ERA European Research Area
ESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures
FP (Euratom research) framework programme
GFR gas-cooled fast reactor
GHG greenhouse gas
GIF Generation IV International Forum
HFR high-flux reactor
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IEA International Energy Agency
JHR Jules Horowitz Reactor
LFR lead-cooled fast reactor
LWR light-water reactor
MOX mixed oxide (fuel)
MTR material test reactor
NEA Nuclear Energy Agency
NPP nuclear power plant
R&D research and development
RD&D research, development and demonstration
SCWR super-critical water reactor
SET Plan Strategic Energy Technology Plan
SFR sodium-cooled fast reactor
SNE-TP Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform
SRA strategic research agenda
TSO technical safety organisation
VHTR very-high-temperature reactor
WENRA Western European Nuclear Regulators Association

Units:
k kilo
M mega
G giga
T tera
t tonne
toe tonne of oil equivalent
We/Wth watt electric/watt thermal
Wh watt-hour

36 THE S US TA INA B LE N UC L E A R E N E R G Y T E C H N O LO G Y P L ATF O RM

European Commission

EUR 22842 – The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2007 – 36 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-05591-1
ISSN 1018-5593

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS

Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
are available from our sales agents throughout the world.
You can find the list of sales agents on the Publications Office website (http://publications.europa.eu)
or you can apply for it by fax (352) 29 29-42758.
Contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order.
 KI-NA-22842-EN-C
This report, endorsed by a large number of stakeholders – technology suppliers, utilities, research
organisations, technical safety organisations – accompanies the launch of the Sustainable Nuclear
Energy Technology Platform (SNE-TP). It proposes a vision for nuclear fission energy up to the
middle of the century, as part of Europe’s future low-carbon energy mix.

The report outlines the current situation of nuclear energy, which provides a third of Europe’s
electricity with nearly no greenhouse-gas emissions. It presents a short- and medium-term view,
the renaissance of nuclear power with generation-III reactors. It also presents a long-term view on
how to overcome the barriers for the development of a sustainable nuclear fission technology
with generation-IV reactors.