IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v10y2017i9p1445-d112416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Anticipated Environmental Footprint of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. Evidence of the Beneficial Effect of Extensive Recycling

Author

Listed:
  • Jérôme Serp

    (French Nuclear and Alternative Energies Commission, Nuclear Energy Division, Research Department on Mining and Fuel Recycling Processes, CEA Marcoule, F-30207 Bagnols sur Ceze, France)

  • Christophe Poinssot

    (French Nuclear and Alternative Energies Commission, Nuclear Energy Division, Research Department on Mining and Fuel Recycling Processes, CEA Marcoule, F-30207 Bagnols sur Ceze, France)

  • Stéphane Bourg

    (French Nuclear and Alternative Energies Commission, Nuclear Energy Division, Research Department on Mining and Fuel Recycling Processes, CEA Marcoule, F-30207 Bagnols sur Ceze, France)

Abstract

In this early 21st century, our societies have to face a tremendous and increasing energy need while mitigating the global climate change and preserving the environment. Addressing this challenge requires an energy transition from the current fossil energy-based system to a carbon-free energy production system, based on a relevant energy mix combining renewables and nuclear energy. However, such an energy transition will only occur if it is accepted by the population. Powerful and reliable tools, such as life cycle assessments (LCA), aiming at assessing the respective merits of the different energy mix for most of the environmental impact indicators are therefore mandatory for supporting a risk-informed decision-process at the societal level. Before studying the deployment of a given energy mix, a prerequisite is to perform LCAs on each of the components of the mix. This paper addresses two potential nuclear energy components: a nuclear fuel cycle based on the Generation III European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) and a nuclear fuel cycle based on the Generation IV Sodium Fast Reactors (SFR). The basis of this study relies on the previous work done on the current French nuclear fuel cycle using the bespoke NELCAS tool specifically developed for studying nuclear fuel cycle environmental impacts. Our study highlights that the EPR already brings a limited improvement to the current fuel cycle thanks to a higher efficiency of the energy transformation and a higher burn-up of the nuclear fuel (?20% on most of the chosen indicators) whereas the introduction of the GEN IV fast reactors will bring a significant breakthrough by suppressing the current front-end of the fuel cycle thanks to the use of depleted uranium instead of natural enriched uranium (this leads to a decrease of the impact from 17% on water consumption and withdrawal and up to 96% on SO x emissions). The specific case of the radioactive waste is also studied, showing that only the partitioning and transmutation of the americium in the blanket fuel of the SFR can reduce the footprint of the geological disposal (saving up to a factor of 7 on the total repository volume). Having now at disposition five models (open fuel cycle, current French twice through fuel cycle, EPR twice through fuel cycle, multi-recycling SFR fuel cycle and at a longer term, multi-recycling SFR fuel cycle including americium transmutation), it is possible to model the environmental impact of any fuel cycle combining these technologies. In the next step, these models will be combined with those of other carbon-free energies (wind, solar, biomass…) in order to estimate the environmental impact of future energy mixes and also to analyze the impact on the way these scenarios are deployed (transition pathways).

Suggested Citation

  • Jérôme Serp & Christophe Poinssot & Stéphane Bourg, 2017. "Assessment of the Anticipated Environmental Footprint of Future Nuclear Energy Systems. Evidence of the Beneficial Effect of Extensive Recycling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:9:p:1445-:d:112416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/9/1445/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/9/1445/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Akhil Kadiyala & Raghava Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2016. "Quantification of the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power Generation Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Selim Karkour & Yuki Ichisugi & Amila Abeynayaka & Norihiro Itsubo, 2020. "External-Cost Estimation of Electricity Generation in G20 Countries: Case Study Using a Global Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, March.
    2. Robin Taylor & William Bodel & Gregg Butler, 2022. "A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part Two: Economic Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-31, March.
    3. 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).
    4. Marian Sofranko & Samer Khouri & Olga Vegsoova & Peter Kacmary & Tawfik Mudarri & Martin Koncek & Maxim Tyulenev & Zuzana Simkova, 2020. "Possibilities of Uranium Deposit Kuriskova Mining and Its Influence on the Energy Potential of Slovakia from Own Resources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Alvaro Rodríguez-Prieto & Mariaenrica Frigione & John Kickhofel & Ana M. Camacho, 2021. "Analysis of the Technological Evolution of Materials Requirements Included in Reactor Pressure Vessel Manufacturing Codes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Robin Taylor & William Bodel & Anthony Banford & Gregg Butler & Francis Livens, 2024. "Sustainability of Nuclear Energy—A Critical Review from a UK Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-47, December.
    7. Marta Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna & Vito Morgese, 2021. "Evaluating the Transition Towards Post-Carbon Cities: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-28, January.
    8. Robin Taylor & William Bodel & Laurence Stamford & Gregg Butler, 2022. "A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-35, February.

    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. Akhil Kadiyala & Raghava Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2016. "Quantification of the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power Generation Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Adeline Cortesi & Laure Dijoux & Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris & Caroline Pénicaud, 2022. "Explaining the Differences between the Environmental Impacts of 44 French Artisanal Cheeses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Diankai Wang & Inna Gryshova & Anush Balian & Mykola Kyzym & Tetiana Salashenko & Viktoriia Khaustova & Olexandr Davidyuk, 2022. "Assessment of Power System Sustainability and Compromises between the Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Zhongwen Pan & Zhigang Wang & Xiaoxiang Li & Jingrong Li & Yujiao Zhou, 2022. "Space-Time Pattern of Coupling Coordination between Environmental Regulation and Green Water Resource Efficiency in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Rigby, Aidan & Lindley, Ben & Cullen, Jonathan, 2023. "An exergy based assessment of the efficiency of nuclear fuel cycles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    6. Lee, Young Duk & Ahn, Kook Young & Morosuk, Tatiana & Tsatsaronis, George, 2015. "Environmental impact assessment of a solid-oxide fuel-cell-based combined-heat-and-power-generation system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 455-466.
    7. Miller, Lindsay & Carriveau, Rupp, 2017. "Balancing the carbon and water footprints of the Ontario energy mix," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 562-568.
    8. Bohdanowicz, Zbigniew & Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, Beata & Gajda, Paweł & Rajewski, Adam, 2023. "Support for nuclear power and proenvironmental attitudes: The cases of Germany and Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Juliette Huguet & Christophe Chassard & René Lavigne & Françoise Irlinger & Isabelle Souchon & Stephan Marette & Anne Saint-Eve & Caroline Pénicaud, 2023. "Environmental performance of mixed animal and plant protein sources for designing new fermented foods," Post-Print hal-04132788, HAL.
    10. 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).
    11. Bruno Merk & Dzianis Litskevich & Anna Detkina & Omid Noori-kalkhoran & Lakshay Jain & Elfriede Derrer-Merk & Daliya Aflyatunova & Greg Cartland-Glover, 2023. "iMAGINE—Visions, Missions, and Steps for Successfully Delivering the Nuclear System of the 21st Century," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Jin, Yi & Behrens, Paul & Tukker, Arnold & Scherer, Laura, 2019. "Water use of electricity technologies: A global meta-analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Mohan, Aniruddh, 2017. "Whose land is it anyway? Energy futures & land use in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 257-262.
    14. Federica Cucchiella & Alessia Condemi & Marianna Rotilio & Valeria Annibaldi, 2021. "Energy Transitions in Western European Countries: Regulation Comparative Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-23, July.
    15. Bruno Merk & Dzianis Litskevich & Karl R. Whittle & Mark Bankhead & Richard J. Taylor & Dan Mathers, 2017. "On a Long Term Strategy for the Success of Nuclear Power," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    16. Frederik Reitsma & Peter Woods & Martin Fairclough & Yongjin Kim & Harikrishnan Tulsidas & Luis Lopez & Yanhua Zheng & Ahmed Hussein & Gerd Brinkmann & Nils Haneklaus & Anand Rao Kacham & Tumuluri Sre, 2018. "On the Sustainability and Progress of Energy Neutral Mineral Processing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. De Luca Peña, Laura Vittoria & Taelman, Sue Ellen & Bas, Bilge & Staes, Jan & Mertens, Jan & Clavreul, Julie & Préat, Nils & Dewulf, Jo, 2024. "Monetized (socio-)environmental handprint and footprint of an offshore windfarm in the Belgian Continental Shelf: An assessment of local, regional and global impacts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PA).
    18. Robin Taylor & William Bodel & Gregg Butler, 2022. "A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part Two: Economic Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-31, March.
    19. Héctor Álvarez & Guillermo Domínguez & Almudena Ordóñez & Javier Menéndez & Rodrigo Álvarez & Jorge Loredo, 2021. "Mine Water for the Generation and Storage of Renewable Energy: A Hybrid Hydro–Wind System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Aberilla, Jhud Mikhail & Gallego-Schmid, Alejandro & Azapagic, Adisa, 2019. "Environmental sustainability of small-scale biomass power technologies for agricultural communities in developing countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 493-506.

    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:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:9:p:1445-:d:112416. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.