INTERNATIONAL PROJECT ON INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR

REACTORS AND FUEL CYCLES (INPRO)

INPRO Task 1

“GLOBAL SCENARIOS”

Presented by Vladimir KUZNETSOV

INPRO Section

INPRO Dialogue Forum 11 “Roadmaps for a transition to

globally sustainable nuclear energy systems”

IAEA 2

Services and Training Offered for NES

Strategic Planning Tools

• INPRO offers training on nuclear energy system

(NES) strategic planning tools:

• NES Assessment (NESA) using the INPRO Methodology

helps develop a more detailed technical perspective of

actions needed to improve sustainability – a “gap”

assessment

• NES Scenario Analysis helps develop a dynamic picture

view of NES strategy and sustainability outcomes

• Key Indicator evaluation and analysis helps better

understand and communicate benefits and risks

associated with still immature innovative NES

IAEA

Nuclear Energy System (NES)

Strategic Planning: 3 linked Parts

3

National Energy Planning:

How does nuclear energy fit

into the national energy mix?

Nuclear Energy System

Assessment (NESA):

INPRO Methodology of

sustainability assessment

What are the gaps?

Nuclear Energy System

(NES) modelling and the

‘GAINS Framework’: How

do we get from here to

there and beyond?

IAEA

INPRO methodology: Key Indicator approach

(IAEA-TECDOC-1575)

4

IAEA

INPRO TASK 1 “GLOBAL SCENARIOS”

Objective:

To develop, based on scientific

and technical analysis, global

and regional nuclear energy

scenarios that lead to a global

vision of sustainable nuclear

energy in the 21st century

5

Paper 15483 Session 8.04 ICAPP 2015

3-6 May 2015, Nice, France

Global Scenarios: Heterogeneous world model introduced in GAINS

Non-personified, non-geographical

groups of countries with different

policies regarding the fuel cycle

back end:

NG1-recycling strategy;

NG2-direct disposal/reprocessing

abroad strategy

NG3- looking for minimal NFC

infrastructure: disposal or reprocessing

abroad

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE OF

INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS WITH THERMAL AND FAST

REACTORS AND A CLOSED NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (GAINS)

2008-2011

Sixteen participants - Belgium, Canada, China, Czech

Republic, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the

Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, the USA, the

European Commission (EC), plus Argentina as an observer

Final Report: http://www-

pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8873/Framework-for-

Assessing-Dynamic-Nuclear-Energy-Systems-for-

Sustainability-Final-Report-of-the-INPRO-Collaborative-Project-

GAINS

GAINS developed an international analytical framework for

assessing transition scenarios to future sustainable nuclear energy

systems and conducted sample analyses.

The framework includes heterogeneous global model to capture

countries’ different policies regarding the nuclear fuel cycle back

end and to analyze available cooperation options

8

MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE GAINS COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

WHICH MODEL WOULD THE WORLD FOLLOW?

Investments in RD&D on innovative technologies, such as those of fast reactors and closed

fuel cycles, are huge and provide reasonable pay-back times only in the case of foreseen

large scale deployment of such technologies. Not all of the countries interested in nuclear

energy would afford such investments

Global nuclear energy system is likely to follow a heterogeneous world model, within which

most of the countries will continue to use thermal reactors in a once-through nuclear fuel

cycle throughout the 21st century.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10 20 30 40 50 100

Pe

rio

d o

f R

&D

re

turn

, yr

Total installed capasities, GWe

Return of RD&D, demonstration and construction investments for innovative reactor technology (FR)

New capacity 1 GWe/yr,

R&D 00

R&D 10

R&D 20

R&D 30

R&D 40

Although only a few countries may master innovative technologies of fast reactors and

closed nuclear fuel cycle within this century, all others could benefit from this if they follow

a synergistic approach, i.e., send their spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing and recycle in

fast reactor programmes implemented by technology holder countries.

In this, progressive accumulation of spent nuclear fuel on a global or regional scale could

be mitigated or even reversed. The synergistic approach could also secure natural

uranium saving of up to 40%, compared to a heterogeneous non-synergistic case.

GLOBAL SCENARIOS: ON-GOING ACTIVITIES

On-going Collaborative Activities:

Collaborative Project “Synergistic Nuclear Energy Regional Group

Interactions Evaluated for Sustainability” (SYNERGIES, 2012-2015)

Collaborative Project “Key Indicators for Innovative Nuclear Energy

Systems” (KIND, 2014-2017)

Collaborative Project “Roadmaps for a Transition to Globally

Sustainable Nuclear Energy Systems” (ROADMAPS, 2014-2017)

Training on Nuclear Energy Sustainability (TNES): Webex based

distant lecturing/training for undergraduate, graduate and PhD

students and teaching and research staff of nuclear universities and

research centres (recurrent) – includes also the development of

tools!

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON SYNERGISTING NUCLEAR ENERGY

REGIONAL GROUP INTERACTIONS EVALUATED FOR SUSTAINABILITY

(SYNERGIES)

2012-2015

Twenty two participants and observers - Algeria, Argentina, Armenia,

Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Israel,

Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Romania, the Russian

Federation, Spain, Ukraine, UK, USA, Viet Nam.

Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/SYNERGIES/index.html

Objectives: Apply and amend the GAINS analytical framework to examine more specifically

synergies among the various existing and innovative nuclear energy technologies and

options to amplify them through collaboration among countries in fuel cycle back end

Examine drivers and impediments for synergistic collaboration among countries and

identify possible ‘win – win’ situations.

Focus on short- and medium-term collaborative actions that can help developing

pathways to long term NES sustainability.

SYNERGIES STORYLINE

ALWR increased CF

Synergies among the technologies

AHWR

F(B)R

(A)LWR

PHWR

U

UOX MOX Pu

URT

MOX

Pu

FR-MOX

Pu

Pu

URT

Th-Blanket

Th UTh-OX

233U

233U / Th

U-Blanket

Pu

FR-MOX

TRU

HTR EU OTC

MA-FR ADS

Am-PHWR

Am

MA

FR-EU

LWR SMR

Today 2020 2030 2040 2050

Period <2025

Period 2025-2040

Period post-2035

SYNERGIES status October 2015: Project Completed

Final consultants’ meeting (SYNERGIES Editorial committee

meeting) convened in Vienna on 30 March – 02 April 2015

Draft Final report, including 28 Case Studies from project

participants as Annexes, Summaries of the Case Studies and 5

Cross-cutting Chapters 100 % developed and undergoes final review

by all participants/observers of the project – to be completed by the

end of 2015):

No further meetings planned

MAJOR FINDINGS: SYNERGIES COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

SYNERGIES also considered global and regional NES deployment options

not considered in previous INPRO studies, for example, scenarios with fast

reactor start-up from enriched uranium load:

- The enriched uranium start-up load introduction makes it possible to

achieve a high scenario fast reactor deployment programme under LWR

reprocessing capacity limitations.

- The growth of fast reactors could be increased by a factor of 1.5 compared

to the case of FRs with MOX fuel obtained from LWRs reprocessed spent

fuel.

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON ROADMAPS FOR A TRANSITION TO

GLOBALLY SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (ROADMAPS)

2014-2017

Fourteen participants and observers - Armenia, Bangladesh, China, India,

Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation,

Thailand, Ukraine, USA, Viet Nam.

Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/ROADMAPS/index.html

Background:

The basic concept of SYNERGIES with respect to sustainability is to have

the whole achieve more than the parts. If one partner in a synergistic

collaboration is achieving enhanced sustainability, then the other partner

may achieve the same enhancement without the requisite investment in

technologies and the related infrastructure.

Collaboration, in turn, can benefit from sharing of longer-term nuclear

energy planning which can provide information on the projected size and

timing for R&D and infrastructure deployment and demonstrate the looming

needs for institutional developments.

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON ROADMAPS FOR A TRANSITION TO

GLOBALLY SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (ROADMAPS)

Objectives:

To develop a structured approach for documenting plans for moving toward

globally sustainable nuclear energy systems, including the roadmap

template to document actions, scope of work, and timeframes for specific

efforts by particular stakeholders, and guidance for the template application

To facilitate application of the developed structured approach and guidance

in Member States, to develop their own country level roadmaps in a

compatible format.

As these country-level roadmaps are developed and linked, the composite may grow into

an integrated plan for achieving global sustainability of nuclear energy.

ROADMAPS: Options for enhanced nuclear energy

sustainability

For the purpose of scenario studies focussed on options of cooperation

among countries, and taking into account overall known potential of

nuclear technology (both, proven and yet to be proved), INPRO Task 1

had defined the options for enhanced nuclear energy sustainability in two

directions:

Enhancing Sustainability via Advanced Reactors and Fuel Cycles

Collaborative Enhancements

The draft document was distributed for review to all participants of INPRO

Dialogue Forum 11

ROADMAPS: Questionnaire and Roadmaps template

“Successful implementation of collaborative projects like ROADMAPS is

impossible without establishing a productive dialogue among the broad variety

of stakeholders in technology holder, technology user and newcomer

countries”.

INPRO Dialogue Forum 11 “Roadmaps for a transition to globally

sustainable nuclear energy systems”– 20-23 October 2015, Vienna

• All participants have been requested to Questionnaire

• The Questionnaire is a proto ROADMAPS template

• The template proposal will be presented and discussed at the Forum

Consultants’ meeting to process the outputs of the INPRO DF11 and

prepare final report of the Forum – 14-17 December 2015

INPRO COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ON KEY INDICATORS FOR INNOVATIVE

NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (KIND)

2014-2017

Fifteen participants and observers - Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Croatia,

France, Germany, India (TBC), Indonesia, Malaysia, Romania, Russian

Federation, Ukraine, UK, USA, Viet Nam.

Web Page: https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/CPs/KIND/Protected/index.html

Objectives:

To develop guidance and tools for comparative evaluation of the status,

prospects, benefits and risks associated with development of innovative

nuclear technologies for a more distant future (based on application of a set

of key indicators and the selected judgment aggregation method)

To examine the generic KIND approach potential in application to other

problems, for example, those of particular interest to newcomer and

technology user countries.

Economics Environment Waste

Management

Proliferation

Resistance Country-

specific

General Indicator

Maturity of

Innovative

technology

E/SE

Method (MAVT), Weights

Env/SEnv WM/SWM PR/SPR M/SM

Method (MAVT), Weights

GI

AI

KI

Areas of

interest

Key

Indicators

Cost

HI Performance Acceptability

High-level

objectives

Method (MAVT), Weights

INES-1 INES-2 INES-3 INES-… INES-N

Aggregation of indicators and determination of preference

order of alternatives (with MAVT)

Multi Attribute Value Theory (MAVT) method selected

A set of KIs K={K1, K2, …Kn} for each INES alternatives A={A1, A2,...Am}

is mapped from specific measurement scale onto numerical scale (utility function

ui) and then combined to several or one aggregated indicator (overall utility

function u) as weighted average of all the individual utility functions:

u=Σwi×ui

where wi – are weighing factors for each indicator specified an indicator’s

importance relative to the other’s.

Finally, ranks for the alternatives based on the comparison of overall utility

function/functions for considered alternatives are defined: one alternative exceeds

the other if its utility function is larger than that of the others’.

Publications in refereed journals on intermediate results of KIND

• (1) V. Kuznetsov, G. Fesenko, A. Andrianov, and I. Kuptsov, “INPRO

Activities on Development of Advanced Tools to Support Judgment

Aggregation for Comparative Evaluation of Nuclear Energy Systems,”

Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, vol. 2015, Article ID

910162, 15 pages, 2015. doi:10.1155/2015/910162

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/stni/2015/910162/

• (2) Kuznetsov, V.; Fesenko, G.; Schwenk-Ferrero, A.; Andrianov, A.;

Kuptsov, I., Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art

Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to

Performance Comparison. Energies 2015, 8, 3679-3719.

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/5/3679

KIND: Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty treatment

• In the framework of the KIND approach, uncertainties can be examined through a

sensitivity analysis. Uncertainty can be objective like KI value and subjective like

indicator weight or method parameters. The sensitivity analysis should explore impact of

changing in key indicators, weights and method parameters, for example value/utility

function on ranking results. Application of uncertainty analysis methods requires more

information about system features and experts’ preferences but, at the same time, may

greatly enhance the decision-maker capabilities to incorporate in the analysis of the

uncertainties of both the objective (in indicator values) and subjective (in weights) nature.

Illustration of ‘Linear weight’ approach to weights

sensitivity analyses

To implement this method the expert should choose

an indicator for a weight sensitivity analysis and

analyze how the ranking alternatives will change

with a weighting factor changing from 0 to 1 (other

weights are automatically changed proportionally

holding the weight sum equal to unity).

This approach may be implemented for the

weighting factors on each level of the objectives

tree: the high-level aggregated objectives, an

assessment area level, and indicators level.

Case study on comparison of hypothetical INESs

• Demonstration of procedures for multi-criteria comparative analysis was performed on the

numerical examples of the 2 and 5 hypothetical INESs comparison. • 15 KIs were used

• Evaluation of 15 KIs is performed using 10 and 5 scoring scale (for 2 and 5 INESs, correspondingly)

Application of KIND approach to comparative evaluation

of scenarios (GAINS and SYNERGIES)

Intermediate conclusions of KIND

The KIND approach could be a useful tool to support communication to

decision makers.

The KIND methodology based on a key indicator set with judgment aggregation

and uncertainty analysis methods, employing indicator scales and utility

functions, was found to be very flexible and applicable to a variety of tasks,

including comparative evaluations of not only INS, but also, NES evolution

scenarios, NES and non-nuclear energy sources and, potentially, evolutionary

NES. For each of these applications an individual key indicator set needs to be

developed.

It was noted that a top level aggregated score is typically of little use to

communicate key differences between evaluated systems. More productive

communications could be achieved at lower aggregation levels using graphic

presentations taking into account uncertainties in the comparison

Intermediate Conclusions of KIND

Taking into account the above said, the project could develop a detailed

guidance and a software tool for application of the KIND methodology,

completed with necessary justifications and verifications. As comes to

key indicators sets, only a guidance on development, and the

examples, of such sets for particular tasks could be provided, leaving

final definitions to interested Member States.

E-learning

Training on Nuclear Energy Sustainability: Users’ Guide for Modelling

Nuclear Energy Systems with MESSAGE

(D-NG-T-5.2, approved for publication, in print)

Users Guide, developed jointly

with PESS, provides a step-by-

step guidance to create

mathematical models

representing nuclear energy

systems to the level of detail as

necessary.

The User Guide presents three

demonstration cases including

modelling a nuclear energy

system based on thermal and fast

reactors with fully closed fuel

cycle.

MESSAGE model allows to assess:

Optimal Schedule for introduction various reactor technologies and fuel cycle options

Infrastructure requirements

Nuclear material flows and wastes

Investments, and other costs

E-learning

Training for nuclear energy sustainability

Distant lecturing on INPRO Methodology for Nuclear Energy System Assessment, September-November, 2014, State Engineering University of Armenia

• INPRO overview • Introduction to INPRO methodology and NESA • Economic analysis of energy options • INPRO Analytical framework for the analysis of transition scenarios to sustainable nuclear

energy systems • Overview of MESSAGE, DESAE, NFCSS • INPRO area of Economics; • INPRO areas of Infrastructure, Safety of nuclear reactors , Environment and Waste

management

E-learning

Training for nuclear energy sustainability

Distance INPRO training on State-of-the-Art Methods and Tools for Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Energy Systems, February-May, 2015 ,

to the Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering (INPE) of the National Research Nuclear University (NRNU MEPhI) in the Russian Federation, and higher education institutions and nuclear industry organizations in Belarus (State University and Republican Unitary Enterprise "Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant") and Kazakhstan (Nuclear Technology Safety Centre and Institute for Strategic Studies).

• Introduction to INPRO. The concept

of sustainable development and the INPRO methodology .

• INPRO methodology and NESA • Economic analysis of energy options • GAINS framework ; Overview of

nuclear fuell cycle modelling tools • Lectures from NRNU MEPhI

Thank You! V.Kuznetsov@iaea.org

Back-up slides

34

• Economics: Nuclear energy products must be competitive against

alternative energy sources available in the country;

• Waste management: Nuclear waste must be managed so that human

health and environment are protected and undue burdens on future

generations are avoided;

• Infrastructure: Assure adequate infrastructure and reduce effort to create

and maintain it.

• Legal and institutional frame work;

• Industrial and economic infrastructure;

• Socio-political infrastructure (Public acceptance, Human resources)

Generalized INPRO requirements:

Main messages in areas of INPRO Methodology

35 Generalized INPRO requirements (cont.): Main messages in areas of INPRO Methodology

• Proliferation resistance: Future NES must remain unattractive for a

nuclear weapon program by a combination of intrinsic features and

extrinsic measures;

• Physical protection: Efficient and effective regime to be implemented for

whole life cycle of NES;

• Environment: Impact of stressors from future NES must be within

performance envelope of current NES. Resources must be available to

run NES until end of 21st century;

• Safety: Safety of planned NPP should be superior compared against

safety of reference plant. Large off-site releases of radionuclides should

be prevented so that there should be no need for evacuation (emergency

preparedness and response remain a prudent requirement).

Technology lines in SYNERGIES project

Today 2020