1. The energy issue and the possible contribution of various nuclear energy production scenarios H.Nifenecker Scientific consultant LPSC/CNRS Chairman of « Sauvons le Climat »

2. Global Heating Challenge

3. (a) (b) Models for emission (a) and concentrations of CO2 (b)

4. Global Warming 2004 Emissions : 7,3 GtC (6,4 in 2000) World population: 6,3 Billions (6,0 in 2000) Emission/capita: 1,15 Ton C (1,06 in 2000) Max. emission for temperature stabilization: 3GtC Objective for 2050 World Population(minimum) : 9 Billions Emission/capita: 0.33 Ton The effort to do

5. World average: 1,15 ton C/capita USA: 5,4 tons C/capita Germany : 2,8 tons C/capita France: 1.7 tons C/capita China: 0.75 tons C/capita 2004 emissions

6. Origin of world CO2 emissions

7. Factors to control Energy intensities CO2 intensities

8. tCO2/tep

9. tCO2/electCO2/elec Role of electricity

10. Strategic role of Electricity

11. Electricity substitute to fossiles Mass transportation Electric car Hydrogen (electrolysis or reforming + CS (CO2) Bio-Fuels -Transportation -Heating Insulation Thermal Solar Biomass (wood, wastes, bio-gas) Geothermal Heat Pump Electric Heat

12. Learn from the past

13. Comparison of electricity mix OECD vs France

14. First step: electricity mix Assume same mix for OECD as for France

15. Comparison of CO2 emissions for observed and potential mix Gain: 0.67

16. Second step: Heat production with electricity

17. Total gain: 0.3 Residual « transport » CO2

19. Evolution of world GHG Emissions Increase dominated by CO2 Evolution of GHG emissions

20. Origin of GHG emissions

21. GHG emissions by sector Dominant rôle of energy sector

23. Building of scenarios Example of IAASA-WEC scenarios

24. Population projections

25. GDP Projections

26. Energy Demand

27. Energy demand per aggregate

28. Total primary energy B2

29. Nuclear B2

30. % electricity in B2

31. Coal B2

32. % nuclear electricity

33. IIASA Nuclear electricity in 2050 compared to 2000 Baseline:  Share of electricity multiplied by 1.64  Share of nuclear multiplied by 1.38  Nuclear multiplied by 2,26 670 ppm  Share of electricity multiplied by 1.73  Share of nuclear multiplied by 1,55  Nuclear multiplied by 2,68 480 ppm  Share of electricity multiplied by 1.98  Share of nuclear multiplied by 1,65  Nuclear multiplied by 3,26

34. Share of CO2less in electricity B2 470 ppm

35. Share of CO2less in electricity Baseline

36. Share of CO2less in electricity OECD

37. Share of CO2less in electricity Asia

38. Share of CO2less in electricity ALM

39. Share of CO2less in electricity REF

40. CO2 concentrations

41. Relation GHG concentration temperature

43. IPCC scenarios

44. Evolution of CO2 emissions in IPCC scenarios

45. IPCC projections 2030 tCO2<50$/ton Renewables: 35% electricity Nuclear: 18% electricity

46. IEA’s successive Prospects fo Nuclear (World Energy Outlook) 20202030 MtoeTWh% WEO 19986042317 8 WEO 20006172369 9 WEO 20027192758 117032697 9 WEO 20047762975 127642929 9 WEO 20068613304 10 Alt. 2006 1070 4106 14

47. Prospect for nuclear production 2000-2030 TWh (AIEA July 2006) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Am NW EurAfr Pacif 2000 2010 b 2010 H 2020 b 2020 H 2030 b 2030 H Am L Eur E MO+As S Ext. O

49. Nuclear Intensive Scenarios Scenarios by difference:  P.A.Bauquis  D.Heuer and E.Merle Objective oriented Scenarios  H.Nifenecker et al.

50. No miracle from renewables Hydro:  Limitation of ressource (Europe-USA)  Environment and localization (Am.Sud, Asie, Afrique, Russie)  Large Investments  Reliable, available  Might provide 20% of world electricity. France: 70TWh/450 Wind  « fatal » Energy  Limit: 10-15% of electricity production

51. No miracle with renewables Solar  PV: Ideal for isolated sites (Africa, SE Asia). Mostly artificial in Developed Countries and very expansive  Thermal: interesting for heating and warm water  Thermodynamic: Fiability? Hot and dry climates Hot and dry climate. Biomass  Bio-fuels (10 Mtep/50)  Wood energy.  Competition with food, energy and environmental balance

53. Pierre René Bauquis

54. Renewable energies

55. Renewable electricity

56. A vision of energy mix by 2050

57. Energy mix in 2050

58. CO2 emissions

59. Nuclear production In Bauquis Scenario Nuclear production 0.6 Gtep 4 Gtep i.e. x 6.5

61. Primary Energy (GTEP) 20002050 Fossils7.5 Hydro0.71.4 Wood1.21.1 Renewable0.25.2 Nuclear0.65.2 Total10.220.4 – Stabilization of fossile contribution – World energy consumption x 2 – Renewable = nuclear Hypothesis 2050 Multiplication by factor 8 Then increase by 1.2%/year up to 2100 Nuclear : Elsa Merle and Daniel Heuer

63. Objective oriented scenarios H.Nifenecker et al.

64. 2000 IIASA-WEC Scenarios A: strong growth –A1: Oil –A2: Coal –A3:Gaz B: Middle of the road C: Low energy intensity. High electricity –C1: Ren.+Gaz –C2: Ren.+Nuclear

65. GDP/cap

66. Energy intensities

67. World GDPWorld GDP B2: 110 000

68. Primary energy per fuel

69. Exhaustion of fossile reserves (Gtoe) Exhaustion of fossile reserves

70. Minimize use of fossils for Electricity « Reasonable » Development of Nuclear  OECD: 85%  Transition: 50%  China, India, Latin America: 30% 3000 GWe Nuclear 2030-20502030-2050 2050 Minimize use of coal and gas 30% coal China, India; 30% gas Russia; 100% Africa 7500 GWe Nucléaire 2030

71. Scenario no coal no gaz in 2050 B2=18000, Nuclear=1450

72. CO2/GDP

73. CO2/primen

74. Gestion of Natural Uranium Reserves

75. Unat exhaustion

76. Breeding Cycles

77. U-Pu versus Th-U cycles U-Pu  Fast Spectra  Pu fuel  1.2 GWe reactors  Solid fuels  1 year cooling  25 years doubling time Th-U  Thermal Spectra  Pu, then 233 U fuel  1 GWe reactors  Molten Salts fuel  10 days fuel cycling  25 years doubling time U-Pu vs Th-U

78. Nb GWe

79. Pu inventory

80. Nb GWe Th-U

81. U3 inventory

82. Trajectory

83. Stabilisation TStabilisation T Stabilization of CO2 concentration to 450 ppm Stabilization of temperature

85. E.Merle, D.Heuer Alternative 3 components

86. Reactor type 3rd Generation Sodium Fast Neutron Reactors Thorium molten salt reactor Power(GWe)1.451.0 Date201020252030 FuelUOXMox U-PuThorium + 233 U Fissile component4.9 % ( 235 U)11 % ( 239 Pu)3 % ( 233 U) Scenario without Th : Plutonium Production250 kg/year300 kg/year (breeding)- Scenario with Th : 233 U Balance130 kg/year500 kg/yearbreeding Pu Balance130 kg/year-200 kg/year incineration 4 kg/year Reactor types

87. Les RNR ferment le cycle U/Pu 233 U production: 450 PWR and 300 FNR nat U consumption: 7 million tons by 2100 10 times less fissile matter in fuel cycle Minor actinides production minimized 3 components

89. R and D needs standard reactors PWR reactors  Selective reprocessing: extraction of Cs, Sr and M.A.  Th-Pu MOx fuel in order to produce U233 Candu type reactors  Use of Th-Pu and, then Th-U3 fuel  Reprocssing of Th-U3 fuel  Optimization of fuel regeneration

90. R and D needs fast neutron reactors Sodium cooled  Void coefficient  Core Recompaction  Th blanket  Reprocessing of Th blanket Lead cooled reactors  Corrosion problems  Pb-Bi alloys Molten salt cooled reactors  Chemical composition  Corrosion Gas cooled reactors  Reprocessing of refractory fuels

91. R and D needs molten salt reactors Neutron spectrum optimization Corrosion Fuel reprocessing

92. Proliferation Political or technical question?