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

TLDR

Energy demand is projected to more than double by 2050, making energy choices a critical policy issue; life‑cycle analysis enables comparison of impacts, and nuclear power is expected to have low greenhouse‑gas emissions but faces public scrutiny post‑Fukushima. The study performed a global life‑cycle assessment of the French nuclear fuel cycle as a reference model. The assessment compared the French closed fuel cycle against other energy sources and against an equivalent open fuel cycle scenario. The closed French nuclear cycle is among the least impactful energy sources, comparable to renewables, whereas an open cycle would need about 16 % more uranium, increase non‑radioactive environmental impacts, and generate more high‑level radioactive waste.

Abstract

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