|
2008 Nuclear Issues v30 3 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Saturday, 01 March 2008 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
National security
“Global demand for energy is likely to continue increasing, especially
with the growth of emerging economies such as China and India. Barring
revolutionary developments in alternative energy, the competition for
energy supplies will also increase. On present projections, global
energy demand will be more than 50% higher in 2030 than today, at the
same time as the supply of oil and gas becomes increasingly
concentrated, much of it in regions with potential for political
instability. Increasing urbanisation will put much of the developing
world in the same position as the developed world, with large cities
relying on energy supply from far away. The premium attached to energy
security, and the rising risk of energy shortages, will increase the
potential for disputes and conflict. Countries including China and
Russia are already making control of energy supply a foreign policy
priority.
Like climate change, competition for energy is a global challenge in its own right, but also one with potentially serious security implications. Along with climate change and water stress, it is one of the biggest potential drivers of the breakdown of the rules-based international system and the re-emergence of major inter-state conflict, as well as increasing regional tensions and instability.” The above paragraph echoes many of the points made in Nuclear Issues over past years. It is however taken from the Government paper, The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom, Security in an interdependent world, which was published this month. The only comment we would add is that the reference to 2030 as the date by which the global energy demand is expected to be 50% higher may lessen the urgency of addressing the problem.
The 50% increase by 2030 is an estimate made in 2005 by the International Energy Agency of the expected increase in demand. Later statements from the IEA suggest that available supply could begin to fall short of the expected demand at an earlier date, with a consequent increase in competition for the limited supply available on world markets.
The UK is in an increasingly vulnerable position. The production of oil and gas from the North Sea is now steadily and irreversibly declining, and with it the share available for the UK. UK coal production has also declined, to the point where coal imports in 2006 amounted to 73% of consumption. For the future we will be increasingly dependent on energy imports, but at a time when signs of restricted availability of oil and gas is becoming apparent, as signaled in ever-rising prices, it would be unsafe to rely too heavily on these fuels for electricity generation. In addition burning fossil fuels, with the discharge carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will exacerbate the problem of climate change, which in the words of the Security paper is “potentially the greatest challenge to global stability and security, and therefore to national security.
Tackling its causes, mitigating its risks and preparing for and dealing with its consequences are critical to our future security, as well as protecting global prosperity and avoiding humanitarian disaster.” … “ Rising sea levels and disappearing ice will alter borders and open up new sea lanes, increasing the risk of territorial disputes. An increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events – floods, droughts, storms – will generate more frequent and intense humanitarian crises, adding further stresses on local, national and international structures.
Rising temperatures together with extreme weather will increase pressures on water supplies.
There is clearly much at stake. We have to ensure both security of energy supply without adding to the discharge of carbon dioxide. For electricity generation this leaves only renewables and nuclear power to meet our growing electricity demand. A demand which can be expected to increase with an anticipated growth in electric vehicles as the problem of peak oil begins to bite. Calls to increase energy efficiency are only likely to lead to an increased usage with electricity consumption rising in line with GDP as shown in the experience of most industrialized countries.
Even on the optimistic Government ‘aspirations’ renewable sources are not expected to provide more than some 20% of electricity by 2020. This leaves up to 80% to come from nuclear power.
The example of France
An increase of nuclear electricity from the present UK figure of under 20% to up to 80% by 2020 will be difficult but not impossible task . Nuclear generation in France increased from around 50 TWh in 1980 to 400 TWh in 2000. There was a time when the French were commissioning a new reactor every two weeks. In 2006 the total French electricity production of 549 TWh was made up from nuclear – 429 TWh (78%); hydro – 61 TWh (11%); thermal – 57 TWh (10%); wind – 2.2 TWh (0.4%).
Electricity exports to other European countries totaled 72 TWh of which 11 TWh was to the UK.
This mix of generation with only 10% coming from fossil fuels, about half and half coal and gas, gives France one of the lowest rates of carbon dioxide discharge in Europe; an example to be followed.
Now, thanks to friendly discussion between Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, there is a chance of us joining the successful French programme. The French and British started of early with nuclear power based on the first generation Magnox gas-cooled reactor because that was the only option at the time, but when there was a great debate in both countries about the future direction, France went boldly for the Westinghouse design of pressurized water reactor and Britain stayed with a unique design of gas-cooled plant. The late Wakter Marshall, who had just moved from Chairman of the AEA to Chairman of the CEGB, came in for vicious criticism for advocating that we should go with the French and Westinghouse.
The French had their problems, as we did, but because of the size of their commitment they were able to find bold solutions and then go on to sell their skills to the rest of the world. Now we have a chance of joining them again, probably only as a minority partner. But we should not miss it this time.
Commonsense or wishful thinking
In a welcome change from the disastrous policies of the DTI – driving British Energy into near bankruptcy, selling off BE’s valuable North American assets at a derisory price, selling off BNFL’s reactor and fuel division – the John Hutton Secretary of the BERR which has replaced it has declared in favour of a large expansion of the UK nuclear programme which might almost be described as a rebirth of our nuclear industry. He foresees a large expansion which could be worth £20 billion and create 100 000 jobs within the energy industry and its supply chain. While most attention has been focused on new reactors it is to be hoped that the new initiative will also cover the fuel cycle and the reprocessing of spent fuel as well backed up by a renewed nuclear research effort directed towards the development of advanced reactor systems.
But all may not be what it seems. While Hutton called for a large expansion of nuclear capacity, not just a replacement of the present aging stations he refused to put a figure on what this might be, saying that this was a matter for the industry. This is the catch. Unless the Government has some means to compel or at least encourage the electricity companies to build these stations they may not be built. The immediate and more pressing need is to ensure that there is a sufficient new generating capacity is built to replace the old thermal stations being closed down. The crucial period with the threat of widespread electricity blackouts will come around 2012- 2015 before any new nuclear stations could come into operation. The potential gap can only be closed by building more coal or gas-fired stations. But having invested in this new thermal capacity the private companies will wish to see it kept in operation as long as possible to recoup their capital expenditure. It is of course possible that rapidly increasing prices for coal and gas may make these new stations uneconomic, but even then to write them off before the end of their normal (40 years?) operating life will prove expensive.
The private power companies could also protest that they cannot be expected to make the larger initial investment in building nuclear stations while at the same time they are compelled by Government Renewables Obligation to build expensive wind plant or to pay the buy out price. Or are we now to see it replaced by a Nuclear Obligation.
Belene goes ahead in Bulgaria
The Bulgarian National Electric Company (NEK) have signed a contract with Russia’s AtomStroyExport (ASE) for the construction of two pressurized water reactors for the Belene site in northern Bulgaria. The contract valued at Eur 4 billion ($5.8 billion) is for two of Russia’s latest evolution of the VVER-1000 designated the AES-92 model. They will be equipped with an advanced control and automaton system supplied by a consortium, Carsib, of France’s Areva and Germany’s Siemens.
These are third generation plants which ASE says will meet West European safety standards like those applied to the Areva-Siemens European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) which is being built in Finland and France. They are similar to two reactors which the Russian are due to supply China and four units are being discussed by the Indians. In addition the AES-92 features large in the huge domestic Russian nuclear programme.
The Bulgarians came under severe criticism a few years ago from the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) for rather inferior safety standards on smaller VVER being operated at Kozloyduy. As a result they have taken nuclear safety much more seriously since then and at the time they shelved plans for the site at Belene. But now they have got tied up with meeting the standards of the European Union (EU).The EU managed to extract promises for early closure of the small units at Kozloduy as a condition for Bulgaria to join the EU and this has left them with only two earlier designs of VVER 1000 operating at Kozloyduy. The Bulgarians argued that they were now capable of operating the smaller plants safely but European politics was too strong for them. As a result they have now become low on nuclear generating capacity and they have been considering the revival of the Belene project for a couple of years now.
In the meantime the Russians, who have some very talented nuclear engineers, have been working very hard on upgrading their designs and are now generally regarded as having plants at least as good as any in the West.
European utilities are biding for a share of about 49% in the Belene project and amongst other things this should restore Bulgaria’s capacity as an exporter of power from about 2014. Russia is offering support of the financing of the project.
Megatonnes to megawatts
About 13 000 Russian nuclear warheads have been blended down to produce fuel for nearly half of the nuclear power generated in the US. This is part of a twenty year agreement between Russia and the US referred to as megatonnes to megawatts. It represents a major effort to use enriched uranium for peaceful commercial purposes rather than nuclear weapons and is about two thirds complete.
High enrichment uranium (HEU) stockpiled during the cold war is blended down from over 90% to around the 5% low enrichment uranium (LEU) in Russia and is then shipped to the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC) which undertakes to sell it at commercial prices to US electric utilities. It has produced almost 10 000 tones of low enrichment fuel and would have involved 60 million separative work units (SWU) of enrichment processing of fresh uranium. It has been a significant factor in keeping the price of uranium and its enrichment at low values in the US but is generally thought of as a good scheme. The Russian have been paid about $5.1 billion by US electricity producers.
In another program the US and Russia have each agreed to use about 50 tonnes from their stockpiles of military plutonium to make mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. The American plan to use this in commercial light water reactors while the Russian rather favour using it for fast reactor fuel. This programme has been going rather slowly because neither country has a commercial scale MOX fabrication plant but plans to build them are now progressing.
Going west
At last nuclear power is being planned for the west of Canada. Up till now it has been confined to the East principally in Ontario. Now a new organisation, related to the Bruce nuclear power plant, is buying some assets relating to nuclear power from Energy Alberta. An application has been made by Bruce Power Alberta to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to prepare a site for construction of a new nuclear plant.
Get on with it
A politician is at last showing a bit of urgency and saying that the UK needs to build nuclear power plants as fast as possible. UK Business Secretary, John Hutton, says “We haven’t got time to play with – every day counts.” He said that the government’s priority was to maintain the necessary momentum to ensure that the country’s first nuclear power plant since 1994 could be up and running within a decade. “I want the UK to be at the top of the queue, not bottom of the list, for potential investment in nuclear.” The state owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which has taken over most of the former British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) activity, has announced that it is to open 17 sites of former first generation Magnox reactors to proposals for building new third generation plants. Two of these – Oldbury and Wylfa – still have operating plant but the rest are plants now in the decommissioning phase. They add to the sites of British Energy which are also being considered for new build.
Meanwhile the UK nuclear safety regulator is reported to have given its initial approval to the four designs of nuclear power plant being considered for new build in the UK. We believe this means that they think the designs, which have been licensed in other countries, will be able to meet UK requirements. They are the advanced Candu Reactor (ACR) 1000 from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) proposed by France’s Areva, the ESBWR from the US General Electric Company and the Westinghouse AP1000.
Huge plans for Russia
The Russian government has confirmed plans for large scale deployment of nuclear power. First outlined last September the plans are aiming for 12 000 MWe of new nuclear capacity to be operating by 2016 and another 16 000 to 22 000 MWe to follow by 2020. This is in addition to 4800 MWe which is already under construction.
The latest evolution of Russian pressurized water reactor, a 1200 MWe reactor as developed for China, will make up the majority of the new capacity. This is a third generation design of plant and is considered to be at least as safe as the European Pressurized Water Reactor, EPR, being built in Finland and France and the various designs of plant nearing the construction stage in the US. Only one plant of the RBMK type used at Chernobyl is still on the construction list. This is a greatly improved design of plant, some 70% complete after 22 year of stop-go development, being built at Kursk 5. Although there are questions about future financing, this plant is still officially on the list.
Also plodding on is construction of the BN-800 fast reactor at Beloyarsk where the earlier BN-600 continues faultless operation. Six smaller plants of around 300 MWe are also planned. These may be pressurized water reactors, as is being developed for Kazakhstan, or the latest design of Russian boiling water reactor. And finally in the plans is a second floating power plant of 40 MWe. One of these is nearing completion for use in a remote location on the Northern coast.
By 2016 seven of the smaller VVER’s and two larger RBMK’s are due to be decommissioned. The total capacity to be taken off line is 3500 MWe.
Rosatom, the nuclear utility, has been instructed promptly to develop an action plans to attract the huge amount of investment for its future plans.
Sequestration or storage
When first proposed as a means of accepting coal-fired power stations without increasing carbon dioxide emissions it was said that the carbon dioxide could be captured and sequestered by injection into geological formations including depleted oil and gas fields, saline aquifers, unmineable coal seams, or at ocean depths of below 1500 metres. More recently the term carbon capture and storage has gained favour. This change may reflect a more realistic understanding of what could occur.
Sequestration implies a confiscation, a permanent removal: storage a temporary withdrawal for future use.
A study from Princeton University of possible leakage pathways based on experience with enhanced oil recovery and other actual evidence concludes that while geological storage of CO2 is safe over the short term for comparatively small amounts of CO2, there is no experience to date regarding the long-term fate and safety of large volumes of CO2 where, to be effective in terms of climate change a substantial fraction of the 25 Gt (gigaton or 1000 000 000 ton) of CO2 produced per year needs to be sequestered away from the atmosphere.
A favoured solution is the injection into deep saline aquifers (now being explored with the injection of 1 Mtons/year into an aquifer at Sleipner Vest off the Norwegian coast). At depths below 800 m the CO2, as liquid, will form a layer on top of the formation water giving the potential for upward leakage which may occur through natural geological features such as faults or fractures, perhaps enhanced by fluid over-pressurization associated with the injection. In addition some CO2 will dissolve in the water and the acidic solution will react with the silicate minerals of the host rock possibly opening up further release pathways.
At the land surface, elevated levels of CO2 can damage vegetation and lead to asphyxiation in humans and animals. And finally, in the atmosphere, CO2 leaking from underground negates the whole purpose of CCS as a tool of climate change policy.
Instances of both a slow and catastrophic release have occurred naturally. In 1989 a slow release, at about 300 tons/day was identified at Mammoth Mountain in eastern California from a geologically young dormant volcano.
Levels of CO2 at about 1% by volume killed off an area of forest trees of about 100 acres. Although below the 10% level noxious to humans higher concentrations of up to 80% were found in enclosed spaces such as tents or cabins.
A more dramatic catastrophic event occurred on August 21 1986 with the sudden release of about 1.6 million of tonnes of CO2 from a volcanic lake at Lake Nyos in Cameroon when some 1 700 people mostly rural villagers, as well as 3 500 livestock, were asphyxiated. Most of the victims died in their sleep. The gas killed all living things within a 15-mile (25km) radius of the lake. About 4 000 inhabitants fled the area, and many of these developed respiratory problems, The reports say it is not known what triggered the catastrophic outgassing. While geologists suspect a landslide, some believe that a small volcanic eruption may have occurred on the bed of the lake. A third possibility is that cool rainwater falling on one side of the lake triggered the overturn. Whatever the cause, the event resulted in the rapid mixing of the supersaturated deep water with the upper layers of the lake, where the reduced pressure allowed the stored CO2 to effervese out of solution.
Because pure CO2 is denser than air the gas flowed off the mountainous flank in which Lake Nyos rests and down two adjoining valleys in a layer tens of metres deep, displacing the air and suffocating all the people and animals before it could dissipate.
Burning some 60 million tonnes of coal per year in the UK consumption for electricity generation will produce about 130 million tonnes of carbon doxide per year.
Given the catastrophic consequences of a release of just 1.6 million tonnes there must be serious concerns about siting any carbon dioxide storage where it could endanger the local population, on land or in coastal regions.
If sequestration (permanent) cannot be guarranteed is storage (temporary) tolerable?
Gulf States want nuclear
They have the worlds largest reserves of oil and gas but they are still interested in nuclear power. This is a responsible position in which some of the vast oil revenue of the region could be spent on clean nuclear power for electricity production and desalination.
Early in 2007 six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman – commissioned a feasibility study with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) for a regional nuclear power and desalination programme.
France’s Areva, Suez which operates seven nuclear power reactors in Belgium and the Total oil giant have now formed a partnership to propose the construction of two 1600 MWe plants using the European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR). Areva would supply the plant while Suez and Total, which are well established in the region, would each invest 25% leaving Abu Dhabi to provide the remaining 50%. Suez would operate the plant and manage the fuel cycle. The plant could be operating by about 2017.
The six states at present produce about 273 billion kWh of electricity from a common grid with about 80 GWe of oil and gas fired plant. They face growth in demand of around 5% to 7% per year. Total and Suez are currently operating a power and desalination in Abu Dhabi.
ITER construction start at last
Whatever happened to good old fashioned enthusiasm. Do you remember back in the late 1950s when fusion scientists told us they would produce a source of nuclear power that did not involve the production of any nasty fission product waste in ten years. Well now 60 years later the French have just announced that they are ready to start construction of the first fusion reactor, ITER, at their research centre in the south of the country. It will be 2020 to 2041 before it actually produces true power from a deuterium-tritium plasma.
It was back in July 2005 that we reported the resolution of a silly two-year row between the Japanese and the European Community over the preferred site. We thought that having cleared up that the project would move ahead with a bit of pace. But nearly three years later it is just getting going.
The ITER project is unique in having participants from around the world contributing to the cost which has been reduced to only $12 billion. The latest contributions from India and China have recently been confirmed and they can actually now afford to pay their 10% share of the cost. But now for a second time the US is saying that it will have to pull out because they can not afford it.
The US did this before and as a result the project was scaled down from a 1500 MWth device with a 1000 second pulse length which had been proposed by the enthusiastic Paul-Henri Rebut, then Director and Chief Engineer of the JET project, to a 500 MWth machine with a 400 second pulse length. No doubt the US will rejoin when the hard work has been done but we really think they should be made to pay. What is clear is that with a little more enthusiasm ITER could be built without them. |
|
|
|
