Energy Research Knowledge Centre Overcoming … Research Challenges for Nuclear Fission 1 At a...

Overcoming Research Challenges for Nuclear Fission

Energy Research Knowledge Centre

E n e r g y R e s e a r c h K n o w l e d g e C e n t r e

Contents At a glance 1

1. Introduction 3

2. Subject and scope 4 2.1 Subject area 4 2.2 Scope of the Policy Brochure 7- Improvement of nuclear safety and radiation protection 8- Improvement of radioactive waste management 9- Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles 10

3. Policy context 11 3.1 European and national policies 11- Brief overview of nuclear power in the EU 11- Waste management in the EU 13- R&D spending on nuclear fission in the EU 15

3.2 Policies of major nuclear countries outside the EU 17

4. Research context 19 4.1 Nuclear safety and radiation protection 19 4.2 Radioactive waste management 21 4.3 Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles 22 4.4 Major international developments outside the EU 25

5. Research benefits and policy implications 27 5.1 Introduction to research implications 27 5.2 Impact of past and current research 27- Nuclear safety and radiation protection 27- Radioactive waste management 28- Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles 28

5.3 Policy implications 29- Nuclear safety and radiation protection 29- Radioactive waste management 29- Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles 30

5.4 Policy implications of developments at international level 30

6. Recommendations on future research directions 31 6.1 Nuclear safety and radiation protection 31 6.2 Radioactive waste management 32 6.3 Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles 33 6.4 General recommendations 34- Cooperation at EU and international level 34- Public acceptance 35

References 36

Glossary 38

Relevant policy documents 41

Back outside cover 42

This publication was produced by the Energy Research Knowledge Centre (ERKC), funded by the European Commission to support its Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (SETIS). It represents the consortium’s views on the subject matter. These views have not been adopted or approved by the European Commission and should not be taken as a statement of the views of the European Commission.

The manuscript was produced by Augustin Chanoine and Anton Berwald under the super-vision of Shailendra Mudgal of BIO by Deloitte. We would like to thank Didier Brochard and Frank Carré from the French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA – commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives) for providing valuable support during the drafting process. As well as this Policy Brochure (PB), the ERKC has also published a Thematic Research Summary (TRS) on nuclear fission. Both documents are complementary to each other: the TRS focus-ing on research projects and activities, the PB on policy issues.

While the information contained in this bro-chure is correct to the best of our knowledge, neither the consortium nor the European Com-mission can be held responsible for any inac-curacy, or accept responsibility for any use made thereof.

Additional information on energy research programmes and related projects, as well as on other technical and policy publications, is available on the Energy Research Knowledge Centre (ERKC) portal at:

setis.ec.europa.eu/energy-research

Manuscript completed in September 2014

© European Union 2014

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Photo credits: iStockphoto and front page © EDF – Marc Didier

O v e r c o m i n g R e s e a r c h C h a l l e n g e s f o r N u c l e a r F i s s i o n1

At a glance

Key Points Research and development related to safety and radiation protection is needed to ensure that the nuclear industry is able to pursue the implementation of the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident, and the stress tests and subsequent work overseen by ENSREG.

For the safe, long-term management of radioactive waste, priority should be given to research related to long-lived low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste.

Innovative reactor systems need further support to reach maturity and to contribute to a low-carbon energy future. A stronger coordination and integration of Member States’ programmes is required to ensure stability and stronger commitments from the parties involved. Moreover, a joint approach to nuclear fission research is needed in Europe.

The Fukushima accident has made it even more important to increase public acceptance of nuclear energy, which will be achieved by sharing information, integrating social science in nuclear research programmes and finding new ways of engaging the public.

Today, nuclear fission plays an important role in the European energy mix, generating about 30 % of the electricity produced in the EU. It has the advantage of being one of the low-carbon technologies and thereby not contributing to climate change, but it comes with challenges related to safety and the long-term management of radioactive waste. Since each EU country can decide whether it wants to include nuclear power in its energy mix, it is often this dichotomy that

makes nuclear fission a politically sensitive topic. In its SET-Plan, which was adopted in 2008, the EU identified nuclear fission as one of the competitive low-carbon energy technologies, playing an important role in the security of supply and one that should be further developed and deployed in Europe.

This plan has been challenged by the Fuku-shima Daiichi nuclear disaster in March 2011, whereupon some countries decided either to

E n e r g y R e s e a r c h K n o w l e d g e C e n t r e2

phase out their nuclear plants, like Germany and Belgium, or to reduce the nuclear share in their electricity generation mix, like France. Although the Fukushima accident has slowed down worldwide nuclear activity, major con-struction projects for new power plants are planned in countries such as China, India and Russia.

Nuclear fission is a highly technical subject, requiring important amounts of research and development (R&D). In this Policy Brochure, three major sub-themes with respect to R&D in nuclear fission are examined: nuclear safety and radiation protection; radioactive waste management; and innovations in reactor sys-tems and fuel cycles. For each of the three sub-themes, the research context and related research programmes are presented, together with their respective research benefits and policy implications. Finally, recommendations concerning future research directions are pro-vided. The following four paragraphs outline the major findings.

In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, the question of nuclear safety and radiation pro-tection has become even more important, and the future of the industry will certainly depend on proving its ability to implement the lessons learned from the accident and the subsequent stress tests. This process needs to be supported by research, primarily in the beyond-design-basis range, better to prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents.

As far as the management of radioactive waste is concerned, countries with nuclear power have disposal centres for short-lived, low-level or intermediate-level waste that are either already operational or under con-struction. Priority should therefore be given to research on long-lived low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste processing and management technologies.

The future of nuclear fission will also rely on the ability to develop innovative reactor systems, which may close the fuel-cycle with improved fuel efficiency and reduced waste generation. Global research has already been undertaken into developing new systems, such as Generation IV reactors. However, most of these innovative technologies are still in the design phase and will require a considerable amount of time and funding over coming years in order to show their practical feasibility through demonstrations and pilots.

Besides technical issues, societal aspects will play an increasing role for the future deploy-ment of nuclear energy. In this respect, the general public should be better informed about potential risks related to this type of energy. Past experience has shown that step-by-step, bottom-up approaches with public consulta-tions, transparent procedures and open dia-logues are more successful than top-down decisions.


This publication has been produced as part of the activities of the Energy Research Knowledge Centre (ERKC), funded by the European Commission, to support its Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (SETIS).

The EU is committed to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time ensuring its security of energy supply and competitiveness. Focusing on the devel-opment of low-carbon energy technologies is therefore crucial. However, the necessary information and relevant data on the exten-sive array of energy research and innovation programmes and projects are currently frag-mented and dispersed. It is often difficult to obtain a clear overview of the corresponding activities at EU, Member State and private sector levels.

The ERKC helps to bridge this information gap. It collects and organises validated, referenced information on energy research programmes and projects, as well as their results and analy-ses, from across the EU and beyond.

Access to energy research knowledge is vastly improved through the ERKC, allowing it to be exploited in a timely manner and used across the EU, thereby also increasing the pace of further innovation. It also facilitates the work of SETIS in analysing trends in energy research activities at national and European level, deriv-ing thematic analyses and policy recommen-

dations from the aggregated project results, and providing a platform for Europe’s energy research community.

The objective of the ERKC is that all relevant energy research programmes and projects, whether funded by the EU or at Member State level, are fully disseminated via its outlets. The ERKC provides insights into key developments by analysing and synthesising the available project, programme and organisation data in Thematic Research Summaries. The ERKC also provides Policy Brochures on selected top-ics, covering the interaction between energy research and energy policy. It is hoped that the ERKC portal will prove to be a valuable information source on the wealth of energy research-funding institutions and mechanisms.

ERKC Policy Brochures are designed to high-light the policy implications of the results of energy research programmes and projects. They summarise the current status of develop-ments with respect to a specific theme, with an emphasis on the future policy implications of the results and pathways to future research developments. This Policy Brochure focuses on nuclear fission.

The target audience for Policy Brochures are public policy-makers in the energy field, public and private energy research decision-makers, interested decision-makers outside the energy field and, to a lesser extent, the general public.

1. Introduction


2. Subject and scope2.1 Subject area

It should be noted at the outset that this Policy Brochure deals only with nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion falls outside of the scope of this document.

The European Union’s energy policy is based on three core principles, also known as the three fundamental pillars of EU energy policy: security of supply, sustainability and competi-tiveness1. In order to combat climate change, the EU has committed to achieving a 20 % reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions, to raising the share of EU energy consumption resulting from renewable resources to 20 %, and to improving the EU’s energy efficiency by 20 % by 2020, as compared to 1990 levels. These targets are also known as the ‘20-20-20’ targets.

Furthermore, and as an intermediate step along the 2050 roadmap, the European Com-mission introduced the 2030 framework in 2014. It aims at driving continued progress towards a low-carbon economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 %, increas-ing the share of renewable energy to at least 27 % and improving energy efficiency by 30 %2 by 2030.

In order to reach these goals, the SET-Plan has identified a set of competitive, low-carbon energy technologies to be developed and deployed in Europe. In this respect, nuclear fission plays a priority role, as reflected in the ERKC’s priority areas shown below.

Priority area 1 Low-carbon heat and power supply

Bioenergy / Geothermal / ocean energy / Photovoltaics / Concentrated solar power / Wind Hydropower / Advanced fossil fuel power generation / Fossil fuel with CCS / Nuclear fission / Nuclear fusion / Cogeneration / Heating and cooling from renewable sources

Priority area 2 Alternative fuels and energy sources for transport

Biofuels / Hydrogen and fuel cells / Other alternative transport fuels

Priority area 3 Smart cities and communities

Smart electricty grisd / behavioural aspects - SCC / Small scale electricity storage / Energy savings in buildings / ICT in energy / Smart district heating and cooling grids - demand / Energy savings in appliances / Building energy system integration

Priority area 4 Smart grids

Transmission / Distribution / Storage / Smart district heating and cooling grids - supply

Table 1: ERKC priority areas

1 European Commission, Green Paper, ‘A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy’, 20062 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm (accessed August 2014)


In February 2013 the European Commis-sion and the European Economic and Social Committee organised a symposium on the ‘benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy’. With respect to the three pillars, the experts concluded that nuclear energy had ‘an ample capability to contribute to the three EU energy policy pillars simultaneously, certainly with more RD&D [research, development and dem-onstration]’. The following are their main arguments3.

Nuclear is a low-carbon technology, but its safety record has been challenged in the past. Waste management and proliferation controls could be further improved. A better understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation could improve its reputation and acceptability.

Security of supply is offered by resource availability (possibly using fast reactors), stable but dispatchable electricity pro-

duction facilities that are capable of load following, and large turbine-generators providing inertia to the system, permitting reactive power control for voltage stability.

Nuclear energy is competitive and could lead to cheap decarbonisation, if it can keep its investment and operational costs low. Future load following, however, must be examined as an important issue, in the context of an increasing share of intermit-tent renewables.

At the same time, nuclear energy has to over-come various challenges:

difficulties in financing the high capital costs of nuclear power plants (NPPs), especially given the risk of cost overruns with first-of-a-kind reactors and in countries with no recent experience of nuclear construction; moreover, the volatility of public opinion introduces a risk against which investors seek to be protected;

Priority area 5 Energy efficiency in industry

Process efficiency / Ancillary equipment

Priority area 6 New knowledge and technologies

Basic research / Materials

Priority area 7 Energy innovation and market uptake

Techno-economic assessment / life-cycle assessment Cost-benefit analysis / (Market-) decision support tools / Security-of-supply studies / Private investment assessment

Priority area 8 Socio-economic analysis

Public acceptability / User participation / behavioural aspects

Priority area 9 Policy studies

Market uptake support / Modelling and scenarios / Environmental impacts / International cooperation

3 European Commission, 2012 Interdisciplinary study, Compilation of the experts’ reports: Background to the synthesis report, ‘Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a low-carbon economy – Defining priorities for Euratom fission research and training’, (Horizon 2020), 2012.


demonstrating the safe management of radioactive waste and implementing plans for the management of long-lived high-level waste;

public acceptance: the nuclear accidents of Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011) have shown the risks that can be related to this technology and the need for nuclear safety to remain the first priority, which has to be continuously improved. This aspect, combined with the necessity to manage radioactive waste appropriately, as well as other issues like proliferation concerns, give rise to divided opinions about nuclear energy, both nationally and internationally, and make it a politically sensitive topic;

increasing the efficiency of uranium resource use: uranium is only available in some parts of the world and the resource is becom-ing scarcer; furthermore, spent fuel is only recovered in a few countries of the world and Generation IV fast reactors will be needed to use the recovered resources in the future;

integrating nuclear energy into future elec-tricity generation systems: as a source of base load electricity, nuclear will need to cope with an increasing share of intermit-tent renewable energy in the grid in the decades to come; this may have an effect on the total system costs4 but also on the security of supply, since balancing different load types becomes more and more chal-lenging; in this respect the introduction of storage and back-up capacities on the grid should be considered;

avoiding proliferation of sensitive nuclear materials and technologies when introducing nuclear capacity into additional countries.

Although the EU Member States are respon-sible for their own energy mix, it becomes increasingly important to have better coordi-nation on a broader level in order to reduce energy costs in an efficient way and to con-verge towards a low-carbon system. The Energy Roadmap 20505 models different pathways to achieve a low-carbon economy in Europe, simulating multiple roles for nuclear energy in the future.

4 OECD/NEA, ‘Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems’, 2012.5 European Commission, ‘Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050’, 2010.

© EDF – Marc Didier


No matter which path nuclear energy follows in the years to come, it will require significant amounts of research and development, includ-ing the achievement of technological demon-strators and prototypes, in order to overcome the various technical and societal barriers and to play its role within a low-carbon economy.

The SET-Plan has defined mid- and long-term goals for nuclear fission. For the year 2020, the priorities are to ‘maintain competitiveness in fission technology, together with long-term waste management solutions’. One of the long-term goals for 2050 is to ‘complete the preparations for the demonstration of a new generation (Gen IV) of fission reactors’. In order to support the SET-Plan, the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) promotes RD&D of the nuclear fission tech-nologies that are necessary to achieve these goals, adopting a five-tier (pillar) structure, which consists of6:

the NUclear GENeration II and III Association (NUGENIA) for safe and reliable operation of the existing fleet and of the new generation III reactors;

the European Sustainable Nuclear Indus-trial Initiative (ESNII) for the deployment of Generation IV liquid metal- and gas-cooled fast-neutron systems with closed fuel cycle for minimised waste generation and opti-mised resource use; the ESNII comprises a group of industry and research partners that is promoting Europe’s leadership in these new technologies;

the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) for the improvement of radioactive waste management;

the Multidisciplinary European LOw Dose Initiative (MELODI), acting as a support association for radiological protection and dose evaluation;

The European Energy Research Alliance (EERA), which supports basic research.

This structure is meant to provide coordination and enhance collaboration throughout the Member States in the field of nuclear fission, and to strengthen research and development in this field.

2.2 Scope of the Policy Brochure

The goal of the Policy Brochure is to highlight the current status of nuclear energy research for the different technologies and the main concerns that are linked to it, based on the main European and national programmes and projects, and to draw attention to the main knowledge gaps and research needs. It analyses the implications of recent research results on research policy in nuclear energy and puts forward, to the best extent possible, the challenges anticipated for the future of nuclear energy and the knowledge gaps that still need to be filled. This chapter provides a background and an introduction to the three different sub-themes that are covered in this document:

improvement of nuclear safety and radia-tion protection;

improvement of radioactive waste man-agement;

innovative reactor systems and fuel cycles.

6 European Commission, ‘A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) – Towards a low-carbon future’, 2007.


Improvement of nuclear safety and radiation protectionAs defined by the European Directive 2009/71/Euratom (Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations), nuclear safety is ‘the achievement of proper operating conditions, prevention of accidents and miti-gation of accident consequences, resulting in protection of workers and the general public from dangers arising from ionizing radiations from nuclear installations’.

The objective of the Directive is to maintain and promote the continuous improvement of nuclear safety. Member States will provide appropriate national arrangements for a high level of nuclear safety to protect workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation from nuclear installations. The Directive comprises pro-visions related to: the establishment of a national legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear safety of nuclear installations; the organisation, duties and responsibilities of the competent regulatory authorities (which should be independent of any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy); the obligations of the licence holders; the education and train-ing of staff from all interested parties; and the provision of information to the public. In addition, Member States will arrange, every 10 years at least, periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities, and invite an interna-tional peer review of relevant segments of their national framework and/or authorities. Outcomes of any peer review will be reported to the Member States and the Commission.

Nuclear safety has always been a priority area for the nuclear industry but the Fukushima

Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident in 2011 raised public concern on nuclear energy and drew fresh attention to the safety of NPPs, in particular with respect to extremely severe external hazards. As a consequence, more emphasis has been put on nuclear safety since the Fukushima accident. In the short term, most of the countries operating nuclear reactors have launched systematic reassess-ment of the safety margins of their nuclear fleet under severe natural hazards, usually called ‘stress-tests’.

In reaction to the accident, the European Nuclear Safety Directive was amended in July 2014. The new Directive is aimed at strengthening the power and independence of national regulatory authorities, introduc-ing a high-level, EU-wide safety objective to prevent accidents and to avoid radioactive releases, setting up a European system of peer reviews on specific safety issues every six years, increasing transparency in nuclear safety matters and promoting an effective nuclear safety culture7.

Additionally, nuclear safety will become an even more important topic in the coming decades due to the ageing of the fleet of operating reactors, but also because of the likely long-term operation (LTO) of existing NPPs. According to the Organisation for Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), without exten-sions to the original design lifetimes, nuclear capacity would fall dramatically in the next decade, meaning that refurbishments and the LTO of existing NPPs are important for the competitiveness of the nuclear industry.

The Fukushima accident has highlighted the need to consolidate scientific knowledge

7 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/safety_de.htm (accessed August 2014)


on radiation risk at low doses. This has to be achieved in such a way that emergency response measures, especially those designed for the general public both in and beyond directly affected regions, can be based on the best scientific evidence and convey to the public the validity of measures taken to protect public health and ensure economic and societal continuity in the country and through-out Europe. The improvement of radiation protection is therefore of crucial importance.

Improvement of radioactive waste managementRadioactive waste is generated in increasing amounts all over the world and has to be managed in a safe and sustainable manner. Nuclear waste is usually classified in several categories, depending on the level of radio-activity and the half-lives of the elements it contains. Low-level waste (LLW) constitutes the largest part of the overall volume and storage solutions in underground disposal sites already exist in countries with nuclear facilities. The major problem arises from high-level waste (HLW), representing a mere 3 % of the overall existing volume of radioactive waste, but containing a massive 99 % of the radioactivity. Unlike other toxic wastes, the hazardous element of nuclear waste – namely its radiotoxicity – decays with time. However, this process can take up to several hundred thousand years for the most long-lived waste.

For several decades, countries using nuclear energy have undertaken research to find an optimal solution for final waste disposal in terms of safety, and its impact on the environ-ment and on future generations. For the time being, deep geological disposal seems to be the predominant solution, although countries still disagree on several details, such as the optimal choice of the rock environment, the architecture of the depository and the degree of reversibility of the disposal.

At the European level, the spent fuel and radioactive waste management directive (2011/70/Euratom) reaffirms that every Mem-ber State is responsible for establishing and maintaining national policies and frameworks for the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in the country. Member States are free to define their nuclear fuel-cycle policies, meaning that they can decide if spent fuel should be reprocessed or disposed of. Whatever option is chosen, the disposal of the final part of the radioactive waste (either HLW, separated at reprocess-ing, or spent fuel regarded as waste) has to be considered.

In Europe, three deep geological disposal facilities in Finland (Onkalo), France (Cigéo) and Sweden (Forsmark) are scheduled to start operations between 2020 and 2025.

© Courtesy of W Eberhard Falck


For the time being, these projects are the most advanced programmes in the world.

Finding a solution to the problem related to radioactive waste management is of utmost importance and with respect to the principle of sustainable development, it is the responsibil-ity of the current generation to develop safe management solutions to minimise the burden of radioactive waste on future generations.

Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cyclesNuclear reactor designs are usually catego-rised by ‘generation’. Generation I reactors were developed in the 1950s and1960s and refer to early prototypes of power reac-tors. Generation II reactors are the prevailing technology currently in operation worldwide. So-called Generation III (and III+) reactors are advanced reactors. The first of these went online in Japan (advanced boiling water reactors) and more are under construction in Europe and in Asia. For example, there is one European pressurised reactor (EPR) in Olkiluoto in Finland, one EPR in Flamanville in France and two EPRs in Taishan in China. The latter are scheduled to start operations in 2015. Furthermore, four AP1000 reac-tors (two-loop pressurised water reactors) are under construction in China. The first AP1000 is scheduled to start operation in 2014. Additionally, five US utilities have cho-sen the AP1000 design for possible nuclear plant construction.

Generation IV reactors are still in the design phase and it is estimated that demonstrators will be operational around 2020-25. Com-

mercially available plants are expected to be ready towards 2040-45. Generation IV reactors are being developed with the aim of using natural resources more efficiently and minimising radioactive waste generation, while reinforcing nuclear safety, proliferation resistance and economic competitiveness.

Within SNETP, ESNII focuses on fast neutron reactor (FNR) technologies to address the issue of resource availability. Indeed, FNRs with closed fuel-cycles have the potential to multiply by a factor of 50 to 100 the energy output from a given amount of ura-nium (with a full use of the U-238 isotope), while improving the management of HLW through the transmutation of minor actinides. The present known resources of uranium represent about a hundred years of consump-tion with the existing reactor fleet, while with fast neutron reactors nuclear power could potentially provide energy for the next thou-sand years from the already known uranium resources.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) constitute another innovative reactor concept with the objective of providing a flexible and cost-effec-tive alternative. According to the classification adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), small reactors are reactors with an equivalent electric power of less than 300MWe. In contrast to their larger counter-parts, SMRs address flexible deployment needs for smaller grids and lower demand. Their modularity can lead to economies resulting from serial production, factory fabrication and relatively short construction times.


This section highlights the policy context of nuclear energy. It covers both European Commission and national policies that have an impact on the European level, but also important policies of major countries out-side the EU. Relevant policies outside the EU can, for example, be related to technologies for which there is limited European activity, but which are developed by one or more countries.

3.1 European and national policies

Brief overview of nuclear power in the EUIn the European Union, 131 reactors are currently in operation in 14 Member States with an installed capacity of around 122GW. Four reactors are under construction with an expected installed capacity of 4.36GW8 (2014).

Only a small number of NPPs have come online in the EU-28 since 1990 (WNA, 2011): they include those in Bulgaria (1), the Czech Republic (2), France (10), Romania (2), Slo-vakia (2), Romania (2) and the United King-dom (1). On the other hand, several plants in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Germany, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been shut down.

The figure below illustrates the present share of nuclear energy in total electricity generation by EU Member States, showing the contrasted situation of nuclear power in Europe, which can be explained by the fact that EU Member States are free to choose their own energy mix.

As of December 2012, nine Member States had a share of nuclear power that was greater than 30 % of their total electricity generation: Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and Finland. As of 2013, France remains the country with the largest share of nuclear energy in electricity generation worldwide (73 %).

3. Policy context

Figure 1: Share of nuclear power in electricity generation in 2012

Source: IEA RD&D Statistics

Ireland

Norway

Denmark

France

Australia

Korea

Sweden

Canada

USA

UK

0

2010 2007

5 10 15 20 25 30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FranceSlovakiaBelgiumHungarySlovenia

Czech RepFinland

BulgariaSpain

RomaniaUK

GermanyNetherlands

Lithuana

Source: IAEA, WNA Nuclear Share %

8 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/ (accessed June 2014)


The situation with nuclear power in Europe is even more mixed since the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011. Germany was the first Member State immediately to close down its eight oldest nuclear plants and to adopt the decision to phase out nuclear energy by 2022. The Swiss parliament resolved not to replace any reactors and to phase out nuclear power by 2034, and Belgium confirmed its phase-out decision of 2003 (with the exception that Tihange 1 is permitted to operate until 2025 to avoid the risk of blackouts).

France is considering reducing the nuclear share in the country’s electricity mix from 75 % to 50 % by 2025. At the same time, an EPR is under construction at Flamanville to replace

old capacities, while France foresees keeping the nuclear installed capacity under 63.2GW. Apart from France, some Member States, such as Finland and the United Kingdom, have also continued advancing their nuclear programmes. In particular, one EPR is under construction in Finland. In the United Kingdom, in March 2013, the final planning permission for the construction of two EPRs (the Hinkley Point C project) was granted by the British government. The European Commission confirmed on 8 October 2014 that British plans to subsidise the construction of these nuclear power plants do not break EU state-aid rules. (ref: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1093_en.htm?locale=en). The following figure illustrates the current and expected nuclear power capacity in EU.

Figure 2: Current and expected medium-term situation of nuclear power in Europe, as of June 20149

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czeck Rep

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Lithuania

Netherlands

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

UK

Operational

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czeck Rep

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Lithuania

Netherlands

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

UK

Planned

Under construction

9 Source: WNA 2014 (accessed August 2014): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/European-Union/

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1093_en.htm?locale=en

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1093_en.htm?locale=en


Most of the operating reactors were built in the 1970s and 1980s, and since the construction of reactors has slowed down in the last 30 years, the average age of the nuclear fleet has been continually growing and reached 29 years in 2014. The average age of the nuclear fleet in Europe (including Switzerland and Ukraine) is shown in the figure above.

Waste management in the EUThe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste across the globe is governed by national legislation and international conventions. Within the EU, this is being supplemented by the EU Directive 2011/70/Euratom, which establishes a Community framework11 for

Figure 3: Age distribution of commercial nuclear reactors in Europe (including Switzerland and Ukraine)10

0

5

10

15

20

25

10 The age distribution includes reactors operating in the European Union, Switzerland and Ukraine. Source: Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), http://www.iaea.org/PRIS, as of 10 January 2014.

11 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/waste_management/en0027_en.htm

the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. It provides binding legal force for the main internationally endorsed principles and requirements in this field and maintains that each Member State remains free to define its nuclear fuel-cycle policy. The Directive therefore reaffirms the ultimate responsibility of Member States to manage the spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in them, including establishing and maintaining national policies and frameworks. Furthermore, the Directive asserts that assuring the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management is the prime responsibility of the licence holder under the supervision of its national competent regulatory authority.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Age as of January 2014

Number


Short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste is already being conditioned and disposed of in several Member States, while in some Member States siting activities for a repository are in progress or waste is only stored temporarily. The latter is the case for those Member

States that do not have a nuclear power programme and thus have to manage only small quantities of radioactive waste. The table below details the disposal sites for short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste either under operation or already closed in the EU.

Country Facility Type StatusFinland VLJ, Olkiluoto

LOSI, LoviisaRock caverns at50-100m depth

OperatingOperating

France Centre de la MancheCentre de l’Aube

Surface-engineeredSurface-engineered

ClosedOperating

Germany AsseMorslebenKonrad

Deep salt test facilityDeep salt cavernsDeep iron mine

ClosedClosedLicensing

Spain El Cabril Surface-engineered Operating

Sweden SFR, Forsmark Rock caverns at50m depth

Operating

United Kingdom DriggDounreay

SurfaceSurface

OperatingOperating

Table 2: Disposals for short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste in the EU12

12 European Commission, ‘Current Policy and Research on Radioactive Waste Management in the European Union’, 2010.

13 European Commission, ‘Seventh situation report on radioactive waste and spent fuel management in the European Union’, 2011.

The figure on the left shows the volumes of waste in storage in 2007. Germany, France and the United Kingdom are the Member States with the largest volumes of nuclear waste in storage.

Concerning HLW, a key characteristic of nuclear energy is that spent fuel may be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials in order to provide fresh fuel for existing or future nuclear power plants. In Europe, two

Figure 4: Radioactive waste in storage in 2007 (European Commission, 2011)13

MaltaGreece

PortugalLatviaIreland

RomaniaPolandEstonia

Czech RepHungary

AustriaSloveniaFinland

DanemarkBulgariaSlovakia

NetherlandsSpain

BelgiumItaly

LithuaniaSweden

GermanyFrance

United Kingdom

0

2000

0

4000

0

6000

0

8000

0

1000

00

1200

00

1400

00

VLLWLILW-SLLILW-LLHLW

m3


reprocessing plants are under operation: the reprocessing plant of La Hague in France, with a reprocessing capacity of 1 700 tonnes of spent fuel per year, and the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom, which has a capacity of 900 tonnes per year. The recycling rate is high, with an extraction of 99.9 % of the plutonium and uranium, which leaves around 3 % of used material as HLW. By 2009, some 27 000 tonnes of fuel from LWRs had been recycled at La Hague.14

R&D spending on nuclear fission in the EUAccording to the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (2013), in 2010, Member States’ R&D investment in nuclear fission totalled EUR 600.7 million and the EU contribution amounted to EUR 57.7 million. The

14 World Nuclear Association, ‘ENER13 Nuclear Energy and Waste Production’, European Environment Agency, 2011.

estimated overall corporate R&D investment in nuclear fission technology was EUR 720 million, almost 52 % of overall investment.

In 2010, the R&D budget for fast neutron reactors, one of the SET-Plan technologies, totalled EUR 130 million. Around one-third of this nvestment represents project funding from Euratom. The development of fast reactors is taking place mainly in France, where sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) initiatives have been nurtured since the early 1950s. In 2010, the development of the SFR-based ASTRID prototype (500-600MWe) has triggered annual investments of approximately EUR 80 million during the period 2009-17. The total cost of the ASTRID project after 2017 is estimated to reach EUR 5 billion.

Figure 5: Public nuclear fission RD&D funding in the EU per member state (IEA, Beyond 20/20 database)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02000 20052001 20062002 20072003 20082004 2009 2010 2011

AustriaFranceNetherlandsUnited Kingdom

Czech RepublicGermanySlovak Republic

DenmarkHungarySpain

FinlandItalySweden

Total RD&D in Million Euro (2012 prices and exch. rates) Nuclear Fission


Figure 6: Indicative regional distribution of public and corporate R&D investment in nuclear fission technology (2010)

54-833 (3)20-54 (3)13-20 (2)

1-13 (6)0-1 (4)

Public and Corporate R&D investment

Public RD&D investment Nuclear technology

390

195

39

15 European Commission, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, ‘R&D Investment in the Technologies of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan’, 2013.

An alternative to sodium-cooled fast reactors is lead-cooled fast neutron reactors (LFR). They have received an annual investment of EUR 10 million in Belgium: the Multipurpose hybrid

research reactor for high-tech applications (MYRRHA) pilot plant ‘is scheduled to be operational in 2020 and its cost is estimated at EUR 960 million’15.

Source: JRC, 2013


16 World Nuclear Association (accessed June 2014): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/

17 IAEA, ‘Country Nuclear Power Profiles – United States of America’ 2013.18 World Nuclear Association (accessed June 2014):

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/19 World Nuclear Association (accessed June 2014):

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/India/

3.2 Policies of major nuclear countries outside the EU

Details of the main nuclear countries are given below.

USA: The share of nuclear power amounted to 19 % of the total electricity generated in 2012. As of April 2014, there are 100 NPRs in operation, five under construction and another five are planned16. Commercial NPRs currently store most of their spent fuel on site at the nuclear plant, although a small amount has been shipped to off-site facilities. The spent fuel inventory in the United States of America (USA) amounted to 60kt of uranium as of December 2008.17

Both private industry and the Federal Government conduct R&D for the nuclear industry. Private companies are actively investigating reactor technology, enrichment technology and nuclear fuel design.

China: China generates 2 % of its electric-ity with nuclear power.16 With 20 NPRs in operation in mainland China, the country plans a rapid nuclear expansion with 29 NPRs currently under construction, and more about to start construction in the near future.18 Additional reactors are planned (57 NPRs)16 and could increase the Chinese nuclear capacity to at least 58GW by 2020 and to around 150GW by 2030. In the long term, China intends to rely increasingly on fast reactors: by around 2040, pressurised water reactors (PWRs) are expected to level off at 200GW, whereas fast reactors are

projected to increase progressively from 2020 onwards to at least 200GW by 2050 and 1400GW by 2100.

India: Nuclear power provides slightly less than 4 % of India’s electricity. As of April 2014, India had 21 NPRs in operation in six NPPs with an installed capacity of 5.3GW. Six other reactors are under construction and are expected to provide an additional 4.3GW. Two of them are expected to be operational by 2015 and another two by 2016. There are 22 NPRs planned with an installed combined capacity of 21.3GW.16

India aims to supply 25 % of electricity from nuclear power by 2050.19

South Korea: 23 NPRs provided almost 30% of South Korea’s electricity in 2012. South Korea’s current fleet is composed of 19 PWRs and four CANada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs). As of April 2014, five NPRs are under construction with an expected capacity of 6.8GW and six more are planned (expected capacity: 8.7GW).16

South Korea plans to complete 11 new NPPs by 2024. The South Korean gov-ernment previously planned for 41 % of the nation’s electricity supplies to come from nuclear power by 2030, but policies released in January 2014 revised that num-ber and reduced its nuclear ambition.

Japan: Until the Fukushima crisis, Japan had historically relied on nuclear energy for about 30 % of its electricity needs. In the


aftermath of the Fukushima accident, the share of nuclear power in electricity gen-eration dropped to just over 2 % in 2013.16 In the beginning of 2014, the government

20 World Nuclear Association (accessed June 2014): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/

adopted the 4th Basic Energy Plan, listing nuclear power as an important base-load option20 for Japan’s future. In the meantime, the process of restarting the other reactors that had been shut down for safety tests is under way.

Russia: As of 2013, the share of nuclear power in electricity generation was just over 17%, with 33 operating reactors and an installed capacity of 24.2GW. As of April 2014, there are 10 NPRs under construction (expected capacity: 9.1GW) and another 31 are planned (expected capacity: 32.7GW)16.

The figure below summarises the installed and expected capacities for the above-mentioned countries.

Figure 7: Installed and planned capacity of nuclear reactors

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

China India Japan South Korea Russia USA

© iStock/PeterTG

Overall expected/Installedcapacity (GWe)

Source: WNA Operational

Under construction

Planned

Proposed


This section provides a summary of research areas contributing to the different sub-themes covered in this Policy Brochure. It focuses on the needs and objectives of each topic and highlights the major challenges and research priorities.

While the main focus remains on European programmes (Euratom is part of the Seventh Framework Programme and Horizon 2020), the national programmes of the Member States and major countries outside the EU, which have an impact at the European level, are equally taken into account.

The main research programmes are briefly described and the relevant sub-programmes are mentioned. In particular, information is provided about the specific topic covered, and the size and timeframe of the programme.

4.1 Nuclear safety and radiation protection

Nuclear fission safety research relies on the three main elements shown below; projects can include one, or more often several, of these elements:

theoretical research, which aims to develop models to predict the physical phenomena that can occur in a nuclear power reactor;

numerical simulation, which is the imple-mentation of the physical models using

computer software tools (or ‘codes’); the objective is to simulate and predict the behaviour of a certain part of a NPR in certain conditions (for either design or safety studies);

testing activities, which aim to understand the physical phenomena and validate the-oretical models and numerical software codes.

Through the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes (FP6 and FP7), Euratom has funded research in the following areas.

Severe accident management (main pro-jects are ASAMPSA2, ERCOSAM, PHEBUS FP, SARNET2, PLINIUS and LACOMECO). A severe accident situation covers a complex coupling of various physical phenomena at different spatial scales, which calls for intensified research efforts covering both theoretical and computational aspects.

Numerical simulation tools for light water reactors (main projects are NURESIM and its follow-up NURISP, HPMC and NURESAFE). These simulation tools will allow the accu-rate modelling of physical phenomena and a better quantification of uncertain-ties; furthermore, a greater integration of different computer software tools allows multiphysics coupling21 and multi-scale simulation. In order for these simulation tools to gain accuracy, it is also important to

4. Research context

21 E.g. interactions between different physical fields, such as thermal hydraulics and structural mechanics.


predict reactor core behaviour to the high-est possible degree of evaluation by using the latest accurate nuclear data. This is made possible by supporting infrastructure experiments and measurement activities carried out through projects such as EFNU-DAT, ANDES, EUFRAT and ERINDA.

Plant life prediction and residual lifetime evaluation research: European research activities are being carried out to support the assessment of possible extensions to design lifetime, including integrity assess-ment for metallic components and con-crete, material properties, performance and ageing (both for metallic structures and components), and ageing and degradation mechanisms. The main projects in this area are NULIFE, PERFORM 60, LONGLIFE, STYLE, MULTIMETAL, ADVANCE and HARMONICS.

Human factors, education, training and safety culture: most projects and initiatives in this area concern training aspects, but some research activities are also involved, such as the MMOTION project, which ana-lysed current and future trends concerning man-machine organisations (MMOs) and safety-related aspects, investigating three major themes: a) human-system-interface design and automation; b) organisational and cultural factors; and c) MMO qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

One important element in the research context is the international association NUGENIA, mandated by SNETP, which was launched in 2012 to help develop R&D activities aimed at supporting safe, reliable and competitive second- and third-generation nuclear systems; nuclear safety is obviously one of NUGENIA’s main undertakings. This association brings together the major European nuclear stakeholders (members from industry, the utilities, research institutions and

technical safety organisations) and enhances cooperation and coordination between them.

Given the financial requirements of most nuclear research programmes and projects, they are often financed by multiple organisations and frequently by both European and national funds. This means that national programmes are linked with the above-mentioned European programmes and contribute to the achievements of their objectives: for example, the Dutch EZ-S programme or the Finnish Research Programme on nuclear power plant safety (SAFIR2014).

Finally, following the Fukushima accident, the SNETP governing board decided to establish a task group with the objective of assessing the implications of the accident on the programme of medium- and long-term research and development (see 5.3.1). In 2011, most of the countries operating nuclear reactors launched a systematic re-assessment of the safety margins of their nuclear fleet in the face of severe natural hazards. In Europe, the European Council requested that a comprehensive safety assessment should be performed on all EU nuclear plants. The request of the Council comprised ‘stress tests’ performed at national level, complemented by a European peer review organised by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG). The stress tests were conducted in 2011 by the European NPP licensees and reviewed by the national European regulators who prepared national reports. The national reports were submitted in December 2011 and peer reviewed through a process organised and overseen by ENSREG. ENSREG endorsed the peer review report on stress tests and published a joint statement, dated 26 April 2012, which concluded that follow-up activities would occur through an action plan developed by ENSREG. This ENSREG Action


Plan, approved on 1 August 2012, specified the need for national action plans (NAcPs). These NAcPs were published in January 2013 and peer reviewed via a common discussion at a dedicated ENSREG workshop, held in Brussels on 22-26 April 2013, to share lessons learned on the implementation of post-Fukushima safety improvements. ENSREG approved a National Action Plan Workshop summary report and endorsed a follow-up peer review to take place in 2015. This follow-up would ascertain the value of the technical solutions arising from the present in-depth studies, before the implementation of findings in the form of major hardware changes in NPPs.

Although the stress tests and subsequent work were not primarily intended to specify areas for future research, they served to indicate the need for future studies and developments, such as risk assessment of beyond-design-basis events and the improvement of emergency preparedness.

With regard to radiation protection, one major project is the International paediatric CT scan study (EPI-CT), which has received substantial financial support from FP7 Euratom and aims to gain more insight into the connection between the exposure of young children to radiation and a potentially enhanced risk of cancer.

4.2 Radioactive waste management

In its Decision (2006/976/Euratom), the European Council has outlined that the focus of Euratom research should be directed at implementation-orientated R&D activities into the crucial aspects of deep geological disposal of spent fuel and long-lived radioactive waste.

Low-level waste (LLW) and short-lived intermediate-level waste (ILW) is generally

considered to be suitable for shallow land burial. On the other hand, deep geological disposals are suggested to represent the safest option for long-lived ILW and high-level waste (HLW) for the time being. For this reason, it is not surprising that most of the ongoing projects dealing with radioactive waste management are national long-term projects linked to underground disposal sites. The option of deep geological disposal has been studied for several decades now. Studies range from laboratory tests to exploratory boreholes, or the construction and operation of underground research laboratories.

Within the FP7 Euratom, several technical projects related to radioactive waste management have been undertaken, e.g. PEBS (2009), MoDeRn (2008), LUCOEX (2010), REDUPP (2010), BELBaR (2011), FIRST-NUCLIDES (2011), DOPAS (2012) and CAST (2013). These are organised by the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP), which was launched in November 2009 with the support of the European Commission. Its main objectives are to initiate and carry out collaborative actions in Europe to facilitate the stepwise implementation of safe, deep geological disposal of spent fuel, HLW and other long-lived radioactive waste. The IGD-TP work is driven by 11 waste management organisations. The projects are basically related to underground experiments, studies of erosion, surface studies, studies of the behaviour of various wastes in geological repositories, the industrial feasibility of plugs and seals, the development and implementation of monitoring activities during the main phases of the radioactive waste disposal process, etc. Furthermore, a project called CARBOWASTE has been carried out under FP7, which addressed the treatment and disposal of irradiated graphite and other carbonaceous waste.


In France, Finland and Sweden, deep geological disposal facilities are scheduled to start operating between 2020 and 2025. In France, the Cigéo project (industrial geological storage centre) is scheduled to operate from 2025 onwards. However, after a public debate in 2013 it has been decided to start the industrial project with a pilot-testing phase, which may necessitate postponing the beginning of the full operational phase. In Finland, the Onkalo facility in the municipality of Eurajoki is under construction. This facility is being built for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Swedish spent nuclear fuel repository will be constructed in Forsmark; the Swedish nuclear fuel and waste management company SKB is managing the project and plans to start operating the facility between 2020 and 2025.

In addition to these actual disposal plans, other major national research projects that are linked to disposal are also ongoing. They aim to increase knowledge on the surrounding rock, on the engineered parts

of the repository barrier system and on the behaviour of radioactive waste in real conditions, and to develop and demonstrate technologies. Some of these projects are the High activity disposal experimental site (HADES) in Belgium, the Meuse/Haute Marne underground research laboratory in France, the national research programme for definitive storage of radioactive waste (OPERA) in the Netherlands, and the Äspö hard rock laboratory in Sweden.

4.3 Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles

This sub-section describes the main challenges with respect to innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles. The focus lies on the development of new technologies that are safer, use less fuel, and either produce less waste or can reuse material considered as waste today for new energy production. The research priorities in this field are derived from the relevant programmes.

2009

SFR Reference technology

Alternative technologyLFR

GFR

2012 2020

Supporting infrastructure, research facilitiesloops, testing and qualification benches,

irradiation facilities incl. fast spectrum facility (MYRRHA)and fuel manufacturing facilities

SFR Prototype ASTRID

LFR technology PilotPlant MYRRHA, and LFRDemonstrator ALFRED

GFR Demonstrator ALLEGRO

Figure 8: ESNII Roadmap for Gen IV fast reactor system development in the EU22

22 European Commission, ADRIANA, 2010.


ESNII focuses on three fast reactor technologies: the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) and the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR). The SFR is considered as the reference technology since there is more feedback on its substantial technological and reactor operations. The LFR and GFR are medium-term and long-term alternative technologies, respectively. The projects planned for each fast reactor technology type are discussed below.

As far as SFR technology is concerned, the ASTRID project (Advanced sodium technological reactor for industrial demonstration) was launched by the CEA in France, in cooperation with industrial partners. ASTRID is a technological integration prototype, which aims to demonstrate the safety and operability of Generation IV SFRs on an industrial scale.23 In 2011, France had already committed EUR 650 million for the ASTRID design studies (to be built on its territory) and several other EU Member States (including the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) are allocating funds to design and research activities on SFR technology24. The technology has to overcome several challenges. Since sodium reacts chemically with air and water, a sealed coolant system is required. These inherent properties of sodium call for improvements to remote maintenance (instrumentation and control), in-service inspection, repair technologies, prevention and mitigation of sodium fires, and sodium-water reactions, as well as used fuel-handling schemes and technologies. The enhancement of core safety by design

and through passive and engineered safety features is also needed to ensure adequate control of reactivity and ‘coolability’. Another important challenge for the technology is the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents with large energy releases, such as widespread fires in the presence of air and/or water. Finally, the development and qualification of high burn-up fuel to reduce fuel-cycle costs and minor actinide-bearing fuels could be an option for reducing the long-term burden of high-level radioactive waste in geological repositories, but this needs further R&D. While uncertainties remain around financing for the construction phases, the first operations are scheduled for the period 2020-25.

Concerning lead-cooled fast reactors (LFR), the conceptual viability of a large-scale LFR (600MWe) in terms of economics, safety and sustainability has been demonstrated during FP6 by the outcome of the ELSY (European lead system) project. In 2010, the FP7 LEADER (2009) project (Lead-cooled European Advanced DEmonstration Reactor) was launched with the aim of providing the conceptual design of the demonstrator ALFRED (Advanced lead fast reactor European demonstrator), which was based on an already available industrial technology in order to shorten the design and qualification phase as much as possible. The design phase of ALFRED is expected to start in 2014 and, if financing sources are ensured, operation could start around 2030. The main objectives of the LFR demonstrator are to achieve high safety standards, to assess the economic competitiveness of the LFR technology and to demonstrate better use of resources by

23 ASTRID is a moderate power demonstrator (600MWe) and it will have to be possible to extrapolate its characteris-tics to future, higher power industrial SFRs – see SNETP (2013) – Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda.

24 SNETP (2012), ‘EU Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014-2020: Aligning nuclear fission R&D budgets to reach SET-Plan targets’.


closing the fuel cycle. Several EU Member States (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden) are allocating funds to design and research activities on LFR technology. Some of the major challenges for this technology are due to the corrosive nature of lead: better material qualification (e.g. steel for the reactor vessel, lead-corrosion-resistant materials for the steam generators, protective coating for fuel cladding and fuel element structural parts, etc.) and the development of a lead chemistry monitoring system would be needed. Furthermore, as for sodium, the opacity of lead calls for the development of adequate core instrumentation, fuel handling schemes and technologies, as well as appropriate in-service inspection and repair technologies. Also, due to the high melting point of lead (327 °C), avoiding lead freezing requires the development of dedicated heating devices for the cooling systems. The high density of lead increases mechanical loads and causes buoyant upthrust, which requires the development of components with strong mechanical support. Further improvements will also be seen in the development and qualification of high burn-up mixed oxide fuel (MOX) or nitride fuel to reduce the cost of the fuel cycle and of minor actinide-bearing fuels.

In addition to the closure of the nuclear fuel cycle in a sustainable manner, the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) has the potential to deliver high temperature heat at ~800 °C for process heat, the production of hydrogen, synthetic fuels, etc. The helium-cooled fast reactor is an innovative nuclear system with attractive features: helium, which is used as a pressurised primary coolant, is transparent to neutrons and is chemically inert. ALLEGRO (2008) is a project on an experimental GFR prototype, which is being studied in a European framework. Several EU Member States (the Czech Republic, France, Hungary,

the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and the United Kingdom) are allocating funds to design and research activities on GFR technology. This experimental reactor with a thermal power of around 75MW will not produce any electricity. At a reduced scale, ALLEGRO will have all the architecture and the main materials and components foreseen for the GFR, except the power conversion system. It will contribute to the development and qualification of innovative refractory fuel elements that can withstand high temperature levels. Some of the main challenges for GFRs will be in the development of robust fuel forms (e.g. clad with refractory materials such as ceramics) that can withstand high temperatures and fast neutron fluence in order to be able confidently to ensure the safe management of cooling accidents. Core safety needs to be enhanced by design with passive and engineered safety features, which are intended adequately to prevent and enable the safe management of cooling and reactivity accidents. Furthermore, the development and qualification of high burn-up MOX or carbide fuel could also reduce the cost of the fuel cycle and of minor actinide-bearing fuels. At present, ALLEGRO is at the pre-conceptual design studies stage and its start-up is scheduled for 2025. However, funding still needs to be secured, which could delay the start-up to 2030 or even 2035.

MYRRHA (Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applications), a flexible, fast spectrum research reactor (50-100MWth), is conceived as an accelerator-driven system (ADS) able to operate in sub-critical and critical modes. This experimental facility will serve as a basic research infrastructure for both fast reactor and ADS applications. In 2011, Belgium had already committed EUR 400 million to MYRRHA, which will be built on its territory, if the funding is secured. The construction of the facility and assembly of the components are foreseen for the period 2015–2019.


The molten salt fast-neutron reactor (MSFR) is conceived as a long-term alternative to solid-fuelled, fast neutron reactors, expected to be operational after the GFR technology. This concept has enhanced passive (or inherent) safety and offers a simplified fuel cycle. Moreover, the MSFR is very well suited for operation with the thorium (Th-232) fuel cycle. There has been a renewed interest in MSFRs due to recent conceptual developments using fluoride salts. They can also contribute towards significantly diminishing the radiotoxic inventory from present reactors’ spent fuel, in particular by lowering the masses of transuranium elements (TRU)25. From a research perspective, the EVOL (2009) project, managed under the framework of a Euratom/Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation (ROSATOM) collaboration, focused on the design and the safety of a non-moderated thorium MSFR, principally addressing the definition of the core geometry, the reactor and the salt clean-up unit26.

4.4 Major international developments outside the EU

On an international scale, the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) acts as a cooperative international endeavour, which is organised to carry out the research and development needed to establish the feasibility and performance capabilities of the next generation nuclear energy systems.27 The GIF members agreed to concentrate research on the following six systems, which are further developed through close collaboration:

gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR); lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR); molten salt reactor (MSR); sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR); supercritical-water-cooled reactor (SCWR); very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR).

Another concept studied outside the EU is thorium reactor technology. The most common source of thorium is the rare earth phosphate mineral, monazite. World monazite resources are estimated to be about 12 million tons, two-thirds of which are in India, making it the largest resource of thorium. Furthermore, India has established itself as a pioneer in thorium reactor development with the completion of the design of an advanced heavy water reactor (AHWR). China is also engaged in R&D related to thorium and by July 2009 had already taken steps to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel, and to study the commercial and technical feasibility of its full-scale use

25 SNETP, Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, Annex, ‘Molten Salt Reactor Systems’, 2012.26 CEA, ‘The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)’, 2010.27 The 13 GIF members are: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, People’s Republic of China, Euratom, France, Japan, Republic of

Korea, Russian Federation, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America.

© Courtesy of CEZ


© Courtesy of CEZ

in CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) units, such as at Qinshan. In January 2011, the China Academy of Sciences launched an R&D programme on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), known in China as the thorium-breeding molten-salt reactor (Th-MSR or TMSR)28.

With the current and future large-scale deployment of renewable energy systems in Europe and across the world, there is an increased need for stable, clean and low-carbon energy systems to address the intermittency issues presented by renewables. If small modular reactors (SMRs) become cost competitive, they could be used as peak and back-up power units. SMRs are manufactured at a plant and brought to the site fully constructed. Their advantages include less on-site construction, increased containment efficiency and heightened security of nuclear materials. SMRs can be an option to enhance energy supply security in newcomer countries with small grids and less-developed infrastructure, and in advanced countries requiring power supplies in remote areas and/or for a specific purpose. R&D work on various SMRs is already being conducted in many countries, e.g. in the USA, Russia, Korea, France, Japan and China. Moreover, SMRs are currently under construction in Argentina, China, India and Russia, and some countries are getting ready for near-term deployment, such as South Korea, Russia, USA and China.

28 World Nuclear Association (accessed June 2014): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/thorium/


This section focuses on the research results of the above-mentioned programmes, their benefits and their implications in terms of research policy and the SET-Plan.

5.1 Introduction to research implications

Fukushima has redirected the nuclear R&D agenda towards nuclear safety; this was reflected in the Council of the European Union’s decision, at the end of 2011, to prolong the Euratom programme for the period 2012-13 with a focus on safety. Research performed so far on nuclear safety has allowed a good understanding to be reached on the physical phenomena and behaviour of nuclear reactors in most conditions.

Concerning waste management, the main challenge remaining is the proper management of long-lived high-level waste. Some countries are well advanced and have already chosen the way they will manage this type of waste (deep geological disposal).

Concerning innovative reactor systems and fuel cycles, some projects are well underway in the EU: the ASTRID fast neutron reactor; and MYRRHA, a flexible, fast spectrum irradiation facility supporting the technological development of the three fast reactor systems considered under the ESNII technological platform.

In addition, another general tendency observable in EU nuclear research is that, more

recently, the R&D effort is being increasingly shared internationally, in particular through the Euratom Framework Programmes and the OECD/NEA programmes.

5.2 Impact of past and current research

In this section, the impact of past and current research for each sub-theme is discussed. In particular, the main results are summarised and the way in which they address the research problems and priorities is highlighted.

Nuclear safety and radiation protectionNuclear safety research performed so far has led to a good understanding of the behaviour of nuclear facilities and, most importantly, nuclear power reactors and the underlying physical phenomena in nominal, transient and design-basis accidents.

Regarding numerical simulation, projects such as NURISM have provided reliable, integrated software platforms, allowing multiphysics coupling and multi-scale analyses to be performed in the above-mentioned conditions. Testing activities have provided the basis for a good understanding of the physical phenomena, and the validation of theoretical models and existing numerical software codes.

It is noted that, in the past, most safety-related research has been predominantly carried out within national programmes supported either by public financing schemes or by the operators. However, as previously

5. Research benefits and policy implications


mentioned, R&D effort is being increasingly shared internationally, in particular through the Euratom Framework Programmes and Horizon 2020/Euratom.

Radioactive waste managementThe projects mentioned in section 4.2 examine, amongst others, the short- and long-term behaviour of different soils (granite, clay, salt, etc.) with respect to factors such as permeability, thermal conductivity, and bedrock and groundwater conditions, in order to analyse the suitability of final disposal sites. Other important research topics concern the design of the individual waste packages, their relative positioning and long-term properties, the development of best practices in the retrieval, treatment and disposal of radioactive waste, the whole architecture of the site and its degree of reversibility. The last point is much debated and different countries have different views on this aspect.

Past research into radioactive waste management has narrowed the choices available for final disposal options and led to the discarding of considerations such as ocean floor disposals or deep borehole disposals internationally. Furthermore, it has helped create a better understanding of the features of different soils and materials and how they react when exposed to radioactivity.

Various concepts for disposal have been created that take into account environmental, health and economic issues, and which continuously contribute to increased safety and sustainability. This steady, ongoing

development is set to continue in the future, requiring further investment, until the various Member States find appropriate solutions acceptable to their respective societies.

Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cyclesThe issue of optimised use of resources is currently being addressed with the development of Generation IV fast neutron reactors. In Europe, the main goal of ESNII is to design, license, construct, commission and put into operation before 2025, the SFR prototype reactor ASTRID and the flexible fast spectrum irradiation facility MYRRHA.

ASTRID will allow Europe to demonstrate its capability to master the mature sodium technology with improved safety characteristics that respond to society’s concern to have the highest possible level of safety. Particularly in France, the expertise acquired over three decades of operation of Phénix29, the experience added by the design and construction of Superphénix30, as well as the studies associated with the EFR (European fast reactor) project, have been taken into account in the design phase of ASTRID31.

With MYRRHA, Europe will operate a flexible, fast spectrum irradiation facility to support the technological development of the three fast reactor systems considered in ESNII (SFR, LFR and GFR). Also, MYRRHA will offer a wide range of interesting irradiation conditions for fusion material research, and will demonstrate ADS technology, thereby

29 Phénix was a small-scale (233MWe) SFR prototype, located in France. Phénix continued operating after the closure of the subsequent full-scale prototype Superphénix in 1997. After 2004, its main use was investigating transmutation of nuclear waste while also generating some electricity. Phénix was shut down in 2009.

30 Superphénix was an industrial-scale SFR prototype built in France (1 240MWe), which produced electricity from 1986 until its final shutdown in 1997.

31 CEA (Nuclear Energy Division), December 2012, 4th Generation Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors: The Astrid Technological Demonstrator.


taking Europe a step further in HLW transmutation strategy32.

5.3 Policy implications

In this chapter, we discuss the major implications for research policies. This chapter describes how policy should react to developments and highlights the research challenges that still need to be addressed.

Nuclear safety and radiation protectionAlthough the detailed analysis of the Fukushima accident will take many more years, it will result in an increased emphasis on specific R&D. According to the conclusions of the Task Group empowered by the SNETP Governing Board to investigate how the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident could impact safety-related R&D directions and priorities, no really new phenomena were revealed by the Fukushima accident. However, the Task Group identified 13 main research subjects to be addressed, with a priority in the areas of plant design and the identification of external hazards, the analysis and management of severe accidents (in particular new systems for mitigating their consequences), emergency management and radiological impact.

In the future, it is expected that safety analyses of nuclear installations will include additional advanced elements, such as evaluating the best estimate behaviour of the nuclear installation systems for beyond-design-basis accidents, so as to assess the possible challenges of fulfilling safety functions; evaluating the ultimate capacity of the systems with respect to the load

32 Artificial transmutation can be used as a radioactive waste management process, which reduces the proportion of long-lived isotopes in the waste, thereby having the potential to help solve the problem posed by the manage-ment of HLW.

applied; and precise identification of the safety margins and provisions that prevent non-linear or catastrophic damage. This will require an extension of the capability of physical modelling and computer tools, particularly in the area of severe accident and containment system simulation. Experimental and theoretical research efforts will also be necessary to support the possible evolution of safety regulations and practices.

Radioactive waste managementPlanning and building a deep geological disposal site is not only very capital-intensive but also constitutes a major challenge from a timing perspective. HLW can take up to 60 years to cool down to a level that is acceptable for deep geological disposal. For this reason, even though only one or two generations will be involved in the planning, licensing and construction phases of the site, many more will have to operate it. As an example, the Finnish deep geological disposal Onkalo, which has been planned since the 1980s and is scheduled to apply for licensing in 2020 and start operation in 2022, will not be sealed up until 2120.

Furthermore, it is important not only to move forward with the steady improvement of disposal concepts and material properties, but also to direct research into societal aspects such as intergenerational responsibility. Past experience has shown that countries that used a step-by-step, bottom-up approach, involving public consultations, transparent procedures and open dialogues, had more success in advancing their projects than those merely imposing top-down decisions. This is particularly relevant for long-lived radioactive waste management.


Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cyclesIn financing the total investment cost of ASTRID and MYRRHA, it is vitally important to establish an appropriate consortium structure and legal basis, allowing the members to identify the added value of the facility.

Maximum synergy of activities will be sought with the MYRRHA development to optimise resources and planning in the development of the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR). Design activities and support R&D will be carried out in the coming years to the maximum extent possible with the resources available, taking full advantage of feedback, where applicable, from the ongoing design of MYRRHA and related R&D programmes. These activities will allow the LFR consortium to reach the level of maturity needed to start the licensing phase and then the construction of ALFRED, provided that adequate financial resources are made available.

The viability of GFR is essentially based on two main challenges: first, the development and qualification of an innovative fuel type that can withstand the irradiation, temperature and pressure conditions put forward for the GFR concept; second, the demonstration of a high intrinsic safety level. This implies dedicated design activities, followed by out-of-pile demonstration experiments.

Based on the ADRIANA project, a number of supporting facilities for the various systems and technologies have been identified. The completion and operation of these supporting facilities, in particular a fast reactor MOX production line, will be of primary importance in reaching the aforementioned objectives.

Finally, raising the financial resources to carry out the ESNII projects and to build the various facilities will be a key factor for success. In this respect, international collaboration through GIF and bilateral or multi-lateral frameworks will be sought to optimise resources.

5.4 Policy implications of developments at international level

The development of nuclear programmes at international level is dependent on each nation’s requirements and, to a larger extent, on the availability of resources and each country’s knowledge of advanced technologies, such as those related to closed fuel cycles.

Priorities are mostly based on medium-to-long term energy security solutions for countries that do not have a sufficient domestic energy supply or have one that may prove to be volatile with an ever-increasing population. The Generation IV International Forum is contributing to the development of new nuclear systems and, although the implementation of fast reactor systems will not be possible within the first quarter of this century, the forum will be required to seek solutions for improved waste management of high-level radioactive wastes from these reactor systems, as well as ensuring the safety of operation. Moreover, research in partitioning and transmutation of minor actinides could play an important role in this respect.

© iStock /clu


Based on the insights provided in previous chapters, this chapter presents recommendations on how energy research policy can address future research developments and current gaps. These recommendations are, to a certain extent, inspired by the interdisciplinary study on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy, which was commissioned by the European Economic and Social Committee in 2012.

The research needs and new developments that are not covered by the R&D results achieved to date, as well as new developments requiring research efforts, are presented for each of the three major themes. In addition, general recommendations valid for all the sub-themes of nuclear fission are provided.

6.1 Nuclear safety and radiation protection

With regard to the nuclear energy sector, the primary priority at the forefront of all European citizens’ minds is nuclear safety. The Fukushima accident increased public concerns about nuclear energy and drew renewed attention to the safety of NPPs. Nuclear safety has always been at the heart of European fission research and this is even more important now, after the event in Japan. Bearing in mind the fact that nuclear fission

will remain a clearly identified source of energy in many countries in Europe and in the rest of the world over the coming decades, it is crucial to maintain and further develop the appropriate knowledge, skills and research infrastructures on nuclear fission safety issues.

The following recommendations can be drawn for the future of research in nuclear safety and radiation protection.

The Commission should support EU countries in pursuing the implementation of the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident, and the stress tests and subsequent work overseen by ENSREG. To be effective, this process has to be supported by research, primarily in the beyond-design-basis range, better to prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents. In particular, it should be verified as to whether the refining of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) studies and underlying methods is necessary.

The conclusions of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators based on the European stress tests following Fukushima have to be pursued. Any further research required should be included in the calls for Horizon 2020 projects, while duplication of work conducted by other institutions like OECD-NEA should be avoided.

6. Recommendations on future research directions


Since 40 % of the operating reactors in the EU will reach 40 years of operation in the next decade, further research is needed on how far the lifetime of current reactors can be extended without affecting safety. In particular, R&D on degradation and ageing of materials and systems created for very long-term operations (LTO) should be pushed forward. This could increase the competitiveness of nuclear power.

EU-level research should strengthen the scientific and methodological bases for a further harmonisation of safety requirements, industrial codes and standards, and safety assessment practices, so as to meet growing expectations for plausible and science-based regulatory decisions.

EU citizens should be protected by adequate nuclear safeguards and security measures against nuclear threats from malevolent actions. Advanced methods and expertise developed to prevent and detect the theft of, unauthorised access to, and illicit trafficking of, nuclear materials and other radioactive substances should be developed at EU level.

Whether or not individual countries continue with nuclear energy, there must be a critical mass of dedicated professionals for high-quality research as new technologies and applications develop. Educated and trained professionals are paramount for nuclear safety. For this reason, the European Commission must continue to support research, education and training at least at the present level.

Finally, concerning radiation protection, better scientific understanding of low-dose and low-dose-rate effects of radiation could enhance the reputation and acceptability of nuclear power.

6.2 Radioactive waste management

Radioactive waste already exists in increasing amounts all over the world and has to be managed in a safe and sustainable manner. There is a broad agreement among countries that the current generation should take responsibility for its radioactive waste and not leave the burden to future generations.

Most countries that make use of nuclear power have disposal centres for short-lived low-level or intermediate-level waste, which are either operational or under construction. Therefore, no major challenges have to be met with regard to the management of this type of waste. The most significant efforts should relate to the demonstration of safety and quality control, and the assurance that capacities take fully into account the waste generated by old reactors and those currently running, as well as waste generated by future production.

On the other hand, long-lived low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste processing and management technologies still need to be further developed. This particularly concerns the following aspects:

general research on waste management and disposal should be stimulated, in order better to understand geological properties, material properties and the various relationships between them;

the ability to retrieve waste placed in geological repositories (reversibility and retrievability) has been discussed for more than a decade now but is still a controversial subject for various countries and needs further investigation;


more research is required on the partitioning and transmutation of minor actinides and the operation of FNRs in sub-generator mode, as these can present substantial advantages in the future;

from an economic point of view, a solution should be sought with respect to how long-term investment projects, such as deep geological disposals, can be financially evaluated. A proper discounting approach is needed and the specific problem of irreversibility needs to be taken into account;

the social and economic consequences, both positive and negative, related to the construction and subsequent operation of a deep geological disposal site must be identified, analysed and taken into account in consultation with those citizens affected by the construction of such a disposal site.

6.3 Innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles

Based on the current status of research at EU level and worldwide, the following recommendations have been made concerning innovation in reactor systems and fuel cycles:

Research on innovative reactor systems has been based on developing closed fuel-cycle systems with improved fuel efficiency. These systems could run on spent fuel from previous reactor systems and reduce the overall quantity of radioactive waste generated during the whole process. Global research efforts have recently been undertaken on the development of Gen-IV reactor systems, mainly seeking to optimise the entire process and improve the safety of operations, as well as reduce the risk of proliferation.

© iStock/PeterTG


As highlighted in the recommendations from SNETP in its Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2013, further research on thorium-based fuel cycles could benefit from several advantages related to thorium-based advanced reactors.

In many respects, accelerator-driven systems (ADSs) could be worth pursuing: by producing electricity, they can contribute to the world’s growing energy needs, and by incinerating plutonium and highly radioactive wastes, they can contribute to the goals of environmental protection and safe waste management. Some types of ADSs being developed can produce energy from the abundant element thorium in a safe, sub-critical blanket assembly with a minimal nuclear waste stream.

EU support for the development of advanced reactors and the deployment of demonstrators would require a high level of safety and reduced long-lived nuclear waste as integral design elements from the beginning.

Nuclear energy could also be considered directly for heat-intensive applications, which might help to reduce CO2 emissions. An effective approach would be to use nuclear reactors for cogeneration of electricity and heat.

6.4 General recommendations

Cooperation at EU and international levelEven with full responsibility for its energy mix, a country’s decision can affect the rest of Europe as electricity can be traded, and radiation from a severe accident does not respect man-made borders. This is why a joint approach to nuclear fission research is crucial in Europe. Stronger coordination and integration of Member States’ programmes is also required to ensure stability and stronger commitments from the parties involved.

Indeed, the cooperation of EU Member States in R&D has increased in the past few years but could still be reinforced. The keys to enhancing cooperation and coordination in Europe are the existing technology platforms (SNETP and IGD-TP technology platforms and the MELODI association). The Commission should investigate how this could be developed further.

At the global level, much interaction already exists, e.g. through the work done by the IAEA. However, Euratom should play a full part in discussions at international level, in line with the changing research and innovation scene worldwide. The EU should interact further with international agencies like the NEA or the IAEA, but also with other regions of the world, especially with countries that have rapidly growing nuclear programmes, such as Russia, China and South Korea. Existing connections should be exploited; in particular, participation of the EU in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) research is a unique opportunity to maintain high levels of competence and knowledge in the nuclear field and to share the cost with partners. To advance in this respect, further support is needed through projects within the Euratom fission programmes.


Furthermore, one lesson which has become abundantly clear in assessing these international projects is that there is a need to educate and/or train more personnel to lead and manage large, international scientific projects, including those in nuclear fission. It is therefore recommended that a number of initiatives in Horizon 2020 should support future nuclear research, especially in infrastructures, new technologies and project management.

Public acceptanceFollowing the Fukushima accident, nuclear fission has become a sensitive political issue in some Member States and the public expects its concerns to be properly addressed. Future fission research therefore needs to respond to those concerns, including new ways of engaging the public. This is the only way for the European industry in the nuclear field to maintain its leading position in the world. It will require the participation of social scientists and other experts from the non-nuclear science and engineering community to ensure a holistic approach to the Euratom fission programme. It is recommended that an advisory panel, comprising social scientists, with appropriate nuclear scientists and engineers from industry, research associations and academia, be set up to oversee large nuclear research projects that receive significant Euratom funding, so as to ensure that all socio-economic aspects of a project are considered, including public engagement. One might consider expanding the role of the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) by adding social scientists to the membership.

To reinforce public acceptance, existing research associations and technology platforms related to nuclear power should do more to interact with the general public so as to share developments and ensure

further public confidence. Moreover, the JRC could contribute with others to improving public confidence by sharing knowledge and information, and by disseminating the output of European R&D projects, although the implications of the proposed open access policy need to be examined from the point of view of security.

Finally, there is no doubt that most citizens do not have an in-depth understanding of the nature of nuclear energy and the associated risks. It is recommended that research should be undertaken to develop further methodologies for risk assessment and for public discussions informing on the risks related to various technologies, including those used regularly by most citizens (e.g. motor travel). This would allow understanding of why people accept some risks and not others.

© EDF – William Beaucardet


CEA, ‘The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) - GIF System Development Progress Status’ 2010, http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/cooperation/4th_GIF_Meeting/08-GUERARD.pdf (accessed June 2014)

CEA, ‘4th Generation Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors: The Astrid Technological Demonstrator’, 2012.

European Commission, Green Paper, ‘A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy’, 2006.

European Commission, ‘The 2020 climate and energy package’, 2007.

European Commission, ‘A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan – Towards a low-carbon future, 2007.

European Council, Directive 2009/71/Euratom: Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, 2009.

European Commission, Current Policy and Research on Radioactive Waste Management in the European Union, 2010.

European Commission, ADRIANA – ADvanced Reactor Initiative And Network Arrangement, 2010, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/euratom-fission/docs/adriana-final-report_en.pdf (accessed in June 2014)

European Commission, ‘Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050’, 2010.

European Commission, ‘Seventh situation report on radioactive waste and spent fuel management in the European Union’, 2011.

European Council, Directive 2011/70/Euratom: Safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, 2011.

European Commission, 2012 interdisciplinary study: Compilation of the experts’ reports, Background to the synthesis report, ‘Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a low-carbon economy – Defining priorities for Euratom fission research and training’, (Horizon 2020), 2012.

European Commission, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports: ‘R&D Investment in the Technologies of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan’, 2013.

European Commission, ‘2030 framework for climate and energy policies’, 2014.

European Commission, Thematic Research Summary (TRS) on Nuclear fission, ERKC, 2014.

Generation IV International Forum, ‘Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems’, 2014, https://www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/gif-tru2014.pdf (accessed June 2014).

IAEA, ‘Country Nuclear Power Profiles – United States of America’, 2013, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CNPP2013_CD/countryprofiles/UnitedStatesofAmerica/UnitedStatesofAmerica.htm (accessed in June 2014)

References

http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/cooperation/4th_GIF_Meeting/08-GUERARD.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/cooperation/4th_GIF_Meeting/08-GUERARD.pdf

ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/euratom-fission/docs/adriana-final-report_en.pdf

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/gif-tru2014.pdf

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/gif-tru2014.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CNPP2013_CD/countryprofiles/UnitedStatesofAmerica/UnitedStatesofAmerica.htm




OECD/NEA, ‘Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems’, 2012.

SNETP, ‘Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda’, 2013.

SNETP, Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, Annex, ‘Molten Salt Reactor Systems’, 2012.

SNETP, ‘EU Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020: Aligning nuclear fission R&D budgets to reach SET-Plan targets’, 2012.

World Nuclear Association, ‘ENER13 Nuclear Energy and Waste Production’, European Environment Agency, 2011.

World Nuclear Association, (accessed June 2014 for several countries): http://www.world-nuclear.org


ADRIANA Advanced reactor initiative and network arrangementADS Accelerator-driven systemADVANCE Ageing diagnostics and prognostics of low-voltage I&C cablesAHWR Advanced heavy water reactorALFRED Advanced lead fast reactor European demonstratorANDES Accurate nuclear data for nuclear energy sustainabilityAP Advanced passiveASAMPSA2 Advanced safety assessment methodologies: Level 2 PSA ASTRID Advanced sodium technical reactor for industrial demonstrationBELBaR Bentonite erosion: effects on the Long term performance of the engi-

neered barrier and radionuclide transportCANDU Canada deuterium uraniumCARBOWASTE Treatment and disposal of irradiated graphite and other carbonaceous

wasteCAST Carbon-14 source termCCS Carbon capture and storageCEA Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (French

Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission)Cigéo Centre industriel de stockage géologique (industrial geological storage

centre)DOPAS Full-scale demonstration of plugs and sealsEC European CommissionEERA European Energy Research AllianceEFNUDAT European facilities for nuclear data measurementsEFR European fast reactorELSY European lead systemENSREG European Nuclear Safety Regulators GroupEPI-CT International paediatric CT scan studyEPR European pressurised reactorERKC Energy Research Knowledge CentreERCOSAM Euratom-Rosatom Samara projects on containment thermal-hydraulics

of current and future LWRs for severe accident managementERINDA European research infrastructures for nuclear data applicationsESNII European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial InitiativeEU European UnionEUFRAT European facility for nuclear reaction and decay data measurementsEURATOM European Atomic Energy CommunityEVOL Evaluation and viability of liquid fuel fast reactor systemFNR Fast neutron reactorFP6/7 Sixth/Seventh Framework Programme

List of Acronyms


Gen IV Generation IV reactorsGFR Gas-cooled fast reactorGIF Generation IV International ForumGW GigawattHADES High activity disposal experimental siteHARMONICS Harmonised assessment of reliability of modern nuclear I&C softwareHLW High-level wasteHPMC High performance Monte CarloIAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyICT Information and communications technologyIGD-TP Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology

PlatformILW Intermediate-level wasteJRC Joint Research Centre (European Commission)LACOMECO Large scale experiments on core degradation, melt retention and

containment behaviourLEADER Lead-cooled European advanced demonstration reactorLFR Lead-cooled fast neutron reactorLFTR Liquid fluoride thorium reactorLILW-LL Low and intermediate-level waste - long livedLILW-SL Low and intermediate-level waste - short livedLLW Low-level wasteLONGLIFE Treatment of long term irradiation embrittlement effects In RPV safety

assessmentLTO Long-term operationLUCOEX Large underground concept experimentsLWR Light water reactorMELODI Multidisciplinary European Low-dose InitiativeMMO Man-machine organisationMMOTION Man-machine-organisation through innovative orientations for nuclearMoDeRn Monitoring developments for safe repository operation and staged

closureMOX Mixed oxide fuelMSFR Molten salt fast-neutron reactorMSR Molten salt reactorMULTIMETAL Structural performance of multi-metal componentsMWe Megawatt electricMWth Megawatt thermalMYRRHA Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applicationsNAcPs National action plans


NEA Nuclear Energy AgencyNPP Nuclear power plantNPR Nuclear power reactorNUGENIA Nuclear Generation II & III AssociationNULIFE Nuc lear plant life predictionNURESAFE Nuclear reactor safety simulation platformNURESIM Nuclear reactor integrated simulationNURISP Nuclear reactor integrated simulation projectOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOPERA Onderzoeksprogramma Eindberging Radioactief Afval / Research

programme for the geological disposal of radioactive wastePB Policy brochurePEBS Long-term performance of engineered barrier systemsPERFORM 60 Prediction of the effects of radiation for reactor pressure vessel and

in-core materials using multi-scale modelling - 60 years foreseen plant lifetime

PHEBUS FP Phebus fission projectPHWR Pressurised heavy water reactorsPLINIUS Platform for improvements in nuclear industry and utility safetyPRIS Power Reactor Information SystemPSA Probabilistic safety assessmentPWR Pressurised water reactorR&D Research and developmentRD&D Research, development and demonstrationREDUPP Reducing uncertainty in performance predictionROSATOM Russian State Atomic Energy CorporationSAFIR2014 Finnish research programme on nuclear power plant safetySARNET Severe accident research network of excellenceSCC Smart Cities and CommunitiesSCWR Supercritical-water-cooled reactorSETIS Strategic Energy Technologies Information SystemSET-Plan Strategic Energy Technology PlanSFR Sodium-cooled fast reactorSMR Small modular reactorSNETP Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology PlatformSRIA Strategic Research and Innovation AgendaSTC Scientific and Technical CommitteeSTYLE Structural integrity for lifetime management - non-RPV componentsTh-MSR/TMSR Thorium-breeding molten-salt reactorTRS Thematic research summaryTRU Transuranium elementsUSA Unites States of AmericaVHTR Very-high-temperature reactorsVLLW Very low-level wasteWNA World Nuclear Association

Note: this table is not exhaustive, but rather indicates the most important policy documents with regard to the policy context of nuclear fission in Europe.

Relevant Policy documents

Nuclear fission'A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) – Towards a low-carbon future', COM(2007) 723 final Strategic Energy Technology Plan; Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 22 November 2007

‘Identification of Research Areas in Response to the Fukushima Accident’, Report of the SNETP Fukushima Task Group, January 2013, with long-term safety-related research topics

‘ENSREG Action Plan Follow-up of the peer review of the stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants’, ENSREG, 25/07/2012, with short-term required safety-related measures and evaluations

The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) of SNETP, February 2013

Strategic Research Agenda of IGD-TP, July 2011

Strategic Research Agenda of MELODI, March 2013

The 2020 climate and energy package

2030 framework for climate and energy policies

Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050

Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste

Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations

Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations

Nuclear Fission was identified as one of the key technologies for the security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness of the EU Energy policy. However, since EU countries are free to choose whether to make use of nuclear energy or not, the individual national policies differ significantly. Nuclear fission comes with several challenges related to nuclear safety, security and the long-term management of radioactive waste. For this reason some Member States choose not to rely on this technology, while others include it to dif-ferent extents in their energy mix. This Policy Brochure aims to highlight the policy implications of the results of energy research programmes and projects related to nuclear fission. It summarises the current status of developments with an emphasis on the future policy implications of the results, and pathways to future research developments.

Energy Research Knowledge Centre Overcoming … Research Challenges for Nuclear Fission 1 At a...

Documents

Transcript of Energy Research Knowledge Centre Overcoming … Research Challenges for Nuclear Fission 1 At a...