The Nuclear Fuel Report:

Expanded Summary
Global Scenarios for Demand and
Supply Availability 2021-2040
Title: The Nuclear Fuel Report: Expanded Summary –
Global Scenarios for Demand and Supply Availability 2021-2040
Produced by: World Nuclear Association
Published: April 2022
Report No. 2022/001

Cover images: Kazatomprom, TVEL Corporation

© 2022 World Nuclear Association.

Registered in England and Wales,
company number 01215741

This report reflects the views

of industry experts but does not
necessarily represent those of any
of the World Nuclear Association’s
individual member organizations
The Nuclear Fuel Report: Expanded Summary
Global Scenarios for Demand and Supply Availability 2021-2040

Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Features of the nuclear fuel market
1.2 Energy and electricity demand
1.3 Factors affecting electricity demand growth
1.4 Factors affecting nuclear power growth

2 The Nuclear Fuel Report methodology 14

2.1 Supply methodology
2.2 Projection methodology and assumptions

3 Scenarios for nuclear generating capacity 15

4 Secondary supply 18
4.1 Concept of market mobility

5 Uranium supply and demand 21

5.1 Introduction to the uranium market
5.2 Recent uranium production
5.3 Expected primary uranium supply
5.4 Unspecified uranium supply
5.5 Uranium supply and demand

6 Conversion supply and demand 31

7 Enrichment supply and demand 33

8 Fuel fabrication supply and demand 35

9 Harmony programme 40

10 Key findings of The Nuclear Fuel Report 41

10.1 Uranium
10.2 Secondary supply
10.3 Conversion
10.4 Enrichment
10.5 Fuel fabrication

Appendix tables 44

Drafting group 47

1
1 Introduction
World Nuclear Association has published reports on nuclear fuel supply and demand at roughly two-
yearly intervals since its foundation in 1975. The 20th edition of the Nuclear Fuel Report was released
in September 2021 and includes scenarios covering a range of possibilities for nuclear power to 2040.
Forecasts of the years beyond 2040 are beyond the scope of this report and would require a rather
different approach to capture the larger range of uncertainty; however, the key issues examined here
are likely to have continued relevance during that longer period.

This Expanded Summary covers the key findings of 20th edition, and explains the methodology and the
assumption underlying the report’s three scenarios for future nuclear fuel demand and supply.

The full version of The Nuclear Fuel Report can be purchased from the World Nuclear
Association’s online shop.

Nuclear power currently contributes approximately 10% of the world’s electricity

production. It is expected to play an increasingly important role in future electricity
and energy supply for several reasons, including:

 The near-zero carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions associated with
nuclear power generation.

 The on-demand reliable and secure nature of nuclear power, attractive to

developing countries, those lacking indigenous energy resources, and to
developed countries intent on introducing high shares of renewables, while
maintaining grid stability.

 Its long-term cost-competitiveness.

 The industrial and human-capital benefits associated with its development

and use.

 The ability to produce near zero-carbon heat, in addition to electricity, that

could help to decarbonize many hard-to-abate sectors of the economy.

Despite these advantages, nuclear energy faces several competitive challenges

from other electricity generation sources, especially in deregulated markets as they
are currently designed, along with continuing regulatory and political hurdles.
Furthermore, electricity demand growth has slowed down, especially in the countries
where nuclear power is well-established. At the same time, the nuclear sector
remains strong in many developing countries, and it is in these countries that the
majority of nuclear capacity growth is expected. China and India alone account for
over half the projected new reactors.

1.1 Features of the nuclear fuel market

The nuclear fuel market operates in a very different way to other energy markets. Uranium concentrate
produced by a mine cannot be fed into a nuclear reactor directly; it has to be processed or pass through
different stages of the nuclear fuel cycle (see Figure 1).

2
The nuclear fuel cycle is complex, beginning with the mining of uranium and ending with the disposal
of nuclear waste. In order to use uranium in a nuclear reactor, it has to undergo mining and milling,
conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication. These steps make up the 'front end' of the nuclear fuel
cycle. The ‘back end’ refers to all stages subsequent to removal of used fuel from the reactor. The used
fuel may then go through a further series of steps including temporary storage, reprocessing, and
recycling before wastes are disposed of.

Figure 1: The nuclear fuel cycle

The fuel cost in nuclear power has historically been a minor element in the total production cost. Fuel
costs of new nuclear plants are usually under 20% of the total operational costs, compared with up to
80% in fossil fuel-fired plants.

Uranium supply can be characterized by two main categories: primary and secondary supply. Primary
supply refers to uranium that is newly mined and processed, while secondary supply includes uranium
received after reprocessing and returned back to the fuel cycle.

Primary uranium production has recently (2012-2017) represented about 90% of the global reactor
demand. It is characterized by broad geographical distribution, and also by a large number of
companies representing major and junior uranium miners. The uranium was produced by a quite small
number of companies, representing solely major uranium miners: 85% of the world uranium was
supplied by the ten largest uranium producers. The intermediate stages of the nuclear fuel cycle –
conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication – are services provided by specialist companies.

Secondary supply includes natural and low enriched uranium inventories, high enriched uranium, mixed
uranium and plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel, reprocessed uranium (RepU) and re-enriched depleted
uranium. Secondary markets for uranium, conversion and enrichment services are well-established,
currently meeting about 17% of demand. However, the recycling of nuclear material depends largely
on political as well as economic factors.

An important feature of the nuclear fuel cycle is its international dimension. Uranium is relatively
abundant throughout the Earth’s crust, but distinct trade specialization has occurred, due partly to the
high energy density and therefore the low costs of transport, in comparison with coal, oil and gas. For
example, uranium mined in Australia can be converted in Canada, enriched in the UK and then

3
fabricated as fuel in Sweden for a reactor in South Africa. Recycled reactor fuel may follow similar
international routes, with their related political as well as economic implications.

A further aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle’s international dimension is the amount of licensing,
surveillance and national and multinational regulations in place throughout the fuel cycle to ensure that
safety and non-proliferation objectives are met. These are administered by governments, regional
organizations, such as the Euratom Supply Agency in the EU, and by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).

The political influence on the uranium market has always been significant. Decisions taken to increase
uranium production, to build new reactors, and to allow new fuel cycle facility construction, trade or
transport in nuclear materials to take place, often contain significant non-economic dimensions.

1.2 Energy and electricity demand

Nuclear power must be regarded within the wider framework of trends in energy demand and supply.
World Nuclear Association does not prepare its own forecasts of world energy and electricity demand
and supply, but relies on the analyses of international organizations such as the International Energy
Agency (IEA), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others. The IEA in particular
uses general equilibrium modelling of energy markets that explicitly incorporates the interactions of
different sectors and the relationship of the energy sector to the wider economy. World Nuclear
Association scenarios are based on expert opinion from within the nuclear industry and may usefully
be compared with the IEA’s nuclear forecasts.

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2020 (WEO 20201), published in October 2020, describes scenarios
for global nuclear capacity based on different policy responses to climate change and the Covid-19
crisis, as well as the need to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (see Table 1). The ‘Stated
Policies Scenario’ (STEPS), which is based on today’s policy settings, projects the global economy to
return to pre-crisis levels in 2021 and reflects policy commitments and targets that were announced as
of mid-2020. The ‘Sustainable Development Scenario’ (SDS) projects the implementation of energy
policies and investments aiming to achieve sustainable energy objectives in full, including the Paris
Agreement, energy access and air quality goals.

Table 1: IEA and World Nuclear Association nuclear capacity scenarios for 2040, GWe2
(Sources: IEA World Energy Outlook 2020, World Nuclear Association)

WEO Stated Policies 479 WNA Reference 615

2020* 2021** Lower 449
Sustainable Development 599 Upper 839
* IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 (gross GWe)
** World Nuclear Association (net GWe)

The IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 report, published in May 2021, presents the normative ‘Net-Zero Emissions
by 2050 Scenario’ (NZE) that extends the SDS by setting out what additional measures would be
required to put the world as a whole on track to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century.

1
World Energy Outlook 2020, International Energy Agency, October 2020
2
The IEA figures are gross GWe while the World Nuclear Association figures are net GWe, i.e. net of process requirements. Net
capacity is typically approximately 4-5% lower than gross capacity.

4
The World Nuclear Association scenarios embrace broader changes than climate change policy alone.
The Reference Scenario is largely a reflection of current government policies and plans officially
announced by utilities for nuclear in the next 10-15 years, which (with a few significant exceptions) are
generally rather modest. The Upper Scenario is underpinned by more favourable conditions for nuclear
development, largely reflecting the targets, recently announced in many countries to achieve net-zero
carbon emissions by mid-century, and the assurance that nuclear power will play an indispensable role
in reaching this goal. However, the Upper Scenario is not a normative net-zero scenario aiming to
achieve Paris Agreement decarbonization goals.

In contrast to the IEA ‘Delayed Recovery Scenario’ (DRS), the Lower Scenario does not foresee a
noticeable impact of climate change policy and mainly focuses on other factors; for example, it is
assumed that nuclear becomes economically uncompetitive against the decreasing cost of intermittent
renewables, there is a lack of political and/or public support for nuclear energy, and the importance of
security of electricity supply and grid resilience are not sufficiently valued, amongst other factors.

Advantages of nuclear

A key advantage of nuclear is its proven ability to provide reliable and

economic base-load power on a near zero-carbon full life-cycle basis.
For example, in the USA alone, nuclear energy currently provides around
52% of the country’s carbon-free electricity, and in the European Union
it accounts for 43% of the region’s carbon-free electricity.

In 2020 the world's nuclear power plants supplied 2,553 TWh of

electricity through 393 GWe of operable capacity. This avoided the
emission of 2.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide compared to the
equivalent amount of coal power generation, in addition to total avoided
emissions of around 74 billion tonnes since 1970. Nuclear power also
avoids the emission of pollutants including oxides of sulfur and nitrogen,
and is therefore favoured by some countries as a solution to combat air
pollution.

In the future, nuclear energy could contribute substantially more, given

the expectation of rapidly rising electricity demand and the changes in
energy consumption. The transport sector offers great potential with
electric vehicles, and programmes to implement higher use of passenger
electric vehicles are under way in numerous countries worldwide. Apart
from electricity generation, nuclear represents a credible low-carbon
source of process heat for various applications, such as district heating,
water desalination, oil and chemical refining, and hydrogen production.

Whilst policies aimed at curbing carbon emissions should help to create a level playing field for nuclear,
a preference for energy market liberalization by policymakers may hinder the uptake of nuclear power
if this leads to shorter-term investment horizons. Nuclear power plants take longer to build than, for
instance, gas-fired plants, and have considerably higher initial capital investment. Therefore, if
electricity prices are unpredictable, quicker payback projects such as gas may be favoured over the
long-term commitment that is necessary to make a nuclear project financially viable.

5
1.3 Factors affecting electricity demand growth
There are many factors that affect electricity demand growth, some of the most important explained
below.

Population growth, urbanization and electrification

Growth in electricity demand is correlated with population growth. Indeed, electricity demand growth
has been more than double the growth in population since 2000. With more than one billion people
without access to electricity globally, the extent to which large developing nations achieve universal
access to electricity will be a key driver in demand growth. Compounding the effect of population growth
is the trend towards urbanization and also towards electrification of new-build domestic and industrial
processes.

Global economic growth

Economic growth rates affect electricity demand, both industrial and household, particularly in
developing economies where growing incomes and standards of living enable more consumption of
domestic appliances, and domestic cooling and heating. However, in advanced economies, growth in
gross domestic product has a lower correlation with electricity demand, primarily due to energy
efficiency initiatives.

Electrification of transport

The electrification of transport has played an important role in reversing projected electric power
demand declines in developed industrial economies and in supporting grid power growth in China. The
most visible electrification is that of passenger vehicles, with global plug-in vehicle sales more than
quadrupling in the four years from 2016 (774,000 vehicles) to 2020 (3.24 million vehicles3). Initiatives
are under way in numerous countries to expand the electrification of motorcycles, buses, trucks, trains
and water transport to reduce urban pollution and vehicle emissions. The effectiveness of emissions
reduction measures relies on low-emission electricity for charging transport, providing an opportunity
for nuclear power.

Deep electrification

Beyond the electrification of transport, the decarbonization imperative has resulted in a push to convert
all residential, commercial and industrial systems to electrical power, rather than hydrocarbons. The
aim is to convert domestic appliances – e.g. heating, cooking and water heating – from gas or other
fossil fuels to electricity, which is then sourced from emissions-free power. Similarly, the attainment of
economy-wide decarbonization goals will, following the decarbonization of electricity production,
ultimately require emitting industrial processes to electrify. The achievement of deep electrification is
anticipated to increase grid demand in the developed world, in particular for clean energy.

Alternative generation technologies

The growth of electrical demand will be influenced by alternative power output technologies. For
instance, the ability to exploit shale gas on a commercial basis has transformed the economics of gas-
powered building heating and process-heating in the USA. The growth of gas in this market has been
partly curtailed by environmental pressures, such as the prohibition of natural gas infrastructure to new

3
Figures from EV-volumes.com

6
buildings in large parts of California. Other, less significant alternative technologies include direct
heating from bioenergy and geothermal energy.

The production of hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuel use in transport will, if successfully
implemented, affect the rate at which fossil fuel is displaced in transport. The role of nuclear power in
manufacturing hydrogen is discussed below.

Nuclear power offers excellent prospects for emissions-free district heating and process heat
generation, which would be available as a direct product of reactor heat, rather than being produced
from electricity.

Competitive power alternatives

The natural gas resource base has been greatly increased by the addition of unconventional gas.
Moreover, the cost of exploiting natural gas has fallen. Unconventional gas is widely available and the
cost of transporting gas has fallen. Gas prices in the USA have essentially remained below $5 per
million BTU since 2011, the price at which gas-fired generation can be expected to start undercutting
nuclear. The availability of low-cost gas combined with a lower than expected level of power demand
has affected the decisions of some US utilities to invest in nuclear capacity uprates as well as in new
reactors.

As with any source of energy, the exploitation of unconventional gas bears risks, including the
productivity and longevity of wells, the impact on water resources and other environmental concerns,
the outcome of which will become apparent only over time. At the global level, there is considerable
uncertainty as to how far unconventional gas might be developed in other parts of the world. To date,
the widespread exploitation of unconventional gas appears to be largely a US phenomenon. The EU is
believed to have quite extensive resources but to date exploitation has yet to be demonstrated and in
some countries hydraulic fracturing and even exploration have been prevented by regulation. China
has made significant efforts to identify and scope its unconventional gas resources, which appear to be
very significant. In other countries where nuclear is an important contributor to electricity generation
such as South Korea, Russia and India, little information on unconventional gas has been made publicly
available or exploration activities are at an early stage.

The development and promotion of renewable energy over the last decade or so has resulted in new
sources of power generation. The driving force behind renewable generation has been mainly the
political decision to set high levels of subsidies for renewables – under the form of power purchase
agreements and tax credits, amongst others. The implementation of constraints on carbon emissions
has not yet been set at a level that would significantly reduce fossil generation. The intention of
policymakers has been to develop the market for renewables not only to provide low-carbon electricity
but also to reduce the costs of renewable power. Politicians have expressed the hope that subsidy
support can be reduced and eventually removed, and in some countries – for example Germany, Spain
and the UK – this has happened to a degree.

The ambition to induce lower renewable costs has been met with limited success for bioenergy and
geothermal, with some success for onshore wind power and considerable success for solar power.
However, in the EU, where renewables have received the highest levels of support, the generation of
renewable power sits uneasily with existing power market structures and practices. Intermittent
renewables, such as solar and wind, generate power with very low operating costs yet incur high capital
costs. These power sources generally bid into the power market at very low (even negative) prices and

7
greatly increase the volatility of supply. This volatility reduces the capacity factors of other producers,
including nuclear, as well as increasing the maintenance costs arising from frequent changes in output.

When the renewable generation is intermittent (as with solar and wind), the system costs of guaranteed
supply also increase due to the need for extensive additional transmission infrastructure, back-up
generating capacity and energy storage. A 2019 study by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency4 shows
that when intermittent renewables supply more than 30% of the electricity generated, system costs will
grow exponentially and may double the price of electricity to the end user.

Grid storage technology

Challenges associated with the intermittency of renewables are hoped to be partly addressed through
the introduction of large-scale grid storage. Technologies such as pumped storage hydroelectricity,
lithium-ion batteries and vanadium flow batteries have been deployed at a commercial scale for both
stability enhancement and stored power release. Pumped hydro has been effective in limited
geographic circumstances where there is suitable infrastructure. Lithium-ion battery storage has been
challenged by competition for resources in the electric vehicle market, limitations associated with cycle
times and the cost of scaling up to meet grid demands. Vanadium flow batteries have demonstrated
excellent performance and lifecycles, although large-scale deployment is challenged by vanadium
supply availability and price volatility resulting from consumption from the steel industry. The timeframe
for commercialization of other technologies in the research and development stage remains uncertain.

Batteries have proven to assist with instantaneous grid stability, hour-to-hour storage duration, peaking
demand management and renewables integration. In spite of this, it is becoming increasingly apparent
that battery storage will not be available or affordable on the required scale over the next decades for
mid- to long-term storage durations, in order to balance the effects of longer climatic events or seasonal
variation on intermittent renewables. As a consequence, other solutions to intermittency will need to be
developed, alongside nuclear and hydropower. Delays in the implementation of these solutions will lead
to reduced grid availability, volatile power prices and risks of power disruption – all of which may
negatively affect the rate of electrification and therefore electricity demand growth.

Energy intensive technology applications

The rapid expansion of technology infrastructure has introduced electrical demand that was not
contemplated several years ago. For example, data centres are estimated to consume up to 1.5% of
global electricity production, with the world’s largest data centres each requiring more than 100 MW of
power. Efficiencies in computing power and hardware improvements have maintained relatively modest
growth over the last several years, despite strong growth in global computing applications and data
consumption. However, the growing use of data and trends towards energy-intensive applications such
as artificial intelligence may accelerate demand growth.

Cryptocurrencies and other tokens have experienced high levels of adoption over the last two years.
The ‘mining’ of cryptocurrency is highly energy-intensive, however the significant appreciation in the
value of key cryptocurrencies has supported expanded investment into the computer hardware and
power costs to support mining. The Cambridge University Centre for Alternative Finance5 estimated in
February 2021 that the mining of Bitcoin alone consumed approximately 0.6% of the world’s electricity
– more power than most countries’ national grids. The Ethereum network consumes around a quarter

4
The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
(January 2019)
5
Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

8
as much power. There are more than 4,500 mineable coins and tokens in existence6 and, whilst Bitcoin
mining is particularly energy-intensive, the continued expansion of blockchain applications and the
financial appreciation of successful cryptocurrencies has the potential to generate substantial new
demand for global electricity.

1.4 Factors affecting nuclear power growth

There are many factors that will determine the rate of growth of nuclear power around the world. The
more important of these factors are outlined below.

The decarbonization of major economies

The global imperative to constrain climatic change has seen widespread policy support of renewable
energy that has led to dramatic increases in these energy sources over the last decade. However,
despite these policy interventions, global carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise in 2019 and 2020,
widening the gap between current global emissions performance and the trajectory required to limit
climate change to 1.5 °C (or even 2 °C) above pre-industrial levels.

A majority of all countries have committed to decarbonization goals, including China (2060), Japan
(2050), the European Union (2050), South Korea (2050), the UK (2050) and the USA (2050). The United
Nations estimates that more than 65% of global emissions fall under such pledges. The introduction of
decarbonization goals by the world’s two largest emitters, China and the USA, has increased the focus
on decarbonization solutions and improved the understanding of grid dynamics by policymakers and
within government. In turn, this is leading to a greater understanding of total system costs of various
clean energy sources.

The nuclear power industry is achieving increasing recognition for its clean energy credentials amongst
policymakers, environmentalists and the public. There is also increasing awareness of environmental
and societal effects from land consumption and decommissioning of solar energy, as well as public
resistance to onshore wind turbines. The degree to which this recognition results in government policies
supporting existing and future nuclear energy production is a key factor affecting the growth prospects
for nuclear fuel demand.

The potential for government policy to play a positive role for nuclear energy will depend on many
factors. Should governments increase the urgency with which they seek to decarbonize energy
production, nuclear power stands to benefit from policies to avoid early closure of reactors and enable
operating lifetime extensions. Government policies to reduce baseload coal consumption are, in many
countries, only achievable through displacement by other baseload sources, such as gas, hydropower
or nuclear power. Given the environmental hurdles associated with hydropower installations and carbon
emissions from gas, nuclear power is the logical choice for coal displacement in most instances.
However, many governments have been cautious in supporting nuclear power because of the vocal
role of interest groups, who have opposed nuclear power for both ideological and competitive reasons,
and also because of the complexity in assessing either system costs or the socio-economic
contributions of nuclear.

6
See, for example, CoinMarketCap

9
Decarbonization targets by large corporations

Many of the world’s largest corporate entities have committed to decarbonization of their own supply
chains, in many instances more aggressively than the governments of the countries in which they
operate. Corporations typically have more levers to achieve such goals, including procurement of clean
electricity and other inputs. Many industrial corporations are dependent on consistent availability and
pricing of electricity, which positions nuclear and hydropower as preferred choices over renewable
energy. As this trend gains further momentum, these preferences are likely to influence utility generators
and encourage the construction of small modular reactors.

Air pollution in growth markets

Air pollution has become an acute challenge in two of the most important growth markets for nuclear
power: China and India. Over the last two years, both nations have experienced instances of
widespread urban particulate pollution exceeding acceptable limits. Awareness of the health effects of
air pollution has grown dramatically, with estimated deaths from air particulate exposure, largely
attributed to coal-fired power, numbering in the millions per annum.

This has led the Chinese government in 2017 to promise to “make the skies blue again” and enact
broad policies to control air pollution. Immediate measures have included suspending factories and
reducing vehicle traffic during air crises, as well as cancelling and suspending operation of coal-fired
power plants. Longer-term policies are directed at displacing coal power with clean energy, ensuring
that clean energy sources would be used to meet future energy demand, as transport transitions to
become electrified and energy sources for domestic heating and cooking are decarbonized.

Nuclear power is positioned particularly well as a solution to Chinese urban air pollution. As a baseload
power source, nuclear offers the preferred source of energy to displace coal-fired power without
sacrificing grid stability. China is the world leader in hydroelectric power production and there are
environmental, social and multilateral constraints to expanding this energy source further. Moreover,
most of China’s air pollution crises occur during low pressure weather conditions in winter, when solar
power generation is seasonally low and still conditions reduce or suspend the contribution of wind power.

Although policies to reduce air pollution are already supporting the expansion of nuclear power in China
and India, further impetus to nuclear approvals and construction in both countries depends on the
effectiveness of current policies in addressing air pollution and the extent to which other clean energy
sources can contribute to reducing thermal power. If efforts to reduce, for instance, industrial air
pollution and domestic cooking/heating fires are not sufficiently effective in reducing air pollution then
further measures may be required to displace coal-fired power. Similarly, if intermittent renewables
underperform at crucial times or put too much pressure on grid stability, there is an opportunity for
nuclear power to play a greater role in the clean energy mix.

Potential for hydrogen production

Numerous governments have adopted strategies for developing hydrogen technologies, which could
displace fossil fuels, provide an energy storage mechanism and the potential for export. Other growth
prospects for the hydrogen economy include the replacement of coking coal in steelmaking and other
metallurgical processes, utilization of ‘green’ hydrogen in existing industrial applications and as a
feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia.

10
Nuclear power is well placed to produce zero-carbon hydrogen. As well as utilizing off-peak capacity to
run cold electrolysis production, the combination of heat and power generated by nuclear reactors is
expected to lead to the commercialization of high-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) processes to
produce hydrogen significantly more efficiently than cold electrolysis from non-heat producing clean
energy sources. Furthermore, several direct thermochemical processes using Generation IV reactor
technology are being developed for producing hydrogen.

Estimates of potential growth of hydrogen production vary. The International Energy Agency’s Energy
Technology Perspectives 2020 report projects global annual hydrogen production growing rapidly to
around 445 Mt for energy use plus 75 Mt for process use by 20707 (compared with today’s total annual
consumption of around 70 Mt).

Nuclear energy clearly has a major role to play in the future hydrogen economy. The degree to which
this leads to increased demand for nuclear power by 2040 and beyond will depend on the rate of growth
of the hydrogen economy, the extent to which the anticipated relative advantages of HTSE and
thermochemical processes are realized and the adoption of a level playing field in the treatment of
hydrogen generated from nuclear power and intermittent renewable energy sources.

Security of supply

Nuclear power has a number of features that can be expected to continue to appeal to policymakers in
many countries. The most important of these contributes to a country’s security of energy supply.
Nuclear power plants consume relatively little fuel compared with fossil-fired plants, which means that,
if it is thought necessary, several years’ supply can easily be stockpiled. Uranium is in any case
available from a diverse range of countries spread around the world, making a major disruption from
primary suppliers unlikely. Countries with nuclear programmes are thus less exposed to large swings
in fossil fuel prices and to supply disruptions (such as occurred with oil in the 1970s), as well as to short-
term currency fluctuations.

There are also heightened fears today about dependence on imported energy, given the concentration
of oil and gas reserves in a limited number of countries. Indeed, this was the main motivation for
countries such as France and Japan taking the decision to pursue substantial nuclear programmes in
the 1970s, after the first oil crisis. Today this argument has returned, particularly in Europe with
increasing dependence on gas imports, but also in East Asia, where there is an increasing share of the
international trade in fossil fuels.

Geopolitical tensions have increased over the last years, perhaps to levels not seen since the collapse
of the Soviet Union, as a result of trade disputes, tensions on the Korean peninsula, instability in the
Middle East, and the return of Cold War rhetoric between the USA and Russia. These tensions are
likely to lead to an increased focus on energy security, which will benefit nuclear power growth.

Grid resilience

The large-scale expansion of intermittent renewables has placed increasing pressure on grid
infrastructure and reduced the grid resilience to non-conducive weather conditions and climatic
aberrations such as the hurricanes, heatwaves and extreme cold events experienced in the USA in
recent years. For example, the weakening of the polar vortex in 2014 and 2019 resulted in extreme low
temperatures in the USA, causing widespread power disruption. In many regions nuclear power was

7
Projections from the Sustainable Development Scenario presented in Energy Technology Perspectives 2020, International
Energy Agency (September 2020)

11
the only power source, with renewables unable to function and coal and gas power supply chains left
disabled by extreme conditions. Nuclear power’s role in offering grid stability in all climatic conditions
has led to increased recognition of the economic and social value of grid resilience, particularly in
developed industrialized nations, evident by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission launching
proceedings in 2018 to examine the resilience issue. This is likely to continue as weather volatility due
to climate change increases and the penetration of intermittent renewables increases.

As the trend towards deep electrification increases, grid reliability will become even more crucial, given
that most transport, residential and industrial processes will rely on grid power to operate. This
concentration of dependency on the electrical grid – and away from relatively reliable hydrocarbon
supply chains – will increase the value of resilient power sources, particularly for grids that have
accepted a high degree of intermittent renewable energy penetration.

Improved economics

The cost of nuclear generation mostly depends on the initial capital cost of reactor construction and the
financing of it, with nuclear fuel representing only a minor proportion of the total cost of power production.
Accordingly, changes in the capital cost of new nuclear have substantial impacts on the cost-
competitiveness of nuclear power compared with other energy sources.

Over the last decade, the Western nuclear sector has endured several examples of large cost overruns
in the construction of first-of-a-kind reactors. In addition to the financial burden this places on vendors
and financiers, these outlying capital costs have increased the average capital costs attributed to the
nuclear sector and the perceived cost of nuclear power. Furthermore, the detractors of nuclear power
frequently use these figures selectively in order to portray nuclear power as being more expensive than
alternative energy sources.

The Western nuclear power sector is currently in a phase of lowering capital costs and, therefore,
improving the economics of nuclear generation. This is partly a result of moving through the inevitable
first-of-a-kind construction phase associated with new reactor models.

More significant, however, are the cost benefits associated with reactors being produced in significant
volumes around the world. For instance, Chinese and Korean reactor builds have demonstrated a
substantial improvement in construction time and up-front capital cost, which is likely to continue with
the Hualong Two8 design targeting capital costs of less than $2,000 per installed kilowatt. In recognition
of the need to improve both the perception and reality of nuclear construction costs, the industry is
focused on a range of initiatives to reduce construction times, costs and risk.

Continued progress in reducing the capital cost of new nuclear build will have a substantial impact on
the relative economics of nuclear power and, therefore, its growth. The increasing understanding on
total system costs of clean energy alternatives is also expected to enable fair comparisons of the cost
of nuclear energy with intermittent renewable energy.

New financing models and expansionary monetary policies

Large-scale reactors require large capital spending over a multi-year period of construction before
generating any revenue. In order to lower the cost of capital, and thereby reduce generating costs, the
industry and developers have to reduce construction time and cost, as well as arrange with

8
Hualong Two is an advanced model of the Chinese third-generation Hualong One nuclear reactor. CNNC is expected to launch
its construction in 2024

12
governments new financing schemes where risks are appropriately allocated to the stakeholders best
placed to mitigate them. Given that nuclear power is such a key contributor to national economies,
governments should play a significant role in their development, similar to the measures implemented
for renewables development.

A shift to expansionary monetary policies as a means to stimulate economic growth after the Covid-19
pandemic will also present opportunities for the efficient financing of nuclear energy. In many economies
risk-free interest rates are zero and governments are engaged in expansionary spending on large-scale
infrastructure projects. Sovereign finance costs improve the relative attractiveness of nuclear energy
and, when system costs are taken into account, position nuclear energy as the cheapest form of
electricity in many markets.

Nuclear safety record

Public acceptance of nuclear reactors typically requires host communities to consider nuclear power on
its merits through the evaluation of facts. One of the most relevant facts supporting nuclear power is its
superior safety record – a fact that is not widely understood by the public. Independent analysis of the
fatality rate of the full lifecycle of various energy sources (including renewables) has confirmed that
nuclear power is the safest form of energy ever used when measured as deaths per TWh generated.
Over its lifetime, nuclear power has had a fatality rate of approximately 22 deaths9 for every 1,000 TWh
of power generation – this increases to about 45 deaths per 1,000 TWh after allowing for an estimated
2,200 potential deaths10 associated with acute exposure (>100 mSv) suffered by emergency workers
at Chernobyl.

Furthermore, as more evidence becomes available on the effects of radiation exposure, bodies such
as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation have concluded that low-
to-moderate exposure to ionizing radiation present significantly less danger to health than is commonly
perceived. As these statistics become better understood, public acceptance of nuclear power can be
expected to increase.

Used fuel solutions

Another potential barrier to public acceptance of nuclear power is concern over the permanent storage
of waste products. The industry continues to make progress with the development of long-term storage
facilities in Finland, France and other countries, together with ongoing development of fast neutron
reactors and reprocessing technologies.

Generation IV reactors

A number of innovative reactors are under development, including SMRs, floating reactors and fast
neutron reactors. These reactors have not been specifically considered in this report, as it is not yet
clear how quickly progress will be made on prototype development, regulatory approvals,
demonstration-scale installations, commercialization and deployment of the various technologies.
However, as these reactors have distinct advantages and applications, they have the potential to
expand nuclear power beyond large-scale Generation III/III+ reactors. Whilst some designs have
passed through the regulatory and demonstration stages, the total impact on nuclear power growth will
depend on the timing of their development.

9
Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson, Electricity generation and health, The Lancet, 370 (9591), p.979-990,
Table 2 (September 2007)
10
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2008 Report,
Volume II, Annex D (Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident), Table D24

13
2 The Nuclear Fuel Report methodology
This edition of The Nuclear Fuel Report follows previous practice by making extensive use of
information from the World Nuclear Association’s members who represent all aspects of the nuclear
fuel cycle on a worldwide basis. Some of these contributions have been made via working groups
consisting of member representatives. The cut-off date for information input was 30 June 2021.

Questionnaires to both World Nuclear Association member and non-member organizations active in
the fuel cycle were used to help produce the projections for nuclear capacity and uranium production
included in this report. In addition, in the very limited circumstances where potentially commercially-
sensitive information on inventories was requested, the confidentiality of this data was secured by
having answers compiled by a firm of accountants, with only regionally-aggregated data being provided
to the World Nuclear Association. The information provided in response to the questionnaires was
supplemented by judgements applied by the Association and its working group members, based on
publicly-available material and other public information deemed to be accurate. Sources of information
include regular reports produced by industry participants, conference papers, and the publications of
public bodies such as the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the USA and the Euratom Supply
Agency (ESA) in the EU.

The projections for fuel requirements were generated by a proprietary model developed at World
Nuclear Association over many years, incorporating the key operating characteristics of reactors
throughout the world.

2.1 Supply methodology

Both primary and secondary supply sources are classified according to two main groups:

 Specified Supply: supply that is either known or has a sufficient degree of certainty so that its
volume and timing can be predicted.

 Unspecified Supply: supply that is either unknown or lacks a sufficient degree of certainty so
that its volume and timing cannot be predicted.

This classification is applied to each category of supply within the report. ‘Specified Supply’ comprises
those supply sources that are identified in the supply stack for each component and, in general, include
primary supply, secondary supply, and specified future supply. ’Unspecified Supply’ comprises those
supply sources that generally consist of unspecified secondary supply sources and that part of the
future supply that nowadays cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty due to technical and
economic factors, as well as policy constraints.

14
 Figure 2: Methodology of Specified and Unspecified Supply

2.2 Projection methodology and assumption

Individual country nuclear capacity scenarios are formulated by a World Nuclear Association working
group, taking into account responses to a questionnaire and publicly-available information. New reactor
additions for each country and area are considered on the basis of existing plans and policies within three
categories: those under construction; those in the planning and licensing process; and those which are
proposed but on which no firm commitments have been made. Where official nuclear targets or objectives
have been published, they are used to inform the Reference Scenario projections, with any necessary
adjustments to timings or levels of the targets. In countries where the official objective is to limit or reduce
the nuclear contribution, this is factored into the projections. The Upper Scenario projections consider
where realistic opportunities exist for improved plans for existing and new reactors. In the Lower Scenario,
plans for new reactors may be scaled down or cancelled. None of the three scenarios involve a normative
assessment of what nuclear capacity would be needed to achieve net-zero targets.

For existing reactors, the projection includes an estimate of the operating lifetimes, which is based on
consideration of technical, licensing and policy issues within the framework of each scenario.

3 Scenarios for nuclear generating capacity

To reflect the range of uncertainties which surround any projection, three scenarios are considered;
these are referred to as the Lower, Reference and Upper Scenarios. No attempt is made to attach
probabilities to the scenarios. In principle, the starting point is that all three must be entirely plausible
as representations of future events and worthy of the reader’s consideration. If a scenario is judged to
be very unlikely it would not be included in the report. Although there is a natural tendency to consider
the Reference Scenario as the most probable, the Upper and Lower cases should not be ignored, as
they are considered to be fully plausible, depending on underlying political and economic trends.

15
As of mid-2021, world operable nuclear capacity was around 394 GWe (from 442 units), and about 60
GWe (57 units) was under construction. In the Reference Scenario, nuclear capacity is expected to rise
to 439 GWe by 2030 and to 615 GWe by 2040. In the Upper Scenario, the equivalent figures are 521
GWe in 2030 and 839 GWe in 2040. The Lower Scenario shows a slight increase that becomes more
pronounced after 2030 due to the commissioning of new reactors in China, India and several newcomer
countries, compensating for reactor closures in the USA and Western Europe (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Nuclear generating capacity scenarios to 2040, GWe

Figure 4 compares the new scenarios presented in this edition of The Nuclear Fuel Report with those
of the 2019 edition. All three scenarios demonstrate some changes compared to the previous edition
of the report. The positive difference in the Lower Scenario is predominantly caused by changes
assumed in two countries – Russia and Ukraine:

 In Ukraine, the state enterprise Energoatom has launched an extensive modernization

programme for all 15 operable reactors to be completed by the mid-2020s, targeting both
lifetime extensions and power uprates. In the Lower Scenario all 15 reactors are expected to
stay in service longer: 60 years for VVER-1000 and 50 years for VVER-440.

 In Russia, the Lower Scenario was adjusted in accordance with the “Scheme and programme
for the development of the Unified Energy System (UES) of Russia for 2020-2026”11. This
resulted in the operating lifetimes of more than a dozen reactors being increased and are now
the same in the Reference Scenario.

This positive impact has overcome quite a significate negative effect caused by projected earlier
shutdowns of eight US units, which have been brought forward compared to the 2019 edition of The
Nuclear Fuel Report (Byron 1&2, Dresden 2&3, Braidwood 1&2 and LaSalle 1&2) 12 . These eight

11
Scheme and programme for the development of the Unified Energy System (UES) of Russia for 2020–2026, Ministry of Energy
(30 June 2020)
12
Exelon announces early shutdown of four Illinois reactors, World Nuclear News (27 August 2020)

16
reactors were not expected to be closed so early in the 2019 edition, but were not included in the 22
units13 that were assumed to have operational lifetimes extended up to 80 years.

Figure 4: Comparison of generating capacity scenarios with those of the 2019 edition, GWe

The negative difference in the first decade of the Upper Scenario is largely caused by:

 Near-term delays in commissioning of prospective reactors and reactors under construction in

China.

 Further delays in the restart of the Japanese reactors suspended in 2011 due to more time
being needed to implement additional backup safety measures 14 in compliance with new
regulatory requirements set by Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA).

 Delays to the startup years of the Russian reactors under construction, Kursk II-1&2, having
been postponed by 2 and 3 years respectively; and deferred plans of construction of the
majority of the Russian prospective reactors according to the “Scheme and programme for the
development of the Unified Energy System (UES) of Russia for 2020-2026” .

However, in the last half of the second decade these negative trends are substantially exceeded by:
increased projections in China; more ambitious plans for the development of nuclear power in
Netherlands, Uzbekistan, South Africa, Ukraine; and further newcomer African countries expected to
start nuclear construction projects before the end of the next decade, namely Ghana, Nigeria and
Uganda, in addition to those already included in the Reference and Lower Scenarios.

13
The Nuclear Fuel Report: Global Scenarios for Demand and Supply Availability 2019-2040, World Nuclear Association, p.57.
14
Backup control centres are a requirement of new regulations introduced in July 2013 in response to the March 2011 accident
at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The NRA ruled in November 2015 that such facilities must be completed within five years after
regulatory approval of each plant's engineering and construction work programme. That programme is the second step in the
NRA's three-step process of assessing reactor safety prior to restart. The third and final stage includes pre-operational inspections
to ensure the unit meets the new safety requirements.

17
4 Secondary supply
Secondary supply may be defined as all material other than primary production sourced to satisfy
reactor requirements. This chapter gives an in-depth account of the broad spectrum of secondary
supply sources including, but not limited to, commercial and governmental inventories, stockpile
drawdown, fuel assemblies no longer useable in reactors (for example in Japan, Taiwan, Germany, the
USA), and use of recycled materials of various types. In the widest sense, secondary supply may be
regarded as previous uranium production returned to the commercial nuclear fuel market.

For the purposes of this report, all secondary supply sources are divided into two major groups:

The first group, ‘specified’ secondary supply, comprises supply sources that have been specifically
identified to enter the market in a form, quantity, and timeframe that can be estimated or predicted to a
high degree of accuracy. For these sources, three scenarios of future secondary supply are provided
for uranium, conversion and enrichment.

The second group, ‘unspecified’ secondary supply, contains the sources that do not offer an adequate
level of predictability in terms of expected timing of market access or availability for consumption for
several reasons, including limitations in information sources, arbitrary and proprietary policies of
individual entities, technical challenges, geopolitics, and economics. While the market entry of
unspecified secondary supply is difficult to predict, its degree of mobility is dependent on the source of
this material. Table 2 shows the allocation of secondary supply sources among both groups.

Table 2: Specified and unspecified sources of secondary supply by category

Category of secondary supply Specified sources Unspecified sources

Major commercial inventories (U3O8, UF6, EUP) x

Unusable fresh fuel assemblies (EUP) x
Other government stocks x
Spent fuel and products derived from it x
US DOE material inflows
- High assay depleted uranium (DUF6) x
- High assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) x
- Environmental management (EM) transfers of natural UF6 x
- Energy Northwest (ENW) depleted UF6 (DUF6) x
Plutonium recycled as MOX x
RepU recycled as ERU x
Underfeeding x
Tails re-enrichment x

These categories of secondary supply originate from various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. This
categorization of secondary sources of supply by originating stage is given in Table 3.

18
 Table 3: Categorization of various secondary supply sources by originating stage

Originating Type of initial Marketable forms of

Economic role Owners
stage secondary source secondary material

• Natural U3O8, UF6;

Commercial entities
Commercial inventories • LEU as UF6, UO2, fabricated fuel
(producers, traders, utilities)
and its feed/SWU components
Targeted (desired) Governments and their Military-related materials • LEU from surplus weapons-grade
products contractors and depleted uranium HEU

Pre-irradiation in Comparable to commercial

nuclear reactors International fuel banks inventories in terms of • LEU as UF6 stocks
(front end) specification

Commercial entities
• Natural uranium equivalent as UF6
(enrichers) or governments
and their contractors from tails
By-products (including Legacy tails and
underfeeding) underfeeding
Commercial entities • LEU from tails or underfeeding as
(enrichers) UF6

• Reprocessed uranium

• Enriched reprocessed uranium

Commercial entities or (ERU) mostly as UO2
Reusable products governments and their
Post-irradiation in • MOX fuel containing plutonium from
contractors
nuclear reactors Recycled material spent fuel or defence
(back end) • Unprocessed spent fuel (potential
source)
• LEU from slightly irradiated
By-products of Commercial entities
uranium (DSIU)
recycled material (enrichers)
• Depleted RepU as UF6 or UO2

Uranium that has been mined and held as inventory for a period of time before it is further processed is
the simplest form of secondary supply. This inventory normally accounts for only a relatively small
portion of total supply. However, in the current market situation, given historic low U3O8 prices, this
source has become more significant not only for primary producers and utilities, but also for numerous
intermediary parties (e.g. traders, investment funds, banks).

The majority of secondary supply is derived from uranium that has undergone transformation in
reactors, enrichment plants and reprocessing facilities. The second largest potential secondary
resource by mass is the world’s inventory of not yet treated used nuclear fuel, held largely at reactor
sites. It is a potential resource, as, up to now, used fuel in most countries remains destined for interim
storage rather than for further use in the nuclear fuel cycle in the medium-term.

A substantial quantity of around 130,000 tonnes of used nuclear fuel has already been reprocessed in
the civil nuclear sector, leading to separated plutonium and uranium. These are gradually being used
as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and enriched reprocessed uranium (ERU) fuel. Natural uranium
requirements so far displaced by these sources are relatively modest. The future developments in
reprocessed uranium (in ERU fuel) and plutonium (in MOX fuel) utilization depend particularly on back-
end and environmental policy, on the timely availability of the supply chain to process these materials,
and only marginally on natural uranium market price levels. MOX fuel has been used by Japanese
utilities as well as by some European utilities. It should be noted, however, that the quantity of secondary
supply from reprocessed uranium (RepU) as ERU fuel and plutonium as MOX fuel is limited.

19
Depleted uranium (known also as ‘tails’) is the largest form of potential secondary supply by mass. Tails
offer a number of opportunities for future use. One major use is re-enrichment although not all tails re-
enrichment is economically viable.

The potential for under- or overfeeding enrichment plants is also an important source of secondary
supply. In certain circumstances, particularly if enrichment capacity is underemployed, it can be
financially and operationally worthwhile for an enrichment facility to have an operational tails assay
below the level that was contracted with the customer, making use of more enrichment capacity. This
so-called underfeeding of the facility ‘creates’ surplus uranium which can be sold. In this report,
underfeeding is regarded as an additional source of secondary supply as it has become increasingly
prevalent in the current market.

4.1 Concept of market mobility

Regarding the availability for consumption, it is important to differentiate between primary supply and
secondary supply. Primary supply refers to fresh fuel in the form of uranium, conversion, enrichment or
fabricated fuel that is transferred from a producer to a consumer, either directly or through various
intermediaries. In contrast, secondary sources, with the exception of commercial inventories, often
require additional operations or processing (e.g. reprocessing or recycling) applied to the material
(many of them highly technical in nature) before it can be returned to the nuclear fuel cycle at various
stages. Further processing (at conversion, enrichment or fuel fabrication facilities) also extends the time
needed for certain secondary sources to re-enter the market and become available to the consumer.

The Nuclear Fuel Report examines the degree of mobility of unspecified secondary supply sources.
This term can be interchanged with, for example, ‘availability for consumption’, or ‘market predictability’.
The definition of ‘degree of mobility’ is the availability of the supply source to access the market and
contribute to satisfying reactor requirements. A source’s mobility does not necessarily refer to its
movement (for example, from a non-end user to an end user); rather, any ability of the source to offset
the need for newly-produced uranium, conversion, or enrichment concerns its degree of mobility.

In other words, a supply source with the highest degree of mobility is the one that is available for
immediate consumption – the most relevant here would be fabricated, utility-owned fuel inventory that
can be consumed in a reactor almost immediately. Alternatively, an example of a source with a very
low degree of mobility would be spent fuel that requires reprocessing but resides in a country that does
not have a reprocessing programme.

Thus, unspecified secondary supply sources can be divided into two subcategories:

 A high degree of mobility but insufficient predictability in terms of quantity and timing of
consumption (e.g. commercial inventories and some government stocks).

 A notable future potential for market access but low degree of mobility due to any number of
commercial, policy, technical, and/or capacity-related limitations (e.g. spent fuel or products
derived from it).

Three scenarios of future secondary supply for uranium are compared in Figure 5. As can be seen in
all scenarios, this share steadily declines until 2040. In the Reference Scenario, secondary supply
provides 17% in 2021 declining to 13% in 2025, then declining to about 8% by 2035 and ending up at
6% in 2040. As for the Lower and Upper Scenarios, there is not much difference compared to the
Reference Scenario.

20
 Figure 5: Secondary supply scenarios for uranium, tUeq

In the medium-term, secondary supply declines from the current level of approximately 11,000 tU/yr in
the Lower Scenario and 10,500 tU/yr in the Reference Scenario to 5,600 tU/yr and 6,000 tU/yr
respectively by 2030, remaining in the range of 6,000 to 7,000 tU/yr until the end of the next decade.
The Upper Scenario shows a similar development, with slightly higher level at the end of this decade.

5 Uranium supply and demand

5.1 Introduction to the uranium market
The uranium market is primarily composed of transactions between:
 Producers or suppliers (uranium miners, convertors, enrichers or fuel fabricators).
 Public and private electrical nuclear utilities or fuel consumers.
 Various other uranium market participants that buy and sell uranium (agents, traders, investors,
intermediaries).

These organizations carry out a great number of daily transactions, enter into short-term (spot) or long-
term contracts to buy or sell uranium concentrate. However, the main aim of this report is to consider
reactor uranium requirements, which are driven by end-user utilities (as the main buyers) and comprise
the vast majority of primary uranium demand, along with primary uranium supply, i.e. the uranium
produced by miners, which might be displaced by other forms of uranium, such as uranium hexafluoride
(UF6), enriched uranium product (EUP) or secondary sources.

21
Figure 6 shows how uranium production and reactor requirements are distributed around the globe,
listing the major uranium producing and consuming countries.

Figure 6: Uranium production and reactor requirements for major producing

and consuming countries in 2020, tU
(Source: OECD-NEA, IAEA, World Nuclear Association)

Utilities have a relatively stable demand for uranium based upon the amount needed to manufacture
the fuel for operating their reactors. They typically purchase their requirements a number of years in
advance, due to the long time taken to process and convert natural uranium into fuel assemblies, as
well as to hold strategic inventory based on their perception of future supply risk. Long-term contract
arrangements suit utilities because they know their forward requirements many years in advance. The
stability and certainty associated with long-term contracting arrangements also suits the uranium
miners.

World reactor requirements for uranium in 2021 are estimated at about 62,500 tU. In the Reference
Scenario, these are expected to rise to 79,400 tU in 2030 and 112,300 tU in 2040. In the Upper
Scenario, uranium requirements are expected to be about 99,000 tU in 2030, and 156,500 tU in 2040.
In the Lower Scenario, the requirements are expected to rise to nearly 70,000 tU in 2030 and 79,400
tU in 2040. In all three scenarios world reactor requirements for uranium in 2040 are approximately 12%
higher compared with the 2019 edition.

Uranium resources are quite widely distributed around the world and Table 4 shows the distribution of
resources by country. Three countries traditionally lead this list: Australia hosts the largest volume of
resources (25% of the total), followed by Kazakhstan (12%) and Canada (11%).

22
 Table 4: Uranium resources by country in 2019 versus 2017, ranked by 2019 total15, thousand tU
(Source: OECD-NEA & IAEA)

2017 2019
Reasonably Inferred Reasonably Inferred
Country assured resources resources Total assured resources resources Total
Australia 1,401 654 2,055 1,285 765 2,049
Kazakhstan 435 470 905 465 504 969
Canada 593 254 846 652 221 873
Russia 260 397 657 257 405 662
Namibia 369 173 541 321 184 504
South Africa 260 190 449 258 190 448
Niger 336 89 426 316 124 439
Brazil 156 121 277 156 121 277
China 137 154 290 123 147 270
India 149 8 157 188 8 196
Ukraine 138 81 219 122 65 187
Uzbekistan 58 82 139 51 82 132
United States 101 NA 101 102 NA 102
Others 425 502 926 430 532 962
Total 4,815 3,173 7,988 4,724 3,346 8,070

5.2 Recent uranium production

After peaking in 2016, uranium production then decreased as a result of deteriorating market conditions.
In addition to that, in 2020 the market situation was compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic. This
reduction in production primarily impacted Canada and Kazakhstan. Notably, the four largest uranium
producers have had reduced production output in 2016-2020. The shutdowns or temporary suspension
of production at existing production centres, as well as reduced production levels, have resulted in a
sharp decrease of global capacity utilization factor. In aggregate, uranium production showed a
decreasing trend over the 2016-2020 five-year period. The results of these production changes can be
seen in Table 5.

In 2020, all producers were faced with restrictions and/or the need to implement protocols in order to
protect the workers and to effectively manage the risk of Covid-19 outbreaks and the risk these posed
to onsite staff and to local communities. Temporary suspension of production occurred in mines in
Canada, Kazakhstan, Namibia, South Africa and the USA. This resulted in reduced staff levels onsite
due to social distancing measures, which is expected to further impact production in 2021.

15
The resources in this table are recoverable resources in the <$260/kgU category. Recoverable resources are uranium
recoverable from mineable ore, i.e. taking into account mining and milling losses, as opposed to quantities contained in mineable
ore.

23
 Table 5: World uranium production, nameplate capacity and capacity utilization, 2016-2020,
ranked by 2020 production, tU
(Sources: Company reports, presentations and press releases, OECD-NEA/IAEA, World Nuclear Association estimates)

Production Nameplate capacity Capacity utilization

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Kazakhstan 24,689 23,321 21,705 22,808 19,477 25,714 29,764 29,764 29,764 29,063 96% 78% 73% 77% 67%
Australia 6,315 5,882 6,517 6,613 6,203 7,497 10,655 10,655 6,807 6,807 84% 55% 61% 97% 91%
Namibia 3,654 4,224 5,524 5,476 5,413 5,654 11,232 9,232 9,328 9,328 65% 38% 60% 59% 58%
Canada* 14,039 13,116 7,001 6,938 3,885 16,282 16,538 6,922 6,924 6,924 86% 79% 100% 100% 56%
Uzbekistan** 3,325 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 95% 97% 99% 100% 100%
Niger 3,479 3,448 2,911 2,983 2,991 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,400 3,400 97% 96% 81% 88% 88%
Russia 3,005 2,917 2,904 2,911 2,846 4,885 4,600 4,600 4,900 4,900 62% 63% 63% 59% 58%
China*** 1,616 1,692 1,885 1,885 1,885 1,808 1,808 1,923 1,923 1,923 89% 94% 98% 98% 98%
Ukraine 808 707 790 800 744 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 49% 43% 48% 48% 45%
India*** 385 423 423 308 400 610 610 610 610 610 63% 69% 69% 50% 66%
South Africa 490 308 346 346 250 1,269 769 769 769 769 39% 40% 45% 45% 33%
USA 1,125 960 582 58 6 2,780 3,596 1,673 1,404 385 40% 27% 35% 4% 2%
Others 277 116 116 116 131 812 116 116 116 336 34% 100% 100% 100% 39%
Total 63,207 60,514 54,154 54,742 47,731 76,061 88,438 75,014 71,095 69,594 83% 68% 72% 77% 69%
* McArthur River produced 77 tU in 2018, but its capacity is not included in Canada's nameplate capacity in 2018. Other idled
mines are treated likewise.
** Estimated numbers for Uzbekistan uranium production in 2020.
*** Estimated uranium production for China and India.

To date, uranium idled capacity has reached more than 20,000 tU/yr (see Table 5), thus the world total
available nameplate capacity for 2020 was considerably reduced. But even with the reduced nameplate
capacity, the 2020 capacity utilization factor has fallen by 8% from the 2019 level. In other words, in
2020 the existing mines produced uranium at much lower levels compared to the year 2019.

Table 6: Ten largest world uranium mines, ranked by 2020 production, tU

(Sources: Company reports and press releases, World Nuclear Association, OECD-NEA/IAEA)

Mine Country Main owner Type tU % of world

Cigar Lake Canada Cameco/Orano Underground 3,885 8.1
Husab Namibia Swakop Uranium (CGN) Open-pit 3,302 6.9
By-product/
Olympic Dam Australia BHP 3,062 6.4
underground
Inkai Kazakhstan Kazatoprom/Cameco ISR 2,693 5.6

Karatau (Budenovskoye 2) Kazakhstan Kazatomprom/Uranium One ISR 2,460 5.2

R ö ssing Australia CNNC Open-pit 2,111 4.4
Arlit Niger Orano Open-pit 1,879 3.9

Four Mile Australia Quasar ISR 1,806 3.8

South Inkai 4 Kazakhstan Uranium One/Kazatomprom ISR 1,509 3.2
Kharasan 1 Kazakhstan Kazatomprom/Uranium One ISR 1,455 3.0
Others 23,569 49.4
Total 47,731 100

Cigar Lake, being the largest uranium mine in 2020, operated at approximately half of its capacity, while
Husab is planning to expand its output year-on-year ramping up to meet Chinese domestic nuclear
industry strategic aims.

24
Three of these top ten mines (Cigar Lake, Rössing and Arlit), representing nearly 17% of 2020
production, are expected to close by 2030 (barring additional reserves being identified), so they will
need to be replaced by new mine capacity by then if further reductions to primary uranium production
are to be prevented.

5.3 Expected primary uranium supply

Uranium supply assumptions are based on the premise that supply and demand will balance over time
via market mechanisms. As future production remains heavily dependent on uranium demand, both the
continuation of existing production and the development of new supply requires suppliers to secure
customers for their production at prices that provide an incentive to produce. This report does not
attempt to categorize the production incentive prices for primary uranium supply and instead groups
primary supply according to the level of other uncertainty of that production being available to meet
demand.

When assessing likely future uranium supply, it is important to categorize mining projects according to
the extent to which they have resolved inherent mining development uncertainties. The operational or
development status of a project is subject to achievement of startup dates and annual production. For
example, experience shows that delays almost always occur for planned mines and not all planned
mines reach their nameplate capacity, or even reach production.

Six categories of production capacity are therefore considered according to their level of uncertainty.

Existing mines refers to mines already in operation that are expected to continue at least into the near
future. Future production figures for projects included in the existing mines category account for only
established mining reserves (that is, mineral resources that are well characterized and included in
production planning). These projects may be extended by the conversion of known resources into
mining reserves as well as further exploration and delineation of resources.

Idled existing mines refers to mines that were previously in operation but are now placed into care and
maintenance for economic and technical reasons and can recommence production within
approximately one to two years from the time when market conditions become more favourable and the
company decides to restart production. This category excludes, for example, mines that face significant
unresolved technical, regulatory or permitting barriers to recommencing production. Once restarted,
they would be referred to as ‘restarted idled mines’ in future supply-demand aggregated scenarios.

Mines under development refers to mining projects for which final investment decisions have been
made, financing has been achieved, and mine pre-strip or construction of production or processing
facilities has begun. This category excludes mines that have commenced construction activities but do
not have in place the financing to get to the first stage of production or have otherwise commenced on
peripheral activities without the ability to keep going to the production stage. This category can also
include expansions or life extensions at existing mines.

Planned mines refers to mining projects that are highly advanced in their technical, financial and
regulatory processes but for which a final investment decision has not been made. To qualify for this
category the project must have completed bankable or definitive feasibility studies and all major
approvals (environmental, social, regulatory, operating) have been achieved. Subject to local legislation
and regulations, where the definitive feasibility study is needed, it must be sufficiently recent to be
relevant to and in accord with the proposed project. This category can also include expansions or life
extensions at existing mines.

25
Prospective mines refers to mining projects that have some prospects for becoming an economic
feasible mine in the future. To qualify for this category the project must have completed some level of
feasibility assessment (e.g. scoping study, preliminary economic assessment, preliminary feasibility
study) and must be located in a jurisdiction which allows uranium mining and therefore has a process
to allow development through to production. This category can also include expansions or life
extensions at existing mines.

Potential supply refers to mining or exploration projects that will have the potential to provide mined
supply in the future, evidenced by completed technical reports demonstrating the presence of mineral
resources and economic feasibility in future. Some examples of potential supply that could deliver future
mined uranium include early-stage mineral discoveries, deferred projects or temporarily closed mines
that require further feasibility work, potential mine lifetime extensions from additional mineral resources
at existing operations.

The distinction between existing mines, mines under development, planned mines and prospective
mines is based on the assessment of the probability of production reaching the market.

Three scenarios are developed below, based on discounts to the full capacity levels and delays to the
expected mine startup dates as estimated by uranium producers. The discounts applied to the
capacities in the three scenarios are derived from historic variations in mine capacity utilization. The
methodology used to derive primary uranium supply scenarios is based on the assumption that existing
mines operate near their capacity levels, that some delays in the commissioning of planned and
prospective mines can be expected, and that a portion of the mines currently being considered for
development will never be developed due to surplus supply, a lack of financing, technical issues
discovered in further feasibility assessments, or changes in market conditions. These assumptions are
outlined in Table 7.

Table 7: Production capacity utilization and delay assumptions by scenario

Reference Upper Lower

Expected Expected Expected
Delay (yr) Delay (yr) Delay (yr)
utilization utilization utilization
Existing mines 0 90% 0 95 - 100% 0 85%
Restarted idled mines -2 55 - 90% -1 65 - 100% -3 40 - 55%
Mines under development -2 60 - 90% -2 80 - 100% -4 30 - 50%
Planned mines -3 60 - 90% -2 75 - 100% -5 30 - 50%
Prospective mines -4 50 - 90% -3 70 - 100% -7 20 - 50%

For existing mines, projections of future uranium production for approximately 90% of them is derived
from either official company announcements or from the questionnaire responses received by the
Association at the beginning of 2021. As a result, for the scenarios, the utilization factors are applied to
the expected production levels rather than using nameplate capacities.

In addition, dynamic utilization factors are applied, which are based on the assumption that the
production and likelihood of development of uranium mines will gradually increase in the long term due
to the anticipated change in the supply-demand balance, as demand should keep growing and some
existing mines will be exhausted. Thus, in Table 7, a range of utilization factors is given for different
categories. It is assumed that the mines in the categories will be operated at the lower limit of the range
until 2030, then gradually increase to the upper limit in 2030-2035, and remain at the upper limit in the
years beyond 2035.

26
5.4 Unspecified uranium supply
The concept of ‘unspecified supply’ is used to characterize the material that will fill the gap between
identified supply sources (both primary supply and specified secondary supplies) and requirements for
the various fuel cycle components.

Unspecified supply is therefore a reflection of the future potential of the fuel market as it recognizes that
there are various sources of supply that will compete for market access; however, the conditions
necessary to achieve such market access differ according to each source of these future supplies.

The following supply sources are included in unspecified supply:

 Unspecified secondary supplies.

 Expansion of production capacity.
 Potential supply.
Each source, depending on its characteristics, will be available to the market either as uranium and/or
conversion and/or enrichment to satisfy demand.

Unspecified secondary supply

Unspecified secondary supply is not predicted to enter the market in any defined quantity or volume,
but nonetheless have varying degrees of mobility. Unspecified secondary supply comprises:

 Major commercial inventories (U3O8, UF6, EUP).

 Unusable fresh fuel bundles (fabricated EUP).

 Government stocks.

 Spent fuel and products derived from it.

 US DOE material inflows: high assay depleted uranium (DUF6); high assay low-enriched
uranium (HALEU).

These unspecified secondary supplies listed above are characterized by having declining degrees of
mobility, with commercial inventories being the most available and the others having higher technical
thresholds and longer times to reach the market.

Expansion of production capacity

Expansion of production capacity is the expansion of existing production facilities beyond their nominal
capacity and is another source of potential unspecified supply.

In some cases, the licensed capacity at existing production facilities already allows for production
beyond what has historically been produced at the facility. Here, primarily the lack of economic incentive
to make the necessary investment (as well as some potential development hurdles) prevents higher
production rates from being achieved.

For non-uranium mining fuel cycle production facilities, this category would refer to expansions at
existing facilities beyond their nominal licensed capacity (additional conversion, SWU, or fabrication
capacity at established facilities). The uncertainty surrounding the quantity and timing of this category

27
of unspecified supply is high considering the proprietary nature of these developments and the
associated economic and/or technical hurdles unique to each of the production facilities.

Potential supply
The final component of unspecified supply is ‘potential supply’. It consists of uncategorized supply
required to meet future demand and is associated with the greatest amount of uncertainty within
unspecified supply. The category includes those projects for which activities are insufficient for them to
be categorized as planned or prospective but for which development work has been undertaken in the
past and for which there is knowledge of the orebody and the likely costs of its exploitation.

Potential supply projects for all fuel cycle components require particular market conditions to be in place
in order to support their development, not least of which is for a supply gap (or imminent supply gap) to
exist.

Materialization of unspecified supply

As can be inferred in the descriptions of the unspecified supply components, there is a natural order of
probability in how they will ultimately materialize as supply: unspecified secondary supplies, followed
by expansions at existing production facilities, and finally, potential supply.

With the exception of price inelastic secondary supply and state-owned commercially insensitive
operators, economics plays the crucial role in how the supply side will materialize in the future,
especially when it comes to unspecified supply. In general, in a low-price environment for the fuel
component, there is a high probability that only the most mobile unspecified secondary supplies
(commercial inventories) will be the sources of unspecified supply made available to the market. In the
event that those supplies are insufficient to meet demand, then the conditions must arise to support the
necessary commercial investment in order to expand production capacity and/or advance ‘potential
supply’ projects.

5.5 Uranium supply and demand

Historically, despite both supply and demand being transparent and readily visible compared with other
commodities, the uranium market has not always functioned efficiently in balancing supply and demand.

New projects categorized as under development, planned and prospective are well-known for the near
and medium term, but in the longer term the source of the primary production that will meet demand is
less certain. Given that there are sufficient reserves and resources to cover demand (even in the
Upper Scenario), supply is assumed to meet demand in the long term. Of course proper market
incentives including long-term contracts, favourable economics and capital availability are all required to
move these projects from resources to reserves to physical production within the timeframes
necessary.

Primary supply should be able to adjust to higher demand over the medium to longer term and
for secondary supply to respond in shorter timescales. Figures 7-9 illustrate how this could take
place in the three scenarios.

28
Figure 7 shows the projected Reference Scenario reactor requirements in comparison to projected
supply. Figures 8 and 9 show the projected reactor requirements and supply for the Upper and Lower
Scenarios, respectively.

Figure 7: Reference Scenario for uranium supply and demand, tU

29
 Figure 8: Upper Scenario for uranium supply and demand, tU

Figure 9: Lower Scenario for uranium supply and demand, tU

30
6 Conversion supply and demand
Uranium conversion is commercially important, although historically it has represented the smallest
share in the overall cost of the components in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The commercial
purchase of conversion services is made largely by electrical utilities, and the resulting natural UF6 is
shipped to enrichment facilities for which it is essential, as uranium hexafluoride gas is the only form
that can be processed at all enrichment plants currently in operation.

Today, annual primary production is far lower than annual demand. This has led to a period of
rebalancing, with the market relying heavily on the drawdown of inventories to satisfy near-term demand
from numerous sources, which has resulted in a significant increase in conversion market prices since
the beginning of 2018.

In contrast to the conversion capacities which have been drastically reduced, overall conversion
requirements show an upward trend. The World Nuclear Association’s Reference Scenario shows a
compound average growth rate (CAGR) of 3.2%, mainly resulting from nuclear expansion East and
South Asia, driving conversion requirements to nearly 108,000 tU/yr by the end of the next decade (from
around 61,500 tU in 2020). In the Upper Scenario the conversion requirements are more than doubled
by the end of the forecasting period. The Lower Scenario shows a growth rate of 1.2% CAGR, slightly
exceeding 75,000 tU/yr by the end of the reporting period.

Figure 10: UF6 conversion requirement scenarios to 2040, tU

As illustrated in Table 8, the primary converters have a combined nameplate capacity of 62,000 tU/yr.
Current world operating capacity (i.e. capacity utilization) is expected to be around 32,000 tU/yr, which
is lower than in the 2019 edition of The Nuclear Fuel Report. Worldwide conversion production operating
capacity has now been in consistent decline for more than 10 years.

31
 Table 8: Estimated UF6 conversion capacity and utilization for 2020, tU
(Sources: Companies reports and presentations, industry press, World Nuclear Association estimates)

Nameplate Capacity Capacity

Converter Country Location capacity utilization utilization
(tU) (%) (tU)
Cameco Canada Port Hope 12,500 72% 9,000
CNNC * China Lanzhou & Hengyang 15,000 53% 8,000
ConverDyn ** USA Metropolis 7,000 0% 0
Orano *** France Pierrelatte, Malvési 15,000 17% 2,600
Rosatom Russia Seversk 12,500 96% 12,000
Total 62,000 51% 31,600
* Estimated capacity according to the assumption that China will develop its conversion capacity sufficient to supply the needs of
the domestic reactor fleet.
** In January 2021 MTW announced a restart plan targeting to resume its production in 2023.
*** Orano's new conversion facility is still in the process of production ramp-up, which is expected to be finalized by 202316.

In deriving a worldwide supply reference case for UF6 conversion, various assumptions were agreed
upon that are believed to be reasonable, though the market could be affected by many additional factors
that are more difficult to model.

Model assumptions include:

 In aggregate, Western primary conversion facilities are currently operating at approximately

40% of the nameplate capacity but from 2026 onwards Western primary conversion facilities
shall operate at 90% of their nominal production capacity.

 Orano, which is transitioning to the new Philippe Coste plant, will finalize production ramp-up
by 202317.

 Russian conversion facilities will produce enough feed to meet domestic enrichment capacity
requirements, net of secondary sources.

 Chinese conversion facilities will produce enough feed to meet domestic enrichment capacity
requirements, net of underfeeding, from 2020 onwards.

16
Q&A: Orano Conversion & Enrichment CEO Jacques Peythieu, World Nuclear News (31 August 2021)
17
Orano, Annual Activity Report 2020, p.36

32
Figure 11 shows the projected Reference, Upper, and Lower Scenario reactor requirements in
comparison to projected conversion supply.

Figure 11: Projected UF6 conversion supply compared to requirement scenarios, tU

Figure 11 demonstrates that supply will need to rise in the near-term to meet existing demand, and over
the mid- and long-term to meet growth in demand in both the Reference and Upper Scenarios. As
already mentioned, unspecified supply is deemed to satisfy this gap between identified supply sources
and the demand line18.

In the near-term, any gaps between supply and demand are likely to be filled by the most mobile sources
of unspecified supply, primarily the commercial inventories. The inventories held by the various industry
participants, predominantly utilities, currently make up the balance of supply between existing primary
supply and demand.

The presence of a gap in Reference supply and demand is likely to provide an incentive for the primary
converters to increase capacity utilization factors.

It remains uncertain whether the combination of unspecified secondary supplies and unutilized capacity
will satisfy the growing demand over the forecast horizon, and it is likely that construction of additional
primary conversion capacity will eventually be necessary. This outcome would materialize either in the
2030-2040 time period under the Reference and Upper Scenarios for demand, or if an existing
conversion facility fails to produce at expected levels (a risk that may increase with the age of current
facilities). This would require expansion of capacity at existing facilities, the construction of new
conversion facilities, or both.

7 Enrichment supply and demand

Uranium and enrichment costs constitute the two largest components in front-end nuclear fuel costs,
with uranium costs representing the larger share since 2004 (predominantly due to the less energy-

18
The concept of unspecified supply is explained in Sections 2.1 and 5.4.

33
intensive gas centrifuge technology replacing gaseous diffusion). Because natural uranium is needed
to produce enriched uranium, there is a fundamental link between enriched uranium and natural
uranium (feed) requirements, but the relationship is not simply linear. A number of factors have the
potential to significantly affect the level of the enrichment (product) assay of enriched uranium needed
for commercial power applications. These include nuclear generating capacity, load factors, burn-ups,
and cycle lengths.

Figure 12 shows three scenarios of worldwide enrichment requirements in the period through to 2040.
In projecting uranium and enrichment requirements in this report, World Nuclear Association has
assumed a tails assay of 0.22% for determining global SWU requirements. The tails assay assumption
is held constant for all years and all demand scenarios for nuclear generation. World Nuclear
Association also has annualized reactor requirements, although operating parameters and reactor-
specific supply contracts are often cyclical – for example, reactors are normally refuelled in cycles that
generally range from 12 to 24 months.

Figure 12: Enrichment requirements by scenario to 2040, thousand SWU

As shown in Figure 13 for the Reference Scenario, projected primary supplier capacities in the near
term will be in an oversupply position; however, even with additions of small portions of secondary
supplies of 1.2-1.8 million SWU/yr for the Reference Scenario, mainly from MOX fuel, the Reference
Scenario shows an increasing deficit in the supply of SWU from 2034-2035.

34
 Figure 13: World enrichment demand scenarios versus installed capacity, thousand SWU

Since projections of installed capacity cannot be reliably estimated beyond around 10 years, should
future demand requirements exceed SWU supply, such as in the period after 2030 in Figure 13, the
unspecified SWU supplies could be met either by reducing underfeeding capacity, additional capacity
expansions or from the inventories built up by some utilities. As for new projects and increase of capacity,
given the modular expansion capability of gas centrifuge designs and the required timelines for building
new nuclear plants, enrichment capacity should be able to meet higher demand scenarios or replace
secondary supply sources as warranted by market demand.

8 Fuel fabrication supply and demand

In common with uranium, conversion and enrichment requirements, fuel assembly demand is made up
of a mixture of first cores and reloads. However, fuel design and fabrication is a fundamentally different
market from the other three front-end fuel cycle businesses (mining, conversion and enrichment) as
nuclear fuel is not a fungible commodity but a high-tech product accompanied by specialist support.

The fuel fabrication market is split between the designer (responsible for the product performance in
the reactor) and the manufacturer.

 Designers have both design and manufacturing capabilities and are the main fuel vendors
nowadays. As reactor vendors, they often supply the initial cores and early reloads for reactors,
built to their own design.

 Manufacturers have manufacturing capabilities only, with commercial and export activities. In
some regions, manufacturers may be represented by smaller local manufacturers, which mainly
act on the local markets to supply domestic demand only and usually are not present in other
markets.

35
As a fuel assembly is not a fungible commodity but a complex product incorporating design, licensing
and R&D activities, it is specific to each reactor type. The fuel fabrication market can be categorized
according to reactor type and fuel type.

Segment 1, by reactor type:

 Light water reactor (LWR) subcategories:

 Pressurized water reactors (PWRs) including Russian VVER reactors.

 Boiling water reactors (BWRs).

 Pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), mainly CANDU.

 Gas-cooled reactors (GCRs), mainly advance gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) in the UK.

 Russian high-power channel reactors (RBMKs).

 Future and other reactor designs (Generation IV reactors, including fast breeder reactors, high-
temperature gas-cooled reactors, SMRs).

This categorization does not, however, precisely reflect the complexity of this market in terms of fuel
design. The cost and time to develop a fuel assembly design – which depends on the reactor model
and assembly structure – is significant. Designers are the owners of the fuel-related intellectual property
and are the ones who define the specifications for manufacturing their fuel designs. Some
manufacturers operate under technology licences granted by the designers.

Segment 2, by fuel type:

PWR fuel is a major fuel type that has the highest requirements worldwide and is itself a diversified
sector in terms of the various subcategories of fuel assembly design.

Those subcategories depend in particular on original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the reactor and
the fuel assembly (fuel assembly array, number of fuel rods, positioning of guide tubes), the main one
being the PWR17 encompassing different product lines of Westinghouse, Framatome, Mitsubishi
Nuclear Fuel, and TVEL. Chinese vendors are also working on their proprietary PWR17 fuel designs.

Other PWR designs worldwide include: PWR14, PWR15, PWR16, CE14, CE16, KWU15x15,
KWU16x16, KWU18x18, B&W15, and many others. These are classed as ‘PWR-others’ sub-segment
in the report, in order to simplify the analysis.

Although VVER fuel is classed PWR fuel, the assemblies have characteristic hexagonal cross-sections.
VVER fuel assemblies are designed and manufactured by TVEL and Westinghouse and encompass
several sub-designs customized to different reactors: VVER-440, VVER-1000 and VVER-1200. For the
purposes of this report, two fuel types are covered, VVER-440 and VVER-1000 (for VVER-600, VVER-
1000 and VVER-1200 fuel designs).

BWR fuel includes several design arrays, such as BWR10x10 and BWR11x11, which can be loaded in
the same reactor.

CANDU/PHWR units use deuterium oxide (’heavy water’) as moderator, and non-enriched uranium as
fuel. Current common designs of bundles consist of 37-element rods with Zircaloy cladding. CANDU
assemblies have a circular cross-section.

36
RBMK is a very specific type of fuel which comprises two bundles, two tailpieces, and central rod with
a bar or a supporting tube with a central void (to accommodate sensors), fasteners and retainers.

AGRs are operated in the UK and use fuel assemblies consisting of a circular array of 36 stainless steel
clad fuel rods. They employ a vertical fuel channel design, and use carbon dioxide gas as the primary
coolant.

RBMK and AGR fuel as well as other types of fuel (such as fuel for fast neutron reactors and high-
temperature gas-cooled reactors) are taken into account in the model but are not covered in this chapter
due to their limited application.

Whilst the market categorization by reactor type is sufficient for analysis of fuel manufacturers, the
division by fuel type is required for the fuel designers. Each fuel assembly design is a specific product
that requires significant development costs and time.

The overwhelming majority of the world demand remains for reloads rather than first cores (which have
different characteristics from those of the reloads).

While fabrication of reloads (only a portion of the reactor core) is linked to operating cycles, and
consequently easy to plan for fabricators, fuel for first cores represents a large number of fuel
assemblies (full core), thus creating a significant demand on fabrication that depends upon the reactor
startup date.

Projections are made both for reload demand and first core demand. As well as the trends in global and
regional fabrication requirements, projections of reload requirements according to fuel type are also
analyzed (Segment 2). In addition to the fuel types listed above, the ‘unknown fuel type’ category has
been introduced for those reactor types that have not yet been determined. This category becomes
more widely employed closer to the end of the forecasting period, where, from the current perspective,
it is not possible to say with a high degree of certainty what types of reactor will be constructed.

Figure 14 shows the projection of global reload fabrication demand for all fuel designs, including LWRs,
PHWRs, AGR, RBMK and unknown fuel type. While there appear to be no significant changes to overall
demand before 2024 compared to the current level in all scenarios, steady increases appear in around
2025 in all three scenarios, with different growth rates.

37
 Figure 14: World reload requirement scenarios to 2040, tHM

Geographical distribution is extremely important for the fuel fabrication market as utilities tend to choose
local suppliers due to transport being technically challenging and costly. In addition, designers as well
as fuel fabricators can provide additional services and supplies, such as core components, onsite
services as well as engineering services for utilities. To simplify the data presented in this chapter,
reactor requirements are split into four main regions:

 Americas (North, South and Latin America).

 Europe (Western and Eastern Europe, Armenia, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine).

 Asia (East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia).

 Africa, Middle East and Central Asia.

Regional projections for reload demand are shown in Figures 15-18.

Figure 15: Reload requirements scenarios to 2040, Figure 16: Reload requirements scenarios to 2040,
Americas, tHM Europe, tHM

38
 Figure 17: Reload requirements scenarios to 2040, Figure 18: Reload requirements scenarios to 2040,
Asia, tHM Africa, Middle East and Central Asia, tHM

In the Americas region (see Figure 15), although some decline is expected around the mid-2020s, the
demand then exhibits an upward trend in the Reference and Upper Scenarios, while in the Lower case
a steady but rather moderate downward trend can be seen in the second decade of the forecast period.

In Europe (see Figure 16), while the fuel demand is fairly stable in the Upper Scenario in the first decade
and slightly increasing from 2030 onwards, declines are expected in both the Lower and Reference
Scenarios, which are largely caused by the expected closures of reactors in Belgium, Germany and
Spain due to political reasons; as well as Generation II RBMK reactors in Russia and AGR reactors in
the UK.

Asia (see Figure 17) is where the majority of growth comes from. With China and India, as well as many
other developing economies in the region, fuel demand is expected to double, triple or quadruple in the
Lower, Reference and Upper Scenarios, respectively. Growth is observed in all fuel types utilized in this
region, even in the Lower Scenario.

Similar rapid growth is also expected in Africa, Middle East and Central Asia (see Figure 18), though at
a much smaller scale. Fuel demand is expected to reach 400, 600 and 1,100 tHM/yr in the Lower,
Reference and Upper Scenarios by 2040.

First cores are assumed to be required two years in advance of a reactor startup. These first core
requirements become significant with expansive reactor plans, which affect the demand for fabrication
capacity in two ways. The demand for reloads increases in line with the newly-installed reactor capacity,
approximately 16-20 tonnes/year per GWe. Additionally, the first cores create a temporary demand
peak, since their volume equals around three times the annual reload batches of currently operating
LWRs.

The expected first core fabrication requirements for the three demand scenarios are displayed in Figure
19. This is calculated in the same way as for the reloads – according to uranium demand.

39
 Figure 19: First core fabrication demand by scenario, tHM

In the Reference Scenario, a capacity of around 1,500 tHM/yr will be needed globally for first cores by
the end of the projection period. A first core delivery normally has to be performed in a short period of
time although the fabrication period may be longer as the time needed for plant construction largely
exceeds the time needed for first core manufacturing. This requires a considerable number of costly
transport containers as well as storage capacity in the fabrication plants since the readiness for fuel
receipt at the new reactor is prone to delays.

9 Harmony programme
Harmony is the global nuclear industry’s vision for the future of electricity. To meet the growing demand
for reliable, affordable and clean electricity, we will need all low-carbon energy sources to work together
as part of a diverse mix of power sources. The Harmony goal is for nuclear energy to provide at least
25% of electricity by 2050.

The Nuclear Fuel Report scenarios project potential development taking into account current policies
and trends. The scenarios derived from such a bottom-up method are based on assessing each country
individually (according to the criteria of the scenario) in order to determine the likelihood of individual
projects going ahead. The Harmony goal, however, is derived from a ‘normative’ approach, which starts
with a vision and specific target and backcasts to identify the pathway to achieve the target. Normative
scenarios present future visions that are achievable (or avoidable) only through certain actions. The
scenario itself becomes an argument for taking those actions.

The Harmony goal is to meet the growing demand for low-carbon energy and achievement of the aims
of the December 2015 Paris Agreement. The Harmony goal of 25% of global electricity by 2050 to be
provided by nuclear energy would require a tripling of nuclear generation from its present level. This
equates to 1250 GWe of total nuclear capacity by 2050, including approximately 1000 GWe of new
nuclear capacity.

40
While the Harmony goal is ambitious, it is achievable. In order for nuclear energy to reach the Harmony
goal and to support the world in keeping global temperature increases below 2 °C, a rapid ramp-up of
new nuclear build to an annual connection rate of 33 GWe within the next decade is required. This
annual connection rate of 33 GWe is comparable to that already achieved in the 1980s.

Achieving the Harmony goal means there will be more reactors than is currently expected from trends
in this report’s Upper Scenario. Unless there is also a radical transformation in reactor technology during
that timeframe, it will require greater amounts of uranium, enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport and
used fuel services.

As proven during the past decades in any mineral mining industry, e.g. the oil and gas industry,
exploration and extraction techniques constantly improve over time and it is anticipated as nuclear
power expansion gets under way, that additional and unconventional resources would greatly extend
known uranium reserves. In the longer term, the development of advanced reactors and fuel cycles that
recycle nuclear fuel could permit much greater amounts of energy to be obtained from each tonne of
uranium.

Uranium resources are unlikely to be a limiting factor for the expansion of nuclear programmes.
However, the availability to the market of adequate uranium supplies is unpredictable in the absence of
proper incentives. The development of new mines, both to replace exhausted existing mines and to
expand overall production capacity, will require large investments over the coming decades. In addition,
licensing and developing new mines, often in remote areas, can take many years. However, the
corresponding lead time for nuclear power expansion under Harmony is also long enough to allow
sufficient time to provide the appropriate market signals – whether for the development of uranium
reserves or capacity of fuel cycle facilities – so that these facilities should be developed as and when
they are needed.

10 Key findings of The Nuclear Fuel Report

10.1 Uranium
Excessive oversupply of primary uranium production has contributed to very low uranium prices, which
have been depressed for more than a decade. This situation has resulted from: all Japanese reactors
being taken offline in 2011 and a slower than expected return to operation; premature reactor closures
in the USA, Germany, and other Western European countries; cancellation of several planned reactor
construction projects, and delay of others due to the economic slowdown following the global financial
crisis as well as revisions of safety standards. These unfavourable market conditions caused a sharp
fall in investment at existing and new mining projects, as well as a reduction of production levels at
existing mines.

The most recent (2020 edition) Red Book highlighted that global uranium exploration and mine
development expenditures fell by more than 75% from $2.12 billion in 2014 to $0.48 billion in 2018.
Besides cutting investment in exploration and mine development, uranium producers delayed
investment in current, developing and planned mines, waiting for positive supply-demand signals in
order to start reinvesting.

Over the longer term, the Reference Scenario shows demand for uranium growing by 3.1% compound
average growth rate (CAGR). This is mainly driven by nuclear expansion in East and South Asia, with

41
uranium requirements exceeding 112,000 tU/yr by the end of the next decade. The Upper Scenario
doubles uranium requirements within 15 years and results in a 4.6% CAGR. The Lower Scenario shows
a modest growth rate of 1.2% CAGR.

In the long term, several mines are expected to be closed before 2030 due to resource depletion, barring
additional reserves being identified, otherwise the demand will need to be satisfied by either return of
idled capacity or launching new projects.

Today, however, very few participants are able or willing to begin investing to convert these resources
into reserves and ultimately into mines to meet future demand projections. Some state-owned strategic
developments are proceeding, but there continues to be a lack of long-term contract support, at
sufficient price levels to launch new projects controlled by market-based companies.

10.2 Secondary supply

Whilst there is likely to be a continuing high level of secondary supply, the relative contribution of it to
overall uranium supply will gradually diminish, being projected to decrease from the current level of
about 10,000 tU/yr to approximately 6,500-7,000 tU/yr from 2035 onwards. Besides the secondary
supply that can be quantified, a large amount of unspecified secondary supply exists, including
commercial inventories held by utilities, producers and other market participants. Although the size of
these inventories cannot be accurately estimated mainly due to commercial sensitivities, they could be
immediately available for direct consumption or resale. It is expected that any supply gap or shortfall in
the short or medium term will be covered by commercial inventories.

As a major component of secondary supply, commercial inventories play an indispensable role in the
current market, characterized by undersupply at two critical stages of the nuclear fuel cycle: primary
uranium and conversion. Market participants are continuously reassessing their inventory levels, which,
on aggregate, have started to decrease. This will eventually lead to a more balanced market.

10.3 Conversion
The most likely scenario remains that over the near-term, utility held inventories will predominantly
bridge the gap between new primary supply and demand. Over the medium-term, it is expected that
capacity utilization factors will be increased as the demand side of the market requires and as producers
can accommodate with existing capacity. Over the long-term, it is possible that the market will require
capacity expansion at existing facilities or even the construction of a new conversion plant.

For expansion of primary conversion capacity or new projects to be economically justified before 2030,
any of the following should take place:

 The most optimistic demand scenario must occur.

 The increase of capacity utilization, when required over the mid-term, does not occur because
of technical or regulatory difficulties.

 The market sees an unexpected and long-term closure of an existing primary conversion
facility.

 Chinese plans to achieve ’self-sufficiency’ in conversion supply are not realized.

Overall, the change in the conversion market over previous versions of this report is characterized by a
significant curtailment in primary production levels resulting in a heavy reliance and corresponding

42
reduction in inventories. After these inventories are exhausted over the near to medium-term, the
market will incentivize increased production output via increased capacity utilization factors, the
expansion of existing conversion plants, or even the construction of a new conversion facility.

10.4 Enrichment
Enrichment requirements are expected to rise over the projection period from 2021 to 2040 due to
prospective new nuclear build, primarily in East and South Asia, particularly in China and India. In the
near-term, no expansion of the production capacities is expected from any producer. Moreover, the
enrichers may continue to reduce existing capacity by not replacing centrifuges that have reached the
end of their operation. In the long-term, given the modular nature of centrifuge technology and the fact
that new nuclear plants take longer to complete than new enrichment plants, enrichment supply should
be able to keep pace with any new reactor build, once the market has recovered from the current
oversupply. Developments are expected in the production of LEU+ and HALEU due to rapid progress
of ATF and advanced reactor technologies. To prepare for the potential demand, enrichers are either
considering, or have already implemented, measures towards supplying material with enrichment
above 5%.

10.5 Fuel fabrication

The fuel fabrication market differs significantly from the uranium concentrate, enrichment and
conversion markets as fuel assemblies are highly engineered and technological products, and the
market itself is regional rather than global. In addition, fuel supply is split into reloads and first cores,
with their own specific characteristics. As a result, the market is segmented both geographically and
technologically, thus leading to a more complex analysis.

The fuel fabrication market has historically shown strong competition among different OEM vendors
and manufacturers, either regional or national fuel suppliers. Fuel fabrication capacity outweighs
requirements, both globally and particularly at a regional level.

43
Appendix tables: Existing and prospective primary uranium
supply by project
Table 1.1: Existing mines: nameplate capacity in 2020 and uranium production in 2019-2020, tU
Nam eplate Production (tU)
Country Mine Type Operator capacity
(tU) 2019 2020
Four Mile ISR Quasar 2,307 1,764 1,806
By-product/
Australia Olympic Dam BHP 4,500 3,364 3,062
underground
Ranger* Open-pit Rio Tinto/ERA - 1,485 1,335
Brazil Engenho Open-pit INB 220 0 15
Canada Cigar Lake Underground Cameco 6,924 6,938 3,885
Budenovskoye 1, 3 & 4 ISR Akbastau JV 1,931 1,550 1,363
Western Mynkuduk ISR Appak JV 1,000 800 633
Kharasan 2 ISR Baiken JV 1,530 1,560 1,181
Inkai ISR Inkai JV 4,000 3,209 2,693
Karatau (Budenovskoye 2) ISR Karatau JV 3,200 2,600 2,460
Katco (Moinkum, Tortkuduk) ISR Katco JV 4,000 3,252 2,833
Kharasan 1 ISR Khorassan-U JV 2,000 1,599 1,455
Central Mynkuduk ISR Ortalyk 2,000 1,694 1,308
Kazakhstan Karamurun, North and South ISR RU-6 1,000 864 660
Eastern Mynkuduk ISR 1,000
Kanzhugan (including Kainar) ISR SaUran 1,000 1,541 1,230
Moinkum 3 (Central) ISR 500
Irkol ISR 731
Semizbai-U 960 753
Semizbai ISR 1,200
Akdala ISR 1,000 800 760
SMCC JV
South Inkai 4 ISR 2,000 1,600 1,509
Zarechnoye ISR Zarechnoye JV 970 778 648
Husab Open-pit Sw akop Uranium (CGN) 5,512 3,400 3,302
Namibia
Rossing Open-pit CNNC 3,816 2,077 2,111
Akouta (Cominak)** Underground Orano 1,400 1,071 1,112
Niger
Arlit Open-pit Orano 2,000 1,912 1,879
Dalur ISR ARMZ 600 595 585
Russia Khiagda ISR ARMZ 1,300 1,016 1,021
Priargunsky (Mine 1, 8) Underground ARMZ 3,000 1,300 1,240
South Africa Vaal River Region (est.) By-product Harmony Gold 769 346 250
Ukraine VostGOK mines Underground VostGOK 1,650 800 744
USA *** Lost Creek ISR Ur-Energy 385 18 4*
Uzbekistan Navoyi MCC mines (est.) ISR Navoi MCC 3,500 3,500 3,500
China (est.) ISR & conventional CNNC 1,923 1,885 1,885
India (est.) Underground UCIL 610 308 400
Others
Iran (est.) Underground Iran (Gachin) 71 71 71
Pakistan (est.) Underground PAEC 45 45 45
World Total 69,594 54,742 47,731

44
 Table 1.2: Nameplate capacity of idled mines, tU
Year taken Capacity (tU)
Country Mine Type Operator
offline By m ine By country
McArthur River/Key Lake Underground Cameco 2018 9,616
Canada 11,924
Rabbit Lake Underground Cameco 2016 2,308
Namibia Langer Heinrich Open-pit Paladin 2018 2,269 2,269

Malaw i Kayelekera Open-pit Lotus 2014 1,270 1,270

Alta Mesa ISR Energy Fuels 2013 577
Lance ISR Peninsula 2019 442
Nichols Ranch-Hank ISR Energy Fuels 2020 770
USA 5,088
Smith Ranch, Crow Butte, Highland ISR Cameco 2018 1,923
White Mesa (Tony M, Daneros, Whirlw ind, Rim, La Sal) Underground Energy Fuels 2020 625
Willow Creek (Irigaray & Christensen Ranch) ISR Uranium One 2018 750
World total 20,551

Table 1.3: Mines ‘under development’, ‘planned’ and ‘prospective’ uranium production capacity, tU
Mines under developm ent
Estim ated
Country Project/Mine Type Operator
capacity (tU)
Kazakhstan Zhalpak ISR Ortalyk 500
Russia Priargunsky No 6 Underground ARMZ 3,000
USA Pinyon Plain (former Canyon) Open-pit Energy Fuels 300
Total m ines under developm ent 3,800

Planned m ines
Estim ated
Country Project/Mine Type Operator
capacity (tU)
Australia Honeymoon ISR Boss Resources 942
Mulga Rock Open-pit Vimy Resources 1,346
Brazil Santa Quiteria By-product INB 1,800
Finland Talvivaara By-product Terrafame 250
Namibia Etango Open-pit Bannerman Energy 2,769
Tanzania Mkuju River Open-pit Uranium One 3,200
USA Hobson (Palangana, Burke Hollow ) ISR Uranium Energy Corp 385
Total planned m ines 10,692

Prospective m ines
Estim ated
Country Project/Mine Type Operator
capacity (tU)
Australia Angularli Underground Vimy Resources/Rio Tinto 769
Brazil Cachoeira Underground INB 340
Canada Wheeler River/Gryphon Underground Denison Mines 2,923
Wheeler River/Phoenix ISR Denison Mines 2,308
Mauritania Tiris Open-pit Aura 315

Niger DASA Underground Global Atomic Fuels 360

Madaouela Open-pit/undergound GoviEx 1,035
USA White Mesa (Roca Honda, Bullfrog) Conventional Energy Fuels 900
Sheep Mountain Heap leach Energy Fuels 575
Zambia Mutanga Open-pit GoviEx 962
Total prospective m ines 10,487

Total production capacity for m ines under developm ent, planned and prospective m ines 24,980

45
 Table 1.4: Potential supply, tU
Estim ated
Country Project/Mine Type Operator
capacity (tU)

Langer Heinrich Expansion (Stage 4) Open-pit Paladin 1,850

Namibia Trekkopje Open-pit Orano 3,000
Tumas Open-pit Deep Yellow 1,154
Azelik/Teguida Open-pit CNNC 700
Africa
Open-pit/
Niger Dasa (Phase II) Global Atomic Fuels 360
underground
Imouraren Open-pit Orano 5,000
South Africa Ezulw ini (Cooke 4) By-product Sibanye-Stillw ater 500
Kintyre Open-pit Cameco 2,290
Manyingee ISR Paladin 462
Mount Isa Open-pit Paladin 1,924
Australia
Westmoreland Open-pit Laramide Resources 1,539
Wiluna Open-pit Toro Energy 577
Yeelirrie Open-pit Cameco 2,968
Arrow Underground NexGen 5,000
Open-pit/
Michelin Paladin 2,308
underground
Midw est Open-pit Orano 1,500
Canada Millennium Underground Cameco 2,500
Nunavut (Kiggavik) Conventional Orano 3,000
Open-pit/
Patterson Lake South (PLS) Fission Uranium 5,000
underground
Shea Creek Underground Orano 2,500
Mongolia Zoouch Ovoo ISR Orano 2,050
Peru Macusani Open-pit Plateau Uranium 2,346
Russia Elkon Underground ARMZ 5,000
Cameco US ISR Expansion ISR Cameco 615
Church Rock ISR Laramide Resources 385

USA Hobson (Goliad) ISR UEC 769

Reno Creek ISR UEC 769
Open-pit/
White Mesa (Anderson, Slick Rock) UEC 577
underground
Greenland Minerals
Greenland Kvanefjeld By-product 385
and Energy
Gogi Underground UCIL 130
Other
India Kylleng-Phendengsohiong Maw thabah Open-pit UCIL 340
Lambapur-Peddagaltu Underground UCIL 130
Spain Salamanca Open-pit Berkeley Resources 1,692

World total 59,323

46
Drafting group
Co-Chairs
Alexander BOYTSOV TENEX
James NEVLING Exelon Generation

Chairs of sub-groups
Pierre BERTRAND EDF
Emilio BOBO PEREZ ENUSA
Nikko COLLIDA ConverDyn
Rolf KWASNY Consultant
Jean-Noël LACROIX Orano
Brandon MUNRO Bannerman Energy
Julian TAPP Vimy Resources

Other contributors
Jose AYCART GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
Ulf BENJAMINSSON Westinghouse
Dylan BRYNGELSON Cameco
Raizwan BUTT Urenco
Leonardo COSTA Eletronuclear
Michael CULPEPPER Centrus Energy
Nicole DELLERO Orano
Sergio DE MARIA ENUSA
Alexandre DOUCE EDF
Christopher FRANKLAND Nuclear Fuels Corporation
Luminita GRANCEA OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Steve HARDING Urenco
Arthur Dwight HYDE Segra Capital Management
Kyeong Lak JEON KEPCO Nuclear Fuel
John-Paul JONES Urenco
Ilyas KENZHEGALIYEV Kazatomprom
Nadezda KOLOSOVSKAYA TVEL
Alejandro LECINANA Conuar
Robert LEE Exelon Generation
Matt LICHTENWALD Cameco
James MALONE Lightbridge
Tim MCGRAW Cameco
Lawrence MERCIER Framatome
Marie MOATTI EDF
Valeria NAZIMOVA TENEX
Cécilia PARK NANTIER EDF
Richard PATTERSON Uranium Solutions
Ilya PLATONOV Rosatom
Mikhail PLATOV TENEX
Christian POLAK Orano
Riaz RIZVI Kazatomprom
Eric ROCKETT Rockett Science
Anthony SCHILLMOLLER Uranium Solutions
Gabriele SCHNEIDER Namibian Uranium Association
Patrick SIGNORET Orano
Francisco TARÍN GARCIA ENUSA
Jeanne TORTORELLI Exelon Generation
Bram VANDERELST Curzon Uranium Trading
Christopher VELUPILLAI EDF
Kate WILLIAMS Exelon Generation
Min XIAO CGNPC Uranium Resources

World Nuclear Association secretariat

Hongzhao (Rico) LI Visiting Research Officer
Keiyu MARUYAMA Visiting Research Officer
Olga SKORLYAKOVA Senior Project Manager

47
Figure and Table references used in The Nuclear Fuel Report
Figure 1 – Figure 1.1: The nuclear fuel cycle. Page 6.
Figure 2 – Figure 1.2: Methodology of Specified and Unspecified Supply. Page 11.
Table 1 – Table 1.1: IEA and World Nuclear Association nuclear capacity scenarios for 2040. (Sources: IEA
World Energy Outlook 2020, World Nuclear Association). Page 12.
Figure 3 – Figure 2.4: Nuclear generating capacity scenarios to 2040. Page 59.
Figure 4 – Figure 2.6: Comparison of generating capacity scenarios with those of the 2019 edition. Page 61.
Table 2 – Table 4.1: Specified and unspecified sources of secondary supply by category. Page 73.
Table 3 – Table 4.2: Categorization of various secondary supply sources by originating stage. Page 74.
Figure 5 – Figure 4.1: Secondary supply scenarios for uranium. Page 105.
Figure 6 – Figure 5.1: Uranium production and reactor requirements for major producing and consuming
countries in 2020. (Source: OECD-NEA, IAEA, World Nuclear Association). Page 113.
Table 4 – Table 5.3: Uranium resources by country in 2019 versus 2017, ranked by 2019 total. (Source: OECD-
NEA & IAEA). Page 121.
Table 5 – Table 5.5: World uranium production, nameplate capacity and capacity utilization, 2016-2020, ranked
by 2020 production. (Sources: Company reports, presentations and press releases, OECD-NEA/IAEA, World
Nuclear Association estimates). Page 125.
Table 6 – Table 5.6: Ten largest world uranium mines, ranked by 2020 production. ((Sources: Company reports
and press releases, World Nuclear Association, OECD-NEA/IAEA). Page 126.
Table 7 – Table 5.12: Production capacity utilization and delay assumptions by scenario. Page 136.
Figure 7 – Figure 5.9: Reference Scenario for uranium supply and demand. Page 142.
Figure 8 – Figure 5.10: Upper Scenario for uranium supply and demand. Page 143.
Figure 9 – Figure 5.11: Lower Scenario for uranium supply and demand. Page 143.
Figure 10 – Figure 6.1: UF6 conversion requirement scenarios to 2040. Page 149.
Table 8 – Table 6.1: Estimated UF6 conversion capacity and utilization for 2020. (Sources: Companies reports
and presentations, industry press, World Nuclear Association estimates). Page 153.
Figure 11 – Figure 6.5: Projected UF6 conversion supply compared to requirement scenarios. Page 156.
Figure 12 – Figure 7.2: Enrichment requirements by scenario to 2040. Page 162.
Figure 13 – Figure 7.4: World enrichment demand scenarios versus installed capacity. Page 169.
Figure 14 – Figure 8.1: World reload requirement scenarios to 2040. Page 176.
Figure 15 – Figure 8.2: Reload requirements scenarios to 2040, Americas. Page 177.
Figure 16 – Figure 8.3: Reload requirement scenarios to 2040, Europe. Page 177.
Figure 17 – Figure 8.4: Reload requirement scenarios to 2040, Asia. Page 177.
Figure 18 – Figure 8.5: Reload requirement scenarios to 2040, Africa, Middle East and Central Asia. Page 177.
Figure 19 – Figure 8.10: First core fabrication demand by scenario. Page 181.
Appendix tables:
Table I.1 – Table 5.8: Existing mines: nameplate capacity in 2020 and uranium production in 2019-2020.
(Sources: OECD-NEA/IAEA and other governmental sources, World Nuclear Association estimates, company
reports and presentations). Page. 132
Table I.2 – Table 5.9: Nameplate capacity of idled mines. (Sources: OECD-NEA/IAEA and other governmental
sources, World Nuclear Association estimates, company reports and presentations). Page 133.
Table I.3 – Table 5.10: Mines ‘under development’, ‘planned’ and ‘prospective’ uranium production capacity.
(Sources: OECD-NEA/IAEA and other governmental sources, World Nuclear Association estimates, company
reports and presentations). Page 134.
Table I.4 – Table 5.11: Potential supply. (Sources: OECD-NEA/IAEA and other governmental sources, World
Nuclear Association estimates, company reports and presentations). Page 135.

48
World Nuclear Association +44 (0)20 7451 1520
Tower House www.world-nuclear.org
10 Southampton Street [email protected]
London WC2E 7HA
United Kingdom

This Expanded Summary of the The Nuclear Fuel Report: Global Scenarios for
Demand and Supply Availability 2021-2040 covers the main findings and conclusions
of the 2021 edition. Published since the foundation of the World Nuclear Association
in 1975, The Nuclear Fuel Report compiles data from the nuclear industry, international
agencies and other public sources to produce authoritative projections of global
nuclear fuel supply and demand.

The 20th edition of The Nuclear Fuel Report includes scenarios covering a range
of possibilities for nuclear power to 2040. The main focus is on the front end of the
nuclear fuel cycle but the report also examines the impact of recycled nuclear fuel.

The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that represents the
global nuclear industry. Its mission is to promote a wider understanding of nuclear
energy among key international influencers by producing authoritative information,
developing common industry positions, and contributing to the energy debate.

The Nuclear Fuel Report: Expanded Summary – Global Scenarios for Demand and Supply Availability 2021-2040
© 2022 World Nuclear Association. Registered in England and Wales, company number 01215741