113
Figure 20. Worldwide Distribution of Civil Nuclear Energy Generation Capacity in 2010 298 I NSTALL ED N U C LEAR C APAC IT Y - GIGAWAT T ELEC T RIC (GWe)
12 0
10 0
80
15%
85%
Of Global Nuclear Capacity Is In Nations With Under 10 GWe
In Nations Over 10 GWe
60
40
20
balance between the reliable provision of fuel supply services on the one hand and guaranteeing adherence to non-proliferation norms on the other hand is difficult, to say the least. In concert with the IAEA, several countries, including the United States, have proposed an array of strategies to provide countries with credible, cost-efficient options for an assured nuclear fuel supply, including the development of backup supplies or “fuel banks” of enriched uranium, multi-national fuel cycle centers, and government-to-government agreements. Today, as shown in figure 20, the majority of nuclear energy programs worldwide are small, with less than 10 GWe of capacity (fewer than 10 reactors). Furthermore, while some new uncertainty has been introduced by the Fukushima accident, the number of countries with small nuclear energy programs is still widely expected to grow further. In 2011, Iran’s first power reactor reached criticality at Bushehr, adding another country to the list shown in figure 20. In addition, 65 more countries are currently participating in IAEA technical cooperation projects related to the introduction of nuclear power. Because most national nuclear energy programs are small, the combined installed nuclear capacity in these countries accounts for less than 15 percent of total global nuclear generation capacity. Given this feature of the current global nuclear energy market, there
U N I TE D S TATE S
J A PA N
FRA N C E
RU S S I A
INDIA
KO RE A – RO
CANADA
U N I TE D KI N G D O M
U KRA I N E
CHINA
SWEDEN
S PA I N
G E RM A N Y
BE LG I U M
TA I WA N
C Z E C H RE P U BLI C
S W I TZ E RLA N D
S LO VA KI A
H U N G A RY
FI N LA N D
PA KI S TA N
S O U TH A FRI C A
MEXICO
RO M A N I A
BU LG A RI A
BRA Z I L
A RG E N TI N A
S LO V E N I A
N E TH E RLA N D S
A RM E N I A
I RA N
0
are compelling practical and economic reasons for countries to make use of regional or multi-national fuel cycle facilities and services, rather than developing their own nuclear fuel cycle capabilities. In 2004, the Director General of the IAEA appointed an international expert group to consider options for possible multilateral approaches to developing facilities on the front and back ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. Their report, Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, was released in February of 2005;299 it categorized the options for offering assured fuel supply into three major and distinct categories: assurances of services not involving the ownership of fuel cycle facilities, conversion of existing facilities to multinational facilities, and the construction of new jointly-owned facilities. Within the first option, it is generally assumed that a functional market exists for whatever fuel service is required, either through state-owned enterprises or commercial enterprises. Of course, market options currently vary across the fuel cycle (i.e., more commercial options exist for enrichment than they do for reprocessing, and none exist for spent fuel and HLW disposal). While a diversity of supply options alone does not necessary reflect the health of a market and its ability to answer demand, it can affect
R e p o r t t o t h e S e c r e ta r y o f E n e r g y
