|
2007 Nuclear Issues v29 08 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Wednesday, 01 August 2007 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
Big boost planned in South Africa
A draft nuclear energy policy for South Africa suggests that the
country will go for the complete business from the uranium mining
industry, already established, through conversion of uranium ore to
gaseous UF6 (HEX) for feed to enrichment plants, the enrichment of
uranium which had been developed for military purposes but is now
envisaged purely for civil use, fabrication of fuel elements and even
reprocessing of spent fuel which will permit the recycle of plutonium.
It looks to a programme of around 27 GWe supplying 30% of the country’s electricity by 2030 which currently is produced by large coal fired plants.
The principal reactor technology will be the pressurized water reactor similar to the Koberg plant already operating with two French supplied units.
Another 12 large PWRs are expected to be in operation by 2030.
South Africa is also developing the small Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) for production of electricity and heat. The novel PBMR design is a high temperature gas cooled reactor, similar to one developed in Germany, which is claimed to have very good safety features. An initial set of 24 of these small reactors is expected to be operating by 2030.
The state utility Eskom, which already supplies 95% of South African electricity and more than 60% of all Africa’s, is slated to build and operate the new plants. It is also considered that South Africa will develop a good export potential for nuclear technology.
Guangdong want to get on
Drawn out negotiations with France’s Ariva and with Electricite de France have caused the impatient Guangdong Nuclear Power Company to go for six of its well proven CPR-1000 units at the Yangjiang site in place of the first two advanced 1600 MWe European Pressurized Water Reactors (EPR) which had been planned for the siite. The EPR’s are still in the pipeline for China but are now proposed for a site at Taishan.
Meanwhile construction of the first of four units of the CPR-1000 – the Chinese 1080 MWe PWR – has commenced at Hongyanhe. The cost of the four units is put at $6.6 billion and operation is expected to start between 2012 and 2014. The French will still be involved in these projects as Alstom will be supplying its large Arabelle steam turbines for the first plants.
This order, valued at $184 million, is considered important to the French as Chinese authorities are said to be planning a total of 20 CPR-1000 reactors by 2030. As well as having good prospects for Arabelle steam turbines on these plants the French are also hopeful of selling it for other French and Russian projects.
Arabelle was first employed for the large 1400 MWe PWRs built in France at Chooz and Civeaux and after some typical early teething problems seem to have been very successful.
No nimby in US poll
A poll of 1150 people living within 16 km of existing US nuclear power plants strongly favour nuclear energy.
The poll did not include anybody employed by electric power companies.
It found an impressive 90% who thought nuclear energy was important for electricity supply in the future.
An equally impressive 82% supported the use of nuclear energy today and even 71% would be willing to see new nuclear plants built near them.
On the question of nuclear waste 71% considered it was safe being stored at the plants but 78% said that the federal government still needed to get a move on with the development of the Yucca Mountain waste repository
A robust design
The Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, affected by a strong earthquake on 16 July, was shut down safely. Initial fears that the plant had suffered severe damage with the possibility of potential harm to the public have been shown to be without foundation. A six member expert team from the International Atomic Energy Agency which examined the plant at the request of the Japanese authorities found that the damage was minimal. The mission’s findings and the Japanese analyses of the event include important lessons learned – both positive and negative – that will be relevant to other nuclear plants worldwide.
The IAEA team conducted a three day physical examination covering the complex of seven units, as well as analysis of instrument logs and other records from the time of the event. It concluded that plant safety features performed as required during the earthquake. The very small amount of radioactivity released was well below the authorized limits for public health and environmental safety. Damage from the earthquake appears to be limited to those sections of the plant that would not affect the reactor or systems related to reactor safety The earthquake significantly exceeded the level of seismic activity for which the plant was designed.
However, as with most nuclear plants, additional robustness in design – the design safety margin – had been incorporated into plant structures, systems and components. The IAEA team said these conservative seismic design measures probably explained why damage was less than might otherwise have been expected.
Further technical analysis should seek to understand the precise design elements that provided the enhanced safety since physical stresses resulting from the earthquake could affect the long term safe operation of some plant components. Additional engineering analysis of such components would be an important consideration for future examination, to determine whether they should be replaced earlier than otherwise anticipated.
Analyses of safety events at nuclear facilities are routinely communicated through the IAEA to other nuclear operators and nuclear regulators, so that lessons learned can be incorporated where relevant at other plants. An opportunity for such feedback on the earthquake that affected the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant will occur in September, when Japan will present a report on the event to a Senior Regulators Meeting at the IAEA General Conference.
Although the reactor and turbine buildings and major components do not appear to be damaged, detailed checks are still being carried out by Japan’s Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the owners of the plant. With this cautious approach the seven-unit nuclear power station which has a capacity of around 8000 MWe is not expected to restart before the end of the year.
This has led to a severe power shortage at a time of high electricity demand during the hottest days of the summer when hot, dry weather increases the demand for electricity. Demand is forecast to peak at 61 100 MWe with supply capacity at only 62 750 MWe.
Companies with load management contracts have been asked to cut down on their energy usage by 150-200 MWe. Efforts are being made to secure increased output at hydropower plant, pumped storage and thermal units and electricity is being bought from other companies.
British Energy inundated
The Chief Executive of British Energy, Bill Coley, says that he has been approached by more than ten international and domestic companies that are interested in participating in the construction of new nuclear power plants in the UK.
We have previously reported interest from France and Germany in building a European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR), from Westinghouse now sold to Japan in an AP1000 passive pressurized water reactor, from American General Electric in a Simplified Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (SABWR) and from Canada in supplying their latest Candu heavy water reactor design. It is nice to hear that there are some domestic companies also interested. We thought that they had all been sold.
British Energy was reporting some poor financial results due to prolonged outages at some of its Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors. Fortunately they are now talking about modern new plants with third generation designs. The enthusiasm to get involved may go some way to answering the former complaint of politicians that nobody had asked to build new nuclear plant.
Slight fall in uranium price
The spot price of uranium fell by $15 per lb to around $100 per lb U3O8 in August. But this is still very high compared with the price of around $12 per lb which it had sunk to previously.
It is still more than high enough to make reprocessing and recycle of mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel more economical than new uranium fuel. It also makes the fast breeder reactor look good.
And even fusion power is starting to look as if it might be economical.
Philippines looks again
The Philippines is to establish a special body to study the development of nuclear power. This was announced by energy secretary Angelo Reyes. He said we have largely neglected the use of nuclear power “which has been placed in the back, back, backburner.” He did not mention that the country contracted Westinghouse to build two 600 MWe units at Napot Point back in the 1970’s and had virtually completed the first unit in 1985. But then things got highly political and after a somewhat acrimonious row with Westinghouse the project was cancelled and bits of plant were sold off.
The growing gap
With the progressive closure of the aging Magnox and AGR nuclear power stations (Berkeley, Hunterston A, Trawsfynydd, Hinkley Point A, Bradwell, Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Sizewell A, Dungeness A have now been shut down) the UK nuclear plant capacity has already fallen from a peak of nearly 13 000 MWe in 1995 to 11 000 MWe. From now on the rate of decline will be faster. By 2011 with the expected closure of Oldbury, Wylfa, Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B only some 7 200 MWe will remain in operation and by 2023 when Hartelpool, Heysham B, Dungeness B, Torness, and Heysham 2 are closed the only remaining nuclear plant will be Sizewell B at 1200 MWe.
It is possible that a programme of life extension will prolong the operational life of some of these stations.
But it is perhaps equally likely that some of these plants may close earlier than planned if there is a deterioration in the state of the graphite moderator or if the cost of keeping them in operation becomes uneconomic.
In addition to the loss of capacity the electricity generation from those stations still in operation is expected to fall with an increasing frequency of breakdowns as they age. The output from BE’s nuclear stations has declined from 67.57 TWh in 2001/2 to 51.21 TWh in 2006/7 and this trend can only be expected to continue. Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B are now only operating at 60 - 70 percent load factor as a consequence of boiler problems.
As well as this loss of 12 GWe of nuclear capacity, new generating plant will be required to replace older fossil-fired stations and to meet an ever-increasing electricity demand. This new demand will follow an expected growth in the market for electric and hybrid vehicles driven by shortages of oil which will drive up the price of petrol: a DTI foresight programme has suggested that ‘plug-in’ hybrids could take 50 percent of the new car market in 10 years rising rapidly to over 75 percent in 20 years. New generating capacity will also be required as older coal-fired plants without sulphur removal equipment are required to close under the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive after they have reached their lifetime limit of 20 000 operating hours, or by 2016. The requirement for new electricity capacity could then amount to 30 GWe by 2016. Unless this new capacity can be provided there will be growing electricity shortages in 5-10 years time, and /or higher energy prices – or both. This should be the overriding concern of energy policy.
The options to fill the electricity gap, which could amount to almost one-third of demand in 2016, in time are limited, or even beyond reach. Power cuts or restrictions of supply, by price or dictat, may be unavoidable.
Renewables
It now seems generally accepted that electricity generation from renewable energy sources will fail to reach the targets – 10 percent of total generation by 2010, 15 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.
(Indeed these figures seem to have been adopted more to comply with the harmony of the dates than by any expectation that they will be met).
A leaked paper to the Guardian claims that even the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (as the DTI is now to be known) recognises that current measures to promote renewable energy in the UK will fall short of the agreed EU 20 percent target for 2020. The Guardian report concludes that current measures to promote renewable energy in the UK are only likely to increase its use from the current 2% to 5% by 2020, and suggested that it would cost £4 billion to raise the share even to 9 percent.
Figures from the DBERR show the electricity generation from renewable energies in 2006 as: Wind, onshore and offshore, 1.04 percent of total generation; Biofuels 1.23 percent; and Hydro 1.15 percent. Little increase can be expected in hydro power which is largely dependent on physical geography, nor for gas from landfill sites or the burning of municipal wastes which make up a large part of the biofuel contribution.
Any contribution from wave power or the Severn bore may only come in some 20 -30 years time – if at all – well after the approaching critical period around 2015.
The Guardian claims that the DBERR is proposing to classify nuclear power as a renewable energy source in an attempt to come closer to the EU 20 percent 2020 target. This however is not new, Lord Sainsbury the then Minister for Energy had previously accepted this in the House of Lords.
At best, renewables can only make a minor contribution to future electricity supply, and that at a considerable cost.
Fossil fuels
Fossil fuels are now the mainstay of the power industry, generating nearly three-quarters of UK electricity. Over the last 15 years years gas has displaced coal as the preferred choice: the share of gas has risen from 0.5 percent in 1990 to 38.7 percent in 2005 while that of coal over the same period fell back from 67 percent to 33.4 percent. But in the last year the rising price of gas has favoured a move back to coal.
Coal consumption for electricity generation increased in 2006 to 37.5 percent whereas gas consumption fell to 36 percent. Gas is also more widely used for general and domestic purposes, which in times of shortage will be given priority. With forecasts that 85 percent of UK gas is to be imported by 2015, rising to 90 percent by 2020, and, with the expectation that a peak in world production of conventional oil within the next few years will lead to competition for oil and gas supplies, the price of UK gas imports can only be expected to rise steeply.
Nearly two thirds of the world’s gas reserves are in four countries: Russia, Qatar, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The shift towards an increasing coal burn seen last year is then likely to continue. The now limited supply of coal from British mines is generally of a high sulphur content, an increasing coal burn will probably require an increased dependency on low sulphur imports. Three quarters of world coal reserves are in US, Australia, Russia, China and India.
An increasing reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation will also increase UK carbon emissions.
These are about 755 g CO2 /kWh for coal and 385 g CO2 for gas. During 2006 UK carbon emissions rose by 1.2 percent. As power generation accounts for about 30 percent of all emissions (the largest single source) the increase in coal-fired generation in 2006 at the expense of gas will have been a significant contributor to the overall increase in carbon emissions .
Nuclear power
With very low carbon emissions – 11-22 kg CO2 /kWh – nuclear power would ease the problems of carbon emissions as well as providing security of supply. But there are a number of questions: where, how, and when are the stations to be built?
Where
The obvious answer to where is to continue to use existing nuclear sites. This is confirmed in a report of April 2006 for the DTI by Jackson Consulting which examined potential sites in detail and identified ten sites that would be suitable for a new twin reactor (2 200 MWe to 3 200 MWe) and a further twelve sites potentially suitable for a new single reactor (1 100 MWe to 1 600 MWe). At the head of the list were Hinkley Point B and Sizewell followed by Bradwell, Dungeness, Hartelpool and Hunterston which now have both AGR and Magnox. British Energy has already sought the collaboration of potential partners in developing, building and operating new nuclear stations and is assessing the four reactor designs that could be built in the UK. Presumably the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which now owns the Magnox sites will be doing the same.
How
Among the leading contenders for new nuclear construction are EdF from France and EoN and RWE from Germany who already generate a significant proportion of UK electricity. But these companies can be expected to place the interests of their parent companies before that of the UK. Nuclear plant requires a heavy initial investment which will be recouped over a long, 50 year, operating life at low fuel costs. The number of new plants a company can build at one time will be limited by the availability of capital. But all these companies can now contemplate expansion outside the UK. EdF for instance is well placed to build the new plants that can be expected to be ordered in Belgium following the recent recommendation that the policy of a nuclear phase-out should be abandoned.
The German companies can also expect that the German government will also review their existing nuclear phase-out policy. There could be difficult decisions to be made if the demands on their available capital are not to be overstretched. Yet even now when the serious nature of the problem is starting to be realised the Government seem reluctant to take any action.
Assurances from the Minister of Energy that the lights will not be going out “because of the decisions we will be taking over the rest of this year” carry little weight as the key decisions are, as the Government insists, to be taken by the industry and not by the Government.
The companies’ decisions may produce a nasty shock if they decide to give priority to new construction outside the UK.
Other potential operators could be one of the American, Canadian or Japanese nuclear companies possibly in association with British Energy or some part of the NDA which may be privatised.
When
The key issue however is when the first plants can be expected to come into operation.
A station could be constructed and commissioned in some 5 to 6 years. But before construction can start the preliminary licensing and planning procedures could take up to 7 or 8 years. This suggests that the first stations would not come into operation before 2015, too late to have any impact on the widening electrical capacity and generation gap that may emerge from 2010 onwards.
To reduce the time before new plants could come into operation the need for a detailed review of plant designs by the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate, which could take up to three years, can then be questioned. It should be possible for the UK to accept designs that have been licensed, approved and built that meet other national safety regulations. It makes little sense for the UK to build unique nationally approved designs which diverge from those which have been internationally adopted, particularly now when the UK has sold off or abandoned its nuclear expertise and development. It is doubtful if the modifications required by the NII to the Sizewell B PWR – which added to the cost – can be shown to have made that station any safer or more reliable than any of the American PWR designs on which it was based.
In addition to reducing the delays of licensing there could be other benefits in accepting an established design. Taking the example of EdF which is now starting the construction of Flamanville-3 (a Franco- German EPR by the French company Areva which is also building another EPR in Finland) which is due to come into operation by 2012, a second or third station built to the same design in the UK would gain the reductions in capital and also operating cost that come from replication. EdF might also benefit from operating these stations as a single unit with a common maintenance and even plant operating policies. The question of relative safety does not arise. Flamanville on the Normandy coast, near Cherbourg, is not much further from London than Sizewell.
Since the EPR as a Fanco-German design must also be the likely choice for EoN and RWE if they decide to seek to play a part in the UK new build nuclear programme it opens the possibility that the EPR could become the established European reactor. This would avoid the now recognised problems which beset the UK nuclear programme where a number of different modifications were introduced into the Magnox and AGR stations built by the different consortia. |
|
|
|
