Secure Sustainable Together
2035 2040
2045
2050
Technology Roadmap
Nuclear Energy 2015 edition
Energy
Technology Persp
ectives
For further information on the Energy Technology Roadmaps project
and to download other roadmaps, go to www.iea.org/roadmaps.
© OECD/IEA and OECD/NEA, 2015
Please note that this publication is subject to specific restrictions that limit its use and distribution.
The terms and conditions are available online at www.iea.org/about/copyright.asp.
1Foreword
Current trends in energy supply and use are
unsustainable. Without decisive action, energyrelated
emissions of carbon dioxide will nearly
double by 2050 and increased fossil energy
demand will heighten concerns over the security
of supplies. We can change our current path, but
this will take an energy revolution in which lowcarbon
energy technologies will have a crucial role
to play. Energy efficiency, many types of renewable
energy, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power
and new transport technologies will all require
widespread deployment if we are to sharply reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Every major
country and sector of the economy would need to
be involved. The task is urgent if we are to make
sure that investment decisions taken now do not
saddle us with sub-optimal technologies in the
long term.
Awareness is growing on the need to turn political
statements and analytical work into concrete
action. To spark this movement, the International
Energy Agency (IEA) is leading the development
of a series of Roadmaps for some of the most
important technologies. By identifying the steps
needed to accelerate the implementation of
technology changes, these Roadmaps will enable
governments, industry and financial partners to
make the right choices – and in turn help societies
to make the right decisions.
This Roadmap is an update of the 2010 Technology
Roadmap: Nuclear Energy (IEA/NEA, 2010),
and, similarly to the 2010 edition, it has been
prepared jointly by the IEA and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). The nuclear
energy landscape has changed since 2010, with a
number of events affecting its development: the
Fukushima Daiichi accident, which heightened
public concern over the safety of nuclear energy in
many countries, and the subsequent safety reviews
and development of new safety requirements to
ensure even higher levels of safety for existing
and future nuclear power plants; the shift towards
Generation III reactors for nuclear new build; and
the economic and financial crises that have both
lowered energy demand and made financing of
capital-intensive infrastructure projects more
challenging, especially in liberalised electricity
markets. As a follow-up to this Roadmap, the NEA
is initiating a highly technical survey to identify the
critical research and development efforts that are
needed to enable countries to consider advanced
nuclear energy technologies as they attempt to
reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
Each country must decide what energy mix is
optimal for its national circumstances. However,
the fundamental advantages provided by nuclear
energy in terms of reduction of GHG emissions,
competitiveness of electricity production and
security of supply still apply. The number of
reactors under construction is currently the
highest in 25 years, with the People’s Republic of
China leading the way in terms of new projects.
There is also renewed interest in developing more
innovative designs and advanced nuclear fuel
cycles to address new markets and improve the
competitiveness of nuclear power plants. The
Roadmap is based on a scenario where long-term
global temperature increases are limited to just
2 degrees Celsius (o
C) and outlines a scenario that
highlights nuclear energy’s potential contribution to
this low-carbon future. This scenario is not a prediction
of what will happen.
Nuclear energy can play a key role in decarbonising
our electricity systems by providing a stable
source of low-carbon base-load electricity. By
identifying major barriers and recommendations
on how they can be overcome, this Roadmap aims
to assist governments interested in maintaining or
developing nuclear energy technologies. To get us
onto the right pathway, this Roadmap highlights
several key actions to be addressed in the next
decade to ensure the conditions for a safe, publicly
accepted and affordable deployment of nuclear
technology in countries that already have the
technology as well as in newcomer countries.
This publication is produced under our authority as
Executive Director of the IEA and Director-General
of the NEA.
Maria van der Hoeven	 William D. Magwood, IV
Executive Director, IEA	 Director-General, NEA
Foreword
This publication is the result of a collaborative effort between the IEA and the NEA. It reflects the views of the IEA
Secretariat and NEA Secretariat but does not necessarily reflect those of individual IEA and NEA member countries.
The IEA and the NEA make no representation or warranty, express or implied, in respect to the publication’s contents
(including its completeness or accuracy) and shall not be responsible for any use of, or reliance on, the publication.
2 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Foreword	1
Table of contents	2
Acknowlegements	4
Key findings	5
Key actions for the next ten years	6
Introduction	7
Purpose of the Roadmap update	7
Rationale for nuclear energy and Roadmap scope	8
Roadmap process, content and structure	8
Nuclear energy progress since 2010	9
Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident: 11 March 2011	9
Nuclear power generation and new build at the end of 2014	10
Construction of Generation III reactors	11
Long-term operation of existing reactors	12
Regional perspectives for nuclear energy	14
Vision for deployment to 2050	21
Revised targets for nuclear compared with 2010 Roadmap	21
Emissions reductions from nuclear	23
Global investment in nuclear to 2050	23
Regional costs assumptions for nuclear	24
Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones	25
Reactor technology	25
Nuclear fuel cycle	33
Decommissioning	36
Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones	38
Licensing and regulation	38
Nuclear safety	40
Financing nuclear development	42
Training and capacity development	45
Codes and standards, supply chain development and localisation issues	48
Communication and public acceptance	51
Conclusion: Near-term actions for stakeholders	53
Annex	55
Abbreviations, acronyms and units of measure	56
References	57
List of figures
Figure 1:	 Nuclear reactor construction starts, 1955 to 2014	11
Table of contents
3Table of Contents
Figure 2:	 Grid connection rates and required rates to reach 2DS target	11
Figure 3:	 Electricity production by technology in 6DS and 2DS	21
Figure 4:	 Nuclear generation capacity in 2DS by region	22
Figure 5:	 Emissions reduction in the power sector in 2050 in the 2DS	23
Figure 6:	 Reactor types under construction worldwide (2014)	25
Figure 7:	 Evolution of fission reactor technology	31
Figure 8:	 MOX fuel fabrication	35
Figure 9:	 New enhanced safety requirements in Japan	41
Figure 10:	An illustrative taxonomy: Sectors and functions	46
List of tables
Table 1:	 Summary of characteristics for nuclear power development in various regions	14
Table 2:	 Investment needs in the 2DS (USD billion)	24
Table 3:	 Examples of Generation III reactor designs	28
Table 4:	Examples of small modular reactor designs	29
Table 5:	 Progression in terms of localisation	58
List of boxes
Box 1:	Peer review process among nuclear operators: WANO (Case study 1)	10
Box 2:	Lessons learnt from Generation III construction projects (Case study 2)	12
Box 3:	The integrated architect-engineer model, a proven industrial model to optimise design,
construction and operation of NPPs (Case study 3)	13
Box 4:	IAEA Milestone Approach for national nuclear infrastructure: UAE experience (Case study 4)	19
Box 5:	 Energy Technology Perspectives 2015 (ETP) 6DS and 2DS	22
Box 6:	Research for extended operation (beyond 60 years) of NPPs (Case study 5)	27
Box 7:	Nuclear fusion: A long-term source of low-carbon electricity	32
Box 8:	Progress towards implementation of a deep geological disposal site in Sweden (Case study 6)	34
Box 9:	Recycling of spent fuel (Case study 7)	35
Box 10:	Decommissioning in Germany (Case study 8)	37
Box 11:	International collaboration among regulators: Multinational Design Evaluation Programme
(Case study 9)	39
Box 12:	Environmental impact assessments in Finland (Case study 10)	40
Box 13:	New enhanced safety standards in Japan (Case study 11)	41
Box 14:	Financing of new units at the Vogtle Power Plant in Georgia, USA (Case study 12)	43
Box 15:	The Akkuyu build, own and operate model (Case study 13)	44
Box 16:	Nuclear skills assessment in the United Kingdom (Case study 14)	47
Box 17:	Setting up and qualifying a supply chain for Generation II and Generation III reactor technology:	
The case of heavy component manufacturing in China (Case study 15)	49
Box 18:	Preparing for a new build programme in an industrial country: Supply chain survey
(Case study 16)	50
4 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
The International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy
Technology Policy Division and the Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA) Nuclear Development Division
prepared this publication. Didier Houssin, Director
of the Directorate of Sustainable Energy Policy and
Technology; Thierry Dujardin, Deputy Director
Science and Development; and Ron Cameron,
former Head of the Nuclear Development Division,
provided important guidance and input. Cecilia
Tam, co-ordinator of the Energy Technology
Roadmaps project and Henri Paillere were lead
authors of this Roadmap. Many IEA and NEA
colleagues provided important contributions, in
particular, Marco Baroni, Amos Bromhead, Manual
Baritaud, Marco Cometto, Rebecca Gaghen,
Antoine Herzog, Uwe Remme, Maria-Elena Urso
and Robert Vance.
This work was developed in collaboration with
governments, industry and other nuclear experts
who supported in particular the development of
the nuclear case studies. The authors would like to
thank the following experts for their input to the
case studies: Ambassador Hamad Alkaabi, Steve
Bennett, Didier Beutier, Natalie Bonilla, Yaqin Chen,
Didier Cordero, Veronique Decobert, Tristram
Denton, Andreas Ehlert, Daniela Ferraro, Japan
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Grigory
Kazakov, Milko Kovachev, Laurent Lavie, Oscar
Mignone, Fabien Lagriffoul and David Shropshire.
Finally, the IEA and NEA would like to thank the
numerous experts who provided the authors with
input and comments on the Roadmap: Lyudmila
Andreeva-Andrievskaya, Jorma Aurela, Tom Blees
Daniel Brady, Jerome Brueziere, John Cheng,
Zaf Coelho, Matthew Crozat, Marton Csordas,
Matthew Deady, Marc Deffrennes, Giles Dickson,
Ian Emsley, Alberto Fernandez, Patrick Foo, John
Gross, Sylvain Hercberg, Tomasz Jackowski, Barry
Kaufer, Hisham Khatib, Theo Klomberg, Doug
Koplow, Miroslaw Lewinski, Yanfei Li, Elizabeth
Lisann, Peter Lyons, Paul Murphy, Ana Picado,
Christhian Rengifo, Holger Rogner, Oliver Rooke,
Assad Saab, Cornelia Spitzer, Nobuo Tanaka and
Anders Wik. The IEA and the NEA would also like
to acknowledge the large number of participants
and contributions made by attendees of three
workshops held at the IEA and in Hong Kong,
China during the Asia Nuclear Business Platform,
who are too numerous to be named individually.
The authors would also like to thank Janice
Griffiths (NEA) for editing the manuscript as well
as the IEA publication unit, in particular, Muriel
Custodio, Astrid Dumond, Bertrand Sadin and
Therese Walsh for their assistance in layout and
graphical design support.
For more information on this document, contact:
TechnologyRoadmapsContact@iea.org or
henri.paillere@oecd.org
Acknowledgements
5Key findings
zz Nuclear power is the largest source of low-carbon
electricity in OECD countries, with an 18% overall
share of electricity production in 2013 and second
at global levels with an 11% share. The updated
vision for the 2014 Nuclear Roadmap – based
on the 2 degrees Celsius (°C) scenario (2DS)1
of Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and
Strategies to 2050 (IEA, forthcoming 2015) –
sees nuclear continuing to play a major role in
lowering emissions from the power sector, while
improving security of energy supply, supporting
fuel diversity and providing large-scale electricity
at stable production costs.
zz In the 2D scenario, global installed capacity
would need to more than double from current
levels of 396 gigawatts (GW) to reach 930 GW
in 2050, with nuclear power representing 17%
of global electricity production. Although lower
than the 2010 Roadmap vision of 1 200 GW
and 25% share of generation, this increase still
represents a formidable growth for the nuclear
industry.
zz The near-term outlook for nuclear energy
has been impacted in many countries by the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident.
Although the accident caused no direct radiationrelated
casualties, it raised concerns over the
safety of nuclear power plants and led to a drop
in public acceptance, as well as to changes in
energy policies in a limited number of countries.
This, together with an economic crisis that
has lowered demand in many countries and a
financial crisis that is making financing of capitalintensive
projects challenging, has led to a
decrease in overall construction starts and grid
connection rates over the last four years.
zz However, in the medium to long term, prospects
for nuclear energy remain positive. A total of
72 reactors were under construction at the
beginning of 2014, the highest number in
25 years. According to the 2D scenario, China
would account for the largest increase in nuclear
capacity additions from 17 GW in 2014 to 250 GW
in 2050 and, by 2050, would represent 27%
of global nuclear capacity and nuclear power
generation. Other growing nuclear energy
markets include India, the Middle East and the
Russian Federation. According to 2DS projections,
nuclear capacity would either decline or remain
1	The 2°C Scenario outlines the technologies needed across all
energy sectors so that CO2
emissions in 2050 are reduced by
half compared to 2009 levels, allowing for long-term global
temperature increases of just 2°C. See Box 5 for more details.
flat in most OECD countries, with the exception
of the Republic of Korea, Poland, Turkey and the
United Kingdom.
zz Nuclear safety remains the highest priority
for the nuclear sector. Although the primary
responsibility for nuclear safety lies with the
operators, regulators have a major role to play to
ensure that all operations are carried out with the
highest levels of safety. Lessons learnt from the
Fukushima Daiichi accident have emphasised that
regulators should be strong and independent.
Safety culture must be promoted at all levels
in the nuclear sector (operators and industry,
including the supply chain, and regulators) and
especially in newcomer countries.
zz Governments have a role to play in ensuring a
stable, long-term investment framework that
allows capital-intensive projects to be developed
and provides adequate electricity prices over
the long term for all low-carbon technologies.
Governments should also continue to support
nuclear research and development (R&D),
especially in the area of nuclear safety, advanced
fuel cycles, waste management and innovative
designs.
zz Nuclear energy is a mature low-carbon
technology, which has followed a trend towards
increased safety levels and power output to
benefit from economies of scale. This trajectory
has come with an increased cost for Generation III
reactors compared with previous generations, but
this should also lead to better performance and
economics for standardised Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK)
plants, although this has yet to be confirmed.
zz Small modular reactors (SMRs) could extend the
market for nuclear energy by providing power
to smaller grid systems or isolated markets
where larger nuclear plants are not suitable. The
modular nature of these designs may also help to
address financing barriers.
Key findings
6 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Key actions for the next ten years
In order for nuclear to reach its deployment targets
under the 2D scenario, annual connection rates
should increase from 5 GW in 2014 to well over
20 GW during the coming decade. Such rapid
growth will only be possible if the following
actions are implemented over the next ten years:
zz The contributions of nuclear energy – providing
valuable base-load electricity, supplying
important ancillary services to the grid and
contributing to the security of energy supply
– must be fully acknowledged. It is important,
therefore, to review arrangements in the
electricity market so as to ensure that they offer
investment frameworks as favourable to new
nuclear build as they are to other low-carbon
technologies and that they allow nuclear power
plants to operate effectively.
zz Vendors must demonstrate the ability to build
on time and to budget, and to reduce the costs
of new designs. Integrating lessons learnt from
recent first-of-a-kind (FOAK) experiences in
project management and planning, human
resource allocation, supply chain set-up,
qualification and oversight, as well as reactor
design, construction simplification and
optimisation, will be key.
zz Enhanced standardisation, harmonisation of
codes, standards and regulatory requirements,
and the streamlining of regulatory licensing
processes are needed to reduce costs and to
improve new build planning and performance.
At the same time, industry must continue to
improve quality assurance and control for nuclear
structures, systems and components, and nuclear
safety culture must be enhanced across the whole
nuclear sector, spanning the supply chain, the
vendors, the utilities and the regulators.
zz Information exchange and experience sharing
among regulators, and among operators of
nuclear power plants, should be enhanced so
as to improve overall safety and operational
performance.
zz Countries choosing to develop nuclear power
for the first time must be prepared to set up
the required infrastructures prior to the start
of a nuclear programme. Building capacities in
terms of trained, educated and competent staff
for future operation and regulatory oversight
is an absolute necessity and requires long-term
planning.
zz Actions to improve public acceptance must also
be strengthened. These include implementing
post-Fukushima safety upgrades in existing
reactors and demonstrating that nuclear
regulators are strong and independent. It will
also entail improving outreach to the public by
providing transparent and fact-based information
on the risks and benefits of nuclear power, and
on the role that it can play with respect to energy
security, affordability, climate change mitigation
and air quality.
zz Governments that have not yet finalised their
strategies for managing nuclear waste, should
do so without delay. For high-level waste, deep
geological disposal (DGD) is the recommended
solution. If the geology and the safety case allow,
and if it makes economic sense, governments
should implement a DGD at national level.
Alternatively, they might consider a regional
solution, making use of another country’s
planned or operational DGD site for waste
management. Long-term planning, political
commitment and strong engagement with local
communities are central to this strategy.
7Introduction
Since the release in 2010 of Technology Roadmap:
Nuclear Energy (IEA/NEA, 2010), a number of
events have had a significant impact on the global
energy sector and on the outlook for nuclear
energy. They include the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant (NPP) accident in March
2011, the global financial and economic crises
that hit many industrialised countries during the
period 2008‑10 and failings in both electricity
and CO2
markets. The Fukushima Daiichi accident
has had a detrimental impact on public opinion
and the overall acceptance of nuclear power as
a source of energy, causing a few countries to
establish policies to phase-out nuclear power.
The financial crisis led to the introduction of new
financial regulations that have made financing
of capital-intensive projects such as nuclear new
build even more difficult than in the past. The
economic crisis that followed reduced the demand
for electricity, which, combined with strong policy
support for renewables, has resulted in a situation
of overcapacity in generation for many OECD
countries. Furthermore, in liberalised electricity
markets, the lack or inefficiency of carbon pricing
and subsidised alternative technologies, as well as
falling wholesale prices, are making investment in
nuclear power less attractive.
In parallel, the rapid development of
unconventional gas and oil has lessened the
urgency of developing new energy technologies
in some parts of the world. Cheap shale gas in
the United States, for example, has helped to
dramatically reduce power sector emissions and
lower electricity costs in certain parts of the
country. As a consequence, both the demand
for and price of coal have dropped in the United
States. This drop has resulted in an increase
in exports, especially to Europe where coal
consumption has increased, in part to replace
lost nuclear capacity (e.g. in Germany). Despite
these additional challenges, nuclear energy still
remains a proven low-carbon source of base-load
electricity, and many countries have reaffirmed
the importance of nuclear energy within their
countries’ energy strategies.
To achieve the goal of limiting global temperature
increases to just 2 degrees Celsius (°C) by the
end of the century, a halving of global energyrelated
emissions by 2050 will be needed. This will
require an unprecedented transition in the way
energy is consumed and produced. A wide range
of low-carbon energy technologies will be needed
to support this transition, including a variety of
renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency,
advanced vehicles, carbon capture and storage
and nuclear energy. Notwithstanding government
commitments to this target, action continues to
fall short of what is needed to transition the energy
sector, and many technologies, including nuclear,
are not on track to reach the long-term 2°C target.
Purpose of
the Roadmap update
When the Nuclear Technology Roadmap was
released in 2010, there were 16 new construction
starts − a number that had not been reached since
1985 – and many were anticipating a “nuclear
renaissance”. However, the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi NPP had an immediate impact
on the short- to medium-term development of
nuclear power in many countries, and four years
after the publication of the first Roadmap, the
IEA and NEA have undertaken an update of the
nuclear energy Roadmap to take into account
recent challenges facing the development of this
technology.
This nuclear Roadmap update aims to:
zz Outline the current status of nuclear technology
development and the need for additional R&D
to address increased safety requirements and
improved economics.
zz Provide an updated vision of the role that nuclear
energy could play in a low-carbon energy
system, taking into account changes in nuclear
policy in various countries, as well as the current
economics of nuclear and other low-carbon
electricity technologies.
zz Identify barriers and actions needed to accelerate
the development of nuclear technologies to meet
the Roadmap vision.
zz Share lessons learnt and good practices in nuclear
safety and regulation, front- and back-end fuel
cycle practices, construction, decommissioning,
financing, training, capacity building and
communication.
Introduction
8 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Rationale for nuclear energy
and Roadmap scope
Nuclear energy remains the largest source of lowcarbon
electricity in the OECD and the second
largest source in the world. Its importance as a
current and future source of carbon-free energy
must be recognised and should be treated on an
equal footing with other low-carbon technologies.
As a proven and mature technology that can
supply firm electricity capacity, nuclear can play a
key role in future energy systems in many parts of
the world. However, public acceptance of nuclear
energy decreased significantly in many countries
after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, although it
has partly recovered since 2011. The simultaneous
challenges of financing such large capital-intensive
projects have made the development of nuclear
power even more difficult today.
The focus of the vision presented in this Roadmap is
centred on the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2015
(IEA, forthcoming 2015) 2°C scenario (2DS) vision
for nuclear energy and the contribution that nuclear
power can make to the decarbonisation of the power
system. ETP 2015 projects that 930 gigawatts (GW)
of gross nuclear capacity will be needed globally to
support the transition of the energy system. Although
lower than the vision outlined in the 2010 Roadmap,
this growth still represents a formidable challenge for
governments and industry compared to the current
capacity of 396 GW.
The Roadmap focuses essentially on nuclear
fission technologies for electricity generation,
and although nuclear’s potential for other energy
applications such as combined heat and power,
district heating, hydrogen production and
desalination are very promising, the actions and
milestones identified in this Roadmap focus mainly
on the electricity sector. Other energy applications
are mentioned only briefly in the technology
development section of the Roadmap. Nuclear
fusion is outside the scope of the Roadmap and
although a promising technology in the long term,
it is not expected to make any contribution to
power generation before 2050.
Roadmap process,
content and structure
This Roadmap was compiled with the support of
a wide range of stakeholders from government,
industry, research institutions, academia and
non-governmental organisations. Three expert
workshops were hosted by the IEA and NEA to
provide input to the development of this Roadmap,
two workshops at the IEA in Paris, and one in Hong
Kong, China, with a focus on developments in Asia.
The findings and recommendations in this report
reflect the discussions and key messages that
emerged from the three workshops as well as from
additional input gathered during the drafting and
review of the Roadmap.
This edition of the Roadmap provides an update
on the status of nuclear development since 2010
and highlights technology development needs for
nuclear reactors, as well as front- and back-end fuel
cycle issues, including decommissioning. Industrial
issues such as standardisation, harmonisation
of codes and standards, development of global
and local supply chains, quality assurance, and
integration of feedback experience from current
new build projects are also covered in this report.
Newcomer countries, especially in the Middle
East and the Southeast Asia regions, are expected
to represent a significant share of the projected
growth of nuclear energy, and special attention
has been paid to the conditions in which nuclear
energy can be developed in these countries.
Identified barriers to this development include
financing, public acceptance in the wake of the
Fukushima Daiichi accident, higher costs due
in part to enhanced safety regulations after
Fukushima Daiichi, human resource capacity
building, and a lack of favourable energy policy
and electricity market incentives.
Case studies have been developed together with
various nuclear energy stakeholders to help
illustrate lessons learnt and good practices in
the development of nuclear energy. A summary
of these case studies is included in the Roadmap
document, with the full versions available in
Annex2
. These case studies aim to provide
additional insights and practical support for the
recommendations and proposed actions in this
Roadmap. They cover lessons learnt from new
build projects, best practices in decommissioning
and waste management, setting up of geological
repositories for high-level waste, financing,
education and training skills programmes, and the
establishment and reinforcement of the supply
chain. It also covers the benefits of peer review
processes among operators or regulators, allowing
them to share knowledge and improve safety.
2. www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
technology-roadmap-nuclear-energy.html.
9Nuclear energy progress since 2010
When the International Energy Agency (IEA)/
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Technology
Roadmap: Nuclear Energy was published in 2010,
nuclear energy was experiencing a so-called
“nuclear renaissance”. Reasons for the increased
interest in nuclear power in the decade leading
up to 2010 included concern over greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from the power sector and
security of energy supply, as well as the need for
affordable base-load electricity supply with stable
production costs. However, this trend slowed
considerably in 2011, to a large extent because of
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP)
accident in March, which had an impact on public
acceptance and on nuclear policies in several
countries. Other reasons for this slowdown include
the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008‑09
and the ensuing economic crisis, which led to a
decrease in financing capabilities on the part of
lending institutions, as well as decreased electricity
needs in countries affected by the economic crisis.
More than three years after the accident in Japan,
the global situation is improving for nuclear energy
with the number of construction starts again on
the rise. Yet, the grid connection rate is still too
low to meet the 2 degrees Celsius Scenario (2DS)
target for nuclear power by 2025 (IEA, 2014). This
updated Roadmap aims to identify actions that
could help bring nuclear back on track to meet the
2DS target.
Fukushima Daiichi NPP
accident: 11 March 2011
The Fukushima Daiichi accident was the result of
the Great East Japan earthquake that registered a
magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale – the largest
ever recorded in Japan – and the ensuing tsunami
that hit the power plant. Units 1, 2 and 3 at the
power plant were in operation at the time of
the accident and shut down safely following the
earthquake, with emergency power generation
units kicking in when the off-site power supplies
were lost. However, most of these failed when the
tsunami hit the plant and the basements of the
reactor buildings were flooded. As a consequence,
the decay heat removal capabilities of the reactors
were lost, leading to a severe accident with
core degradation, hydrogen generation (and
subsequent explosion), and release of radioactive
material into the environment following the partial
destruction of the reactor buildings.
The accident was the worst of its kind since the
Chernobyl accident in 1986, rating 7 on the
International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), at the
same level as the Chernobyl accident. However,
unlike the accident in the Ukraine, tens of
thousands of people were evacuated from the
vicinity of the plant and sheltered before most
of the release of radioactive material into the
environment. In 2014, the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
released its final report on the radiological
consequences of the accident (UNSCEAR, 2014),
which concludes that radioactive releases were
between 10% and 20% of the releases of the
Chernobyl accident. No fatalities were considered
to have arisen from overexposure to radiation,
although some injuries and deaths occurred at
the NPP as a result of accidents related to the
earthquake and tsunami. Large areas around
the Fukushima Daiichi power plant were
contaminated by the fallout from the accident,
and the imposition of very low radiation exposure
standards prevented evacuees from returning
to their homes and villages. A multibillion USD
“remediation” programme has been undertaken
to decontaminate the environment, but it will
take several years to complete before people are
allowed to return to their homes. In parallel, work
is ongoing to decommission the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant and to prevent any further
radioactive releases from the destroyed units.
In spite of the limited number of casualties caused
by the Fukushima Daiichi accident, there has been
worldwide concern about the consequences of
the accident, and more generally, about the safety
of nuclear power. Actions to assess the safety
of operating nuclear facilities in the event of
extreme external events have been taken at both
national and international levels. They include
comprehensive safety reviews − called “stress
tests” in the European Union − of existing reactors
as well as reactors under construction and other
fuel cycle facilities. These reviews have reassessed
the safety margins of nuclear facilities with a
primary focus on challenges related to multiple
external events such as those experienced at
the Fukushima Daiichi NPP (i.e. the loss of safety
functions, including cooling of the reactor core) or
capabilities to cope with severe accidents.
The reviews examined the adequacy of designbasis
assumptions, as well as provisions for
beyond-design-basis events. These assessments
were carried out by the operators under the
Nuclear energy progress since 2010
10 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
guidance of their national regulators. They
were then reviewed by the regulators and peer
reviewed at the international level, for instance,
by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group
(ENSREG) for facilities in the European Union and
neighbouring countries (Switzerland, Turkey,
Ukraine) or upon request by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Following these
safety assessments, it was found that the vast
majority of NPPs could continue to operate safely,
but that some safety upgrades were necessary to
improve the resistance of the NPPs to extreme or
multiple external events. These safety upgrades are
currently being implemented by the operators and
reported to national regulators.
Only a few months after the accident, the IAEA
Action Plan on Nuclear Safety was adopted by
the IAEA’s Board of Governors and subsequently
endorsed unanimously by the IAEA General
Conference in September 2011. The ultimate
goal of the Action Plan is to strengthen nuclear
safety worldwide through 12 targeted actions
that address inter alia safety assessments, peer
reviews, emergency preparedness and response,
the effectiveness of regulators and operators, and
safety standards.
The IAEA is nearing completion of the IAEA
Fukushima Report (to be published in 2015). The
NEA has already released a report entitled “OECD/
NEA Nuclear Safety Response and Lessons Learnt”
(NEA, 2013), describing immediate actions and
follow-up actions taken by its members and by
the NEA. The report provides key messages and
recommendations to improve nuclear safety.
Operators are also drawing on lessons learnt
from the accident and sharing information and
best practices as well as subjecting themselves to
peer review. In particular, these peer reviews are
often performed by the World Association of Nuclear
Operators (WANO) (see Box 1).
Nuclear power generation
and new build at the end
of 2014
Global nuclear generation declined to around
2 478 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2013, a 10%
decrease from 2010 levels, essentially due to the
permanent shutdown of eight reactors in Germany
and to Japan’s operable reactors remaining offline
for the majority of 2013. Japan's 48 operable
reactors have remained idle since September
WANO brings together operators from every
country in the world that has an operating
commercial NPP with the objective of achieving
the highest possible standards of nuclear safety.
WANO helps its 130 members accomplish
the highest levels of operational safety and
reliability. With safety as its only goal, WANO
helps operators communicate effectively
and share information openly to raise the
performance levels of all operators.
For the past 25 years, WANO has been helping
operators through four core programmes:
zz Peer reviews: these reviews help members
compare their operational performance
against standards of excellence through indepth,
objective analyses of their operations
by an independent team from outside their
organisations.
zz Operating experience: this programme alerts
members to mistakes or events that have
occurred at other NPPs and enables them
to take corrective actions to prevent similar
occurrences at their own plants. Members
share their operating experience for the
benefit of other operators.
zz Technical support and exchange: this
programme has many facets, including
technical support missions, which are carried
out at the request of a plant or utility and
allow WANO members to help each other
resolve identified issues or problems.
zz Professional and technical development:
this programme provides a forum for WANO
members to enhance their professional
knowledge and skills so that they can deal
with potential safety issues before they
become problems.
Box 1: Peer review process among nuclear operators: WANO (Case study 1)
11Nuclear energy progress since 2010
2013, and throughout 2014. Installed nuclear
capacity increased only slightly between 2013
and 2014 at 396 GW (gross), and yet the number
of construction starts dropped from 10 in 2013 to
just 3 in 2014 (see Figure 1). A record 72 nuclear
reactors were under construction at the beginning
of 2014 but, in terms of grid connection, only
5 GW of nuclear capacity were connected in 2014
(4 GW in 2013), far below the 12 GW or so that
would be needed each year during this decade to
meet the 2DS target for 2025 (see Figure 2).
Figure 1: Nuclear reactor construction starts, 1955 to 2014
Source: IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS).
Figure 2: Grid connection rates and required rates to reach the 2DS target
Source: IAEA PRIS Database, IEA and NEA analysis.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Numberofconstructionstarts
Three Mile
Island
Chernobyl Fukushima
Daiichi
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2011-20
2021-30
2DS
Reactorsunderconstruction
GW
Net GW connected to the grid Reactors under construction
Annual connection rate needed
during present decade
Connection rate in 2014
Construction of
Generation III reactors
Nuclear construction projects are large complex
projects involving a considerable number of
suppliers and construction workers as well as high
technological skills and strong architect-engineer
management capabilities. Nuclear projects are
also subject to strict regulatory and political
control and approval. Hence, there are many
reasons why new build projects can experience
significant delays and run over budget. With the
12 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
switch from well-established Generation II (Gen II)
technologies that have established supply chains
and construction planning to the potentially
more complex designs of Generation III (Gen III)
reactors, the nuclear industry faces additional
challenges. Much publicised delays and costoverruns
for some of the first-of-a-kind projects are
playing against public acceptance of nuclear power
as well as investor confidence, and industry is well
aware of the need to improve on its capability to
deliver “on time and to budget”. All vendors have
taken steps to draw lessons from FOAK projects to
optimise the designs of their reactors, improve the
performance and quality of the supply chain, and
improve project scheduling and management.
While a general perception may exist that Gen III
reactors will take much longer to build than Gen II
reactors because of the added complexity or
improved safety and performance features that
these reactors have over Gen II reactors, some of
the shortest construction spans of any reactor have
been achieved with Gen III designs (see Box 2).
Long-term operation
of existing reactors
In addition to the need for new build capacities to
be brought online, there is also a need to maintain
the current fleet and to continuously improve
its operation and safety. Most nuclear operators
in the world are making investments to ensure
the operation of their plants beyond the original
design lifetime. In the United States, more than
70% of operating reactors have been granted a
20-year licence extension that allows reactors
to operate for up to 60 years. In Europe, where
periodic safety reviews are performed, many
reactors reaching 40 years of operation will be
allowed to operate for at least another 10 years.
Long-term operation of existing reactors that meet
certain safety requirements is very often a way to
produce low-carbon electricity in the most costeffective
way for a period of 40 to 60 years (NEA,
2012a). As detailed in the technology section
of this Roadmap, R&D in the ageing of systems
and materials is being carried out to address
60+ years of operation. In some cases, however,
and for single-reactor merchant plant operators in
particular, market conditions can make it difficult
to justify the continuous operation of NPPs.
Vendors of Gen III reactors are aware of the
need to deliver NPPs on time and to budget,
and are benefitting from the experience gained
during FOAK projects to optimise designs and
supply chains, as well as to more effectively
manage construction projects. For many
vendors and equipment suppliers, especially in
Europe and in the United States, Gen III projects
represent the first nuclear new build projects
for more than ten years, with much of the
experience gained during the peak construction
times of the 1970s and 1980s now outdated.
A four- to five-year construction span is a
realistic target for Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK)
Gen III reactors, in line with the proven
construction spans of mature Gen II designs.
This target has already been surpassed in
Japan, where construction of Gen III units at
the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Hamaoka and Shika
NPPs were completed in less than four years.
The reasons for such impressive construction
spans include the use of modularisation with
very heavy lift cranes, open-top and parallel
construction floor packaging, front-loaded
construction engineering, detailed schedule
management and an integrated construction
management system. Modularisation gives
a streamlined and effective on-site approach
and open-top construction, and the use of
heavy lift cranes allow large-scale modules to
be placed directly into position. Lessons learnt
during construction are also consolidated
in an advanced integrated computer-aided
engineering system that relies on a plant
engineering database and on accumulated
experience and management know-how.
Finally, a quality assurance system that extends
to design, manufacture, inspection, installation,
and preventative maintenance after delivery
contributes to better overall performance.
Box 2: Lessons learnt from Generation III construction projects (Case study 2)
13Nuclear energy progress since 2010
This was the case when two plants in the United
States, Kewaunee and Vermont Yankee, shut down
in 2013 and 2014 respectively, essentially for
economic reasons.
For fleet operators, economies of scale can be
gained by developing modernisation programmes
across the fleet. This applies to both safety
improvements, such as the post-Fukushima
safety upgrades, as well as long-term operation
investments. Maximising feedback experience
across the different units of the fleet, as well as
from other NPPs (through organisations such
as WANO), can help optimise a modernisation
programme and its cost. Nuclear utilities that have
their own engineering capabilities and operate as
an “architect-engineer” model can fully benefit
from the return of experience and lessons learnt
to optimise long-term operation investments and
safety upgrades (see Box 3).
Électricité de France (EDF) has developed an
industrial model called the integrated architectengineer
model − the basis of the success of
the French nuclear programme, which includes
19 NPPs with a total of 58 reactors in operation
and one under construction, providing 75%
of the country’s electricity. Thanks to strong
interactions between design, procurement and
operation, the operator can use this model
to increase the safety and performance of the
plants by maximising the use of experience
feedback. Collecting experience feedback from
its own plants or from other plants is the first
step in the process. Then, engineering teams
process this feedback and implement the
measures to continuously improve the safety
and performance of the facilities.
This approach was used immediately after the
Fukushima Daiichi accident. EDF immediately
mobilised 300 engineers who analysed each of
the 19 EDF sites. A report of 7 000 pages was
issued to the French Nuclear Safety Authority
as part of the post-Fukushima “stress tests”
evaluations. EDF was able to integrate lessons
learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi accident
into its lifetime extension programme and
is currently investing to prepare its fleet
to operate for up to 60 years. Continuous
investments and improvements through
integration of operational experience have
meant that the cost of the Fukushima safety
upgrades have been less than 20% of the cost
of the lifetime extension programme.
Box 3: The integrated architect-engineer model, a proven industrial model to
optimise design, construction and operation of NPPs (Case study 3)
14 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
The drivers and challenges for the development
of nuclear power will vary depending on a
number of factors including a country’s energy
and environmental policy, outlook for electricity
demand, availability of energy resources, the
regulatory environment and the power market
structure. For countries with mature nuclear
operations, there will be a focus on plant
modernisation and long-term operations. In
nuclear newcomer countries, development of the
necessary nuclear infrastructure and regulatory
frameworks, of public acceptance and a skilled
workforce will be important challenges. And for
certain other countries, replacement of retiring
plants and possible expansion of nuclear energy
will be the main focus.
Given large upfront capital requirements, the
financing of nuclear power plants (NPPs) is a
major hurdle for most countries. The large size of
Generation III (Gen III) nuclear reactors, typically in
the range of 1 000­-1 700 megawatts (MW), could
limit the number of countries in which nuclear
power is an option – the usual “rule of thumb” is
that a nuclear reactor or any other single generating
unit in an electric system should not represent more
than 10% of the size of the grid. Smaller reactors
such as small modular reactors (SMRs) could target
countries or regions with less developed electric
grids. This section aims to highlight some of the
regional drivers and challenges for the development
of nuclear power in major countries/regions that
are expected to have significant nuclear power
programmes in the future.
Regional perspectives for nuclear energy
Table 1: Summary of characteristics for nuclear power development
in various regions
Current status and electricity
market design*
Drivers for future
developments
Key challenges
OECD
Europe
25% electricity production
(833 terawatt hours [TWh], with
132 reactors (122 gigawatts [GW]).
Four units under construction; three
countries phasing out (Belgium,
Germany and Switzerland).
Average age of fleet is 27 years;
about 130 units to be
decommissioned by 2050.
Poland and Turkey are newcomer
countries. The United Kingdom is
planning one of the most ambitious
new build programmes in the OECD.
Mix of liberalised and regulated
electricity markets.
Electricity
decarbonisation; energy
security; competitive
electricity costs.
Financing in liberalised
markets; developing
technology-neutral
policy for low-carbon
investments; market
distortion (due to
subsidised renewables)
and decreasing
wholesale electricity
prices; and public
acceptance.
United
States
19% electricity production (822 TWh)
with 100 reactors (105 GW).
Five units under construction.
Mature nuclear fleet; most reactors
licensed for 60 years.
Mix of liberalised and regulated
electricity markets.
Electricity
decarbonisation;
competitive electricity
costs; security of energy
supply; redevelop nuclear
industry.
Financing in liberalised
markets.
Economics of longterm
operation in
competition with shale
gas.
Russian
Federation
17% electricity production (172 TWh),
with 33 reactors (25 GW).
10 units under construction.
Liberalised electricity market.
Policy to increase the share
of nuclear electricity by
2030 to 25‑30%; strong
support for nuclear
industry, including for
export markets.
Managing the gradual
replacement of Reactor
Bolshoy Moshchnosti
Kanalnyy (RBMK)
reactors (nearly half
the current electricity
production) with
Gen III Water-Water
Energetic Reactor
(VVER) reactors.
15Regional perspectives for nuclear energy
OECD Europe
In OECD Europe, country policy on nuclear
development varies widely with Belgium,
Germany and Switzerland phasing out nuclear
(in 2025, 2022 and 2035 respectively), while
the Czech Republic, Finland and Hungary plan
to increase their nuclear capacity. The United
Kingdom has a significant new build programme
(on the order of 15 GW by the late 2020s) to
replace retiring plants. Nuclear newcomer
countries such as Poland and Turkey are expected
to have their first nuclear reactors in operation by
the early 2020s. France, which today generates
75% of all its electricity from nuclear, still plans to
reduce this share to 50% by 2025 while proposing
Table 1: Summary of characteristics for nuclear power development
in various regions (continued)
* Values in parenthesis are shown for electricity generation in TWh and installed capacity in GW at the end of 2013.
Current status and electricity
market design*
Drivers for future
developments
Key challenges
Japan and
Republic of
Korea
11% electricity production (148 TWh),
with 71 reactors (66 GW) All of
Japan’s 48 reactors are presently idle.
Seven units under construction
(two in Japan, five in the Republic of
Korea).
Regulated electricity market.
Energy security; electricity
decarbonisation;
competitive electricity
costs; strong support for
nuclear industry, including
for export markets.
Public acceptance.
Restart of Japan’s
nuclear fleet.
China,
People’s
Republic of
2% electricity production (117 TWh),
with 20 reactors (17 GW).
29 units under construction.
Regulated electricity market.
Energy security; rapid
growth in electricity
demand; stable future
electricity costs;
local pollution concerns;
strong support for nuclear
industry.
Public acceptance;
developing NPPs
inland; domestic supply
chains.
India 3% electricity production (32 TWh),
with 21 reactors (5.8 GW).
Six units under construction.
Regulated electricity market.
Energy security; strong
electricity demand
growth; stable future
electricity cost.
Public acceptance;
financing; foreign
vendors access to
market (Indian nuclear
liability regime).
Other
developing
Asian
countries
Bangladesh and Viet Nam preparing
for construction.
Thailand and Indonesia have plans but
are not yet committed.
Malaysia is studying the feasibility of
an NPP.
Philippines built a reactor that was
mothballed.
Regulated electricity markets.
Energy security;
diversification and strong
electricity demand
growth.
Setting up
regulatory and other
infrastructure; creating
a skilled labour force;
financing; public
acceptance.
Middle
East
One reactor in operation in Iran
(1 GW), two more units planned.
Two units under construction (out
of four planned) in the United Arab
Emirates.
Up to 17 GW planned in Saudi Arabia.
Other countries (Jordan, Egypt)
considering nuclear option.
Regulated electricity markets.
Strong electricity demand
growth; stable future
electricity costs; saving
oil/gas reserves for export
markets.
Setting up
regulatory and other
infrastructure, and
training staff; financing
for non-oil/gas-rich
states; desalination.
16 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
to maintain nuclear capacity at its present level.
Former nuclear country Lithuania is planning to
build a new nuclear plant by the early 2020s.
For many countries in OECD Europe, the main
focus for nuclear development will be on longterm
operation and the eventual replacement of
ageing fleets. While 30% of the nuclear reactors
currently in operation globally are in OECD
Europe, the region only accounts for four of the
70 nuclear reactors currently under construction
(two Gen III EPR reactors and two Gen II VVER 440
reactors). Approximately half of the 132 reactors
operating today are more than 30 years old,
and many utilities are planning and investing in
long-term operation as well as power uprates
while regulators are assessing on a case-by-case
basis whether these reactors can operate for
another 10 years or more. Many reactors will
be shut down and decommissioned in the next
decades, probably at a higher rate than new build
construction, and nuclear could see its share of
total generation decline. This base-load capacity
will be partially offset by renewable power, but
also by increased gas and coal power generation,
which would lead to higher CO2
emissions from the
power sector.
Although public acceptance of nuclear power is
low in several OECD Europe countries, in others,
such as in the United Kingdom, nuclear power is
perceived as an important option for energy and
electricity security as well as a key contributor to
decarbonising the power sector. Europe’s nuclear
industry is mature, has strong well-functioning
regulatory systems, and significant R&D capacities
with highly experienced and skilled staff. These
advantages make the development of nuclear
power particularly attractive for the region.
With growing shares of variable renewables
in Europe spurred by renewable feed-in tariffs
(though many countries are now revising these
tariffs downwards as they have proven to be very
costly), the challenges of developing nuclear will
be complicated by the need for more flexibility
and load‑following capacity. NPPs have the
capacity to load follow to some extent, as has
been demonstrated for many years in France
and Germany, and new designs also comply
with flexibility requirements. Compared to baseload
operation, load following could impact the
economics of nuclear plants and undermine the
profitability of nuclear projects unless operators
are adequately paid for services to the grid.
The introduction into the grid of large amounts
of renewable electricity has also led to falling
wholesale prices, which affect the profitability of
dispatchable technologies, including NPPs. As a
consequence, many gas-fired power plants (i.e.
those having the highest marginal costs) have
been mothballed, with the market capitalisation of
Europe’s utilities deteriorating over the last decade.
This poses a challenge to future investments
and profitability of dispatchable technologies.
Governments will need to help manage these
risks through policy mechanisms that can help to
provide predictability on electricity prices.
United States
The United States has the largest nuclear fleet of any
country in the world. The first new build projects in
more than 30 years are currently underway at the
VC Summer and Vogtle sites in Georgia and South
Carolina (each with two Gen III AP1000 units), with
the first unit expected to be operating by the end
of 2017. All new build projects in the country have
been limited to regulated electricity markets, which
are more favourable in terms of providing a stable
long-term policy framework for capital-intensive
projects such as nuclear, for they allow utilities to
pass construction costs on to customers through
rate adjustments.
In the absence of new build projects, significant
power uprates3
have occurred in the United States
that have helped to increase capacity by over
6 GW between 1977 and 2012. The potential for
further uprates is limited and expansion of nuclear
generation will rely essentially on new builds.
Shale gas development, and the resulting low
energy prices, has posed additional challenges to
the development of nuclear power as cheap gas
has led to rapid growth of natural gas combinedcycle
plants. Four nuclear reactors shut down in
2013: Crystal River, Kewaunee and San Onofre
units 2 and 3. Kewaunee was shut down for
economic reasons, Crystal River due to the cost
of repairs to the containment, and San Onofre
2 and 3 due to regulatory uncertainty following
problems encountered after the replacement of
the units’ steam generators. Another reactor,
Vermont Yankee, was shut down in December 2014
after 42 years of operation, allegedly for lack of
competitiveness and in spite of having received
a licence renewal. It is also possible that more
reactors could be taken out in the coming years
because of unfavourable economics. However, gas
3. “Power uprate” is the term used when an existing reactor is
modified to generate more power above its nominal output size.
17Regional perspectives for nuclear energy
prices are expected to increase in the mid to long
term, making nuclear more attractive, particularly
if tougher carbon dioxide (CO2
) emissions
standards are also implemented.
There is strong interest in the United States to
redevelop its nuclear industry, and particular
attention has been focused in recent years by the
US Department of Energy on the development of
SMRs. SMRs could potentially replace coal-fired
power plants that will need to shut down because
of new, strict regulations on air pollution from
the Environmental Protection Agency. Recently,
however, the outlook for the deployment of SMRs
has been revised, with some leading SMR design
companies reducing developing efforts since no nearterm
deployment is expected in the United States.
Japan and Republic of Korea
Unlike the United States and Europe, which have
generally struggled to build new nuclear plants on
time and to budget, both Japan and the Republic
of Korea were able to maintain successful new
build programmes with impressive construction
times thanks to sustained construction
programmes over the last decades, increased
modularity of designs, and well-managed supply
chains. This contrasts with the situation in the
United States and in Europe, where the last nuclear
construction projects to be completed were
launched in 1977 and 1991 respectively. With the
exception of the two reactors currently under
construction, prospects for new build in Japan are
unclear and probably limited, given low public
acceptance for nuclear after the Fukushima Daiichi
accident and the challenge of restarting its nuclear
plants as they await regulatory and local political
approval. The government hopes that it will be able to
restart several reactors at the beginning of 2015.
The Republic of Korea currently has 20.7 GW of
nuclear capacity, accounting for 27% of total
electricity generation in 2013. To reduce reliance
on imported fossil fuels and to enhance energy
security, the country has, for a long time, had
a strategic goal to increase the share of nuclear
generation. However, after the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, a more moderate policy has been put
forward which will see nuclear capacity increase
up to 29% of the total electricity generation
capacity by 2035, down from a previous target of
41%. With average capacity factors in recent years
of 96.5%, the Republic of Korea has developed
strong operating experience and competence. In
2009, the Republic of Korea won its first export
contract from the United Arab Emirates and hopes
to expand exports to other Middle East countries
and Africa.
Under the terms of its co-operation agreement
with the United States (the 123 Agreement), the
Republic of Korea is currently prohibited from
uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities,
which constrains its ability to develop the full fuel
cycle. If an agreement were reached, the ability
to reprocess spent fuel would allow it to increase
energy from its imported uranium by 30% and also
reduce the amount of high-level waste.
Russian Federation
With Japan’s nuclear fleet idle, the Russian
Federation is currently the third largest nuclear
power country − behind the United States and
France − with 33 reactors in operation and a total
installed capacity of 25 GW. The State Atomic
Energy Corporation, Rosatom, is also one of the
leading providers of nuclear technology globally
with extensive industry experience. Most of
Russia’s reactors are being considered for lifetime
extensions; to date, 18 reactors with total capacity
of over 10 GW have received 15- to 25-year licence
extensions. VVER reactors, which comprise half
of the fleet, are also likely to be uprated, which
would provide an additional 7% to 10% capacity.
The oldest VVERs and all of the operating RBMK
reactors are expected to be retired by 2030.
The main drivers for future nuclear energy
development in Russia include the replacement
of ageing reactors due to be decommissioned
and the development of additional new capacity
to increase the share of nuclear electricity from
17% today to 25% to 30% by 2030. Increased
nuclear generation would also free up natural
gas for export. Currently, there are ten reactors
with a total installed capacity of 9.2 GW under
construction (one of them, Rostov 3, was actually
connected to the grid on 29 December 2014) and
a further 24 reactors (about 29 GW) planned by
2030, including advanced Gen III VVER reactors
and sodium-cooled fast neutron reactors, and a
BN‑800 under construction that reached criticality
in June 2014. Russia has invested significantly in
nuclear R&D and is one of the leading developers
of fast neutron reactors and of small floating
reactors that provide nuclear power to remote
areas. Two floating SMR KLT-40S units on the
Lomonosov barge are under construction in Russia.
18 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
People’s Republic of China
The People’s Republic of China is the fastest
growing nuclear energy market in the world.
According to the “Mid- to Long-Term Nuclear
Development Plan (2011-2020)” issued in October
2012, China aims to have 58 GW (net) in operation
by 2020, and 30 GW under construction at that
time. China’s nuclear energy programme began in
the 1980s, and its first reactor started commercial
operations in 1994. Of the 27 units currently
under construction, eight are of Gen III design
(four AP1000, two EPR, two VVER), 18 are of Gen II
design, and one is a prototype reactor with Gen IV
technology features. The country’s nuclear fleet is
based on technology developed nationally as well
as technologies transferred from Canada, France,
Japan, the Russian Federation and the United States.
Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, China
revised its targets for nuclear from 70-80 GW
to 58 GW by 2020 with another 30 GW under
construction. Safety requirements were also
enhanced, and only Gen III designs will now
be approved in China. The Hualong-1 and
CAP1000 designs will represent the bulk of the
new developments. The latter design is based on
Westinghouse’s AP1000 design. China will deploy
the technology domestically, including on inland
sites, and hopes to begin exporting the technology
with a larger version, the CAP1400, also being
designed. China’s nuclear programme has evolved
significantly in the last decade with more rapid
development of domestic reactor designs and
domestic supply chains. The country has made
an impressive transition from importing nuclear
technology to developing local capabilities that
have already been exported.
Local air pollution concern from coal-fired
plants is one of the main drivers today of nuclear
power development in China. Other key drivers
include improved energy security, and stable
and economic electricity production costs. With
China’s impressive rates of economic development
and continued urbanisation, the demand for
electricity is expected to continue its rapid
ascension. The attractive economics of nuclear
power, stable base-load operations and siting near
the main demand centres along the Eastern coast,
combined with its environmental benefits, make it
an attractive alternative to coal-fired power.
Continued training and development of a skilled
nuclear workforce focused on safety culture will be
the biggest challenge to meeting China’s ambitious
nuclear targets. Also, for the deployment of NPPs
inland, the issue of cooling on rivers with degraded
water quality due to pollution or low flow rates
will need to be addressed.
India
India has been developing nuclear energy
technology since the 1950s, and its first reactor
began operations in 1969. As it is not party to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), India’s nuclear industry has
essentially evolved indigenously, with a longerterm
objective of developing nuclear power
reactors that can operate on the thorium cycle, the
country having significant thorium reserves and
very little natural uranium reserves. India has a
long history of nuclear energy R&D and is currently
constructing a sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor
which could operate on the thorium cycle. India
expects to have an estimated 20 GW of nuclear
capacity by 2020 and has announced ambitious
targets to increase the share of nuclear electricity
in the following decades. It is estimated that India
could become the third-largest nuclear energy
country in the world by 2040.
Rapid economic and population growth, combined
with increased urbanisation, are expected to fuel
strong electricity demand. The need for reliable
base-load electricity at competitive costs is the
main driver for nuclear energy development in
India. Other drivers include enhanced energy
security and local pollution concerns. Financing
and public acceptance are challenges that will
need to be overcome as India seeks to expand
its nuclear power supply. Opening the Indian
nuclear market to foreign investment and
technology is another challenge. Although the
country has seen two Gen III Russian VVER reactors
built at the Kudankulam site (in the frame of an
intergovernmental agreement), other vendors have
not yet penetrated the market. Many co‑operation
agreements have been signed and joint ventures
set up between engineering and supply chain
companies to prepare the ground for future
projects with high levels of localisation. Remaining
difficulties include the Indian nuclear liability
legislation adopted in 2010 – more specifically,
whether it is consistent with the internationally
accepted nuclear liability principles – and the cost
of foreign nuclear technologies.
19Regional perspectives for nuclear energy
Middle East
The Bushehr NPP in Iran that began commercial
operation in September 2013 was the first
nuclear power plant to operate in the Middle
East. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the most
advanced newcomer country in the region, with
construction started on three of four units of the
Korean‑designed APR1400 (the construction of
the third unit stated in 2014), which will have a
total installed capacity of 5.6 GW, at the Barakah
site. The first unit is expected to start generating
electricity in 2017, and the final unit is scheduled
for operation in 2020. With electricity demand
expected to exceed 40 GW by 2020, nearly
doubling 2010 levels, the UAE has identified
nuclear energy as an important source of future
electricity supply. Electricity needs are currently
met almost exclusively by natural gas. As a
proven, cost-competitive and low-carbon source
of electricity, UAE is developing nuclear power to
provide a significant source of base-load electricity.
With rapid electricity demand growth expected
over the next decades, some countries in the region
are looking at nuclear power to improve energy
security through energy diversification and also
to reduce domestic consumption of natural gas
and oil, freeing up more resources for export. In
addition to rising electricity demand, the region’s
rising demand for fresh water makes desalination
from nuclear an attractive opportunity in the mid
to long term. Saudi Arabia has announced plans to
construct 16 nuclear reactors with a total capacity
of 17 GW by 2032 and hopes to have its first reactor
operating by 2022. Jordan is also planning the
construction of up to two reactors and signed an
agreement with Russia in October 2013.
For the Middle East, the main challenges in
developing nuclear power will be in setting up the
needed nuclear infrastructure and training, as well
as the education of a highly skilled nuclear work
force. The region is working closely with the IAEA
to set up the necessary infrastructure and the UAE’s
implementation of the IAEA milestones has been
recognised as exemplary (see Box 4). For oil- and
gas-rich countries in the region, overcoming these
challenges has been facilitated by the significant
resources made available to attract foreign
experts, who provide training thereby passing
To help guide newcomer countries in the
development of a nuclear energy programme, in
2007 the IAEA released a publication outlining the
major milestones to be achieved in establishing
the required infrastructure for the development
of nuclear power.* This guideline, known as the
IAEA Milestone Approach, consists of 19 elements
that are central to the development of a nuclear
programme. Each element contains detailed
conditions that should be met over three
milestone phases. The UAE has worked in close
partnership with the IAEA in the development
of its nuclear energy programme and the IAEA
has provided support on legal and regulatory
framework, licensing, infrastructure and capacity
building, safeguards implementation and peer
reviews. On the request of the UAE, the IAEA
undertook an Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure
Review (INIR) in January 2011.
The review team concluded that the UAE had
accomplished all of the conditions to enter
phase 2. The review team recognised 14 good
practices, which other countries developing
nuclear infrastructure should consider. The
UAE’s experience with developing a national
nuclear infrastructure and its establishment
of a regulatory framework and system has
been impressive. However, it should be noted
that the UAE’s success implementing its
nuclear programme in such a relatively short
timeframe – nine years from the publishing of
its nuclear policy to commissioning of the first
unit, as opposed to the 10-15 years estimated
by the IAEA – benefited from the ability to hire
personnel with a cumulative experience of over
100 years in the Federal Authority for Nuclear
Regulation (FANR) and the Emirates Nuclear
Energy Corporation (ENEC), the owner and
operator of the future plant. This was made
possible by the availability of significant financial
resources from the government. New nuclear
countries are advised to work closely with the
IAEA and other relevant organisations and
countries with extensive operating experience in
the development of their programmes.
* Further details of the IAEA milestones to be found at www-pub.iaea.
org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1305 _web.pdf.
Box 4: IAEA Milestone Approach for national nuclear infrastructure:
UAE experience (Case study 4)
20 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
their expertise and knowledge on so that local
expertise and capacity are developed. However,
there remains some concern about the availability
of highly skilled and experienced nuclear experts if
nuclear programmes are to develop extensively in
the region.
Other developing Asian countries
Among developing Asian countries, Viet Nam is
the most advanced with respect to its nuclear
programme. The country has committed plans
for developing nuclear and is in the process of
developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure.
Viet Nam is planning at least 8 GW of nuclear
capacity by the end of the 2020s and hopes to
have a first unit in operation by 2023. Bangladesh
is also planning to start the construction of its
first reactor by 2015. Thailand and Indonesia
have well-developed plans but have yet to make
a firm commitment, while Malaysia is currently
studying the feasibility of developing an NPP.
The Philippines, which began construction of a
nuclear plant in the late 1970s (never completed),
is suffering from electricity shortages and high
electricity costs, and is still considering nuclear as a
possible future option. Singapore is monitoring the
progress of nuclear energy developments to keep
its options open for the future. In these countries,
SMRs could potentially offer an alternative to
larger Gen III units, as they would be more easily
integrated in small electricity grids.
Strong expected electricity demand growth and
stable electricity production costs are the main
drivers for nuclear development in the region.
For Viet Nam, Thailand and the Philippines, which
import the majority of their energy needs, nuclear
would help to improve energy security and reduce
dependence on imported fossil fuels. For these
newcomer countries, the development of the
necessary nuclear regulatory infrastructure, a skilled
nuclear workforce, financing, and public acceptance
are major challenges to the development of nuclear
energy. International collaboration to support the
development of a regulatory infrastructure, as well
as training and capacity building to develop local
expertise, are needed.
21
The vision presented in this Roadmap is based
on the Energy Technology Perspectives 2015
(ETP 2015) (IEA, 2015) 2°C Scenario (2DS) which
calls for a virtual decarbonisation of the power
sector by 2050 (see Box 5). A mix of technologies
including nuclear, carbon capture and storage,
and renewables will be needed to achieve this
decarbonisation. In the ETP 2015 2DS, the share
of nuclear power in global electricity production
is projected to rise from 11% in 2011 to 17% in
2050. Renewables will account for the largest share
of production at 65%, with variable renewables
supplying 29% of total global electricity
production (see Figures 3). The high share of
variable renewables, which in some countries
reaches well over 40%, significantly changes
the operating environment of nuclear. Nuclear
power is traditionally operated to meet base-load
demand, although it can be operated in loadfollowing
mode, with less flexibility than gas-fired
peaking plants.
Regionally significant differences exist in terms of
nuclear energy’s contribution to decarbonising
the electricity sector with many countries such as
Finland, Russia and South Africa projecting shares
of nuclear at 20% or above in 2050 under the 2DS.
The Republic of Korea and countries in Eastern
Europe have the highest share of nuclear reaching
nearly 60% and 55% respectively. The share of
nuclear in the three largest nuclear producers –
China (19%), India (18%) and the United States
(17%) – show similar or slightly higher shares to
those reported globally.
Vision for deployment to 2050
Figure 3: Electricity production by technology in the 6DS and the 2DS
Vision for deployment to 2050
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
2012 2050 6DS 2050 2DS
TWh
Other renewables
Solar
Wind
Hydropower
Nuclear
Fossil with CCS
Oil
Natural gas
Coal
Revised targets for
nuclear compared with
the 2010 Roadmap
Since the release of the nuclear energy Roadmap in
2010, two major factors have led to a downward
revision of the ETP 2015 2DS projections for growth
in nuclear power capacity at the global level. The
first is the Fukushima Daiichi accident, which led
many countries to re-evaluate the role of nuclear
power within their electricity mix, and the second
is the faster-than-anticipated declines in busbar
costs4
of solar photovoltaics (PV) and onshore
wind. Enhanced safety standards for nuclear
plants following Fukushima Daiichi, as well as an
4. Busbar costs, also known as levelised costs of electricity, refer to
total costs of electricity generation including, fuel costs, operating
and maintenance costs as well as total costs of financing.
increase in raw materials prices, design complexity,
and supply chain quality requirements, have
led the assumptions for nuclear costs to be
revised upwards by about 20% compared with
2010 estimates. These factors, combined with
reductions in the costs assumed for solar PV and
onshore wind, have impacted the competitiveness
of nuclear energy. As a result, the ETP 2015 2DS
projections for nuclear power capacity in 2050
were revised to just over 930 GW, compared with
1 200 GW in the 2010 Nuclear Roadmap. Despite
this downward revision, growth in nuclear still
represents more than a doubling of nuclear
capacity, which in 2014 was approximately
396 GW.
Under the ETP 2015 2DS, growth in nuclear
capacity will be driven by non-OECD countries
(see Figure 4). Currently, OECD member countries,
Russia and the Ukraine account for over 90% of
22 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
total installed capacity. In 2050, these countries
combined will see only a modest increase in
capacity from 350 GW to 400 GW. With a number
of countries planning to phase out nuclear
and with older plants reaching the end of their
operating lifetimes in the next decades, the EU will
see its capacity decline from 2040, while in Russia
and the Republic of Korea, which show the largest
increase in growth, capacity will more than double
by 2050.
Growth in nuclear capacity will be led by
China, which under the 2DS could surpass the
United States by 2030 and, with 250 GW of nuclear,
would have more than twice the installed capacity
in the United States in 2050. India, which represents
the second-fastest growing market for nuclear,
would have about 100 GW of capacity in 2050,
making it the third-largest market for nuclear after
the United States. Other growth markets for nuclear
include the Middle East, South Africa and ASEAN
(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries.
This Roadmap is based on the IEA ETP 2015
analysis, which describes diverse future
scenarios for the global energy system in 2050.
The base case scenario, the 6 degrees Celsius
scenario (6DS), which is largely an extension of
current trends, projects that energy demand
will almost double during the intervening
years (compared to 2009), and associated CO2
emissions will rise even more rapidly, pushing
the global mean temperature up by 6°C.
The IEA ETP 2DS describes how technologies
across all energy sectors may be transformed
by 2050 to give an 80% chance of limiting
average global temperature increase to 2°C. It
sets the target of cutting energy-related CO2
emissions by more than half by 2050 (compared
with 2009) and ensuring that they continue
to fall thereafter. The 2DS acknowledges that
transforming the energy sector is vital but
not the sole solution: the goal can only be
achieved if CO2
and greenhouse gas emissions
in non-energy sectors (such as agriculture and
land-use change) are also reduced. The 2DS
is broadly consistent with the World Energy
Outlook 450 Scenario through to 2035.
The model used for this analysis is a bottomup
TIMES (The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM
System) model that uses cost optimisation to
identify least-cost mixes of technologies and
fuels to meet energy demand, given constraints
such as the availability of natural resources.
The ETP global 28-region model permits
the analysis of fuel and technology choices
throughout the energy system, including about
1 000 individual technologies. The TIMES
model is supplemented by detailed demandside
models for all major end uses in the
industry, buildings and transport sectors.
Box 5: Energy Technology Perspectives 2015 6DS and 2DS
Figure 4: Nuclear generation capacity in the 2DS by region
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
Shareofelectricitygeneration(%)
Installedcapacity(GW)
Other Americas
Other developing Asia
Russia and former Soviet Union
Middle East and Africa
India
China
Other OECD
United States
European Union
Share of electricity generation
23
Emissions reductions
from nuclear
Nuclear energy currently contributes to a
reduction of CO2
emissions from the power sector
of about 1.3 to 2.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2
every
year, assuming it replaces either gas- or coal-fired
generation. It is estimated that since 1980 the
release of over 60 Gt CO2
has been avoided thanks
to nuclear power.5
The contribution of nuclear
energy to decarbonising the electricity sector
5. The avoided CO2
emissions were calculated by replacing nuclear
generation by coal-fired generation.
would result in annual CO2
emission reductions
of 2.5 Gt CO2
in the 2DS compared with the 6DS
(see Figure 5). Globally, this represents 13% of
the emissions reduction needed in the power
sector with the contribution in different regions
varying from as high as 24% in the Republic of
Korea to 23% in the European Union and 13% in
China. Nuclear clearly plays an important role in
providing reliable, low-carbon electricity in most
regions of the world.
Vision for deployment to 2050
Figure 5: Emissions reduction in the power sector in 2050 in the 2DS
Biomass 3% Hydropower 1%
Solar PV 9%
Wind
onshore 7%
Wind
offshore 1%
Other
renewables
4%
Electricity
savings 31%
CCS 20%
Nuclear 24%
Biomass 4%
Hydropower 3%
Solar PV 9%
CSP 7%
Wind
onshore 9%
Wind
offshore 3%
Other
renewables 3%
Electricity savings 29%
World
Fuel switching
and efficiency 1%
CCS 19%
Nuclear 13%
Korea
Biomass 4% Hydropower 0.4%
Solar PV 12%
CSP 6%
Wind onshore
12%
Wind
offshore 4%
Other renewables 1%
Electricity
savings 32%
CCS 14%
Nuclear 13%
Fuel
switching and
efficiency 2%
Biomass 5% Hydropower 3%
Solar PV 5%
CSP 3%
Wind onshore
10%
Wind offshore
8%
Other renewables 14%Electricity
savings 23%
CCS 6%
Nuclear 23%
China
European Union
Global investment
in nuclear to 2050
An estimated investment cost of USD 4.4 trillion
would be needed to reach the 930 GW of installed
capacity under the ETP 2015 2DS by 2050. About
40% of these investments (USD 2.0 trillion) would
be required in OECD member countries to extend
lifetimes of existing plants, to replace retiring
plants and to add new capacity. China, which
accounts for one-third of capacity in 2050, would
need to invest approximately a quarter of the
overall investment cost, or just over USD 1 trillion
in new nuclear capacity.
24 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Regional costs
assumptions for nuclear
The lower share of total investments compared
to capacity in China reflects the regional
differences in overnight costs6
for nuclear power.
China’s average overnight cost of approximately
USD 3 500/kilowatts (kW) is less than two-thirds
of the European Union’s cost of USD 5 500/kW.
Costs in the United States are about 10% lower
than the European Union, but still 30% higher than
in China and India, and 25% above the Republic
6. Overnight costs include the cost of site preparation, construction
and contingency costs.
of Korea. Higher costs in the European Union and
the United States can be attributed to a lack of
recent experience in building new nuclear plants
compared to Asia, as well as to higher labour costs
for engineering and construction. In the 2DS, 2050
assumptions for overnight costs of nuclear in the
United States and European Union are estimated to
decline somewhat, reaching levels closer to those
in the Republic of Korea, while costs in Asia are
assumed to remain flat.
Table 2: Investment needs in the 2DS (USD billion)
Country/region 2012-20 2021-30 2031-40 2041-50 2010-50
United States 90 216 288 118 713
European Union 113 168 259 164 704
Other OECD 83 153 178 162 577
China 209 309 350 157 1 025
India 21 120 114 158 412
Middle East and Africa 18 70 82 133 303
Russia and former Soviet
Union 96 94 176 182 548
Other developing Asia 14 68 40 31 153
Other Americas 12 5 3 6 25
World 656 1 210 1 493 1 115 4 473
Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones 25
Reactor technology
Nuclear energy technology development:
Actions and milestones
This Roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Governments to recognise the value of long-term operation to maintain lowcarbon
generation capacity and security of energy supply, provided safety
requirements are met. Clearer policies are needed to encourage operators to
invest in both long-term operation and new build so as to replace retiring units.
2015-30
R&D in ageing of systems and materials is needed to support safe, long‑term
operation of existing nuclear power plants (NPPs) for 60 years operation or more.
Ongoing
Vendors to optimise Gen III designs to improve constructability and reduce
costs. The learning rate from new build construction needs to be accelerated
by rapidly integrating lessons learnt from FOAK projects (design optimisation,
project management, supply chain, interactions with regulators) to ensure that
NOAK plants are built on time and to budget.
Ongoing
To open up the market for small modular reactors (SMRs), governments and
industry should work together to accelerate the development of SMR prototypes
and the launch of construction projects (about 5 projects per design) needed to
demonstrate the benefits of modular design and factory assembly.
2015-25
Governments to recognise the long-term benefits of developing Generation
IV (Gen IV) systems in terms of resource utilisation and waste management,
and support R&D and development of at least one or two Fast Neutron Reactor
Gen IV prototypes.
2015-30
Public-private partnerships need to be put in place between governments and
industry in order to develop demonstration projects for nuclear cogeneration in
the area of desalination or hydrogen production.
2015-30
Incorporate feed-back from operation of Gen IV prototypes to develop FOAK Gen IV
commercial plants.
2030-40
As of end of December 2014, there were
438 operable nuclear reactors in the world,
representing about 396 GW (gross) capacity. Nearly
82% of those reactors are light water reactors
(LWRs), 63% of which are pressurised water
reactors (PWRs) and 19% boiling water reactors
(BWRs). Eleven percent of the world’s reactors
are pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs),
operating mainly in Canada (the CANDU technology
[“CANada Deuterium Uranium”]) and in India. A
little more than 3% of the world’s fleet consists
of gas-cooled reactors (GCRs), all in operation in
the United Kingdom. Most of these will be retired
within the next decade. Another 3% consist of
graphite-moderated light water-cooled reactors
(LWGR), which are better known under their Russian
abbreviation RBMK. These reactors are today only
in operation in Russia and will probably be retired
before the end of the next decade. Finally, 1 out of
the 438 reactors is a sodium-cooled fast neutron
reactor (FNR), an example of one of the main
technologies of future Gen IV reactors, and a further
2 are expected to be connected in 2015.
Figure 6: Reactor types under
construction worldwide (2014)
Source: IAEA/PRIS.
58
4
1
5
2
Pressurised water reactor Boiling water reactor
Gas-cooled reactorPressurised heavy water reactor
Fast neutron reactor
26 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Even more interesting are the technology types
for the 70 reactors under construction (see
Figure 6). Nearly 89% are LWRs, mostly PWRs,
with PHWRs representing the second technology
of choice (7%), all being built in India with
indigenous technology. There are two FNRs under
construction, one in Russia (BN‑800) and one
in India (PFBR), and both are to be connected to
the grid in 2015. Finally, there is one GCR under
construction, a high-temperature reactor being
built in China.
From these trends, one can observe a consolidation
of reactor technology towards LWRs. Nearly
half the reactors under construction are Gen III
LWR reactors, which have enhanced safety
features (i.e. systems to mitigate the risk of
severe accidents) and improved fuel economy
performance compared to the Gen II reactors.
There is also a continued but more limited
development of PHWR as India continues its
domestic programme. PHWRs are also being
pursued in other countries as a means to derive
additional energy from used PWR and BWR fuel
through the development of recycled uranium
(RU) and mixed oxides of plutonium and uranium
(MOX) advanced fuel cycles. Both China and
India are considering PHWR designs for a thorium
fuel cycle. Advanced reactors such as FNRs or
high-temperature reactors will be developed as
well but at a much smaller scale. SMRs will also
be developed, especially those that rely on LWR
technologies, though their deployment is not
expected to be significant by 2030. At that time,
one can expect the world’s nuclear fleet to be
more homogenous than at the present time in
terms of reactor technology, with the retirement
of all the old GCRs (in the United Kingdom) and
LWGRs (in Russia) expected by 2030.
Technological trends that will shape the future
of the nuclear fleet include: managing the
existing fleet to allow for safe and economical
long-term operation; continuous development
of Gen III water-cooled technologies with a
focus on simplification, standardisation and
cost reduction; more innovative development
of reactor technologies including SMRs, Gen IV
reactors and non‑electric applications of nuclear
energy to address the need for low-carbon process
heat, actinide management, district heating, or
desalination. R&D in nuclear fusion will continue
for the next decades, but given the challenges still
to be addressed, fusion reactors are not expected
to be deployed in the first half of this century.
Safety upgrades
and long-term operation
Nuclear reactor operators in the world today
face two challenges. The first is to implement the
recommended safety upgrades that were identified
during the post-Fukushima safety evaluations, (with
most operators having already started this work).
Although the reviews concluded that these reactors
were safe and could continue to operate, a number
of actions and upgrades were recommended that
include the reinforcement of NPPs against major
seismic hazards and floods, multiple external events
affecting multi-unit sites and severe accidents as
well as improved emergency preparedness. Rapid
implementation of these safety upgrades under the
supervision of nuclear regulators, as well as better
information on the safety of NPPs, are necessary to
reduce public concern.
The second challenge is to continue to operate
reactors economically, especially given the
average age of the nuclear fleet. This means that
operators have to address long-term operation
issues. Provided safety requirements are met, longterm
operation is needed to maintain capacity in
low‑carbon generation and is one of the lowest
cost options to produce low-carbon electricity.
R&D in ageing and improved safety is needed to
support this objective. Research into back‑fitting
requirements for 60+‑year operations is also
required. Very often, long-term operation retrofits
and safety upgrades can be combined to upgrade
NPPs in a cost-effective manner.
In 2013, 316 out of the 434 operating reactors
in the world (73%) were more than 25 years
old, and many of those could be retired in the
coming decades, leading to a dramatic decrease
in nuclear capacity. Thus, extending the operating
lifetime of reactors to enable them to operate
safely beyond their original design lifetime until
they are replaced by new reactors7
is essential to
maintaining low-carbon generation capacity. In
2012, the NEA published a report on the Economics
of Long-Term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
(NEA, 2012b), concluding that, in nearly all cases,
continued operation of NPPs for at least a decade
more than the original lifetime is profitable, even
taking into account the cost of post-Fukushima
safety upgrades. However, this can be undermined
by market conditions. In the United States,
competitiveness of NPPs in deregulated markets
7. ETP 2015 assumes 60 years for NPPs in the United States and 55
years for other countries, with the exception of NPPs already
scheduled to shut down.
27Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones
is being undermined by the low cost of gas. In
Europe, introduction of large shares of renewables
is driving down wholesale electricity prices,
affecting the competitiveness of dispatchable
technologies, nuclear included.
Power uprates have contributed to a significant
increase in capacity over the last two decades at a
time when new build rates were low – Sweden’s
current ten-reactor fleet capacity, for instance,
was increased to compensate for the closure of
two units. The potential for further uprates in the
United States and in a number of other countries
is now limited, but there is still potential to exploit
uprates in other European countries and in Russia.
Regulatory processes to approve the extension of
operating reactors’ lifetimes vary from country
to country, but essentially fall into two classes:
periodic safety reviews (i.e. every ten years) or
licence renewal. In the United States, where
93 reactors out of 100 in operation at the end of
2013 were more than 25 years old, a regulatory
process has been developed under the so‑called
10 CFR Part 54 rule, entitled “Requirements
for Renewal of Operating Licences For Nuclear
Power Plants”, published in 1991 and amended in
1995. Environmental impact assessments are also
required to examine the possible environmental
impacts that could occur as a result of renewing
any commercial NPP licence. As of December 2014,
74 reactors in the United States had been granted
a licence renewal, allowing them to operate up to
60 years, and the applications for 19 other reactors
were under review.
Extensive refurbishment and replacement of
equipment is usually carried out as part of the
process to extend the lifetime of an existing plant.
In addition, a number of technical and scientific
studies are necessary to assess the integrity and
safety of components and systems that cannot be
replaced, such as pressure vessels or containment
buildings. Research has been carried out, for
instance, by the European network NUGENIA
(“NUclear GENeration II and III Association”), or in
the United States, by the Electric Power Research
Institute and Nuclear Energy Institute (see Box 6),
and continues to be performed in the areas of
material performance and ageing – for reactors
60 years of age or more – as well as monitoring
and equipment qualification.
The prospect of obtaining regulatory approval for
long-term operation is not enough to encourage
operators to invest in the refurbishment needed to
meet safety and performance requirements. There
needs to be a clear national policy on long-term
operation, whether it is allowed from a political
point of view or whether limits are set as to the
lifetimes of existing reactors. Some countries
have clear policies. In Canada, for instance, the
Ontario Long-term Energy Plan has committed to
refurbish nuclear units at the Darlington and Bruce
Generating Stations, with the potential to renew
up to 8 500 megawatts (MW) nuclear capacities
over 16 years.
The current fleet of US NPPs was licensed
initially to operate for 40 years. To date,
74 reactors have received 20-year licence
renewals and 19 applications are under review.
Twenty-four reactors have already passed
the 40-year mark and are operating safely
and reliably with renewed licences in this
extended period. By 2040, it is estimated that
half the fleet will turn 60 and, if these reactors
are retired, the country might face possible
shortages of electricity and will certainly
lose diversity of supply. Hence, research is
ongoing to develop the technical and scientific
knowledge needed to support nuclear plant
operation beyond 60 years, up to 80 years or
beyond. The Electric Power Research Institute,
the US Department of Energy (DOE) (which has
an extensive network of national laboratories),
and several universities are conducting
research on management of ageing in NPPs
in order to understand and devise strategies
to identify and mitigate the effects. The
research is essentially dedicated to the longlived
components that are not replaced during
regular refurbishments. These include the
containment building and the reactor vessel,
and can also include piping and electric cables.
Box 6: Research for extended operation (beyond 60 years)
of NPPs (Case study 5)
28 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
New reactor development
Most of the anticipated growth in nuclear
capacity in the coming decades will come with
the deployment of “large” Gen III reactors (in the
range 1 000-1 700 MW unit size, see Table 3),
either PWRs or BWRs, though some deployment
of SMRs, PHWRs or Gen IV reactors. Gen III
reactors have enhanced safety features and higher
efficiency, as well as improved fuel economy
compared with Gen II reactors.
Only evolutionary changes and innovations in
Gen III technology are foreseen up to 2050, with
efforts to simplify and standardise the designs.
This will help to improve their constructability and
modularity which should reduce costs and shorten
construction spans.
Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the
safety of existing reactors was assessed by
regulators for the type of events that led to the
accident, as well as for other beyond-design-basis
accident conditions and safety upgrade measures
taken to improve the resistance of these plants.
For Gen III reactors, very few design changes were
recommended, since these plants already take
severe accidents into account in their design. More
focus is being placed, however, on the qualification
of systems designed to mitigate severe accidents,
and more research on severe accident management
is being performed, in particular on decay heat
removal, core degradation mechanisms and
hydrogen risk management.
Table 3: Examples of Gen III reactor designs
*: As of 31 December 2014.
Vendor Country Design Type
Net capacity
(MW)
In
operation*
Under
construction*
AREVA France EPR PWR 1 600 0 4 (Finland, France,
China)
AREVA/MHI France/
Japan
ATMEA PWR 1 100 0 0
CANDU Energy Canada EC6 PHWR 700 0 0
CNNC-CGN China Hualong-1 PWR 1 100 0 0
GE Hitachi –
Toshiba
GE Hitachi
United
States/
Japan
ABWR
ESBWR
BWR
BWR
1 400-1 700
1 600
4 (Japan)
0
4 (Japan, Chinese
Taipei)
0
KEPCO/KHNP Korea APR1400 PWR 1 400 0 7 (Republic of
Korea, United Arab
Emirates)
Mitsubishi Japan APWR PWR 1 700 0 0
ROSATOM Russia AES-92,
AES-2006
PWR 1 000-1 200 1 10 (Russia, Belarus,
China, India)
SNPTC China CAP1000,
CAP1400
PWR 1 200-1 400 0 0
Westinghouse/
Toshiba
United
States/
Japan
AP1000 PWR 1 200 0 8 (China, United
States)
Cost reduction of Gen III reactors is an objective
shared by all vendors and operators which can be
achieved through a number of options including
design simplification, standardisation, improved
constructability, modularity and supply chain
optimisation, as well as by taking full advantage of
lessons learnt during the FOAK projects.
29Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones
In terms of operation, base-load power production
is the most cost efficient way to operate an
NPP. Having large shares of variable renewable
electricity production will require more thermal
plants to deal with backup and provide flexibility.
Thus, there needs to be a better integration
of nuclear, thermal and renewables from an
electricity system and market perspective,
to avoid loss of production and improve cost
efficiency, taking into account the peculiarities of
each technology. Operators supply electricity to
customers in a competitive marketplace, where
overall cost is an important parameter.
In the long term, there is also a need to take
into account possible changes in the climate to
ensure that NPPs are resilient both in the face of
extreme weather events as well as under higher
ambient air and cooling water conditions. Issues
such as increased risk of flooding through intense
precipitations, storms or sea level rise need to
be addressed, by designing appropriate barriers
and selecting less exposed sites. The availability
and quality of water for cooling of NPPs will also
be a matter for concern, especially for inland
plants located on rivers that use once-through
cooling. High cooling water temperatures reduce
the thermal efficiency and electrical output of
NPPs, and this can be compensated by more
efficient heat exchangers. Closed cycle cooling or
advanced cooling technologies that reduce the
consumption of water, as well as the use of nontraditional
sources of water (treated waste water,
for instance), will need to be developed.
SMRs
SMRs could perform a useful niche role as they
can be constructed in regions or countries that
have small grid systems that cannot support
larger NPPs, or they can address specific nonelectric
applications such as district heating or
desalination. However, the economics of SMRs
have yet to be proven. Interest in SMRs is driven
both by the need to reduce the impact of capital
costs and to provide power and heat in small or
off-grid systems. For some SMR designs, the use of
passive safety systems also represents an attractive
feature, allowing, for example, decay heat removal
in the case of accidents without the need for
operator intervention. The creation of a market for
SMRs will first require successful deployment of
FOAK reactors in the vendor’s country before other
countries will consider deploying the technology.
Unless governments and industry work together
in the next decade to accelerate the deployment of
the first SMR prototypes that can demonstrate the
benefits of modular design and construction, the
market potential of SMRs may not be realised in
the short to medium term.
Table 4: Examples of small modular reactor designs
(under construction or with near-term deployment potential)
*: As of 31 December 2014.
Vendor Country Design Type
Net capacity
(MW)
In
operation*
Under
construction*
Babcock &
Wilcox
United
States
mPower PWR 180 0 0
CNEA Argentina CAREM-25 PWR 25 0 1
CNEC China HTR-PM HTR 210 0 Twin units
CNNC China ACP-100 PWR 100 0 0
KAERI Korea SMART PWR 110 0 0
NuScale
United
States
NuScale
SMR
PWR 45 0 0
OKBM Russia KLT-40S
Floating
PWR
2x35 0
Twin units (one
barge)
30 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
There are different types of SMRs, some already
under construction in Argentina (CAREM), China
(HTR-PM) or Russia (KLT-40S), others with near-term
deployment potential such as mPower, NuScale,
the Westinghouse SMR or the Holtec design in the
United States, and SMART in the Republic of Korea,
and others with longer-term deployment prospects
(liquid metal-cooled reactor technologies) including
designs of dedicated burner concepts for countries
having to dispose of plutonium stockpiles. The
KLT-40S (for electricity generation, heat processing
and possibly desalination) are mounted on the
Lomonosov barge and suited to isolated coastal
regions or islands.
Table 4 gives an overview of SMRs under
construction or with near-term deployment
potential. SMRs can address complementary
markets (countries with small grids, and/
or geographical constraints, or cogeneration
applications), and could be competitive with other
forms of generation suitable for those markets,
depending on the manufacturing and construction
rates. The competitiveness of SMRs compared with
large nuclear reactors, in countries where both
could be accommodated, needs to be assessed in a
systems approach, where both generation and grid
requirements are accounted for.
The United States has had a very active SMR
programme over the last years. Its objective is to
accelerate the timelines for the commercialisation
and deployment of these technologies
by developing certification and licensing
requirements for US-based SMR projects through
cost-sharing agreements with industry partners,
as well as to resolve generic SMR issues. SMRs in
the United States could replace coal-fired power
plants that do not meet newly released emissions
regulations. Two SMR technologies have been
selected so far by the DOE, Babcock & Wilcox’s
(B&W) mPower design and Nuscale’s SMR design.
Though industry was hoping to find customers
for near-term deployment of their SMR designs, it
seems that customers in the United States are not
yet ready for SMR technology. B&W has reduced
the scale of the mPower development programme,
while Westinghouse, which also developed an SMR
design, is concentrating its development efforts on
the AP1000 design.
Generation IV reactors
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF), a
framework for international co-operation in R&D
for the next generation of nuclear energy systems,
was launched in 2001 by Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United
States. Switzerland, the European Commission,
China and the Russian Federation have since
joined this initiative. The goals set forward for
the development of Gen IV reactors are improved
sustainability, safety and reliability, economic
competitiveness, proliferation resistance and
physical protection. GIF published A Technology
Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
in 2002, which describes the necessary R&D to
advance six innovative designs selected as the
most promising: the gas-cooled fast reactor
(GFR), the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), the
molten salt reactor (MSR), the sodium-cooled
fast reactor (SFR), the supercritical water-cooled
reactor (SCWR) and the very-high-temperature
reactor (VHTR). A Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems was published
in 2014 (GIF, 2014), and assesses progress made in
the first decade, identifies the remaining technical
challenges and the likely deployment phases for
the different technologies. It also describes the
approach taken by GIF to develop specific safetydesign
criteria for Gen IV reactors, building on
lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
According to the GIF 2014 Technology Roadmap
Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,
the first Gen IV technologies that are the most
likely to be demonstrated as prototypes are
the SFR, the LFR, the supercritical water-cooled
reactor and the VHTR technologies. Benefits of
fast reactors include a better use of the fuel –
for the same amount of uranium, fast reactors
can produce 60 or more times the energy than
Gen III LWRs by multi-recycling of the fuel – and
improved waste management by reducing longterm
radiotoxicity of the ultimate waste. The main
advantage of the SCWR is its improved economics
compared to LWRs, which is due to higher
efficiency and plant simplification. The benefits of
VHTRs include the passive safety features of hightemperature
reactors and the ability to provide
very-high-temperature process heat that can be
used in a number of cogeneration applications,
including the massive production of hydrogen.
As seen in Figure 7, the start of the deployment of
Gen IV reactors is not foreseen before 2030. For
many decades after that, Gen IV reactors will likely
be deployed alongside advanced Gen III reactors,
but in far smaller numbers. Yet, because of the
potential benefits that these reactors can bring,
31Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones
R&D and demonstration projects, especially in
the area of fuels and materials that can withstand
higher temperatures, higher neutron fluxes or
more corrosive environments, are needed to bring
concepts towards commercialisation. Prototype
development and testing is seen as particularly
important. Construction and operation of Gen IV
prototypes in the period 2020‑30 are necessary if
Gen IV technology is to be deployed commercially
from 2030 onwards.
Figure 7: Evolution of fission reactor technology
Source: Generation IV International Forum, www.gen-4.org.
A number of countries are already pushing ahead
with the design and/or construction of reactor
prototypes that prepare the ground for future
Generation IV designs. For fast reactor technology,
the Russian Federation, which has a long history of
operating sodium-cooled reactors – the 600 MW
BN600 reactor, connected to the grid in 1980, is the
world’s largest sodium reactor in operation – is in
the process of commissioning the 800 MW BN800
reactor and designing an even larger reactor called
BN-1200, which could be deployed by 2030. France
is moving ahead with the detailed design study
of the advanced sodium technological reactor for
industrial demonstration (ASTRID) reactor, which
could be completed by 2019. China is operating the
China experimental fast reactor (CEFR), a 20 MW
research reactor connected to the grid in 2011,
and is designing a 1 000 MW prototype reactor.
Finally, India, which is not a member of GIF, has
been working on sodium-cooled FNRs for decades,
for their potential to operate on the thorium cycle,
and is planning to start the commissioning of the
500 MW prototype fast neutron reactor (PFBR)
before the end of 2014. Modular SFRs, such as
the PRISM reactor (“Power Reactor Innovative
Small Module”) based on the integral fast reactor
technology developed in the United States in the
1980s, are also being considered by some countries
as part of a plutonium (from reprocessed spent fuel)
recycling strategy.
20101970 20301990 2050 2070 2090
32 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
As far as high-temperature reactors are concerned,
China is building a first prototype (HTR-PM), a twinunit
210 MW prototype to be used for electricity
generation. China has been operating a 10 MW
research reactor (HTR-10) for more than a decade.
The deployment of high-temperature reactors
will depend essentially on the development of
non-electric applications such as desalination or
industrial process heat (see section below).
Fusion reactors: Beyond 2050
The Roadmap covers the development of
technologies for NPPs up to 2050 and their
contribution to the decarbonisation of the global
electricity generation sector in the 2DS. All of
today’s NPPs, whether Generation II-type plants
that constitute the bulk of today’s fleet or the
new Gen III plants that are being deployed, rely
on nuclear fission as the source of heat. More
innovative nuclear technologies, such as SMRs or
Gen IV nuclear energy systems also rely on nuclear
fission. Fusion reactors have more long-term
deployment perspectives than Gen IV reactors,
which are anticipated to be deployed in parallel
with more advanced light water reactor designs
from around 2030‑40. According to the recently
published Roadmap on fusion energy (EFDA, 2012),
no industrial fusion reactor is foreseen before the
second half of the century (see Box 7).
Non-electric applications
of nuclear energy
Nuclear cogeneration, in particular but not
exclusively with high-temperature reactors,
has significant potential, and nuclear energy
could target markets other than just electricity
production, offering low-carbon heat generation
alternatives to fossil-fired heat production. This
would have several benefits, such as reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from industrial heat
applications, and it would improve the security of
energy supply in countries that import fossil fuels
for such applications. Although not widespread,
nuclear cogeneration is not an unproven concept;
in fact, there is significant industrial experience
of nuclear district heating, for example in the
Russian Federation and in Switzerland. In the
latter country, the Beznau NPP (2x365 MW)
has been providing district heating for over
Box 7: Nuclear fusion: A long-term source of low-carbon electricity
Nuclear fusion, the process that takes place
in the core of our Sun where hydrogen
is converted into helium at temperatures
over 10 million °C, offers the possibility of
generating base-load electricity with virtually
no CO2
emissions, with a virtually unlimited
supply of fuel (deuterium and tritium, isotopes
of hydrogen), small amounts of short-lived
radioactive waste and no possibility of
accidents with significant off-site impacts.
However, the road to nuclear fusion power
plants is a long route that still requires major
international R&D efforts. The International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is
the world’s largest and most advanced fusion
experiment, and is designed to produce a net
surplus of fusion energy of about 500 MW
for an injected power (to heat up the plasma)
of 50 MW. ITER will also demonstrate the
main technologies for a fusion power plant.
According to the Roadmap to the Realisation of
Fusion Electricity (EFDA, 2012), ITER should be
followed by a prototype for a power-producing
fusion reactor called DEMO. During the period
from 2021 to 2030, exploitation of ITER and
design and construction of a prototype for a
power-producing fusion reactor called DEMO.
DEMO should demonstrate a net production
of electricity of a few hundreds of MW, and
should also breed the amount of tritium
needed to close its fuel cycle. Indeed, while
deuterium is naturally abundant in the
environment, tritium does not exist in nature
and has to be produced. Thus, it is essential
that tritium-breeding technology is tested in
ITER and then demonstrated at large scale in
DEMO. DEMO will also require a significant
amount of innovation in other critical areas
such as heat removal and materials. Beyond
the demonstration of fusion power, the success
of the technology as a source of electricity
will require that it is competitive with respect
to other low-carbon technologies such as
renewables or nuclear fission. Major efforts in
reducing the capital costs of fusion reactors
through optimised designs and materials will
be needed.
33Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones
25 years. About 142 GWh heat is sold each year
to nearly 2 500 customers, thus avoiding about
42 000 tonnes CO2
. Nuclear district heating is an
option that is being considered for some new build
projects, for instance in Finland or in Poland.
Cogeneration could also provide “energy storage”
services by allowing NPPs to switch from electricity
to heat or hydrogen production while maintaining
base-load operation, depending on the price of
electricity on the wholesale market (for instance,
when a large inflow of wind-generated electricity
enters the grid). Hydrogen can then be converted
back to electricity using fuel cells, or it can be
injected into natural gas pipelines, providing
additional revenue streams to the operator of the
NPP. These are just some concepts of so-called
“nuclear hybrid energy systems” that optimise
the co-existence of nuclear and renewable
technologies in future low-carbon energy systems.
Process heat applications, in particular those with
a view to producing hydrogen (for transport or for
the petrochemical industry or for coal to liquids),
are one of the major non-electric applications of
nuclear energy – high-temperature reactors, and
in particular the Gen IV concept of VHTR, are well
suited for this purpose. At present, the Republic
of Korea is pursuing a programme that has the
interest of one of the major steel manufacturers of
the country. Other initiatives, in Europe, in Japan
and in the United States, are looking at attracting
industry support to nuclear cogeneration. The lack
of a demonstration programme with a prototype
high-temperature reactor coupled with a process
heat application is seen as a major hurdle. Publicprivate
partnership could be an effective way to
initiate such a programme and demonstrate the
benefits of using nuclear reactors as a source of
low-carbon electricity and process heat.
There is also a potential for desalination to become
a new market for nuclear power. The production
of fresh water during off-peak hours would allow
NPPs to operate economically well above usual
base-load levels. The Middle East region, which
gathers half of the world’s desalination capacities
(using gas and oil-fired processes) is also likely
to experience a significant growth in nuclear
electricity generation, which could be coupled
with desalination. Many SMR designs, for instance
the Korean SMART, the Chinese ACP-100 or the
Russian KLT-40S, target desalination markets, but
no firm project has yet been launched. Challenges
include the development of a robust business
model that includes the operator of the NPP,
the operator of the desalination plant and the
customers of the electricity and water produced by
the cogeneration plant.
Nuclear fuel cycle
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Investments in environmentally sustainable uranium mining should be
developed to address expected long-term demand.
2015‑35
Governments to continue to co-operate to discuss international fuel services as a
means to secure the development of nuclear power.
Ongoing
Governments should ensure that policies are in place for long-term storage and
disposal, including deep geological disposal (DGD) of high-level waste, and
should not defer nuclear waste planning – “wait and see” is not an option.
2015‑50
Studies should be carried out to ensure that extended (dry) storage of spent
nuclear fuel (SNF) satisfies the highest safety and security requirements.
Ongoing
Governments to continue to support R&D in advanced recycling technologies to
reduce volume and toxicity of high-level waste.
Ongoing
Every year, about 11 000 tonnes of heavy metal
(tHM) of used fuel is unloaded from the world’s
reactors. This annual discharge rate will increase
as the number of reactors in operation increase.
Uranium supply is currently more than adequate to
meet demand up to 2035 and beyond (NEA/IAEA,
2014). However, given the long lead time of mining
projects, it is recommended that investments and
34 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
the promulgation of best practices continue to be
made so as to develop environmentally safe
mining operations.
The current world market for fuel services (uranium
supply, conversion, enrichment services, fuel
fabrication) provides a considerable degree of
security of supply and thus can play a major
role in supporting the further development of
nuclear energy. Increased security of supply can
also be achieved through intergovernmental or
international agreements dealing with fuel leasing
and fuel banks. Maintaining the highest levels of
nuclear security for transport of nuclear material
from providers to customers is essential.
In terms of enrichment, laser enrichment is a
technology that could potentially bring costs
down, but this needs to be proven at industrial
scale. There is no clear push at present to accelerate
its deployment. Since the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, there has been a renewed interest in the
development of so-called accident-tolerant fuels,
which is designed to offer additional coping times
to operators in case of a severe loss of coolant
accident. However, there is a long way ahead to
develop and qualify these fuels and this will depend
on the level of budgets devoted to this research.
Research into advanced fuel cycles, and in
particular into partitioning and transmutation,
is ongoing. The objective of this research is to
allow for the recycling of reusable material from
spent fuel and separate elements such as minor
actinides that are responsible for the thermal load
and radiotoxicity of high-level waste. These can
be conditioned and disposed of, or burned within
fast neutron reactors – as they are with some
Generation IV concepts – or in dedicated burners
such as accelerator-driven systems (ADS).
DGD is the recommended strategy for dealing with
high-level waste, but it requires long-term planning,
political commitment and strong engagement with
local communities. Finland, Sweden (operating
once-through cycles) and France (recycling route)
will be the first countries to have operational DGDs
in the 2020s (see Box 8). The Radioactive Waste
Directive adopted by the EU in 2011 requires all
member states to draw up national programmes
for the management of spent fuel and radioactive
waste. The directive advocates the disposal of highlevel
waste in geological repositories and opens the
possibility for regional repositories.
Box 8: Progress towards implementation of a deep geological disposal site
in Sweden (Case study 6)
Sweden has for many decades been actively
pursuing research activities for the development
of a safe long-term concept and technology
for geologic final disposal of SNF from existing
nuclear power reactors. A final repository
is now planned in Forsmark (Östhammar
municipality) as well as an encapsulation plant
in Oskarshamn. The construction and testing
of the DGD will take place between 2019 and
2029, with the transfer of spent fuel from Clab
to the DGD facility to start around 2029 until
2075. The characteristics of the KBS-3 DGD site
are as follows:
zz Multiple barrier geologic final disposal system
based on copper canister, buffer and bedrock.
zz Deposition of canisters vertically in tunnels at
a depth of around 470 metres below surface.
Tunnels and shafts will be refilled with
bentonite buffer, clay and rock spoils.
zz No surveillance or monitoring should be
needed for safety or security reasons after
decommissioning and closure.
zz Surface area will be restored and impact on
land use will be limited during operation and
afterwards.
To achieve a successful implementation of a
DGD project, a stepwise process with clear
roles and responsibilities based on dedicated
funding is necessary. Time, consistency,
patience and a transparent and open listening
approach are needed. A process based on
voluntary participation from host municipalities
with clarified withdrawal possibilities/
conditions is recommended. It is also very
important to include and explain alternatives
(e.g. disposal options, choice of sites) from the
beginning.
35Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones
The concept of regional repositories should be
evaluated in more detail, as it would offer countries
with small nuclear programmes and geological
and geographical limitations, the possibility to
pool resources and find the most appropriate DGD
site – in terms of geology, safety and economics –
in another country.
Finally, in countries where there are no short- to
medium-term prospects for having an operational
DGD site, studies should be carried out to ensure
that extended (dry) storage of SNF satisfies the
highest safety and security requirements. However,
this cannot be considered an alternative to DGD.
Recycling of spent fuel has advantages in terms of
resource management (for instance, through the
use of MOX fuel) but also in terms of conditioning
of the high-level waste (vitrification process), and
hence the sizing of the DGDs (see Box 9). Further
progress is expected with the development of multirecycling
in fast neutron reactors (FNRs), and later
with the industrial-scale demonstration of the use of
minor actinide-bearing fuels, or targets in FNRs.
Other routes to recycling spent fuel can be offered
by heavy water reactors operating in synergy with
LWRs, as is currently being demonstrated in China,
where a fuel consisting of recycled and depleted
uranium was successfully irradiated in the Qinshan
CANDU unit 1 (NEI, 2014).
Box 9: Recycling of spent fuel (Case study 7)
Used nuclear fuel recycling is today a fully
industrial process with more than 45 years of
experience, allowing reuse of uranium and
plutonium to manufacture new nuclear fuel,
while conditioning the non-reusable parts in
a stable waste form. In France alone, more
than 30 000 tonnes of used fuel has been
reprocessed to date, of which 20 000 tonnes
Figure 8: MOX fuel fabrication
Source: AREVA.
was from French reactors. This has effectively
reduced the interim storage capacity for used
fuel by 50%, while allowing up to 20% annual
savings on natural uranium consumption. The
main steps of the process are the separation
of reusable and non-reusable materials,
conditioning of the non-reusable material and
the fabrication of new fuel.
36 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Decommissioning will become an increasingly
important part of the nuclear sector activity in the
coming decades, as dozens of reactors will be shut
down. Industry must provide further evidence
that it can dismantle these plants safely and costeffectively.
Further improvements in technology (for
instance, robotics) and adaptation of regulations
(for instance, allowing the clearance of nonradioactive
material from a power plant as ordinary
or municipal waste) can help to reach these
objectives. It is important that decommissioning
activities are covered by sufficient funds, and
governments have a responsibility to ensure that
this financial security is in place. In most countries,
operators are required to set aside dedicated funds,
the costs of which are internalised in the cost of
nuclear electricity.
Once a nuclear facility is closed permanently,
whether it is for technical, economic or political
reasons, it needs to be put into a state where
it can do no harm to the public, workers or
the environment. This includes removal of all
radioactive materials, decontamination and
dismantling, and finally demolition and site
clearance. This process, known as decommissioning,
consists of several stages that can take place over
many years. The general public is often not well
informed about decommissioning activities, and the
ill-founded belief that decommissioning of nuclear
facilities is an unsolved issue is one of the factors
that can explain poor public acceptance of
nuclear power.
This Roadmap recognises that decommissioning
is a significant challenge given the size of the
fleet that will be retired in the coming decades.
However, it is also a great opportunity for new
business and skills to be developed. Demonstrating
that NPPs that have been shut down can be
dismantled safely and in a financially controlled
manner is a key factor for allowing new build
projects to move ahead. Today, decommissioning
is a well-regulated activity of the nuclear fuel
cycle, with specific safety guides and standards
(e.g. IAEA, Western European Nuclear Regulators
Association [WENRA]). As of December 2014,
150 power reactors had been permanently
shut down and were in various stages of
decommissioning. International information
exchange forums exist, where processes are
reviewed, lessons learnt and best practices shared.
But it is also an area of technological expertise
where operators and new industries compete
(see Box 10).
There are essentially two main strategies for
decommissioning: (i) immediate dismantling,
where after the nuclear facility closes, equipment,
structures, and radioactive materials are removed
or decontaminated to a level that permits release
of the property and termination of the operating
licence within a period of about 10 to 15 years; (ii)
deferred dismantling, where a nuclear facility is
maintained and monitored in a condition that allows
the radioactivity to decay – typically for about
30-40 years, after which the plant is dismantled and
the property decontaminated. A third strategy exists
called entombment, where all or part of the facility
is encased in a structurally long-lived material. It is
not a recommended option, although it may be a
solution under exceptional circumstances (such as
after a severe accident).
Increasingly, utilities are choosing the immediate
dismantling option, to benefit from the knowledge
of the plant’s operating staff, as well as to limit the
burden borne by future generations.
Decommissioning
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Governments need to ensure that dedicated funds are set aside for
decommissioning activities and that operators accumulate sufficient funding
during the operation of NPPs to cover the future costs of decommissioning
these facilities. Operators should regularly review the adequacy of the
accrued funds.
Ongoing
Nuclear operators to ensure that shutdown nuclear facilities are
decommissioned in a timely, safe and cost-effective manner.
Ongoing
37
Although technologies and processes for
decommissioning an NPP exist today, further
technological developments and process
improvements can help accelerate future
decommissioning activities and reduce costs.
For example (E.ON, 2014):
zz improve standardisation in the design
zz improve automation
zz develop more flexible remote controlled tools
zz develop tools to measure decontamination
during the processes
zz improve techniques for decontamination.
Nuclear energy technology development: Actions and milestones
Box 10: Decommissioning in Germany (Case study 8)
German utility E.ON has gained substantial
experience in the direct dismantling of Stade
NPP (a 630 MWe PWR) and Würgassen NPP (a
640 MWe BWR) over the past 15 years. E.ON’s
NPPs Isar 1 (878 MWe BWR) and Unterweser
(1 345 MWe PWR) reactors were both shut
down in 2011 as a result of the phase-out
policy, and the company has started the
preparation for the decommissioning of these
units. E.ON’s expertise relies on a number of
technologies that it has developed and
mastered, as well as on qualified staff and
established processes and practices, including
radiation protection, surveillance, material and
surface decontamination, and project and team
management.
A key aspect of any decommissioning project
is the planning phase, starting from the back
end, in particular the disposal of the radioactive
waste. Critical path analysis is required to
avoid any bottlenecks in the project (related
to easy-to-use decommissioning technology,
interference between parallel dismantling
work packages, licensing or staffing aspects)
and ensure that all phases run smoothly. The
purchase and delivery of containers and casks
licensed for the storage and transport of waste
also has to be planned and controlled carefully.
In addition to planning, challenges exist in
managing financial and human resources: as
funds are based on current decommissioning
cost estimates, project management is crucial
to ensure that the work is performed within
the expected budget. From a human resource
point of view, the challenge is to motivate staff
who have worked part of their professional
lives to maintain the existing asset. However, as
decommissioning is the final end in the lifetime
of the plant, the company has to develop career
paths to keep staff motivated so that they will
participate in the decommissioning project and
remain within the company once the plant has
been dismantled.
38 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
In this chapter, actions that can facilitate the
deployment of nuclear technologies by 2050
are identified. They cover a wide range of areas
such as licensing and regulation, nuclear safety,
financing, training and capacity building, codes
and standards, supply chain and localisation
issues, communication and public acceptance.
International collaboration plays an important
role in facilitating information exchange
between governments and experts to ensure
the development of nuclear energy in countries
wanting to use nuclear power is efficient and
meets the highest standards of safety, security and
non-proliferation. This is for instance the mission
of the International Framework for Nuclear Energy
Cooperation (IFNEC).
Facilitating the deployment of nuclear
technologies: Actions and milestones
Licensing and regulation
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Governments must ensure that regulators are strong, independent and
staffed with enough skilled, competent and adequately remunerated
personnel to carry out their missions.
Ongoing
International co-operation should continue to be promoted, whether among
industry (e.g. WANO or the World Nuclear Association [WNA]) or regulators
(IAEA, the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association [WENRA], the
Multinational Design Evaluation Programme [MDEP], NEA Committee on
Nuclear Regulatory Activities [CNRA]) or technical organisations.
Ongoing
Licensing frameworks for advanced reactors, including SMRs and Gen IV
reactors need to be developed.
2015‑30
Site analysis including Environmental Impact Assessments and stakeholder
consultations to be carried out thoroughly prior to the development of new
nuclear projects, taking into account lessons learnt from the Fukushima
Daiichi accident and the possible effect of Climate Change in the long term,
so as to ensure a high level of public support for the projects.
Ongoing
Regulators, whether in newcomer countries or
established nuclear countries, should be strong
and independent. They need to have sufficient,
well-qualified and resourced staff to carry out
their missions (NEA, 2014a). There is an important
role for international organisations to promote
efficient regulation, harmonise requirements and
share experience (see Box 11). In particular, peer
review processes, whether among operators or
among regulators, is seen as an effective process to
improve the overall level of nuclear safety.
The nuclear industry is sometimes concerned
about the risk of over-regulation, through the
multiplication or duplication of regulatory
requirements. Better co-ordination and
harmonisation of these requirements is needed in
order to have an efficient regulation of the industry.
Finally, to accelerate the deployment of new
technologies, licensing frameworks should be
flexible enough to regulate such technologies
in a risk-informed manner. The United States is
addressing this challenge for SMRs through the
DOE’s Licensing Technical Support programme,
which supports the development of certification
and licensing requirements for US-based SMR
projects. Similar initiatives should be launched
in other countries, for SMR and advanced
technologies such as Gen IV designs, so as to
facilitate the deployment of these technologies
once they have been demonstrated. It should
be noted, however, that there are examples of
regulatory regimes around the world (United
Kingdom and Canada) whose frameworks already
contain this flexibility and are prepared to address
SMRs and Gen IV technologies. In general, greater
international collaboration is needed so that a
design approved in one major nuclear-competent
country can be built elsewhere with a minimum of
duplicated effort and time.
39
Siting and planning
Siting of nuclear facilities is an essential part of a
nuclear programme, and it is one which requires
thorough analysis, as well as interactions with
local communities well ahead of any decision.
The analyses supporting site suitability, although
established at the onset of a project, need to be
revisited periodically throughout the lifecycle of the
facility to confirm that the design continues to be
adequate in the face of changing site characteristics.
Characteristics may also change as a result of new
analysis techniques. There are many guidelines
on how to carry out siting activities (IAEA, 2012).
Criteria for assessment and selection of suitable sites
for the construction of NPPs include:
zz health, safety and security factors
zz seismicity of the site, and vulnerability to extreme
natural or man-made events
zz engineering and cost factors (for instance,
availability of cooling water, electricity
infrastructure, distance to load centres)
zz socio-economic factors
zz environmental considerations.
For the siting and analyses, environmental impact
assessment (EIA) processes should be carried out
(see Box 12). It should also be mentioned that
when an operator wants to operate a facility
beyond the original design lifetime, or when
the design conditions change (for instance, due
to power uprates), an EIA should be performed
again to take into account the new operating and
environment conditions. At all stages of siting,
stakeholder involvement in the decision-making
process is necessary.
Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, renewed
attention has been paid to the vulnerability of
existing (and future) sites with respect to the
possibility of major earthquakes and flooding,
whether from tsunamis or other causes (dam
breaks, extreme precipitation events). This may
reduce the number of possible new sites that a
country can select for its nuclear programme.
Another aspect that has received more attention is
the particular case of multi-unit sites, i.e. sites that
accommodate several nuclear reactors.
Building several hundreds of GW of new capacity
by 2050 will require the extension of existing sites
to accommodate additional units, if the sites are
suitable, as well as the assessment and selection of
new sites. For countries that already have nuclear
power plants (NPPs), it is often easier to consider
building nuclear facilities on existing sites as local
communities are already informed about the risks
and benefits of nuclear energy.
Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
Box 11: International collaboration among regulators: The Multinational
Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) (Case study 9)
MDEP was established in 2006 as a multinational
initiative to develop innovative approaches
to leverage the resources and knowledge of
the national regulatory authorities that are
currently or will be tasked with the review of
new reactor designs. MDEP has evolved from
primarily a design evaluation programme for
two new reactor designs (EPR and AP1000)
to a multinational co-operation programme
involving several new reactor designs and issues
related to new reactor challenges.
MDEP gathers the nuclear regulatory
authorities of 14 countries. It has five
design-specific working groups (EPR,
AP1000, APR1400, ABWR and VVER) and
three issue-specific working groups (digital
instrumentation and control, mechanical
codes and standards and vendor inspection
co-operation). MDEP produces common
positions and technical reports for public use.
Design-specific common positions describe
common conclusions reached by the working
group members during design reviews. MDEP
has also encouraged international organisations
to work together on the harmonisation of
standards. MDEP has been a decisive trigger
for their co-operation and will continue to
encourage such initiatives, including the
standard development organisations’ code
convergence board and WNA/CORDEL’s
working groups (“World Nuclear Association’s
working group on Cooperation in Reactor
Design Evaluation and Licensing”).
40 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
In parallel to the safety upgrades that were
requested after the Fukushima Daiichi accident,
enhanced safety requirements were put in place by
regulators to ensure that nuclear plants operate to
even higher safety standards. Japan in particular
reviewed and reorganised its regulatory system,
establishing its independence and setting out new
safety requirements (see Box 13). The country’s
48 reactors will now be assessed against these new
standards before they can be allowed to restart. At
the end of 2014, four units had been approved for
restart by the Japanese regulator. In the European
Union, the Nuclear Safety Directive was amended
in July 2014 based on the lessons learnt from
the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the EU “stress
tests” and the safety requirements of the Western
European Nuclear Regulators Agency and the IAEA.
In the Russian Federation, the regulatory framework
is now being updated to take into account the
“stress test” results and lessons learnt from
Fukushima Daiichi accident, in particular with
regard to requirements for special procedures
beyond-design-basis accidents and severe accidents
management. Requirements accounting for
external, natural and human-induced impacts at
NPP designing and siting, (as well as combination of
such impacts) and requirements for the contents of
safety analysis reports are also considered.
Safety assessment methodologies, such as
probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) methods,
are also being improved and further developed.
Recommendations for level two and three PSAs
of external events or fire and flooding have been
revised and their use encouraged as a tool to
improve on-site and off-site emergency planning. In
general, governments should devote more efforts to
safety research, including severe accident research,
and the results communicated to a wider audience.
The Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident emphasised
the importance of promoting safety culture across
organisations. Safety culture can be defined as a
Box 12: Environmental impacts assessments in Finland (Case study 10)
In Finland, EIAs are an integral part of the
licensing process for nuclear facilities. An EIA is
a procedure that ensures that the environmental
implications of decisions are taken into account
before the decisions are made.
In Finland, EIAs cover the whole lifetime of the
nuclear facility, as well as the front and back
ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. Of particular
importance are aspects related to the use of
cooling water (large quantities of water are
needed to cool NPPs and thermal releases can
be significant), impact on fauna, flora and
biodiversity, and nuclear accidents and their
consequences. An EIA typically lasts for about a
year. An essential part of the EIA process is the
consultations with civil society through public
hearings.
In 2008, the Finnish company TVO performed
an EIA related to the expansion of the Olkiluoto
NPP (two units in operation, one unit under
construction), adding fourth unit, OL-4.
The report addresses the impacts during
construction, operation (including impact on
land use, air quality, water system and fishing
industry) of exceptional situations such as
accidents or phenomena related to climate
change.
Nuclear safety
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Operators of NPPs to implement post-Fukushima safety upgrades in a
timely manner.
2015‑25
Safety culture needs to be enhanced and monitored across the nuclear
sector (operators and industry, including the supply chain, and
regulators) and at all levels of staff.
Ongoing
Governments should support efforts in safety research, and ensure that
results are communicated to a wide audience.
2015‑25
41
set of characteristics and attitudes in organisations
and individuals. that ensures that nuclear safety
issues receive appropriate attention as an
overriding priority over other considerations.
Safety culture needs to be enhanced across the
whole nuclear sector (operators and industry,
including the supply chain, and regulators) and at
all levels of staff.
Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
Box 13: New enhanced safety standards in Japan (Case study 11)
Following the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident,
Japan undertook a review of its nuclear
regulatory structure and implemented
significant reforms aimed at improving the
nuclear industry’s oversight and tightening
safety requirements. The nuclear regulatory
body was separated from nuclear promotion
and the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA)
was established as an independent commission.
In addition to the administrative reform of
Japan’s nuclear regulatory institutions, new
safety standards were introduced to prevent
accidents with significant radioactive releases
(Figure 9). Of the 48 NPP units in Japan, 17
are currently undergoing review by the NRA
in accordance with these new enhanced
safety standards. It is expected that a few of
them could complete the review and could be
considered ready to restart at the beginning of
2015. The restart of Japan’s NPPs will help the
country to significantly reduce CO2
emissions
from the power sector.
Figure 9: New enhanced safety requirements in Japan
Source: FEPC (Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan) (2014), Electricity Review Japan, FEPC, www.fepc.or.jp/english/
library/electricity_review_japan/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/07/11/2014ERJ_full.pdf.
Duplicating external
power supplies
Water-tight doors
Seawall
Volcano Tornado Wildfire
Reservoir
Freshwater
rsou ce
Emergency
response office
Fire engine/
pump vehicle
Underground
structure probe
Boring
Trench survey
Earthquake
Power source vehicle
Investigate fault lines and
underground structures
Build seawalls as
necessary, anticipating
the highest possible tsunamis
Tsunami
Install filter vent to
sdepressuri e CV
(in five years for PWR)
Filtered vent
Natural disasters
42 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
An estimated USD 4.4 trillion would need to
be invested in nuclear energy between 2011
and 2050 to reach the 930 GW of installed
capacity under the 2DS. With an average NPP
taking five to seven years to build and costing
approximately USD 3.5 billion to 5.5 billion per
plant, the financing of nuclear projects presents
its own unique challenges. The risks associated
with construction delays and cost-overruns are
particularly important considerations in financing
NPPs. Most plants under construction today have
strong government involvement through stateowned
enterprises or through loan guarantees,
and are often government sponsored or financed
projects. Few utilities today have the ability to
develop new plants solely on their balance sheet
without some sort of government guarantee
or long-term power purchase agreement at
predictable prices.
A clear commitment and long-term strategy
for nuclear development at the national level is
critical in raising financing for nuclear projects.
Governments have a critical role to play in
streamlining electricity market regulations to
ensure that they work effectively and efficiently
in order to limit the impact of associated risks on
financing costs. The high investment cost of a
nuclear plant means that its overall economics, and
the feasibility of its financing, depend greatly on
the cost of capital. This cost will be determined by
the evaluation of various risk factors, and hence the
key to successful financing is first to minimise the
financial risks and then to structure projects using
appropriate ownership and contracting models so
that the remaining risks are appropriately shared
among the parties involved.
The roles and responsibilities of different
stakeholders such as the vendor, utility, host
country, international contractors, local supply
chain participants and regulators, as well as
investors and financing institutions, need to be
clearly defined. This will help to better allocate
risks across relevant stakeholders. The main risks
associated with nuclear plants are construction
risks (cost and duration), electricity price risks and
regulatory risks which can impact planning and
construction times (nuclear safety regulation), as
well as load factors (electricity market regulation).
Financing nuclear development
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Governments favouring nuclear power to provide clear policies and a stable
long-term strategy for nuclear development.
2015‑25 and beyond
Governments should ensure price transparency and the stable policies
required for investment in large capital-intensive and long-lived base-load
power. Policies should support a level playing field for all sources of lowcarbon
power projects.
2015‑20 and beyond
Loan guarantees by both vendor governments and host governments may be
needed to reduce financing costs.
Ongoing
Governments to enable investment in low-carbon electricity sources
through carbon trading schemes, carbon taxes or mandates for low-carbon
electricity.
2015‑35
Industry needs to develop communication strategies targeted at educating
institutional investors and other financial institutions on the economic
benefits of investment in NPPs.
2015‑25
A refinancing strategy should be developed as part of a project financing
plan and implemented once the plant is operational and construction risks
are no longer applicable. Other strategies could include widening the source
of financing to longer-term sources of financing such as pension funds and
other institutional investors.
Ongoing
Industry needs to improve on its capacity to deliver “on time and to budget”,
thereby reducing the investment risks associated with construction and the
need for government guarantees.
2015‑20
43Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
In addition, country (political stability) and
currency risks are also important but manageable
via different hedging or insurance mechanisms or
through government guarantees.
Electricity markets
Governments have a key role in providing sufficient
confidence to investors in new generation projects.
Clear and predictable long-term electricity prices
that enable adequate return on investment are
central to developing bankable projects. In
regulated electricity markets, investor confidence
can be gained via the regulated electricity price.
Provided clear litigation clauses are included
within contracts, investors are generally confident
that utilities operating in regulated markets will
be able to repay debts through electricity tariffs.
These tariffs, which are fixed by the energy
market regulator, on average cover the cost of
fuel, operating and maintenance costs, waste
management and decommissioning, depreciation,
debt repayment and a return on capital. Regulated
electricity markets effectively protect against
construction and market risks, thereby facilitating
the financing of large capital-intensive projects
(see Box 14).
In liberalised markets, financing of nuclear
energy can be significantly more difficult due
to uncertainties in long-term electricity prices
and hence higher interest costs. This is reflected
in an increase in the cost of capital that makes
most projects unattractive. To overcome these
uncertainties, a long-term power purchase
agreement such as the UK contract for difference
(CfD) pricing model can provide the needed
investor confidence to finance nuclear projects.
The UK CfD fixes the price of energy from the
plant, the “strike” price, and consumers are
committed through legislation to pay or receive
the difference between a market reference price
and the strike price, depending on which one is
higher. CfDs are designed to shield investors from
power market volatility, particularly when there
are expected to be high levels of intermittent
Box 14: Financing of new units at the Vogtle Power Plant in Georgia, USA
(Case study 12)
The Southern Nuclear Operating Company
is developing two new nuclear units at the
Vogtle plant in Georgia, which already has
two operating Westinghouse PWRs. This is
the first nuclear reactor construction in the
United States in 30 years and will consist of
two AP 1 000 units of 1 200 MW each. Vogtle
is operated by Southern Nuclear Operating
Company and is owned by four companies:
Georgia Power (45.7%), Oglethorpe Power
(30%), MEAG Power (22.7%) and Dalton
Utilities (1.6%). To facilitate the development
of new advanced nuclear facilities, the United
States government has established, under
the 2005 Energy Policy Act, two forms of
incentives. First, a production tax credit of
USD 18 per megawatt hour is granted for the
first eight years of operation of NPPs. Second,
a system of loan guarantees is proposed that
could cover up to 80% of the construction costs
of a new advanced nuclear facility.
Market and regulatory conditions in Georgia
also played an important role in the successful
development of the nuclear new build at Vogtle.
Georgia is a regulated electricity market, with
a limited number of players and an overall
limited level of competition. The particular
structure of Georgia’s electricity market, which
ensures the stability of the demand and a lowrisk
environment for electricity generating
companies, is favourable to the development
of nuclear projects that are highly capitalintensive
but can provide a lower and stable
electricity generation cost in the long term.
During the construction of Vogtle, Georgia
Power was allowed to charge a construction
work in progress (CWIP) tariff to customers,
increasing electricity tariffs by about 7%. Under
the CWIP, Georgia Power can more effectively
meet the financial needs of a new nuclear build,
which in turn will result in reducing long-term
electricity cost for the customers. The two
other main shareholders of Plant Vogtle have a
similar company structure and electricity price
arrangements that protect them effectively from
construction and market risks.
44 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
renewables, which can drive electricity prices
to zero or below in some extreme cases. This
arrangement also helps offset future political risks
or changes in government policies on nuclear
energy. In the risk allocation, the developer of
the nuclear project retains all project risk while
vendors often carry most of the construction risk.
Carbon pricing remains the central pillar of any
low-carbon policy. Whether as a carbon trading
scheme, carbon tax or as a mandate on utilities to
use low-carbon sources, incentives for investing in
low-carbon energy are needed to help accelerate
the deployment of nuclear energy. In the absence
of a sufficiently high carbon price that reflects
the externalities of fossil-fuelled generation,
governments will have to continue providing
policy solutions that improve the net present value
of low-carbon investments and mitigate the market
risks for project developers and financial investors.
Financing schemes supporting
nuclear power development
Since the 2010 IEA/NEA Technology Roadmap:
Nuclear Energy, two events have further added
to the challenges of financing nuclear energy
by commercial banks. The first is the adoption
of Basel III regulations in the banking sector,
which set limits to the amount that banks can
lend and effectively reduced the availability of
long-term debt. The second is the Fukushima
Daiichi NPP accident, which led many banks to
re-evaluate lending policies for nuclear projects.
However, some of the banks that were financing
nuclear projects before the accident appear to
be considering financing nuclear projects again.
Unfortunately, in many of the markets that have an
interest in developing nuclear, the wholesale prices
are extremely low, which for these capital-intensive
projects, creates greater challenges for financing.
Governments and operators will need to review
methodologies for estimating damages associated
with nuclear accidents and for assessing their
costs, and consider the implication for existing
liability regimes. Sharing of lessons learnt that
assist stakeholders in assessing improvements
in technical areas, organisation management,
planning and budgeting can result in risk profiles
that are more acceptable to investors. Reputational
risk considerations, environmental responsibility
and commitment to international regimes and
standards also need to be considered with respect
to financing nuclear projects. The Fukushima
Daiichi accident has led many banks to develop
lending policies specific to nuclear energy, and
some have adopted environmental and social
guidelines, with projects classified according to
their environmental and social impacts.
Government involvement in financing through
Export Credit Agencies and in the form of
government loan guarantees will remain critical
for the nuclear industry as it will help to lower
overall financing costs by hedging a number of
risks including geopolitical, regulatory and
construction risks.
Box 15: The Akkuyu build, own and operate model (Case study 13)
The Akkuyu NPP project will be Turkey’s first
NPP and also the first project to be built under
a BOO financing model. Rosatom, Russia’s
state-owned nuclear company, is responsible
for engineering, construction, operation and
maintenance of the plant and will also initially
hold 100% ownership. Akkuyu will have a total
installed capacity of 4.8 GW comprised of four
VVER1200 units (AES 2006 design), Gen III
design with advanced safety requirements, and
passive and active safety systems.
Initial funding for the project will be provided
by Rosatom and up to 49% of the project may
be sold to investors at a later stage. The total
cost of the project is estimated at USD 20 billion
and is backed by a 15‑year power purchase
agreement for 70% of the electricity generated
by the first two units and 30% of the last two
units at an average price of US cents 12.35/kWh.
Akkuyu has benefited from the strong support
of both the Russian and Turkish governments,
highlighting the importance of government-togovernment
relationships in the development
of large nuclear projects. The Rosatom BOO
model is an extremely attractive full-service
model for new nuclear countries with limited
expertise and resources. Under the BOO
model, Rosatom will provide engineering,
construction, operation and decommissioning
services for NPPs.
45Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
Given the impact of recent events, vendor financing
in the form of equity, for example, could increase
as the utilities have become less effective at raising
large amounts of long-term debt, or it has become
uneconomical. Rosatom’s “build, own and operate”
(BOO) model is one example of this potential
financing option (see Box 15). Most vendors
are reluctant to engage in financing of nuclear
projects, but current financing conditions could
make it difficult to finance projects without such
support. Vendor financing can address shorterterm
financing constraints, but in the longer term
a more sustainable model will be needed that
allows utilities to finance these projects in the
market. In certain regions, Islamic bonds could
also be a potential financing instrument to support
investments in nuclear projects.
The “Mankala” principle (co-operative model
between shareholders) used in Finland is
an original approach that brings together a
consortium of electricity consumers (typically,
energy-intensive industries such as pulp and paper,
as well as municipalities) who have shares in the
electricity generation plant, which can be a hydroelectric
or an NPP. These shareholders receive the
corresponding shares of electricity produced by
the plant at full cost. Thus a Mankala-type project
is not subject to electricity price risk, and its
shareholders benefit from the equivalent of a longterm
supply contract and stable electricity rates.
The role of development banks in the financing
of nuclear plants is at present unclear. While
they have financed past projects, development
banks are not currently financing NPPs, but could
potentially play a role in assisting developing
countries interested in developing nuclear energy.
For multilateral development banks, political
factors and capital availability to fund such large
projects will likely make it difficult for these
institutions to fund entire projects. However, they
could play an important role in catalysing higher
levels of private finance by providing insurance
against political risks.
Incentives for investment in low-carbon energy
sources, such as carbon markets, carbon taxes
and targets or mandates for carbon-free electricity
supply could also encourage nuclear investments.
Nuclear energy should be treated on an equal
footing with other low-carbon technologies.
Finally, to help reduce the overall financing
costs of an NPP, a refinancing strategy should be
developed and implemented once the construction
is completed and the plant is operational. With the
construction risk no longer a factor, and the plant
generating large cash flows, the risks associated
with the project are significantly lowered and
financing costs reduced. Refinancing could also
free up much needed capital by the vendor or
utility to invest in other projects.
Training and capacity development
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Countries undertake a national skills evaluation to quantify the need for a
skilled nuclear workforce to maintain the operation of existing fleets and
for future decommissioning needs, as well as for nuclear new build, where
relevant. Evaluation should also include requirements for nuclear regulators
and researchers, as well as for the need to replace those due to retire.
2020‑25
Newcomer countries should evaluate the need for skilled nuclear workers
during the construction and operation phases, including for those who will be
employed by nuclear regulators.
2015‑25
Newcomer countries to develop local training programmes aimed at
developing a nuclear-aware and nuclear-competent workforce.
2015‑25
In countries with mature nuclear industries, companies and governments will
need to implement programmes aimed at knowledge preservation of those
workers who will be retiring in the next decades. Mentoring programmes
could be implemented to ensure a transfer of knowledge; lessons learnt
and best practice among operators, regulators, waste management and
decommissioning experts.
2015‑30
46 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
The distinctive characteristics of nuclear energy
and its fuel cycle give rise to special requirements
for education and training. In all countries with
nuclear programmes, there exists a substantial
nuclear fleet to be safely operated, maintained
and eventually decommissioned. An essential
element in the implementation and safe operation
of all nuclear facilities, in addition to nuclear
technology research and development (R&D),
is a knowledgeable and skilled workforce.
The importance of education and training in
maintaining safety must be a priority for all
nuclear countries. Although seen as two separate
processes, education and training are intertwined
in the preparation and maintenance of a
competent nuclear workforce.
The future demand for global employment in
nuclear-related activities is in the tens to hundreds
of thousands of skilled workers (NEA, 2012c).
The demand for nuclear skills are generally set
against an ageing workforce, which highlights
the urgency for targeted programmes to maintain
an adequately skilled and competent workforce
and attract a flow of new recruits for longterm
sustainability. Policy decisions need to be
made today to ensure that an adequate nuclear
education and training infrastructure is available in
the decades to come.
In 2012, the NEA published Nuclear Education
and Training: From Concern to Capability, which
assesses the current state of nuclear education and
n Design
Supplyn
Nuclear power plant
New build
n Operation
Maintenancen
n Waste management
Safety and environmentn
Nuclear power plant
Operation
n Decommissioning operation
Maintenancen
n Waste management
Safety and environmentn
Nuclear power plant
Decommissioning
n Design and engineering
Utilisationn
n Operation and control
Nuclear research reactors
n Assessment and review
Authorisationn
n Inspection and enforcement
Regulation and guidancen
Nuclear regulation
n Construction
Commissionn
Figure 10: An illustrative taxonomy: Sectors and functions
Source: NEA (2012c), Nuclear Education and Training: From Concern to Capability, OECD/NEA, Paris.
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
International co-operation is needed to help transfer nuclear training
programmes from existing nuclear countries to newcomer countries.
Opportunities will be needed for newly trained/educated workers to gain
practical experience and develop and maintain skills while waiting for their
countries nuclear fleet to begin operations.
2015‑30
Existing nuclear countries with post-graduate nuclear training programmes
should develop student exchange programmes aimed at newcomer countries.
Where possible, these programmes should include a period of practical work
experience at a nuclear facility and potentially the creation of equivalent
training programmes in the newcomer country.
2015‑30
Implement policies to attract and maintain highly skilled regulators. Ongoing
International collaboration is needed to harmonise training programmes so as
to develop mutual recognition of qualifications at an international level.
Ongoing
47Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
training and identifies remaining gaps and actions
that are required to address skills development
needs in NEA member countries. Part of that
work included the development of a classification
system for nuclear job profiles or “job taxonomy”.
This taxonomy encompasses the full lifecycle of a
nuclear reactor from new build to operation and
decommissioning, as well as research and nuclear
regulation, and classifies them according to
functions (Figure 10). Each function of each sector
contains a job specification which defines the
occupational levels and competencies required,
as well as sets of initial qualifications, advisory
training and continuous professional development
to support them. As only a few countries are active
in the entire nuclear fuel cycle, the taxonomy did
not cover fuel cycle issues.
Human resource assessments
Since a large number of workers in the nuclear
energy sector will retire in the coming decades,
policies must be put in place to ensure trained and
qualified personnel and workers are available to
support the development of nuclear programmes
and the required regulatory function. In some
countries, maintaining and attracting highly skilled
regulators will need to be a priority. A number
of countries have recognised this need and are
promoting education and training programmes to
increase human resources for the nuclear sector.
Countries such as France, Japan, the Republic of
Korea and the United Kingdom have implemented
national assessments for nuclear human resource
needs to maintain existing nuclear operations,
as well as to staff new build construction and
operation (see Box 16).
Box 16: Nuclear skills assessment in the United Kingdom (Case study 14)
The UK government recognised nuclear
skills development as a key component in
developing new nuclear build and set up
the Nuclear Energy Skills Alliance to address
current and future nuclear skill needs for the
UK nuclear programme. The alliance brings
together government, skills bodies, higher
education and R&D communities to develop
labour market intelligence for nuclear and to
develop interventions and mitigation options
that will ensure that the UK nuclear industry
has the required skills to support current and
future programmes. Based on scenario analysis
for 16 GW of new build by 2025, the alliance
estimated that 110 000 to 140 000 person years
(excluding manufacturing) would be required
to complete the programme and a peak annual
employment of 14 000 in the period 2020‑22.
A risk register was established to provide
ongoing assessment that would be used to
inform the evolving skills landscape. Of the
34 skill areas identified by the risk register,
13 were given a high priority rating. Nuclear
Labour Market Intelligence was published in
December 2012 and outlined a common skills
delivery plan. The plan sets out 22 priority
skill areas for the delivery of the UK nuclear
programme and identified over 100 key actions.
A combination of qualitative and quantitative
assessments can be used to support national
skill assessments, which should be regularly
monitored and updated as a country’s
programme evolves.
In newcomer countries, training of personnel in
preparation of the launch of a nuclear programme
is a significant investment, which requires
incentives to be put in place to attract young
talent, train them and ensure they are available
when the programme starts. Given the long
lead times to develop and implement a nuclear
energy programme and the need to gain practical
operational experience, these programmes
should include practical training and operational
experience in a foreign country. Once educated
and trained, these nuclear-skilled workers from
newcomer countries will need sufficient incentives
to return or remain in their countries. R&D
activities, possibly linked to the use of a research
reactor are seen as an effective way to develop and
maintain skills and competence.
48 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Internationalisation of nuclear
training and education
In parallel to an increased globalisation of the
nuclear industry, there has been an increase in
the internationalisation of R&D. This is to a large
extent due to decreasing R&D budgets at national
levels, which encourages research organisations
to pool resources, share experimental facilities
and carry out projects at the international level.
There are a number of international and bilateral
initiatives focused on collaborative research,
education, training and knowledge management,
including the Sustainable Nuclear Energy
Technology Platform in the European Union,
which gathers industry, research and academia,
or the Generation IV International Forum, which
provides a framework for international R&D on
Gen IV systems. The NEA itself provides support
to international projects such as code validation
benchmarks or safety-related experiments.
The global nuclear industry is acutely aware of
the need to ensure a high level of nuclear skills
development in existing and newcomer countries
and has well-developed training programmes
that are shared across countries, providing an
important source of nuclear training. In addition,
global partnerships such as the World Nuclear
University (WNU) and the European Nuclear
Education Network (ENEN) have been developed
to enhance international education and training for
the development of nuclear energy.
WNU was created in 2003 with the support of the
IAEA, OECD/NEA, WANO and WNA to provide
global guidance on preparing the future generation
of nuclear industry leaders and to enhance
nuclear education worldwide. WNU activities
include the Summer Institute (a six-week intensive
course for future nuclear leaders), the Radiation
Technologies School (a two-week course for future
leaders in the radiation and radioisotope field)
and a one-week course focused on key issues in
the nuclear industry today. These courses are
offered in host countries where significant interest
exists for the development of nuclear energy8
.
Training events are held in partnership with other
organisations and trainers come from industry,
government and academia. The WNA provides
administrative support to the WNU. To date, almost
900 professionals have attended the Summer
Institute, while 200 have attended the Radiation
Technologies School and approximately 6 000 have
benefited from the one-week training courses.
Mobility of nuclear literate workers across
borders will be particularly important both in
terms of providing sufficient specialised nuclear
workers (such as nuclear engineers and welders)
as well as facilitating a transfer of expertise to
newcomer countries. The UK skills passport and
French ticketing system provide a good basis for
developing mutual recognition of qualifications
from one country to another and help to support
workforce mobility.
8. Additional information on WNU courses can be found at
www.world-nuclear-university.org.
Codes and standards, supply chain development
and localisation issues
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Industry to continue to work towards harmonisation of codes and standards
to improve the integration of a global supply chain.
Ongoing
Newcomer countries’ legitimate demands for localisation in nuclear projects
should be appropriately balanced by the need to have an overall cost
efficient and qualified supply chain. Guidance on how to reach the balance
between global and local supply chains should be elaborated.
2025
There are currently 70 reactors under construction
in 15 countries, and several newcomer countries
are either in various stages of planning a nuclear
programme (for example Indonesia, Jordan,
Malaysia, Poland, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam)
or sometimes already constructing NPPs
(Belarus and the United Arab Emirates). To reach
930 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, many more
construction projects will need to be launched,
and the nuclear industry will need to address two
particular challenges if it is to achieve this longterm
objective in a cost-effective way: (i) improve
49Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
the standardisation of reactor designs through
a harmonisation of codes and standards and
(ii) ensure that nuclear supply chains, both local
and global, are qualified, and that there are no
bottlenecks that could delay projects.
Improved standardisation and harmonisation of
codes and standards are seen as effective ways to
improve new build performance and to reduce
costs. However, given the number of different
designs and national regulatory frameworks, it
would be unrealistic to imagine that, in the short
term, there might be an international licensing
process or reciprocal acceptance of approvals
between countries. Information exchange and
lessons learnt during licensing and safety reviews
can ease regulatory processes and align regulatory
requirements (this is the objective of the MDEP
initiative). On the industry side, work is being done
to advance reactor design standardisation – this is
the main focus of the WNA’s CORDEL initiative.
In terms of supply chain issues, the availability of
large heavy forgings, once identified as a potential
barrier, is no longer a problem as a number of
facilities in China, France, Japan and the Republic
of Korea, for instance, are able to manufacture
these large components, and their industrial
capacity meets the demand in the short to medium
term. The main issue facing nuclear project
developers is the qualification of the supply chain
that is required for the project, as well as reaching
the appropriate balance between localisation
demands in countries that do not necessarily have
a nuclear industry and a proven and qualified
global supply chain.
Localisation can be challenging when a new
nuclear project is established in a newcomer
country, particularly if the contract to build a new
plant stipulates a high local content requirement.
For countries that have a large nuclear programme,
localisation can be successful and help drive down
the costs of future plants (see Box 17).
Box 17: Setting up and qualifying a supply chain for Generation II and
Generation III reactor technology: The case of heavy component
manufacturing in China (Case study 15)
With 26 reactors under construction (at
end 2014), China’s new build programme
represents about 40% of the world’s nuclear
reactor construction projects. Half of these
reactors are Gen II+ CPR-1000 reactors derived
from the Daya Bay and Ling Ao 900 MW reactor
technology from vendor Framatome (now
AREVA), with localisation rates that now reach
more than 80%. The equipment localisation
programme that AREVA initiated with China
General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN)
started with the Ling Ao phase I project in 1995,
but really developed with the acceleration
of the Chinese nuclear programme ten years
later to initiate a supply chain localisation
programme, while minimising project risks
in terms of schedule and cost, CGN defined
a realistic localisation plan with AREVA, and
this plan was included in the supply contract.
During the project implementation, CGN and
AREVA set up strict monitoring to follow and
secure the components’ delivery according to
the project’s schedule.
The successful experience gained in China will
help to address localisation targets in countries
planning new build with partial localisation
of the supply chain, such as Brazil, India, the
Republic of South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Kingdom.
Table 5: Progression in terms of localisation
Equipment
Ling Ao phase 1,
900 MW reactor (1994)
Ling Ao phase 2,
CPR-1 000 (2004)
Taishan 2nd unit, EPR
1 600 MW (2009)
Steam generators 1 (out of 3) 3 (out of 3) 4 (out of 4)
Reactor pressure vessel 0 1 1
Pressuriser 1 1 1
50 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
There needs to be a good balance between
supply chain localisation and globalisation, which
depends on the extent of the past and future
nuclear programme in the country of localisation.
Guidance on how to reach this balance would be
beneficial. Qualification of a new supply chain
remains a challenge. Establishing a nuclear supply
chain in a country that had a nuclear industry
in the past can also be difficult. The absence of
activity over one or two decades is sufficient
to lose precious know-how and manufacturing
capabilities. Italy, which recently reconsidered
the nuclear option, organised a comprehensive
survey of its industry with the objective of
identifying companies that could participate in a
new build programme (see Box 18). The United
Kingdom, whose new build programme is now
moving ahead dynamically, has been promoting
the development of a British nuclear supply chain
with the publication of the “Supply Chain Action
Plan” in 2012 and a Nuclear Industrial Strategy
document in 2013. In parallel, industry has set up
a supply chain portal through the Nuclear Industry
Association. Initiatives taken by Enel in Italy, and by
government and industry in the United Kingdom,
are good examples of action to promote a solid
industrial base for nuclear projects.
Box 18: Preparing for a new build programme in an industrial country:
Supply chain survey (Case study 16)
In preparation for a future new build
programme, in 2009 the Italian government
asked Enel to develop a nuclear awareness and
qualification process for Italian companies.
The government’s goal was to make it possible
for the Italian industry to have a large role in
the new build programme (i.e. 70% target
localisation for the last units to be built). In
October 2009, Enel and EDF, supported by the
Italian Industries Association, started a market
survey aimed at screening the Italian industry.
Unfortunately, this initiative was abandoned
after the Fukushima Daiichi accident when a
moratorium on nuclear activities was decided.
However, the preparatory work allowed
Enel to conclude that in order to increase
localisation content, a series of measures
were needed, such as government incentive
programmes, partnerships with qualified
nuclear international suppliers and national
experts’ support for industry. Critical points
found during the market survey were related
to nuclear steam supply system equipment
and to aspects related to quality management
for nuclear work. In particular, the need to
implement programmes for nuclear equipment
qualification and the need to intensify the
knowledge of nuclear codes and standards and
of documentation configuration management
processes were identified. Sixty Italian
companies were identified as currently active
in the nuclear field, with qualifications by
nuclear technology vendors. An additional 60
to 70 companies had nuclear experience in
the past, and these had dormant nuclear skills
that could be recovered within a reasonable
timeframe with relatively minor efforts in view
of the new opportunities. From a qualitative
point of view, the survey gave a wide and
detailed picture of the Italian industry’s present
capabilities and future potential and made the
industry aware of its strengths and areas that
would need improvement.
51Facilitating the deployment of nuclear technologies: Actions and milestones
Introducing nuclear energy or expanding its role
requires the support of all stakeholders, including
the public, and should be based on an assessment
of risks and benefits. The benefits of nuclear in
terms of energy security and threats of climate
change are often overshadowed by concerns over
nuclear safety, risks of an accident, radioactive
waste management and disposal and potential
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
A successful strategy for nuclear communication
will vary depending on the local situation.
Understanding and responding to the concerns
and needs of the local community will be
key in devising a successful communication
strategy. Project developers need to be sensitive
and responsive to stakeholder concerns.
Communication strategies aimed at improving
public acceptance of nuclear energy should
be transparent and achieved via fact-based
information. Education should be the focus of
communication. Public education programmes
clearly explaining the risks and benefits of nuclear
energy need to be developed as part of a country’s
decision to develop nuclear energy. Nuclear safety
and radiological protection needs to be explained
simply, with easy to understand language, and
the positive aspects of nuclear energy (e.g. the
creation of jobs and boosting of local and regional
economies) need to be highlighted in nuclear
public acceptance programmes.
In 2009, the European Commission conducted a
Eurobarometer survey in the 27 member states
on public perception of nuclear safety (EC, 2010).
Results of this survey found that, overall, European
public opinion accepts the value of nuclear
energy to some extent as a means of reducing
energy dependence, and opposition to nuclear
development is mostly related to the perception
of risks associated with nuclear energy. The study
found that most Europeans considered themselves
ill-informed about nuclear safety, obtaining most
of their information from mass media, which they
considered insufficient. Respondents who felt they
were well informed about issues linked to nuclear
Communication and public acceptance
This roadmap recommends the following actions: Proposed timeline
Development of education and information centres to support effective,
transparent communication and public knowledge about the facts related to
the nuclear industry. In newcomer countries, it will be particularly important
to ensure broader public awareness of nuclear power development.
2015‑30 and beyond
In many countries, the operator of the nuclear facility plays a front-line role in
communicating with stakeholders in real-time during an event. In this case,
the regulatory authorisation for activities involving a nuclear facility should
include a review and acceptance of the operator’s strategy and programme.
Performance of the programme should also be assessed by the regulator on a
periodic basis.
Ongoing
Targeted communication programmes with influential stakeholder groups
such as politicians, media, teachers and local leaders need to be implemented
to improve understanding about the benefits and risks of nuclear energy.
Communication should be transparent and occur at regular intervals and via a
range of personal, print and online sources.
Ongoing
Measures to be implemented to share information in a timely manner on any
safety events proposed by national regulatory organisations.
Ongoing
National regulatory organisations need to implement communication
mechanisms and tools for discussion between interested parties and the
regulator.
Ongoing
Clear and regular communication with host municipalities in the identification
and development of deep geological disposal sites. A process based on
voluntary participation with clarified withdrawal conditions is recommended
and should include alternative sites from the beginning.
2015‑30 and beyond
52 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
safety were clearly more supportive of the value of
nuclear energy and hence had higher acceptance.
Finland and France have been identified as two
examples where communication and public
acceptance for nuclear has been successful. In
Finland, significant time and resources were
invested in educating local communities with
respect to the local benefits and risks for nuclear
facilities such as waste repositories or new
reactors. In France, LCIs (Local Commissions of
Information) have been operating for several
decades around nuclear facilities. They provide an
efficient framework for all stakeholders to meet,
and for the public to have access to information.
Transparent communication and information from
regulatory organisations is particularly important
to build confidence and trust in their ability to
regulate operations of nuclear facilities. Lack
of consistency in messages from one national
authority could affect confidence in regulators
elsewhere. Close contact should be maintained by
national regulatory organisations and information
about safety events shared in a timely manner.
Finally, governments, and intergovernmental
organisations, in particular bodies working
on climate change, have a role to play in
communicating to the public about the positive
contributions that nuclear energy makes and will
make in the future in the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions from the power sector. This Roadmap
and the underlying 2D Scenario highlight the
significant role that nuclear energy has to play in
the decarbonisation of the world’s energy system.
53Conclusion: Near-term actions for stakeholders
Conclusion:
Near-term actions for stakeholders
This Roadmap has been designed with milestones
that the international community can use to
measure progress and assess efforts to ensure that
nuclear energy development is on track in achieving
the emissions reductions required by 2050.
Below is a summary of the near-term actions
required by nuclear energy stakeholders,
presented to indicate who should take the lead in
specific efforts. In most cases, a broad range of
actors will need to participate in each action. The
IEA and NEA, together with government, industry
and non-governmental organisation stakeholders,
will report on this progress and recommend
adjustments to the Roadmap as needed.
Lead stakeholder Actions
Governments zz Provide a clear commitment and long-term strategy for nuclear development.
zz Recognise the importance of long-term operation to maintain low-carbon
generation capacity and security of energy supply; provide clear prospects to
encourage operators to invest in refurbishments.
zz Support efforts in safety research, and ensure that results are communicated
to a wide audience.
zz Continue to co-operate to discuss international fuel services as a means to
secure the development of nuclear power. Ensure that policies are in place for
long-term storage, including DGD of high-level waste.
zz Continue to support R&D in advanced recycling technologies to reduce the
volume and toxicity of high-level waste.
zz Ensure that dedicated funds are set aside for decommissioning activities and
that operators provide sufficient funding to these funds during operation of
NPPs by regularly reviewing the adequacy of accrued funds.
zz Work with industry to open up the market for small modular reactors by
accelerating the deployment of SMR prototypes that can demonstrate the
benefits of modular design and construction.
zz Support R&D and prototype development for Gen IV systems to ensure
technologies are ready for deployment in 2030‑40.
zz Ensure regulators are strong, independent and staffed with enough skilled
and competent personnel to carry out their missions.
zz Encourage the development of licensing frameworks for advanced reactors,
including SMRs and Gen IV reactors.
zz Expand public-private partnerships with industry to develop demonstration
projects for nuclear cogeneration, in the areas of desalination or hydrogen
production. Develop education centres to support effective communication
and public knowledge about the facts of nuclear.
Industry zz Implementation of Post-Fukushima safety upgrades by operators of NPPs in a
timely manner.
zz Optimisation of Gen III designs to improve constructability and reduce costs.
zz Lessons learnt from current FOAK projects should be used to ensure that
NOAK plants are built on time and to budget.
zz Investments are needed in environmentally sustainable mining to address
expected long-term demand.
zz Nuclear facilities that have been shut down should be decommissioned in a
timely, safe and cost-effective manner.
zz Enhance safety culture across the nuclear sector and at all levels of staff.
zz Improved communication with institutional investors and other financial
institutions to better educate investors on the economic benefits of
investment in NPPs.
zz Continued harmonisation of codes and standards to improve the integration
of a global supply chain.
54 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Lead stakeholder Actions
Universities and other
research institutions
zz R&D in ageing and improved safety is needed to support long-term operation
of existing NPPs for 60 years of operation or more.
zz Studies should be carried out to ensure extended (dry) storage of spent
nuclear fuel satisfies the highest safety and security requirements.
zz Devote more effort to safety research and communicate results to a wide
audience.
zz A national skills evaluation should be undertaken to quantify the need for a
skilled nuclear workforce.
zz International co-operation is needed to help transfer nuclear training
programmes from existing nuclear countries to newcomer countries.
zz Student exchange programmes aimed at newcomer countries should be
developed and where possible include a period of practical work experience
at a nuclear facility.
Financial institutions zz Export credit agencies should continue to support nuclear financing by
providing loan guarantees.
zz Pension funds and other institutional investors should consider investments
in NPPs.
zz Development banks could support nuclear training and capacity development
needs in new comer countries.
55Annex
Nuclear energy case studies
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/technology-roadmap-nuclear-energy.html
Annex
Case studies have also been developed together
with various nuclear energy stakeholders to help
illustrate lessons learnt and good practices in the
development of nuclear energy. The inclusion
of these cases within the roadmap are aimed at
providing additional insights and practical support
for the recommendations and proposed actions in
this roadmap.
Topic Case study description
Nuclear new build
Lessons learnt from Gen III construction projects: Experience in Japan on construction of
Gen III reactors.
IAEA milestone approach for national nuclear infrastructure: UAE’s experience.
Environmental impact assessments: Lessons learnt from Finland.
Setting up a supply chain in China.
Preparing for new build in Italy.
Decommissioning
Decommissioning in Germany: E.ON’s experience with decommissioning of Stade NPP
and Würgassen NPP.
Waste
management
Recycling of spent fuel: Experience with nuclear fuel recycling in France.
Deep geological disposal in Sweden: Lessons learnt on implementation of a DGD
facility.
Operations
WANO peer review process: The World Association of Nuclear Operators brings together
operators from every country in the world with the objective of achieving the highest
levels of operational safety and reliability.
Integrated architect-engineer model: France’s experience with implementing a model
to increase safety and performance of plants by maximising the use of experience
feedback.
Research for extended operation of NPP: US research focused on life time extensions of
up to 80 years or beyond.
International collaboration amongst regulators: Multinational Design Evaluation
Programme is an initiative to develop innovative approaches to leverage resources and
knowledge of national regulators.
Enhanced safety standards in Japan: Summary of new measures implemented after the
Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Financing
Financing of new units at the Vogtle plant: Measures used in the United States to
facilitate financing.
Akkuyu build, own and operate model: Rosatom’s model to facilitate deployment of
nuclear projects.
Education and
training
Nuclear skills assessment in the United Kingdom.
56 Technology Roadmaps  Nuclear Energy  2015 Edition
Abbreviations and acronyms
2DS	2 degress Celsius Scenario in Energy
Technology Perspectives 2014
6DS	6 degrees Celsius Scenario in Energy
Technology Perspectives 2014
ADS	 accelerator-driven systems
ASEAN	 Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASTRID	advanced sodium technological reactor
for industrial demonstration
BOO	“build, own and operate” model
BWR	Boiling water reactor
CANDU
technology	 CANada Deuterium Uranium
CEFR	China experimental fast reactor
CGN	China General Nuclear Power
Corporation
CNRA	Committee on Nuclear Regulatory
Activities
DGD	Deep geological disposal
EDF	Électricité de France
ENEN	European Nuclear Education Network
FANR	Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation
FNR	fast neutron reactors
FOAK	first-of-a-kind
GCR	gas-cooled reactor
Gen II	Generation II
Gen III	Generation III
GFR	gas-cooled fast reactor
GHG	greenhouse gas
GIF	Generation IV International Forum
IAEA	International Atomic Energy Agency
IEA	International Energy Agency
IFNEC	International Framework for Nuclear
Energy Cooperation
IFNEC	International Framework for Nuclear
Energy Cooperation
INES	 International Nuclear Event Scale
INIR	 Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review
ITER	International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor
LFR	 lead-cooled fast reactor
LWR	 Light water reactor
MDEP	Multinational Design
Evaluation Programme
MOX	mixed oxides of plutonium and uranium
MSR	molten salt reactor
NEA	Nuclear Energy Agency
NOAK	Nth-of-a-kind
NPP	 Nuclear power plant
NPT	Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons
NRA	Nuclear Regulation Authority
NSREG	European Nuclear Safety Regulators
Group
NUGENIA	NUclear GENeration II and III Association
OECD	Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
PFBR	prototype fast breeder reactor
PHWR	pressurised heavy water reactor
PSA	probabilistic safety assessment
PV	photovoltaics
PWR	Pressurised water reactor
R&D	Research and development
RBMK	Reactor Bolshoy Moshchnosti Kanalnyy
(High-power channel-type reactor –
graphite-moderated boiling reactor)
RU	recycled uranium
SCWR	supercritical water-cooled reactor
SFR	Sodium-cooled fast reactor
SMR	 Small modular reactor
SNF	 Spent nuclear fuel
UAE	 United Arab Emirates
VHTR	 very-high-temperature reactor
VHTR	 Very-high-temperature reactor
VVER	Water-moderated water-cooled power
reactor
WANO	World Association of Nuclear Operators
WENRA	Western European Nuclear
Regulators Association
WNA	World Nuclear Association
WNA	World Nuclear Association
WNU	World Nuclear University
Units of measure
°C	 degree Celsius
Gt	gigatonnes
GW	gigawatt
GWel	 gigawatt electrical capacity
GWh	 gigawatt-hour (109 watt hour)
kW	kilowatts
kWh	 kilowatt-hour (103 watt hour)
MW	 megawatt (106 watt)
MWh	 megawatt-hour (106 watt hour)
tHM	 tonnes of heavy metal
TWh	 terawatt hours
Abbreviations, acronyms and units of measure
57References
Alkaabi, H. (2014) “UAE nuclear power
programme”, presentation made at the IEA World
Energy Outlook Workshop on Nuclear, Paris, 31
March 2014.
Cogent (2010), “Next generation: Skills for new
build nuclear”, Cogent, United Kingdom.
EFDA (European Fusion Development Agreement)
(2012), Fusion Electricity: A Roadmap to the
Realisation of Fusion Energy, European Fusion
Development Agreement, United Kingdom.
E.ON (2014), “Best practice in E.ON
decommissioning projects”, presentation by
A. Ehlert at the IEA/NEA Nuclear Technology
Roadmap Update Workshop, 23-24 January 2014,
Paris.
EC (European Commission) (2010), Europeans
and Nuclear Safety, Eurobarometer 324, European
Commission, Brussels.
FEPC (Federation of Electric Power Companies)
(2014), Electricity Review Japan, the Federation of
Electric Power Companies of Japan,
www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/electricity_review_
japan/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/07/11/2014ERJ_full.pdf.
GIF (Generation IV International Forum) (2014),
Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems, Generation IV International
Forum, Paris.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2007),
Milestones in the Development of a National
Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (2011), “Report on the integrated nuclear
infrastructure review mission in the United Arab
Emirates”, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna.
IAEA (2012), Managing Siting Activities for Nuclear
Power Plants, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, No. NG-T-
3.7, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2015
forthcoming), Energy Technology Perspectives:
Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA (2014), Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2014,
OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA/NEA (2010), Technology Roadmap: Nuclear
Energy, OECD/IEA/NEA, Paris.
IGA Russia/Turkey, company information.
ITER (2014), ITER & Beyond (web page), www.iter.
org/fr/proj/iterandbeyond.
NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) (2008), “NEA
regulatory communication with the public: 10
years of progress”, NEA News, Volume 26, OECD/
NEA, Paris.
NEA (2012a), Nuclear Energy Today, 2nd edition,
OECD/NEA, Paris.
NEA (2012b), The Economics of Long-Term Operation
of Nuclear Power Plants, OECD/NEA, Paris.
NEA (2012c), Nuclear Education and Training: From
Concern to Capability, OECD/NEA, Paris.
NEA (2013), The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Plant Accident: OECD/NEA Nuclear Safety Response
and Lessons Learnt, OECD/NEA, Paris.
NEA (2014a), The Characteristics of an Effective
Regulator, OECD/NEA, Paris.
NEA (2014b), Nuclear Energy Data, OECD/NEA,
Paris.
NEA/IAEA (2014), Uranium 2014: Resources,
Production and Demand, joint NEA/IAEA
publication, OECD/NEA, Paris.
NEI (2014), Demonstration of a New Recycled Fuel
for CANDU, Nuclear Engineering International,
United Kingdom.
Nuclear Energy Skills Alliance Annual Review
2012/2013.
NUGENIA (2013), NUGENIA Roadmap 2013, Nuclear
Generation II and III Association, Brussels.
Rosatom (2014), “World’s first nuclear power
plant project implemented on BOO”, PowerPoint
presented at the IEA/NEA Nuclear Roadmap
workshop on 1 April 2014, Paris.
UNSCEAR (2014), UNSCEAR 2013 Report, United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation, New York.
UAE (United Arab Emirates) (2008), Policy of the
United Arab Emirates on the Evaluation and Potential
Development of Peaceful Nuclear Energy, United
Arab Emirates.
References
www.iea.org/books
PDF versions
at 20% discount
nline
bookshop
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 57 66 90
E-mail: books@iea.org
International Energy Agency
9 rue de la Fédération
75739 Paris Cedex 15, France
Photo credits: © South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; © GraphicObsession (front cover, top to bottom).
© Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; © GraphicObsession (back cover, top to bottom).
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY
The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974. Its mandate is two-fold:
to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply
and to advise member countries on sound energy policy.
The IEA carries out a comprehensive programme of energy co-operation among 29 advanced economies, each of which is
obliged to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of its net imports.
The Agency aims to:
n Secure member countries’ access to reliable and ample supplies of all forms of energy; in particular, through maintaining
effective emergency response capabilities in case of oil supply disruptions.
n Promote sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protection in a global context –
particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
n Improve transparency of international markets through collection and analysis of energy data.
n Support global collaboration on energy technology to secure future energy supplies and mitigate their environmental
impact, including through improved energy efficiency and development and deployment of low-carbon technologies.
n Find solutions to global energy challenges through engagement and dialogue with non-member countries, industry,
international organisations and other stakeholders.
IEA member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
European Commission also participates in the work of the IEA.
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of
31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the
Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United
States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:
n to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co operation, the scientific,
technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes;
n to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions
on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management,
radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and
public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks,
the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation
Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social and
environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments
respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges
of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek
answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the
United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social
and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
2020
2025
2030
2015
TechnologyRoadmapNuclearEnergy2015edition
International Energy Agency – IEA
9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 57 65 00
Fax: +33 (0)1 40 57 65 09
Email: info@iea.org, Web: www.iea.org
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency – NEA
Le Seine Saint-Germain
12 boulevard des Îles,
92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
Email: nea@oecd-nea.org, Web: www.oecd-nea.org