Nuclear Power in the European
Union
Post-Oil Europe
Conference on European energy
policy options
Antony Froggatt
a.froggatt@btinternet.com
Tallinn, 27th October 2006
1
Summary of Presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historical Development
Aging of Nuclear Reactor
Generation III reactors
Renewed Interest in Energy
Views on New Investment
Nuclear’s Dream Support Programme
Conclusion
2
Global Reactors and Installed
Capacity
Source: Mycle Schneider
400
500
350
300
Reactors in operation
450
Operable capacity
400
350 Number of
300 Reactors
250
GWe 200
250
150
200
150
100
100
2004
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
0
1962
0
1959
50
1956
50
3
Reactors Under Construction
(2006)
Romania
Pakistan
Japan
Iran
Finland
Argentina
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Taiwan
China
Russia
India
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4
Global Current Status
• Not Global Industry
• Of the 130-180GW of new capacity each
year, 1.5-2.5% is nuclear
• 22 of last 31 reactors completed were in
Asia
5
EU Nuclear - Development
• UK first country to develop commercial
nuclear electricity, in 1957
• 147 reactors in operation in EU. Largest
nuclear ‘union’ in the world, 8% more
than US, three times more than Japan
and seven times more than Russia.
• 4 countries in world produce 50% or
more of electricity from nuclear, all in
EU
6
History of New Reactor Completions in the
European Union
16000
France
Germany
14000
12000
Sw eden
10000
Spain
Belgium
8000
Finland
6000
Czech Republic
4000
Slovakia
Lithuania
2000
Hungary
2007
2004
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
0
1956
MW
UK
Slovenia
Netherlands
7
Status of Nuclear Power in Europe
8
Reactors to Be Closed
Reactor
Size
Date
Bulgaria
Reactor
Size
Date
Slovakia
Kozloduy 3
440
2006
Bohunice V-1
440
2006
Kozloduy 4
440
2006
Bohunice V-1
440
2008
Germany
Biblis A
UK
1125
2007
Dungeness A-1
225
2006
785
2008
Dungeness A-2
225
2006
Biblis B
1300
2009
Sizewell A-1
250
2006
Brunsbuettel
806
2009
Sizewell A-2
250
2006
Oldbury A
225
2008
Oldbury A
225
2008
Wylfa A
570
2010
Wylfa B
570
2010
Neckarwestheim 1
Lithuania
Ignalina-2
1200
2009
9
0
2010
2007
2004
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
1956
Operating Reactors in Europe
200
150
100
50
10
Reactor Designs
• 50 years of commercial electricity
generation.
• As with all other technologies considerable
changes have occurred in the design, size
and use of the nuclear power plants.
• Reactor designs have been grouped into
various generations: I, II, III, IV
11
Age of Global Nuclear Fleet
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
12
Reactor Ageing
• Materials and components are affected by temperature,
pressure, neutrons, ph, mechanical pressures.
• These external forces can impact upon the ability of
components to function as designed.
• Ageing processes are difficult to detect because they
usually occur on microscopic level.
• Inspection of materials most affected by external
pressures often difficult.
• Ageing of some components is expected and leads to
routine replacement – steam generators – others not.
13
Davis Besse
• Cracking thought to begin
1990
• Not detected in numerous
inspections
• 2001 US NRC ordered
inspections in all Vessel
Heads
• Discovered by accident –
March 2002
• Whole vessel head
corroded, only inner lining
stopped splitting
14
Typical bathtub-curve of typical
failure rates at a Nuclear Power
Plant
15
Implications of Ageing
• Growing problem as reactors get older
• Conflict with utilities desires for plant life
extension/increase output
• Liberalised market means desire to cut
costs to increase profitability lead to
reduced maintenance.
16
‘New Threat’ - Terrorism
• Nuclear facilities have been targeted; South
Africa, Spain
• Post 2001, new fears that nuclear facilities
become terrorist target.
• January 2002 President Bush said that U.S.
forces “found diagrams of American nuclear
power plants” in al-Qaeda materials in
Afghanistan.
• Other recent examples of apparent threats:
Australia, Russia, UK
17
Technical Issues
• Containments not built to withstand large
aircraft crash.
• Possible implement barriers; no fly zones,
anti-aircraft guns.
• Other areas of fuel cycle also, even more,
vulnerable, e.g. spent fuel stores
18
Generation III
• Evolutionary design, largely modification of
operational reactors,
• Some are operational ABWRs in Japan.
• Others under-construction, EPR (Finland),
• Others proposed:
– AP1000 (Westinghouse)
– Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (ESKOM)
– APWR (S Korea)
19
European Pressurized Water
Reactor
• No reactor in operation, but problems already visible with
construction.
• Finish Safety Agency Report, released in 2006
highlighted a number of problems, including.
– ‘The tight cost frame is also a problem in selecting and
supervising subcontractors. They have very often chosen a subcontractor who has given the lowest tender’
– ‘organizations participating in the Olkiluto-3 project have not
achieved a shared view of the emphasis on safety awareness in
the construction phase’.
– ‘the time and amount of work needed for the detailed design of
the unit was clearly under-estimated when the overall schedule
was agreed on’.
– ‘quality control problems in with the reactor base slab’
20
AP 1000
• Not even under construction, but concerns have been
raised, in particular in relation to safety vs economics.
• AP 1000 is an expanded version of the AP600, which
was licensed but never built.
• It was expanded to improve the economics, as it has
nearly doubled the output, with only marginal increase in
construction costs.
• UCS claim that this has resulted in, AP-1000 has a ratio
of containment volume to thermal power below that of
most of current PWRs, increasing the risk of containment
overpressure and failure in a severe accident
21
New Interest in Energy Policy
• Security of supply concerns
• Growing awareness and concern over
climate change and environmental
considerations
• Need for significant new investment
22
Security of Supply
Sources for Global Energy Demand
11%
2%
1%
24%
6%
Coal
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
Hydro
Biomass
Renewables
21%
35%
23
IEA Global Business As Usual
Energy Demand Forecast (MToe)
18000
16000
14000
12000
Renewables
Biomass
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2003
2010
2020
2030
24
Global Nuclear Programme
• Nuclear power uses uranium, which is limited.
• Current resources estimates suggest that uranium will be
depleted, at current use levels, quicker than the other
major fuels.
• A rapid increase in the use of nuclear will accelerate the
depletion rate of uranium
• Decreasing uranium reserves lead to plutonium
economy - Generation IV reactors.
Reserves Reserveslast (yrs)
Resources
Thousand
Exajoules
Consumption in
1998
Resource last
(yrs)
Oil
0.14
11.11
80
21.31
152
Gas
0.08
14.88
186
34.93
436
Coal
0.09
20.67
229
179.00
1988
Uranium
0.04
1.89
47
3.52
88
25
Climate Change:
50
Africa
Central Planned Asia (beyond 2002: China)
???
Far East (beyond 2002: East & South Asia)
40
Business as usual projection
Middle East
Central & South America (/w Mexico)
Ocenania (beyond 2002: OECD Pacific)
(Former) Central Planned Europe
Western Europe (incl. Germany)
North America (USA and Canada)
Gt CO2
30
20
The 2°C
Challenge
10
0
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
26
Socolow – Climate - Wedges
27
Investment Needs
($ billion in 2000 dollars)
2000
2001-10 20112020
20212030
Total
%
Oil
87
916
1045
1136
3096
19
Gas
80
948
1041
1157
3145
19
Coal
11
125
129
144
398
2
Electricity 235
2562
3396
3883
9841
60
Total
413
4551
5610
6320
16481
100
Annual
Average
413
455
561
632
549
100
28
Views on New Investment and
Nuclear Power
• Key actors have differing views, these are:
– Nuclear Vendors
– Financial Community
29
Nuclear Industry
• Currently, very active in promoting their products
and claim that:
–
–
–
–
GE: 66 GW of new capacity to be ordered by 2015
Areva: 150-250 GW by 2030
Westinghouse: 20 GW in India – 1 GW each year.
NNC (China): 30 GW by 2020
• World Nuclear Association
– ‘nuclear power in the 21st Century will be
economically competitive even without attaching
economic weight to the global environmental virtues
of nuclear power or to national advantages in price
stability and security of energy supply’
30
Financial Community
• Standard and Poors
– ‘If new construction of nuclear power is to become a reality in the U.K.,
Standard & Poor's has significant concerns over the future structure of
the generating industry. In particular, the potential for increased
regulation of the liberalized generating industry, a higher level of political
interference in the market structure, and the ongoing prospects for
nuclear power in a competitive power market. Standard & Poor's
expects that investment in nuclear power will rely on the long-term
sustainability of high electricity prices in the U.K. energy market
– Developing new nuclear generation in the deregulated European market
environment is a high-risk venture, given the long construction times
and high capital costs. Siting issues are likely to be more sensitive today
than in the 1970s and 1980s when most reactors were built.
Furthermore, political support will remain fragile to nuclear safety
performance worldwide. Another Chernobyl-like accident can rapidly
cool the current cordial sentiments. Fundamental issues, such as the
final storage of nuclear waste and far-reaching social consensus,
are still likely to be required before a potential large-scale
renaissance can happen
31
• UBS
– a potentially courageous 60-year bet on fuel
prices, discount rates and promised efficiency
gains
• HSBC
– Hence this financial risk [new build] coupled
with unforeseen construction delays, the risk
of cumbersome political and regulatory
oversight, nuclear waste concerns and public
opposition could make new nuclear a difficult
pill to swallow for equity investors.
32
The US Nuclear Support
Programme
• In the US the 2005 energy Act allocated
around $12 billion for nuclear new build,
through, production tax credits, loan
guarantees, research and development,
decommissioning support and framework
against regulatory delays. – the nuclear
industry dream package.
33
Targeting of Public Funds
• Analysis undertaken by Amory Lovins
suggests:
– Every $0.10 spent on a new nuclear kWh
could have resulted in:
•
•
•
•
1.2-1.7kWh of Windpower
0.9-1.7 kWh of gas fired
2.2-6.5 kWh of co-generation
Several to 10+kWh of energy efficiency.
• There is an opportunity cost of different
support schemes.
34
Prospects
• 148 reactors operating in 13 EU Member
States
• Installed capacity is 130.5 GW
• Average age of reactors is 22 years.
• Assuming operating life of 50 years just to
maintain current level of nuclear in EU,
there would need to be 3 new EPRs
connected to the grid every year.
• At best 2 will connected in next 10 years
35
Conclusion
• Nuclear Power has numerically started to
decline.
• New Government interest in energy policy, for
security of supply and environmental reasons
• Unprecedented level of investment needed in
coming decades, especially in power sector
• How much new nuclear will depend on the
subsidy/support schemes introduced
• These schemes will divert funding/attention
away from real solutions, energy efficiency and
renewables
36