SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Project no: 502687
NEEDS
New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability
INTEGRATED PROJECT
Priority 6.1: Sustainable Energy Systems and, more specifically,
Sub-priority 6.1.3.2.5: Socio-economic tools and concepts for energy strategy.
Paper n° 5.2 - RS 1d
Assessment of externalities of nuclear fuel cycle in Central-East-European countries
Due date of paper: 31thMay 2008
Actual submission date: 20thApril 2009
Start date of project: 1 September 2004Duration: 48 months
Organisation name for this paper: AEKI, CUEC, Profing
Authors: János Osán, Miroslav Havránek, Jiri Balajka
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)Dissemination Level
PU / Public
PP / Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE / Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) / X
CO / Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.Introduction
2.Normal operation
2.1.Model and calculation assumptions
2.2.Technical data on power plants
2.3.Data description
2.4.Externalities attributable to the process
2.5.Externalities attributable to upstream and down-stream processes
2.5.1.General externalities based on LCI data
2.5.2.Externalities due to radionuclide releases
3.Accident risk
3.1.Model and calculation assumptions
3.2.Reactor core inventory and accident scenario data
3.3.Externalities attributable to the process
3.4.Sensitivity analysis
3.5.Risk aversion
4.references
Executive Summary
The present report aims to summarize and compare externailities related to normal operation and accident risk of existing and planned nuclear power utilities in Central-Eastern Europe. Power plants operational in Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia based on VVER440 and VVER1000 reactors were studied. EPR was considered for planned power plants as a representative for Generation III reactors.
The normal operation related external costs of existing power plants in CzechRepublic, Hungary and Slovakiacalculated using EcoSenseWebrange from 0.045 to 0.074 c€/kWh. Radioactive releases during the expected performance of EPR would result in externalities of 0.032 c€/kWh, around 30% smaller than that of existing power plants with VVER units.
Around 20 % of the external costs of the whole nuclear fuel cycle are related to the operation phase. Fuel supply (mining, conversion, fuel fabrication, transport, reprocessing and waste disposal) accounts for 76 % of the total external costs. Externalities attributed to radioactive emissions in the fuel supply phase are around 70% of those in the operation phase.
The consequences of hypothetical accidents were calculated using COSYMA. Costs of health effects as well as countermeasures costs are summarized to total external costs. In total, the countermeasure costs and the health effect costs are in the same range. Using DRSB scenario set (low estimate), the contribution of accident risk to the external costs of existing nuclear power plants is in the range of 0.0008–0.0009 c€/kWh, that is comparable to the regional effects of radionuclide emissions during normal operation. The high estimate (RISO scenarios) yield around 50 times higher external costs (0.038–0.045 c€/kWh) that are almost the same as global external costs of normal operation.
The accident risk related external costs for EPR amount 3.0·10-7–5.1·10-7 c€/kWh. It means that the accident risk related externalities – using the objective risk without considering risk aversion – are negligible even compared to the regional effects of normal operation of EPR (1.29·10-4 c€/kWh).
Risk aversion of the society was not taken into account in the calculation results of the present report because of the high inconsistency between the proposals in the literature.
1.Introduction
Nuclear electricity generation plays an important role in the energy sector of Central and Eastern Europe. In 2006, the installed net capacity of nuclear power plants was 2,700 MW in Bulgaria, 3,760 MW in CzechRepublic, 1,755 MW in Hungary, 1,183 MW in Lithuania, 655 MW in Romania, 2,460 MW Slovakia, 696 MW in Slovenia.The share of electricity generated by nuclear power plants was as high as 37% in total electricity produced in Hungary.[1] Nuclear electricity generation is regarded as part of the national energy strategies for long time in these countries. For example, the lifetime extension of the Paks nuclear power plant was approved by the Hungarian parliament. New nuclear power utilities or units are planned e.g. in Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland.
For this reason the calculation of externalities related to normal operation as well as accident risk was addressed in RS1d of the NEEDS project, considering power plants currently operational in Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, as well as a representative of a Generation III nuclear power plant (EPR) for assessment of the planned utilities.
2.Normal operation
2.1.Model and calculation assumptions
The impact assessment of the emissions of classical pollutants and CO2 was performed the same way as for fossil electricity generation, using the EcoSenseWeb utility.[2] The environmental impact of radio nuclide releases due to normal operation was assessed using the EcoSenseWeb system as well. The approach of the ExternE project of EC has been used, with updated data as far as possible.[3]
Dispersion modelling of releases of radio nuclides is not implemented in EcoSenseWeb. However, dispersion and consequential exposure modelling for a variety of radio nuclides and for representative locations have been made in different studies. From literature corresponding results are obtained for NEEDS. The evaluation of release due to normal operation is based on such results. The applied approach is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Scheme of assessment of impact due to release of radio nuclides
The release of radio nuclides and the corresponding radioactivity into the environment causesimpacts to human health.The impacts considered are:
- Fatal cancers,
- Non-fatal cancers and
- Hereditary defects.
The impacts are aggregated further into monetary values using external cost data per impact derived for Europe. The impacts are also expressed as physical impact. However, the generic factors of global impact do not provide information where the impacts take place. Therefore, the application of external cost data valid for Europe may be an overestimation of the external costs. This also depends on the point of view regarding evaluation of impacts outside of Europe.
The factors relating emissions of different radio nuclides expressed as radioactivity [Bq] tocollective dose, i.e. population dose [manSv] are derived from UNSCEAR reports.[4] The values of [manSv/PBq] are derived for certain population density notnecessarily reflecting the real population distribution of the location of an investigatedfacility. 400 person/km2 was assumed in local range (0–50 km from the source) and 20 person/km2 in regional range (50–2,000 km from the source).
The factors relating collective dose to impact are the so called risk factors and are based on the ICRP60[5] recommendations for core analysis (Table 1). The same are used in the ExternE project of EC.[6] These factors assume a linear dose response function without threshold. Table 2 shows the risk factors and monetary values for health impacts used in the EcoSenseWeb system.
Table 1.Fate / exposure factors (manSv/PBq) for converting emissions during generation (Bq/kWh) to doses (manSv/kWh)
Nuclide group / Conversion factor (manSv/PBq)Emissions to air / Emissions to water
Global / Regional & local / Global / Regional & local
Noble gases (PWR) / 0.11
Noble gases (BWR) / 0.43
Noble gases (GCR) / 0.9
Iodines / 20,000 / 300
Particles / 2,000 / 330
Kr-85 / 0.2 / 0.014
H-3 / 2.0 / 2.1 / 0.2 / 0.65
C-14 / 92,000 / 270
Table 2. Risk factors and monetary values of health endpoints relevant for radioactive emissions
Endpoints / Risk factor(case/manSv) / Monetary value
(€2000/case)
Fatal cancer / 0.05 / 1,120,000
Non-fatal cancer / 0.12 / 481,050
Hereditary defect / 0.01 / 1,500,000
2.2.Technical data on power plants
The Paks nuclear power plant is the largest base power station of the Hungarian power system supplying about 37 % of the total electricity production. The power plant has pressurized water reactors (PWR), and consists of four VVER440 units made in Russia. In 2005 the life extension and capacity increase of the Paks nuclear power plant was approved by the Parliament. The building of new nuclear units is also an open option in the energy strategy.
The SE, a.s. owns and operates the nuclear power plants in Slovakia. NPP in Jaslovské Bohunice (the power plants JEV1 and JEV2 are located 70 km north- west form Bratislava, each of unit has installed capacity of 2×440 MWe, VVER type, it means together 1760 MWe. The old units in JEV1 will be retired in 2006 and 2008, respectively, according to the Resolution of Slovak Government No. 801/1999 to shut down the oldest two units of NPP V1. The other nuclear power plant is installed in Mochovce. Two units each of 440 MWe, VVER type, were put into operation in 2000 and other two units of the same capacity are present finalized by about 60%. The future of these two units is not clear now and will strongly depend on decision of present dominant owner – ENEL.
The Temelín Nuclear Power Station, with its 2,000 MW of installed capacity is the largest power plant in the CzechRepublic.[7]The power plant itself is located about 24 km away from regional center České Budějovice in Jihočeský region. Closest city is Týn nad Vltavou. Electricity is generated in two blocks with VVER 1000 Type V 320 pressurized-water reactors. Cooling water is drawn from the Hněvkovice water dam on the river Vltava. This dam was built as a part of the power station project. In spring 2003, the Temelín Nuclear Power Station, with its 2,000 MWe of installed capacity, became the largest electricity source in the CzechRepublic.The Dukovany Nuclear Power Station is situated approximately 30 km southeast of Třebíč, in a triangle formed by the municipalities of Dukovany, Slavětice and Rouchovany. There are installed four pressurized-water reactors of Type VVER 440 - Model V 213, each generating 440 MW, located in two double units.6Its construction was started in 1974. Change of the project caused postponement of the full start-up of the construction till the year 1978. The first reactor unit was put into operation on 4 May 1985, and the last (the fourth) unit on 20 July 1987. In the vicinity of the power station on the JihlavaRiver, there was built the Dalešice waterworks with a pumped-storage hydroelectric power station, with a capacity of 450 MW. Its equalizing reservoir serves as a water resource for the nuclear power station.The Dukovany Nuclear Power Station is intended for a base-load operation mode. It supplies annually approx. 13 TWh of electric energy to the national power network. Particular attention is paid to the safety of its operation which is supervised on on-going bases by the State Office on Nuclear Safety and relevant international organizations.
Since new units of nuclear power plants are planned in Central and Eastern Europe, a reference Generation III nuclear unit was also considered for comparison of externalities with those of existing power plants. Generation III reactor designs are based on theimprovement of already existing designs, but they offer significant advances in safety and economics. Most Generation III reactors areadvanced light water reactors. The European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) developed by Framatome (now Areva NP) and Siemens is a goodrepresentative of Generation III reactors.[8],[9] The EPR uses moderately enriched (up to 5%)uranium oxide fuel or mixed oxide fuel (MOX). Its net electrical output is in the range of 1,600 MWe.
Advantages of the EPR include:
-Important gains in performance including availability over 90% and lower operating costs,translating into greater cost-competitiveness.
-Significant safety improvements: the probability of a core meltdown, already extremely low withthe PWR, should be even lower with the EPR. But if such an event were nevertheless to occur,there should be no significant impact outside the power plant due to the extremely strongcontainment building surrounding the reactor.
-An answer to sustainable development concerns: by design, the EPR generates more electricityfrom a given quantity of fuel, thus conserving uranium resources (15 % decrease in the amount ofuranium used) and generating less waste (15 % decrease). Among other factors, the conversionrate of thermal power into electricity rose from 34 % to 36-37 %.
Table 3 summarizes the technical data, radioactive as well as inactive emissions during normal operation for years 2005, 2006 and 2007. For EPR, a reference year of 2020 was assumed. Although only 5% of 14Cis released as 14CO2 that can directly enter to the food chain, UNSCEAR3 recommends to consider the total 14C emission for calculations, since the hydrocarbons will be oxidized to 14CO2 within a few years.The emission of classical pollutants and CO2 is due to the reserve diesel generators that have to be tested regularly. The contribution of the inactive pollutants is included in the Hungarian case.
Table 3a. Summary of technical data of the reference nuclear power plants, Hungary, Slovakia
Power plant / Paks / Paks / Paks / JE V1 / JE V2 / JE EMOFuel type / nuclear / Nuclear / nuclear / nuclear / Nuclear / nuclear
Type of power plant / PWR / PWR / PWR / PWR / PWR / PWR
Year / 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2005 / 2005 / 2005
Installed capacity (MW) / 1,866 / 1,866 / 1,910 / 880 / 880 / 880
Net electricity production (GWh/a) / 12,952.0 / 12,661.0 / 13,800.0 / 5,592.8 / 5,893.6 / 6,240.0
Load factor (h/a) / 8,760 / 8,760 / 8,760 / 6,991 / 7,367 / 7,800
Radioactive emissions to air
Noble gases (TBq/a) / 14.0 / 18.9 / 16.5 / 30.40 / 9.75 / 4.57
85Kr (TBq/a) / 1.57 / 2.12 / 1.85 / 0.039 / 0.185 / 0.088
3H (TBq/a) / 1.94 / 2.98 / 2.78 / 1.04 / 0.625 / 0.198
14C (TBq/a) / 0.61 / 0.61 / 0.57 / 0.315 / 0.229 / 0.237
Iodines (TBq/a) / 2.61E-04 / 3.24E-05 / 3.60E-05 / 1.04E-06 / 7.58E-07 / 3.80E-07
Particulates (TBq/a) / 1.09E-03 / 7.86E-04 / 7.44E-04 / 1.63E-05 / 1.72E-05 / 2.05E-05
Radioactive emissions to water
Particulates (TBq/a) / 1.56E-03 / 1.16E-03 / 1.56E-03 / 3.83E-02 / 4.04E-02 / 5.96E-05
3H (TBq/a) / 17.2 / 23.8 / 20.8 / 5.98 / 6.30 / 8.96
Inactive emissions to air
SO2 emissions (t/a) / 0.32 / 0.32 / 0.28
NOx emissions (t/a) / 4.49 / 4.49 / 3.97
PM10 emissions (t/a) / 0.08 / 0.08 / 0.05
PM2.5 emissions (t/a) / 0.08 / 0.08 / 0.05
CO2 emissions (kt/a) / 0.18 / 0.18 / 0.16
SO2 emissions (mg/Nm3) / 32.0 / 32.0 / 28.0
NOx emissions (mg/Nm3) / 449.0 / 449.0 / 397.0
PM10 emissions (mg/Nm3) / 8.0 / 8.0 / 5.0
PM2.5 emissions (mg/Nm3) / 8.0 / 8.0 / 5.0
Release height (m) / 6 / 6 / 6
Flue gas volume (Nm3/h) / 1.14E+03 / 1.14E+03 / 1.14E+03
Flue gas temperature (K) / 400 / 400 / 400
Elevation at site (m asl) / 100 / 100 / 100
Latitude (degree) / 46.63 / 46.63 / 46.63 / 48.49 / 48.50 / 48.25
Longitude (degree) / 18.80 / 18.80 / 18.80 / 17.68 / 17.69 / 18.68
Location / rural / Rural / rural / rural / rural / Rural
Table 3b. Summary of technical data of the reference nuclear power plants, CzechRepublic
Power plant / Dukovany / Dukovany / Dukovany / Temelín / Temelín / TemelínFuel type / nuclear / nuclear / nuclear / nuclear / Nuclear / nuclear
Type of power plant / PWR / PWR / PWR / PWR / PWR / PWR
Year / 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007
Installed capacity (MW) / 1,760 / 1,760 / 1,760 / 2,000 / 2,000 / 2,000
Net electricity production (GWh/a) / 12,900 / 13,100 / 13,900 / 10,400 / 11,400 / 12,300
Load factor (h/a) / 8,760 / 8,760 / 8,760 / 8,760 / 8,760 / 8,760
Radioactive emissions to air
Noble gases (TBq/a) / 6.68 / 7.13 / 6.32 / 5.70 / 7.70 / 1.76
85Kr (TBq/a) / 0.187 / 0.200 / 0.082 / 0.171 / 0.231 / 0.017
3H (TBq/a) / 0.795 / 0.672 / 0.562 / 2.13 / 1.62 / 1.59
14C (TBq/a) / 0.799 / 0.744 / 0.582 / 0.412 / 0.561 / 0.504
Iodines (TBq/a) / 1.06E-05 / 1.08E-05 / 3.41E-05 / 5.94E-05 / 1.70E-04 / 2.34E-04
Particulates (TBq/a), upper est. / 4.48E-05 / 3.21E-05 / 4.25E-05 / 2.27E-05 / 7.66E-06 / 7.74E-06
Radioactive emissions to water
Particulates (TBq/a), upper est. / 3.51E-05 / 3.07E-05 / 3.01E-05 / 1.20E-03 / 9.44E-04 / 6.44E-04
3H (TBq/a) / 13.9 / 14.4 / 13.1 / 29.6 / 37.3 / 28.5
Latitude / 49.09 / 49.09 / 49.09 / 49.18 / 49.18 / 49.18
Longitude / 16.15 / 16.15 / 16.15 / 14.38 / 14.38 / 14.38
Location / rural / rural / rural / rural / rural / rural
Table 3c. Summary of technical data of the reference nuclear power plants, EPR
Power plant / EPRa / EPRbFuel type / nuclear / nuclear
Type of power plant / PWR / PWR
Year / 2020 / 2020
Installed capacity (MW) / 1,630 / 1,630
Net electricity production (GWh/a) / 13,000 / 13,000
Load factor (h/a) / 8,760 / 8,760
Radioactive emissions to air
Noble gases (TBq/a) / 0.80 / 22.50
85Kr (TBq/a) / 0.11 / 3.13
3H (TBq/a) / 0.50 / 3.00
14C (TBq/a) / 0.35 / 0.90
Iodines (TBq/a) / 5.00E-05 / 4.00E-04
Particulates (TBq/a), upper est. / 4.00E-06 / 3.40E-04
Radioactive emissions to water
Particulates (TBq/a), upper est. / 6.00E-04 / 1.00E-03
3H (TBq/a) / 52.0 / 75.0
a expected performance excluding operating contingencies
b maximum release
2.3.Data description
The technical parameters of the Paks nuclear power plant as published by MVM Zrt. for years 2005, 2006 and 2007 were used.[10] The radioactive emissions to air and water are published every year by Paks NPP in the environmental protection report.[11] The yearly atmospheric emissions of SO2, NOx, PM10 and CO2 due to the reserve diesel generators were provided directly by the environmental protection department of the power plant. Diesel particulate matter was assumed to be totally in the size fraction of PM2.5.
For the CzechRepublic, data about particular releases of radionuclide emissions were obtained from NRPI (National Radiation Protection Institute). They measure all vents that release radionuclide and publish measured data annually. Data that are measured have certain confidence intervals or range. For the purpose of the study we used upper bound of this range. Reason is that it should provide more policy relevant results and we won’t underestimate possible impact. Data produced by NRPI were more detailed so we aggregated them by radionuclide groups required by EcosenseWeb. Electricity production data was obtained from ERU (Energy Regulatory Office, 2008) and from company operating these two plants.
The expected performance excluding operating contingencies, including the expected annual electricity production and releases of radionuclides to air and water as well as maximum release values were obtained from the Fundamental Safety Overview of EPR.[12]
Collective doses due to the different stages of the nuclear fuel cycle assessed by UNSCEAR20 could be used for assessment of external costs related to radionuclide releases during processes of nuclear fuel supply and waste treatment. Indirect emission data for upstream and downstream processes of the reference European nuclear technology calculated by life cycle inventory studies in the framework of the CASES project were used.[13]
Average EU25 monetary values incorporated in the EcoSenseWeb system1 were used for the present study.
2.4.Externalities attributable to the process
The results of EcoSenseWeb calculations are listed in Table 4. The externalities are dominated by the global effects of radioactive emissions (0.032–0.082 c€/kWh). The regional externalities due to inactive emissions of the reserve diesel generators are around a factor of two higher than that of radionuclides (0.0002 c€/kWh), being negligible compared to global effects. The contribution of CO2 emissions to the external costs is even smaller.
Table 4a. Impacts and external costs calculated for the Paks nuclear power plant (Hungary)
Year / 2005 / 2006 / 2007Module / Impacts / Damages / Impacts / Damages / Impacts / Damages
(cases/a) / (M€/a) / (c€/kWh) / (cases/a) / (M€/a) / (c€/kWh) / (cases/a) / (M€/a) / (c€/kWh)
radionuclides global / - / 7.2244 / 0.0558 / - / 7.2482 / 0.0573 / - / 6.6893 / 0.0484
fatal cancer / 2.81 / 3.1430 / 0.0243 / 2.82 / 3.1534 / 0.0249 / 2.60 / 2.9102 / 0.0211
non-fatal cancer / 6.73 / 3.2395 / 0.0250 / 6.76 / 3.2502 / 0.0257 / 6.24 / 2.9996 / 0.0217
Hereditary defect / 0.56 / 0.8419 / 0.0065 / 0.56 / 0.8446 / 0.0067 / 0.52 / 0.7795 / 0.0056
radionuclides regional / - / 0.0237 / 0.0002 / - / 0.0246 / 0.0002 / - / 0.0225 / 0.0002
fatal cancer / 0.01 / 0.0103 / 0.0001 / 0.01 / 0.0107 / 0.0001 / 0.01 / 0.0098 / 0.0001
non-fatal cancer / 0.02 / 0.0106 / 0.0001 / 0.02 / 0.0110 / 0.0001 / 0.02 / 0.0101 / 0.0001
Hereditary defect / 0.00 / 0.0028 / 0.0000 / 0.00 / 0.0029 / 0.0000 / 0.00 / 0.0026 / 0.0000
inactive emissions / - / 0.0605 / 0.0004 / - / 0.0605 / 0.0004 / - / 0.0528 / 0.0003
Local/Regional/
Hemispheric Scale / - / 0.0571 / 0.0004 / - / 0.0571 / 0.0004 / - / 0.0498 / 0.0003
GHG operation / - / 0.0034 / 0.0000 / - / 0.0034 / 0.0000 / - / 0.0030 / 0.0000
Table 4b. Impacts and external costs calculated for the Slovakian nuclear power plants (year 2005)
Power plant / Bohunice / JEV1 / Bohunice / JEV2 / Mochovce / EMOModule / Impacts / Damages / Impacts / Damages / Impacts / Damages
(cases/a) / (M€/a) / (c€/kWh) / (cases/a) / (M€/a) / (c€/kWh) / (cases/a) / (M€/a) / (c€/kWh)
radionuclides global / - / 3.7309 / 0.0667 / - / 2.7123 / 0.0460 / - / 2.8070 / 0.0450
fatal cancer / 1.4492 / 1.6231 / 0.0290 / 1.0535 / 1.1800 / 0.0200 / 1.0903 / 1.2211 / 0.0196
non-fatal cancer / 3.4780 / 1.6731 / 0.0299 / 2.5285 / 1.2163 / 0.0206 / 2.6167 / 1.2588 / 0.0202
hereditary defect / 0.2898 / 0.4347 / 0.0078 / 0.2107 / 0.3161 / 0.0054 / 0.2181 / 0.3271 / 0.0052
radionuclides regional / - / 0.0138 / 0.0002 / - / 0.0105 / 0.0002 / - / 0.0091 / 0.0001
fatal cancer / 0.0054 / 0.0060 / 0.0001 / 0.0041 / 0.0046 / 0.0001 / 0.0035 / 0.0040 / 0.0001
non-fatal cancer / 0.0129 / 0.0062 / 0.0001 / 0.0098 / 0.0047 / 0.0001 / 0.0085 / 0.0041 / 0.0001
hereditary defect / 0.0011 / 0.0016 / 0.0000 / 0.0008 / 0.0012 / 0.0000 / 0.0007 / 0.0011 / 0.0000
Table 4c. Impacts and external costs calculated for the Dukovany nuclear power plant(CzechRepublic)