IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v69y2014icp199-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles

Author

Listed:
  • Poinssot, Ch.
  • Bourg, S.
  • Ouvrier, N.
  • Combernoux, N.
  • Rostaing, C.
  • Vargas-Gonzalez, M.
  • Bruno, J.

Abstract

Energy perspectives for the current century are dominated by the anticipated significant increase of energy needs. Particularly, electricity consumption is anticipated to increase by a factor higher than two before 2050. Energy choices are considered as structuring political choices that implies a long-standing and stable policy based on objective criteria. LCA (life cycle analysis) is a structured basis for deriving relevant indicators which can allow the comparison of a wide range of impacts of different energy sources. Among the energy-mix, nuclear power is anticipated to have very low GHG-emissions. However, its viability is severely addressed by the public opinion after the Fukushima accident. Therefore, a global LCA of the French nuclear fuel cycle was performed as a reference model. Results were compared in terms of impact with other energy sources. It emphasized that the French nuclear energy is one of the less impacting energy, comparable with renewable energy. In a second, part, the French scenario was compared with an equivalent open fuel cycle scenario. It demonstrates that an open fuel cycle would require about 16% more natural uranium, would have a bigger environmental footprint on the “non radioactive indicators” and would produce a higher volume of high level radioactive waste.

Suggested Citation

  • Poinssot, Ch. & Bourg, S. & Ouvrier, N. & Combernoux, N. & Rostaing, C. & Vargas-Gonzalez, M. & Bruno, J., 2014. "Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 199-211.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:199-211
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214002035
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2010. "Sustainability considerations for electricity generation from biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1419-1427, June.
    2. Rovere, Emilio Lebre La & Soares, Jeferson Borghetti & Oliveira, Luciano Basto & Lauria, Tatiana, 2010. "Sustainable expansion of electricity sector: Sustainability indicators as an instrument to support decision making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 422-429, January.
    3. Stamford, Laurence & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 6037-6057.
    4. Gallego Carrera, Diana & Mack, Alexander, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1030-1039, February.
    5. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    6. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    7. Fthenakis, Vasilis & Kim, Hyung Chul, 2010. "Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(7), pages 2039-2048, September.
    8. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    9. Beerten, Jef & Laes, Erik & Meskens, Gaston & D'haeseleer, William, 2009. "Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5056-5068, December.
    10. Afgan, Naim H. & Carvalho, Maria G. & Hovanov, Nikolai V., 2000. "Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 603-612, July.
    11. Lior, Noam, 2010. "Sustainable energy development: The present (2009) situation and possible paths to the future," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 3976-3994.
    12. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    13. Jovanovic, Marina & Afgan, Naim & Bakic, Vukman, 2010. "An analytical method for the measurement of energy system sustainability in urban areas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3909-3920.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paredes-Gazquez, Juan Diego & Rodriguez-Fernandez, José Miguel & de la Cuesta-Gonzalez, Marta, 2016. "Measuring corporate social responsibility using composite indices: Mission impossible? The case of the electricity utility industry," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 142-153.
    2. Liu, Gang, 2014. "Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 611-621.
    3. Luthra, Sunil & Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Kharb, Ravinder K., 2015. "Sustainable assessment in energy planning and management in Indian perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 58-73.
    4. Akber, Muhammad Zeshan & Thaheem, Muhammad Jamaluddin & Arshad, Husnain, 2017. "Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Pakistan: Policy regime for a sustainable energy mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 111-126.
    5. Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas & Krisciukaitienė, Irena & Balezentis, Alvydas, 2012. "Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3302-3311.
    6. Tahseen, Samiha & Karney, Bryan W., 2017. "Reviewing and critiquing published approaches to the sustainability assessment of hydropower," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 225-234.
    7. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    8. Berjawi, A.E.H. & Walker, S.L. & Patsios, C. & Hosseini, S.H.R., 2021. "An evaluation framework for future integrated energy systems: A whole energy systems approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Anuja Shaktawat & Shelly Vadhera, 2021. "Risk management of hydropower projects for sustainable development: a review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 45-76, January.
    10. Mauro Lafratta & Matthew Leach & Rex B. Thorpe & Mark Willcocks & Eve Germain & Sabeha K. Ouki & Achame Shana & Jacquetta Lee, 2021. "Economic and Carbon Costs of Electricity Balancing Services: The Need for Secure Flexible Low-Carbon Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Kumar, Deepak & Katoch, S.S., 2014. "Sustainability indicators for run of the river (RoR) hydropower projects in hydro rich regions of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 101-108.
    12. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    13. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    14. Pomponi, Francesco & Hart, Jim, 2021. "The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy – Life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    15. Lähtinen, Katja & Myllyviita, Tanja & Leskinen, Pekka & Pitkänen, Sari K., 2014. "A systematic literature review on indicators to assess local sustainability of forest energy production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1202-1216.
    16. Moreira, João M.L. & Cesaretti, Marcos A. & Carajilescov, Pedro & Maiorino, José R., 2015. "Sustainability deterioration of electricity generation in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 334-346.
    17. Anissa Frini & Sarah Benamor, 2018. "Making Decisions in a Sustainable Development Context: A State-of-the-Art Survey and Proposal of a Multi-period Single Synthesizing Criterion Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 341-385, August.
    18. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Whalley, Stephanie, 2015. "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 127-149.
    19. Ozgur Demirta, 2013. "Evaluating the Best Renewable Energy Technology for Sustainable Energy Plannin," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(Special), pages 23-33.
    20. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:199-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.