atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 03.2020

nucmag.com 

2020 

3 

ISSN · 1431-5254 

24.– € 

The Future of Nuclear: 

The Role of Nuclear in 

the Upcoming Global 

Energy Transition 

The Dual Fluid Reactor – 

An Innovative Fast Nuclear- 

Reactor Concept with High 

Efficiency and Total Burnup 

Nuclear Power World Report 

2018 

Preliminary Programme Inside!

Competence for 

Nuclear Services 

Operational Waste and D&D 

Spent Fuel Management 

Nuclear Casks 

Calculation Services and Consulting 

Waste Processing Systems and Engineering 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Service mbH 

Frohnhauser Str. 67 · 45127 Essen · Germany · info@gns.de · www.gns.de

atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 3 ı March 

Silver Jubilee, but not even a Second Place at the End: 

The UN Climate Change Conference 2019 

123 

Dear reader, having been ousted from the front headlines of the media in the meantime and hardly noticed by them, 

the 25 th UN Climate Change Conference, officially “25 th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and 15 th Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP – Conference of the Parties)” as well as 

the “4 th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement” took place 

in the first weeks of December 2019. The COP is the annual conference as the highest body of the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In this international agreement, states have committed 

themselves to reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases. 

EDITORIAL 

This multinational meeting did not augur well for 2019 in 

organisational terms: Brazil withdrew its offer to host the 

conference because of “financial constraints and a change 

of government”. As a result, the President of Chile and his 

Minister for the Environment invited to the country's 

capital, Santiago de Chile, in December 2019 or January 

2020. Due to the political situation in the country, with 

protests by citizens against, among other things, economic 

and social policies, Chile also had to withdraw its invitation. 

As a third option, Spain stepped in with Madrid as 

host, with the political leadership remaining with the 

Chilean government. 

According to official figures, believe it or not, between 

25,000 and 26,000 direct participants in the conferences 

found their way to Madrid under the motto “Tiempo De 

Actura/Time for Action”. 

The central theme and goal was the completion of the 

supplementary set of rules to the “Paris Convention”. But 

what had been ambitiously heralded, at least in terms of its 

title, ended up with commentators using terms ranging 

from “minimum consensus” to “inconclusive”. The reasons 

for this are certainly complex. For one thing, the 

increasingly negative attitude towards emission bans, by 

countries with high emissions is contributing to this. On 

the other hand, there is also the fact that the conference is 

becoming more and more like a showcase for individual 

political interests or NGO representatives, and that the 

focus is less and less on visible issues and more on bans. 

Moreover, there seems to be an increasing lack of visions 

for the implementation of emission reductions. 

The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol 

ended in the shadow of the conference, as the minimum 

number of ratifications had not been reached by the end of 

November 2019. 

Let us recall that the 1992 Kyoto Protocol had the 

objective of reducing emissions of the six gases classified as 

particularly climate-affecting – mainly carbon dioxide, 

methane and nitrogen oxides – by approximately 5 percent 

worldwide in the period 2008–2012, based on the base 

year 1990. In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, with 

emissions of around 21 billion tonnes in 1990, this meant a 

reduction of around 1 billion tonnes of annual emissions. 

The indivi dual signatory states have committed themselves 

to different emission levels. For example, the EU-15 

at the time pro mised to make a contribution of minus 

8 percent. In 2012, at the end of the Kyoto period, CO 2 

emissions worldwide then stood at around 32 billion 

tonnes, which corresponds to an increase of 51 % and not 

the targeted 5 % reduction. 

If a political goal is not achieved, a new one is agreed. In 

view of the “Kyoto I failure”, the struggle for new targets, 

then lasted five years, from the UN climate conference in 

Bali in 2007 to the one in Doha, Qatar in 2012. It ended 

with a so-called second commitment period (“Kyoto II”). 

However, while “Kyoto I” still contained figures on 

reduction targets, “Kyoto II” is becoming more and more 

lost in emissions trading. But ultimately “Kyoto II” is only 

historical and without any effect. 

All in all, from Kyoto to Santiago de Chile/Madrid, after 

25 years of political discussions about emission reductions, 

little can be identified that would allow a ranking at all. 

Irrespective of the question of whether and to what 

extent mankind's influence on the climate is significant, 

any use of sustainable forms of energy makes sense. 

At this point the question arises whether nuclear energy 

is at all capable of significantly contributing to reductions? 

After all, nuclear energy is currently increasingly coming into 

focus as a building block for future energy supply. In view 

of the enormous challenges not only to reduce emissions in 

all sectors, but also to supply a growing world population 

with sufficient energy, the question arises as to what potential 

exists. 

So let the facts speak for themselves: In recent years, 

nuclear energy has accounted for around 11 percent of the 

world's electricity supply. Approximately 2,500 billion 

kilowatt hours are generated annually. Nuclear power 

plant operation itself is largely free of climate-impacting 

emissions. Well-founded, comprehensible studies show 

total emissions of 6 to 30 grams of carbon dioxide per 

kilowatt hour of electricity generated, taking into account 

all process steps for the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of nuclear power plants. This means that 

hydropower, wind and nuclear energy are virtually on a 

par. The annual CO 2 emissions avoided by nuclear power 

are around 2.5 billion tonnes and thus higher – more than 

twice as high – than the Kyoto I target, but never reached. 

These concrete figures shall make it clear that nuclear 

technology can be used to achieve a wide range of 

structured goals such as reducing emissions and a reliable 

energy supply. 

All in all, low-emission technologies for, all energy 

sources, must be equally important and not via ideologically 

influenced “single- track” paths, which for 

example, deliberately exclude nuclear energy, as is 

unfortunately happening in some places at European level 

in particular. 

If the global community is serious about truely 

implementing the ambitious climate protection targets, 

the use of nuclear energy will certainly be unavoidable. 

Christopher Weßelmann 

– Editor in Chief – 

Editorial 

Silver Jubilee, but not even a Second Place at the End: The UN Climate Change Conference 2019


EDITORIAL 124 

Silbernes Jubiläum, aber im Ergebnis noch nicht einmal 

ein zweiter Platz: Die UN-Klimakonferenz 2019 

Liebe Leserin, lieber Leser, zwischenzeitlich aus den vorderen Schlagzeilen der Medien verdrängt und kaum 

noch von diesen vermerkt, fanden in den ersten Dezemberwochen 2019 die 25. UN-Klimakonferenz, offiziell 

„25. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz der Klimarahmenkonvention und 15. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz des Kyoto-Protokolls 

(COP – Conference of the Parties)“ sowie das „4. Treffen der Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the 

Parties to the Paris Agreement” statt. Die COP ist die jährliche Konferenz als höchstes Gremium der Klimarahmenkonvention 

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). In diesem internationalen 

Übereinkommen haben sich Staaten zur Reduktion ihres Ausstoßes an Treibhausgasen verpflichtet. 

Dieses multinationale Treffen stand schon organisatorisch 

für 2019 unter keinem guten Vorzeichen: Brasilien zog 

sein Angebot der Ausrichtung wegen „finanzieller Engpässe 

und des Regierungswechsels“ zurück. Daraufhin 

luden der Präsident von Chile und seine Umweltministerin 

für Dezember 2019 oder Januar 2020 in die Hauptstadt 

des Landes, Santiago de Chile, ein. Aufgrund der politischen 

Lage im Land, mit Protesten von Bürgern u. a. gegen 

die Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik, musste auch Chile seine 

Einladung zurückziehen. Als dritte Option sprang Spanien 

mit Madrid als Ausrichter ein, wobei die politische Leitung 

bei der chilenischen Regierung verblieb. 

Unter dem Leitmotto „Tiempo De Actura/Time for 

Action“ – Es ist Zeit zu handeln, fanden nach offiziellen 

Angaben zwischen sage und schreibe 25.000 und 26.000 

direkte Teil nehmende an den Konferenzen den Weg nach 

Madrid. 

Zentrales Thema und Ziel war die Fertigstellung des 

ergänzenden Regelwerks zum „Übereinkommen von 

Paris“. Doch was zumindest vom Titel her ambitioniert 

eingeläutet worden war, endete bei Kommentatoren unter 

Begriffen wie „Minimalkonsens“ bis hin zu „ergebnislos“. 

Die Gründe hierfür sind sicherlich vielschichtig. Zum einen 

trägt die zunehmend ablehnende Haltung zu Emissionsverboten 

von Ländern mit hohen Emissionen dazu bei. 

Aber auch ein immer mehr zum Schaulaufen politischer 

Einzelinteressen oder NGO-Vertreter abdriftender Konferenzablauf 

und ein immer weniger auf sichtbare Sachthemen, 

denn mehr auf Verbote fixiertes Regelwerk tun 

ihr übriges. An Visionen zur Umsetzung von Emissionsminderungen 

scheint es zudem mehr und mehr zu fehlen. 

Ganz im Schatten der Konferenz endete dann auch 

noch die zweite Verpflichtungsperiode des Kyoto- 

Protokolls, da bis Ende November 2019 die Mindestzahl an 

Ratifikationen noch nicht erreicht worden war. 

Dabei war man einmal so ambitioniert gestartet: 

Erinnern wir uns: Das Kyoto-Protokoll von 1992 hatte die 

Zielsetzung, die Emissionen der sechs als besonders 

klimawirksam eingestuften Gase – im Wesentlichen 

Kohlendioxid, Methan und Stickoxide – in der Periode 

2008–2012 bezogen auf das Basisjahr 1990 weltweit um 

ca. 5 Prozent zu vermindern. Für die Kohlendioxidemissionen 

bedeutete dies bei Emissionen von rund 

21 Mrd. T onnen in 1990 eine Reduzierung um ca. 1 Milliarde 

Tonnen der jährlichen Emissionen. Die einzelnen Unterzeichnerstaaten 

verpflichten sich dabei auf unterschiedliche 

Emissionsmengen. So sagte die damalige EU-15 zu, 

einen Beitrag von minus 8 Prozent zu leisten. Im Jahr 2012, 

am Ende der Kyoto-Periode, lagen die CO 2 -Emissionen dann 

bei rund 32 Mrd. Tonnen weltweit, was einem Plus von 51 % 

entspricht und nicht dem angestrebten Minus von 5 %. 

Erreicht man ein politisches Ziel nicht, vereinbart man 

ein neues. Das Ringen um neue Ziele währte angesichts der 

„Kyoto-I Verfehlung“ dann fünf Jahre, von der UN- 

Klimakonferenz auf Bali 2007 bis zu der in Doha, Katar 

2012. Es endete mit einer sogenannten zweiten Verpflichtungsperiode 

(„Kyoto II“). Doch während aus „ Kyoto I“ 

noch Zahlen zu Minderungszielen zu lesen waren, verliert 

sich „Kyoto II“ mehr und mehr in einem Emissions- 

Ablasshandel. Aber letztendlich ist „Kyoto II“ nur noch 

historisch und ohne jegliche Wirkung. 

In Summe, von Kyoto bis Santiago de Chile/Madrid ist 

nach 25 Jahren politischer Diskussionen über Emissionsminderungen 

also wenig zu identifizieren, was überhaupt 

ein Ranking erlaubt. 

Unabhängig von der Frage des Ob und des Umfangs des 

Einflusses des Menschen auf das Klima, ist jegliche Nutzung 

nachhaltiger Energieformen an sich schon sinnvoll. 

Es stellt sich an diesem Punkt die Frage, ob die Kernenergie 

überhaupt in der Lage ist, einen maßgeblichen 

Beitrag zu Reduktionen zu leisten? Denn die Kernenergie 

wird aktuell immer stärker als ein Baustein für die zukünftige 

Energieversorgung in den Fokus gerückt. Angesichts 

der gewaltigen Herausforderungen, nicht nur Emissionen in 

allen Sektoren zu mindern, sondern auch eine weiter 

wachsende Welt bevölkerung mit ausreichend Energie zu 

versorgen, stellt sich die Frage, welche diesbezüglichen 

Potenziale vorhanden sind. 

Lasst also die Fakten sprechen: Kernenergie hat in den 

letzten Jahren einen Anteil an der weltweiten Stromversorgung 

von rund 11 Prozent. Jährlich werden 

ca. 2.500 Mrd. Kilowattstunden erzeugt. Dabei ist der 

Kernkraftwerksbetrieb selbst weitgehend frei von klimawirksamen 

Emissionen. Fundierte, nachvollziehbare 

Studien weisen unter Einbeziehung aller Prozessschritte 

für den Bau, Betrieb und Rückbau von Kernkraftwerken zu 

Gesamtemissionen von 6 bis 30 Gramm Kohlendioxid pro 

erzeugter Kilowattstunde Strom aus. Damit liegen Wasserkraft, 

Wind und Kernenergie quasi gleichauf. Die jährlichen 

durch Kernenergie vermiedenen CO 2 -Emissionen 

liegen bei rund 2,5 Mrd. t und damit höher – mehr als 

doppelt so hoch – als gemäß dem Kyoto-I-Ziel zu erreichen 

war, aber nie erreicht wurde. 

Diese konkreten Zahlen sollen verdeutlichen, dass sich 

mit Kerntechnik vielfältig strukturierte Ziele wie Emissionsminderung 

und eine verlässliche Energie versorgung 

realisieren lassen. 

Insgesamt müssen emissionsarme Technologien für 

alle Energieträger, zum Tragen kommen und dürfen nicht 

via ideologisch geprägter „einspurige“ Pfade, die z. B. die 

Kernenergie bewusst ausschließen wollen, wie es sich 

leider gerade auch auf europäischer Ebene mancherorts 

abzeichnet. 

Sollte es die Weltgemeinschaft ernst meinen mit der 

tatsächlichen Umsetzung ihrer ambitionierten Klimaschutzziele, 

wird sie an der Nutzung der Kernenergie nicht 

vorbei kommen. 

Christopher Weßelmann 

– Chefredakteur – 

Editorial 

Silver Jubilee, but not even a Second Place at the End: The UN Climate Change Conference 2019

Kommunikation und 

Training für Kerntechnik 

Suchen Sie die passende Weiter bildungs maßnahme im Bereich Kerntechnik? 

Wählen Sie aus folgenden Themen: Dozent/in Termin/e Ort 

3 Atom-, Vertrags- und Exportrecht 

Atomrecht – Das Recht der radioaktiven Reststoffe und Abfälle RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 10.03.2020 

20.10.2020 

Berlin 

Export kerntechnischer Produkte und Dienstleistungen – 

Chanchen und Regularien 

Atomrecht – Ihr Weg durch Genehmigungs- und 

Aufsichtsverfahren 

RA Kay Höft M.A. (BWL) 17.06.2020 Berlin 

RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 25.06.2020 Berlin 

Atomrecht – Was Sie wissen müssen 

3 Kommunikation und Politik 

RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 

Akos Frank LL. M. 

11.11.2020 Berlin 

Public Hearing Workshop – 

Öffentliche Anhörungen erfolgreich meistern 

Dr. Nikolai A. Behr 10.11. - 11.11.2020 Berlin 

3 Rückbau und Strahlenschutz 

In Kooperation mit dem TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH Baden-Württemberg: 

3 Nuclear English 

Das Strahlenschutzrecht und 

seine praktische Umsetzung 

Stilllegung und Rückbau in Recht und Praxis 

Dr. Maria Poetsch 


Dr. Stefan Kirsch 


17.03. - 18.03.2020 

16.06. - 17.06.2020 

29.10. - 30.10.2020 

Berlin 

23.09. - 24.09.2020 Berlin 

English for the Nuclear Industry Angela Lloyd 01.04. - 02.04.2020 Berlin 

3 Wissenstransfer und Veränderungsmanagement 

Erfolgreicher Wissenstransfer in der Kerntechnik – 

Methoden und praktische Anwendung 

Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking 

Dr. Christien Zedler 

24.03. - 25.03.2020 Berlin 

Haben wir Ihr Interesse geweckt? 3 Rufen Sie uns an: +49 30 498555-30 

Kontakt 

INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungs gesellschaft mbH ı Robert-Koch-Platz 4 ı 10115 Berlin 

Petra Dinter-Tumtzak ı Fon +49 30 498555-30 ı Fax +49 30 498555-18 ı Seminare@KernD.de 

Die INFORUM-Seminare können je nach 

Inhalt ggf. als Beitrag zur Aktualisierung 

der Fachkunde geeignet sein.


126 

Issue 3 | 2020 

March 

CONTENTS 

Contents 

Editorial 

Silver Jubilee, but not even a Second Place at the End: 

The UN Climate Change Conference 2019 E/G 123 

Inside Nuclear with NucNet 

Uzbekistan: Why Energy-Rich Nation is Turning 

to Nuclear Power 128 

Did you know...? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 

Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 

Feature | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power 

The Future of Nuclear: The Role of Nuclear 

in the Upcoming Global Energy Transition 131 

Spotlight on Nuclear Law 

Regulatory Enquiries and About SMRs G 137 

Environment and Safety 

Toward a New Risk-Informed Approach to Cyber Security 138 

Research and Innovation 

Improved Metrology of Thermophysical Properties 

at Very High Temperatures: The EMPIR Project Hi-TRACE 140 

Neutronic Simulation of ALFRED Core Using MCNPX Code 142 

The Dual Fluid Reactor – An Innovative Fast Nuclear-Reactor 

Concept with High Efficiency and Total Burnup 145 

Operation and New Build 

36C3 – More Questions Than Answers G 155 

World Report 

Nuclear Power World Report 2018 161 

Kerntechnik 2020 

Preliminary Programme 164 

KTG Inside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169 

Cover: 

Novovoronesh, Russia. 

Courtesy of Rosatom. 

News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 

Nuclear Today 

IAEA Chief’s Zeal for Change Signals Era of Nuclear Renewal 178 

G 

E/G 

= German 

= English/German 

Imprint 170 

Contents


Feature 

Major Trends in Energy Policy 

and Nuclear Power 

127 

CONTENTS 

131 The Future of Nuclear: The Role of Nuclear 

in the Upcoming Global Energy Transition 

Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer 


138 Toward a New Risk-Informed Approach to Cyber Security 

Chris Warren 


142 Neutronic Simulation of ALFRED Core Using MCNPX Code 

Korosh Rahbari, Darush Masti, Kamran Serpanloo and Ehsan Zarifi 

145 The Dual Fluid Reactor – An Innovative Fast Nuclear-Reactor Concept 

with High Efficiency and Total Burnup 

Jan-Christian Lewitz, Armin Huke, Götz Ruprecht, 

Daniel Weißbach, Stephan Gottlieb, Ahmed Hussein and Konrad Czerski 


155 36C3 – More Questions Than Answers 

36C3 – Mehr offene Fragen als Antworten 

Stefan Loubichi 

World Report 

161 Nuclear Power World Report 2018 

Editorial office 

Contents


128 

INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET 

Uzbekistan: Why Energy-Rich Nation 

is Turning to Nuclear Power 

Uzbekistan has confirmed it has begun preliminary site work for the construction of its first 

commercial nuclear power units, with the preparation of external infrastructure for two 

Russia- supplied pressurised water reactor units scheduled to begin next year. 

The central Asian country signed an inter-governmental 

agreement with Russia in September 2018 for the 

development of the its first nuclear power station. The 

facility, which will be constructed by Russian state-owned 

nuclear corporation Rosatom, will have two blocks with a 

combined capacity of 2,400 MW. The first is due to come 

on line in 2028 and the second in 2030. 

Engineering and geological work has begun at the site, 

an area near Lake Tuzkan in Jizzakh province, west of the 

capital Tashkent in the east of the country. 

First deputy minister of energy Jurabek Mirzamahmudov 

told NucNet Uzbekistan is in the process of preparing the 

environmental impact assessment and expects to finalise 

all the documentation for site approvals this year. 

Next year site preparation will be stepped up and the 

preparation of external infrastructure will begin. 

Mr Mirzamahmudov, who is also head of the Uzatom 

state nuclear agency, which was established in July 2018 to 

lead national nuclear development, said the units will 

provide about 15 % of the country’s electricity generation 

and be a “long-term baseload power resource”. 

The construction of the station is scheduled to begin in 

2022 with a soft loan from the Russian government, 

although Mr Mirzamahmudov said exact details of the 

financing package and the cost of the units had not yet 

been finalised. 

Rosatom head Alexei Likhachev told reporters in Russia 

recently that further negotiations are planned in the 

coming months and no details would be released until they 

are complete. 

“We want to add nuclear power as well as renewables 

to ensure the sustainability of our energy mix,” said 

Mr Mirzamahmudov. “With nuclear, you can plan your 

energy strategy for the next 60 years – and we are one of 

the top countries in the world for uranium production, so 

we have the raw material.” 

Uzbekistan, the world’s seventh largest uranium 

producer, sees the nuclear project as a pass into the “elite 

club” of nuclear powers, according to Mr Mirzamakhmudov. 

“We will be joining the club of countries with peaceful use 

of nuclear energy. That is an elite club. This is a whole new 

level, different type of relationships, new technologies, 

science and education development.” 

A significant role in ensuring the country’s energy 

efficiency is given to diversification of energy sources. 

To this end Uzbekistan has made “a historic decision” to 

begin the development of nuclear energy generation, 

Mr Mirzamahmudov said. 

The country’s power complex has traditionally struggled 

to meet the demands of a rapidly growing population and 

developing economy due to outdated infrastructure and 

inefficient management. With consumption forecast to 

surge over the coming years, as economic reforms spur a 

jump in industrial production, the need for change has 

become urgent. “We are seeing new industries coming on 

line in processing, textiles, agriculture, manufacturing and 

metallurgy, as well as a huge expansion in tourism and 

other services,” said Mr Mirzamahmudov. “All of these will 

need access to a stable and reliable electricity supply.” 

The choice was made in favour of nuclear power given 

uranium availability and most importantly, economic 

benefits to the country. “Today this is one of the cleanest, 

ecologically safest sources of power, as well as the cheapest 

one after hydropower,” Mr Mirzamakhmudov said. 

Meeting this demand will not come cheap. Over the 

next five years, officials estimate that more than $ 2.8 bn 

will be required to upgrade existing infrastructure, while 

adding new power generation, not including nuclear, 

could cost as much as $ 14.4 bn. 

The International Energy Agency said that despite 

being energy self-sufficient thanks to its oil and gas sectors, 

Uzbekistan’s ageing electricity infrastructure struggles to 

meet growing domestic energy demand. Oil and natural 

gas make up about 97 % of the country’s energy mix. 

Uzbekistan’s current reliance on coal, gas, oil and 

hydropower will not be enough to meet growing demand, 

even with plans to double hydropower capacity by 2030. 

With nuclear energy expected to account for 15 % of the 

country’s power balance and ensure stable energy supply 

with expectations of power demand doubling by 2030, 

according to Uzatom. 

Uzbekistan was also taking steps to develop solar and 

wind energy, but would only rely on them for about 3 % 

of power generation in a decade as neither was a stable 

supply source, Mr Mirzamakhmudov said. 

The Uzbekistan nuclear project is of strategic interest to 

both Russia and Uzbeks. It will help Uzbekistan generate 

economic growth and it will enable the Russians to 

re-establish themselves as the primary regional power 

in terms of security and economic muscle, according to 

Camilla Hagelund, principal analyst at UK-based risk 

consultancy, Verisk Maplecroft. 

Quoted in the London-based Financial Times newspaper, 

Ms Hagelund said: “Central Asia is often described 

as the soft underbelly of Russia. You have continued 

security issues in Afghanistan. Central Asia is like a buffer 

in between that and a potential security threat in its own 

right.” 

Moreover, China has been expanding its influence in 

the region: “There is a level of competition between Russia 

and China, and it is very important for Russia to continue 

to demonstrate that it is the primary regional power for 

central Asia.” 

Author 

NucNet 

The Independent Global Nuclear News Agency 

Editor responsible for this story: David Dalton 

Avenue des Arts 56 2/C 

1000 Bruxelles 

www.nucnet.org 

Inside Nuclear with NucNet 

Uzbekistan: Why Energy-Rich Nation is Turning to Nuclear Power


Did you know...? 

Carbon Leakage into the EU ETS 

region in the Electricity Market 

The electricity markets subject to the EU Emissions Trading 

System (ETS; EU member states, Norway, Switzerland) are 

connected to electricity markets outside the ETS, namely Russia, 

Belarus, Ukraine, Turkey, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and 

Hercegovina, Montenegro, Albania and Morocco. The recent 

study by the climate policy think tank Sandbag “The path of least 

resistance – How electricity generated from coal is leaking into 

the EU” analyses the implications of this situation. It shows that 

the ETS region is a net importer of electricity from theses countries 

and the net import as well as the associated carbon emissions 

increased substantially in the past years (see graph below). In 

2019 gross electricity imports totaled 33.3 TWh worth 1.6 billion 

Euro. This import was associated with 25.6 million tons of 

CO 2 -emissions worth 630 million Euro in the EU ETS. Since the 

carbon intensity of the electricity generation in the above 

mentioned countries that have no or no significant carbon pricing 

is higher than in the respective importing countries connected, 

some additional 11 million tons of CO 2 were produced by these 

imports as compared to generation inside the importing 

ETS-countries. Because the EU plans to increase total 

interconnector capacity to outside of the ETS by 31 percent 

including connections to additional countries (Egypt, Tunisia, 

Libya, Israel, Moldova), the electricity imports from non-ETS 

countries are likely to continue to grow. At the same time the 

above mentioned countries plan to increase their coal generation 

capacity by a total of 37.2 GW (e.g. Turkey: 14.7 GW, Egypt: 

10.6 GW, Russia: 5 GW, Bosnia and Hercegovina: 4.1 GW), so that 

a considerable carbon leakage effect in the electricity market is to 

be feared. To prevent such a development Sandbag proposes a so 

called border carbon adjustment (BCA) for gross electricity 

imports into the EU ETS region, a policy that in principle is already 

supported by the European Commission in its Green Deal 

communications. 

DID YOU EDITORIAL KNOW...? 

129 

Net electricity import into the EU ETS region an associated net carbon emissions 

p Electricity (TWh) p Carbon (MtCO2) 

25 

20.7 

20.7 

20 

19.2 

19.6 

15 

13 

10 

5 

0 

9.5 

3 

2015 

8.20 

2016 

9.4 

3.10 

2017 

2018 

2019 

For further details please 

contact: 

Nicolas Wendler 

KernD 

Robert-Koch-Platz 4 

10115 Berlin 

Germany 

E-mail: presse@ 

KernD.de 

www.KernD.de 

Did you know...?


130 

Calendar 

2020 

CALENDAR 

19.04. – 24.04.2020 

International Conference on Individual 

Monitoring. Budapest, Hungary, EUROSAFE, 

www.eurosafe-forum.org 

20.04. – 21.04.2020 

The 53 rd JAIF Annual Conference. Tokyo, Japan, 

Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF), www.jaif.or.jp 

20.04. – 22.04.2020 

World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2020. Stockholm, 

Sweden, WNA World Nuclear Association, 

www.world-nuclear.org 

05.05. – 06.05.2020 

KERNTECHNIK 2020. 

Berlin, Germany, KernD and KTG, 

www.kerntechnik.com 

10.05. – 15.05.2020 

ICG-EAC Annual Meeting 2020. Helsinki, Finland, 

ICG-EAC, www.icg-eac.org 

11.05. – 15.05.2020 

International Conference on Operational Safety 

of Nuclear Power Plants. Beijing, China, IAEA, 

www.iaea.org 

11.05. – 15.05.2020 

Fusion Energy Conference Programme 

Committee Meeting. Vienna, Austria, IAEA, 

www.iaea.org 

12.05. – 13.05.2020 

INSC — International Nuclear Supply Chain 

Symposium. Munich, Germany, TÜV SÜD, 

www.tuev-sued.de 

17.05. – 22.05.2020 

BEPU2020– Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty International 

Conference, Giardini Naxos. Sicily, Italy, 

NINE, www.nineeng.com 

18.05. – 22.05.2020 

SNA+MC2020 – Joint International Conference on 

Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications + Monte 

Carlo 2020, Makuhari Messe. Chiba, Japan, Atomic 

Energy Society of Japan, www.snamc2020.jpn.org 

20.05. – 22.05.2020 

Nuclear Energy Assembly. Washington, D.C., USA, 

NEI, www.nei.org 

31.05. – 03.06.2020 

13 th International Conference of the Croatian 

Nuclear Society. Zadar, Croatia, Croatian Nuclear 

Society, www.nuclear-option.org 

31.05. – 03.06.2020 

40 th Annual CNS Conference & 44 th CNS-CNA 

Student Conference. Saint John, NB, Canada, 

Canadian Nuclear Society, www.cns-snc.ca 

06.06. – 12.06.2020 

ATALANTE 2020. Montpellier, France, CEA, 

www.atalante2020.org 

07.06. – 12.06.2020 

Plutonium Futures. Montpellier, France, CEA, 

www.pufutures2020.org 

08.06. – 12.06.2020 

20 th WCNDT – World Conference on 

Non-Destructive Testing. Seoul, Korea, EPRI, 

www.wcndt2020.com 

10.06. – 12.06.2020 

Innovation for the Future of Nuclear Energy – 

A Global Forum. Gyeongju, South Korea, 

www.globalnuclearinnovation.com 

14.06. – 17.06.2020 

The Society for Risk Analysis – European 

Conference. Espoo, Finland, Aalto University, 

www.blogs.aalto.fi 

15.06. – 19.06.2020 

International Conference on Nuclear Knowledge 

Management and Human Resources Development: 

Challenges and Opportunities. Moscow, 

Russian Federation, IAEA, www.iaea.org 

15.06. – 20.07.2020 

WNU Summer Institute 2020. Japan, World Nuclear 

University, www.world-nuclear-university.org 

18.06.2020 

NDA Group Supply Chain Event. Telford, 

Shropshire, Cvent, www.web-eur.cvent.com 

23.06. – 25.06.2020 

World Nuclear Exhibition 2020. Paris Nord 

Villepinte, France, Gifen, 

www.world-nuclear-exhibition.com 

25.06. – 26.06.2020 

NuclearEurope 2020 – Nuclear for a sustainable 

future. Paris, France, Foratom, 

www.events.foratom.org 

13.07. – 16.07.2020 

46 th NITSL Conference - Fusing Power & People. 

Baltimore, MD, USA, Aalto University, www.nitsl.org 

02.08. – 06.08.2020 

ICONE 28 – 28 th International Conference on 

Nuclear Engineering. Disneyland Hotel, Anaheim, 

CA, ASME, www.event.asme.org 

26.08.-04.09.2020 

The Frédéric Joliot/Otto Hahn Summer School 

on Nuclear Reactors “Physics, Fuels and Systems”. 

Aix-en-Provence, France, CEA & KIT, www.fjohss.eu 

01.09. – 04.09.2020 

IGORR – Standard Cooperation Event in the International 

Group on Research Reactors Conference. 

Kazan, Russian Federation, IAEA, www.iaea.org 

07.09. – 10.09.2020 

International Forum on Enhancing a Sustainable 

Nuclear Supply Chain. Helsinki, Finland, Foratom, 

www.events.foratom.org 

09.09. – 10.09.2020 

VGB Congress 2020 – 100 Years VGB. Essen, 

Germany, VGB PowerTech e.V., www.vgb.org 

09.09. – 11.09.2020 

World Nuclear Association Symposium 2020. 

London, United Kingdom, WNA World Nuclear 

Association, www.world-nuclear.org 

16.09. – 18.09.2020 

3 rd International Conference on Concrete 

Sustainability. Prague, Czech Republic, fib, 

www.fibiccs.org 

16.09. – 18.09.2020 

International Nuclear Reactor Materials 

Reliability Conference and Exhibition. 

New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, EPRI, www.snetp.eu 

21.09.-25.09.2020 

64 th IAEA General Conference. Vienna, Austria, 

International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, 

www.iaea.org 

28.09. – 01.10.2020 

NPC 2020 International Conference on Nuclear 

Plant Chemistry. Antibes, France, SFEN Société Française 

d’Energie Nucléaire, 

www.sfen-npc2020.org 

28.09. – 02.10.2020 

Jahrestagung 2020 – Fachverband Strahlenschutz 

und Entsorgung. Aachen, Germany, Fachverband 

für Strahlenschutz, www.fs-ev.org 

30.09. – 03.10.2020 

Nuclear Energy: Challenges and Prospects. Sochi, 

Russia, Pocatom, www.nsconf2020.ru 

12.10. – 17.10.2020 

FEC 2020 – 28 th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference. 

Nice, France, IAEA, www.iaea.org 

19.10. – 23.10.2020 

International Conference on the Management 

of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

(NORM) in Industry. Vienna, Austria, IAEA, 

www.iaea.org 

26.10. – 30.10.2020 

NuMat 2020 – 6 th Nuclear Materials Conference. 

Gent, Belgium, IAEA, www.iaea.org 

27.10. – 29.10.2020 

enlit (former European Utility Week and 

POWERGEN Europe). Milano, Italy, 

www.powergeneurope.com 

02.11. – 06.11.2020 

International Nuclear Reactor Materials 

Reliability Conference and Exhibition. 

New Orleans, Louisiana, EPRI, www.custom.cvent.com 

09.11. – 13.11.2020 

International Conference on Radiation Safety: 

Improving Radiation Protection in Practice. 

Vienna, Austria, IAEA, www.iaea.org 

24.11. – 26.11.2020 

ICOND 2020 – 9 th International Conference on 

Nuclear Decommissioning. Aachen, Germany, 

AiNT, www.icond.de 

07.12. – 10.12.2020 

SAMMI 2020 – Specialist Workshop on Advanced 

Measurement Method and Instrumentation 

for enhancing Severe Accident Management in 

an NPP addressing Emergency, Stabilization and 

Long-term Recovery Phases. Fukushima, Japan, 

NEA, www.sammi-2020.org 

17.12. – 18.12.2020 

ICNESPP 2020 – 14. International Conference on 

Nuclear Engineering Systems and Power Plants. 

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, WASET, www.waset.org 

This is not a full list and may be subject to change. 

Calendar


The Future of Nuclear: The Role of Nuclear 

in the Upcoming Global Energy Transition 

Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer 

1 Introduction The paper presents the main findings, which the World Energy Council (the Council) presented 

in a paper on The Future of Nuclear: Diverse Harmonies in the Energy Transition with contributions from the World 

Nuclear Association and the Paul Scherrer Institute. In this report, the future of nuclear is described through the lens of 

the Council´s World Energy Scenarios archetype framework – Modern Jazz, Unfinished Symphony and Hard Rock – in 

three plausible, alternative pathways for the future development of the sector. This report also describes implications 

for the role of nuclear energy in the global energy transition. Nuclear energy could take three different pathways within 

the upcoming decades. In the main part of this paper – following a brief section on the current role of nuclear in the 

global energy supply (Chapter 2) – the characteristics of the three scenarios including the methodology underlying 

their quantification (Chapter 3), and the key findings of the identified future pathways (Chapter 4) are explained. 

Chapter 5 deals with a comparison of the global results of the EIA´s International Energy Outlook 2019 (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration, September 2019) and the IEA´s World Energy Outlook 2019 (International Energy Agency, 

November 2019). A conclusion is presented in Chapter 6. 

2 Current role of nuclear energy 

in global energy supply 

Global electricity generation increased fivefold compared 

to the level in 1971 to 26,615 TWh in 2018. 63 % of the 

growth recorded during this period was covered by fossil 

fuels, 25 % by renewable energies and 12 % by nuclear 

energy. As a result, the energy mix in global electricity 

generation has changed as follows: The share of fossil 

energies in total electricity generation has decreased from 

74 % in 1971 to 65 % in 2018. This decline was compensated 

for by an increase in the share of nuclear energy from 

2 % to 10 % and of renewable energies from 24 % to 25 % 

(Figure 1). 

In the 1970s and 1980s, nuclear power plants were heavily 

expanded. The number of plants in operation worldwide 

had quintupled from 84 in 1970 to 420 in 1989. Since 

then, there has only been a slight increase – to 449 plants 

in operation by December 2019 with a capacity of around 

400 gigawatts (GW). Correspondingly, electricity generation 

based on nuclear energy increased from 1970 to 1990 

with annual growth rates of 17.5 %. This was followed by a 

significant slowdown in the average growth rates to 2.6 % 

per year in the decade from 1990 to 2000. Since 2000, 

electricity generation based on nuclear energy has stagnated. 

In 2018, it amounted to around 2,700 TWh. 

The nuclear power capacities are installed in 31 countries. 

The installed capacity is mainly concentrated on 

countries in North America (29 %), Western Europe 

(28 %), Asia (28 %), Eastern Europe including Russia 

(14 %) and to a lesser extent in South America (< 1 %) and 

the Middle East / Africa (< 1 %). The United States leads 

the ranking of states according to the number of nuclear 

power plants with 96 plants, followed by France with 

58 plants, China with 48 plants and Russia with 36 plants. 

52 nuclear power plants are under construction, including 

nine in China, seven in India, six in Russia, and four each in 

South Korea and UAE. In addition to Turkey, Belarus and 

Bangladesh, the UAE belong to the new nuclear energy 

states, i.e. the countries in which nuclear power plants have 

not yet been connected to the grid, but are now under 

construction. 

The contribution of nuclear energy to electricity 

generation is very different in the countries that use 

nuclear energy. There is a range from 2 % in Iran to 72 % in 

France (Figure 2). 

| Fig. 1. 

World Electricity Production by Energy Source in TWh. Source: IAEA 

| Fig. 2. 

Share of nuclear power in total electricity generation 2018. Source: H.-W. Schiffer based on World 

Nuclear Association, London, August 2019 

The age of the existing nuclear power plants extends 

over a period of half a century. Corresponding to the focus 

of the commissioning of nuclear power plants in the 1970s 

and 1980s, the age group 30 to 40 is the most populated. 

A good 200 plants and thus almost half of the reactors in 

operation can be assigned to this category. Just under 100 

plants are younger than 20 years, about 50 plants are 

between 20 and 30 years old and almost 100 plants are 

older than 40 years (Figure 3). 

131 

FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 

Feature 

The Future of Nuclear: The Role of Nuclear in the Upcoming Global Energy Transition ı Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer


FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 132 

| Fig. 3. 

Age of Operating Reactors. Source: IAEA Source: IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) 

| Fig. 4. 

Scenarios and projections of various institutions on the development of the global energy supply. 

* In addition, the BP study includes “alternative” Scenarios, among others „More Energy, 

Less Globalization“ 

3 The World Energy Council's 

global energy scenarios 

In 2019, a series of forecasts and scenarios on the development 

of global energy supply in the coming decades were 

published. These include – among others (Figure 4) – the 

scenarios of the World Energy Council, which this organization 

presented at the World Energy Congress in Abu 

Dhabi in September 2019. (WEC 2019a). The Council's 

scenarios selected are exploratory routes through the 

Grand Transition. They do not follow a normative approach 

that is designed to meet a future goal. Neither are they to 

be understood as a forecast. Rather, they span a range of 

plausible pathways to the development of the global 

energy supply. 

3.1 Description of the scenarios 

When naming the three scenarios considered, the Council 

used Modern Jazz, Unfinished Symphony and Hard Rock 

to reflect different music genres, giving an idea of the 

mood of each scenario (Figure 5). 

p For example, Modern Jazz reflects the notion that 

Jazz is the music of boundless individualism where 

improvisation and innovation are essential elements. 

p Unfinished Symphony: You cannot play a symphony 

alone; it takes an orchestra to play it and a conductor to 

take the lead. 

p And finally, Hard Rock is an expression of the strength 

of spirit in facing hard times. 

p “While all three scenarios reflect the same predetermined 

factors, each individual scenario places a 

different emphasis on how four critical uncertainties 

might play out.” (WEC 2019b). 

p Pre-determined factors are: Lower rates of growth in 

population than in the past, a rise in the penetration of 

new technologies, an increasing appreciation of the 

planet´s environmental boundaries, and a shift in 

economic power towards Asia. 

p The Council recognizes four critical uncertainties: The 

pace of innovation and productivity gains, the evolvement 

of international governance and geopolitics, the 

priority given to climate change and connected issues 

and the preferred mode of managing the energy sector 

– via state regulation, market mechanisms or a mixture. 

p “These four critical uncertainties interplay and create 

the underpinnings of the Council's three unique 

scenarios to 2060 – Modern Jazz, Unfinished Symphony 

and Hard Rock.” (WEC 2019b). 

p Modern Jazz follows a market-driven approach. The 

world is highly productive, with fast economic growth 

and strong technological development. Digitally 

enabled technology innovation and new business 

models address sustainability. 

p Unfinished Symphony follows a government-driven 

approach to achieving sustainability through international 

cooperation. An extensive network of fiscal 

incentives such as green subsidies and converging and 

effective carbon pricing across the different parts of the 

world is assumed. 

p In Hard Rock, national interests prevent countries from 

collaborating effectively on a global level, with limited 

attention to addressing climate change. Technologies 

are mandated based on the availability of local 

resources. Protectionism rather than free trade 

dominates the scene. 

Probabilities of occurrence are not assigned to the 

scenarios. On the contrary, it is conceivable that the actual 

development in the individual states and regions of the 

world does not follow the same scenario. In fact, different 

signals, which can be ascribed to one of the scenarios, are 

perceived in reality. If frameworks are set by increased 

regulation, the development follows the Unfinished 

Symphony scenario. A strong commitment to national 

unilateralism is attributable to the Hard Rock scenario. If a 

pioneering innovation from the private sector is the driver 

of change in a region, the development follows the Modern 

Jazz scenario. In addition, over time, the primary direction 

of development can change from one scenario to another 

scenario. Since 2016, signals from each of the three 

scenarios have been recorded in different regions of the 

world. And there has been a change in the perception of 

the Hard Rock scenario, which – unlike in the past – is no 

longer perceived as an outsider scenario. 

| Fig. 5. 

World Energy Scenarios. 

Feature 



3.2 Methodology for quantification 

Experts from all over the world participated in a scenario 

study group that basically developed the report under the 

guidance of the Council´s London office with the support 

of Accenture Strategy. The scenario storylines that resulted 

from this expert consultation process were quantified by 

the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) using its Global Multiregional 

MARKAL (GMM) model. The model is based on 

input assumptions reflecting the scenario storylines and 

determines the least-cost configurations of the global 

energy system from a social planner’s perspective with 

perfect foresight. The GMM model represents the global 

energy system disaggregated into 17 world regions 

including region-specific characteristics of energy supply 

and demand, as well as the corresponding CO 2 emissions. 

The evolution of key scenario drivers is expressed in 

coherent storylines of future economic and social developments. 

The iteration between the development of the 

narratives and their quantification provided the foundation 

for a powerful set of scenarios. 

The GMM model represents in detail the energy system of 

a region from resource extraction to energy end uses. GMM 

includes more than 400 energy conversion technologies 

with their technical, economic and environmental characteristics. 

Beyond conventional technologies, the model 

also includes zero-carbon technologies and even options to 

achieve net negative CO 2 emissions, such as bioenergy 

conversion with CO 2 capture and storage. Applying perfect 

foresight, GMM optimizes the total discounted energy 

system cost over the entire model horizon. Non-cost and 

behavioral assumptions are modeled as side-constraints. 

In all three scenarios, a slowing population growth is assumed, 

with an increase compared to today by one third to 

10 billion by 2060. GDP is assumed to develop differently 

across the scenarios with the highest average growth rate 

between 2015 and 2060 in the Modern Jazz scenario and 

the lowest growth in the Hard Rock scenario (Figure 6). In 

the scenarios, the different climate policy priorities are 

included via different levels of low-carbon technology 

support and different CO 2 pricing (Figure 7). The CO 2 

prices rise to 110 US$2010 by 2060 in the Unfinished Symphony 

scenario – compared to a range of 60-90 US$2010 

in Modern Jazz and only 19-45 US$2010 in Hard Rock. 

4 Results with the main focus 

on nuclear energy 

In addition to the study World Energy Scenarios 2019, the 

Council published a specific paper on The Future of 

Nuclear: Diverse Harmonies in the Energy Transition. 

(WEC 2019b). In this report, the World Energy Council, 

with contributions from the World Nuclear Association 

and the Paul Scherrer Institute, “has developed new 

insights into the future role of nuclear. These insights 

contributed to the development of the Council's new 

nuclear perspectives through the lens of its three global 

archetype scenarios – Modern Jazz, Unfinished Symphony 

and Hard Rock. A plausible role for nuclear to 2060 is 

described in the context of each scenario.” (WEC 2019b). It 

is clear that nuclear energy will feature in the global energy 

mix for decades to come. However, its share in the mix and 

its rate of growth will depend on a number of factors. “Some 

of these are largely determined by actions taken within 

the sector, e.g. speed of innovation in new nuclear technology 

and shaping policies on legacy waste management, 

whilst other factors such as energy policies, market design 

and financing structures are shaped and influenced by other 

stakeholders.” (WEC 2019b). 

| Fig. 6. 

Main assumptions of the three WEC scenarios. Source: Paul Scherrer Institut 

| Fig. 7. 

CO 2 prices assumptions by scenario in US$ (2010) per tCO 2 . Source: Paul Scherrer Institute 

4.1 Global results by scenario 

Nuclear energy will grow in all three scenarios. But the pathways 

are very different – depending on the scenario assumptions 

and the underlying storyline (Figure 8). 

In the consumer-empowered and market driven world 

of Modern Jazz, investors prefer smaller projects with low 

capital requirements and relatively quick returns compared 

to larger projects that require governmental intervention 

and support or the build-up of institutional capacity. New 

build is largely driven by China, India and Russia in the 

period 2020-2030, and developing economies in the 

| Fig. 8. 

Global power generation by energy sources in TWh. Source: World Energy Council, Paul Scherrer 

Institute, Accenture Strategy: World Energy Scenarios/2019, September 2019 


Feature 




Middle East, like Iran, Turkey, Egypt, as well as Bangladesh 

and Indonesia in 2030-2040. These developments firmly 

place nuclear energy as a power source for emerging 

economies, in which the governmental backing for this 

technology can be expected also in the future. The rate of 

new nuclear construction in developed countries of Europe 

and North America slows down. Many markets do not 

value nuclear´s contribution as a dispatchable source in 

electricity rooted in large-scale smart grids, decentralized 

generation, variability, and effective energy storage. 

“Despite the fact that lifetime extension of existing 

reactors is one of the best power generation investments 

available in the market from a levelised cost of electricity 

point of view, a number of EU countries and the US provide 

only limited support to nuclear energy. In leading-edge 

countries, stability is so reliant on demand-side flexibility 

and supply-side optimization that ‘older world’ capacity 

reserves no longer seem necessary. Most older generation 

reactors in the US and Europe are scheduled for retirement 

and decommissioning, which reduces nuclear baseload 

available to the grid by 2040. Among the many countries 

that opt not to extend the lifetime of their reactor fleet, some 

struggle to meet pressing carbon targets.” (WEC 

2019b). 

Because of the competition from other low-carbon 

sources, nuclear´s share in electricity generation accounts 

for only 8.5 % by 2060, compared to 11 % in 2015. Nuclear 

installed capacity increases by around 52 % from 407 GW 

in 2015 to 620 GW in 2060. “In the Modern Jazz scenario, 

the nuclear industry has the potential to reinvent itself, 

from selling units to providing services, and to remain an 

energy source of choice as some of the major existing 

nuclear countries and emerging economies expand their 

nuclear fleets.” (WEC 2019b). 

In Unfinished Symphony, governments support an 

acceleration of a net-zero carbon energy transition. Such a 

policy also favours nuclear energy and paves the way for a 

bright future for nuclear energy. Innovations such as Gen 

IV reactors and SMRs are accelerated. Due to high demand 

and availability of new investment instruments, these 

reactors are commercially introduced by 2035-2040 and 

by 2060 they make up 25-30 % of all new orders by 

capacity. 

“The major share of new nuclear capacity is rolled out 

using the fleet approach in China, India, Russia and the 

Middle East in 2020-2030. In Africa, major nuclear 

construction programmes are started by South Africa, 

Nigeria, Tanzania and others to meet rising energy 

demand from rapid urbanization. Power plants are 

built on time and budget, aided by the enhanced 

capability and capacity of the nuclear industry and 

facilitated by extensive use of digital technologies in 

design, planning, and construction stages. Digital twins 

support safe, reliable and efficient plant operations.” 

(WEC 2019b). 

In the European Union, better coordinated climate 

policies supported by new energy regulations and 

financing institutions are an encouragement to review the 

position on the role of nuclear in tackling climate change. 

Digitally enabled nuclear new build is on a roll across the 

EU, especially in the nuclear accustomed markets of 

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia. 

The same is going to take place in the UK. 

“Lifetime extension remains high on the nuclear agenda 

2020-2030 both in the EU and in the US. Digital tools 

become significant for analysis and decision making. 

Most ‘old world’ reactors are put on lifetime extension 

programmes to keep them operational for another 20 years 

or more.” (WEC 2019b). 

In Japan, existing reactors are upgraded and restarted. 

“Japan also returns to the global nuclear technologies 

market as a strong nuclear exporter by 2035, building 

power plants in the EU, US, and the Middle East. South 

Korea's nuclear projects extend from the Middle East to the 

EU and Africa from 2040. There is growing global demand 

for nuclear power and competitive global supply chains 

from major reactor vendors in Russia, France, Japan, 

Korea, and China.” (WEC 2019b). 

In this scenario, nuclear accounts for 13.5 % of total 

global electricity generation by 2060, compared with 11 % 

in 2015. The installed nuclear capacity almost triples to 

1002 GW by 2060, compared to 2015. “In addition to 

new build and lifetime extension initiatives, new nuclear 

technologies – small modular reactor, floating units and 

Gen IV reactors – make a significant contribution to the 

global nuclear fleet.” (WEC 2019b). 

In Hard Rock, which is characterized by a fragmented 

world with low economic growth, increasing geopolitical 

tensions and low levels of cooperation between nations, 

national security, jobs, skills development and local 

environmental issues are top of national agendas. 

“Nuclear new capacity is driven mainly by the fleet 

approach in China, India, Russia between 2020 and 2030 

– countries that made a strategic bet on nuclear as a main 

source of energy and development. This is followed by new 

build programmes in 2030-2040 in the Middle East, 

including in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, 

Turkey, Egypt and others. In these countries the core 

nuclear technology remains large-scale Gen III and Gen 

III+ reactors for centralized power systems. Incremental 

innovations and the use of digital technologies make Gen 

III+ a natural choice for all newcomers as it is a reliable, 

well-studied, serially built, and economically efficient 

nuclear solution.” (WEC 2019b). 

Russia and China remain the dominant players in the 

nuclear technology market. “In 2030, Russia and China 

successfully debut both commercial Gen IV and SMRs. By 

2045 Russian and Chinese Gen IV and SMRs have also 

been installed in a number of other locations around the 

world. Neither Gen IV nor SMR make any considerable 

impact on the overall energy system by 2060.” (WEC 

2019b). 

In the 2020s the EU and the US generally favour policies 

that allowed lifetime extension of existing reactors. The 

granted 20-year life extension will keep them operational 

beyond 2040-2050. However, between 2035 and 2040, 

lifetime extension is no longer an option for a large part of 

the existing fleets in the EU and the US. As a consequence, 

some countries drift gradually towards nuclear new build 

options, while a few others will decide to opt out of nuclear. 

As far as new build is concerned from 2020-2030, the US 

and most EU countries are reluctant to proceed in some 

cases due to low public acceptance and in others due 

to unclear economic viability. However, others go in the 

opposite direction. The Czech Republic, Hungary, 

Slovakia, and Bulgaria decide to extend their nuclear 

programmes for 2030-2040. 

In this scenario, nuclear´s share in global electricity generation 

reaches 12.5 % by 2060 compared with 11 % in 

2015. Installed nuclear capacity increases by 71 % from 

407 GW in 2015 to 696 GW in 2060. “The main focus areas 

are new construction in emerging markets and lifetime 

extension initiatives in developed economies.” (WEC 

2019b). 

Feature 



| Fig. 9. 

Global CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion by scenario in bn t. 

Source: World Energy Council, Paul Scherrer Institute, Accenture Strategy 

World Energy Scenarios/2019, September 2019; Kober et al (2018) 

* until 2100 

4.2 Global CO 2 emissions by scenario 

None of the scenarios shows a development, which leads 

to an achievement of the Paris Climate Agreement. In 

Unfinished Symphony, CO 2 emissions peak by 2020, in 

Modern Jazz by 2030 and in Hard Rock by 2040. The 

development indicated in the scenarios leads to an increase 

in the global temperature of 2 to 2.3 degrees Celsius in 

Unfinished Symphony, approximately 2.5 degrees in 

Modern Jazz and more than 3 degrees in Hard Rock 

( Figure 9). 

The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are 

the heart of the Paris Agreement and the achievement of 

these long-term goals. The Paris Agreement requires each 

country to outline and communicate their post-2020 

ambitions to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases. With 

the announced efforts by the countries, we are so far not 

on track to keep the global temperature increase below 

2 degrees Celsius. To achieve the even more ambitious 

1.5 degree target, the world had to be carbon-neutral by 

2060. 

The 25 th Conference of the Parties (COP 25) to the 

UNFCCC in Madrid in December 2019 ended with no 

major breakthrough. The conference agreed to ask 

countries to come up with more ambitious targets to cut 

greenhouse gas emissions by the time of the COP 26, which 

is expected to take place from 9-19 November 2020 in 

Glasgow, UK. 

4.3 Selected regional developments 

The Council´s scenario study provides not only global 

results but a breakdown by eight world regions is given as 

well (Figure 10). 

As far as nuclear energy is concerned, there is a clear 

shift in the use of nuclear energy to the Asian market 

within the upcoming decades. The highest capacity 

increases are going to take place in China, + 180 GW in 

Modern Jazz, + 320 GW in Unfinished Symphony and + 

200 GW in Hard Rock by 2060. The outcome for India in 

2060: + 50 GW in Modern Jazz, + 140 GW in Unfinished 

Symphony and + 70 GW in Hard Rock. Furthermore for 

the region Middle East and North Africa significant nuclear 

capacity increases are indicated: + 17 GW in Modern Jazz, 

+ 37 GW in Unfinished Symphony and + 15 GW in Hard 

Rock (Figure 11). 

In 2015, 42 % of the world's nuclear power capacity was 

distributed to Europe including Russia, 30 % to North 

America, 26 % to Asia, 1 % to South America and 0.5 % 

each to the two regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and Middle 

East & North Africa. By 2060, the share of the three Asian 

regions will increase to 56 % in Modern Jazz and Hard 

Rock and even 61 % in Unfinished Symphony. The share of 

| Fig. 10. 

Regional breakdown for modelling. 

| Fig. 11. 

Nuclear: Installed Capacity in GW. Source: Paul Scherrer Institut 

| Fig. 12. 

Installed Nuclear Generation Capacity (GW) by Region. Source: World Energy Council, World Energy 

Scenarios 2019, The Future of Nuclear: Diverse Harmonies in the Energy Transition. London 2019 

North America and Europe combined decreases from 72 % 

in 2015 to 40 % in Modern Jazz and in Hard Rock. In 

Unfinished Symphony it will be 33 %. Installed capacity in 

the Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa and 

Latin America regions combined is going to account for 

between 4 % (Modern Jazz and Hard Rock) and 6 % 

( Unfinished Symphony) of global nuclear capacity in 2060 

compared to 2 % in 2015 (Figure 12). 

5 Comparison of the WEC scenarios 

with the findings of other institutions 

“By benchmarking against peer studies and refreshing its 

global horizon scanning, the Council's comparative review 

has validated the continued relevance, plausibility, and 

challenges of its existing archetypal framework and the benefits 

of continuing to work with the plausibility-based, 

narrative-led methodology in maintaining openness to 


Feature 




new developments. The comparison of different types of 

global energy scenarios has helped identify some important 

gaps in bridging the flexibility of the narrative-led, 

plausibility-based approach with the rigidity of long-term 

global energy system models.” (WEC 2019c). 

The following three most relevant global energy 

scenario studies, published in the second half of 2019, were 

selected for comparing the results: 

p WEC´s World Energy Scenarios 2019 (WEC 2019a) 

p EIA´s International Energy Outlook 2019 (EIA 2019) 

p IEA´s World Energy Outlook 2019 (IEA 2019) 

This paper concentrates on EIA´s Reference Case, two of 

the three scenarios of the IEA (Stated Policies Scenario 

and Sustainable Development) and the three WEC scenarios. 

In addition, IAEA's 2019 edition of the Energy, Electricity 

and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050 

is referred to in the comparison. The year 2040 is chosen 

for the comparison, as the time horizon of the IEA scenarios 

is to 2040 only. 

The Reference Case (RC) of the EIA reflects current 

trends and relationships among supply, demand, and 

prices in the future. The RC includes some anticipated 

changes over time, such as expected regional economic 

and demographic trends, planned changes to infrastructure 

and assumed incremental cost and performance 

improvements in known technologies based on historical 

trends. (EIA 2019). 

The Stated Policies Scenario of the IEA, which occupies 

a central position in the WEO analysis, reflects the impact 

of energy-related policies that governments have already 

implemented including an assessment of the likely effects 

of announced policies as expressed in official targets and 

plans. Furthermore, a dynamic evolution of the cost of 

energy technologies, reflecting gains from deployment and 

learning-by-doing is assumed in this scenario. (IEA 2019). 

The Sustainable Development Scenario of the IEA is an 

essential counterpart to the Stated Policies Scenario. It sets 

out the major changes that would be required to reach the 

key energy-related goals of the United Nations Sustainable 

Development Agenda simultaneously, such as a reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, 

universal access to modern energy by 2030 and a 

dramatic reduction in energy-related air pollution. (IEA 

2019). 

The projections of the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) “for nuclear electrical generating capacity 

are presented as low and high estimates, reflecting different 

driving factors that have an impact on the worldwide 

deployment of low carbon energy source.” (IAEA 2019). 

The main results of the comparison, as far as the expected 

development for the global nuclear capacity is concerned 

(Figure 13): EIA's Reference Case is very much in line with 

the Stated Policies Scenario of the IEA and WEC's Modern 

Jazz, while the other two WEC scenarios expect a stronger 

development for nuclear energy. The Sustainable Development 

Scenario of the IEA, a normative scenario, comes to 

slightly higher numbers for nuclear energy by 2040 compared 

to WEC's Hard Rock. The by far strongest upward pathway 

for nuclear energy is seen in WEC´s Unfinished Symphony. 

The numbers shown in Unfinished Symphony for 

2040 even exceed the high case of IAEA's outlook. The IAEA 

has published a range for the global nuclear capacity between 

353 GW and 628 GW for 2040 and between 371 GW 

und 715 GW in 2050. (IAEA 2019). 

6 Conclusion 

A wide range of technologies is necessary to bring energy 

economic development closer to climate policy requirements. 

The focus should be on approaches that enable 

greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced at the lowest CO 2 

abatement costs. These include in particular: 

p Improved efficiency when converting and using energy. 

p Expansion of renewable energies – focused on technologies 

and locations that have comparatively 

favorable conditions. 

p Identification of new customer-centric growth opportunities 

in electrification, storage, power-to-X and the 

new hydrogen economy. 

p Expanded use of nuclear energy by extending the 

lifetime of existing plants, provided that their safety is 

fully guaranteed, and construction of new plants at 

locations where the economic and political conditions 

offer a solid basis for this. 

p Implementation of an energy infrastructure to prevent 

greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fossil 

fuels and production processes from entering the 

atmosphere (carbon capture and usage/storage), and 

technologies to generate negative CO 2 emissions. 

p Securing new opportunities for international trade not 

only with clean electrons but also with clean molecules 

(gaseous and liquid) including hydrogen. 

CO 2 pricing that is at a comparable level worldwide as 

far as possible, a technology-neutral political framework 

and increased international cooperation are crucial for 

achieving the sustainability goals. Commitments agreed 

under the Paris Agreement and other initiatives have the 

potential to support nuclear energy development. 

References 

| BP (2019a) BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2019, London (June 2019) 

| BP (2019b) BP Energy Outlook – 2019 edition, London (February 2019) 

| Energy Information Administration (2019) International Energy Outlook 2019, Washington, DC 

(September 2019) 

| Equinor (2019) Energy Perspectives 2019, Stavanger (June 2019) 

| ExxonMobil (2019) 2019 Outlook for Energy: A Perspective to 2040, Irving/Texas (August 2019) 

| International Atomic Energy Agency (2019) Energy Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the 

Period up to 2050, 2019 edition, Vienna (September 2019) 

| International Energy Agency (2019) World Energy Outlook 2019, Paris (November 2019) 

| Shell International B.V. (2018) Shell Scenarios. Sky – Meeting the Goals of the Paris Agreement, The 

Hague (March 2018) 

| World Energy Council (2019a) World Energy Scenarios 2019 – Exploring Innovation Pathways to 

2040, in collaboration with Accenture Strategy and Paul Scherrer Institute, London (September 

2019) 

| World Energy Council (2019b) World Energy Scenarios 2019 – The Future of Nuclear: Diverse Harmonies 

in the Energy Transition, with contributions from the World Nuclear Association and the Paul 

Scherrer Institute, London (August 2019) 

| World Energy Council (2019c) Global Energy Comparison Review, World Energy Insights Brief 2019, 

London (April 2019) 

| Fig. 13. 

World Nuclear Capacityin GW. 

* SP = Stated Policies Scenario; SD = Sustainable Development Scenario 

Author 

Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer 

Member of the Studies Committee 

World Energy Council (London) 

Visiting Lecturer at the RWTH Aachen University 

Feature 



SMRs und regulatorische Fragestellungen 

Christian Raetzke 

137 

In der internationalen Kernenergieszene wird immer mehr über SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) diskutiert, also über 

relativ kleine Reaktoren (≤ 300 MW elektrisch), die eine Vielzahl von technischen Designs aufweisen, von 

„ verkleinerten“ Ausgaben marktreifer Designs für große Leichtwasserreaktoren bis hin zu innovativen Modellen, die 

etwa mit Salzschmelze oder Blei arbeiten. Tatsächlich gebaut und in Betrieb genommen wurde bislang nur wenig, aber 

die Zahl der angekündigten Projekte (in Europa zuletzt in Estland), der staatlichen Förderungen (z. B. in den USA), 

der Verfahren zumindest für Konzeptgenehmigungen (etwa in den USA und Kanada) und der Studien, die SMRs als 

attraktive Option einstufen, hat sich in den letzten zwei bis drei Jahren vervielfacht. 

Die Frage, ob SMRs tatsächlich ein wichtiges Zukunftselement 

der Kernenergie sind, wurde auch bei der letztjährigen 

Jahrestagung Kerntechnik auf einer vom Verfasser 

geleiteten Sitzung erörtert. 1 Immerhin scheinen sie, gerade 

in der gegenwärtigen weltweiten Debatte um die Rolle 

der Kernenergie als klimaneutrale Option der Stromerzeugung, 

Vorteile aufzuweisen, die herkömmliche 

Großkraftwerke nicht darbieten, insbesondere durch eine 

niedrigere Investitionsschwelle und durch flexiblere Einsatzmöglichkeiten 

in einem sich wandelnden Energiemix. 

Auch eine (noch) weiter verbesserte Sicherheit wird oft als 

Argument genannt. 

In genehmigungsrechtlicher Hinsicht sind SMRs jedenfalls 

definitiv ein spannendes Thema. Die bestehenden 

regulatorischen Anforderungen und Strukturen passen 

in mancherlei Hinsicht nicht auf die neuen Konzepte; 

innovative Ansätze sind nötig. 

Dem Verfasser scheinen zwei Aspekte besonders 

wichtig zu sein. 

Zum einen müssen die nationalen Regelwerke und 

Genehmigungsverfahren der Länder, die SMRs bauen 

wollen, so gestaltet sein, dass sie die regulatorische 

Bewältigung von SMRs gestatten. Für SMRs, die – wie 

oben schon erwähnt – eine große Vielzahl von sehr 

unterschiedlichen Designs aufweisen, wird man von 

vornherein flexible, risiko- und performancebasierte 

Anforderungen vorsehen müssen. Als Beispiel für einen 

eigens für SMRs gestalteten Katalog mit generischen 

Sicherheitskriterien sei auf eine Leitlinie der Canadian 

Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) verwiesen: „Design of 

Small Reactor Facilities (RD-367)“. 2 

Im Einzelnen werden viele bestehende Regelungen, 

die für Großkraftwerke gedacht sind, für SMRs angepasst 

werden müssen. So hat etwa die US-amerikanische 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) den Entwurf einer 

Vorschrift veröffentlicht, die erstmals für SMRs eine 

abgestufte Festsetzung der (für die Standortbewertung in 

den USA sehr wichtigen) Notfallplanungszone rund um 

die Anlage erlaubt. 3 Hintergrund ist das im Vergleich zu 

herkömmlichen Anlagen deutlich geringere Kerninventar 

von SMRs sowie der Umstand, dass viele Designs angabegemäß 

mit passiven Systemen und inhärenter Sicherheit 

eine Freisetzung ausschließen sollen („walk-away safe“). 

Eine Modifizierung von Anforderungen ist unter diesen 

Voraussetzungen kein Sicherheitsnachlass, sondern eine 

Anwendung des allgemein anerkannten „gestuften 

Ansatzes“ (graded approach) bei der Sicherheitsbewertung, 

wonach Anforderungen nach dem Ausmaß 

des Risikos zu gestalten sind. 

Der zweite Gesichtspunkt lenkt den Blick vom 

Nationalen ins Internationale. Wie schon das „M“ für 

„ modular“ aussagt, beruhen die meisten SMR-Designs auf 

dem Grundgedanken, dass der Reaktor aus Modulen 

besteht, die in einer Fabrik vorgefertigt werden und vor 

Ort nur noch zusammengebaut oder aufgestellt werden 

müssen. Das ist geradezu ein springender Punkt, der das 

SMR-Konzept erst ausmacht und den gewünschten weitgefächerten 

Einsatz erst ermöglicht. Die standardisierte 

Serienfertigung ist auch für die Wirtschaftlichkeit ein 

entscheidendes Element, indem die bisher von großen 

Reaktoren verwirklichten „economies of scale“ durch 

„ economies of series“, also durch hohe Produktionszahlen, 

ersetzt werden sollen; auch wären Genehmigungsverfahren 

und Errichtung mit weniger Risiken behaftet 

und daher besser zu finanzieren als heute. Die Modularität 

und die damit einhergehende Standardisierung würden 

aber zunichte gemacht, wenn ein SMR jeweils an stark 

unterschiedliche nationale Regelwerke angepasst, also im 

Design vielfach geändert werden müsste. 

Deshalb ist es essentiell, dass die Länder, die SMRs 

einsetzen wollen, sich auf (weitgehend) vereinheitlichte 

Regeln einigen. In der bisherigen Historie der Kernenergie 

waren Sicherheitsanforderungen jedoch dezidiert eine 

nationale Sache. Seit ein bis zwei Jahrzehnten gibt es zwar 

verstärkte Bemühungen der Genehmigungsbehörden zur 

Entwicklung gemeinsamer Ansätze, schon damit sie nicht 

jedesmal „das Rad neu erfinden“ müssen und Ressourcen 

sparen können; für solche Bemühungen steht beispielhaft 

das Multinational Design Evaluation Programme MDEP. 4 

Solche Programme müssten für SMRs aber qualitativ auf 

eine neue Stufe gehoben werden; Ziel wäre idealerweise 

eine gemeinsam von den beteiligten Behörden getragene 

Konzeptfreigabe, die dann die Grundlage für die jeweilige 

nationale Genehmigung bildete. Wollte man besonders 

kühn sein, so könnte man sogar daran denken, dass die 

vom Herstellerland erteilte Genehmigung in den Einsatzländern 

in gewissem Umfang anerkannt wird. 

Länder, die SMRs einsetzen wollen, müssen diese 

Herausforderungen angehen. Wieder einmal ist Finnland 

ein Vorbild. Die finnische Genehmigungs- und Aufsichtsbehörde 

STUK hat jüngst einen Bericht veröffentlicht 5 , der 

den Weg zu dem von der Behörde selbst gesetzten Ziel 

beschreibt, für die Genehmigung eines SMR bereit zu sein, 

wenn es soweit ist. 

Die große SMR-Welle steht vorläufig noch auf dem 

Papier. Dass sie tatsächlich ausgelöst wird, setzt die Überwindung 

vieler Hindernisse voraus, vor allem politischer 

und wirtschaftlicher Art. Wenn sie aber kommen sollte, 

dann müssen die geeigneten regulatorischen Instrumente 

bereitstehen – Instrumente, die SMRs gerecht werden und 

zugleich weltweit die erforderliche Sicherheit garantieren. 

Author 

Rechtsanwalt Dr. Christian Raetzke 

Beethovenstr. 19 

04107 Leipzig 

1) Sitzungsbericht: 

https:// 

www.ktg.org/ktgwAssets/docs/ 

AMNT/2019/ 

Raetzke-AMNT- 

2019-Focus-Session-- 

International-Innovation-SMRs.pdf 

2) https:// 

nuclearsafety.gc.ca/ 

pubs_catalogue/ 

uploads/RD-367- 

Design-of-Small- 

Reactor-Facilities_ 

e.pdf 

3) https:// 

www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doccollections/news/ 

2019/19-063.pdf 

4) http:// 

www.oecd-nea.org/ 

mdep 

5) Zur Pressemitteilung: 

https:// 

www.stuk.fi/web/ 

en/-/stuk-preparesfor-assessing-thesafety-of-novelnuclear-reactors. 

– 

Der Bericht selber 

ist auf Finnisch. 

SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW 

Spotlight on Nuclear Law 

Regulatory Enquiries and About SMRs ı Christian Raetzke


138 

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY 

About EPRI Journal 

EPRI Journal is the 

flagship publication of 

the Electric Power 

Research Institute. It 

provides in-depth 

reporting on electricity 

sector R&D, 

industry and 

technology news, 

EPRI thought leadership, 

and guest 

perspectives from 

industry leaders. With 

features, brief articles, 

info-graphics, and other 

engaging digital 

formats, readers gain 

insights through clear 

explanations about 

technology developments, 

utility field 

experiences, and realworld 

solutions. Subscriptions 

are free. 

Original URL 

for article: 

http://eprijournal.com/ 

toward-a-new-riskinformed-approach-tocyber-security/ 

Toward a New Risk-Informed Approach 

to Cyber Security 

EPRI Guidelines Equip Electric Power Industry 

to Address Growing Risks and Vulnerabilities 

Chris Warren 

A More Targeted Approach 

to Cyber Security 

EPRI has developed step-by-step 

guidance for utilities to assess cyber 

security measures at power plants, 

informed by risk. The methodology 

enables users to allot more time and 

resources to protect the devices most 

critical to operations. “We made the 

business case for EPRI’s methodology 

with our senior management,” said 

Brad Yeates, Southern Nuclear’s 

manager of cyber security for Vogtle 

Units 3 and 4. “We concluded that this 

new approach was the most direct and 

cost-effective one.” 

In a power plant, robust cyber 

security depends on safeguarding 

control system components. One 

critical component is a plant’s engineering 

workstation. 

“It’s important to protect the engineering 

workstation because it’s 

connected to the programmable logic 

controllers in a power plant,” said 

EPRI Senior Technical Leader Jeremy 

Lawrence. “It’s a prime target. If 

attackers get into it and inject 

malware, they could potentially 

compromise critical plant control 

functions and shut down the plant.” 

The traditional “defense-in-depth” 

approach to protecting digital plant 

control components from attackers 

involves layering various security 

measures – a complex undertaking. 

It’s challenging to quickly determine 

the optimal types and number of 

layers. 

Bulk power system operators in 

North America must comply with the 

North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation’s (NERC) Critical Infrastructure 

Protection (CIP) Standards. 

The NERC standards, along with cyber 

security regulations from the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, are sometimes known 

as the committed catalog approach 

because they direct the implementation 

of a catalog of security measures 

for all components. While this 

approach provides a degree of security, 

power industry stakeholders are 

investigating the benefits of a more 

targeted approach – applying security 

measures to specific vulnerabilities in 

plant control systems. 

“Standards and regulations have 

played an essential role in establishing 

a baseline of cyber security protections 

for the electric power industry 

–and in bringing stakeholders to the 

table to discuss how to secure critical 

assets,” said Lawrence. “Yet, compliance 

with standards and regulations 

doesn’t equal security. Power plant 

operators are raising the bar on 

cyber security to implement more 

sophisticated measures above and 

beyond the regulatory requirements.” 

This is in line with growing 

cyber security risks. Last year, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary 

Rick Perry told lawmakers that 

hundreds of thousands of cyber 

attacks on the American energy 

system take place each day. According 

to DOE’s Multiyear Plan for Energy 

Sector Cybersecurity, “The frequency, 

scale, and sophistication of cyber 

threats have increased, and attacks 

have become easier to launch. Nationstates, 

criminals, and terrorists 

regularly probe energy systems to 

exploit cyber vulnerabilities in order 

to compromise, disrupt, or destroy 

energy systems.” 

“The threat only goes up,” said 

William Vesely, a project specialist in 

control systems engineering at Con 

Edison, the utility that serves New 

York City and Westchester County, 

New York. “Critical infrastructure in 

the power industry is a prime target, 

and staying ahead of the game is 

challenging and requires vigilance.” 

Risk-Informed Cyber Security 

In collaboration with utilities, control 

system manufacturers, policymakers, 

and regulators, EPRI is developing 

new cyber security approaches to 

protect critical power plant assets. 

As part of this research, EPRI has 

developed an advanced risk-informed 

methodology for utilities to assess 

cyber security measures. This step-bystep 

approach involves considering 

potential security breaches, their 


Toward a New Risk-Informed Approach to Cyber Security ı Chris Warren


likelihood, and the consequences 

(such as radiological release, outages, 

and reputation damage) and then 

prioritizing mitigations. 

Security standards and tools typically 

focus on company-level risk and 

may apply the same controls to every 

component. EPRI’s risk-informed 

guidance advances the state of the 

art through a systems engineering 

approach that enables users to assess 

specific cyber security risks at the 

component, system, and company 

levels. 

“Not all components are created 

equal or serve the same function,” 

said Lawrence. “A limitation of the 

typical approach is that it doesn’t 

always differentiate among components. 

With our methodology, power 

plant operators can assess specific 

vulnerabilities with individual components 

and identify the best controls 

to mitigate the threats. They can 

spend more time protecting the 

devices most critical to operations – 

and prioritize application of standards 

and regulations. Standards provide 

the ‘what,’ and EPRI’s methodology 

provides the ‘how.’” 

Risk-Informed Approach 

in Action 

The first step in EPRI’s methodology 

involves characterizing precisely the 

attack surface of each component in 

power plant control systems. An 

attack surface encompasses all the 

points at which a component can be 

attacked, including physical, network, 

and wireless access. 

The next step: Identify the possible 

goals of an attack (such as stealing data 

or altering configuration files) and the 

possible exploit sequences ( attack 

strategies), which vary depending on 

the goals and vulnerabilities. 

With a comprehensive understanding 

of where, why, and how 

an attacker might strike, the plant 

operator can plan the most effective 

defenses. 

The third step of the risk-informed 

approach is to assess each security 

measure’s ability to protect against, 

detect, respond to, and recover from 

the most likely attacks. 

“There are lots of potential ways to 

mitigate each exploit sequence, and 

you want to apply the most effective 

combinations,” said Lawrence. “An 

engineering workstation may have 

anti-virus software already installed 

that can effectively detect malware 

and alert an operator of its presence. 

But it might not help much with 

response and recovery.” 

A cumulative score is calculated for 

each security measure based on its 

effectiveness and ease of implementation. 

“The score tells you how well 

protected you are against each exploit 

sequence,” said Lawrence. “Whether 

that score is acceptable to a plant 

operator depends on the asset’s 

importance and the consequences of a 

successful attack. Staff at each plant 

must determine its acceptable risk 

threshold.” 

The risk-informed approach provides 

a way to map security measures 

to regulatory requirements and to 

track compliance. While the path to 

achieving compliance varies depending 

on the regulatory body, regulators 

generally consider a risk-informed 

approach acceptable if it can be 

demonstrated to satisfy the regulations’ 

intent and objectives. 

“The risk-informed approach can 

still meet regulatory requirements,” 

said Lawrence. “It’s a way to comply 

more efficiently and effectively.” 

Risk-Informed Cyber Security 

at Vogtle 

As part of the construction of its 

Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, Southern 

Nuclear adopted EPRI’s systems 

engineering approach to cyber 

security while complying with security 

regulations. 

“We made the business case for 

EPRI’s methodology with our senior 

management,” said Brad Yeates, 

manager of cyber security for Vogtle 

Units 3 and 4. “We concluded that this 

new approach was the most direct and 

cost-effective one.” 

Vogtle collaborated with EPRI to 

develop a risk-informed cyber security 

plan to help protect 16,000 digital 

plant components from attacks. 

“We’re the first utility in the world 

to make a commitment to this 

approach to cyber security assessment 

and mitigation,” said Yeates. “We’re 

carving out a path for others to follow. 

Everybody that follows us is going to 

have a much easier time.” 

Yeates worked with EPRI technical 

staff to develop the process to analyze 

the 16,000 digital assets, identifying 

approximately 400 distinct constituent 

components. “This is a manageable 

number of constituent elements that 

we can focus on during our initial 

technology assessment,” said Yeates. 

“Once these 400 are assessed, they 

become like a bag of LEGO® bricks 

that can be assembled into larger 

digital systems and subsystems, with 

appropriate tailoring to their operational 

configurations. The technology 

assessment includes analysis of 89 

critical systems.” 

In using EPRI’s risk-informed 

methodology, Yeates is assessing each 

asset’s vulnerabilities, informing the 

selection of the best available protections. 

Yeates expects Units 3 and 4 

to finalize their cyber security program 

by early 2020 and their assessments 

by the end of 2020. 

“We must have the cyber program 

up and running in order to receive 

fuel,” he said. “Once we receive fuel, 

the units will go through a thorough 

testing phase before commercial 

operation.” 

In 2019, EPRI is collaborating with 

vendors, manufacturers, and utilities 

on studies that document the 

implementation of EPRI’s advanced 

risk- informed approach and its 

benefits. Based on the results, these 

stake holders are expected to provide 

EPRI with feedback, informing improvements 

to the approach. 

Con Edison’s Vesely would like 

to see the electric power industry 

adopt this type of risk-informed cyber 

security approach, viewing it as a 

significant improvement to current 

practices. 

The challenge for power companies 

is to balance the benefits 

of new digital technologies with 

security. “I think EPRI’s risk-informed 

approach is going to be a milestone in 

that direction,” he said. “I expect 

international standards to draw 

heavily on the concepts underlying 

EPRI’s approach.” 

“EPRI has incorporated more 

engineering into the assessment of 

cyber risks in the electric power 

sector,” said EPRI’s Lawrence. “Our 

guidance equips power plant operators 

with the in- depth understanding 

of vulner abilities they need to pinpoint 

the best protections and keep 

their facilities secure.” 

Authors 

Chris Warren 

Key EPRI Technical Experts 

Jeremy Lawrence 

techexpert@eprijournal.com 

EPRI 

3420 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

United States of America 

About EPRI 

The Electric Power 

Research Institute 

(EPRI) conducts 

research, development, 

and demonstra 

tion projects for the 

benefit of the public 

in the United States 

and internationally. 

As an independent, 

nonprofit organization 

for public interest 

energy and environmental 

research, we 

focus on electricity 

generation, delivery, 

and use in collaboration 

with the 

electricity sector, its 

stakeholders and 

others to enhance the 

quality of life by 

making electric power 

safe, reliable, affordable, 

and environmentally 

responsible. 

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY 139 


Toward a New Risk-Informed Approach to Cyber Security ı Chris Warren


140 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 

Improved Metrology of Thermophysical 

Properties at Very High Temperatures: 

The EMPIR Project Hi-TRACE 

Konstantinos Boboridis and Bruno Hay 

Introduction Power plants, aerospace and materials processing are prominent examples of technologies and 

industrial processes in which materials are exposed to (very) high temperatures. Refractory materials are employed not 

only to withstand these high temperatures, but also because of their favourable physical properties at these temperatures. 

Particularly nuclear reactors are known for the extreme conditions of temperature at which the fuel materials have to 

operate during several years, in combination with radiation from the fission process. The performance of the fuel, as 

well as the cladding, is key for the safety of the system and needs, thus, be understood in detail. 

Scientists and engineers striving to 

improve the safety margins of a 

particular technology, as well as its 

efficiency and competitiveness, often 

do that by developing new materials 

or by optimizing existing ones. For 

instance, in recent years there has 

been renewed interest in SiC-based 

composite materials and in so-called 

ultra-high-temperature ceramics. For 

example, they are investigated as 

cladding for enhanced accident 

tolerant fuel in nuclear power plants, 

or as components of gas turbine 

aerospace engines. In these cases 

design-base and beyond-design-base 

accident scenarios need to be 

simulated, during which materials 

would be exposed to exceedingly high 

temperatures. 

Reliable values of thermophysical 

properties of materials at very high 

temperatures, however, are typically 

scarce, increasingly uncertain with 

temperature, and sometimes contradictory. 

These measurements are 

indeed challenging. Moreover, when 

employing such data in analyses and 

simulations that are used for licensing 

of nuclear power plants and risk 

assessment in general, it is important 

to ensure their traceability to national 

or international standards and 

to establish credible measurement 

uncertainties. This requires appropriate 

standard reference materials 

and reference facilities that can be 

used to validate a measurement 

technique. 

Project description 

Hi-TRACE is a project aiming to close 

this gap by developing reference 

facilities and validating measurement 

methods, complete with measurement 

uncertainty budgets, for several technologically 

important thermophysical 

properties at temperatures up to 

3,000 °C. Its full title is ‘Industrial 

process optimisation through improved 

metrology of thermo physical properties’. 

It brings together eleven partners 

from five European countries: four 

National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) 

or Designated Institutes (DIs), three 

industrial partners, two universities, 

and two research centres (see Table 1). 

The project is receiving funding 

through EMPIR, the European Metrology 

Programme for Innovation and 

Research, which is co-financed by the 

Participating States and the European 

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and 

innovation programme. It was 

kicked-off in July 2018 and will run 

for three years with a budget of about 

1.6 million Euros. 

The project’s work packages 

address the measurement of thermal 

diffusivity, specific heat, emissivity 

and melting temperature up to 

3,000 °C, as well as the quantification 

of de-bonding between solid materials 

Full name 

Laboratoire national de métrologie et d’essais (LNE) 

NPL Management Limited (NPL) 

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) 

Institut Za Nuklearne Nauke Vinča 

ArianeGroup SAS 

NETZSCH Gerätebau GmbH 

Commissariat à l’énergie atomique 

et aux énergies alternatives 

Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften 

Würzburg-Schweinfurt (FHWS) 

Technische Universität Graz (TUG) 

Bayerisches Zentrum 

für Angewandte Energieforschung e.V. (ZAE Bayern) 

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) 

| Tab. 1. 

Project partners. 

| Fig. 1. 

Hi-Trace: Topics. 

and the resulting change in thermal 

contact resistance (see Table 2). 

These thermophysical properties are 

significant for their role in heat 

transfer and in thermal management/ 

thermal protection systems. In 

addition, the knowledge of a material’s 

emissivity is essential for optical 

temperature measurements, including 

thermography, which is 

often the only viable option due 

Country 

France 

United Kingdom 

Germany 

Republic of Serbia 

France 

Germany 

France 

Germany 

Austria 

Germany 

European Commission 


Improved Metrology of Thermophysical Properties at Very High Temperatures: The EMPIR Project Hi-TRACE ı Konstantinos Boboridis and Bruno Hay


WP N° 

WP1 

WP2 

WP3 

WP4 

WP5 

WP6 

| Tab. 2. 

Work packages. 

Work package title 

Establishment of traceability for thermal diffusivity measurements 

at temperatures up to 3000 °C 

Establishment of traceability for specific heat measurements 

at temperatures up to 3000 °C 

Establishment of traceability for emissivity measurements and improved 

metrology for temperature of fusion at temperatures up to 3000 °C 

Establishment of methods for quantifying de-bonding 

at high temperatures (above 1000 °C) 

Creating impact 

Management and coordination 

of good practice guides for calibration 

and measurement of these thermophysical 

properties. A workshop for 

the end-user community will be 

organised and e-learning modules 

will be prepared. Finally, the datasets 

generated in the inter-laboratory 

comparisons will be made available 

through open repositories, as long as 

they are not covered by confidentiality 

agreements with the industrial 

partners. 

More information, including 

contact information, can be found 

on the project’s website (https:// 

hi-trace.eu). 

Acknowledgement 

This project has received funding from 

the EMPIR programme co-financed by 

the Participating States and from the 

European Union’s Horizon 2020 

research and innovation programme. 

This article is written on behalf of all 

partners listed in Table 1. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 141 

| Fig. 2. 

Emissivity and Temperature of Fusion. 

to the very high temperatures involved 

or other parameters such as 

limited access and fast response time. 

Reference facilities are currently 

being developed by the involved NMIs 

and DIs for thermal diffusivity, specific 

heat, and emissivity measurements 

at very high temperatures. These 

facilities will then undergo a metrological 

validation before being used 

to characterise refractory materials 

of technological significance at 

the highest temperatures possible. 

Existing setups and measurement 

techniques, already in use by the 

industrial and academic partners, 

will be validated against the newly 

| Fig. 3. 

Temperature rise distribution on the rear 

face half-way through the test. — NPL Matlab 

model. 

developed facilities. Techniques for 

measuring the melting temperature of 

refractory materials will benefit from 

the emissivity data generated by the 

project. In addition, techniques are 

being developed to quantify the state 

of the mechanical adhesion of solid 

materials, in particular functional 

layers for thermal or corrosion protection 

above 1,000 °C, by knowledge 

of the thermal contact resistance. 

They will be validated in a second step 

using well-characterised multilayer 

artefacts suitable for high temperatures, 

which will also be developed in 

the frame of this project. 

The project is coordinated by the 

French National Metrology Institute 

(LNE). An advisory board has been 

set up to regularly review progress and 

provide guidance in terms of relevance 

for the end users. Particular importance 

is placed upon ensuring the 

widest possible dissemination of the 

knowledge generated within the 

project, including to standards bodies, 

as well as collecting feedback from 

end users, such as instrumentation 

manufacturers, actors in aerospace, 

nuclear energy, additive and conventional 

manufacturing involving 

very high temperatures. Inter-laboratory 

comparisons organised during 

the project will lead to the publication 

Authors 

Konstantinos Boboridis 

European Commission 

Joint Research Centre (JRC) 

Karlsruhe, Germany 

Bruno Hay 

Laboratoire national de métrologie 

et d’essais (LNE) 

Trappes, France 


Improved Metrology of Thermophysical Properties at Very High Temperatures: The EMPIR Project Hi-TRACE ı Konstantinos Boboridis and Bruno Hay



Neutronic Simulation of ALFRED Core 

Using MCNPX Code 

Korosh Rahbari, Darush Masti, Kamran Serpanloo and Ehsan Zarifi 

Introduction Throughout history, energy has played a fundamental role in human’s progress living. To promote 

nuclear power to meet the future energy needs, ten countries including Argentina, South Africa, the United States, the 

United Kingdom, Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, France, Canada and Korea in a global effort (Generation IV International 

Forum – GIF) have agreed to investigate the next generation of nuclear energy systems known as 4 th generation [1]. 

These reactors are expected to enter the market after 2030. Fundamental changes in the configuration of the systems 

and the forms of the old reactors have led to the production of new reactors, which require basic research and 

development, careful examination, and the construction of semi-industrial units. The capabilities of fourth-generation 

reactors are seawater desalination, and thermal applications in addition to the production of electricity. In 2000, the 

founding countries of GIF formed their first meeting to discuss the need for conduct research on the design of 

next-generation reactors. Subsequently, a strategy was put forward to direct the activities, and the implementation 

responsibility was assigned to the US Department of Energy. In this research, we investigate the neutron behavior of the 

advanced reactor core with lead coolant ALFRED. The purpose of the neutron calculations of the core of a reactor is to 

calculate the distribution of neutron flux in the center and to calculate the effective reproduction coefficient. Given the 

necessity of performing lattice pitch neutron calculations, it is initially required to determine the real geometry of the 

core, as well as the order and fuel richness, the lattice pitch the grid, the radius and height of the fuel rods, the 

composition and location of the fuel absorbents, the types and locations of the control rods, the fuel complex 

arrangement, and radial and axial peaking factor. The MCNPX code is used to perform neutron calculations. 

This calculation is done by the MCNPX 

code using the Monte Carlo statistical 

method. The following six reactors 

have been categorized as the 4 th 

generation reactors: 

1. Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) 

2. Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) 

3. Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) 

4. Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) 

5. Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor 

(SCWR) 

6. Very High-Temperature Reactor 

(VHTR) 

LFR is one of the six advanced 4 th 

generation reactors. In recent years, 

this kind of reactor has attracted a lot 

of attention of the world, and specially 

recently countries such as Russia, 

America and Germany have always 

Parameter Unit Values 

Thermal power MW 300 

Active height cm 60 

Pellet hollow diameter mm 2 

Pellet radius mm 4.5 

Gap thickness mm 0.15 

Clad thickness mm 0.6 

Pin diameter mm 10.5 

Wrapper thickness mm 4 

Distance between 2 wrappers mm 5 

Coolant velocity m s -1 ~1.4 

Lattice pitch (hexagonal) mm 13.86 

Pins per FA - 127 

Inner vessel radius cm 165 

| Tab. 1. 

Main specifications of ALFRED reactor [3]. 

| Fig. 1. 

View of the ALFRED reactor [3]. 

been interested in this topic. LFR 

systems have excellent material 

handling capabilities due to the use of 

a fast neutron spectrum, and they use 

a closed fuel cycle to convert more 

efficiently the enriched uranium. 

It can also, as an actinide burner, 

consume the spent fuel of light water 

reactors (LWRs) or be used as an 

adiabatic reactor (able to burn off its 

produced actinide wastes). 

Method and material 

1 Technical description 

of ALFRED reactor 

As stated, the program of the ALFRED 

reactor is within the framework of 

the LEADER project. The purpose of 

the ALFRED project is to analyze 

the various aspects of lead cooling 

technology in fast reactors. This 

project has, therefore, a significant 

role as ETDR (European Technology 

Demonstrator Reactor) in the technology 

chain. The ALFRED reactor 

design includes a 125 MW electric 

power reactor with lead coolant. 

Figure 1 shows a schematic illustration 

of this reactor. 

Some geometric parameters of the 

ALFRED reactor are shown in Table 1. 

The core of this reactor has a hexagonal 

grid of 171 fuel assemblies (FA), 

12 control bars (CR), four safety bars 

(SR) and 108 empty bars. A schematic 

illustration of the core of this reactor is 

shown in Figure 2. 


Neutronic Simulation of ALFRED Core Using MCNPX Code ı Korosh Rahbari, Darush Masti, Kamran Serpanloo and Ehsan Zarifi


| Fig. 2. 

Schematic illustration of the core of the ALFRED reactor [3]. 

The reactor has eight steam 

generators that are symmetrically 

placed in the safe container of the 

reactor as the modular reactors. A 

schematic illustration of the steam 

generators of this reactor and its 

characteristics are shown in Figure 3. 

2 Reactor kinetic calculations 

Two important parameters in the neutron 

kinetic calculations of the reactor 

are the fraction of effective delayed 

neutrons (β eff ) and prompt neutron 

life (I p ). Delayed neutron fractions are 

calculated by taking the TOTNU card 

with the No input in the MCNPX code 

and using the following equation: 

the reactor core is simulated with 1 

million particles and 150 cycles using 

the KCODE command used for critical 

computing springs. The neutron parameters 

that have been calculated in 

this study are effective reproduction 

coefficient (k eff ), excess reactivity 

(ρ ex ), average neutron production 

time (∧), and distribution of radial 

and axial neutron flux. 

Results 

| Fig. 3. 

ALFRED reactor steam generator [3]. 

Criticality and 

kinetic calculations 

The calculation of the criticality of the 

reactor by considering 10 %, 20 %, 

50 % of the control rods inside the 

core and the effective reproduction 

coefficient (k eff ) are shown in Table 2. 

The amount of reactor excess 

reactivity is calculated using the 

following equation: 

ρ ex = (k eff - 1) / k eff 

Conclusion 

The purpose of this study was to 

simulate and obtain neutron parameters 

and calculate the criticality 

and kinetic parameters of the reactor 

in the initial state, taking into account 

10 to 50 percent of the control rods in 

the reactor core and the Axial and 

radial distributions of the flux of the 


(1) 

In this formula, K eff is the effective 

multiplication factor for the total 

delayed and prompt neutrons and k p is 

the effective multiplication factor for 

prompt neutrons. The lifetime of the 

prompt neutrons (I p ) in MCNPX code 

2.6 can be obtained at the standard 

code output by calculating the effective 

multiplication factor for prompt 

neutrons. 

Parameter CR10 % CR20 % CR50 % CR ZR+HF 

K eff 1.08255 1.07483 1.04200 1.00583 1.08879 

ρ ex 0.07625 0.06962 0.04030 0.00579 0.08154 

Λ 0.9237 0.9303 0.9596 0.9942 0.9184 

| Tab. 2. 

ALFRED criticality and kinetic calculations. 

k p = 1.00279 

β eff = 1-(1.00279/1.00653) 

= 0.003716 

I p = 1.92 × 10 -6 

3 Simulation of the 

ALFRED reactor 

with MCNPX 2.6 code 

In this research, the ALFRED reactor is 

simulated using the information 

contained in MCNPX 2.6. In this code, 

| Fig. 4. 

Axial flux Distribution of reactor core. 





reactor core. The analysis of the 

results shows that the effective 

propagation coefficient is, at best, 

equal to 1. 00583 and its changes by 

inserting the control rods to approximately 

one. For more accurate estimation, 

it is recommended to carry 

out thermal hydraulics calculations 

considering the distribution of 

neutron flux, and the results should 

be compared with the estimates. 

References 

[1] SNETP (2013). Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 

Paris, France. 

[2] LEADER project, www.leader-FP7.eu. 

[3] Frogheri, M., Alemberti, A., Mansani, L. (2013). “The Lead 

Fast Reactor: Demonstrator (ALFRED) and ELFR Design”, 

International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel 

Cycles: Safe Technologies and Sustainable Scenarios (FR13), 


[4] Grasso, G., Petrovich, C., Mikityuk, K., Mattioli, D., Manni, F., 

Gugiu, D. (2013). “Demonstrating the effectiveness of the 

European LFR concept: the ALFRED core design”, (FR13), 


[5] Artioli, C., Grasso, G., Petrovich, C. (2010). “A new paradigm 

for core design aimed at the sustainability of nuclear energy: 

The solution of the extended equilibrium state”, Ann. Nucl. 

En. 37(7):915-922. 

[6] Alemberti, A., Mansani, L., Grasso, G., Mattioli, D., Roelofs, F., 

De Bruyn, D. (2013). “The European Lead Fast Reactor 

Strategy and the Roadmap for the Demonstrator ALFRED”, 

(FR13), Paris, France. 

[7] Bubelis, E., Schikorr, M., Frogheri, M., Mansani, L., Bandini, 

G., Burgazzi, L., Mikityuk, K., Zhang, Y., Lo Frano, R., Forgione, 

N. (2013). “LFR safety approach and main ELFR safety 

analysis results” (FR13), Paris, France. 

[8] Bubelis, E., Schikorr, M., Mansani, L., Bandini, G., Mikityuk, 

K., Zhang, Y., Geffraye, G. (2013). “Safety analysis results of 

the DBC transients performed for the ALFRED reactor” (FR13), 

Paris 

[9] Bandini, G., Bubelis, E., Schikorr, M., Stempnievicz, M.H., Lázaro, 

A., Tucek, K. Kudinov, P., Kööp, K., Jeltsov, M., Mansani, 

L. (2013). “Safety Analysis Results of Representative DEC Accidental 

Transients for the ALFRED Reactor” (FR13), Paris, 

France. 

[10] ARCADIA project, http://arcadiaproject.eu. 

[11] Toshinsky, G.I., Grigoriev, O.G., Efimov, E.I., Leonchuk, M.P., 

Novikova, N.N. (2002). “Safety Aspects of SVBR-75/100 

Reactor”, Advanced Nuclear Reactor Safety Issues and 

Research Needs, Proceedings of OECD/NEA Workshop, Paris, 

France. 

[12] Adamov, E.O. (2001). “White Book of Nuclear Power”, 

N.A. Dollezhal Research Development Institute of Power 

Engineering, Moscow, Russia. 

[13] Novikova, N., Pashkin, Y., Chekunov, V. (1999). “Some 

Features of Sub-Critical Blankets Cooled with Lead-Bismuth”, 

Proceedings of ADTTA’99, Praha, Czech Republic. 

[14] Wider, H., Carlsson, J., Dietze, K., Konys, J. (2003). “Heavy- 

Metal Cooled Reactors – Pros and Cons”, Proceedings of GLO- 

BAL’03, New Orleans, USA. 

[15] Tucek, K., Wallenius, J., Gudowski, W. (2004). “Coolant Void 

Worth in Fast Breeder Reactors and Accelerator-driven 

Transuranium and Minor-Actinide Burners”, Annals of 

Nuclear Energy, Vol. 31, p. 1783. 

| Fig. 5. 

Radial flux distribution of reactor core. 

Authors 

Korosh Rahbari 

Darush Masti 

Department of Nuclear 

Engineering 

Bushehr Branch 

Islamic Azad University 

Bushehr, Iran 

Kamran Serpanloo 

Ehsan Zarifi 

Reactor and Nuclear Safety School 

Nuclear Science and Technology 

Research Institute (NSTRI) 

Tehran, Iran 

| Fig. 5. 

Radial flux distribution of reactor core. 




The Dual Fluid Reactor – An Innovative 

Fast Nuclear-Reactor Concept 

with High Efficiency and Total Burnup 

Jan-Christian Lewitz, Armin Huke, Götz Ruprecht, Daniel Weißbach, Stephan Gottlieb, Ahmed Hussein 

and Konrad Czerski 

1 Introduction In the early decades of nuclear fission power technology development, most of the possible 

implementations were at least considered in studies and many were tested in experimental facilities as have been most 

of the types of the Generation IV canon. Uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing with the wet chemical PUREX 

process for today’s reactors originated from the Manhattan project in order to gain weapons-grade fissile material. 

The use of fuel elements in light water 

reactors originated from the propulsion 

systems of naval vessels like 

submarines and carriers. 

A sound measure for the overall 

efficiency and economy of a power 

plant is the EROI (Energy Return on 

Investment). The known problem of 

solid fuel elements in power reactors 

is fission product accumulation during 

operation requiring heavy safety 

measures to avoid a core meltdown. 

These measures reduce the EROI for 

today’s Pressurized Water Reactors 

(PWRs) to values of about 75 (Sec. 9) 

which is only a factor of 2 higher than 

for fossil-fired power plants. This is 

in fact surprisingly low compared 

with the possible maximum EROI for 

nuclear energy of 10,000 (Sec. 9). 

Unfortunately, most Generation IV 

reactor concepts except the Molten 

Salt Fast Reactor (MSFR, see below) 

are again based on solid fuel technology. 

For the probably most intensively 

developed breeder technology, 

the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor SFR 

(or the Traveling-wave variant, Terrapower’s 

TP-1), sodium has been chosen 

as the coolant. It has aggressive 

chemical reactivity with air, water and 

structural materials as well as a high 

neutron reaction cross section with 

the possibility of a temporary positive 

void coefficient. These properties 

require a reactor pressure vessel, 

double- walled piping, and an intermediary 

cooling cycle. In effect, all 

this sums up to expenses which double 

the electricity production costs of the 

SFR relative to a PWR as calculated for 

the Superphénix class. 

Hence Generation III and most of 

Generation IV nuclear power plants 

are in danger of losing competition 

against fossil fired power plants, 

especially in the advent of the shale 

gas exploitation. 

The Dual Fluid Reactor (DFR) 

concept presented here is designed 

with respect to the EROI-measure and 

to passive safety standards according 

to the KISS (keep-it-simple-and-safe) 

principle and with attention to 

current- state technology in mechanical, 

plant and chemical engineering 

for a speedy implementation. 

There was a gap in the reactor 

concepts of the past with a high 

development potential for the present 

and the future. A DFR power plant 

could exploit the potential of nuclear 

fission power with an EROI two orders 

of magnitude higher than fossil fired 

power plants. 

2 Basic principle 

The Dual Fluid Reactor (DFR) is a 

heterogeneous fast reactor with a 

liquid fuel and a liquid coolant 

whereby both flow through the 

reactor core. Separation of cooling 

and fuel supply function is achieved 

by an interconnected array of fuel 

conduits immersed in the coolant 

liquid. Both cycles can now be optimized 

for their respective purpose. 

This has many advantages to a MSFR, 

where both functions must be satisfied 

by one liquid in a trade-off 

between high-temperature fuel, lowtemperature 

cooling, and an acceptable 

heat capacity. 

The coolant liquid should have the 

highest possible heat transportation 

capability and best neutronic properties. 

Pure molten Lead has low neutron 

capture cross-sections, a low moderation 

capability, and a very suitable 

liquid phase temperature range. For 

the fuel, it is possible to employ 

undiluted fissionable material as 

opposed to a MSFR that works with 

less than 20 % actinide fluoride, see 

Sec. 4 for details. Consequently, a DFR 

has increased power density, small 

core volume and very hard neutron 

spectrum that further improves the 

neutron economy. Additional benefits 

of liquid metal coolant comprise the 

application of magneto hydrodynamic 

techniques both for pumping and, 

possibly in the future, direct elec tricity 

generation because of the high concentration 

of charge carriers. 

Furthermore, the reactor core and 

primary coolant loop can operate at 

normal pressure which allows for 

simple and cost regressive size- scaling. 

Figure 1 explains the synergetic 

effects. The Dual Fluid Principle opens 

the possibility of a liquid fuel with 

high actinide concentration in combination 

with a coolant with high 

heat transfer capability, which leads 

to a high-power density. Liquid fuel 

like in a MSR already reduces the 

consumption of structural materials 

compared with solid fuel reactors, 

| Fig. 1. 

The flow chart shows the advantages of the Dual Fluid principle partially depending on each other. 

It is essential for the understanding of the synergetic effects. 



The Dual Fluid Reactor – An Innovative Fast Nuclear-Reactor Concept with High Efficiency and Total Burnup ı J.-C. Lewitz, A. Huke, G. Ruprecht, D. Weißbach, S. Gottlieb, A. Hussein and K. Czerski



but the power density is limited. 

In the DFR, both positive properties 

can be combined which leads to a 

massive reduction of structural materials. 

At high operating temperatures 

(needed when using an undiluted salt, 

see Sec. 7), corrosion of core structural 

materials limits the choices of 

such materials. However, corrosion 

resistant materials at high temperatures 

do exist, but they are quite 

expensive. Using such materials in a 

DFR design has little effect on its 

economy due to its small size, low 

material inventory, and the absence of 

any parts that need be to replaced 

periodically. 

On the other hand, the use of such 

expensive corrosion resistant ma terials 

in a MSR has adverse economic effects 

due to its high inventory of structural 

material. Thus, the temperature of a 

MSR is limited and the MSR research 

was focused in the past on finding suitable 

eutectic salt mixtures, also complicating 

the production and reprocessing 

techniques. For the DFR, very simple 

state-of-art techniques can be applied, 

see Sec. 4.2. 

Another comparison can be made 

with the Generation IV concept of the 

Lead-cooled Fast Reactor, LFR. Again, 

due to economic reasons, the wall 

material of the exchangeable fuel rods 

must be cheap, which focused the research 

on finding suitable steel alloys. 

They yet have a higher lead corrosion 

susceptibility than the expensive 

materials intended for the DFR design, 

therefore also limiting the operating 

temperature. Due to these material 

restrictions, both, LFR and MSR, 

are not able to achieve operating 

tem peratures suitable for economic 

hydrogen production from water. 

These restrictions do not exist for 

the DFR. 

Contrary to a MSFR, DFR’s liquid 

fuel is not limited to actinide salts, 

but it is the current reference design. 

However, an alternative could be a 

solder-like melt of a metal alloy made 

up of actinides and, if necessary, metals 

with low melting points in order to 

reduce the solidus temperature of the 

alloy and gain a pumpable fluid. The 

advantage would be an even higher 

power density due to better heat 

transportation capability, and a possible 

higher operating temperature due 

to the lower corrosive potential of the 

metal alloy. The basic design, then, allows 

for a high degree of possibilities 

which can be trimmed to a specific 

purpose. These concepts will be discussed 

briefly in Sec. 4.2. 

| Fig. 2. 

Possible power plant based on the DFR, with the nuclear part including the core, the pyro-processing 

unit (PPU), disposal and decay heat dump (left hand side) and the conventional part with the heat 

exchanger and turbines (right hand side). The compactness allows for a subterranean installation. 

| Fig. 3. 

DFR fuel and cooling loop. The fuel circulates between the PPU (which is also connected to the short-lived 

fission products storage) and the core whereas the coolant loop connects the fissile zone to the conventional 

part, also cooling the fission product storage. PPU, core and fission product storage are equipped 

with a fuse plug. 

As a result, a new concept not 

fitting into one of the Generation-IV 

reactor developments has been invented. 

It foresees a compact core with 

a very high power density, an operating 

temperature of about 1,000 °C, inherits 

MSFR’s passive safety features, 

and has hard neutron spectrum. The 

abundant neutron excess can be used 

for multiple transmutation purposes, 

like nuclear waste incineration, and 

breeding for 238 U and 232 Th cycles. 

All this produces a nuclear power 

plant with an outstanding economic 

competitiveness. 

3 System overview 

Figure 2 shows how a DFR reference 

power plant might look like. The 

reference design has a power output 

of 3 GW th and an electric output of 

1.5 GW e which is currently the typical 

nuclear power plant size for the 

electric grid of industrialized countries. 

But also, power-sizes even down 

to approx. 35 M GW e are possible, 

depending on markets demands. Due 

to its compact size, the nuclear part 

can reside in a sub terranean bunker 

that can withstand high magnitude 

earthquakes, direct aircraft impacts 

and non-concen trated conventional 

military attacks. The conventional 

part can utilize supercritical water or 

supercritical CO 2 (see Sec. 8.1) and is 

not fortified for economic reasons, but 

fortification to any desired degree can 

easily be achieved. 

3.1 Fuel and coolant loop 

Since the cooling function is sepa rated 

from the liquid fuel, the circulation 

of the fuel can be adjusted to nuclear 

purposes like maximum burn-up, 

transuranic incineration, isotope production, 

fertile material conversion 




| Fig. 4. 

DFR core details. The cubic core (without 

blanket here) includes a pipe system filled 

with fuel salt which is connected to the fuel 

loop (with fuse plugs) and immersed in 

flowing Lead (coolant loop). 

(breeding), specific deactivation of 

fission products, etc. Figure 3 depicts 

the reactor core as well as the fuel loop 

and the primary coolant loop. The 

liquid fuel enters the core vessel at the 

bottom, spreads over a system of vertical 

tubes where it becomes critical, and 

leaves the reactor on top towards the 

Pyrochemical Processing Unit (PPU). 

The Lead coolant supply pipes have 

a large cross section in order to reduce 

the circulation speed and therefore 

reducing the abrasion at the surface 

materials. It circulates with a rate of 

90 tons/s (10 m 3 /s). When it enters 

the core vessel from the bottom it 

takes the heat from the fuel duct by 

conduction and leaves the vessel on 

top towards the heat exchanger. 

Depending on the power needed, 

part of the Lead’s heat is taken for 

electricity production or as process 

heat. The Lead leaves the exchanger at 

a lower temperature and is pumped 

back to the reactor vessel. 

This can be accomplished by an 

impeller pump which produces a 

steady stream without generating 

sonic shock oscillations in the liquid 

metal. For maintenance, the Lead 

coolant can also be drained at the 

bottom of the reactor vessel into a 

temporary coolant storage from 

where it can be pumped back into the 

reactor vessel. 

3.2. DFR core 

The reference plant uses a mixture 

of actinide-salts as fuel. It has a 

cylindrical core with diameter and 

height of about 3 m for the critical 

zone. It contains 10,000 vertical ducts 

(the number is reduced in Figure 4 

and Figure 5 for illustration reasons). 

Figure 4 is a simplified draft of 

the core depicting the principle. An 

actual core CAD model is depicted in 

Figure 5. 

| Fig. 5. 

Left: DFR core inlet region, cylindrical design. The reflector region is located directly below the lateral salt 

feed tubes, surrounded by the blanket region. 

Right: Schematics of the inlet. In the inlet region, the salt surrounds the Lead tubes and enters the salt 

tubes in the core. This ensures equal pressure on all salt tubes. 

The parallel arrangement of the 

fuel tubes guarantees a quick drainage 

of the fuel liquid within minutes while 

the high number of tubes provides 

sufficient surface for the heat transfer 

to the surrounding coolant. An equal 

flow velocity through all vertical rods 

is desirable and is achieved by a 

horizontal- flow inlet zone with baffle 

plates providing equal pressure 

differences at the vertical junctions. 

An additional outer volume filled 

with Lead serves as a neutron reflector 

reducing the loss of neutrons and 

contributing to the reactivity regulation. 

The separation walls have small 

vents at the top and bottom in order to 

correspond with the Lead loop. A 

further fertile blanket, with simple 

structure, can increase the conversion 

ratio remarkably. 

| Fig. 6. 

Heat transfer from inside of a single fuel pipe 

to the coolant. The temperature gradient is 

calculated in three zones: The turbulence layer 

of the fuel liquid (salt => inner pipe wall), the 

tube wall itself and the turbulence layer of the 

liquid Lead (outer pipe wall => Lead). Values 

are for high salt velocities and MHC pipes. 

Temperature gradient for SiC is about twice. 

While passing the core region 

through the conduit array more and 

more actinides are fissioned and 

transmuted and the fuel changes its 

chemical composition. The fuel 

volume of the reference plant is 

only a few cubic meters, which 

further simplifies its handling and 

processing. 

3.3 Heat transfer 

Figure 6 shows the heat transport. 

Inside the fuel tubes where the 

heat is generated the temperature 

has its maximum. In a region of only 

1 mm towards the tube wall the 

temperature drops by 270 °C, inside 

the wall by up to 85 °C, and up to 

0.5 mm outside the wall another 

50 °C, so the total radial temperature 

drop is roughly 400 °C. The Lead 

coolant moves from the bottom 

to the top which defines the Lead 

temperatures at those points to 

750 °C and 1,000 °C, respectively. 

Consequently, the temperature inside 

the fuel (tube center, not at the 

walls) is 1,150 °C at the bottom 

and 1,400 °C at the top which 

defines the highest absolute temperature 

in the reactor core. Since 

the bottom salt temperature at the 

tube inner wall is above the melting 

temperature in all operational states, 

the salt will not freeze out. At normal 

operating condition the tube inner 

wall temperatures are 840 °C and 

1,090 °C for the bottom and top 

region, respectively, compared to 

the salt melting point of about 

800 °C. The maximum allowed variation 

of the Lead temperature is 

+/- 30 K, still allowing for molten 

fuel in all cases. These tube wall 

salt temperatures are 840 °C and 

1,090 °C for the bottom and top 

region, respectively, compared to the 

salt melting point of about 800 °C. 






| Fig. 7. 

Close-up of the DFR core region with part of the coolant cycle and the shortlived 

fission products storage inside the coolant conduit ahead of the core. 

3.4 Tank for short-lived fission 

products 

Highly radioactive and heat generating 

fission products with half-lives 

of weeks to months pose the main 

problem for reactors with solid fuel 

rods and cause core meltdown unless 

sufficiently cooled. In the DFR like the 

MSFR these fission products are 

regularly separated from the fuel 

liquid so that the core contains only 

few quantities of fission products and 

its handling in case of an emergency is 

unproblematic. However, the problem 

is then transferred to the storage of 

the fission products. In the DFR, this 

problem is solved by storing the shortlived 

fission product salts, roughly 

1 m 3 , in the pipes of a special coolant 

duct segment shown at the bottom 

part of Figure 7, just before the Lead 

reaches the core, where they are 

cooled by the liquid Lead stream 

during normal operation of the plant. 

The molten salts of the short-lived 

products slowly revolve through 

this tank as well as the PPU. In case of 

an emergency or maintenance shutdown, 

they will be drained through 

a melting fuse plug, similar to the 

fuse plug used for the reactor core, see 

next chapter. 

3.5 Melting fuse and 

subcritical heat storage 

Melting fuse plugs, already proven 

and tested in the Oak Ridge Molten 

Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), are 

used in the DFR for the short-lived 

fission products tank and for the 

reactor core (green plug below the 

core and the tank). It is essentially a 

pipe segment which is actively cooled 

with a constant heat transportation 

such that the fuel inside this segment 

just freezes out. 

The cooling power of the fuse is 

fixed, so that the plug does not yet 

melt at 1,000 °C. In case of an emergency, 

i.e. higher core temperatures or 

loss of power, or for an intended fuse 

plug cooling power-off in a regular 

shutdown, the fuel heat power will 

melt the plug open and the fuel is 

drained by gravity into the subcritical 

tanks. 

The subcritical tanks (see Figure 

2) are used for fuel inventory and the 

concentrated highly radioactive shortlived 

fission products from the storage 

in the main coolant loop. Each of the 

tanks has a capacity for a subcritical 

mass of the liquid fuel only. They 

are embedded in a volume filled with 

salt or metal (e.g. iron, assembled 

from ‘Lego’-like bricks, establishing 

full heat contact by temperature 

expansion) which transduces the 

quickly fading heat energy passively 

through the outer walls to the surrounding. 

The heat production lowers from 

200 MW (emitted from the core) 

immediately after shutdown to some 

5 MW (from the coolant duct segment) 

after 12 days. The salt remains 

liquid for several days and can be 

pumped up, entering the fuel loop 

again. After longer storage, a preheating 

system is to be used. 

3.6 Fission product treatment 

The PPU removes the fission products 

from the liquid fuel and replenishes 

it with fresh actinides that may come 

from natural/depleted uranium, used 

fuel elements, and thorium at a 

consumption rate of 1,200 kg/year. 

Fission products are sorted by 

chemical elements and the longer 

living (half- lives of years to decades) 

are cast into small globes which are 

packed and hermetically sealed in 

ripple tubes. The tubes are transferred 

to a decay storage bunker below by a 

remote transfer system (also indicated 

in Figure 2). The bunker can store all 

fission products, 500 kg/year, produced 

during whole life-time of the 

reactor. The sorted fission products 

can be removed according to their 

half-life. 

90 % of all fission products can be 

removed after 100 years, providing 

valuable and rare metals. The 

medium- lived fission products decay 

within 300 years and may remain in 

the storage for that time. The ripple 

tubes inside the storage are passively 

cooled by ambient air utilizing the 

stack effect. 

Long-lived fission products are 

sent back into the reactor core for 

transmutation. 

4 Liquid fuel and 

its processing 

The employment of a liquid fuel 

eliminates the need for the costly fuel 

element infrastructure industry and 

replaces it with online processing of 

the fuel. In principal, it is possible 

to consider all chemical separation 

methods in the reprocessing of 

nuclear fuel, since the radioactivity is 

a subordinated problem. This, however, 

is not true for the presently 

applied PUREX process, as shown in 

the following. 

4.1 Present reprocessing 

technologies 

Originating from the weapon production, 

the usual aqueous organic 

reprocessing techniques like PUREX 

are performed off-site. As the chemical 

processes proceed slowly at normal 

temperatures large volumes of consumed 

auxiliary chemicals with 

medium and low radioactivity are 

required and have to be dumped. In 

order to limit this additional nuclear 

waste, spent fuel elements need to be 

stored for at least 1 year, in practice 

rather 5–10 years, before starting the 

PUREX processing, otherwise the 

expensive organic solvents are 

destroyed by the intense radiolysis 

and therefore have to be replaced very 

often. Hence, the radioactivity of the 

fuel has an eminent relevance here. 

The class of aqueous organic reprocessing 

techniques is inappropriate for 

online fuel processing. A real progress 

was made by implementation of the 

reprocessing inside the Integral Fast 

Reactor (IFR). It uses electro-refining, 

a long-known method in metallurgy, 

for the separation of the fission 

products: The metallic fuel is converted 

to a salt which in turn is used 

for the electrolysis wherein the 

actinides deposit at the electrode and 

the fission products mainly remain in 

the molten salt. This manageable 

reprocessing unit was used on-site of 

an IFR plant. After the IFR program 

was canceled its successor, the 

S-PRISM reactor, inherited the process, 

though in a central off-site 

processing facility. 

A possible online reprocessing 

technique was tested for the MSFR – 

a dry method with a vapor-phase 

fluoride- salt distillation system as the 

main component where the metal 

salts are separated by boiling points. 

However, many fluorides have very 




high boiling points so that additional 

fluorination is required and yet metal 

fluorides remain in a slurry needing 

further treatment steps. In a MSR, a 

real online fuel reprocessing conflicts 

with the cooling requirements, therefore 

the reactor must be shut down to 

branch the fuel into the reprocessing 

facility which needs a high capacity in 

order to keep the outage time of the 

reactor short. Nevertheless, such 

pyrochemical processing facilities are 

still small in comparison to PUREXlike 

methods. 

The distillation techniques, and in 

particular, the electro-refining techniques 

are subject to ongoing development 

activities for the Generation IV 

reactors as well as a substitute for the 

complex wet chemical PUREX reprocessing 

plants. 

However, online does not necessarily 

mean continuous. Batch techniques 

may be used as well, provided 

the continuously pumped fuel fluid is 

intermittently stored in a small buffer 

while the previous batch from the 

buffer is processed. 

None of the present reactor concepts 

of the Generation IV provides a 

real online fuel reprocessing. This 

means that none of these concepts has 

all the advantages of a liquid fuel 

that could be achieved with a true 

online fuel reprocessing like very 

low criticality reserves which are a 

control issue in solid-fueled reactors, 

especially ADS, or MSRs with long 

fuel processing periods. 

4.2 Fuel processing in the DFR 

As pointed out, for online fuel processing 

the employed technique must 

be congruously fast so only dry high 

temperature methods can be considered. 

Moreover, the fuel must be 

impervious to radiolysis within the 

process. The liquid fuel of the DFR for 

the reference design is a molten salt, 

but could be also a metallic melt as a 

future option. Therefore, the DFR concept 

is not an MSR variant, and the 

reprocessing techniques are different 

because of the very different salts. 

Due to the ionic nature of the bond in 

the case of the salt and the metallic 

bond in the case of the metallic melt, 

the liquid is impervious to radiolysis 

which makes it suitable for physicochemical 

separation methods at high 

temperatures. These methods will be 

used in the PPU of the DFR. 

For the possible future concept of a 

metallic fuel melt there are several 

options ranging from a more heterogeneous 

system with liquid plutonium 

over a solution of actinides in Pb/Bi/ 

Sn to a dispersion of solid actinides 

and/or actinide compounds in Pb/Bi/ 

Sn. The prospects of metallic fuels 

were already investigated in the 

1950s. More precisely, the last option 

would be made up of actinides which 

are suspended in a melt of metals with 

low melting points with a fraction of 

up to 75 atom-% which reduce the 

solidus temperature of the alloy below 

the operating temperature, because 

some of the involved actinides have 

too high melting points. Suitable metals 

with sufficient neutronic properties 

are lead, bismuth and tin. The accrued 

multi-component alloy does not 

necessarily need to be eutectic – even 

in the case the liquidus temperature is 

above the operating temperature the 

mixture is sufficiently pumpable in 

this pasty phase. The processing of the 

metallic melt can be performed with a 

first fractionated distillation step 

where the metals with low boiling 

points compared with actinides like 

Lead, Bismuth and some of the fission 

products can be separated and the remaining 

slurry is converted to salts 

and then distilled as before. Then, the 

resulting salt fractions need to be converted 

to metals back again by electrolysis 

before re-insertion into the reactor 

fuel loop. 

For the reference concept, molten 

salts are used because of their lower 

melting points and wider range of experience. 

Unlike an MSR chlorides are 

adopted since fluoride salts have considerable 

moderating quality thus softening 

the neutron spectrum and deteriorating 

the neutron economy. This 

together with the high boiling points 

of many of the involved metal fluorides 

render fluorine inapplicable. 

Higher halogens are more practical 

with respect to both properties. For 

the metals in the fuel mixture chlorine 

salts have sufficiently low boiling 

points so that a separation by boiling 

points in a fractionated distillation facility 

alone becomes feasible. 

Hence, the fuel is a binary combination 

of only a fertile and a fissile 

actinide chloride which can be 

238 U/ 239 Pu or 232 Th/ 233 U. It should be 

clearly noticed that no carrier salt is 

needed or desired, as opposed to current 

MSR concepts – this is the advantage 

of the Dual Fluid principle. The 

fraction of the initial load of reactor-grade 

Pu or enriched U depends 

on the size of the reactor core because 

of neutron losses through the surface. 

For the reference plant, it is 23 % 

( reactor-grade Pu) or 19 % ( 235 U) 

mass fraction according to first static 

SERPENT calculations. The maximum 

239 Pu fraction required for the smallest 

useful set-up can be very high and 

is not limited by the reactivity coefficient 

of the Doppler- broadening effect 

of 238 U while larger cores can manage 

smaller fractions. The rest of the fuel 

is fertile material like 238 U or 232 Th. 

Here, the fuel salt would consist of the 

tri-chlorides of the actinides, i.e. UCl 3 

and PuCl 3 , which have a suitable 

temperature range of the liquid state. 

Purified 37 Cl is to be used in order to 

avoid neutron losses due to their 

capture by 35 Cl and production of the 

long-lived radioactive isotope- 36 Cl. 

Both previously developed and 

tested reprocessing methods of the 

Generation IV reactors, fractional distillation 

and electro-refining, can also 

be employed for the DFR. The capacity 

of the PPU can be designed even 

much smaller because of the low fuel 

volume. In a simple version, the 

electro- refining method can be used 

in order to purify the fuel salt by 

precipitation of a fission product 

mixture. For the purpose of specific 

transmutation, a more precise partitioning 

is required which can only be 

accomplished by fractionated distillation/rectification, 

which is beyond 

the MSFR principle. 

Basically, whenever liquid fuels 

are used certain preprocessing steps 

have to be accomplished in order to 

deal with volatile and ‘noble’ fission 

products. In the case of a fuel salt and 

the fission of plutonium, significant 

quantities of metals are produced 

which can hardly form chloride 

compounds, notably Mo, Ru, and Rh. 

In the frame of the Molten Salt Reactor 

Experiment (MSRE) this issue was 

investigated in the view of the possible 

segregation problem of said fission 

products. It turned out that the 

segregation is not a progressive process 

but instead an equilibrium 

accrues between segregation and 

solvation. This equilibrium level can 

be controlled by the overall chemical 

potential of the molten salt which may 

be adjusted by the quantity of chlorine 

ions and possibly certain minor 

additives. The chemical potential also 

determines the corrosive properties of 

the salt. In preprocessing steps the 

noble metals in the fuel coming from 

the reactor can be precipitated by 

bubbling noble gas (He, Ar) through 

the fuel salt. The metals precipitate as 

platelets at the phase boundary 

between the gas bubble and the salt 

liquid where they can be subsequently 

retrieved by a rake. This makes it 

possible to easily separate 99 Mo, 

which decays to the important 






medical isotope 99m TC, see also sec. 8. 

Concurrently to the gas bubbling the 

volatile fission products Kr, Xe, Cs and 

I 2 are expelled as well and can be 

removed easily. 

Volatile iodine as well as cesium 

can be removed from the fuel loop/ 

PPU and bound chemically stable. 

Since a permanent reprocessing of the 

molten salt fuel is possible, only very 

few fission products accumulate 

so that their integration in the fuel 

salt is unproblematic. The low fission 

product concentration in the core also 

reduces corrosion. 

The salt has to remain in the 

liquid state during operation which is 

assured in the core by the criticality 

condition and in the PPU by the 

residual heat. A frozen salt would not 

damage the reactor but has to be 

preheated, e.g. by inductive heating. 

Small, possibly mobile, DFR systems 

could use a once through cycle, 

i.e. they are not connected to a PPU 

and use the fuel inventory once. It can 

then be exchanged by pumping and 

processed in a PPU at a different 

location. The fuel’s range can be 

extended with a centrifuge which precipitates 

some of the fission product 

compounds by density separation. 

5 Reactor operation and 

regulation 

5.1 Neutron absorption and 

negative temperature 

feedback 

The PPU fabricates a fuel mixture 

that is critical inside the reactor at 

the desired operating temperature of 

1,000 °C. There are three main effects 

which provide negative feedback to 

the fission reaction rate by depression 

of the neutron flux when the temperature 

rises: 

1. Doppler broadening of the 

resonances in the neutron capture 

cross sections increases the 

macroscopic neutron capture cross 

section. 

2. Density decrease of the molten salt 

fuel which reduces the fissile nuclei 

concentration, the far dominant 

effect with dk/dT >= 0.015 $/K 

assuming the density decrease of 

UCl 3 for the whole salt, where 

k is the effective neutron multiplication 

factor and T the fuel 

tem perature. 

3. Density decrease of the molten 

Lead reduces the concentration of 

the neutron reflecting lead nuclei. 

The change in reactivity due to a 

temperature induced density change 

in the liquid fuel is by far dominant 

and almost instantaneous because it is 

determined by the speed of sound. 

Lead has a high atomic mass and 4 

stable isotopes due to nuclear shell 

closure. Therefore, it is an excellent 

neutron reflector with low moderation 

qualities and low isotope- weighted 

neutron capture cross section. 

These effects together with the 

density change cause a strong negative 

temperature coefficient in the fast 

neutron spectrum. 

This is in contrast to liquid Sodium 

as coolant which has a higher neutron 

capture cross section, higher neutron 

moderation and lower reflection 

quality which means an increase of 

the neutron flux with rising temperature, 

i.e. temporal positive temperature 

coefficient in several designs. 

Furthermore, since the most 

abundant Lead isotopes are each at 

the end of a decay chain, prolonged 

exposure to neutrons can only induce 

low radioactivity. The highest stable 

Lead isotope, 208 Pb, has the lowest 

neutron capture cross section, which 

leads back to stable Lead via 208 Pb 

(n,c) 209 Pb (b) 209 Bi (n,c) 210 Bi (b) 

210 Po (a) 206 Pb. The stable 209 Bi 

accumulates slowly, so that only 209 Pb 

contributes remarkably to some 

activity, decaying with a half-life of 

only 3 h and, in contrast to Sodium, 

free from gamma radiation. For the 

only longer living nuclide, 210 Po (halflife 

138 days), even 50 years of reactor 

operation and 209 Bi accumulation 

leads to an activity just comparable 

with natural Uranium. As a result, the 

low and gamma-free radioactivity 

makes an intermediary cooling loop 

obsolete, which further reduces the 

expenses, see Sec. 8.1. 

Due to its very strong overall 

negative temperature coefficient (five 

times that of a TRIGA reactor) and 

limited fuel heat capacity, the usage of 

control rods in a DFR type reactor is 

not necessary. 

5.2 Startup procedure 

To start up the reactor the system is 

pre-heated until the coolant and the 

fuel salt liquefy. Concurrently the 

cooling of the melting fuse plug is 

started. The fuel salt is pumped from 

the storage tanks to the reactor. At the 

tee connector, just below the reactor 

some of the fuel fluid branches to the 

fuse where it freezes out and plugs it. 

As soon as the salt, preheated to 

900 °C, slowly moves into the reactor 

core it becomes critical. 

Thanks to the very strong negative 

reactivity coefficient, dominated 

by the liquid fuel, an equilibrium 

tem perature will be reached very fast, 

and it cannot freeze out anymore 

(melting temperature at 800 °C). 

Now the reactor is regulated by 

the described loops (see sec. 3). At 

the beginning the fission rate and 

correspondingly the power production 

is minimal. Then the coolant 

pump starts to accelerate the circulation 

of the Lead. The discharge of 

heat to the heat exchanger causes a 

temperature decrease in the reactor 

(of course the heat exchanger must be 

able to dump the heat energy). The 

control loops render the reactor 

supercritical until the nominal temperature 

is regained and wellbalanced. 

This may continue until the 

nominal power output is reached. 

Conversely, if the Lead circulation 

speed is decelerated (also in case of a 

malfunction) the temperature in the 

reactor increases and it becomes 

subcritical until leveled off at the 

nominal temperature but with lower 

fission rate. In such a manner, the 

fission rate in the reactor follows the 

power extraction. This can be done actively 

by the Lead pumping speed, or 

passively by feedback from the 

turbine’s electricity generation. There 

is no need to control the fission rate 

directly in the reactor core (e.g. by 

control rods). 

The equilibrium (nominal) temperature 

is determined by the fraction 

of the fissile material in the fuel salt. 

The PPU provides the appropriate fuel 

salt mixture. 

5.3 Shutdown procedure 

For a regular shut down the coolant 

circulation and the fuse cooling is 

stopped and the fuel salt empties to 

the storage tanks. The same happens 

if the power to the entire plant fails. 

Any other reason like malfunction and 

sabotage increasing the fraction of the 

fissile material raises the equilibrium 

temperature. For these incidents, 

again the melting fuse plug kicks in. 

Consequently, the emergency shut 

down is the same as the regular shut 

down. 

6 Neutron economy 

With the U-Pu fuel cycle the fission of 

Pu produces a high neutron yield. 

Even after regeneration of the Pu fuel 

by conversion of fertile 238 U a large 

neutron surplus remains. Neutronics 

simulation calculations have been 

performed (Serpent, OpenMC); preliminary 

results, though with no conversion 

ratio calculations, are to be 

published. If (besides fissile material) 

only 238 U is fed into the fuel this 




neutron surplus will end up as 

additional plutonium. In this case (or 

similar for 232 Th) the conversion rate 

is larger than one and the reactor 

works in the breeder mode. 

The neutron surplus can also be 

used for other transmutation purposes, 

e.g. when long-lived fission 

products are specifically mixed in the 

fuel salt by the PPU. There is still a 

considerable neutron surplus when 

the reactor transmutes its own longlived 

fission products which can be 

used to transmute fission products 

from waste fuel elements of other 

nuclear reactors. Only if this additional 

neutron surplus is consumed 

otherwise, but not for breeding, the 

reactor works as a self-burner, i.e. 

conversion rate equal one. 

Alternatively, the PPU can mix in 

Th or inert materials to even out the 

neutron surplus. The fission neutron 

yield of 233 U from the Th/U fuel cycle 

is considerably lower than for the 

plutonium fission. As other fast 

neutron breeders, the DFR also can be 

operated in the Th/U cycle with a 

conversion ratio slightly larger than 1. 

The transmutation of its own longlived 

fission products may be feasible. 

For that, the PPU needs to separate 

out and store the 233 Pa until it decays 

to 233 U. The PPU can handle the 

transition from the U/Pu to the Th/U 

fuel cycle continuously. 

The fissile material in the fuel 

salt may also contain transuranium 

elements from waste nuclear fuel 

elements. As in the case of fission 

product transmutation the PPU would 

process chlorine salts made of the fuel 

pellets of waste fuel elements separating 

the chemical elements by 

boiling points. Then the PPU mixes 

the fuel salt from the desired actinides 

so that the criticality condition in the 

core is maintained. In this way, the 

sources of fuel are natural uranium, 

depleted uranium, nuclear waste, and 

thorium. The reference plant can 

consume radiotoxic transuranium 

elements from burned LWR fuel up to 

1,200 kg per year. 

One DFR using the U/Pu cycle can 

provide the initial fissile charge for 

another DFR, where the doubling 

time is comparable to the total construction 

time of a power plant and 

not the limiting factor for deployment. 

SFR’s (like the French Superphénix 

and the Russian BN) together 

with PUREX-reprocessing plants have 

doubling times of 30–40 years. 

Utilizing the Th/U cycle in water 

cooled reactors with fuel elements 

would exceed even these long 

doubling times. The thorium MSFR 

(also known as liquid fluoride thorium 

reactor – LFTR or “lifter”) would have 

a doubling time of about 25 years. 

7 Materials and 

fabrications 

As mentioned in Sec. 4.2, for a compact 

nuclear core a high actinide fraction 

is necessary to obtain sufficient 

fissioning and breeding capabilities. 

Thus, the fuel salt should be undiluted 

which renders eutectic compositions 

dispensable. This results in elevated 

melting points of about 800 °C and 

demands high operating temperatures 

above 1,000 °C. Therefore, the 

materials of the nuclear part must 

withstand high-temperature corrosion, 

a high neutron flux, and must 

have a very good high-temperature 

stability and creep strength. 

These extremely resistant materials 

are known for many decades but 

could not be treated in the past. This 

includes in particular alloys from the 

extended group of refractory metals, 

molybdenum- and tungsten-based 

alloys, as well as high-performance 

industrial ceramics. Meanwhile, however, 

fabrication methods are far 

advanced, so that such materials 

find applications over a widespread 

range in the industry, especially 

in the chemical industry, mechanical 

engineering as well as in the aviation 

(nozzles, jet vanes, balance weights). 

Their demand is still low but their 

technical feasibility has been proven 

in the past decades. For this reason, 

they are expensive, and current 

material research for solid-fuel based 

reactors (LWRs, but also most of the 

Generation IV concepts) is focused on 

replacements like steel and Ni alloys. 

This is in contrast to the DFR where 

higher material costs play only a 

minor role since the material demand 

is several times lower than for 

LWRs, as also pointed out in Sec. 2 

(Figure 1) and Sec. 9. The entire 

reactor needs only a few 100 tons of 

refractory materials, with only 20 to 

50 tons for the core, while the remaining 

80–90 percent are in a simple 

geometry. The durability and creep 

resistance is a central point: it requires 

but at the same time enables a core 

that needs not to be exchanged. 

This point is often not seen by 

critics implicitly assuming a dis posable 

material technique as equired by 

the solid fuel rod tech nology involving 

a very restricted view on the material 

variety. 

Tungsten and Tantalum show much 

less corrosion in NdCl 3 – NaCl- KCl or 

MgCl 2 – KCl salts compared to 

Hastelloy -X or Iron-/Chromium-based 

alloys. Molybdenum-based alloys 

show a high resistance against both 

molten fluorides and, also Niobium 

alloys, against Lead. Chloride salts 

are significantly less corrosive than 

fluorides. 

As a further option, new ceramics 

may be considered, as coating and in 

the form of new fiber backed composite 

workpieces. 

Silicon carbide (SiC) is known for 

its low neutron capture cross-section 

and is therefore in the focus of today’s 

nuclear material research. Especially 

CVD-like SiC, is very resistant against 

Lead corrosion at more than 1,000 °C, 

even when Lithium is added (Pb- 

17Li), where pure Li would dissolve 

SiC at 500 °C. Regarding molten salt 

corrosion, much less data is available 

for SiC. It was tested with NaCl which 

has a similar enthalpy like UCl 3 and 

showed a good resistance up to 900 °C 

even though it was a much less 

corrosion-resistant variant (reactionbonded 

SiC with Si excess). Compared 

to that, CVD-SiC showed a much 

higher corrosion resistance. Below 

1,200 °C, this material also shows a 

high irradiation resistance, whereas 

SiC/SiC fibre pieces are less resistant 

although the newest generation of 

these composites showed a higher 

resistance again. Micro crystalline 

damages caused by the high neutron 

flux as well as thermal stress will be 

automatically healed at those high 

temperatures (annealing in metals) 

and ceramics are more resistant at 

elevated temperatures. In the PPU, 

there are even less restrictions as 

neutron embrittlement and heat conduction 

do not play a dominant role 

anymore. 

Pieces from high-performance 

alloys, even from refractory ones, can 

be produced by new electron welding 

processes, high-pressure sintering and 

laser techniques. In particular, the 

laser treatment cares for a high-purity 

crystal structure (smooth melting) – a 

factor very important for the corrosion 

resistance. Generally, refractory 

compounds are processed with the 

methods of the powder metallurgy, 

particularly because of their high 

melting temperatures and durability. 

The sintering process limits the size 

and shape of work-parts but new laser 

sintering methods might relieve many 

restrictions. Even though the fraction 

of voids for today’s applications is 

still too high, sintering extruders are 

capable of producing monolithic pipes 

with smooth surfaces. The whole 






array can be assembled with electron 

beam and/or laser welding in vacuum. 

For valves in molten-salt, contactsurface 

seals can be used since they 

will only by used hourly. 

The high operating temperatures 

are well above the brittle-ductile 

region of refractory metals hindering 

strongly an embrittlement, best seen 

on Mo-based alloys. Furthermore, 

highly-resistant coatings can be 

considered. Some refractory alloys 

are already ductile between 300 °C 

and 500 °C (or lower), e.g. MHC (1Hf- 

0.1C-Mo) or TZM (0.5Ti-0.08Zr- 

0.02CMo), maybe with some additions 

of Rhenium in the 1 %-region. 

All operating temperatures (inlet 

and outlet) are well between 850 °C 

and 1,100 °C, 1,400 °C occur only in the 

axial center of the fuel, not at the tube 

walls (see Sec. 3.3 and Figure 6). The 

thermal expansion coefficients of 

refractory alloys are similar to the ones 

of ceramics not causing significant 

stress or tension, as also can be seen in 

turbine parts or high-temperature 

furnaces. 

The entire core (total dead weight 

is a few ten tons) can be produced in a 

factory by the methods mentioned 

above and deployed on site exclusively 

by bolting and screwing or stacking/ 

clamping in the case of SiC. Possibly 

the core must be segmented in order to 

ease the exchange of possibly damaged 

parts. For the coatings, corrosion resistant 

materials (SiC also as structural 

material, Si 3 N 4 , AlN in the core, possibly 

TiB 2 , B 4 C elsewhere) exist, having 

a heat con ductivity similar to Ni. For 

isolation, fan and fold sheets can be 

used but because of the high neutron 

flux the entire core has to be surrounded 

by a concrete shield anyway. 

8 Applications 

Figure 8 depicts possible application. 

The high temperature opens the 

hydrogen-based chemistry with 

synthetic fuels suitable for today’s 

vehicles. The low production costs 

make these applications competitive 

with fossil fuels like gasoline. Further 

applications are described in the 

following. 

8.1 Conventional part 

Due to the low and gamma-free radioactivity 

of liquid Lead (see Sec. 5.1) 

it is possible to extend the primary 

coolant loop directly into the conventional 

part of the plant. This translates 

into a considerable reduction of the 

reactor construction cost, as opposed 

to Sodium cooled reactors which 

require a secondary cooling circuit 

due to the high radioactive and 

gamma- emitting content of Sodium. 

In the conventional part the heat 

energy needs to be transduced 

from the liquid metal, a medium with 

very high heat transport capacity, 

to a working medium with considerable 

lower heat transport capacity 

suitable for turbines. Without further 

development, the most cost effective 

technique, nowadays, is supercritical 

water (scH 2 O) cycle. Albeit the newest 

coal fired plants work at 700 °C there 

is no principal problem to increase it 

to 1,000 °C. Generally, scH 2 O turbines 

have more in common with gas 

turbines than with steam turbines 

since there is no phase change 

throughout the whole cycle; so, operating 

parameters are quite similar. 

The reactivity of water with respect to 

its ability as oxidizer increases with 

temperature. However, modern gas 

turbines are made of very resilient 

materials and are capable to get along 

with sulphuric acid, dust particles, 

and hot steam at 1,400 °C. 

Another near future possibility is 

the usage of supercritical carbon 

dioxide (scCO 2 ) turbines, leading 

to more compact machine components 

with a slightly higher thermal 

effi ciency and significantly reduced 

corrosion rates and pressures compared 

to scH 2 O turbines. Although 

still in development, the experience 

and outlook is promising. The corrosion 

rates are monitored to be less 

than 1 mm per year at 1,000 °C using 

industrial INCONEL-MA-754 nickelbase 

alloy, decreasing with time. The 

alloys used in the DFR are signifi cantly 

more corrosion resistant so scCO 2 

should be a minor problem. 

8.2 Process heat and electricity 

If the DFR is employed for process 

heat generation the conventional part 

may be modified. For process heat 

generation only a heat transducer to a 

secondary liquid coolant cycle or a 

direct heating of a chemical reactor in 

close vicinity with the primary coolant 

may be used. If a mixed process heat 

and electricity generation is desired, a 

first indirect heat exchanger which 

decouples heat energy at the high 

operating temperature may be followed 

by a subsequent heat exchanger 

which heats at a lower temperature 

water in a steam or supercritical water 

cycle with a connected turbine. 

8.3 Future MHD option 

A further possibility is the utilization 

of an MHD generator connected to the 

Lead coolant loop. Liquid metals are 

particularly eligible for that because 

of their high concentration of free 

charge carriers. The efficiency of the 

MHD generator is chiefly limited by 

the nozzle which converts the internal 

energy of the fluid into directed 

stream energy which is then converted 

to electricity. The still considerable 

residual heat after the MHD generator 

may be used in a sub sequent 

heat exchanger with a water cycle 

as above. Such a system may be significantly 

less costly than multiple 

turbines. 

| Fig. 8. 

Possible applications for the DFR. 

8.4 Radiotomic chemical 

production 

The short-lived fission products 

storage may be designed in an alternative 

way in order to enable the 

utilization of the intensive radiation 

for radiotomic induction of chemical 

reactions requiring high doses 

(kGy/s). There is a constant power 




level of 30 MW of the short-lived 

fission products in the reference plant 

which may induce a γ-doserate of 

0.1–1 MGy/s into compressed gases. 

There is a small number of simple 

molecules that are the base for several 

process chains in industrial chemistry 

and result from strong endothermic 

reactions which are performed with 

high expenses over several steps 

frequently employing costly catalyzers. 

Here a γ-quantum can directly 

provide the required energy by 

multiple excitation/ionization of the 

educts resulting in a considerable 

simplification of the required equipment 

and reduction of costs all the 

more the radiation source exists 

anyway. This possibility was already 

described in the past. 

Such basic compounds are nitrogen 

oxides NO 2 , ozone O 3 , hydrocyanic 

acid HCN, and carbon monoxide CO. 

Nitrogen oxide and ozone can be 

obtained by irradiation of compressed 

air. Hydrocyanic acid originates 

from methane and nitrogen. Carbon 

monoxide results from radiative 

dis sociation of carbon dioxide. The 

DFR reference plant may produce 

10 4-5 tons/year tons/year of these 

chemicals. 

8.5 Medical Isotope 

Production 

The radiotracer 99m Tc is a prime 

example of a medical application that 

would not be possible without a 

nuclear reactor. 

Seeking an alternative during 

the world-wide Molybdenum crisis 

2009/2010 failed due to the high 

neutron flux required for the production 

of the 99m Tc precursor 99 Mo. A 

cost-effective production in commercial 

reactors seems not to be possible 

for several reasons, so it is mainly produced 

in research reactors. An expensive 

separation process follows, and a 

sophisticated logistic chain to finally 

deliver the technetium generators to 

hospitals is required due to the short 

half-life of 99 Mo of only 3 days. 

The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) 

estimates the future 99 Mo world 

demand to be 4*10 16 6-days-Bq (10 6 

6-days-Ci) per year, corresponding to 

a demand of roughly 1 kg (assuming 

10 % separation efficiency) directly 

from the nuclear fission in LWRs 

providing 99 Mo. In contrast, one single 

DFR produces at least 30 kg 99 Mo per 

year but – more important – already 

provides it in a separated form, see 

also Sec. 4.2. This strongly reduces 

the handling so that a complete 

on-site medical-clean production of 

the technetium generators are feasible 

which further simplifies the logistics 

of the delivery to the hospitals. This 

could lead to a cost implosion for the 

99m Tc radiotracer and therefore to an 

inflation of applications. 

9 EROI consideration 

Energy Return on Investment is 

probably the most important factor 

to characterize the economicalefficiency 

of an energy source. It is 

defined as the ratio of the total electricity 

output of a power plant during 

its lifetime to the expended exergy for 

construction, fuel supply expense, 

maintenance, and decommissioning. 

This should not be confused with a 

return-on-investment assessment on a 

monetary basis. 

Unlike monetary measures, the 

EROI is time invariant and independent 

from the national economic 

context. It requires a full life cycle 

assessment (LCA) in order to determine 

the correct cumulative energy 

demand CED (the energy invested, i.e. 

Item 

Concrete containment for reactor, fission products 

and turbine building 

High performance refractory metals and ceramics 

(PPU and core) 

High temperature isolation material for PPU and 

core 

the denominator of the EROI). For a 

typical 1,400 MWe PWR, a major part 

of the CED is needed for the enrichment 

of uranium which in the first 

decades of nuclear power applications 

was dominated by the very ineffective 

diffusion enrichment. 

This reduced the EROI to 24 which 

is comparable to fossil fired power 

plants and is one explanation why the 

expansion of nuclear power came to a 

halt in the 1970s in the USA. 

A newly built PWR with mostly 

centrifuge enrichment has an EROI of 

75 to 105, with complete LASER 

enrichment up to 115. So the PWR 

technology can have an advantage 

in the EROI factor of 4 to fossil power 

but this defines also the limit of the 

PWRs and the Generation III(++) 

technology in general. 

Another costly contribution to the 

low EROI are the expenses for the fuel 

element infrastructure industry which 

is also conceptually based on the 

military logistic chain where as much 

as possible is displaced from the 

Units 

(or total amount 

in 1,000 kg) 

Energy 

inventory 

in TJ/(1,000 kg) 

| Tab. 1. 

Input energy amounts of the DFR; bold: the sum of all inputs and the total electricity output; the ratio leads to an EROI 

of almost 2,000 for the DFR, see text. 

Total 

inventory 

in TJ 

21,000 0.0014 30 

60 

100 

0.5 30 

0.1 10 

Initial load, isotopically purified 37 Cl + fuel 25+60 2.5/0.4 50+25 

Refractory metals and ceramics for the heat 

exchanger 

180 0.5 90 

Isolation and structural materials, heat exchanger 300 0.1 30 

Untreated, low-alloyed metal for fission product 

encapsulation 

3,000 0.033 100 

Structural materials (steel) for non-nuclear part 1,000 0.02 20 

Lead coolant 1,200 0.036 45 

Turbines with generators 3 40 120 

Mechanical engineering parts 150 

Cooling tower (special concrete) 20,000 0.003 60 

Refueling, 1,200 kg/a actinides over 50 years 60 0.4 25 

37 Cl loss compensation 2 2.5 5 

Maintenance, high-performance refractories + 

isolation for 1 new core 

Maintenance, 50% of other reactor parts, 

refractories + isolation 

Maintenance, 50% of mechanical engineering 

and turbines 

Maintenance electricity, 2MW over 20 days/a 

and heating, 50*0.2 TJ 

30+50 0.5/0.1 20 

90+175 0.5/0.1 62.5 

135 

182.5 

Sum 1,190 

Output over 50 year’s-lifetime, 1,500 MW net, 

8,300 full-load hours 

2,250,000 






This document is 

based on Armin Huke 

et al., Annals of 

Nuclear Energy 80 

(2015) 225: „The Dual 

Fluid Reactor – 

A novel concept for a 

fast nuclear reactor of 

high efficiency“ 

| Fig. 9. 

Energy Returned on Investment (EROI) at different electricity generating technologies. 

battlefield to factories in the back 

area. The utilization of fuel elements 

then again requires multiple-redundancy 

elaborated active and passive 

safety systems in order to counteract 

the risk of core meltdown, further 

reducing the EROI in effect. 

The large EROI gain of the DFR 

mainly results from two aspects: The 

loss of a costly external fuel pro cessing 

infrastructure (improvement of more 

than a factor of 3) and the much 

higher compactness and simplicity 

compared to a light water reactor 

( another factor of 6). Additional 

minor improvements arise from lower 

maintenance efforts and from much 

less fuel consumption as well as 

significantly lower disposal needs. 

The higher per-mass efforts for 

the refractory parts are far outweighed 

by the extreme reduction 

of material amounts needed for 

construction (several 1,000 metrictons 

nickel alloys and highly alloyed 

steels in a light water reactor 

compared to a few 100 metric-tons 

refractories in the DFR). Table 1 

describes the evaluation of the EROI 

for the DFR. 

Since some materials (especially 

refractory metals) must be investigated 

and modified for use in the 

DFR, their energy inventory must be 

estimated. Furthermore, the maintenance 

for the nuclear part is also 

unknown, causing the same uncertainties. 

The resulting EROI is therefore 

roughly 2,000 which is 25 times 

higher than that of today’s PWR 

technique. The very compact design 

lowers the construction energy 

demand down almost to the level of 

CCGT plants on a per-watt basis, and 

the fuel-related energy demands are 

tiny compared to light water reactors 

due to the efficient usage. 

A theoretical maximum EROI 

of 10,000 can be calculated as an 

extra polated limit, only taking into 

account the exploitation costs at 

3 ppm U- content in the earth crust, 

erection of power plant, service and 

maintenance, dismantling and disposal 

being neglected. Further optimization 

of the design and extraction of 

fuel at basic crust concentrations 

(10 ppm for Thorium) would lead to a 

domination of the fuel-related input 

and opening potential for a further 

increase of the EROI. 

This all together is showing that 

the DFR exhausts the potential of 

nuclear fission to a large extent. For 

illustration on the relevance of the 

EROI-definition, Figure 9 depicts the 

EROIs of different currently used 

electricity producing technologies 

with the EROI for a DFR. 

10 Final remarks 

The Dual Fluid principle of separating 

the cooling and fuel function in creases 

the complexity of the reactor core 

relative to the MSR but has large 

synergetic effects in the fuel reprocessing, 

the neutron economy, the 

cost efficiency as well as on the 

possible applications. This allows to 

combine the advantages of different 

Generation IV concepts (MSFR, LFR, 

SCWR, VHTR) in one reactor type 

while considerably undercutting the 

costs even of today’s LWRs. 

The good neutron economy and 

the hard neutron spectrum makes the 

DFR an effective waste incinerator 

and also an excellent thorium breeder, 

outbidding even MSRs like the LFTR 

while being more cost-effective. The 

high temperature combined with the 

high cost-efficiency allows the production 

of synthetic fuels in competition 

with todays refined oil and 

gasoline. 

The online separation of fission 

products provides presorted metals 

that can be used after decay as important 

raw materials for the industry. 

Other fission products, e.g. 99 Mo 

needed for medical diagnostics, can 

be quickly withdrawn in large 

amounts with no further processing. 

The liquid fuel provides the same passive 

safety features as already tested 

for the molten-salt reactor (melting 

fuse plug, deeply negative temperature 

reactivity coefficient) but the 

concentrated actinide fuel adds additional 

safety and controllability due 

to a higher delayed neutron fraction 

inside the fissile zone. The lower fissile 

zone salt inventory means lower heat 

capacity leading to a faster power 

reduction in the case of additional 

reactivity. 

Manufacturing the durable workpieces 

for the core is feasible by 

state-of-the-art technical processes 

and well-established industrial procedures. 

The complete absence of 

control rods, valves or any other 

mechanical parts as well as its compact 

size enables the use of expensive, 

corrosion-resistive materials and 

modern fabrication techniques like 

laser sintering. 

In essence the Dual Fluid principle 

resolves the contradiction of contemporary 

NPP concepts between a 

high power-density which is obligatory 

for the crucial economic edge to 

prevail in the energy market, and 

inherent passive safety necessary for a 

safe operation and eventually the 

public acceptance of nuclear power. 

Author 

Jan-Christian Lewitz (a,b) 

Armin Huke (b) 

Götz Ruprecht (b) 

Daniel Weißbach (b,c) 

Stephan Gottlieb (b) 

Ahmed Hussein (b,d) 

Konrad Czerski (b,c) 

(a) LTZ-Consulting GmbH, 

Tharandter Str. 12 

01159 Dresden, Germany 

(b) Institut für Festkörper- 

Kernphysik gGmbH, Leistikowstr. 2, 

14050 Berlin, Germany 

(c) Instytut Fizyki, Wydział 

Matematyczno-Fizyczny, 

Uniwersytet Szczeciński, 

ul. Wielkopolska 15 

70-451, Szczecin, Poland 

(d) Department of Physics, 

University of Northern British 

Columbia, 3333 University Way, 

Prince George, BC, Canada. 

V6P 3S6 




36C3 – Mehr offene Fragen als Antworten 

Stefan Loubichi 

155 

Die Einschläge kommen näher und wir kennen alle die Folgen Es dürfte (wahrscheinlich) 

niemand in der Energiebranche geben, der den am 17.6.2013 erschienenen Roman „BLACKOUT – Morgen ist es zu spät“ 

nicht kennt. 

Weniger bekannt in der Energiebranche 

ist (leider) das bereits 2011 

im edition sigma Verlag erschienene 

Werk „Was bei einem Blackout geschieht 

– Folgen eines langandauernden 

großflächigen Stromausfalls“ des 

Büros für Technikfolge-Abschätzung 

beim Deutschen Bundestag. 

Für alle diejenigen, welche die beiden 

Bücher noch nicht gelesen haben, 

sei die Lektüre empfohlen. 

Übertragungs- sowie Verteilnetzbetreiber, 

bei der die durch Letztverbraucher 

und Weiterverteiler entnommene 

Jahresarbeit im Jahr den 

Schwellenwert 3.700 GWh überschreitet 

(siehe hierzu die BSI-Kritis- 

Verordnung) mussten sich alle bereits 

gemäß des im August 2015 in Kraft 

getretenen IT-Sicherheitskataloges 

gemäß § 11 Absatz 1a Energiewirtschaftsgesetz 

aufgrund dieser 

Grundlage durch einen akkreditierten 

Zertifizierer auditieren lassen, und 

zwar jährlich. In diesem Zusammenhang 

mussten die Netzgesellschaften 

ein Informationssicherheitsmanagementsystem 

nach ISO/IEC 27001 in 

Verbindung mit ISO/IEC 27002 und 

ISO/IEC 27019 implementieren. 

Nach diesseitigem Kenntnisstand 

haben alle relevanten Netzbetreiber 

mittlerweile die Zertifizierung nach 

dem IT-Sicherheitskatalog gemäß § 11 

Abs. 1a EnWG bestanden. Integrativer 

(und von daher nachzuweisender) Bestandteil 

des Auditierungsprozesses 

sind: 

p Patchmanagement 

p Assetmanagement 

Als Leitender Auditor für Informationssicherheitsmanagementsysteme 

musste der Autor dieses Aufsatzes 

aber leider oft feststellen, dass 

nirgendwo mehr Potemkin'sche 

Dörfer aufgebaut wurden wie hier. 

Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass ein 

Auditor nur eine Stichprobe zu einem 

Stichtag ziehen kann und er nur einen 

sehr beschränkten Zeitraum für die 

Prüfung hat, ist es nicht sehr schwer, 

einen Prüfer in diesen Schlüsselbereichen 

hinter das Licht zu führen, 

um das „begehrte“ Zertifikat zu 

erhalten. 

Das Zertifikat ist eine Sache, 

Sicher heit im System ist eine andere 

Sache. Cyber Terroristen interessiert 

es nicht, ob Netzbetreiber oder Kraftwerksbetreiber 

ein ISO/IEC 27001 

Zertifikat haben oder nicht. 

Ende 2019 wurde auf dem 

36. Chaos Computer Club Kongress 

vom 27.-30. Dezember 2019 

gezeigt, wie „einfach“ es für Profis ist, 

Zugang zur Leittechnik in Kraftwerken 

zu erhalten, wobei diese 

strukturellen Herausforderungen 

gegeben wären für: 

p Siemens 

p ABB 

p Honeywell 

p Yokagawa 

p GE 

Die in Leipzig gehaltene Präsentation 

erfolgte durch Sicherheitsexperten 

einer russischen Firma hat vielen die 

Augen geöffnet. 

Am 15. Januar 2020, d.h. ganze 

zwei Wochen später wurde bekannt, 

dass die US-amerikanische National 

Security Agency (NSA), die sich 

eher durch Zurückhaltung in ihrer 

Kommunikation kennzeichnet, eine 

Sicherheitslücke in Windows 10 und 

verschiedenen Windows-Server-Versionen 

gemeldet hat. Zum Patchday 

hat Microsoft zwar die Lücke 

geschlossen. Gleichwohl ist die Lage 

sicherlich nicht unernst, wenn die 

NSA sich zu solchen Schritten veranlasst 

fühlt. 

Aber der Januar 2020 hatte bereits 

in seinen ersten drei Wochen noch ein 

weiteres Highlight: 

Viele Industrieunternehmen kennen 

und schätzen den Citrix ADC 

( Citrix ADC verbindet die Infrastruktur 

und die Anwendungen miteinander, 

indem diese Erkenntnisse 

dem Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure 

Controller (APIC) bereitgestellt 

werden). Citrix ADC integriert 

sich dabei vollständig in die Unified- 

Fabric-Anwendungen von Cisco. 

Allein auf der Internetseite von 

Heise fanden sich in der Zeit vom 3.1. 

bis 20.1.2020 folgende Meldungen: 

3.1.2020: 

Workaround verfügbar: Kritische 

Lücke in Citrix ADC: 

Angreifer könnten Systeme mit Citrix 

ADC und Schadcode ausführen. 

Patches sind bislang nicht erschienen. 

13.1.2020: 

Exploit-Code für kritische Citrix- 

Lücke gesichtet: 

Es könnten Angriffe auf Citrix CDC 

und Gateway bevorstehen. Bislang 

gibt es nur einen Workaround. Patches 

sollen folgen 

17.1.2020: 

Citrix-Lücke: Immer mehr Attacken, 

Workaround funktioniert nicht 

immer: 

Die Sicherheitslücke in Citrix Systemen 

zieht immer weitere Kreise. 

Neben steigenden Angriffszahlen sind 

immer mehr Systeme betroffen. 

20.1.2020: 

Erste Sicherheitsupdates für kritische 

Citrix-Lücke erschienen: 

Da Angreifer derzeit eine Lücke in 

Citrix CDC ausnutzen, sollten Admins 

die nun verfügbaren Patches umgehend 

installieren. 

17 Tage in der Welt der Informationstechnologie 

sind eine 

Ewig keit und viele Angriffe wurden 

mittlerweile erfolgreich ausgeführt. 

Was macht also der gewissenhafte 

Leiter IT/OT, der zusammen mit 

seinem Chief Information Security 

Officer (CISO) oftmals gar nicht die 

Zeit hat, alle Warnmeldungen zeitnah 

zur Kenntnis zu nehmen? Er lässt 

nachschauen, ob gepatcht wurde und 

ist froh, wenn das System gepatcht 

wurde. Aufgrund der Arbeitsverdichtung 

wird dann in der Regel auch 

gar nicht nachgefragt, wer den Patch 

ausgeführt hat. 

Unglücklich ist es, wenn Hacker, 

die über die Lücke in das System eingedrungen 

sind, für das Kraftwerk 

den Patch durchführen, gleichwohl 

aber sicherstellen, dass diese immer 

noch durch eine Hintertür jederzeit in 

das System kommen können. Interessanterweise 

findet sich in Bezug auf 

die aktuelle Citrix-Thematik im Netz 

nur ein sehr guter Artikel zu dieser 

Thematik: 

https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/ 

96569/cyber-crime/hackers-patchcitrix-servers.html 

Diese Einführung mit drei konkreten 

immensen Herausforderungen 

in drei Wochen soll aufzeigen, 

dass es 5 vor 12 ist, wenn Kaspersky 

und NSA nahezu zeitgleich an 

OPERATION AND NEW BUILD 


36C3 – More Questions Than Answers ı Stefan Loubichi


OPERATION AND NEW BUILD 156 

| Abb. 1. 

SPPA T3000 Security Matrix 

Siemens Whitepaper SPPA-T3000 Cyber security for I&C Systems GPPG-T40003-00-7600, 19.12.2019. 

die Öffentlichkeit gehen, um Hinweise 

zu geben. 

Theoretisch kann man denken, wie 

dies ein aus Datenschutzgründen 

nicht genannter CIO Ende Dezember 

2019 anlässlich der 36C3 Präsentation 

mutig sinngemäß äußerte: „Wenn wir 

betroffen sind, dann gehen eben hier 

überall die Lichter aus. Das ist ein 

kalkulierbares Risiko und ich glaube 

nicht, dass so etwas bei uns passiert, 

denn dann gehen anderswo ja auch 

die Lichter aus.“ 

Unter Hinweis darauf, dass – 

bereits die Kollegen des Hauses 

Kaspersky darauf verwiesen –, dass 

die Leittechnik-Schwachstellen nicht 

nur die T3000 betreffen, sondern dass 

letztlich alle betroffen sind, sei die 

36C3 Problematik nachstehend 

dezidiert vorgestellt und erläutert, 

wie man sich mit gezielten (zusammenhängenden) 

Investitionen in 

Asset- und Patchmanagement viele 

Sorgenfalten ersparen kann. 

36C3 oder habe ich einen 

Haustürschlüssel komme 

ich in das Haus 

Die Siemens SPPA T-3000 gehört 

unzweifelhaft zu den besten ICS 

Systemen, die für den Energiemarkt 

derzeit zur Verfügung stehen. 

Dabei darf man jedoch nicht vergessen, 

dass es sich hierbei um ein 

generisch entwickeltes Produkt 

handelt und dass man hier auf alte 

Erfahrungswerte aufgebaut hat und 

diese weiterentwickelt hat. Auch muss 

berücksichtigt werden, dass gerade 

die Entwicklung in den letzten Jahren 

rasant verlief. Web-basierte Applikationen 

im ICS-Umfeld waren vor 

Jahren nicht denkbar, sodass deren 

Risiken auch nicht betrachtet wurden 

bzw. werden konnten. 

Das Sicherheitskonzept von 

Siemens – welches letztlich auf der 

hervorragenden IEC 62443 basiertekonnte 

trotz Berücksichtigung der 

relevanten Standards nicht den GAU 

vom 30. Dezember 2019 verhindern. 

Es liegt somit eine strukturelle Herausforderung 

vor, die wir uns näher 

betrachten sollten (Abbildung 1). 

Die vom Kaspersky Team entdeckten 

Schwachstellen lagen erst 

einmal beim Application Server und 

hier vor allem bei: 

1. Zugangsmanagement 

2. Java Umgebung 

Hier treffen wir auf ein struk turelles 

Problem, welches per se nicht originär 

die Hersteller der Leit technik, sondern 

die Welt der Programmierung trifft: 

Obfuskation, Deobfuskation sowie 

Dissection. 

Obfuskation bezieht sich auf die 

Transformation von Programmcode. 

Angestrebtes Ziel ist es, die Ermittlung 

der Semantik und der Funktionalität 

eines Programms zu erschweren, 

wobei dessen Funktionalität jedoch 

erhalten bleibt. Prinzipiell wird 

Obfuskation auf zwei Programmbestandteile 

angewandt: 

1. Kontrollfluss 

2. Datenstrukturen 

Die Art der Obfuskation hängt von der 

Art der Programmiersprache ab. Für 

uns sind in diesem Zusammenhang 

JAVA und .NET Programmierungen 

relevant. 

Verglichen mit kompilierten 

Sprachen sind Java und .NET Programme 

relativ einfach zu disassemblen 

bzw. Reverse Engineering 

von den ausführbaren (exe, dll, jar, 

class) Dateien ist einfach. Dies ist 

dadurch bedingt, da der Intermediate 

Bytecode alle ursprünglich verwendeten 

Bezeichner (Variablen- & 

Funktionsnamen) enthält, wodurch 

ein Decompiler nahezu den gesamten 

Source Code (mit Ausnahme der 

Kommentare) wiederherstellen kann. 

Der eingesetzte Java-Code wurde 

mit einem Obfuskator (hier: Zelix 

KlassMaster) verschleiert. Beliebte 

weitere Obfuskatoren sind: 

p DashO 

p JavaGuard 

p ProGuard 

p yGuard 

Zusätzlich zur Obfuskation im Bereich 

des Kontrollflusses sowie der Datenstrukturen 

werden gerne Runtime 

Packer genutzt oder es wird verschlüsselt. 

Generell versteht man unter einem 

Packer ein Programm mit der Software 

komprimiert und/oder verschlüsselt 

werden kann. Kompressionsverfahren 

wie ZIP, CAB und RAR, 

aber auch selbst geschriebene Verfahren 

kommen dabei zum Einsatz. 

Kennt man den verwendeten Algorithmus 

nicht, so kann man die Daten 

nicht wieder entpacken. Bei Runtime- 

Packern können die Programme direkt 

ausgeführt werden, ohne dass hierzu 

ein externes Tool genutzt werden 

muss. Der Grund hierfür liegt darin, 

dass diese Packer-Programme – nachdem 

diese ein Programm komprimiert 

haben – die Dekomprimierungsroutine 

direkt vorne in das Programm 

einfügen, wobei beim Programmstart 

diese Routine als erstes ausgeführt 

wird. Als Alternative oder zusätzlich 

zur Komprimierung kann auch eine 

Verschlüsselung realisiert werden, da 

das Schema das Gleiche ist. 

So genial sich dies alles anhört, so 

gibt es hier eine Schwachstelle: 

Selbst wenn ein Packer eine Software 

mit dem besten kryptographischen 

Algorithmus verschlüsselt, 




so muss das komprimierte bzw. verschlüsselte 

Programm entpackt bzw. 

entschlüsselt werden, damit die CPU 

das Programm ausführen kann. Dies 

ist der Zeitpunkt, bei dem das Reverse 

Code Engineering normalerweise 

startet. 

Der Cyber-Kriminelle macht einen 

Speicher-Dump der dekomprimierten/ 

entschlüsselten Anwendung und 

speichert selbigen. Hierdurch kann er 

die Originalsoftware analysieren und 

muss sich nicht mit den Schutzmechanismen 

befassen. 

Leider findet sich mittlerweile im 

Internet frei verfügbar zu jedem 

Obfuskator ein Deob-fuskator. 

Unter https://javadeobfuscator. 

com/ kann man nun zum Beispiel einen 

Deobfuskator (seit Jahren) downloaden, 

der die Verschleierung wieder 

rückgängig machen kann. Dieser Deobfuskator 

kann eingesetzt werden 

für die folgenden Obfuskatoren: Zelix 

KlassMaster, Stringer, Allatori, DashO, 

DexGuard, ClassGuard und Smoke. 

Auf oben genannter Homepage findet 

sich dann die Beschreibung, wie man 

erfolgreich agiert: 

Download the deobfuscator 

Create detect.yml with the following 

contents. Replace input.jar with the name 

of the input 

input: input.jar 

detect: true 

Create config.yml with the following 

contents. Replace input.jar with the name 

of the input ```yaml input: input. 

jar output: output.jar transformers: 

[fully-qualified-name-of-transformer] 

[fully-qualified-name-of-transformer] 

…etc´´´ 

Run java -jar deobfuscator.jar 

Die Arbeit hält sich somit in Grenzen. 

Jetzt benötigt man noch einen Dissector, 

der aus dem Zeichensalat die 

entsprechenden strukturierten Felder 

heraussucht. Obgleich es hier einige 

im normalen Internet gibt, hat das 

Kaspersky Team einen Dissector gebaut, 

am 28.12.2019 veröffentlicht 

und auch noch die einfache Funktionsweise 

erläutert. Für alle Interessierten 

hier die Homepage: https:// 

github.com/klsecservices/desert 

Auf einem zur SPPA T3000 gehörenden 

Java-Orion-Server ließen 

sich dann Verzeichnisse via https recht 

einfach auslesen und es fanden sich 

diverse Servlets, welche Anfragen von 

Clients entgegennahmen und beantworteten. 

Das größte Problem stellte 

hierbei ein BrowerServlet für Drittparteien 

dar. 

Des Weiteren fanden die Kollegen 

von Kaspersky relativ einfach diverse 

angebotene Java-Dienste inklusive 

einer Liste für „AdminService“ inklusive 

der Möglichkeit für Reverse Code 

Engineering. Da viele der Leser nicht 

originär aus dem IT-Berufsumfeld 

stammen, sei darauf verwiesen, dass 

man unter Reverse Code Engineering 

in diesem Zusammenhang die Rückgewinnung 

des Quellcodes oder einer 

vergleichbaren Beschreibung aus 

Maschinencode versteht. Natürlich ist 

Reverse Code Engineering strafbar. 

Dies interessiert jedoch Cyber-Kriminelle 

oder Cyber-Terroristen nicht. 

Kaspersky hat uns hier gelehrt: 

So gut die Sicherheitsarchitektur der 

Leittechnik auch sein mag, so existiert 

eine Schwachstelle: Komme ich an den 

Bytecode – was eher eine Fleißaufgabe 

für den geübten Cyber- Kriminellen / 

Cyber-Terroristen ist – so kann er mit 

einem frei im Internet erhältlichen 

Deobfuskator disassemblen und hat 

dann den lediglich um die Kommentarzeilen 

gekürzten Source Code. 

Das Problem ist somit die Obfuskation 

von Java. Eine Ad-hoc–Lösung 

gibt es hier derzeit nicht. 

Wie Kaspersky auf der 36C3 zur 

Entwarnung gegenüber den Leittechnikherstellern 

kommunizierte, 

betrifft diese Problematik vor allem 

das Innere des Kraftwerkes. Die Steuerungssysteme 

waren hiernach weitestgehend 

gegenüber einem Zugang von 

außen geschützt, sodass Cyber- 

Kriminelle erst in das Innere eines 

Kraftwerkes eindringen müssten. 

Es ist sicherlich zutreffend, dass 

Mitarbeitende von Kraftwerken in der 

Regel loyal zu ihrem Kraftwerk 

sind. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns an 

dieser Stelle aber die Statistik zur 

Täterherkunft der KPMG-Studie 

zur Wirtschaftskriminalität 2018 

( Abbildung 2). 

24 % der IT-relevanten Straftaten 

werden von Mitarbeitenden begangen. 

Somit ist der von Kaspersky ins 

Kalkül gezogene „Faktor Innentäter“ 

gar nicht so irrelevant, wie wir das 

gerne glauben möchten. 


| Abb. 2. 

Täterherkunft Kriminalität in Unternehmen im Kalenderjahr 2018. Quelle: KPMG Wirtschaftskriminalität in Deutschland 2018 





| Abb. 3. 

Beispiel eines repräsentativen nmap-Scans. 

Quelle: https://nmap.org/man/de/index.html 

OT-Assetmanagement oder 

Excel-Tabellen sind nicht 

ausreichend und IT-Assetmanagement 

ist anderes 

Ein auf dem 36C3 am Rande diskutiertes, 

aber immer wichtigeres 

Thema war in diesem Zusammenhang 

auch die Frage: 

Müssen im Bereich der OT wirklich 

alle Assets erfasst werden oder reicht 

es aus, eine frei zu wählende Klassifizierung 

durchzuführen? 

Wer sich noch an die Matrix- 

Trilogie erinnern kann, der erinnert 

sich sicherlich an den Hinweis auf das 

Programm nmap (Abbildung 3). 

nmap („Network Mapper“) ist ein 

Open-Source-Tool für: 

1. Netzwerkanalyse 

2. und Sicherheitsüberprüfung. 

Das Programm wurde entworfen, um 

große Netzwerke schnell zu scannen, 

auch wenn es bei einzelnen Hosts 

ebenfalls gut funktioniert. 

Dabei werden rohe IP-Pakete genutzt, 

um festzustellen, 

p welche Hosts im Netzwerk verfügbar 

sind, 

p welche Dienste (Anwendungsname 

und -version) diese Hosts 

bieten, 

p welche Betriebssysteme (und Versionen 

davon) darauf laufen, 

p welche Art von Paketfiltern/-Firewalls 

benutzt werden 

p sowie Dutzende anderer Eigenschaften. 

Darüber hinaus kann nmap – in der 

Regel in der IT-Welt – für folgende 

Aufgaben genutzt werden: 

p Netzwerkinventarisierung, 

p Verwaltung von Ablaufplänen für 

Dienstaktualisierungen, 

p Überwachung von Betriebszeiten 

von Hosts oder Diensten. 

Die Ausgabe von nmap ist eine Liste 

gescannter Ziele mit zusätzlicher 

Information zu jedem Ziel. 

Die wichtigsten Informationen 

finden sich in der „Tabelle der interessanten 

Ports“, wo folgende Informationen 

zu finden sind: 

die Portnummer 

das Protokoll 

der Dienstnamen 

der Dienstzustand (offen, gefiltert, 

geschlossen oder ungefiltert). 

Die Dienstzustände sind wie folgt 

definiert: 

Offen: 

Auf diesem Port des Zielrechners 

lauscht eine Anwendung auf eingehende 

Verbindungen/Pakete. 

Gefiltert: 

Eine Firewall, ein Filter oder ein 

anderes Netzwerkhindernis blockiert 

den Port, sodass nmap nicht wissen 

kann, ob er offen oder geschlossen ist. 

Geschlossen: 

Hier gibt es keine Anwendung, die auf 

den Ports lauscht, auch wenn diese 

jederzeit geöffnet werden könnten. 

Ungefiltert: 

Ports, die auf nmap-Testpakete antworten, 

wobei nmap aber man nicht 

feststellen kann, ob die Ports offen 

oder geschlossen sind. 

Gegebenenfalls kann die Port- 

Tabelle auch Details zur Softwareversion 

beinhalten und wenn ein 

IP-Protokoll-Scan verlangt wurde, 

bietet nmap auch Informationen über 

die unterstützten IP-Protokolle statt 

über lauschende Ports. 

Darüber hinaus kann nmap weitere 

Angaben über Ziele bieten, darunter: 

p Reverse-DNS-Namen, 

p Mutmaßungen über das benutzte 

Betriebssystem, 

p Gerätearten 

p MAC-Adressen. 

Bekanntlicher Weise ist nmap ein 

typisches Dual-useTool, welches 

gegebenenfalls von Cyber-Kriminellen 

zur Vorbereitung von Straftaten nach 

§ 202a StGB genutzt werden könnte, 

wobei der Autor dieses Aufsatzes 

unter Bezug auf das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes 

in den Sachen 2 

BvR 2233/07, 2 BvR 1151/08, 2 BvR 

1524/08 ausdrücklich darauf verweist, 

dass dieses Tool nur im eigenen 

Unternehmen mit ausdrücklicher 

Genehmigung der Geschäftsführung 

dazu benutzt werden darf, um eine 

Sicherheitsanalyse zur Behebung 

eigener Schwachstellen durchzuführen. 

Eine andere Nutzung ist 

strafbewährt! 

Neben dieser Sicherheitsanalyse 

befassen wir uns an dieser Stelle 

aber vor allem deshalb mit nmap 

um darzulegen, wie Administratoren 

auf einfache Art- und Weise eine 

voll umfängliche Asset-Liste im IT-Bereich 

erzeugen können, welche auch 

auf 

die OT-Welt in gewissen Zügen anwendbar 

ist. 

Kommen wir nun zu der Welt des 

OT-Assetmanagements und einer 

persönlichen Erfahrung des Autors 

dieses Werkes in seiner Funktion als 

leitender Auditor für Informationssicherheitsmanagementsysteme 

in 

der Energiewirtschaft: In mehr als der 

Hälfte der Audits bei Netzbetreibern, 

die eine Zertifizierung nach IT-Sicherheitskatalog 

gemäß § 11 Abs. 1a 

EnWG durchführten, wurden dem 

leitenden Auditor EXCEL-Listen vorgelegt, 

wobei diese in der Regel 

deshalb schon Gegenstand von Auditfeststellungen 

waren, weil die Informationen 

zu den Assets unvollständig 

waren und oftmals nicht verifizierbar 

war, ob ein aktueller Softwarestand 

vorhanden ist. 

Wenn man aber nicht weiß, 

welchen Stand das Asset in der OT 

hat, kann man im Krisenfall aber 

nicht wissen, ob hier ein Patch eingespielt 

werden muss oder nicht. 

Und im Audit fanden sich dann 

auch des Öfteren OT-Assets, die gar 

nicht in der Liste der Werte gelistet 

waren. Was aber in der Regel nicht 

in der Liste der Werte gelistet ist, 

kann aber auch nicht gepatcht 

werden, da man es nicht kennt! 

Es ist erst einmal zu begrüßen, 

dass immer mehr – aber immer noch 

vergleichsweise wenige – Unternehmen 

in kritischen Sektoren hingehen 

und ein automatisierten Scan 

ihrer OT-Landschaft durchführen. 

Die derzeit leider immer noch 

gebräuchlichste Variante ist der 

„ Passive Scan“. 

Der Begriff des passiven Scannens 

ist technisch gesehen falsch, da 

kein Netzwerkscan stattfindet. Beim 

passiven Scan spioniert eine Netzwerkanwendung 

den gesamten 

Netzwerkverkehr aus und analysiert 

ihn nach Daten, die zum Identifizieren 

von Endpunkten und Datenverkehrsmustern 

verwendet werden können. 

In diesem Zusammenhang muss 

darauf verwiesen werden, dass Metadaten, 

die für die Ressourcenermittlung 

erforderlich sind, tief im 

Drahtverkehr verborgen sind. Die 

Suche nach Informationen, welche 

verwendet werden könnten, um 

Geräteherstellung und Modell, Firmware-Version 

usw. zu identifizieren, 

stellt sich als eine ebenso schwierige 

Aufgabe dar wie die Suche nach einer 

Nadel in einem Heuhaufen. Es ist aus 

diesem Grunde verständlich, dass 




der passive Scan nicht immer die 

genauesten Ergebnisse liefern kann. 

Auch hat das passive Scannen in 

der Regel einige technische Einschränkungen: 

1. „Stille Geräte“ werden nicht 

erkannt. 

2. Sicherheitspatches werden oftmals 

nicht mit hinreichender Genauigkeit 

erkannt. 

3. Es kann vorkommen, dass die 

Netztopologie in den Ebenen eins 

und zwei verborgen ist. 

Sicherlich ist der passive Scan ein 

grundlegender Meilenstein gegenüber 

der händischen Erfassung der 

OT-Assets im EXCEL-Format, aber aus 

heutiger Gefährdungslagensicht nicht 

mehr ausreichend ist. 

Eine Alternative mit in der Regel 

besseren Ergebnissen ist aus Sicht des 

Autors das selektive Abfragen. 

Hier werden die Geräteerkennungsfunktionen 

der Protokolle 

genutzt, welche die Automatisierungstechnik 

in der Regel sowieso 

spricht, z.B. Profinet, SNMP, WMI. 

Hierdurch liefert die selektive Abfrage 

in der Regel vollständige Daten, unter 

anderem zur Netzwerktopologie, 

Firmwareversionen, Softwareanwendungen, 

installierten sowie nicht installierten 

Sicherheitspatches, Seriennummern 

und vieles mehr. 

Die Erfahrungen haben viele 

Unternehmen der Energiewirtschaft 

gelehrt, dass man im Bereich des Asset 

Managements auch mit einer Sammlung 

an EXCEL Listen das begehrte 

ISO/IEC 27001 Zertifikat erhalten 

kann. Aber mit dem ISO/IEC 27001 

erlangt man nicht die Sicherheit, die 

man letztlich wirklich als KRITIS- 

Energieerzeuger benötigt. Ein Scan 

der OT-Assets nach Stand der Technik 

ist zweifelsfrei eine nicht unerhebliche 

Investition, aber eine Investition, 

welche für die Cyber- Sicherheit/IT- 

Sicherheit relevant ist. 

Warum funktioniert das Patchmanagement 

nicht? 

Kommen wir hier nochmals zum 

36. Chaos Computer Club Kongress 

vom 27.-30. Dezember 2019 und die 

Präsentation des Kaspersky Teams in 

Sachen Siemens SPPA T3000. Als 

erstes Ergebnis verbleibt zu vermerken, 

dass nach der Präsentation 

erst einmal Betroffenheit herrschte 

und dass einige hiernach erklärten, 

sich schnellstmöglich mit Siemens in 

Verbindung setzen zu müssen. 

Zur Rettung der Siemens Kolleg- 

*innen in Karlsruhe / Erlangen muss 

jedoch erklärt werden, dass nachweislich 

zum 10. Dezember 2019 von 

Siemens eine Sicherheitswarnung 

herausgegeben wurde und auch mit 

dem Servicepack R8.2 SP1 ein umfangreiches 

Sicherheitsupdate herausgebracht 

wurde (siehe hierzu: 

https://cert-portal. siemens.com/ 

productcert/pdf/ssa-451445. pdf). 

Das Cyber+Infrastructure Department 

des US Homeland Security 

Ministeriums verwies am 17.12.2019 

medienwirksam auf Sicherheitswarnung 

und -update (Abbildung 4). 

Auch wurden direkt von der US- 

Sicherheitsbehörde eine E-Mail- 

Adresse und eine Telefonnummer 

angegeben, an die sich betroffene US- 

Firmen wenden konnten. 

Zwischen der Sicherheitswarnung 

und der Bereitstellung des Sicherheitsupdates 

auf der einen Seite und 

der Präsentation der Sicherheitslücken 

auf 36C3 lagen 19 (in Worten: 

neunzehn) Tage. 

Energieunternehmen – gleich ob 

Netzbetreiber oder Energieerzeuger – 

welche eine Warnmeldung des Herstellers 

ihrer Leittechnik erhalten, 

dann 19 Tage nichts tun und erst nach 

entsprechenden Meldungen in der 

Tagesschau nach 21 Tagen besorgt 

nachfragen, ob denn überhaupt die 

Sicherheitslücke gepatcht wurde, 

haben mehr als eine große Herausforderung 

in ihrer IT-/OT-Sicherheit. 

Nun könnte man natürlich argumentieren, 

dass die in diesem Artikel 

dezidiert beschriebene Thematik 

Java- Umfeld ja nur die innere Kraftwerkssicherheit 

beträfe, aber es waren 

auch diverse andere sicherheitsrelevante 

Aspekte betroffen, auf die 

hier nicht weiter eingegangen wird. 

Wenn bei der Leittechnik trotz 

Warnmeldung nicht gepatcht wird, so 

stellt sich die Frage, wie es denn dann 

bei Assets ist, die aus Sicht der Verantwortlichen 

noch weniger relevant 

sind. Das, was hier in Teilen geschieht, 

muss aus juristischer Sicht mit grober 

Fahrlässigkeit umschrieben werden. 

Bzgl. der sonstigen Warnmeldungen 

muss jedoch zugegeben 

werden, dass die Vielzahl der CVE- 

Warnmeldungen für viele Unternehmen 

einfach unüberschaubar 

geworden ist. 

Common Vulnerabilities and 

Exposures (nachfolgendend nur noch 

CVE genannt), ist eine Liste mit 

öffentlichen Sicherheitsschwachstellen 

in Systemen der Informationstechnologie. 

Unter CVE versteht man 

in der Regel die CVE-Nummer, die 

einer bestimmten Schwachstelle 

zugewiesen ist. Die CVE hilft IT-Fachkräften 

derartige Schwachstellen 

leichter zu priorisieren und zu 

beheben, um die Systeme sicherer zu 

machen. 

CVE wird überwacht von der 

MITRE Corporation und von der 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency finanziert, welche 

beide zum U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security gehört. 

CVE-Einträge sind vergleichsweise 

kurz und enthalten keinerlei hinreichenden 

technischen Daten oder 

Infos zu Risiken, Auswirkungen 

und Fixes. Diese Details werden in 

anderen Datenbanken angezeigt, so 

zum Beispiel: 

1. U.S. National Vulnerability Database: 

https://nvd.nist.gov/ 

2. CERT/CC Vulnerability Notes 

Database: https://www.kb.cert. 

org/vuls/ 

3. diverse andere. 

Inmitten dieser verschiedenen Systeme 

sorgen die CVE-Nummern dafür, 

dass der Benutzer Sicherheitsschwachstellen 

eindeutig voneinander 

unterscheiden kann. 

Oben genannte CVE-Nummern 

werden von einer CVE Numbering 

Authority (CNA) zugewiesen. Hiervon 

gibt es derzeit circa 100. Es sind 

dies wichtige (und kooperative) IT- 

Anbieter, Sicherheitsfirmen und 

Forschungseinrichtungen. Mitre weist 

den CNAs CVE-Nummernblöcke zu. 

Bei Bedarf können hieraus dann die 

CVE-Meldungen systemisch und 

nachvollziehbar generiert werden. 

CVE-Meldungen können im Übrigen 

aus unterschiedlichen Quellen 

stammen, d.h.: Anbieter, Wissenschaftler 

oder fachkundige Benutzerhelfen 

helfen hier bei der Verbesserung 

von Schwachstellen. 

Um die Eigenschaft eines CVE's 

zu bekommen, müssen folgende 

Kriterien erfüllt sein: 

1. Unabhängige Behebbarkeit 

2. Bestätigung durch den betroffenen 

Anbieter 

3. Auswirkungen auf eine Codebase 

| Abb. 4. 

ICSA-19-351-02. https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-19-351-02 






Der Schweregrad einer Schwachstelle 

lässt sich durch verschiedene Modi 

ermitteln. Eine weit verbreitete 

Option ist das Common Vulnerability 

Scoring System, welches aus mehreren 

offenen Standards besteht, mit 

denen eine Zahl zur Festlegung eines 

Schweregrads zugewiesen wird. Die 

Skala reicht von 0,0 bis 10,0, wobei 

der Schweregrad mit der Zahl zunimmt. 

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns an 

dieser Stelle nur einmal an einer 

kleinen Auswahl von möglichen im 

Energiebereich (häufig) genutzten 

Entitäten, wo es im Jahr 2019 

entsprechende Sicherheitswarnmeldungen 

gab: 

Suchanfrage Siemens SPPA T3000 

53 Einträge für das Jahr 2019 

Quelle: 

https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/ 

cvekey.cgi? keyword=Siemens+ 

SPPA+T3000 

Suchanfrage ABB 800xa 



cvekey.cgi? keyword=ABB+800xa 

Suchanfrage Cisco Router 



cvekey.cgi?keyword=Cisco+Router 

Suchanfrage SAP AIN 



cvekey.cgi?keyword=SAP+AIN 

(SAP AIN = SAP Asset Intelligence 

Network) 

Suchanfrage Java 



cvekey.cgi?keyword=Java 

Suchanfrage Windows 10 



cvekey.cgi?keyword=Windows+10 

Suchanfrage Linux 



cvekey.cgi?keyword=Linux 

Allein nur in dieser begrenzten 

Auswahl an Entitäten gab es 645 

Sicherheitswarnmeldungen im Jahr 

2019. 

Es ist aus mangelnden zeitlichen 

Ressourcen für den CISO eines 

klein bis mittelgroßen Energieerzeugers 

unmöglich, sich auch nur 

annähernd in hinreichender Qualität 

und Quantität mit diesen CVE's 

zu beschäftigen. Diese Unternehmen 

können in der Regel nur 

hoffen, dass sie von Cyber-Kriminellen 

bzw. Cyber-Terroristen als zu 

uninteressant angesehen werden. 

Interessanterweise haben (große) 

europäische Energieerzeuger (mit 

Ausnahme zweier EU-Länder) in 

der Regel keinen „Chief Analyst 

IT- Security/Cyber-Security“, welcher 

sich alleine oder mit einem (kleinen) 

schlagkräftigen Team um die Beantwortung 

der nachfolgenden Fragen 

kümmert: 

1. Sind diese Sicherheitswarn meldungen 

für unsere Organisation 

relevant, d.h. sind diese Assets für 

die Organisation überhaupt relevant? 

2. Kann gepatcht werden, ohne dass 

die auf diesen Assets laufenden 

Programme nach dem Patch nicht 

mehr „laufen“? 

3. Welche Auswirkung hat es bzw. 

könnte es haben, wenn wir den 

Patch nicht realisieren? 

In Japan und Südkorea sind derartige 

Funktionen als „Chief Analyst IT- 

Security/OT-Security“ neben den 

CISOs und Ansprechpartnern IT-/ 

Cybersecurity oftmals implementiert. 

Dies könnte auch der Grund sein, 

warum KRITIS-Betreiber in diesen 

Ländern sorgenfreier in die Zukunft 

blicken. 

Welche adhoc-Lösungen 

könnten aus 36C3 gezogen 

werden/Fazit? 

Obwohl die Energiewirtschaft nur ein 

Nischendasein auf dem 2019er Chaos 

Computer Club hatte, so muss festgehalten 

werden, dass die „Kaspersky- 

Präsentation“ und die anschließenden 

Diskussionen einiges bewegt haben. 

Weitgehende Einigkeit besteht bei 

vielen darüber, dass die Nachweise 

in Sachen Assetmanagement bzw. 

Patchmanagement aufgrund des Zeitdruckes 

vieler Auditoren eine Zertifizierung 

nach ISO/IEC 27001 erlauben 

könnten. Das derzeitige Asset- und 

Patchmanagement wird aber nach 

derzeitiger Sicht nicht ausreichen, 

um sich erfolgreich gegen eine professionelle 

Attacke von Cyber- 

Terroristen bzw. Cyber-Kriminellen 

erfolgreich zur Wehr zu setzen. 

Ein dynamisches IT-/OT-Assetmanagement 

muss zur Gefahrenabwehr 

umgehend realisiert werden, 

wobei passives Scannen nicht ausreichen 

wird. Um die derzeit teilweise 

katastrophalen Zustände des unzureichenden 

Patchmanagements zu 

verbessern, müssen entweder für 

kleinere bis mittlere Energieunternehmen 

entsprechende intelligente 

Wissensdatenbanken (mit Querverweis 

zu Assetmanagement-Datenbanken) 

eingeführt werden oder für 

größere Energieunternehmen die 

Stabsstelle eines „Chief Analyst IT-/ 

OT- Security“ geschaffen werden, die 

unabhängig von den Funktionsträgern 

CISO bzw. Ansprechpartner 

IT-Sicherheit die aktuelle Gefährdungslage 

bewerten. Zugegebener 

Maßen kostet so etwas viel Geld, 

jedoch immer noch weniger Geld als 

der Ausfall der Energieerzeugung 

bzw. den Imageschaden. 

Referenzen 

| Marc Elsberg, Blackout – Morgen ist es zu spät, blanvalet, 

ISBN 9783442380299 

| Thomas Petermann, Harald Bradke, Arne Lüllmann, Maik 

Poetzsch, Ulrich Riehm,Folgen eines langandauernden großräumigen 

Stromausfalls, edition sigma, ISBN 978386081337 

| Verordnung zur Bestimmung Kritischer Infrastrukturen nach dem 

BSI-Gesetz, BGBl. I S. 1903 

| Bundesnetzagentur, IT-Sicherheits-katalog gemäß § 11 Abs. 1a 

EnWG, htps://www.bundesnetzagen tur.de/ Sharedocs/ 

Downloads/DE/Sach gebiete/Energie/Unternehmen_ 

Institutionen/Versorgungssicher heit/IT_Sicher heit/IT_ 

Sicherheitskatalog_08-2015.pdf? __blob=publicationFile&v=1 

| https://www.heise.de/suche/ 

?q=Citrix&rm=search&sort_by=date 

| https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/96569/cyber-crime/ 

hackers-patch-citrix-servers.html 

| https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/ 

uuid:fd8546a5-17c0-476b-86fe-cc5b5187dd16/ 

version:1576355 096/wp-ics-security-v8-0-en-2019-12-10.pdf 

| R. Abrams, „WeLiveSecurity (Packers),“ 27 October 2008. 

[Online]. available: http://www.welivesecurity.com/2008/ 

10/27/an-introduction-to-packers/ 

| KPMG Wirtschaftskriminalität in Deutschland 2018 

| Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes in den Sachen 2 BvR 

2233/07, 2 BvR 1151/08, 2 BvR 1524/08 

| https://cert-portal. siemens.com/product cert/pdf/ 

ssa-451445.pdf 

| https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/ icsa-19-351-02 

| https://nvd.nist.gov/ 

| https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/ 

Author 

Prof. h.c. PhDr. Dipl.-Kfm./ 

Dipl.-Vw. Stefan Loubichi 

International experienced lead 

auditor for management systems 

(ISO 27001, ISO 14001, ISO 9001, 

ISO 45001, ISO 26000), auditor 

according to § 8 BSI-Law and 

IT-security catalogue, more than 

ten years of international 

experience in implementing ITand 

cyber security 

Essen, Deutschland 




Nuclear Power World Report 2018 

Editorial office 

At the end of the year 2018, there were 450 nuclear power plant units in 31 countries in operation* worldwide. 

This means that the number of units increased by 1 unit to the key date of the previous year (31 December 2017: 449, 

+1 unit, -0.25 %) (compare Figure 1) due to the commissioning (= first criticality) of 8 new plants, and the final 

decommissioning of 7 plants. In the following are the values given on 31 December 2018 and change compared to the 

previous year as a percentage in brackets. There were 53 (58, -5.0 %) nuclear power plant units under construction in 

17 (16) countries, in other words, 1 less than on the previous year’s key date. The available total gross capacity 1) of the 

nuclear plants operating amounted to 424,074 MWe (420,383 MWe, +1.0 %) and the total net capacity to 401,416 MWe 

(397,009 MWe, +0.9 %). This equates to an increase of 3,691 MWe gross and 4,407 MWe net. The additional capacity 

results mainly from newly defined nominal capacities of operating plants (compare Table 1 and Figures 1 to 3). As of 

the year 2017 the base for all capacities, in particular for the U.S. nuclear power plant units, are the nameplate data. Due 

to cooling water conditions (higher or lower cooling water temperatures with respect to design capacity) actual gross 

and net capacities may vary by plus or minus 3 % of the nameplate (design) capacity. In some countries the lower 

capacity value is used for capacity data due to its relevance for system services. 

In the year 2018, the nuclear power plant units Haiyang 1 

(1250 MW, PWR), Sanmen 1 (1251 MW, PWR), Sanmen 2 

(1251 MW, PWR), Taishan 1 (1750 MW, PWR), Tianwan 4 

(1060 MW, PWR), and Yangjiang 5 (1086 MW, PWR) in 

China, and Leningrad 2-1 (1187 MW, PWR) in Russia reached 

first criticality, were connected to the grid 

for the first time and put into commercial operation. 

Additionally Haiyang 2 (1250 MW, PWR) in China reached 

first criticality and was connected to the grid for the first 

time. The commissioning program followed. Commercial 

takeover by the operator was planned in the first half of 

2019. Tianwan 3 (1060 MW, PWR, in 2019) in China and 

Rostov 4 (1030 MW, PWR) in Russia were connected to 

the grid for the first time and put into commercial 

operation; date of first criticality was 29 September 2017 

and 29 December 2017. 

In 2018 four additional nuclear power plant units 

resumed operations after long-term shutdown. In Japan 

the units Genkai 3 (1180 MW, PWR), Genkai 4 (1180 MW, 

PWR), Ohi 3 (1180 MW, PWR), and Ohi 4 (1180 MW, 

PWR) were restarted after about 7 years of lay-up 

operations respectively after the Tohoku earthquake and 

tsunami in 2011. In 2018 in total nine NPP‘s have been 

restarted since 2011, when all 51 nuclear power plants in 

operation in Japan have been shut down for lay-upoperation 

and safety checks. E.g. in Canada in total 6 units 

were restarted after more than 10 years of lay-up 

operations respectively. In the course of the liberalisation 

of the Canadian electricity market in the mid-1990s, the 

operator at the time Ontario Hydro ascertained insufficient 

competitive capacity in the market environment for 4 units 

at the site Bruce with around 3,100 MW as well as for 4 

others at the site Pickering with approximately 1,850 MW. 

That is the reason why the 8 CANDU units Bruce A1 to 

Bruce A4 and Pickering 1 to Pickering 4 were disconnected 

from the grid and removed from commercial operations 

between 1995 and 1997. Pickering 1 and Pickering 4 were 

re-commissioned in 2003 and 2005 by the new operator 

Ontario Power Generation due to changes in the market 

and after a retrofitting program. Bruce 3 and Bruce 4 were 

re-commissioned at the end of 2003/beginning of 2004. 

With the re-commissioning of both units Bruce A-1 and 

Bruce A-2 in 2012, the operator of the site BrucePower has 

completed his investment program successfully. The site is 

intended to secure the power supply in the region in the 

long-term during the coming decades. With a gross capacity 

of approximately von 6,740 MWe Bruce is also the nuclear 

power site with highest output worldwide. 

Worldwide 7 nuclear power units were definitively 

taken out of operation in 2018: Japan the Ikata 2 

(566 MW, PWR, first criticality 1981), Ohi 1 (1175 MW, 

PWR, first criticality 1977), Ohi 2 (1175 MW, PWR, first 

criticality 1978), and Onagawa 1 (524 MW, BWR, first 

criticality 1983), in Russia the Leningrad 1 (1000 MW, 

LWGR, first criticality 1973), in Taiwan, China, the Chin 

Shan 1 (636 MW, BWR, first criticality 1977), and in the 

USA Oyster Creek (595 MW, BWR, first criticality 1969). 

There were 53 (55, -2 %) plants with 57,883 MWe gross 

and 54,773 MWe net capacity under construction 

worldwide at the end of the year 2018. That means that in 

comparison to the figure of the previous year, there were 

2 nuclear power units less under construction worldwide, 

since 5 projects have been newly started and 7 plants have 

attained first criticality. No project was suspended in 2018. 

Work started for the unit Rooppur 2 (PWR VVER V-491, 

1,194 MWe gross and 1,109 MWe net capacity) in Bangladesh 

by the supplier Atomstroyexport. In the Republic of Korea 

construction of the Shin-Kori 6 unit (PWR ACPR-1000, 

1,087 MWe gross and 1,000 MWe net capacity) started. In 

Russia construction started of the Kursk 2-1 unit (PWR 

VVER V-510K, 1,255 MWe gross and 1,175 MWe net capacity) 

by the supplier Rosatom. In Turkey construction 

started of the first nuclear power plant of the country, 

Akkuyu 1 unit (PWR VVER V-509, 1,200 MWe gross and 

1,114 MWe net capacity) by the supplier Atomstroyexport. 

Mexico 2 

Canada 19 

USA 98 |2 

Slovak Republic 4|2 

Czech Republic 6 Hungary 4 

Finland 4|1 

Slovenia 1 

Sweden 8 

Belarus -|2 

Netherlands 1 

United Kingdom 15|1 

Russia 36|6 

Switzerland 5 

France 58|1 

Spain 7 

Turkey |1 

Iran 1 

Bulgaria 2 Ukraine 15 

Romania 2 UAE -|4 

Brazil 2|1 

Argentina 3|1 

Belgium 7 

Germany 7 

South Africa 2 

Armenia 1 

Pakistan 5|2 

India 22|7 

China 46|11 

Bangladesh |2 

Nuclear power plant units in operation: 450, location with units ( first number) 

Nuclear power plant units under construction: 53, location with units ( second number) 

Rep. Korea 24|5 

Japan 38|2 

Taiwan, China 5|2 

| Fig. 1. 

World map nuclear power plants in operation and under construction at the end of 2018. 

* The atw lists nuclear 

power plants as 

“operating” as the 

time when first 

criticality was 

attained as a 

“nuclear” criterion. 

Other sources refer 

to the 1 st power generation 

or the start 

of commercial operation. 

Nuclear 

power plants are no 

longer listed as 

“ operating” when a 

long-term cessation, 

i.e. over several years, 

has been 

decided. Should the 

operator possess a 

valid framework 

operating approval 

or no application 

for the definitive 

cessation of the 

operating plant has 

been submitted, 

then the operating 

status is listed as 

“lay-up”. (cf. Spain 

and Japan). 

1) The data for gross 

and net capacities 

have been revised 

with reference to 

“nameplate” data 

as from 2018 (in 

particular data for 

U.S: nuclear power 

plant units, source: 

U.S. EIA) 

As of: 31.12.2018 

atw , 01/2020 

161 

WORLD REPORT 

World Report 

Nuclear Power World Report 2018


162 

WORLD REPORT 

Two units are planned to be build at the site. In the United 

Kingdom the construction of the first of two EPR at the Hinkley 

Point site started. Each reactor, Hinkley Point C-1 and 

Hinkley Point C-2 is planned with a gross capacity of 1,720 

MW and a net capacity of 1,630 MW. 

Active construction projects (numbers in brackets) 

listed are: Argentina (1), Bangladesh (2), Belarus (2), 

Brazil (1), China (11), Finland (1), France (1), India (7), 

Japan (2), Republic of Korea (5), Pakistan (2), Russia (6), 

Slovak Republic (2), Taiwan, China (2), Turkey (1), the 

USA (2), the United Arab Emirates (4) and the United 

Kingdom (1). 

Worldwide there were about 200 projects in the concrete 

planning or application phase at the turn of the year 

2018/2019. In addition, there are a further approx. 

100 declarations of intent by companies or government 

offices in other countries. Looking at the structural impact 

of the incidents in Japan and Fukushima on 11 March 

2011, it can be ascertained that, in the meantime, they do 

not have an effect on the number of new construction project 

and plans worldwide, with the exception of political 

reactions in Germany, Italy and Switzerland. 

Nuclear power plant units in operation [-] 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1956 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

2010 2015 

Year 

atw 12/2020 

| Fig. 2. 

Development of the number of nuclear power plants in operations from 

1956 to 2018. 

The development of the number of the commercially 

operated nuclear power plants worldwide, in addition to 

the available gross nuclear power plant capacity is depicted 

in Figure 2 and Figure 3 for the years 1956 to 2018 

(1956: year of commissioning the first commercial nuclear 

power plant, Calder Hall 1, in Great Britain. The first 

Country In operation Under construction Net nuclear 

electricity production 

Capacity 

Capacity 

Number 

gross 

[MWe] 

net 

[MWe] 

Number 

gross 

[MWe] 

| Tab. 1. 

Nuclear power plant units worldwide in operation and under construction (set date: 31 December 2018), 

nuclear electricity production and share of nuclear power of total electricity production in 2018 [Source: plant operators, IAEO, atw]. 

Nuclear 

share 

total 

net 

[MWe] [TWh] [%] 

Argentina 3 1,750 1,627 1 29 25 6.45 5.00 

Armenia 1 408 376 0 0 0 1.90 26.00 

Bangladesh - 0 0 2 2.400 2,160 0.00 0.00 

Belarus - 0 0 2 2,388 2,218 0.00 0.00 

Belgium 7 6,220 5,937 0 0 0 27.30 39.00 

Brazil 2 1,990 1,884 1 1,300 1,245 15.70 3.00 

Bulgaria 2 2,000 1,906 0 0 0 15.40 33.00 

Canada 19 14,385 13,517 0 0 0 95.00 15.00 

China 46 45,328 42,294 11 11,757 10,860 281.00 4.00 

Czech Republic 6 4,133 3,925 0 0 0 28.30 35.00 

Finland 4 2,860 2,752 1 1,720 1,600 21.90 33.00 

France 58 65,880 63,130 1 1,720 1,630 393.20 72.00 

Germany 7 10,013 9,515 0 0 0 71.90 11.00 

Hungary 4 2,000 1,889 0 0 0 14.90 51.00 

India 22 6,780 6,219 7 5,300 4,824 35.40 3.00 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1,000 915 0 0 0 6.30 2.00 

Japan 38 38,242 36,728 2 2,760 2,650 49.30 6.00 

Korea, Republic of 24 23,495 22,474 5 7,000 6,700 127.10 24.00 

Mexico 2 1,640 1,560 0 0 0 13.20 5.00 

Netherlands, The 1 515 482 0 0 0 3.30 3.00 

Pakistan 5 1,467 1,355 2 2,200 2,028 9.50 6.00 

Romania 2 1,412 1,305 0 0 0 10.50 17.00 

Russia 36 29,089 27,217 6 4,875 4,525 172.20 18.00 

Slovak Republic 4 1,950 1,816 2 942 880 13.70 55.00 

Slovenia 1 727 696 0 0 0 5.50 36.00 

South Africa 2 1,940 1,860 0 0 0 10.60 5.00 

Spain 7 7,398 7,121 0 0 0 53.40 20.00 

Sweden 8 8,706 8,350 0 0 0 63.90 40.00 

Switzerland 5 3,485 3,333 0 0 0 24.30 38.00 

Taiwan, China 5 5,213 5,028 2 2,712 2,630 26.60 11.00 

Turkey - - - 1 1,200 1,114 

Ukraine 15 13,818 13,090 0 0 0 78.50 52.00 

United Arab Emirates - 0 0 4 5,600 5,380 0.00 0.00 

United Kingdom 15 10,366 9,361 0 0 0 59.10 18.00 

United States of America 98 109,864 103,686 2 2,500 2,230 808.30 20.00 

Total 450 424,074 401,416 53 58,123 54,329 2543.65 11.60 

World Report 



450 

Installed nuclear power plant capacity worldwide [gross, GW = 10 3 MW] 

Electricity production in nuclear power plants [TWh = 10 9 kWh/a] 

3,000 

Unit capability factor [%] 

100 

400 

2,500 

80 

163 

300 

2,000 

60 

200 

100 

0 

1956 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

2010 2015 

Year 


| Fig. 3. 

Development of the gross nuclear power plant capacity in operation from 

1956 to 2018. 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

1956 2000 

1960 1970 1980 1990 2010 2015 

Year 

| Fig. 4. 

Development of the nuclear electricity production and plant availability 

from 1956 to 2018. 

40 

20 

0 


WORLD REPORT 

nuclear- generated electricity occurred on 20 December 

1951 in the US-American Experimental Breeder Reactor 

EBR-1.) Also worth noting is the continued capacity 

increase (Figure 3) in the 1980s, as the nuclear power 

plants, ordered due the impact of the first oil crisis at the 

beginning and end of the 1970s, started operations with 

high capacities per plant averaging 1,000 MWe. Worldwide 

and in Germany, the commissioning of the nuclear power 

unit Biblis A in 1974 with 1,225 MWe gross represented an 

important milestone in the development of high-capacity 

plants, which were from the beginning designed also 

technically for a longer operating period of several decades 

– previously, the pilot plants were also built with the focus 

on technical feasibility and practicability. Since about 1993, 

a developmental stagnation can be observed with the number 

of nuclear power plants and capacity and this is due, on 

the one hand to the de-commissioning of older, prototypical 

and no longer profitable plants in the USA, Europe 

and the GUS states and, on the other, the compensatory 

expansion of capacities in the Asian region and capacity 

increases of operating plants. Since the mid-1990s, 

remarkable increases in capacity have been achieved. With 

further optimised turbines alone, an increase in capacity of 

around 5 % can be gained without increasing the reactor 

capacity. If a construction measure also makes increasing 

the thermal reactor capa city possible, then the generating 

capacity in countries such as Mexico, Sweden, the Slovak 

Republic, the USA and Hungary that are already approved 

and realised would increase by around 20 %. Until the end 

of the 2010s, a cumulated capacity increase totalling 

7,750 MW is estimated. This equates to the new construction 

of about 4 large nuclear power units. In the USA alone, 

capacity increases totalling approx. 10,000 MWe net have 

been realised or approved, a further 500 MWe currently to 

be realised until 2020 have been applied for. In Sweden, 

the operators estimate a capacity increase program 

totalling 1,050 MWe net. In Mexico the nuclear power plant 

units Laguna Verde 1 and Laguna Verde 2 have been 

upgraded from 700 MWe gross to 840 MWe gross each; this 

is an capacity increase of about 20 %. 

With the 450 operating plants at the end of 2018, the 

number was equal to the hitherto record year 2016 with 

also 450 nuclear power plants in operation. 

The nuclear power plants worldwide have achieved 

an approx. 1 % higher result in 2018 compared to the 

previous year 2017 in the net electricity generation 

with approx. 2,544 billion (10 9 ) kWh (2,477.2 billion kWh, 

provision details and calculations, cf. Table 1 and 

Figure 4). In Japan, with the exception of five reactor 

units, all other 37 plants were not connected to the grid 

for the whole year. The previous best result of nuclear 

electricity production accounted for 2,658 billion kWh in 

2006. Good operating results were reported from the power 

plants in Belgium, China, Finland, Germany, Russia, 

Switzerland and the USA. 

The overall operational reliability of the plants is 

underlined by the average mean availability for work of all 

nuclear power plants worldwide (cf. Figure 4). Their 

average had increased since the mid 1990s. The strong 

decrease in availability at the beginning of the 1990s is due 

to the large drop in the availability of plants in the East 

European states and the GUS states, whose operating data 

were included consistently in the statistics for the first time. 

The long-term cessation of individual profitable 

nuclear power plant, and the quasi whole nuclear power 

park of Japan as of 2011, also influence the lower average 

availability in the years 2006 to 2009. Since 2011 the 

availability is slightly increasing with the commissioning 

of nuclear power plants in lay-up operation. 

The Top Ten nuclear power plants in power generation 

(MW gross and billion kWh ) 2018 are: (1) Chooz B-2, FR, 

PWR, 1560 MW, 12.388 billion kWh; (2) Isar 2, DE, PWR, 

1485 MW, 12.127 billion kWh; (3) Palo Verde-1, USA, PWR 

1528 MW, 11.850 billion kWh; (4) Emsland, DE, PWR, 

1406 MW, 11.495 billion kWh; (5) Susqehanna-2, USA, 

BWR, 1374 MW, 11.470 billion kWh; (6) Millstone-3, PWR, 

1308 MW, 11.168 billion kWh; (7) Peach Bottom-3, USA, 

BWR, 1412 MW, 11.151 billion kWh, (8) Callaway-1, USA; 

PWR, 1316 MW, 11.130 billion kWh; Oskarshamn-3, SE, 

BWR, 1450 MW, 11.129 billion kWh; Comanche Peak-1, 

USA, PWR, 1283 MW, 11.118 billion kWh. 

Worldwide around 81,329 billion (10 9 ) kWh net 

electricity have cumulatively been produced in nuclear 

power plants since electricity was first generated from 

nuclear power. The experience in the nuclear power plant 

operations amount to approx. 17,300 reactor years. 

Regarding climate protection, nuclear power plants 

have avoided about 2.40 billion (10 9 ) t carbon dioxide 

emisisons 2) 

in 2018. The emissions avoided through 

nuclear energy correspond to some 6 % of the current 

annual emissions worldwide of CO 2 , in the meanwhile 

over, approx. 36 billion tons. The emissions avoided each 

year through nuclear power are distinctly higher than the 

worldwide reduction targets contained in the existing 

international protocols and agreements on climate 

protection (Kyoto Protocol) for the period 2008 to 2012! 

2) The CO 2 reduction 

factor is based on 

the average worldwide 

CO 2 emissions 

of fossile-fired 

power plants in 

countries with NPPS 

in operation. 

World Report 



164 

Preliminary Programme 

KERNTECHNIK 2020 

PRELIMINARY PROGRAMME 

Tuesday, 5. May 2020 

Plenary Day 

9:00-13:00 

Convention Hall I/A 

N.N. 

F.A.Z., 

will lead through the Plenary Day. 

Plenary Session 

9:00 D/E 

Begrüßung und 

Eröffnungsansprache 

Welcome and Opening Address 

Dr. Joachim Ohnemus 

Vorsitzender des Vorstands, KernD 

Policy 

9:15 D/E 

Kernenergiepolitik in der Schweiz – 

Wie geht es weiter? 

Nuclear Energy Policy in Switzerland 

– What's Next? 

Hans-Ulrich Bigler 

Präsident, Nuklearforum Schweiz 

9:35 D/E 

Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland – 

Welchen Beitrag kann die kerntechnische 

Industrie leisten? 

Business Location Germany – What 

Contribution Can Be Made by the 

Nuclear Industry? 

Karlheinz Busen, MdB 

Stellvertretendes Mitglied im Ausschuss 

für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit, 

Deutscher Bundestag 

Economy 

9:55 D/E 

Restbetrieb und Rückbau in Nordund 

Süddeutschland 

Dismantling and Last Years of 

Operation in Northern and Southern 

Germany 

Dr. Guido Knott 

CEO, PreussenElektra GmbH 

Competence 

10:25 D/E 

Kerntechnische Ausbildung – 

Ein Grund zur Sorge? 

Nuclear Education – A Cause 

of Concern? 

Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger 

Geschäftsführender Direktor, 

Institut für Kern energetik und Energiesysteme 

(IKE), Universität Stuttgart 

10:45 Coffee Break 

11:15 D/E 

System-Know how – der Schlüssel 

für die Zukunft der nuklearen 

Kompetenz 

System-Oriented Know-How – 

The Key to the Future of Nuclear 

Competence 

Wolfgang Däuwel 

Framatome GmbH, Germany 

Waste Management 

11:15 E/D 

Creating Public Acceptance 

for a Final Repository 

Jussi Heinonen 

Director of the Nuclear Waste and Material 

Regulation Department, STUK – Radiation and 

Nuclear Safety Authority, Finland 

11:35 D /EN 

Ansprache 

Karsten Möring, MdB 

Ordentliches Mitglied im Ausschuss 

für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit, 

Deutscher Bundestag 

11:55 E/D 

N. N. 

N. N. 

12:10 D/E 

Die Standortauswahl – 

Entwicklungen und Einblicke 

Site Selection – Developments 

and Insights 

Steffen Kanitz 

Managing Director, Bundesgesellschaft 

für Endlagerung mbH (BGE), Germany 

12:30 

Verleihung der Ehrenmitgliedschaft 

der KTG | Award of the Honorary 

Membership of KTG 

Präsentiert von Frank Apel 

Vorsitzender der KTG 

13:00 End of Plenary Session 

13:00 - 14:30 Lunch Break 

19:00 - 23:00 

KernD-Reception and 

Social Evening 

in the Exhibition Area 

Änderungen vorbehalten / Subject to change 


Preliminary Programme


165 

Tuesday, 5. May 2020 

Themenblock 

Kompetenz & Innovation 

CFD Simulations for Reactor 

Safety Relevant Objectives 

Raum III, EG 

Koordinator 

Dr. Andreas Schaffrath 

Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit 

(GRS) gGmbH, Germany 

14:00 

Advances in CFD Applications 

to Nuclear Safety 

Dominique Bestion 

currently Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux 

énergies alternatives (CEA), Grenoble 

14:30 

Progress in the EPFL-Supported 

IAEA Project for an Open-Source 

Platform for Reactor Analysis 

Dr. Carlo Fiorina 

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) 

15:00 

Water Hammer Simulation in Pipe 

Systems with the Open Source Code 

OpenFOAM 

Paul Fuchs 

Prof. Dr. Marco K. Koch 

Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 

Plant Simulation and Safety 


Themenblock 

Sicherheit und Betrieb 

Raum V, 2.OG 

Koordinatoren 

Dr. Tatiana Salnikova 


Erik Baumann 


Dr. Angelika Bohnstedt 

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany 

14:00 

N. N. 

N. N. 


16:30 

N. N. 

N. N. 

17:00 End of Session 

Subject to change. 

Themenblock 

Rückbau & Abfallbehandlung 

Praktische Erfahrungen aus 

ersten Demontageprojekten 

Raum I, 1. OG 

Koordinator 

Dr. Erich Gerhards 

PreussenElektra GmbH, Germany 

16:00 

Freigabe 4.0 

Dr. Tim Thomas 

Safetec Entsorgungs- und Sicherheitstechnik GmbH 

16:30 

Errichtung des Zwischenlagers LUnA 

im Kernkraftwerk Unterweser 

Ingo Fehrenbach 

LUDWIG FREYTAG GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft 


This Session will be held in German 

with simultaneous English Translation. 

Themenblock 

Zwischen- und Endlagerung 

Raum II, EG 

Koordinator 

Dr. Ron Dagan 

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Germany 

14:00 

Welcome and Keynote 

Begrüßung und Ansprache 

N. N. 

N. N. 

14:30 - 15:30 

N. N. 

N. N. 



16:00 

Application of CFD Codes 

in Nuclear Licensing and 

Supervisory Procedures 

Frank Blömeling 

TÜV NORD EnSys GmbH & Co. KG 

14:00 

Robotergestützte Zerlegung 

der RDB-Einbauten im Kernkraftwerk 

Brunsbüttel 

Thomas Eichhorn 

Geschäftsführer Orano GmbH , Germany 

16:00 

Introducing Burnup Credit Rendit for 

Expansion Stage 2 of the External 

Spent Fuel Pool at Gösgen NPP 

Dr. Axel Hoefer 

Framatome GmbH 

16:30 

Coupling of OpenFOAM 

to System Codes 

Joachim Herb 

Gesellschaft für Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit 

(GRS) gGmbH 

17:00 

Multiphysics Calculations – Future 

Vision and next Steps 

Prof. Dr. Horst-Michael Prasser 

ETH Zürich, Department Maschinenbau und 

Verfahrenstechnik 


14:30 

Feedback from Large Integrated D&D 

Projects 

Joseph Boucau 

Westinghouse Electric Germany GmbH 

15:00 

Projektmanagement 

im Dufo Projekt KWL 

Christian Bolles 

UNIPER-Anlagenservice GmbH 


16:15 

Casks and Casks stacks 

in Interim Storage Facilities 

Under Earthquake Loads 

Dr. Nina Wieczorek 






166 

Wednesday, 6. May 2020 


16:30 

Aktuelles Vorgehen bei der Ermittlung 

von Freisetzungsparametern 

bei einem Flugzeugabsturz auf eine 

kerntechnische Anlage im Rahmen 

von Störfallanalysen 

Dr. Steffen Böhlke 

Steag Energy Services GmbH 

16:45 

Radiologische Bewertung von auslegungsüberschreitenden 

Ereignissen 

im Rahmen der Genehmigungsverfahren 

zur Lagerung von radioaktiven 

Abfällen in Deutschland 

Dr. Vera Derya 

WTI Wissenschaftlich-Technische Ingenieurberatung 

GmbH 

Young Scientist's Workshop 

Part I 

Raum Paris 

Koordinator 

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jörg Starflinger 

University of Stuttgart, Germany 

The Jury 


Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany 



Dr. Katharina Stummeyer 



Dr. Hannes Wimmer 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Service mbH, 

Germany 

Sponsors of the 

Young Scientist's Workshop- 

Competence Award: 

GNS Gesellschaft 

für Nuklear-Service mbH 

Kraftanlagen Heidelberg GmbH 

14:00-14:05 

Welcome and Introduction 



14:05-17:50 

N. N. 

N. N. 


Themenblock 

Kompetenz & Innovation 

Reactor Physics, Thermo 

and Fluid Dynamics 

Raum III, EG 

Chair 

Dr. Andreas Wielenberg 



9:00 - 10:00 

Keynotes 

N. N. 

N. N. 


10:30 

Keynotes 

N. N. 

N. N. 

11:00 

Framatome’s Thermohydraulik 

Platform: Experimentelle Sicherheitsforschung 

und Innovationen 

Dr. Thomas Mull 


11:15 

Geplante Experimente und Analysen 

zur Modellierung der Zinkfreisetzung 

und thermo hydraulischer Aus wirkungen 

von Zinkborat ablagerungen 

im DWR-Kern 

Dr. André Seeliger 

Hochschule Zittau / Görlitz, Germany 

11:30 

Laboruntersuchungen zu Zinkfreisetzungen 

im DWR-Containment 

sowie zum Kristallisations- und 

Ablagerungs verhalten von Zinkboraten 

im DWR-Kern als Basis für die 

Modellierung unterschiedlicher KMV 

Szenarien 

Dr. Ulrich Harm 

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany 

12:00 Lunch 

13:00 

Water Hammer Simulation 

in Pipe Systems with Open Source 

Code OpenFOAM 

Paul Fuchs 


13:15 

Numerische Simulation des unterkühlten 

Strömungssiedens für 

reaktortechnische Anwendungen 

mit OpenFOAM 

Zhi Yang 



13:30 

Simulation der DEBRIS-Testanlage mit 

dem Störfallanalysecode ASTEC V2.1 

Jan Peschel 


13:45 

Analyse des Schmelzeverhaltens 

im unteren Plenum des Reaktors 

der TMI-2 Anlage mit dem Systemcode 

AC² – ATHLET-CD 

Florian Krist 


14:00 

Verification of Azimuthal Melt 

Relocation Modelling 

Christophe D'Alessandro 



14:15 

Simulation ausgewählter 

BETA-Versuche 

Maximilian Hoffmann 


14:30 

Generalized Interpretation of MCCI- 

Experiments with the AC2/COCOSYS 

Code and Application to Core Catcher 

Simulation 

Claus Spengler 



14:45 

N. N. 

N. N. 







167 

Know-how, New Build 

and Innovations 

Raum V, 2. OG 

Chair 

Dr. Matthias Lamm 


13:00 

Es ist eine Illusion, zu glauben, 

Deutschland könne gleichzeitig 

aus der Kernkraft und aus der Kohle 

aussteigen. 

em. Prof. Dr. Manfred Mach 

Emeritus Technische Universität Berlin 

13:15 

Bürgerinitiative pro Kernenergie 

Hauke Rathjen 

Bürgerinitiative MitKernenergie 

11:00 

Evolution of Core Design and Operational 

Requirements in German PWRs 

from a Technical Expert Organization's 

Point of View 

SebastianSchoop 


11:15 

Reactor Core Control Based on Artificial 

Intelligence 

Dr. Victor Morokhovskyi 


11:30 

The EMPIRE Irradiation Test: Lower- 

Enriched Fuel for High-Performance 

Research Reactors 

Bruno Baumeister 

Technische Universität München 

Themenblock 

Rückbau & Abfallbehandlung 

Decommissioning 

of Nuclear Installations 

Raum I, 1. OG 

Chair 

Dr. Martin Brandauer 

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) 

9:00 - 10:00 

N. N. 

N. N. 

10:00 Break 

10:30 - 12:00 

N. N. 

N. N. 


13:30 

BioKernSprit – die Lösung 

für ein Energieproblem 

Jochen Michels 

Consulting Company 

11:45 

Nachweis der Integrität des Zentralkanals 

im FRM II mit ZfP Methoden 

Dr. Heiko Gerstenberg 

Technische Universität München ZWE FRM II 

12:00 Lunch 

This Session will be held in German/English 

with simultaneous translation. 


Themenblock 

Sicherheit und Betrieb 

Operation and Safety 

of Nuclear Installations, Fuel 

Raum IV, 2.OG 

Chair 

Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Hollands 



9:00 

Keynote 

Taking Responsibility – The Scientific 

Backing of the German Quiver Project 

Dr. Wolfgang Faber 

PreussenElektra GmbH, Hannover 

9:30 

Keynote 

Lifetime Extension of I&C-Modules 

Dr. Lothar Mensching 



10:30 

Keynote 

Quo vadis Netzstabilität – 

Zunehmende Herausforderungen im 

Wandel des Erzeugungsportfolios‘ 

Dr. Kai Kosowski 


12:00 Lunch 

13:00 

Novel Challenges for Anomaly 

Detection in I&C Networks: 

Strategic Preparation for the Advent 

of Information Hiding based Attacks 

Kevin Lamshöft 

Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg 

13:15 

Perspektive der Energiewende 

ohne Kernenergie und ohne Kohlekraftwerke 

Dr. Helmut Alt 

FH Aachen 

13:30 

N. N. 

N. N. 


Themenblock 

Zwischen- und Endlagerung 

Radioactive Waste Management, 

Storage and Disposal 

Raum II, EG 

Chair 

Dr. Ron Dagan 

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany 

9:00 

Keynote 

Marcus Seidel 

9:30 

Activity Ratio of Short-Lived 

Radio nuclides in MTR Fuel Assemblies 

Under Irregular Irradiation Regime 

Dr. Erez Gilad 

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

10:00 Break 

10:30 

Keynote 

Ander Sjölan 

11:00 

A Geopolymer Waste Form 

for Technetium, Iodine and 

Hazardous Metals 

Prof. Dr. Werner Lutze 

The Catholic University of America 





168 



11:15 

Mobility of Radionuclides in SNF in 

View of Extended Dry Interim Storage 

Dr. Michael Herm 

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology 

11:30 

Experimentelle Untersuchung des 

geplanten Probenentnahmesystems 

im Fortluftkanal Kamin des Endlagers 

Konrad 

Herr Dr. Steffen Wildgrube 

VPC GmbH 

12:00 Lunch 

13:00 

IP-2 Beladungen „planbar“ machen 

– Beladetools zur Abschätzung der 

Transportfähigkeit von IP-2 Behältern 

und ihre Verwendung im Rückbau 

deutscher Kernkraftwerke 

Dr. Luc Schlömer 

WTI Wissenschaftlich Technische Ingenieurberatung 

GmbH 

13:15 

Overcoming Design and Licensing 

Challenges – The Type B(U)F Flask 

TGC 27 

Dr. Simon Orilski 

AGC c/o GNS mbH 

14:30 

Impact of Neutron Slowing Down 

on Radiation Fields for High-Level 

Nuclear Fuel Waste Storage 

He Wu 

KIT-Institute for Nuclear Waste Disposal 


15:30 

Keynote 

N. N. 

N. N. 


This Session will be held in German/Englisch 

with simultaneous translation. 

Young Scientist's Workshop 

Part II 

09:00-12:00 

N. N. 

N. N. 

15:10 

Prize Ceremony in the Exhibition Area 

12:45 

Besuch der Stationen II 


14:00 

Auflösung des Handyexperiments 

14:10 

Besuch der Stationen III 

15:10 

Schlussworte 

15:20 End of Campus 

Jetzt anmelden: 

kerntechnik2020.com 

13:30 

Erfahrungen aus der Entsorgung 

von Sonderbrennstäben mit Köchern 

in deutschen Kernkraftwerken 

Wolfgang Reuter 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear Service mbH, Germany 

CAMPUS Nuclear Technology 

Foyer 3 

Koordinatoren 

Dr. Florian Gremme 

Natalija Cobanov 

Young Generation Network, KTG e. V., Germany 

13:45 

Quality Assurance and Data Analysis 

in Automated Radiological Characterization 

of Large Soil Volumes 

Dr. Christoph Klein 

NUKEM Technologies Engineering Services GmbH 

14:00 

Development of an Automated 

Decontamination Cabin with 

Documentation Based on Industry 4.0 

Features 

Dr. Maarten Becker 

iUS Institut für Umwelttechnologien und 

Strahlenschutz GmbH 

14:15 

APG 02 durch Betonierung – 

das Abfall/Matrix-Verhältnis 

Martina Kößler 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear Service mbH, Germany 

9:00 

Willkommen & Vorstellung der KTG JG 


Junge Generation der KTG 

9:20 

Radioaktivität & Strahlenschutz 

, Handyexperiment 

Sven Jansen 

VKTA – Strahlenschutz, Analytik & Entsorgung 

Rossendorf e. V. 

9:50 

Arbeiten in einem Kernkraftwerk 

Sebastian Hahn 

KTG, Deutschland 


10:25 

Besuch der Stationen I 

11:25 

Energie im Zeichen des Klimawandels 

Andrea Kozlowski 

FH Aachen 

12:00 Lunch 





Inside 

Liebe LeserInnen der “Jungen Generation”, 

liebe LeserInnen, die nicht mehr zu dieser 

Altersgruppe zählen! 

Kennen Sie die Bücher „Mama, erzähl 

mal!“ oder „Papa, erzähl mal!“? 

Das sind Ausfüllbücher, die Kinder oder Enkel ver schenken 

(auch ich habe ein solches Buch bekommen), um 

Antworten auf viele ihrer Fragen zu bekommen: 

Was passierte gerade in der Welt, als du geboren 

wurdest? Was für ein Kind warst du, als du klein warst? 

Was ist die nachhaltigste Erinnerung an Deine Kindheit? 

Was für ein Kind war ich in deinen Augen, als ich noch 

klein war? Wann ist mir der erste Zahn gewachsen? 

Fragen über Fragen. Beim Beantworten habe ich mich 

häufig geärgert, dass ich nichts dokumentiert hatte; 

manchmal halfen Fotos. 

Damit ich auch später noch Fragen zur deutschen 

Kerntechnik beantworten kann, schreibe ich mir jetzt 

meine Antworten auf. Zudem sind diese Antworten auch 

gedacht als einerseits Rückblick zu den allgemeinen 

Entwicklungen der Kernenergie seit Fukushima sowie als 

Momentaufnahme zur derzeitigen Klimaschutzdiskussion. 

Andererseits sollen meine Ausführungen die LeserInnen 

dieser Zeilen zum weiteren Nachdenken anregen. 

Was ist im März 2011 in Japan passiert? 

Am 11. März 2011 erschütterte ein Erdbeben mit einer 

Stärke von 9 die Ostküste Japans. Das Beben erzeugte 

einen gewaltigen Tsunami. Bis zu 40 Meter hohe Wellen 

rasten auf die Küste zu. Mehr als 18.000 Menschen starben. 

Ganze Städte wurden verwüstet. Im Kernkraftwerk 

Fukushima- Daiichi fiel der Strom aus. Noch am Abend des 

11. März erklärte die japanische Regierung den nuklearen 

Notfall. In den Wochen nach der Havarie bestätigte sich 

der Verdacht einer Kernschmelze. Nach mehreren 

Sammelklagen stellte ein japanisches Gericht Ende 2017 

die Mitschuld des Staates und des Betreiberkonzerns 

Tepco an der Katastrophe fest. Obwohl viele Gebiete um 

das KKW Fukushima seit Ende März 2017 wieder 

bewohnbar sind, herrscht noch bei vielen Menschen 

Verunsicherung… 

Wichtig ist meines Erachtens der psychisch-rationale 

Umgang mit derartigen Ereignissen. Nach der wahlkampftechnischen 

Schnellabschaltung der deutschen Kernkraftwerke 

nach dem Reaktorunfall hat die Bundesregierung 

2011 unter Führung von Kanzlerin und Doktorin der 

Naturwissenschaften Angela Merkel beschlossen, die 

Atomkraftwerke gestaffelt abzuschalten. Der Bundestag 

hat dem zugestimmt – mit den Stimmen von CDU/CSU, 

FDP, SPD und Grünen. 

Warum hacken die Kinder im Kindergarten 

auf mir rum, nur weil meine Eltern für die 

Kerntechnik arbeiten? 

Das war die Frage unseres Jüngsten nachdem der Pfarrer 

mit den Kleinen über Fukushima und die böse Atomkraft 

gesprochen hat. (Ich muss an dieser Stelle betonen, dass 

unser Kindergarten mit einem kirchlichen Träger immer 

super toll war und dies die einzige zweifelhafte „ Verirrung“ 

war.) 

Warum wollen Sie, Herr Bundestags abgeordneter, 

dass meine Eltern arbeitslos werden? 

Diese Frage haben unsere Kinder dem MdB unseres Wahlkreises 

auf der Kirchweih in unserem Ort gestellt, kurz 

nachdem die namentliche Abstimmung zum Atomausstieg 

im Bundestag gelaufen war. Vielleicht war es der falsche 

Ort, es gab keine direkte Antwort. Aber nach mehreren 

Wochen dann doch: er hat auch eine Familie, die er 

ernähren muss. 

Wer ist Greta Thunberg? 

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg ist eine 

schwedische Klimaaktivistin, die im Kern eine Forderung 

hat: Klimapolitik muss sich konsequent an den Erkenntnissen 

der Wissenschaft orientieren. 

Ich habe viele Jahre in Thunbergs Heimat gelebt und 

gearbeitet. Schweden setzt neben Wasser, Biomasse und 

Wind weiter auf Kernkraft. Zwischen 1973 und 2012 ist 

der Anteil fossiler Energieträger von 71 auf 28 Prozent 

gesunken, gleichzeitig wuchs der Anteil der Kernenergie 

bis heute von einem auf rund 40 Prozent. Seit Beginn der 

1990er-Jahre hat Schweden seinen CO 2 -Ausstoß um 

26 Prozent reduziert – trotz eines erheblichen wirtschaftlichen 

Aufschwungs. 

„Greta“ hat eine Meinung zur Kernenergie. Sie schrieb: 

Atomenergie könne „ein kleiner Teil einer sehr großen 

neuen kohlenstofffreien Energielösung“ sein. Dies ist eine 

Position, die ein beträchtlicher Teil der Experten aus 

Wirtschaft und Energiesektor seit Jahren vertritt, die bei 

einer Mehrheit der Umweltaktivisten allerdings nicht 

willkommen ist. Nach 4 Tagen hat „Greta“ den Text 

korrigiert: „Persönlich bin ich gegen Atomkraft. Aber laut 

dem IPCC kann sie ein kleiner Teil einer sehr großen neuen 

kohlenstofffreien Energielösung sein.“ Was war passiert? 

Thunberg erklärte in einem Kommentar, sie habe die 

„ kleine Änderung gemacht, weil einige Leute meine Worte 

immer auf die Goldwaage legen…“ 

Vor knapp einem Jahr war Greta Thunberg zu Gast bei 

„Anne Will“. Im Originalinterview hörte sich das so an: 

Anne Will: Let me follow up. If one wants to stop the emissions 

– and that is what you want: not to lower them but to stop the 

emissions – is it then possible to avoid nuclear energy in your 

understanding? 

Greta Thunberg: Ask scientists. That is something I can’t 

speak out on because I don’t have that scientific education. 

That is such a big decision that we need to have scientific 

evidence and scientific based recommendations on what we 

should do. So, I can’t say what we should do. 

Wer sind die Wissenschaftler, die nach „Greta‘s“ 

Meinung die Empfehlungen für die zukünftige Energiepolitik 

erarbeiten sollen? Ich denke, in den Reihen der 

KTG gibt es viele, die einen wirtschaftlich sinnvollen 

Energiemix beschreiben und begründen können. 

Wo „Fridays for Future“ drauf steht, soll auch „Fridays 

for Future“ drin sein. Der Name solle vor Missbrauch 

geschützt werden - deshalb hat Greta Thunberg jetzt den 

Schutz ihres Namens und den ihrer Klima-Bewegungen 

„Fridays For Future“ oder „Skolstrejk för klimatet“ als 

Marken beantragt. Beide würden ständig und ohne 

Zustimmung für kommerzielle Zwecke genutzt, erklärte 

die 17-jährige Schwedin… 

Und Greta Thunberg ist nach 2019 auch in 2020 als 

Kandidatin für den Friedensnobelpreis nominiert. 

169 

KTG INSIDE 

KTG Inside


170 

KTG INSIDE 

Wenn wir jetzt bis 2038 in Deutschland auch 

noch aus der Kohle aussteigen, sollten wir 

dann nicht aus Überlegungen der Versorgungssicherheit 

zumindest die Konvoi-Anlagen ein 

paar Jahre länger am Netz lassen? 

Wir betreiben in Deutschland mit viel Fachexpertise die 

sichersten Kraftwerke der Welt. Die Verfügbarkeiten sind 

spitze und wir sind mehrfacher Weltmeister in der Stromproduktion. 

In 2019 hatte eine konservative Gruppierung von CDU 

und CSU, die WerteUnion, Laufzeitverlängerungen 

gefordert. Dadurch könne der Kohleausstieg vorgezogen 

werden, hieß es. Es sei höchste Zeit, den Fehler des übereilten 

Atomausstiegs von 2011 zu korrigieren und „die 

Laufzeit der sichersten Atomkraftwerke der Welt zu 

verlängern“. Die Debatte um eine Laufzeitverlängerungen 

war zuletzt allerdings auch in der Wirtschaft aufgeflammt. 

Hochrangige Vertreter wie Linde-Aufsichtsratschef 

Wolfgang Reitzle und jüngst VW-Vorstandschef Herbert 

Diess hatten den Atomausstieg infrage gestellt. Diess sagte, 

„wenn uns der Klimaschutz wichtig ist, sollten die 

Kernkraftwerke länger laufen“. 

Die deutschen Stromkonzerne sind sich einig, dass 

gesellschaftlich und damit letztlich auch langfristig unternehmerisch, 

eine erneute Änderung der hiesigen Kernenergiepolitik 

ein hochriskantes, konfrontatives Spiel mit 

unsicherem Ausgang wäre. Längst haben sie sich zudem 

strategisch neu orientiert. Theoretisch könnte ein Dritter 

im Auftrag der Bundesnetzagentur die Kernkraftwerke 

betreiben, aber ein derartiges Szenarium ist zurzeit nicht 

darstellbar und auch neue Brennelemente hat niemand 

bestellt. 

Politische Mehrheiten für einen Weiterbetrieb sind 

nicht erkennbar und so hat auch die Bundesregierung 

Spekulationen über eine Abkehr vom Atomausstieg aus 

Klimaschutzgründen eine klare Absage erteilt. „Der 

Ausstieg wird wie geplant vollzogen“, sagte Regierungssprecher 

Steffen Seibert. Die Haltung der Bundes regierung 

zur Atomkraft gelte unverändert. 

In welchem gesellschaftlichen Umfeld betreiben 

unsere Nachbarn ihre Kernkraftwerke und warum 

will Polen sogar neu einsteigen und bis 2033 das 

erste Kernkraftwerk am Netz haben? 

Schauen wir nach Frankreich: 72 % des Stroms kommt aus 

Kernkraftwerken und dies seit vielen Jahren. Der Termin, 

zu dem der Anteil der Kernenergie im französischen 

Energiemix nur noch 50 Prozent betragen soll, wurde von 

2025 auf 2035 verschoben. Mit einem signifikanten 

Investprogramm der EdF – dem sogenannten Grand 

Carénage – werden derzeit die französischen Kernkraftwerke 

fit gemacht für längere Laufzeiten. Auch in 

Frankreich gibt es Klimaaktivisten und die Bevölkerung ist 

bezüglich der Nutzung der Kernenergie gespalten. 

Dennoch sind über 54 % der unlängst in einer Umfrage 

Befragten der Meinung, dass der Anteil der Kernenergie im 

französischen Energiemix in der Zukunft stabil bleibt oder 

zunehmen wird. Nur 26 % wollen einen Komplettumstieg 

auf die Erneuerbaren. Die Umfrage hat auch einige Überraschungen 

zutage gebracht: 69 % der Befragten denken, 

dass Kernkraftwerke eine Menge Treibhausgase produzieren 

und damit ein Klimakiller sind und 67 % der 

Franzosen glauben, dass der französische Strompreis 

höher als in den Nachbarländern ist. 

Imprint 

| Editorial Advisory Board 

Frank Apel 

Erik Baumann 

Dr. Erwin Fischer 

Carsten George 

Eckehard Göring 


Dr. Ralf Güldner 

Carsten Haferkamp 

Christian Jurianz 

Dr. Anton Kastenmüller 


Ulf Kutscher 

Herbert Lenz 

Jan-Christan Lewitz 

Andreas Loeb 

Dr. Thomas Mull 

Dr. Joachim Ohnemus 

Olaf Oldiges 

Dr. Tatiana Salnikova 

Dr. Andreas Schaffrath 

Dr. Jens Schröder 

Norbert Schröder 

Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger 

Dr. Brigitte Trolldenier 

Dr. Walter Tromm 

Dr. Hans-Georg Willschütz 

Dr. Hannes Wimmer 

| Editorial Office 

Christopher Weßelmann (Editor in Chief) 

Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany 

Phone: +49 2324 4397723 

Fax: +49 2324 4397724 

E-mail: editorial@nucmag.com 

Nicole Koch (Editor) 

c/o INFORUM, Berlin, Germany 

Phone: +49 176 84184604 

E-mail: nicole.koch@nucmag.com 

| Official Journal of Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG) 

| Publisher 

INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH 

Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany 

Phone: +49 30 498555-30 

Fax: +49 30 498555-18 

www.nucmag.com 

| General Manager 

Dr. Thomas Behringer 

| CvD 

Nicolas Wendler 

| Advertising and Subscription 

Petra Dinter-Tumtzak 

Phone: +49 30 498555-30 

Fax: +49 30 498555-18 

E-mail: petra.dinter@nucmag.com 

| Layout 

zi.zero Kommunikation 

Antje Zimmermann 

Berlin, Germany 

| Printing 

inpuncto:asmuth 

druck + medien gmbh 

Buschstraße 81, 53113 Bonn, Germany 

| Price List for Advertisement 

Valid as of 1 January 2019 

Published monthly, 9 issues per year 

Germany: 

Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- € 

Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 187.- € 

All EU member states without VAT number: 

Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- € 

Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 187.- € 

EU member states with VAT number 

and all other countries: 

Per issues/copy (no VAT, excl. postage) 22.43 € 

Annual subscription (no VAT, excl. postage) 174.77 € 

| Copyright 

The journal and all papers and photos contained in it are protected by 

copyright. Any use made thereof outside the Copyright Act without the 

consent of the publisher, INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft 

mbH, is prohibited. This applies to reproductions, translations, 

micro filming and the input and incorporation into electronic systems. 

The individual author is held responsible for the contents of the 

respective paper. Please address letters and manuscripts only to the 

Editorial Staff and not to individual persons of the association´s staff. 

We do not assume any responsibility for unrequested contributions. 

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial. 

ISSN 1431-5254 

KTG Inside


Polen bezieht 77 Prozent seiner Elektrizität aus Kohle. 

Um die Klimaneutralität der EU im Jahre 2050 zu 

erreichen, kann „Kernenegie ein (kleiner) Teil einer sehr 

großen neuen kohlenstofffreien Energielösung sein“. Für 

viele europäische Staaten nicht nachvollziehbar, ist im 

Green Deal der EU die klimaneutrale Kernenergie nicht als 

saubere Energiequelle akzeptiert wurden. 

Wie ist das mit den Verbraucherpreisen 

für Strom? 

Strom hat heute einen stolzen Preis: 31,37 Cent kostet eine 

Kilowattstunde im Januar 2020 im Schnitt, wenn ein 

Haushalt 3.500 Kilowattstunden im Jahr bezieht. Im Jahr 

2000 waren es noch rund 14 Cent. 

Seit Beginn des neuen Jahrtausends führte der Gesetzgeber 

ein neues Förderinstrument in der Stromversorgung 

ein: Umlagen. Sie sollen die Energiewende vorantreiben. 

Der Stromverbraucher bezahlt sie über den Strompreis. 

Insgesamt fünf Umlagen gibt es auf den Strompreis – und 

sie haben ihn in die Höhe getrieben. Angestiegen sind auch 

die Entgelte für die Stromnetze. Je stärker die einzelnen 

Posten wachsen, desto mehr Mehrwertsteuer fällt am 

Ende an. Das ist schön für den Haushalt der Bundesrepublik, 

aber weniger schön für uns Verbraucher. 

Die Strompreise an der Börse sind gesunken – wegen 

subventionierter erneuerbarer Energien zu Lasten 

der Konventionellen. Nach 2011 verringerten sich die 

Beschaffungskosten um bis zu 3 Cent pro Kilowattstunde. 

Diesen Vorteil haben aber die gestiegenen Umlagen – allen 

voran die sogenannte EEG-Umlage zur Vergütung von 

Ökostrom – und die entsprechend höheren Mehrwertsteuerkosten 

mehr als aufgefressen. Bei uns Verbrauchern 

kam von den niedrigeren Großhandelspreisen gar nichts an. 

Und im Vergleich zu Frankreich zahlen wir Verbraucher 

in Deutschland schon seit vielen Jahren das 1,5 fache. 

Können sich Industrie und private Haushalte diese 

hohen Strompreise leisten? Die meisten schon. Noch! 

Müssen wir eben am Urlaub sparen. Fliegen sollen wir ja 

auch nicht mehr, wegen der Flugscham… 

Frank Apel 

Vorstandsvorsitzender Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG) 

171 

KTG INSIDE 

Bericht zur Veranstaltung 

„Kernenergie – der Weg aus der Klimakrise“ 

Die im Februar seitens der Sektion Nord organisierte 

Veranstaltung in Hamburg zum Thema Kernenergie und 

Klimakrise wurde von 23 interessierten Teilnehmern 

besucht. 

Redner Rainer Klute, Vorsitzender der Nuklearia e.V., 

stieg in seinen Vortrag ein, indem er den Interessenten 

erläutert, wie sich der deutsche Strommix zusammensetzt 

und wo die Probleme der Energiewende bestehen. Er 

führt aus, warum Solar- und Windenergie alleine nicht 

genügen, um Deutschland mit CO 2 -freiem Strom zu versorgen. 

Über einen Live-Vergleich mittels des Portals 

www.electricitymap.org zeigte er eingänglich, dass Länder 

mit hohem Kernenergieanteil – wie Frankreich – signifikant 

geringere CO 2 -Emissionen haben als z.B. Deutschland. 

Anhand von Tagesganglinien der Stromproduktion und 

des Bedarfs zeigte er auf, dass erneuerbare Energien 

alleine niemals die Energieversorgung Deutschlands 

werden sichern können. Ergo müsse Kernenergie zwingend 

ein Teil der Lösung im Kampf gegen den Klimawandel sein. 

Klute stellte dar, dass mittlerweile Befürworter der Kernenergie 

weltweit auch aus den Lagern der traditio nellen 

Gegner stammen. Weltweit sei die Kernenergie im 

Aufwind, sogar in Deutschland nehme die Befassung mit 

dem Thema Kernenergie wieder zu. Er zeigte dazu aktuelle 

Beispiele von Stellungnahmen deutscher Parteien und 

Leitmedien und leitete daraus die Frage ab: Ist der Ausstieg 

aus dem Ausstieg denkbar? Als Beispiel internationaler 

Entwicklung zeigte er neben neuartigen sogenannten SMR 

(Small Modular Reactor), kleinen und modularen 

Reaktoren, auch das Beispiel des russischen BN-800 auf. 

Der BN-800 ist ein schneller Brutreaktor, der im 

kommerziellen Betrieb Strom aus abgebrannten Brennelementen 

(“Atommüll”) produziert. 

“Kernenergie kann nicht nur Strom” – so bot Klute 

zahlreiche weitere aktuelle Beispiele für die Vielfalt 

möglicher Einsatzgebiete von Kernenergie: Fernheizwärme, 

Wasserentsalzung, Wasserstoffproduktion und 

vieles mehr. 

Zum Abschluss räumte er mit den klassischen 

Argu menten der Kernkraftgegner ebenso auf, wie mit den 

jüngsten. In jedem Fall sei es besser, heute Kernkraft neu 

zu bauen und zu fördern, als nie. 

Im Anschluss an den Vortrag konnten sich die Teilnehmer 

bei einem Imbiss austauschen. 

Helge Gottschling 

KTG Inside


172 

NEWS 

Wenn Sie künftig eine 

Erwähnung Ihres 

Geburtstages in der 

atw wünschen, teilen 

Sie dies bitte der KTG- 

Geschäftsstelle mit. 

KTG Inside 

Verantwortlich 

für den Inhalt: 

Die Autoren. 

Lektorat: 

Natalija Cobanov, 

Kerntechnische 

Gesellschaft e. V. 

(KTG) 


10115 Berlin 

T: +49 30 498555-50 

F: +49 30 498555-51 

E-Mail: 

natalija.cobanov@ 

ktg.org 

www.ktg.org 

Herzlichen Glückwunsch! 

Die KTG gratuliert ihren Mitgliedern sehr herzlich zum Geburtstag 

und wünscht ihnen weiterhin alles Gute! 

April 2020 

65 Jahre | 1955 

02. Helmut Gradic, Stadland 

24. Klaus-Dieter Brandt, Berlin 

15. Thomas Grahnert, Dresden 

70 Jahre | 1950 

28. Dr. Wolfgang Wiesenack, Halden 

78 Jahre | 1942 

09. Prof. Dr. Hans-Christoph Mehner, 

Dresden 

80 Jahre | 1940 

18. Dipl.-Ing. Norbert Granner, 

Bergisch Gladbach 

82 Jahre | 1938 

04. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus Kühn, 

Clausthal-Zellerfeld 

05. Dr. Hans Fuchs, Gelterkinden 

09. Dr. Carl Alexander Duckwitz, 

Alzenau-Kälberau 

28. Prof. Dr. Georg-Friedrich Schultheiss, 

Lüneburg 

83 Jahre | 1937 

13. Dr. Martin Peehs, Bubenreuth 

85 Jahre | 1935 

05. Prof. Dr. Hans-Henning Hennies, 

Karlsruhe-Bergwald 

89 Jahre | 1931 

09. Dr. Klaus Penndorf, Geesthacht 

 

6. Januar 2019 ı 

Dr. Helmut Hübel 

Bensberg 

Die KTG verliert in ihm ein langjähriges 

aktives Mitglied, dem sie ein 

ehrendes Andenken bewahren wird. 

Seiner Familie gilt unsere Anteilnahme. 

89 Jahre | 1931 

28. Dipl.-Ing. Rudolf Eberhart, Burgdorf 

Top 

BlackRock and $35 trillion 

investor group want to go 

carbon-free, tech innovators 

look to nuclear 

(nei) BlackRock Inc. – a global 

investment firm that manages nearly 

$ 7 trillion dollars in assets – joined an 

investment pact focused on reducing 

carbon emissions, Climate Action 

100+. With BlackRock’s commitment, 

Climate Action 100+ represents more 

than $ 41 trillion dollars in investments. 

That’s a lot of capital and 

another influential name committed 

to protecting the climate. 

While every investor wants to 

make money, the climate pact represents 

an increasing number of people 

who also want their investments to 

make a positive change in the world, 

especially for issues like climate. 

Melanie Nakagawa, head of climate 

initiative at investment firm Princeville 

Capital, said – in a recent episode 

of “Off the Menu” – that this type of 

“impact investing” is becoming the 

norm as climate concerns are viewed 

by the financial world as an untenable 

risk. 

“[Climate] awareness is rapidly 

changing, and I believe we are on the 

edge of a fundamental reshaping of 

finance,” said BlackRock Chairman 

and Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink 

in a letter to clients. “In the near future 

– and sooner than most anticipate – 

there will be a significant reallocation 

of capital.” 

While reducing carbon emissions 

and transitioning to a low-carbon 

economy will involve more than the 

electricity sector, it still makes up 

28 % of emissions. When you consider 

that going carbon-free in other sectors 

like transportation or industry will 

require more electricity, generating 

power as cleanly as possible becomes 

even more important. For this reason, 

nuclear energy – which provides 

more than 55 percent of our current 

carbon-free electricity – plays a major 

role in holding down carbon emissions. 

Additionally, advanced reactors 

expand the future of nuclear and clean 

energy. In fact, leading tech 

entrepreneur Bill Gates sees great 

opportunities in advanced nuclear and 

even helped launch TerraPower LLC 

to design a next-generation reactor. 

He’s not alone. Dozens of new 

companies are working on advanced 

reactors that represent the cuttingedge 

in nuclear technology. Advanced 

reactors promise an affordable and 

reliable source of clean electricity, 

plus the ability to produce clean transportation 

fuels and building materials 

and to desalinate drinking water, 

while offering inherent safety features 

and even the ability to recycle used 

fuel and reduce waste. 

As more investors push for clean 

energy solutions, nuclear energy leads 

the way in carbon-free electricity 

today and is innovating for the 

reactors and grid of tomorrow. 

| (20491542) www.nei.org 

World 

IAEA Ministerial Conference 

commits to strengthening 

nuclear security amid concerns 

about global threats 

(iaea) Government ministers and 

other high-level representatives from 

more than 140 countries adopted a 

declaration at a major International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference 

today to enhance global nuclear 

security and counter the threat of 

nuclear terrorism and other malicious 

acts. 

From a possible cyber attack on 

a nuclear power plant to the illicit 

trafficking of radioactive materials, 

nuclear security is a growing international 

concern. The IAEA and its 

Member States have in recent years 

intensified their efforts to strengthen 

nuclear security but agree that more 

action is needed. 

“Nuclear and radioactive material 

is a magnet for groups with malicious 

intent that see in this material a 

possibility to create panic and bring 

News


distress and pain to our societies,” 

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano 

Grossi said at the opening of the weeklong 

conference at IAEA head quarters, 

shortly before the declaration was 

adopted by the participants, including 

more than 55 ministerial-level 

representatives. 

Nuclear technology and science 

help improve the lives of millions of 

people around the world in areas 

ranging from clean energy and cancer 

care to food security and pest control. 

But the nuclear and radioactive 

materials used to produce those 

benefits must be secured at all times 

to prevent them from falling into 

the wrong hands. Nuclear security 

involves preventing, detecting and 

responding to malicious acts with 

nuclear material, radioactive substances 

or their associated facilities. 

In the declaration, IAEA Member 

States reaffirmed the common goals 

of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear 

disarmament and the peaceful uses of 

nuclear energy and recognized that 

nuclear security contributes to international 

peace and security. 

“We remain concerned about 

existing and emerging nuclear 

security threats and committed 

to addressing such threats,” the 

ministerial declaration said. “We 

encourage Member States to implement 

threat mitigation and risk 

reduction measures that contribute to 

improving nuclear security, including, 

but not limited to, ensuring the 

protection of nuclear and other radioactive 

materials and facilities.” 

Nuclear security is a national 

responsibility, but the central role of 

the IAEA in facilitating and coordinating 

international cooperation in 

this area was also highlighted at the 

conference and in the declaration. 

“The adoption of a Declaration at 

ministerial level is indicative of the 

continuous commitment to nuclear 

security of IAEA Member States. It 

is a concise, politically driven and 

forward- looking document, adding 

value to the efforts of strengthening 

nuclear security worldwide,” said 

Bogdan Aurescu, Minister of Foreign 

Affairs of Romania and Co-President 

of the conference. 

“In the coming years, global stocks 

of nuclear material are expected to 

continue growing, especially as we 

look into emerging nuclear technologies 

and their role in mitigating the 

consequences of climate change,” said 

Federico Alfaro, Vice-Minister of 

Foreign Affairs of Panama and Co- 

President of the conference. “We 

cannot allow for such material to fall 

into the wrong hands.” 

| (20491539) www.iaea.org 

Reactors 

Excellent production year 

for PreussenElektra's 

nuclear power plants 

(pe) The three PreussenElektra 

nuclear power plants Brokdorf, 

Grohnde and Isar 2 had another 

successful year of operation: The 

three power plants generated a total 

of almost 33 billion kilowatt hours 

(kWh) of electricity in 2019. This 

amount alone from these three plants 

is sufficient to supply around 

13 million electric cars with low-CO 2 

electricity [1]. 

With an availability of almost 90 %, 

the power plants were available 

almost without restriction. The continuing 

drought and the high ambient 

and cooling water temperatures of 

last summer 2019 had no significant 

impact on the plants. 

With 12 billion kilowatt hours 

(gross), the Isar 2 nuclear power plant 

(Bavaria) in Germany generated the 

largest amount of electricity of all 

German nuclear power plants and 

therefore has a good chance of once 

again finishing among the world-wide 

top three. Around 10.7 billion kilowatt 

hours (gross) were supplied by the 

Grohnde nuclear power plant in 

Lower Saxony and a good 10 billion 

kilowatt hours (gross) came from 

the Brokdorf nuclear power plant 

in Schleswig-Holstein. The Grohnde 

nuclear power plant celebrated its 

35 th anniversary of grid synchronisation: 

With its approximately 

386 billion kilowatt hours of electricity 

generated since commissioning, 

the power plant continues to be 

the undisputed world leader: No plant 

in the world has ever generated so 

much electricity. Preussen Elektra 

invested around 50 million Euros in 

the power plants as part of the power 

plant overhauls. 

“I would like to thank my 

colleagues in the power plants and the 

company headquarters as well as the 

employees of our contractors, whose 

commitment has ensured reliable 

and safe operation,” said Dr. Erwin 

Fischer, the Managing Director 

responsible for technology and operations. 

“We are doing everything we 

can to make our contribution to a 

climate-friendly and reliable electricity 

supply in Germany in the few 

remaining years of production. 

However, the occasional question addressed 

to us regarding the possible 

continued operation of our three 

plants is clearly rejected: All the points 

have been set for dismantling, and 

further operation is ruled out. We 

submitted the applications for 

decommissioning and dismantling at 

an early stage and the approval 

procedures are in full swing.” 

With their grid-supporting services, 

the three nuclear power plants ensure 

that the electricity grid is stabilised. 

Almost daily, the power plants flexibly 

reduce and increase their output 

according to the requirements of the 

market and the grid operator. By 

generating electricity with low CO 2 

emissions, they also save the environment 

around 29 million tonnes of CO 2 

annually. 

| (20491507) 

www.preussenelektra.de 

Company News 

PreussenElektra GmbH orders 

62 CASTOR® casks 

(gns) GNS supplies 62 spent fuel casks 

of the type CASTOR® V/19 for the 

spent fuel elements from the nuclear 

power plants Grohnde (KWG) and 

Brokdorf (KBR) of PreussenElektra 

GmbH. 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear- 

Service mbH has received an order for 

the delivery of a total of 62 transport 

and storage casks of the type CASTOR® 

V/19. The casks – Brokdorf receives 

39, Grohnde 23 – will be used for 

the spent fuel elements of the 

two pressurized water reactor nuclear 

power plants of PreussenElektra 

GmbH which will be in operation until 

the end of 2021. The order has a total 

volume of well over EUR 100 million. 

“With this large order, we are 

securing the largest share of the 

CASTOR® casks required for the 

disposal of irradiated fuel elements 

from our nuclear power plants in 

Brokdorf and Grohnde”, explains 

Lothar Mertens, Head of Fuel Cycle 

and Interim Storage at Preussen- 

Elektra GmbH. “This gives us planning 

security at both sites and allows 

us to secure disposal at an early stage 

until the two plants are completely 

free from fuel”. 

The casks are to be delivered from 

the GNS plant in Mülheim an der 

Ruhr/Germany to the two power 

plants from mid 2022. After loading 

in the reactor building, the casks 

173 

NEWS 

News


174 

NEWS 

the heat created in the reactor core. 

This steam drives the turbines that 

generate electricity. 

TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 

is home to three boiling water 

reactors. Both the Sequoyah and 

Watts Bar nuclear plants have two 

pressurized water reactors. Collectively, 

these plants generate enough 

electricity to power more than 

4.5 million homes and businesses. 

| (20491335) www.framatome.com 

| PreussenElektra GmbH orders 62 CASTOR® casks. View of a CASTOR® V/19 casks with shock absorbers. 

will be transferred to the local on-site 

interim storage facilities operated 

by the federally owned BGZ Gesellschaft 

für Zwischenlagerung mbH. 

A total of 33 (Brokdorf ISF) and 34 

(Grohnde ISF) loaded casks of this 

type are already in store in the local 

on-site interim storage facilities. 

| (20491220) www.gns.de 

Framatome signs multimillion-dollar 

contracts with 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

(framatome) Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) awarded Framatome 

several multimillion-dollar contracts 

for work across the company’s reactor 

fleet. This includes fuel for the Browns 

Ferry Nuclear Plant, fuel handling 

equipment upgrades across the fleet 

and steam generator replacements at 

the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. 

“Framatome’s long-standing relationship 

with TVA is the result of our 

U.S. and global teams’ expertise and 

commitment to delivering excellence 

in everything they do,” said Bernard 

Fontana, CEO of Framatome. “We 

are pleased to expand our cooperation 

with TVA and support them in providing 

efficient, reliable and low-carbon 

electricity to residents and businesses 

across the Tennessee Valley.” 

Framatome will provide its stateof- 

the-art ATRIUM 11 fuel for the 

three boiling water reactors at Browns 

Ferry with the first use planned for 

2023. This contract makes TVA the 

third U.S. utility to switch to the 

ATRIUM 11 fuel design. 

ATRIUM 11 helps utilities to save 

money by using the uranium in nuclear 

fuel more efficiently. The fuel also 

allows operators to run their plants 

with more flexibility as demand fluctuates 

and other generation sources 

provide power to the electric grid. 

Framatome’s fuel fabrication facility, 

which recently celebrated its 50 th 

anniversary, in Richland, Washington, 

will manufacture the fuel. 

Framatome will also upgrade the 

fuel handling equipment at the 

Browns Ferry, Sequoyah and Watts 

Bar nuclear plants on an accelerated 

schedule, saving the plants both time 

and money. 

This work includes upgrading the 

refuel bridges at Browns Ferry, the 

manipulator cranes at both Sequoyah 

units and Watts Bar Unit 1, and the 

fuel transfer systems at Watts Bar. 

Framatome previously upgraded the 

fuel transfer systems at Sequoyah. The 

company will also replace the spent 

fuel bridges at Sequoyah and Watts 

Bar. 

Additionally, SGT, a joint venture 

between Framatome and AECOM, 

will replace four steam generators at 

Watts Bar Unit 2. In a nuclear energy 

plant, the steam generator has an 

essential role in producing electricity. 

It converts water into steam using 

| Watts Bar nuclear power plant (Tennessee Valley, United-States) – © TVA 

Westinghouse expands nuclear 

services & capabilities with 

acquisition of Rolls-Royce civil 

nuclear systems and services 

(west) Westinghouse Electric Company 

will complete the acquisition 

of Rolls-Royce’s Civil Nuclear Systems 

and Services business in North 

America and in select sites in Europe. 

The acquisition represents a strategic 

investment in expanding the company’s 

nuclear products and services 

offerings. This acquisition supports 

Westinghouse’s global customer base 

through enhanced operating plant 

services, capabilities and technologies. 

It also strengthens the company’s 

digital innovation efforts. 

“Expanding our geographic footprint 

and strengthening our portfolio 

of systems and services is a key focus 

to better serve our clients and deploy 

innovative and leading solutions to 

the installed base of nuclear plants,” 

said Westinghouse President and Chief 

Executive Officer Patrick Fragman. 

“Both Westinghouse and Rolls-Royce 

Civil Nuclear customers will gain 

an expanded presence and benefit 

from synergies between our companies. 

With this strategic investment, 

we are enhancing our customer offerings 

in order to support their longterm 

operating goals to produce 

carbon- free, cost-effective and reliable 

energy.” 

News


Through the transaction, Westinghouse 

will acquire the Rolls-Royce 

Civil Nuclear Systems and Services’ 11 

locations in Canada, France, the 

United Kingdom and the United 

States. These sites support plant 

automation and monitoring systems, 

field services, manufacturing and 

engineering services as well as digital 

engineering services. These are key 

areas in supporting Westinghouse’s 

efforts to optimize customer planning 

and maintenance, and provide innovative 

systems and services to maximize 

performance, cost effectiveness 

and support life extension of the 

nuclear plants worldwide. 

All closing conditions have been 

met for Westinghouse to complete the 

acquisition. 

| (20491515) 

www.westinghousenuclear.com 

Operating Results November 2019 

The first serial batch of MOX 

fuel loaded into BN-800 fast 

reactor at Beloyarsk NPP 

(tvel) BN-800, the world’s most 

powerful operational fast neutron 

reactor at Unit 4 of Beloyarsk NPP in 

Russia, has been loaded with the first 

serial batch of MOX fuel made of 

depleted uranium and plutonium 

oxides. After an overhaul, the power 

unit has successfully resumed 

operation. 

Distinct from traditional nuclear 

fuel with enriched uranium, MOX fuel 

pellets are based on the mix of nuclear 

fuel cycle derivatives, such as oxide of 

plutonium bred in commercial reactors, 

and oxide of depleted uranium 

which is derived by defluorination of 

depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6), 

the so-called secondary tailings of 

uranium enrichment facilities. 

The power plant engineers have 

loaded eighteen MOX fuel assemblies 

at the BN-800 reactor core, while in 

2020, Rosenergoatom and TVEL (i.e. 

power generation and nuclear fuel 

divisions of ROSATOM) are planning 

to load another batch of 180 fuel 

assemblies. By the end of 2021, 

ROSATOM is committed to replace all 

remaining uranium-based fuel 

assemblies in the core with MOX fuel. 

Thus, for the first time in Russian 

history, a fast neutron reactor would 

start operations with a full load of 

MOX fuel only. 

“ROSATOM strategy is aimed at 

the dual-component nuclear power 

system with both thermal neutron 

and fast neutron reactors, and closing 

nuclear fuel cycle, which would solve 

a number of highly important tasks. 

First, this would exponentially boost 

*) 

Net-based values 

(Czech and Swiss 

nuclear power 

plants gross-based) 

1) 

Refueling 

2) 

Inspection 

3) 

Repair 

4) 

Stretch-outoperation 

5) 

Stretch-inoperation 

6) 

Hereof traction supply 

7) 

Incl. steam supply 

8) 

New nominal 

capacity since 

January 2016 

BWR: Boiling 

Water Reactor 

PWR: Pressurised 

Water Reactor 

Source: VGB 

175 

NEWS 

Plant name Country Nominal 

capacity 

Type 

gross 

[MW] 

net 

[MW] 

Operating 

time 

generator 

[h] 

Energy generated, gross 

[MWh] 

Month Year Since 

commissioning 

Time availability 

[%] 

Energy availability 

[%] *) Energy utilisation 

[%] *) 

Month Year Month Year Month Year 

OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 720 667 236 7 120 756 268 775 964 100.00 97.25 99.98 96.48 100.73 96.56 

OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 720 664 455 6 777 931 258 674 474 100.00 92.55 99.70 92.08 100.31 91.91 

KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 720 366 867 5 879 653 167 601 341 99.56 86.65 99.56 86.58 99.72 83.77 

KKB 1 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 276 758 2 688 017 130 022 127 100.00 88.80 100.00 88.64 101.20 88.16 

KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 275 241 2 661 444 137 011 851 100.00 87.90 100.00 87.74 100.67 87.27 

KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 720 766 212 7 446 898 321 322 426 100.00 88.46 99.99 87.98 100.40 87.64 

KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 720 269 130 3 048 020 130 452 335 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.78 95.84 97.50 

CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 720 760 270 7 696 038 254 987 706 100.00 91.12 100.00 90.78 98.62 89.48 

Dukovany B1 1) PWR CZ 500 473 720 358 378 3 282 064 115 511 557 100.00 83.92 99.97 83.44 99.55 81.89 

Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 720 355 601 2 438 815 110 672 986 100.00 62.46 100.00 61.91 98.78 60.85 



Temelin B1 PWR CZ 1080 1030 681 722 495 7 024 500 121 385 542 100.00 82.41 99.98 82.19 92.91 81.00 

Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 720 788 191 7 395 583 116 668 100 100.00 84.96 99.98 84.74 101.17 85.27 

Doel 1 2) PWR BE 454 433 0 0 2 291 598 137 736 060 0 61.99 0 61.65 0 61.57 

Doel 2 2) PWR BE 454 433 0 0 2 533 531 136 335 470 0 70.54 0 69.35 0 69.30 

Doel 3 PWR BE 1056 1006 720 775 232 7 172 489 262 304 974 100.00 84.44 100.00 83.89 101.69 84.26 

Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 720 790 278 8 452 548 268 825 958 100.00 100.00 99.96 96.90 99.62 95.70 

Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 720 730 179 8 023 972 306 854 830 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.98 100.64 99.31 

Tihange 2 3) PWR BE 1055 1008 348 335 969 2 622 307 257 274 237 48.31 32.84 44.32 31.92 44.53 31.23 

Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 720 781 451 8 527 900 279 755 173 100.00 99.97 100.00 99.38 100.31 98.20 

Plant name 

Type 

Nominal 

capacity 

gross 

[MW] 

net 

[MW] 

Operating 

time 

generator 

[h] 

Energy generated, gross 

[MWh] 

Time availability 

[%] 

Energy availability Energy utilisation 

[%] *) [%] *) 

Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year 

commissioning 

KBR Brokdorf 3) DWR 1480 1410 603 821 025 9 199 396 359 767 206 83.69 86.55 78.38 81.23 76.88 77.25 

KKE Emsland DWR 1406 1335 720 1 015 679 9 761 898 356 580 867 100.00 88.20 100.00 88.11 100.45 86.62 

KWG Grohnde DWR 1430 1360 720 1 010 989 9 696 598 387 270 812 100.00 89.13 100.00 88.88 97.76 84.06 

KRB C Gundremmingen SWR 1344 1288 720 973 994 9 393 954 340 335 709 100.00 88.14 100.00 87.63 100.37 86.76 

KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 720 1 010 500 9 386 510 339 213 344 100.00 93.48 99.97 85.99 100.57 83.78 

GKN-II Neckarwestheim DWR 1400 1310 720 1 062 321 10 967 231 364 693 044 100.00 95.57 100.00 95.27 99.10 91.77 

KKP-2 Philippsburg 4) DWR 1468 1402 720 922 869 9 766 080 375 927 235 100.00 88.73 100.00 88.52 85.66 81.68 

News


Organisations 

People 

176 

NEWS 

| The first serial batch of MOX fuel loaded into BN-800 fast reactor 

at Beloyarsk NPP. View of the site. 

the feedstock for nuclear power 

plants. Second, this would enable to 

recycle spent nuclear fuel instead of 

storage. And third, we once again involve 

into nuclear fuel cycle and 

utilize the accumulated ground stocks 

of depleted uranium hexafluoride 

and plutonium”, commented Vitaly 

Khadeev, Vice-President for Development 

of Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle 

Technologies and Industrial Facilities 

at TVEL JSC. 

Director of Beloyarsk NPP Ivan 

Sidorov emphasized: “At power unit 

No. 4, we have carried out the first 

general overhaul in four years of its 

operation. This power unit has two 

tasks, not only to produce electricity, 

but also to master a promising technology 

that is important for the future 

of nuclear power. The works performed 

during the overhaul are aimed 

to ensure the long-term safe operation 

of the whole power unit and the 

reliability of equipment.” 

Serial batch-production of MOX 

fuel started in late 2018, at the site 

of Mining and Chemical Combine in 

Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk region 

(Russia’s East Siberia). The launch of 

this unique highly automatized 

fabrication shop-floor had been 

provided due to the broad cooperation 

of Russian nuclear industry 

enterprises with the coordination role 

of TVEL Fuel Company, which is also 

the official supplier of the MOX fuel to 

Beloyarsk NPP. 

The BN-800 reactor was initially 

launched with a hybrid core containing 

both uranium and MOX fuels. 

But as the uranium BN-800 fuel 

assemblies were produced by 

Elemash, TVEL’s major fabrication 

facility in Elekrostal, Moscow region, 

the MOX fuel assemblies were experimental 

ones, assembled at the 

Research Institute of Atomic Reactors 

in Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Region. 

| (20500850) www.tvel.ru 

www.rosatom.ru 

NEA launches new initiatives 

in nuclear innovation 

(oecd-nea) NEA is organising two 

workshops focused on the need to 

bring more innovation into the 

nuclear energy sector. The first event 

is the NEA Workshop on Innovative 

Financing: Towards Sustainable 

Nuclear Financing, which will be held 

on 6 to 7 April 2020 in Warsaw, 

Poland, hosted by the Polish Ministry 

of Energy and organised in collaboration 

with the Cambridge Nuclear 

Energy Centre and the International 

Framework for Nuclear Energy 

Cooperation (IFNEC). This first- of‐itskind 

workshop will bring together 

experts from the nuclear energy 

and financing sectors to discuss 

approaches for financing sustainable, 

large infrastructure projects with a 

focus on nuclear new build. 

The second event is the KAERI/ 

NEA International Workshop on 

Disruptive Technologies for Nuclear 

Safety Applications, which will take 

place on 19 to 20 May 2020 in Jeju 

Island, Korea. This workshop will 

gather experts from within and outside 

the nuclear sector to exchange 

insights on the potential for disruptive 

technologies to have a positive impact 

on the construction and operation of 

nuclear power plants. 

These efforts will culminate in 

the 2020 Global Forum on Innovation 

for the Future of Nuclear Energy on 4 

to 7 October 2020 in London, United 

Kingdom. Organised in partnership 

between the UK National Nuclear 

Laboratory (NNL), EDF Energy, the 

Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI), the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA) and the NEA, 

this event will build on the outcomes 

of the workshops highlighted above 

and the 2019 Global Forum. The 

report summarising the 2019 Global 

Forum, which took place in June 2019 

in Gyeongju, South Korea, is available 

on the NEA website. 

| (20491528) www.oecd-nea.org 

German association AEK 

re-established: Invitation to 

members meeting 

(aek) The “Aktionsgemeinschaft 

Energiesicherung und Kerntechnik – 

AEK e.V.” (founded 1981) invites all 

members and interested persons to its 

re-establishing meeting on 28. March 

2020, Hotel Kaiserhof, Münster, 

Germany. 

| (20491534) Contact: 

mitglieder@energiesicherung.org 

FORATOM selects new 

President Esa Hyvärinen 

(foratom) FORATOM announced that 

Esa Hyvärinen has been appointed by 

the association’s General Assembly as 

FORATOM President for a two-year 

period starting on 1 January 2020. 

“I feel deeply honoured to be 

appointed as the new president of 

FORATOM and I look forward to the 

next two years working with the 

General Assembly, Executive Board, 

FORATOM Members and the 

Secretariat as well as all external 

stakeholders involved in the European 

decision-making process” – states 

Mr. Hyvärinen. “Even though the 

European Commission and the European 

Parliament have recently recognised 

nuclear energy as an important 

element of Europe’s decarbonised future, 

the European nuclear industry 

will face many challenges in the 

upcoming months and years in 

order to maintain and improve its 

current role in the energy mix. 

That is why we will do our best 

to convince decision makers that 

low-carbon, cost-effective and reliable 

nuclear energy can help the EU 

achieve its climate and energy 

objectives”. 

Mr. Hyvärinen is currently Head of 

the CEO Office at Fortum Corporation. 

In the past, he was Senior Vice 

President for Public Affairs at Fortum, 

Head of Recycling and Environmental 

units at the Confederation of 

European paper industries in Brussels, 

and Senior Advisor at the Finnish 

Ministry of Trade and Industry. He 

has been member of the FORATOM 

Executive Board since 2016. 

Esa Hyvärinen replaces Dr Teodor 

Chirica, Senior Adviser to the CEO of 

NuclearElectrica, who has reached 

the end of his mandate as FORATOM 

President. 

| (20491525) www.foratom.org 

Market data 

(All information is supplied without 

guarantee.) 

Nuclear Fuel Supply 

Market Data 

Information in current (nominal) 

U.S.-$. No inflation adjustment of 

prices on a base year. Separative work 

data for the formerly “secondary 

market”. Uranium prices [US-$/lb 

U 3 O 8 ; 1 lb = 453.53 g; 1 lb U 3 O 8 = 

News


Uranium 

Prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3 O 8 ] 

140.00 

) 1 

Uranium prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3 O 8 ] 

140.00 

120.00 

120.00 

177 

100.00 

100.00 

80.00 

60.00 

40.00 

20.00 

0.00 

1980 

Yearly average prices in real USD, base: US prices (1982 to1984) * 

1985 

1990 

1995 

2000 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2019 

Year 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year 

Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2020 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2020 

| Uranium spot market prices from 1980 to 2019 and from 2008 to 2019. The price range is shown. 

In years with U.S. trade restrictions the unrestricted uranium spot market price is shown. 

Separative work: Spot market price range [USD*/kg UTA] 

Conversion: Spot conversion price range [USD*/kgU] 

180.00 

) 1 23.00 

160.00 

140.00 

120.00 

80.00 

60.00 

40.00 

20.00 

0.00 

Jan. 2008 

Jan. 2009 

Jan. 2010 

Jan. 2011 

Jan. 2012 

Jan. 2013 

Jan. 2014 

Jan. 2015 

Jan. 2016 

Jan. 2017 

Jan. 2018 

Jan. 2019 

Jan. 2020 

NEWS 

100.00 

80.00 

60.00 

40.00 

20.00 

0.00 

Jan. 2008 

Jan. 2009 

Jan. 2010 

Jan. 2011 

Jan. 2012 

Jan. 2013 


Jan. 2014 

Jan. 2015 

Jan. 2016 

Jan. 2017 

Jan. 2018 

Jan. 2019 

Jan. 2020 

Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2020 

) 1 Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2020 

22.00 

20.00 

18.00 

16.00 

) 1 

14.00 

12.00 

10.00 

8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

Jan. 2008 

Jan. 2009 

Jan. 2010 

Jan. 2011 

Jan. 2012 

Jan. 2013 


Jan. 2014 

Jan. 2015 

Jan. 2016 

Jan. 2017 

Jan. 2018 

Jan. 2019 

Jan. 2020 

| Separative work and conversion market price ranges from 2008 to 2019. The price range is shown. 

)1 

In December 2009 Energy Intelligence changed the method of calculation for spot market prices. The change results in virtual price leaps. 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year 

Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bilder/Figures: atw 2020 

0.385 kg U]. Conversion prices 

[US-$/kg U], Separative work 

[US-$/SWU (Separative work unit)]. 

2017 

p Uranium: 19.25–26.50 

p Conversion: 4.50–6.75 

p Separative work: 39.00–50.00 

2018 

p Uranium: 21.75–29.20 



2019 

January 2019 

p Uranium: 28.70–29.10 



February 2019 

p Uranium: 27.50–29.25 



March 2019 

p Uranium: 24.85–28.25 



April 2019 

p Uranium: 25.50–25.88 



May 2019 

p Uranium: 23.90–25.25 



June 2019 

p Uranium: 24.30–25.00 



July 2019 

p Uranium: 24.50–25.60 



August 2019 

p Uranium: 24.90–25.60 



September 2019 

p Uranium: 24.80–26.00 



October 2019 

p Uranium: 23.75–25.50 



November 2019 

p Uranium: 23.95–26.25 



December 2019 

p Uranium: 24.85–26.00 



| Source: Energy Intelligence 

www.energyintel.com 

News


178 

NUCLEAR TODAY 

John Shepherd is a 

freelance journalist 

and communications 

consultant. 

Sources: 

Grossi’s remarks in US 

https://bit.ly/ 

2SdY2OZ 

NPT review 

conference 

https://bit.ly/ 

2OHdot4 

Agora Energiewende/ 

Sandbag report 

https://bit.ly/2vo5y0s 

IAEA Chief’s Zeal for Change Signals 

Era of Nuclear Renewal 

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which has been a key 

component in spurring the worldwide spread of peaceful nuclear technology for development. 

The Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), as it is commonly 

known, entered into force in 1970, was extended 

indefinitely in 1995 and has become nearly universal. The 

anniversary will be marked at a review conference at the 

United Nations headquarters in New York in April – and 

the event comes at a crucial time. 

Newly-elected director-general of the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Mariano Grossi, had 

been due to be president of the conference until his 

elevation to head of the global nuclear watchdog following 

the death of Yukiya Amano. 

Now Grossi has the task of not only shepherding the 

agency through this latest five-yearly review of the NPT, 

but to steering the IAEA beyond, into a new decade at a 

time when the agency’s role and responsibilities are under 

the utmost scrutiny and when funding constraints and 

geopolitical pressures threaten to undermine the role of 

the watchdog itself. 

Ongoing tensions between North Korea and the 

international community and the recent flare-up of 

political hostilities between Iran, the US and others has 

increased the strain the IAEA is under as the world’s 

‘ honest broker’ in maintaining, through the NPT, a strong 

non-proliferation regime. 

But the director-general also, rightly, sees an expanded 

role for the IAEA in tackling climate change in cooperation 

with partner agencies. He said climate change would be an 

increasing theme for the agency. “Many countries are 

interested in making more use of nuclear technology to 

mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change.” 

On nuclear security, Grossi said member states had 

agreed the IAEA should be “the global focal point for nuclear 

security”. “Demands for our assistance are constantly 

increasing,” he said. “But I believe more could be done to 

make us a real focal point in practice and not just in name.” 

Grossi’s belief is that the “great majority of countries” 

that join the IAEA do so “because they are interested in 

using nuclear technology to improve the day-to-day lives of 

their people”. 

In terms of health and welfare, Grossi has highlighted 

cancer control as a priority, “as one of the most important 

areas in which we make that technology available”. He 

went as far as to say that deaths in developing countries 

from cancer, which he said were treatable in richer countries 

were “quite simply, a scandal”. 

Meanwhile, as Grossi confirmed to staff at the start of 

this year, there needs to be “tight control” of costs as the 

agency navigates a period of “zero real budget growth”. 

The IAEA, for all its vital work on behalf of us all (nuclearenergy 

using nations and those that do not include nuclear 

in the electricity-generating mix) has never been awash 

with funds. 

However, Grossi should be applauded for setting out a 

bold vision for the IAEA in the years ahead rather than 

allowing cash constraints to limit his breadth of scope and 

ambition. 

In 2018, the IAEA’s regular budget was about 

€370.5 million. The US is the single largest contributor to 

the agency’s regular budget and provides significant 

extra- budgetary funding. The IAEA said this, together with 

support also from other member states, has enabled it to 

step up its assistance in areas benefiting millions of people 

around the world, such as food security, cancer care, 

nutrition, animal health, water management, energy 

planning and others. 

Following recent talks with Trump administration 

officials in the US; Grossi acknowledged it would be 

difficult to secure a “significant increase” in the IAEA’s 

budget in the years ahead. He said the agency had to find 

new ways to fund its activities. 

Instead of simply pleading for more from the agency’s 

member states, Grossi plans to use his role to entice 

investment from non-traditional quarters. He confirmed 

he has been “reaching out to new partners such as the 

World Bank and the Islamic Development Bank”. 

The director-general has told his officials “I am not 

interested in departmental achievements… I am interested 

in agency achievements and especially in successes 

achieved by member states thanks to the support of the 

IAEA”. 

Grossi said he was elected “on a platform of change” 

and his goal is to “recalibrate our approach where 

necessary”. 

The path ahead to ensure the IAEA’s continued viability 

as a credible, valuable and trusted institution, to safeguard 

the interests of the global nuclear community, will not be 

an easy one. But the new director-general is to be 

congratulated for his declared zeal and determination in 

his early days of office. 

There is still a blind spot for many in understanding 

that nuclear energy goes hand in hand with environmental 

protection, tackling climate change, supporting food 

production, pest control and treating the sick – to name 

just a few. 

An increased role for the IAEA would be welcome – and 

on climate change in particular, nuclear is pushing at an 

open door, according to the latest findings of a study of 

current electricity data carried out by Germany’s Agora 

Energiewende and UK climate think-tank Sandbag. 

The findings showed that in 2019, the European Union 

electricity sector emitted 12 % less CO 2 than in the previous 

year. At the same time, the share of renewables in 

electricity production rose EU-wide to 35 %, a new record. 

Electricity from nuclear power plants for the period 

declined by only 1 %, the study said. The slight fall in 

nuclear performance was put down to drought in some 

areas, particularly in July, which hampered supplies of 

cooling water from rivers. 

If Grossi is successful in “recalibrating” the IAEA, his 

leadership can be of particular benefit to nuclear power 

producing nations and the myriad of industries supporting 

the development of future nuclear technologies. 

Nuclear Today 

IAEA Chief’s Zeal for Change Signals Era of Nuclear Renewal ı John Shepherd

Kommunikation und 

Training für Kerntechnik 

Strahlenschutz – Aktuell 

In Kooperation mit 

TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH 

Baden-Württemberg 

Seminar: 

Das Strahlenschutzrecht 

und seine praktische Umsetzung 

Seminarinhalte 

1. Einführung: Grundlagen des Strahlenschutzes und des Strahlenschutzrechts 

2. Das neue Strahlenschutzrecht von 2017/18 

3. Genehmigungen, Anzeigen, Pflichten bei strahlenschutzrelevanten Aktivitäten 

a. Geplante Expositionssituationen (Tätigkeiten) 

b. Bestehende Expositionssituationen 

c. Notfallexpositionssituationen (Schutz der Einsatzkräfte) 

4. Umsetzung des Strahlenschutzes 

a. Dosisgrenzwerte, Dosisrichtwerte 

b. Betriebliche Organisation des Strahlenschutzes 

c. Fachkunde 

d. Strahlenschutzregister 

5. Aufsicht 

6. Notfallschutz und Notfallvorsorge 

7. Strahlenschutz im Back End 

a. Radioaktive Abfälle 

b. Freigabe, Herausgabe 

Zielgruppe 

Die 2-tägige Schulung wendet sich an Fach- und Führungskräfte, an Projekt- und Abteilungsleiter und 

Experten aus den Bereichen Betrieb, Abfälle, Genehmigung, Strategie und Unternehmens kommunikation 

sowie an Juristen. 

Referenten 

Dr. Maria Poetsch 

Dr. Christian Raetzke 

ı Strahlenschutzexpertin bei der TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH 

Baden-Württemberg 

ı Rechtsanwalt, Leipzig 

Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Teilnahme! 

Bei Fragen zur Anmeldung rufen Sie uns bitte an oder senden uns eine E-Mail. 

Termine 

2 Tage 

17. bis 18. März 2020 

16. bis 17. Juni 2020 

29. bis 30. Oktober 2020 

Tag 1: 10:30 bis 17:30 Uhr 

Tag 2: 09:00 bis 16:30 Uhr 

Berlin 

Teilnahmegebühr 

1.598,– € ı zzgl. 19 % USt. 

Im Preis inbegriffen sind: 

ı Seminarunterlagen 

ı Teilnahmebescheinigung 

ı Pausenverpflegung 

inkl. Mittagessen 

Kontakt 

INFORUM 

Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft 

mbH 


10115 Berlin 

Petra Dinter-Tumtzak 

Fon +49 30 498555-30 

Fax +49 30 498555-18 

Seminare@KernD.de

#51KT 

www.kerntechnik.com 

Medienpartner 

51. KERNTECHNIK 

2020 

Jetzt anmelden! 

www.kerntechnik.com/kerntechnik/registration/ 

5. – 6. Mai 2020 

Estrel Convention Center 

Berlin

atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 03.2020

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?