Reducing the Energy Carbon Content - Energy and Climate: How to Achieve a Successful Energy Transition - page 73

Nuclear development is held back first by the investments required and
secondly by the reluctance of public opinion in various countries, faced
with the actual or assumed dangers inherent to the production of nuclear
energy.
The investments required are initially higher by a factor of 1.5 to
2 compared with a coal-fired power station and by a factor of about
3 compared with a gas-fired power station. They represent an obstacle
whose impact on the final cost of the kWh produced increases as the
production cost taken into account increases. The rate of use at full power
is also an important factor, as well as the total lifetime, which may reach
40-60 years.
The main limitations are nevertheless due to the fears still generated by
nuclear power. The risks put forward concern the safety of the power
station itself, the risks of proliferation related to management of the fuel
cycle 2 and those related to the storage of radioactive waste. The fears,
which originally mainly concerned the safety of the power station itself as
well as the effect of long-lived radioactive waste, are now shifting to the
risks of nuclear proliferation, especially during the producing of enriched
uranium in centrifuges, as illustrated by the situations in Iran and North
Korea.
Even through suitable solutions may be provided, especially through
international inspection agreements, the fact remains that it will take a
long time to substantially increase the proportion of nuclear energy.
The problem of waste is also a delaying factor. Low-activity waste
(waste 'A') must be stored and monitored during periods extending from
two to three centuries. The most active waste (waste 'C') must be confined
for very long periods of time. The option chosen in France consists of
confining the waste in so-called 'reversible' deep geological storage: it can
be retrieved after one or two centuries.
The plutonium contained in the fuel used is sometimes considered as
waste and sometimes as a resource. In France, it is separated for
recycling as 'Mox' fuel. Since this operation cannot be repeated, how-
ever, stocks of plutonium are increasing throughout the world. It is
planned to reuse this spent fuel in 'fast breeder reactors' but, as we have
seen, their large-scale deployment is not expected for many years. This
means that large quantities of spent fuel containing plutonium must be
stored.
2 This terminology, commonly used, can be misleading as energy is produced by nuclear fission
and not by combustion.