IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable
Comparative assessment of the environmental policy guidelines in the building sector?
Antti Säynäjoki, Jukka Heinonen, Seppo
impact of nuclear power plant technology using life Junnila et al.

- A review on sustainable production of

cycle assessment approach: A review graphene and related life cycle
assessment
J Munuera, L Britnell, C Santoro et al.
To cite this article: S A Pratiwi et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1267 012041
- Life-cycle environmental impacts of single-
junction and tandem perovskite PVs: a
critical review and future perspectives
Enrica Leccisi and Vasilis Fthenakis

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 103.178.218.4 on 05/07/2024 at 07:39

ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

Comparative assessment of the environmental impact of

nuclear power plant technology using life cycle assessment
approach: A review

S A Pratiwi1,2*, Nasruddin1, N A Sasongko2,3

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas
Indonesia
2
Research Center for Sustainable Production System and Life Cycle Assessment,
National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta 10340, Indonesia
3
Graduate Program of Energy Security, Faculty of Defense Management, The Republic
of Indonesia Defense University (Universitas Pertahanan Republik Indonesia), Bogor
16810, Indonesia

*E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected]

Abstract. Nuclear power plants (NPP) are being considered as an alternative energy that could
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are various challenges that need to be
addressed regarding the variation of current nuclear technology such as environmental impact
issues. To ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of nuclear power plants technology, a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach can be used to study the environmental impacts of the
nuclear power plant. LCA is a method for evaluating the environmental impact of a product or
process from start to finish. By conducting a preliminary LCA study of each Nuclear Power
Plant technologies, the environmental impacts of the stages of construction, operation, and
management of radioactive waste can be understood. This study can also help compare the
environmental impacts of nuclear power plants with other energy technologies. This preliminary
study will review the environmental impact from pressurized water reactor, boiling water
reactor, molten salt reactor, and compare with conventional coal power plant to provide compact
summary of the technology. The results of the LCA study can help identify areas that require
more attention in the development of nuclear power plants in Indonesia.

1. Introduction
Climate change has always been one of global worldwide concerns, and emission from power
generation is one of the primary causes of global warming [1] especially in terms of carbon dioxide
emission [2]. Some countries still heavily rely on fossil fuel based, mostly coal fired power plant like
Indonesia [3], Turkey [4], China [5], Bangladesh [6], and many others especially in developing countries
[7] and coal demand is estimated to still continue to increase [8]. Hence, it is important to focus on
energy shifting to operate renewable energy generation [9].
In the light of this issue, there is no differences between developing and developed country to both
urgently make this as the main focus to achieve Paris agreement goals in reducing emission [10].
Throughout the worldwide attempt to fulfill it, multiple aspects have been considered to fit the condition
in each and every area [11]. Technology such as carbon capture storage (CCS) implemented in an
attempt to reduce carbon emission [12].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

Nuclear power plant (PLTN) could be part of the solution in reducing carbon footprint although not
completely zero emission but to it is lower in carbon emission [13]. Some country already on its way to
developed nuclear energy generation to meet most of its electricity needs [14], while some countries
from Asia, like Indonesia, just start to consider having nuclear in the electricity mix [15]. Despite the
nuclear accident [16] that causes worldwide health effects [17] impact to the surrounding environment
and also global impact, nuclear technology come across advanced enhancement in the system [18].
At present, Power Reactor Information System of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
report that there are approximately 437 nuclear reactors that operates across the world, most consists of
303 unit pressurized water reactor (PWR), and 61 unit boiling water reactor (BWR) [19]. Both PWR
and BWR are classified as Light Water Reactor which are the most common nuclear reactor design with
most experienced technology and has privilege in the licensing process [20]. Molten salt reactors
(MSRs) are being investigated as potential replacements for the existing fleet of nuclear reactors, such
as light water reactors (LWRs), as part of Generation-IV nuclear reactor designs [21]. MSR are a
promising reactor design for compact modular reactors that utilize molten salts for both fuel and cooling
purposes [22]. The molten salts exhibit distinctive viscosity values that are both exceptionally high and
temperature-dependent due to the presence of polymer-like network structures. This characteristic
enhances the potential of the molten salt system for natural circulation [23].
These three types of nuclear reactor have low carbon emission to support reducing carbon footprint.
However, a holistic understanding of their overall environmental effects can be achieved by examining
them from a life cycle perspective. The practice of life cycle assessment proves valuable in quantifying
the environmental impacts of various products, processes, or technologies throughout their different life
cycle stages [24]. In previous study, Pomponi [25] research about life cycle assessment of pressurized
reactor European area using nuclear power plant in UK to investigates the greenhouse gas emissions.
While Wang [26] compare nuclear power plant to other renewable energy like hydro and wind power
and obtain comparation between several type of environmental impacts which is global warming
potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), and Photochemical ozone
creation potential (POCP).

2. Method
The methodology in this study is consist of three subsections. First, conducting review of the system
boundary of nuclear power plant and three types of nuclear reactor: PWR, BWR, and MSR to understand
the life cycle in the nuclear from the raw material/fuel cycle stage to end of life. Second, analyse
environmental impact cause by nuclear power plant. Last section is comparing the result with electricity
mix in Indonesia to provide insight about the environmental aspect.

3. Result and Discussions

3.1. System Boundary and Reactor Type review.
As presents in Figure 1, nuclear life cycle consists of several stages which every stage of it gives its
own environmental impact. Nuclear life cycle includes fuel cycle, operation, and power plant
decommissioning and waste management. First, it begins with mining and milling the uranium. The
process of mining and milling of uranium developed potential environmental impact to nearby
environment due to radionuclide, metal contain, and other contaminant depending on the methods of
obtaining the uranium [27], Shahjadi [28] describe the type of mining methodology in the Table 1 into
four methods: underground, open cut, in-situ leaching, and recovery methods.

2
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

Mining and milling

Conversion

Enrichment
NPP Construction

Fuel Fabrication NPP Operation

End of life
(Waste Management) NPP
Decomissioning

Figure 1. Simplified and modified LCA flowchart of NPP Scenario from Godsey [29]

Table 1. Type of uranium description [28]

Methods of Mining Description

Underground Use vertical tunnel to drill down depending on the depth of
uranium deposit
Open cut Excavate a large of overburden to obtain the uranium
In-situ leaching Use vertical bore to leach uranium deposit below with leaching
solution
Recovery from mining of other To extract uranium from different material mines, a
substance comprehensive examination of factors such as the overburden
depth, depth of the ore body at five points, and the inclination
of the ore body is essential to determine the most cost-effective
method

After mining and milling, the next step of the fuel cycle is uranium conversion and enrichment.
Uranium enrichment is the important process in the nuclear power industry [30]. Generally, the
enrichment process consists of choosing initial uranium, conversion to gas, splitting the isotopes,
increasing U235 percentage, re-convert to solid to produce high isotope U235 content to produce
nuclear fuel.
Nuclear fuel fabrication is a process of transformation from fungible commodity to a product that
specially formed to a specific nuclear technology requirement depending on the type of the reactor [31].
Fuel fabrication process involved the production of fuel-formed-pellets and rods [24]. Setty explain
about Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) facility in that manufacture fuel and core structure for several
nuclear reactor type such as pressurized heavy water reactor, boiling water reactor, and fast breeder
reactor [32].
Operation stage, construction to decommissioning, depends to the types of reactors. As previously
mentioned, PWR currently leading as the most selected reactor type which on-going operation and BWR
come as the second. Murakami [33] explain about the historical selection of nuclear reaction type and
point out that in 1960-1970 both PWR and BWR still leading among the other types of the reactor.
Sukmanto explain the system [34] that PWR produce heat/energy from fission reaction of nuclear fuel,
the energy from fission take place in the reactor to heats water into high pressure and temperature steam
and in the reactor maintained at high pressure. Energy on the steam flow is forwarded to the steam
turbine and converted to mechanical energy and then into electricity by the generator. Both of reactor
also known as Light Water Reactor (LWR) with thing to point out that the difference between a PWR
and BWR method is, the PWR generate steam indirectly by transferring the heat from the primary

3
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

reactor coolant that kept at the high pressure to secondary circuit to produce steam for the turbine, while
BWR directly boiling the reactor coolant to create the steam [35], later the steam is separated by steam
separator from the rest of the water [36].
Another similarity of both reactor is it use the solid formed fuel like pellets. Hejzlar [37] review
annular fuel for PWR to achieve power density uprate while maintaining the safety of reactor while
Edward [38] more talk about the manufacturing cost and economic benefits. Many of the following
research regarding the fuel of PWR take power density and safety aspect as the main objective, for
example the implementation of high conversion of Th-U233 fuel cycle in the PWR lead to significant
improvement in natural resource usage and hold the cost [39].
Other research regarding fuel of BWR for instance, the fuel management, Ortiz [40] define four main
problem that involved are the design of: fuel lattice, fuel bundle, fuel reload, and control rod patterns
and optimize its system by using neural network and find the best combination of the design that
satisfied both power density and safety. Aside from the management, BWR also suffered from fuel
failure caused by clad and corrosion [41]. Decay ratio (DR) also a parameter in analyzing stability of
the reactor, Omar [42] estimate the DR in BWR and develop methodology that contribute in detecting
the instability.
So far the research of nuclear reactor still on going. One of the theoretical reactor designs is Molten
Salt Reactor (MSR) [43] are proposed in Indonesia to stand in line with Indonesia’s net zero emission
target [44], and begins pre-licensing consultation including review of the master plan, roadmap, and
non-fission test platform (NTP), document preparation, licensing, and consultation on design approval
[45]. MSR also belong to Small Modular Reactor (SMR) type of reactor [46].
MSR utilize a liquid fuel – molten salt that contain Thorium (Th) and Uranium 233 [47], and indicate
excellent efficiency of high thermal-electric conversion, safety, and on-line reprocessing [48]. The fuel
cycle of mixed Thorium-Uranium (Th-U) also considerd as an approach to secure sustainability of the
fuel supply[49]. MSR shows significant advantages for safety and cost as the salt/coolant offer features
such as chemical inertia, excellent transport properties, high boiling point and thermal stability, and
strong irradiation resistance [50].
Badawy [51] compare the safety aspect of MSR and LWR, in three section which is shutdown
function, cooling function, and confinement function, and in conclusion that MSR are safer and more
stable due to molten phase of the fuel and the primary operating temperature. Another potential
advantages of MSR is because of its sustainable fuel cycle [52].

3.2. Environmental Impact Result of NPP

In this paper, the environmental impact results that will be discussed are from PWR because it represents
as most used reactor globally with approximately 70% that operates all over the world [19] [19]. The
nuclear LCA model that taken is from UNECE reports [46]. The functional unit of this report is the
delivery of 1 kWh of an electricity delivered to the grid by PWR nuclear power. The data for the life
cycle take global average data that match various rate of the global industry average over the 2016-
2020.
Figure 2 shows the contribution of each stage to each environmental impact. To every kWh unit,
minerals and metals contribute 0.331 mg Sb-eq, dissipated water contributes 2.42 litre water, land use
0.0577-point, ionising radiation contribute 14.3 g 235U eq., carcinogenic effects contribute 5.12e-07
mCTUh, freshwater eutrophication contribute 5.84 mg-P-eq, and the climate change total contribute
5.13g CO2 eq.
As shown in Figure 2, most of the environmental impact that occurred throughout the life cycle are
on the initial front-end stage, which is fuel fabrication specifically mining. Depending on the type of
mining, most of environmental impact shows that in-situ leaching is the main contributor among the
other type of mining process. But there is an exception, in the ionising radiation impact shows that the
most impactful is underground mining. The underground mining has greater radiation effect compared
to open pit and in-situ leaching mining caused by higher quantities the emission of Radon-222 and
Radium-226 [28].

4
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

The dissipated water impact in nuclear power plant shows a major part during electricity production
stage. The electricity production represents the operation of nuclear power plant that require a lot of
water for its cooling system. The primary contribution of dissipated water value is the water losses from
the cooling system of NPP [53]. In order to meet the energy demand, the construction of power plant
should consider the water system that caused potential impact due to water production/requirement [54].
Unlike the other, the back-end stage which is spent fuel management shows more contribution in the
mineral and metal environmental impacts. It is important to continue research in nuclear waste
management issue considering the environmental impact and the sustainability of the technology [55].

Figure 2 Adapted life cycle impact of nuclear power, PWR as majority of global reactor, per kWh
and stages. Black dotted represent fuel cycle stage [46]

In the UNECE report also address Small Modular Reactor environmental impact from Godsey [29].
SMR is a promising technology to bring access the nuclear energy and overcome the challenge with its
modular design feature benefits [56]. In this life cycle assessment of Godsey’s SMR, the functional unit
is the production of 3.6 x 108 MWh of electricity.
Table 2 is respective value of the total impact category in the Figure 3. The water depletion is 7.64
m3, the fossil depletion is 0.89 kg oil-eq, metal (Fe) depletion 2.03 kg Fe-eq, climate change impact
4.55 kg CO2-eq, human toxicity 18.02 kg 1,4-DB eq, and radiation 441.01 kBq 235U eq,

Table 2. Adapted SMR - NPP Scenario from Godsey [29]

Environmental Impact Category Base scenario analysis Unit
3
Water depletion 7.64 m
Fossil depletion 0.89 kg oil eq
Metal (Fe) Depletion 2.03 kg Fe eq
Climate Change /Carbon 4.55 kg CO2 eq
Human Toxicity 18.02 kg 1,4-DB eq
Ionizing Radiation 441.07 kBq 235U eq

5
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

Figure 3 Adapted life cycle impact of nuclear power, SMR NPP from Godsey for every stages. Black
dotted represent fuel cycle stage [29]

Figure 3 shows the impact assessment result of the SMR. It presents six environmental impacts
within the scope of work including water depletion, ionising radiation, human toxicity, fossil depletion,
metal depletion, and climate change impact. The results also show similar output with the PWR chart
in Figure 2. The front-end stage, mining, with the resource intensive process turn out as major
contributor to every environmental impact especially in radiation and human toxicity impact [29]. Water
depletion is the highest in construction stage of SMR because of the significant amount of steel and
concrete needed during the construction.

3.3. Comparison to electricity mix in Indonesia

Table 3 shows comparison of global warming potential impact of PWR, SMR, and electricity mix in
Indonesia. Nugroho [57] conducting an LCA of Indonesia’s electricity distributed from Jamali (Jawa,
Madura, Bali) grid that contribute majority of total electricity production, approximately 72% of total
production in Indonesia. The result of global warming potential impact in Indonesia approximately 1.06
kg CO2eq.

Table 3 Global Warming Impact comparison to Indonesia's electricity mix

Global warming potential per kWh unit Results (g CO2eq)
UNECE PWR[46] 5.13
Godsey SMR [29] 4.55
Average electricity mix in Jamali [57] 1.06 x 103

The significant difference result between PWR, SMR, and Jamali grid is due to the variation of
power technology in Indonesia is dominated with fossil fuel-based power plant (approximately more
than 90%).

6
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

4. Conclusion
In conclusion, PWR and BWR are the reactor type that most used in the world that operate right now.
MSR also has potential advantages due its sustainable fuel cycle. Nuclear energy is one of the solutions
to reduce carbon emission. The development nuclear technology, Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), in
Indonesia could be a solution in reducing carbon emission. Although the carbon emission is greatly
lower than the fossil fuel, the other environmental impact must be considered further in the future
especially in the front-end stage, from mining to fuel fabrication, and spent fuel management.

References:
[1] Xie B-C, Tan X-Y, Zhang S and Wang H 2021 J Environ Manage 281 111887
[2] Ma J-J, Du G and Xie B-C 2019 Energy Policy 124 1–12
[3] Hasan M H, Mahlia T M I and Nur H 2012 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 2316–
28
[4] Akpınar A, Kömürcü M İ, Kankal M, Özölçer İ H and Kaygusuz K 2008 Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 12 2013–39
[5] Ampah J D, Jin C, Agyekum E B, Afrane S, Geng Z, Adun H, Yusuf A A, Liu H and Bamisile O
2023 Science of The Total Environment 854 158820
[6] Halder P K, Paul N and Beg M R A 2014 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 39 444–60
[7] Kaygusuz K 2012 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 1116–26
[8] Balat M 2009 Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 5 50–62
[9] Tabrizian S 2019 Sustainable Development 27 537–44
[10] Stahlke T 2020 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 25 107–25
[11] Timilsina G R and Shrestha A 2009 Energy Policy 37 4523–39
[12] Rashid M I, Benhelal E and Rafiq S 2020 Chem Eng Technol 43 2140–8
[13] Lenzen M 2008 Energy Convers Manag 49 2178–99
[14] McDonald A 2008 IAEA BULLETIN 49 45
[15] Alam F, Sarkar R and Chowdhury H 2019 Energy Procedia 160 3–10
[16] Burns P C, Ewing R C and Navrotsky A 2012 Science (1979) 335 1184–8
[17] Ten Hoeve J E and Jacobson M Z 2012 Energy Environ Sci 5 8743–57
[18] Council N R 2014 Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety of
US nuclear plants
[19] IAEA 2022 Nuclear Power Reactors in the World (Vienna: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY)
[20] Rowinski M K, White T J and Zhao J 2015 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 643–
56
[21] LeBlanc D 2010 Nuclear Engineering and Design 240 1644–56
[22] Locatelli G, Mancini M and Todeschini N 2013 Energy Policy 61 1503–20
[23] Kim H, Kwon C, Ham S, Lee J, Kim S J and Kim S 2023 Journal of Nuclear Materials 577 154329
[24] Siddiqui O and Dincer I 2017 J Clean Prod 164 848–60
[25] Pomponi F and Hart J 2021 Appl Energy 290 116743
[26] Wang L, Wang Y, Du H, Zuo J, Li R Y M, Zhou Z, Bi F and Garvlehn M P 2019 Appl Energy
249 37–45
[27] Fernandes H M, Franklin M R and Veiga L H 1998 Waste Management 18 169–81
[28] Mahmud M A P and Farjana S H 2022 Renew Energy 193 1106–20
[29] Godsey K and Shuller-Nickles L 2019 Life Cycle Assessment of Small Modular Reactors Using
U.S. Nuclear Fuel Cycle (United States -- South Carolina)
[30] Aalbergsjø S G 2009 Uranium enrichment technologies
[31] Supko E 2016 13 - Nuclear fuel fabrication Uranium for Nuclear Power ed I Hore-Lacy
(Woodhead Publishing) pp 353–82
[32] Setty D S, Kapoor K and Saibaba N 2017 Progress in Nuclear Energy 101 100–17

7
ICOGEE-2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1267 (2023) 012041 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1267/1/012041

[33] Murakami T 2021 Energy Reports 7 3428–36

[34] Sukmanto D 2007 Characteristic Study for the Pressurizer of PWR Proceedings of the Scientific
Meeting and Presentation on Basic Research in Nuclear of the Science and Technology part I :
Physics and Nuclear Reactor (Indonesia: National Nuclear Energy Agency) p 427
[35] Association W N Nuclear Power Reactor Characteristics
[36] Agyeman K O 2018 Differences Between BWRs and PWRs
[37] Hejzlar P and Kazimi M S 2007 Nucl Technol 160 2–15
[38] Lahoda E, Mazzoccoli J and Beccherle J 2007 Nucl Technol 160 112–34
[39] Baldova D, Fridman E and Shwageraus E 2014 Ann Nucl Energy 73 552–9
[40] Ortiz-Servin J J, Castillo J A and Pelta D A 2011 Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 3729–35
[41] Sawicki J A 2011 Journal of Nuclear Materials 419 85–96
[42] Olvera-Guerrero O A, Prieto-Guerrero A and Espinosa-Paredes G 2017 Ann Nucl Energy 102
280–96
[43] Abu-Khader M M 2009 A review Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 225–35
[44] Indonesia T P Project TMSR500 2023
[45] News W N 2023 ThorCon begins pre-licensing consultation in Indonesia 2023
[46] UNECE and Publicatios U N 2022 Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle
Assessment of Electricity Sources (United Nation)
[47] Mitachi K, Yamamoto T and Yoshioka R 2007 Nucl Technol 158 348–57
[48] Li G C, Cong P, Yu C G, Zou Y, Sun J Y, Chen J G and Xu H J 2018 Progress in Nuclear Energy
108 144–51
[49] Yu C, Wu J, Zou C, Cai X, Ma Y and Chen J 2019 Int J Energy Res 43 3628–39
[50] Serp J, Allibert M, Beneš O, Delpech S, Feynberg O, Ghetta V, Heuer D, Holcomb D, Ignatiev V,
Kloosterman J L, Luzzi L, Merle-Lucotte E, Uhlíř J, Yoshioka R and Zhimin D 2014 Progress
in Nuclear Energy 77 308–19
[51] Elsheikh B M 2013 J Radiat Res Appl Sci 6 63–70
[52] Mignacca B and Locatelli G 2020 Progress in Nuclear Energy 129 103503
[53] Ansorge L and Dlabal J 2017 Przegląd Naukowy. Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska 26
[54] Paul P, Al Tenaiji A K and Braimah N 2016 Int J Environ Res Public Health 13 364
[55] Rodríguez-Penalonga L and Moratilla Soria B Y 2017 Energies (Basel) 10 1235
[56] Vaya Soler A, Berthelemy M, Verma A, Bilbao y Leon S, Kwong G, Sozoniuk V, White A, Rouyer
V, Sexton Nick K and Vasquez-Maignan X 2021 Small modular reactors: challenges and
opportunities
[57] Nugroho R, Hanafi J, Shobatake K, Chun Y-Y, Tahara K and Purwanto W W 2022 Life cycle
inventories and life cycle assessment for an electricity grid network: case study of the Jamali
grid, Indonesia Int J Life Cycle Assess