|
2008 Nuclear Issues v30 2 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Friday, 01 February 2008 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
Reprocessing and waste
Plutonium production was originally seen as the primary purpose of the
Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP), at the time for an
anticipated fast reactor programme, as explained at the THORP public
inquiry in 1978. Now, at a time when it seems that many countries are
turning to nuclear power to offset the expected decline in oil and gas
production, and with the inevitable price rises that will follow, the
need is to recover the 95 percent of uranium left in spent fuel that
would otherwise be disposed of as waste and buried in underground
depositories. Recycling this uranium would minimise the mining and
processing of uranium ore with all the environmental costs that are
incurred. A first step towards a more efficient use of reprocessed
uranium and of existing stocks of plutonium comes with the increasing
production and use in a number of countries of mixed oxide fuels.
It is then surprising that in its Nuclear White Paper the Government firmly rules out the option of reprocessing spent fuel. Instead it is to be stored on site at the nuclear stations for at least 100 years before being disposed of as waste. Plans for, and the financing of, waste management are to be made on this basis.
Despite the determined opposition of the former Environment Secretary, Michael Meacher and his advisers, BNFL had begun to develop a successful MOX production for its overseas customers. It was not however used by British Energy. Now however the future of THORP is in the hands of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority whose prime purpose is to shut down and clean up nuclear facilities, and where the costs of restoring Sellafield to a theoretical ‘greenfield’ state represents over half of its projected budget and future programme. Although no decision has yet been taken on the future of THORP and the MOX facility the NDA would not at first sight seem to be an organisation that would be eager to restart the plant and keep it in operation.
Although a long period of on-site storage for spent fuel should give time for common sense to prevail there is no obvious successor to BNFL in the UK to take on the task of recovering uranium and of developing more advanced reprocessing technology specifically for fuel cycles making a more intensive use of uranium without necessarily separating the plutonium. On the other hand, as this technology is adopted in more advanced nuclear countries, a market might develop to buy up spent fuel in storage.
Such development could significantly change plans now being drawn up for nuclear waste disposal in the UK.
While the size and cost of the underground depository will be largely determined by the quantity of so-called ‘legacy waste’, much of which is associated not with nuclear power generation but with the early military programme, the waste requirements of future nuclear stations could be much reduced.
Figures from the 2003 study by MIT give (in round figures) the quantity of spent fuel from a 1500 MWe reactor with a present burn-up of 50 MWdays/tonne of fuel as about 30 tons/year with a once through open fuel cycle. A higher burn-up of 100 MWdays/tonne would halve that quantity. With a single MOX recycle the quantity of spent fuel for disposal reduces to under 5 tons/year while a full actinide recycle which could be expected to be developed by 2050 (well within the lifetime of planned spent fuel storage for the UK) the waste fission products would be a minimal 1.5 tons/year for a 1500 MWe station. There would of course be additional waste associated with the reprocessing process, but much of this would be low and intermediate level waste.
It is illuminating to compare these figures with the quantities of carbon dioxide which would have to be sent to underground storage in the (unlikely) event that the much talked of carbon capture and storage proposals were ever adopted. For a 1500 MWe coal-fired station the quantity of carbon dioxide would amount to some 10 million tonnes a year. But to be effective in reducing carbon emissions it would be necessary to apply CCS to the majority of UK coal stations. With a coal consumption of some 60 million tons/year for electricity generation the quantity of carbon dioxide to be buried would amount to some 100-130 million tonnes a year. This is about four times the peak rate of annual tonnage of natural gas from the North Sea, as LNG. Is this an option worth pursuing?
Fuel costs virtually nil
It has always been recognised that the fuel cost for a nuclear power plant makes up a very small portion of the cost of electricity production and that they have been characterised as being relatively stable. So why does not British Energy exploit this huge advantage that it has over the cost of energy from gas and oil. We have had letters and advertisements from the gas and oil industry seeking to justify huge increases in price but nothing to say that nuclear has remained more or less the same.
Then there is availability. British Energy has the largest stockpile of fuel that anybody could wish for but they choose not to use it. They have unused uranium from reprocessing spent fuel with the potential of the national coal resources and they own the largest stockpile of separated reactor grade plutonium with which to ‘enrich’ the fuel. Ten years ago when they were having a bit of a bad time due to the ridiculously low price of oil and gas it was just about reasonable for them to say that they could not afford to make use of this huge resource even though it would have been virtually free. The cost of the fuel material would have been free or even negative as they would be saving the cost of storage. The only extra cost would be that of fabricating it into fuel assemblies which they maintained would be more than the cost of buying and processing new uranium.
Studies indicated that new uranium prices would have to rise by three or four times before it would be economical to reprocess and recycle what they already had. Well the price of uranium has risen by around ten times so surely it is now time to take another look at this. But British Energy seem determined to live in the past and not to promote the fact that they now have the cheapest fuel.
They do not even have to build plants. There is a perfectly good reprocessing plant – the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) – at Sellafield together with an integrated Mixed uranium-plutonium Oxide (MOX) fuel plant. All the technology for using MOX fuel to obtain at least an extra 25% of energy from uranium has been shown to work quite easily in France and before we abandoned the fast breeder reactor we had demonstrated the technoly for a new commercial fast reactor that could be economically used if uranium prices doubled. This offered at least sixty times more energy from uranium dug out of the ground.
But not only are the costs now right. It is an ethically good thing to recycle as much of energy resources as is possible. If coal, oil or gas could be used sixty times more efficiently the industry would be shouting about it from the roof tops.
Oh, but what about the capital costs? If we had spent money on a new reactor ten years ago it would today seem quite cheap in real money and we would not have to be using gas at ten times the price. It is time for British Energy to find something more relevant to the actual money they spend rather than sticking with the old inflation accounting.
Energy (R)evolution
This was the title of a substantial document published last year by the European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace. In summary, it attempted to prove that it was possible, by the middle of this century, to solve the world’s energy problems using a mixture of renewable energies and energy efficiency.
In a breathtaking paragraph in the introduction, it loftily declared that the work was based ‘only on proven and sustainable technologies, such as renewable energy sources and efficient decentralised cogeneration. It therefore excludes ”CO2-free coal power plants” and nuclear energy’.
One wonders how many people understand the full implications of this approach. It is certainly not a view of the European Commission or of the European Parliament, and yet the European Renewable Energy Council receives financial support from Europe, and it would be interesting to know how many projects which are supported by Greenpeace also receive funding from European sources.
But perhaps more alarmingly in all this is the fact that the Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Pachauri, was persuaded to provide a foreword for this document. Normally one would assume that anyone who writes a foreword for a report substantially accepts the arguments that it contains. It is a pity that Dr.
Pachari failed in this instance to take that precaution and has lent his name to a thoroughly disreputable piece of work. Dr .Pachauri is on record as having said, in the case of his own country, “India cannot meet its human and environmental needs without a major expansion of nuclear energy”. Naturally, Energy (R)evolution did not contain this quotation and, indeed, the publishers of the document are probably guilty of misleading one of the leading figures in the current environmental debate.
News from Europe
What was rightly described as the most pro-nuclear report of recent years was adopted by the European Parliament towards the end of last year. It was part of a report on future energy technology and the result was clearly influenced by the views of MEPs from the new member states, many of which have operating nuclear stations.
The report, as adopted, contained a clear statement that “nuclear energy is indispensable if basic energy needs are to be met in Europe”, and another paragraph noted “that nuclear energy is currently the largest low carbon energy source in Europe” and stressed its potential in combating climate change. This significantly pro-nuclear report is part of the changing political approach to nuclear which is giving impetus to a whole range of new activities.
However, opposition within the European Parliament is still strong and must not be under-estimated. There is no prize to know from where this opposition comes: it is from the Green Party and their fellow travellers, who are to be found in varying numbers in almost all the political groups in the Parliament. Even the much heralded report contained a paragraph referring to “a long term shift” towards renewable energies and energy efficiency in terms which clearly indicated that this was the future. There is a clear view held by the opponents of nuclear power that the future lies solely in renewables and efficiency.
Of more concern was the decision of the Parliament to delete an important paragraph from the text, which had been prepared by the Parliament’s Industry committee.
This noted “that the issue of final disposal (of high level used fuel) has been technologically resolved and that the quantity of waste requiring final disposal is small and calculable”. This was a serious reverse and emphasises the extent to which this particular issue is seen by the opponents of nuclear power as a key card in their continued opposition. This is shown by the huge resistance that the Green movement brings to any idea that renewable targets should be replaced by “low carbon sources” which would clearly help the prospects of the nuclear industry.
The European Commission has also been rather lukewarm in its support for nuclear power, as has the Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. The Commission and the Energy Commissioner are happy to leave the issue of nuclear power to the decision of member states, at a time when the Commission is busy legislating for almost every aspect of energy production and distribution in minute detail, with a proliferation of targets which is quite mind-bending in its complexity.
President Barroso did not even mention the word “nuclear” in his presentation to the European Parliament on 23rd January 2008 of the paper entitled “Energy and Climate Change”. The main emphasis of his speech was on renewables.
It was left to some of the MEPs to raise the issue in speeches which addressed both pro and anti arguments.
But the most compelling contribution came from Giles Chichester, one of the UK MEPs from the South West region and until recently Chairman of the Parliament’s committee with responsibility for energy. In his view the debate on climate change was technologically “unbalanced”, in that the focus tended to be too much on renewables while almost losing site of the main objective, which was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It is probably the greatest tragedy of our time that the Greens, who would claim to be at the forefront of the battle to deal with the impact of climate change, are the people who are doing their utmost to prevent the best technical means that is available to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They do not miss an opportunity, and can always be relied on to do this whenever the possibility exists of using the European Parliament for this purpose. It is one of their major anti-nuclear platforms.
European nuclear energy forum
Quietly, but effectively, there has been progress at European level in the discussion of nuclear issues, and the work of the recently established European Nuclear Energy Forum is getting underway. The Forum has a wide representation and is having a detailed look at some of the issues and policies that need to be pursued in a whole range of matters. The main thrust of the work is to find out how far harmonisation of nuclear activities can be taken at European and, indeed, global level. There are a number of aspects which are currently being looked at, such as the harmonisation of safety requirements and the implementation of adequate disposal of used fuel.
Training and education aspects are also on the agenda, given the concerns that exist regarding the availability of trained operators if the expected expansion of nuclear power takes place.
Putting together proposals covering the design, licensing, operation and disposal of radioactive material for harmonisation of these rules at European level have been rumbling in the background of political discussion in energy circles for some time. In the main, such an approach gets approval within the European Parliament, but there has been resistance by some of the member states which use nuclear power, seeing this as an infringement of their national prerogative. To some extent the opponents of nuclear power do not like it either, because the stronger the international agreements become, the weaker becomes their case against. However, the political balance amongst the member states in the European Union has now moved much more in the nuclear direction and the work of the Nuclear Forum can be seen as a positive contribution to allaying the fears of the general public on safety issues.
One aspect where this work should be of huge importance is in the approval of reactor design. It is clearly a nonsense that the UK should spend some years, maybe three or more, approving the use of reactors which are already being built, or licensed to be built, elsewhere in the European Union. The case for a European Union approach is overwhelming – in line with the approach to environmental issues generally. The strangle hold which some of the larger member states, such as Germany and Austria, are seeking to impose on the development of the nuclear industry has got to be exposed for what it is, as humbug of the highest order. Neither of these countries, when push comes to shove, is averse to importing nuclear electricity from other countries.
When the wind blows ....
and the bough breaks
The North East of England has long been recognised as having big potential for exploiting wind energy, and in recent years a good number of projects have been implemented. However, it is interesting to note that there is growing opposition in the region to this form of renewable energy. Partly, it is spearheaded by concern for the visible landscape. Not surprising in a region which promotes its natural beauty as a major part of its tourism campaign. Interestingly, there has longterm concern regarding the effect of windmills on the radar systems at Newcastle airport. More recently objections have come from the MOD with their low flying aircraft training programme. These latter issues have been bubbling under the surface of planning applications for some time and are now coming much more to the top of the national agenda.
Four or five years ago there was a regional activity supposed to be looking at the impact as far as the airport was concerned. Little has been heard about it since.
But there are also a number of technical matters which have helped to undermine the idea that wind farms are easily put up and trouble free. There was a fire in the turbine of one of the windmills at the Nissan car factory in Sunderland. The two offshore windmills at Blyth Harbour, the first offshore windmills in the UK, have had a troubled history. At an early stage the cable between the two windmills was damaged by the North Sea. Later one of the blades broke, probably caused by a lightning strike. More particularly, the North Sea struck again and the cable which would bring the electricity to land was severely damaged, with the result that this two windmill offshore wind farm has not produced electricity for over a year.
The recent collapse of two windmills, one in Cumbria, has raised safety questions regarding their stability in high winds, and there is currently an application to build what is claimed to be the tallest windmill in the UK near the existing installations at Blyth. January’s storms have also damaged the offshore drilling rig which is carrying out tests in the Hartlepool area as part of the possible further offshore activities. The North Sea is not a hospitable place.
More recently, the daily regional newspaper has been highlighting the enormous subsidies which make wind farms possible. The paper has shown the effect this has on electricity charges for domestic and industrial consumers.
“Householders pay the green bill”, as one headline put it, or rather as more bluntly stated by one journalist, “wind farm operators “have their noses deep in the subsidy trough”.
Energy interconnections
As an offshore island the UK can only benefit from a greater integration with the European electricity and gas networks. For electricity the 2 GWe cable connection with France is valued source of supply. Although the current can flow either way the interconnector is primarily used at peak to import electricity from France. With an effective capacity of 100% it could deliver up to 17 TWh about four times that from the entire onshore and offshore wind generation in 2006 – and on commercial terms without the vast amount in subsidy through the Renewables Obligation.
It is then encouraging that further connections with the continent are now being considered. The first of these is a 1.3 GW cable now planned between the National Grid and its state-owned Dutch counterpart, Tennet, at an estimated cost of 600 million euro. It is expected that the cable will be used primarily for import into the UK at peak periods. This will be a commercial operation with customers bidding for capacity. It is planned for completion in 2010/11.
The National Grid has also started discussions with the Belgian transmission operator Elia on a second project, a cable to Belgium with a capacity of between 700-1300 MW. The first stage will be a feasibility study leading to a decision later this year on whether to continue.
Only about 4% of Netherlands electricity is generated from nuclear power, with 64% from gas, and 22% from coal, but electricity imports are at about 16% most of which will come from France which will increase the Dutch nuclear generation. In Belgium on the other hand some 54% of generation is from nuclear stations. Following an official study last year it now seems that Belgian plans to phase out nuclear generation are to be abandoned. A cable from the UK to Sweden, where electricity generation is about half and half nuclear and hydro, could provide an assured electricity supply if difficulties over generation from fossil fuels increase – provided that, as now seems increasingly likely, the Swedish government abandons its present opposition to new nuclear station construction.
It is interesting that the Dutch partner Tennet is now installing a 700 MWe cable link to Norway in cooperation with the Norwegian StatNett. Norway in turn is connected through the Scandinavian Grid to Finland, Denmark and Sweden. A fully integrated European electricity network, including the UK, would seem a possible future goal, offering unlimited expansion of supply.
Gas In contrast to an expected increase in electricity interconnections, for gas the possibilities for a closer integration are diminishing as gas producers accept that, as a finite resource, gas production must eventually fall, and that higher prices can be expected from the wider market offered by selling gas as LPG.. When the North Sea was in full production a number of pipelines were built to export gas from the UK to the continent. These are now being used to import gas. But while the UK is now benefiting from the recently commissioned Langeled pipeline any further expansion of pipeline supply from Norway is unlikely.
With a capacity of 20-25 bcm/year of gas from Norwegian Ormen Lange field Langeled makes a large increase in Norwegian gas exports, from 75 to100 bcm/yr.
Although this will meet some 20% of our present gas supply, the UK need for imported gas increases to around 50% of consumption by 2010 and 70% by 2020 as output from the North Sea declines. This future demand is now expected to be met by imports of LNG rather than through a pipeline.
A pipeline is inflexible, it ties the producer to a single market. Once the heavy investment has been made, £1.7 billion in the case of Langeled, supplies can only be delivered to the customer at receiving end. LNG in contrast opens up a sellers market. Supplies can be switched at any time to a customer almost any where in the world to meet peak spot market demands where and whenever they occur.
Prices will inevitably rise. The BERR in its Energy mareket report expects the global LNG trade will treble by 2025 from 200 to 600 bcm/yr, and it also comments that instead of bi-lateral trades through a pipeline under a long-term contract an increasing proportion of the gas will be sold as response to relative prices in different markets – but the BERR does not draw the obvious conclusion that these relative prices will be at the top end of the market. There are also the energy losses in liquefaction, of up to 30%, as well as the cost of building the refrigerated LNG carriers.
LNG is then likley to be more expensive than pipeline gas. The BERR also expects that by 2016/17 LNG import capacity in the UK could represent some 23% of peak supply capacity Another factor in restricting gas supplies, by pipeline or as LNG, is the realisation that a too rapid expansion of gas production may reduce the ultimate recovery of oil from a gas/oil field. It is for this reason that the Norwegian government, on the advice of its Petroleum Directorate, has recently refused permission for a pipeline from the Troll field to a terminal in the UK, Netherlands or Belgium.
With possible restrictions in production and with an increase is sales as LPG, gas prices can be expected to rise significantly by 2015 – a time when the UK will be relpying on gas-fired plants for some 40% of its electricty.
|
|
|
|
